[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 3]
[Issue]
[Pages 3442-3600]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 3442]]
SENATE--Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The Senate met at 10:15 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Jeanne Shaheen, a Senator from the State of New Hampshire.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Fountain of all light and glory, giving life and light and joy, Your
greatness and power continue to amaze us.
Today, guide our Senators with Your abiding love. Keep them brave
before their fears, pure in their battle against temptations, and true
to the duty You have called them to fulfill. May they seek in their
times of need the shadow of Your presence, ready to bless even before
they ask You.
Lord, take us all as we are and make us by Your grace what we ought
to be.
We pray in Your great Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen led the Pledge of Allegiance, as
follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, March 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
Jeanne Shaheen, a Senator from the State of New Hampshire, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.
Mrs. SHAHEEN 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, the Senate will
proceed to a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. Senators will
be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the time until
10:30 equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their
designees and with the time from 10:30 until 12:30 equally divided,
with the majority controlling the first half of that time and the
Republicans controlling the second half. The Senate will recess from
12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons. When
the Senate reconvenes at 2:15, we will resume consideration of H.R.
1586, the FAA reauthorization legislation. Senators should be prepared
for rollcall votes this afternoon in relation to amendments to the FAA
bill.
The reason I talked about the time equally divided and controlled
between Democrats and Republicans, according to how long Senator
McConnell might take, it may not be the full 2 hours, but it will be
very close.
____________________
MEASURE PLACED ON THE CALENDAR--H.R. 2314
Mr. REID. Madam President, I understand that H.R. 2314 is at the desk
and is due for a second reading.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by
title for the second time.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2314) to express the policy of the United
States regarding the United States relationship with Native
Hawaiians and to provide a process for the recognition by the
United States of the Native Hawaiian governing entity.
Mr. REID. I object to the matter being placed on the calendar.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection having been heard, the
matter will be placed on the calendar under rule XIV.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
____________________
HEALTH CARE
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the President recently noted that
everything there is to say about health care has already been said.
When it comes to the substance of the legislation, this may be true. I
suspect that is why an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose it.
Americans know exactly what is in this bill, and they have rejected it.
They do not want this bill to pass.
But there is still a lot to be said about the process Democrats are
using to force this bill through. That won't change whether they get
their votes this week or not. The fact is, the die has already been
cast on this Congress. Democratic leaders have been imploring Members
to make history--make history, they say--by voting for this bill. But
this Congress is already guaranteed to go down in history--not for any
piece of legislation but for the arrogant way it has dictated to the
American people what is best for them and for the ugly way in which it
has gone about getting around the will of the American people.
Democratic leaders have made it perfectly clear that they view their
constituents as an obstacle, particularly on the issue of health care.
At every turn, they have met fierce public opposition, and every time
they have tried to come up with a way to get around that fierce public
opposition. It has become a vicious cycle: the harder Democrats try to
get around the public, the more repellent their proposals become and
the more egregious their efforts become to get them through anyway.
We watched last summer as they forced their partisan health care bill
through the committees. We watched as they tried to sell it to the
public as something other than what it was. We watched as they wrote
the final bill behind closed doors, then wheeled and dealed to get the
last few votes they needed to squeeze it through both Chambers on a
party-line vote. We saw the ``Cornhusker kickback,'' the ``Louisiana
purchase,'' ``Gator Aid,'' and all the rest. But as ugly as all this
was, as distasteful as all these deals have been, they were child's
play--child's play--compared to the scheme they have been cooking up
over in the House just this week.
The plan Speaker Pelosi has hatched for getting this bill through is
to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the public, and it is jaw-
dropping--it is jaw-dropping--in its audacity. Here is their plan:
Speaker Pelosi can't get enough of her Democratic majority to vote for
the Senate version of the bill, so she and her allies have concocted a
way to pass it without actually casting a vote on it. They are
concocting a way to pass it without actually casting a vote on it--the
so-called Slaughter solution in which the Senate bill is ``deemed'' to
have passed. This way, they will claim they never voted for it, even
though they will vote to send it to the President for his signature.
This ``scheme and deem'' approach has never been tried on a bill of
this
[[Page 3443]]
scope, according to today's Washington Post. This is how they will try
to keep their fingerprints off a bill that forces taxpayers to cover
the cost of abortions, cuts Medicare by $\1/2\ trillion, raises taxes
by $\1/2\ trillion, raises insurance premiums, creates a brand new
government entitlement program at a time when the entitlement programs
we already have are on the verge of bankruptcy, and vastly expands the
cost and reach of the Federal Government in Washington at a time when
most Americans think government is already entirely too big.
As Speaker Pelosi put it, ``Nobody wants to vote for the Senate
bill.'' But anyone who believes they can send this bill to the
President without being tarred by it is absolutely delusional. Anybody
who thinks this is a good strategy isn't thinking clearly. They are too
close to the situation. They don't realize this strategy is the only
thing for which they or this Congress will be remembered. Anyone who
endorses this strategy will be forever remembered for trying to claim
they didn't vote for something they did. They will be forever
remembered by claiming they didn't vote for something they did vote
for. It will go down as one of the most extraordinary legislative
sleights of hand in history. Make no mistake, this will be a career-
defining and a Congress-defining vote. Make no mistake, this will be a
career-defining and a Congress-defining vote.
Most of the time, the verdict of history is hard to predict. In this
case, it is not. Anyone who endorses this strategy will be remembered
for it. On the other hand, anyone who decides in a moment of clarity
that they shouldn't, that they should resist this strategy, will be
remembered for standing up to party leadership that lost its way.
Democratic leaders continue to advance the false argument that this
effort is somehow akin to certain legislative efforts of the past.
There is no comparison. First of all, the good programs they are
referring to were far more modest. They enjoyed broad support from both
parties in Congress. Most importantly, they enjoyed broad support of
the American people.
By contrast, there is no bipartisan consensus about this bill in
Congress. It aims to reshape no less than one-sixth of our entire
economy at a moment when our economy is already suffering and our
existing debts threaten to drown us in a sea of red ink. Most
importantly, Americans overwhelmingly oppose it. If you need any
evidence of that, look no further than today's Washington Post, which
calls this process unseemly, or the Cincinnati Enquirer, which calls it
disgusting. Look no further than the President's own pollster, who is
telling the White House that the chicanery the Democrats have used to
advance this measure is a serious problem.
This entire effort has been a travesty, but the latest solution to
give House Members a way out by telling them they can pretend they
didn't vote for something they will, in fact, be voting for has sealed
its fate. The latest solution to give House Members a way out by
telling them they can pretend they didn't vote for something they will,
in fact, vote for has sealed the fate of this legislation with the
American public.
It is time for rank-and-file Democrats to pull the fire alarm--pull
the fire alarm--and save the American people from this latest scheme
and this unpopular bill. The process has been tainted. It is time to
end the vicious cycle, start over, cleanse the process, and work on the
step-by-step reforms the American people really want. It is time to
recognize that constituents are not obstacles--constituents are not
obstacles--to overcome with schemes and sweetheart deals. Fortunately,
it is not too late.
I yield the floor.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will be a period for the transaction of morning business until 12:30
p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes
each, and the time from 10:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. shall be equally
divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with
the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling
the final half.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
____________________
EXECUTIVE NOMINATIONS
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, there are many reasons why the Senate is
known as one of the world's greatest deliberative bodies. This Chamber
has seen some of the most important debates and votes since the
beginning of our Republic. As a freshman Senator--I know my colleague,
the Presiding Officer, is also a freshman Senator and soon we will be
joined by a series of freshman Senators and my good friend, the Senator
from Illinois, is here as well--I think we have all been struck by how
much history has been made in this very Chamber.
I am reminded, as we saw last evening some of the exchanges between
the majority leader and the Republican leader, there is still an awful
lot that I at least feel, as a newcomer, I have to learn. But one thing
has become clear to me since being sworn in a little over a year ago.
Some of the very safeguards that were created to make this a serious
and responsible deliberative body have been abused in a way that
damages this institution. In some instances, this abuse also runs
contrary to our national interest.
This became very clear to me several weeks ago during the nomination
and voting on Justice Barbara Keenan. Senator Jim Webb, my colleague,
and I had the honor of nominating Virginia Supreme Court Justice
Barbara Milano Keenan to the Federal Appeals Court for the Fourth
Circuit. She is one of the most highly regarded jurists in Virginia.
She received a unanimously ``well qualified'' rating from the ABA. She
was reported by the Judiciary Committee unanimously last October, and
then her nomination ground to a halt, first for weeks and then for
months. In fact, her nomination was filibustered, if you can call it
that. I recall in school thinking the filibuster was something that was
only going to be used on rare occasions of issues of national concern
to make sure minority rights were protected.
Justice Keenan was filibustered, in effect, because one Senator
placed a hold on her. Consequently, cloture had to be filed. That was
despite the strong endorsement Justice Keenan had received from our new
Republican Governor, Governor McDonnell. I appreciate his support of
Justice Keenan.
A funny thing happened when we forced the vote both on cloture and
the nomination: She was confirmed unanimously. Filibustering a nominee
who gets a unanimous vote, something is not right with that. That is
not the way this body is supposed to work.
This experience was truly an eye-opener for me. I see dozens of
executive branch nominees caught up in this web. My understanding is,
right now, in the second week of March, literally the Obama
administration has 64 nominees pending. These are nominees where,
despite overwhelming committee votes, they have languished on the
calendar for months, often because one Senator has a completely
different gripe about a completely unrelated issue.
The Presiding Officer knows, she and I were both Governors, we were
both CEOs. I think it is incredibly important, whether you are a
Governor, whether you are a CEO of a private company, and particularly
if you are
[[Page 3444]]
the President of this great country, you ought to be able to have your
management team in place, clearly, 14 months after the inauguration of
President Obama.
I certainly do not believe the Senate should be a rubberstamp for
nominees. Far from it. In cases where there is legitimate disagreement
about qualifications of any particular nominee, I am all for having a
debate and then a straight up-or-down vote. But that has not been the
case. It has not been the case with Justice Keenan, and I am going to
cite one other individual today, and I know my other colleagues are
going to be citing others.
The individual I wish to talk about is Michael Mundaca. He has been
nominated by President Obama to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
for Tax Policy--a very important job in crafting tax and revenue
policies. He is both highly qualified and well respected, having worked
previously at high levels of the Treasury Department and in the
international tax department of Ernst and Young. He has a law degree
from UC Berkeley School of Law and was executive editor of the
California Law Review.
As I understand it, Mr. Mundaca's nomination was approved
overwhelmingly, 19 to 4, in the Senate Finance Committee before
Christmas. Since then, he has been denied a vote in this body, not over
any substantive concerns. If there is a concern about Mr. Mundaca's
qualifications, a Senator ought to come and make that case, and we
ought to have a debate. No, that is not the reason. It is because one
Senator or group of Senators has decided to try to leverage this
nomination to some other end. To me, that is simply not fair.
This morning--I see my colleagues starting to arrive--many Senators
who are relatively new to the body will take to the floor. We are the
new guys and gals, the freshmen and the sophomores. Maybe we do not
understand all the rules and traditions. We basically spent our first
year trying to learn those rules and traditions.
But one of the issues that has united us in all coming here this
morning is because the nomination process is broken, and we are asking
all our colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--to come together, not as
partisans but as Americans.
In the last four Presidential terms, there have been two Democrats
and two Republicans holding the White House. I am confident we would be
here regardless of who occupies the White House because a President
deserves his or her management team to be in place 14 months after
inauguration. If there are problems with their nominees, they ought to
be debated and brought to the floor and discussed, not simply left in
limbo. We need to start doing our job and start voting up or down on
these nominees who are languishing on the Senate calendar.
I see my colleague who is much more experienced than this freshman,
my good friend, the Senator from Rhode Island. I now yield 4 minutes to
my friend, Senator Whitehouse.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I thank the Senator.
The last 2 years have seen the American economy on the brink of
collapse, battered by an economic maelstrom not seen since the Great
Depression and now slowly--too slowly--recovering its strength.
President Obama's Recovery Act led the way, and we have seen its
benefits over the last year with job losses slowing significantly. He
inherited an economy losing, I think, 700,000 jobs a month, and it is
now back to nearly break even.
An essential element of this recovery has been encouraging thriving
export markets. Last week, President Obama laid out his plan to double
exports in 5 years, an initiative which could create up to 2 million
jobs. As the President said: ``In a time when millions of Americans are
out of work, boosting our exports is a short-term imperative.''
But for international trade to function, our government must
participate fully in international trade negotiations, advocating fair
and open trading rules that allow American businesses to compete and
export.
Yet a single Senator, the Republican Senator from Kentucky, has
blocked the President's nominees for two key trade positions--nominees
who cleared the committee with strong, positive votes. Michael Punke,
nominated as Deputy Trade Representative to Geneva, and Islam Siddiqui,
nominated to be Chief Agricultural Negotiator, deserve an up-or-down
vote in the Senate.
In this economic crisis, why in the world would a Senator hold up
such important appointments for our exports and for our economy,
hobbling this administration's ability to fully participate in
international trade talks?
The Senator from Kentucky has told us why: to try to force U.S. Trade
Representative Ron Kirk to file a complaint regarding Canada's recently
passed antismoking law. Yes, believe it or not, the Senator from
Kentucky is blocking the appointment of critical U.S. international
trade officials to try to force the administration to put pressure on
Canada to change its antismoking law.
I am sure the tobacco industry is important in the Senator's home
State, and protecting home State jobs is important. But hampering our
ability to negotiate our trade agreements in this time of economic
distress is not the way to do it. The Senator's hold is particularly
ironic and unproductive, since trade officials, such as these nominees,
are the ones charged with negotiating resolutions to trade issues such
as the one that appears to motivate the Senator from Kentucky.
Ambassador Kirk recently commented that the absence of these officials
is having a significant impact and indicated the situation is causing
some countries to question our commitment to serious trade talks. ``We
would be greatly advantaged not only just from the manpower and
intellectual strength these two individuals bring, but I think it would
help us regain some of our credibility,'' is what Ambassador Kirk said.
Let's be clear. The Senator from Kentucky has said he does not have
any objection to these nominees. He is only blocking the nominations as
leverage against the President and Ambassador Kirk. That is pure
obstructionism.
It is these kinds of political power plays--one Senator actually had
70 nominees on hold--that lead to such cynicism in the country about
our ability to work together and get things done. When a Senator blocks
basic governmental action--action that all agree is of national
importance--for purely parochial and political reasons, the public
rightly wonders what is going on.
If the Senator from Kentucky disagrees with the Canadian Legislature,
fine, he should voice that disagreement publicly and try to persuade
the President of the merits of his point of view. He is welcome to do
that. Instead, he has chosen to add to the obstructionist tactics that
are poisoning this Chamber and preventing the Government of the United
States from doing its business. That may serve the immediate political
goals of his party, but it is wrong for our country and it is wrong for
all Americans who depend on an effective U.S. Government. I urge the
Senator from Kentucky to release his holds.
I yield the floor back to Senator Warner from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of Senator
Whitehouse and his pointing out one more example of a qualified nominee
who needs to be voted on up or down.
I now call upon my friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator
Burris.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Virginia and
the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. It is a pleasure for me to
join in this very important discussion in the Senate.
I am proud to join my Democratic colleagues on the floor this morning
to discuss some of the obstructionism we have seen from the other side
on a number of Presidential nominations. It is the duty of this Senate
to provide advice and consent on more than 2,000 government officials
appointed by the President of the United States. These individuals
range from Cabinet level
[[Page 3445]]
officers to agency administrators, ambassadors, Federal judges, and
more. They are tasked with leading important agencies and offices such
as the Transportation Security Administration, our diplomatic missions
around the world, and various law enforcement organizations.
These nominees generally make it through committee on near-unanimous
bipartisan votes. They are extremely dedicated public servants who
stand ready to defend our national security, advance our shared
interests, and carry out the important work of the American people. But
when these nominations come out of the committee, they invariably hit a
roadblock. They hit a stone wall. They are stalled the moment they come
to the Senate floor. That is because my Republican friends are holding
up dozens of these nominations.
Scores of important offices remain vacant because of the same
partisan tactics of distraction and delay that we have seen time and
time again from the other side. It is not that my Republican colleagues
have any problems with the qualifications of the nominees themselves.
They enjoy bipartisan support in committee. They carry the high esteem
of both Democrats and Republicans. When we are finally able to break
the filibuster and have an up-or-down vote, these individuals are
almost always confirmed unanimously, as the judge from Senator Warner's
State of Virginia was, with a vote of 99 to 0. It was senseless for
that nomination to be held up for that long.
But thanks to the same old political games, it is difficult to get
cloture on these nominations so we can get a floor vote in the first
place. The same Republican Senators who vote in favor of these nominees
in committee--the same Senators who later support them on the floor--
try to keep us from moving forward as a full Senate. This is
obstructionism at its worst. This is pure politics at the expense of
the American taxpayers.
This is a waste of our time and effort, and the American people
deserve better. They sent us to Washington to solve big problems--to
create jobs, to reform health care, to strengthen our educational
system. But my Republican friends are not interested in working
together to confront these challenges. Instead, they drag their feet on
noncontroversial things such as Presidential nominations in hopes of
scoring political points. They bring this body to a standstill just so
they can advance a partisan agenda. Meanwhile, dozens of important
Federal agencies are without leadership at the highest levels.
Thousands of government employees are working without the public
servants who have been appointed to lead them--all because of
Republican political games.
So I would ask my good friends from the other side of the aisle to
abandon these tactics of distraction and delay. Let's have a
substantial debate about the issues, not an argument over procedure.
Let's stop wasting time and start working together to solve the
problems we face. In the meantime, let's confirm these nominees so they
can take up their appointed offices and begin to serve the American
people.
I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here to join my colleagues from the
freshman and sophomore classes to point out the obstruction that we are
seeing from the other side of the aisle in holding up these executive
branch nominees. It is unfortunate, with so many challenges facing this
country, that we have to be on the floor of the Senate today talking
about obstructionism rather than talking about what we can do to
address the real issues facing this country.
One of those important issues has to do with how we get this economy
going again. Ninety-five percent of the world's consumers live outside
of the United States; and for American companies to grow and expand, to
create jobs, we have to increase exports of goods and services. That is
the simple reality.
There are several actions we need to take to help American companies
compete overseas. Tomorrow, for example, I am going to be back on the
Senate floor talking about what we can do to strengthen the Small
Business Administration's export lending and promotion services.
Certainly another thing we need to do is to protect the interests of
American companies and workers in the trade arena.
As we have already heard from Senator Whitehouse, that is why it is
unconscionable that the confirmation of President Obama's nominee to be
Ambassador to the World Trade Organization, Michael Punke, is being
held up by a single Senator.
Senator Tester came to the floor last week to ask Senator Bunning to
stop blocking Mr. Punke's confirmation. Now, after reading yesterday's
New York Times, I felt compelled to also speak about the hold on this
confirmation. Yesterday's story in the paper reported on China's
aggressive filing of complaints with the WTO. In the last 12 months,
China filed more complaints with the WTO than any other country, even
though it is cleaning the clock of every country on the planet,
including the United States, when it comes to trade.
China racked up a nearly $200 billion trade surplus with the rest of
the world last year. Its trade imbalance with the United States is 4 to
1. Yet the top position of the United States at the WTO--you guessed
it, the position that Mr. Punke has been nominated for--is being held
up, is still vacant because there is one Senator who is unhappy with
Canada's tobacco law.
That is right. As Senator Whitehouse has already told us, the hold on
Mr. Punke has nothing to do with whether he is qualified to be
ambassador to the WTO. His confirmation was unanimously recommended by
the Finance Committee 3 months ago. No, this critical post remains
vacant because one Senator--Senator Bunning--is angry that Canada
banned flavored cigarettes as a way to combat teen smoking.
I certainly understand the tobacco industry fears the Canadian law
will be interpreted broadly to ban American-blend cigarettes. But
blocking the confirmation of our WTO ambassador over this issue at this
time, when expanding exports is critical to our economic recovery, is
counterproductive, and it is an abuse of Senate rules. The point has
now been made. So now is the time for Senator Bunning to lift this hold
so we can confirm Mr. Punke and we can get this critical position
filled and make sure that American businesses have a level playing
field when it comes to exports.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in the
freshman and sophomore classes today to highlight a recurring problem
in the Senate--the Republican holds on the confirmations of crucial
executive branch nominees. These are not controversial people, as you
will hear from what I am going to tell you from my part of the story
today and what you have heard from some of my colleagues.
As a former prosecutor and the manager of a prosecutor's office of
more than 400 people, I know from personal experience how important it
is to have a strong leadership team in place. Only with a strong
leadership team can an executive implement his or her vision. In our
current economy, a vision for increased trade and export promotion is
particularly important, and the President has one.
Earlier this year, he announced a plan, widely supported by CEOs of
large and small corporations, to double American exports overseas in
the next 5 years. Export promotion is a topic that is of special
interest to me, as I chair the Subcommittee on Competitiveness,
Innovation and Export Promotion.
I truly believe if we are to move this economy again, we have a world
of opportunity out there. Ninety-five percent of the world's customers
are outside of our borders. This is a different world with growing
buying power in countries such as India and China, where instead of
just importing goods
[[Page 3446]]
we can be making stuff again; we can be sending it out so that
customers in these other countries can be buying it.
Look at the numbers. A diversified base of customers helps a business
weather the economic ups and downs. According to research, businesses
that export grow 1.3 percent faster--and they are nearly 8.5 percent
more likely to stay in business--than companies that don't export.
These are the facts. So it is hard to believe, when we have a laser
focus on the economy right now, when that is all I hear about from the
people of my State, that my friends on the other side of the aisle are
holding up the President's nominees for positions that promote American
exports abroad. It makes absolutely no sense.
Right now, Republican holds are blocking votes on the confirmations
of Michael Punke, nominated to be Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, and
``Isi'' Siddiqui, nominated to be Chief Agricultural Negotiator. These
nominees have five decades of experience in international trade between
the two of them, including extensive private sector and government
work. They work with Democrats and they work with Republicans. They
just want to get this economy moving again. But our friends on the
other side of the aisle are placing holds on them at the very time when
we all know this is the direction in which we need to move. These are
exactly the type of people who could help expand American agricultural
and small business exports and grow our economy.
These two nominees have been fully vetted and received strong
bipartisan support in their Finance Committee hearings. They were
recommended by the Finance Committee to the full Senate by a vote of 23
to 0--including the affirmative vote of the Senator who has since
placed a hold on Mr. Punke. No one would believe this. The reason for
the hold? The Senator in question wants Mr. Punke to commit to forcing
Canada to repeal parts of an antismoking law passed by the Canadian
Parliament.
So we have people in Rhode Island, in Illinois, in Minnesota, in New
Hampshire who are looking for jobs, and they know that a key part of
this is to increase exports to be able to sell our goods to other
countries. Yet these guys are placing a hold on the very people who can
get this work done because they are concerned about a law passed by the
Canadian Parliament. It is too good to be true but, sadly, it is true.
Holding these nominees in limbo has dire consequences for our ability
to promote American products abroad. Our international partners
actually use the absence of Mr. Punke and Dr. Siddiqui as an excuse to
stall progress on serious negotiations. You know what they say. They
say: You don't have your guys in place. You don't have your people in
place, so we are not negotiating with you, America.
Blocking these nominees gives cover to other nations that want to
keep the United States from getting fair market access in the global
trading system for American agriculture, manufacturing, and services.
A coalition of 42 food and agricultural groups wrote Senators Reid
and McConnell in January to call for quick approval. They said: U.S.
food and agricultural exports are under assault in many markets with
trading partners erecting even more barriers in recent months. It has
to stop.
In the United States, we further export promotion policy through a
variety of different executive agencies, and Republicans aren't just
holding up USTR reps, they are also holding up Eric Hirschhorn, the
nominee to head up the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Commerce
Department. This is the division at Commerce that screens exports to
make sure national security, economic security, cyber-security, and
homeland security standards are upheld when we export sensitive
technologies.
The head of this bureau engages in strategic dialogues with high-
level government officials from key transshipment countries such as
Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates in order
to prevent sensitive technologies from being diverted to China, Iran,
and North Korea. Leaving this position unfilled sends a negative
message to the domestic exporting community, to our allied governments,
and it hurts our security. Why would we want to leave this position
unfilled?
Mr. Hirschhorn has spent more than 30 years involved in issues
related to export control. As an author of numerous articles and ``The
Export Control and Embargo Handbook,'' which is widely recognized as
the leading text on the issue, Hirschhorn displays an unparalleled
understanding of the importance of export control systems and work.
These are a few examples of the pivotal positions being held up by
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. If you are going to talk
the talk about moving this economy, about exports, about trade, about
getting our goods out there, building things again, then you should
walk the walk. You should not be holding up Siddiqui and Punke and
Hirschhorn. These are noncontroversial people. Nobody watching C-SPAN
has ever heard of them before. They are not in the middle of some
controversial mess. They are trying to get our country moving again.
That is what this is about. For people who are trying to get jobs,
trying to move this country, they need people in place in the
government to help them. Take those holds off, get this moving, put
these people in place.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Oregon is
recognized.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise today to decry the attack of my
Republican colleagues on the executive branch of the United States of
America. The Constitution, which we are sworn to uphold, calls for a
balance of power between three branches of government--the executive
branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. In it, it
gives us a certain ability to test the fitness of high appointees to
the executive branch. That is the advise and consent clause of the
Constitution.
The Constitution does not have a delay and obstruct clause. It has an
advise and consent clause. That means we have the responsibility, on a
timely basis, to review high appointees to the executive branch and
give our opinion. If we vote a person down, then indeed that nomination
does not go forward.
What we have here is not a sincere application of advise and consent.
We have a systematic effort underway to undermine the credibility and
the capability of the President's team here in America.
This is a list of nominations that is being held up. This is not one
nomination here and one nomination there. These are dozens and dozens
of key appointees who will make the executive branch operate. Let's
look at some of these. The Federal Election Commission, the Department
of Energy, the Small Business Administration, the National Labor
Relations Board, the Legal Services Corporation, the Department of
Homeland Security, the Army, the Executive Office of the President, the
Amtrak Board of Directors, the National Transportation Safety Board,
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Farm Credit
Administration, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, the Department of the Treasury, the Department
of Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of State,
the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
National Council on Disability, the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Fellow Americans, I think you get the picture that this is a list in
a systematic effort to undermine the ability of the executive branch to
do its job. If we simply look back at the nominations on which we have
had to file cloture and hold a vote in this Chamber, two-thirds of
those nominees have passed by more than 70 of this body. Many of them
had 80 or 90 votes because there was no sincere objection to this
individual, be it he or she, in a number of these departments. But it
was a systematic effort to delay the capability of the executive branch
of the United States of America. That is unacceptable. We are not
empowered as a
[[Page 3447]]
Chamber, in this Constitution, to delay and obstruct and prevent the
executive branch from doing its job.
I call upon my Republican colleagues who are conducting this attack
on the President and his team to honor their constitutional
responsibilities to advise and consent, to take this list and if there
are a couple of key nominees that you have serious concerns about, then
indeed let's have that debate here on the floor. But these dozens need
to be set free to do their job. That is how the balance of powers is
envisioned in the Constitution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to raise questions
about why the Republicans in the Senate are holding up a number of
nominations. We have heard some of that articulated this morning by a
number of our colleagues. I have a specific example of what this kind
of obstruction leads to. It is with regard to a circuit court
nomination, in this case a judge in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. This is someone I have known a long time, someone I have
known to be not only capable to do the job a U.S. Court of Appeals
judge must do, but also someone who has demonstrated his ability on the
district court for many years. The person I am speaking of is Judge
Thomas I. Vanaskie, who has been nominated for a position on the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Delaware, and the Virgin Islands.
As I said, I have known him a long time. He is someone who has been a
legal scholar, someone who has a long and distinguished career on the
Federal bench as well as a career as an advocate when he was practicing
law.
I ask unanimous consent a fuller statement of his record and resume
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
biography
Judge Vanaskie's biography highlights both his scholarly
and professional accomplishments and the high esteem in which
he is held by his colleagues in the legal profession. He
graduated magna cum laude from Lycoming College in
Williamsport, Pennsylvania, where he was also an honorable
mention All-American football player, a first team Academic
All-American, the college's outstanding male student athlete,
and the recipient of the highest award given to a graduating
student.
At Dickinson School of Law, from which he graduated cum
laude in 1978, Judge Vanaskie served as an editor of the Law
Review and received the M. Vashti Burr award, a scholarship
given by the faculty to the student deemed ``most
deserving''.
After graduating, Judge Vanaskie served as a law clerk for
Judge William J. Nealon, Chief Judge of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Judge Vanaskie practiced law for two highly regarded
Pennsylvania firms before his appointment to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in
1994.
He became the Middle District's Chief Judge in 1999 and
completed his seven-year term in 2006.
He was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to the
Information Technology Committee of the Judicial Conference
of the United States where he served as Chair for three
years. He has also participated in several working groups of
the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, mostly
recently on the Future of District CM/ECF Working Group,
tasked with determining the design and development of the
next generation of the federal judiciary's electronic case
filing program.
He is an adjunct professor at the Dickinson School of Law
and has also been active in civic and charitable efforts in
his hometown of Scranton.
accolades
Lawyers who have appeared before Judge Vanaskie have
expressed tremendous respect for his intellectual rigor and
the disciplined attention he brings to the matters before
him.
One attorney who has tried over a dozen cases before Judge
Vanaskie has described him as ``objective, fair, analytical,
dispassionate, extraordinarily careful, and very respectful
of appellate authority.'' This same practitioner said that he
has not always agreed with Judge Vanaskie's decisions, but he
has always felt that his rulings reflected what the Judge
considered to be the most appropriate result, and the result
that he was obligated to impose under the law.
U.S. District Judge William J. Nealon, for whom Judge
Vanaskie clerked has described him as ``superbly qualified .
. . He's outstanding . . . He's brilliant. He's objective.
And he's tireless . . .''
Judge Vanaskie recognizes that for many citizens, his
decisions will be the final word on their claims. He treats
people with respect and honors their right to be heard. His
deep understanding of and respect for the law will serve him
well in ruling on cases and authoring opinions that will be
influential in the Third Circuit and beyond.
career highlights
In 2008, Judge Vanaskie presided over the first known
court appearance of aging mobster Bill D'Elia where he
pleaded guilty to two federal felonies. He later sentenced
``Big Billy'' to serve in federal prison.
Late last year, Judge Vanaskie sentenced the former
Superintendent of the Pittston Area School District to 13
months in federal prison and a $15,000 fine for accepting
$5,000 cash in kickbacks from a contractor he supported in
obtaining a contract with the school district. The case is
part of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and the IRS and
is being prosecuted by a team of federal prosecutors.
He ruled that the government could not deport Sameh
Khouzam, a native of Egypt and a Christian, because the State
Department did not review Egyptian diplomatic assurances that
Khouzam would not be tortured upon his return. ``The fact
that this matter implicates the foreign affairs of the United
States does not insulate the executive branch action from
judicial review,'' the Judge wrote. ``Not even the president
of the United States has the authority to sacrifice . . . the
right to be free from torture . . .''
He presided over the trial and sentencing of an Old Forge
man who spent more than $413,000 that he stole from victims
of an investment scam. ``You stole these people's money,''
said the Judge. ``I can't sugarcoat it.''
Mr. CASEY. Judge Vanaskie graduated with high honors from Lycoming
College and was an honorable mention All-American football player
there. He attended the Dickinson School of Law in Pennsylvania,
graduated with honors in 1978, was editor of the Law Review, clerked
for Judge William Nealon, who was then the Chief Judge for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania. Judge Vanaskie went on to have a
distinguished career as a lawyer. He got to the Middle District Court,
the U.S. Middle District of Pennsylvania in 1994, became the Chief
Judge, just like Judge Nealon, the judge he served. Judge Vanaskie
became the Middle District's Chief Judge in 1999 and his 7-year term as
Chief Judge was completed in 1996.
He was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to the Information
Technology Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States,
where he served as Chair for 3 years.
I will submit for the Record, as I mentioned before, what many people
have said about him in addition to his record. I will read one of those
at this moment. Judge Nealon, someone who has been on the District
Court of Pennsylvania, the Middle District, for more than a generation,
since 1962--here is what that judge said about Judge Vanaskie. He said:
He is superbly qualified, he is outstanding, he is
brilliant, he is objective and he is tireless.
There is not much more you could say that would be higher praise than
that from not only a colleague but someone who has had decades of
experience presiding over complex matters in the district courts.
In my own judgment, Judge Vanaskie demonstrated, when he was on the
district court, the kind of legal acumen and scholarship and commitment
to the rule of law that made him stand out on the district court. I
know I personally have experience with that; I appeared before him. I
remember in particular trying a case in front of him. He is someone I
knew very well for many years, someone I had great respect for, but
also someone I knew personally. Despite that personal connection, I do
remember him ruling against me on a number of objections. That alone is
testament to his integrity. It is widely shared.
When you consider all of that legal experience, unquestioned ability
on the district court, unquestioned ability to handle very complex
matters that prepared him to serve on the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals and that he was voted out of committee close to unanimously--I
think there were three votes against him. I will doublecheck this, but
I think the vote was 16 to 3. I will make sure we check that for the
Record.
[[Page 3448]]
Having said all that, I cannot understand why our friends on the
other side of the aisle would want to hold up someone who has such a
brilliant record, who is committed to being and has already
demonstrated a commitment to be a fair-minded judge, someone who will
set aside their personal points of view, their personal biases, to rule
on matters that come before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. It does not make much sense when you consider the support he
has received. But it seems, as on so many of these nominations, the
impediment here is not a set of questions, not a set of unresolved
issues. The impediment is too many Senators on the other side of the
aisle who want to use the nomination process to achieve political
objectives. That, in my judgment, is what is happening.
What they should do for the American people is set aside those
political objectives and get people confirmed, just as they would hope
that their nominees, people they support under a Republican President,
would be confirmed.
This is just one example, but I think a very telling example, of what
our friends are doing when they hold up a judge who has that kind of
record of service, of commitment to justice and the rule of law. I
think it speaks volumes about what is happening in the Senate on
nominations.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Minnesota is
recognized.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the gridlock
in the Senate and the effect it has on our ability to do our jobs as
legislators. If you talk to the average person on the street, he or she
will probably tell you that Americans are pretty frustrated with their
government right now. People think government does not work and that
politicians care more about fighting with each other than they do about
helping American families.
Some days I can hardly blame the people who hold this opinion. We are
now in the second year of President Obama's administration and we have
only just begun to fill the spots in the executive and judicial
branches because of filibusters, holds, and other procedural tactics
that have delayed an extraordinary number of people. We had no Under
Secretary for Domestic Finance at the Treasury Department despite the
fact that our country has just experienced arguably the worst economic
crisis since the Great Depression. We have no Assistant Secretary for
Legislation at the Department of Health and Human Services. You would
think when we have been considering health care reform legislation in
the past year, it might be helpful to confirm an Assistant Secretary
for Legislation at the Department of Health and Human Services.
There are so few members of the National Labor Relations Board, the
Supreme Court is currently deciding whether the NLRB's current
decisions have any legal standing, yet we have failed to confirm a
single one of President Obama's three nominees.
In one of the most egregious examples of obstructionism, the Senate
failed to vote on the appointment of the first nominee for
Transportation Security Administration Chief, the person charged with
keeping our Nation's airlines safe. In the interim, a terrorist tried
to attack Northwest flight 253. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the nominee
eventually withdrew himself from consideration, saying he was
``obstructed by political ideology.''
I have said it before and I will say it again: I have no problem with
standing on principle. Our first President, George Washington,
supposedly once said we pour House legislation into the senatorial
saucer to cool it. Whether or not that story is true, the Senate has
long served as the cooling Chamber, the place where reason and
thoughtful debate occur in our Congress. The filibuster is a key tool
for the way the minority can stand up to a majority that is acting
irrationally in the heat of the moment. So I have no problems with my
colleagues threatening to filibuster nominees or legislation that they
actually oppose.
That is what the Founders intended. The Senate has an important role
to play in giving the President its advice and consent on nominations.
I take that role very seriously. But too often my colleagues filibuster
nominees they actually support in an effort to extract other promises
or just to slow the Senate down.
In February, the Senate finally confirmed the noncontroversial
administrator of the General Services Administration after 9 months.
The vote was 94 to 2. Similarly this month, my colleagues forced a
cloture vote, they forced a cloture vote to approve a judicial nominee
for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. She was then confirmed
unanimously, 99 to 0.
Yet we are forced to vote for a filibuster. That is nuts. This is a
perversion of the filibuster and a perversion of the role of the
Senate. It used to be the filibuster was reserved for matters of great
principle. Today it has become a way to play out the clock. Some of my
colleagues seem more interested in using every procedural method
possible to keep the Senate from doing anything then they are in
creating jobs or helping Americans struggling in a difficult economy.
They seem to actually want the government to fail. Why else delay
things you actually agree with? No wonder Americans are frustrated with
the government. It is time for this to stop. It is time for the Senate
to stop playing politics or pursuing personal agendas and start
approving well-qualified nominees without forcing unnecessary delay.
For our government to function the way it is supposed to, it needs to
have personnel. Let's give the executive branch and the judicial branch
the people they need so we can help government function in the way it
is supposed to and reassure Americans that government does work for
them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise, along with my
colleagues this morning, to draw attention to the growing dysfunction
exacted on this institution's ability to confirm both judicial and
executive branch nominees.
Having served five terms in the House of Representatives, I have come
to expect a certain amount of political revelry and combat. While I was
honored to serve in the House, and I have fond memories of the often
raucous debates there, I had high expectations that the Senate would
truly be a place of deliberation and bipartisan goodwill.
Of late, however, it seems the worst political gamesmanship has
infiltrated the Senate. Perhaps the proverb ``the grass is always
greener on the other side'' applies here, but I do have to tell you, I
think the level of gridlock we have faced in the last year is
unprecedented.
We have seen roadblock after roadblock as we have tried to exercise
one of the most basic functions of the Senate, that of making sure we
have a full complement of Federal judges and ensuring the departments
and agencies of the sitting administration are filled with competent
public servants.
In contrast, by this date during President Bush's first term in
office, the Senate, with a Democratic majority, had confirmed twice as
many circuit and district court nominations. The obstruction of present
judicial nominees is all the more galling when you note that they were
reported by the Judiciary Committee without dissent.
Two weeks ago today, we were forced to invoke cloture on Barbara
Milano Keenan to be U.S. circuit judge. Her nomination was held up for
months. We finally had to say enough is enough and shut off the
filibuster. When we finally voted on cloture, it was invoked 99 to 0,
meaning not a single Senator was willing to stand and oppose the
nominee.
You know in your State, Mr. President, this is the kind of
superficial partisanship the American people are fed up with. In
addition to judicial nominees, President Obama's executive branch
appointments have suffered from a similar kind of gamesmanship. One
would be hard-pressed to find one single department in this
administration whose work has not been interrupted by phony delays.
[[Page 3449]]
Let me give you an example. After having invoked cloture and overcome
a filibuster on Martha Johnson to be the Director of the General
Services Administration, not a single Senator was willing to stand in
opposition to the nominee. Cloture was invoked and she was confirmed by
a 96-to-0 margin.
I know partisanship is rampant in this town, but the American people
deserve to know what is happening in the Senate. We are reaching a
heightened level of imprudence, the kind George Washington warned us
about in his farewell address in 1796.
In outlaying the principle we first all have an obligation to govern,
Washington stated, ``All obstructions to the execution of the national
laws [ . . . ] with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or
awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities
are destructive of this fundamental principle.''
As I close, the American people know this town causes grown men and
women to bicker and fight like children. Children have an excuse, they
are children. We are not. We can do better, and I urge my colleagues to
set aside their partisan differences, end this gridlock, and begin
working together for the good of the American people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) The Senator from North Carolina.
Mrs. HAGAN. I thank the Senator from Colorado for yielding.
I am joining my freshman colleagues on the floor to express my
amazement at the difficulty this body is having conducting even the
simplest legislative functions.
When I came to Washington last year from the North Carolina State
Senate, I was certainly under no illusions that the process here would
be lightening fast. In fact, I believe strongly we should take the time
to make reasoned judgments about legislative and executive branch and
judicial nominees. The American people are better served when we take
the time to make the best decisions.
But there is a difference between taking time for reasoned judgment
and impeding progress for the sole purpose of delay. There currently
are 67 executive branch nominations awaiting action by the full Senate.
Every one of these has been approved by the committee of jurisdiction,
many having been approved unanimously. Thirty-one of those sixty-seven
nominees were approved in committee last year and have been waiting for
months for action by the full Senate.
One individual awaiting action by the Senate, Michael Punke, has been
nominated to be our ambassador to the World Trade Organization. He was
approved unanimously by the Senate Finance Committee in December.
As my colleagues know, the member countries of the WTO are currently
engaged in a round of trade talks that could have enormous implications
for American workers and industries. Would it not make sense to have
the best possible American representation at those talks? Should we not
want someone there who is advocating forcefully on behalf of our
American workers, producers, and businesses?
It has been reported the delay in considering this particular
nomination is connected to a concern one Senator has regarding a recent
tobacco law passed in the Canadian Parliament. Well, I represent the
largest tobacco State in the country. I will be honest, I understand
the concerns of my fellow tobacco-State Senator regarding this
legislation.
But I guess I have not been here long enough to understand how
concerns with Canadian tobacco legislation lead you to the conclusion
that you should prevent the United States from being represented in
international trade negotiations. How are we supposed to address our
issues with Canada and all trading partners when our seat at the table
is empty? That is just one example. The calendar is full of nominees
who deserve a vote.
In fact, there are two judicial nominees on the calendar from North
Carolina who would be easily confirmed should they come up with for a
vote, Jim Wynn and Al Diaz, nominees for the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals. They were both approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in
January. But truth be told, we have not just been waiting since
January, we have been waiting since 1994.
There has been an opening for a North Carolina judge on the Fourth
Circuit since 1994. Partisan politics has gotten in the way of filling
that vacancy time and again. Finally, we have not one but two qualified
judges, supported by both myself and Senator Burr. Let's bring them up
for a vote.
The government cannot function without qualified appointees in place.
Let's stop the delays and bring these nominees up for a vote so they
can get on with the business of the American people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise to call on the Senate to do
something the rest of the American people are doing, our job. Most of
President Obama's nominees to the executive branch and our Federal
courts are not even remotely controversial. The country needs them on
the job, and their responsibilities, their careers, and the stress on
their families should not be caused by holds and other pointless
delays.
We face serious challenges as a nation. Unemployment and
underemployment rates are unacceptably high. Our courts have
unprecedented backlogs. We are fighting two wars and have the
persistent threat of terror that casts a shadow over our security.
We need a functioning Federal Government. The American people expect
this. Yet some in this body are too tied up in ``politics as usual'' to
get our government working again. Rather than making sure we get the
government up and running by allowing our votes on key administration
nominees, the Senate is mired in perpetual stalling, failing to perform
its constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. Qualified
people nominated to hold key positions in the administration are
languishing in the Senate because of procedural abuses. These should
end.
I have introduced a resolution which would help address some of these
abuses. My resolution would bring holds by one Senator outside the
shadows, time limit them, and place requirements that, after 2 days,
holds must be bipartisan to continue.
These commonsense improvements ought not be necessary. But in today's
Senate, unfortunately, they are. I fully support scrutinizing all
positions requiring confirmation. In fact, that is why my suggested
resolution actually says, if you have bipartisan support--and there
might be a reason to look at it other than just pure politics--I think
we should look at it.
But useless delay is not getting us anywhere. I am not asking for a
rubberstamp from anyone. But a desire to assert leverage over the
administration or a desire to frustrate the government's efforts to
work for the American people is unacceptable for holding up nominees.
Too often we have seen nominees held for months only to be confirmed
by overwhelming margins. Judge Barbara Keenan was recently confirmed to
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by the breathtakingly close vote of
99 to 0. This was after her nomination was held up for 4 months
following approval by the Judiciary Committee.
There are currently 16 other judicial nominees who, similar to Judge
Keenan, have cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and are awaiting
floor time. Unfortunately, they are subject to partisan and meritless
delays. The result is, our district and appellate courts will continue
to be backlogged and justice will not be served in communities all
across the United States of America.
Judicial nominations have a sad history of partisanship in recent
years. The delays and games that have replaced the Senate's role to
advise and consent have now bled into all executive branch nominations
at unprecedented levels.
Just last month, the media reported 80 nominees were being held up by
one Senator. These holds included the Under Secretary for Military
Readiness
[[Page 3450]]
and top officials at the Departments of State and Homeland Security.
These holds were unrelated to the actual nominee and solely concerned
parochial and political interests. Our national security should never
be subjugated to one Senator's politics.
We also had the President's nomination to the Transportation Security
Administration tied up and ultimately withdrawn because of partisan
bickering unrelated to his responsibilities to secure our airports.
This is unacceptable. Does it no longer matter whether there is someone
at the helm of the agencies responsible for securing our airports?
How is this acceptable behavior in the Senate? It would not be
acceptable behavior around my kitchen table. If it is not acceptable
there, it should not be acceptable here. There are too many examples of
qualified, noncontroversial nominees, such as Martha Johnson, the GSA
Administrator with impeccable qualifications whose nomination was held
for 9 months. Yet she was confirmed by a 96-to-0 vote once the hold on
her nomination was removed.
These nominations are being blocked even though they have broad
bipartisan support.
I urge my colleagues to remove their holds on noncontroversial
administration nominees and allow confirmation votes.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague from Colorado.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, many Senators are speaking on the Senate
floor today about the Republican delays and obstruction of President
Obama's nominations to fill critical posts throughout the executive
branch.
Republicans have engaged in a partisan effort to block scores of
nominations, preventing up-or-down votes in the Senate. This Republican
effort has prevented the Senate from considering well-qualified public
servants like Professor Chris Schroeder, who was first nominated by
President Obama on June 4, 2009. He appeared before the Senate
Judiciary Committee last June, and was reported favorably in July by
voice vote, with no dissent. His nomination then languished on the
Senate's Executive Calendar for nearly 5 months. Not a single
Republican explained the reason for the delay.
Republican Senators objected to carrying over Professor Schroeder's
nomination into the new session. It was returned to the President with
no action. President Obama nominated Professor Schroeder again this
year, and again his nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee
with Republican support. An esteemed scholar and public servant who has
served with distinction on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee
and in the Justice Department, Professor Schroeder has support across
the political spectrum.
We treated President Bush's nominations to run the Office of Legal
Policy much more fairly than Republicans are treating President
Obama's, confirming all four nominees to lead that office quickly. We
confirmed President Bush's first nominee to that post by a vote of 96
to 1 just 1 month after he was nominated, and only a week after his
nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee. In contrast
Professor Schroeder's nomination has been pending since last June. It
is time for an up-or-down vote on his nomination.
In addition to the many executive branch nominees currently stalled
on the Senate calendar, there are 18 judicial nominees that have been
reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee--most of them
unanimously--who await Senate consideration. That is more nominees than
the total of President Obama's circuit and district court nominees--
17--that have been confirmed since he took office. This sorry state of
affairs is the result of a Republican strategy to stall, obstruct, and
delay that has existed throughout President Obama's time in office. The
casualties of this effort are the American people who seek justice in
our increasingly overburdened Federal courts.
By this date during President Bush's first term, the Senate had
confirmed 41 Federal circuit and district court nominations. That was a
tumultuous period in which Senate Democrats worked hard to make
progress with a staunchly partisan Republican President. It included
the period of the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks upon the Senate.
In contrast, the Senate has confirmed just 17 Federal and circuit court
nominees--just 17--during President Obama's first term.
We are currently on pace to confirm fewer than 30 Federal circuit and
district court nominees during this Congress, which would be easily the
lowest in memory. That number stands in sad contrast to the 100 judges
we confirmed when I chaired the Judiciary Committee for 17 months
during President Bush's first term. When we were reviewing the judicial
nominees of a President of the other party, and one who consulted
across the aisle far less than President Obama has, we confirmed 100
judges in just 17 months. President Obama is in his 14th month and
Senate Republicans have allowed only 17 Federal circuit and district
court judges to be confirmed. We are 24 behind the pace we set in 2001
and 2002.
The Judiciary Committee has favorably reported 35 of President
Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees to the Senate for
final consideration and confirmation. Eighteen of those nominees are
still awaiting a vote by the Senate. The Senate can more than double
the total number of judicial nominations it has confirmed by
considering the other judicial nominees already before the Senate
awaiting final action. We should do that now, without more delay,
without additional obstruction. There are another five judicial
nominations set to be reported by the Judiciary Committee this week.
They will bring the total awaiting final action by the Senate to 23.
Confirming them without unnecessary delay would put us back on track.
While Republican Senators stall, judicial vacancies continue to
skyrocket. Vacancies have already grown to more than 100, undoing years
of our hard work repairing the damage done by Republican pocket
filibusters of President Clinton's judicial nominees. When I chaired
the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's last year in office, we
reduced judicial vacancies to as low as 34, even though it was a
presidential election year.When President Bush left office, we had
reduced vacancies in 9 of the 13 Federal circuits. As matters stand
today, judicial vacancies have spiked and are being left unfilled. We
started 2010 with the highest number of vacancies on article III courts
since 1994, when the vacancies created by the last comprehensive
judgeship bill were still being filled.
More than 30 of the vacancies on our Federal courts today are
classified as ``judicial emergencies.'' This is another reversal of our
hard work during the Bush administration when we reduced judicial
emergencies by more than half. Those vacancies have now increased
dramatically, encumbering judges across the country with overloaded
dockets and preventing ordinary Americans from seeking justice in our
overburdened Federal courts. This is wrong. We owe it to the American
people to do better.
President Obama deserves praise for working closely with home State
Senators, whether Democratic or Republican, to identify and select
well-qualified nominees to fill vacancies on the Federal bench. Yet
Senate Republicans delay and obstruct even nominees chosen after
consultation with Republican home State Senators. President Obama has
worked closely with home State Republican Senators, but Senate
Republicans have still chosen to treat his nominees badly. Last year,
President Obama sent 33 Federal circuit and district court nominations
to the Senate, but the Senate confirmed only 12 of them, the fewest
judicial nominees confirmed in the first year of a Presidency in more
than 50 years.
Senate Republicans unsuccessfully filibustered the nomination of
Judge David Hamilton of Indiana to the Seventh Circuit, despite support
for his nomination from the senior Republican in the Senate, Dick Lugar
of Indiana. Republicans delayed for months Senate consideration of
Judge Beverly Martin of Georgia to the Eleventh Circuit despite the
endorsement of both her Republican home State Senators. When
[[Page 3451]]
Republicans finally agreed to consider her nomination on January 20,
she was confirmed unanimously. Whether Jeffrey Viken or Roberto Lange
of South Dakota, who were supported by Senator Thune, or Charlene
Edwards Honeywell of Florida, who was supported by Senators Martinez
and LeMieux, virtually all of President Obama's nominees have been
denied prompt Senate action by Republican objections.
I noted when the Senate considered the nominations of Judge Christina
Reiss of Vermont and Mr. Abdul Kallon of Alabama relatively promptly
that they should serve as the model for Senate action. Sadly, they are
the exception rather than the model. They show what the Senate could
do, but does not. Time and again, noncontroversial nominees are
delayed. When the Senate does finally consider them, they are confirmed
overwhelmingly.
In December, I made several statements in this Chamber about the need
for progress on the nominees reported by the Senate Judiciary
Committee. I also spoke repeatedly to Senate leaders on both sides of
the aisle and made the following proposal: Agree to immediate votes on
those judicial nominees that are reported by the Senate Judiciary
Committee without dissent, and agree to time agreements to debate and
vote on the others. I have recently reiterated my proposal and urged
Senate Republicans to reconsider their strategy of obstruction. There
is no justification for these nominations to be dragged out week after
week, month after month.
The last time the Senate considered judicial nominations was weeks
ago. Indeed, on March 2, the Republican filibuster and obstruction of
the nomination of Justice Barbara Keenan of Virginia to be a Fourth
Circuit Judge had to be ended by invoking cloture. Senate Republicans
would not agree to debate and vote on her nomination and the majority
leader was required to proceed through a time consuming procedure to
end the obstruction. The votes to end debate and on her confirmation
were both 99 to 0. That nomination had been reported in October. So
after more than 4 months of stalling, there was no justification,
explanation or basis for the delay. That is wrong. That was the 17th
filibuster of President Obama's nominations.
The 18 judicial nominees awaiting Senate consideration are: Jane
Stranch of Tennessee, nominated to the Sixth Circuit; Judge Thomas
Vanaskie of Pennsylvania, nominated to the Third Circuit; Judge Denny
Chin of New York, nominated to the Second Circuit; Justice Rogeriee
Thompson of Rhode Island, nominated to the First Circuit; Judge James
Wynn of North Carolina, nominated to the Fourth Circuit; Judge Albert
Diaz of North Carolina, nominated to the Fourth Circuit; Judge Edward
Chen, nominated to the Northern District of California; Justice Louis
Butler, nominated to the Western District of Wisconsin; Nancy
Freudenthal, nominated to the District of Wyoming; Denzil Marshall,
nominated to the Eastern District of Arkansas; Benita Pearson,
nominated to the Northern District of Ohio; Timothy Black, nominated to
the Southern District of Ohio; Gloria M. Navarro, nominated to the
District of Nevada; Audrey G. Fleissig, nominated to the Eastern
District of Missouri; Lucy H. Koh, nominated to the Northern District
of California; Jon E. DeGuilio, nominated to the Northern District of
Indiana; Tanya Walton Pratt, nominated to the Southern District of
Indiana; and Jane Magnus-Stinson, nominated to the Southern District of
Indiana. Twelve of the 18 were reported from the Senate Judiciary
Committee without opposition; one had a single negative vote. The
stalling and obstruction should end and these nominations should be
considered by the Senate and voted upon without further delay. When
they are, they, too, will be confirmed overwhelmingly.
I also want to highlight my concern about the new standard the
Republican minority is applying to many of President Obama's district
court nominees. Democrats never used this standard with President
Bush's nominees, whether we were in the majority or the minority. In 8
years, the Judiciary Committee reported only a single Bush district
court nomination by a party-line vote. That was the controversial
nomination of Leon Holmes, who was opposed not because of some litmus
test, but because of his strident, intemperate, and insensitive public
statements over the years. During President Obama's short time in
office, not one, not two, but three district court nominees have been
reported on a party-line vote as Senate Republicans look for any reason
to oppose every nomination. I hope this new standard does not become
the rule for Senate Republicans.
Of the 17 Federal circuit and district court judges confirmed, 14
have been confirmed unanimously. That is right. The delay and
obstruction is so baseless that when votes are finally taken, they are
overwhelmingly in favor and most often unanimous. There have been only
a handful of votes cast against just three of President Obama's
nominees to the Federal circuit and district courts. One of those,
Judge Gerry Lynch of the Second Circuit, garnered only three negative
votes, and 94 votes in favor. Judge Andre Davis of Maryland was stalled
for months and then confirmed with 72 votes in favor. Judge David
Hamilton was filibustered in a failed effort to prevent an up or down
vote.
So why all the obstruction and delay? It is part of a partisan
pattern. Even when they cannot say ``no,'' Republicans nonetheless
demand that the Senate go slow. The practice is continuing. There have
already been 17 filibusters of President Obama's nominees. That is the
same number of Federal circuit and district nominees the Senate has
confirmed during the entirety of the Obama administration. And that
comparison does not include the many other nominees who were delayed or
who are being denied up-or-down votes by Senate Republicans refusing to
agree to time agreements to consider even noncontroversial nominees.
I urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their destructive strategy
and to work with us to provide final consideration without further
delay to the 18 judicial nominees on the Senate Executive Calendar
awaiting final action. We can make real progress if they will join with
us and we work together.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
____________________
EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague from Colorado. I ask unanimous
consent that 7 minutes of morning business be added to each side and at
the end of that time, the Senate stand in recess as provided for under
the previous order. I thank my colleagues on the other side for their
courtesy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues on the floor today
to discuss what none of us are the least bit happy to see happening in
the U.S. Senate.
We were sent here by the people of our States to get work done. This
means passing legislation and overseeing the work of Federal agencies.
It is difficult, if not impossible, for Federal agencies to do the
work Congress and the American people want them to do if they spend
months--in some cases, years--leaderless. It is impossible for them to
do their work if they can hope that a momentary peace will break out in
the Senate to allow for confirmation of the presidential designee for
their respective agency.
As Senators, we are endowed with a constitutional responsibility to
lend our advice and consent to the men and women a President nominates
to run agencies and parts of agencies.
Career civil servants can do a lot. We would be lost without them.
But they do not have the authority, or the accountability to Congress
and the American people to accomplish what a President selects them to
do.
Yet many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would deny
President Obama any of his nominees. I believe a President--the current
[[Page 3452]]
President or any future President with whom I am lucky enough to
serve--is due a great deal of deference in his or her selections for
Senate-confirmable positions.
For our Republican colleagues, it would seem there is a belief that
the Federal Government should just not function, certainly any
government led by President Obama.
We have seen the slow-walking, the indefinite--and indefensible--
holds on nominations for crucial national security positions. Only when
Armed Services Chairman Levin took the unusual step of embarrassing
colleagues who were placing a hold for their home State politics did a
number of important nominees get reported out of our committee.
There is still a hold by one of our Republican colleagues--
unbelievable as it may seem--on the promotion of an Army general while
our Nation is involved in two wars.
But the problem and the cynicism of Republican obstructionism is seen
nowhere as obviously as in the judiciary. There are currently 103
Federal judge vacancies.
Several nominees reported out of the Judiciary Committee have been
denied votes in the Senate by Republican ostructionism for almost 200
days. In some cases the judicial seat to be filled has been vacant for
years.
It is clear that--even if they are in denial about who was elected in
2008-- our Republican colleagues have their sights set on 2012 and
beyond, when they hope to have a huge number of Federal court vacancies
to be filled by a President more to their liking.
Obstruction of nominees hurts the functioning of the government our
colleagues have strived to be part of. If they continue to block
qualified nominees, our Republican colleagues only further demonstrate
their unwillingness to perform the duties for which they were elected
and prove their disdain for the constitutional responsibilities with
which they have been entrusted.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Warner for organizing
this presentation to point out the abuses the minority has used in
blocking the responsibility of the Senate to confirm appointments made
by the President. I believe in the right of the minority. At times, it
needs to be exercised. But it has been abused. The American people need
to know that because it is affecting their rights and the ability of
agencies and the courts to protect the rights of Americans.
Let me cite one number: 60 individuals the President has nominated
for important offices have been blocked in their confirmation votes on
the Senate floor even though their nominations were approved by the
committees either by voice vote or unanimous vote or by significant
supermajorities. These are just being delayed, when we now know the
final outcome will be approval. As a result, Americans are being denied
judges on the courts and administrators who can help enforce their
rights.
We have already heard the circumstances about our courts, how we have
had to take to a cloture vote, which means floor time, for the
nomination of Judge Keenan, who received 99 votes and no one in
opposition. We have two vacancies on the Fourth Circuit right now.
These appointments have been approved overwhelmingly by the Judiciary
Committee--Albert Diaz and James Wynn--by votes of 19 to 0 and 18 to 1.
They have the support of Senators Burr and Hagan. Yet they have still
not been brought to the floor for a vote. That represents a 20-percent
vacancy on the Fourth Circuit, denying the people of my region their
full representation on the appellate court.
We are very proud of legislation we have passed to help the
disabled--the ADA law--to guarantee gender pay equity with the Lilly
Ledbetter law, and genetic discrimination prohibition legislation. But
it takes the EEOC to enforce those rules. President Obama has submitted
four nominees for the EEOC. They have been approved by the committee by
voice votes, which means they are not controversial. Yet we cannot
bring those nominations to the floor for quick action because
Republicans are abusing their rights to hold up action on the floor of
the Senate to carry out our constitutional responsibilities to act on
the President's nominations.
This is denying the people of America the protections they are
entitled to by the courts and by agencies. It is wrong. It is time for
this practice to end.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
HIRE ACT
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we are going to be taking up the so-called
HIRE Act starting tomorrow. I wish to address some of the problems with
it since the procedure under which we have considered this bill does
not allow any amendments. As a result, we have no opportunity to fix
problems that are inherent with the bill and will force me to vote
against it.
The first provision that should be highlighted is the provision
called the Build America Bonds. This was created first in the 2009
stimulus bill. It offers a direct subsidy from the Federal Government
to States and other governmental entities to cover their cost of
financing for certain kinds of projects.
The House-passed bill expands this subsidy by allowing four current
tax-preferred bonds to qualify for the direct subsidy under this
program and increases the generosity of that subsidy to cover all of
the borrowing costs for education projects. This will mean an expansion
of the already substantial support the Federal Government offers for
State and local governments, support for which we taxpayers are then
responsible. The Federal Government gave $44 billion in extraordinary
stimulus State aid last year and regularly spends $26 billion annually
in sub-Federal Government subsidies through tax-exempt bond financing.
This is a significant Federal expenditure for which taxpayers will be
responsible.
Here is the key problem, in addition to the additional exposure of
taxpayers: Because interest rates reflect risks, States with poor
credit ratings that therefore pay higher interest rates would actually
be rewarded under this legislation due to the structure of these bonds.
For example, a State that issues $1 billion worth of debt paying a 5-
percent interest rate would receive a bigger direct payment from the
Federal Government than a State issuing $1 billion worth of debt paying
a 4-percent interest rate. Thus, States with lower credit ratings could
receive larger subsidies, which, of course, encourages greater risk-
taking and creates an incentive for States to issue even more debt than
they would have without the subsidy.
The so-called jobs bill would further reward States with poor credit.
The Senate version of the bill expands the Build America Bonds program
by giving insurers of certain tax credit bonds for school construction
and alternative energy projects the option of receiving direct payment
of up to 65 percent of the interest cost. The House bill would, in
certain cases, reimburse up to 100 percent of a project's interest
costs.
The original Build America Bonds program encouraged States to take
greater risks. The bill we will consider tomorrow would make the
problem even worse. One of the lessons from the financial crisis is
that people should not borrow more than they can afford. Unfortunately,
it appears many of us have not taken this lesson to heart.
There is a provision relating to highway extension. Rather than being
a straight extension of the current highway authorization, this bill
represents a significant expansion of the Federal Government's funding
for highway projects. The highway piece first cancels rescissions that
were scheduled under the last highway reauthorization. It then
permanently increases the authorization levels for highway spending and
permanently authorizes interest payments from the general fund to the
highway trust fund and authorizes
[[Page 3453]]
a one-time transfer of $19.5 billion from the general fund to the
highway trust fund.
Although not all of these costs will show up as increasing the
deficit because of the unique CBO scoring conventions, all told, the
highway extension under this bill will add $46.5 billion to the debt
over the next 10 years and will authorize $142.5 billion in additional
spending over the next 10 years.
You hear the President talking about not adding to the deficit. All
of our colleagues wring their hands and say: We have to somehow control
Federal spending. Yet in this legislation we take up tomorrow we add
$46.5 billion to the debt over the next 10 years and then authorize an
additional $142.5 billion of spending over the next 10 years. When will
it stop?
There is a provision of the bill that has some merit to it. It is
called the payroll tax holiday, although I think the way it has been
constructed is not something we should do. This is the most expensive
piece of the bill. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has told us
that it expects a provision similar to this to create five to nine jobs
for each million dollars in budgetary cost in 2010. Since this
provision would cost approximately $13 billion by using the CBO model,
one would estimate that the provision would create between 65,000 and
117,000 jobs this year at a cost of $110,000 to $200,000 per job. This
sounds a lot like the stimulus bill to me, a very inefficient way to
create jobs, if, in fact, they actually get created.
The proposed payroll tax holiday comes on the heels of the Senate-
passed health care bill which actually increases the Medicare payroll
tax from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent. This actually would relieve
employers of an element of the payroll tax. So which is it? Do we agree
that payroll taxes that are increased are unhelpful to job creation?
According to Timothy Bartik of the Economic Policy Institute:
The employer tax credit in the Senate jobs bill is likely
to create few jobs and at an excessively high cost.
As I have said, up to $200,000 per job.
He explains it this way:
Awarding credits for hires can be very expensive. Over a
one-year period, the number of hires, as a percentage of
total private employment, is over 40 percent even during a
recession. To pay for hires that would have occurred anyway
will be expensive and won't necessarily increase total
private sector employment. The Schumer-Hatch design tries to
avoid some of these large costs in several ways. First,
credits are limited to hiring the unemployed, apply only to
the rest of 2010, and are only worth 6.2 percent of the new
hire's payroll costs. The retention bonus is of modest size
and delayed. While these limits control costs, they also
hamper the credit's benefits.
Limiting the credit to hiring someone unemployed at least
60 days makes the credit less attractive to employers.
Not only does the credit become more complicated to claim
(which reduces its effectiveness), but it restricts the
employer's hiring to a more limited pool of workers.
Bartik also explains that past experiences--for example, with the
targeted jobs tax credit, the work opportunities tax credit, and the
welfare-to-work tax credit--show that tax credits to encourage hiring
disadvantaged workers usually generate little employer interest and
have a negligible effect upon employer behavior. He says:
Employers are happy to claim such credits, if they happen
to meet the credit's rules, but they are reluctant to change
their behavior in response to such targeted tax credits.
So even the one provision of the bill that actually has some alleged
relationship to job creation probably would not and, to the extent it
does, would cost an extraordinary amount of money per job actually
created.
Let me turn to one of the ways in which these expenses are allegedly
offset: delaying the application of the so-called worldwide interest
allocation. This is a very bad idea. This delays implementing a
corporate tax reform we passed in 2004 in order to help American
businesses properly account for their overseas income and, frankly, be
more competitive with those abroad.
The worldwide interest allocation rules were originally improved as
part of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, as I said, and were
scheduled to take effect in 2009. However, the Housing and Economic
Recovery Act of 2008 delayed the effectiveness of these rules by 2
years to 2011. The Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act
of 2009 that extended the first-time home buyer tax credit further
delayed the effectiveness of these rules to 2018.
The so-called jobs bill would delay this provision through the end of
the existing budget window to 2021. Repeated delays have the same
effect as repeal: an increase in the effective corporate tax rate. As I
said, that does nothing to help our American businesses in their desire
to compete overseas.
So these are just some of the reasons why I am not going to be able
to support the HIRE Act, and I would urge my colleagues, since we are
not going to have an opportunity to amend it, to oppose it as well.
Might I ask, Mr. President, how much time I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
____________________
HEALTH CARE
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to address now the health care
legislation we passed in the Senate and that is pending over in the
House of Representatives.
There is a news report that Democrats are going to use the strangest
of all procedural tactics to try to pass the Senate health care bill
over in the House of Representatives, and this is against a backdrop of
a lot of strange things--the use of the reconciliation process, all the
backroom deals that result in the various benefits for various Senators
and Representatives--we have heard so much about.
It almost seems Democratic leaders view the views of their
constituents as an obstacle to be overcome, and every time the polls
show even more opposition to the legislation, they decide to try even
more clever ways of getting around their constituents' views--wheeling
and dealing, backdoor legislation--but nothing quite as brazen, I guess
I would say, as the process we now see developing. This is a process I
became familiar with as a Member of the Senate--not when I was in the
House of Representatives because I do not believe it was ever used
then, although it might have been and I was not aware of it. But it is
a process by which House of Representatives Members can actually say
they have passed a piece of legislation without ever voting on it.
You might say: That does not quite comport with what I learned in
eighth grade civics class, and you would be right. We all know the only
way a President can sign a bill is if identical versions of legislation
pass both the House and the Senate.
Well, the House does not want to have to vote on the Senate health
care bill because, as the Speaker of the House said: ``Nobody wants to
vote for the Senate bill.'' So now what they have done is concoct a way
you can actually pass the bill without ever voting for it, and it is by
including the substantive Senate-passed bill into the rule that as a
procedural matter the House votes on to consider each measure. So as a
rule to consider the reconciliation bill is brought to the House floor,
it would contain a provision that would deem the Senate-passed bill
passed, even though the House Members would never vote on it.
That is wrong. It is probably unconstitutional. Any House Member who
believes he or she can go home and say to their constituents: Well, I
never voted for the Senate-passed bill is, frankly, not going to get
away with it because, by voting for the rule, they will have voted for
the Senate-passed bill.
It seems to me this is the time for principled Members of the House
of Representatives to stand and say: Enough. I may even somewhat like
what we are trying to do with this health care legislation, but
somebody has to stand for principle, and principle means, at a minimum,
voting for legislation that you send to the President for his
signature--not standing behind a rule which deems legislation to have
been passed, even though it was never separately voted on.
[[Page 3454]]
It seems to me, first of all, we should make it crystal clear we will
make this famous to the American people, if in fact they decide to use
this process--something that has never been used for a bill such as
this before. This so-called deeming rule will become part of the
lexicon of American political discourse, and people will come to know
it, just like they did the House banking scandal and certain other
things here in Washington, to represent a time period and a group of
people who were willing to violate all rules of sensibility, of
morality, as well as legality in order to try to accomplish ends that
could not be accomplished in other ways.
Nobody who votes for this rule and then later claims they did not
have anything to do with passing this Senate bill is going to be able
to get away with that. The American people will understand it. Frankly,
whether they are sympathetic to the underlying health care legislation,
they are not going to be sympathetic to Members of the House of
Representatives who decide to do this kind of end run, this sort of
scheme to deem a bill passed that has never been separately voted on in
that body.
I hope the health care legislation we have now debated for a year can
stand or fall on its merits. The American people have made it clear
they do not want this legislation. Twenty-five percent do, but seventy-
three percent have said either stop altogether or stop and start over.
That is what we should be doing. Because of this wave of opposition by
our constituents, our colleagues in the House should not try to get
around that by using a procedure that is totally inappropriate to the
purpose.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 10 minutes.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I make a parliamentary inquiry: Is
there more time remaining on the Republican side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifty-one minutes.
Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President.
What I would like to do, until Senator Grassley arrives--I first ask
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Gov.
Janice K. Brewer of Arizona, dated March 10, 2010, to President Barack
Obama.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Executive Office,
State of Arizona,
Phoenix, AZ, March 10, 2010.
Hon. Barack Obama,
President of the United States, The White House, Washington
DC.
Dear Mr. President: We share common ground in that we have
both been called to lead during some of the most difficult
times our nation has faced. Like you, I hear painful stories
on a regular basis from people who are struggling to survive.
Yet in their time of need, our state government is on the
brink of insolvency.
During this downturn, Arizona has lost the largest
percentage of jobs in the United States. The flagging economy
has resulted in a loss of state revenues in excess of 30%,
placing tremendous pressure on our state budget. Today,
Arizona faces one of the largest deficits of any state.
There is no doubt that this fiscal calamity has been
compounded by the enormous spending increases we are facing
as a result of our Medicaid program, which has seen
population growth of almost 20% in the past 12 months.
It is for that reason I write to you today.
You have repeated on several occasions that the debate on
health care reform has consumed the past year and you most
recently called on Congress to vote the measure ``up or
down''. As the Governor of a state that is bleeding red ink,
I am imploring our Congressional delegation to vote against
your proposal to expand government health care and to help
vote it down.
The reason for my position is simple: we cannot afford it.
And based on our state's own experience with government
health care expansion, we doubt the rest of America can,
either.
Arizona is one of a few states that have pursued health
care policies similar to those that you are proposing for the
nation. In 2000, Arizonans voted to provide health care
coverage up to 100% of the federal poverty limit for all
residents, including childless adults, through the expansion
of the state's Medicaid program.
While the expansion resulted in a modest reduction in the
state's uninsured rate, the voters did not earmark adequate
funding for the expansion and, as a result, our expenditures
have become unsustainable, exploding from $3.0 billion to
$9.5 billion during the past decade. Based on our state's own
experience with underfunded government health care programs,
Arizona can serve as a case in point for what will happen
across our nation if your proposal is enacted.
Even with generous and enhanced federal matches, as well as
recognition as one of the country's best Medicaid models, the
program today demands nearly one in five state dollars. As a
result, we find ourselves even more limited in our ability to
invest in other critical state services, such as education
and public safety, not to mention job creation and other
economic development activities.
Unfortunately, your proposal to further expand government
health care does not fix the problem we face in Arizona. In
fact, it makes our situation much worse, exacerbating our
state's fiscal woes by billions of dollars. Following are
some of Arizona's concerns:
Makes Arizonans pay twice to fund other states'
expansions--Your proposal continues the inequities
established in the Senate bill with regard to early expansion
states. While there is some mention of additional funding for
states that have already expanded coverage, it is clear it
will not fully cover the costs we will experience as a result
of the mandated expansion. Therefore, Arizona taxpayers will
have the misfortune to pay twice: once for our program and
then once more for the higher match for other states.
Makes states responsible for financing national health
care--In addition, your proposal, as well as the Senate bill
it is based on, effectively terminates the partnership that
has existed with the states since the inception of Medicaid.
For 28 years, Arizona and the federal government have been
partners in administering the Medicaid program. States have
been provided with important flexibility to develop and
create programs that work for their citizens. However, under
your proposal, more power is centralized in Washington, DC,
and the states become just another financing mechanism. Not
only will states be forced to pay for this massive new
entitlement program our ability to control the costs of our
existing program will be limited. These policies are simply
not sustainable, and will result in a greater burden on state
budgets and state taxpayers.
Creates a massive new entitlement program our country
cannot afford--Your proposal creates a vast new entitlement
program that our country does not have the resources to
support. Our nation faces trillion dollar deficits far into
our future. Medicare has an unfunded liability of $38
trillion, and physicians are destined to realize a 21 percent
decrease in Medicare reimbursement until Congress finally
accounts for the $371 billion in additional costs associated
with their rates.
Mr. President, I am concerned that Washington does not
recognize the fiscal realities states are facing, and likely
will continue to face, for several years to come. Our country
is living beyond its means and the federal government is
leading the way by its example.
As Governor, it has been a painful process to move the
State towards fiscal sanity. I have even proposed a temporary
revenue increase, something I have never done in my 28 years
of public service, to help mitigate impacts to education,
public safety, and health services for our most extremely
vulnerable citizens. Though Arizona's budget deficit is not
of my creation, I am firm in my determination and
responsibility to resolve it. I believe we have a moral
imperative as leaders to not bankrupt and diminish the
capacity of future generations.
I understand that there are tremendous pressures to show
some progress on health care given the time and effort that
has been spent to date on this important issue. Indeed,
improving access to quality health care is a laudable goal.
However, the approach being taken by your administration has
been proven by states like Arizona to be unsustainable in the
long run.
Mr. President, I humbly request that you heed Arizona's
experience and reconsider your proposed policies that will
further strain already overburdened state budgets.
Thank you for your consideration, and for your tireless
efforts on behalf of our citizens.
Yours in service to our great nation.
Sincerely,
Janice K. Brewer,
Governor.
Mr. KYL. Let me briefly describe the reason for this request.
Arizona is suffering, as are other States, from the economic
downturn. We have an unemployment rate now that has more than doubled.
In fact, it has gone from 3.6 percent in June of 2007 to 9.2 percent
this month. Our State faces a $1.4 billion shortfall in the current
fiscal year and a $3.2 billion shortfall for the next fiscal year,
despite the fact that the Governor and the State legislature have
imposed significant spending reductions.
State revenues are down by 34 percent. Notwithstanding this, over
200,000 Arizonans have enrolled in the State's Medicaid Program, known
as AHCCCS--which is our Arizona health
[[Page 3455]]
Care Cost Containment System--just since the beginning of 2009. That is
nearly 20,000 new enrollees every month. The last thing, given these
kinds of numbers, Washington should be doing is making the States'
economic or fiscal problems even worse. Yet that is exactly what
Governor Brewer says the Senate health care bill would do because it
would require every State to expand its Medicaid Program.
The Federal Government would foot the bill for 3 years. Then the
States would have to help finance the expansion in 2017 and in
subsequent years. She estimates the bill would increase the cost in
Arizona by nearly $4 billion over the next 10 years. Making matters
worse, the early expansion States--States such as Arizona that have
already expanded Medicaid to cover the uninsured, as I noted--will
actually get fewer Federal dollars than the States that have not yet
expanded their Medicaid Programs, in effect punishing those who have
tried to do the right things--the exact things Democrats have wanted in
the health care bill.
As she observed in her letter:
Arizona taxpayers will have the misfortune to pay twice:
once for [Arizona's] program and then once more for the
higher match for other states.
Additionally, States currently retain important flexibility in
administering their Medicaid Programs so they are not caught off-guard
as the economy changes. But as Governor Brewer notes, that flexibility
would be eliminated under the Senate bill. She says:
Under your proposal, more power is centralized in
Washington, DC, and the states just become another financing
mechanism. Not only will states be forced to pay for this
massive new entitlement program, but our ability to control
the costs of our existing program will be limited. These
policies are simply not sustainable, and will result in a
greater burden on state budgets and state taxpayers.
Mr. President, since I put the letter in the Record, I will not
reflect further on it but note the fact that this is yet one more
reason for Members to oppose the Senate-passed bill in the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
____________________
HIRE ACT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, one of the provisions the Democratic
leadership decided to put in this HIRE bill is the expansion of Build
America Bonds. Build America Bonds is a very rich spending program;
however, it is disguised as a tax cut. One Democratic Senator was asked
why the Build America Bonds program is viewed differently than
appropriations, and she replied: It has a good name.
Ironically, the Finance Committee is returning to its roots of doing
appropriations bills. When our committee was established in 1816, the
Finance Committee handled the major appropriations bills that came
before Congress.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a portion of the document
outlining the history of the Finance Committee be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
This vote of no confidence proved a turning point in
jurisdiction over tariff bills. . . . Beginning in 1834, all
tariff bills were referred initially to the Finance
Committee. The important Tariff Act of 1842 was handle by the
Finance Committee, as were a number of minor bills in the
decade following the Compromise Tariff of 1833.
In 1846, a bill to reduce tariffs was passed by the House
and sent to the Senate on July 6. The Senate leaders wished
to take the bill up on the Senate floor immediately; a motion
to refer it first to the Finance Committee was narrowly
defeated 24 to 22. After 6 weeks of floor debate, it was
referred to the Finance Committee on July 27 by a 28 to 27
vote, with detailed specific instructions on what to report.
The following day the committee asked to be discharged from
further consideration of the bill. A motion to refer the bill
to a special committee, with similar detailed instructions,
was defeated 27 to 27 (with the Vice President opposing the
motion), the bill was then passed with the Vice President
voting for the bill, thereby breaking a tie vote of 27 to 27.
For the next decade, there was no serious challenge to the
Finance Committee's jurisdiction over tariff measures. The
tariff-reducing Tariff Act of 1857 was handled by the Finance
Committee; an attempt to prevent referral of the 1861 Tariff
Act to the Finance Committee was defeated, 29 to 27 (though
subsequent to Finance Committee action, a select committee
was appointed to consider the bill further).
Appropriation bills.--Though the Finance Committee was to
become the major committee handling appropriations before the
Civil War, this role was not established immediately upon the
creation of the committee in 1816.
In the earliest years of the committee's existence, there
were only three major appropriation bills to be considered
each year: for the Army, for the Navy, and for the civil
functions of Government. In the first session of the 14th
Congress, while the Finance Committee was still a select
committee, the Army appropriation bill was handled by the
Select Committee on Military Affairs; the Navy appropriation
bill was handled by the Select Committee on Naval Affairs;
and the general Government appropriation bill was referred to
a specially created select committee none of whose members
served on the select Committee on Finance and an Uniform
National Currency).
The next year, when the standing Committee on Finance was
established it took over the responsibility for the Army and
general Government appropriation bills. The Navy
appropriation bill continued to be handled by the Committee
on Naval Affairs until 1827 (with the exception of the 2
years 1821 and 1822), when the Finance Committee was assigned
the bill.
One of the appropriation actions in the early years of the
Senate Finance Committee related to the Louisiana purchase,
which had been made in 1803. Of the $15 million cost of the
purchase, $3.75 million was retained by the United States to
pay claims of U.S. citizens for damages incurred (mostly at
sea at the hands of the French). The remaining $11.25 million
was provided in 6-percent bonds payable in four annual
installments, from 1818 to 1821. Since Napoleon wanted cash
rather than bonds, he sold them to two international bankers
for about $10.2 million. The bankers held the bonds until
maturity: when they were paid, the Senate Finance Committee
had jurisdiction over the appropriation bills. The total cost
of the Louisiana purchase to the United States, including
interest and American damage claims, was $23.5 million less
than 3 cents an acre for the entire territory.
New appropriation bills were not always referred to the
Finance Committee. An annual bill appropriating funds for
Revolutionary War pensions was first referred to the
Committee on Pensions: not until 1830 was Finance Committee
jurisdiction over appropriations for this purpose firmly
established. Appropriations related to Indian treaties were
first handled by the Committee on Indian Affairs; transfer of
jurisdiction to the Finance Committee took several years, and
it was not until 1834 that all Indian appropriation bills
began to be referred to the Finance Committee.
From this time on, jurisdiction over appropriation bills
remained virtually unchanged until the Civil War. The Finance
Committee was given basic responsibility for appropriations,
with the sole exception of public works appropriation bills
(which were referred either to the Committee on Commerce or
the Committee on Territories, depending on the location of
the projects).
Mr. GRASSLEY. Bloomberg News reported that large Wall Street
investment banks were charging 37 percent higher underwriting fees on
Build America Bond deals than on other tax-exempt bond deals.
Therefore, American taxpayers appear to be funding huge underwriting
fees for large Wall Street investment banks as part of the Build
America Bonds.
The Wall Street Journal article, dated March 10, 2010, stated, Wall
Street investment banks have made over $1 billion in underwriting fees
on Build America Bonds in less than 1 year.
The Wall Street Journal article, based on data from Thomson Reuters,
stated underwriting fees on Build America Bond deals are higher than
those for tax-exempt bond deals. That sounds like a great deal for the
high rollers on Wall Street. But how about the taxpayers back on Main
Street America who have to pick up this tab?
The Democratic leadership has said the Build America Bonds program is
about creating jobs. But I wish to know whether it is about lining the
pockets of Wall Street executives.
Recently, I asked the CEO of a large Wall Street investment bank a
number of questions about these larger underwriting fees that are
subsidized by the American taxpayers. He confirmed that the
underwriting fees for Build America Bond deals are larger than those of
tax-exempt bond deals.
The Senate and House have recently passed different versions of the
bill we are currently debating which includes
[[Page 3456]]
a provision that expands the Build America Bonds program created in the
stimulus bill. One would assume it was just a temporary provision and
extend that to four types of tax credit bonds. I will give those four
types. Before I do, I remind my colleagues that this is another example
that the word ``temporary'' does not apply to very many things in
Washington, DC, because it does not take long for a temporary program
to become a permanent program.
I talked about four types of tax credit bonds. They are the qualified
school construction bonds, qualified zone academy bonds, clean
renewable energy bonds, and qualified energy conservation bonds.
The Build America Bonds program contains an option for the issuer of
bonds which is a nontaxpaying entity to receive a check from the
Treasury Department based on a percentage of the interest cost incurred
by the issuer. Some refer to this option as the direct pay option.
The percentage of the interest costs on the four tax credit bonds
subsidized by the American taxpayers under the direct pay option in the
Senate bill is a whopping 45 percent and is increased to 65 percent for
small issuers. ``Small issuers'' are defined as those issuing less than
$30 million in bonds per year.
The House version increased the direct payment subsidy to 100 percent
for qualified school construction bonds and qualified zone academy
bonds, and increased the subsidy to 70 percent for clean renewable
energy bonds and the qualified energy conservation bonds.
Let me put this in context.
The Build America Bonds program created in the stimulus bill contains
a 35-percent direct pay subsidy, and the President has proposed in his
fiscal year 2011 budget that it be lowered to 28 percent.
It was reported in the March 11, 2010, Bond Buyer article that a
senior House staffer asserted that no issuers would opt to issue direct
pay bonds under the lower Senate rates of 45 and 65 percent.
When I read that assertion, I asked the Finance Committee Republican
staff to reconcile that assertion with the scoring of the Build America
Bonds proposal in the Senate-passed bill.
The Republican staff of the Finance Committee reviewed the Joint
Committee on Taxation's final estimate of the Senate-passed bill and
found that the senior House staffer's assertion was directly
contradicted by the estimate provided by the Joint Committee on
Taxation, which everybody knows is the nonpartisan official scorekeeper
for Congress on any tax matters. In fact, footnote 2 of the estimate of
the Senate Build America Bonds provision states that the Joint Tax
Committee's estimate of the Senate direct pay bonds option includes an
increase in outlays of--let's say $8 billion. This means the Joint
Committee on Taxation estimates assumed that a large number of issuers
would elect to use the direct pay option, contrary to that House
staffer's assertion.
The Bond Buyer--that is a publication--the Bond Buyer also reported
that the senior House staffer stated:
There is nobody that I know who does not view the Build
America Bonds program as an enormous success, with the
possible exception of one person.
I assume that staffer was referring to me. There are many Federal
taxpayers who do not view the Build America Bonds program as an
enormous success. To understand why, let's see which States benefit the
most from the Build America Bonds.
In looking at data from Thomson Reuters on the 10 largest Build
America Bonds deals, California alone issues 73 percent of those bonds.
Between California and New York, those two States alone issue 92
percent of the bonds from the 10 largest Build America Bonds deals.
California and New York are the biggest winners under the Build America
Bonds, while American taxpayers from the remaining 48 States subsidize
these States.
As Senator Kyl pointed out in his ``Dear Colleague'' letter on Build
America Bonds circulated on March 15, the Build America Bonds program
actually rewards States for having a riskier credit rating by giving
them more money. Build America Bonds creates a perverse incentive that
causes State and local governments to borrow more than they otherwise
would borrow. This is especially true regarding the school tax credit
bonds.
This bill creates incentives where States and local governments
should not even care what the interest rate is. The American taxpayers
are picking up 100 percent of the interest cost. Actually, the cost
borne by the American taxpayers is, in fact, more than 100 percent. At
least with tax credit bonds, the taxpayers include the amount of the
tax credit in income and the Federal Government collects taxes on that
income. The only purchasers of tax credit bonds are those who have tax
liabilities; otherwise, it makes no sense to buy tax credit bonds.
However, Build America bonds are technically taxable bonds. But most of
the investors do not pay tax on these bonds.
For example, under our tax rules, if a foreign person or a pension
fund or a tax-exempt entity buys a Build America Bond, they do not pay
tax on the interest they receive. Thus, the Federal Government not only
cuts a check for 100 percent of the bond's interest cost, but it also
loses most of the revenue it would have collected from the tax credit
bonds.
State and local governments can view this Federal money as what it
really is--free money--because they do not have to collect it from
their residents. Therefore, of course, State and local governments turn
out to be very big fans of the Build America Bonds program. They get
Federal money that they do not have to pay back. The large Wall Street
investment banks love Build America Bonds. Why? Because they are
getting richer off those bonds.
However, we all know there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Washington is an island surrounded by reality. Consequently, everybody
in this town thinks there are free lunches, and the common sense of the
rest of the country has difficulty getting inside this island. It is
our responsibility to point out that in this city, this District--the
only real industry is government--you cannot have everybody in the
wagon. In this town, everybody is in the wagon. Everybody outside the
District is pulling the wagon. That cannot go on very long.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Federal taxpayers are footing
the bill for this big spending program, which only gets bigger every
time Congress touches it. This legislation before us is just an
example. As this program that started out as a little program in the
stimulus bill--and presumably the word ``stimulus'' means temporary,
doesn't it? But this is not turning out to be temporary and it is not
turning out to be small because it has just been enhanced greatly in
the other body. The American taxpayers are the ones we ought to be
looking out for, and a temporary program ought to be temporary and a
stimulus program ought to be stimulus and nothing else. And here we are
expanding it.
The American taxpayers are the ones who, in the words of the senior
House staffer, do ``not view the Build America Bonds program as an
enormous success.''
I urge my colleagues to look beyond the fancy, well-funded lobbying
campaign for this rich subsidy. Take a look at who wins. The winners
are big Wall Street banks. Maybe a small number of governments will
issue bonds they otherwise would not. Main Street is not helped very
much by this program. The only certainty is that the Federal taxpayers
are on the hook for the interest costs.
With record budget deficits under this Congress and administration,
we cannot casually look away as new, open-ended subsidies are proposed.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
____________________
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last Wednesday, the Department of
Energy submitted a motion to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
withdraw its license application to construct a spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste repository at
[[Page 3457]]
Yucca Mountain. What was the latest rationale for this? Simply because
we need it too much.
That might seem like creative interpretation on my part, but just
last week, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu noted that due to the revival
of the nuclear industry, Yucca Mountain's repository would hit its
statutory capacity limit in the next several decades and would not meet
future industry needs. Instead of moving forward with a permanent
repository that billions of dollars have already been spent on and
simply expanding the arbitrary limit the law puts on the size of the
repository, spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear reactors will be
stored onsite at over 100 locations across the country for at least the
next several decades.
If we do have the nuclear revival that many of us believe is needed
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet our energy needs, the
number of onsite storage locations across the country will only
increase.
Not only is the Department of Energy seeking to withdraw its license
application--and I am not absolutely convinced they have the authority
to do so--they are seeking to withdraw it ``with prejudice,'' making it
very difficult, if not impossible, to resurrect Yucca Mountain as a
possible option for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste, regardless of what future scientific and engineering advances
may offer and regardless of what the administration's blue ribbon panel
that is directed to consider all of the options may conclude.
In fact, the Department of Energy argues in its motion that
``scientific and engineering knowledge on issues relevant to
disposition of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel has advanced
dramatically over the 20 years since the Yucca Mountain project was
initiated.''
Apparently, the Department is also arguing that scientific and
engineering knowledge on the same issues will not advance any further
over the next several decades to address issues with the Yucca Mountain
site.
Setting the legal issues aside surrounding the Department's motion to
withdraw, I wish to focus for a moment on what stopping work on the
Yucca Mountain site will actually cost the American taxpayers.
Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Federal Government
has a contractual obligation to collect spent nuclear fuel from
individual nuclear powerplants starting in 1998. The government has
clearly missed on that deadline.
According to the Department of Justice, the Federal Government has so
far paid $565 million in settlement costs for breaching this contract
with the utilities. I say ``so far'' because the ultimate cost to the
American taxpayer we know is going to be much higher.
Utility companies have filed 71 cases in Federal court alleging the
Department of Energy's delay in taking title to spent nuclear fuel is a
breach of contract. Of those 71 lawsuits, 10 have now been settled, 6
were withdrawn, and 4 were fully litigated, resulting in the $565
million in payments. Of the 51 cases that are outstanding, then, the
judgment has been entered in 13 of those cases, putting government
liability, so far--so far--for commercial spent nuclear fuel stored
onsite between 1998 and 2007 at a cost of $1.3 billion. And there
remain another 38 cases for judgment to be entered on, so the amount of
the liability for that timeframe is likely to increase significantly in
the future. Keep in mind, this number does not take in account the
level of liability for the increasing amount of spent nuclear fuel
stored onsite from 2008 until the date when a permanent repository is
opened, whenever that might be, nor do the costs include the $24
million in attorney costs, $91 million in expert funds, $39 million in
litigation support costs, or the thousands of hours the DOE and the NRC
employees have already expended on this effort.
The Department of Energy estimates that the potential liability of
the Federal Government to utilities will be $12.3 billion--if the
government starts taking title to the spent fuel by 2020, just 10 years
from now. According to the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office,
utility industry reports estimate that the claims will total $50
billion. And both of these estimates were developed before the
administration took steps to withdraw the Yucca application. So we have
liability estimates of between $12 billion and $50 billion in taxpayer
money--if a repository is opened and accepting spent fuels in the next
10 years. Keep in mind, it took us almost 30 years to get this far on
Yucca Mountain. With the current administration shutting down all work
on Yucca and beginning the search for a solution anew, it seems
increasingly likely that the costs will greatly exceed the $50 billion
estimate.
At a time when we are already racking up trillions of dollars in debt
for future generations, the administration has freely chosen--freely
chosen--to incur additional future taxpayer liability in terms of tens
of billions of dollars by withdrawing the Yucca Mountain repository
license application because, in the words of Secretary Chu, ``the
statutory limit of Yucca Mountain would have been used up in the next
several decades.''
So all Americans are on the hook for tens of billions of dollars
because the Federal Government is in breach of its contract to take
title to spent nuclear fuel. But it gets even better for those
Americans whose utility gets some of its electricity from nuclear power
plants: You get to pay twice. In return for the Federal Government
taking title to commercial spent nuclear fuel, the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act established a nuclear waste fund to provide for the construction of
a spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste repository.
Utilities that operate under nuclear power reactors are charged a fee
by the Secretary of Energy, and that fee is then deposited into the
waste fund. The cost of that fee is passed on from the utility to the
consumer. The utilities, and then hence their customers, contribute
between $750 million and $800 million into the waste fund each year.
As of September 30, 2009, payments and interest credited to the fund
totaled just over $30 billion. That is a substantial amount of money.
However, there are restrictions on what those funds can be used for.
Funds from the nuclear waste fund may only be expended for the
construction of a facility expressly authorized by the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act or subsequent legislation. The only facility that meets this
description is Yucca Mountain. Yet the Obama administration has shut
down work on Yucca and filed a motion to withdraw its license
application. So the natural question is, What happens to the money in
the nuclear waste fund since it can't be spent on anything other than
the construction of the Yucca Mountain repository? Well, the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act directs the Secretary of Energy to adjust the fee paid
by the utilities if the amount collected is insufficient or in excess
of the amount needed to meet the cost of construction of the
repository. It is hard to see how the $24 billion balance in the fund
is not sufficient to pay for work on a facility where no more work will
ever occur.
Utilities have been suggesting that the fee be dispensed with, but
Secretary Chu said that the collection will continue. So some
ratepayers will continue to pay a higher electricity bill to contribute
to a fund that no longer serves a purpose, at least until the courts
should rule otherwise. If--or perhaps when--the courts order the
reduction of the fee and the refund of the balances already paid into
the fund, you can add the loss of over $750 million in income to the
Federal Government per year, as well as the refund of the $30 billion
already collected, to the taxpayers' debt.
Mr. President, I have focused on the impact stopping work at Yucca
Mountain will have on the commercial operations and the individual
taxpayer, but the license application withdrawal will also impact those
13 States that host Federal sites that hold high-level radioactive
waste from the production of nuclear weapons dating back to the
Manhattan Project. These are, most notably, Hanford, WA; Savannah
River,
[[Page 3458]]
SC; and the National Engineering and Environmental Lab in Idaho. Just
as utilities have sued the Federal Government for breach of contract,
the decision to terminate Yucca should open the door to a lawsuit from
a State such as Idaho, which has a court-approved agreement with the
Department of Energy to remove nuclear waste from the State by the year
2035.
I am also concerned that in the administration's haste to suspend the
work on Yucca Mountain, valuable scientific data will be lost--for
example, as the Sustainable Fuel Cycle Task Force noted, long-term
corrosion samples containing decades of information that is
irreplaceable.
To quote the task force, they say:
Scientific information developed at considerable cost in
the Yucca Mountain program should be preserved to assist in
future repository development, wherever that may be.
I call upon the administration to preserve the data it has collected
so far. I support moving forward with the Yucca Mountain license
application, but if the motion to withdraw the application is
successful, the knowledge and data received so far in the process will
be valuable for future repository siting needs.
Mr. President, taxpayers are on the hook for tens of billions of
dollars. Some are paying twice for a repository that is being taken off
the table. States are left with Federal holding sites that contain
high-level radioactive waste. Valuable scientific data is at risk of
being lost forever. And all the administration can offer in return is a
2-year delay while a panel studies the issue and offers a report.
It is encouraging to hear the administration voice its support for
the development of additional nuclear power and back those words with a
request for greater loan guarantee funding. That is good. But in order
to have support for new nuclear at a national level, there must be
support among the communities which host existing nuclear powerplants.
I am increasingly concerned that until we can resolve what to do with
the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, local support for nuclear will
erode as questions about how long the spent fuel will be stored onsite
persist.
With the withdrawal of the Yucca Mountain license application, we are
essentially back to square one, and the American taxpayer will continue
to pay the cost--without receiving any answers.
Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, am I correct that, procedurally, I am
speaking in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
____________________
HEALTH CARE
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on this health
care reform bill that is purportedly going through the House right now.
I just have to speak on it because it is so obvious that the American
people do not want this bill, and yet now the Democrats seem to be
pushing it through the House with these elaborate procedures. So I want
to talk about it, as I know many others on this floor are doing and
have done, because really the only way we can bring to the attention of
the American people what is going on here is to talk about it--both
process as well as substance.
The health care bill that passed this Senate last December, on
Christmas Eve, was passed really under a cloud, and the American people
immediately saw that big cloud on the horizon, for sure. The bill has
been bandied around so much that the American people have finally come
to the conclusion that what was passed was not in the best interest of
America. So we are still debating this legislation, and the reason is
the American people don't want this bill. Why do they not want it? They
know it will do great harm to our economy--one-sixth of the whole
economy of our country--and it is not going to significantly change the
course of our Nation's spending on health care, nor is it going to add
to its quality. The Senate bill is a failure in terms of resolving the
concerns Americans have with our current health care system.
Most of us in this Chamber agree that the health care system today is
not what it needs to be and that it is not sustainable. And we can
probably agree on the causes--No. 1, health care costs are going up,
and No. 2, a lot of people can't afford and don't have access to health
care insurance. So limited access to affordable options and rising
costs. But this bill makes it worse, not better.
The bill is so bad that the President and the leadership in Congress
are going to use the unique budget procedure known as reconciliation to
force additional health care measures through Congress. In fact, they
are even talking about not actually passing the bill that passed the
Senate--without any minority votes--in December, and they are talking
about ``passing it'' by deeming it in the House, which means Members of
the House won't actually vote on it, because it is so bad. Well, how
much sense does that make?
The media is continuing to speculate about whether the Speaker of the
House can secure the votes needed to pass the Senate bill as well as a
new unseen, unknown additional bill that would change the bill that
passed the Senate and take out some of its flaws. We haven't seen this
new bill, either, and we are talking about getting it over on the
Senate side next week.
Amid this media storm of speculation on whether a bill can be passed
using reconciliation, we need to talk about why this bill represents
the wrong approach to health care reform.
No. 1 is the cost of the bill. The bill costs more than $2 trillion.
Some may try to say it is actually less than that, but the truth is,
there are 10 years of tax increases and 10 years of Medicare cuts to
pay for 6 years of spending. Yes, that is right. The taxes start
immediately, the Medicare cuts start immediately, and 4 years from now
there will be presumed options for people to be able to have affordable
health care. The true 10-year cost of this bill is $2 trillion.
More taxes. The bill imposes 10 years of taxes--$\1/2\ trillion of
tax increases--most of which will start immediately or very shortly.
More than $100 billion in taxes on prescription drug companies, medical
device manufacturers, and insurance companies is going to be levied.
What do those taxes mean? Well, clearly, every study shows and every
economist says those taxes will be passed on to individuals. They will
be passed on to individuals in the form of higher cost for prescription
drugs and higher cost of insurance premiums and medical devices. That
all starts before we ever see any kind of affordable health care
options.
I offered an amendment in the December debate that would say no taxes
start until services are provided. I thought that was a pretty clear
tax policy, one that maybe the American people would at least say: OK,
at least it is fair; the taxes don't start until the services start.
Of course, my amendment was rejected. Now we have the bill that was
passed which is 10 years of taxes for 6 years of services. There are
taxes on those who cannot afford insurance, the higher of $750 per
individual or 2 percent of household income. That is the tax on people
who do not purchase insurance. Employers are also hit with new taxes.
The penalty could be as high as $3,000 per employee under the Senate
bill.
What will this do to small businesses, which create 70 percent of the
new jobs in our country? In a letter sent to the majority leader, the
Small Business Coalition for Affordable Health Care stated ``with the
new taxes, mandates, growth in government programs and overall price
tag, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,'' the health care
reform bill, ``costs too much and delivers too little.''
That is pretty succinct, the Small Business Coalition speaking out
and saying this bill costs too much and delivers too little. Small
businesses are reeling. We are in a time when families are struggling
to pay their mortgages, struggling to find a job, struggling to pay
bills, and businesses are having a hard time, too, and they are not
hiring.
[[Page 3459]]
What are we doing? Providing more burdens on small businesses and
expecting them to hire more people. This is so counterintuitive that
the American people certainly see what is happening.
Those are all the taxes. The other side is the cuts to Medicare. The
Senate bill includes $\1/2\ trillion in cuts to Medicare over 10 years,
including $135 billion in cuts to hospitals. The Medicare Program is
unsustainable. The Chief Actuary of Medicare has said as much as 20
percent of Medicare's providers will either go out of business or will
have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries. Millions of seniors,
including those who have chosen Medicare Advantage, will lose the
coverage they now enjoy. Medicare is being used as a piggy bank, and it
needs every penny that has been deposited. We cannot reform all of the
health care system on the backs of our seniors. Cuts to hospitals will
threaten access for seniors.
We have been asking the leadership of Congress to scrap this bill and
work with Republicans to achieve the reform that Americans want, reform
that will reduce costs, increase competition, and improve access. This
bill achieves none of that. I cannot understand why the President chose
to base his proposal for reform on the Senate bill that was passed by
the Senate, but the American people have consistently opposed it. Every
poll shows the American people do not want the Senate bill. They saw it
for what it was, a failure.
I hope the Members of Congress who are being cajoled into voting for
this bill will listen to the American people. They do not want the
government to take over their health care. They want affordable access,
and that means we have to bring the costs down and give more options.
Let's talk about the right kind of reform, what Republicans are
putting on the table: more choices. How about allowing small businesses
to pull together so their risk pool is increased and costs are lowered;
and create an online marketplace where the public can easily compare
and select insurance plans. But it would be a marketplace that is free
from mandates and government interference. The one that is in the
Senate bill had so many mandates and so many requirements that the
costs are going to be out of sight.
So what happens? In comes the government plan to supplant the new
higher cost options because of all the taxes that have been put on the
companies that are trying to provide health care.
No. 2, how can we reduce costs and lower expenses? For one thing, we
could reform our litigious system of tort law that punishes doctors and
hospitals. It drives physicians away from the practice of medicine.
Tort reform alone could save at least $54 billion. That is the low end
of the projections of what tort reform could save.
No. 3, we could lower the cost to taxpayers by giving tax incentives
to encourage the purchase of health insurance. We do not have to have a
government takeover, and we don't have to have new taxes. Let's give
incentives, tax breaks for individuals and families who will buy health
insurance. We will help them have affordable access. Senator DeMint and
I have a bill that would offer a voucher to families: $5,000 for a
family to purchase their own health insurance, to go on the exchange,
to determine what they can afford, to determine what their needs are,
and it is not tied to their employer so it is portable, so it is theirs
and they own it. No preexisting conditions would ever keep them from
having that policy again, and they could take it to whatever employer
they decided to work for. They would not be tied to employment for
health care coverage.
These are options the Republicans have given to the majority to ask
them to consider in a bill that would reform health care in the right
way.
I urge my colleagues to listen to their constituents. Their
constituents are speaking in volumes at a time when we are seeing
political games being played on the House side to strong-arm people to
vote for a bill that their constituents do not want, and then they are
going to send it over to the Senate with a new bill that is going to,
supposedly, correct the problems in the Senate bill--except that we
will still have the taxes, we will still have the increased costs, we
will still have the cuts to Medicare. All of that will remain. It is a
flawed bill.
Please, Members of Congress, listen to your constituents and let's
start again and do this right. That is what the American people are
asking for. It is the least that we owe them: not to pass a bill that
is going to destroy one-sixth of the American economy and take away the
choices that Medicare patients have, cut the services of Medicare, and
tax every employer and every family whether they have not enough health
insurance, no health insurance, or too much health insurance. They are
going to be taxed no matter which way they go. That is not health
reform. That is a government takeover of a system that needs
improvement, but not killing.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.
____________________
RECESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in
recess until 2:15.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:39 p.m., recessed until 2:15 and
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Begich).
____________________
TAX ON BONUSES RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN TARP RECIPIENTS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 1586, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 1586) to impose an additional tax on bonuses
received from certain TARP recipients.
Pending:
Rockefeller amendment No. 3452, in the nature of a
substitute.
Sessions/McCaskill modified amendment No. 3453 (to
amendment No. 3452), to reduce the deficit by establishing
discretionary spending caps.
Lieberman amendment No. 3456 (to amendment No. 3452), to
reauthorize the DC opportunity scholarship program.
Vitter amendment No. 3458 (to amendment No. 3452), to
clarify application requirements relating to the coastal
impact assistance program.
DeMint amendment No. 3454 (to amendment No. 3452), to
establish an earmark moratorium for fiscal years 2010 and
2011.
Feingold amendment No. 3470 (to amendment No. 3452), to
provide for the rescission of unused transportation earmarks
and to establish a general reporting requirement for any
unused earmarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
AmendmentS Nos. 3472, 3475, 3527, and 3528 to Amendment No. 3452
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and that I be allowed to call up four amendments that
are at the desk. They are amendment No. 3472, Amendment No. 3475, an
amendment that has been at the desk on FAA reauthorization and--they
are all at the desk--and the fourth concerns the Federal Aviation
Administration finance proposal for development and implementation of
technology for the Next Generation Air Transportation System.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes amendments
en bloc numbered 3472, 3475, 3527, and 3528 to amendment No.
3452.
Mr. McCAIN. Is amendment No. 3528 on the Grand Canyon National Park?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 3472
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of passenger facility charges for the
construction of bicycle storage facilities)
On page 29, after line 21, insert the following:
Sec. 207(b) Prohibition on Use of Passenger Facility
Charges To Construct Bicycle Storage Facilities.--Section
40117(a)(3) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (G) as
clauses (i) through (vii);
[[Page 3460]]
(2) by striking ``The term'' and inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--The term''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Bicycle storage facilities.--A project to construct a
bicycle storage facility may not be considered an eligible
airport-related project.''.
amendment no. 3475
(Purpose: To prohibit earmarks in years in which there is a deficit)
At the end, insert the following:
SEC. ___. EARMARKS PROHIBITED IN YEARS IN WHICH THERE IS A
DEFICIT.
(a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate or
the House of Representatives to consider a bill, joint
resolution, or conference report containing a congressional
earmark or an earmark attributable to the President for any
fiscal year in which there is or will be a deficit as
determined by CBO.
(b) Congressional Earmark.--In this section, the term
``congressional earmark'' means the following:
(1) A congressionally directed spending item, as defined in
Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
(2) A congressional earmark for purposes of Rule XXI of the
House of Representatives.
(c) Waiver and Appeal.--
(1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be
limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or
joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote of
three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and
sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling
of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.
amendment no. 3527
(Purpose: To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration to develop a financing proposal for fully funding the
development and implementation of technology for the Next Generation
Air Transportation System)
On page 84, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
SEC. 319. REPORT ON FUNDING FOR NEXTGEN TECHNOLOGY.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall submit to Congress a report that
contains--
(1) a financing proposal that--
(A) uses innovative methods to fully fund the development
and implementation of technology for the Next Generation Air
Transportation System in a manner that does not increase the
Federal deficit; and
(B) takes into consideration opportunities for involvement
by public-private partnerships; and
(2) recommendations with respect to how the Administrator
and Congress can provide operational benefits, such as
benefits relating to preferred airspace, routings, or runway
access, for air carriers that equip their aircraft with
technology necessary for the operation of the Next Generation
Air Transportation System before the date by which the
Administrator requires the use of such technology.
amendment no. 3528
(Purpose: To provide standards for determining whether the substantial
restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the Grand Canyon
National Park has been achieved and to clarify regulatory authority
with respect to commercial air tours operating over the Park)
At the end of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 723. OVERFLIGHTS IN GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK.
(a) Determinations With Respect to Substantial Restoration
of Natural Quiet and Experience.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, for purposes of section 3(b)(1) of Public Law 100-91 (16
U.S.C. 1a-1 note), the substantial restoration of the natural
quiet and experience of the Grand Canyon National Park (in
this subsection referred to as the ``Park'') shall be
considered to be achieved in the Park if, for at least 75
percent of each day, 50 percent of the Park is free of sound
produced by commercial air tour operations that have an
allocation to conduct commercial air tours in the Park as of
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Considerations.--
(A) In general.--For purposes of determining whether
substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience
of the Park has been achieved in accordance with paragraph
(1), the Secretary of the Interior (in this section referred
to as the ``Secretary'') shall use--
(i) the 2-zone system for the Park in effect on the date of
the enactment of this Act to assess impacts relating to
subsectional restoration of natural quiet at the Park,
including--
(I) the thresholds for noticeability and audibility; and
(II) the distribution of land between the 2 zones; and
(ii) noise modeling science that is--
(I) developed for use at the Park, specifically Integrated
Noise Model Version 6.2;
(II) validated by reasonable standards for conducting field
observations of model results; and
(III) accepted and validated by the Federal Interagency
Committee on Aviation Noise.
(B) Sound from other sources.--The Secretary shall not
consider sound produced by sources other than commercial air
tour operations, including sound emitted by other types of
aircraft operations or other noise sources, for purposes of--
(i) making recommendations, developing a final plan, or
issuing regulations relating to commercial air tour
operations in the Park; or
(ii) determining under paragraph (1) whether substantial
restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the Park
has been achieved.
(3) Continued monitoring.--The Secretary shall continue
monitoring noise from aircraft operating over the Park below
17,999 feet MSL to ensure continued compliance with the
substantial restoration of natural quiet and experience in
the Park.
(4) Day defined.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
``day'' means the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
(b) Regulation of Commercial Air Tour Operations.--
Commercial air tour operations over the Grand Canyon National
Park Special Flight Rules Area shall continue to be conducted
in accordance with subpart U of part 93 of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (as in effect on the day before the date
of the enactment of this Act), except as follows:
(1) Curfews for commercial flights.--The hours for the
curfew under section 93.317 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, shall be revised as follows:
(A) Entry into effect of curfew.--The curfew shall go into
effect--
(i) at 6:00 p.m. on April 16 through August 31;
(ii) at 5:30 p.m. on September 1 through September 15;
(iii) at 5:00 p.m. on September 16 through September 30;
(iv) at 4:30 p.m. on October 1 through October 31; and
(v) at 4:00 p.m. on November 1 through April 15.
(B) Termination of curfew.--The curfew shall terminate--
(i) at 8:00 a.m. on March 16 through October 15; and
(ii) at 9:00 a.m. on October 16 through March 15.
(2) Modifications of air tour routes.--
(A) Dragon corridor.--Commercial air tour routes for the
Dragon Corridor (Black 1A and Green 2 routes) shall be
modified to include a western ``dogleg'' for the lower \1/3\
of the Corridor to reduce air tour noise for west rim
visitors in the vicinity of Hermits Rest and Dripping
Springs.
(B) Zuni point corridor.--Commercial air tour routes for
the Zuni Point Corridor (Black 1 and Green 1 routes) shall be
modified--
(i) to eliminate crossing over Nankoweap Basin; and
(ii) to limit the commercial air tour routes commonly known
as ``Snoopy's Nose'' to extend not farther east than the
Grand Canyon National Park boundary.
(C) Permanence of black 2 and green 4 air tour routes.--The
locations of the Black 2 and Green 4 commercial air tour
routes shall not be modified unless the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration determines that such a
modification is necessary for safety reasons.
(3) Special rules for marble canyon sector.--
(A) Flight allocation.--The flight allocation cap for
commercial air tour operations in Marble Canyon (Black 4
route) shall be modified to not more than 5 flights a day to
preserve permanently the high level of natural quiet that has
been achieved in Marble Canyon.
(B) Curfew.--Commercial air tour operations in Marble
Canyon (Black 4 route) shall be subject to a year-round
curfew that enters into effect one hour before sunset and
terminates one hour after sunrise.
(C) Elimination of commercial air tour route.--The Black 5
commercial air tour route for Marble Canyon shall be
eliminated.
(4) Conversion to quiet aircraft technology.--
(A) In general.--All commercial air tour aircraft operating
in the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area
shall be required to fully convert to quiet aircraft
technology (as determined in accordance with appendix A to
subpart U of part 93 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of
this Act)) by not later than the date that is 15 years after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(B) Incentives for conversion.--The Secretary and the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
provide incentives for commercial air tour operators that
convert to quiet aircraft technology before the date
specified in subparagraph (A), such as--
[[Page 3461]]
(i) reducing overflight fees for those operators; and
(ii) increasing the flight allocations for those operators.
(5) Hualapai economic development exemption.--The exception
for commercial air tour operators operating under contracts
with the Hualapai Indian Nation under section 93.319(f) of
title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the
day before the date of the enactment of this Act) may not be
terminated, unless the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration determines that terminating the exception is
necessary for safety reasons.
(c) Flight Allocation Cap.--
(1) Prohibition on reduction of flight allocation cap.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the allocation
cap for commercial air tours operating in the Grand Canyon
National Park Special Flight Rules Area in effect on the day
before the date of the enactment of this Act may not be
reduced.
(2) Rulemaking to increase flight allocation cap.--Not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
shall issue a notice of proposed rulemaking that--
(A) reassesses the allocations for commercial air tours
operating in the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight
Rules Area in light of gains with respect to the restoration
of natural quiet and experience in the Park;
(B) makes equitable adjustments to those allocations,
subject to continued monitoring under subsection (a)(3); and
(C) facilitates the use of new quieter aircraft technology
by allowing commercial air tour operators using such
technology to petition the Federal Aviation Administration to
adjust allocations in accordance with improvements with
respect to the restoration of natural quiet and experience in
the Park resulting from such technology.
(3) Interim flight allocations.--
(A) In general.--Until the Administrator issues a final
rule pursuant to paragraph (2), for purposes of the
allocation cap for commercial air tours operating in the
Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area--
(i) from November 1 through March 15, a flight operated by
a commercial air tour operator described in subparagraph (B)
shall count as \1/2\ of 1 allocation; and
(ii) from March 16 through October 31, a flight operated by
a commercial air tour operator described in subparagraph (B)
shall count as \3/4\ of 1 allocation.
(B) Commercial air tour operator described.--A commercial
air tour operator described in this subparagraph is a
commercial air tour operator that--
(i) operated in the Grand Canyon National Park Special
Flight Rules Area before the date of the enactment of this
Act; and
(ii) operates aircraft that use quiet aircraft technology
(as determined in accordance with appendix A to subpart U of
part 93 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (as in
effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this
Act)).
(d) Commercial Air Tour User Fees.--Notwithstanding section
4(n)(2)(A) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of
1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(n)(1)(2)(A)), the Secretary--
(1) may establish a commercial tour use fee in excess of
$25 for each commercial air tour aircraft with a passenger
capacity of 25 or less for air tours operating in the Grand
Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area in order to
offset the costs of carrying out this section; and
(2) if the Secretary establishes a commercial tour use fee
under paragraph (1), shall develop a method for providing a
significant discount in the amount of that fee for air tours
that operate aircraft that use quiet aircraft technology (as
determined in accordance with appendix A to subpart U of part
93 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on
the day before the date of the enactment of this Act)).
Amendment No. 3475
Mr. McCAIN. I would like to discuss all four amendments briefly. The
first is the prohibition on earmarks in years in which there is a
deficit. I have been pleased and somewhat surprised over the past week
to hear about the renewed bipartisan interest in banning earmarks. I am
thankful for the attention and I welcome the House Democratic
leadership to the fight against earmarks.
According to last Thursday's Washington Post:
Facing an election year backlash over runaway spending and
ethics scandals, House Democrats moved Wednesday to ban
earmarks for private companies, sparking a war between the
parties over which would embrace the most dramatic steps to
change the way business is done in Washington.
I was pleased to see that the Speaker of the House and the chairman
of the House Appropriations Committee have recognized earmarks for what
they are: a corrupting influence that should not be tolerated in these
times of fiscal crisis.
I applaud my Republican colleagues in the House and Senate,
especially Senators Coburn and DeMint, who have called for a year-long
moratorium on all earmarks. I fully support and join them in those
efforts, but I think we need to do more.
We need a complete ban on earmarks until our budget is balanced and
we have eliminated our massive deficit. This amendment promises to do
just that. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort. It is
what the American people want. We have an obligation to give it to
them.
I am pleased to be joined by my good friend from Indiana, Senator
Bayh.
Amendment No. 3472
The next amendment I would like to discuss very quickly is that no
funds from the passenger facility fee could be used to construct bike
storage facilities at airports.
As many know, the passenger facility fee is assessed on every ticket
for any flight. Currently, this fee is $4.50 per flight. During these
very difficult economic times for most Americans, the bill from the
House raises this fee to $7 and indexes it to inflation. It is
frustrating, but it is more frustrating that taxes and fees make up as
much as 25 percent of every passenger's airline ticket.
I think most airline passengers would agree with me that they would
rather see more improvements to ensure faster travel times and safer
departures and arrivals.
The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported earlier this year, on
January 14, 2010, that $1.5 million of passenger facility fees were
used for a ``function art project of glass panels laminated with
patterns of tree bark.''
It sounds beautiful, but I know most Americans want these excessive
fees and charges to be used effectively and for the goal that Congress
intended: to improve safety and performance.
Amendment No. 3527
On the issue of the amendment concerning moving Next Generation air
traffic control forward, this amendment would require the FAA to report
back to Congress in 90 days with proposals for innovative financing
mechanisms to further the deployment and implementation of a modernized
air traffic control system known as NextGen.
Specifically, the report requires these innovative financing
proposals to not increase our Federal deficit and consider public-
private partnerships. As the distinguished chairman of the committee
knows all so well, modernizing our outdated air traffic control system
will positively impact all Americans by decreasing airport delays,
improving the flow of commerce, and advancing our Nation's air quality
by reducing aircraft carbon emissions.
Every day Americans sit on a runway and miss meetings, children's
soccer games, family dinners, and other important events due to air
traffic delays that could have been avoided if our Nation had a
modernized air traffic control system.
Thousands of goods are delayed for delivery each year due to air
traffic delays which results in more than $40 billion in costs each
year that are passed on to consumers, according to the Joint Economic
Committee.
The Government Accountability Office estimates that one in every four
flights in the United States of America is delayed. The airlines have
called our air traffic control system ``an outdated World War II radar
system.''
The FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System, NextGen, will
transform the current ground-based radar air traffic control system to
one that uses precision satellites, digital network communications, and
an integrated weather system.
Moving from a ground-based to a satellite-based system will enable
more flights to occupy the same airspace, meaning the ontime
performance improvements would be a reality, and would triple the
aircraft capacity according to airlines. However, the administration
and Congress have not provided adequate funding toward air traffic
control modernization, and instead continue to fund billions of dollars
of earmarks. The FAA estimates it
[[Page 3462]]
will cost up to $42 billion to implement a modern air traffic control
system.
Congress appropriated $188 million for air traffic control
modernization in 2008, and $638 million in 2009, then another $358
million in the fiscal year 2010 Department of Transportation
appropriations bill. However, that same bill dedicated $1.7 billion on
transportation earmarks. We have to stop spending billions of dollars
and instead cut spending or at least spend taxpayers' dollars on worthy
projects.
Again, I would like to thank the chairman of the committee for his
efforts over many years on FAA modernization. There is no doubt the
airlines are right when they describe our air traffic control system as
``an outdated World War II radar system.''
It is a shame that all of these years we have had attempts that
failed and wasted billions of dollars in our efforts to modernize the
air traffic control system, and we have failed. But we have to redouble
our efforts.
As we expect the economy to recover, there will be more aircraft
flying in crowded airspace. There will be a more dangerous situation
unless we modernize our air traffic control system.
Amendment No. 3528
The final amendment I have is to provide standards for determining
whether the substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience
of the Grand Canyon National Park has been achieved, and to clarify
regulatory authority with respect to commercial air tours operating
over the park.
I see my colleagues waiting, and I will not take a lot of time on
this amendment. But I would like to mention to my colleagues that it
was approximately 25 years ago that I proposed legislation to restore
natural quiet in the great experience over the Grand Canyon National
Park.
All of these years have intervened and there still have not been
regulations written to implement that legislation. All of us share the
same goal. We have been able to sit down, with the help of the majority
leader's office, Senator Ensign's office, Senator Kyl's office, and
others to try to make progress on this important issue.
I think we have brought all parties together. I think there is
consensus. So I am hoping that we will be able to adopt this amendment
without further disagreement. It is important that we restore the
natural quiet and experience of the Grand Canyon National Park. At the
same time, it is also very important that people from all over the
world have the opportunity to enjoy one of the great and magnificent
experiences that any person can have; that is, to view the Grand Canyon
from the air as well as from the ground.
I think this legislation represents that careful balance. I thank
Senator Reid and Senator Ensign and Senator Kyl for their efforts in
crafting this legislation. It is time we acted. I appreciate the
indulgence of my colleagues.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would say to the good Senator from
the State of Arizona that we have a number of amendments that are
already more or less agreed to. More amendments are coming in,
including several that he has mentioned. We want a chance to look at
those to see whether those are--I heard one amendment, for example,
that sounded pretty easy to do.
The earmark amendment, I actually--I am not dissing this, but I just
cannot resist but point something out; that is, on earmarks, this would
ban earmarks for the foreseeable future. Let me redefine that.
In the last 71 years, the Congress of the United States has not had a
budget deficit in only 13 years. So you can see for the foreseeable
future it is sort of a large matter. Nevertheless, we welcome the
chance to look at that and work on it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to talk about two issues. First,
I will talk about the pending business before the Senate, which is the
FAA reauthorization, in a moment. I certainly want to commend my dear
friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Commerce
Committee, for what he has done in bringing the reauthorization to the
floor and the manner in which he has fashioned it.
This is an opportunity to create 150,000 jobs, modernize our system
for this 21st century, save millions of gallons of fuel that get spent
under a system that is antiquated, and people sitting in planes just
idling, and $9 billion in lost revenue to the Nation as a result of an
antiquated system. All of this will be dealt with, with the FAA
reauthorization.
But before I get to that I want to speak for a moment on an item that
we will be voting on tomorrow which is critically important to make
sure we put the Nation back to work, the HIRE Act. One of those items I
believe is incredibly important that has been getting the wrong view
here is the question of the Build America Bonds. It is one that has
been debated quite a bit on the Senate floor the last couple of times
we have been in session. My view is that these bonds have been one of
the most successful pieces of the economic recovery package passed last
year. They have helped to finance nearly $80 billion in economic
development projects in all 50 States.
Those are projects that are a win-win for America. By helping States
and local governments finance vital public infrastructure projects, we
are putting Americans back to work; building better, stronger
communities, better schools, retooling our infrastructure, and
preparing for the new economy. That is what makes the Build America
Bonds so effective. By lowering borrowing costs, these bonds
incentivize investments in our communities across America. This gives
State and local entities resources to fund badly needed projects,
projects from which we all benefit.
These bonds have been a resounding success. As a matter of fact, in a
November article by Stephen Gandel that appeared on time.com, it ran
under this headline: ``A Stimulus Success: Build America Bonds Are
Working.''
In this article, Amy Resnick, the editor in chief of a publication
which follows bond markets, was quoted as saying: ``It's clearly been a
success as a means of stimulating the economy.''
When we talk about stimulating the economy, ultimately we are talking
about putting Americans back to work. The bill we have before us, that
we will vote on tomorrow, expands this successful program to allow
issuers of school construction and energy project bonds to convert
these tax credit bonds into a Build America Bond. Seems like a rather
simple provision to me, a commonsense provision that says if it has
been successful, why not expand on it. If we can stimulate needed
construction for schools and communities across America, if we have a
proven way to promote putting people to work on critical energy
projects, why wouldn't we do it?
Some of my Republican friends say they want to work on job creation,
but I find it ironic that on one hand they speak about creating jobs,
but on the other hand they criticize Build America Bonds for ``doing
too much'' to create jobs and facilitate investment in vital public
projects in communities across America.
You can't have it both ways. You can't blame the majority for not
focusing on job creation while criticizing one of the most successful
programs as having done too much. At a time of 10 percent unemployment,
the question is not are we helping our communities too much; rather,
the fundamental question the Congress must be focused on is how do we
create more investment so we can create more jobs so that we can put
more Americans back to work. The lessons of history are important.
Build America Bonds, the jobs they create, the good they do, underscore
some of the historic differences between this side of the aisle and the
other. History tells us that in difficult economic times, creating
badly needed jobs for families struggling to make ends meet strengthens
the economy and helps us rebuild a better future.
In the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt understood the need for
government to step in and create jobs. He
[[Page 3463]]
rebuilt America's rusted old 19th century infrastructure, retooled old
systems and prepared the Nation for the 20th century. History has a way
of repeating itself. We should not ignore it. We should instead learn
from it, learn from our great successes so we don't repeat our worst
failures. A proactive government creating a jobs agenda and putting
people back to work during the New Deal and rebuilding our
infrastructure was one of those successes. On the other hand, a static
government doing nothing to create jobs in the face of massive
unemployment, as Herbert Hoover did, was one of our worst failures.
The lesson of history is clear. If we are too shortsighted to repeat
the things that work, we are doomed to repeat the things that failed.
Finally, on the second issue and the pending issue before the Senate,
we need this FAA reauthorization bill because it will create jobs, over
150,000. It will reduce congestion, that $9 billion lost for America by
airplanes idling and people not being productive at work as they try to
get to their business appointments and others who get lost along the
way in terms of the time lost being with their families and friends. It
also improves safety, which should be job 1. It will invest in
infrastructure that will get more people to their destinations on two
words we want to hear more and more, as the chairman is trying to make
happen: On time.
It will address several essential safety issues related to oversight,
pilot training, pilot safety, and pilot fatigue after the tragic Colgan
Air crash last year in Buffalo. This bill takes several steps to ensure
that, 1, an extremely high level of safety exists throughout the entire
transportation system. It protects passengers from being stranded on
the tarmac like those at Stewart Airport in New York who sat on a plane
that ran out of food. Things got so bad that each passenger was given
four potato chips and half a cup of water. That is simply ridiculous
and unacceptable. This bill will put an end to these stories by
requiring each airline to provide adequate provisions to stranded
planes and give all passengers the right to deplane after 3 hours, if
not sooner.
I salute Senator Rockefeller and the members of the Commerce
Committee who have worked to bring this important bill to the floor.
There are some things I hope we have offered that will be accepted
into a managers' amendment. I look forward to some opportunities. We
have something called the Clear Airfares Act. I believe when you buy a
ticket, you should have the right to know what you are paying for.
Anything short of that is simply unfair. My amendment No. 3506 would
require airlines to be upfront with their fees so consumers can make an
informed decision. It seems as though the airlines never have met a fee
they do not like. These are some of them. We have two easels here to
try to make the case. It is rather busy, but this gives you a sense to
these two chart that lay out 13 common airline fees that 18 different
airlines assign--fees for ordering tickets by phone, fuel surcharges,
for traveling with a pet. Last year they invented a new fee. It is
called the holiday fee. Because these fees don't appear alongside a
ticket's base airfare, consumers have little idea of how much the
ticket will eventually cost them.
I brought an example we worked on to dramatize what we are talking
about here. Airline A's ticket from BWI to La Guardia appears to be $2
cheaper than airline B's ticket, $223.50 compared to $225.40. But then
come the hidden fees. Airline A charges you $120 round trip to check
two bags plus an additional $200 to travel with a pet. By contrast,
airline B allows you to check two bags for free and charges you $150 to
travel with a pet. The end result, when you add up the fees, what
appeared to be the least expensive ticket for the same exact flight is
actually $150 more expensive. My amendment shines a light on airline
fees and surcharges so consumers have an accurate picture about what
their trip is likely to cost them. We hope the committee will accept
that.
We also have an amendment on focused flying which was written in
response to the flight that flew 150 miles beyond its destination,
allegedly because the pilots were too distracted to notice the airport.
I am pleased. Working with the committee and Senator Dorgan, we were
able to include language in the underlying bill that would prohibit
unnecessary electronic devices from the cockpit. However, it is
important we look at all pilot distractions. Our amendment calls for
the FAA to conduct a study on the broader issue of distractive flying
and its impact on flight safety.
The last amendment I have filed would require the FAA to monitor the
air noise impacts of New Jersey, New York, and Philadelphia airspace
redesign and simply provide the data to the public. I have not been
supportive of the airspace redesign in part because it was done in such
a way where noise impacts are rather severe. Now that the redesign is
being implemented, the public has a right to know what consequences
there are in that redesign and that some level of transparency should
be provided to the flying public and the communities affected.
Lastly, I look forward to what I hope is an end product, as we move
through this Chamber and have a conference, that no longer makes it
tougher for some workers to organize unions than others who do the same
work. I believe the rules should be applied evenly across the board.
Unions help improve safety standards which not only benefit workers,
they touch all of us who drive on the roads and fly in the skies. I
hope the ultimate result will create that opportunity. It is time we
finally pass the FAA reauthorization. It will create jobs. It will make
our flying experience safer. It will make it more efficient. We will
save money in our economy.
I look forward to working with Chairman Rockefeller to make the bill
one we can continue to be proud of as we fly the skies of our country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from New
Jersey who is complimented far too little for doing so many good things
but did a lot of them on the floor this afternoon. I appreciate what he
said which is not related to aviation, about the school bond. It makes
an enormous difference. It has been changed a bit to make it more
effective at the State level. I appreciate the fact that he said that.
And the points he made with respect to some of the amendments to the
aviation bill seemed to make a lot of sense. The last one may cause
some discussion, but I know the Senator and I know what is in his
heart. He always speaks the truth.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank my distinguished colleague and chairman for his
remarks and observations. We look forward to working with the committee
to achieve some of these things and to achieve ultimate success with
him at the end of the day.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. You could join the Commerce Committee. You are right
up there in the leadership. I respect everything the Senator from New
Jersey does.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have just visited with Senator
Rockefeller. Of course, we, along with Senator Hutchison, are trying to
pass an FAA reauthorization bill, which is not as easy as it sounds.
This is not one of the most controversial or difficult or passionate
issues that divide America. We have plenty of those issues around. But
this is about modernizing our air traffic control system, about
reauthorizing the Airport Improvement Program, improving air safety--a
wide range of issues. Still, anything that is brought to the floor of
the Senate these days slows down--way, way, way down--and that is the
case with this
[[Page 3464]]
bill as well. I have described it as similar to trying to walk through
wet cement to try to get something through the Congress.
We have amendments pending dealing with school vouchers, putting
discretionary caps on budgets, earmark reform--things that have very
little or in most cases nothing to do with this underlying bill. It is
just that this is an authorization bill open for amendment, so we have
amendments on a wide range of issues. We also have other amendments
that have been offered that are germane and relate to this piece of
legislation, and we have been working through trying to put together an
en bloc amendment with our staffs and Senator Rockefeller's staff,
working through, with other colleagues, some of the suggestions. They
make a lot of sense. I think we are making progress there.
I have described before the need for this legislation. Last year, I
met with some of the Europeans who are putting together the
modernization program in Europe. This issue of modernization of the air
traffic control system--I think I heard Senator McCain talk about World
War II vintage air traffic control. It is the case that for those who
are now taking off this minute from National Airport, when that
airplane leaves the runway and is in the national airspace, it is the
case that someone in a control tower somewhere is watching that
airplane. Why? Because there is a lot of traffic up there.
This is the most complex airspace in the world here in the United
States, and I think the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, does
a terrific job in operating the most complex system in the world. We
have the safest skies in the world, there is no question about that. We
have had one particularly fatal accident in the last year. That tragedy
occurred in Buffalo, NY, with Colgan Air, in which 50 people tragically
lost their lives, including the pilot and copilot and flight attendant.
But the fact is, we have safe skies, and I would be the last to come to
the floor of the Senate and say the American public should be worried
about safety. It is the case, however, that the Colgan crash gave us a
roadmap to some changes that I believe are necessary and that I and
Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison have put in this bill. The
issues we have discovered from that tragedy persuaded us that a number
of things needed to be done.
The FAA itself has worked on aviation safety for a long while. The
National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates aviation
accidents, has made recommendations. In fact, they have a most wanted
list. There are some recommendations that will improve air safety that
have been on the most wanted list for a long, long time, some for well
over a decade and not yet adopted. So the Administrator of the FAA,
Randy Babbitt, has worked with us. I know he is working diligently to
try to address some of those issues.
Let me mention safety in just a moment, but let me talk for a moment
about modernizing the system.
When people say: Well, what is that about, it means we are moving
from the tracking of that airplane that just left National Airport--I
think we have about one a minute that is authorized at that slot
airport, so every minute, an airplane is leaving that airport. When
that airplane is at cruising altitude and on its way up to cruising
altitude, it has a transponder, and that transponder is sending
signals. That signal shows up on a screen. That screen is in front of
an air traffic controller. That screen shows that airplane, in most
cases by number, and that air traffic controller is directing that
airplane with its traffic through other routes flown by other
airplanes. It is all about safety, making sure airplanes can fly in a
congested, crowded sky.
The dilemma--by the way, it has been relatively safe. It certainly is
safer than in the old days when they first started flying at night.
During the day, they would fly by sight, years and years ago. Then, at
night, they would fly to bonfires. They would fly to a bonfire and then
fly 50 miles to another bonfire as they carried the mail at night.
Eventually they would fly to lights, and then eventually they would fly
to ground-based radar. It has been around a long time.
The problem is, ground-based radar only shows where a jet plane is
right at that moment--any airplane, for that matter, but a jet moves
very fast, so at that nanosecond when that sweep of the radar shows
that airplane in that airspace, that is exactly where it is. But a
nanosecond later, it is somewhere else. Especially with a jet, with the
next 5 or 7 seconds it takes to sweep the radar, that jet is somewhere
other than where the dot showed it on the screen. Now we have the
capability to know much more precisely than that where the airplane is,
but because we only know about where that airplane is, we have to space
airplanes for a margin of safety and we fly less direct routes. The
result is, we use more fuel in that plane by flying a less direct
route. We have to have much wider spacing of airplanes in a congested
airspace. We are polluting the skies with more fuel used. We are
costing the airplanes and the passengers the extra fuel. We are also
taking extra time for the passengers to get to where they are headed
because of less direct routes.
All of that can change with a new system of global positing, GPS.
Everybody understands what GPS is. You have GPS in your automobile in
many cases. You type in an address and it shows you where your car is
and where the address is and it takes you right to the address. If your
child has a cell phone, in most cases they have access to GPS in their
cell phone. In many cases, your child with a cell phone has the
opportunity, with some of the providers, to link with their best
friends--their five best friends, for example--and each of them with
their cell phone can have GPS locators, so they can access their five
friends and know exactly where each of the five is. We can do that with
children and cell phones. We cannot do it today with commercial
airplanes. We cannot know exactly where that airliner is with GPS
technology. That is because we have not yet modernized.
That is what this is all about--modernization of the air traffic
control system. When we do--and we will--we will be able to fly much
more direct routes, have a greater margin of safety, save fuel, save
the environment. We will do all of these things. Other parts of the
world are doing it, and so must we. That is why Senator Rockefeller and
I have brought a bill to the floor that moves directly and aggressively
toward what is called modernization of the air traffic control systems.
It sounds complicated. It is less complicated than one would think. It
needs the FAA to build the facilities on the ground, and it needs the
airplanes to have the equipage in the jet or the airplane itself. When
we do that and have the procedures and the developed process, we will
have modernized the air traffic control system. That is what the
legislation is about.
The legislation is also about building infrastructure across the
country. If you are going to fly, you have to have someplace to land
and someplace for passengers to embark and disembark. It means runways
and terminals. It means a wide range of things. This also includes the
Essential Air Service Program, which provides essential air service
through contracts to smaller communities. As I indicated earlier, it
addresses the issue of safety.
Let me describe safety for a moment, as I have done a couple of times
on the floor because I think it is very important.
One-half of the flights in this country are by regional airlines. The
passengers do not necessarily know it is a regional airline. They get
on, in most cases, a smaller airplane, and it says United, US Airways,
Delta, Continental, but it is not that company at all. That is just the
brand on the airplane, and it is a regional company, in most cases,
that is flying for the larger carrier. In some cases, the larger
carrier owns the regional, but in most cases, it is a regional flying
under contract to one of the major carriers.
What we have discovered in several hearings, in the aftermath of the
Colgan accident, is some very difficult circumstances in terms of
mistakes
[[Page 3465]]
that were made and things that we think we need to improve and correct.
Some of it we do in this bill.
The pilot who was in charge of the Colgan plane that evening--flying
at night, in ice, in the winter, into Buffalo, NY, from Newark
Airport--that pilot, we discovered later, had failed a number of pilot
exams along the way. We have learned that the CEO of this company,
Colgan, indicated: Had we known about these multiple failures along the
way of this pilot's credentials, we would not have hired the pilot. But
they did not know because they did not have access to all of that
information. This legislation provides that access shall be made
available. So those hiring decisions will be better decisions.
The issue of fatigue is very important and was very evident as part
of the cause, I believe, of that Colgan accident in Buffalo. There is
almost never a circumstance where there was an airplane accident in
this country where the accident report says definitively: This was
caused by fatigue. But we know, of course, there are a number of
tragedies that were caused by fatigue.
Let me point out something we learned with respect to this particular
flight, and my assumption is it is not peculiar to this flight. This
chart shows the Colgan Air pilots' commuting prior to a flight. On this
particular flight, on that evening, when the passengers boarded that
flight, the copilot, who got in the right seat of that cockpit, had
flown from Seattle, WA, to Newark Airport in order to reach her duty
station. She lived in Seattle and she worked out of Newark. She flew
all night long, deadheaded on a FedEx plane to Memphis, changed, and
flew to Newark all night long. The pilot commuted from Florida to
Newark. So you have two people in the cockpit: one from Florida who
commuted to Newark and one from Seattle who commuted to Newark.
What we now have heard from testimony from the National
Transportation Safety Board is the pilot of that airplane had not slept
in a bed the two previous nights, the copilot had not slept in a bed
the previous night. Was this crash caused by fatigue? There will never
be something that definitively suggests that, but if you were a
passenger on an airplane and in the cockpit sat a pilot and copilot,
neither of whom had slept in a bed the previous night or two nights,
would you believe fatigue was the cause of perhaps a misjudgment in the
cockpit? I would. I would.
The question is not, Can you end all commuting? I do not expect you
can probably end all commuting. But the question is, Does some of this
commuting invariably cause fatigue? I believe it does. And how do you
begin to address that? The FAA Administrator has now sent to the Office
of Management and Budget, I believe, his rulemaking on fatigue, so that
is a step forward because we have to address that.
As shown on this chart, this quote is from a discussion by a regional
pilot in the Wall Street Journal of September 12, 2008. He said:
Take a shower, brush your teeth, pretend you slept.
That is what a regional pilot says about the kind of work on regional
carriers, where you have a lot of stops, small routes or short routes:
``Take a shower, brush your teeth, pretend you slept.''
Again, I think it raises the question--and a reasonable question--
about how do you make this circumstance change. How do you promote
greater safety in circumstances where there is so much commuting, where
you have duty time that often allows for less than is necessary to
sleep at night? There is the full 8 hours, to be sure. But by the time
you get to a hotel somewhere during duty time, it is quite often the
case you have not slept a full night.
In this case of the Colgan flight, we have now learned the copilot on
that airplane not only traveled all the way across country to reach her
duty station, but she is someone who made in the neighborhood of
$20,000 to $23,000 a year. Does anybody believe a copilot on a
commercial carrier paid $20,000 to $23,000 a year is going to be able
to afford hotel rooms when they get to their duty station prior to
taking a flight? I don't think so. That is not an unreasonable thing to
expect to have happen.
Let me say, my discussion of this is not to tarnish regional
airlines. They play a very important role in our air traffic system in
the commercial aviation system--very important. My hope is, though,
working with the regional carriers, these safety provisions we have
included in this piece of legislation will substantially improve safety
and avoid the kind of circumstances that existed on that particular
Colgan flight.
I mentioned previously the families of the victims on that Colgan
flight have been real champions for aviation safety. They have never
missed a hearing. They have shown up at all the events in Washington,
DC, whether it is a hearing or other activities, to say: I am here on
behalf of my son, my daughter, my brother, my mother who perished in
that crash. The fact is, that diligence and that effort has made a
difference and shows itself in this legislation.
We also, in this legislation, are addressing the issue of pilot hours
as qualifications. I will talk about that some other time.
I think there is a lot here to commend this bill to my colleagues. It
is urgent we get this passed through the Senate, get to conference, be
able to reach a conference agreement with the House, and get the bill
signed. We will, by that, I think improve the infrastructure in this
country, substantially increase jobs--we are estimating 150,000 new
jobs as a result of it--and dramatically change the air traffic control
system from an archaic system to a modern system. All that is good for
the country.
There is way too much that is needed to be done in this country to
improve things, especially in areas of infrastructure and
modernization, that is left undone. Let's at least get this piece for
commercial aviation and for all aviation completed.
I have mentioned almost exclusively the issue of commercial aviation.
I do not want to leave the floor again without saying there is another
component to aviation in our country; that is, general aviation. Many
of us fly on small planes a lot. I learned how to fly a small plane
years and years ago. General aviation plays a very important role in
the area of aviation in our lives.
In States such as Alaska, the Presiding Officer's State, or perhaps
West Virginia or North Dakota, in States such as that, the ability to
get on a Cessna 210 or a King Air, if we are lucky, or perhaps even a
Mooney or a 172 Cessna and go someplace and get there, sometimes in
circumstances where there are not a lot of roads, as would be the case
in Alaska, and other circumstances where you have wide distances to
travel on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday--general aviation is so
important and they do so much good work.
In addition, very few people talk--it is true of general aviation and
also commercial aviation--about the mercy flights, flying a heart for a
donor on a mercy flight, or flying someone who needs desperate
treatment to save a life. It goes on every day all across this
country--corporate jets, private planes, and, yes, even with commercial
airliners.
We are in the process right now of beginning to fight a flood in
Fargo-Moorhead. That river will go up 20 feet in about 10 days. It is
going to be 20 feet by Friday from 2 weeks ago. I recall last year when
the flood occurred, then Northwest Airlines, now Delta Airlines, flew
some very large planes into Fargo for relief purposes. They never asked
for anything. They just said they were coming. There is a lot of work
that goes on by some of the major carriers, as well as corporate and
general aviation, that is very important.
Again, I thank Senator Rockefeller for the work he and Senator
Hutchison have done. I, as chairman, and Senator DeMint, as ranking
member, of the Subcommittee on Aviation are pleased to be working with
them.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
[[Page 3466]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
United States and Israel Controversy
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment on
the current controversy between the United States and Israel on the
settlement issue.
Before the current controversy between the United States and Israel
escalates further, I suggest all parties cool the rhetoric, avoid
public recriminations, determine exactly what happened and consider
some fundamental questions.
What are the facts? It has been reported that there are 1,600 new
settlements in East Jerusalem in violation of Israeli commitments.
Authoritative sources insist that the announcement by a mid-level
official at the Ministry of the Interior only involved planning subject
to judicial review with no groundbreaking for 3 years. Another report
said U.S. officials extracted a secret promise from Prime Minister
Netanyahu not to allow provocative steps in East Jerusalem. Is it true
that the United States accepted the 10-month moratorium on settlements
with caveats that excluded East Jerusalem in line with the insistence
by Israeli officials dating back to Prime Minister Golda Meir that
Jerusalem was under Israeli exclusive sovereignty?
It is conceded that Prime Minister Netanyahu was blindsided by the
announcement. It is further acknowledged that the Israeli Minister of
the Interior is a member of the ultra-conservative Shaos party whose
participation is essential to the continuation of the coalition
government.
These matters need to be thought through before making public
pronouncements that could significantly damage the U.S.-Israeli
relationship and give aid and comfort to the enemies of the Mideast
peace process.
The rock solid alliance between the United States and Israel has
withstood significant disagreements for six decades. The mutual
interests which bind these two countries together have always been
stronger than the most substantial differences. The United States needs
to respect Israeli security interests, understanding that Israel cannot
lose a war and survive. The United States has many layers of defense to
protect our security interests and survive.
I suggest that if we all take a few deep breaths, think through the
pending questions and reflect on the importance of maintaining U.S.-
Israeli solidarity, we can weather this storm.
(The further remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of
S. 3120 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague from Connecticut for
awaiting those few comments and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Amendment No. 3456
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, it was a pleasure to yield that time
to my friend from Pennsylvania, which he used very well.
I rise to continue a discussion of amendment No. 3456, which has been
offered by Senators Collins, Byrd, Feinstein, Voinovich, Ensign, and
myself, which would reauthorize the Opportunity Scholarship Program for
students, needy and deserving students here in the District of
Columbia, sometimes referred to as the DC voucher program.
This amendment would, as I say, reauthorize this program which
otherwise would either atrophy over time--there are still 1,300
students in it, but now, for the last 2 years, it has not been
reauthorized. President Obama in his budget says this probably will be
the last year that Federal funding would be in it. The nonprofit
corporation that has administered this program has said--under the
circumstances the Congress by our inaction and in some sense
interruption have created--they cannot continue to administer the
program. No one else has come forward to do that.
This amendment says, effectively, it would be a tragedy, a human
tragedy, 1,300 human tragedies--that 1,300 economically disadvantaged
students in the District of Columbia who have been given a lifeline out
of failing public schools to try to better educate themselves so they
can live a life of self-sufficiency and satisfaction--that all that
hope would be ended, all that opportunity would be ended.
This amendment would turn all that around and say the Senate believes
this program is at least worth continuing as an experiment. But more
than that, it has worked, by independent evaluation. Why terminate it?
There is no good reason to terminate it. Would the Chancellor of the
District of Columbia School System, Michelle Rhee, obviously an
advocate for the public schools here--as I am, as the other Senators,
Collins, Byrd, Feinstein, Voinovich, and Ensign are--would the
Chancellor of a public school system here support this program if it
were not a good program? Of course not. Would she support it if she
thought it was a threat to the public schools? Of course not. That is
her first and major commitment. She supports a 5-year extension of this
program that this amendment would authorize because, as she said
poignantly to our Government Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction
over matters related to the District of Columbia--she said until she
can say to a parent of a child at a school that has been designated
under Federal law as a failing school, a school that has failed to give
those children an equal educational opportunity--until, Chancellor Rhee
has told us, she can say to the parent, ``that public school that your
child is in here in the District of Columbia, our Nation's Capital, is
prepared to give your child an equal and good educational
opportunity,'' then she cannot say terminate the DC Opportunity
Scholarship Program which gives low-income, economically disadvantaged
children a lifeline, a passport, a scholarship they can use at a
private or faith-based school of their choice.
This program was started after difficult and intricate negotiations
in 2004. It was started with a basic premise that is deeply and
wonderfully American, which is: Hey, this is the country whose
Declaration of Independence said that the government was being created
in the first place, in 1776, to secure the rights to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness; that everybody has an endowment from our
Creator--not by the government; the government is there to secure those
rights--the endowment came from God, from our Creator. One of the
fundamental ways in which we have attempted over our history to secure
those rights is through the public school system, through our school
system.
Generations and generations of Americans, new Americans, immigrant
Americans, have come here and the school system has given them an
opportunity for education and they have gone on to not only make a
success of themselves but contribute enormously to our country.
The sad fact is that a lot of our public schools today are failing
particularly our economically disadvantaged students. There is a
terrible gap based on income and race and ethnicity, an achievement
gap, in our public school system. No Child Left Behind and various
Federal programs are trying hard to close that, but it has not been
closed yet.
That is why a lot of us got together in 2004, the administration and
both parties, and tried to negotiate and ultimately did negotiate a
compromise which was based not on supporting any particular educational
institution but founded on that goal that was in the Declaration of
Independence, that is characteristically and fundamentally American,
the individual and, in this case, the individual child. How many
individual children, in this case in the Nation's Capital, can we give
a better education so they can develop their God-given talent to the
highest level
[[Page 3467]]
possible, which they cannot do if they are not getting a good
education?
So in this compromise that was enacted in 2004, we basically created
new income streams. Some people say: Oh, the DC Opportunity Scholarship
Program looks like it is working. It is a good idea to help kids get a
scholarship to a private or faith-based school, but I am against it
because it takes money from public schools. Wrong. That was the whole
premise.
In fact, to even it out, when we adopted this program we gave an
equal amount of additional money to the DC Public Schools as went into
the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, then a new stream of money into
charter schools in the District of Columbia. That was the agreement
that was made. It was a good agreement. Those of us who support the DC
Opportunity Scholarship Program are not at all unhappy to give an equal
amount of extra money to the public schools and to the charter school
movement in the District.
I guess the program is controversial because some people do not want
to experiment with something other than the public school system on how
to educate the individual. OK, I respect that. I understand that.
Teachers unions are at the forefront of the opposition. They are
against this bill. I understand that. But I disagree, respectfully.
This is not an assault on teachers or the public schools. As Chancellor
Rhee has said: This is a temporary lifeline for students who are in
schools designated under Federal law as inadequate to educate them, to
give them an opportunity to step up and go to a private or a faith-
based school where they can do better.
I do not know why anyone would want to terminate this program. It is
a small program. As I will make clear in a few moments, it has been
positively evaluated. Particularly, I repeat, why would we want to
intervene when the leader of the DC Public Schools says this
Opportunity Scholarship Program should be continued because it is good
for kids in the District of Columbia. She cannot really say to parents:
I can give a good, first-class education to all of your children.
Parents like this program a lot. Kids like it. We heard moving
testimony from children in the system. Polling in the District of
Columbia shows very strong support for it, particularly and not
surprisingly in economically disadvantaged areas.
Look, let's talk from the facts. Most of us, I will say ``us,''
including me, have the money to send our kids to either private or
faith-based schools because we think they can get a better education
there or the kind of education we want them to get, particularly if it
is in a faith-based school.
These are parents who do not have that choice because they do not
have the money. Imagine the frustration that we would feel if our
children were trapped in a public school where we knew they were not
getting a good education that would compromise the rest of their life
and yet we did not have the money to get them a better education.
That is all this program deems, the Opportunity Scholarship Program.
It is a scholarship to give economically disadvantaged kids an
opportunity to rise to the limits of their ability. A vote against this
amendment, I really believe, is a vote to take away opportunity for
1,300 economically disadvantaged students who are now in the program
and hundreds of others who would join if and when this program is
extended.
There have been hundreds of students involved. At its peak there were
1,930 students enrolled for the 2007-2008 school year. Because no new
students could enroll, because the program was not reauthorized to that
extent by Congress, enrollment declined to 1,721 for the 2008-2009
school year. It is now at 1,319.
Here is a terrible thing that happened: Last year, 216 students were
offered a scholarship for the year that followed, the school year that
followed. Then that offer, because of opposition to this program and a
decision not to allow new students into it, was revoked by the
Secretary of Education of the United States.
Since its inception, the Opportunity Scholarship Program has served
over 3,000 students, and more than 8,400 have applied to participate.
Over 85 percent of the students in this program would be attending a
school in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring as
designated under Federal law. This is a remarkable program that really
does deserve to be continued.
I note the presence of my colleague and friend and cosponsor, Senator
Ensign. If the Senator would like to speak at this time, I will be glad
to yield the floor, and then I will take it back after he has
concluded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, first of all, I appreciate all of the
great work that the chairman has done on this piece of legislation.
This is a bipartisan piece of legislation that we are talking about
today. We are talking about the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.
Why is it on the bill that deals with the FAA, people would ask?
Well, it is on there because we have been trying to get this
reauthorized for a long time. In the Senate, we have to take whatever
vehicle we can get.
I appreciate the leadership of Senator Lieberman and the work he has
done, as well as many of my other colleagues. Unfortunately, there are
forces on the other side who apparently think giving opportunity
scholarships for 1,300 poor children in the District of Columbia is
somehow a threat to our public education system in America.
I heard the chairman talk about Michelle Rhee. Michelle is one of the
true reformers of education. She is a believer in the public education
system in America, as I am. I know that Chairman Lieberman is a big
believer in the public education system. That is one of the reasons we
want to explore and test various reform proposals to actually see if
they will work, or see if they do not work.
Well, so far, there have been 1,300 students participating in the DC
Opportunity Scholarship Program. Based on the satisfaction of their
parents, it is serving the students well. Remember, when they get a
scholarship, they do not have to go. Let me repeat that. If they are in
a public school system, they are zoned for that public school system.
They cannot afford to go anyplace else; they do not have any choice.
But if they get one of these DC scholarships, nobody forces them to use
it. Nobody forces them to go to one of those other private schools.
Why do the parents and the kids like it? They like it because they
are escaping from a bad school.
As Senator Lieberman discussed, 85 percent of the kids who
participate in this program are from failing schools; failing based on
objective criteria. The average household income is about $25,000 a
year for the families of these kids who are participating in the DC
Opportunity Scholarship Program. These are kids are from low-income
families. They cannot afford to take their kids out of these failing
schools by themselves. That is why we wanted to experiment to see
whether the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program worked. Did it help the
kids' educational system? Education in America has been called the new
civil right. Well, I think that is exactly right. I think we need to
look at education as a way to lift people out of poverty. But just
because kids are getting an education at school, it does not give them
the opportunities that other kids are getting. It is not a question of
money. The DC Public School System spends $15,000 per year per student.
It is one of the highest, if not the highest, in the country. It is
about $4,600 a year more than the national average. It is almost three
times more than what Nevada spends per student.
But I can guarantee you, I do not know of anybody in Nevada who would
rather have their kids going here in Washington, DC, Public Schools
than going to public school in Nevada. It is because of the poor
performance of Washington, DC Public Schools.
Now, Michelle Rhee, to her credit, is doing a good job improving the
public schools. But they have so far to go. The Mayor of Washington,
DC, supports the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.
[[Page 3468]]
The parents of these children--there were over 7,000 people who just
signed a petition in Washington, DC, to continue this program. I have
met many of these students. When you talk to them, and you look in
their faces and you say: Do you want this program to continue? Is this
something that has helped you in your life? The students who have
participated in the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program say it is one of
the best things that ever happened to them in their life. DC
Opportunity Scholarship Program allowed the students to get out of a
school that had high crime rates, that had low performance, and where
sometimes the teachers did not have great attitudes. The students went
to a caring, loving atmosphere where they had a chance to succeed.
That is really what this whole thing is about. Recent data shows that
about 26 percent of eighth graders in the DC Public Schools score below
basic in math. Students of DC Public Schools rank near the bottom in
the Nation in both SAT and ACT scores. About half of the DC students do
not even graduate from high school.
On the other side of the coin, when you look at what has happened
with the DC Opportunity Scholarship kids, a rigorous study by the
Institute of Education Services found that students in the program
experienced statistically significant improvements in reading that were
equal to more than 3 months of additional schooling.
The study also found that students in five out of ten subgroups
improved in reading, and parents experienced increased satisfaction
with the quality and the safety of their children's schools.
Dr. Wolf, who was the principal investigator for the Department of
Education study, has stated:
. . . the D.C. scholarship program has proven to be the
most effective education policy evaluated by the federal
government's official education research arm so far.
You know, Rome was not built in a day. I believe we owe it to DC's
children to continue this program and to continue the research on these
promising gains.
Do we know that the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program will work in
the future? No. But it is promising research so far. So we should not
discontinue the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. We should fund it,
make sure that it continues and continue to study it.
Unfortunately, what has happened is that in the public school system,
there are forces who believe that giving parents choice is somehow a
threat to our public school system. To me, it is just about the kids
and their education. That is who should come first in our education
system, the children. Let's put their education and future first. Let's
not have special interests decide who is going to control education.
That is what the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program is all about. I
see Senator Collins is on the Senate floor. I appreciate her work,
Senator Lieberman, Senator Voinovich, and many others in the Senate who
have worked in a bipartisan fashion. Let's not let this bill go down.
Secretary Duncan is a reformer. There is no question he has brought
some reform proposals that I think deserve looking at.
He has talked a lot about putting our kids first in our education
system. This is one way we can do it. We need to support Michelle Rhee
in her efforts to improve the public school system, but we also need to
keep this valuable program, the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program,
intact for those 1,300 kids and their families who are enjoying its
benefits.
I yield the floor and thank the chairman for allowing me to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank Senator Ensign for his
cosponsorship, for his convincing and informed argument for this
amendment. I couldn't agree more. There is such an irony here.
Secretary Duncan of Education is a reformer. The President supports
school reforms. Michelle Rhee is trying very hard and valiantly and
effectively to reform the DC Public Schools. Why would Secretary Duncan
and members of the administration and some in this body and our
colleagues in the other body oppose this program, an opportunity
scholarship program which Chancellor Rhee supports because it is
consistent with her attempt and the attempt of Secretary Duncan to
reform our public schools? The only answer I can think of is that
certain interest groups, including particularly teachers unions, oppose
this measure.
For me, that is not an acceptable reason to terminate the hopes of
1,300 children in a program in the Nation's Capital.
I note, with pleasure, the presence of our colleague from Maine,
Senator Collins.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, let me begin by saluting the leadership
of my colleague, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee,
Senator Lieberman. He has been so persistent in ensuring a debate on
this program. His leadership on this issue, as on every other issue I
work with him on, has been exemplary.
I am pleased to join Senators Lieberman, Ensign, Voinovich,
Feinstein, and Byrd in offering this amendment to reauthorize the DC
Opportunity Scholarship Program.
More than 5 years ago, leaders in the District of Columbia became
frustrated with institutionalized failure within the public school
system, and designed a ``three-sector'' strategy that provided new
funding for public schools, public charter schools and new educational
options for needy children. Working with the District, Congress then
implemented the DC School Choice Incentive Act in 2004, giving birth to
the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. The program is the first to
provide federally funded scholarships to students, and has enabled low-
income students from the District of Columbia public school system to
attend the independent-private or parochial school of their choice. For
many of these students, this was their first opportunity to access a
high quality education.
The program has clearly filled a need, a fact that is illustrated by
the long lines of parents waiting to enroll their children in the
program. Since its inception, more than 7,000 students have applied for
scholarships. With demand so high, it is dismaying that critics would
seek to dismantle the program.
The inspiring stories we have heard from parents and students
participating in the program, parallels what we have learned from
recent independent studies conducted by the University of Arkansas and
the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of
Education.
In December 2009, University of Arkansas researchers released the
findings of a new evaluation entitled ``Family Reflections on the
District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program.'' The project
sought to ``capture the contextual nuances of what is happening in the
lives of the families experiencing the Program'' by conducting a
qualitative assessment.
The study showed that parents were overwhelmingly satisfied with
their children's experience in the program. Common reasons for this
higher level of satisfaction included, appreciation for the ability to
choose their child's school, the success their children are having in
new school environments, and the support provided by the Washington
Scholarship Fund.
In March 2009, the Department of Education released its evaluation of
the program's impact after three years, which showed that overall;
students offered scholarships had higher reading achievement than those
not offered scholarships, the equivalent of an additional three months
of learning.
As I noted previously, this amendment has bipartisan support and was
crafted using input from Members on both sides of the aisle. As chair
and ranking member of the Financial Services General Government
Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Durbin and I held a hearing last
September on funding for schools in the District. We heard from
stakeholders representing DC Public Schools, DC Public Charter Schools,
and the DC Opportunity
[[Page 3469]]
Scholarship Program. This amendment is the byproduct of their input as
well as that of my distinguished colleague, Senator Durbin.
In addition to providing scholarships for low-income students and
their family's real choice in education, the amendment authorizes $20
million for DC public schools and $20 million for pubic charter
schools--so that all students in the District have access to a high
quality education.
Further, our amendment includes provisions supported by Senator
Durbin. Among other things, it provides that all participating OSP
schools maintain a valid certificate of occupancy issued by the DC
government, that core subject matter teachers in OSP schools must hold
at least a bachelor's degree, and that all OSP schools must be
accredited.
We all must place what's best for students first. If Congress were to
discontinue funding for DC opportunity scholarships, it is estimated
that 86 percent of the students would be reassigned to schools that did
not meet ``adequate yearly progress'' goals in reading and math for the
2006-07 school year. We simply cannot afford to allow that to happen. I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
We are talking about averting a true tragedy by adopting the
Lieberman amendment, which I am pleased to cosponsor. I do not use that
word ``tragedy'' often nor lightly. That is what we are talking about.
We are talking about the futures of young people in the District of
Columbia. That is what is at stake in this debate. It is that serious.
It is important to go back and look at the history of the DC
scholarship program. More than 5 years ago, the leaders of the District
of Columbia became so frustrated with the institutionalized failure
within the District's public school system that they came to Congress
and worked with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to
design a new three-sector strategy that provided new funding for public
schools in the District, for public charter schools, and for
scholarships for low-income children who might choose to attend a
private school.
Working with the District's leaders, Congress then passed the DC
School Choice Incentive Act of 2004, giving birth to the DC Opportunity
Scholarship Program. For many of these students, this was their first
opportunity to access a high-quality education, an education that would
give them the opportunity to excel, the opportunity for a bright
future. That is what the debate is about. Indeed, we have seen
incredible enthusiasm for this program, and the three-pronged approach
has helped DC's public schools to get on the path of improvement and
DC's charter schools which are also providing some quality educational
opportunities.
But a young man who testified before our Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee put it very well when he was asked by a
Senator who opposed the DC scholarship program why we should not,
instead, focus solely on the DC Public Schools.
He said: Mr. Senator, the DC schools didn't get bad overnight, and
they are not going to get better overnight.
Clearly, what he was saying was, why should he lose the opportunity
for a good education and a bright future while he is waiting for DC
Public Schools to get better.
I join in the admiration for Michelle Rhee, who is working very hard
with the mayor and with the city council to improve the DC Public
Schools. We are making progress. We rejoice in that progress. We
support that progress. That is why we are continuing to provide Federal
funding for DC's public schools. But as this young man told us, the DC
schools did not get bad overnight, and they are not going to get better
overnight, no matter what extraordinary leadership they are receiving.
The DC scholarship program has clearly filled a need, a fact that is
illustrated by the long lines of parents waiting to enroll their
children in the program. Since its inception, more than 7,000 students
have applied for scholarships. With demand so high, with the stakes so
great, it is dismaying, to say the least--I think it is tragic--that
critics are seeking to dismantle this program.
The inspiring stories we have heard from parents and students
participating in the DC scholarship program parallel what we have
learned from recent independent, rigorous studies conducted by the
University of Arkansas and the Institute of Education Sciences at the
U.S. Department of Education. Senator Lieberman and I heard firsthand
from the researcher who conducted that study. He told us parents were
overwhelmingly satisfied with their children's experience in this
program, and they also told us the students offered scholarships had
higher reading achievement than those not offered scholarships, the
equivalent of an additional 3 months of learning. Given that these
students had not been enrolled in these better schools for very long,
that is impressive progress. I am certain as their education continues,
if it is allowed to continue, we will see even more substantial
educational gains.
It is so disappointing--it is discouraging and dismaying--that we are
having to fight for the continuation of a program that each and every
day is making a difference in the lives of these children.
I am going to challenge my colleagues, before you decide how you are
going to vote on this program, if you are inclined to vote against our
amendment, first talk to just one student who is enrolled in this
program and their parents. If you then can come to the floor and, in
good conscience, vote against the Lieberman-Collins amendment--well,
suffice it to say, I don't think our colleagues can, in good
conscience, vote against our amendment, if they have talked to any of
the students and their families who are benefiting from this program.
It would be truly a tragedy for the children of the District of
Columbia if this program is not continued.
Let me end my comments with one startling fact. If Congress were to
discontinue funding for DC opportunity scholarships, it is estimated 86
percent of the students would be returned to schools that are failing
schools, schools that did not meet the adequate yearly progress
standard for reading and math for the 2006-2007 school year. We simply
cannot, in good conscience, allow that to happen.
I hope my colleagues will take a close look at the facts revealed by
our hearing, the rigorous studies that have been done to compare
educational progress, the recommendations of the chancellor of the DC
Public Schools and, most of all, I hope they will listen to the
students and to the families whose lives have been changed for the
better due to this program.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my colleague, Senator Collins, for coming to
the floor, for being a cosponsor of this amendment. And for the
passionate and reasoned way in which she spoke.
Two things come to mind in listening to her remarks. One is, we are
very often dealing with big national or international matters on the
floor of the Senate--health care reform, jobs act, whatever. They all
involve people, of course. But here is one which is local, and we can
actually quantify the people. We have 1,319 children who are in private
or faith-based schools because of this DC Opportunity Scholarship
Program, getting, by their own telling and that of their parents, so
much better an education, feeling better about themselves, being on the
road of opportunity.
If we don't authorize this, although the administration has said it
is committed to at least following these students through high school,
there is not enough money there to do that. The President, in the
budget, said this is probably the last year he will fund it. There is
not enough money to carry these students through high school.
The second point is, with all the uncertainty in the program, the
current administrator of it, a nonprofit corporation, has said they
don't want to do this anymore. So far, no one else has been found to do
it.
[[Page 3470]]
So this definitely closes the door to opportunity for hundreds of
other students in the District and their parents to give them a better
education, while Chancellor Rhee, over the next 5 years, is trying to
make every school in the District of Columbia a good school.
But, secondly, it really focuses us on the possibility that these
1,319 children will be forced to go back to the public schools in their
neighborhoods, and 86 percent of those schools, as Senator Collins has
said, are designated under Federal law as inadequate. None of us would
let our kids go there, and we would pay their way out. But these
parents who benefit from this program cannot.
So Senator Collins has really spoken of this as a tragedy, a human
tragedy--she is right--that you could look into the face of each of
these 1,319 kids and say: Sorry, you can't go on in this school you all
are so happy to be going to at this point.
The second point is this, and I say this respectfully: It has been
very rare, when I have been involved in a debate in the Senate on a
matter, that I have not felt there were some respectable, good
arguments on the other side. I did not agree with them. On balance,
they did not convince me my position was wrong. But I must say that on
this one I cannot think of a single good reason to be opposed to this
amendment: 5 more years of an experimental program, $20 million to the
DC Opportunity Scholarship Program out of, by my recollection, $13
billion of Federal taxpayer money that goes to title I schools, and
over $25 billion that goes from the Federal Government to public
schools around America in the No Child Left Behind Program--a total of
$25 billion or $26 billion.
This is $20 million for these DC Opportunity Scholarships, alongside
$20 million more to the DC Public Schools that they will not otherwise
get, and $20 million more for the charter schools. In fact, if this
program is allowed to die and those 1,319 students are forced back into
the public schools in their neighborhoods, that adds, by the estimate
of one independent authority I have seen, at least $14 million more to
the expense of the DC Public School System to take them back.
So I welcome people who oppose this amendment to come to the floor to
debate it, but honestly, listening to Senator Collins, I cannot think
of a good reason to be against this amendment. I thank the Senator very
much for coming over, for her cosponsorship, and for all the work we
have been able to do together.
Again, I say, why did this come before the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee? Because historically--the Presiding
Officer, I am now proud to say, is a new member of the committee--the
Governmental Affairs Committee has been given jurisdiction over matters
regarding the District of Columbia. It is in that capacity that we have
done oversight of this program.
I note the presence of another cosponsor--and I will give her a
moment to get ready--Senator Feinstein of California, whom I will yield
to whenever she wants to speak.
One of the arguments against this--actually, since no one is on the
floor opposing this, I am going to use a memo sent out this afternoon
by staff to Senators opposing the amendment from the Democratic
leadership office, I believe. I will just pick out a few of these.
The first problem cited: This program was passed in 2003 as a 5-year
pilot program. It has now been extended twice through appropriations
bills to minimize the disruption to students already in the program,
and a plan for winding it down is in place. But that is the point.
So they say: Reauthorization is not needed to keep students in the
schools they are in. That, according to the DC authorities on this, is
not true. There is not enough money in it to keep them in there. The
President said, in his budget this year, this would probably be the
last time he would recommend appropriating to this program. The promise
was to keep these students in the Opportunity Scholarship Program right
through graduation from high school. There is not enough money there.
But more to the point, there is every reason to do it, based on the
independent evaluation of the program, based on Michelle Rhee,
chancellor of the DC Public Schools, who is supporting the 5-year
reauthorization because she feels it is necessary.
Incidentally, this reauthorization is also supported by Mayor Fenty.
He supports the tripartite appropriation: public schools, charter
schools, and the Opportunity Scholarship Program. And it is supported
in a letter from a majority of the members of the city council of the
District.
I want to quote--I will come back to it again--Michelle Rhee. This is
why it is not adequate to say this ought to be just appropriated every
year and keep these students in the program dangling every year, making
it harder to find an independent administrator of the program, why
reauthorization is needed. But listen to this. This is Michelle Rhee in
testimony before the Financial Services and General Government
Subcommittee on September 16 of last year. She says:
[O]n a regular basis, I have parents from Wards 7 and 8
(which are our highest poverty wards, which are also the home
of our lowest performing schools) come to me and they've done
everything a parent should do and they say, ``I've looked at
all the data, I know my neighborhood school and the schools
surrounding are not performing at the level that I want them
to. So I participated in the out-of-boundary process; I went
through the lottery and I didn't get a slot at one of the
schools I wanted.'' So they look at me and say, ``Now what?
What are you going to do?''
Michelle Rhee answered in her testimony:
And I cannot look at those parents in the eye right now at
this point and offer every single one of them a spot in a
school that I think is a high-performing school.
Here is a gutsy comment from this chancellor who is really devoted to
the improvement of the public schools. Chancellor Rhee says:
And until I think we are able to do that, which I think is
on that five-year horizon, then I believe that we do need to
have choice for our families and I think they do have to have
the ability to participate: either to move into a charter
school or to use the opportunity scholarships.
End of quote from the chancellor of the DC Public School System. I
have the greatest respect for her. It took a lot of guts to say that.
But she said ``5-year horizon,'' and that is what this reauthorization
does. It gives these kids--these parents who know their children are
not getting a good education in the public school they are in--who have
not been able to go to one of the out-of-boundary, out-of-their-
neighborhood schools because the schools are packed, have not made it
into a charter school because I gather there are thousands waiting who
cannot get into the existing charter schools--let's give them an
opportunity to get one of these opportunity scholarships and have a
chance for a better education and a better life.
Mr. President, I am going to stop now. I am very grateful for the
cosponsorship by the distinguished Senator from California, a former
mayor, of course, who is intimately knowledgeable on public education,
who is committed to public education and yet really concerned about
every child. That is what this program is about.
I will yield the floor at this moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank you for the recognition.
I thank the distinguished Senator and chairman of the committee for
his leadership on this issue. Also, the Senator from Maine is in the
Chamber. I thank her for her support.
This has not been an easy program. It has always surprised me that
people oppose anything that might give an individual another
opportunity. I believe very deeply that some children do well in one
kind of setting, other children do well in another kind of setting, and
the real goal of education ought to be to provide a number of different
choices for youngsters so you can see where they learn best and then
enable them to be in that situation. I also have always had a hard time
understanding why only the well-to-do can afford a private school, why
youngsters have to go to schools that are among
[[Page 3471]]
the most troubled and, candidly, the worst anywhere because that is the
way it is and that is what public education insists it be. So I have
supported this program for some 6 years now, since its inception under
the leadership of District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams, and I
strongly believe it should be continued. It is right.
It started out as a 5-year pilot program to determine whether
youngsters, low-income students, do, in fact, learn more and learn
better in some of DC's private and parochial schools. The program's
most recent evaluation results show this program is, in fact, valid and
students are, in fact, improving. So I say, why not reauthorize it?
What is everybody scared of? Why not reauthorize it? The scholarships
of up to $7,500 that are offered through the DC Opportunity Scholarship
Program help children make their education in a private or parochial
school possible.
Currently, we know this: There are 1,319 children who attend 45
private and parochial schools. They all come from families where the
average income is $25,000, and 85 percent of these students would be in
DC's worst performing public schools if it were not for this program.
This amendment would extend the life of this worthy program for 5
more years and allow both current and new students the opportunity to
participate. What are we afraid of? It is supported by DC Mayor Adrian
Fenty, as the chairman said; DC School Chancellor Michelle Rhee--one
very gutsy young superintendent; a majority of the District's council;
and by parents in the District.
What are we afraid of?
Preliminary evaluations by the U.S. Department of Education's
Institute of Education Sciences have shown academic gains and student
improvement. When these students entered the program 6 years ago, they
were performing in the bottom third on reading and math tests in the
District's public schools. Last year's more comprehensive evaluation
shows that reading test scores of students receiving a scholarship were
higher by the equivalent of 3 months of additional schooling. It showed
that they increased to the 35th percentile on the SAT-9 national
standardized test from the 33rd percentile where they were before
entering the program. So progress has been made. Specifically, pilot
program students scored 4.5 points higher in reading on the SAT-9, with
a total score of 635.4 when compared to the District's public school
students' score of 630.9. These academic gains are despite the many
challenges these students face outside the classroom, coming from
families where the average income is $25,000.
I look forward to learning more in the months ahead of how students
are performing in the program and the impact it has had on them. But in
the meantime, there are these results. They may not be major, but what
they are showing is that youngsters are learning to read better in this
new setting than they were in the public school setting. That, indeed,
is something.
I would like to share three examples with you of how the program has
helped change the lives of the District's youngsters and how it has
shown to give them a chance to reach their highest potential.
Let me give you the first one. OK. Here we are. This is a picture of
Shirley-Ann Tomdio, a ninth grade student at Georgetown Visitation High
School. I have someone very close to me at Georgetown Visitation. This
is a tough academic school, so this youngster has gone from one of the
worst schools to a very strong academic school. The scholarship has
allowed her to attend this school for the past 5 years. She is now a
ninth grade student at Georgetown Visitation School, and she wants to
go to college and become a surgeon. She was the eighth grade
valedictorian at Sacred Heart Middle School which is located in the
District's neighborhood of Columbia Heights.
Shirley-Ann said at her eighth grade graduation speech last year:
The DC OSP [Opportunity Scholarship Program] is important
to me because without it I wouldn't be able to receive the
best education possible. It should continue so that my
brother, sister, and other students get the same chance.
Every child should get the chance to go to a good school.
Who can disagree with that? That is her statement. She is one of the
lucky ones. She will go on, and she will do well.
The second student is Carlos Battle. He is a twelfth grade student at
Georgetown Day School. He has attended a private school for the past 6
years, since the program started. He is a well-rounded student,
participating in school plays. He enjoys classes in classical and
modern dance. He plays on the basketball team. And he maintains a solid
grade point average of 3.1. He wants to go to college and has already
been accepted to Northeastern University with a possible full
scholarship, and Loyola University, among other colleges.
He comes from a family with a single mother and has a younger brother
named Calvin who is currently an eighth grader at St. Francis Xavier
Academy, also with a scholarship from the program.
Carlos said this about his experience in the program:
The scholarships I have received through the Washington
Scholarship Fund have afforded me countless opportunities,
but most important, I have been given the chance to better
myself. Now, instead of wanting to be someone who is well-
known on the streets, I'd rather be someone who is well-known
for his education, communication, and advocacy skills. I now
no longer have to worry about fights breaking out in my
classroom, or being threatened on a constant basis.
With this security, I'm able to focus harder and become
more active in my school's community. Even better, I can look
forward to the future. If I keep on this same track, I am
almost guaranteed a better future for my family and for
myself.
Why should we be afraid of this program?
Let me show you a third youngster, Sanya Arias. This is someone who
is now attending St. John's University in New York. She graduated last
year from Archbishop Carroll High School with a 3.95 grade point
average and is now in her first year at St. John's University in New
York with a full scholarship, and she loves it.
The DC opportunity scholarship helped Sanya attend Archbishop Carroll
High where she was vice president of her class, captain of the soccer
team, on the lacrosse team, and president of the International Club.
In addition to her many extracurricular activities, Sanya took all
honors and advanced placement courses. She said this about her
experience in the program after just graduating from Archbishop Carroll
High School:
It just shows the difference from 7th and 8th grade to
where I am now, where my friends strive to succeed and they
influence me to want to succeed along with them. So, I'm
really grateful for this opportunity.
Why don't the words of students such as Sanya, Carlos, and Shirley-
Ann affect us? Why don't they enable us to see that choice in education
is not something that is threatening?
I serve on the Appropriations Committee. I was one of the deciding
votes in that committee when this came up. We put a lot of amount of
money, additionally, into the District for public education to be able
to sustain a simple choice opportunity program.
This program goes to the District's neediest students from the
District's most failing schools. I have just shown my colleagues three
who have succeeded. Is that not worth it? I do not understand why we
are so afraid to give needy youngsters the opportunity of choice in
education, to allow someone who cannot do well in a certain setting to
have a different setting in which they may well be able to do very
well.
I say to these three youngsters: All the more power to you. I am very
proud. We should listen to students such as Sanya, Carlos, and Shirley-
Ann and continue to provide this program to the District's neediest
children. We need different models for different children, and I think
this program is showing that.
I don't know, there is a lot of lobbying against the program. The
teachers union does not like the program. I don't understand why. I
don't understand what is to fear. I don't understand why, if you
provide some funding
[[Page 3472]]
for poor children to go to a special environment to learn and they
learn and this youngster now is in a university because of it--I think
that is what we are all about. I strongly support this program.
I thank Senator Lieberman for his support and advocacy for it and his
leadership in bringing this to the floor. I hope we have the votes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, briefly, I thank my colleague and dear
friend from California for a wonderful statement. First, I say
officially as an Independent that the Senator from California has begun
demonstrating her independence of mind, spirit, and heart.
Secondly, I cannot tell the Senator how important it was that she did
what she did with those three students because this is personal. This
matters to individual students. It is hard to imagine the talents these
three have shown and have developed would have been developed in the
same way, unfortunately, at the school they were consigned to by their
neighborhood.
Years ago, I learned an expression from some wise person--a hundred
years ago--that if you save one life, it is as if you saved the whole
world because every individual has all the potential of the world
within them. That probably was talking more about physically saving a
life. The truth is, in a way, that is real. By giving these kids an
equal educational opportunity, we are giving them the ability to save
their own lives.
I cannot thank the Senator from California enough for a wonderful
statement. I appreciate it very much.
I note the presence of my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator
Voinovich, who has been a long-time advocate, going back to his days in
Ohio, for better educational opportunity for every child.
I yield the floor and look forward to his statement at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lieberman for the
leadership he has shown in this effort to make a difference in the
lives of students in the District of Columbia. The Senator from
California did a beautiful job of outlining the difference it has made
for just a few who have been able to participate in the program thus
far.
I rise, of course, to support the amendment--the amendment that will
continue to give thousands of children in the District of Columbia an
opportunity for a good education.
It was first authorized in 2004. The program has the potential to
provide 1,700 children with scholarships of up to $7,500 each to attend
the school of their choice. To qualify, students must live in the
District and have a household income of no more than 185 percent of the
poverty line. In the District, recipients' average family income is
$24,300. These are very poor kids from families who are just making it.
It is not something we have created to make available to everyone.
Unfortunately, while the program can provide 1,700 children with
scholarships, it does not. Increasingly, prohibitive language in the
appropriations bills and a hostile administration--and I mean hostile--
has already decreased participation significantly. The program now
helps just over 1,300 students.
It is baffling to me why this administration has focused so much
attention opposing a successful program which has provided a high-
quality education to more than 3,300 children. According to the
independent evaluator of the program, ``participating DC students are
reading at higher levels as a result of the Opportunity Scholarship
Program.'' That is why, since 2004, approximately 9,000 families have
applied for spots in the program--nearly three applications for each
available scholarship.
In its fiscal year 2011 budget request, President Obama has indicated
this will be the last year he expects to request funding for the
program based on declining participation. Give me a break. I say to the
President: It is difficult to participate in a program that is closed
to new applicants. Participation levels are down because the Secretary
of Education rescinded more than 200 scholarships to deserving children
for the current school year, and he did so after enrollment in
desirable charter and public schools had already begun.
Are we going to allow these children to return to failing, unsafe
schools? High school graduation rates in the District's public schools
are consistently among the worst in the Nation. According to the
Washington Post--which, by the way, has editorialized in favor of this
over and over--just over half the District's teenage students attend a
school that is ``persistently dangerous,'' as defined by the DC
Government. On an average school day, nine violent incidents are
reported throughout the school system.
I would like to say that Michelle Rhee is doing her very best to
bring back the school system. The DC Tuition Assistance Grant Program
has been a help to many of these students. In fact, we increased
attendance to college education because of the TAG Program. She is
doing everything she can. Here is someone who came in here and wants to
make a difference for the District. Before our Governmental Affairs
Committee, she came out strongly and said this program should be
continued. Mayor Fenty, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, again
said this program should be continued.
What I find troubling is that some of our leaders who have exercised
their right to school choice are denying that right to District
parents. President Obama enrolled his children in a private school.
There is no way he would allow his kids to attend the DC public
schools.
Listen to this: Secretary of Education Arne Duncan moved his family
to Virginia, saying:
I didn't want to try to save the country's children and our
educational system and jeopardize my own children's
education.
Hear that?
I don't want to try to save the country's children and our
educational system and jeopardize my own children's
education.
He has that opportunity. These people who take advantage of the
program do not have that opportunity.
To quote former DC Mayor Anthony Williams:
It is only fair to allow low-income parents the same
choices that we all have, to select the best educational
environment for their child.
In a letter to Senate Democrats regarding the DC program, the
National Education Association wrote:
Throughout its history, NEA has strongly opposed any
diversion of limited public funds to private schools.
Unfortunately, the letter neglects the fact that the scholarships
were designed according to a three-sector approach under which not a
single dime has been cut from public schools. In fact, when we came in
with this program--I think the Senator from Connecticut remembers--we
put $14 million into charters, $14 million into the public school
system, and $14 million into the scholarship program. We did not take a
dime away from the District. In fact, they made out quite well on it.
Add up 3 times 14, whatever that is. That is not bad coming from the
Congress so we can move forward with some new ideas.
I have to tell my colleagues something. The merits of the program are
of little importance to the NEA. I know this because after endorsing my
1998 Senate campaign, here is what they said. I love this:
It is fair to say that no other Governor has done more for
education and Ohio's children.
That is the NEA. They then quickly withdrew support for my 2004
campaign because I supported the DC School Choice Act. I was told--I
will never forget it. I went into the interview. They all sit around.
You know how it is. I answered their questions. After it was over, my
opponent did the same thing.
Later on I heard back from the people who were there. They said: You
did a terrific job. We appreciate what you have done, but you are not
going to get it because we have been told from the boys in Washington:
There is no way you are going to be allowed to endorse George Voinovich
because he came out for the DC Scholarship Program.
[[Page 3473]]
Mr. President, I know the same kind of pressure is on many Members of
this Senate. What they are afraid of is, if they vote for this
amendment Senator Lieberman has, it will hurt them with the OEA or the
NEA they have in their respective States. Senator Lieberman has done
the job explaining what this is. This is not a big deal. Why can't they
stand and say: This is a little bitty program that is helping a bunch
of kids in the District of Columbia. Give me a break. Why shouldn't I
support it?
I may be a little emotional about this, but Ohioans knew this was a
good program way back in 1995 when, as Governor, I supported the
opportunity scholarships with the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring
Program Office. This was opposed--of course it was--but Ohioans knew it
was a good program. Over 1,900 students participated in the first year.
So with hard work and dedication, we fought for the program for nearly
a decade. Finally, on June 27, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a
landmark decision, agreed that the program was constitutional in Zelman
v. Simmons-Harris.
When I leave the Senate, I am going to write a book. One of the
things I am going to talk about in that book is that landmark decision
that started out in the State of Ohio in 1995 because I told the
legislature the Cleveland system was going down the tubes and they
needed to do something else. We finally got them to agree to put that
scholarship program into Cleveland, OH. As a result of that program,
over 1,900 participated in the beginning of it. Today, there are 6,000
students who are participating in that program.
The benefits, I would like to say, go beyond the academic. I think
the Senator from California did a beautiful job in laying out how this
helps academically, but a study by the Buckeye Institute in Ohio found
students involved in the Cleveland program are gaining access to a more
integrated school experience. It is very important they have this kind
of experience.
This program wasn't available when I was mayor, and my children
probably wouldn't have been eligible for it, but I will never forget
that my son George was the only White kid in his class in a major work
program in the city of Cleveland, and I have to tell you he is a
different person because of the fact that he had that experience.
My daughter was one of two White kids who were in a class that was
all African American. The program was terrific and they took advantage
of it and they had a learning experience they would not have had if it
hadn't been for this program that brought kids together for a special
program.
In his closing testimony before our committee, former Mayor Anthony
Williams said:
Quite frankly, I am befuddled by the proposal to have the
program die by attrition. I cannot understand why anyone
could eliminate a program that has uplifted the lives,
fulfilled the dreams and given hopes to thousands of low-
income families.
I am also befuddled by that idea, and I urge my colleagues to stand
and be counted. Support the Lieberman amendment. Let's let these kids
have an opportunity that without this program they are not going to
have available to them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Voinovich for
his statement. He brings several thoughts to my mind. The first is:
Senator Voinovich, I am going to miss you when you retire at the end of
this year. You are a straight shooter, you are a straight talker, and
you speak from your heart. You have had a lot of practical experience--
as mayor, as Governor, and as a Member of the Senate--and you bring it
all to bear in what you said.
Secondly, I look forward to buying that book you are about to write.
I hope it is about your career broadly, but I would be real interested
in that Ohio opportunity scholarships or voucher program.
Mr. VOINOVICH. If the Senator would yield, Mr. President, I would
like to say, I hope that one of the things I write about is the
Lieberman amendment that passed the Senate.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Well, let's call it the Lieberman-Voinovich amendment.
Senator Voinovich has spoken from his own experience in the Ohio
case. As he said, sometimes people say opportunity scholarships or
vouchers are constitutionally suspect or unconstitutional. Not true.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Ohio voucher program was a neutral
private choice program that did not violate the establishment clause.
But I will tell you what rings in my ear is the questions that have
been raised by my colleagues in support of this amendment. Senator
Voinovich said: Why would you vote against this amendment? Why would
you vote against this program? As the Senator from California, Mrs.
Feinstein, said: What is there to be afraid of in this program? It
doesn't take money away from the public schools. The head of the DC
Public School System is for the program because she thinks it will
benefit the children who need it, whom she knows she can't give a
quality eduction to over the 5 years of the authorization program.
This program has been tested by an independent evaluator, Dr. Patrick
Wolf, principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Education
study, and he concluded that:
The DC voucher program has proven to be the most effective
education innovation policy program evaluated by the Federal
Government's official education research arm so far.
Of the 11 innovation programs investigated, studies showed only 3
have reported any statistically significant achievement gains, and the
gains reported in the Opportunity Scholarship Program in the District
of Columbia are the highest thus far.
I know Senator Rockefeller wants to return to the FAA authorization
bill, so I will begin to wind this up. I thank all my colleagues who
came over to speak on behalf of the amendment. I regret that nobody has
come to speak against it. I was looking forward to a good debate. So I
have to go back to this staff memo sent out to Senators against the
amendment. We have actually dealt with all the arguments made:
Public dollars should be spent on public schools that accept all
students subject to uniform public standards. This program accepts the
students who apply, and when there are too many, they subject them to a
lottery. It is a wide-open program.
They cite the Department of Education study. They do not do it
fairly. They speak wrongly: DC parents already have choices about where
to send their children with the public charter school network. Yet we
know those programs are oversubscribed.
The fact is, all the arguments made in this memo against the DC
Opportunity Scholarship Program and keeping it alive in the hopes that
the lives of a limited number of students in the DC school system--
1,300; maybe with this reauthorization they will be able to add a
couple hundred more in each year for the next 5 years; maybe it will be
1,000 more children--will be better and for whom the doors of
opportunity will be opened in a way they are not opened now. Why would
anybody oppose this? I can't think of a good reason.
The group that has been most vigorously opposed has been the teachers
unions. I understand why, but their interests do not outweigh the
interests of these children, economically disadvantaged, with dreams
and hopes they can't realize in the schools they are in but who have
those hopes elevated and realized--as those three beautiful pictures of
students who have been in this program that Senator Feinstein showed
us.
Look, along with Chancellor Rhee, I hope for and, in fact, envision a
day when the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program is not needed and it
will not be needed because the DC Public School System will be
providing a good education to every student who lives in the District
of Columbia. But that, as Chancellor Rhee has said, is not the reality
these children and their families live in today. Many schools in our
Nation's Capital, as the chancellor has said, are not providing an
adequate education to the students.
[[Page 3474]]
I repeat: I will bet there is not a Member of this Senate, if their
children were consigned by neighborhood allocation systems, who would
not spend the money to get their children out of those schools because
their children's lives and hopes and dreams would be compromised,
through no fault of their own, simply because the schools were not
adequate to educate them. So this is all about helping some of those
students by supporting this amendment to reauthorize the DC Opportunity
Scholarship Program 5 more years.
I hope and pray what Chancellor Rhee said is right; that in 5 years
she can look every parent of every student in the DC Public School
System in the eye and say: Your child is at a school where he or she
can get a good education so we don't need the DC Opportunity
Scholarship Program anymore. But for now, Chancellor Rhee says we need
it, Mayor Fenty says we need it, former Mayor Williams--who helped to
create the program--is strongly for it, and a July 2009 poll conducted
in the District of Columbia says, 75 percent of District residents want
and need the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.
I don't see a reason why a majority of Members of this Senate,
hopefully an overwhelming bipartisan majority, would speak against
this; would frustrate the hopes of all these families, all these
students, and all these leaders of education in the District of
Columbia. So I am going to yield the floor with the hope that we can
have a vote on this soon, and I urge my colleagues to think about the
1,319 children whose lives will be compromised, whose dreams will be
stifled if this program is not reauthorized.
I thank Senator Rockefeller for his patience while we continued on
this amendment, and with that, I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to vehemently oppose Senator
Lieberman's amendment to reauthorize the District of Columbia
Opportunity Scholarship Program. This amendment would extend a program
that impacts fewer than 5 percent of the District's public school
children, and, after more than 5 years in operation, has proved to be
little more than an ineffective exercise in ideologically driven
education reform.
The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program has minimal impact and scant
evidence of any academic benefit to the students who participate in the
program. It also siphons vital Federal money away from DC families that
enroll their boys and girls in public schools. I would rather see that
money invested in research-driven, high-impact education initiatives
that benefit public schools open to all children. Let's invest more in
DC's early education programs, so that moms and dads have kids ready
for kindergarten when they get there. Let's boost funding for teacher
recruitment to bring the best teachers into DC's most challenged
schools, which can have a tough time recruiting top talent. Let's
invest in the renovation and modernization of DC's oldest school
buildings, so students and families are guaranteed safe, clean, and
healthy learning environments. Let's ramp up funding to improve DC's
special education programs, so that parents aren't forced to send their
children to costly, private special education providers.
I can understand why parents would be excited about the opportunity
to send their child to a private school. I myself am the product of a
Catholic education. But I cannot reconcile that potential benefit to
parents with the fact that certain members of Congress believe they can
act like DC's school board. I believe the District of Columbia should
have a voice and a vote in Congress; that they should receive
statehood. I believe they should control their own money. And, I
believe that if DC would like to have a voucher program the DC School
Board should vote for it and pay for it with local, not Federal, tax
dollars.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing Senator Lieberman's
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to get back to something
called the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill. It is
the bill we are on. I do not hesitate to say my daughter was one of the
cofounders of a charter school, very successful, in Washington, DC, but
I would also say to her, as I would to proponents of this legislation
which is being discussed--vouchers--that in the Federal aviation bill,
we are talking about 500 million Americans who fly every year. Not to
diminish them nor my daughter's incredible work--1,300 students--that
figure is going to rise very shortly to over 1 billion, and therefore
what we do in the Federal aviation bill, which is the pending business,
is incredibly important.
Senator Byron Dorgan has discussed safety issues and other aspects of
the legislation and he is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation
Operations, Safety, and Security, which I was for 10 years before I
became chairman of the full committee, so I care passionately about the
Federal Aviation Administration bill. I recognize it is not the most
colorful, gallant legislation in the history of the world but, believe
me, it affects every single American. It used to be that only 16
percent of Americans fly. Now everybody flies.
There is no way to describe how frustrated passengers are, and they
have every right to be. This Federal aviation bill, incidentally, has
been extended or laid over 11 different times. Eleven different times
we have not been able to get to it, until this day. So I am glad we had
the previous discussion and we are going to get to a number of
amendments and vote on them before 6 o'clock this evening, after I
announce some agreements that have been already been reached. So
progress is being made, and I just wish to see it continue being made.
You have to figure that some passengers--not many cases but in some
cases--have been kept waiting 9 hours on a tarmac. I can't even begin
to do the body math of 9 hours, but I don't choose to because it is not
pleasant. How does one eat? How does one keep sanity? Presumably, the
engines are running. If they are, there is air. If they are not, there
is no air. So it is extremely stuffy. You are without food, you are
without water, you are without facilities and, most important, you are
without any information to know where you are. This is all absolutely
unacceptable.
In one little section of the bill, I want to say a couple of the
things we do to fix that. This bill requires that air carriers in
coordination with airports develop contingency plans to make certain
they are prepared for these kinds of delays which will happen and which
do happen. As more and more people fly, they will happen more
frequently. It is a fact of life.
Under our bill, passengers have to have access to water, they have to
have access to food, to restroom facilities, and to medical attention.
They cannot remain on the tarmac for over 3 hours. I think that is
stretching it. There is one little caveat which I sort of accept--at
least it is in the bill--that if a pilot in his or her judgment
believes that within the next 30 minutes or less they will take off,
they do not have to go back to the terminal to disgorge their
passengers so they can get caught up on water, facilities, medical
attention, all the rest of it.
These are such commonsense protections, but they affect so many
people and children. I have five grandchildren. I am trying to think
what my five grandchildren would be acting like after 3 hours on a
plane that has not gone anywhere. I am trying to imagine that from
various points of view and none of them comes out very favorably, not
one of them.
The air carriers will also have to post on their Web site which of
their flights as a matter of their record tend to be delayed, tend to
be canceled, tend to be on time, or diverted. That is a matter of
record. It is not doing every one, but those which are likely to do
that. That is on the Web site so when the passenger purchases tickets
they get that, and that information has to be updated on a monthly
basis and it has to be provided to customers before they purchase a
ticket, Web site or no Web site.
[[Page 3475]]
That is an advance in keeping passengers happier.
Any air carrier selling a ticket must disclose the actual air
carrier. Why do I say that? Because, as Senator Dorgan has said a
number of times, oft you do not know what you are flying on. There is a
United up here, and a Colgan down here, and you don't know what you are
flying on so you do not know who to hold accountable. We think
accountability matters so you are told before you get the ticket what
plane you are going to be flying on--who owns that plane, who flies
that plane. So you do not, as I routinely--in West Virginia, this
Senator--they are all propeller flights with one or two exceptions.
Senator Dorgan has also pointed out that 50 percent of all our
aviation in America--and we do fly half the people in the world. We are
half the world's air traffic, right in North America. So we have to
know whether they are a regional carrier and we have to know the
information about them before people buy their ticket.
Passengers have been overlooked. They have been dismissed by the
aviation system for so many years because we could get away with it and
everybody was prospering. But along this time people were suffering,
grievously sometimes. I think a lot of people--in fact, I think of a
couple of my sisters and some people in my office, who, just when they
are in an airplane, they change. They get white-knuckled. It is a
cylinder, and people react in different ways to that. So we need to
give passengers all the comfort, the information, and the transparency
they can possibly have.
I just make that short statement. It is one aspect of our very long
and comprehensive FAA authorization bill which has been waiting now for
3 years to reauthorization, and which we wish to do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, as the Senator from West Virginia said,
we are on the FAA reauthorization bill, that is reauthorizing the
programs that deal with aviation safety and air traffic control and
airport improvement funds and essential air service--all of these
issues. For the last hour we have been hearing debate about a school
voucher program in the District of Columbia. Why would that be the
case? Because this is an authorization bill and anyone can come and
offer any amendment to an authorization bill. So Senator Lieberman and
the cosponsors of his amendment are well within their rights to do
that. It has nothing at all to do with the bill on the floor of the
Senate, however.
Because we are going to vote on it, however, let me say a few words
about it. I have spoken about the FAA reauthorization bill previously
this afternoon and will again later, but let me talk for a moment about
the issue of school vouchers. First, this is not the place to do it.
This is not the place to offer the amendment. They have the right to
offer the amendment but we are trying to get a bill done here.
The rest of the world is moving forward to modernize the aircraft
control system and we, with the most congested and complicated air
traffic control space in the world, we have extended the FAA
authorization 11 straight times because we have not been able to get a
bill done.
We will probably have three or four votes today and none of them have
anything to do with the FAA. I hope we will clear some amendments.
Senator Rockefeller has been working hard to clear some amendments, but
the votes we will have today have to do with earmark reform or school
vouchers or any number of other subjects, discretionary budget caps,
having nothing to do with the underlying bill. But if we must vote on
them, let me at least take a couple of moments to respond to what we
have heard for the last hour.
I know the people who came here to support the voucher amendment are
enormously passionate about their support. The amendment is providing
vouchers paid for by the American taxpayer for about 1,200 students in
the District of Columbia, to attend private schools. In short, it
provides public funding for certain students to attend private schools.
I am a big supporter of education. I believe education is our future.
I believe when Thomas Jefferson said that anybody who believes a
country can be both ignorant and free believes in something that never
was and never can be. I understand that. I think education is the
building block and foundation for America's future. In fact, it has
been the success of America, that we designed education from the very
start differently from many other countries. We said we are going to
have a system of public education--public education, that means public
schools that allow every child to go into that school and come out of
that school with whatever their God-given talents allow them to become.
We are not going to move people off, in the sixth grade or eighth
grade, based on ability. That is not the way we are going to do it.
Every child can enter those classrooms and decide to graduate with
whatever their God-given talent allows them to achieve in this
education system.
That is public education. I know people say to me America's schools
do not work. Oh, really? Really? If you get to the Moon, anybody, would
you please tell me whose bootprints are on the Moon? They are not
Chinese or Russian, they are bootprints made by an American, made
possible by people who were educated in America's public school system,
who helped us to understand the science and math that allowed us to
learn to build airplanes and learn to fly them and then build rockets
and walk on the Moon and plant an American flag on the Moon. Public
education has been remarkable for this country.
I walked into the oldest House Member's office the first day I came
to the Congress. His name was Claude Pepper and he had two photographs
behind his chair, at his desk, that I have never forgotten. Claude was
in his mid- or late eighties. One photo was of Orville and Wilbur
Wright making the first airplane flight, December 17, 1903, 59 seconds
off the ground, the first human-powered flight. The photo was
autographed ``To Congressman Claude Pepper with deep admiration,
Orville Wright,'' before Orville died.
But just behind it was a second photograph of Neil Armstrong stepping
gently with his boot on the surface of the Moon. I thought to myself,
what is the distance measured between those two photographs? About four
inches. But think of the distance in education, to learn to fly and fly
to the Moon. Someone else didn't do that. We did that, with a network
of public education that says to every kid: You can become whatever
your God-given talents allow you to become.
Universal education in a system of public schools. Is it perfect?
Certainly not. Has it worked? You bet. I am so tired of people trashing
public schools. I go into a lot of classrooms and I almost never leave
the classroom without thinking to myself: What an American hero
teaching in that classroom. They didn't choose the profession that pays
the most, for sure. But that teacher, that man or woman who is teaching
those kids, what a remarkable person that is. I always leave classrooms
feeling that way.
Let me talk about this program very quickly. This program, a voucher
program to create public funding for a certain number of students here
in the District of Columbia to attend private schools, was established
as a 5-year pilot program in 2003. That is 7 years ago; a 5-year pilot
program. It has now been extended twice through appropriations bills in
order to minimize the disruption for students already in the program
and a plan to wind it down is now in place. Reauthorization is not
needed to keep current students in their schools.
In my judgment, public dollars should be spent on public schools.
Yes, there are improvements that are needed in public schools. Why
don't we invest in those improvements. Here in the District of Columbia
they are $40 million short of what is needed. Yet we are using public
dollars to support vouchers for private schools. I know it is not a lot
of money but this is a program that, 7 years ago, was authorized
[[Page 3476]]
for 5 years. It demonstrates how hard it is to shut down any program.
At a time when education budgets are being slashed for public schools,
we ought to be directing the money we have in the public domain for
public schools.
Those who wish to attend private schools, they pay private tuition, I
understand that. But our public funding ought to be devoted to
strengthen our public schools.
Let me talk for a moment about a study that has been done of this
voucher program. It has produced very mixed results. The Department of
Education did a study that was mandated. After 3 years, no
statistically significant achievement impacts were registered for
students coming from the lowest performing schools. The reason that is
important is that was the target of this program, low-performance
schools, to allow those parents to get those kids out of those schools
and give them a voucher to go to a private school. What we have
discovered from the Department of Education study is for those very
schools, the target schools, the lower performing schools, there is no
statistical achievement impact for students who came from those schools
going into this voucher program.
Some of my colleagues said you have to give these people a choice and
a chance. How about giving them a choice? The District of Columbia
already has choices. There are choices available to parents on where to
send their kids. There is a robust public charter school network with
60 charter schools here in the District of Columbia. Unlike voucher
schools, public charter schools are open to all students, subject to
the same accountability as all other schools, public schools; the same
accountability standards. So the parents in DC already have some of
that flexibility about which schools their children shall attend.
This program has not gone through the full committee process since
2003. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has yet
to mark up this legislation in this Congress. More important, this
amendment has nothing at all to do with the bill that is on the floor
of the Senate.
I do not support this on its merits. I didn't support it in the
Appropriations Committee. I do not support it now. I believe we ought
to defeat it at this point, not because I do not support education but
it is precisely because I support public education that we ought not be
spooning off money here into a voucher program, taking public funds and
moving them into private schools with, as I indicated, very mixed
results as reported in a study that was done by the U.S. Department of
Education.
I want for our children, for all children, to have the best education
they can have. Our public school system has served this country well,
but we have a lot of challenges. I will, finally, say this: One of the
significant challenges of the public school system is not that teachers
are poor teachers; it is not that the school is a bad school; it is, a
school inherits virtually everything that exists in that town or that
neighborhood and has to deal with it. That is just a fact.
So it is a challenge sometimes to, in public schools, do all that we
want to do. But if we look at a couple of hundred years of history in
the United States of America, it is pretty hard to conclude that we, as
opposed to all other countries, we are the ones with universal
education. We are the ones who supported public education. It is pretty
hard to conclude that we have come up short relative to other
countries.
Let me make one other point and perhaps boast just for a moment. If
North Dakota were a country and not a State, a country not a State, we
would rank second in the world next to Singapore in eighth grade math
scores.
Does good news get reported very often? Not very often. It is just
bad news that sells. This is an old saying: Bad news travels halfway
around the world before good news gets its shoes on.
We ought to spend a day talking about the good news of education and
then spend time as well addressing the challenges because there are
some difficulties that we need to address. But I did want to say I am
not going to vote for this voucher amendment. I do not think it is the
right choice. I believe the proper choice is to strengthen public
education, address the challenges of public education. We can do that.
Our parents did it, our grandparents did it, and we can have the same
kind of impact on our future as they did.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 25 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Lehman Brothers
Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, last Thursday the bankruptcy examiner
for Lehman Brothers Holdings, Incorporated released a 2,200-page report
about the demise of the firm, which included riveting detail on the
firm's accounting practices. That report has put into sharp relief what
many have expected all along: that fraud and potential criminal conduct
were at the heart of this financial crisis.
Now that we are beginning to learn many of the facts, at least with
respect to the activities of Lehman Brothers, the country has every
right to be outraged.
I yield the floor, and 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. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate now resume consideration of the DeMint amendment No. 3454, and
that at 6 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment,
with the time until then divided and controlled between Senators Inouye
and DeMint or their designees; and that upon disposition of amendment
No. 3454, the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the following
amendments with 2 minutes of debate prior to each vote equally divided
and controlled in the usual form; and that after the first vote in this
sequence, the remaining votes be limited to 10 minutes each; and that
no amendment be in order to any of the amendments in this order, prior
to a vote in relation thereto; and that in the case where there is a
modification, the amendment be so modified with the changes at the
desk.
The amendments are Feingold amendment No. 3470, as modified; Vitter
amendment No. 3458, as modified; Lieberman amendment No. 3456.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I will not object, but I would like
to add that Senator Cochran be protected, with Senator Inouye, to have
some of the divided time but that it not affect the 6 o'clock
beginning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the understanding of the Chair.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments, as modified, are as follows:
amendment no. 3458, as modified
At the end of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 7__. COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS.
Section 31 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1356a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Application requirements; availability of funding.--
On approval of a plan by the Secretary under this section,
the producing State shall--
``(A) not be subject to any additional application or other
requirements (other than notifying the Secretary of which
projects are being carried out under the plan) to receive the
payments; and
``(B) be immediately eligible to receive payments under
this section.''
amendment no. 3470, as modified
At the end, insert the following:
TITLE ___--RESCISSION OF UNUSED TRANSPORTATION EARMARKS AND GENERAL
REPORTING REQUIREMENT
SEC. _01. DEFINITION.
In this title, the term ``earmark'' means the following:
(1) A congressionally directed spending item, as defined in
Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
[[Page 3477]]
(2) A congressional earmark, as defined for purposes of
Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
SEC. _02. RESCISSION.
Any earmark of funds provided for the Department of
Transportation with more than 90 percent of the appropriated
amount remaining available for obligation at the end of the
9th fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the
earmark was made available is rescinded effective at the end
of that 9th fiscal year, except that the Secretary of
Transportation may delay any such rescission if the Secretary
determines that an additional obligation of the earmark is
likely to occur during the following 12-month period.
SEC. _03. AGENCY WIDE IDENTIFICATION AND REPORTS.
(a) Agency Identification.--Each Federal agency shall
identify and report every project that is an earmark with an
unobligated balance at the end of each fiscal year to the
Director of OMB.
(b) Annual Report.--The Director of OMB shall submit to
Congress and publically post on the website of OMB an annual
report that includes--
(1) a listing and accounting for earmarks with unobligated
balances summarized by agency including the amount of the
original earmark, amount of the unobligated balance, and the
year when the funding expires, if applicable;
(2) the number of rescissions resulting from this title and
the annual savings resulting from this title for the previous
fiscal year; and
(3) a listing and accounting for earmarks provided for the
Department of Transportation scheduled to be rescinded at the
end of the current fiscal year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I just wanted to say to my
colleagues that they need to prepare now for a 6 o'clock vote. Anyone
wanting to debate will be able to do so within the constraints of the
resolution that we just passed.
Senator Inouye is on the Senate floor. We are expecting Senator
Cochran and Senator DeMint. So I hope if anyone else wants to have time
within those timeframes that they would come to the floor now because I
will object to any delay beyond 6 o'clock to start these four votes.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. 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. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the amendment offered by the Senator
from South Carolina is, simply stated, a misguided attempt which would
turn over the power of the purse to the executive branch. It will not
save a penny toward the deficit. It will allow unelected bureaucrats
who have no accountability to voters to determine how Federal tax
dollars are expended instead of the Congress.
Despite the protestations of a few Senators and an active media
campaign spurred on by well-financed so-called watchdogs, this
amendment is a solution to a problem that does not exist.
For the sake of my colleagues who may still want to support a
moratorium on earmarks, let me point out where we are at this moment.
Since retaking the majority in 2006, the Democratic-led Congress has
reduced funding for earmarks by more than 50 percent.
As the new chairman of the appropriations committee last year I vowed
with the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative
Obey, that we would continue on the path set by former Chairman Byrd to
reduce earmarks until they represented less than 1 percent of
discretionary spending.
We achieved that objective in the fiscal year 2010 Appropriations
Bills, and we have agreed that we will not exceed 1 percent as long as
we are chairmen of our respective committees.
If we look at the numbers in 2006, the completed appropriations Acts
included $16.7 billion in what are called ``Non-project Based Earmarks.
Madam President, $8.4 billion of these were in defense and the
remainder in non-defense programs. In the fiscal year 2010 bills, we
ended the year with a total of $8.2 billion in earmarks, $4.1 billion
in defense and $4.1 billion in non-defense, well below 50 percent of
the amount in 2006.
As a percentage of discretionary spending, non-project based earmarks
are hardly \1/2\ of 1 percent. Not only have we accomplished our
objective, we have exceeded our goal.
I am sure others will cite different numbers and try to say that we
have many more earmarks than we are counting. The earmark definition
that we use for FY 2010 is the one that comes from the Senate rules.
Other outside groups may want to consider additional congressional
items as earmarks, but we can only go by what the Senate has declared
as earmarks.
In summation, let me say this. Since the Democrats have retaken the
Congress we have reduced earmarks by more than 50 percent. We are well
below 1 percent of total discretionary spending for non-project based
earmarks, and we will not be going above 1 percent as long as I am
Chairman.
As the Senate considers this amendment, I believe it is time we have
an honest debate about the overall subject of earmarks. What they are
and what they aren't.
First and foremost, earmarks have nothing to do with the deficit. And
let me say that another way to make sure everyone understands.
If we eliminate all earmarks this year or forever, it will not save a
nickel in Federal spending. Not a dime. Not this year, next year, or
ever.
So to continue on this theme, if we adopt the amendment from the
senator from South Carolina, we won't save a penny in fiscal year 2010
or fiscal year 2011. We just change who gets to decide what we spend.
The definition of an earmark is to carve out funding from a budget
for a specific purpose. It is not adding to the budget. When we specify
that we want an agency to spend a portion of its budget on a specific
item we aren't increasing that agency's budget, we are simply
reallocating funding within the budget for that purpose.
If that is not completely understood let's look at it this way. The
president submits his request to the Congress for funding by agency and
budget functions.
Our budget committee reviews the funding requested and tells the
appropriations committee how much funding it can spend in the budget
resolution.
The budget resolution makes no assumptions about earmarks. It doesn't
designate earmark levels in any way, shape or form.
The appropriations committee then divides the total funding provided
in the budget resolution among its subcommittees.
The committee doesn't increase an allocation for earmarks, nor does
it reduce the allocation if earmarks are not funded.
Instead it provides the subcommittee with a total amount it can
spend. For example, the Foreign Operations subcommittee usually chooses
not to proide earmarks. That doesn't change the amount of spending the
subcommittee provides.
If the Senate adopts this amendment it will dictate that the fiscal
year 2011 there will be no earmarks, but the budget committee won't be
reducing the allocation to the appropriations committee. The
appropriations committee won't reduce the subcommittee allocations. We
will just defer to the executive branch to determine how taxpayer funds
are spent.
So this debate like all others on the issue of earmarks is who gets
to determine how taxpayer funds are allocated, the congress or the
Executive Branch?
All my colleagues are aware that the Constitution requires the
Congress to determine where our Nation's funds should be spent. There
can be no argument on that.
Why then do a handful of members persist in advocating the
elimination of the congressional discretion to allocate funds?
Some raise the factor of corruption. We are all too aware the role
that earmarks played in the corruption and eventual conviction of one
Republican member of the House of Representatives.
While other corruption has swept other Members of the House, little
of
[[Page 3478]]
that had to do with earmarks. It has involved paid vacations or gifts.
It has had to do with sweetheart deals in legislation, or possible
bribes for legislative favors.
Moreover, the appropriations committee has enacted reforms to
minimize any possible chance of corruption by increasing transparency.
As Chairman I now require members to place all of their earmarks on
their website 30 days before we act upon their requests.
We then post all earmarks that are to be included in appropriations
bills on the committee's website 24 hours before the full committee
takes action on the bill.
Furthermore, as directed under Senate Rules, we require each Senator
to certify that he or she has no pecuniary interest in any earmark that
is requested.
We cannot legislate morality. What we can do and have done, however,
is to put safeguards in place to ensure that our actions are above
board, transparent, and in the best interest of our constituents.
Clearly if this amendment were to become law it would change who does
the earmarking, not whether earmarks are done.
On February 1, the President submitted his appropriations requests to
the Congress. The staff of the appropriations committee has begun its
detailed examination of that request.
My colleagues should know that our review by the staff and the
members of our subcommittees takes months to complete. However, in our
preliminary review of the budget we have discovered that the President
has requested earmarks totalling $25 billion.
This is a conservative estimate of the executive branch's earmarks
and it uses the same criteria as we would use to identify a
congressional spending earmark, specific location or entity,
noncompetitive award, and specific dollar amount.
In this first assessment, we find that the administration request
exceeds congressional earmarks that were approved last year by more
than 100 percent, twice as much.
This amendment would do nothing to stop the practice of earmarking,
but rather only eliminate the congressional influence in that process.
But for those who want to persist in championing this amendment as a
reform, they should seriously think about the following information.
Last week, the democratic leadership of the House Appropriations
Committee announced that they no longer would include earmarks done on
behalf of for-profit entities, that means for all practical purposes,
private companies.
The reaction from the lobbying community and other interested parties
was swift.
According to a March 11 Washington Post article:
Lobbyists said a prohibition against for profit earmarks
will shift their focus from Capitol Hill to the Federal
agencies.
Mr. Alan Chvotkin, a lobbyist for the Professional Services Council,
was also quoted saying:
There will be greater attention focused on protecting
programs in the President's Budget.
Lobbyists and oversight organizations both agree--the lobbyists will
simply go around the Congress and attempt to get their earmarks in the
President's Request.
A story that appeared in the March 11 edition of Roll Call reports
that Bill Allison of the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, which
advocates for government transparency, said earmarks should remain in
appropriations bills.
``The dangerous earmarkers are those going underground,''
Mr. Allison said. ``The real solution is to make them
transparent.''
Instead of banning earmarks, Mr. Allison said Congress should focus
on creating a centralized place for the public to see who is requesting
earmarks and an easily navigable process for following an earmark from
start to finish.
Let me say for the record we already do that.
And finally, this from Laura Peterson of Taxpayers for Common Sense,
an organization that has been outspoken in its criticism of the
appropriations committee.
In a March 10 Congressional Quarterly article, she said:
Any ban on spending defined as earmarks could end up
increasing the practice of securing funding without formally
requesting an earmark. I would be concerned that some
earmarks might just migrate to the appropriations bills as
committee adds.
If it weren't so serious it would be almost laughable. Under this
amendment, we won't eliminate earmarks, we will only eliminate our
role, a role the Constitution has assigned to the Congress.
Moreover, all our efforts at making earmarks more transparent would
be rendered moot.
The reforms we have implemented, which ensured full and open
disclosure of who sponsors earmarks, as well as who has given money to
those sponsoring earmarks, would be irrelevant.
Instead, we will have these decisions made by unelected bureaucrats
in back rooms of agencies scattered all over this city. Is this the
transparency that earmark opponents desired? I think not.
I don't understand why those who are the most opposed to the policies
of the current president are so intent on putting additional power into
his hands and those who serve the Executive Branch. Article I of the
Constitution states very clearly:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in
consequence of appropriations made by law.
The DeMint amendment tramples on the framework established by our
founding fathers. In fact, James Madison believed the power of the
purse to be the most important power of congress. He called it ``The
most complete and effectual weapon with which any Constitution can arm
the immediate representatives of the people.''
I want all my colleagues to understand what we are doing today. I
want everyone watching this body on the television to understand what
we are doing today, so that in the future, no one can say, ``I didn't
know.''
This amendment shifts the power to designate the expenditure of and
accountability for taxpayers' hard earned dollars away from the
representatives they elected, to the Executive Branch, where unelected
bureaucrats who are accountable to no taxpayer will make the decisions
of where those dollars will be spent.
There were indeed corruptions in the earmark process in the past. No
one will dispute that. A Republican member of the House was convicted
for corruption related to earmarking.
But we as Democrats addressed that issue when we came into power. We
implemented reforms which ensured full and open disclosure of who
sponsors earmarks, as well as who has given money to those sponsoring
earmarks. It is all outlined for the world to see.
Now with this amendment, not only is transparency in the Congress not
continued, but we are shifting the decisionmaking related to billions
of dollars--which is another way of saying earmarking--to unelected
bureaucrats.
As I said, now with this amendment, not only is transparency in the
Congress not continued, but we are shifting the decision-making related
to billions of dollars--which is another way of saying earmarking--to
unelected bureaucrats that do not have to post anything about their
relationships to recipients, who they meet with, when they meet with
them, or who bought them dinner. None of those reporting requirements
apply to unelected bureaucrats.
I am a strong proponent of earmarks. I am proud to sponsor earmarks
that meet the needs of my constituents. Like every other Member of this
body, I believe I understand the needs of my State better than the
bureaucrats downtown do. I am closer to the people of Hawaii and I owe
my allegiance to them.
I will continue to support earmarks for Hawaii as I will support the
legitimate earmarks from other members of this institution.
The founders of our great Nation in their wisdom correctly placed the
power of the purse in the hands of our elected legislators.
Those who seek to overturn that decision by placing artificial
constraints on our ability to carry out that mandate are ultimately
undermining our Nation's freedoms. They would create a
[[Page 3479]]
system where there is no accountability to the voter on how their tax
dollars are spent.
This amendment is one of many this institution has faced and will
continue to face that seeks to alter the way taxpayer funds are
allocated.
Perhaps unwittingly, but if enacted it would turn over spending
decisions to the executive branch and weaken our separation of powers.
We should not tolerate that.
Finally, to remind my colleagues, this amendment won't save a nickel.
It has no impact on the deficit. The amendment serves no purpose other
than to take away the Congress's right to determine how funds are
allocated. I urge all my colleagues to reject this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Hawaii has
expired.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I thank you very much and I hope this
amendment is defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I understand we have time allocated to
this side of the aisle, and the Senator from South Carolina has agreed
to yield me a few minutes, and then he is going to close up debate
after I speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I oppose the amendment of the Senator
from South Carolina. He is a friend of mine. He is a distinguished
Senator. He makes an impact here in the Senate that is very impressive.
But I think his proposal to impose a virtual moratorium on
congressionally directed spending is not in the public's interest.
Some Senators who support the amendment voted earlier this year
against creation of a deficit reduction commission and against pay-as-
you-go rules. They argued that those initiatives were merely fig leaves
and might make Congress feel good, but would not serve any useful
purpose and might actually operate against our effort to reduce the
national debt.
This amendment also may make you feel good, feel like you are doing
something to reduce spending, but in reality, it does not accomplish
that goal. Earmarking has nothing to do with how much the Federal
Government spends, but it has everything to do with who decides how the
Federal Government spends.
The DeMint amendment applies to earmarks in any bill--whether it is
authorizing legislation, tax bills, or appropriations bills. The
Appropriations Committee drafts bills that conform to the discretionary
spending levels established in the annual budget resolution. If it is
the will of the Congress, as expressed in the budget resolution, to
increase domestic spending by 5 percent, the Appropriations Committee
produces bills to conform to that level of spending. If the will of the
Senate is to cut discretionary spending below a certain level, the
committee will do that as well.
In any case, the committee allocates the discretionary amounts of
funding for Federal programs as provided in the budget resolution. We
also review the President's budget request, the levels of funding in
prior years, and other considerations that are important. We meet with
many outside groups during the annual hearing process. We review the
requests for funding of every government agency in the executive
branch. We also consider the priorities expressed by Members of the
Senate. Some come to our hearings and testify as witnesses. We have an
annual series of hearings reviewing every Department's budget requests
and the agencies that operate within those Departments.
We subject the entire process to careful scrutiny. The Senate as a
whole is involved as they want to be in negotiations with the other
body, letting us know what their views are, and what we should argue
for during conferences with the House. In disagreements with the
administration, the Congress really has the power for the final say-so.
We do not all agree on the spending levels approved in the budget
resolution. The Senator from South Carolina and I are likely to agree
that the discretionary spending level approved for fiscal year 2010 was
too high. But the level of spending is not the question before us. The
question proposed by the DeMint amendment is whether Congress will
allow the executive branch to make 100 percent of all the decisions
about how spending is allocated or whether Congress will preserve its
constitutional prerogative to appropriate funds for the purposes it
deems meritorious.
There are many outstanding civil servants within the executive branch
who do their best to manage in a careful way Federal funds in a
professional manner. But those persons are not necessarily familiar
with the interests of the people in our respective States and with the
needs of those we represent.
It is naive to think that political considerations are not going to
be a part of the executive branch decisionmaking process. History
belies the notion that executive branch judgment with regard to
spending is superior to the legislative branch.
Are my colleagues happy with the way stimulus funding has been spent,
unfettered by congressional earmarks? Will western Senators be
comfortable appropriating lump sums of money to the Department of the
Interior for land acquisition not knowing what lands will be acquired?
Inspector general reports arrive almost weekly describing wasteful and
sometimes fraudulent spending by executive branch agencies.
Some may think executive branch spending decisions are entirely merit
based, immune from political pressure and lapses in judgment. But they
are not. That is one of the reasons I am not willing to cede every
spending decision to the executive branch. I am not talking about
political party-driven decisions, but I am not willing to concede
superior public interests in the executive branch as compared with the
legislative branch. I think the people of my State are entitled to be
represented by advocates of projects that are important to the
interests of their State. The programs and legislation that benefit our
State they want me to support, and they want it to be in the best
interests of my State and the country.
Each Member has to make his or her own analysis of each bill based on
the entirety of its contents, the Member's views and background, his or
her view of the national interest. So the presence or absence of
earmarks is not the determining factor in the quality of the
legislative process.
Every piece of legislation we consider in the Senate affects all of
our citizens, communities, and industries in different ways. The bill
currently before the Senate, which is the FAA authorization bill, has
many provisions of particular interest and benefit to communities and
sectors of the aviation community.
Madam President, I know the time is limited, and I do not want to
prolong the debate. I do not question the motives of any Senator in
this legislative process. Actions that we are taking are driven by
notions of what is in the best interests of the country. We just happen
to disagree, and I strongly disagree with this amendment.
Should we throw up our hands and say: This is a tough job, and let's
turn it over to the executive branch; let's respect their decisions,
forget our own interests in our States, and our own individual
backgrounds and experience? Of course not. That would be an abdication
of our responsibilities as Senators.
So the solution is to adopt an aggressive budget resolution; consider
all spending and tax bills in a transparent fashion; subject them to
public, careful scrutiny; allow Members to propose amendments on any
and all provisions of any and all appropriations bills. When they judge
it to be wasteful, vote against it. Cut the spending or approve it. In
any case, do what each individual
[[Page 3480]]
Senator thinks is in the public interest, unfettered by makeshift
budget restraints that accomplish nothing except shift power from the
Congress to the Executive.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. DeMINT.
Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Senator from Mississippi and--
--
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DeMINT. No.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DeMINT. No.
Mr. INHOFE. For a question?
Mr. DeMINT. Yes, sir.
Mr. INHOFE. Would you be willing to give me 2 minutes? That is all I
need. I want to say and make sure everyone understands this. I have a
totally different argument against this. I happen to be ranked as the
most conservative Member of the Senate, and all you are trying to do
with this thing--all you will end up doing, if you are successful, is
giving all this to the executive branch.
Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator. I reclaim my time.
Mr. INHOFE. Well----
Mr. DeMINT. All the time so far----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. All the time so far has been used----
Mr. INHOFE. Let me ask----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. INHOFE. For a unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask for a unanimous consent request, please.
Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have the floor.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. If the Senator will yield, all the time so far has been
yielded to those who oppose the bill. As I understand it, the time will
be cut off at 6, and I will use that remaining time.
I do want to thank the appropriators, the Senator from Mississippi,
all of those who work for the entire Senate to do what the Members ask
as far as to look out for their States, and I do not call into account
their motives at all. But I think as Members of the Senate we have to
ask ourselves: Is the way we are doing this working?
We can have all the theoretical arguments we want. But what we have
is trillions of dollars of debt, many wasteful projects. The trust in
our government is at an all-time low, and the earmarks we are sending
out all across the country are mostly now with borrowed money.
So we can talk about our theories all we want, but what we are doing
is not working, and perception is reality. With all of our debt, the
corruption, the waste, every American has a right to question what we
are doing right now. Clearly, if it is a constitutional responsibility
for all of us to be here to get money for our States, somehow for the
first 200 years of our country that was missed because even a few years
ago Ronald Reagan would veto a bill with less than a couple hundred
earmarks in it because of all the pork and waste. But now we are in the
thousands and tens of thousands. It is out of control. The waste and
the fraud and the abuse is so obvious that it is time we see it in the
Senate.
If you look at the Constitution, a couple of principles are clear.
They expect uniformity across the States, nonpreferential treatment,
and that is not what happens with earmarks. Folks, we have to admit,
while a lot of the proponents of earmarks will say it is a small part
of our total budget, that is like looking at a long train that covers a
whole mile and saying the engine is just a small part of that train.
But the engine is what pulls the whole train, and earmarks are what
pull through a lot of spending and a lot of borrowing.
Just going back 1 year, the big bailout bill--almost a trillion
dollars--failed to pass the House, and then they added earmarks and it
passed. Following that was a stimulus bill, a candy store of earmarks.
After that, the omnibus bill with thousands of earmarks that sailed
through the Congress, and even the health care bill. With the
``Nebraska kickback,'' the ``Louisiana purchase,'' Americans now know
that we buy votes with earmarks.
Isn't it time we just take a timeout for 1 year and see if we can
reform this system? Some of the reforms people are talking about that
we have been talking about for years that we have not done--it is time
to admit what we are doing is not working.
In the House of Representatives, yesterday, the Republicans led the
way. They do not agree on how to deal with earmarks long term, but they
agreed that it is enough of a problem that they decided to take a 1-
year moratorium on earmarks. The House Republican Conference voted to
eliminate earmarks for 1 year. It gives us a chance to take a timeout
to try to work on this.
As to the argument that if we do not do earmarks, the administration
will do it, folks, we have every power here by the way we appropriate
to disallow the use of funds for certain things. We could not only here
do what we are supposed to do, which is pass bills that provide funding
for programs, and then provide the oversight for the administration--
and we require they only use the funds in a nonpreferential, formula-
based way or competitive grants or bids--we have every way to restrain
the way the administration uses the funds that we appropriate. Then
what would happen is, we would resist big spending bills because we did
not have our parochial interests, our conflicts of interest to get
money for our States.
Senators, we are not here to get money for our States. We are here as
representatives of our States in the United States of America, and we
put up our hands and say: We are going to defend and protect the
Constitution that is about the general welfare of America. We cannot
continue to come here every day and talk about our unsustainable debt,
and then say: I have to have $1 million for my museum or my local sewer
plant when, in fact, this is borrowed money.
We do not have the money we need to keep the promises to seniors we
have made for Social Security and Medicare and to defend our country.
Yet we spend most of the year trying to get earmarks for our local
communities so we can do a press release, so we can talk about bringing
home the bacon.
So we can talk about how a lot of these projects may have merit, but
what doesn't have merit is when we forgo the interests of our Nation,
the general welfare of our people, so that we can do our press releases
on our tens of thousands of earmarks.
It is time to bring it to a close, at least for 1 year. The House has
taken a bold stand, at least on the Republican side. Let's vote to take
a timeout on earmarks, try to get our house in order, re-earn the trust
of the American people, and stop putting this debt on the shoulders of
our children.
We have a chance in a few minutes to vote on a moratorium of earmarks
for 1 year. This is the very least we can do for the people of the
United States of America. All of these arguments we can push aside.
What America thinks right now is true. There is a connection between
the waste, the fraud, the abuse, the debt, the borrowing, and earmarks.
There is no question about it.
I implore my colleagues: Set aside the self-interests for one vote.
Let's do what is best for our country and vote for a 1-year timeout on
earmarks.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, could I ask unanimous consent to have 15
seconds----
Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). The Senator from West
Virginia is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a
response.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and
hope it is defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma does not have the
floor and cannot propound a unanimous consent request at this time.
The Senator from West Virginia has made a motion to table.
[[Page 3481]]
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from
Montana (Mr. Tester) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Bennett).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 29, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 50 Leg.]
YEAS--68
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--29
Barrasso
Bayh
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Isakson
Johanns
Kaufman
Kyl
LeMieux
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Risch
Sessions
Thune
Vitter
NOT VOTING--3
Bennett
Byrd
Tester
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3470
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes debate equally divided
prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 3470, offered by the
Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Feingold-Coburn-Sherrod Brown-
McCain-McCaskill amendment rescinds any earmarks that have sat on the
shelf at the Department of Transportation for more than 10 years
without more than 10 percent of it being obligated or spent. It also
requires a report by the OMB on how many of these old, unspent earmarks
are at all Federal agencies. This would save an estimated $626 million
in the first year and more down the road as other unused earmarks hit
the 10-year milestone.
I know many Senators support transportation spending to create jobs
and deal with crumbling infrastructure, as do I. But these unused and
often unwanted earmarks do nothing to create jobs and fix roads.
The Bush administration supported the amendment, and the Obama
administration and Chairwomen Boxer and Murray support the amendment. I
hope it is adopted easily.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield my 1 minute to the Senator
from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I would like to make one
statement on the DeMint amendment that was just defeated. I have to say
this, as the person who was most recently characterized as the most
conservative Member of the Senate: If there is anyone out there who
thinks that was a conservative vote on earmarks, they are wrong. There
has never been one case where an earmark has saved one penny that has
been reduced.
I have to say this: Senator DeMint had $70 million worth of highway
earmarks that were in the amendment that we are talking about right
now.
Real quickly: The Feingold amendment does not reduce the deficit one
penny. Because of environmental laws and other things, the CBO and the
administration have said the average time for a highway project is 13
years. For example, in my State of Oklahoma, Highway 40--a huge
project--was started in 1991. If this amendment had been in there, that
project would have been terminated in 2001.
I urge my conservative friends, unless you just don't like highways
and roads, to kill this amendment.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Bennett).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 11, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 51 Leg.]
YEAS--87
Akaka
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
LeMieux
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--11
Alexander
Bond
Brown (MA)
Cochran
Inhofe
Landrieu
Levin
Rockefeller
Shelby
Voinovich
Wicker
NOT VOTING--2
Bennett
Byrd
The amendment (No. 3470), as modified, was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. STABENOW. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3458
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 3458 offered by
the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter.
The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Hutchison and Landrieu be added as cosponsors of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, in 2005 we passed the CF program, which is
revenue sharing for States, for coastal conservation and other
purposes. Unfortunately, that money has been very slow to get to
States. Only 15 percent that was supposed to have been distributed by
now has been. This amendment helps fix that. It does not spend new
money, it does not increase the deficit.
I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Landrieu.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I join my colleague in supporting this
amendment. We have modified it from the original version. No
environmental laws will be ignored. The process will be followed. But
this amendment would
[[Page 3482]]
simply expedite getting money to the Gulf Coast States and to other
States that benefit from this program. I ask my colleagues to support
it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is completely unrelated
to the FAA reauthorization legislation. It deals with a matter that is
in the jurisdiction of the Energy Committee. It would make, in my view,
inappropriate changes to a program that provides assistance to six
coastal States.
I oppose the amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. In
my view, it will dilute the authority of the Secretary of Interior to
properly oversee and ensure the accountability for the funds that are
being spent in these programs.
I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section
311(a)(2)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, with regard to this technical point of
order, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
section 4(G)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to
waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget
resolutions for purposes of my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), is necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Bennett).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 57, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 52 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Alexander
Barrasso
Bayh
Begich
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Landrieu
LeMieux
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker
NAYS--57
Akaka
Baucus
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coburn
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Gregg
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Bennett
Byrd
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 41, the nays are
57. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Senators should note that the next vote is the last vote
we are going to have this evening. The managers do have a managers'
package; they are going to clear it tonight.
Tomorrow morning after the Senate convenes at 9:30 a.m., we are
slated to complete action on Job 1, so Senators should expect up to two
rollcall votes at that time.
As a reminder to all Senators, at 2 p.m. tomorrow there is going to
be a live quorum so that we can receive the House managers with respect
to the impeachment proceedings. Therefore, all Members are urged to be
in the Chamber at 2 p.m. so that proceedings can be expedited.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 3456
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 3456 offered by
the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman.
The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan amendment
introduced by Senators Collins, Burr, Voinovich, Feinstein, Ensign, and
myself. It would benefit schoolchildren in the District of Columbia,
reauthorizing a program we created 7 years ago now that has worked: $20
million to the DC public schools, $20 million to charter schools, and
$20 million to the Opportunity Scholarship Program.
The last part is the controversial part. But it should not be. As
Senator Feinstein said in her remarks on this amendment, what is there
in this amendment to be afraid of? It has helped 1,300 economically
disadvantages children to have an opportunity to get out of a public
school that the Chancellor of the DC Public Schools says is not working
for them.
This measure is supported by Mayor Fenty, Chancellor Michelle Rhee, a
majority of the members of the DC Public Schools, and it has been
judged by an independent evaluator to be the most effective program of
its kind in America.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, this program has never been
authorized. It was only put into an appropriations bill in 2003. It was
extended once.
We had the Department of Education, not this one, the previous one,
and this one, do studies of whether this was successful. After 3 years,
no statistically significant achievement impacts were observed for
students who came from the lowest performing schools--which was the
target of the program--or for students who entered the program
academically behind. No achievement impacts were found for male
students, and there was no statistically significant impact on math
scores. Already DC parents have a choice. We have over 60 charter
schools here in the District of Columbia, and it is growing all the
time. So there is a choice for them to go to charter schools which are
public schools open to everyone and they do not discriminate.
So, again, there is no reason for this authorization. The kids who
are in those schools on those vouchers can continue. There is no
problem with that. But why open it for vouchers when we have got the
charter schools building up here?
I might add the chairman of the Committee also, Senator Rockefeller,
opposes the amendment.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Bennett) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 55, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 53 Leg.]
YEAS--42
Alexander
Barrasso
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
[[Page 3483]]
Nelson (FL)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wicker
NAYS--55
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Bennett
Byrd
Shelby
The amendment (No. 3456) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Amendments Nos. 3462; 3467; 3472; 3473, as Modified; 3474, as Modified;
3482, as Modified; 3486, as Modified; 3487; 3497; 3503; 3504; 3508;
3509; 3510; and 3531 to Amendment No. 3452
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be set aside and that it be in order for the Senate
to consider en bloc the amendments listed here--I will read them in a
moment--and that the amendments be considered and agreed to; that in
the case where an amendment is modified, the amendment, as modified, be
considered and agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be laid upon
the table en bloc; and that no amendments be in order to the amendments
considered in this agreement.
The amendments are as follows: Bennett-Hatch No. 3462; Reid-Ensign
No. 3467; McCain No. 3472; Lautenberg No. 3473, to be modified;
Barrasso No. 3474, to be modified; Durbin No. 3482, to be modified;
Schumer No. 3486, to be modified; Bingaman No. 3487; Cardin No. 3497;
Menendez No. 3503; Menendez No. 3504; Johanns No. 3508; Johanns No.
3509; Johanns No. 3510; and Coburn No. 3531.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 3462
(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to release
restrictions on the use of certain property conveyed to the City of St.
George, Utah for airport purposes)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. RELEASE FROM RESTRICTIONS.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), and
notwithstanding section 16 of the Federal Airport Act (as in
effect on August 28, 1973) and sections 47125 and 47153 of
title 49, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation
is authorized to grant releases from any of the terms,
conditions, reservations, and restrictions contained in the
deed of conveyance dated August 28, 1973, under which the
United States conveyed certain property to the city of St.
George, Utah, for airport purposes.
(b) Condition.--Any release granted by the Secretary of
Transportation pursuant to subsection (a) shall be subject to
the following conditions:
(1) The city of St. George, Utah, shall agree that in
conveying any interest in the property which the United
States conveyed to the city by deed on August 28, 1973, the
city will receive an amount for such interest which is equal
to its fair market value.
(2) Any amount received by the city under paragraph (1)
shall be used by the city of St. George, Utah, for the
development or improvement of a replacement public airport.
AMENDMENT NO. 3467
(Purpose: To authorize Clark County, Nevada, to permit the use of
certain lands in the Las Vegas McCarran International Airport Environs
Overlay District for transient lodging and associated facilities)
On page 364, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
SEC. 434. AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF CERTAIN LANDS IN THE LAS
VEGAS MCCARRAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONS
OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR TRANSIENT LODGING AND
ASSOCIATED FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
and except as provided in subsection (b), Clark County,
Nevada, is authorized to permit transient lodging, including
hotels, and associated facilities, including enclosed
auditoriums, concert halls, sports arenas, and places of
public assembly, on lands in the Las Vegas McCarran
International Airport Environs Overlay District that fall
below the forecasted 2017 65 dB day-night annual average
noise level (DNL), as identified in the Noise Exposure Map
Notice published by the Federal Aviation Administration in
the Federal Register on July 24, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 40357),
and adopted into the Clark County Development Code in June
2008.
(b) Limitation.--No structure may be permitted under
subsection (a) that would constitute a hazard to air
navigation, result in an increase to minimum flight
altitudes, or otherwise pose a significant adverse impact on
airport or aircraft operations.
AMENDMENT NO. 3472
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of passenger facility charges for the
construction of bicycle storage facilities)
On page 29, after line 21, insert the following:
Sec. 207(b) Prohibition on Use of Passenger Facility
Charges To Construct Bicycle Storage Facilities.--Section
40117(a)(3) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (G) as
clauses (i) through (vii);
(2) by striking ``The term'' and inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--The term''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Bicycle storage facilities.--A project to construct a
bicycle storage facility may not be considered an eligible
airport-related project.''.
AMENDMENT NO. 3473, AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To require a report on Newark Liberty Airport air traffic
control)
At the end of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 723. REPORT ON NEWARK LIBERTY AIRPORT AIR TRAFFIC
CONTROL TOWER.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall report to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives, on the Federal Aviation Administration's
plan to staff the Newark Liberty Airport air traffic control
tower at negotiated staffing levels within 1 year after such
date of enactment.
amendment no. 3474, as modified
(Purpose: To require the Administrator to prioritize the review of
construction projects that are carried out in cold weather States)
At the end of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 723. PRIORITY REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN COLD
WEATHER STATES.
The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
shall, to the maximum extent practicable, schedule the
Administrator's review of construction projects so that
projects to be carried out in a States in which the weather
during a typical calendar year prevents major construction
projects from being carried out before May 1 are reviewed as
early as possible.
amendment no. 3482, as modified
At the end of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 720. AIR-RAIL CODESHARE STUDY.
(a) Codeshare Study.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the GAO shall conduct a
study of--
(1) the current airline and intercity passenger rail
codeshare arrangements;
(2) the feasibility and costs to taxpayers and passengers
of increasing intermodal connectivity of airline and
intercity passenger rail facilities and systems to improve
passenger travel.
(b) Considerations.--The study shall consider--
(1) the potential benefits to passengers and costs to
taxpayers from the implementation of more integrated
scheduling between airlines and Amtrak or other intercity
passenger rail carriers achieved through codesharing
arrangements;
(2) airport operations that can improve connectivity to
intercity passenger rail facilities and stations.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after commencing the
study required by subsection (a), the Comptroller shall
submit the report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives. The report shall include any conclusions of
the Comptroller resulting from the study.
amendment no. 3486, as modified
On page 201, strike lines 20 through 24, and insert the
following:
(b) Minimum Experience Requirement.--
(1) In general.--The final rule prescribed under subsection
(a) shall, among any other requirements established by the
rule, require that a pilot--
(A) have not less than 800 hours of flight time before
serving as a flightcrew member for a part 121 air carrier;
and
(B) demonstrate the ability to--
(i) function effectively in a multipilot environment;
(ii) function effectively in an air carrier operational
environment;
(iii) function effectively in adverse weather conditions,
including icing conditions if the
[[Page 3484]]
pilot is expected to be operating aircraft in icing
conditions;
(iv) function effectively during high altitude operations;
and
(v) adhere to the highest professional standards.
(2) Hours of flight experience in difficult operational
conditions.--The total number of hours of flight experience
required by the Administrator under paragraph (1) for pilots
shall include a number of hours of flight experience in
difficult operational conditions that may be encountered by
an air carrier that the Administrator determines to be
sufficient to enable a pilot to operate an aircraft safely in
such conditions.
amendment no. 3487, as modified
(Purpose: To preserve the essential air service program)
At the end of subtitle B of title IV, add the following:
SEC. 419. REPEAL OF ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE LOCAL PARTICIPATION
PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by striking section 41747, and
such title 49 shall be applied as if such section 41747 had
not been enacted.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
417 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking
the item relating to section 41747.
AMENDMENT NO. 3497
(Purpose: To extend the termination date for the final order with
respect to determining mileage eligibility for essential air service)
Strike section 412 and insert the following:
SEC. 412. EXTENSION OF FINAL ORDER ESTABLISHING MILEAGE
ADJUSTMENT ELIGIBILITY.
Section 409(d) of the Vision 100--Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (49 U.S.C. 41731 note) is amended by
striking ``September 30, 2010.'' and inserting ``September
30, 2013.''.
AMENDMENT NO. 3503
(Purpose: To require an ongoing monitoring of and report on the New
York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign)
At the end of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 723. ON-GOING MONITORING OF AND REPORT ON THE NEW YORK/
NEW JERSEY/PHILADELPHIA METROPOLITAN AREA
AIRSPACE REDESIGN.
Not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act and every 180 days thereafter until the completion
of the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area
Airspace Redesign, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall, in conjunction with the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey and the Philadelphia International
Airport--
(1) monitor the air noise impacts of the New York/New
Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign; and
(2) submit to Congress a report on the findings of the
Administrator with respect to the monitoring described in
paragraph (1).
AMENDMENT NO. 3504
(Purpose: To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration to conduct a study of the safety impact of distracted
pilots)
On page 204, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
(e) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall review relevant air carrier data and
carry out a study--
(A) to identify common sources of distraction for the
cockpit flight crew on commercial aircraft; and
(B) to determine the safety impacts of such distractions.
(2) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit a
report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives that contains--
(A) the findings of the study conducted under paragraph
(1); and
(B) recommendations about ways to reduce distractions for
cockpit flight crews.
AMENDMENT NO. 3508
(Purpose: To require the Coptroller General of the United States to
study the impact of increases in fuel prices on the long-term viability
of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and on the aviation industry in
general)
At the end of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 723. STUDY ON AVIATION FUEL PRICES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall conduct a study and report to Congress on
the impact of increases in aviation fuel prices on the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund and the aviation industry in
general. The study shall include the impact of increases in
aviation fuel prices on--
(1) general aviation;
(2) commercial passenger aviation;
(3) piston aircraft purchase and use;
(4) the aviation services industry, including repair and
maintenance services;
(5) aviation manufacturing;
(6) aviation exports; and
(7) the use of small airport installations.
(b) Assumptions About Aviation Fuel Prices.--In conducting
the study required by subsection (a), the Comptroller General
shall use the average aviation fuel price for fiscal year
2010 as a baseline and measure the impact of increases in
aviation fuel prices that range from 5 percent to 200 percent
over the 2010 baseline.
AMENDMENT NO. 3509
(Purpose: To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration to identify the benefits of ADS-B for small and medium-
sized airports and general aviation users)
On page 77, strike lines 13 through 18, and insert the
following:
(2) IDENTIFICATION and measurement of benefits.--In the
report required by paragraph (1), the Administrator shall
identify actual benefits that will accrue to National
Airspace System users, small and medium-sized airports, and
general aviation users from deployment of ADS-B and provide
an explanation of the metrics used to quantify those
benefits.
AMENDMENT NO. 3510
(Purpose: To extend conditionally the deadlines for equipping aircraft
with ADS-B Technology)
On page 80, after line 21, insert the following:
(d) Conditional Extension of Deadlines for Equipping
Aircraft With ADS-B Technology.--
(1) ADS-B out.--In the case that the Administrator fails to
complete the initial rulemaking described in subparagraph (A)
of subsection (b)(1) on or before the date that is 45 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the deadline
described in clause (ii) of such subparagraph shall be
extended by an amount of time that is equal to the amount of
time of the period beginning on the date that is 45 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on the
date on which the Administrator completes such initial
rulemaking.
(2) ADS-B in.--In the case that the Administrator fails to
initiate the rulemaking required by paragraph (2) of
subsection (b) on or before the date that is 45 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the deadline described
in subparagraph (B) of such paragraph shall be extended by an
amount of time that is equal to the amount of time of the
period beginning on the date that is 45 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act and ending on the date on which
the Administrator initiates such rulemaking.
amendment no. 3531
(Purpose: To discontinue a Federal program that has never been used
since its creation in 2003)
On page 114, strike line 8 and all that follows through
page 116, line 6 and insert the following:
SEC. 414. CONVERSION OF FORMER EAS AIRPORTS.
(a) In General.--Section 41745 is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 41745. Conversion of lost eligibility airports
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a program
to provide general aviation conversion funding for airports
serving eligible places that the Secretary has determined no
longer qualify for a subsidy.
``(b) Grants.--A grant under this section--
``(1) may not exceed twice the compensation paid to provide
essential air service to the airport in the fiscal year
preceeding the fiscal year in which the Secretary determines
that the place served by the airport is no longer an eligible
place; and
``(2) may be used--
``(A) for airport development (as defined in section
47102(3)) that will enhance general aviation capacity at the
airport;
``(B) to defray operating expenses, if such use is approved
by the Secretary; or
``(C) to develop innovative air service options, such as
on-demand or air taxi operations, if such use is approved by
the Secretary.
``(c) AIP Requirements.--An airport sponsor that uses funds
provided under this section for an airport development
project shall comply with the requirements of subchapter I of
chapter 471 applicable to airport development projects funded
under that subchapter with respect to the project funded
under this section.
``(d) Limitation.--The sponsor of an airport receiving
funding under this section is not eligible for funding under
section 41736.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
417 is amended by striking the item relating to section 41745
and inserting the following:
``41745. Conversion of lost eligibility airports.''.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce an amendment along
with Senators Reid, Ensign and Kyl to clarify the Grand Canyon
Overflights Act of 1987 that sought to restore the natural quiet of the
canyon from commercial air tour overflights. After 23 years of numerous
rulemakings by the National Park Service and the Federal Aviation
Administration, and a lawsuit in 2002, it
[[Page 3485]]
is now time to move forward to ensure that the 5 million visitors to
the Grand Canyon can enjoy its majestic beauty by air or by foot
without excessive noise from commercial air tour operators.
Specifically, this amendment would set forth in statute the
``substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the
Grand Canyon'' is achieved if for at least 75 percent of each day--
between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m--50 percent of the park is free from the sound
produced by commercial air tour operations. Additionally, the amendment
provides curfews for overflights, particularly during the peak visitor
season, so many visitors can enjoy the grand sunset at the Grand Canyon
relatively free from overflight noise.
The amendment also sets forth curfews and reduced flight allocations
for specific parts of the canyon that are particularly special for many
visitors, including the Dragon Corridor on the west rim in the vicinity
of Hermits Rest and Dripping Spring, the Zuni Point Corridor that
includes the area known as ``Snoopy's Nose,'' and Marble Canyon. I have
many fond memories of hiking the canyon with my sons, most recently
just last year, and I hope all Americans are able to enjoy the beauty
of the canyon without the interference of excessive noise from air
tours. I believe this amendment allows without waiting another 23 years
for progress.
Over the past few years, there have been strong improvements in quiet
technology for aircraft. I am pleased that several of the air tour
operators that provide air tours at the Grand Canyon have migrated to
quiet technology aircraft. This amendment would mandate the conversion
to quiet technology for all air tour operations within 15 years of
enactment. Additionally, this amendment provides numerous incentives
for operators to convert to quiet technology, including a reduced park
entrance fee and increased flight allocations for aircraft that utilize
quiet technology.
Lastly, this amendment requires the FAA to review flight allocations
for air tour operators serving the Grand Canyon. These allocations have
not been reviewed since 2001 and are based on 1990s data. Tourism is
essential to Arizona's economic recovery. Over 37 million visitors came
to Arizona in 2008 generating over $2.5 billion in tax revenues. There
are over 300,000 jobs in Arizona that are tied to tourism in Arizona,
and we must ensure that these jobs continue to exist and grow.
Over 5 million tourists, hikers and adventure seekers visited the
Grand Canyon in 2008. These visitors have also contributed millions of
dollars to the great States of Arizona and Nevada, in addition to the
local communities surrounding the Grand Canyon. We must ensure that
these visitors have the ability to view the canyon by air if they wish
to do so, but in a manner that maintains ``natural quite'' for those
visiting the canyon by foot. I think this amendment achieves that goal.
Again, I am proud to have the support of Senators Reid, Ensign, and
Kyl who share my commitment to continuing the progress that has been
made toward establishing ``natural quiet'' at the Grand Canyon, while
continuing to ensure that its majesty is available to be viewed by air
for those who wish to do so. I hope my colleagues will join me in
supporting this important amendment.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the FAA bill we are considering contains
important new changes in both the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
Program, DBE, and the Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise, ACDBE, program. While we have made progress, discrimination
in airport related business remains pervasive. Both of these programs
are critical to our Nation's efforts to level the playing field in
airport related contracting.
Over the past couple of years, both in my role on the Commerce
Committee and Aviation Subcommittee and in my former role as chairman
of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have
received an enormous amount of evidence about the ongoing existence of
race and gender discrimination against minority and women owned
businesses. Discrimination impacts every aspect of the contracting
process, every major industry category and hurts all types of
disadvantaged business owners including African Americans, Hispanic
Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and women. Here in the
Congress, we have received a great deal of evidence about the
discrimination that specifically impacts minority and women owned
businesses in the airport business context. In September of 2008 the
Committee on Small Business heard testimony from diverse perspectives
about the ongoing problem of discrimination in lending and access to
capital across the disadvantaged business perspective, including
discrimination against minority and women businesses in airport related
business issues. In March of 2009, the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure conducted an extensive hearing
focused on the DBE and ACDBE programs. They heard testimony about
discrimination and needed program improvements from the administration,
researchers, advocates and minority and women businesses themselves.
And the Senate Aviation subcommittee itself received similar testimony
and evidence in our May 2009 hearing--including a large number of
disparity studies outlining extremely compelling statistical testimony
of discrimination in airport related contracting.
The present day effects of past discrimination, and ongoing current
discrimination, continue to be barriers to minority and women owned
businesses. Even in the context of the highest constitutional scrutiny
required by the Supreme Court, this powerful evidence of discrimination
makes the maintenance of these programs imperative and constitutional.
It also makes all the more important the changes we have proposed to
improve the programs--adjusting the personal net worth cap for
inflation, prohibiting excessive and discriminatory bonding, and
improving certification training. The disturbing fact is,
discrimination is still a major impediment to the formation, growth and
success of minority and women business owners. That is unacceptable.
Race and gender discrimination are bad for minority and women business
owners, bad for our economy and morally wrong. With this bill, we are
seeking to remedy that wrong in the FAA context.
vote explanation
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, due to a meeting at the White House today,
I regret I was unable to make the vote on the motion to table the
DeMint amendment No. 3454 to H.R. 1586, the legislative vehicle for FAA
reauthorization. If present, I would have voted aye, to table the
amendment.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted
to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the following Senators
recognized to speak as follows: Senator Merkley for up to 5 minutes,
Senator Sanders for up to 15 minutes, and Senator Kaufman for up to 20
minutes; and that if there are any Republican speakers, they would be
included in an alternating fashion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
____________________
KLAMATH BASIN DROUGHT ASSISTANCE
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to tell you a tale about
the Klamath Basin. It is really two stories about the Klamath Basin.
One is of a terrific vision that has come together between fishermen
and ranchers and tribes, and the second is a story about a terrible
drought. So I want to start with the good news and share a little bit
of the vision.
First, let me tell you about the magical place that is the Klamath
Basin. It is in southern Oregon and northern California. It is an area
of the country
[[Page 3486]]
that is rich with agricultural resources and exceptional wildlife
populations. The basin contains approximately 1,400 family farms and
ranches and encompasses over 200,000 acres of farmland irrigated with
water from the Klamath River and Klamath Lake.
In 2009, the basin's agricultural industry produced over $440 million
in revenue. The Klamath is sometimes referred to as the ``Western
Everglades.'' The basin attracts 80 percent of the Pacific Flyway's
waterfowl and supports the largest over-wintering population of bald
eagles anywhere in the Lower 48 States. It is also home to one of the
most productive salmon river systems in the country.
Let me tell you that the allocation of water in this basin has always
been a source of enormous tension between the farmers and ranchers, the
fishermen--both the instream fishermen and the offshore fishermen--and
the tribes. These groups that have traditionally been in contest with
each other have come together over the last few years to say that this
situation--the uncertainty about water and the poor health of the
river--is not sustainable into the future; that all of us could
benefit, all of the parties could benefit, if we worked together for a
different vision, for a vision that shared a little more regularity
with water, that took out some dams that increased the water flow, that
had colder water for the salmon, that avoided some of the terrible
calamities that occurred, including the worst die-off of fish we have
had in the United States of America that happened about a decade ago.
So these stakeholders have developed a collaborative agreement and
signed it, called the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement or KBRA. That
agreement is designed to benefit farmers and ranchers as well as the
Klamath tribe and fishermen up and down the west coast by offering more
certainty about access to water. At the same time, it restores the
river and improves habitat and riverflows for native fish species and
wildlife refuges.
The development of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement is a
historic step forward for the region. If it were already in place, it
would provide a powerful set of collaborative tools for dealing with
drought, for dealing with years when there is a shortage of water. But
Congress has not yet acted and those tools are not in place.
That brings us to this current year and the second half of the story.
To help me address that, I am going to put up a chart in the Chamber.
This black line on the chart shows what had been the lowest level of
Klamath Lake since it has been recorded in Oregon history--the lowest
level, which is shown by the black line. This red line represents the
level of the lake this year. As you can readily see, the level of the
lake is far below the worst ever year that had been recorded--the
calamity of 1992. These red dots on the chart represent the level the
lake needs to be to provide irrigation water to farmers. There is no
conceivable way we are going to get from this red line, as shown on the
chart, to these red dots in order to provide water in the normal
fashion. That is why we are facing such a calamity this year.
With spring planting season already upon us, it is critical that we
take immediate action to respond to this crisis. We have the advantage
of tracking this and knowing the crisis is coming. So together we can
work to mitigate the worst effects of the drought rather than waiting
for the drought to simply play itself out.
A drought of this magnitude requires an unprecedented, integrated,
expansive set of responses from the Federal agencies and a dedicated
effort to coordinate response efforts along with local and State
governments. Along with Senator Wyden, I have requested the Departments
of Agriculture, Interior, and Commerce to dedicate all required
resources to address this crisis swiftly. My team has been working with
the teams at those Departments, and they are making a lot of progress.
But we have to continue pushing forward as fast and as quickly as
possible.
There are several key strategies that could help address this: first,
acquiring upstream water rights from willing sellers to increase the
amount of water that is available in the Klamath Basin; second, to
pursue extensive flexibility within the boundaries of law and science
to utilize surface water in the most effective possible manner; third,
help farmers activate emergency drought wells and otherwise access
ground water; and fourth, set up crop idling programs to conserve
water.
The worst thing we can do is simply stand by, watch farmers plant
their crops, and then watch those crops fail. So I want to say now that
there is a big compliment owed to the Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, and Interior for their prompt and engaged action. I know
Senator Wyden and I will stay equally engaged. It is no exaggeration to
say that without Federal assistance and cooperation with local and
State officials, the impending drought will result in disaster for
Klamath Basin communities. So I urge my colleagues to work with me to
meet this challenge and avoid this calamity.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
____________________
THE ECONOMY
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about the
nature of the economy today, the cause of the very deep recession we
are currently in, and what I think we have to do about it.
Right now, our country is experiencing the worst economy since the
Great Depression of the 1930s. While officially unemployment is 9.7
percent, the reality is that we have some 19 percent of our people who
are either unemployed or underemployed, people who would like to work
40 hours a week but they are only working 20 or 30 hours a week.
The crisis we are addressing today is magnified by the reality that
the recession for the middle class and working families of this country
did not just begin in the fall of 2008 with the financial crisis. In
fact, the middle class has been collapsing for a very long time.
During the Bush administration, over 8 million Americans slipped out
of the middle class and into poverty. Today, some 40 million Americans
are living in poverty. During the Bush years, median household income
declined by over $2,100. Middle-class Americans earned more income in
1999 than they did in 2008, and middle-class men earned more money in
1973 than they did in 2008, with inflation being accounted for.
When we look at people in this country who are angry, there is the
reason. After working long and hard hours, tens of millions of
Americans find themselves in worse economic shape today than they were
in 10 years ago or even 20 years ago. Meanwhile, while the middle class
shrinks and poverty increases, while more and more people lose their
health insurance--so today we have 46 million with no health insurance
at all--while 4 million American workers have lost their pension over
the last 9 years, we continue to see in this country the most unequal
distribution of wealth and income of any major country on Earth. That
growing inequality is a moral obscenity, but it is a very serious
economic problem as well. Because we become a nation in which very few
have a whole lot, while a whole lot of people have very little.
The immediate recession was caused, as I think everybody knows, by
the greed, the recklessness, and the illegal behavior of a small number
of giant financial institutions on Wall Street. These people were not
content to be making 40 percent of the profits being made in America.
Their CEOs were not content to earn bonuses of tens of millions of
dollars a year. The hedge funds were not content to have their owners
and managers become billionaires. No, that was not good enough. So what
these financial tycoons had to do was to develop and produce worthless,
complicated financial instruments which plunged our country and much of
the world into a deep recession.
To the frustration of the American people, a year and a half has
passed since the financial collapse and what has happened? What actions
has the Congress taken to rein in Wall Street,
[[Page 3487]]
to tell Wall Street that their greed is not acceptable in this country,
that they cannot continue to go forward with actions that destroy our
economy and the lives of millions of people?
Within a short period of time, the Senate will be considering
legislation dealing with financial reform. I wish to congratulate
Senator Dodd and others on the Banking Committee for the hard work they
have done in producing a bill which, in a number of ways, moves us
forward. But what I wish to say this evening is that moving us forward
is not good enough. The American people want an end now to the
recklessness and irresponsibility of Wall Street. They want an
accounting and they want real change. They want, in my view, a new Wall
Street which invests in the productive economy of small- and medium-
sized businesses that actually produce real products and real services
and which actually create real jobs, rather than the activities of Wall
Street, which is a giant gambling casino, playing with financial
instruments that nobody understands and which, at the end of the day,
produces nothing real.
As the debate over financial reform moves on, I intend to play an
active role in fighting for a number of concepts. Let me enumerate a
few of them.
No. 1, right now, people in the State of Vermont, in the State of
Colorado, in the State of Rhode Island, and all over this country are
paying usurious interest rates on their credit cards, and I use the
word ``usury'' advisedly. We now take it for granted, and we accept the
fact that our friends and neighbors and family members are paying 20,
25, 30, 35 percent interest rates on their credit cards. That is wrong.
That is unjust. In fact, according to every major religion on Earth--
Christianity, Judaism, Islam--it is immoral. It is immoral to lend
money to people who desperately need that money and then suck the blood
out of them because, when they are desperate, they are going to have to
pay 30 or 35 percent interest rates. That is immoral. That is wrong.
Over the years, a number of States, including Vermont, have said: We
are going to prohibit usury. You can't do it. You can't charge more
than 10 percent, 12 percent, 15 percent, whatever it is. But all those
laws were made null and void by a Supreme Court decision which resulted
in credit card companies being able to go to States which had no usury
law and, therefore, they could sell their product all over this country
with no limit.
Let us be clear. Those large financial institutions that are charging
Americans 25, 30, 35 percent interest rates on their credit cards are
no better than loan sharks. In the old days, what loan sharks used to
do was break kneecaps if people couldn't repay their loans. Well, these
guys don't break kneecaps, but they are destroying lives just the same.
People are desperate. They are borrowing money. We have all been to the
grocery store and have seen people buying bread and milk with their
credit cards, gas to get to work with their credit cards, because that
is the only source of revenue they now have available to them, paying
25 to 30 percent. We have to eliminate that once and for all.
I will be bringing forth an amendment which does nothing more than
what credit unions now exist under. Credit unions in this country, by
law, cannot charge more than 15 percent interest rates, except under
exceptional circumstances, and now they can go up to 18 percent, but
most of them don't; the vast majority of them don't. I don't think that
is asking too much.
Secondly, I am going to bring forth language which will increase
transparency at the Federal Reserve. This is an issue, interestingly
enough, that brings some of the most conservative Members and some of
the most progressive Members together. I remember a year or so ago the
chairman of the Fed, Ben Bernanke, came before the Budget Committee on
which I serve, and I asked him a very simple question. I said: Mr.
Bernanke, my understanding is that you have lent out trillions of
dollars of zero interest loans to financial institutions. Trillions of
dollars. Can you please tell me and the American people which financial
institutions received that money and what the terms were. I don't think
that was an unreasonable question--trillions of dollars.
He said: No, Senator, I am not going to do it.
We have since introduced legislation to make them do it, and so forth
and so on.
It is beyond my comprehension that we do not know which financial
institutions have received trillions of dollars of zero or close to
zero interest loans. We don't know about the conflicts of interest that
may have existed.
In that regard, let me talk about a scam which is quite unbelievable
that goes on today. What goes on today is, companies such as Goldman
Sachs borrow money from the Fed--and I have no reason to doubt that
Goldman Sachs also was on the receiving end of these zero interest
loans--and they borrow this money for a tenth of a percent, maybe a
quarter of a percent, and then they take that money and they invest it
in U.S. Treasury securities at 3.5 to 4 percent. That is a pretty good
deal. Talk about welfare. Borrow money at zero or half a percent, lend
it to the U.S. Government, which has the entire faith and credit of
American history behind it, and you make 3 percent, 4 percent. What a
deal. That is a pretty good deal. I think we have to end those types of
practices and we have to move forward with real transparency at the
Fed.
The other thing we have to do, which is enormously important, is have
these large financial institutions start lending money to small- and
medium-sized businesses that are prepared to create meaningful jobs in
this country.
Earlier today, I think the Presiding Officer and I heard from former
President Clinton, who made a very important point. He believes--and I
agree with him--we can make profound changes in our economy; that over
a period of years we can create millions of jobs as we transform our
energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and to
sustainable energy. There are small businesses in the energy business
in this country that are ready to go, to create the jobs, if they can
get reasonable loans, and they can't get that money today. We can
transform our energy system. We can give a real spirit to our economy.
We can create good-paying jobs, but we have to demand that Wall Street
start investing in the real economy.
Another issue I intend to play an active role in is this issue of too
big to fail. I have said it once. I have said it many times. If a
financial institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. We
now have four major financial institutions which, if any one of them
collapsed today, would bring down the entire economy, and what we have
to do is start breaking them up now--now. We have to take action at
this point.
I think the American people are angry and they are angry for some
good reasons. They are hurting financially. As I mentioned earlier,
there are millions of Americans today who have seen a substantial
decline in their income and are working incredibly hard and they are
wondering what has happened. Then, despite all that, with the trend
that has led to the collapse of the middle class as a result of Wall
Street greed, we have been driven into a major recession.
The American people want us to have the courage to stand up to Wall
Street. I should say that in 2009 alone, our good friends on Wall
Street who have unlimited resources spent $300 million in lobbying this
institution. They spent $300 million. When they fought for the
deregulation over a period of 10 years, they spent $5 billion to be
able to engage in the activities which they did engage in and that led
us to the recession we are in right now.
So these guys, I guess they can borrow zero interest loans from the
Fed--I don't know if they can use that for lobbying or whatever--but
they have an unlimited sum of money. I think the American people want
us to have the courage to stand with them, to take these guys on no
matter how powerful and wealthy they may be. I think the eyes of the
country and the eyes of the world will be on what we do.
[[Page 3488]]
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
____________________
COOKING THE BOOKS
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, last Thursday, the bankruptcy examiner
for Lehman Brothers Holding Company released a 2,200-page report about
the demise of the firm, which included riveting detail on the firm's
accounting practices. That report has put into sharp relief what many
of us have expected all along: that fraud and potential criminal
conduct were at the heart of the financial crisis.
Now that we are beginning to learn many of the facts, at least with
respect to the activities at Lehman Brothers, the country has every
right to be outraged. Lehman was cooking its books, hiding $50 billion
in toxic assets by temporarily shifting them off its balance sheet in
time to produce rosier quarter-end reports. According to the bankruptcy
examiner's report, Lehman Brothers's financial statements were
``materially misleading'' and said its executives engaged in
``actionable balance sheet manipulation.'' Only further investigation
will determine whether the individuals involved can be indicted or
convicted of criminal wrongdoing.
According to the examiner's report, Lehman used accounting tricks to
hide billions in debt from its investors and the public. Starting in
2001, that firm began abusing financial transactions called repurchase
agreements or repos. Repos are basically short-term loans that exchange
collateral for cash in trades that may be unwound as soon as the next
day. While investment banks have come to overrely on repos to finance
their operations, they are neither illegal nor questionable, assuming,
of course, they are clearly accounted for.
Lehman structured some of its repo agreements so the collateral was
worth 105 percent of the cash it received--hence, the name ``Repo
105.'' As explained by the New York Times' DealBook:
That meant that for a few days--and by the fourth quarter
of 2007 that meant end-of-quarter--Lehman could shuffle off
tens of billions of dollars in assets to appear more
financially healthy than it really was.
Even worse, Lehman's management trumpeted how the firm was decreasing
its leverage so investors would not flee from the firm. But inside
Lehman, according to the report, someone described the Repo 105
transactions as ``window dressing,'' a nice way of saying they were
designed to mislead the public.
Ernst & Young, Lehman's outside auditor, apparently became
comfortable with and never objected to the Repo 105 transactions. While
Lehman could never find a U.S. law firm to provide an opinion that
treating the Repo 105 transactions as a sale for accounting purposes
was legal, the British law firm Linklaters provided an opinion letter
under British law that they were sales and not merely financing
agreements. Lehman ran the transaction through its London subsidiary
and used several different foreign bank counterparties.
The SEC and Justice Department should pursue a thorough
investigation, both civil and criminal, to identify every last person
who had knowledge Lehman was misleading the public about its troubled
balance sheet--and that means everyone from the Lehman executives, to
its board of directors, to its accounting firm, Ernst & Young.
Moreover, if the foreign bank counterparties who purchased the now
infamous ``Repo 105s'' were complicit in the scheme, they should be
held accountable as well.
It is high time that we return the rule of law to Wall Street, which
has been seriously eroded by the deregulatory mindset that captured our
regulatory agencies over the past 30 years, a process I described at
length in my speech on the floor last Thursday. We became enamored of
the view that self-regulation was adequate, that ``rational'' self-
interest would motivate counterparties to undertake stronger and better
forms of due diligence than any regulator could perform, and that
market fundamentalism would lead to the best outcomes for the most
people. Transparency and vigorous oversight by outside accountants were
supposed to keep our financial system credible and sound.
The allure of deregulation, instead, led to the biggest financial
crisis since 1929. And now we are learning, not surprisingly, that
fraud and lawlessness were key ingredients in the collapse as well.
Since the fall of 2008, Congress, the Federal Reserve and the American
taxpayer have had to step into the breach--at a direct cost of more
than $2.5 trillion--because, as so many experts have said: ``We had to
save the system.''
But what exactly did we save?
First, a system of overwhelming and concentrated financial power that
has become dangerous. It caused the crisis of 2008-2009 and threatens
to cause another major crisis if we do not enact fundamental reforms.
Only six U.S. banks control assets equal to 63 percent of the nation's
gross domestic product, while oversight is splintered among various
regulators who are often overmatched in assessing weaknesses at these
firms.
Second, a system in which the rule of law has broken yet again. Big
banks can get away with extraordinarily bad behavior--conduct that
would not be tolerated in the rest of society, such as the blatant
gimmicks used by Lehman, despite the massive cost to the rest of us.
What lessons should we take from the bankruptcy examiner's report on
Lehman, and from other recent examples of misleading conduct on Wall
Street? I see three.
First, we must undo the damage done by decades of deregulation. That
damage includes--financial institutions that are ``too big to manage
and too big to regulate''--as former FDIC Chairman Bill Isaac has
called them--a ``wild west'' attitude on Wall Street, and colossal
failures by accountants and lawyers who misunderstand or disregard
their role as gatekeepers. The rule of law depends in part on
manageably-sized institutions, participants interested in following the
law, and gatekeepers motivated by more than a paycheck from their
clients.
Second, we must concentrate law enforcement and regulatory resources
on restoring the rule of law to Wall Street. We must treat financial
crimes with the same gravity as other crimes, because the price of
inaction and a failure to deter future misconduct is enormous.
Third, we must help regulators and other gatekeepers not only by
demanding transparency but also by providing clear, enforceable ``rules
of the road'' wherever possible. That includes studying conduct that
may not be illegal now, but that we should nonetheless consider banning
or curtailing because it provides too ready a cover for financial
wrongdoing.
The bottom line is that we need financial regulatory reform that is
tough, far-reaching, and untainted by discredited claims about the
efficacy of self-regulation.
When Senators Leahy, Grassley and I introduced the Fraud Enforcement
and Recovery Act--FERA--last year, our central objective was restoring
the rule of law to Wall Street. We wanted to make certain that the
Department of Justice and other law enforcement authorities had the
resources necessary to investigate and prosecute precisely the sort of
fraudulent behavior allegedly engaged in by Lehman Brothers that we
learned about recently.
We all understood that to restore the public's faith in our financial
markets and the rule of law, we must identify, prosecute, and send to
prison the participants in those markets who broke the law. Their
fraudulent conduct has severely damaged our economy, caused devastating
and sustained harm to countless hard-working Americans, and contributed
to the widespread view that Wall Street does not play by the same rules
as Main Street.
FERA, signed into law in May, ensures that additional tools and
resources will be provided to those charged with enforcement of our
Nation's laws against financial fraud. Since its passage, progress has
been made, including the President's creation of an interagency
Financial
[[Page 3489]]
Fraud Enforcement Task Force, but much more needs to be done.
Many have said we should of seek to punish anyone, as all of Wall
Street was in a delirium of profitmaking and almost no one foresaw the
sub-prime crisis caused by the dramatic decline in housing values. But
this is not about retribution. This is about addressing the continuum
of behavior that took place--some of it fraudulent and illegal--and in
the process addressing what Wall Street and the legal and regulatory
system underlying its behavior have become.
As part of that effort, we must ensure that the legal system tackles
financial crimes with the same gravity as other crimes. When crimes
happened in the past--as in the case of Enron, when aided and abetted
by, among others, Merrill Lynch, and not prevented by the supposed
gatekeepers at Arthur Andersen--there were criminal convictions. If
individuals and entities broke the law in the lead up to the 2008
financial crisis--such as at Lehman Brothers, which allegedly deceived
everyone, including the New York Fed and the SEC--there should be civil
and criminal cases that hold them accountable.
If we uncover bad behavior that was nonetheless lawful, or that we
cannot prove to be unlawful, as may be exemplified by the recent
reports of actions by Goldman Sachs with respect to the debt of Greece,
then we should review our legal rules in the United States and perhaps
change them so that certain misleading behavior cannot go unpunished
again. This will not be easy. As the Wall Street Journal's ``Heard on
the Street'' noted last week, ``Give Wall Street a rule and it will
find a loophole.''
This confirms what I heard on December 9 of last year when I convened
an oversight hearing on FERA. As that hearing made clear, unraveling
sophisticated financial fraud is an enormously complicated and
resource-intensive undertaking, because of the nature of both the
conduct and the perpetrators.
Rob Khuzami, head of the SEC's enforcement division, put it this way
during the hearing:
White-collar area cases, I think, are distinguishable from
terrorism or drug crimes, for the primary reason that, often,
people are plotting their defense at the same time they're
committing their crime. They are smart people who understand
that they are crossing the line, and so they are papering the
record or having veiled or coded conversations that make it
difficult to establish a wrongdoing.
In other words, Wall Street criminals not only possess enormous
resources but also are sophisticated enough to cover their tracks as
they go along, often with the help, perhaps unwitting, of their lawyers
and accountants.
Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer and Khuzami, along with
Assistant FBI Director Kevin Perkins, all emphasized at the hearing the
difficulty of proving these cases from the historical record alone. The
strongest cases come with the help of insiders, those who have first-
hand knowledge of not only conduct but also motive and intent. That is
why I have applauded the efforts of the SEC and DOJ to use both carrots
and sticks to encourage those with knowledge to come forward.
At the conclusion of that hearing in December, I was confident that
our law enforcement agencies were intensely focused on bringing to
justice those wrongdoers who brought our economy to the brink of
collapse.
Going forward, we need to make sure that those agencies have the
resources and tools they need to complete the job. But we are fooling
ourselves if we believe that our law enforcement efforts, no matter how
vigorous or well funded, are enough by themselves to prevent the types
of destructive behavior perpetrated by today's too-big, too-powerful
financial institutions on Wall Street.
I am concerned that the revelations about Lehman Brothers are just
the tip of the iceberg. We have no reason to believe that the conduct
detailed last week is somehow isolated or unique. Indeed, this sort of
behavior is hardly novel. Enron engaged in similar deceit with some of
its assets. And while we don't have the benefit of an examiner's report
for other firms with a business model like Lehman's, law enforcement
authorities should be well on their way in conducting investigations of
whether others used similar ``accounting gimmicks'' to hide dangerous
risk from investors and the public.
At the same time, there are reports that raise questions about
whether Goldman Sachs and other firms may have failed to disclose
material information about swaps with Greece that allowed the country
to effectively mask the full extent of its debt just as it was joining
the European Monetary Union, EMU. We simply do not know whether fraud
was involved, but these actions have kicked off a continent-wide
controversy, with ramifications for U.S. investors as well.
In Greece, the main transactions in question were called cross-
currency swaps that exchange cash flows denominated in one currency for
cash flows denominated in another. In Greece's case, these swaps were
priced ``off-market,'' meaning that they didn't use prevailing market
exchange rates. Instead, these highly unorthodox transactions provided
Greece with a large upfront payment, and an apparent reduction in debt,
which they then paid off through periodic interest payments and finally
a large ``balloon'' payment at the contract's maturity. In other words,
Goldman Sachs allegedly provided Greece with a loan by another name.
The story, however, does not end there. Following these transactions,
Goldman Sachs and other investment banks underwrote billions of Euros
in bonds for Greece. The questions being raised include whether some of
these bond offering documents disclosed the true nature of these swaps
to investors, and, if not, whether the failure to do so was material.
These bonds were issued under Greek law, and there is nothing
necessarily illegal about not disclosing this information to bond
investors in Europe. At least some of these bonds, however, were likely
sold to American investors, so they may therefore still be subject to
applicable U.S. securities law. While ``qualified institutional
buyers,'' QIBs, in the United States are able to purchase bonds, such
as the ones issued by Greece, and other securities not registered with
the SEC under Securities Act of 1933, the sale of these bonds would
still be governed by other requirements of U.S. law. Specifically, they
presumably would be subject to the prohibition against the sale of
securities to U.S. investors while deliberately withholding material
adverse information.
The point may be not so much what happened in Greece, but yet again
the broader point that financial transactions must be transparent to
the investing public and verified as such by outside auditors. AIG fell
in large part due to its credit default swap exposure, but no one knew
until it was too late how much risk AIG had taken upon itself. Why do
some on Wall Street resist transparency so? Lehman shows the answer:
everyone will flee a listing ship, so the less investors know, the
better off are the firms which find themselves in a downward spiral. At
least until the final reckoning.
Who is to blame for this state of affairs, where major Wall Street
firms conclude that hiding the truth is okay? Well, there is plenty of
blame to go around. As I said previously, both Congress and the
regulators came to believe that self-interest was regulation enough. In
the now-immortal words of Alan Greenspan, ``Those of us who have looked
to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's
equity--myself especially--are in a state of shocked disbelief.'' The
time has come to get over the shock and get on with the work.
What about the professions? Accountants and lawyers are supposed to
help insure that their clients obey the law. Indeed they often claim
that simply by giving good advice to their clients, they are
responsible for far more compliance with the law than are government
investigators. That claim rings hollow, however, when these
professionals now seem too often focused on helping their clients get
around the law.
Experts such as Professor Peter Henning of Wayne State University
[[Page 3490]]
Law School, looking at the Lehman examiner's report on the Repo 105
transactions, are stunned that the accountant Ernst & Young never
seemed to be troubled in the least about it. Of course, the fact that a
Lehman executive was blowing a whistle on the practice in May 2008 did
not change anything, other than to cause some discomfort in the ranks.
While saying he was confident he could clear up the whistleblower's
concerns, the lead partner for Lehman at Ernst & Young wrote that the
letter and off-balance sheet accounting issues were ``adding stress to
everyone.''
As Professor Henning notes, one of the supposed major effects of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act was to empower the accountants to challenge
management and ensure that transactions were accounted for properly.
Indeed, it was my predecessor, then-Senator Biden, who was the lead
author of the provision requiring the CEO and CFO to attest to the
accuracy of financial statements, under penalty of criminal sanction if
they knowingly or willfully certified materially false statements. I
don't believe this is a failure of Sarbanes-Oxley. A law is not a
failure simply because some people subsequently violate it.
I am deeply disturbed at the apparent failure of some in the
accounting profession to change their ways and truly undertake the
profession's role as the first line of defense--the gatekeeper--against
accounting fraud. In just a few years time since the Enron-related
death of the accounting firm Arthur Andersen, one might have hoped that
``technically correct'' was no longer a defensible standard if the
cumulative impression left by the action is grossly misleading. But
apparently that standard as a singular defense is creeping back into
the profession.
The accountants and lawyers weren't the only gatekeepers. If Lehman
was hiding balance sheet risks from investors, it was also hiding them
from rating agencies and regulators, thereby allowing it to delay
possible ratings downgrades that would increase its capital
requirements. The Repo 105 transactions allowed Lehman to lower its
reported net leverage ratio from 17.3 to 15.4 for the first quarter of
2008, according to the examiner's report. It was bad enough that the
SEC focused on a misguided metric like net leverage when Lehman's gross
leverage ratio was much higher and more indicative of its risks. The
SEC's failure to uncover such aggressive and possibly fraudulent
accounting, as was employed on the Repo 105 transactions, provides a
clear indication of the lack of rigor of its supervision of Lehman and
other investment banks.
The SEC in years past allowed the investment banks to increase their
leverage ratios by permitting them to determine their own risk level.
When that approach was taken, it should have been coupled with absolute
transparency on the level of risk. What the Lehman example shows is
that increased leverage without the accountants and regulators and
credit rating agencies insisting on transparency is yet another recipe
for disaster.
Mr. President, last week's revelations about Lehman Brothers
reinforce what I have been saying for some time. The folly of radical
deregulation has given us financial institutions that are too big to
fail, too big to manage, and too big to regulate. If we have any hope
of returning the rule of law to Wall Street, we need regulatory reform
that addresses this central reality.
As I said more than a year ago:
At the end of the day, this is a test of whether we have
one justice system in this country or two. If we don't treat
a Wall Street firm that defrauded investors of millions of
dollars the same way we treat someone who stole $500 from a
cash register, then how can we expect our citizens to have
faith in the rule of law? For our economy to work for all
Americans, investors must have confidence in the honest and
open functioning of our financial markets. Our markets can
only flourish when Americans again trust that they are fair,
transparent, and accountable to the laws.
The American people deserve no less.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, before I speak to the topic
that brought me to the floor tonight, I want to acknowledge the
Presiding Officer's remarks on the situation with Lehman Brothers and
others on Wall Street. I know that the Senator is on a mission, and
nothing would make him happier, nor me happier, if the story of Lehman
Brothers is a story that is told for the last time, much less written
for the last time.
I listened with great interest to the narrative that is now
unfolding, and with that interest also the sense of horror and outrage
and anger that the Presiding Officer clearly carries. A crime is a
crime, as it was pointed out, whether it is $500 from a cash register
or literally billions, in fact trillions of dollars of net worth that
we have seen taken from Americans and American families.
I commend the Presiding Officer for his leadership, and I think he
put it well when he pointed out if you are too big to fail, you are too
big to exist, and too bad. Never again should that happen. So I wanted
to acknowledge the Presiding Officer.
____________________
SOLAR UNITING NEIGHBORHOODS ACT
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I want to speak about a bill
that is born from the forward-thinking ideas of our constituents--a
bill that will help spur our Nation's new energy economy and create
jobs. To that end, tomorrow I will introduce the Solar Uniting
Neighborhoods Act, or the SUN Act.
Last year, I began traveling across Colorado as part of a workforce
tour to listen directly to Coloradans and hear their innovative policy
ideas to create jobs. These ongoing efforts not only make me proud to
be a Coloradan but they help me identify ways the Federal Government
can help--or in some cases get out of the way--in supporting economic
development and investing in Colorado. The SUN Act comes from directly
visiting with Coloradans. It was one of the several job creation
proposals developed after I hosted an energy jobs summit last month in
Colorado.
Our summit brought together leading clean energy stakeholders from
the worlds of business and public interest and government. Many of our
top elected officials were there, including Energy Secretary Steven
Chu, Governor Bill Ritter, Senator Michael Bennet, and Congressman Ed
Perlmutter. They were there to discuss ways to sensibly spur job growth
in our emerging clean energy economy. In the coming weeks, I will be
introducing further legislation developed in part from the creative
ideas that flowed from the clean energy summit.
The SUN Act will bring common sense to our Tax Code, get government
out of the way of developing solar energy and spur job growth in every
community across the United States. Americans currently qualify for a
30-percent Federal tax credit for the cost of installing solar panels
on their homes. These solar panels are a great way to convert sunlight
to electricity, and over time they save American families money on
their utility bills. A few years ago, I installed panels on my own home
to take advantage of the Sun, which is very strong in the great State
of Colorado. But I have come to understand that this option isn't
available for all American families who want to receive their
electricity from solar power. Why? Well, there can be difficulties
attaching solar panels to your home, which is why more and more
neighborhoods and towns are creating so-called ``community solar''
projects. In those projects, instead of attaching the panels on every
roof on the block, an increasing number of families have decided to
place those same solar panels together in one open and unobstructed
sunny area near their homes. By grouping these solar panels, you can
reduce the cost by 30 percent compared to installing a panel or a set
of
[[Page 3491]]
panels on every roof in the neighborhood. Moreover, community solar
projects streamline maintenance and optimize energy production by
avoiding trees, buildings, and other obstructions. Whether used by
neighbors living at the end of a cul-de-sac or developed by a rural
energy cooperative, creating these group solar projects to share energy
is a great way to lower the cost of making electricity through the
marvelous technology of photovoltaic units.
But there is a problem. Our Tax Code gets in the way. Why? Well, we
have seen the Federal Tax Code discourage neighborhood solar projects
because it requires the panels to be on your property. To put it
simply, Federal law is telling Americans they need to have their solar
panels affixed to their roofs instead of being able to partner with
their neighbors on a community solar project. So this discourages
innovation and slows the growth of solar power as an alternative energy
source.
Back to the reason why I am introducing the SUN Act. It makes a small
change in the Tax Code so that we no longer will be constrained in this
innovative solar energy opportunity. By eliminating the requirement
that the solar panel be on one individual's property, it frees
Americans to work together on community projects where each individual
can claim a tax credit on part of a shared project. This simple turnkey
solution makes it easier to adopt and use clean renewable energy.
As more and more Americans are realizing, weaning ourselves off
sources of foreign energy is a bipartisan imperative no matter what you
think about global warming. Back in 2004, Colorado took a big step
forward into the emerging clean energy economy when we approved a
renewable electricity standard--a so-called RES. I know the Presiding
Officer supports such a concept. It wasn't an easy transition. There
were a lot of skeptics who feared setting a goal for renewable energy
would result in job losses. I remember it well. I cochaired the
campaign for this RES in the State of Colorado with the Republican
Speaker of our Statehouse, Lola Spradley, who is a close friend. She
and I toured the State during election season in a bipartisan effort.
It was a surprise to a lot of people, who thought Republicans and
Democrats only fight and disagree. We in fact agreed, and we had a
wonderful time campaigning together. We passed the RES.
Colorado has initiated other efforts as well and we have easily
created over 20,000 jobs. We have the fourth highest concentration of
renewable energy and energy research jobs in our country. Estimates are
that the solar energy requirement in the RES--because the RES allows
for wind, biomass, and other kinds of renewable energies--created over
1,500 jobs.
So what does this tell us? It tells us what we already know well--
that American capitalism can take the seeds of an idea and create
positive economic change. So wherever possible, our Federal Government
should encourage, not hinder, such entrepreneurial ideas and
entrepreneurs.
Other important issues are at play as well. As we find our way out of
the current recession, we are witness to the emergence of powerful
economic competitors abroad, and we have an increasingly dangerous
alliance on foreign fossil fuels. So with these factors in mind for our
own economic and national security, Americans must become the world
leader in adopting clean energy and creating homegrown jobs.
The story must be told that clean energy is one of the greatest
economic opportunities of the 21st century. Fortunately, that is a
promise we can meet as the global demand for clean energy is growing by
$1 trillion every year. Let me say that again--$1 trillion every year.
And what excites me about this bill, like many measures currently being
debated here in our Chamber, is that it will create jobs for Americans
in every neighborhood where these community solar projects are
developed.
This bill reduces many of the barriers which currently prevent
Americans from adopting solar energy, opens up new markets and creates
a simple structure to allow people to utilize clean energy for their
home.
As I close, I can tell you there is nothing more thrilling than
making electricity, which I do in my own home. And then, when you need
to use it at your home, you use it there. And also, when it is not
needed, you send it back on the grid for your neighbors to use. So I
urge my colleagues in both parties to join me in supporting this
legislation.
I thank the Presiding Officer for his attention.
I yield the floor.
____________________
HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES
Private First Class Eric D. Currier
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay
tribute to the life and service of Marine PFC Eric D. Currier of
Londonderry, NH. This young soldier died from wounds inflicted by an
enemy sniper in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, on February 17, 2010.
Private First Class Currier was just 21 years old at the time of his
death. A rifleman, he was a member of the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine
Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force based at
Camp Lejeune, NC, and was deployed to Afghanistan in January.
Eric was born in Massachusetts but moved to my home State of New
Hampshire when he was in the eighth grade. He continued his schooling
in Londonderry and graduated from Londonderry High School in 2007. Like
many in northern New England, Eric was an avid outdoorsman. He began
fishing with his grandfather at the age of three. He enjoyed camping
trips with his brothers and was a skilled hunter. He spent many summer
days boating, fishing and swimming while staying with his grandparents
on Plum Island in Massachusetts. Eric even met his future wife, Kaila
Parkhurst, while canoeing on the Saco River as a teenager. He was a
fine young man, friendly and outgoing, who cared deeply for his family.
Army PVT Brent Currier, Eric's brother, describes him as the hero of
his seven siblings.
Eric enlisted in the Marine Corps in March 2009 with a desire to
serve an important cause and make his family proud. He most certainly
accomplished those goals. Private First Class Currier selflessly joined
the men and women of our armed services who give of themselves each day
so that we, as a nation, might enjoy freedom and security. He has
earned our country's enduring gratitude and recognition. While Eric's
life may have ended too soon, his legacy lives on through the people
who loved him and through all of us, who are forever indebted to him.
No words of mine can diminish the pain of losing such a young
soldier, but I hope Eric's family can find solace in knowing that all
Americans share a deep appreciation of his service. Daniel Webster's
words, first spoken during his eulogy for Presidents Adams and
Jefferson in 1826, are fitting: ``Although no sculptured marble should
rise to their memory, nor engraved stone bear record of their deeds,
yet will their remembrance be as lasting as the land they honored.'' I
ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in honoring Eric's life,
service and sacrifice.
Private First Class Currier is survived by his wife Kaila; his father
Russell Currier; his mother Helen Boudreau and her husband Kevin;
siblings Brent, Dylan, Kevin, Melana, Cassie, Jake and Alyssa; as well
as grandparents, in-laws, and others. I offer my deepest sympathies to
his entire family for their loss, and my sincere thanks for their loved
one's service. This young marine will be dearly missed; his death while
deployed far from home is another painful loss for our small State and
for this Nation. It is my sad duty to enter the name of PFC Eric
Currier in the Record of the U.S. Senate in recognition of his
sacrifice for this country and his contribution to freedom and lasting
peace.
____________________
VOTE EXPLANATION
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, due to mechanical trouble that delayed my
travel to the Senate on March 15, 2010,
[[Page 3492]]
I regret I was unable to make the vote on the motion to invoke cloture
on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment
to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847, the
legislative vehicle of the HIRE Act. If present I would have voted aye.
____________________
TAIWAN SELF-DEFENSE REQUIREMENTS
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, Taiwan is a steadfast ally in a very
turbulent region of the world. On January 29, the State Department
approved a $6.4 billion arms package to Taiwan that includes 114
Patriot missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters, Harpoon antiship training
missiles, and Osprey-class minehunter ships.
I am pleased that the administration is taking this important step
toward fulfilling the United States' commitment to Taiwan under the
Taiwan Relations Act, TRA, which requires us to make available to
Taiwan such defense articles and defense services ``as may be necessary
to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.''
However, despite the billions of dollars worth of weapons involved in
this sale, it represents little more than a half step in providing
Taiwan the defensive arms that it needs--and that we are obligated by
law to provide it--to protect itself against rapidly increasing air-
and sea-based threats from China. What Taiwan has repeatedly
requested--and what was not in the arms package--are new fighter
aircraft.
Since 2006, the Taiwanese have made clear their desire to purchase 66
F-16 C/Ds to augment an air fleet that is bordering on obsolescence. On
April 22, 2009, Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou reiterated Taiwan's
commitment to request the F-16C/Ds from the Obama Administration. And,
in a December 29, 2009, letter to Senate and House leaders, members of
Taiwan's Parliament stated, ``Though economic and diplomatic relations
with the People's Republic of China's Communist Party are improving, we
face a significant threat from the People's Liberation Army Air Force.
Our military must be able to defend our airspace as a further
deterioration in the air balance across the Strait will only encourage
PRC aggression.''
On January 21, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA, completed a
report on the current condition of Taiwan's air force. This formal
assessment was required under a provision that I authored in the fiscal
year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, which received
bipartisan support. The report's findings are grim.
The unclassified version of the report concludes that, although
Taiwan has an inventory of almost 400 combat aircraft, ``far fewer of
these are operationally capable.'' It states that Taiwan's 60 U.S.-made
F-5 fighters have already reached the end of their operational service,
that its 126 locally produced Indigenous Defense Fighter aircraft lack
``the capability for sustained sorties,'' and that its 56 French-made
Mirage 2000-5 fighter jets ``require frequent, expensive maintenance''
while lacking required spare parts. Furthermore, the report found that
although some of Taiwan's 146 F-16 A/Bs may receive improvements to
enhance avionics and combat effectiveness, the ``extent of the
upgrades, and timing and quantity of aircraft is currently unknown.''
In the past, what has kept Taiwan free and allowed its democracy and
free enterprise system to flourish has been a qualitative technological
advantage in military hardware over Chinese forces. In simple terms, it
would have been too costly for Beijing to contemplate an attack on
Taiwan. This in and of itself created a stabilizing effect that
promoted dialogue and negotiations. Yet due to the massive,
nontransparent increase in China's defense spending, the past 10 years
have seen a dramatic erosion in this cornerstone of Taiwan's defense
strategy. A gauge of how quickly this tide has turned can be found in
the Department of Defense's Annual Report on the Military Power of the
People's Republic of China. The 2002 version of this report concluded
that Taiwan ``has enjoyed dominance of the airspace over the Taiwan
Strait for many years.'' The DOD's 2009 Report now states this
conclusion no longer holds true.
Taiwanese defense officials have also recognized this alarming trend,
predicting that, in the coming decade, they will completely lose their
qualitative edge. Beijing will have an advantage in both troops and
arms. This imminent reality holds critical consequences for both our
ally Taiwan and the United States. If China becomes emboldened, it
might be tempted to try to take Taiwan through outright aggression or
cow Taiwan into subservience through intimidation.
How would the U.S. react in the face of Chinese belligerence towards
Taiwan? Would we deploy our ships and aircraft to ward off Chinese
aggression? Would we decide to counter force with force? These are
difficult and tough questions, and the soundest policy option is to
ensure they never have to be answered. We know a Taiwan that is
properly defended and equipped will raise the stakes for China, and
that would serve as the best defense against belligerent acts.
Strategically, assisting Taiwan in maintaining a robust defense
capability will help keep the Taiwan Strait stable. We should remember
that, in 1996, Beijing rattled its Chinese saber and launched ballistic
missiles off Taiwan's coast and initiated amphibious landing training
exercises. This prompted President Clinton to dispatch two carrier
battle groups as a show of strength. President Ma recently commented on
the latest weapons sale by stating, ``The more confidence we have and
the safer we feel, the more interactions we can have with mainland
China. The new weapons will help us develop cross-strait ties and
ensure Taiwan maintains a determined defense and effective
deterrence.'' During the Reagan years, we knew this common-sense
strategy as ``Peace Through Strength.''
The benefits of an F-16 sale to Taiwan are not limited to national
security--this sale also stands to benefit the American economy during
a difficult period. The F-16, one of the world's finest tactical
aircraft, is proudly assembled in Fort Worth, TX. The overall
production effort involves hundreds of suppliers and thousands of
workers across the United States. The sale of 66 aircraft to Taiwan
would be worth approximately $4.9 billion and guarantee U.S. jobs for
years to come. The ripple effects of this sale through our economy
would be significant, especially for workers in states where the
recession has hit hard. This sale will also be a shot in the arm to
America's defense industrial base, where constructing and equipping the
F-16 means high-paying jobs for Americans.
The Obama administration has indicated that it intends to further
review Taiwan's request for F-16s. Yet, the time for a decision
regarding this sale draws near, and this review cannot be allowed to
continue indefinitely. Taiwan needs these F-16 C/D aircraft now. What's
more, the F-16 production line is approaching its end, after having
manufactured these world-class aircraft for decades and having equipped
25 nations with more than 4,000 aircraft. If hard orders are not
received for Taiwan's F-16s this year, the U.S. production line will
likely be forced to start shutting down. Once the line begins closing,
personnel will be shifted to other programs, inventory orders will be
cancelled, and machine tools will be decommissioned. When the F-16 line
eventually goes ``cold,'' it is not realistic to expect that it would
be restarted. At the same time, through economic and diplomatic
threats, China has effectively cut off all other countries from selling
arms to Taiwan.
In the months leading up to the administration's recent arms sales
announcement, the administration took great pains to telegraph to
Beijing their intention that the sale would provide only defensive arms
to Taiwan. Nevertheless, China has responded to the sale by threatening
U.S. companies, cancelling high-level meetings with U.S. officials, and
launching verbal assaults against our country. Beijing's blustering is
clearly intended to intimidate the United States and dissuade us from
selling new F-16s to
[[Page 3493]]
Taiwan. This is unacceptable. The United States must not allow Beijing
to dictate the terms of any future U.S. arms sales or other support for
Taiwan.
President Ma and Taiwan parliamentarians have been clear and direct
in their request for these aircraft. It is my hope that they will
redouble their efforts here in Congress, as well as with the
administration, to make the case and demonstrate the urgent need for
the sale of these F-16C/Ds. This is a telling moment for the Obama
administration. Our allies are watching carefully, and so are our
potential adversaries. Without question, the path of least resistance
for the administration would be to not move forward with the sale of F-
16s, under the guise of continued analysis of the proposal. Then, once
the F-16 production line had shut down, the proposed sale would be a
moot issue for the administration. However, that path would ultimately
leave Taiwan--and U.S. interests in the region--dangerously exposed.
The sale of these F-16s to Taiwan would send a powerful message that
the U.S. will stand by our allies, both in the Taiwan Strait and in
other parts of the world.
I urge the President to move forward expeditiously with the sale of
F-16s to Taiwan. I hope he will do so, and I know that many of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle share this sentiment.
____________________
RECONCILIATION
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to address the
subject of reconciliation.
I have previously spoken about gridlock in Congress and the negative
impact it is having on our stature internationally. We are unable to
confirm judicial and executive nominations which is paralyzing the work
of the Senate and putting the government's ability to confront the
Nation's challenges at risk. It slows the judicial process and leaves
many posts empty, including those in defense and national security.
The most central issue at the moment, however, is health care reform.
Health care reform passed both the House of Representatives and the
Senate. In the Senate, it passed by a supermajority vote of 60-39. The
only issue before us now is aligning the already-passed Senate version
with the already-passed House version. Despite its passage by 60-39,
Republicans are still trying to stop this bill by threatening to
filibuster the amendments needed to bring it into a condition that will
pass the House of Representatives.
These tactics, which amount to a minority of Senators halting a bill
that has overwhelming support, can be overcome by the often used
reconciliation process. The reconciliation process is an optional
procedure that operates as an adjunct to the budget resolution process
established by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The reconciliation
process has been used by nearly every Congress since its enactment to
pass a vast array of legislation.
In their endless efforts to circumvent the will of the majority and
thwart the passage of much needed and much supported health care
legislation, the Republicans have launched a campaign against the
reconciliation process, making it out to be an illegitimate tactic that
the Democrats have invented to pass health care legislation. That is
simply untrue.
A look back in time, however, shows that the very same Republicans
who are now denouncing the use of reconciliation were the very same
Republicans who were defending its use not too long ago.
When he was chair of the Budget Committee, Senator Judd Gregg, in
defending the use of reconciliation to try to pass an amendment
allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 2005
said, ``Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate set up under the Budget
Act. It has been used before for purposes exactly like this on numerous
occasions. The fact is all this rule of the Senate does is allow a
majority of the Senate to take a position and pass a piece of
legislation, support that position. Is there something wrong with
`majority rules'? I don't think so.''
When using reconciliation to pass Medicare spending, Senator Gregg
said, ``You can't get 60 votes because the party on the other side of
the aisle simply refuses to do anything constructive in this area.''
Senator Chuck Grassley, when defending the use of reconciliation to
pass the Bush tax cuts, said that reconciliation was ``the way it will
have to be done in order to get it done at all.''
Last year Republican Congressman Paul Ryan said of Democrats using
reconciliation, ``It's their right. They did win the election. We don't
like it because we don't like what looks like the outcome.''
Republicans are implying that reconciliation is a new idea, and has
never been used to pass significant legislation. The fact is, since
1980, Congress has sent 22 reconciliation bills to the President. Of
those, 16 enacted into law occurred under Republican majority control.
The 16 reconciliation bills created with a Republican majority
included:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resultant
FY Majority reconciliation act(s) Veto?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1981................................. Republican............. Omnibus Budget None.
Reconciliation Act of
1980 (P.L. 96-499).
1982................................. Republican............. Omnibus Budget None.
Reconciliation Act of
1981 (P.L. 97-35).
1983................................. Republican............. Tax Equity and Fiscal None.
Responsibility Act of
1982 (P.L. 97-248).
Republican............. Omnibus Budget None.
Reconciliation Act of
1982 (P.L. 97-253).
1984................................. Republican............. Omnibus Budget None.
Reconciliation Act of
1983 (P.L. 98-270).
1986................................. Republican............. Consolidated Omnibus None.
Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-
272).
1996................................. Republican............. Balanced Budget Act of Vetoed by Clinton.
1995.
1997................................. Republican............. Personal Responsibility None.
and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of
1996 (P.L. 104-193).
1998................................. Republican............. Balanced Budget Act of None.
1997 (P.L. 105-33).
Republican............. Taxpayer Relief Act of None.
1997 (P.L. 105-34).
2000................................. Republican............. Taxpayer Refund and Vetoed by Clinton.
Relief Act of 1999
(H.R. 2488).
2001................................. Republican............. Marriage Tax Relief Vetoed by Clinton.
Reconciliation Act of
2000 (H.R. 4810).
2002................................. Republican............. Economic Growth and Tax None.
Relief Reconciliation
Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-
16).
2004................................. Republican............. Jobs and Growth Tax None.
Relief Reconciliation
Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-
27).
2006................................. Republican............. Deficit Reduction Act None.
of 2005 (P.L. 109-171).
Republican............. Tax Increase Prevention None.
and Reconciliation Act
of 2005 (P.L. 109-222).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The six reconciliation bills created with a Democratic majority
included:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resultant
Fiscal year Majority reconciliation act(s) Veto?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1987................................. Democrat............... Omnibus Budget None.
Reconciliation Act of
1986 (P.L. 99-509).
1988................................. Democrat............... Omnibus Budget None.
Reconciliation Act of
1987 (P.L. 100-203).
1990................................. Democrat............... Omnibus Budget None.
Reconciliation Act of
1989 (P.L. 101-239).
1991................................. Democrat............... Omnibus Budget None.
Reconciliation Act of
1990 (P.L. 101-508).
1994................................. Democrat............... Omnibus Budget None.
Reconciliation Act of
1993 (P.L. 103-66).
2008................................. Democrat............... College Cost Reduction Vetoed by Clinton.
and Access Act of 2007
(P.L. 110-84).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This could not be further from the truth. The new Reagan
administration and Republican majority in 1981 that first used
reconciliation to pass major legislation--Reagan's tax cuts--and used
it again in 1982 to cut spending
[[Page 3494]]
and roll back some tax cuts. A Republican-controlled Senate also used
reconciliation to pass the 1996 welfare overhaul, the Children's Health
Insurance Program, Medicare Advantage and COBRA.
Republicans have used reconciliation many times to pass partisan
bills. For example, the 1995 Balanced Budget Act, the 2001 Bush tax
cuts, the 2003 Bush tax cuts, the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, and the
2006 Tax Relief Extension Act were all passed in reconciliation and
with small vote margins. Two of these passed only with the tie-breaking
intervention of Vice President Dick Cheney, and Democrats got more
votes for the health bill than any of these measures received.
Republicans have also complained that reconciliation is not proper
for a health care bill. However, over the past 20 years, reconciliation
has been used to pass almost all major pieces of health care
legislation, including COBRA; the Children's Health Insurance Program;
the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires
hospitals that take Medicaid and Medicare to treat anyone entering an
ER; and welfare reform, which disentangled Medicaid from welfare.
Further, the health care bill has already passed with 60 votes. It is
only the amendments that need to pass via reconciliation. The 2009
budget resolution instructed both Houses of Congress to enact health
care reform. Again, comprehensive health legislation has already passed
both Chambers, garnering a majority in the House and a supermajority in
the Senate. Since the House and the Senate versions are slightly
different, using reconciliation to implement the budget resolution by
reconciling the two bills follows established procedure. Reconciliation
will be used only to pass a small package of fixes to the original
health bills that are necessary to align the House and Senate versions.
This is actually less ambitious than the usual reconciliation process,
which usually applies to entire bills, not just small fixes.
____________________
RADIO SPECTRUM INVENTORY ACT
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I express my support for S. 649, the Radio
Spectrum Inventory Act. I am joining as a cosponsor of this legislation
because it is important to complete a comprehensive assessment of how
we use our radio spectrum before we make decisions about how we want to
use it in the future.
As the FCC submits the Nation's first broadband plan to Congress, we
have heard much about the need for allocating additional spectrum for
the expansion of mobile broadband service. There is little question
that rapidly expanding these networks is of critical importance--
especially in rural States like North Dakota, which rely on 21st-
century technology like mobile broadband to stay competitive.
However, without a thorough understanding of how our public airwaves
are currently being used, making a plan to reallocate spectrum would be
putting the cart before the horse. For that reason, I strongly believe
that the Congress should pass this legislation and policymakers should
wait to review the results of the inventory it requires before
decisions are made about how or where spectrum should be distributed
for the expansion of mobile broadband services. This will allow us to
shape spectrum policy in a more thoughtful manner.
Just as the National Broadband Plan gives us for the first time a
comprehensive plan for broadband deployment and use, the Radio Spectrum
Inventory Act will provide for the first time a comprehensive map of
how the public airwaves are used--for radio broadcasts, over-the-air
television, mobile phones, public safety, and mobile broadband. There
are too many users involved to move forward in a piecemeal way.
Ultimately, spectrum reallocation is too important to rush.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO GREG KENDALL
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my
wife Kathy to pay tribute to Officer Greg Kendall of Rye, NH, who
retired on January 1, 2010, after 50 years of service as an educator
and law enforcement officer. It is important for us to take a moment to
recognize and honor Officer Kendall's long career as a dedicated public
servant. Citizens like Greg Kendall ensure that our communities remain
great places to live, work, and raise a family. The outstanding
community service demonstrated by him is what inspires people to leave
behind a better society than they found, and contribute to the
betterment of their local community.
Greg, whom Rye Police Chief Kevin Walsh describes as
``irreplaceable,'' is both well known and highly respected throughout
New Hampshire's Seacoast community, where he has served on the Rye
police force and as an educator in the Rye and Seabrook school
districts. Starting out on summer beach patrol in 1960 as a full-time
officer, Greg continued to serve as a police officer on weekends while
also beginning his career in education as a full-time sixth grade
teacher at Rye Junior High School. Upon finishing graduate studies at
the University of New Hampshire and the University of Maine, he became
the principal at Rye Junior High School, where he continued to guide
and shape the education and character of a generation of young students
over the next 16 years. Following that, Greg taught in Seabrook for an
additional 13 years, all while serving nights and weekends as a special
officer in Rye. Since 2001, Greg has also been animal control officer,
performing his duties with the same compassion, calm demeanor, and
professionalism that he always brought to his shifts on patrol or
lessons in the classroom.
On a personal note, I had the pleasure of serving with Greg when, in
the summer of 1968, I worked as a special officer on the Rye Police
Force. The town of Rye, the people of the region and the State of New
Hampshire are all better off for Greg's wisdom, skills, and experience.
He is a friend and someone whose sense of humor, expertise and
dedication I have always admired. Kathy and I join Greg's friends and
neighbors in Rye in honoring him as an officer of the law, an educator
of youth, and a motivator for us all. Thank you, Greg Kendall. We wish
you the best in all your future endeavors; may they be as rewarding as
those of the last 50 years.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
At 10:54 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 bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 2377. An act to direct the Secretary of Education to
establish and administer an awards program recognizing
excellence exhibited by public school system employees
providing services to students in pre-kindergarten through
higher education.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bill was read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 2377. An act to direct the Secretary of Education to
establish and administer an awards program recognizing
excellence exhibited by public school system employees
providing services to students in pre-kindergarten through
higher education; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR
The following bill was read the second time, and placed on the
calendar:
H.R. 2314. An act to express the policy of the United
States regarding the United States relationship with Native
Hawaiians and to provide a process for the recognition by the
United States of the Native Hawaiian governing entity.
____________________
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-5034. A communication from the Chief of Research and
Analysis, Food and Nutrition Services, Department of
Agriculture,
[[Page 3495]]
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``The Emergency Food Assistance Program: Amendments to
Requirements Regarding the Submission of State Plans and
Allowability of Certain Administrative Costs'' (RIN0584-AD94)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
March 10, 2010; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
EC-5035. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Defense (Personnel and Readiness), transmitting the report of
(4) officers authorized to wear the insignia of the grade of
brigadier general in accordance with title 10, United States
Code, section 777; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-5036. A communication from the Director, Pentagon
Renovation and Construction Program Office, Department of
Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Office's Annual
Report for the year ending March 1, 2010; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
EC-5037. A communication from the Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a biennial report entitled ``Implementation
of the Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Program''; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5038. 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 73.622(i), Final DTV Table of Allotments, Television
Broadcast Stations; (Birmingham, Alabama)'' (MB Docket No.
10-21) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on March 11, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5039. 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
(Port Angeles, Washington)'' (MB Docket No. 08-228) received
in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 12,
2010; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5040. A communication from the Acting Director of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Inseason Closure of the
Recreational Fishery for Greater Amberjack in Federal Waters
of the Gulf of Mexico'' (RIN0648-XS50) received in the Office
of the President of the Senate on March 10, 2010; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5041. A communication from the Acting Director of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Suspension of Minimum Atlantic
Surfclam Size Limit for Fishing Year 2010'' (RIN0648-XS18)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
March 10, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5042. A communication from the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment
15B to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper
Fishery of the South Atlantic Region'' (RIN0648-AW12)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
March 10, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5043. A communication from the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Correcting
Amendment to Implement Recordkeeping and Reporting
Revisions'' (RIN0648-AY37) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on March 10, 2010; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5044. A communication from the Acting Director of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Reopening of the Commercial
Fishery for Gulf Group King Mackerel in the Florida East
Coast Subzone for the 2009-2010 Fishing Year'' (RIN0648-XU38)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
March 10, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5045. A communication from the Acting Director of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Pacific Coast Groundfish;
Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason
Adjustments'' (RIN0648-AY40) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on March 10, 2010; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5046. A communication from the Secretary of the
Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Trade Regulation Rule Relating to Power
Output Claims for Amplifiers Utilized in Home Entertainment
Products'' (RIN3084-AB09) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on March 10, 2010; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5047. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the
Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher/
Processors Using Pot Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands Management Area'' (RIN0648-XU65) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on March 10, 2010; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5048. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the
Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Closed Directed Fishing
for Pacific Cod, Jig and Hook-and-Line Vessels, Bering Sea,
Bogoslof Area'' (RIN0648-XU64) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on March 10, 2010; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5049. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the
Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Closed Directed Fishing
for Pacific Cod, Offshore Component, Central Gulf of Alaska,
A Season'' (RIN0648-XU63) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on March 10, 2010; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5050. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the
Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Closed Directed Fishing
for Pacific Cod, Non-American Fisheries Act Crab Vessels,
Offshore Component, Western Gulf of Alaska'' (RIN0648-XU62)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
March 10, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5051. A communication from the Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department
of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Correction''
(RIN0648-XU17) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on March 10, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-5052. A communication from the Chief Counsel, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Public Assistance Eligibility'' ((44 CFR Part 206)(Docket
No. FEMA-2006-0028)) received in the Office of the President
of the Senate on March 10, 2010; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-5053. A communication from the Chief Counsel, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Suspension of Community Eligibility'' ((44 CFR Part
64)(Docket No. FEMA-2008-0020)) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on March 10, 2010; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-5054. A communication from the Chairman and President of
the Export-Import Bank, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report relative to transactions involving U.S. exports to
Australia; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
EC-5055. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Legislation and Regulatory Law, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Energy Conservation Program for Certain Commercial and
Industrial Equipment: Test Procedure for Metal Halide Lamp
Ballasts (Active and Standby Modes) and Proposed Information
Collection; Comment Request; Certification, Compliance, and
Enforcement Requirements for Consumer Products and Certain
Commercial and Industrial Equipment; Final Rule and Notice''
(RIN1904-AB87) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on March 12, 2010; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
EC-5056. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Legislation and Regulatory Law, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Weatherization Assistance for Low-Income Persons:
Maintaining the Privacy of Applicants for and Recipients of
Services'' (RIN1904-AC16) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on March 12, 2010; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-5057. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Civil Works), transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report relative to the Topeka, Kansas, Flood Risk Management
Project; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-5058. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Legislative Affairs,
[[Page 3496]]
Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to the Arms
Export Control Act, the certification of a proposed technical
assistance agreement for the transfer of Phalanx Close-In
Weapon System Block 1B Baseline 1 systems, including spare
and repair parts, installation, and maintenance to the United
Arab Emirates in the amount of $50,000,000 or more; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-5059. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, the
certification of a proposed amendment to a manufacturing
license agreement for the export of defense articles,
including, technical data, and defense services to Japan
relative to the design, manufacture, and repair of the Long
Range Chinook Helicopter Variants (CH-47JA+) and the
modification of CH-47JA helicopters in the amount of
$100,000,000 or more; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-5060. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of
State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to
overseas surplus property; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
EC-5061. A communication from the Deputy Director of
Regulations and Policy Management Staff, Food and Drug
Administration, Department of Health and Human Services,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Classification of Benzoyl Peroxide as Safe and Effective
and Revision of Labeling to Drug Facts Format; Topical Acne
Drug Products for Over-The-Counter Human Use; Final Rule''
((RIN0910-AG00)(Docket Nos. FDA-1981-N-0114 and FDA-1992-N-
0049)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on March 10, 2010; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
EC-5062. A communication from the Acting Director,
Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Benefits Payable in Terminated
Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing and
Paying Benefits'' (29 CFR Part 4022) received in the Office
of the President of the Senate on March 10, 2010; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-5063. A communication from the Acting Director,
Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``USERRA Benefits Under Title IV of
ERISA'' (RIN1212-AB19) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on March 10, 2010; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-5064. A communication from the Chief Human Capital
Officer, Corporation for National and Community Service,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy
in the position of Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation
for National and Community Service, received in the Office of
the President of the Senate on March 11, 2010; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-5065. A communication from the Chairman, Federal
Maritime Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Commission's Fiscal Year 2009 Performance and Accountability
Report; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-5066. A communication from the Chief Privacy Officer,
Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report entitled ``Privacy Office Fourth Quarter Fiscal
Year 2009 Report to Congress''; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-5067. A communication from the Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of
Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) Annual
Report for Fiscal Year 2009; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
EC-5068. A communication from the Director of Regulations
Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``VA
Acquisition Regulation: Supporting Veteran-Owned and Service-
Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses'' (RIN2900-AM92)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
March 10, 2010; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
EC-5069. A communication from the Acting Director of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive
Economic Zone of Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 630 in
the Gulf of Alaska'' (RIN0648-XU73) received in the Office of
the President of the Senate on March 10, 2010; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
____________________
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
The following petition or memorial was laid before the Senate and was
referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:
POM-90. A message from the Secretary-General of the United
Nations petitioning support for Nuclear Disarmament and Non-
Proliferation; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
The Secretary-General,
February 26, 2010.
Mr. Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
President, Senate, United States of America, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., We stand at a watershed
moment for the achievement of international security through
a world free of nuclear weapons. For several years now,
momentum has been building towards this goal, due in no small
part to the diligent efforts of civil society and
parliamentarians.
I have tried to do my part to revitalize the peace and
disarmament agenda. In October 2008, I presented a five-point
proposal for nuclear disarmament. Greatly encouraged by the
support that has been expressed for my initiative, I
welcomed, in particular, the call by the Inter-Parliamentary
Union in April 2009 for parliaments to instruct their
Governments to support this proposal. I salute the
Parliamentary Network for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and
Disarmament for its related efforts and for its work towards
building support for a nuclear weapon convention.
Since 2008, we have seen progress. The Russian Federation
and the United States have negotiated on further reductions
of their strategic nuclear arsenals. The Security Council
held a historic summit on nuclear disarmament and non-
proliferation. Treaties establishing nuclear-weapon-free
zones have entered into force in Africa and Central Asia.
Calls for global nuclear disarmament have emanated from many
quarters and detailed plans have been proposed containing
practical ideas to achieve the goal of global zero.
In order to sustain this momentum ahead of the 2010 Review
Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons, I have proposed an Action Plan on Nuclear
Disarmament and Non-Proliferation. My plan is founded on a
fundamental principle: nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-
proliferation are mutually reinforcing and inseparable. In my
action plan, I promised to explore ways to encourage greater
involvement by civil society and parliamentarians.
Parliamentarians and parliaments play a key role in the
success of disarmament and non-proliferation efforts.
Parliaments support the implementation of treaties and global
agreements contributing to the rule of law and promoting
adherence to commitments. They adopt legislation that
increases transparency and accountability, thus building
trust, facilitating verification and creating conditions that
are conducive to the further pursuit of disarmament.
At a time when the international community is facing
unprecedented global challenges, parliamentarians can take on
leading roles in ensuring sustainable global security, while
reducing the diversion of precious resources from human
needs. As parliaments set the fiscal priorities for their
respective countries, they can determine how much to invest
in the pursuit of peace and cooperative security. Towards
this end, parliaments can establish the institutional
infrastructures to support the development of necessary
practical measures.
I would therefore like to take this opportunity to
encourage all parliamentarians to join in efforts to achieve
a nuclear-weapon-free world. In particular, I call upon
parliamentarians to increase their support for peace and
disarmament, to bring disarmament and non-proliferation
treaties into force, and to start work now on the legislative
agendas needed to achieve and sustain the objective of
nuclear disarmament.
I look forward to opportunities to work with you to advance
global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.
Yours sincerely,
BAN Ki-Moon.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs, with amendments:
H.R. 885. A bill to elevate the Inspector General of
certain Federal entities to an Inspector General appointed
pursuant to section 3 of the Inspector General Act of 1978.
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:
By Mr. LEVIN for the Committee on Armed Services.
*Jessie Hill Roberson, of Virginia, to be a Member of the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for a term expiring
October 18, 2013.
*Joseph F. Bader, of the District of Columbia, to be a
Member of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for a
term expiring October 18, 2012.
*Peter Stanley Winokur, of Maryland, to be a Member of the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for a term expiring
October 18, 2014.
Air Force nomination of Brig. Gen. Byron C. Hepburn, to be
Major General.
Air Force nomination of Col. Robert R. Redwine, to be
Brigadier General.
[[Page 3497]]
Army nomination of Lt. Gen. James D. Thurman, to be
General.
Army nomination of Lt. Gen. Jack C. Stultz, Jr., to be
Lieutenant General.
Army nomination of Maj. Gen. John W. Morgan III, to be
Lieutenant General.
Army nomination of Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez, to be
Lieutenant General.
Navy nomination of Vice Adm. Paul S. Stanley, to be Vice
Admiral.
Marine Corps nomination of Maj. Gen. Walter E. Gaskin, Sr.,
to be Lieutenant General.
Marine Corps nomination of Brig. Gen. Melvin G. Spiese, to
be Major General.
Marine Corps nomination of Col. Vaughn A. Ary, to be Major
General.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I
report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in
the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save
the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these
nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of
Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Air Force nominations beginning with Elwood M. Barnes and
ending with Rex A. Williams, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
March 3, 2010.
Air Force nominations beginning with Calvin N. Anderson and
ending with Roger M. Welsh, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
March 3, 2010.
Air Force nominations beginning with Brian L. Bengs and
ending with Lisa F. Willis, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
March 3, 2010.
Air Force nominations beginning with Donnette A. Boyd and
ending with Paul D. Sutter, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
March 3, 2010.
Air Force nominations beginning with Richard S. Beyea III
and ending with Travis C. Yelton, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on March 3, 2010.
Air Force nominations beginning with Afsana Ahmed and
ending with Reggie D. Yager, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
March 3, 2010.
Army nominations beginning with Douglas R. Dixon and ending
with Vicki J. Wyan, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February
1, 2010.
Army nominations beginning with Romney C. Andersen and
ending with D002085, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February
1, 2010.
Army nominations beginning with Charles E. Bane and ending
with D003028, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 1, 2010.
Army nominations beginning with Richard Acevedo and ending
with D005704, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 1, 2010.
Army nominations beginning with Joseph C. Alexander and
ending with Don H. Yamashita, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
February 1, 2010.
Army nominations beginning with David A. Allen and ending
with Young J. Yauger, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February
1, 2010.
Army nominations beginning with Matthew H. Adams and ending
with Matthew H. Watters, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on March
3, 2010.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Henry C. Bodden and
ending with David M. Sousa, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
February 22, 2010.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with James R. Reusse and
ending with Jeffrey P. Wooldridge, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on February 22, 2010.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Anthony Redman and
ending with Gary J. Spinelli, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
February 22, 2010.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Mark E. Dumas and
ending with James Smiley, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
February 22, 2010.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Steven S. Devost
and ending with William E. Lanham, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on February 22, 2010.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Tony C. Armstrong
and ending with Shelton Williams, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on February 22, 2010.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Charles R. Baughn
and ending with John P. Mullery, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on February 22, 2010.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Randall E. Davis
and ending with Brian L. White, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on February 22, 2010.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Brent L. English
and ending with Anthony C. Lyons, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on February 22, 2010.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Robert Boyero and
ending with Andrew R. Strauss, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on February 22, 2010.
Marine Corps nomination of Dennis L. Parks, to be
Lieutenant Colonel.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Steve K. Braund and
ending with Steven E. Sprout, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
March 3, 2010.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Charles E. Daniels
and ending with Jay A. Rogers, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on March 3, 2010.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Timothy L. Collins
and ending with Steven J. Lengquist, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on March 3, 2010.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Michael R. Glass
and ending with Donald L. Hultz, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on March 3, 2010.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Steven M. Dotson
and ending with James I. Saylor, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on March 3, 2010.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Jack G. Abate and
ending with Jason A. Higgins, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
March 3, 2010.
Navy nominations beginning with Craig E. Bundy and ending
with Yaron Rabinowitz, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February
22, 2010.
Navy nomination of Michael C. Biemiller, to be Commander.
*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed
subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear
and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
(Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the
recommendation that they be confirmed.)
____________________
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. KERRY:
S. 3118. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide that monetary benefits paid to veterans by States and
municipalities shall be excluded from consideration as income
for purposes of pension benefits paid by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Dodd, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 3119. A bill to amend and reauthorize certain provisions
relating to Long Island Sound restoration and stewardship; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
S. 3120. A bill to encourage the entry of felony warrants
into the National Crime Information Center database by States
and provide additional resources for extradition; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BURR (for himself and Mrs. Hagan):
S. 3121. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
authorize the Secretary of the Army to lease portions of the
Airborne and Special Operations Museum facility to the
Airborne and Special Operations Museum Foundation to support
operation of the Museum; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. ENSIGN (for himself, Mr. Risch, Mr. Vitter, Mr.
Barrasso, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Enzi):
S. 3122. A bill to require the Attorney General of the
United States to compile, and make publicly available,
certain data relating to the Equal Access to Justice Act, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Bennet, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Casey, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs.
Gillibrand, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Udall of New
Mexico, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Schumer, and Mr.
Sanders):
S. 3123. A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act to require
[[Page 3498]]
the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out a program to assist
eligible schools and nonprofit entities through grants and
technical assistance to implement farm to school programs
that improve access to local foods in eligible schools; to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. Harkin):
S. 3124. A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act to improve child health and nutrition and
reduce administrative burdens for child care sponsors and
providers; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
S. 3125. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to extend the financing of the Superfund; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Ms. KLOBUCHAR:
S. 3126. A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act to promote the health and wellbeing of
schoolchildren in the United States through effective local
wellness policies, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mrs. GILLIBRAND:
S. 3127. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to
require regular updating of the supplemental foods provided
under the special supplemental nutrition program for women,
infants, and children; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mrs. GILLIBRAND:
S. 3128. A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act to ensure the categorical eligibility of
foster children for free school lunches and breakfasts; to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mrs. GILLIBRAND:
S. 3129. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to
allow States to certify children for participation in special
supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and
children for a period of 1 year; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. BENNET:
S. 3130. A bill to provide that, if comprehensive health
care reform legislation provides Americans access to quality,
affordable health care is not enacted by June 30, 2010, then
Members of Congress may not participate or be enrolled in a
Federal employees health benefits plan under chapter 89 of
title 5, United States Code; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. WEBB (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. Res. 456. A resolution congratulating Radford University
on the 100th anniversary of the university; considered and
agreed to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 132
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from
Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 132, a bill to
increase and enhance law enforcement resources committed to
investigation and prosecution of violent gangs, to deter and punish
violent gang crime, to protect law-abiding citizens and communities
from violent criminals, to revise and enhance criminal penalties for
violent crimes, to expand and improve gang prevention programs, and for
other purposes.
S. 259
At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 259, a bill to establish
a grant program to provide vision care to children, and for other
purposes.
S. 493
At the request of Mr. Casey, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 493, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the establishment of ABLE
accounts for the care of family members with disabilities, and for
other purposes.
S. 565
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Gillibrand) was added as a cosponsor of S. 565, a bill to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide continued entitlement
to coverage for immunosuppressive drugs furnished to beneficiaries
under the Medicare Program that have received a kidney transplant and
whose entitlement to coverage would otherwise expire, and for other
purposes.
S. 700
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 700, a bill to
amend title II of the Social Security Act to phase out the 24-month
waiting period for disabled individuals to become eligible for Medicare
benefits, to eliminate the waiting period for individuals with life-
threatening conditions, and for other purposes.
S. 730
At the request of Mr. Ensign, the name of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Bond) was added as a cosponsor of S. 730, a bill to amend the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to modify the tariffs
on certain footwear, and for other purposes.
S. 752
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 752, a bill to
reform the financing of Senate elections, and for other purposes.
S. 1102
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1102, a bill to
provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees.
S. 1492
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the names of the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Burris) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) were
added as cosponsors of S. 1492, a bill to amend the Public Health
Service Act to fund breakthroughs in Alzheimer's disease research while
providing more help to caregivers and increasing public education about
prevention.
S. 1619
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Lieberman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1619, a bill to
establish the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, to
establish the Interagency Council on Sustainable Communities, to
establish a comprehensive planning grant program, to establish a
sustainability challenge grant program, and for other purposes.
S. 1639
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1639, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve and extend certain energy-
related tax provisions, and for other purposes.
S. 1660
At the request of Ms. Klobuchar, the name of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1660, a bill to
amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce the emissions of
formaldehyde from composite wood products, and for other purposes.
S. 1683
At the request of Mr. Bennet, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. Begich) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1683, a bill to apply
recaptured taxpayer investments toward reducing the national debt.
S. 1764
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1764, a bill to
clarify the application of section 14501(d) of title 19, United States
Code, to prevent the imposition of unreasonable transportation fees.
S. 1789
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from Texas (Mr.
Cornyn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1789, a bill to restore fairness
to Federal cocaine sentencing.
S. 2870
At the request of Mr. Inouye, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2870, a bill
to establish uniform administrative and enforcement procedures and
penalties for the enforcement of the High Seas Driftnet Fishing
Moratorium Protection Act and similar statutes, and for other purposes.
S. 2975
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2975, a bill
to prohibit the
[[Page 3499]]
manufacture, sale, or distribution in commerce of children's jewelry
containing cadmium, barium, or antimony, and for other purposes.
S. 3003
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Indiana (Mr.
Bayh) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3003, a bill to enhance Federal
efforts focused on public awareness and education about the risks and
dangers associated with Shaken Baby Syndrome.
S. 3027
At the request of Ms. Klobuchar, the name of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Conrad) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3027, a bill to
prevent the inadvertent disclosure of information on a computer through
certain ``peer-to-peer'' file sharing programs without first providing
notice and obtaining consent from an owner or authorized user of the
computer.
S. 3035
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the names of the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Crapo) and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad) were added
as cosponsors of S. 3035, a bill to require a report on the
establishment of a Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center or Polytrauma
Network Site of the Department of Veterans Affairs in the northern
Rockies or Dakotas, and for other purposes.
S. 3058
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Ms. Mikulski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3058, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the special diabetes programs
for Type I diabetes and Indians under that Act.
S. 3065
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, the name of the Senator from
Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3065, a bill to
amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the
Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality
in the Armed Forces, referred to as ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'', with a
policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
S. 3084
At the request of Ms. Klobuchar, the name of the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Warner) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3084, a bill to
increase the competitiveness of United States businesses, particularly
small and medium-sized manufacturing firms, in interstate and global
commerce, foster job creation in the United States, and assist United
States businesses in developing or expanding commercial activities in
interstate and global commerce by expanding the ambit of the Hollings
Manufacturing Extension Partnership program and the Technology
Innovation Program to include projects that have potential for
commercial exploitation in nondomestic markets, providing for an
increase in related resources of the Department of Commerce, and for
other purposes.
S. 3113
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the names of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) and the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Burris) were added as cosponsors of S. 3113, a bill to
amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to reaffirm the United
States' historic commitment to protecting refugees who are fleeing
persecution or torture.
S. RES. 204
At the request of Mr. Vitter, the name of the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. Sessions) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 204, a resolution
designating March 31, 2010, as ``National Congenital Diaphragmatic
Hernia Awareness Day''.
S. RES. 412
At the request of Mrs. Gillibrand, the names of the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. Wyden) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) were
added as cosponsors of S. Res. 412, a resolution designating September
2010 as ``National Childhood Obesity Awareness Month''.
S. RES. 447
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 447, a resolution
expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States Postal
Service should issue a semipostal stamp to support medical research
relating to Alzheimer's disease.
S. RES. 452
At the request of Mr. Johanns, the names of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) were
added as cosponsors of S. Res. 452, a resolution supporting increased
market access for exports of United States beef and beef products to
Japan.
AMENDMENT NO. 3453
At the request of Mr. Sessions, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. Begich) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3453 proposed to
H.R. 1586, a bill to impose an additional tax on bonuses received from
certain TARP recipients.
AMENDMENT NO. 3456
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, the name of the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. Kyl) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3456 proposed to
H.R. 1586, a bill to impose an additional tax on bonuses received from
certain TARP recipients.
AMENDMENT NO. 3458
At the request of Mr. Vitter, the names of the Senator from Texas
(Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) were
added as cosponsors of amendment No. 3458 proposed to H.R. 1586, a bill
to impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP
recipients.
AMENDMENT NO. 3484
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3484
intended to be proposed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose an additional
tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients.
AMENDMENT NO. 3493
At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the names of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Merkley) and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) were added
as cosponsors of amendment No. 3493 intended to be proposed to H.R.
1586, a bill to impose an additional tax on bonuses received from
certain TARP recipients.
AMENDMENT NO. 3497
At the request of Mr. Cardin, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Ms. Mikulski) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3497 proposed
to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose an additional tax on bonuses received
from certain TARP recipients.
AMENDMENT NO. 3523
At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3523 intended
to be proposed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose an additional tax on
bonuses received from certain TARP recipients.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
S. 3120. A bill to encourage the entry of felony warrants into the
National Crime Information Center database by States and provide
additional resources for extradition; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am now introducing the Fugitive
Information Networked Database Act of 2010.
On December 12 of last year, the Philadelphia Inquirer began a series
of articles that served as a blistering indictment of the Philadelphia
criminal justice system. The Inquirer described it as ``a system that
too often fails to punish violent criminals, fails to protect
witnesses, fails to catch thousands of fugitives, fails to decide cases
on their merits, and fails to provide justice.'' The Inquirer article 3
days later elaborated on the fugitive problem, noting that as of
November 2009, there were almost 47,000 long-term fugitives at large.
The warrant situation in Philadelphia is complicated by the fact that
the Philadelphia Police Department only enters into the national
database a few hundred bench warrants deemed by the district attorney's
office to concern extraditable offenses. Those who
[[Page 3500]]
abscond from criminal proceedings in Philadelphia and flee to other
States likely will not be captured because the information for their
warrants is not automatically entered into the NCIC database.
The legislation I am introducing today, along with Senator Durbin,
builds on legislation previously entered by then-Senator Biden and
Senator Durbin. The proposed legislation will provide substantial
Federal funding to assist the States in tracking and returning these
fugitives.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my
statement which I have just summarized and the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Senator Specter's Statement Upon Introducing the Fugitive Information
Networked Database Act of 2010, The Find Act
Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce the
Fugitive Information Networked Database Act of 2010, the FIND
Act. On December 12, 2009, the Philadelphia Inquirer began a
series of articles that served as a blistering indictment of
the Philadelphia criminal justice system. The Inquirer
described it as ``a system that all too often fails to punish
violent criminals, fails to protect witnesses, fails to catch
thousands of fugitives, fails to decide cases on their
merits--fails to provide justice.'' (Craig R. McCoy, Nancy
Phillips, and Dylan Purcell, Justice: Delayed, Dismissed,
Denied, Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec. 12, 2009). Three days
later, on December 15, 2009, the Philadelphia Inquirer
elaborated on the fugitive problem noting that as of November
2009, ``there were 46,801 long-term fugitives--suspects
generally on the run for at least a year. The bulk of these
fugitives date from this decade and the last.'' (Dylan
Purcell, Craig R. McCoy, and Nancy Phillips, Violent
Criminals Flout Broken Bail System, Tens of Thousands of
Philadelphia Fugitives are on the Streets, Abetted by the
City's Deeply Flawed Program, Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec. 15,
2009). The article reported that Philadelphia ``[f]ugitives
now owe taxpayers a whopping $1 billion in forfeited bail,
according to court officials who computed the figure . . .''
(Id.). Despite the obvious incentive to recapture those funds
in this era of budget shortfalls, the article noted, that the
``Clerk of Quarter Sessions Office . . . has never kept a
computerized list of the debtors.''
These problems warranted Senate hearings and in my capacity
as the Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and
Drugs, I held a field hearing in Philadelphia titled,
``Exploring Federal Solutions to the State and Local Fugitive
Crisis,'' on January 19, 2010. What we learned was that
Philadelphia's fugitive problem, though serious in scope, is
not just a local problem but is in fact a significant
national problem.
Nationwide, there are an estimated 2.7 million active
Federal, State, and local outstanding felony warrants. Many
of these fugitives commit additional crimes. Every day large
numbers of fugitives evade capture because state and local
law enforcement authorities have insufficient resources to
find and arrest them. And even if found, state and local law
enforcement authorities often do not have the funds to pay
for the fugitive's extradition to face trial. Shockingly,
many fugitives are released without prosecution.
The nationwide database operated by the FBI's National
Crime Information Center (``NCIC'') is missing over half of
the country's 2.7 million felony warrants, including warrants
for hundreds of thousands of violent crimes. Fugitives who
have fled to another state will not be caught--even if they
are stopped and questioned by the police on a routine traffic
stop--because their warrants have not been entered into the
NCIC database.
In early 2008, the St. Louis Post Dispatch published a
series of articles--affirmed by the Department of Justice
documenting law enforcement's widespread failure to find and
arrest fugitives. For purposes of the series, ``fugitive''
included un-arrested suspects with pending warrants that law
enforcement cannot find, and those who cannot be found after
violating the rules of their pre-trial detention, probation,
or parole. The articles revealed that the reach of this
national problem is extensive and cited federal estimates
from two years ago that as many as an estimated 800,000 to
1.6 million outstanding state or local warrants are
inaccessible to law enforcement outside the state or locality
in which they were issued because the information about the
warrants had not been entered into the NCIC database.
In Philadelphia, while all warrants, including bench
warrants, are entered into a state database, only a small
fraction of these warrants is entered into the NCIC database.
The Philadelphia Police Department only enters into the NCIC
database a few hundred bench warrants deemed by the District
Attorney's Office to concern extraditable offenses and
surprisingly the Police Departments makes these entries
manually and not by automatic computer transfers. Thus, those
who abscond from criminal proceedings in Philadelphia and
flee to other states likely will not be captured because
information from their warrants is not automatically entered
into the NCIC database.
Last Congress, on June 16, 2008, then-Senator Biden
introduced the FIND Act (S. 3136), that sought to address
similar problems. At the time, Senator Biden said, ``Too
often, State and local law enforcement agencies enter
warrants into the State and local databases, but not into the
national database.'' His statement was prescient then and is
still true now. By September 2008, Senator Biden had been
joined by Senators Clinton and Durbin as cosponsors and the
bill had passed the Judiciary Committee.
Today I take up Vice President Biden's mantle and, along
with Senator Durbin, introduce the ``Fugitive Information
Networked Database Act of 2010,'' the FIND Act. This bill
directs the Attorney General to make a total of $10 million
in grants each fiscal year 2011 through 2015 to states and
Indian tribes for use in developing and implementing or
upgrading secure electronic warrant management systems for
the preparation, submission, and validation of state felony
warrants that are interoperable with the NCIC database. A
portion of these grant funds can be used to hire additional
personnel to validate warrants entered into the NCIC
database. The bill also directs the Attorney General to make
a total of $30 million in grants each fiscal year 2011 to
2015 to states and Indian tribes for extraditing fugitives
for prosecution and encourages their participation in the
U.S. Marshal's Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation
Service (``JPATS'') program. The bill directs the Comptroller
General to submit a statistical report to the House and
Senate Judiciary Committees on felony warrants issued by
state, local, and tribal governments and entered into the
NCIC database and on the apprehension and extradition of
persons with active felony warrants.
Finally, in an enhancement of the prior FIND Act, this new
bill requires any state seeking a grant renewal to file
public reports with the Attorney General and within its own
county clerk's offices indicating (i) the number of
defendants assessed or interviewed for pretrial release; (ii)
the number of indigent defendants included in (i); (iii) the
total number of failures to appear for all defendants
released; and (iv) the number and type of infractions
committed by defendants while on pretrial release.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation
which is designed to facilitate state and local data entry
into the NCIC database through grants, increase the
extradition of fugitives travelling in interstate commerce
and to ascertain whether our pretrial release programs are
operating effectively. The fugitive problem is national in
scope, involves individuals travelling in interstate
commerce, and requires federal solutions. By enacting this
bill, we take an important first step.
____
S. 3120
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 ``Fugitive Information
Networked Database Act of 2010'' or the ``FIND Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Nationwide, there are an estimated 2,700,000 active
Federal, State, and local warrants for the arrest of persons
charged with felony crimes.
(2) State and local law enforcement authorities have
insufficient resources to devote to searching for and
apprehending fugitives. As a result, large numbers of
fugitives evade arrest. State and local law enforcement
authorities also lack resources for extraditing fugitives who
have been arrested in other States. As a result, such
fugitives frequently are released without prosecution.
(3) Increasing the resources available for conducting
fugitive investigations and transporting fugitives between
States would increase the number of fugitives who are
arrested and prosecuted.
(4) The United States Marshals Service (referred to in this
Act as the ``USMS'') plays an integral role in the
apprehension of fugitives in the United States, and has a
long history of providing assistance and expertise to
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in support
of fugitive investigations, including through 82 District
Task Forces, and through the 7 Regional Fugitive Task Force
Programs that have partnered with Federal, State and local
law enforcement agencies to locate and apprehend fugitives.
(5) The USMS utilizes the Justice Prisoner and Alien
Transportation Service (referred to in this Act as the
``JPATS'') to transport Federal detainees and prisoners. It
also makes JPATS available to State and local law enforcement
agencies on a reimbursable, space-available basis for the
purpose of transporting a fugitive from the place where the
fugitive was arrested to the jurisdiction that issued the
warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. Through JPATS, these
agencies are
[[Page 3501]]
able to reduce the cost of extradition significantly.
(6) Expanding the availability of JPATS to State and local
law enforcement agencies would lower the cost of transporting
fugitives for extradition and lead to the prosecution of a
greater number of fugitives.
(7) Since 1967, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has
operated the National Crime Information Center, which
administers a nationwide database containing criminal history
information from the Federal Government and the States,
including outstanding arrest warrants. The National Crime
Information Center database allows a law enforcement officer
who stops a person in 1 State to obtain information about a
warrant for that person issued in another State. It contains
approximately 1,700,000 felony and misdemeanor warrants. It
is missing nearly half of the 2,800,000 to 3,200,000 of the
felony warrants issued across the Nation, including warrants
for hundreds of thousands of violent crimes.
(8) The failure of a State to enter a warrant into the
National Crime Information Center database enables a fugitive
to escape arrest even when the fugitive is stopped by a law
enforcement officer in another State, because the officer is
not aware there was a warrant issued for the fugitive. Many
of such fugitives go on to commit additional crimes. In
addition, such fugitives pose a danger to law enforcement
officers who encounter them without knowledge of the pending
charges against the fugitives or their record of fleeing law
enforcement authorities.
(9) All warrants entered into the National Crime
Information Center database must be validated on a regular
basis to ensure that the information in the warrant is still
accurate and that the warrant is still active.
(10) Improving the entry and validation of warrants in the
National Crime Information Center database would enable law
enforcement officers to identify and arrest a larger number
of fugitives, improve the safety of these officers, and
better protect communities from crime.
(11) Federal funds for State and local law enforcement are
most effective when they do not supplant, but rather
supplement State and local funds.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Active warrant.--The term ``active warrant'' means a
warrant that has not been cleared. A warrant may be cleared
by arrest or by the determination of a law enforcement agency
that a warrant has already been executed or that the subject
is deceased.
(2) Felony warrant.--The term ``felony warrant'' means any
warrant for a crime that is punishable by a term of
imprisonment exceeding 1 year.
(3) Indian country.--The term ``Indian country'' has the
meaning given the term in section 1151 of title 18, United
States Code.
(4) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 102 of the Federally
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a).
(5) National crime information center database.--The term
``National Crime Information Center database'' means the
computerized index of criminal justice information operated
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under section 534 of
title 28, United States Code, and available to Federal,
State, and local law enforcement and other criminal justice
agencies.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the
United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and
the Northern Mariana Islands.
(7) Unit of local government.--The term ``unit of local
government''--
(A) means--
(i) any city, county, township, borough, parish, village,
or other general purpose political subdivision of a State; or
(ii) any law enforcement district or judicial enforcement
district that is established under applicable State law and
has the authority to, in a manner independent of other State
entities, establish a budget and impose taxes;
(B) includes law enforcement agencies, courts, and any
other government agencies involved in the issuance of
warrants; and
(C) in the case of Indian tribes, includes tribal law
enforcement agencies, tribal courts and any other tribal
agencies involved in the issuance of warrants.
SEC. 4. GRANTS TO ENCOURAGE STATES TO ENTER FELONY WARRANTS.
(a) Authorization of Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall make grants to
States or Indian tribes in a manner consistent with the
National Criminal History Improvement Program, which shall be
used by States or Indian tribes, in conjunction with units of
local government, to--
(A)(i) develop and implement secure, electronic State,
local or tribal warrant management systems that permit the
prompt preparation, submission, and validation of warrants
and are compatible and interoperable with the National Crime
Information Center database to facilitate information sharing
and to ensure that felony warrants entered into warrant
databases by State, local and tribal government agencies can
be automatically entered into the National Crime Information
Center database; or
(ii) upgrade existing State, local or tribal electronic
warrant management systems to ensure compatibility and
interoperability with the National Crime Information Center
database to facilitate information sharing and to ensure that
felony warrants entered into warrant databases by State,
local and tribal government agencies can be automatically
entered into the National Crime Information Center database;
and
(B) ensure that all State, local, and tribal government
agencies that need access to the National Crime Information
Center database for criminal justice purposes can access the
database.
(2) Duration.--A grant awarded under this section shall
be--
(A) for a period of 1 year; and
(B) renewable at the discretion of the Attorney General if
the State seeking renewal submits an application to the
Attorney General that demonstrates compliance with subsection
(b)(2).
(3) Hiring of personnel.--Not more than 5 percent of the
grant funds awarded under this section to each State and
Indian tribe may also be used to hire additional personnel,
as needed, to validate warrants entered into the National
Crime Information Center database.
(4) Set-aside.--Not more than 5 percent of the total funds
available to be awarded under this section may be reserved
for Indian tribes.
(b) Eligibility.--
(1) In general.--In order to be eligible for a grant
authorized under subsection (a), a State or Indian tribe
shall submit to the Attorney General--
(A) a plan to develop and implement, or upgrade, systems
described in subsection (a)(1);
(B) a report that--
(i) details the number of active felony warrants issued by
the State or Indian tribe, including felony warrants issued
by units of local government within the State or Indian
tribe;
(ii) describes the number and type of active felony
warrants that have not been entered into a State, local, or
tribal warrant database or into the National Crime
Information Center database;
(iii) explains the reasons State, local, and tribal
government agencies have not entered active felony warrants
into the National Crime Information Center database; and
(iv) demonstrates that State, local, and tribal government
agencies have made good faith efforts to eliminate any such
backlog; and
(C) guidelines for warrant entry by the State or Indian
tribe, including units of local government within the State
or Indian tribe, that--
(i) ensure that felony warrants issued by the State or
Indian tribe, including units of local government within the
State or Indian tribe, will be entered into the National
Crime Information Center database; and
(ii) include a description of the circumstances, if any, in
which, as a matter of policy, certain such warrants will not
be entered into the National Crime Information Center
database.
(2) Deposit bail and citizens right to know.--A State that
submits a grant renewal application under subsection
(a)(3)(B) shall require that each unit of local government or
State pretrial services agency in such State that has
recieved grant funds under this section file with the
Attorney General and the appropriate county clerk's office of
jurisdiction the following public reports on defendants
released at the recommendation or under the supervision of
the unit of local government or State pretrial services
agency:
(A) An annual report specifying--
(i) the number of defendants assessed or interviewed for
pretrial release;
(ii) the number of indigent defendants included in clause
(i);
(iii) the number of failures to appear for a scheduled
court appearance; and
(iv) the number and type of program noncompliance
infractions committed by a defendant released to a pretrial
release program.
(B) An annual report at the end of each year, setting forth
the budget of the unit of local government or State pretrial
services agency for the reporting year.
(c) Report to the Attorney General.--A State or Indian
tribe that receives a grant under this section shall, 1 year
after receiving the grant, submit a report to the Attorney
General that includes--
(1) the number of active felony warrants issued by that
State or Indian tribe, including units of local government
within that State or Indian tribe;
(2) the number of the active felony warrants entered into
the National Crime Information Center database; and
(3) with respect to felony warrants not entered into the
National Crime Information Center database, the reasons for
not entering such warrants.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Attorney General $10,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2011 through 2015 for grants to
carry out the requirements of this section.
[[Page 3502]]
SEC. 5. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION COORDINATION.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall provide to State,
local, and tribal government agencies the technological
standard to ensure the compatibility and interoperability of
all State, local, and tribal warrant databases with the
National Crime Information Center database, as well as other
technical assistance to facilitate the implementation of
automated State, local, and tribal warrant management systems
that are compatible and interoperable with the National Crime
Information Center database.
SEC. 6. REPORT REGARDING FELONY WARRANT ENTRY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit to the House and Senate Committees
on the Judiciary a report regarding--
(1) the number of active felony warrants issued by each
State and Indian tribe, including felony warrants issued by
units of local government within the State or Indian tribe;
(2) the number of the active felony warrants that State,
local, and tribal government agencies have entered into the
National Crime Information Center database; and
(3) for the preceding 3 years, the number of persons in
each State with an active felony warrant who were--
(A) apprehended in other States or in Indian Country but
not extradited; and
(B) apprehended in other States or in Indian Country and
extradited.
(b) Assistance.--To assist in the preparation of the report
required by subsection (a), the Attorney General shall
provide the Comptroller General of the United States access
to any information collected and reviewed in connection with
the grant application process described in section 4.
(c) Report by Attorney General.--On an annual basis, the
Attorney General shall submit to the Committees on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report containing the information received from the States
and Indian tribes under this section.
SEC. 7. EXTRADITION ASSISTANCE.
(a) Grant Assistance.--
(1) Authorization of grant assistance.--
(A) In general.--The Attorney General shall, subject to
paragraph (4), make grants to States and Indian tribes for
periods of 1 year which shall be used by States and Indian
tribes, including units of local government within the State
or Indian tribe, to extradite fugitives from another State or
Indian country for prosecution.
(B) Set aside.--Not more than 5 percent of the grant
funding available under this section may be reserved for
Indian tribal governments, including tribal judicial systems.
(2) Matching funds.--The Federal share of a grant received
under this section may not exceed 80 percent of the costs of
a program or proposal funded under this section unless the
Attorney General waives, wholly or in part, the requirements
of this paragraph in the event of extraordinary
circumstances.
(3) Grant applications.--A State or Indian tribe seeking a
grant under this subsection shall submit an application to
the Attorney General that--
(A) describes the process and any impediments to
extraditing fugitives apprehended in other States or in
Indian Country after being notified of such fugitives'
apprehension;
(B) specifies the way in which grant amounts will be used,
including the means of transportation the State or Indian
tribe, or unit of local government within the State or Indian
tribe, intends to use for extradition and whether the State
or Indian tribe or unit of local government will participate
in the JPATS program, as well as whether it has participated
in that program in the past;
(C) specifies the number of fugitives extradited by all
jurisdictions within that State or Indian tribe for each of
the 3 years preceding the date of the grant application; and
(D) specifies the total amount spent by all jurisdictions
within that State or Indian tribe on fugitive extraditions
for each of the 3 years preceding the date of the grant
application.
(4) Eligibility.--
(A) In general.--In determining whether to award a grant
under this section to a State or Indian tribe, the Attorney
General shall consider the following:
(i) The information in the application submitted under
paragraph (3).
(ii) The percentage of felony warrants issued by the State
or Indian tribe, including units of local government within
the State or Indian tribe, that were entered into the
National Crime Information Center database, as calculated
with the information provided under subsection (b) and,
beginning 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act,
whether the State or Indian tribe has made substantial
progress in improving the entry of felony warrants into the
National Crime Information Center database.
(iii) For grants issued after an initial 1 year grant,
whether the State or Indian tribe, including units of local
government within the State or Indian tribe, has increased
substantially the number of fugitives extradited for
prosecution.
(B) Preferences.--In allocating extradition grants under
this section, the Attorney General should give preference to
States or Indian tribes that--
(i) 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, have
entered at least 50 percent of active felony warrants into
the National Crime Information Center database;
(ii) 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, have
entered at least 70 percent of active felony warrants into
the National Crime Information Center database; and
(iii) 7 years after the date of enactment of this Act, have
entered at least 90 percent of active felony warrants into
the National Crime Information Center database.
(5) Use of funds.--States and Indian tribes, including
units of local government within the State or Indian tribe,
receiving a grant under this section may use grant monies to
credit the costs of transporting State and local detainees on
behalf of such State to the Justice Prisoner and Alien
Transportation System.
(6) Record keeping.--States and Indian tribes, including
units of local government within the State or Indian tribe,
that receive a grant under this section shall maintain and
report such data, records, and information (programmatic and
financial) as the Attorney General may require.
(7) Audit.--
(A) In general.--The Attorney General shall conduct an
audit of the use of funds by States and Indian tribes
receiving grants under this section 18 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act and biennially thereafter.
(B) Ineligibility.--A State or Indian tribe, or unit of
local government within a State or Indian tribe, that fails
to increase substantially the number of fugitives extradited
after receiving a grant under this section will be ineligible
for future funds.
(8) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015.
(b) Active Felony Warrants Issued by States and Indian
Tribes.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter on a date
designated by the Attorney General, to assist the Attorney
General in making a determination under subsection (a)(4)
concerning eligibility to receive a grant, each State and
Indian tribe applying for a grant under this section shall
submit to the Attorney General--
(A) the total number of active felony warrants issued by
the State or Indian tribe, including units of local
government within the State or Indian tribe, regardless of
the age of the warrants; and
(B) a description of the categories of felony warrants not
entered into the National Crime Information Center database
and the reasons for not entering such warrants.
(2) Failure to provide.--A State or Indian tribe that fails
to provide the information described in paragraph (1) by the
date required under such paragraph shall be ineligible to
receive any funds under subsection (a), until such date as it
provides the information described in paragraph (1) to the
Attorney General.
(c) Attorney General Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than January 31 of each year,
the Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House of Representatives a report--
(A) containing the information submitted by the States and
Indian tribes under subsection (b);
(B) containing the percentage of active felony warrants
issued by those States and Indian tribes that has been
entered into the National Crime Information Center database,
as determined under subsection (a)(4)(A)(ii);
(C) containing a description of the categories of felony
warrants that have not been entered into the National Crime
Information Center database and the reasons such warrants
were not entered, as provided to the Attorney General under
subsection (b)(1);
(D) comparing the warrant entry information to data from
previous years and describing the progress of States and
Indian tribes in entering active felony warrants into the
National Crime Information Center database;
(E) containing the number of persons that each State or
Indian tribe, including units of local government within the
State or Indian tribe, has extradited from other States or in
Indian country for prosecution and describing any progress
the State or Indian tribe has made in improving the number of
fugitives extradited for prosecution; and
(F) describing the practices of the States and Indian
tribes regarding the collection, maintenance, automation, and
transmittal of felony warrants to the National Crime
Information Center, that the Attorney General considers to be
best practices.
(2) Best practices.--Not later than January 31 of each
year, the Attorney General shall provide the information
regarding best practices, referred to in paragraph (1)(F), to
each State and Indian tribe submitting information to the
National Crime Information Center.
[[Page 3503]]
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Bennet,
Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Casey, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr.
Brown of Ohio, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Durbin, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Sanders):
S. 3123. A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch
Act to require the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out a program to
assist eligible schools and nonprofit entities through grants and
technical assistance to implement farm to school programs that improve
access to local foods in eligible schools; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my Growing Farm
to School Programs Act of 2010. This important proposal will support
grassroots efforts all across our Nation to improve the health and
well-being of children while supporting local farmers and bolstering
local economies.
I am pleased to have 13 of my respected Senate colleagues from across
the country join with me today as original cosponsors of this bill.
Farm to School is a proven, common-sense, community-driven approach to
incorporate farm fresh local food into school meals. Schools nationwide
understand the many benefits of farm to school but often lack the
startup funding and the technical capacity to plan and implement the
program. This bill will provide the important seed money and technical
assistance needed to enable our schools to teach children about good
nutrition and show them the importance of agriculture while also
supporting local farms.
It is amazing how far some farm products travel to get to our school
cafeterias, and how heavily processed it is when it arrives. While our
Nation's schools should provide an enormous market for our struggling
small and mid-sized farmers, for far too long the products grown by our
family farms have largely been absent from school lunch trays. We
should not be surprised that many kids today do not understand the link
between the food they eat and farms on which it is raised. By offering
our children local, fresh, less-processed choices, and a chance to
learn how and where their food is grown we can also provide economic
benefits for small, local farms and keep food dollars within the
community.
Communities and schools all across our Nation are beginning to link
farms and school with great success. In my home State of Vermont, from
rural towns across the state to the city of Burlington, many of our
schools have integrated school meals with classroom learning and local
agriculture. As more schools create these important connections,
neighboring communities are often also eager to start similar programs.
Unfortunately many of these schools do not have sufficient staff,
expertise, equipment, or funding to start a Farm to School program on
their own. The Growing Farm to Schools Programs Act will provide the
small amount of funding and technical assistance that these schools
need to create a program. Once in place, these programs can be expected
to be self-sustaining.
In introducing the Growing Farm to School Programs Act of 2010, I am
hoping that we will be able to provide more communities, schools, and
farmers the opportunity to grow and cultivate Farm to School programs.
I thank my 13 co-sponsors and urge my other colleagues to join us in
support of this exciting initiative.
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. 3123
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 ``Growing Farm to School
Programs Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. ACCESS TO LOCAL FOODS: FARM TO SCHOOL PROGRAM.
Section 18 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch
Act (42 U.S.C. 1769) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as subsections
(i) and (j), respectively;
(2) in subsection (g), by striking ``(g) Access to Local
Foods and School Gardens.--'' and all that follows through
``(3) Pilot program for high-poverty schools.--'' and
inserting the following:
``(g) Access to Local Foods: Farm to School Program.--
``(1) Definition of eligible school.--In this subsection,
the term `eligible school' means a school or institution that
participates in a program under this Act or the school
breakfast program established under section 4 of the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773).
``(2) Program.--The Secretary shall carry out a program to
assist eligible schools, State and local agencies, Indian
tribal organizations, agricultural producers or groups of
agricultural producers, and nonprofit entities through grants
and technical assistance to implement farm to school programs
that improve access to local foods in eligible schools.
``(3) Grants.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall award competitive
grants under this subsection to be used for--
``(i) training;
``(ii) supporting operations;
``(iii) planning;
``(iv) purchasing equipment;
``(v) developing school gardens;
``(vi) developing partnerships; and
``(vii) implementing farm to school programs.
``(B) Regional balance.--In making awards under this
subsection, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, ensure--
``(i) geographical diversity; and
``(ii) equitable treatment of urban, rural, and tribal
communities.
``(C) Maximum amount.--The total amount provided to a grant
recipient under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000.
``(4) Federal share.--
``(A) In general.--The Federal share of costs for a project
funded through a grant awarded under this subsection shall
not exceed 75 percent of the total cost of the project.
``(B) Federal matching.--As a condition of receiving a
grant under this subsection, a grant recipient shall provide
matching support in the form of cash or in-kind
contributions, including facilities, equipment, or services
provided by State and local governments, nonprofit
organizations, and private sources.
``(5) Criteria for selection.--To the maximum extent
practicable, in providing assistance under this subsection,
the Secretary shall give the highest priority to funding
projects that, as determined by the Secretary--
``(A) benefit local small- and medium-sized farms;
``(B) make local food products available on the menu of the
eligible school;
``(C) serve a high proportion of children who are eligible
for free or reduced price lunches;
``(D) incorporate experiential nutrition education
activities in curriculum planning that encourage the
participation of school children in farm and garden-based
agricultural education activities;
``(E) demonstrate collaboration between eligible schools,
nongovernmental and community-based organizations,
agricultural producer groups, and other community partners;
``(F) include adequate and participatory evaluation plans;
``(G) demonstrate the potential for long-term program
sustainability; and
``(H) meet any other criteria that the Secretary determines
appropriate.
``(6) Evaluation.--As a condition of receiving a grant
under this subsection, each grant recipient shall agree to
cooperate in an evaluation by the Secretary of the program
carried out using grant funds.
``(7) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall provide
technical assistance and information to assist eligible
schools, State and local agencies, Indian tribal
organizations, and nonprofit entities--
``(A) to facilitate the coordination and sharing of
information and resources in the Department that may be
applicable to the farm to school program;
``(B) to collect and share information on best practices;
and
``(C) to disseminate research and data on existing farm to
school programs and the potential for programs in underserved
areas.
``(8) Funding.--
``(A) In general.--On October 1, 2010, out of any funds in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall transfer to the Secretary to carry out this
subsection $50,000,000, to remain available until expended.
``(B) Receipt and acceptance.--The Secretary shall be
entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use to carry out
this subsection the funds transferred under subparagraph (A),
without further appropriation.
``(h) Pilot Program for High-Poverty Schools.--
``(1) In general.--''; and
(3) in subsection (h) (as redesignated by paragraph (2))--
[[Page 3504]]
(A) in subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1) (as so
redesignated), by striking ``in accordance with paragraph
(1)(H)'' and inserting ``carried out by the Secretary''; and
(B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2).
SEC. 3. 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,
submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the
Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such
statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 456--CONGRATULATING RADFORD UNIVERSITY ON THE 100TH
ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNIVERSITY
Mr. WEBB (for himself and Mr. Warner) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 456
Whereas Radford University was chartered on March 10, 1910,
by the Commonwealth of Virginia as the State Normal and
Industrial School for Women at Radford;
Whereas Radford University was chartered to prepare
teachers to educate the people of the United States;
Whereas Radford University has grown substantially in scope
and quality since the day on which the university was
chartered;
Whereas Radford University was renamed the Radford State
Teachers College in 1924 and the Women's Division of Virginia
Polytechnic Institute in 1944, respectively;
Whereas Radford University was renamed Radford College in
1964 when the relationship between the Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and Radford University ended;
Whereas Radford College was renamed Radford University in
1979;
Whereas, since the founding of the university, Radford
University has provided thousands of students with the
benefits of a Radford education;
Whereas Radford University graduates have made meaningful
and lasting contributions to society through service,
including service in--
(1) education;
(2) the sciences;
(3) business;
(4) health and human services;
(5) government;
(6) the arts and humanities; and
(7) other endeavors;
Whereas Radford University is a productive and vital
academic community with thousands of students;
Whereas the students of Radford University approach
university life with an enthusiasm for learning and personal
development;
Whereas the brilliant faculty of Radford University is
committed to the highest ideals of academic scholarship and
the advancement of society;
Whereas the devoted administrators and staff members of
Radford University strive to foster an environment that
supports the noble work of the university;
Whereas the centennial of Radford University is an
appropriate time for faculty, staff, students, alumni, and
friends--
(1) to unite in recognition of the past achievements
Radford University with pride; and
(2) to consider ways to create an even more successful
university during the century ahead;
Whereas Radford University celebrates the culture of
service of the university through a program entitled
``Centennial Service Challenge'' that invites every member of
the campus and extended university community to engage in,
and document community service in honor of, the centennial;
and
Whereas Radford University will observe a Centennial
Charter Day Celebration on March 24, 2010, and host numerous
other academic programs and arts and cultural events
throughout 2010 to commemorate the event: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That the Senate commends Radford University on
the 100th anniversary of the university.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 3524. Mr. BARRASSO submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3512 submitted by Ms. Cantwell and
intended to be proposed to the amendment SA 3452 proposed by
Mr. Rockefeller to the bill H.R. 1586, to impose an
additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP
recipients; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3525. Ms. CANTWELL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to
the bill H.R. 1586, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 3526. Mr. BROWN, of Ohio submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed to amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr.
Rockefeller to the bill H.R. 1586, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 3527. Mr. McCAIN proposed an amendment to amendment SA
3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to the bill H.R. 1586,
supra.
SA 3528. Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kyl, and
Mr. Ensign) proposed an amendment to amendment SA 3452
proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to the bill H.R. 1586, supra.
SA 3529. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to
the bill H.R. 1586, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 3530. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to
the bill H.R. 1586, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 3531. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to
the bill H.R. 1586, supra.
SA 3532. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to
the bill H.R. 1586, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 3533. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to
the bill H.R. 1586, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 3534. Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Merkley) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3452
proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to the bill H.R. 1586, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3535. Mr. BEGICH submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to
the bill H.R. 1586, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 3536. Mr. BEGICH submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to
the bill H.R. 1586, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 3537. Mr. BROWN, of Ohio (for himself and Mr. Voinovich)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to the bill H.R. 1586,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3538. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to
the bill H.R. 1586, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 3539. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to
the bill H.R. 1586, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 3540. Mr. WHITEHOUSE proposed an amendment to the bill
S. 1782, to provide improvements for the operations of the
Federal courts, and for other purposes.
SA 3541. Mrs. FEINSTEIN submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed to amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller
to the bill H.R. 1586, to impose an additional tax on bonuses
received from certain TARP recipients; which was ordered to
lie on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 3524. Mr. BARRASSO submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 3512 submitted by Ms. Cantwell and intended to be
proposed to the amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to the
bill H.R. 1586, to impose an additional tax on bonuses received from
certain TARP recipients; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:
SEC. 7__. PROMOTION OF JOB CREATION AND TOURISM IN GATEWAY
COMMUNITIES AND NATIONAL PARKS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
(2) Gateway community.--The term ``gateway community''
means a community near or within a unit of the national park
system that facilitates visitation, tourism, promotion, and
conservation of the park.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National
Park Service.
(b) Study of Promotion of Job Creation and Tourism in
Gateway Communities .--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of job
creation and tourism promoted by the National Park Service in
gateway communities, including job creation and tourism
through--
(A) hunting and shooting sports;
(B) motorized recreation;
(C) search and rescue operations;
(D) security;
[[Page 3505]]
(E) highways; and
(F) aviation.
(2) Technical assistance.--If the Secretary identifies
aviation or aircraft as 1 of the sources of job creation and
tourism promotion in the study, the Administrator shall
provide technical assistance to the Secretary to carry out
the study with respect to aviation or aircraft, respectively.
(c) Study of National Park Service Methods of Promoting Job
Creation and Tourism in Gateway Communities.--The Secretary,
in coordination with the Administrator, shall conduct a study
of National Park Service methods of promoting job creation
and tourism in gateway communities, including job creation
and tourism through--
(1) hunting and shooting sports;
(2) motorized recreation;
(3) search and rescue operations;
(4) security;
(5) highways; and
(6) aviation.
(d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report that--
(1) describes the results of the studies conducted under
subsections (b) and (c); and
(2) includes any recommendations that the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section.
______
SA 3525. Ms. CANTWELL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to the bill H.R. 1586,
to impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP
recipients; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 71, strike line 8 and all that follows
through line 8 on page 74, and insert the following:
(a) Operation Evaluation Partnership Airport Procedures.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall publish a report, after
consultation with representatives of appropriate
Administration employee groups, airport operators, air
carriers, aircraft manufacturers, and third parties that have
received letters of qualification from the Federal Aviation
Administration to design and validate required navigation
performance flight paths for public use (in this section
referred to as ``qualified third parties''), that includes
the following:
(A) RNP/RNAV operations.--With respect to area navigation
and required navigation performance operations, the
following:
(i) Which of the 35 Operational Evolution Partnership
airports identified by the Federal Aviation Administration
would benefit from implementation of area navigation
procedures alone and which would benefit from implementation
of both area navigation and required navigation performance
procedures.
(ii) The required navigation performance and area
navigation operations, including procedures to be developed,
certified, and published, necessary to maximize the
efficiency and capacity of NextGen commercial operations at
each of those airports.
(iii) The air traffic control operational changes, which
connect the terminal environment and en route airspace,
necessary to maximize the efficiency and capacity of NextGen
commercial operations at each of those airports.
(iv) The number of potential required navigation
performance procedures at each of those airports.
(v) Of the number of required navigation performance
procedures identified under clause (iv) for an airport--
(I) the number of such procedures that would be an overlay
of an existing instrument flight procedure and supporting
analysis;
(II) the number of such procedures that would enable
greater use of continuous descent arrivals; and
(III) an assessment of the priority for implementation of
each such procedure.
(vi) The timeline for the Federal Aviation Administration
to certify required navigation performance as a precision
approach.
(B) Coordination and implementation activities.--With
respect to the coordination and implementation of required
navigation performance procedures, the following:
(i) A description of the activities and operational changes
and approvals required from the Federal Aviation
Administration to coordinate and utilize required navigation
performance procedures at the 35 Operational Evolution
Partnership airports identified by the Federal Aviation
Administration.
(ii) A description of the software and database
information, such as a current version of the Noise
Integrated Routing System or the Integrated Noise Model, that
the Administration will need to make available to qualified
third parties to enable those third parties to design
procedures that will meet the broad range of requirements of
the Administration.
(C) Implementation plan.--A plan for implementing the
required navigation performance procedures identified under
subparagraph (A) that establishes--
(i) a clearly defined budget, schedule, project
organization, and leadership requirements;
(ii) specific steps for implementation and transition;
(iii) coordination and communications mechanisms with
qualified third parties;
(iv) specific procedures for engaging the appropriate
Administration employee groups to ensure that human factors,
training, and other issues surrounding the adoption of
required navigation performance procedures in the en route
and terminal environments are addressed;
(v) a plan for lifecycle management of required navigation
performance procedures--
(I) developed by the Administration; and
(II) developed by qualified third parties;
(vi) an expedited validation process that allows an air
carrier using a required navigation performance procedure
validated by the Administration at an airport for a specific
model of aircraft to transfer all of the information
associated with the use of that procedure to another air
carrier for use at the same airport for the same model of
aircraft; and
(vii) baseline and performance metrics for measuring the
Administration's progress in implementing the plan, including
the percentage utilization of required navigation performance
in the National Airspace System.
(D) Internal resource analysis.--An assessment of the
internal capabilities of the Federal Aviation Administration
with respect to designing and validating required navigation
performance procedures, including--
(i) the number of staff working either full or part time on
designing required navigation performance procedures;
(ii) the number of available staff that can be trained to
design required navigation performance procedures, the
training required, and the length of that training; and
(iii) the number of staff designing and validating required
navigation performance procedures that are full-time
employees and the number employed through term appointments.
(E) Cost/benefit analysis for third-party usage.--An
assessment of the costs and benefits of using third parties
to assist in the development of required navigation
performance procedures.
(F) Additional procedures.--A process for the
identification, certification, and publication of additional
or modified required navigation performance and area
navigation procedures that may be required at the 35
Operational Evolution Partnership airports identified by the
Federal Aviation Administration in the future.
(2) Implementation schedule.--The Administrator shall
certify, publish, and implement--
(A) 30 percent of the required navigation performance
procedures identified under paragraph (1)(A) within 18 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act;
(B) 60 percent of such procedures within 36 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(C) 100 percent of such procedures before January 1, 2014.
(b) Expansion of Plan to Other Airports.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall publish a report, after
consultation with representatives of appropriate
Administration employee groups, airport operators, air
carriers, and qualified third parties, that includes a plan
for applying the procedures, requirements, criteria, and
metrics described in subsection (a)(1) to other airports
across the United States.
(2) Surveying obstacles surrounding regional airports.--Not
later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of
State and the Secretary of Transportation, shall identify
options and possible funding mechanisms for surveying
obstacles in the areas around regional airports that can be
used as an input to future required navigation performance
procedures.
(3) Implementation schedule.--The Administrator shall
certify, publish, and implement--
(A) 25 percent of the required navigation performance
procedures included in the plan required by paragraph (1) at
such other airports before January 1, 2015;
(B) 50 percent of such procedures at such other airports
before January 1, 2016;
(C) 75 percent of such procedures at such other airports
before January 1, 2017; and
(D) 100 percent of such procedures before January 1, 2018.
______
SA 3526. Mr. BROWN of Ohio submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to the bill
H.R. 1586, to impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain
TARP recipients; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 86, strike lines 4 through 8, and insert the
following:
[[Page 3506]]
(b) Test Site Criteria.--In determining where the test
sites to be established under the pilot project required by
subsection (a)(1) are to be located, the Administrator
shall--
(1) take into consideration geographical and climate
diversity; and
(2) select one such site, subject to approval by the
Secretary of the Air Force, that is located in proximity to
principal Air Force research and acquisition functions to
take advantage of Air Force instrumented radars and related
research equipment and current defense science, research, and
development activities in unmanned aerial systems.
______
SA 3527. Mr. McCAIN proposed an amendment to amendment SA 3452
proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to the bill H.R. 1586, to impose an
additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients; as
follows:
On page 84, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
SEC. 319. REPORT ON FUNDING FOR NEXTGEN TECHNOLOGY.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall submit to Congress a report that
contains--
(1) a financing proposal that--
(A) uses innovative methods to fully fund the development
and implementation of technology for the Next Generation Air
Transportation System in a manner that does not increase the
Federal deficit; and
(B) takes into consideration opportunities for involvement
by public-private partnerships; and
(2) recommendations with respect to how the Administrator
and Congress can provide operational benefits, such as
benefits relating to preferred airspace, routings, or runway
access, for air carriers that equip their aircraft with
technology necessary for the operation of the Next Generation
Air Transportation System before the date by which the
Administrator requires the use of such technology.
______
SA 3528. Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Ensign)
proposed an amendment to amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller
to the bill H.R. 1586, to impose an additional tax on bonuses received
from certain TARP recipients; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the end of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 723. OVERFLIGHTS IN GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK.
(a) Determinations With Respect to Substantial Restoration
of Natural Quiet and Experience.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, for purposes of section 3(b)(1) of Public Law 100-91 (16
U.S.C. 1a-1 note), the substantial restoration of the natural
quiet and experience of the Grand Canyon National Park (in
this subsection referred to as the ``Park'') shall be
considered to be achieved in the Park if, for at least 75
percent of each day, 50 percent of the Park is free of sound
produced by commercial air tour operations that have an
allocation to conduct commercial air tours in the Park as of
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Considerations.--
(A) In general.--For purposes of determining whether
substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience
of the Park has been achieved in accordance with paragraph
(1), the Secretary of the Interior (in this section referred
to as the ``Secretary'') shall use--
(i) the 2-zone system for the Park in effect on the date of
the enactment of this Act to assess impacts relating to
subsectional restoration of natural quiet at the Park,
including--
(I) the thresholds for noticeability and audibility; and
(II) the distribution of land between the 2 zones; and
(ii) noise modeling science that is--
(I) developed for use at the Park, specifically Integrated
Noise Model Version 6.2;
(II) validated by reasonable standards for conducting field
observations of model results; and
(III) accepted and validated by the Federal Interagency
Committee on Aviation Noise.
(B) Sound from other sources.--The Secretary shall not
consider sound produced by sources other than commercial air
tour operations, including sound emitted by other types of
aircraft operations or other noise sources, for purposes of--
(i) making recommendations, developing a final plan, or
issuing regulations relating to commercial air tour
operations in the Park; or
(ii) determining under paragraph (1) whether substantial
restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the Park
has been achieved.
(3) Continued monitoring.--The Secretary shall continue
monitoring noise from aircraft operating over the Park below
17,999 feet MSL to ensure continued compliance with the
substantial restoration of natural quiet and experience in
the Park.
(4) Day defined.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
``day'' means the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
(b) Regulation of Commercial Air Tour Operations.--
Commercial air tour operations over the Grand Canyon National
Park Special Flight Rules Area shall continue to be conducted
in accordance with subpart U of part 93 of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (as in effect on the day before the date
of the enactment of this Act), except as follows:
(1) Curfews for commercial flights.--The hours for the
curfew under section 93.317 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, shall be revised as follows:
(A) Entry into effect of curfew.--The curfew shall go into
effect--
(i) at 6:00 p.m. on April 16 through August 31;
(ii) at 5:30 p.m. on September 1 through September 15;
(iii) at 5:00 p.m. on September 16 through September 30;
(iv) at 4:30 p.m. on October 1 through October 31; and
(v) at 4:00 p.m. on November 1 through April 15.
(B) Termination of curfew.--The curfew shall terminate--
(i) at 8:00 a.m. on March 16 through October 15; and
(ii) at 9:00 a.m. on October 16 through March 15.
(2) Modifications of air tour routes.--
(A) Dragon corridor.--Commercial air tour routes for the
Dragon Corridor (Black 1A and Green 2 routes) shall be
modified to include a western ``dogleg'' for the lower \1/3\
of the Corridor to reduce air tour noise for west rim
visitors in the vicinity of Hermits Rest and Dripping
Springs.
(B) Zuni point corridor.--Commercial air tour routes for
the Zuni Point Corridor (Black 1 and Green 1 routes) shall be
modified--
(i) to eliminate crossing over Nankoweap Basin; and
(ii) to limit the commercial air tour routes commonly known
as ``Snoopy's Nose'' to extend not farther east than the
Grand Canyon National Park boundary.
(C) Permanence of black 2 and green 4 air tour routes.--The
locations of the Black 2 and Green 4 commercial air tour
routes shall not be modified unless the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration determines that such a
modification is necessary for safety reasons.
(3) Special rules for marble canyon sector.--
(A) Flight allocation.--The flight allocation cap for
commercial air tour operations in Marble Canyon (Black 4
route) shall be modified to not more than 5 flights a day to
preserve permanently the high level of natural quiet that has
been achieved in Marble Canyon.
(B) Curfew.--Commercial air tour operations in Marble
Canyon (Black 4 route) shall be subject to a year-round
curfew that enters into effect one hour before sunset and
terminates one hour after sunrise.
(C) Elimination of commercial air tour route.--The Black 5
commercial air tour route for Marble Canyon shall be
eliminated.
(4) Conversion to quiet aircraft technology.--
(A) In general.--All commercial air tour aircraft operating
in the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area
shall be required to fully convert to quiet aircraft
technology (as determined in accordance with appendix A to
subpart U of part 93 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of
this Act)) by not later than the date that is 15 years after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(B) Incentives for conversion.--The Secretary and the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
provide incentives for commercial air tour operators that
convert to quiet aircraft technology before the date
specified in subparagraph (A), such as--
(i) reducing overflight fees for those operators; and
(ii) increasing the flight allocations for those operators.
(5) Hualapai economic development exemption.--The exception
for commercial air tour operators operating under contracts
with the Hualapai Indian Nation under section 93.319(f) of
title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the
day before the date of the enactment of this Act) may not be
terminated, unless the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration determines that terminating the exception is
necessary for safety reasons.
(c) Flight Allocation Cap.--
(1) Prohibition on reduction of flight allocation cap.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the allocation
cap for commercial air tours operating in the Grand Canyon
National Park Special Flight Rules Area in effect on the day
before the date of the enactment of this Act may not be
reduced.
(2) Rulemaking to increase flight allocation cap.--Not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
shall issue a notice of proposed rulemaking that--
(A) reassesses the allocations for commercial air tours
operating in the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight
Rules Area in light of gains with respect to the restoration
of natural quiet and experience in the Park;
[[Page 3507]]
(B) makes equitable adjustments to those allocations,
subject to continued monitoring under subsection (a)(3); and
(C) facilitates the use of new quieter aircraft technology
by allowing commercial air tour operators using such
technology to petition the Federal Aviation Administration to
adjust allocations in accordance with improvements with
respect to the restoration of natural quiet and experience in
the Park resulting from such technology.
(3) Interim flight allocations.--
(A) In general.--Until the Administrator issues a final
rule pursuant to paragraph (2), for purposes of the
allocation cap for commercial air tours operating in the
Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area--
(i) from November 1 through March 15, a flight operated by
a commercial air tour operator described in subparagraph (B)
shall count as \1/2\ of 1 allocation; and
(ii) from March 16 through October 31, a flight operated by
a commercial air tour operator described in subparagraph (B)
shall count as \3/4\ of 1 allocation.
(B) Commercial air tour operator described.--A commercial
air tour operator described in this subparagraph is a
commercial air tour operator that--
(i) operated in the Grand Canyon National Park Special
Flight Rules Area before the date of the enactment of this
Act; and
(ii) operates aircraft that use quiet aircraft technology
(as determined in accordance with appendix A to subpart U of
part 93 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (as in
effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this
Act)).
(d) Commercial Air Tour User Fees.--Notwithstanding section
4(n)(2)(A) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of
1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(n)(1)(2)(A)), the Secretary--
(1) may establish a commercial tour use fee in excess of
$25 for each commercial air tour aircraft with a passenger
capacity of 25 or less for air tours operating in the Grand
Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area in order to
offset the costs of carrying out this section; and
(2) if the Secretary establishes a commercial tour use fee
under paragraph (1), shall develop a method for providing a
significant discount in the amount of that fee for air tours
that operate aircraft that use quiet aircraft technology (as
determined in accordance with appendix A to subpart U of part
93 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on
the day before the date of the enactment of this Act)).
______
SA 3529. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to the bill H.R. 1586, to
impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP
recipients; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 723. POLLOCK MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, LOUISIANA.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) Pollock Municipal Airport located in Pollock, Louisiana
(in this section referred to as the ``airport''), has never
been included in the national plan of integrated airport
systems established pursuant to section 47103 of title 49,
United States Code, and is therefore not considered necessary
to meet the current or future needs of the national aviation
system; and
(2) closing the airport will not adversely affect aviation
safety, aviation capacity, or air commerce.
(b) Request for Closure.--
(1) Approval.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
requirement, or agreement and subject to the requirements of
this section, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall--
(A) approve a request from the town of Pollock, Louisiana,
to close the airport as a public airport; and
(B) release the town from any term, condition, reservation,
or restriction contained in a surplus property conveyance or
transfer document, and from any order or finding by the
Department of Transportation on the use and repayment of
airport revenue applicable to the airport, that would
otherwise prevent the closure of the airport and
redevelopment of the facilities to nonaeronautical uses.
(2) Continued airport operation prior to approval.--The
town of Pollock shall continue to operate and maintain the
airport until the Administrator grants a request from the
town for closure of the airport under paragraph (1).
(3) Relocation of aircraft.--Before closure of the airport,
the town of Pollock shall provide adequate time for any
airport-based aircraft to be relocated.
(c) Repayment of Certain Federal Funds.--Upon closing the
airport pursuant to subsection (b), the town of Pollock shall
return to the Federal Aviation Administration any amounts
remaining from amounts provided by the Administration for
airport operating expenses.
______
SA 3530. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to the bill H.R. 1586, to
impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP
recipients; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 279, after line 24, add the following:
SEC. 723. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING OF EAS AIRPORTS WHERE
OPERATING AIR CARRIERS RECEIVE SUBSIDIES AT
RATES EXCEEDING $200 PER PASSENGER.
The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
may not make any amount available under subchapter I of
chapter 471 of title 49, United States Code, for a project
relating to an airport--
(1) that is an eligible place, as such term is defined in
section 41731 of such title; and
(2) in which an air carrier operates and receives
compensation under subchapter II of chapter 417 of such title
at a rate that exceeds $200 per passenger.
______
SA 3531. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to the bill H.R. 1586, to
impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP
recipients; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 114, strike line 8 and all that follows through
page 116, line 6 and insert the following:
SEC. 414. CONVERSION OF FORMER EAS AIRPORTS.
(a) In General.--Section 41745 is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 41745. Conversion of lost eligibility airports
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a program
to provide general aviation conversion funding for airports
serving eligible places that the Secretary has determined no
longer qualify for a subsidy.
``(b) Grants.--A grant under this section--
``(1) may not exceed twice the compensation paid to provide
essential air service to the airport in the fiscal year
preceeding the fiscal year in which the Secretary determines
that the place served by the airport is no longer an eligible
place; and
``(2) may be used--
``(A) for airport development (as defined in section
47102(3)) that will enhance general aviation capacity at the
airport;
``(B) to defray operating expenses, if such use is approved
by the Secretary; or
``(C) to develop innovative air service options, such as
on-demand or air taxi operations, if such use is approved by
the Secretary.
``(c) AIP Requirements.--An airport sponsor that uses funds
provided under this section for an airport development
project shall comply with the requirements of subchapter I of
chapter 471 applicable to airport development projects funded
under that subchapter with respect to the project funded
under this section.
``(d) Limitation.--The sponsor of an airport receiving
funding under this section is not eligible for funding under
section 41736.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
417 is amended by striking the item relating to section 41745
and inserting the following:
``41745. Conversion of lost eligibility airports.''.
______
SA 3532. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to the bill H.R. 1586, to
impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP
recipients; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 250, strike line 12 and all that follows through
page 251, line 18, and insert the following:
(e) Collection of Fees From Air Tour Operations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall assess
a fee in an amount determined by the Secretary under
paragraph (2) on a commercial air tour operator conducting
commercial air tour operations over a national park.
(2) Amount of fee.--In determining the amount of the fee
assessed under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall collect
sufficient revenue, in the aggregate, to pay for the expenses
incurred by the Federal Government to develop air tour
management plans for national parks.
(3) Effect of failure to pay fee.--The Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration shall revoke the operating
authority of a commercial air tour operator conducting
commercial air tour operations over any national park,
including the Grand Canyon National Park, that has not paid
the fee assessed by the Secretary under paragraph (1) by the
date that is 180 days after the date on which the Secretary
determines the fee shall be paid.
(f) Funding for Air Tour Management Plans.--The Secretary
of the Interior shall use the amounts collected under
subsection (e) to develop air tour management plans
[[Page 3508]]
under section 40128(b) of title 49, United States Code, for
the national parks the Secretary determines would most
benefit from such a plan.
______
SA 3533. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to the bill H.R. 1586, to
impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP
recipients; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 10, after the matter following line 5, insert the
following:
(c) Inspector General Audit.--
(1) In general.--The Inspector General of the Department of
Transportation shall conduct an audit of every airport in the
United States that reported between 10,000 and 15,000
passenger enplanements during each of the 2 most recent years
for which such data is available.
(2) Audit objectives.--In carrying out the audits under
paragraph (1), the Inspector General shall analyze the method
used by each subject airport to reach the 10,000 passenger
enplanement threshhold, including whether airports subsidize
commercial flights to reach such threshhold.
(3) Report.--The Inspector General shall submit a report to
Congress and to the Secretary of Transportation that contains
the results of the audits conducted under this subsection.
(4) Rulemaking.--After reviewing the results of the audits
under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Transportation shall
promulgate regulations for measuring passenger enplanements
at airports that--
(A) include the method for determining which airports
qualify for Federal funding under the Airport Improvement
Program (AIP);
(B) exclude artificial enplanements resulting from efforts
by airports to trigger increased AIP funding; and
(C) sets forth the consequences for tampering with the
number of passenger enplanements.
______
SA 3534. Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Merkley) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr.
Rockefeller to the bill H.R. 1586, to impose an additional tax on
bonuses received from certain TARP recipients; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
On page 246, strike lines 16 through 18 and insert the
following:
(D) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (1)--
(I) in subparagraph (A)--
(aa) by striking ``, in cooperation with'' and inserting
``and''; and
(bb) by striking ``The air tour'' and all that follows; and
(II) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
(III) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) Process and approval.--The establishment of air tour
management plans shall be a fully cooperative process between
the Administrator and the Director. The Administrator shall
be responsible for ensuring the safety of America's airspace
and the Director shall be responsible for protecting park
resources and values. Each air tour management plan shall
be--
``(i) developed through a public process that complies with
paragraph (4); and
``(ii) approved by the Administrator and the Director.'';
and
(IV) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Exception.--An application to begin commercial air
tour operations at any unit of the national park system that
did not have air tour operations in effect, as of the date of
the enactment of the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and
Safety Improvement Act, may be denied, without the
establishment of an air tour management plan, if--
``(i) the Administrator determines that such operations
would create a safety problem for the airspace over the park;
or
``(ii) the Director determines that such operations would
unacceptably impact park resources or visitor experiences.'';
and
(ii) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking ``National Park
Service'' and inserting ``Department of the Interior''.
______
SA 3535. Mr. BEGICH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to the bill H.R. 1586, to
impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP
recipients; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place insert the following:
SEC.----. FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR NEXTGEN EQUIPAGE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation may make
grants or loans, execute agreements, and engage in other
transactions authorized under section 106(1)(6) of title 49,
United States Code, to accelerate the transition to the Next
Generation Air Transportation System by mitigating the costs
of equipping aircraft with communications, surveillance,
navigation, and other avionics to enable NextGen air traffic
control capabilities.
(b) Matching Requirement.--In making grants, contracts,
leases, cooperative agreements, other transactions, or credit
instruments available under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall require that not less than 50 percent of the costs of
the activity funded come from non-Federal sources.
(c) Funding.--In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary
may use the authority under section 106(1)(6) of title 49,
United States Code, as provided by appropriations Acts, for
not more than $50,000,000 for all fiscal years combined.
(d) Report.--Within 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure on the potential for a program of grants, low-
interest loans, and other incentives for equipping general
aviation aircraft with NextGen avionics.
______
SA 3536. Mr. BEGICH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to the bill H.R. 1586, to
impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP
recipients; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 233, line 12, strike ``system;'' and insert
``system and the installation of weather radars supporting
that system;''.
On page 233, line 17, after ``aides'' insert ``and weather
radars''.
On page 235, line 7, after ``Security,'' insert
``Commerce,''.
On page 235, line 11, strike ``infrastructure'' and insert
``infrastructure, including surveillance and weather
radars,''.
On page 235, line 19, after ``Services,'' insert ``the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,''.
On page 236, line 8, after ``systems,'' insert ``weather
radars,''.
______
SA 3537. Mr. BROWN of Ohio (for himself and Mr. Voinovich) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3452 proposed by
Mr. Rockefeller to the bill H.R. 1586, to impose an additional tax on
bonuses received from certain TARP recipients; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
Strike section 319 and insert the following:
SEC. 319. UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS.
(a) In General.--Within 1 year after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Administrator shall develop a plan to
accelerate the integration of unmanned aerial systems into
the National Airspace System that--
(1) creates a pilot project to integrate such vehicles into
the National Airspace System at 5 test sites in the National
Airspace System by 2012;
(2) creates a safe, non-exclusionary airspace designation
for cooperative manned and unmanned flight operations in the
National Airspace System;
(3) establishes a process to develop certification, flight
standards, and air traffic requirements for such vehicles at
the test sites;
(4) dedicates funding for unmanned aerial systems research
and development to certification, flight standards, and air
traffic requirements;
(5) encourages leveraging and coordination of such research
and development activities with the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration and the Department of Defense;
(6) addresses both military and civilian unmanned aerial
system operations;
(7) ensures the unmanned aircraft systems integration plan
is incorporated in the Administration's NextGen Air
Transportation System implementation plan; and
(8) provides for verification of the safety of the vehicles
and navigation procedures before their integration into the
National Airspace System.
(b) Test Site Criteria.--In determining where the test
sites to be established under the pilot project required by
subsection (a)(1) are to be located, the Administrator
shall--
(1) take into consideration geographical and climate
diversity; and
(2) select one such site, subject to approval by the
Secretary of the Air Force, that is located in proximity to
principal Air Force research and acquisition functions to
take advantage of Air Force instrumented radars and related
research equipment and current defense science, research, and
development activities in unmanned aerial systems.
______
SA 3538. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to the bill H.R. 1586, to
impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP
recipients; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
[[Page 3509]]
On page 10, after the matter following line 5, insert the
following:
(c) Inspector General Audit.--
(1) In general.--The Inspector General of the Department of
Transportation shall conduct an audit of every airport in the
United States that reported between 10,000 and 15,000
passenger enplanements during each of the 2 most recent years
for which such data is available.
(2) Audit objectives.--In carrying out the audits under
paragraph (1), the Inspector General shall analyze the method
used by each subject airport to reach the 10,000 passenger
enplanement threshold, including whether airports subsidize
commercial flights to reach such threshold.
(3) Report.--The Inspector General shall submit a report to
Congress and to the Secretary of Transportation that contains
the results of the audits conducted under this subsection.
(4) Rulemaking.--After reviewing the results of the audits
under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Transportation shall
promulgate regulations for measuring passenger enplanements
at airports that--
(A) include the method for determining which airports
qualify for Federal funding under the Airport Improvement
Program (AIP);
(B) exclude artificial enplanements resulting from efforts
by airports to trigger increased AIP funding; and
(C) sets forth the consequences for tampering with the
number of passenger enplanements.
(d) Proportional Apportionments.--Section 47114(c)(1) is
amended to read as follows:
``(1) Primary airports.--The Secretary shall apportion to
the sponsor of each primary and non-primary airport for each
fiscal year an amount that bears the same ratio to the amount
subject to apportionment for fiscal year 2009 as the number
of passenger boardings at the airport during the prior
calendar year bears to the aggregate of all passenger
boardings at all primary airports during that calendar
year.''.
______
SA 3539. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to the bill H.R. 1586, to
impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP
recipients; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 34, strike line 8 and all that follows
through page 36, line 4, and insert the following:
(i) Proportional Apportionments.--Section 47114(c) is
amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the
following:
``(1) Primary airports.--The Secretary shall apportion to
the sponsor of each primary and non-primary airport for each
fiscal year an amount that bears the same ratio to the amount
subject to apportionment for fiscal year 2009 as the number
of passenger boardings at the airport during the prior
calendar year bears to the aggregate of all passenger
boardings at all primary airports during that calendar
year.''.
______
SA 3540. Mr. WHITEHOUSE proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1782, to
provide improvements for the operations of the Federal courts, and for
other purposes; as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Judiciary
Administrative Improvements Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. SENIOR JUDGE GOVERNANCE CORRECTION.
Section 631(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
in the first sentence by striking ``(including any judge in
regular active service and any judge who has retired from
regular active service under section 371(b) of this title,
when designated and assigned to the court to which such judge
was appointed)''.
SEC. 3. REVISION OF STATUTORY DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICT OF
NORTH DAKOTA.
Chapter 5 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
striking section 114 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 114. North Dakota
``North Dakota constitutes one judicial district.
``Court shall be held at Bismarck, Fargo, Grand Forks, and
Minot.''.
SEC. 4. SEPARATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS
FORMS.
Section 3553(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``the written order of judgment and
commitment'' and inserting ``a statement of reasons form
issued under section 994(w)(1)(B) of title 28''.
SEC. 5. PRETRIAL SERVICES FUNCTIONS FOR JUVENILES.
Section 3154 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (14) as paragraph (15); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (13) the following:
``(14) Perform, in a manner appropriate for juveniles, any
of the functions identified in this section with respect to
juveniles awaiting adjudication, trial, or disposition under
chapter 403 of this title who are not detained.''.
SEC. 6. STATISTICAL REPORTING SCHEDULE FOR CRIMINAL WIRETAP
ORDERS.
Section 2519 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Within thirty days
after the expiration of an order (or each extension thereof)
entered under section 2518, or the denial of an order
approving an interception, the issuing or denying judge'' and
inserting ``In January of each year, any judge who has issued
an order (or an extension thereof) under section 2518 that
expired during the preceding year, or who has denied approval
of an interception during that year,'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``In January of each
year'' and inserting ``In March of each year''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``In April of each year''
and inserting ``In June of each year''.
SEC. 7. THRESHOLDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF OTHER THAN
COUNSEL CASE COMPENSATION.
Section 3006A of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), in the second sentence, by
striking ``$500'' and inserting ``$800''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$500'' and
inserting ``$800''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), in the first sentence, by striking
``$1,600'' and inserting ``$2,400''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) The dollar amounts provided in paragraphs (2) and (3)
shall be adjusted simultaneously by an amount, rounded to the
nearest multiple of $100, equal to the percentage of the
cumulative adjustments taking effect under section 5303 of
title 5 in the rates of pay under the General Schedule since
the date the dollar amounts provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), respectively, were last enacted or adjusted by
statute.''.
______
SA 3541. Mrs. FEINSTEIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to the bill
H.R. 1586, to impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain
TARP recipients; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of title V, insert the following:
SEC. 564. STUDY OF AIR QUALITY IN AIRCRAFT CABINS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall conduct a study of air quality
in aircraft cabins to--
(1) assess bleed air quality on the full range of
commercial aircraft operating in the United States;
(2) identify oil-based contaminants, hydraulic fluid
toxins, and other air toxins that appear in cabin air and
measure the quantity and prevalence of those toxins through a
comprehensive sampling program;
(3) determine the specific amount of toxic fumes present in
aircraft cabins that constitutes a health risk to passengers;
(4) develop a systematic reporting standard for smoke and
fume events in aircraft cabins;
(5) evaluate the severity of symptoms among individuals
exposed to toxic fumes during flight;
(6) determine the extent to which the installation of
sensors and air filters on commercial aircraft would provide
a public health benefit; and
(7) make recommendations for regulatory or procedural
changes to reduce the adverse health effects of poor air
quality in aircraft cabins, including recommendations with
respect to the appropriateness and public health benefits of
a requirement to install sensors and air filters on all
aircraft or all new aircraft.
(b) Authority to Monitor Air in Aircraft Cabins.--For
purposes of conducting the study required by subsection (a),
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
shall require domestic air carriers to allow air quality
monitoring on their aircraft.
(c) Regulations.--If the Administrator makes
recommendations under subsection (a)(7) for regulations to
reduce the adverse health effects associated with poor air
quality in commercial aircraft cabins, the Administrator
shall--
(1) issue a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to
such regulations not later than 18 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act; and
(2) issue final rules with respect to such regulations not
later than 36 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
____________________
NOTICE OF HEARING
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the
Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on March
[[Page 3510]]
18, 2010 at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building
to conduct an oversight hearing to examine Bureau of Indian Affairs and
tribal police recruitment, training, hiring, and retention.
Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs
Committee at 202-224-2251.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
Committee on Armed Services
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on March 16, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Foreign Relations
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session
of the Senate on March 16, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Select Committee on Intelligence
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on March 16, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee
on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the
District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on March 16, 2010, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled,
``Assessing Foster Care and Family Services in the District of
Columbia: Challenges and Solutions.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Water and Power be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on March 16, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of
the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Scott Glick,
a member of Senator Cardin's staff, be granted the privilege of the
floor during the pendency of morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
ORDER OF PROCEDURE--H.R. 2847
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate resumes consideration of the House message with respect to H.R.
2847, there be 10 minutes of debate time, with the time equally divided
and controlled between Senators Gregg and Schumer or their designees,
at which time Senator Gregg is expected to make a budget point of order
and Senator Schumer would move to waive any relevant points of order;
that if the waiver is successful, then no further debate or motions be
in order, and the Senate proceed to vote on the Durbin motion to
concur; further, that the order with respect to the DeMint motion to
suspend be vitiated; that upon disposition of the House message, the
Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 1586, and any other provisions
with respect to the House message remaining in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
COMMEMORATING THE 45TH ANNIVERSARY OF BLOODY SUNDAY
Mr. KAUFMAN. I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be
discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 249 and the
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the concurrent resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 249) commemorating
the 45th anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the role that it
played in ensuring the passage of the Voting Rights Act of
1965.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. KAUFMAN. I ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be
agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid
upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statement
be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (H. Con. Res. 249) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
____________________
CONGRATULATING RADFORD UNIVERSITY ON ITS 100TH ANNIVERSARY
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 456, submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 456) congratulating Radford
University on the 100th anniversary of the university.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. KAUFMAN. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the
preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the
table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 456) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 456
Whereas Radford University was chartered on March 10, 1910,
by the Commonwealth of Virginia as the State Normal and
Industrial School for Women at Radford;
Whereas Radford University was chartered to prepare
teachers to educate the people of the United States;
Whereas Radford University has grown substantially in scope
and quality since the day on which the university was
chartered;
Whereas Radford University was renamed the Radford State
Teachers College in 1924 and the Women's Division of Virginia
Polytechnic Institute in 1944, respectively;
Whereas Radford University was renamed Radford College in
1964 when the relationship between the Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and Radford University ended;
Whereas Radford College was renamed Radford University in
1979;
Whereas, since the founding of the university, Radford
University has provided thousands of students with the
benefits of a Radford education;
Whereas Radford University graduates have made meaningful
and lasting contributions to society through service,
including service in--
(1) education;
(2) the sciences;
(3) business;
(4) health and human services;
(5) government;
(6) the arts and humanities; and
(7) other endeavors;
Whereas Radford University is a productive and vital
academic community with thousands of students;
Whereas the students of Radford University approach
university life with an enthusiasm for learning and personal
development;
Whereas the brilliant faculty of Radford University is
committed to the highest ideals of academic scholarship and
the advancement of society;
Whereas the devoted administrators and staff members of
Radford University strive to foster an environment that
supports the noble work of the university;
Whereas the centennial of Radford University is an
appropriate time for faculty, staff, students, alumni, and
friends--
(1) to unite in recognition of the past achievements
Radford University with pride; and
(2) to consider ways to create an even more successful
university during the century ahead;
Whereas Radford University celebrates the culture of
service of the university through a
[[Page 3511]]
program entitled ``Centennial Service Challenge'' that
invites every member of the campus and extended university
community to engage in, and document community service in
honor of, the centennial; and
Whereas Radford University will observe a Centennial
Charter Day Celebration on March 24, 2010, and host numerous
other academic programs and arts and cultural events
throughout 2010 to commemorate the event: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That the Senate commends Radford University on
the 100th anniversary of the university.
____________________
FEDERAL JUDICIARY ADMINISTRATIVE IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2009
Mr. KAUFMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be
discharged from further consideration of S. 1782 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 assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1782) to provide improvements for the operations
of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Whitehouse
substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to; the bill, as
amended, be read a third time and passed; the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any
statements be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3540), in the nature of a substitute, was agreed
to, as follows:
(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Judiciary
Administrative Improvements Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. SENIOR JUDGE GOVERNANCE CORRECTION.
Section 631(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
in the first sentence by striking ``(including any judge in
regular active service and any judge who has retired from
regular active service under section 371(b) of this title,
when designated and assigned to the court to which such judge
was appointed)''.
SEC. 3. REVISION OF STATUTORY DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICT OF
NORTH DAKOTA.
Chapter 5 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
striking section 114 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 114. North Dakota
``North Dakota constitutes one judicial district.
``Court shall be held at Bismarck, Fargo, Grand Forks, and
Minot.''.
SEC. 4. SEPARATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS
FORMS.
Section 3553(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``the written order of judgment and
commitment'' and inserting ``a statement of reasons form
issued under section 994(w)(1)(B) of title 28''.
SEC. 5. PRETRIAL SERVICES FUNCTIONS FOR JUVENILES.
Section 3154 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (14) as paragraph (15); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (13) the following:
``(14) Perform, in a manner appropriate for juveniles, any
of the functions identified in this section with respect to
juveniles awaiting adjudication, trial, or disposition under
chapter 403 of this title who are not detained.''.
SEC. 6. STATISTICAL REPORTING SCHEDULE FOR CRIMINAL WIRETAP
ORDERS.
Section 2519 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Within thirty days
after the expiration of an order (or each extension thereof)
entered under section 2518, or the denial of an order
approving an interception, the issuing or denying judge'' and
inserting ``In January of each year, any judge who has issued
an order (or an extension thereof) under section 2518 that
expired during the preceding year, or who has denied approval
of an interception during that year,'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``In January of each
year'' and inserting ``In March of each year''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``In April of each year''
and inserting ``In June of each year''.
SEC. 7. THRESHOLDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF OTHER THAN
COUNSEL CASE COMPENSATION.
Section 3006A of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), in the second sentence, by
striking ``$500'' and inserting ``$800''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$500'' and
inserting ``$800''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), in the first sentence, by striking
``$1,600'' and inserting ``$2,400''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) The dollar amounts provided in paragraphs (2) and (3)
shall be adjusted simultaneously by an amount, rounded to the
nearest multiple of $100, equal to the percentage of the
cumulative adjustments taking effect under section 5303 of
title 5 in the rates of pay under the General Schedule since
the date the dollar amounts provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), respectively, were last enacted or adjusted by
statute.''.
The bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third
reading, was read the third time, and passed.
____________________
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2010
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on
Wednesday, March 17; that following the prayer and the pledge, the
Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed
expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later
in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of the House Message on
H.R. 2847, as provided for under the previous order. Finally, I ask
that the Senate recess from 12:30 to 2 p.m. for a special Democratic
caucus.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, Senators should expect two rollcall votes
in relation to the HIRE Act beginning around 9:45 a.m. Upon disposition
of the HIRE Act, the Senate will resume consideration of the FAA
reauthorization legislation. Rollcall votes in relation to amendments
to the FAA bill are expected to occur throughout the day.
As a reminder, at 2 o'clock tomorrow there will be a live quorum and
the Senate will receive the managers appointed by the House of
Representatives for the purpose of presenting and exhibiting Articles
of Impeachment against G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., judge of the United
States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. As a reminder, once the
House managers are received, Senators will be sworn in and required to
sign the Secretary's oath book.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. KAUFMAN. If there is no further business to come before the
Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous
order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 8:36 p.m., adjourned until
Wednesday, March 17, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.
[[Page 3512]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The House met at 10:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore (Ms. Watson).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
March 16, 2010.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Diane E. Watson to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
MORNING-HOUR DEBATE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 6, 2009, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with each
party limited to 30 minutes and each Member, other than the majority
and minority leaders and the minority whip, limited to 5 minutes.
____________________
RESTORING AMERICANS' NET WORTH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, last week I brought the same
chart to the House floor to visibly demonstrate how, starting in 2007,
the Great Recession destroyed $17.5 trillion of household aggregate
wealth in the United States. I noted that it represented a loss of more
than $56,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. Trillions of
dollars of home equity were lost, retirement savings and college funds
lost.
As you can see by the red line here, the worst recession since World
War II continually destroyed value from American households for seven
straight quarters, from June of 2007 until March of 2009; 21 months of
lost net worth. The economy was on the brink of collapse, and the
tremendous losses to every American household were directly evident.
But this Congress acted. And as you can see from the blue line, since
passage of the Recovery Act, Americans recovered $5 trillion in net
worth during the second and third quarters of 2009. Today I have even
better news. Last week, data came out for the fourth quarter of 2009,
and once again Americans' net worth increased for the third straight
quarter. There was an additional $800 billion returned to American
households over just the past 3 months.
Let me put this in context. The Recovery Act was an investment in
this Nation, in this economy, in the American people, to help bring us
out of the Great Recession. It kept hundreds of thousands of teachers
from being laid off, including 800 in my own district. That is not just
a short-term investment in economic recovery, it is a long-term
investment in our communities and in the education of our children.
The Recovery Act also provided for thousands of needed transportation
improvements. Again, that is a short-term investment in construction
jobs, but a long-term investment in our communities and national
infrastructure. The Recovery Act's investments, including more than
$200 billion in tax cuts, totaled $787 billion, and it will be spent
over 2 years time. Where is the return on that investment, you just
have to look at the blue line showing $5 trillion in net worth that has
been recovered since we passed that bill for American families in the
first 9 months of this year. We can now add another $800 billion to
that figure for the last 3 months of 2009, nearly $6 trillion in
recovered wealth.
The recovery of America's net worth is vital to the overall recovery
of our economy. Consumer spending makes up 70 percent of our GDP.
However, so long as consumers' net worth remains depressed, consumer
spending will naturally suffer. When consumer spending suffers,
businesses pull back and lay off employees. It is a tragic downward
spiral, one that unfolded starting in the Bush administration in 2007.
But this chart, this blue line of recovery shows we are back on the
right track. Despite historic blizzards that many thought would imperil
the recovery, retail sales actually increased 0.3 percent in February,
outpacing expectations. Housing prices increased 7 straight months,
reversing 22 straight months of decline. New orders for manufactured
goods are at their highest level since 2008. The manufacturing index
has been growing for 6 straight months, and manufacturing jobs have
been growing for 3 months. GDP grew at 5.9 percent, its fastest growth
in 6 years, in the fourth quarter of 2009. And today, the stock market
is up more than 70 percent since its March of 2009 low.
We are not out of the woods yet, and we have some ground to cover
before the value of the economic losses are fully recovered. But we are
making steady progress, as we can see from this chart. We must now
continue on that path to restore financial stability for our residents
and the economy as a whole.
____________________
JOB KILLING HEALTH CARE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, this week we are going to be taking up, we
think, a job killing so-called health care reform bill that the
American people do not want but that the Democratic leadership and the
President are determined to cram down our throats.
This bill will not help our situation in terms of health care or
health insurance. It does not reduce the cost of health insurance which
was one of the goals the President said that he wanted. It does not
solve any of the problems that we need to solve in health care. In
fact, it makes those problems worse.
Yesterday I had a town hall in Statesville, North Carolina, with
about 175 people there. They are very upset about this proposed health
care reform bill. They understand that a lot of dirty tricks are being
played here, and they don't like it. They don't like several aspects of
the proposal that is being brought forth this week.
Number one, they don't like the fact that the Democrats are proposing
to pass this bill without voting on the bill. They know that goes from
passing bills without reading them to passing bills without voting for
them. Another thing that they don't like is they don't like to see two
bills that have no relationship to each other put together because one
of the bills can't pass on its own and so the folks in charge attach it
to a bill that they can get the votes for.
And so what the majority people are doing is they are going to latch
onto their reconciliation bill a job-killing government takeover of
student loans. They are attaching that to their job-killing government
takeover of health care which many people have called a monstrosity.
This is not the way the American people want us to be operating in
this
[[Page 3513]]
Congress. We are the greatest country in the world with the best form
of government in the world. But what is about to happen this week, if
the American people do not speak out even louder than they have spoken
out, is you are going to see Democrats vote for this monstrosity and
undermine the rule of law that exists in this country. It is a scary
proposition.
Republicans know that we need reform in health insurance and in
health care, and we have made proposals to do that. We have legislation
that will reduce cost in health insurance. The plan that the Democrats
have put forward will not reduce cost. Even one of their Senators, Dick
Durbin, said that last week on the floor of the Senate.
The bill also does not allow people to continue the current health
insurance that they have which the President has been saying you could
do. In his meeting with Republicans at our retreat, he admitted that he
had been saying that incorrectly. He is still saying it even though he
said it was incorrect because you will not be allowed to keep your
insurance if you like it.
Republicans want for Americans to be able to buy their health care
across State lines. We want medical liability reform. We want to expand
health savings accounts. We want to put Americans in charge of their
health care and in charge of their health insurance. We don't want a
giant government takeover of health insurance and health care. This can
be done to help Americans, but what the Democrats are proposing will
not be the right thing to do.
I serve on the Rules Committee. They are planning to bring a rule
that will say if you vote for the rule, you voted for the bill. That
has never happened in the history of this country. Again, it undermines
the rule of law and the American people will not stand for it.
____________________
COLON CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Boren) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BOREN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remind Members of this body
that the month of March is Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. During
the month of March, colon cancer advocates across the country will
organize and participate in a wide range of activities to raise
awareness about this horrible disease. This year alone, almost 150,000
Americans will be diagnosed with colon cancer, and approximately 50,000
of them will die from it.
Madam Speaker, it doesn't have to be that way. If detected early, the
survival rate for colon cancer is almost 90 percent. Yet less than half
of all Americans get the recommended preventive tests by the suggested
age of 50.
Colon cancer is an issue that is very personal to me; 12 years ago, I
lost my mother Janna to this dreadful disease. And since arriving in
Congress, I have made it one of my missions to bring attention to this
serious yet preventable cancer. So for the next 3 weeks, I want Members
of this body to ask themselves and their constituents two important
questions: Have you asked your doctor if you should get a colonoscopy?
Do you know that it could save your life?
____________________
THE FAIR TAX
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moran) for 5 minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, this past weekend, like many
Americans, my wife and I sat at our kitchen table and worked on getting
our taxes figured out so we could file our return. Across our country,
millions of Americans are working to finalize their annual tax return.
It is clear that our system of income taxes is broken. To restore our
Nation's economic health, increase personal liberty, reduce cheating
and confusion, and restore fairness, Congress must abandon our current
tax code and replace it with something much better.
There is no reason that paying taxes should be so complicated and so
confusing. The burden in this process that is placed upon individuals
and small businesses must be relieved. The IRS itself has estimated
that 7.6 billion hours are spent in tax preparation every year. That
7.6 billion hours equates to 3.8 million people working full time for a
full year. Congress can simplify this process and reduce the amount of
time and energy spent on paying our taxes.
As a longtime supporter of the FAIR Tax, I see H.R. 25 as a step in
the direction of liberty and prosperity. The FAIR Tax seeks to
eliminate the payroll, estate, and many other taxes to be replaced by a
national sales tax levied on purchased goods. Overhauling the U.S. Tax
Code is not an easy task to undertake, but reducing the burden of
filing taxes should be a priority in this Congress. Anyone who views
our tax collection practices can see the flaws. The question is whether
Congress has the courage and determination to change it.
The process of tax reform has major consequences for every American,
but it is a process that must be started because the consequences of
inaction are too costly. The truth remains that Americans want and need
some sort of tax filing relief. The need for commonsense reform becomes
more obvious during this tax season.
I have called on the newly installed chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) to schedule a
hearing on the FAIR Tax. I encourage my colleagues who are serious
about starting an open conversation on tax reform to join me in this
request. The American people are ready to have that conversation, and
their representatives should be also.
{time} 1045
Americans are in need of tax reform and simplification, but instead,
all they are getting from this Congress is increased spending and
record deficits. By reforming this broken process, Americans will once
more be in charge of their lives and their money.
Over the course of the last several years, American taxpayers have
become much more attentive to what is and what is not happening in
Washington, DC. Tea Party protests and fair tax advocates are making
their voices heard. Their message is clear to Congress if Congress will
only listen--simplify the tax code. In doing so, we will create an
opportunity for economic growth and new prosperity while increasing
personal freedom and liberty.
April 15 is now less than 1 month away. No more business as usual.
Let's not let another tax year go by without action to replace our
convoluted, confusing, and freedom-restricting tax code.
____________________
HEALTH CARE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Walz) for 5 minutes.
Mr. WALZ. Madam Speaker, this week this House has a historic
opportunity. For far too long, millions of Americans have not been able
to afford basic health care coverage. For far too long, families with
insurance are told when they finally need to use that insurance, that
they are not covered. For too long, insurance company executives and
bureaucrats have dictated what is covered to the doctors.
For far too long, those who are insured have been paying a hidden tax
to cover the millions of uninsured. This week the figure is $51
million. For far too long, the United States has spent double the
amount of any other industrialized nation, and we are no healthier for
it. And for far too long, there have been those who have said we can
wait a little longer; we will put health care off and do it at another
time.
This button was given to me last weekend by a woman in Fountain,
Minnesota. It reads, ``Healthcare for All--the time is now.'' She's
been carrying it for 25 years.
Last week, the Mayo Clinic--which is in my district in southern
Minnesota--along with the Cleveland Clinic and other leading
institutions, put out a statement urging reform in this House. The
statement read, ``Reforming health care in America will not become
easier with the passage of time,'' and we urge you to move forward.
[[Page 3514]]
The time is right for America to fix this inequity. The time is right
to move America forward, and as the button says, health care for all,
the time is now. That is this week.
____________________
FLORIDIANS ARE HARD AT WORK
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for 5 minutes.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, yesterday, March 15, was Florida's
Day of Action to raise awareness about the sham elections in Sudan
which are scheduled for next month. When the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement was signed in the year 2005, the dream of a united Sudan,
where everyone--regardless of gender, ethnicity, or religion--lived in
freedom, it seemed possible. Elections were intended to usher that
change.
Unfortunately, the Sudanese Government has since proven that it will
do anything to remain in power--including slaughtering civilians and
stealing elections. Southern parties have committed abuses, but it is
Sudan's tyrant--an indicted war criminal--who remains the greatest
obstacle to peace.
The time for wishful thinking is over. These elections are a sham,
hijacked to legitimize the rule of a reprehensible, murderous regime.
Responsible nations must work to ensure Sudan's butcher answers for his
crimes before this process moves forward.
So congratulations to the many Floridians who spearheaded the Day of
Action yesterday.
And speaking of Floridians, our State is hurting. Our economy is in
serious trouble. Floridians ask what is the best way to put Floridians
back to work without increasing our mounting national debt. The latest
national unemployment record shows that we're still facing an almost
10-percent unemployment statistic. And totally unacceptable is
Florida's numbers. Florida's number, 11.8 percent unemployment rate in
my home State of Florida.
How can we fix this problem? Part of it deals with what U.S. Trade
Representative Ron Kirk, said, and it was an important and very timely
message. He said, Trade supports millions of U.S. jobs and expanding
trade must be part of the U.S. economy. Congress needs to support long-
delayed trade pacts with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, which will
greatly expand access to oversea markets for Florida businesses.
While these agreements are stalling here in Washington, our
competitors are cutting their own deals to open more markets for their
exporters. The European Union, for example, has concluded an agreement
with South Korea--similar to the one that has been languishing here in
Washington, DC.
Hundreds of thousands of people are employed in the trade industry.
In my home State of Florida, we exported more than $47 billion in goods
last year. South Florida is the gateway to Latin America, and it's a
huge hub for trade with Colombia, which has already produced thousands
of jobs in key industries, such as the flower-importing industry. Trade
is a crucial part of our economic recovery and an ideal opportunity for
Democrats and Republicans to work together on an important issue.
It's so important to my home State of Florida, which brings me to
another national issue that is crucial to my State of Florida, and that
is a complete and accurate census count. We must mobilize everyone to
participate in the 2010 census and help increase funding for education,
health care, transportation, and other key programs while ensuring that
our area will get the programs it deserves.
Having represented a diverse area such as South Florida here in
Congress, I know that we need to reach out to residents of low-income
and minority neighborhoods, which are especially at risk of being
undercounted in the 2010 census. Along with many other metropolitan
areas, Miami-Dade County will have a bilingual, English and Spanish,
census form, as well as a special census outreach effort to the
Colombian, to the Haitian, to the Cuban communities, among many
different ethnic groups in our community and in our Nation.
Accurate data reflecting changes in our diverse and ever-changing
communities will decide how over $400 billion per year is spent in
Federal grants and how it's allocated for programs like new hospitals
and schools.
So your assistance, South Florida, with a complete census count will
help ensure that essential social service programs like job training,
after-school programs, school lunch programs, senior citizen centers,
they will receive the funding they deserve. So please help us kick off
our efforts to get the most complete census count in history.
Floridians, get on board.
And I am so proud of the many Floridians who do amazing things every
day.
In my congressional district of South Florida, Madam Speaker,
extraordinary groups such as Teens Against Domestic Abuse, otherwise
known as T-A-D-A--TADA--are working to raise awareness about domestic
abuse. And TADA is a local student activist group run by a caring and
passionate young woman, Emily Martinez-Lanza.
So I thank the exemplary work of Floridians. From the Call of Action
on Sudan, to the economy, to the census, to combating domestic abuse,
Floridians are hard at work.
____________________
``PASSED'' NOT ``DEEMED''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence) for 5 minutes.
Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, the American people don't want a government
takeover of health care. I heard it at town hall meetings, across
eastern Indiana this weekend, and at a rally at the Statehouse in
Indianapolis yesterday where over a thousand gathered on short notice.
Now, I know many in the Democratic leadership and the administration
don't like us to call it a ``government takeover of health care,'' but
when you mandate that every American purchase health insurance--whether
they want it or need it or not--you mandate what's in that insurance.
If you set up a government-run insurance exchange to control what kind
of insurance people can buy and set up a massive bureaucracy, even a
new health care czar to govern all of it, that sure looks like to me a
government takeover of health care. And the American people know it.
Now, clear majorities of this country have rejected this approach.
But nevertheless, as we read in the papers, Congress is intent this
week on bringing this legislation--seemingly by any means--to the floor
of the House of Representatives. And I want to speak about those means
today.
The choice that the leadership of the Congress has before them is
whether or not to bring the wildly discredited Senate bill to the floor
of the House of Representatives. But the truth is, the bill, with its
Cornhusker Kickback, with the public funding of abortion, simply
couldn't pass the House floor. There's just not the votes for it.
But it seems at this moment what we hear is that the Democratic
leadership here in Congress is so desperate to pass this government
takeover of health care that they are willing to twist the rules of the
House and the Senate into a pretzel to get it done.
But I am not here to talk about the arcane rules of the Senate and
reconciliation that the follow-on bill would be an abuse of. I'm not
even here to talk about the rules of the House. I'm really here to talk
about the Constitution of the United States of America.
I mean, this so-called Slaughter House Rule that is being proposed,
the idea that the Senate bill could be deemed as passed on the House
floor without Members of Congress being asked to vote for it, I believe
not just tramples on the common sense and insults the intelligence of
the American people, but it really tramples on the Constitution of the
United States. Let me break it down for you.
I've understood this since the first time I saw ``School House Rock''
about how a bill becomes a law and that little bill danced up the House
steps when I was a kid. Let me read it. It's in the
[[Page 3515]]
Constitution, Article I, section 7, ``Every bill which shall have
passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it
becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.''
There it is.
As we learned as school children, as it says in the Constitution, a
bill becomes a law after it has passed the House of Representatives--
not after it was deemed to have passed, not after it was buried in a
procedural motion that no one really has to say they have supported,
but after it has passed on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Now, some will say that, well, Republicans just want to talk about
process here; we're trying to do something for health care. Well, wait
a minute. The processes that are in the Constitution of the United
States exist to protect the liberty of the American people and hold
those who govern them responsible. The reason our Founders enshrined in
the Constitution of the United States the requirement that bills might
not become law unless they pass on the House floor is so that they
could hold accountable the decisions that the men and women who would
serve in this Chamber throughout our history would make.
Madam Speaker, the very idea that the Senate bill could be adopted by
the House without any vote on the floor is anathema to the Constitution
of the United States, and I believe it's an insult to the American
people.
I would say respectfully, Madam Speaker, if you have the votes, vote
the Senate bill on the floor. Let's bring it down here. Let's have a
good, long debate about that bill that passed the Senate on Christmas
Eve with all of its backroom deals and all of its public funding for
abortion and its individual mandates and its tax increases.
But if you don't have the votes, let's scrap the bill. Let's start
over. Let's commit ourselves to building health care reform on the
principles of limited government and free market economics. Let's pass
health care reform that will lower the cost of health insurance rather
than growing the size of government.
And for heaven's sake, whatever we do, let's go forward this week in
a way that honors those who have gone before, those who have fought for
this Constitution. Let us live up to the ideals of our Founders and the
expectation of our people. And let's throw this Slaughter House Rule
business in the trash heap where it belongs.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.
Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 59 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess until noon.
____________________
{time} 1200
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas) at noon.
____________________
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
God Almighty and Father of us all, we praise You, the source of all
we have and all we are. Teach us to acknowledge always the many good
things Your infinite love has given us. Help us to love You in return
with all our heart and all our strength.
Empower us to serve this Nation with such wisdom and compassion that
Your own gracious goodness and love of humanity may be evident and give
You glory both now and forever. Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House her approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Schauer) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. SCHAUER led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, announced
that the Senate has agreed to a concurrent resolution of the following
title in which the concurrence of the House is requested:
S. Con. Res. 53. Concurrent resolution recognizing and
congratulating the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado, as the
new official site of the National Emergency Medical Services
Memorial Service and the National Emergency Medical Services
Memorial.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BACA. Anthem Blue Cross in my home State of California is trying
to raise premiums by 39 percent. This is only the beginning if we do
nothing. We must give the American people, not the insurance companies,
more control. If we do nothing, the American people will continue to
pay higher premiums and higher out-of-pocket costs now and in the
future.
We cannot, our families cannot, afford to do nothing. Health reform
will hold health insurance companies accountable; end discrimination
based on preexisting conditions; cut and eventually close the doughnut
hole for thousands of seniors, including 5,200 seniors in my district;
cut the national deficit; and produce over 4 million new jobs in the
coming decade. That is 400,000 new jobs every year.
Health care reform will bring coverage to 219,000 in my district and
31 million nationwide for the very first time in history. This is a
historic moment. In 1935, we passed Social Security. In 1965, we passed
Medicare. We must pass health reform now.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. BOEHNER asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, the American people are appalled by what
they have seen in this health care debate. But the worst is still
ahead. The bill has already failed. The American people don't want it,
and they are screaming at the top of their lungs, stop. But, yet,
Congress continues to proceed.
The American people want jobs. But what does this bill do? It puts
the American people out of work. They want lower health care costs,
while the health care bill being debated is going to raise the cost of
premiums. They want less government, yet this bill is going to create a
giant bureaucracy here in Washington. They want to protect life. Yet
the bill is going to force taxpayers to fund elective abortions.
If that weren't enough, the majority plans to force the toxic Senate
bill through the House under some controversial trick. There is no way
to hide from this vote. It will be the biggest vote that most Members
ever cast. Now you can run, but you can't hide. Let's defeat this bill.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. SCHAUER asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. SCHAUER. Madam Speaker, health care is an issue of basic
economics to middle class families, seniors and businesses. During the
health care debate, my constituents have asked me to listen. I'm
listening.
The story I heard last week is from a college in my area. It employs
300 people. As in the case with many employers, the lion's share of
their costs come from employee costs, 70 percent in this college's
case. Their health insurance premiums this year went up 17 percent.
Seventeen percent. What does that mean? It means job cuts or tuition
increases, or both, both disastrous for middle class families in our
economy.
[[Page 3516]]
Seventeen percent premium increases. The Nation's five largest
private health insurance companies' profits went up $12 billion last
year while they dropped 2.7 million people from coverage. Our current
health care system may work for the health insurance industry, but it
is broken for middle class families and is hurting our economies. It
must be fixed now.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, Republicans have come to the floor today
because we care about Americans' health care. We just don't care for
this bill. But still, the majority seems committed to trying to muscle
through a trillion-dollar overhaul that will change health care for
every man, woman, and child.
Americans have made it very clear. They don't like this bill. They
don't want the government in the decision-making of their health care.
They want lower costs, and they don't want their government tax dollars
going to fund abortion services.
So why can't we start over, Madam Speaker? We ask again. There has
been a year and a half nearly of debate over this and still more
questions than answers. That's why we are hearing reports that the
majority will try to ram this through without a direct vote on the
Senate bill, Madam Speaker. We should take an up-or-down vote on the
Senate bill.
____________________
H.R. 4440, THE COMBAT ACT
(Mr. McNERNEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. McNERNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the sacrifices of
American men and women serving our country overseas and to urge my
colleagues to support legislation I introduced to give them a much-
deserved pay increase for facing dangerous situations.
Late last year, I traveled to Afghanistan and was privileged to meet
members of our Armed Forces serving our country in a difficult and
dangerous environment. Two of those soldiers approached me and said
they had not seen a combat pay increase in several years and asked me
to do what I could do to make the burden of overseas deployment easier
for them and their families.
As a result, when I got back to Washington, I introduced H.R. 4440,
the COMBAT Act, which provides several types of combat pay increases,
including hostile fire pay, imminent danger pay and family separation
allowance. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting our troops and
their families by becoming a cosponsor of this bill.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. The Democrat health care bill that is being brought
through the Congress this week is nothing more than a government
takeover of health care, and the American people know it. I know the
administration doesn't like us to use that phrase, but come on. When
you mandate that every American purchase health insurance whether they
want it or need it or not, you mandate that every business provide it,
you create a massive government-run bureaucracy exchange that mandates
what is in insurance plans, you wrap that all in about $1 trillion
worth of spending, that is a government takeover of health care.
But what is really remarkable about this whole business is that not
only have the American people rejected this plan, but Democrats are so
desperate to pass it that they are willing to trample on the
traditional rules of the House and the Senate and even trample on the
Constitution of the United States to get it done. The Constitution
provides that a bill becomes a law if it has passed the House of
Representatives and the Senate. The Democrats actually don't have the
votes to pass the Senate bill, so they have decided they are going to
try and pass the bill without a vote.
Well, that would be news to the Founders of this country and a
betrayal of the commitment of every Member of this Congress to the
American people. I urge the Speaker, if you have the votes for the
Senate bill, bring it to the floor. If you don't, let's scrap the bill
and start over for the American people.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, at least 46 million Americans are now
uninsured; 7.7 million in California are uninsured, and at least 80,000
are uninsured in the Sixth Congressional District, which is the
district I represent. By the end of the day, 14,000 more Americans will
lose their coverage, more than 2,000 of them in California.
Without health care reform, the average family premium in California
will rise from $13,280 to $22,660 by the year 2019. That's why we must
pass the health care reform bill that brings down costs and increases
competition. The Senate bill, with the corrections, including better
subsidies and insurance market reforms, will be the beginning of this.
We must pass health reform so that our Nation's families have access
to affordable, quality health insurance.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, The Washington Post today on the front page
said: Pelosi may try to pass health bill without a vote. May try to
pass health bill without a vote. I didn't even think that was possible,
but apparently The Washington Post and the Speaker of the House think
it's possible. It's no wonder, Madam Speaker, that the country is
outraged not just by the bill, but by the process. This was like the
Speaker's statement that said we would have to pass the bill so we
could know what's in it.
Madam Speaker, this bill does not reduce costs. It cuts Medicare and
increases taxes for 10 years and spends the money in 6 years. Madam
Speaker, this bill throws the health care system up in the air and just
hopes that the greatest health care system in the world is still there
when it lands a few years from now.
Madam Speaker, I hope that we have a vote on this bill, a debate on
this bill and we do not pass this bill with a vote.
____________________
BORDER VIOLENCE
(Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. Madam Speaker, on Saturday, three people
connected to the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez were brutally murdered
by drug cartels in front of their young children.
What more must happen to focus our attention on the serious threat
along 2,000 miles of our southern border? For the safety of Americans
living in border States and traveling or working in Mexico, we must
take this danger seriously and crack down on the cartels. U.S. citizens
are increasingly at risk of being innocent victims of this brutal
violence, but the administration budget would cut resources intended to
crack down on cartels and to secure our border.
I call on the White House to provide necessary support for law
enforcement, at all levels, to track down these criminals and their
networks. This is a fight we cannot lose. It is too close to home. My
thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who lost their
lives in these attacks.
____________________
{time} 1215
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Madam Speaker, America needs health care
reform, but America knows that this is
[[Page 3517]]
not the right approach. This is the wrong policy and it is the wrong
process; yet the majority is willing to do everything possible to pass
this bill, even over the objections of the American people.
Just recently, CNN had a poll that showed 73 percent of Americans
across the country would like to scrap the bill or start all over; yet
now we are being told the Democrat leadership may deem the bill passed
without Members of Congress even voting on it. That is un-American. It
ignores the democratic process.
Madam Speaker, we need an up-or-down vote. If Congress passes this
bill without even a vote on it, the American people will be outraged,
and rightfully so. There is a better way. Let's go to work on it.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(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. Madam Speaker, just when we thought we had
heard enough, seen enough, and paid enough, the big insurance companies
are at it again. Seniors are paying more for prescriptions, home values
plummet, savings and retirement accounts disappear, and millions lose
homes, jobs, and their health care. But that didn't stop the big health
insurance companies from announcing premium increases of nearly 40
percent.
Look, Madam Speaker, these companies have some impudence. They have
to be stopped. Deny, deny, deny. They deny coverage. They deny claims.
They deny care. And last week the CEOs came to Washington. It is not
enough that we have to dodge their lobbyists in the Halls of Congress,
but they came to town, staying at the Ritz on your premium dollars, and
now they want to deny the American people quality, affordable, and
accessible health care.
They know we are in the home stretch, and they won't stop at
anything. They will stop at nothing to keep us from clamping down on
their practices. But we are going to stop them. Let's deny them. Let's
vote them off the island. I am ready to do it.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. CARTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, words that strike fear in the heart of
every American are, ``I'm from the Federal Government, and I'm here to
help you.''
We have a bill here that people can't read; they are not given the
opportunity to understand. We have smoke screens everywhere, backroom
deals being made that nobody knows what they are, all from the Federal
Government that is here to help you.
We are going to take over your health care, take over about one-sixth
of the economy, and ``We're from the Federal Government, and we're here
to help you.''
By the way, we are even going to push this through the House of
Representatives without a vote, so you don't have to worry about
whether your Representative stands up for your rights or not. Is this
the kind of democracy we want?
This is a bad bill. Give us a straight vote, be straight with the
American people, and let's let the American people know that that man
who says ``We're here to help you'' is not going to get in their back
pocket.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. TONKO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, we have been talking about health care
reform for nearly a century, and certainly inaction is no longer
acceptable. The American people voted for and demand reform. They
deserve our support.
Health insurance reform is about cost. These reforms slow the growth
of health care spending and make health care insurance more affordable
for everyone while reducing our deficit.
Health insurance reform is about coverage. These reforms will cover
nearly all Americans, including those with preexisting conditions, and
will not drop you if you get sick.
Health insurance reform is about competition. It repeals antitrust
exemptions for insurance companies and brings them into a regulated
marketplace to bring down prices for families and small businesses.
Health insurance reform is about care. These reforms eliminate copays
for yearly checkups and screenings and ensure that our seniors have
access to prescription drugs that they can actually afford.
Health insurance reform returns control to mothers, to fathers, to
grandparents, and families, where it belongs, not with insurance
companies, not with government.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. WALDEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I was a small business owner with my wife
for nearly 22 years and I served on a hospital board, and I support
reforming the health care system. In fact, I have offered up
legislation to do that and supported other bills, but the way that this
process is being mismanaged and misrun today is not the way to do
health care reform. There isn't the transparency the American people
deserve and that is now being denied by those in charge.
We are reading in the press that the Senate bill, with all of its
barnacles on it, may pass this House without ever having a stand-up
``yes'' or ``no'' vote. That is outrageous.
And what does that bill do and what do these bills do? They whack
Medicare $500 billion. Thirty-eight thousand seniors in my district run
the risk of losing the Medicare Advantage policies that they have.
This is not the way to do health care reform. You should scrap the
bill and start over on a bipartisan basis.
I had two amendments to deal with rural health care issues adopted
unanimously in the Energy and Commerce Committee, both of which, after
the committee passed the bill out of the committee itself, were
stripped out somewhere between the committee and the House floor, and
the Democrats wouldn't even let me offer those amendments on the House
floor again.
Stop this process. Let's do it right.
____________________
STIMULUS AND ECONOMIC INDICATORS
(Mr. ALTMIRE asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, I continue to hear my friends on the
other side of the aisle refer to the stimulus bill as a failed policy,
apparently in the belief that if you say it over and over again it will
be true. But it's not true, not by a long shot.
Last year at this time, the stock market was at 6,500 and today it is
at 10,600. One year ago, during the first quarter of 2009, GDP came in
at a staggering 6 percent decline, but in the last quarter of 2009 it
rose almost 6 percent. And monthly job losses, while not where we want
them to be, are literally 20 times better than they were a year ago
today.
Some may say this would have happened anyway and that the stimulus
had nothing to do with it, but I would ask my colleagues, Madam
Speaker, to consider that would be quite a coincidence, don't you
think, for all those economic indicators to begin such a dramatic
turnaround at precisely the time the stimulus passed. Quite a
coincidence indeed.
____________________
SUNSHINE WEEK
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, it was an interesting irony. When I woke
up this morning, I heard on the radio that
[[Page 3518]]
this week has been dubbed ``Sunshine Week,'' meaning that there needs
to be greater openness and transparency.
We all agree that we need to do everything that we can, as my
Democratic colleagues have said, to increase competition and bring the
cost of health insurance down. We all agree that that needs to be done.
But, Madam Speaker, this measure will not accomplish that at all. We
have commonsense solutions that I believe we can utilize and implement
in a bipartisan way.
So here we are in the midst of Sunshine Week, and as my colleagues
have been saying: What is it that is happening? We are seeing every
effort made to try and avoid the kind of transparency, disclosure, and
accountability that were promised in that document, ``A New Direction
for America,'' that then-Minority Leader Pelosi put forward.
Madam Speaker, I am convinced, I am convinced that we can do better.
But we need to make sure that, as we proceed with this process, we have
the kind of openness that the American people insist upon.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. BUTTERFIELD asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Speaker, every process must end. After dozens
of hearings on health care, we have all of the information that we need
to create strong legislation to provide much needed health insurance
reform. The American people cannot wait. It is time to vote.
Rising health care costs are crushing families and businesses,
forcing small business owners to choose between health care and jobs.
This isn't about politics or poll numbers. This is about making good on
the promise of providing every American access to high quality,
affordable health care. This is about having the courage to do what is
right.
By voting for health insurance reform now, we are supporting the
millions of Americans who quietly struggle every day with a system that
works better for the insurance companies than it does for them.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to join
us in helping the American people by voting for health insurance reform
now.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, the United States is the largest economy
in the world. We are bigger than our four next competitors, and we got
there through personal freedom and individual choice. We didn't get
there by government management.
Now, countries in Europe, we have heard a lot about the fact that
they have government-run health care, but that is not America. We are
distinct. We place our faith in the individual. We compete, but we
don't compete with the government.
The Federal Government should not be given the power to make health
care choices for you or your family or to force you, as a taxpayer, as
a citizen, to pay for an abortion when it violates your values.
Let's listen to the majority of Americans. Let's start over. Let's
have an American plan. Let's work on solutions that are consistent with
our traditions of choice, freedom, and put our faith in the individual,
not the government.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of finally
passing health reform.
This bill is the product of countless hearings, hundreds of
amendments, and a full year of national public debate. It is time to
vote.
According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, without reform,
health care costs for American families will rise by as much as 79
percent in the next 10 years. That is unsustainable for taxpayers, for
small businesses, for families.
The bill we will pass this week will take the necessary steps to rein
in these costs. It creates incentives to reduce preventable hospital
readmission; it eliminates wasteful overpayments to Medicare Advantage
plans; and it increases our capabilities to fight fraud, waste, and
abuse.
Passing health reform means lower costs for patients, better access
to higher quality care, and, at long last, accountability for insurance
companies.
I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, let's move
our Nation forward by passing health reform this week.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. SMITH of Nebraska asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, the American people are
speaking, and I think we should listen even as the House leadership
again prepares to force through a partisan government takeover of
health care.
The bill includes hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes and
more than $1 trillion in new government spending. Strong-arm tactics
and legislative gimmicks should not be used to jam through a bill which
will impact the life of every single American.
We need to focus on true reform which lowers health care costs,
limits unnecessary lawsuits, and expands access by allowing purchasing
across the State lines for health insurance, not simply a takeover
which we already know will not control costs.
That is the type of reform Americans want, not this one-size-fits-all
approach, putting bureaucrats between doctors and their patients.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. I had a remarkable American in my office this morning,
Gary Hall, who won five golds, three silvers, and two bronzes in three
Olympic Games in freestyle swimming, a remarkable person. And he told
me a story about having insurance for 12 years while he was in the
Olympics, but then after he lost the Olympics, he couldn't get
insurance. Do you know why? He has diabetes.
Here is a guy who won gold, silver, and bronze medals and couldn't
get insurance in America because he had diabetes. And the reason he
couldn't get insurance in America is that we haven't passed our health
care reform bill yet.
In the next few days, we are going to put up at least 216 votes, I
hope, green lights on that board, to pass health care reform so that
Gary Hall can get insurance; and even if you haven't won a gold medal,
you can get insurance if you have diabetes. And these people who are
smoking something, I don't know what, who think we aren't going to take
a vote on this, I am going to take a picture of this board to show you
the votes, because the green lights are going to be to make sure that
people with diabetes can get insurance, and the red lights will be you
can't get insurance even if you have won a gold medal. That is not
right. It is going to change in this country.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. JENKINS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JENKINS. There are many problems with the Senate's government
takeover of health care, problems with cuts to Medicare, problems with
the Cornhusker kickback, problems with the massive job-killing taxes,
problems with Federal funding of abortion, but the latest problem is
that the majority doesn't have the votes to pass it.
[[Page 3519]]
Rather than finally listening to the American people's rejection of
this misguided bill, the majority is planning to abuse the legislative
process to pass their government takeover without a single up-or-down
vote.
As a mom, I would never allow my kids to deem their rooms clean; so
it is disgraceful that the majority plans to deem their $2.5 trillion
government takeover of health care as passed without a vote as provided
for in the Constitution.
I urge my colleagues to do the truly courageous thing and demand a
clean vote.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. LEWIS of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the time is always right to do
what is right, and that time is now. The spirit of history is upon us.
We must pass health care.
There are those who have told us to wait. They have told us to be
patient. We cannot wait. We cannot be patient. The American people need
health care, and they need it now.
Will we stand with the American people or will we stand with the big
insurance companies? We have a moral obligation to make health care a
right and not a privilege.
We cannot wait a moment longer. We must pass health care, and we must
pass it now.
____________________
{time} 1230
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. LANCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. LANCE. Madam Speaker, today, The Washington Post bore a headline
that should be of grave concern to all Americans: ``House may try to
pass Senate health care bill without voting on it.'' The Post article
said, ``After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on
the Senate's health care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested
Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having
Members vote on it.''
Despite deep reservations of a majority of Americans, congressional
leaders plan to ram through their 2,700-page, nearly $1 trillion
proposal, by using a parliamentary maneuver that is both politically
treacherous and likely unconstitutional. Article I, section 7 of the
Constitution clearly states that a bill must pass both the House and
Senate to become law.
I call on leaders of Congress to adhere to our Constitution's
requirement of democratic accountability and allow a straight up-or-
down vote on the majority party's health care proposal that is opposed
by the American people.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the great philosopher George Santayana
said, Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Now
the Republicans say we should scrap the bill and start all over again.
In 1994, Newt Gingrich very proudly killed Mrs. Clinton's health care
effort. We have waited 16 years. Twelve years we had Republicans in
control of this House. We had 6 years with the Republican Senate, a
Republican House, and a Republican President--and nothing was offered.
What you're saying today is, Let's kill the Democratic bill, and
we'll wait another 16 years to 2026 until we try again. The Americans
are going into bankruptcy--two-thirds of them because of health care.
We cannot wait any longer. The time has come for a vote, folks. Let's
stand up and tell the American people you want to wait until 2026 to
try again. That doesn't make sense.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. PAULSEN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PAULSEN. Madam Speaker, the health care debate has roused the
American public like few other issues ever have. For months, the
American people have stood up and said they don't want the government
in charge of health care and they don't want the bill that's currently
moving through Congress. Now I've received thousands of emails and
phone calls and letters from my constituents, and the vast majority of
them are opposed to this bill. But how long will it take for Washington
to listen to the American public?
Congress should heed the will of the American people and start over
on bipartisan reform that will lower health care costs for everyone.
But instead, the Speaker and the House leadership are now suggesting
they may pass this controversial bill without Members even actually
having to vote on it. Using a legislative sleight-of-hand to pass an
unpopular bill represents an arrogance in Washington that Americans
find so frustrating about politics and business as usual in Congress.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, the American people are fed up with the
most costly health care system in the world with too little good health
to show for it. We are 38th of 195 countries in life expectancy. Pity
those who think they can run on the theme: ``Repeal health care
reform.'' Democrats opposed Bush's version of prescription drugs for
seniors because, unlike our health care bill that's coming to the
floor, the Bush plan added billions to the deficit, didn't pay for the
bill, and cut seniors off with the doughnut hole. But we never ran on
the outrageous theme ``repeal prescription drugs for seniors.''
Instead, we vowed to fix the prescription drug law if Americans would
give us control of the Congress. They did--and we are. We are closing
the doughnut hole, and we are paying for it. You're entitled to
criticize, indeed to change the health care reform Americans have been
waiting for for almost a hundred years. But it is simply a fool's
errand to oppose it, and madness to try to repeal it.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, from The Cincinnati
Enquirer to The Washington Post, the editorials today tell the
Democrats to stop this health care reform and start again. I agree
because I've always based my work on health care on increasing access.
This bill fails at increasing overall access. The Senate bill expands
Medicaid to cover families earning up to 133 percent of poverty level.
The Medicaid rolls will explode under this proposal. But what does that
mean? Some 40 percent of family practice physicians currently do not
accept Medicaid patients. This is expected to increase to 60 percent.
Some 60 percent of specialists currently do not accept Medicaid
patients. This is expected to skyrocket to 80 percent.
This bill expands Medicaid beyond its capacity to absorb patients, it
cuts Medicare for seniors, and leaves malpractice tort reform untouched
and skyrocketing costs in place. This bill has the potential to
bankrupt rural hospitals that have a disproportionate share of the
problems inherent in the bill. This adds up to less access and lower
quality. That is not reform.
____________________
REAFFIRM BONDS WITH ISRAEL
(Mr. QUIGLEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, the United States and Israel have long
shared an important friendship. That friendship is rooted in close
moral and strategic bonds built on common values, common interests, and
common
[[Page 3520]]
concerns. Today, that friendship is being tested, but we must not allow
ourselves to be distracted from the concerns and goals that bring us
together. The threat of a nuclear Iran is too great and the peace
process is too important for us to spend more time engaging in critical
rhetoric of our most important ally. It is time to put aside the
rhetoric and reaffirm our bonds with Israel.
We must make it clear that we are united in our opposition to a
nuclear Iran. While no one gains by an escalation of tensions, we must
make it clear that we value and support our relationship with the State
and the people of Israel.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. CALVERT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, right now, behind closed doors,
negotiations are taking place on the $1 trillion bill to provide for
the government takeover of health care. I find it baffling that instead
of talking about jobs, my friends on the other side of the aisle
continue a path toward radically changing 20 percent of our economy.
Small businesses continue to struggle, but rather than creating an
environment that eases financial burdens on business, the
administration and this Congress are creating uncertainty through
health care takeovers, cap-and-tax, deficit spending, looming tax
increases. A recent analysis of the current health care bill shows that
it could cost America 1 million jobs by the end of this decade. That is
unacceptable.
I recently polled my constituents. Two-thirds are absolutely opposed
to the health care bill. They want Congress to start over and focus on
items we agree on. Let's return to the question of how we can make
health care more accessible, more efficient, and less expensive. Let's
kill this bill and save American freedom and our economy.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. SCHWARTZ asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Families across our Nation understand deeply and
personally that the status quo in health care is not working. They're
calling upon us through millions of supportive calls, emails, and
messages to Congress to pass a uniquely American solution to ensure
that all Americans have access to meaningful, affordable health
coverage. And that is what this Congress is committed to do.
Health care reform means commonsense consumer protections like
prohibiting insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting
conditions, a provision that was supported by bipartisan, unanimous
vote last night in the Budget Committee. It means affordable, private
health care options. Choices for individuals and small businesses. It
means strengthening Medicare for seniors, which means closing that
doughnut hole--the gap in prescription coverage for too many seniors;
improving quality and efficiency in health care services; and
containing the rising cost of health care, a challenge that faces all
of us as taxpayers and as purchasers of health care and health
coverage.
Our plan builds on America's public-private system. It is not only
paid for, but it reduces the Federal deficit by $100 billion. Passing
health care reform benefits all of us. The status quo is unacceptable.
Now is the time to act.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Yesterday, Bloomberg reported what Moody's has been
saying all year. Moody's once again reminded the United States that we
are moving ``substantially'' closer to losing our AAA credit rating due
to the rising cost of our debt service. The U.S. will spend 7 percent
of our revenue this year just on servicing our debt. By 2013, Moody's
estimates, we will spend 11 percent of our revenue just to pay the
interest on our national debt. This would be a higher percentage than
every other top-rated country.
Fortunately, we can protect our credit rating by reining in runaway
spending and reducing our debt. But what does this President and this
Democrat-controlled Congress do? They want to ram down a new huge
entitlement program called the health care bill, riddled with awful
policy and budget gimmicks that mask its true impact, through the
House, maybe even without an official vote. The truth is, this health
care bill is going to choke our economy and saddle our children with
$500 billion in new taxes and deficits far worse than they are now.
____________________
PASS THE HIRE ACT
(Mr. CARDOZA asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. CARDOZA. Few regions in the Nation are suffering more from the
recession than the San Joaquin Valley of California. The three biggest
cities in my district--Merced, Stockton, and Modesto--have some of the
highest foreclosure and unemployment rates in the country. As I've said
before, my district has been economically ravaged at the level equal to
the devastation that we have seen oftentimes in the aftermath of
hurricanes.
Twelve days ago, the Democratic Congress passed the HIRE Act to help
create jobs, strengthen our economy, and to bring help to the
communities like mine that need it. It provides tax incentives and
credits for businesses to hire unemployed workers and to help small
businesses invest and expand. This commonsense legislation will help
countless unemployed Americans back onto company payrolls. It's high
time for the Senate to finally pass this bill and send it to President
Obama. Nowhere is this bill more necessary than in the San Joaquin
Valley. We needed help last week, and we needed it a year ago. Economic
relief for my constituents remain long overdue. It's time to stop
playing political games and start providing it.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Madam Speaker, my Democratic colleagues
continue to tout claims that this health care bill is ``completely paid
for'' and ``will bring down the deficit.'' But those claims are
patently false. The accounting assumptions Democrats have given the
Congressional Budget Office to score this bill are nothing short of an
Enron-style gimmick. Just look at the most glaring example. The bill
counts 10 years of tax increases, amounting to nearly half a trillion
dollars, and 10 years of Medicare cuts, also a half a trillion dollars,
but it only counts for 6 years of spending.
So what is the real cost of this bill? What does it cost when you
compare 10 years of spending with 10 years of taxes and Medicare cuts?
$2.3 trillion. That's nowhere near budget neutral and will drive the
deficit up much higher than it already is. Let us defeat this bill.
____________________
{time} 1245
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. SPEIER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, it's time for us to stop talking in
generalities and gibberish. It's time to start talking about real
people and their real experiences. One thing all of us can agree on is
that we trust our doctors. I just received a letter from a doctor in my
district, Michael Bresler, who is an ER doc. Four years ago, his
insurance premium to Anthem Blue Cross for his family of four was $539
a month. This year that same policy will cost him $2,008 a month, a 373
percent increase
[[Page 3521]]
since 2006. What makes this especially hard to take is that in 2005,
Dr. Bresler and his practice were forced by Blue Cross to accept a
contract with a 60 percent reduction in payments. Dr. Bresler calls
Anthem Blue Cross ``robber barons.'' I assume he uses harsher language
when he is not corresponding with Congress.
Madam Speaker, this is not a fight among Democrats and Republicans.
This is a fight between robber barons, the insurance industry, and
American doctors, families and working people.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SHUSTER. The next few days will tell the American people whether
Congress represents their interests and their will. The American people
do not want this health care bill to become law. In my district, they
strongly and vocally oppose this plan, and I hear this every day in
phone calls and emails, people coming into my office. But I also hear
it when I go to the grocery store or to a restaurant in my district.
People come up and tell me, Bill, oppose this bill. Stop this bill. And
I fully intend on voting against it.
I have also talked to the small businesses and large businesses
across this country. They oppose it also because it's creating great
uncertainty for them, and this great uncertainty is causing harm to our
economy. They're not hiring new employees because of the uncertainty of
the cost this bill will have on them. They're not investing in their
businesses because of the uncertainty these mandates will have, will
push down onto their businesses. This is exactly the kind of
uncertainty that's keeping our unemployment rate at 10 percent, and job
creation is stagnant. The Democrats' health care plan is reckless, and
I believe it will put America on a path to financial ruin.
____________________
THE THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF NEVADA
(Ms. TITUS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. TITUS. Madam Speaker, last week I hosted a telephone town hall
with more than 3,500 people tuned in from District Three. This was an
excellent opportunity to hear directly from my constituents about the
issues that are important to their lives. This was the sixth telephone
town hall that I participated in. In addition, we've answered some
95,000 letters, held 10 Congress on the Corners, and hosted five
housing workshops.
These means of communication have helped me to be a powerful voice
for the people of District Three and to provide as much transparency as
possible about the proceedings here in Washington. In fact, thanks to
these efforts, I've put $1.6 million directly into the pockets of
southern Nevadans by fighting for veterans to get their benefits,
seniors to get their Social Security benefits, and homeowners to
receive loan modifications that keep them in their homes. I've made it
a top priority to stay closely connected to my constituents, fighting
for them in Washington while serving them in southern Nevada. I
encourage them to call on me any time.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. GRIFFITH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to encourage the rejection
of this health care bill. The American people have spoken out time
after time, and I'm puzzled why Congress is still considering it. Done
in secrecy, this bill will cost jobs, raise taxes, and slash Medicare
benefits. And as a physician, I know this bill will be bad for
patients. It's terrible for our economy, and it's damaging to the very
people we are trying to help.
Although the past is no guarantee of the future, it is, however,
instructive. This administration has a failed stimulus package, a
failed banking system, a failed cap-and-trade, and numerous
questionable interventions into General Motors, AIG, Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac and others. This kind of track record gives the American
public no reason to trust this administration with its health care. I
urge my colleagues to listen to the will of the American people and
vote ``no.''
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. OLSON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, the process which the Democratic majority
will reportedly use to ram their costly government health care program
through this House is truly deplorable and likely unconstitutional.
Article I, section 7 of the Constitution clearly states that both
Chambers must pass their bills by a vote. Then the bill is sent to the
President for his signature before we can reconcile a bill here in
Congress.
It's unconscionable to disregard these principles after the American
people have clearly said ``no'' to this plan. They've told Congress to
go back to the drawing board and find a solution. It's wrong to flaunt
the Constitution and the will of the American people by forcing this
proposal down their throats.
Madam Speaker, it will be a sad day for this institution and our
great Nation if a proposal of this nature comes to the floor of the
House under these circumstances.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, we have been debating health care reform
for over 1 year. Today I am urging my colleagues to step up to the
plate with courage and vote for passage of this critical legislation.
If we don't move forward, the American people will be faced with grave
consequences due to our inaction. Rising health costs are crushing
American families, forcing small businesses to choose between health
care and jobs.
Madam Speaker, $1 out of every $6 in the U.S. economy is spent on
health care today. If we do nothing, in 30 years $1 out of every $3 in
our economy will be tied up in health care. If we fail to pass health
care reform, families could see their spending on premiums and out-of-
pocket insurance costs rise 34 percent in 5 years and 79 percent in 10
years. Without reform, every 4 years 3.5 million American jobs will be
lost. More importantly, if we fail to pass reform, insurance companies
will be allowed to continue to deny coverage for preexisting
conditions. Insurance companies will be allowed to drop coverage when
you get sick.
I urge you to pass this bill now.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I am deeply concerned by reports that the
majority party may try to move the health care reform bill through the
House without a vote. To move such sweeping legislation, especially
considering the price tag, using a parliamentary gimmick is
unconscionable. The majority of the American people do not support the
health care reform bill presently before Congress. It spends money we
don't have, cuts the Medicare program when we should be coming up with
ways to get our financial house in order and make sure the Medicare
program is protected. The American people want a bipartisan bill that
fixes what is broken and keeps what is working.
Where is the accountability? Where is the transparency? America
expects more and deserves more. This morning The Washington Post said
that what the Democrats are threatening to do is ``unseemly.'' There
needs to be an up-or-down vote on health care reform, not on a
procedural sleight of hand.
[[Page 3522]]
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. GARAMENDI asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GARAMENDI. I often wonder what part of the world our colleagues
are living in on the other side of the aisle. I arrived here on
November 5. On November 6 there was an up-or-down vote on a major
health reform bill in this House. The Senate did it just before
Christmas. I think it was Christmas Eve. There has been an up-or-down
vote, and now this week we will have an opportunity to take up this
bill, pass it on to the President, get it signed, and simultaneously
make corrections in the Senate. It sounds to me like that's an open
process, and we've been at this now for more than a year here and this
Nation for more than a century, trying to provide health care for all.
And let's keep in mind that our economy absolutely demands that we
take action now. Seventeen percent of our economy is being used. The
more we spend, the more uninsured we have. We solve those problems with
this bill. It's time for action. It's time to stop saying ``no'' and
get on with solving a major fundamental problem here in America.
____________________
A REPUBLIC OR A MONARCHY?
(Mr. LATTA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. LATTA. Madam Speaker, 233 years ago this May, a group of American
patriots met in Philadelphia to create a Constitution which has been
the guiding light to freedom-loving people around the world. Now, as we
gather here, the majority is planning a procedural gimmick to get
around having to vote for a health care bill that Americans don't want
or can't afford. Let's not circumvent the Constitution. Outside
Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention concluded in
September of 1787, a Mrs. Powell of Philadelphia is reported to have
asked Benjamin Franklin, ``Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic
or a monarchy?'' With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, ``A
Republic, if you can keep it.'' Let's keep this Constitution.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. HIRONO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. HIRONO. Your health or your home? Americans should not have to
make this choice, but all too often they have to because of the high
cost of health care. Lesley Czechowicz of Kihei, Maui, called my office
yesterday to tell me about her 20-year-old niece. Last year, her niece
collapsed and fell into a seizure. Medics rushed her to the hospital;
and, ultimately, she was diagnosed with epilepsy.
Her niece had a part-time retail job that did not offer health
insurance to their employees. Because of the emergency care and
subsequent follow-up visits to the doctor, her niece was recently
forced to sell her house so that she could pay her medical bills.
Lesley called me because she wanted to make sure I would support health
care reform. She told me that while it's too late for her niece, it's
not too late for our country. I couldn't agree more.
Private health insurance companies run a business. Their goal is to
make money for their shareholders. They pay their CEOs millions of
dollars a year while raising health care costs for the rest of us.
Whose side are you on?
____________________
SLAUGHTER HOUSE RULE
(Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, we're having the vote of the century
on the Senate health care bill, but there's a sneaky snake oil gimmick
afoot to pass the bill without voting on it. First, we're passing bills
without reading them, and now they want us to pass bills without
actually voting on the bill. The trick is to deem the Senate bill
passed without ever having a straight up-or-down vote. And it's a
trick.
When we vote on the rules for debate, they want to make that count as
the vote on the health care bill instead of actually voting on the
health care bill. Let's have an up-or-down vote on this bill and not
hide behind some procedural mumbo jumbo. The Constitution says: ``But
in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas
and Nays.'' It doesn't say anything about ``deeming'' in the
Constitution.
To obtain votes for government-run health care, backroom secret deals
are being made in the caverns of this building, and it's shameful. This
is passing the government health care bill by any sneaking means
necessary, including slaughtering the House rules.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
{time} 1300
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. COHEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) was
indeed correct. It's going to be a historic vote of 100 years that
started with Teddy Roosevelt, who talked about the need for health care
in this country. And that debate was continued by Richard Nixon, and it
was also advocated by Howard Baker. It's been bipartisan for 100 years
that we need health care reform in this country. And it's never been
more critical than now, when it's eating up our Federal budget, our
individuals' budgets, and hurting us economically.
But beyond that, we need a compassionate and responsible government,
and we have a President who is compassionate, responsible, and trying,
like Nelson Mandela, to reach out to his former enemies and have
bipartisanship. And he's had none of it, but he continues to try. And
we need to support this President, support our country, preserve our
economy, and provide health care like every other industrialized nation
in this world does, and make America among the leaders and not the
followers.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, the Democrat claims that the Obama health
care bill will reduce the debt and help balance the budget, but
reviewing those calculations shows that they're going to collect higher
taxes for 10 years and provide health care for only 6 years. Imagine
that.
Isn't that a little misleading? Four years of health care taxes with
no health care.
Imagine if you wanted to buy a house and you had to make 4 years of
payments before you could move in, and then finally when you moved in,
you found out you had rationed use of the property. You couldn't choose
where to park your car, like in the garage. You had to drive blocks
away down to a public parking lot and then wait in line for a stall.
Ten years of taxes, 6 years of benefits, followed by rationed care.
You wouldn't buy a house under those terms, and Congress shouldn't pass
a health care bill under those terms either.
We can do better. We can have health care reform that lowers costs by
addressing preexisting conditions, by lowering defensive medicine
costs, by having commonsense tort reform.
The Republican alternative lowers the price of health care by 10
percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's what this
Congress ought to pass.
I deem back the balance of my time.
____________________
WE MUST HAVE REFORM
(Mr. MOORE of Kansas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I want to read to you an
[[Page 3523]]
email I just received from one of my staffers back in Overland Park,
Kansas, my Congressional office there. It came at 11:55 a.m.:
``When I leave this job and have to seek new insurance, I will be
largely uninsurable due to my preexisting condition, breast cancer,
whether I show any remaining signs of the disease at that time or not.
``I was so fortunate last year to have this job and Federal employee
insurance. The cancer treatment I received cost over $50,000. My
husband and I would have lost every penny we had and then some if we
had not had this quality coverage.
``Without a bill like this one, I will likely not have access to that
kind of coverage ever again due to my cancer diagnosis at the age of
24. Without quality coverage, and if, God forbid, I should ever have to
go through this again, it would undoubtedly break us that time around.
``We must have reform.
``Thank you, Dennis.''
This, folks, is what it's all about, people like this around the
country. We've got to do something and reform our health insurance
system, our health care system.
____________________
LET'S HAVE AN UP-OR-DOWN VOTE
(Mr. POSEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. POSEY. Madam Speaker, I think that there's unanimous will on both
sides of this Chamber to take care of the uninsurable people because of
preexisting conditions right now, but this side is willing to address
that on stand-alone legislation, or it would have already have been
passed, unfortunately. I am surprised they keep pounding on that over
and over and over again.
Yesterday, in Ohio, the President said the Democrats needed courage
to pass his national health care plan. Sadly, as we speak, leaders
across the aisle are meeting behind closed doors to invent a creative
way to approve the President's health care plan without requiring
Members of the House to take an up-or-down vote on the actual bill. The
legitimacy of something as controversial as the health care bill would
be further clouded by such clever parliamentary maneuvers.
That's not courage. That's malfeasance. It's an absolute betrayal of
the public trust, and it would represent an unprecedented abuse of
power that would take this Nation down a dangerous path.
We're a Nation of laws. When these laws are not convenient, you
shouldn't simply ignore them. We should follow them, regardless of the
outcome; otherwise, everything about our democratic Republic is at
risk.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. CLARKE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. CLARKE. Madam Speaker, we all know that health care costs are
unsustainable. They're still crushing families, small businesses and
large companies alike. When people lose their jobs, they lose their
health insurance. Even people who do have jobs and want coverage but
have preexisting conditions still couldn't get coverage.
We are closer than ever to reforming our Nation's broken health
insurance system with a plan that puts America back in control of their
health care choices, holds insurance companies accountable, and makes
coverage more affordable.
As we move forward through this legislative process, I am confident
that our bill will make health insurance affordable for the middle
class and small businesses by reducing premiums and out-of-pocket
costs, give millions of Americans access to affordable insurance
choices through a new, competitive health insurance market, and hold
insurance companies accountable to keep premiums down and prevent
denials of coverage, including for preexisting conditions. And it will
close the disastrous doughnut hole that seniors are having to chose
between lifesaving medication and food to eat.
For over 12 years, the once Republican-led Congress has failed to do
this. We're going to do it now.
____________________
HEALTH CARE AND THE SLAUGHTER RULE
(Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Speaker, Article I, section 7 of the
Constitution says that in order for a bill to become law, it shall have
passed the House of Representatives and the Senate; yet yesterday,
Speaker Pelosi endorsed the so-called Slaughter rule, which would
merely deem that the House has passed the Senate health care bill and
then send it to President Obama to sign without a direct recorded vote.
This scheme is misguided, arrogant, and fundamentally wrong.
The Speaker reportedly added, nobody wants to vote for the Senate
bill. Given the facts that, among other things, the $1 trillion bill is
marred with special deals, mandates, tax hikes, and Medicare cuts, it
is no wonder they don't want to vote for it.
Considering the wide-ranging effects this trillion-dollar effort to
change health care will have, the American people deserve a clear, up-
or-down vote on this bill.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. ELLISON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, between the year 2000 and 2006, the
Republicans had the House, the Senate, and the White House, and they
did nothing of good to help the American people. And now you listen to
them and it sounds like they actually are for health care for the
American people. But if they were for the American people, they would
have done something in those 6 years about people being affected by
rescission, by preexisting condition, by carrying young people on the
health care policy of their parents until they're 26, about doing
something about this doughnut hole. They'd have done something about
it. But they didn't do anything other than make the problem worse.
And if you listen to them today, you would think they cared, but the
evidence is before the American people, they did nothing at all. And
now we are going to do something about it within a little more than 1
year of coming into office.
Who's on your side, America? You'll find out this week.
____________________
THE HOUSE HEALTH CARE VOTE AND THE CONSTITUTION
(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. Madam Speaker, yesterday's Wall Street
Journal highlights the process by which Democrats are trying to pass
this government health care takeover. The process is just as bad as the
provisions of the bill.
Professor Michael McConnell, Director of the Constitutional Law
Center at Stanford Law School, wrote the article entitled, ``House
Health Care Vote and the Constitution.'' Mr. McConnell presents the
process called the Slaughter solution, which is nothing more than a
procedural trick that deems the Senate bill passed without ever having
a straight up-or-down vote.
The article explains, ``The Slaughter solution cannot be squared with
Article I, section 7 of the Constitution. Senate rules protect against
majoritarian overreach by allowing a determined minority to filibuster
most types of legislation.''
Madam Speaker, Americans need jobs, not a law which NFIB claims will
kill 1.6 million jobs.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September the 11th in the global war on terrorism.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
[[Page 3524]]
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, opponents often cite polls
saying the American people don't want Congress to pass health care
reform, but I've talked to my constituents and I've listened closely to
what they expect from the system. They don't think preexisting
conditions should stop you from getting coverage. Insurance companies
shouldn't just drop you. And nobody, nobody should face one-time 40
percent increases in premiums like what just happened in California.
Madam Speaker, it has been a difficult and a long debate, but we're
closer than any time in history to putting into law the health security
Americans want. Let's finish the job and put patients first.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. SCALISE asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, the American people continue to say in
every opportunity that they can that they don't want a government
takeover of health care. And all they get from the tone-deaf liberals
that are running Congress is this latest attempt to ram the bill
through. And now this latest proposal is the Slaughter solution where
they're even going to try to run it through without an actual vote.
Now, maybe some of them have been around so long that they forget
what Article I, section 7 of the Constitution says, but it actually
takes a vote here in this House for any bill to pass. And I hope their
bill doesn't pass, because we need health care reform. We need to lower
the cost of health care, which their bill doesn't do. We need to
address preexisting conditions. But we don't want a government takeover
of health care.
If you listen to the American people, what they're saying very loudly
and clearly is scrap this bill. Let's go back to the table and start
over again.
Now, Speaker Pelosi and her liberal lieutenants might run Congress,
but the American people run this country, and their voices will be
heard.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. YARMUTH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, every time I hear a Republican talking
about health care reform, they say the American people don't want it.
They say it so much that I think they're beginning to try to convince
themselves that it's true. But there's a national poll that shows what
the real story is.
They asked, of all the people who are opposed to health care or say
they are, how many are opposed to it because they don't think it goes
far enough. Forty percent. Almost 40 percent said that was the reason.
They will not be unhappy when we pass health care reform. They will be
ecstatic, like the shopkeeper I talked to over Christmas who said she
was against what we're doing because she has diabetes and she can't
wait 4 years for the help she needs.
No, the American people will applaud us when we pass comprehensive
health care reform, and I will consider it the proudest moment of my
service.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. AKIN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, as I walk across back and forth from the
Cannon Building to come to this Chamber, there is a wall in the steam
tunnel of all of these different pictures that are painted by our high
school students, and one continues to arrest my progress.
A beautiful little redheaded girl about 17 years old who looks like
my daughter, and has beautiful lighting on her face. And as you look
into her face, she has a profound sadness there. And the thought has
crossed my mind that that's how my daughters will look if this bill
passes with government rationing of health care, with the budget
busted, with the destruction of our economy, and unemployment out of
control.
We need to fix health care, but we don't need to destroy American
health care or the American economy. That would be sad indeed.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, Members, we, as Members of
Congress, this week have a choice. We have a choice between voting with
the people who need health care or voting with the insurance
corporations who have fouled this system up for decades.
The bill that we're going to deal with, the consumers select their
insurance plan and their company. Consumers select their doctors.
Consumers make treatment decisions with their doctors. Consumers will
keep coverage they have if they change their jobs.
The insurance companies will have less control. Insurance companies
will no longer be able to deny coverage or revoke coverage for
preexisting conditions. Insurance companies will no longer be allowed
to cap medical costs that people run into all the time for treatment.
Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to drop coverage when you
get sick. Insurance companies will have to compete for business.
That's why we have a choice. Whose side is your Member of Congress
on, with the people who need health care or the ones who want to sell
it?
____________________
{time} 1315
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mrs. LUMMIS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. LUMMIS. The gentleman from Missouri earlier gave a lovely image,
and I would like to use image as well. I would like to use the image of
President Obama saying over and over and over to the American people,
``If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.'' And this bill
does not fulfill the President's promise.
Yesterday in the House Budget Committee we worked for 8 hours to
instruct the Rules Committee on how to make this a better bill. And we
asked them to make the President's promise come true, to pass an
amendment that says if you like your health insurance you can keep it.
And that was killed on a party-line vote, with all of the Republicans
voting to help the President fulfill his promise to the American people
and the Democrats voting against it. This bill does not fulfill the
President's promise that if you like your insurance you can keep it.
I urge that we kill this misguided health care bill.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. POLIS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. POLIS. In listening to this debate back and forth, I can't help
but be struck by the fact that many of the arguments from the other
side of the aisle are simply not arguments against this health care
bill. I have heard people rail against a government takeover of health
care. Well, this bill actually helps reduce the number of people that
depend on government programs for their health care. This bill will
help end reliance on government for health care.
I have heard people say that this is somehow a rush to get to a bill.
Well, we have been working on this for well over a year. When we first
started over a year ago, I had calls to my office saying, ``Why are you
going so quickly? Why don't you slow down and get it right?'' Now I am
getting a lot of calls to my office saying, ``Pass health care already.
It's all you've been talking about.''
It is time to pass this bill because what is in it is popular with
the American people: letting kids and young people stay on their
parents' policy until they are 26, ending pricing discrimination based
upon preexisting conditions, helping make insurance
[[Page 3525]]
more affordable for people who are self-employed and in small
businesses. That is what is in this bill, and that is what the American
people support.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. WHITFIELD asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, since the founding of this great
country, representatives of the people have come to this floor, this
Chamber, to debate legislation and either vote for it or against it. If
you support legislation, stand up and support it. If you are opposed to
it, stand up and oppose it.
But today's Washington Post says that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the health care bill
without having Members vote on it. Instead, she would rely on a
procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular
piece of legislation, but under the House rule for that vote, passage
would signify that lawmakers ``deem'' the health care bill to be
passed. Speaker Pelosi added that she prefers this tactic because it
would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly
support the health care bill. She says, ``It's more insider and
process-oriented than most people want to know, but I like it because
people don't have to vote on the health care bill.''
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. My voice is not quite clear, but
I hope, Madam Speaker, that you can hear me.
We are hearing so much talk, and you know why? Because we are at a
point where we are going to choose consumers over insurance companies.
And it is time for that to happen. Insurance companies have held this
public hostage for many years, controlling them. When we talk about
rationing, that is who is rationing. They tell the physicians what to
do, they tell the hospitals what to do. It is time to take the
insurance companies out of control and let the people have their right
to pick their health care.
We have always said if you have a health care plan you like, keep it.
We are trying to make sure that the people that the insurance companies
will not insure or will drop get a chance to have health insurance.
This is misplaced anger because these insurance companies are spending
a million dollars a day to kill this bill. And their cheering squad is
right over here to my left.
We have got to do this for the people. It is time for the people to
have a choice in their health care.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. JORDAN of Ohio asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, what part of ``no'' don't the
Democrats get? They were going to pass this health care bill last
September and the American people said ``no.'' They were going to pass
it in October and the American people said ``no.'' They said we're
going to get it done by Thanksgiving and the American people said
``no.'' Oh, we're going to get it done by Christmas and the American
people said ``no.'' We're going to get it done by the State of the
Union and the American people said ``no.'' And now they say, oh, we're
going to get it done before Easter, and the American people continue to
say ``no.'' What part of ``no'' don't they get?
The American people don't want this big government takeover. They
want real reform that will help them, their small businesses, and their
families. That is what we should be doing, not taking this over by the
government.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. SCOTT of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Ladies and gentlemen, the question that we have
got to ask ourselves this day is whose side are you on? Are you on the
insurance companies' side or are you on the American people's side?
Now, ladies and gentlemen, the American people are in pain. There are
13,000 American people who are losing their insurance every day. There
are American people who are being denied coverage because of a
preexisting condition by insurance companies. Whose side are you on?
There are senior citizens who, because of the doughnut hole, cannot
have the level of treatment for their prescription drugs that they
should have because of the insurance companies. The American people are
sick and tired, quite honestly, of being sick and tired of our waiting.
Now, we have had arguments to say why don't we start over. Ladies and
gentlemen, the insurance companies aren't starting over. They have
already raised the rates in California by 30 percent just 2 weeks ago.
The side to be on is the American people's side.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, we talk about reform--we're for
reform and you're for reform. But 2,700 pages of what? 2,700 pages. The
Bible only has 1,341 pages in it.
Let me give you an example on page 752 of this bill. Let me read it
to you:
``Eligibility for non-traditional individuals with income below 133
percent of the Federal poverty level. (1) In general. Section
1902(a)(10)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396b(a)(10)(A)(i) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of
subclause (VI); by adding ``or'' at the end of subclause (VII); and by
adding at the end the following new subclause: (VIII) who are under 65
years of age, who are not described in previous subclauses of this
clause, and who are in families whose income (determined using
methodologies and procedures specified by the Secretary in consultation
with the Health Choices Commissioner) does not exceed 1331 3 percent of
the income official poverty line (as defined by the Office of
Management and Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section
673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981).
Now, did anybody understand that?
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. PINGREE of Maine asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I couldn't be more pleased to
have spent the last year and a few months working on this issue and to
be here this month where we may get the opportunity to vote on this
bill.
Because I want to tell you, Madam Speaker, what I hear from my
constituents is get this bill done. When are you going to move forward
on this? It is not a perfect bill. In fact, 50 percent of the doctors
in my State wish we were passing a single-payer health care bill. But
this is going to go a long way.
We have heard a lot of talk about process. When are we going to talk
about the process of insurance companies? The process that denies my
constituents coverage because of a preexisting condition. The times I
hear from people who say their health care was cut off. And in my
State, where Anthem Blue Cross wants to continually raise rates. You
know, last year they asked for a 23 percent increase. When our
insurance commissioner said no, you know what they did? They sued the
State of Maine.
Well, I am ready to make sure that we are standing for our
constituents, passing this health care bill, and doing away with the
bad process of the insurance companies.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mrs. MILLER of Michigan asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, this week March Madness comes
to college basketball teams as
[[Page 3526]]
teams across America meet in the NCAA Tournament. And this week March
Madness also comes to this House in the culmination of this health care
debate.
The American people have watched as this bill has lumbered forward
for the past year, and they have been outraged by both the substance
and the process. The American people want jobs, Madam Speaker, but this
bill is funded with job-killing tax increases.
Seniors need the protection of Medicare, but this bill cuts $500
billion from that vital program. We all want freedom, of course, but
this bill includes an unconstitutional mandate requiring individuals to
purchase government-approved health care or face taxes, fines, or even
jail.
The American people have been outraged at the vote buying epitomized
by the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, and Gator Aid. And
now the Democratic leadership is preparing to pass this bill without
actually voting on it and deeming the bill passed through trickery.
It is time to end Washington's version of March Madness and do what
the American people are asking us to do, and that is to start over with
a clean sheet of paper and look for real health care reform.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. WILSON of Ohio asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I am from Ohio's Sixth District,
my district is in Appalachian Ohio, and we have a large population of
seniors and retirees, so I'm truly interested in how this reform bill
strengthens Medicare. If we don't do anything, the Medicare trust fund
is projected to be insolvent by 2016. Medicare takes care of our
seniors, but it is high time that we take care of Medicare.
The health care reform bill keeps Medicare solvent for 9 more years.
We extend that timeline by finally getting tough on the waste in
Medicare. So as we make services better for seniors, we also fight
fraud and waste.
The inspector general of the Health and Human Services Department has
found a number of problems in Medicare with false claims for
wheelchairs and orthotics, and overcharging for devices and
prescription drugs. We need to provide the tools to strengthen our
enforcement mechanisms and fight these abuses.
I thank leadership for providing a long and thoughtful examination of
health care, one of the most pressing issues of our time. I look
forward to reading the bill soon.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. BROWN of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today in
opposition to the Democrats' latest health care plan. For the past
year, my constituents in South Carolina have done everything they can
to make it clear they do not want a government takeover of health care.
Yet here we are again today discussing a plan that calls for more
taxes, more regulations, more spending, and more Federal control over
our current health care system. This legislation is not what the
American people want, and it lacks a single ounce of Republican
support.
Despite the overwhelming opposition, Democrats continue to push their
partisan agenda and have made it clear they will use any means possible
to get what they want. This is a bad bill for South Carolina and it's a
bad bill for the entire country.
I join my constituents in asking the Democrats to scrap this
legislation and start over on bipartisan health care reform.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. LARSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, our colleagues on the other
side say they want to start over, completely over. They would like to
privatize Social Security. They would like to make sure that Medicare,
a program that has served our seniors so well over all of these years,
is also, well, doesn't just wither on the vine, as Speaker Gingrich
wanted it to do, they want to ban it, end it for people under 55 years
of age.
The other side would like to frame this issue as a matter of process.
It is a matter of process, insurance process and them denying people
claims even on their way to the operating table. This is why we are
putting forth this bill to reform insurance and create health care for
this entire country that they can depend upon and rely on.
It becomes a question of whose side you are on in the final analysis.
Are you siding with the insurance industry and the great job that they
have done raising rates all across this Nation? Or are you standing
with the American people and fighting on their behalf? That is what the
people of this great country of ours want to know.
____________________
{time} 1330
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. ALEXANDER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. The proponents of this health reform package are
misleading the American public into believing that you can raise the
baseline and reduce spending at the same time. You cannot expect to
expand coverage to millions of individuals and to curb costs.
The Medicaid program already pays doctors and hospitals at levels
well below those of Medicare and private insurance. And most of the
time, below actual costs. Many doctors, therefore, do not accept
Medicaid patients and the cuts may further discourage participation.
The most devastating cuts to the States' Federal Medicaid match have
been deferred because of relief from the stimulus package. Those
deferments end in December.
The health care bill before us now is a disaster waiting to happen
and an expansion of an already broken program.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mrs. HALVORSON asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mrs. HALVORSON. Throughout this entire health care reform debate, two
numbers have concerned me more than others: 130 and 60. These numbers
represent the health insurance costs that small businesses are facing
and the effects on those who work for small businesses. Small
businesses have seen their premiums go up 130 percent over the last
decade. And of all of those Americans who are uninsured, 60 percent of
them are small business owners, employees, and their families.
Madam Speaker, I believe America is facing a health care crisis, and
I believe that we need to act to bring down costs for regular families
and hold health care and insurance companies accountable.
Too many Americans are denied care because of preexisting conditions.
Too many businesses are being priced out of affordable health care. We
need health care reform that addresses these issues.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. LEE of New York asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. LEE of New York. Within days, the House is poised to vote on a
massive government takeover of health care. This trillion dollar,
2,000-page monstrosity will kill jobs, increase our debt, and raise
taxes on working Americans. And it's a ``pay now, buy later'' approach:
While the taxes start right away, the benefits don't begin until 2014.
In essence, this new entitlement program requires 10 years of new tax
increases and 10 years of cuts to popular programs like Medicare
Advantage to pay for just 6 years of this new government expansion over
health care. It's a smoke-and-mirrors approach to ram through a new
entitlement we surely can't afford to pay.
[[Page 3527]]
The American people aren't that easily deceived. The people in my
district of western New York want tangible solutions in taking real
costs out. We need to start over.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The utter hypocrisy of the debate about process is
absolutely astonishing. I just learned that Speaker Hastert used the
technique of a self-executing rule 113 times. Then we hear the
Republicans attack reconciliation--which really means a majority of
votes--and yet call for an up-or-down vote in the House.
News flash: People in the real world don't care about self-executing
rules or reconciliation and don't even know what it is.
What they do care about process is the process of the insurance
companies. Not the process of reconciliation, the process of
rescission, which means canceling policies when you get cancer; the
process of refusing a child who has asthma; the process of raising
prices 39 percent, 50 percent, 60 percent, for your insurance policy.
We each have the opportunity in the next few days to be on the right
or wrong side of history. We can either stand with the American people
or with the insurance companies. I hope that the vast majority of us
stick with the American people.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, how bad is this health bill? Oh,
my goodness. Let me count the ways. It's bad on policy, raises taxes
$500 billion, decreases quality of care, decreases choices for
Americans, slashes Medicare by $500 billion. It's bad on process, with
backroom, secret, shady deals made that Americans abhor.
But as a physician, I know that mostly it's bad for patients. They
know it will destroy quality care. They know it will dictate to them
what doctor they have to see and where they have to see him or her, and
they know it will result in more money being paid by them for less
care--which is all the more troubling because there are so many more
positive solutions like H.R. 3400, which would get Americans covered
with insurance they want, not what the government wants for them. It
would solve preexisting and portability problems with insurance that
they want, not what the government wants for them, and address the
lawsuit abuse that is so badly needed and is not addressed in the
Senate bill.
How bad is this health care bill? Madam Speaker, it's bad enough that
the American people are saying, ``Just say no.''
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, it's time to unite behind
President Obama's plan. We must deliver affordable health care for the
American people. Insurance companies have taken advantage of
hardworking Americans for far too long. It's morally wrong to put
profits over people, and it must come to an end.
I urge my colleagues to put aside their differences and deliver a
victory for the American people. This Congress was elected to
accomplish this goal. How can we accomplish this goal of health
insurance reform without holding the insurance companies accountable?
I'm for the people of America, and I stand with you. Now is the time
for us to, in unity, come together and solve this dilemma for the
American people. I urge you to vote ``yes'' for people over process.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Speaker, this time the process is substance.
As the Democratic majority prepares to jam President Obama's health
care through Congress despite his lack of support from the American
people, our constituents need to know what is going on about the
process.
Yesterday in Ohio, President Obama demanded that members of his own
party show courage and vote for his vision of health care, yet this
morning, the front page headline in The Washington Post reads ``Pelosi
may try to pass health bill without vote.''
In the body of this story, the Speaker refers to a procedural scheme
to allow the President to sign the Senate-passed health bill without
the House actually voting on it or even debating it. She said, ``It's
more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know. But I
like it because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill.'' Imagine
that. Affecting 17 percent of the entire U.S. economy without a public
vote in the House.
My colleagues, I ask you, is that courage?
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. COURTNEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, in the State of Connecticut last
weekend, we had an opportunity to see the health care crisis up close.
Mission of Mercy, a national organization that holds free dental
clinics, was in Middletown, Connecticut, and Connecticut--the
wealthiest per capita income State in America--shattered the Mission of
Mercy record, serving 2,045 working adults sleeping in their cars,
lining up two nights before to get access to dental care. We're not
talking about teeth whitening or teeth cleaning; we're talking about
people walking in with abcesses that were so pronounced that it
threatened the stability of their jaws, extractions, major surgery.
This is the state of health care in America today.
There is one group, though, that doesn't have to sleep in their car
to get health care: Members of Congress, who participate in a Federal
purchasing exchange subsidized by the American taxpayer. Madam Speaker,
how do they demonize a plan which they benefit from every single day
courtesy of the American taxpayer? I don't know how they do that.
This week they have an opportunity to help those people who were
lined up in their cars over the weekend to get the same access to care
that those people who work every day pay with their taxes.
Vote for health care reform.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, we have talked a lot about how this bill is
distracting us from the issue that the American people want us to focus
on, and that is jobs. But this bill isn't just merely a distraction. It
will have a profoundly negative impact on the job market.
You cannot raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars on
individuals and businesses and expect that it has no impact on
employers and employees. Raising taxes per employee by $2,000 would not
encourage businesses to hire more workers, and workers receiving health
care subsidies would see their new Federal entitlement evaporate when
their wages increase by too much. Under this bill, more pay could mean
less health care, effectively trapping workers in lower-wage jobs. So
not only would this discourage job growth, it would discourage wage
growth also.
The bottom line is this bill will destroy jobs at a time when we can
least afford it.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. CHU asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
[[Page 3528]]
Ms. CHU. It's as simple as this: Are you for what the insurance
companies are doing, or are you against it? Do you think it's right to
cut your mother off her insurance because she's had a catastrophic
cancer? I don't. Do you think it's right to deny your sister insurance
because she had a cesarean section? Do you think it's right for
insurance companies to raise rates 39 percent all at one time, forcing
businesses to choose between health care or firing people? I don't.
If you think it's right for the insurance companies to do this to
your son, daughter, or mother, join the Republicans in opposing health
care reform. I don't think it's right. In fact, I think it's an
outrage. That is why I know we must pass health care reform now.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. REHBERG asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. REHBERG. Today, as million of Americans around the country fill
out their brackets, March Madness is in the air. Unfortunately, the
madness isn't restricted to the basketball court. As Congress rushes to
pass a health care bill that is so bad even the majority party can't
stomach it, we've got our own case of March Madness right here in
Congress, but ours is worse.
With March Madness, every game is played on TV in full view of the
American public; in House Madness, the legislation is written in secret
behind closed doors. In March Madness, you play for bragging rights; in
the House bill in House Madness, it's matters of life and death, one-
sixth of the national economy, and more than $1 trillion in tax
dollars.
In March Madness, the team with the most points wins. In House
Madness, you rewrite the rules with procedural tricks so that the team
with fewer votes can win. It's time to blow the whistle, call a foul,
and stop this Madness.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. WATSON. Madam Speaker, I come here to let you know my mother
turned 100 on January 4 after she had a broken hip, and 2 days before
Christmas another broken hip, and last night she broke her femur. And
just a few minutes ago, they called me to say she was in need of a
blood transfusion.
I want you to know the only way we kept the mother of four who put
all of us through college is because of Medicare and our insurances.
Madam Speaker, let us not let Americans die unnecessarily. This
women's sister--my mother's sister--lived to 106, and I will do
everything in my power to be sure that other Americans can benefit from
the kind of health care reform we're proposing today.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. GUTHRIE asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. GUTHRIE. Madam Speaker, everyone wants to make health care more
affordable and more accessible, but for the past year, the majority has
been working on pieces of a puzzle they call health care reform. And
now that their puzzle is complete, the picture doesn't make any sense.
Their final image includes billions of dollars in new taxes, over $1
trillion in new government, increases the premiums of the 85 percent of
those who have health insurance, and cuts Medicare by half a trillion
dollars. And I continue to hear from Kentuckians from home who remain
concerned over the possible passage of this bill and who are frustrated
with this process.
We need to start over. We need to piece together better solutions in
an open and honest system. Now is the time to work on incremental
reforms that will lower the cost of health care without spending
trillions and bankrupting future generations.
____________________
{time} 1345
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, 2 weeks ago, I went to dinner with my
family in New Haven, Connecticut. As we left the restaurant, a young
woman stopped me. She said to me, Rosa, can I talk to you for a moment?
I've been waiting for you. I said, Why didn't you come over to the
table? She said, I didn't want to disturb you or your family. No
disturbance.
I looked at this beautiful young woman with tears in her eyes. And
she said to me, Rosa, I have lung cancer. I have lung cancer, and I
cannot get the kind of help that I need. I can't leave my job because I
will not be able to get insurance. Preexisting condition is killing me.
Pass health care reform.
You don't know Melissa Marotolli. I do, and Melissa Marotolli's face
haunts me every single day. And this is not just one story. It is writ
large across this Nation, a people who can't leave their jobs; they
can't get the care they need because the insurance companies have run
roughshod over them. Yes, they are rationing health care in this
country. I know where I stand. I stand with the Melissa Marotollis of
this Nation. My Republican colleagues stand with the insurance
companies.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. SCHOCK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. SCHOCK. Madam Speaker, this bill really is not about health
insurance reform. If you watched the President's televised health care
forum, you heard them say it time and time again: this is about
entitlement expansion. And that is really where the real debate comes
down this center line. Both sides agree that there needs to be heath
care reform. Republicans have put forward a thoughtful bill since last
April promoting reform, competition across State lines, covering people
with preexisting conditions, on and on and on.
But how can my friends on the other side of the aisle endorse this
bill when the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan determiner
of how much these bills cost us, has not come out with their cost
estimate for this bill? I know from my home State of Illinois, our
Governor is talking about a 50 percent tax increase to pay for $9
billion in unpaid Medicaid bills. This bill we do know will cost my
State of Illinois $1.89 billion over 5 years just for their match. I
don't know how anyone from my State can support this bill.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. TSONGAS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Speaker, some of the most egregious insurance
industry practices in our health care system disproportionately harm
women, and this needs to change. Under the current system, women pay
more and get less and often are denied care. If a woman is of a certain
age or is already pregnant, insurers can deny her, of all things,
maternity coverage. In eight States, it is still legal for insurance
companies to deny a woman coverage if she has been the victim of
domestic violence.
These examples illustrate how our current system discriminates
against over 50 percent of the population of our country. And that is
why I offered a motion on this important issue in last night's Budget
Committee hearing. My Republican colleagues joined me in supporting
this motion, acknowledging that heath care reform must end these
harmful insurance practices. So many of the heath care reforms that are
so important to women, families, and our Nation hang in the balance. We
must pass these commonsense changes in our health care system.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. HERGER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
[[Page 3529]]
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, the American people are increasingly
rejecting government-run health care. They are saying ``no'' to
backroom deals and gimmicks used by the majority party to ram this bill
through by any means necessary. The Democrat leadership has greased the
skids to ignore the will of the American people and make their vision
of socialized medicine the law of the land.
Abusing the rules of when it suits the majority party's purpose is
not what the American people want. Madam Speaker, allow us to do the
work we were sent here to do. Let this bill stand or fail on its
merits. An issue so important to America's future demands transparency
and a legitimate up-or-down vote.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, as a direct result of the White House
summit a couple of weeks ago, good ideas from both parties are in this
plan. But there is a philosophical difference between the two parties
that I think came out last night. On weekends I very often go to the
supermarket and see these little notices for beef and beer socials for
people trying to raise money for a medical emergency in their family.
Most of the people trying to do this have insurance. But their daughter
has leukemia or their son is on a ventilator and they ran out of health
insurance benefits because they run up against what is called a
lifetime policy limit.
Last night, we took a vote on whether or not to abolish those
lifetime policy limits so no family should have to do that. Our side
voted ``yes.'' Their side voted ``no.'' But Members of Congress, in
their own health plan, if our families have this problem, there is no
limit on what we get.
So we think that the American people should get the same benefit that
the men and women who vote in this Chamber every day do. We believe we
should stand on the side of the families of this country, not the
insurance industry.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, the health care reform debate
has become a farce, and I am outraged. I am outraged at this proposed
law. I am outraged at the process. I am outraged at the majority
party's sham of a health care bill. But I'm not the only one. The
American people are outraged. Americans have marched, they have
protested and they have written letters and they have made phone calls.
Americans have spoken, Madam Speaker, and they do not want this health
care bill.
But the worst part about it is that we may not even vote on it. The
majority party wants to deem the Senate bill passed and then hope that
the Senate changes the bill later. Was this the hope and the change
that we can all believe in? Madam Speaker, this has become a
legislative sleight of hand, a gimmick, a parlor trick.
I urge my colleagues to listen to the American people and kill this
bill.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. SHEA-PORTER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, I am outraged also. I am really
outraged at the amount of money that the insurance industry has spent
trying to defeat this bill that will help the American people. The
companies claim they support health reform, just not this bill. But
they have done nothing to reform. They could have taken this time to
reform. They still deny coverage for preexisting conditions. They still
charge exorbitant rates. They still fight antitrust legislation. They
still cancel people's policies when they most need them. And they still
limit the payments when people get sick.
They have a secret code word. It's called ``start over.'' What they
really mean is defeat it; we don't want it. The question has to be
here, whose side are you on? Are you on the side of the insurance
companies? Or are you on the side of the American public, the people,
the small businesses who have to carry the burden of these fees? Whose
side are you really on? I am on the side of middle class Americans,
small businesses, and those who are healthy and those who are sick.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. McCOTTER asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. McCOTTER. We live in a very dysfunctional time. We have heard a
parade of speakers come to the microphones here in the well of the
House and say they stand on the side of the American people. Yet in my
44 years of life, I have never stood on the side of someone who
disagrees with me so vehemently.
Overlooking it is a fundamental proposition. The Democratic Party
believes that you can take an imperfect health care system and fix it
by putting it under the most dysfunctional and broken entity in the
United States today. It is called the Federal Government. That
proposition is insane. The reality is they do not stand with the
American people. They stand for Big Government making decisions in your
lives.
We trust the American people, and we will not turn the intimate
decisions between you and your doctor over to some Federal bureaucrat.
We will leave it in your hands, and we will empower patient-centered
wellness and free market reforms if given the chance and a real vote.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, the American people want health reform.
They want affordable, reliable care. But after watching the current
majority wrangle for over a year to produce gargantuan bills filled
with complicated and punitive policies, tax increases and special
deals, the American people are right to say, no, we don't trust the
current Congress to do this right. They have seen how the Congress has
worked over the past year and have rightfully said that it's crazy to
give the government greater control over our health care. They look at
aspects of the legislation before us and say, yes, there are provisions
here that we like, but at what cost? They have projected trillion-
dollar deficits stretching to the horizon. And we are told that this
big, new entitlement will truly restrain costs. Is that credible?
I believe the more sensible approach is a simpler approach. I would
favor expanding health savings accounts coupled with catastrophic
insurance and paid for with subsidies when necessary. It is a simple
arrangement that everyone can understand and would help to restrain
costs because everyone would have incentives to spend carefully. It's
not all I would do, but it's understandable.
Instead, the current majority is pushing ahead with a breathtakingly
expensive bureaucratic and regulatory monstrosity. This is no way to
restructure one-sixth of our economy.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. LEE of California asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, quality, affordable health care
should be a fundamental human right, not a privilege for the few, as my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have it. Today, 47
million Americans are uninsured, including 9 million kids.
Meanwhile, the CEOs of private insurance and drug companies are
raking in huge profits. Take the case of WellPoint. They proposed
increasing
[[Page 3530]]
rates by as much as 39 percent in California, even as they made $4.2
billion in profits last year and paid out million-dollar compensation
packages to their top executives. These rate hikes would hit Democratic
and Republican districts alike. And the other side would have us do
nothing.
We talk about the big banks making a killing off of taxpayers. Well,
insurance company executives are literally getting million-dollar
compensation packages while our constituents are dying.
Health reform is long overdue. The 31 million people this bill will
cover are Democrats, they are Republicans, they are Independents, they
are Greens, and they are people with no party affiliation. This should
not be a partisan issue. The costs of inaction are much too risky, they
are much too costly, and we must act now.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. BONNER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BONNER. Madam Speaker, if health care reform weren't such a
serious subject, something that will affect every person in America,
then what the Democrats are trying to do would prove to provide enough
fodder for comedians like Letterman, Leno and Jon Stewart that their
writers wouldn't have to work on new jokes for the next month.
Last week, the Speaker of the House said, ``We have to pass the bill
so we can find out what's in it.'' That would be like buying a house
before checking it out to see how many bedrooms were in it or what the
colors were or whether we could even afford it in the first place. Most
Americans don't buy shoes without trying them on, buy a car without
test driving it, much less support a takeover of our health care system
that will include life-changing decisions that are being kept from you
in the dark.
This morning, the Speaker said we may actually vote on the health
care bill without voting on it, something that she calls ``deem and
pass.'' What a pesky little thing voting is, you know, where those of
us who work for you have to actually cast our votes first so you can
find out whether you should vote for us in November.
This is an insult and a sham.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, following me will probably be
as many as 40 or more of my colleagues on the other side. Many of them
will use terms like ``ramming,'' and ``the American people.'' I don't
know what part of discussing a matter for the greater portion of the
last 14 months that people do not understand.
I also get a little tired of hearing my colleagues talk about
socialism. And I would ask the American people if socialism, as you
understand it, is so bad when government acts than perhaps it is. Some
of my colleagues believe we should eliminate Medicare. Let's eliminate
Medicaid. Let's eliminate the Social Security safety net. Let's
eliminate the Centers for Disease Control. Let's eliminate the National
Institutes of Health. All of these are government-run programs.
In the greatest country in the world, it is morally wrong for
millions of our fellow Americans to not have affordable, portable
health care. We all should be willing to share in order to help the
least of us.
____________________
{time} 1400
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. LoBIONDO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. LoBIONDO. Madam Speaker, we are all asking ourselves, What do the
American people want to see from us with health care? They want to see
health care more affordable, more accessible.
There are ways to do that in a bipartisan manner that we can agree
on: buying health care across State lines, eliminating defensive
medicine practices, preexisting conditions. Why aren't we doing it?
That is the question America is asking. That is why America is upset.
My colleagues are asking us, me, whose side are we on? Unabashedly,
on the side of my constituents, on the side of my health care
providers, my doctors on Main Street, my hospitals on Main Street, my
nurses on Main Street, who are the front line in providing health care,
who don't want any part of this monstrosity, for a good reason. They
and our constituents understand this is not the right way for America
to go.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, after so many on both sides of the aisle
have spoken, it is perhaps hard to find something new to talk about. I
will endeavor to do so.
Madam Speaker, President Obama has said the American people deserve
the same high quality health care as Members of Congress have. Michelle
Obama said the same thing. Speaker Pelosi said the same thing. Harry
Reid said the same thing. As a matter of fact, virtually everybody in
the Democratic caucus in leadership has said that.
Then why is it H.R. 3438, a simple, seven-page bill that gives every
member of America the opportunity to have the same high quality health
care that we have as Congress is being ignored? Why is it it doesn't
even exist in the Democrats' comprehensive health care bill? Thousands
of pages, and yet it doesn't give you exactly what they say they want
to give you.
On top of that, who is beholden to the insurance companies? More than
50 percent of American dollars are insured by the Federal Government
already. It is Medicare. It is Medicaid that have, in many cases, been
driving up the cost of health care, and yet this bill has no real
reform for Federal health care.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. CASSIDY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. CASSIDY. Madam Speaker, I am a physician who has treated the
uninsured in a teaching hospital for the last 20 years and, indeed, not
just the uninsured, but oftentimes the people who have Medicaid. So I
applaud the President and my Democratic colleagues because they want to
lower costs and expand access to quality care.
On the other hand, where we greatly differ is, as my colleague just
said, he is quite content with giving Medicaid to more and more people.
Now, it ignores the fact that it is bankrupting the States. It
ignores the fact that right now I treat patients who have Medicaid in a
public hospital because they can't be seen in a private place. And, it
ignores an article in The New York Times which points out that, as
Medicaid payments shrink, patients and doctors lose. In this case, a
woman with cancer has lost because payments are so low for Medicaid
that no longer can she find a provider who can afford to treat her.
So we do differ. I do not want to give Medicaid to everybody. I want
to strengthen the private insurance market and allow those with
preexisting conditions to have the same health care we have, not lose
their health care because of a government program.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, for more than 1 year, Congress and
the administration have failed to make health care reform a reality.
The 2,700-page bill, which can only pass through convoluted, inside-
the-Beltway shenanigans, has over $500 billion in tax increases, not to
mention
[[Page 3531]]
the $500 billion in Medicare cuts that come with that increase, which
jeopardizes million of seniors' existing health care coverage. And this
bill includes millions of dollars in cuts to home health care for the
elderly, millions of dollars in cuts for Alzheimer's programs, millions
of dollars in cuts for food for seniors programs.
This bill makes no sense for America's families, no sense for
America's seniors, and it is a fiscal time bomb for future generations.
I do not want to leave a legacy of debt to my granddaughter, Morgan
Elizabeth.
In Congress' scramble to get any kind of bill passed, regardless of
its cost or impact, they have taken the wrong approach. We can do
better.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. ROE of Tennessee asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, this week Speaker Pelosi and the
House Democrats are trying to ram through one of the most ill-conceived
pieces of legislation of all time, and they are considering not
allowing Members an up-or-down vote on the bill.
One House Democrat recently said, ``I don't need to see my colleagues
vote for the Senate bill in the House. We don't like the Senate bill.
Why should we be forced to do that?'' Good question.
This attitude perfectly sums up the Democrats' push to have
Washington bureaucrats take over our health care system. President
Obama and the Democratic leadership don't think the rules apply to
them.
First, the House Democrats had to twist arms enough to get Members to
vote for their bill despite a 40-vote majority. Then, Senate Democrats
had to give a sweetheart deal to Senators from Louisiana, Nebraska,
Florida, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and so on. Now the House
Democrats are preparing to pass this legislation without even having an
up-or-down vote.
It is no wonder the American people oppose this bill by such a wide
margin. They feel like they are being duped by the Democratic
leadership.
It is time to reject this Democratic health care and start over.
____________________
EMPOWERMENT
(Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, Article I, section 7 of the
Constitution states, ``The votes of both Houses shall be determined by
yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for or against this
bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.''
So why is Speaker Nancy Pelosi trying to prevent Congress from doing
the job of voting yea or nay on the most important piece of legislation
that will probably face this Congress?
Just yesterday, when she was talking about the Slaughter solution,
she said, ``But I like it, because people don't have to vote on the
Senate bill.''
Well, Madam Speaker, if this bill is so bad, why are you trying to
jam it down the American people's throat? Shame on you, Madam Speaker,
that you would use a process to circumvent the very foundation of this
Nation, which is the United States Constitution.
I encourage my colleagues to take a gut check here and look across
the aisle and look at their citizens across the country. We have young
people from all over America here. Look them in the eye and say, ``You
know what? We are going to bring the most important piece of
legislation to this floor. We are not going to actually make our
Members have to take a vote on it, but you will be paying for it for
the rest of your life.''
Madam Speaker, that is not the way we should do business, and you
should be ashamed.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Speaker, by now, we all know
the many flaws with the health care bill that is going to be rammed
through this House, and there certainly are many.
It cuts Medicare by one-half trillion dollars. It raises taxes,
jeopardizes patient access to health care, and puts an unelected
bureaucrat, or many bureaucrats, in charge of your health care.
I want to tell a brief story about something that happened to me this
weekend.
I was in a local drugstore with a friend of mine waiting for a
prescription, and a woman came up to me and she said, Are you Ginny
Brown-Waite? And I said, Yes, ma'am. And she said, I want to talk to
you about the health care bill.
She proceeded to tell me, she said, I am about to lose my job, which
means I will lose my health care. And I thought I knew what she was
next going to say, and she totally shocked me. She pointed to her
daughter, who she told me was 9 years old, and she said, But I don't
want you to vote for that bill, Congresswoman, because I don't want
this child and her children paying for an out-of-control health care
system in America.
I believe that she really speaks the way most Americans believe.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition
to the majority's attempt to have the Federal Government take over the
national health care system. This has been a yearlong debate, and it is
clear that the American public does not want this bill. People are
justifiably outraged at the contempt the majority has shown to them.
Everything my constituents dislike is still in the majority's health
care bill: billions in new taxes on small businesses and families, over
$1 trillion in new Federal spending, a health care czar to make health
care decisions for families, a Federal mandate to buy health insurance,
hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts, expanding access to abortion,
and sleazy backroom deals.
If this is the panacea that the majority claims it is, then why is it
that they are refusing to allow a straight up-or-down vote? Do you
think you can fool them with procedural gimmicks such as deeming a bill
passed without actually voting on it? I don't think so, and I think it
is shameful to try.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. GERLACH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. GERLACH. Madam Speaker, as I stand here today, congressional
Democrat leadership has yet to finalize or publish the so-called fix-it
bill that will ultimately be the basis to gather the 216 votes
necessary to pass health care reform, and they certainly haven't said
how much it is going to cost; yet Democrat after Democrat has gotten up
here today saying that they are for this legislation.
So think about it. How can you be for a bill that is not yet written,
not yet finalized, not yet published, and for which no one knows how
much it is going to cost? The answer is simple. It is really not about
how much it costs or how many people it will cover; it is about
control, government control over who is going to make health care
decisions in this country. And that is exactly what the American people
are rejecting.
Madam Speaker, the swamp isn't being drained through this process; it
apparently is just getting deeper and wider.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Wake up, America. The Speaker is trying to
[[Page 3532]]
pass the health care bill without letting America see it first. In
fact, she said, ``I have to pass the bill so you can find out what is
in it.'' She is also shooting for a voteless passage, and that is
unconstitutional.
Well, I can tell my Democrat colleagues what is in it. The health
care bill is littered full of sweetheart deals, one after another, from
the Louisiana purchase to the Cornhusker kickback. What is another term
for hustling votes? Buying them.
The American people are fed up with secret backroom deals in smoke-
filled rooms. It is no wonder all Americans are clear in their
opposition to what they have seen, read, and heard on health care.
Bring the real Senate bill to the floor for an honest up-or-down
vote. These sneaky shenanigans defy common sense, and the American
people want, need, and deserve better.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. MAFFEI asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MAFFEI. Madam Speaker, this morning I stood at the American
Cancer Society in my district and announced that I will support the
President's historic reform effort. I am supporting it because right
now skyrocketing health care costs aren't just crippling the U.S.
economy; they are emptying pocketbooks in central and western New York.
Regular, middle class people can't afford the health care they need.
Insurance companies have denied care. Kids are graduating from college
and they can't find care. People with life-threatening conditions need
to hold bake sales and bowl-a-thons in order to pay their health care
bills. Families are going bankrupt not because they were irresponsible,
but because they trusted their health insurance companies.
Now, experts and nonpartisan organizations say that this bill will
save money. I believe that the cost-savers in this bill will save
money, but I know that doing nothing will bankrupt our country and our
families and our small businesses.
I stood this morning with two remarkable women from my district. One
had insurance and one did not. They are both battling cancer. For them,
this debate isn't about partisan politics; it is about their lives.
They strongly support this effort, and so do I.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, in 2017, Medicare
goes insolvent. It goes broke in 2017. So do the Democrats have a plan
to reform and save Medicare? No. The Democrats' plan actually raids
one-half trillion dollars from Medicare to create a massive new
government-controlled health care program.
So even though the Speaker is writing this bill behind closed doors
in secret, Madam Speaker, the American people, particularly senior
citizens, are not being fooled. They oppose this massive bill that will
nationalize health care and that will raid one-half trillion dollars
from Medicare. They oppose it, and so should we.
____________________
{time} 1415
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. GOHMERT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, this bill is based on so many fictions,
it should not be passed. One is that we're going to do a rule and then
that is going to be self-perpetuating. And that's going to pass the
bill. That's a fiction. It ought to be an up-or-down vote on this bill.
And if you read the very basics on this bill from the Senate, it says,
Resolved, the bill from the House of Representatives, H.R. 3590,
entitled: An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed
Forces.
We're going to pass this on the backs of the Armed Forces. This
should not be passed by anyone unless they eat it. If they eat it, then
I'm in favor of them passing it. Otherwise, don't pass it.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. SULLIVAN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam Speaker, higher premiums, higher taxes, and
cutting Medicare is not health care reform. Republicans care about
health care, but we don't care for this bill. Unfortunately, the White
House and congressional Democrats are still insisting on their massive,
2,700-plus page bill that includes higher premiums, $500 billion in
higher taxes, and $500 billion in cuts to seniors' Medicare. That is
not reform.
There is a reason why Congress has been debating this for a year. The
reason the majority is having such trouble securing passage is because
Americans have made it abundantly clear that they don't like this bill
either. I want to make something clear: killing the Democrat plan for a
government health care takeover does not kill the health care debate.
It simply allows us to start from scratch and focus on real solutions
that will lower the cost of health care for small businesses and
families across this Nation. Stop this bill.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. BRADY of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Isn't this troubling? Eight out of ten Americans
now believe Congress governs without the consent of the governed. The
Democratic Congress and White House simply aren't listening. Americans
oppose this $2 trillion takeover of health care, but Democrats are
ramming it through over the public's objection. Americans oppose the
tax increases, mandates, deficits, Medicare cuts, and government
interference in their most intimate health care decisions, but House
Democrats arrogantly claim they know what's best for you.
Americans want open, honest government. Democrats are cutting
backroom deals, pressing Members of Congress, proclaiming bills passed
without a vote of the House--all to circumvent the will of the American
people. Americans want Washington to start over immediately; to go back
to the basics, to have a step-by-step bipartisan bill that focuses
first on lowering health care cost. So, Madam Speaker, why aren't you
listening? But know this: A Congress that governs in secrecy and
arrogance will not govern long. The American people will see to that.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. PLATTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. PLATTS. Everyone agrees that the status quo in health care is
unacceptable, but the proposed health care reform legislation is also
unacceptable. Two of the greatest gifts that my parents gave my four
brothers and sisters and I was a solid foundation in the ideals of
common sense and right versus wrong. This health care bill fails to
pass both of these principles. Common sense tells us that a health care
bill that increases health care costs by over a trillion dollars is
wrong; that raises taxes by over $500 billion is wrong; that cuts
Medicare by $500 billion is wrong; that forces millions of Americans
off of private insurance into a government-run health care plan is
wrong; and a plan that allows taxpayer funds to be used for abortion
services is wrong.
A simple application of the ``right versus wrong'' test tells us that
seeking to pass such a monumental piece of legislation by deeming it
passed without an up-or-down vote is wrong. Basic principles--common
sense, right versus wrong. This proposal fails both of those very
important principles. My mom and dad got it right. These matter.
[[Page 3533]]
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, Article I, section 5 of the United States
Constitution states, ``the yeas and nays of the Members of either House
on any question shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be
entered on the Journal.'' This is to ensure that important pieces of
legislation, like the one before us this week, are given a clear up-or-
down vote. Yet here we stand today with the possibility that a massive,
trillion-dollar government takeover of our health care system would
actually not be voted on in this Chamber. Not only does this violate
the spirit of fairness within the rules of the House and the confidence
entrusted in us by our constituents, it potentially violates our
Constitution. Legislative gymnastics should not be used to pass a bill
of this magnitude that will impact the life of every American. Change
is needed within our health care system. We can all agree on that. But
in an effort to pass a health care bill--any bill--this congressional
majority has lost their way.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. HELLER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. HELLER. Another day, another missed opportunity. Nevada's
unemployment rate is at 13 percent. So you have to ask the question:
Where are the jobs? I do tele-town hall meetings weekly in my district.
I survey thousands. The question asked is: What should be the priority
of this Congress? Should it be jobs and the economy or should it be
health care? Over 80 percent say we should be concentrating on jobs and
the economy. Instead, the majority leadership wants me to vote for the
Louisiana purchase or the Cornhusker kickback or the Gator-aid. The
list goes on and on.
Despite the majority's effort to hide this vote, the American people
will not be fooled. The American people know the purpose of this health
care bill is to make sure all Americans have the same bad health care.
I encourage my colleagues to listen to the American people, create
bipartisan health care reform, and get Americans back to work.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. ROONEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. ROONEY. Madam Speaker, I'm astounded by the Democrats' blatant
abuse of the House rules established in our Constitution by
entertaining the possibility of what is known as the Slaughter rule. If
they choose to deem the Senate health care bill law under this self-
executing rule, without a traditional up-or-down vote on the actual
text, they will strip the American people of their right to checks and
balances in a bicameral Congress. If my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle truly believe that this health care bill will solve the
Nation's health care problems, then why are they afraid to go on the
record and put their names on it?
Like most Americans, I am disillusioned with this Congress. We need
to go back to the drawing board and focus on reducing health care
costs, where constitutional, and not by creating a new entitlement in a
backroom deal.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today
to speak out on the Democrats' proposed ``Slaughter solution.'' This is
a sleight-of-hand with an unconstitutional move to avoid a true vote.
Article I, section 7 of the Constitution reads, Every bill shall have
passed the House of Representatives and the Senate before it is
presented to the President of the United States.
With the Slaughter solution, leadership is attempting to manipulate
the rules to circumvent this fundamental constitutional requirement. In
the Senate, they have a bill there with so many special deals--taxes on
insurance, coverage for abortion--even they cannot pass it for a second
time. And so Democrat leadership here in the House tried to avoid a
traditional up-or-down vote. The Supreme Court has even spoken on this
and said a bill must contain the exact text before it is approved in
one House and then the other--precisely the same text.
Madam Speaker, if we ignore the basic requirements of the
Constitution, whether by disregarding procedural restraints or
overstepping our congressional authority by dictating people's health
insurance, we will descend from the freedom of democracy toward the
tyranny of a dictatorship.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, Medicare will be expanded.
Medicaid will be expanded to allow more people to be insured. Our
children will have more health insurance. It will be a major change for
America--a positive change. It is interesting that every time America
makes a historic and catastrophic change for the better, there are
large voices of opposition--confused voices; voices without the facts.
I'm reminded of the history of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965
Voting Rights Act. They did not pass with large margins. The Dixiecrats
raised their voices in opposition. Africans Americans, Negroes, should
be second-class citizens forever.
It is time now for the courageous to recognize that Americans cannot
be second class and third class in the climate of needing health
insurance. That they must be able to go to hospitals and not be kicked
out; that they must be able to get insurance without saying you have a
preexisting disease; that women cannot be discriminated against.
Where's the courage to stand up as we did in the time when African
Americans needed their freedom? It is now time to free others who do
not have health insurance. Do you have the courage to make these hard
decisions when others are chatting away, saying the wrong thing? It is
time to pass health care reform. I want to stand with the courageous on
behalf of the American people.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. BISHOP of Utah asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, it is very difficult to criticize
a bill that is still being put together behind closed doors. But we do
know that it is more about consolidation of power in Washington than
about real health reform for the American people. We also know that a
poor process always equals poor public policy, and the procedural
shenanigans being proposed by the Speaker and Democratic leaders to
slip this past the American people make all of Lucy Ricardo's schemes
to be a part of Ricky's show look like clear and logical plans of
action. This also would be a comedy if it wasn't such a tragedy for the
American people.
Madam Speaker, my State has already instituted real health care
solutions that deal with our demographics and give people options in
the State of Utah. All of our efforts will be destroyed if this one-
size-fits-all, trillion-dollar tragedy is actually passed here on the
House floor.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. TERRY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TERRY. There will be no straight up-and-down vote on a health
care bill. Instead, the leadership has chosen a procedural trick to
insert the Senate bill into a rule deeming the Senate bill passed. So
if you vote for the rule, you are voting for the Cornhusker kickback,
the Louisiana
[[Page 3534]]
purchase, and language that allows funds to flow to abortions. What
won't be in this bill is the Terry bill or amendment that allows people
to join the same health care plans that we have as Members of Congress.
Why? Because it's not controlled by the government and its bureaucrats.
Yes, this is about government control, where bureaucrats and Congress
will be in control of your health care. And somehow the leadership and
authors of these tricks in this bill wonder why the American people
don't want this bill.
____________________
{time} 1430
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. FRANKS of Arizona asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, to paraphrase James Agee, ``In
every child who is born, under no matter what circumstances, and of no
matter what parents, the potentiality of the entire human race is born
all over again.'' The Democrats say compassion is the fundamental
motivation behind this government takeover bill. But if compassion was
the motivation, Madam Speaker, Democrat leadership would not be so
doggedly determined to include the increased taxpayer-funded murder of
little unborn children in this bill. Nothing so completely destroys the
notion that this bill is about compassion than the arrogant
disenfranchisement of those who are helpless and have no voice. It is
an unspeakable disgrace.
Madam Speaker, it is obvious that Democrats are determined to ram
this bill down the throats of the American people using the so-called
Slaughter solution, a shameless political gimmick that would avoid even
an up-or-down vote on the bill. But if they do, Madam Speaker, the
world will know that it was never about compassion, and Democrats will
find that they have dangerously underestimated the American people.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, later this week the Speaker is going to
ask the House to take the final vote on health care reform, including
the Senate health care bill. The Senate bill contains such rarified
legislative compromises as the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana
purchase, and Gator aid, and for the first time ever, it allows for
Federal funding for abortions. Nevertheless, the Speaker has asked us
to vote on it. I understand my Democratic colleagues are being assured
that the Senate will take up the bill of fixes if the House will simply
just pass their underlying reform bill.
I offer a word of caution to my friends on the other side of the
aisle: once you pass their bill, there is not a guarantee that can be
made that will force the Senate Democrats to take up your fixed bill
and pass it. The bill that passed out of the Senate satisfies 59
sitting Senators, all of whom voted for it. The compromise that will
pass out of this House will please far fewer. Simple logic tells us
that the Senate Democrats do not have a real and abiding interest in
bailing out House Democrats for having passed the Senate bill. Of
course, simple logic has never really been a part of this debate.
Madam Speaker, my Democratic colleagues are playing a game of chicken
with the United States Senate. In the end, the President might just go
ahead and sign this Senate bill into law, along with the Cornhusker
kickback, Louisiana purchase, Gator aid and abortion funding, and every
other twisted deal jumbled into this mess.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. FLEMING asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, of this massive almost 3,000-page bill,
there is not one thing that lowers cost; not one. A recent Heritage
Foundation article focused on the fact that the health care system is
fraught with perverse economic incentives that generate artificially
high and rapidly increasing spending. This system does nothing to
incentivize the doctor, the patient or the insurance company, let alone
the Federal Government, to spend the health care dollars efficiently.
However, I'm not suggesting that patients have to bear higher out-of-
pocket costs. By this, the doctor and the patient must be reengaged,
however, with the cost of their care. And how can we do that?
One amendment that we have tried to get into this bill a number of
times and has failed is a robust system of health savings accounts for
all. This way, we get to have our cake and eat it too. By that I mean
that a portion of the insurance premiums should be put into a special
medical spending account for those on all government and private
insurance programs who would, in turn, be able to use tax-free funds
for discretionary health care purchases. This would be the first step
in turning patients into savvy health care consumers. As they save
money for themselves, they will save it for the health care system at
large, thus bending the cost curve downward.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, yesterday I held a town hall in Statesville,
North Carolina, to hear from my constituents about health care reform.
One thing was abundantly clear: they do not want this bill, and they're
sick and tired of the backroom deals and provisions that have
characterized this process. They wanted health care reform, but they
were vehemently opposed to the Senate bill.
My constituents are asking me, If this is such a wonderful bill, why
is the majority resorting to tricks and sleight of hand to get it
passed? If this bill is so great, why not have a regular vote? The
answer is simple: this is not a bill the American people want. Some
Members acknowledge that.
Madam Speaker, we should listen to the American people. We should
take an incremental approach to health care reform that the American
people can support.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. ROSKAM asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, as we are here today on the House floor,
at this very moment the Democratic leadership of the House of
Representatives is smiling and dialing. They are calling Members of
Congress on the other side of the aisle, cajoling them and coaxing them
and urging them to do the equivalent of really political bungee
jumping, but they don't know how long the cord is. They are saying, You
be the first one to jump off. We're going to vote for this Senate bill,
and you are going to trust in the Senate to take it up and fix it. Or
alternatively, even worse, we're not going to have a final vote on this
bill.
Can you imagine a process that is this manipulated that is at this
high stakes, literally the Federal Government taking over one-sixth of
the economy really in the twinkling of an eye? And it is as if the
Democratic leaders are telling the American public, Oh, look, we have
got a wonderful plan for your life. You are just going to love it. We
are going to vote on it, and then we'll let you read it.
Madam Speaker, we can do better. The American public demands that we
do better, to vote ``no'' and start over.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to
not only the Democrats' health care proposal but to the outrageous
process by
[[Page 3535]]
which the majority intends to ram this bill through the House while
denying Members of Congress an up-or-down vote on the bill. This
morning's Cincinnati Enquirer declared what Americans all over this
country are saying: ``This disgusting process, which Democrats brazenly
wish to bring to conclusion this week, is being done with little regard
for the opinions of a clear majority of Americans who, while they may
believe health care reform is necessary, think this particular approach
will take our Nation down the wrong economic path.''
American families want health care reform that will expand access and
choices and decrease costs. The Democrats' health care bill includes
tax increases, Medicare cuts, job-killing mandates, and higher
premiums. This bill is nothing more than the same government-run
insurance mandates and taxes the American people have overwhelmingly
rejected. This bill must be killed. We must start over.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, when I was driving into work last Friday,
I heard the Governor of Arizona on the news saying that her State
already faces its biggest deficit ever, over $3 billion. She said they
had calculated that the health care bill would cost an additional $4
billion that they simply do not have.
Because Tennessee already covers more than most States, our
Democratic Governor, nonetheless, said it would cost out State from
$750 million up to $3 billion more. Most States are in far worse shape
than Tennessee or Arizona, yet much of this bill is paid for by forcing
millions more onto State and Medicaid rolls. In yesterday's Washington
Post, columnist Robert Samuelson said the bill ``evades health care's
major problems and would worsen the budget outlook.'' He wrote that
``It's a big new spending program when government hasn't paid for the
spending programs it already has.''
Madam Speaker, even if this program were the greatest thing since
sliced bread, the fact is that we simply cannot afford it.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. HARPER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HARPER. Madam Speaker, late last night, the House Budget
Committee approved the reconciliation shell bill with two Democratic
Members joining all Republicans in opposing this enormous entitlement
expansion, and we still do not know what changes the Speaker will bring
forward.
The President has asked Congress to hold an up-or-down vote on the
Senate's so-called health care reform proposal. Let's have that vote.
The President has argued the Democrats need courage to pass this one-
size-fits-all government takeover of health care. But where's the
courage in hiding behind procedural chaos like the Slaughter solution?
No matter what anyone says, a ``yes'' vote on the reconciliation bill
is a vote for the Senate's flawed trillion-dollar bill containing
kickbacks, like the Cornhusker kickback and the Louisiana purchase, and
allows for Federal funding for abortion.
The bottom line is this health care bill is so bad that the Democrats
have to resort to trickery. I will not support a bill that will
increase families' insurance premiums and force hundreds of millions of
dollars in unfunded mandates to my home State of Mississippi. I will
not support this abusive use of the reconciliation process, and I will
not support the bogus procedures that are being used to hide from the
American people. I urge you to oppose this legislation.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mrs. BLACKBURN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, this year I replaced town hall
meetings in my district with listening sessions. I go to hear what my
constituents have to teach me and to teach this body. They want us to
know that the process matters to them. Some of my colleagues like to
say that it doesn't make any difference, but my constituents know that
when legislation is negotiated in the backroom, that America loses.
They know that in the back rooms, stimulus bills turn into pork bills,
bailout bills turn into just more debt, and energy bills turn into
taxes.
Today, hundreds of Americans are walking the halls of this building,
asking us to stop this outrageous government takeover of health care
and take health reform step by step and structure a system that lets
them out of this broken system, not locks them into it permanently. I
hear them, Madam Speaker, and I certainly hope that this Chamber hears
them.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. WITTMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Speaker, I'm hearing loud and clear from people of
America's First District in Virginia that this health care bill before
us will not reduce costs, will not increase access, and is full of
sweetheart, backroom deals that they find highly objectionable and that
now we are proposing to put this bill through without having to
directly vote on the bill. That also makes them mad.
Let me tell you what they're saying. Jimmy from Yorktown says, ``We
are very concerned with the direction congressional leadership is
taking health care reform. It is apparent Congress is not listening to
the American public. We understand the need to address health care
reform. However, Congress must include fiscal responsibility in any
reform legislation. Congress needs to listen to the American voter and
taxpayer instead of holding our views in contempt.''
There are many other people from the First District that have very
similar views. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Let's listen to the
American people, listen to their concerns, and do the right thing.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. GINGREY of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, one day after the health care
summit at the Blair House, Peggy Noonan wrote in The Wall Street
Journal, and I quote: What the meeting made clear is what the Democrats
are going to do, not step back and save the moderates of their party,
but attempt to bully a bill through the Congress. This is boorish of
them, and they will suffer for it.''
Indeed, Madam Speaker, I think the Democrats will get slaughtered for
it. But, unfortunately, the collateral damage is to the health of the
American people. I ask all my colleagues, join with me and my
constituents in the 11th Congressional District of Georgia and vote
``no'' on this rule and this so-called deeming legislation.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, if my previous colleague thought that the
Democrats were going to get slaughtered for passing this bill, a few of
them would cut out of the herd and help pass it. But that's absolutely
not the case. This year-long debate and the bipartisan health care
meeting show that Democrats and Republicans do agree in some areas.
Both agree that the status quo isn't working for Americans; both agree
that waste, fraud and abuse should be removed from the system; both
agree that we should invest in prevention and wellness.
The bill has incorporated several Republican ideas into its proposal,
but
[[Page 3536]]
Democrats and Republicans have a profound disagreement on the proper
oversight on insurance companies. We believe that insurance companies
need to be held accountable with minimum commensurate standards to help
keep premiums and industry abuses down. Republicans believe that
insurance companies should have a freer hand and should be free to
raise rates and reduce, and even eliminate, coverage. We believe that
the most effective way to reduce premiums for all Americans and
businesses, large and small, and the only way to cover all people with
preexisting conditions is to make sure that everyone is in the
insurance system. Republicans disagree, and their plan will not outlaw
discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. Those are
profound differences, Madam Speaker, and that's why we need health care
reform.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mrs. CAPITO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my utter
disbelief and disappointment at the path the Democrat leadership has
chosen for health care reform. Never, ever in my 14 years of
legislating have I ever been asked to vote for a bill that will ``be
fixed later.'' We don't even know what this bill costs--well, in excess
of $1 trillion--or what backroom deals will wind up being in this bill
after the vote. It is an absolute affront to the integrity of this
Congress that we are being asked to put a signature on the bottom of a
blank page.
Now, we've all seen team building exercises where one person stands
blindfolded on the edge of a table and is asked to fall back into the
arms of their colleagues. Well, that's what the Speaker is asking this
Congress to do, to fall backwards from this precipice with the promise
that all will be well. My constituents deserve more than a mere promise
of trust. We should not be asked to be voting on a bill that will
affect one-sixth of our economy and touch every single American's life
without knowing what is in the bill.
Well, the Speaker knows what's in the bill, and she doesn't want
anybody to vote on it. Americans deserve health reform, but they
deserve it the right way.
____________________
{time} 1445
THE DEFINITION OF COURAGE
(Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, yesterday the President of the United
States was in beautiful Strongsville, Ohio, and the biggest applause
line he got was when he said, We need courage. We need courage to have
an up-or-down vote on the health care bill.
Now, I'm not a big fan of the health care bill, but I thought, My,
that's pretty brave. And I looked up ``courage'': mental or moral
strength to venture, persevere, withstand danger, fear, or difficulty.
So good for the President; he's standing up for his principles.
Well, imagine my surprise when I padded out in my jammies this
morning and got The Washington Post, and the headline on the top of the
fold is ``Pelosi may try to pass health bill without vote.'' And I
said, No, she didn't. But, I thought, perhaps sometimes newspapers are
misleading and the headline might not describe the story. But no,
sadly, this is the story.
So it's not courage that we're going to have here. So I went a little
further in the dictionary. ``Cowardly,'' that fits. ``Craven,'' that
fits. You go a little into the Ds; ``deceptive,'' that's appropriate.
Go a little bit further, ``gutless,'' into the Gs. Right.
``Spineless,'' under the Ss. And you can go all the way to the Ys,
``yellow-bellied.''
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Richardson). The Chair will remind all
persons in the gallery, that they are here as guests of the House, and
that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or
other audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Back when Thomas Jefferson did the first Louisiana
Purchase, he got all parts of 13 States for, what's in inflation-
adjusted dollars, $150 million today. When the Senate health care bill
passed, it cost $300 million to just get and buy one vote. Who knows
what this week is going to cost the American taxpayers.
We've also seen the outrage of how they propose to pass this bill.
Over in the Senate, rather than the deliberative body going through in
what's a takeover of 17 percent of the American economy, they're going
to go through and try to jam it with a majority plus the Vice
President, or one, whatever they need.
Now we have the Slaughter rule in the House, where they're going to
try not to even have an up-or-down vote. They're not even going to try
to get 51 percent or 50 percent plus the Speaker. They're going to deem
it passed.
Do they really think the American people are going to buy this
unconstitutional fraud?
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. McHENRY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, look, I'm surprised when I go home. My
constituents will tell me unequivocally that they're in favor of health
care reform, but they're not in favor of this plan. And yet I come to
Washington, and they say, if you're in favor of health care reform, you
have to buy into this sham of a health care bill. Well, my constituents
know what a sham is and, unfortunately, it's this Senate bill that the
House is going to be voting on.
Then I read headlines that the Speaker of the House doesn't actually
want a vote on the Senate bill, and I recall the basics of
parliamentary procedure that require the House to vote on the exact
same bill the Senate does before it can be signed by the President to
be enacted into law. So the Democrats are just trying to pull a fast
one on the American people.
The American people know that this is a bad deal. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, run by a Democrat, they're right to be
worried, because premiums will go up between 10 and 13 percent under
this plan. That means $2,100 more for the average family in America in
health care expenses. It's a wrong plan, and we should oppose it.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. COBLE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, this past weekend I visited with four of my
six counties in North Carolina--Moore, Guilford, Davidson, and Rowan
counties--hundreds of people, and without exception, no one spoke in
favor of this bill. Increased taxes, they said to me, increased costs.
The heavy-handed way in which it's been administered, as if to say, By
golly, this is the bill you're going to get whether you like it or not.
Madam Speaker, this proposal is a train wreck waiting to occur. We
need no train wrecks.
I will admit that some attention needs to be directed to the delivery
of health care in this Nation, but this is not the appropriate vehicle
to deliver it. We need to scrap this bill and start anew with a sound
proposal.
____________________
PASSING THE HEALTH CARE BILL WITHOUT A VOTE
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, to protect Members from voting on the
[[Page 3537]]
Senate health care bill, Democrats are using a self-enacting rule to
deem that bill passed by the House.
As Speaker Pelosi said, ``It's more insider and process-oriented than
most people want to know. But I like it because people don't have to
vote on the Senate bill.''
Huh?
This is the same Speaker who stated, ``We have to pass the bill so
you can see what's in it.'' So that you can see what's in it.
Huh?
They are distorting the Rules Committee procedures and the
reconciliation process to ram through a health care bill. Where is the
transparency that Speaker Pelosi talked about?
Huh?
Last year, the House was passing bills without reading them. This
year, they are passing bills without voting on them.
The Democrats desire passage of a health care bill in the darkness of
a self-enacting rule. It's an affront to the constitutional powers of
Congress and every voter in this country.
____________________
DEMOCRAT HEALTH PLAN IS THE WRONG PRESCRIPTION FOR AMERICA
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, with millions of phone
calls, emails and personal visits, the American people have made it
clear to Congress that they want health care reform that lowers costs,
not a government takeover of their health care system.
I support reforms that will lower the cost of health care and
increase choices for Americans, but the fact is that the bills being
pushed through Congress won't achieve these goals. They, instead, lead
to higher spending and more government control.
Instead of listening to the American people, Democrats in Congress
have made it clear that they will do whatever it takes to have their
trillion dollar health care proposal become law. These bills making
their way through Congress ignore the clear desire of Americans to
scrap the government takeover of health care, and they ignore the clear
desire of Americans to start over again.
Congress must, instead, focus on commonsense solutions that reduce
costs, increase choices, and help more Americans afford the coverage
they deserve.
The bottom line, Madam Speaker, is that Congress needs to start over
on a new bill.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. ROYCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, when we picked up the headlines of The
Washington Post today, it says, ``Pelosi may try to pass health bill
without vote.'' And through nothing more than budgetary gimmicks, like
counting half a trillion dollars reserved for Medicare twice, the
Speaker claims it's going to pencil out.
I think the American people know better. They understand that you
cannot create a massive new entitlement program behind closed doors and
expect our dire financial situation, our dire fiscal predicament in
this country to do anything except compound.
Instead of addressing the actual drivers of rising health care costs,
like escalating legal liability cost, and structural flaws in the way
insurance is regulated, this bill compounds the problem and shifts the
cost curve up, not down.
Faced with trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, now is
the time to take a step back and look for incremental reforms that can
increase affordability for millions of Americans without saddling
future generations with this unpayable tab.
The American people know that when so-called health care reform
includes tax hikes, less freedom and more government control, it's a
government takeover of health care.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. FORTENBERRY asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, we are hearing about the problems
with this health care bill, from its failure to address the real cost
drivers, as well as its subversion of the democratic process. But
here's another problem. The Speaker of the House, on Monday, asserted
that the bill before us is ``about health care, health insurance
reform. It's not about abortion.''
Now for the reality. The bill before us would permit the Federal
Government to provide subsidies to insurance plans that cover abortion,
oversee State plans that cover elective abortions, and allow Federal
officials to mandate that private plans cover abortions. It is replete
with abortion.
The American people have spoken, and they do not want their taxpayer
dollars entangled in the provision of abortion. Abortion is not health
care, and no American should be forced to pay for it.
We should be supporting those in vulnerable circumstances. Abortion
is so often the result of abandonment. Women deserve better. But true
health care reform must be life-affirming. I will not support this
bill.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, as the vote on health insurance
reform approaches, I've become increasingly troubled at the things that
this bill fails to do.
Despite claims to the contrary, the Democrat bill fails to decrease
health care costs. We keep hearing about how people are being cost out
of the market; they can't afford their health care, but it does not
decrease health care costs. In fact, the bill would increase the cost
of health care in the form of higher premiums and exorbitant new taxes
on families. Furthermore, it will not prevent funds from going to
illegal aliens or abortions. So that's what it doesn't do.
What does it do? Well, this legislation will make sure the American
people are more addicted to socialism because we will be more dependent
on the Federal bureaucracy. What it will do is create a $1 trillion new
program, even when we can't afford the current programs.
Well, what we need to do is to make sure that we come up with a list
of reforms that is a bipartisan list. The Democrats have actually
ignored what Republicans have offered to reform the system in order to
transform it. Well, they're transforming it by making backroom deals.
That's not what the American people want.
Let's come forward with what we believe in and how to make the system
better and work together. But we have to start by voting ``no'' on this
legislation.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. LAMBORN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents
who tell me time and time again that they do not want a government-run
health care plan. In spite of all this protest, Democrats are seeking
to jam the bill down the taxpayers' throats through a convoluted
legislative rule known as the Slaughter solution. This scheme allows a
vote on a rule that would deem the Senate version of the health care
bill to be passed without bringing the actual bill up for a vote.
Constituents send their Members of Congress to Washington to
represent their interests through votes. The Slaughter House rule would
violate our constitutional pledge to protect and defend the
Constitution.
To pass a bill of this magnitude through a procedural gimmick like
the Slaughter House rule would be a cowardly cover-up. What exactly is
the majority afraid of? Why are they trying to hide their vote?
The American people deserve an open and honest vote.
[[Page 3538]]
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. DENT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, you know, for the better part of a year, we
have devoted the lion's share of our attention to health care reform,
and this is where we are today. From the Speaker of the House, ``We
have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it.'' That's
simply unbelievable, and it's wrong.
You know, I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to develop proposals that will lower costs, expand access, and improve
quality. I regret very much where we are today in terms of both the
policy and the process.
Policywise, there is a lot we don't know. We haven't seen this
reconciliation fix-it bill. We don't have a score from the CBO. We're
talking about 1/6 of our American economy, but we haven't seen it yet.
Let's talk about what we do know, the bill that we have seen, the
Senate health care bill. This bill will increase taxes by more than a
half a trillion dollars. It will slash Medicare by nearly a half a
trillion dollars, all to create a $1 trillion entitlement program.
Families who purchase coverage in the individual market will see an
average increase in their premium of $2,300.
This is not the reform the American people want.
Unbelievably, the process is even worse than the policy. In the
coming days, the powerful Rules Committee will meet up there in that
room on the third floor and, according to reports, it will use an
arrogant manipulation of our legislative process.
I say defeat this bill. The American people deserve better.
____________________
{time} 1500
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. LUJAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. LUJAN. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my friends on the other
side of the aisle some questions: Why do you want to let health
insurance companies deny people because of preexisting conditions? Why
do you want people to lose their coverage if they lose their jobs? Why
do you want to let insurance companies drop people when they get sick?
There is a simple choice. Either you want to stand up for the
American people or you want to stand up for insurance companies. It has
been clear over the last year that my friends on the other side of the
aisle would rather stand up for health insurance companies. They would
rather let insurance companies raise their rates by 25 percent like
they did in my State of New Mexico. They would rather let families'
premiums double by 2020, increasing from $12,100 to $25,600. They would
rather let employer premiums increase by 98 percent by 2020.
This reform bill isn't perfect, but it stops insurance companies from
denying people for preexisting conditions, it provides more choice, it
lowers costs, it stops insurance companies from dropping people who are
sick, it helps small businesses by giving them tax credits, and it
helps seniors by making prescription drugs more affordable.
It's time to act. It's time to reform.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CAMP. Americans do not want a government takeover of health care.
They do not want a 2,000-page bill that puts Federal bureaucrats in
charge of their personal health care decisions. They do not want a
half-a-trillion-dollar cut to Medicare to fund a new entitlement
program. And they do not want a half-a-trillion-dollar increase in
taxes, or $1 trillion in new Federal spending. They do not want the
back room deals that were cut to buy off special interests. And they
certainly do not want a health care bill that will increase the cost of
their health insurance.
But that is exactly what the Democrat bill does. And that is exactly
what the Democrats are trying to cram through Congress this week. If
the majority wants to pass this bill, they ought to have the guts to
hold an up-or-down vote and not try to hide from the American people
what is really being voted on.
Madam Speaker, Americans do not want and can't afford this bill.
Let's scrap it and start over.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, process, process, process. What legislative
parliamentary process are we using? It is a distraction. That is what
someone talks about when they can't debate the content or they run out
of lies or misdirections about the substance of an argument.
I don't think the woman from New Jersey is any more interested in our
process today to guarantee that she has reliable coverage than she is
concerned about what process the insurance company used to compose the
letter saying that because she is sick, her coverage is rescinded. She
prefers to have the guaranteed coverage.
Do you think a small businessman in New Jersey cares what process the
insurance company used to arrive at a 25 percent increase in premiums?
Or the process we use to limit the out-of-pocket expenses a person must
spend for coverage?
Enough using procedures to stall and delay. Let's get it done, to
provide consumer protections for everyone. Let's get it done, to have
caps on insurance premium increases. Let's get it done, for better
health care outcomes.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. HALL of Texas. As we enter into the most important and eventful
week of the 30 years since I have been up here, I think of the
consequences of the votes we will cast, both Republican and Democrat.
When we passed the health bill on this very floor, the Democrats, with
a 40-vote advantage on the House floor, passed H.R. 3962 with only a
five-vote advantage, which showed that the outrageous health bill had
been lessened in severity in the Commerce Committee and was softened up
enough for the Senate to kill it.
Then a series of Senators negotiated gifts they were not entitled to,
each receiving a different consideration, into being the coveted 60th
vote. If we take the floor back, I would consider subpoenaing those who
may have made the overtures to compare it to the law of bribery or
corrupt deals. I would send the results to the Federal and State
prosecutors. The bribery penalty as set out in 18 U.S. Code section 203
is imprisonment for not more than a year and a civil fine of not more
than $50,000 for each violation.
I consider offering a bribe, for a personal benefit, as worse than
accepting one. Let's clean up the United States Congress and listen to
our people whose only request is to take back their country.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. BOOZMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express the concerns of
Arkansas's Third District regarding health care reform. I have received
an unprecedented amount of mail because the people of Arkansas aren't
in favor of the legislative gymnastics and procedural tricks Speaker
Pelosi is playing. It's inappropriate to play games to pass a health
care reform bill Americans overwhelmingly oppose, a bill that
represents 16 percent of our economy.
The administration called for an up-or-down vote with no procedural
maneuvering, but Ms. Pelosi and the
[[Page 3539]]
Rules Committee are currently in the process of bypassing this up-or-
down vote. By approving this rule, the Senate bill will be deemed as
passed. This is not the way our founders envisioned the government
working for the people.
We owe it to Arkansans and all Americans to fight for real health
care reform and at least have a real ``yes'' or ``no'' vote. How in the
world do you pass a bill without voting on it?
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. LUETKEMEYER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, I would like to read a few examples
of some of the emails I have been receiving on the health care
proposal.
From Columbia, Missouri:
``Just a note to encourage you to fight hard against this horrible
health care bill.''
From St. Charles, Missouri:
``Please vote `no' on the health care reform now before the House.''
From Hannibal, Missouri:
``Congressman, please vote `no' on the Senate's health care bill. We
need to scrap that plan and start over.''
From Ashland, Missouri:
``Please do not vote for the health care bill.''
From Huntsville, Missouri:
``I sincerely hope you do not vote for the health care bill as it now
stands.''
Finally, from Columbia, Missouri:
``Vote what your people want you to do, which is against this health
care bill.''
Madam Speaker, my constituents have listened to the debate and
rejected the proposed health care bill. No, no, no, no, no. What part
of ``no'' does the majority not understand? I am going to listen to my
constituents. I am going to be voting against the health care bill.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. ROGERS of Alabama asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I rise today to respond to what
I think that the leadership is going to bring later this week. I
understand that they are going to bring a vote to the floor that the
President and our Speaker believe is a socialist plan--or I know it is
a socialist plan for the government takeover of health care. And the
Speaker wants her members to have the courage to pass this what she
believes is a prescription for health care reform in America.
What it is is a prescription for disaster in our country, and it is
also a prescription for disaster for the majority party. That is what I
would like to address the balance of my remarks to. The majority party
is being asked to vote for something that their districts and their
constituents don't want. The President yesterday in a speech said that
what he was hoping the Members would do is show courage for a change.
Well, I agree with the President. I hope that the Democrat Members do
show courage later this week. Show courage to not be a lapdog for the
leadership and the President, and show the courage to be a bulldog for
their districts and their constituents who adamantly oppose this
socialist takeover of government health care for our country.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. McCLINTOCK asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I had two town hall meetings in my
district on Saturday, and at both events my constituents raised this
issue: How can Congress impose the most sweeping intrusion into
personal health care decisions in the history of our country without a
direct vote on the bill? You see, my constituents have read the
Constitution, including the provision that requires both Houses to vote
on a bill before it becomes a law.
If the Democrat majority attempts to impose this law without a direct
vote, two things will be obvious to every American. First, that the
Democrats are ashamed to cast the very up-or-down vote on the health
care takeover that the President promised as recently as yesterday. And
far more disturbing, they will know that the Congress has now placed
itself above the Constitution.
Madam Speaker, 10 generations of Americans have defended that
Constitution. Don't think for a moment that this generation will do any
less.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, there is one difference between my friends
over here who are speechifying against health care reform today and 50
million Americans. The difference is that the roughly 15 Americans over
here all have health insurance, and it is largely paid for by the
taxpayers. Fifty million Americans don't have that good fortune. In
fact, that difference is shameful, that difference is immoral, and I
hope to God that this House has the courage and the decency to vote to
change it this week.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. BARTLETT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT. Health care costs are increasing at two and three times
the rate of inflation. Obviously, if this continues, it will bury us.
So any health care reform needs to address health care costs. There are
two major cost drivers in health care. This bill is silent on one and
makes the other worse.
The one that it is silent on is tort reform. Some people think the
defensive medicine associated with the threat of malpractice suits may
account for a fourth of all health care costs. This bill does nothing
to address that. A second cost driver is administrative costs, which
may again represent a fourth of all costs. This bill makes that worse
by proposing to give to poor people a policy and incur all of the
health care costs associated with that policy.
We need to give poor people health care. Give the doctor, the clinic,
the hospital a tax credit for giving them their health care. Then we
avoid all of the administrative costs associated with that. This bill
fails on both of those counts.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. WELCH asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELCH. With all the controversy about the health care bill, the
content of it, the argument about what is in it, what is not in it,
this really does boil down to a fundamental question that this Congress
and this country has eluded and avoided for over 70 years, and, that
is, will we have a health care system where every American is covered
and where every American helps pay? Will we have a health care system
where we have a common desire and need to control costs and to reform
the delivery system? That is one side.
The other question is, will we have a health care system that embeds
the status quo that for the past 70 years has served the interests of
the insurance companies very well, increasing their profits, salaries
to $24 million, where it is a fee-for-service, volume-driven system
that is absolutely burying our employers and our families under a
burden of costs that we can't keep up with? That is basically the
question.
Will this health care bill allow Americans to have access to health
care or ensure profits again for the insurance company?
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. REICHERT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. REICHERT. Listen. Can you hear the American voices loud and clear
[[Page 3540]]
saying, I don't want a government takeover of health care? The
Democrats' latest plan is still a government takeover of health care.
It includes billions of dollars in new taxes, over a trillion dollars
in new government spending, and will also cause millions of employers
to cancel the health care of their employees.
We have also heard if you like it you can keep it. Not according to
this plan. Not even according to the President of the United States,
who recently said, quote, ``I think that some of the provisions that
got snuck in might have violated that pledge.''
Madam Speaker, we don't know what is in this bill. The American
people don't know what is in this bill. We need to start over.
Let's consider the Seattle Times' editorial this morning: ``Right now
the government should be focused on the revival of business and the
creation of private sector jobs. This cannot be put off. The
responsible vote,'' according to the Seattle Times, ``is `no'. Take a
break, let the economy recover and start over.''
I couldn't agree more.
____________________
{time} 1515
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. HENSARLING asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, after the Cornhusker kickback, the
Louisiana purchase, the Gator aid, the labor union bailout, the
sweetheart deals for the pharmaceutical companies, now we're told that
the Democrats are simply going to deem the Senate bill without voting
on it.
Not 1 hour ago, I had Jennifer Neill of Athens, Texas, a middle
schooler, in my office, and she said, That's not right. Why is
something obvious to a middle schooler such a mystery to the Speaker
and the Democrats?
What's not right is to ignore the wishes of the American people.
What's not right is to have the government force you to buy health
insurance. What's not right is to take health care decisions away from
your doctor and give them to Washington bureaucrats and politicians.
What's not right is adding $2.7 trillion in new spending as the
Democrats triple our national debt and bankrupt Americans.
What is right is to scrap the bill, start over, and let freedom ring
in America.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. KING of Iowa asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, we find ourselves in a unique
circumstance in this Congress after over two centuries. This is likely
the very first time that something is positioned to happen that the
Founding Fathers never envisioned: That there would be a bill that
couldn't be passed in the Senate, and that wasn't supported by the
Senate, that wasn't supported by the House, that could nevertheless
become law. The first time in history.
There are only 59 votes over there in the Senate. They would not pass
this bill that this House is being asked to pass. Even the Democrats
don't support the Senate version of the bill. That's on a promise that
it would be on a reconciliation package that we know will not be
sustained on the Senate side.
And another unique component of this is that ever since 1973, the
people on that side have argued that the Federal Government has no
business telling a woman what she can or can't do with her body. Now
their position is that the Federal Government has every right to tell
everybody in America what they can or can't do with their body. Madam
Speaker, this bill funds abortion. It funds illegals. It steals
liberty. It's unconstitutional. It kicks off lawsuits. It spends
trillions of dollars. It's irresponsible. It's a theft of liberty, and
it's wrong.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. TOWNS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches that
have been made on the floor: Tell them to wait and start over. Well,
you know, it's nice to say wait and start over when you have insurance,
but think about the 46 million people that are walking the streets of
the United States of America with no insurance, but you are telling
them to wait. And then of course you talk about people that are locked
into jobs and working on those jobs because of the fact that the only
reason they stay there is because they are able to get health
insurance, and you're telling them to wait?
And then we talk about people that have preexisting conditions that
can't get health care, and you're telling them to wait?
You know, I cannot believe that we're sitting here in the United
States House of Representatives when we can do something about a
problem that has existed for many, many years, and we are still telling
people to wait. I don't think that you can afford the luxury of waiting
when you do not have insurance.
Think about how many people will die today because of the fact they
do not have health insurance.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California asked and was given permission
to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, oftentimes on
this floor this document becomes the inconvenient truth. It's called
the Constitution of the United States. It tells us what we can and what
we cannot do.
Not too many years ago, the House of Representatives and the United
States Senate decided they would pass something called the line item
veto. Sounded like a great idea. The only problem? It's
unconstitutional.
The court at that time said the Constitution makes it very clear. The
House has to pass a certain text, the Senate has to pass the exact same
text, the President has to review it and then sign the same text.
You can't deem a law to be a law. The dictionary is over here. Deem
doesn't mean it is. It means that it's not. It may be close. We'll
pretend it is. That's not what the Constitution says.
The court has told us it has to be the exact text. If you change one
paragraph, it is unconstitutional. They want us to adopt a rule that
includes the bill but a lot of other language. It's not the same text.
It's unconstitutional.
The inconvenient truth is we have to follow the law, and this is the
supreme law of the land.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. AUSTRIA asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. AUSTRIA. Madam Speaker, this week marks a defining moment for
this Congress and our Nation. With our national debt over $12 trillion
and continuing to grow while government encroaches into every aspect of
our lives, the American people have spoken out loudly against any
government takeover of their health care. All we have to do is listen
to our constituents. Yet this administration and this Democrat
leadership continues to force a $1 trillion health care bill of
Congress into law.
This bill will increase the health care costs for millions of
Americans who are satisfied with their current health care coverage. It
will cut Medicare and reduces benefits for seniors, such as Medicare
Advantage. It will raise taxes on families and small businesses.
We all agree that our health care system can and should be improved.
Unfortunately, Members of Congress are not listening to the American
people, and that is that more government is not the answer.
It is time to work together on a commonsense, step-by-step approach
that will lower costs and make health care
[[Page 3541]]
more affordable and accessible while keeping your doctor-patient
relationship and choices.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. MARCHANT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. MARCHANT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong objection to what
occurred yesterday in the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee passed
a shell of a reconciliation bill. This shell bill will be replaced with
whatever the Rules Committee deems as appropriate health care
legislation. No one has seen what the Rules Committee plans to insert.
This is not an open and transparent process. An open and transparent
process wouldn't be resorting to using shell bills. An open and
transparent process wouldn't have had backroom negotiations that are
far and away from the C-SPAN cameras. What happened in the Budget
Committee and what's happening in the Rules Committee is not what the
American people want.
I strongly oppose the majority's use of the parliamentary gimmicks to
pass big government takeover of health care.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. WESTMORELAND asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, looks like we may have a mystery
worthy of an investigation by Scooby Doo and his gang here. This week,
the House may pass a bill to overhaul one-sixth of our economy. But
here we are Tuesday, and Scooby and Shaggy are scratching their heads
trying to figure out, one, what's in the bill; two, what special
backroom deals have been cut, and three, how can Democrats impose on
the American people a bill they don't even have the courage to vote on.
Here are our clues. Speaker Pelosi says we're not allowed to see
what's in the bill until it passes, and she says ``no one'' wants to
vote for the bill that she's forcing through. We know there are special
payoffs for States like Nebraska. We know there are political payoffs.
We know there are tax hikes and Medicare cuts, and it's not a mystery
why the Democrats are going to try to invent a ghostly scheme to pass
this terrible bill.
And when the Scooby gang unmasks the ghost, we'll hear the Speaker
say, I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those
meddling Americans. Ruh-roh.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. CAO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CAO. Madam Speaker, the basic tenets of a democracy are those
that protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Accessible,
affordable health care that protects life is one of those tenets. This
is why I applaud President Obama for his strength and determination in
pushing for health care reform in the face of great adversity.
I support H.R. 3962, the Health Care Reform Bill, that passed the
U.S. House on November 7, 2009, because it tries to provide affordable
health care while protecting life. And I stand ready to support health
care reform again so long as the reconciliation bill seeks the same
goals.
As of now, the Senate health care bill falls short and even
contradicts the most basic principle of civilization: Thou shalt not
kill. The Senate bill willfully excludes the language of the Hyde
Amendment and seeks to expand funding and the role of the Federal
Government in the despicable killing of the unborn. It also fails to
incorporate provisions to protect the conscience of medical providers
regarding abortion, as found in the Hyde-Weldon Amendment. These flaws
are so devastating in their effects that they override any good the
Senate health care bill seeks to promote.
Until this House fixes the abortion language and incorporates a
conscience protection clause, I stand firmly in opposition.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. TURNER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I am just a bill, and I am sitting here on
Capitol Hill waiting for a vote, apparently, unless you're in Nancy
Pelosi's House. Unlike in ``School House Rock,'' Nancy Pelosi says that
this little guy doesn't need to wait around for a vote. He can be
deemed to be passed.
Now, this is a new one for my daughter Jessica's high school
government class. They can't understand how Speaker Pelosi can deem a
bill passed without a vote. There is no deeming a bill passed in
``School House Rock'' or in the expectations of the American people.
In today's Washington Post, Speaker Pelosi tells us why she wants to
deem the health care bill passed without a vote. She suggests that it
politically protects lawmakers who are reluctantly supporting the
measure. However, the American people are smart. They know that for
this bill to become law, it takes a vote.
Madam Speaker, let's stop the parliamentary tricks. Let's bring this
bill to a vote, and I will be voting ``no.''
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, the American people have made it very
clear that they do not like or want this bill. How arrogant is it for
the other side of the aisle to say to them, We know what's best for
you, and we're going to pass it anyway. And then how arrogant is it for
the other side of the aisle to say, We don't have to take a vote on
this bill. We'll just deem it law.
In both cases the other side of the aisle is grossly underestimating
the intelligence of the American people. The American people know that
deeming is a vote on a bill that they don't like. Let's just have an
up-or-down vote if we have to have a vote on this, and I vote ``no.''
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, the Founding Fathers established this
Congress so that individuals would be elected from all over the
country, come here with different points of view, discuss those views,
yes, but ultimately take a vote on the issues of the day. And then the
people who sent them here--the voters--could hold them accountable for
the votes they cast here in this Chamber and in the other body across
the way.
It would be inconceivable to them that this House would deem a bill
passed without taking a direct vote up-or-down on the substance of the
matter so that the voters back home could hold them accountable, and
yet that is exactly the direction that this leadership tries to take
the House today.
The American people already do not trust this institution. They do
not believe that we are in touch with them and listening to them. The
intentions of the leadership of this House will only carry those
suspicions further and further betray the trust that American people
should have in their elected representatives.
We should start over and do it again.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. BROUN of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I don't think the American
people can be any clearer. They do not want this government-run health
care bill that the President and leaders in this Congress are trying to
ram down their throats. The leadership in this House have declared that
socialized
[[Page 3542]]
health care will become law without taking a vote on the actual bill.
They are forcing this reconciliation ruse.
It's a simple answer. This bill contains billions of new taxes, kills
jobs, provides for taxpayer-funded abortions, and places an enormous
debt on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. The fact is,
many Democrats in Congress do not like this bill any more than the
American people. They will be forced to vote for it with a promise that
it will be fixed later, but we all know that this is an empty promise.
It is a reconciliation to nowhere.
The Democrats may control Washington, but the American people still
control this country. I urge all of my colleagues to stand up for your
constituents and vote ``no'' on this scam.
____________________
{time} 1530
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Speaker, analysts tell us that the Medicare
system in this country will be bankrupt in 7 years and that Social
Security and Medicaid are not far behind. What that means is we can't
pay for the entitlements we've got.
So what does this health care bill do? It adds more entitlements.
It's like learning that you can't pay the mortgage on your house and
buying a second one and five more cars. Americans wouldn't do that, but
President Obama and the Democrats in this House are going to. We can't
pay for the entitlements we've got. Let's pay for them first before we
add new ones.
Unfortunately, because of the actions of this House, America is going
bankrupt, and this health bill will hasten that bankruptcy. Vote ``no''
and kill this bill.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, we have all seen the television
program ``Deal or No Deal'' where you look at this case and you decide
whether you want that case or you don't want the case and take the deal
or not take the deal. Well, that's what we have, except this time, the
Speaker of the House is saying that there may not even be a case, we
don't want you to know what's in the case, we just want you to vote for
this self-executing rule so that whatever happens happens.
Well, that self-executing rule, Madam Speaker, is well named, because
the people that vote for it are probably going to be victims of their
own execution at the next congressional election.
Let's have an up-or-down vote, just as the President has suggested,
on a real bill, and make people accountable in their congressional
districts whether they are for this massive health care bill, a
government takeover of health care, or whether they want to keep the
current system of private markets, private initiative and the market-
based health care system.
Do not make us vote on the self-executing rule.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I have sent or received nearly
750,000 letters and emails from my office and have held 225 constituent
town hall meetings. I have a pretty good idea why my constituents are
upset about this health care bill. They were promised that it wouldn't
tax health care, but it does. They were promised that it wouldn't
mandate health care, but it does. They were promised it wouldn't raise
taxes on people with incomes less than $250,000, but it does. You can
only pay for this by doing some manipulation of taking $52 billion from
Social Security and $72 billion from long-term health care. And it
doesn't pay doctors to the tune of $371 billion. It doesn't allow
doctors to volunteer at community health centers. It doesn't reduce
infection rates at hospitals. And it doesn't deal with the $700 billion
of waste in health care that we've got to address.
You don't reform health care by demonizing insurance companies, drug
companies and doctors. And Americans are saying we've got to reform
health care, not just continue to pass bills that are facades to real
health reform.
And that's why they're mad as hell.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, my colleagues, the American people, and I
think myself would like to see health care reform. There is a lot of
room for improvement. There are a lot of people that don't have
coverage or access to affordable health care.
Most of the people I talk to want their premiums down if they do have
insurance. If you talk to Americans, what do they want now? They want
jobs, and they want the economy expanded so people can even get their
own health care. What they also want is a bipartisan effort on behalf
of Congress to get these things done.
Instead, what they've got in all of the proposals before us is a
proposal to cut Medicare and to dramatically increase taxes. What they
wanted was some transparency in this process and openness. Instead,
they are getting a closed-door deal and a back-door deal that is not
transparent, not open to bipartisanship, imposes taxes on all Americans
and, in fact, cuts Medicare for our poorest and oldest citizens. They
just don't get it.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. CRENSHAW asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I think most of you all know that the
movie ``Alice in Wonderland'' opened in a theater near you just this
last week. It's in three dimensions. And it obviously has inspired our
Democratic friends in an effort to explain what is going on in this
make-believe world they have created up here. There is an exchange in
that ``Through the Looking Glass'' where Humpty Dumpty is talking to
Alice. And Humpty Dumpty says, When I use a word, it means exactly what
I choose it to mean, neither more nor less. But Alice asks the
insightful question, Well, can you really make words mean so many
different things?
And I think that is the question the American people are asking.
Alice figured out that Humpty Dumpty was just making words mean what he
wanted them to mean. And I think the American people are figuring out
that the Democrats are just making up words like ``vote'' and then
giving it a different meaning. People are smarter than that. And I
think there's a better way.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I really get a kick out of the Speaker. She
thinks the American people don't get what's going on, but they do. The
overwhelming majority of Americans don't want this, and they know that
she's playing around with the rules here in the House.
And so I just want to make one little statement to the Speaker if she
is paying attention. Abraham Lincoln, who was a Member of this body a
long time ago, said, You can fool all of the people some of the time,
and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the
people all of the time.
And if those people on that side of the aisle vote for this turkey,
they're going to pay in November.
[[Page 3543]]
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, one of my favorite things to do is go to a
local high school and talk to government classes. For the past 10 years
that I've been doing this, I have always told them, there are certain
things that are done in the House that are there to protect the
minority. One is during appropriation bills: any Member can bring any
amendment to the floor on anything they want to that is germane to the
bill, and the leadership can't stop them, even their own party or the
other party.
This past year, I wasn't able to say that anymore because for the
first time in the history of this institution, every appropriation bill
that came to the floor was brought under a closed rule so only the
amendments that the majority wanted to be offered could be offered.
Something similar is happening here. All of us have told classes that
we have taught that your history books are right, if a bill passes the
House and a different bill passes the Senate, the House will have to
vote on it again. But here we're being told, no, you don't have to do
that anymore. You can deem it passed. It just magically appears back in
the Senate without having a vote here in the House.
Our institution, this institution, the people's institution, deserves
better than that.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. GRAVES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to
this piece of legislation. This is a government takeover of health
care. Over the last few months, the American people have voiced their
opposition to this bill loud and clear. They know that this bill is
being pushed with false promises and backroom deals, and they have had
enough. This bill will put the American Government between patients and
their doctors. It's going to raise taxes and increase regulations. It
will hurt small business owners, the very people who create 7 out of
every 10 jobs in this country, by hitting them with impossible
mandates.
Make no mistake: this bill will destroy jobs in this country and
freeze our economic recovery.
Madam Speaker, Americans know that the answer to the problems in our
health care system is not bigger government and more bureaucrats. The
answer is more competition and better choices. My colleagues and I have
introduced several commonsense reform pieces, but they have been
ignored by the majority. It's not too late to start over on legislation
that will increase access for all Americans and help control costs.
However, this bill is not the answer. I urge my colleagues to vote
against it.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. McCARTHY of California asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Madam Speaker, just last week I was
listening to the Speaker talk about health care. She said--and I had to
actually look it up in the transcripts because I couldn't believe what
I heard--Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi said, ``We have to pass it so
you can see what's in it.'' Well, she was wrong then, and she is wrong
now. The Democratic majority in this people's House is not listening to
the people. Americans do not want this bill.
How do we know this? Well, because in my own town halls last summer,
which I had in Bakersfield, California, and Paso Robles, more than
5,000 constituents turned out just to say that. And it is not just
because they don't know what's in the bill. They get it. They don't
like it. They don't like the political payoffs, the job-killing tax
hikes, the huge cuts in Medicare; and most of all, they don't like
Washington running their health care.
Maybe that's why this House Democratic majority is poised to use the
parliamentary procedure to pass this bill without an actual vote. By
doing this, the House majority will prove, once again, they are not
listening. It's time for a new direction. Scrap the bill and start
over.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, here are 10 reasons why the
administration's health bill makes no sense according to Investor's
Business Daily. Number one, the people don't want it. In fact, the
majority of Americans are opposed to it. Two, doctors don't want it.
Three, people are happy with the health care they have. Four, it
doesn't cover the people they set out to cover. Five, costs will go up,
not down. Six, real cost controls are nowhere to be found. Seven,
insurance premiums will rise, not fall. Eight, Medicare is already
bankrupting us. Nine, medical care will also deteriorate. And, ten,
rationing of care is inevitable.
Madam Speaker, the conclusion is clear: Congress should start over
and get it right.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, if the Democrats are so proud of the
health care bill, why the subterfuge? Speaker Pelosi said, If we can't
cross the fence, we will pole vault over it. We will tunnel under it,
we will break through it. In other words, they are going to subvert the
legislative process.
If they are so proud of the health care bill, why the Cornhusker
kickback? Why the Louisiana purchase? Why the Gator aid? Why the
hospital for the folks in Connecticut? Why all the other special
interest bills? And if they are so proud, why not post it on the Web
page? But, in fact, here is what the Speaker said. These are Nancy
Pelosi's words: ``We have to pass the bill so that you can find out
what's in it.'' In other words, the height of D.C. arrogance and
Beltway we-know-best.
I call on fair-minded Democrats to join me in denouncing this process
and standing up for transparent, fair, and open government. Let's have
a bill that comes to the floor in which amendments are allowed and one
that has come through the committee process.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. McCAUL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, the American people have spoken loud and
clear on this issue as recently as the Massachusetts election. They
want health care reform, but they reject this bill. This administration
and the Democrat majority have been tone deaf to this message. Speaker
Pelosi just said, ``We need to pass this bill to see what's in it.''
I don't quite understand what that really means. But I will tell you
what's in this bill: there's over $500 billion in tax increases, a cut
to Medicare by $500 billion, a new form of government-run health care
insurance by the Office of Personnel Management, a cut to Social
Security by $4.2 billion, and sweetheart deals, basically legalized
bribery, to buy off votes of the Senate by the Louisiana purchase, the
Cornhusker kickback and the Gator aid.
To those Blue Dog Democrats, 40 sitting in conservative districts, do
the right thing. Don't walk the plank on this bill. This is still the
United States of America, and we're going to take this country back.
____________________
{time} 1545
UNACCEPTABLE GROWTH OF GOVERNMENT
(Mr. KLINE of Minnesota asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
[[Page 3544]]
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, we have been talking all day
about this bill that is that 2,700-page Senate bill, this bill that
increases bureaucracies and bureaucrats and gives more government power
and more government control. We know the American people don't like it,
and we are speaking against it.
But that is not bad enough. At the same time, using this convoluted
parliamentary procedure, our Democratic colleagues want to have the
government take over the student lending business, build up bigger
bureaucracy, wipe out 30,000 private sector jobs, make the Department
of Education one of the largest banks in the country lending $100
billion a year of money that we don't have, money that we have to
borrow from China before we can lend it to students.
So whether it is health care or it is student lending, we are
watching a massive growth of government power, size, and spending, and
I deem that unacceptable.
____________________
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO OFFER RESOLUTION RAISING A QUESTION OF THE
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby
give notice of my intent to offer a resolution raising a question of
the privileges of the House.
The form of the resolution is as follows:
Whereas, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
initiated an investigation into allegations related to
earmarks and campaign contributions in the Spring of 2009.
Whereas, on December 2, 2009, reports and findings in seven
separate matters involving the alleged connection between
earmarks and campaign contributions were forwarded by the
Office of Congressional Ethics to the Standards Committee.
Whereas, on February 26, 2010, the Standards Committee made
public its report on the matter wherein the Committee found,
though a widespread perception exists among corporations and
lobbyists that campaign contributions provide a greater
chance of obtaining earmarks, there was no evidence that
Members or their staff considered contributions when
requesting earmarks.
Whereas, the Committee indicated that, with respect to the
matters forwarded by the Office of Congressional Ethics,
neither the evidence cited in the OCE's findings nor the
evidence in the record before the Standards Committee
provided a substantial reason to believe that violations of
applicable standards of conduct occurred.
Whereas, the Office of Congressional Ethics is prohibited
from reviewing activities taking place prior to March of 2008
and lacks the authority to subpoena witnesses and documents.
Whereas, for example, the Office of Congressional Ethics
noted that in some instances documents were redacted or
specific information was not provided and that, in at least
one instance, they had reason to believe a witness withheld
information requested and did not identify what was being
withheld.
Whereas, the Office of Congressional Ethics also noted that
they were able to interview only six former employees of the
PMA Group, with many former employees refusing to consent to
interviews and the OCE unable to obtain evidence within PMA's
possession.
Whereas, Roll Call noted that ``the committee report was
five pages long and included no documentation of any evidence
collected or any interviews conducted by the committee,
beyond a statement that the investigation `included extensive
document reviews and interviews with numerous witnesses.'''
(Roll Call, March 8, 2010)
Whereas, it is unclear whether the Standards Committee
included in their investigation any activities that occurred
prior to 2008.
Whereas, it is unclear whether the Standards Committee
interviewed any Members in the course of their investigation.
Whereas, it is unclear whether the Standards Committee, in
the course of their investigation, initiated their own
subpoenas or followed the Office of Congressional Ethics
recommendations to issue subpoenas. Therefore, be it
Resolved, That not later than seven days after the adoption
of this resolution, the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct shall report to the House of Representatives, with
respect to the activities addressed in its report of February
26, 2010, (1) how many witnesses were interviewed, (2) how
many, if any, subpoenas were issued in the course of their
investigation, and (3) what documents were reviewed and their
availability for public review.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the
floor by a Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader
as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate precedence
only at a time designated by the Chair within 2 legislative days after
the resolution is properly noticed.
Pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the
gentleman from Arizona will appear in the Record at this point.
The Chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution
constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at
the time designated for consideration of the resolution.
____________________