[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 3]
[Issue]
[Pages 3601-3752]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 3601]]
SENATE--Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Tom Udall, a Senator from the State of New Mexico.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Almighty God, our loving Heavenly Father, the center of our joy,
thank You for Your gracious care for each of us. Help our lawmakers
live today with a sense of accountability to You, striving to please
You more than others. Awaken them to the fact that You see all they do
and hear all they say. May they walk from weakness to strength, growing
in ethical fitness day by day in order to fulfill Your purposes for
their lives. Lord, give them a special measure of inner peace so that
they may be peacemakers during times of tension and conflict.
We pray in Your loving Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Tom Udall 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 assistant legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, March 17, 2010.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Tom Udall, a Senator from the State of New Mexico, to perform
the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico thereupon assumed the chair as Acting
President pro tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will
resume consideration of the House message to H.R. 2847, the HIRE Act.
There will be 10 minutes for debate, equally divided and controlled
between Senators Gregg and Schumer or their designees. We expect
Senator Gregg to make a budget point of order with respect to the bill.
At approximately 9:45, the Senate will proceed to a series of two
rollcall votes: the motion to waive the Gregg budget point of order and
the motion to concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendment to
the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847.
Upon disposition of the HIRE Act, the Senate will resume
consideration of FAA reauthorization. The Senate will recess from 12:30
until 2 p.m. for a special Democratic caucus.
When the Senate reconvenes at 2 p.m., there will be a live quorum.
Senators are requested to come to the floor at that time. When a quorum
is present, the Senate will receive the House managers for the purpose
of presenting and exhibiting articles of impeachment against G. Thomas
Porteous, judge of the U.S. Eastern District of Louisiana. Once the
House managers are received, Senators will be sworn. Then Senators will
be required to sign the Secretary's oath book.
In addition, rollcall votes in relation to FAA are expected
throughout the day.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2010
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R.
2847, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
House message to accompany H.R. 2847, an act making
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, and Justice
and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with amendments.
Pending:
Durbin motion to concur in the amendments of the House to
the amendment of the Senate to the amendment of the House to
the amendment of the Senate to the bill.
Durbin amendment No. 3498 (to the motion to concur in the
amendments of the House to the amendment of the Senate to the
amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate), of a
perfecting nature.
Durbin amendment No. 3499 (to amendment No. 3498), of a
perfecting nature.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, all
postcloture time is considered expired and the motion to concur with an
amendment is withdrawn.
There will be 10 minutes of debate, equally divided between the
Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, and the Senator from New York,
Mr. Schumer, or their designees.
Who yields time?
The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation
before us and the motion to waive the point of order.
This is a good day for American workers, for Congress is focusing on
what they have asked us to focus on. Congress is focusing on what the
American people want us to focus on, which is jobs, jobs, jobs, and
Congress will act in a bipartisan way. So this is a break, in several
ways, from the past. One, we are focusing on jobs and the economy. That
is what we should be doing. Second, we are doing it in a bipartisan
way.
The bill before us focuses on private sector jobs. It has four
pieces. Each is lean. Each is directed at private sector jobs. Each
will give the economy a certain lift. Last quarter, we had growth of
5.9 percent. That sounds great, but that 5.9 percent growth resulted in
no new jobs being created. In fact, it resulted in a continued loss of
jobs, admittedly less of a loss than in the past.
Our job is to take that growth and translate it into jobs for the
American people, plain and simple, and that is what we are doing with
this HIRE Act. At the center of it is a bipartisan piece of
legislation: a payroll tax holiday for 1 year for any new worker hired
who has been unemployed for 60 days, authored by the Senator from Utah,
Mr. Hatch, and myself. It is the bipartisan glue which hopefully will
stick with us as we move forward on our jobs agenda because this is
just the first--certainly not the last--piece of legislation we will
put forward in relation to jobs. If we don't create jobs, the economy
will not move forward. If we don't create jobs, the American people,
American business, and American labor could lose the optimism that has
been part of this country since its founding. When you lose that
optimism, you lose dollars and cents economically because businesses
don't spend, workers don't prepare for the future, people get
disconsolate.
[[Page 3602]]
So this legislation is admittedly modest and focused and will go far
beyond what the specific legislation does because it will show the
American people, it will show American business, large and small, it
will show American workers Congress is focused on what they want us to
focus on and that we will continue to work on our jobs agenda until
jobs start growing, until people are being paid decent wages, until the
economy roars back on a long and stable trajectory, which can only be
done if employment goes up and underemployment goes down.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this isn't so much a jobs bill as it is a
debt bill. It has debt, debt, and debt.
I voted against the budget which passed the House of Representatives.
I voted against it because it had $1 trillion worth of deficit every
year for as far as the eye can see. It basically put our country on a
path of unsustainability, where the national debt will double in 5
years and triple in 10 years; where every one of these young men and
women sitting before us who are pages, by the time they graduate from
college, will have $133,000 in Federal debt on their heads they will
have to pay off as they go to work. I voted against it because it was
profligate, because it wasn't disciplined, and because it was
excessive.
However, it appears it wasn't excessive enough for my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle. This will be the third week in a row the
leadership of the Democratic Party in this body has brought a bill to
this floor that violates their own budget and spends more than their
own budget called for. A budget which this year will run $1.6 trillion
of deficit isn't running a big enough deficit, according to the other
side of the aisle. They have to run up the deficit with this bill by
another $3 billion of authorized money, above their own budget. That is
on top of last week, when they spent $30 billion this year and $100
billion over 5 years in excess of their own budget.
When is it going to stop? When is it going to stop? When are we going
to stop spending money around here as if there is no tomorrow? Because
pretty soon there will be no tomorrow for our children as we add this
debt to their backs and make it impossible for them to have the
standard of living we have had.
Yesterday, Moody's said that although today the AAA rating of this
country is not at risk, it may be down the road if we continue to spend
money we don't have at the rate we are spending it. That is not a sign
of optimism for the future; that is a sign our Nation is in trouble,
and it is in trouble because of us.
There is a lot of talk around here about what is the systemic risk to
this economy. The systemic risk is this Congress, which continues to
spend money it doesn't have, send the bill on to our kids at a rate
they can't afford to pay off. As a result, their lifestyle will
actually have to be reduced, their quality of life, their standard of
living will go down because they will be paying for all this debt we
are putting on their backs today.
What is even worse is this Congress isn't even willing to live by the
PROFLIGATE--and I hope capital letters will be put in the Record on
that because it should be all spelled out in capital letters--by the
PROFLIGATE budget which passed the House, which projected trillions of
dollars of deficits for as far as the eye could see and doubled the
debt in 5 years and tripled it in 10 years. That wasn't enough. No. We
have to come to the floor again this week, after last week, after the
week before, with another bill that breaks their own budget.
So all I am asking for is that the other side of the aisle be willing
to at least live by its own budget. Last week I asked that they be
willing to live by their own pay-go rules. That didn't pass, and $100
billion was spent that wasn't paid for. So this week I am making a
point of order that simply says: Live by your own budget. You passed a
budget; at least live by that. Can't you live within a $1.6 trillion
deficit? Do you have to add another $3 trillion of authorized dollars
to this deficit this year? Gosh, I hope not. So I am making a point of
order and asking that we live by the budget that was passed by the
Democratic Congress.
The pending amendment would cause the aggregate levels of the budget
authority and the outlays for the fiscal year 2010, as set out in the
most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget, S. Con.
Res. 13, to be exceeded--the Democratic budget, by the way. Therefore,
I raise a point of order under section 311(a)2 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will support the motion to waive the
point of order. I believe I have 1 minute left.
The world is topsy-turvy. My Republican colleagues are opposing a tax
cut to businesses, large and small, that hire people. This is exactly
what we should do. We don't want to be saying to workers we can't help
them find a job. There are shades of Herbert Hoover in what my
colleague is saying, and I don't think many of my colleagues on either
side of the aisle would support that.
Let me say this about the budget point of order. The Joint Tax
Committee, which we all respect, says these provisions are budget
neutral.
We have found a way to hire workers, help businesses with tax cuts to
hire them, and keep it budget neutral. Yet there is still opposition.
When will it end? When will the bipartisan kind of feeling in this body
return? This is a bipartisan measure that lives by many of the tenets
the party on the other side has stood for, for decades.
Mr. President, is there any time remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the waiver provisions of applicable
budget resolutions, and 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 the pending
amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Parliamentary inquiry. I have made a motion that says the
budget point of order stands under section 311, which point of order
specifically lies because of the fact that the bill before us spends
more in authority and outlay than the Budget Act passed by this
Congress allows. Is that not correct? Is that motion not well taken?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair understands that the
point of order would be well taken.
Mr. GREGG. Which means that, Mr. President, more money is being spent
than is allowed to be spent under our budget rules; is that not
correct?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
motion. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Republican leader is recognized.
Health Care
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have been in the Senate for quite a
while. I have seen a lot, but I have never seen anything like the plan
House Democrats hatched this week to jam their health care bill through
Congress and over the objections of the American people.
[[Page 3603]]
Americans woke up yesterday thinking they had seen everything in this
debate already. Then they heard the latest. They heard that Democrats
want to approve the Senate version of the health care bill without
actually standing up and taking a vote on it. Let me say that again.
They heard that Democrats over in the House want to approve the Senate
bill without actually voting on it. These Democrats want to approve a
bill that rewrites one-sixth of the economy, forces taxpayers to pay
for abortions, raises taxes in the middle of a recession, and slashes
Medicare for seniors, without leaving their fingerprints on it. In
other words, they want to get around the very purpose of a rollcall
vote. They want to hide what they are doing from the American people
whom they seem to view as an obstacle. They want to hide what they are
doing from the American people whom they see as an obstacle to what
they are trying to do.
Well, it won't work. They realized that yesterday when they saw the
public reaction to their plan. Americans are more outraged than ever.
Americans are shocked at these tactics. They are fed up, and they have
had enough. The longer Democratic leaders ignore this outrage and
ignore these questions, the worse it is going to get.
Democrats have lost their perspective in this debate. They have lost
their way. They do not even seem to care what the public thinks.
Speaker Pelosi said yesterday that they will do ``whatever it takes''
to ensure this bill becomes law. While she is at it, she is throwing
other legislation into the bill that does not have anything to do with
health care--major legislation that would enable the government to take
over the student loan industry without any debate whatsoever. That has
been their strategy all along. Anytime one of their proposals meets
resistance, they look for a way to get around it. But the schemes they
have used end up making their proposals even more repellant than they
originally were. And this latest scheme is the most outrageous one yet.
What has happened is they are trapped in a vicious cycle that someone
over there needs to bring to a halt. This is now a fight between
Democrats and their own constituents, and the only way to stop this
madness is for a few courageous Democrats to step forward and put a
stop to it.
Historians will remember this as a new low in this debate: the week
America was introduced to the scheme-and-deem approach to legislating--
the scheme-and-deem approach to legislating. They will remember this as
the week Congress tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the public in
order to get around their will. And they will remember the men and
women who stand up and put an end to it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
motion. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from 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 Idaho (Mr. Crapo).
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 63, nays 34, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg.]
YEAS--63
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--34
Alexander
Barrasso
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--3
Bennett
Byrd
Crapo
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 63, the
nays are 34. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having
voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 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.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate has an opportunity today to take
another step toward restoring job growth and opportunity for American
workers. Others have discussed the importance of this bill's provisions
to help put Americans back to work, and I agree: This bill marks
important progress in lowering unacceptable levels of unemployment.
But sending the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act to the
President's desk would also mark a significant victory for law-abiding
U.S. taxpayers. Right now, thousands of U.S. tax dodgers conceal
billions of dollars in assets within secrecy-shrouded foreign banks,
dodging taxes and penalizing those of us who pay the taxes we owe. The
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, has estimated
that these tax-dodging schemes cost the Federal Treasury $100 billion a
year.
But under this legislation, for the first time, foreign banks will be
required to disclose their U.S. account holders to the U.S. Government
or face significant penalties. This provision will make it far more
difficult for tax dodgers to conceal assets and income in foreign
banks. As more banks set up systems to disclose U.S. account holders,
bank secrecy will become increasingly difficult to maintain. With
increased transparency will come less tax evasion, less money
laundering, and less crime.
Certainly this legislation will not end tax avoidance or money
laundering. Its provisions do not take effect for several years, and
its impact will depend in large part on the willingness of regulators
at the Treasury Department and elsewhere to write strict regulations
and enforce them vigorously. It also will not affect banks willing to
continue to conceal their U.S. account holders despite the penalties
that carries a significant loophole for tax dodgers and the foreign
banks that assist them. So this legislation is not a silver bullet. In
fact, I believe our tax enforcement regime could be strengthened by
provisions of the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, S. 506, which I introduced
with Senators McCaskill, Nelson, Whitehouse, Shaheen, and Sanders. For
example, Treasury should have authority to prohibit U.S. banks from
participating in wire transfers with or honoring credit cards from
overseas banks that impede U.S. tax enforcement.
I will continue to press for enactment of S. 506 and to build the
growing momentum against overseas tax abuses. Make no mistake, today
marks an important milestone. For the first time in years, we are
poised to approve legislation with a real chance to pull back the
curtain of bank secrecy, expose offshore accounts, and ensure that
those who owe taxes pay them. Amid the growing concern over our budget
deficit and American families' concerns about making ends meet, we can
no longer afford to allow tax dodgers to hide behind this curtain,
avoiding their obligations and leaving their rightful tax burden for
honest taxpayers to carry. I urge my colleagues to approve the HIRE
Act, in the interest of America's workers and America's honest
taxpayers.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to discuss the jobs legislation,
known as
[[Page 3604]]
the HIRE Act, on which the Senate will be voting tomorrow morning, and
to express my deep concerns with the direction this bill has taken over
the past few weeks.
Ever since the collapse of the financial markets in late 2008,
helping our economy should have been a priority for this deliberative
body. However, it has taken more than a year for us to seriously
address legislation that would promote permanent job growth.
Several of my Finance Committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle
put a lot of time and effort into the creation of a compromise jobs
bill that Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley were trying to move
forward. I had high hopes that we might help thaw the partisan freeze
that has had this Chamber gridlocked for so long. But then, just as it
looked like we might see some light at the end of this bitter tunnel,
the rug was pulled out from underneath us by the majority leader's
inexplicable decision to hijack our work and alter it with a piece of
legislation that he knew would replace cooperation with acrimony.
But if that weren't enough, the majority leader added another slap in
the face of the minority; he once again filled the amendment tree, thus
shutting off the minority's ability to attempt to improve the bill. To
those unfamiliar with the Senate process, when the majority leader
fills the amendment tree, he prevents anyone else from being able to
offer any amendments to the underlying legislation. Thus, he prevents
compromise.
I have served in this body for a long time, and I cannot remember an
incident that exhibited as much raw political gamesmanship as this one
did. The fact that the majority leader chose to choke off the first
genuine attempt at cooperation on a major issue of such importance does
not bode well for the remainder of this Congress. How are those of us
in the minority supposed to have faith that we will not be excluded
from future debates? It is easy to label Republicans as the party of no
when they are completely excluded from the legislative process. When
this happens, ``no'' is the only option that remains.
But what puzzles me the most is what, even if they succeed, will the
majority gain from this maneuver? The Senate operates on a level of
trust that agreements will be honored, but now even that has come into
question.
Less than 2 months ago, I sat in the House Chamber while the
President gave his State of the Union Address where he raised the
importance of bipartisan cooperation, especially in the area of job
creation. The fact that the President hit a nerve with this plea is
evident by the effort to build such a bipartisan bill in the Finance
Committee in the weeks following. However, it is obvious that many on
the other side cannot stand the thought of working with our side when
there might be political points to be gained by trying to embarrass us.
Here are a few of the things the President said about the need for
bipartisanship in the State of the Union Address:
``And what the American people hope--what they deserve--is for all of
us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences;''
``[Americans] are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the
pettiness.''
``These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're
living by; business values or labor values. They're American values.''
In the same breath, President Obama went on to address the need to
promote job growth by saying:
``Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be
America's businesses.''
``We should start where most new jobs do--in small businesses,
companies that begin when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or
a worker decides it's time she became her own boss.''
And finally:
``[We should] Provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and
all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment.''
I certainly believed--as did most Republicans--that the President was
being sincere. But soon after President Obama addressed the Nation,
Senate Democratic and Republican members of the Finance Committee went
to work on a bipartisan solution to creating a jobs growth bill. I
worked with Senator Schumer to come up with a payroll tax holiday for
those companies that hired unemployed workers. Under this incentive,
the sooner a company hired someone, the greater the tax incentives the
company would receive. This initiative is a perfect example of the kind
of bipartisan President Obama was talking about during the State of the
Union.
Senators Baucus and Grassley joined in this effort by including
several other provisions aimed at job growth and remedies to address
the symptoms of a failing economy. This was a compromise that included
an extension of unemployment insurance, Build America Bonds, and the
extension of the expired tax provisions.
Let me be clear, there is no doubt in my mind and in the mind of many
of my colleagues that passing a jobs bill is crucial. We have seen our
unemployment rate remain stagnant at around 10 percent since last
September. The American people sent us here to do a job, and it is way
past time we did it.
This is why it was so shocking, then, that on Thursday, February 11,
the Senate majority leader suddenly announced that he was scrapping the
compromised proposal only hours after it was unveiled, proceeding
instead with a scaled-down bill. In minutes, the majority leader pulled
the rug out from not only Republicans but also those Democrats who had
been working for weeks on a bipartisan solution. Regrettably, because
of the majority leader's decision, it looks as though President Obama's
hope for a bipartisan solution to job creation only lasted 2 weeks.
What a shame.
To illustrate the abruptness and surprise in Senator Reid's
unexpected action, just look at the headlines the following day:
``Key Dem: Reid scrapped jobs bill because he did not trust
Republicans'' the Hill.
``Reid kills Baucus-Grassley jobs bill''--the Politico.
``Senate leader slashes jobs bill; Despite new support''--
LA Times.
But it does not end there. The majority leader sent a pretty strong
message when he said that he--and I quote--dared Republicans to vote
against his bill.
His Democratic colleagues were quick to stand behind this reversal.
Some Democratic Senators went so far as to say Republicans are not
interested in a bipartisan deal because we were more inclined to play
rope-a-dope again. They went on to characterize the tax extenders as
only going to people who are making money. They even went so far as to
say that what the Democratic caucus is taking to the floor is something
that is more focused on job creation than on tax breaks.
Now I know the Senate recently passed the expiring tax extenders
package as a part of a broader bill. But what continues to astound me
is how quickly so many Democratic Senators were to abandon these tax
extenders. In fact, most of them support--and even voted to extend--
these tax provisions. The Democratic leadership even erroneously
labeled the tax extenders as a solely Republican-supported initiative.
And many Democrats, including the majority leader, are cosponsors of
legislation that would extend many of the expiring tax provisions. Look
at the bills to extend the research tax credit or the alternative fuels
vehicle credit or even the new markets tax credit. These are by no
means solely Republican initiatives. The exclusion of these tax
extenders caused one Democrat to criticize the majority leader's action
by saying ``this bill was carefully crafted to achieve significant
bipartisan support and contains several important measures to spur
business growth and encourage new hires.'' So to label support for
extending these expiring tax provisions as part of a solely Republican
agenda is misleading, unfair, and unwarranted. These statements were
made only to support a desperate, hasty, and ill-considered decision.
The icing on the cake was when the Senate ended up passing these very
tax extenders last week by a vote of 70
[[Page 3605]]
to 28. In fact, only one Democrat Senator voted against these tax
extenders.
Some have questioned how extending these expired tax provisions
relate to job creation. It is a fair question but one with easy
answers.
The extension of these expired tax provisions only supports proven
growth of companies that are slowly beginning to see the light at the
end of the tunnel. Government funding would only provide a false sense
of job growth because once the government funding is gone so will the
jobs.
If we need proof that government spending is not as effective as tax
relief, we only have to look to what the Congressional Budget Office
said last year about the effects of the year-old economic stimulus
package.
The legislation would increase employment by 0.8 million to
2.3 million by the fourth quarter of 2009, by 1.2 million to
3.6 million by the fourth quarter of 2010, by 0.6 million to
1.9 million by the fourth quarter of 2011, and by declining
numbers in later years.
The reason why employment created from the stimulus bill would
decline in later years is because government spending does not create
permanent lasting jobs. The private sector, however, can create
permanent, self-sustaining jobs. The tax incentives give the private
sector a much needed boost. If we had included more tax incentives for
businesses in last year's economic stimulus bill we would have created
jobs that would have lasted well beyond the 2 or 3 years government
spending would have created.
Originally projected to provide $787 billion in stimulus, the
Congressional Budget Office, CBO, now puts the 10-year costs of the
stimulus bill at $862 billion. This does not include interest owed,
which would put the total cost at over $1 trillion.
Of the $862 billion stimulus package, only a third has been spent.
Another third is expected to be spent in 2010, and the remaining third
will be spent after 2010. What ever happened to spending money on
projects deemed to be shovel ready?
The administration has claimed the stimulus bill is responsible for
creating or saving 1 million jobs. If we take a closer look, we see
this claim is very misleading. For example, it was reported that a
construction company in Nevada reported creating 20 jobs on a project
that has yet to receive money. A school district reported saving 665
jobs, even though it only employs about 600 people. A town in Oregon
reported creating eight jobs on a contract for rattlesnake stewardship.
In January of 2009, President Obama's economic advisers predicted in a
report that with an $800 billion stimulus, the unemployment rate would
never go above 8 percent. Without the stimulus, they said, the rate
would be at 9 percent. The unemployment rate has been near 10 percent
since last September.
The stimulus package was sold to the American people as an immediate
fix. I think the exact words were that it would be a ``jolt'' to the
economy. Some of the quotes by the administration were ``you'll see the
effects immediately,'' from Larry Summers. ``We'll start adding jobs
rather than losing them,'' from Christina Romer, the President's Chair
of Economic Advisers. ``This will begin creating jobs immediately,''
from House majority leader Steny Hoyer.
Back when he was pitching the stimulus bill, then-President-elect
Obama said ``90 percent of these jobs will be created in the private
sector--the remaining 10 percent are mainly public sector jobs.''
However, in an article dated February 17, the Wall Street Journal
reported that government data indicate that most of the jobs supported
by stimulus spending belonged to public employees at the State and
local level.
In fact, only 2 percent of the entire stimulus bill was dedicated
toward tax relief for businesses. The public sector does not create
permanent jobs; the private sector does. We need to provide a
foundation to allow the private sector to nourish and create better
paying jobs.
That is why many supported including these tax extenders in the HIRE
Act. For instance, it is estimated that approximately 70 percent or
more of the research tax credit benefits are attributable to salaries
of performing U.S.-based research. How can some Senators disregard the
effectiveness of some of these tax extenders on job growth? And keep in
mind that the research credit has traditionally received more
Democratic support in this body than it has Republican support. In
fact, there is a bill to extend the expiring research tax credit. Of
the 18 cosponsors of this bill, 11 are Democrats. Furthermore, this
bill was introduced by the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee.
The President set the tone at the beginning of the year by calling on
Congress to put forth a bipartisan solution to creating jobs in this
country. In response, both Democrats and Republicans brought innovative
ideas to the table. Then, in a sudden change of events, many Republican
ideas have been excluded from the jobs bill the majority leader has
brought to the floor.
Again, the majority leader has maneuvered this legislation to prevent
any amendments from being offered by our side. In fact, the majority
leader continues to exclude Republicans from debate. Just look at this
chart that shows how many times the majority leader has filled the
amendment tree in relation to past majority leaders--25 times. If this
is not an arrogance of power, then I do not know what is. I only hope
the majority leader heeds to President Obama's plea for a bipartisan
solution.
I think one Democrat, learning of the majority leader's action, said
it best:
Most Americans don't honestly believe that a single
political party has all the good ideas. I hope the Majority
Leader will reconsider.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint
Committee on Taxation document entitled ``Estimated Revenue Effects of
the Revenue Provisions contained in the `American Workers, State and
Business Relief Act of 2010,' as passed by the Senate on March 10,
2010'' be printed in the Record.
In addition, please let the Record reflect that the document entitled
``Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions Contained in the
`American Workers, State and Business Relief Act of 2010,' as passed by
the Senate on March 10, 2010'' can be found on the Joint Committee on
Taxation Web site at http://jct.gov/publications
.html?func=startdown&id=3664. This document is a contemporary
explanation of the legislation that reflects the intentions of the
Senate and its understanding of the legislative text.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page 3606]]
[[Page 3607]]
[[Page 3608]]
[[Page 3609]]
[[Page 3610]]
[[Page 3611]]
[[Page 3612]]
[[Page 3613]]
[[Page 3614]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
motion to concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendment to the
House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
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 Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Bennett) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo).
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 29, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 55 Leg.]
YEAS--68
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
LeMieux
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--29
Barrasso
Brownback
Bunning
Chambliss
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--3
Bennett
Byrd
Crapo
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to
lay that motion upon the table.
The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska.
____________________
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. JOHANNS. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business,
and I would also like to lock in, if you will, that Senator Landrieu
will follow me.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
USDA ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM
Mr. JOHANNS. I rise today to discuss the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Animal Identification System. Over the past several
years, USDA has administered a system called the National Animal
Identification System, NAIS.
The ultimate goal of the system was to keep track of animal movements
so that we could trace back animals in the event of a disease outbreak.
The first step under animal ID was to register farms where animals are
housed, also known as premises, and that registration was to occur in a
database.
After registering a premise, a producer could identify individual
animals or groups of animals that moved to or from a premise, each
given an individual ID number. This system worked for those who wanted
to use it. But no one was forced to participate. In other words, it was
a voluntary system.
If producers wanted to participate in the program so they could keep
track of an animal's movements or because a trading partner might be
more inclined to buy their product, or for any reason that worked well
with their operation, then it was there for them. It was at their
disposal.
But as long as NAIS was in existence, it was a voluntary program.
Now, recently, on February 5, 2010, USDA announced it was doing away
with that and developing a new framework for animal disease
traceability in the United States.
It caught my attention as a former Secretary of Agriculture. The
Obama administration completed a series of listening sessions held by
USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--we refer to them as
APHIS--and those were done just last year.
Having held farm bill forums across the country as the Secretary of
Agriculture, I applaud any effort to hear directly from farmers and
ranchers. I applaud USDA for seeking input on NAIS. I was very
appreciative that, at my request, one of those animal ID listening
sessions was, in fact, held in my own home State of Nebraska.
But I must admit, after the listening sessions I was very surprised
at the new framework that the USDA has developed. USDA says the new
program is not a mandatory program except for animals that travel to a
different State from where they were born.
Think about that. With that little caveat, that basically means the
program is a mandatory program for a whole lot of livestock in the
United States. You see, anybody who has any farm background or
agricultural experience will tell you that the vast majority of animals
in this country move to a different State in their lifetime.
It is just simply a fact. Additionally, the program is mandatory not
only for premise registration but for the actual tracking of the
animal. Here is the real kicker. State governments will be tasked with
keeping track of the livestock under the new system.
It is almost like this administration realized how much opposition
there was to a mandatory system--and, believe me, there is--and decided
to hand the hot potato to the States. But in doing that, they said,
thou shalt do it but keep the headache off our desks.
States are genuinely and rightfully concerned about this new program
potentially being dumped on them. I am already hearing from officials
and producers in my home State, and they are enormously concerned by
this proposal. Some groups are even urging the Nebraska Department of
Agriculture, which would be tasked with administering the program, to
refuse to participate. And, believe me, this is not the last State that
will weigh in on this very controversial proposal.
Later this week, there is a meeting of State departments of
agriculture, State veterinarians, and other interested parties to
further examine this issue. That is why I am on the Senate floor. I am
going to be very anxious to hear their input and to hear the outcome of
that meeting because there is great concern in farm country for this
proposal. My hope is that conference participants can get some answers
to some basic questions.
Consider this: Let's say a Nebraska farmer buys a Nebraska calf with
no tracking number and puts it out in a Nebraska pasture. So that is in
state. That is pretty clear. No need to comply.
Sometime later, after that calf has gained some weight, it is then
taken to the auction barn, the sale barn. At this point, in the sale
barn, there are multiple buyers from all over the country typically.
There could be buyers from Nebraska and Kansas, Iowa, and other States.
They are all in the arena to bid on their calves.
But apparently only buyers from Nebraska could make bids even though
other buyers from other States might offer more money. Let's say by
chance a Nebraska feedlot is the highest bidder and buys the calf,
still in state, can feed that calf out--still no need to comply with
the animal ID program. But now, some months later, the steer is ready
to go to the packing plant, but the plant is on the other side of the
river in another State, and they will pay more than a plant instate for
that animal. Wait a second. Can the feedlot owner sell to the Iowa meat
processor? Apparently not because the two owners prior to him chose to
not participate in the program.
The bottom line: Many livestock auctions attract bidders from in
state and States all over the country. So one can assume all animals
sold through an auction barn will be required to have animal ID. For
those who have been to
[[Page 3615]]
these sales, can you imagine literally the auctioneer stopping the sale
and saying: These animals are not registered; only Nebraska purchasers
can buy the animals. If they were not ID'd, auctioneers would literally
have to stop the bidding and announce where the potential seller
resides for each animal without a tracking number. Then many of the
buyers must sit on the sidelines, visit the bathroom, go to the vending
machine, anything but bid on their calf. Can you imagine. It just
doesn't make any sense. What will be the viability of the cattle
operations in this country for that sale barn? What about the rancher
who sells some of his cattle in state and some of it goes to facilities
in other States? Will that person be required to tag some of the
animals in the feedlot but not others? He or she is going to spend more
time trying to figure out how to comply with the USDA program than he
or she will spend ranching. Producers are basically going to be forced
to fully participate in the program. I think the USDA knows it. If a
potential buyer is from another State, there can be no deal unless the
animal has the tracking number.
This looks like a backdoor mandate that is being packaged as
something else. Worse yet, the package is being delivered and dropped
on the doorstep of our States. Let's face facts. This so-called new
animal ID plan is a mandatory system, when it was promoted as a
voluntary one. In my judgment, to be blunt, this is a wolf in sheep's
clothing, but America's farmers and ranchers are not going to be
fooled. They know better than anyone that the vast majority of
agricultural commerce occurs across State lines and even country to
country. They deserve better.
Let me be clear. I did not come here to be critical of the fact that
USDA is considering new approaches. In fact, I acknowledge that when I
was the Secretary, I called a timeout to fully understand the
complexities of the animal ID and to hear from producers. I openly
said: I am considering making this a mandatory program. I thought a
mandatory approach might be necessary, and we listened and studied it
very closely.
Then we went to the countryside. We listened to farmers and ranchers.
What we heard overwhelmingly is: Mike, do not make this a mandatory
program. We realized that producers already comply with a laundry list
of Federal regulations. In this administration, it grows by the day.
They take numerous steps to ensure the safety of their animals. That is
their livelihood. Mandating an animal identification system would have
been one more costly burden dictated on the rancher by the Federal
Government.
I appeal to my friend Secretary Vilsack. We were Governors together.
I know where you are coming from. I went down that road too. I can tell
you, Mr. Secretary, it is a dead end. On one hand, USDA has
acknowledged the broad and deep opposition in the countryside when the
administration seemed to say: We are going to go forward anyway. Our
producers themselves have spent years trying to understand what NAIS is
about. There is no repackaging that will convince them another Federal
mandate is a good idea. Does this administration think States will
embrace this hot potato with all the costs and the unanswered questions
that go with it? I don't see it. The old NAIS system was not perfect.
We always acknowledged that. This is hugely complicated. But calling it
voluntary and then leaving producers no real choice is far from
perfect, and, most importantly, it is not a solution.
I urge the USDA to reconsider.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Louisiana is
recognized.
____________________
SMALL BUSINESS
Ms. LANDRIEU. I am pleased to speak as chair of the Small Business
Committee with several of my colleagues from the committee who have
been hard at work coming up with ideas, drafting and passing
legislation in the Small Business Committee over the last 3 months,
particularly to get ready for this time. It is time that this Senate
and Congress moved a third jobs bill with a focus on small business in
America.
I acknowledge the members of the Small Business Committee. Two of
them will join me this morning, and we will all, hopefully, be on the
floor in the next couple of days talking about the importance of
focusing on small business job creation. My ranking member, of course,
is the great Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe; John Kerry, former chair of
the committee; Chris Bond, former chair; Carl Levin; David Vitter; Tom
Harkin; John Thune; Joe Lieberman; Mike Enzi; Maria Cantwell; Johnny
Isakson; Evan Bayh; Roger Wicker; Mark Pryor; James Risch; Ben Cardin;
Jeanne Shaheen; and Kay Hagan. Let me say that these members have been
extraordinary. We have passed not one, not two, not three, not four,
but five fairly significant pieces of legislation in a completely
bipartisan fashion. The bills I will highlight this morning have been
passed by our committee by large and convincing margins: 18 to 0, 15 to
3, 16 to 4. We are proud of the work we have done.
My call to the Senators this morning is to get our eyes off of Wall
Street and onto Main Street. If we really want to dig out of this
recession, created by a number of things--failed policies from the past
administration, a confluence of the crash of the stock market and the
financial sector, poor regulation from us over time--the people who
have really suffered are the small business owners who, unlike large
businesses and public companies, have put everything at risk--their
future, their house, their children's future--everything at risk to
create business because that is what Americans do, and we do it better
than any country on Earth.
We recognize the strength of American business. It is about
entrepreneurship. That is what the Small Business Committee is focused
on. We want attention--and we will get it--to this issue.
I thank the members for their hard work and support. In this toxic
environment, to get anything out of a committee with that kind of vote,
we deserve a round of applause before we even start. But that is
another story for another day.
Now we have to move the bills through the process. I want to share
this graph, which is telling. Of the share of net new jobs created, 65
percent of the new jobs created by everything we do here will be
created by small business, not by big business. Large firms are
shrinking, reorganizing, sort of waiting for the market to come back. I
understand that. They have a fiduciary responsibility. These folks are
out there taking the big risk. When the way is not clear, when it is
still cloudy, it is small businesses taking a chance that maybe things
will turn around. These are the people we have to get our eyes on.
As chair of the Small Business Committee, I have heard for months
that small businesses want to hire new workers. They need to hire new
workers. They can expand their business, but they don't have the
ability.
Small business owner Ray Meche, who owns several neighborhood
pharmacies in southwest Louisiana, has an excellent track record. He
has been in business for over 20 years. He has never missed a payment.
He can't get a loan because he uses the small business lending program
and he is capped at $2 million. One of our bills would raise that cap
to $5 million. That is something we must do now. Until we do, business
owners such as Ray wait. They wait to get larger loans to expand their
businesses. They wait for a government contract. They wait for
opportunities for counseling as they attempt to boost sales by tapping
into potential markets overseas.
I want to show an export chart which is also telling. When I saw
this, I had my staff use it at every townhall I do because I actually
didn't believe it. I made them go back and do it several times because
it was so contrary to my notion of the world. But it is true. This is
the truth. Of all small businesses in America, of every one we know,
less than 1 percent export their goods out
[[Page 3616]]
of the country. Think about that. When the market in America is soft
and our businesses are trying to create jobs, we can do what we can to
energize these markets at home, but we most certainly should be looking
overseas. I can tell you why small businesses would be a little nervous
about it. Because they have never negotiated with big trade
representatives China and Korea and Germany and France. It could be a
little intimidating. They have great products. With the Internet, they
have the world at their fingertips. What they don't have is an export
bill by their own Congress that gives them an opportunity to get the
training and technical assistance through departments we already pay
for, departments that are already set up but just aren't focused on
small business and helping them trade.
I want to see this pie chart expanded. I don't know if we can expand
it to 10 percent of small businesses or 20 percent, but we can't sit at
1 percent while our people lose jobs here. That is why this package is
important.
I thank Senator Shaheen for her extraordinary leadership and also my
ranking member, Senator Snowe, who has spent a great deal of time
talking in the committee and in hearings about the opportunity for
trade. That is what this package does as well.
I want to present the Access to Capital Coalition that is behind us.
We did not come here to the floor alone. We have an extraordinary
coalition for a jobs agenda from small business groups all over
America, from the small business groups represented by the Chamber of
Commerce, to the Federation of Small Business, to the San Francisco
Small Business Network, to the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce,
the Marin Builders Association, the Main Street Alliance, just to read
a few, Oregon Small Business for Responsible Leadership.
This list represents hundreds of thousands of businesses that say to
me every day: Senator, does anybody know we are here? Every day we pick
up the paper and we read about AIG, Goldman Sachs, General Motors,
Exxon. We think those companies are great. We hope maybe to be as big
as they are one day. But does anybody know we are here?
I know you are there. We are going to fight hard for you, and we are
going to pull this coalition together to focus on the one group of
people in America who can actually create jobs, which would be the
small businesses, found in every neighborhood, on every Main Street, in
urban areas, suburban areas. And, yes, even rural areas can create the
kind of jobs we need to lift this Nation out of the worst recession
since the Great Depression.
I say to the Presiding Officer, you were a banker. You understand the
importance of lending money to small businesses and getting it to them
when they need it quickly. You established extraordinary opportunities
in your home State of Illinois. That is what this package of bills does
that has passed out of the Small Business Committee and is pending for
action in this Senate.
Small businesses have borne the greatest burden in this economy. They
are the business that have the greatest potential to improve it. By
making these simple, inexpensive, and commonsense proposals to help
small businesses, we can turn pink slips into paychecks for American
workers, and we can lift our entire Nation out of this terrible
recession into a brighter day in the future.
So, again, I thank my colleagues on the committee for working in such
a bipartisan manner.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
an outline of the five bills that make up this package, S. 2869, the
Small Business Job Creation and Access to Capital Act; S. 2862, the
Small Business Export Enhancement and International Trade Act; S. 2989,
the Small Business Contracting Improvement Act; S. 1229, the
Entrepreneurial Development Act; and S. 1233 the SBIR/STTR
Reauthorization Act.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
ADDRESSING SMALL BUSINESS NEEDS TO CREATE JOBS
S. 2869, the Small Business Job Increases 7(a) loans limits from $2
Creation and Access to Capital million to $5 million; 504 loans
Act of 2009. (Landrieu/Snowe). from $1.5 million to $5.5 million,
and microloans from $35,000 to
$50,000.
Allows the 504 loan program to
refinance short-term commercial
real estate debt into long-term,
fixed rate loans.
Extends the authorization to provide
90 percent guarantees on 7(a) loans
and fee elimination for borrowers
on 7(a) and 504 loans through
December 31, 2010.
CBO Score: $23 million over six
years--loan limit increase and
refinance programs are budget
neutral.
Passed the Committee on December 17,
2009. Vote of 17-1.
SBA has estimated the loan increase
would increase lending to small
businesses by $5 billion the 1st
year.
S. 2862, the Small Business Export Improves the SBA's trade and export
Enhancement and International finance programs.
Trade Act of 2009. (Snowe/ Elevates the Office of International
Landrieu). Trade within the SBA and adds
export finance specialists to the
SBA's trade counseling programs.
Establishes the State Export
Promotion Grant Program (STEP),
which would increase the number of
small businesses that export.
Improves coordination between
federal and state agencies and SBA
resource partners.
CBO Score: $69 million over six
years.
Passed the Committee on December 17,
2009. Vote of 18-0.
Leverages more than $1 billion in
export capital for small
businesses, creating/saving as many
as 40,000-50,000 jobs in 2010.
S. 2989, the Small Business Closes loopholes in bundling.
Contracting Improvement Act of Eases payment concerns for
2010 (Landrieu/Snowe). subcontractors.
Eases restrictions on teaming
agreements and JV arrangements so
small businesses have an
opportunity to go after larger
contracts.
CBO Score: TBD
Passed the Committee on March 4.
Vote was unanimous.
Increasing contracts to small
businesses by just 1 percent can
create more than 100,000 jobs.
S. 1229, the Entrepreneurial Reauthorizes for three years and
Development Act of 2009. strengthens the SBA's counseling
(Landrieu/Snowe). programs: Small Business
Development Centers, Women's
Business Centers, SCORE, the
Program for Investment in
Microentrepreneurs (PRIME).
Creates initiatives to increase
business opportunities for veterans
and Native Americans.
CBO Score: $614 million over five
years.
Passed the Committee on July 2,
2009. Vote of 18-0.
Estimated to creating/saving more
than 190,000 jobs in 2010.
S. 1233, the SBIR/STTR Reauthorizes the SBIR and STTR
Reauthorization Act of 2009. programs for eight years.
(Landrieu/Snowe). Increases the allocation from 2.5 to
3.5 percent over ten years for the
SBIR program.
Increases from .3 to .6 percent for
the STTR program.
Adjusts the awards sizes for
inflation and caps jumbo awards.
[[Page 3617]]
Makes eligible a certain percentage
of SBIR projects for firms majority
owned and controlled by multiple
venture capital firms.
CBO Score: $229 million over five
years.
Passed the Committee on July 2,
2009. Vote of 18-0.
Estimated to provide more than $2
billion in R&D funding for public-
private partnerships between the
government and small, high-
technology firms and to create more
than 500 new small businesses a
year.
Ms. LANDRIEU. We will take them up, hopefully, in a package at a
later date, but I want to call my colleagues' attention to the package
of bills that will expand loan limits, expand contracting opportunities
with the Federal Government, which, by the way, spends billions of
dollars right now with business. If we just spend a little bit more
with small business, these small businesses--instead of absorbing the
contracts, which the big businesses do--will have to hire up.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Small businesses, when they get a contract from the
Federal Government, will staff up because that is what small businesses
do. They are very flexible. They are very agile. They will scale down,
and they can scale up quickly.
So I am proud of this package. I want to recognize two of my members
who are on the Senate floor: former Governor and now a Senator from New
Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen, who has been a great leader on this issue--I
thank you, Senator--and also Senator Ben Cardin from Maryland. He has
been a particularly strong leader on the contracting for small
businesses. So I would like to ask the Senator to join me in her
remarks this morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am so pleased to join Chairman
Landrieu and my colleague, Senator Ben Cardin. Hopefully, he will be
able to speak after me to talk about the importance of small businesses
and what we have to do to support small business in this country.
Small businesses in New Hampshire and across the country, as Senator
Landrieu has said, are struggling. Of the jobs lost last year, almost
40 percent came from businesses with 50 or fewer employees. While we
have taken important steps to bring back the economy from the brink of
depression, sales and consumer demand are still too low and too many
small business owners remain frozen out of credit markets.
This economy is not going to fully recover until our small businesses
fully recover. In the past, it has been small businesses that have
created most of the jobs coming out of a recession, and this recovery
is going to be no different. If we want to see job growth in this
country, we need to take action to help small businesses get back on
their feet.
Now, as a former small business owner, I know it is business and not
government that creates jobs and drives innovation and new ideas. But I
also know government has an important role to play in helping small
business create jobs, especially in these very difficult economic
times.
Under the leadership of our chair, Senator Landrieu, who has done a
great job, along with our ranking member, Senator Snowe, in the last
several months the Small Business Committee has produced five major
pieces of legislation to help small companies create jobs again, and
Senator Landrieu has laid those out for people. I am proud to be a
sponsor of all five of these bills.
They spur research and innovation. They ensure small businesses get
their fair share of government contracts. They expand SBA lending
programs so small businesses can obtain affordable credit. They
strengthen the technical services the SBA can provide. And they help
small businesses gain access to international markets to sell their
goods and services.
These bills, as we have heard Senator Landrieu say, are bipartisan
efforts that passed the committee with nearly unanimous votes from both
Republican and Democratic members. I hope we are soon going to see
these bills on the floor of the Senate and that they will pass
unanimously.
All of the bills are important. But today I want to focus on what we
can do to help open global markets to small business because I strongly
believe that in order to have a sustained recovery from this recession,
we need to expand exports. Domestic consumer demand in the United
States simply will not rise to the level it was before the recession.
The good news is that the potential for export growth is enormous.
Over 95 percent of the world's customers live outside of the United
States. But as we saw so dramatically on that chart Senator Landrieu
just showed, only about 1 percent of small businesses export their
goods and services, and small companies that do export usually only
sell to one foreign market, while larger companies typically sell to
five or more foreign markets.
Emerging markets in developing countries such as China, India, and
Brazil offer great opportunities for growth. By 2020, about 90 percent
of the world's population will live in emerging markets. There is a
huge potential for smaller companies to tap these markets to grow their
businesses and to create jobs.
I have long been an advocate for exporting because international
markets are very important to New Hampshire. I was the first Governor
to lead a trade mission from New Hampshire overseas, and those trade
missions I led brought back about $500 million in sales for New
Hampshire businesses.
Small business generates almost half of New Hampshire's total
exports, and we have some great success stories.
Dartware, a software developer in West Lebanon, on the western side
of our State, first started exporting to Canada--which neighbors New
Hampshire, for those people who are not sure on their geography. Now
they sell to more than 80 countries. During this recession, exporting
has made a huge difference on their bottom line. Last year, their
international sales were 33 percent of their total sales. This past
January, export sales represented 63 percent or almost double their
total sales.
Another company, a small business called Sky-Skan, in Nashua, designs
and produces state-of-the-art technologies for planetariums. You would
not think there would be that many planetariums around the world, but
they have exported their products and services to over 120 countries.
Even in the midst of one of the most difficult economies in our
Nation's history, Sky-Skan was able to bring on 10 new employees.
In his State of the Union speech, President Obama set a goal of
doubling American exports in the next 5 years. He recently signed an
executive order creating an Export Promotion Cabinet. I strongly
support those efforts. I know other members of the Small Business
Committee do as well.
A recent World Bank study found that each dollar spent on export
promotion and assistance brought a fortyfold return. Right now, the
United States spends considerably less than the international average
in helping small businesses export. Government export promotion and
assistance is a smart investment that helps create jobs. One of the
important actions we need to take in the Senate to help improve export
promotion is to quickly enact the Small Business Export Enhancement and
International Trade Act of 2009--one of those five pieces of
legislation Senator Landrieu laid out.
[[Page 3618]]
We need to make the SBA a more valuable resource for small businesses
looking to export their goods and services, and this bill does just
that. I hope as these bills come to the floor of the Senate, we will
take a close look and we will recognize that if we are going to help
small businesses export, then we have to give them the tools to do
that. This legislation does that. It helps small companies finance
their exports by increasing loan limits and guarantees in SBA export
loan programs and expanding the number of SBA finance specialists who
are posted around the country.
This bill directs the SBA to collaborate more with other agencies
that provide services and programs for small exporters--something the
SBA has begun doing under the leadership of Administrator Karen Mills.
More U.S. exports abroad mean more jobs at home. We can and must do
more. We must do it smarter to help small companies compete globally.
If we do not, we risk falling behind, and our economy, our businesses,
and our families will lose out.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and look forward to hearing from my
colleague, Senator Cardin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to speak as
in morning business as part of the comments made by Senator Landrieu
and Senator Shaheen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, we are here today to talk about the
importance of job creation in our economy. We all know we need to
create jobs. The way to create jobs is to help small businesses. Too
much of the focus over the last couple years has been in helping the
large companies, the large banks. We need to focus on small companies
in order to create new job opportunities for Americans.
I compliment Senator Shaheen for her comments. She is absolutely
right. Small businesses can create many jobs in the United States by
creating products that are wanted around the globe. The problem is, it
is very complicated for a small business owner to have the type of
staff to deal with the difficulties of entering the international
marketplace.
Senator Shaheen pointed out very clearly that the legislation Senator
Landrieu has been instrumental in bringing forward in the Small
Business Committee that deals with enhancing international trade for
small companies, S. 2862, will provide more jobs in America by helping
smaller companies be able to get their products into the international
marketplace. That makes common sense.
As I said in the beginning, we need to create more jobs. Senator
Landrieu, in her leadership on the Small Business Committee, has made
that our top priority, and I congratulate her for bringing this to our
attention.
We know over 50 percent--over 50 percent--of private sector jobs are
with small companies. We know 64 percent of the net new jobs during the
past 15 years have come from small companies. That is where the job
growth will be. We are talking about creating jobs. We create more jobs
through small companies, but we have to help them because they have
many obstacles today to be able to create those new jobs.
Forty percent of high-tech workers work for small companies. This is
a very interesting statistic. There are 13 times more patents per
employee in small companies than in larger companies. Innovation comes
from our smaller companies. It does not mean we ignore larger
companies. They have opportunities small companies do not have. But if
we are going to create the jobs and innovation, we have to have a
healthy atmosphere for small businesses today, and we need to do a
better job.
What is the problem? Problem No. 1 is credit. Small companies cannot
get traditional credit. Many large banks have just closed out giving
loans to small companies. I can tell you of the calls I have gotten in
my office, the letters I have gotten. There is a high-tech company
located in Hunt Valley, MD. It is a small business that cannot get a
bank to make a refinancing loan so that high-tech company can expand.
They are doing very well. Their customer base would be very familiar to
many of the Members of the Senate. But they cannot get a bank to be
their partner in this environment because they are a small company.
As a result, many small companies, many small businesses resort to
the use of their personal credit cards--their personal credit cards--in
order to finance their business. One-third of small companies have over
25 percent of their overall debt from credit cards. Fifty percent of
small businesses' interests rates are 15 percent or higher. That is not
sustainable. You can't run a business based upon that type of
financing. We have to do much better in that regard.
That is why I was particularly pleased by S. 2869, which Chairman
Landrieu has brought forward with Senator Snowe, that would strengthen
the SBA's capacity to make credit available to small businesses. It
would increase the 7(a) loan program. The 7(a) loans are the
traditional loans small businesses get in order to finance their
operations. It would increase the amount from $2 million to $5 million
and continue the 90-percent Federal guarantee. The 504 loans, which are
used primarily for bricks and mortar, would increase from $1.5 million
to $5.5 million. The microloans, which give a business the opportunity
for working capital so they can move forward with an innovation and an
idea and create jobs, increase from $35,000 to $50,000. That tells us
how important that is to a small business. That extra $15,000 can be
the difference between developing an idea to create jobs or not.
I congratulate Chairman Landrieu for bringing forward that
legislation. It passed our committee by a 17-to-1 vote. This is a
strong bipartisan bill that we hope will be made permanent.
I think we need to do more. I have introduced legislation that
follows in the direction of the President. President Obama has
suggested we take some of the TARP funds and use it to help community
banks make loans to small businesses. I think we should look at having
direct loans by the SBA to small businesses, certainly as a backup, if
the private sector is not going to show enough interest to help our
small businesses.
I know there are other suggestions to help our States. Governor
O'Malley has suggested a program that could use some additional Federal
support and get money out quickly to small businesses for credit. We
need to focus on that because there is a credit crisis for small
businesses. We need to be able to do better than we are doing today if
we are going to be able to create jobs. In every State in the Nation, I
know my colleagues have heard from their small business owners that
they can't get affordable credit. We need to act in order to bring us
out of this current economic downturn.
There are other bills I wish to mention briefly. Chairman Landrieu
mentioned the bill I have been involved with, S. 2989, the Small
Business Contracting Improvement Act. Small businesses depend upon
government procurement as an effort to get started and to grow. The
problem is, there is this cozy relationship between procurement
officers and larger companies, so they have developed into practices
that have hurt small companies in being able to get the set-asides that
we in Congress said they should get. So what the contractor for the
government agency does is bundle a lot of contracts that should be
offered individually, but they bundle them to make them too large for
small businesses to be able to bid on. This legislation deals with the
abuses of bundling. I congratulate our chair for bringing that forward.
It also deals with the abuses between subcontractors and prime
contractors. It is no surprise to anyone here that small businesses are
more likely to be subs. Well, we don't have transparency and openness
and timely payments to the subs. The prime contractor is abusing
privileges, and we have a responsibility to make sure the law is
carried out with the set-asides to small businesses in our procurement
policies.
[[Page 3619]]
This legislation, which passed our committee by a unanimous vote
earlier this month, I think will go a long way to helping small
businesses create jobs in our community.
There is other legislation that is out there to strengthen the SBA
counseling program that Chairman Landrieu mentioned. I think that is an
important bill. It passed our committee by a 19-to-0 vote--again,
strong bipartisan support.
There is another program I wish to mention quickly, because during
the Recovery Act there should have been funds set aside for the SBIR/
STTR programs. They were not. We have spoken about that before in this
body. The legislation that passed our committee by an 18-to-0 vote
would increase the allocations for the SBIR and STTR programs, which
are high-tech set-asides for small high-tech companies, which help us
develop innovation technology here in America, keeping jobs in America
and expanding jobs in America. It would increase that set-aside from a
modest 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent. It passed our committee by an 18-to-
0 vote.
These are all important bills that I hope we will have an opportunity
to take up shortly as we look at the next jobs bill. I hope these
provisions can be incorporated into legislation we consider. This is
bipartisan. I think all my colleagues understand we have to create more
job opportunities in America. The way to do it is to help small
businesses deal with their current needs.
I will mention one other bill before yielding the floor; that is, the
health care bill which will help small businesses. The problem I used
to hear the most from my small businesses was about paying health care
costs. Now I hear credit. Credit is their No. 1 problem. But we provide
a credit--Senator Landrieu was helpful in getting this started
earlier--to our small businesses so they can afford to provide health
care for their employees. I thank Senator Landrieu for that provision.
That is going to help small companies and help job growth.
We also created the exchanges. These are the exchanges where a small
company can go in and buy health insurance policies. I can't tell my
colleagues how many times I have heard from a small business owner
saying: I am getting ripped off. I have no choice with an insurance
plan I can take. I have a 30-percent increase, a 40-percent increase in
premiums. My employees' health didn't deteriorate. Our costs didn't go
up by that, but I have no choice. There is no other company I can get a
policy with.
Well, under health reform, we provide options and choice and
competition for the small business owner. Today, they are paying, on
average, 20 percent more than large companies pay for comparable
insurance coverage for their employees. That practice needs to end. We
shouldn't be discriminating against small businesses in America, and we
take major steps forward to eliminate that discrimination.
These are all things we can do to create jobs in America, to help our
small businesses, help our Nation, help our recovery, and help us grow
as a nation, to be even more competitive, offering good jobs to the
people in our communities who are seeking employment.
With that, let me yield the remainder of my time to the chairman of
the Small Business Committee, the Senator from Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, again, I thank my colleagues both, and
particularly Senator Cardin, for that impassioned plea to focus this
place on small business. If we are serious about creating jobs, then
our focus, our effort, our work should be for the millions of small
businesses out there that with just a little bit of tweaking, a little
bit of help from an export initiative here, some regulation reform
here, loan pools here, changing current law, could help them do what
they want to do, which is expand and grow jobs.
I see my colleagues are here to speak, so I am just going to take 1
minute to conclude.
I wish my colleagues to know that while this package is five major
bills, there is an initiative that is not in bill form yet, but we are
very serious about bringing it forward. It is going to include a
provision for there to be a pool of capital available. It may be the
way Senator Cardin has envisioned it, which is direct loans from the
SBA. It may be the way Senator Levin and Senator Warner have been
talking about, which is an idea to provide guaranteed loan pools to
leverage private capital in the country. It may be something Bill
Clinton spoke with us about yesterday, which is creating a dynamic new
opportunity to retrofit public buildings in America and put people to
work and use the savings in energy efficiency to pay back the loans so
there is no new taxpayer money spent. It is leveraging the private
sector to do two great things: provide jobs immediately and make more
efficient every public building in America.
There is more we can do. So as the chairman, let me be very clear. I
am very proud of this package. It is five bills. It has passed our
committee almost unanimously. As we move this package to the floor, I
hope we will get the same cooperation from Republican Members on this
floor as we did from the Republican Members who serve on our committee.
We have been very open, very sincere in our efforts to pull this
package together, and we will continue to work in that good spirit. I
hope we are met with that same feeling.
Two more things, briefly. I am probably not going to push to put in
this bill a reform piece on credit cards to small businesses because it
is not the jurisdiction of our committee; it is primarily the
jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. However, I want this Senate to
know I am on record today. Senator Cardin says--and he is correct--how
in the world are small businesses in America going to stay in business
if they have to pay 15 and 20 percent interest rates? Could anybody
tell me this? Is there any small business in America that thinks they
can make money, hire people, and pay 20 percent interest rates? It is a
shame. It is wrong. We are going to do something about small business
credit card rates. I will tell my colleagues why. Because in the old
days, not too long ago when the housing market was strong, which it is
not today, Americans--who believe in the American dream because we tell
them about it when they are 4 years old and they actually believe it
when they grow up--their house had $200,000 or $300,000 or $400,000 or
$50,000 in equity. So when they wanted to start a business, they went
to their banker and their banker said: How much equity do you have in
your house? They said: $50,000. They wrote them a check that day for
$20,000. They took that amount of money and they bought a stove and
they started a business, maybe cooking a little scrambled eggs and ham.
Those days are over with. There is no equity in their homes anymore.
When they go to their bank, they don't see a sign that says welcome--
and I am not talking about community banks, I am talking about big
banks that got all the money from us--they see a sign that says come
back next year when things are better. So they have to then dig in
their pocket and pull out their credit card. We have done them a great
favor. We allow the companies to charge them not 3 percent, not 6
percent, not 10 percent but 20 percent.
I can't put that bill in this package, but I promise my colleagues it
is coming. We cannot ask small business to pay 20 percent on their
loans. Yes, we have to give them tax relief. But do my colleagues know
what they need right now? They need borrowing relief.
So I am going to conclude with that. It is going to be a good
package, and we are going to be very smart about how we put it forward.
I know we have to take the tough things maybe separately so as to not
detain this. But I am on record, and we are going to fight for it until
we get it done.
I yield the floor. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 3620]]
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before I get into the main topic, I
obviously appreciate the passion of the Senator from Louisiana. It is
unfortunate that she and the majority on the other side refuse to vote
for the most important thing we could have done immediately for small
business; that is, give them payroll tax relief and take the money out
of the stimulus package, so much of which is being wasted on issues
such as Davis-Bacon and environmental impact statements. We ought to
give small businesses payroll tax relief immediately.
____________________
DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN RUSSIA
Mr. McCAIN. Now I wish to take this opportunity to speak about the
ongoing cause of human rights and democracy in Russia. These are not
issues we hear much about from the current Russian Government,
unfortunately, unless it is to denounce those Russian citizens who
aspire to these universal values.
I had an opportunity the other week to meet with one of these brave
Russian champions of human rights, human dignity, and freedom--a man by
the name of Boris Nemtsov. I know several other people and other
Members of Congress had a similar opportunity to speak with him. Mr.
Nemtsov is but one of the many Russians who believe their country
deserves a government that enhances and enshrines the human rights of
its people in an inviolable rule of law, that allows citizens to hold
their leaders accountable through a real Democratic process. This
Saturday, March 20, many Russian human rights activists are planning
public demonstrations all across their great country--I might add at
great risk, since there is very little doubt that the Russian
Government may even forcibly repress some of these public
demonstrations, which will be peaceful. I asked Mr. Nemtsov what we in
Washington could do to support the cause of human rights in Russia, and
he simply said: ``Speak up for it. Speak up for us.''
It is my pleasure to do that today.
The Russian Government will surely take whatever I say here and
similar things said by others and try to paint Russia's champions of
human rights and democracy as puppets and proxies of the United States.
Of course, they would say and do the exact same thing even if no
Americans spoke up for the human rights of Russia's citizens. So we
should refrain from internalizing the Kremlin's talking points,
especially when Russians themselves are requesting our moral support
for their cause. Because the fact is, this isn't about particular
individuals or particular demonstrations held this week or any week in
Russia. This is about universal values--values that we in the United
States embody but do not own, values that should shape the conduct of
every government, be it ours or Russia's or any other country's. When
we see citizens of conviction seeking to hold their governments to the
higher standard of human rights, we should speak up for them.
This is all the more necessary when we realize the obstacles those
citizens face, especially in Russia. I wish to read a passage from the
2009 Country Report on Human Rights Practices, which was recently
released by our State Department. Here is how they described the human
rights situation in Russia:
Direct and indirect government interference in local and
regional elections restricted the ability of citizens to
change their government through free and fair elections.
During the year, there were a number of high-profile killings
of human rights activists by unknown persons, apparently for
reasons related to their professional activities. There were
numerous credible reports that law enforcement personnel
engaged in physical abuse of subjects. Prison conditions were
harsh and could be life threatening. Eight journalists, many
of whom reported critically on the government, were killed
during the year. With one exception the government failed to
identify, arrest, or prosecute any suspects. Beating and
intimidation of journalists remained a problem. The
government limited freedom of assembly, and police sometimes
used violence to prevent groups from engaging in peaceful
protest.
It will be very interesting to see how the police and the government
treat these demonstrations that will take place across Russia on March
20. These conditions would be intolerable in any country, and this
conduct would be unacceptable for any government. Clearly, Russia today
is not the Soviet Union, neither in its treatment of Russia's people
nor in its foreign policy. But I fear that may be damning with faint
praise, and Russians themselves are right to hold their country and
their government up to higher standards.
Russia is a great nation, and like all Americans of good will, I want
Russia to be strong and successful. I want Russia's economy to be a
vibrant source of wealth and opportunity for all Russians. I want
Russia to play a proud and responsible role in world affairs. I will
continue to affirm in public and in private that the best way for
Russians to secure what they say they care about most--reduced
corruption, a strengthened and equitable rule of law, economic
modernization--is by nurturing a pluralistic and free civil society, by
building independent and sustainable institutions of democracy, and by
respecting the human rights of all.
I was happy to see that Russian political parties not aligned with
the Kremlin actually won more seats in regional parliamentary elections
this week. Perhaps this signals a growing recognition among Russians
that the authoritarian tendencies of the Kremlin need to be rolled back
through popular opposition. Perhaps the Russian Government could allow
future elections at all levels to be freer and fairer. Perhaps. But
there is still a long way to go for the cause of democracy in Russia,
and I hope these small electoral gains only embolden democracy's
defenders.
As we speak up for the rights of Russia's dissidents, we must do the
same for the rights of Russia's neighbors as well--neighbors such as
the country of Georgia. I visited Georgia in January, and I had a
chance to travel to the so-called ``administrative boundary line'' with
the breakaway region of Abkhazia. On the other side of that boundary
line is sovereign Georgian territory occupied by Russian troops, as it
has been since the 2008 invasion. When I was in Munich last month for
an annual security conference, I heard several Russian officials
speaking from the same script, alleging acts of aggression by Georgian
forces against Russian peacekeepers--the same kind of rhetoric we heard
before the 2008 invasion. This should give us all pause. I know
Washington has a lot of foreign policy challenges at the moment, but we
cannot forget Georgia and the support it deserves amid a continuing
threat from its neighbor to the north.
A Russian government that better protects the human dignity of its
people would be more inclined to deal with its neighbors in peace and
mutual respect. That is why we should all say a silent prayer and a
public word of support for Russia's courageous human rights activists,
as they make their voices heard this Saturday. These brave men and
women want the best for their country. They want a government that is
not only strong but just, peaceful, inclusive, and democratic. I urge
Russia's leaders to recognize that peaceful champions of universal
values are not a threat to Russia, and that groups such as this should
not face the kinds of violence, repression, and intimidation that
Russian authorities have used against similar demonstrators in the
past. The eyes of the world will be watching.
Mr. 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. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
AMENDMENT NO. 3467, AS MODIFIED
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the
adoption of amendment No. 3467, that it be modified with the changes at
the desk.
[[Page 3621]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3467), as modified, is as follows:
On page 130, after line 24, 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.
____________________
SIGNING AUTHORIZATION
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
majority leader be authorized to sign any duly enrolled bills or joint
resolutions today, Wednesday, March 17, and Thursday, March 18.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RECESS
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in
recess until 2 p.m.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 12:27 p.m., recessed until 2
p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Acting President pro
tempore.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inouye). A quorum is present.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. President.
____________________
EXHIBITION OF ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST G. THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR.,
JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
LOUISIANA
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary
inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive
the managers appointed by the House for the purpose of exhibiting
Articles of Impeachment against G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., Judge of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
agreeably to the notice communicated to the Senate, and at the hour of
2 p.m., today, Wednesday, March 17, 2010, the Senate will receive the
honorable managers on the part of the House of Representatives in order
that they may present and exhibit the said Articles of Impeachment
against the said G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., Judge of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
counsel and staff of the House of Representatives be permitted the
privileges of the floor during the proceedings with respect to the
trial of the impeachment of Judge Porteous. They are as follows:
Danielle Brown, Allison Halataei, Alan Baron, Harry Damelin, Mark
Dubester, Kirsten Konar, Jessica Klein, Branden Ritchie, Michael Len,
Phil Tahtakran, Ryan Clough, and Elisabeth Stein.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senate will be in order.
I will now call upon the Secretary for the majority.
The Secretary to the majority, Lula J. Davis, announced the presence
of the House managers, as follows:
Mr. President, I announce the presence of the managers on the part of
the House of Representatives to conduct proceedings on behalf of the
House concerning the impeachment of G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., Judge of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The managers on the part of the House will be
received and assigned their seats.
The managers (Mr. Schiff, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Johnson
of Georgia, Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr. Sensenbrenner) were thereupon
escorted by the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, Terrance W. Gainer, to
the well of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sergeant at Arms will make a proclamation.
The Sergeant at Arms, Terrance W. Gainer, made the proclamation, as
follows:
Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded to keep silent,
on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is
exhibiting to the Senate of the United States Articles of Impeachment
against G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., Judge of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The managers on the part of the House will
proceed.
Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Mr. President, the managers on the part of the
House of Representatives are here present and ready to present the
Articles of Impeachment, which have been preferred by the House of
Representatives against G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., Judge of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The House adopted the following resolution which, with the permission
of the President of the Senate, I will read:
H. Res. 1165
Resolved, That Mr. Schiff, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California,
Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr. Sensenbrenner
are appointed managers on the part of the House to conduct
the trial of the impeachment of G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., a
Judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, that a message be sent to the Senate
to inform the Senate of these appointments, and that the
managers on the part of the House may exhibit the articles of
impeachment to the Senate and take all other actions
necessary in connection with preparation for, and conduct of,
the trial, which may include the following:
(1) Employing legal, clerical, and other necessary
assistants and incurring such other expenses as may be
necessary, to be paid from amounts available to the Committee
on the Judiciary under House Resolution 15, One Hundred
Eleventh Congress, agreed to January 13, 2009, or any other
applicable expense resolution on vouchers approved by the
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
(2) Sending for persons and papers, and filing with the
Secretary of the Senate, on the part of the House of
Representatives, any subsequent pleadings which they consider
necessary.
Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
With the permission of the President of the Senate, I will now read
the Articles of Impeachment.
H. Res. 1031
Resolved, That G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., a judge of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and
that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to
the Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in the name
of itself and all of the people of the United States of
America, against G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., a judge in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, in maintenance and support of its impeachment
against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I
G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., while a Federal judge of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, engaged in a pattern of conduct that is
incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a
Federal judge, as follows:
Judge Porteous, while presiding as a United States district
judge in Lifemark Hospitals of Louisiana, Inc. v. Liljeberg
Enterprises, denied a motion to recuse himself from the case,
despite the fact that he had a corrupt financial relationship
with the law firm of Amato & Creely, P.C. which had entered
the case to represent Liljeberg. In denying the motion to
recuse, and in contravention of clear canons of judicial
ethics,
[[Page 3622]]
Judge Porteous failed to disclose that beginning in or about
the late 1980s while he was a State court judge in the 24th
Judicial District Court in the State of Louisiana, he engaged
in a corrupt scheme with attorneys, Jacob Amato, Jr., and
Robert Creely, whereby Judge Porteous appointed Amato's law
partner as a ``curator'' in hundreds of cases and thereafter
requested and accepted from Amato & Creely a portion of the
curatorship fees which had been paid to the firm. During the
period of this scheme, the fees received by Amato & Creely
amounted to approximately $40,000, and the amounts paid by
Amato & Creely to Judge Porteous amounted to approximately
$20,000.
Judge Porteous also made intentionally misleading
statements at the recusal hearing intended to minimize the
extent of his personal relationship with the two attorneys.
In so doing, and in failing to disclose to Lifemark and its
counsel the true circumstances of his relationship with the
Amato & Creely law firm, Judge Porteous deprived the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals of critical information for its
review of a petition for a writ of mandamus, which sought to
overrule Judge Porteous's denial of the recusal motion. His
conduct deprived the parties and the public of the right to
the honest services of his office.
Judge Porteous also engaged in corrupt conduct after the
Lifemark v. Liljeberg bench trial, and while he had the case
under advisement, in that he solicited and accepted things of
value from both Amato and his law partner Creely, including a
payment of thousands of dollars in cash. Thereafter, and
without disclosing his corrupt relationship with the
attorneys of Amato & Creely PLC or his receipt from them of
cash and other things of value, Judge Porteous ruled in favor
of their client, Liljeberg.
By virtue of this corrupt relationship and his conduct as a
Federal judge, Judge Porteous brought his court into scandal
and disrepute, prejudiced public respect for, and confidence
in, the Federal judiciary, and demonstrated that he is unfit
for the office of Federal judge.
Wherefore, Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., is guilty of high
crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.
Article II
G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., engaged in a longstanding pattern
of corrupt conduct that demonstrates his unfitness to serve
as a United States District Court Judge. That conduct
included the following: Beginning in or about the late 1980s
while he was a State court judge in the 24th Judicial
District Court in the State of Louisiana, and continuing
while he was a Federal judge in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Porteous
engaged in a corrupt relationship with bail bondsman Louis M.
Marcotte, III, and his sister Lori Marcotte. As part of this
corrupt relationship, Judge Porteous solicited and accepted
numerous things of value, including meals, trips, home
repairs, and car repairs, for his personal use and benefit,
while at the same time taking official actions that
benefitted the Marcottes. These official actions by Judge
Porteous included, while on the State bench, setting,
reducing, and splitting bonds as requested by the Marcottes,
and improperly setting aside or expunging felony convictions
for two Marcotte employees (in one case after Judge Porteous
had been confirmed by the Senate but before being sworn in as
a Federal judge). In addition, both while on the State bench
and on the Federal bench, Judge Porteous used the power and
prestige of his office to assist the Marcottes in forming
relationships with State judicial officers and individuals
important to the Marcottes' business. As Judge Porteous well
knew and understood, Louis Marcotte also made false
statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in an
effort to assist Judge Porteous in being appointed to the
Federal bench.
Accordingly, Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., has engaged in
conduct so utterly lacking in honesty and integrity that he
is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, is unfit to hold
the office of Federal judge, and should be removed from
office.
Article III
Beginning in or about March 2001 and continuing through
about July 2004, while a Federal judge in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, G.
Thomas Porteous, Jr., engaged in a pattern of conduct
inconsistent with the trust and confidence placed in him as a
Federal judge by knowingly and intentionally making material
false statements and representations under penalty of perjury
related to his personal bankruptcy filing and by repeatedly
violating a court order in his bankruptcy case. Judge
Porteous did so by--
(1) using a false name and a post office box address to
conceal his identity as the debtor in the case;
(2) concealing assets;
(3) concealing preferential payments to certain creditors;
(4) concealing gambling losses and other gambling debts;
and
(5) incurring new debts while the case was pending, in
violation of the bankruptcy court's order.
In doing so, Judge Porteous brought his court into scandal
and disrepute, prejudiced public respect for and confidence
in the Federal judiciary, and demonstrated that he is unfit
for the office of Federal judge.
Wherefore, Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., is guilty of high
crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.
Article IV
In 1994, in connection with his nomination to be a judge of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., knowingly made material
false statements about his past to both the United States
Senate and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to
obtain the office of United States District Court Judge.
These false statements included the following:
(1) On his Supplemental SF-86, Judge Porteous was asked if
there was anything in his personal life that could be used by
someone to coerce or blackmail him, or if there was anything
in his life that could cause an embarrassment to Judge
Porteous or the President if publicly known. Judge Porteous
answered ``no'' to this question and signed the form under
the warning that a false statement was punishable by law.
(2) During his background check, Judge Porteous falsely
told the Federal Bureau of Investigation on two separate
occasions that he was not concealing any activity or conduct
that could be used to influence, pressure, coerce, or
compromise him in any way or that would impact negatively on
his character, reputation, judgment, or discretion.
(3) On the Senate Judiciary Committee's ``Questionnaire for
Judicial Nominees'', Judge Porteous was asked whether any
unfavorable information existed that could affect his
nomination. Judge Porteous answered that, to the best of his
knowledge, he did ``not know of any unfavorable information
that may affect [his] nomination''. Judge Porteous signed
that questionnaire by swearing that ``the information
provided in this statement is, to the best of my knowledge,
true and accurate''.
However, in truth and in fact, as Judge Porteous then well
knew, each of these answers was materially false because
Judge Porteous had engaged in a corrupt relationship with the
law firm Amato & Creely, whereby Judge Porteous appointed
Creely as a ``curator'' in hundreds of cases and thereafter
requested and accepted from Amato & Creely a portion of the
curatorship fees which had been paid to the firm and also had
engaged in a corrupt relationship with Louis and Lori
Marcotte, whereby Judge Porteous solicited and accepted
numerous things of value, including meals, trips, home
repairs, and car repairs, for his personal use and benefit,
while at the same time taking official actions that
benefitted the Marcottes. As Judge Porteous well knew and
understood, Louis Marcotte also made false statements to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation in an effort to assist Judge
Porteous in being appointed to the Federal bench. Judge
Porteous's failure to disclose these corrupt relationships
deprived the United States Senate and the public of
information that would have had a material impact on his
confirmation.
Wherefore, Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., is guilty of high
crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.
Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Mr. President, the House of Representatives by protestation, saving
to themselves the liberty of exhibiting at any time hereafter any
further articles of accusation or impeachment against the said G.
Thomas Porteous, Jr., Judge of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, and also of replying to his answers
which he shall make unto the articles preferred against him, and of
offering proof to the same and every part thereof, and to all and every
other article of accusation or impeachment which shall be exhibited by
them as the case shall require, do demand that the said G. Thomas
Porteous, Jr., may be put to answer the misdemeanors in office which
have been charged against him in the articles which have been exhibited
to the Senate, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and
judgments may be thereupon had and given as may be agreeable to law and
justice.
Mr. President, the managers on the part of the House of
Representatives, by the adoption of the Articles of Impeachment which
have just been read to the Senate, do now demand that the Senate take
order for the appearance of the said G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., to answer
said impeachment and do now demand his conviction and appropriate
judgment thereon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, at this time the oath should be administered
in conformance with article I, section 3, clause 6 of the Constitution
of the
[[Page 3623]]
United States and the Senate's impeachment rules. I move that the
Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, be designated by the Senate to
administer the oath to the Presiding Officer of the Senate, the Senator
from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining
to the trial of the impeachment of G. Thomas Porteous Jr., Judge of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, now
pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution
and laws, so help you God?
Mr. INOUYE. I do.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the oath shall now be administered by the
Presiding Officer to all Senators. This is an appropriate time for any
Senator who has cause to be excused from service in this impeachment to
make that fact known.
If there is no Senator who desires to be excused, I move that the
Presiding Officer administer the oath to Members of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Senators shall now be sworn. Will Senators rise and raise your hand.
Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of
the impeachment of G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., Judge of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, now pending, you
will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so
help you God?
SENATORS: I do.
The following named Senators are recorded as having subscribed to the
oath this day:
Daniel K. Akaka, Lamar Alexander, John Barrasso, Max
Baucus, Evan Bayh, Mark Begich, Michael Bennet, Jeff
Bingaman, Christopher S. Bond, Barbara Boxer, Scott
Brown of Massachusetts, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Sam
Brownback, Jim Bunning, Richard Burr, Roland W. Burris,
Maria Cantwell, Benjamin L. Cardin, Thomas R. Carper,
Robert P. Casey, Jr., Saxby Chambliss, Tom Coburn, Thad
Cochran, Susan M. Collins, Kent Conrad, Bob Corker,
John Cornyn, Mike Crapo, Jim DeMint, Byron L. Dorgan,
Richard Durbin, John Ensign, Michael B. Enzi, Russell
D. Feingold, Dianne Feinstein, Al Franken, Kirsten E.
Gillibrand, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley, Judd Gregg,
Kay R. Hagan, Tom Harkin, Orrin G. Hatch, Kay Bailey
Hutchison, James M. Inhofe, Daniel K. Inouye, Johnny
Isakson, Mike Johanns, Tim Johnson, Edward E. Kaufman,
John F. Kerry, Amy Klobuchar, Herb Kohl, Jon Kyl, Mary
L. Landrieu, Frank R. Lautenberg, George S. LeMieux,
Carl Levin, Joseph I. Lieberman, Blanche L. Lincoln,
Richard G. Lugar, John McCain, Claire McCaskill, Mitch
McConnell, Robert Menendez, Jeff Merkley, Barbara A.
Mikulski, Lisa Murkowski, Patty Murray, Ben Nelson of
Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Mark L. Pryor, Jack
Reed, Harry Reid, James E. Risch, Pat Roberts, John D.
Rockefeller IV, Bernard Sanders, Charles E. Schumer,
Jeff Sessions, Jeanne Shaheen, Richard C. Shelby,
Olympia J. Snowe, Arlen Specter, Debbie Stabenow, Jon
Tester, John Thune, Mark Udall of Colorado, Tom Udall
of New Mexico, David Vitter, George V. Voinovich, Mark
R. Warner, Jim Webb, Sheldon Whitehouse, Roger F.
Wicker.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, any Senator who was not in the Senate
Chamber at the time the oath was administered to the other Senators
will make that fact known to the Chair so that the oath may be
administered as soon as possible to that Senator. The Secretary will
note the names of the Senators who have been sworn and will present to
them for signing a book, which will be the Senate's permanent record of
the administration of the oath. I will remind all Senators who were
administered this oath that they must now sign the oath book, which is
at the desk, before leaving the Chamber.
____________________
ISSUANCE OF A SUMMONS AND FOR RELATED PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST G. THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the distinguished
Republican leader, Mr. McConnell, I send to the desk a resolution that
provides for the issuance of a summons to Judge G. Thomas Porteous,
Jr., for Judge Porteous's answer to the Articles of Impeachment against
him, and for a replication by the House, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 457) to provide for issuance of a
summons and for related procedures concerning the articles of
impeachment against G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
The resolution (S. Res. 457) was agreed to, as follows:
S. Res. 457
Resolved, That a summons shall be issued which commands G.
Thomas Porteous, Jr. to file with the Secretary of the Senate
an answer to the articles of impeachment no later than April
7, 2010, and thereafter to abide by, obey, and perform such
orders, directions, and judgments as the Senate shall make in
the premises, according to the Constitution and laws of the
United States.
Sec. 2. The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to utilize the
services of the Deputy Sergeant at Arms or another employee
of the Senate in serving the summons.
Sec. 3. The Secretary shall notify the House of
Representatives of the filing of the answer and shall provide
a copy of the answer to the House.
Sec. 4. The Managers on the part of the House may file with
the Secretary of the Senate a replication no later than April
21, 2010.
Sec. 5. The Secretary shall notify counsel for G. Thomas
Porteous, Jr. of the filing of a replication, and shall
provide counsel with a copy.
Sec. 6. The Secretary shall provide the answer and the
replication, if any, to the Presiding Officer of the Senate
on the first day the Senate is in session after the Secretary
receives them, and the Presiding Officer shall cause the
answer and replication, if any, to be printed in the Senate
Journal and in the Congressional Record. If a timely answer
has not been filed, the Presiding Officer shall cause a plea
of not guilty to be entered.
Sec. 7. The articles of impeachment, the answer, and the
replication, if any, together with the provisions of the
Constitution on impeachment, and the Rules of Procedure and
Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials,
shall be printed under the direction of the Secretary as a
Senate document.
Sec. 8. The provisions of this resolution shall govern
notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in the Rules
of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on
Impeachment Trials.
Sec. 9. The Secretary shall notify the House of
Representatives of this resolution.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
resolution was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to lay the motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF A COMMITTEE TO RECEIVE AND TO REPORT EVIDENCE WITH
RESPECT TO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST JUDGE G. THOMAS PORTEOUS,
JR.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the distinguished
Republican leader, Mr. McConnell, I send a resolution to the desk on
the appointment of an impeachment trial committee and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 458) to provide for the appointment
of a committee to receive and to report evidence with respect
to articles of impeachment against Judge G. Thomas Porteous,
Jr.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
The resolution (S. Res. 458) was agreed to, as follows:
S. Res. 458
Resolved, That pursuant to Rule XI of the Rules of
Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on
Impeachment Trials, the Presiding Officer shall appoint a
committee of twelve senators to perform the duties and to
exercise the powers provided for in the rule.
Sec. 2. The majority and minority leader shall each
recommend six members, including a chairman and vice
chairman, respectively, to the Presiding Officer for
appointment to the committee.
[[Page 3624]]
Sec. 3. The committee shall be deemed to be a standing
committee of the Senate for the purpose of reporting to the
Senate resolutions for the criminal or civil enforcement of
the committee's subpoenas or orders, and for the purpose of
printing reports, hearings, and other documents for
submission to the Senate under Rule XI.
Sec. 4. During proceedings conducted under Rule XI the
chairman of the committee is authorized to waive the
requirement under the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the
Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials that questions by a
Senator to a witness, a manager, or counsel shall be reduced
to writing and put by the Presiding Officer.
Sec. 5. In addition to a certified copy of the transcript
of the proceedings and testimony had and given before it, the
committee is authorized to report to the Senate a statement
of facts that are uncontested and a summary, with appropriate
references to the record, of evidence that the parties have
introduced on contested issues of fact.
Sec. 6(a). The actual and necessary expenses of the
committee, including the employment of staff at an annual
rate of pay, and the employment of consultants with prior
approval of the Committee on Rules and Administration at a
rate not to exceed the maximum daily rate for a standing
committee of the Senate, shall be paid from the contingent
fund of the Senate from the appropriation account
``Miscellaneous Items'' upon vouchers approved by the
chairman of the committee, except that no voucher shall be
required to pay the salary of any employee who is compensated
at an annual rate of pay.
(b). In carrying out its powers, duties, and functions
under this resolution, the committee is authorized, in its
discretion and with the prior consent of the Government
department or agency concerned and the Committee on Rules and
Administration, to use on a reimbursable, or nonreimbursable,
basis the services of personnel of any such department or
agency.
Sec. 7. The committee appointed pursuant to section one of
this resolution shall terminate no later than 60 days after
the pronouncement of judgment by the Senate on the articles
of impeachment.
Sec. 8. The Secretary shall notify the House of
Representatives and counsel for Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.
of this resolution.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
resolution was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF IMPEACHMENT TRIAL COMMITTEE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, in accordance with the resolution on the
appointment of an impeachment trial committee, I recommend to the Chair
the appointment of Senators McCaskill, as chair, Klobuchar, Whitehouse,
Udall of New Mexico, Shaheen, and Kaufman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in accordance with the resolution on
the appointment of an impeachment trial committee, I recommend to the
Chair the appointment of Senator Hatch, who will serve as vice
chairman, and Senators Barrasso, DeMint, Johanns, Risch, and Wicker.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the resolution on the appointment
of an impeachment trial committee and impeachment rule XI, the Chair
appoints upon the recommendation of the two leaders the following
Senators to be members of the committee to receive and report evidence
in the impeachment of Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.: Senators McCaskill
(chairman), Klobuchar, Whitehouse, Udall of New Mexico, Shaheen,
Kaufman, Hatch (vice chairman), Barrasso, DeMint, Johanns, Risch, and
Wicker. The Senate will take further proper order and notify the House
of Representatives and counsel for Judge Porteous.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
TAX ON BONUSES RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN TARP RECIPIENTS--Resumed
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the pending
business.
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.
McCain/Bayh amendment No. 3475 (to amendment No. 3452), to
prohibit earmarks in years in which there is a deficit.
McCain amendment No. 3527 (to amendment No. 3452), 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.
McCain amendment No. 3528 (to amendment No. 3452), 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.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is
recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Rockefeller will be back on the
floor shortly. We are on the FAA reauthorization bill. This is the
fourth day in the Senate that we have been trying to pass the FAA
reauthorization bill. We have accepted many amendments. We have had
many amendments offered that have nothing at all to do with this
legislation. I understand that. I think we voted on three or four of
them last night. But the process of trying to get something through the
Senate these days is slow and difficult. It is a little like watching
paint dry to see activity on the floor of the Senate. We are trying
very hard to do this.
This is not and should not be a controversial bill. Every American
who gets on a commercial airplane in this country has a stake in this
bill. This bill includes modernization of the air traffic control
system which will allow people to fly in the skies more safely, more
direct routes, save energy, and save pollution.
Modernization of the air traffic control system, to go from ground-
based radar to a GPS navigation system--we should have done that a
while ago. We have not. We need to catch up with the Europeans and
others. We need to move with some dispatch.
This bill should have been done long ago, but it has been extended 11
times.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I serve on the Commerce Committee with
Senator Dorgan. I thank him for his leadership.
During the time we waited and dithered and didn't get this done--not
you but others--have other countries modernized their air traffic
control systems?
Mr. DORGAN. Other countries are making good progress on this, going
to a GPS system. GPS is not a new technology, as many of us know. You
see many vehicles, automobiles around town using a GPS to navigate. You
have people using GPS on their cell phones. But on a jet airliner
flying across the country, hauling a couple of hundred people behind
the cockpit, they are using World War II technology, ground-based radar
for navigation, not GPS, which is the modernization approach.
This is called NextGen, modernizing the air traffic control system.
Europe is moving on it, other parts of the world are moving on it, and
we need to move. This is about safety. It is about modernizing the
system. But more than that, it is about investing in the infrastructure
for aviation in the country, building the airports and the runways. It
is about the issue of the passenger bill of rights, which is in this
bill, saying to the airlines: Here are the new rules. You can't have
somebody in an airplane 6 or 7 hours sitting on a runway someplace; 3
hours and then you have to bring them back to the
[[Page 3625]]
gate. I know some do not like that, but that is the passenger bill of
rights, giving passengers some rights as well.
I have spoken at length about this legislation, as has Senator
Rockefeller. I guess our hope would be that, if there are those who
have additional amendments and wish to debate them, they might come to
the floor or engage in the discussion on the floor so we can get this
piece of legislation passed. It makes no sense for us to continue to
talk and to continue to wait and not pass legislation when we have so
much ahead of us to do.
Cobell Settlement
I want to mention a couple of other issues we need to address while I
am waiting. One is the proposed settlement of the Cobell v. Salazar
litigation. The parties to the Cobell settlement asked Congress to pass
legislation approving the settlement by April 16th. It needs to be done
by April 16th or the parties may return to litigation.
Let me tell you what the Cobell settlement is. It is about American
Indians, the people who were here first in this country, the first
Americans. American Indians ceded certain property as a result of
treaties and other agreements, and reserved lands for their
communities. The federal government promised to manage these
reservations and hold the lands in trust. Well, over the last century,
Indians watched as timber companies would come in and produce timber
from those lands, mineral companies would come in and produce minerals,
and drill for oil on those lands. All the while, the government was
managing these lands and holding monies earned from that land in trust
for the Indians.
Then the Indians asked the question: What has happened to our money?
We see all these timber, grazing, and mineral activities going on and
we are supposed to get money from these lands--that the government is
holding in trust--but the money never quite shows up.
The Cobell case is named after a remarkable woman, Elouise Cobell,
from Montana. She is an American Indian, a member of the Blackfeet
Nation, and a banker. She filed a lawsuit against the United States and
she asked for one thing. She said to the Federal government: Give me an
accounting of the monies that you collected from my lands, my lands
that you held and managed in trust for me. And do the same for all
other Native Americans.
The fact is, nobody knew how much money was owed her. When they took
a look at the records that the Federal government had, and held for
Indian property and income, it was shameful.
For example, Mary Fish, an Oklahoma Indian, lived on her land in a
very small, humble house, and she lived next to an oil well pump that
was constantly pumping oil off of her land. She received just a
pittance of money from that oil. Where did the money go? Who would
account for that money? Why is it that Mary lived in such a humble
manner, in a very small home, when on her land, an oil well was
producing oil. Why is it that the money being managed by the Federal
Government somehow never got to Mary?
When the lawsuit was filed by Elouise Cobell, the judges in the
Federal courts asked: Where are the trust records for all these timber,
grazing, and mineral activities?
Here is what they found: the Federal Government could not produce the
records necessary for an accounting. For example, there were 162 boxes
of case-related documents that were shredded after the trial began--a
procedure that the U.S. Justice Department lawyers withheld from the
court for 3 months. Other records were in Louisiana, and in a rat-
infested warehouse in New Mexico.
Still more records were in North Dakota, and scattered in sheds
across the country. I have photographs of what they saw when they
opened up the warehouses in North Dakota. You can see piles of worn and
damaged boxes of what were supposed to have been records. And, this is
how the Federal Government cared for the information that was going to
tell American Indians how their trust lands were used. It is
unbelievable.
After years of litigation, the Parties in the Cobell case have
reached a $3.4 billion settlement. The settlement needs to be approved
by Congress, and the parties have an April 16th deadline for Congress
to approve the settlement. I have mentioned this on the floor of the
Senate before. This Congress has a responsibility to proceed by the
April 16th deadline to avoid further, unnecessary litigation.
The President, the Secretary of Interior--whom I commend, by the way,
who negotiated this settlement--have asked us to get this done, and we
have a responsibility to get this done.
Disability Claims
I also have another point which we will get to in a short period of
time on appropriations. I will mention those Americans who have filed
disability claims under Social Security and are now waiting over 16
months to have the Federal Government determine whether their claims
are valid, waiting 490 days after a claim is filed. That is pretty
unbelievable to me. This Congress has included about $2.5 billion of
additional funding for the Social Security Administration in the last 4
to 5 years. The expectation was that we would reduce the giant backlog
that existed of cases, disability claims filed by people who have paid
for this insurance.
American people pay for disability insurance out of their paycheck
under OASDI. When someone who is disabled files a claim in this
country, on average it takes 491 days to process it. That, after we
have given more than $2.5 billion in increased funding to the Social
Security Administration.
Precious little progress has been made. They say it used to be 514
days, now it is 491 days. That is not much progress as far as I am
concerned if you are disabled and you are expecting to file a claim and
have a claim processed in a reasonable period of time.
In my State there are 2,800 claims that are awaiting action. The
number of administrative law judges--we have two vacancies now out of
five. One gave his notice almost a year ago and has not been replaced.
None of this makes any sense to me. Congress should expect, of an
agency like this, especially when you get $2.5 billion in extra funding
over five years, to understand why has no progress been made. I sent a
letter to the head of Social Security asking what happened to the $2.5
billion. On the appropriations side, I want some understanding of what
happened to that money and why significant progress has not been made
in these disability claims that resulted from the funding given the
administration by the Congress.
Let me withhold for a moment and yield the floor so my colleague can
take the floor with an agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Unanimous Consent Agreement
Executive Calendar
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. As in executive session I ask unanimous consent that
today at 3 p.m. the Senate proceed to executive session to consider
Calendar No. 653, the nomination of O. Rogeriee Thompson to be a U.S.
circuit judge for the First Circuit, and there be up to 30 minutes of
debate with respect to the nomination with the time equally divided and
controlled between Senators Whitehouse and Sessions or their designees;
with Senator Reed of Rhode Island controlling up to 5 minutes; that at
3:30 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination;
that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be considered made and
laid on the table and any statements relating to the nomination be
printed in the Record as if read, the President be immediately notified
of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding for
that unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, In the remaining couple of minutes, let me
say it is my hope and the hope of Senators Rockefeller and Hutchison
that we will be able to make progress and complete the FAA
reauthorization bill.
[[Page 3626]]
This is the fourth day. We have seen so many interminable delays in the
Senate. Let's not delay legislation that has bipartisan support, that
deals with the issue of air safety in this country, and has so many
important provisions. Let's not at this point decide to delay this, of
all pieces of legislation, something that should have been done long
ago and has had 11 extensions instead of a reauthorization bill, when
we finally have a bipartisan reauthorization bill brought to the floor
of the Senate.
It is my hope if we are going to get cooperation on anything, at
least we could expect it on this piece of legislation. My hope would be
in the half-hour debate--I guess 1-hour debate and subsequent vote on
the judge, we might make some progress in seeing whether we could get
cooperation to be able to complete this bill today.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator withhold the
request?
Mr. DORGAN. I will withhold.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF O. ROGERIEE THOMPSON TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will go to executive session. The clerk will report the
nomination.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of O. Rogeriee Thompson, of
Rhode Island, to be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I congratulate Justice Thompson on what
should be her confirmation by the Senate today as a judge on the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. President Obama has made
another outstanding judicial nomination. The Senators from Rhode Island
have worked tirelessly to bring this matter to conclusion with a Senate
vote since her nomination was reported by the Senate Judiciary
Committee 2 months ago.
It has been 2 weeks since the Senate has acted on any of the 18
judicial nominations approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee that
are being stalled by Republican obstruction on the Senate Executive
Calendar. It has been almost 4 months since I began publicly urging the
Senate Republican leadership to abandon its strategy of obstruction and
delay of the President's judicial nominees. Regrettably, their
practices continue. Even though Justice Thompson is a well-respected
judge who has more than two decades of experience on her State's
courts, and whose nomination was reported by the Senate Judiciary
Committee without a single dissenting vote, her nomination has been
stuck on the Senate Executive Calendar for nearly 2 months. Justice
Thompson's nomination is not the only one being stalled despite having
been reported without opposition by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
There are a dozen such nominations ready for consideration and
confirmation that have been stalled without reason or explanation. They
could and should all be considered and confirmed without further delay.
In addition there are another half dozen judicial nominees awaiting
final consideration by the Senate that were reported with just a
single, or a few, negative votes. Those should be debated and voted
upon without more delay. If Republicans would enter into time
agreements, they would be considered. We should not have to go through
another filibuster and cloture vote like that on Judge Barbara Keenan
of Virginia, whose nomination was stalled for 4 months and then
approved 99 to 0. There was no reason for that delay. Yet it amounted
to a Republican filibuster until it was finally ended 2 weeks ago by
the majority leader and that Senate vote.
Just yesterday, more than a dozen Senators spoke about the delays and
obstruction of the President's nominees. Many Senators spoke about the
recent Republican filibuster of Judge Barbara Keenan. The Senator from
Pennsylvania spoke about the nominee stalled since December to fill a
Pennsylvania vacancy on the Third Circuit. The Senators from North
Carolina and Maryland noted that two well-qualified nominees to
vacancies on the Fourth Circuit remain stalled. And the Senator from
Rhode Island, a hardworking member of the Judiciary Committee, spoke of
the nomination on which we are finally being allowed to vote today,
that of Justice Rogeriee Thompson.
When the Senate confirms Justice Thompson, we will be confirming the
first African American to serve on the First Circuit, and only the
second woman. She is a trailblazer and an extraordinary woman. She will
be an outstanding Federal judge.
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. Only 17 of these have been
confirmed. Justice Thompson's nomination will be the 18th. There are
another five judicial nominations set to be reported by the Judiciary
Committee this week, bringing the total awaiting final action by the
Senate to 22.
Despite skyrocketing vacancies--now totaling over 100, more than 30
of which are ``judicial emergencies''--we are far behind the pace for
considering nominations set by the Democratic majority during President
Bush's first 2 years in office. By this date during President Bush's
first term, the Senate had confirmed 41 Federal circuit and district
court nominations and there was only a single judicial nomination
pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar. Only a single nomination
was pending. In stark contrast, to date the Senate has confirmed just
17 of President Obama's district and circuit court nominees, with an
embarrassing backlog of 18 judicial nominations on the calendar
awaiting Senate action. We are currently on pace to confirm fewer than
30 Federal circuit and district court nominees during this Congress,
which would easily be the lowest in memory. We have to do far more to
address this growing crisis of unfilled judicial vacancies.
The Republican strategy to stall, obstruct, and delay the Senate from
considering President Obama's nominations is working, at great cost to
the American people. Their failure to do their constitutional duty of
considering the President's nominations is 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.
The refusal by Republicans to make progress considering judicial
nominations is hard to understand given the work President Obama has
done to reach across the aisle to work with Republican Senators in
making judicial nominations. Unlike the often partisan and divisive
picks of his predecessor, 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.
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. The nomination
of Jane Stranch of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit, endorsed by home
State Republican Senator Lamar Alexander and reported by the committee
with bipartisan support, has remained stalled on the calendar since
last year. The nominations of Judge James A. Wynn and Albert Diaz of
North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit both have Senator Burr's strong
support and yet have remained on the calendar for more than 6 weeks.
The list goes on.
President Obama has worked closely with home State Republicans
Senators,
[[Page 3627]]
but Senate Republicans have still chosen to treat his nominees badly.
Indeed, the demand for consultation with home State Senators was the
purported basis for the threat from Senate Republicans to filibuster
President Obama's judicial nominations before he had made a single one.
They wrote in their March 2, 2009, letter to the President: ``[I]f we
are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the
Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that
nominee.'' Yet despite the fact that they were consulted and that
Senator Lugar did approve, Senate Republicans insisted on filibustering
Judge Hamilton's nomination. Despite consultation, there are still a
dozen and one-half judicial nominations stalled on the Executive
Calendar.
After Republican Senators pocket-filibustered more than 60 of
President Clinton's judicial nominations, denying them even hearings
and votes in committee and creating a vacancy crisis on the Federal
bench, Democrats did not do the same to President Bush's nominees. We
treated them much more fairly. We worked hard through 2001, even after
9/11 and the anthrax attacks, holding hearings even during Senate
recess periods, in order to swiftly consider President Bush's nominees.
That is why by this date in 2002 the Senate had confirmed 41 judicial
nominees. By contrast the confirmation of Justice Thompson will be only
the 18th Federal circuit or district court judge nominated by President
Obama to be confirmed. At this date in March 2002 there was a single
judicial nominee awaiting Senate consideration. By contrast, today
there are 18 stacked up because Senate Republicans refuse to consent to
their consideration.
Yet when Democrats refused to rubberstamp a handful of the most
extreme, ideological, and divisive of President Bush's nominees--not
the 60 nominations of President Clinton's that Senate Republicans
pocket-filibustered, or the 18 we have stalled on the calendar right
now--Republican Senators changed their tune, disavowed any
responsibility for their obstruction of President Clinton's nominees,
and contended that filibusters of judicial nominations were
``unconstitutional'' and ``offensive.'' The Republican leadership of
the Senate Judiciary Committee broke virtually every precedent and rule
we had in order to force nominees through the committee, and the
Republican leadership of the Senate sought to activate the ``nuclear
option'' to break Senate rules and precedent in order to ram through
each and every nominee.
Unfortunately, those same Republican Senators that once threatened to
blow up the Senate unless every nominee received an up-or-down vote are
now engaged in another attempt to abuse the rules of the Senate and
undermine the democratic process. Republican Senators who just a few
years ago insisted that ``elections have consequences'' have now made
the use of filibusters, holds, and excessive procedural delays the new
normal in the Senate in order to thwart our ability to make progress
addressing issues that affect all Americans. Those who just a short
time ago said that a majority vote is all that should be needed to
confirm a nomination, and that filibusters of nominations are
unconstitutional, have reversed themselves and now employ every
delaying tactic they can, imposing on the Senate a requirement to find
60 Senators to overcome a filibuster on issue after issue.
A bipartisan group of Senators joined together in 2005 to end that
last attempt by Republican leadership to abuse the rules of the Senate
by joining in a bipartisan memorandum of understanding to head off the
``nuclear option'' that the Republican Senate leadership was intent on
activating. Those same Republican Senators who agreed in that
memorandum of understanding that nominees should only be filibustered
under ``extraordinary circumstances,'' have abandoned all that they
said they stood for by engaging in an effort to stall or prevent an up-
or-down vote on nomination after nomination.
We saw that with their attempt to filibuster the nomination of Judge
Hamilton. Just 2 weeks ago a Republican filibuster of Justice Barbara
Keenan of Virginia to be a Fourth Circuit judge resulted from Senate
Republicans refusing to agree to debate and vote on that nomination.
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. And that 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.
So why are Republicans so insistent on reversing themselves and
applying new standards to halt our progress filling vacancies on the
Federal courts? Why have they insisted on departing so radically from
the standards set by the Democratic majority during the first two years
of the Bush Administration when we confirmed 100 of President Bush's
judicial nominations in 17 months? Why have they rejected President
Obama's efforts to reach across the aisle and nominate well-qualified
mainstream nominees? Why are they intent on constructing procedural
hurdles to delay and deny up-or-down votes to nominee after nominee?
The American people should see this for what it is: More of the
partisan, narrow, ideological tactics that Senate Republicans have been
engaging in for decades as they try to pack the courts with
ultraconservative judges. What is at stake for the American people are
their rights, their access to the courts, and their ability to seek
redress for wrongdoing.
For all the talk we heard about ``judicial modesty'' and ``judicial
restraint'' from the nominees of President Bush at their confirmation
hearings, we have seen Federal courts--most notably the Supreme Court--
these last 5 years that has been anything but modest and restrained.
Conservative activist judges are time and time again substituting their
personal beliefs to the law and the judgment of elected officials.
That is what we saw in the recent decision by a narrow five-justice
majority of the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission, a decision that gutted bipartisan laws enacted to protect
the ability of individual Americans to participate in elections and not
have their voices drowned out by corporations. Regrettably, that
decision is only the latest example of the willingness of a narrow
majority of the Supreme Court to render decisions from the bench to
suit their own agenda.
The Citizens United decision reinforces the profound concern I have
had about the real-world consequences of recent court decisions for
hardworking Americans. On issues like equal pay for equal work; the
power of Congress under the 14th and 15th amendments to pass civil
rights laws like the Voting Rights Act; and issues thought to be long
settled like the meaning of Brown v. Board of Education, the current
conservative majority on the Supreme Court seems determined to accrue
to itself the powers given by the Constitution to Congress and to
rewrite long-established precedents. The lower courts must follow suit.
Make no mistake, this is the product of years of work by Republicans
catering to the far right to remake the courts and reshape the law from
the bench.
Republican Senators who demanded up-or-down votes for even the most
extreme and ideological nominees of a Republican President now balk at
the consideration of well-qualified, mainstream nominees of a
Democratic President. The many years Democratic Senators worked to be
fairer to President Bush's nominees than the Republican majority had
been to President Clinton's nominees have been cast aside and forgotten
by the Republican minority.
Justice Thompson's nomination is noncontroversial and should easily
be
[[Page 3628]]
confirmed. I urge the Senate also to take responsible action to
consider the other 17 judicial nominations still awaiting a vote by the
Senate. The Senate can more than double the total number of judicial
nominations it has confirmed by considering not only Justice Thompson's
nomination but the other judicial nominees on the calendar. We should
do that now, without more delay, without additional obstruction, to put
us back on track. Senators should work together to do our jobs for the
American people.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask
unanimous consent that time be charged equally.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley.) Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, shortly, we will have the honor and
privilege, myself and Senator Whitehouse, to join in supporting and
confirming the nomination of Justice Rogeriee Thompson, who will be
confirmed today to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
Justice Thompson is an eminent member of our Rhode Island courts. She
has been an Associate Justice of the Rhode Island Superior Court since
1997. She is a path breaker in many respects in terms of her talent,
but also because she is the first woman of African-American descent to
serve on the Rhode Island Superior Court. She will be the first African
American to serve on the First Circuit Court of Appeals and only the
second woman.
She has achieved these remarkable results because of her intellect,
her character, her integrity, and her deep commitment to fairness and
to justice. She is a remarkable woman. We are pleased and delighted
that her nomination has been forwarded to us by the President. He has
made a wise choice. Today, we will have the opportunity to consider the
nomination and confirm her. She will do a remarkable job on the First
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Originally, Justice Thompson was born in South Carolina, but she came
to Rhode Island to attend Brown University. She earned her J.D. from
the Boston University School of Law and began her career as a staff
attorney at Rhode Island Legal Services.
So her progression to the First Circuit is one that has carried her a
long way. I think it has included, very importantly, a strong
commitment not just to the most fortunate in our country, but also to
those who desperately need help and assistance.
She will bring that sense of fairness and decency to the First
Circuit Court of Appeals. I urge all of my colleagues to support this
worthy woman and her nomination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the Senate is considering the
nomination of O. Rogeriee Thompson to the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit. I join my distinguished senior
colleague, Senator Jack Reed, in applauding President Obama's selection
of this very talented nominee. Judge Thompson's nomination has been an
uncontroversial one and for good reason: She is a dedicated public
servant, a highly experienced and respected judge, and a credit to our
home State of Rhode Island. I congratulate Judge Thompson on coming to
this point in the process. I look forward to an uneventful confirmation
vote in the next few moments.
I express to my colleagues my thorough confidence that she will have
a distinguished career as a U.S. circuit court of appeals judge.
I also thank some of my colleagues. I am grateful to majority leader
Harry Reid, to our chairman, Patrick Leahy, of the Judiciary Committee,
and to Senators on the other side of the aisle, in particular Judiciary
Committee Ranking Member Sessions, for clearing the path for us to vote
on Judge Thompson's nomination today. I also am grateful that my senior
Senator, Jack Reed, gave me the opportunity to assist him in
identifying the best possible nominee to recommend to President Obama
to serve on the first circuit. As my colleagues know, it has been a
great honor to serve with Senator Reed since coming to the Senate. This
experience with him was another great privilege for which I am deeply
grateful.
After the Senate's action today, after a lifetime of achievement,
Judge Thompson will make history as the first African American and only
the second woman to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit. This will not be the first barrier broken by Judge Thompson,
as she was the first African-American woman on each of the Rhode Island
courts on which she has served. These were great moments in the history
of our State. Her arrival will be a wonderful addition in the history
of the first circuit. Judge Thompson has given our State 21 years of
distinguished judicial service, first as an associate judge on the
Rhode Island district court and subsequently as an associate justice on
the Rhode Island superior court.
Judge Thompson has long scrupulously adhered to the proper role of a
judge, respecting the role of the legislature as the voice of the
people, deciding cases based on the law and the facts, not prejudging
any case but listening to every party before her, respecting precedent
and limiting herself to the issues properly before the court. Her
courtroom deservedly has come to be known as a place in which every
party can expect a fair hearing. I know she will earn the same
reputation for fairness and excellence as a judge on the first circuit.
I should add that Judge Thompson has also made great contributions to
our home State of Rhode Island outside of the courtroom. She has
chaired or been a member of important court committees that have
improved the quality of justice in our State. She has given back to her
alma mater, Brown University, by serving as a trustee of that great
university. She also has provided mentoring to innumerable students,
given her time to countless law school programs, and served on the
boards of valuable and important nonprofit groups such as the Rhode
Island Children's Crusade for Higher Education, a board on which I was
privileged to serve with Judge Thompson. Her willingness to give back
to our Rhode Island community is characteristic of her entire family.
Judge Thompson's husband, Bill Clifton, is a judge on the Rhode Island
district court. Her brother-in-law, Bill's brother, Edward Clifton, is
a judge on the Rhode Island superior court. It is a very judicial
family.
I had the occasion to appear before Judge Clifton. He was the first
judge when we began our Rhode Island drug court, when I was attorney
general. I have had firsthand experience of his qualities as well. We
in Rhode Island are very fortunate to be blessed by the service and
excellence of this family. I am sure this is a very proud day for them
all. I extend my best wishes and my congratulations.
I anticipate we will have a strong vote in favor of Judge Thompson.
She passed without incident or opposition through the review of the
Judiciary Committee. There were no questions raised about her at her
hearing. The voice vote in her favor was unanimous. The track record to
date is an indication of a likely resounding confirmation. I might add,
if that happens, that is yet another evidence of how talented she is
and how well she deserves this seat on the Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit. It is an important circuit for our State. It is a very
distinguished court. It has had very distinguished Rhode Islanders sit
on it in the past. A friend of Senator Jack Reed's and mine, the
honorable Bruce Selya, has served on that court with immense
distinction for many years. So there is an important Rhode Island
tradition on the first circuit.
I can assure all of my colleagues in the Senate that as a justice of
this court, O. Rogeriee Thompson will discharge all of her duties with
the greatest of distinction.
[[Page 3629]]
I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous
consent that the time be divided between the minority and majority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
nomination of Judge Thompson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of O. Rogeriee Thompson, of Rhode Island, to be United States Circuit
Judge for the First Circuit?
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 result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 56 Ex.]
YEAS--98
Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
LeMieux
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Bennett
Byrd
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President will be notified of the Senate's
action.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now return to legislative
session.
____________________
TAX ON BONUSES RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN TARP RECIPIENTS--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I want people to understand that the
Federal aviation reauthorization process is moving slowly but steadily.
We take several steps forward but none backward. Yesterday we approved
14 amendments. There was a tremendous amount of work done by the staff
to work those out. We have another large group we hope to be able to do
this afternoon. So large chunks of the bill are actually getting done.
Then, we have a number of controversial amendments, or potentially
controversial, and we are in the process of getting those locked down
so the Presiding Officer can pronounce a unanimous consent agreement
with 2 minutes equally divided.
I yield the floor to the Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague and
chairman of the committee and I are working very hard to clear further
amendments as well as get a vote on the Sessions amendment, with a
Pryor amendment connected to that, and a McCain amendment, so that we
can try to finish this bill by tomorrow. So that is what we are working
on. We are of the same mind on that. I hope very much that we will be
able to get the amendments cleared that are very important. I would ask
all of our colleagues to work with us to expedite matters so that we
can finish this bill early tomorrow.
Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the chairman as well for working
with us on this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I think the distinguished chairman of
the Judiciary Committee wishes to speak, but he is waiting for
something, so I will proceed.
This Federal aviation bill is enormous in scope, but we are doing it
in little pieces and with little amendments, so sometimes it is hard.
It has seven different titles in it. One of them has to do with
community air service to rural, underserved areas, which is very
important in my State and in the Presiding Officer's State--really all
of our States. Even California and New York have many very rural areas
where they need air service.
I spent 10 years chairing the Aviation Subcommittee, and I enjoyed it
enormously. I now chair the full committee, which I enjoy enormously.
But one focus throughout has been trying to protect small and rural
communities and give them air service. They travel. If the local
airport promotes itself, as a product must--it is not just a place
people go to; they have to announce themselves to the public and say:
We can take you here, we can take you there, while others of us try to
get flights in. It is tremendously important, so they are worth
fighting for, and we do that.
Large and urban States sometimes question that, but if they look in
their hearts, they have a lot of the same requirements themselves. It
is really about equality, and it is about the economy, and it is about
fairness. What is the difference between somebody from a city and
somebody from a smaller community? They both do business. One may not
have a big jet and therefore may require a smaller airplane, a commuter
airplane to get to where he or she wishes to go, but it is important
that they be able to get there. So it is vital to our economy.
Every single business considers, along with the school system, the
so-called quality of life, the crime rate, all of this, they consider
air service when they are deciding whether to locate or to expand in a
particular State. And so for that, we have this wonderful program
called the Essential Air Service--the EAS. It is a program which has
proved vital to communities across this country. It has allowed them to
keep air service they might not otherwise be able to keep, and
literally so. It doesn't bail them out to do that. I mean, it doesn't
pay the cost of that, but it helps them and they use it.
The first option of air carriers, naturally, but regrettably, as far
as a small community is concerned--if they are in distress, as our
airlines, our legacy airlines in particular, have been in recent
years--is they go to the end of the food chain to make their first
cuts, and that is always the small communities--the small airports and
the small centers. That doesn't make them less important.
Every time I think about that, I think about the time I ran for
Governor and I was defeated. I became president of a wonderful small
private college which had a grass airfield. They didn't get any Federal
help, because you can't do that with grass. But I always remember there
was a little yellow farmhouse when I drove out there, and it is still
the same little yellow farmhouse today. But if you go inside it has a
worldwide educational CD, video. It is the highest possible technology
company you can imagine. It just doesn't happen to want to build a
[[Page 3630]]
big building. It is happy in this little yellow farmhouse. You don't
have to have tall skyscrapers to do business. So the small community
air service development program has helped people.
My bill takes several important steps toward Kay Bailey Hutchison's
bill. We worked side by side--and I can't say this enough--every step
of the way. It is sort of a perfect combination of a ranking member and
chairman. We do several things here: We increase the authorized funding
for the Essential Air Service to $175 million. That is an increase of
$48 million. That is not a whole lot of money, but on a nationwide
basis that does a lot. That keeps many small airfields open and allows
them to have control towers and run air service.
We permit the Federal Aviation Administration to incorporate
financial incentives into contracts with the Essential Air Service
carriers to encourage better service. You have to keep your eye on
them. It is not just the question that Senator Dorgan has talked about;
that is, what is the name on the airplane. Sometimes there are two
names and you don't know which one you are riding on--is it United or
Colgan or what--and you need to know that. We correct that elsewhere,
in another title in our bill.
We also authorize the Federal Aviation Administration to negotiate
longer term Essential Air Service contracts. That makes sense because
that gives a sense of stability and predictability to an airfield--to a
small airfield--and to the public which is interested in it.
We authorize the development of financial incentives for carriers to
improve their service, as I indicated. It is quite amazing, the whole
structure of what people get paid to fly, from these little carriers to
commuter airlines. I am not going to give numbers to their salaries,
because you would be shocked at what they get paid--a lot less than
teachers. But they accept that because the seniority system says if you
have flown a long time, you get paid a lot. And they have accepted that
because people who know how to fly love to fly, and they want to fly.
But you have to keep your eye always on the quality of service.
Maintenance is a very high order, because that is the kind of thing
which could be neglected and people might not notice. It is like
keeping up your house. You can't defer maintenance or you pay a
terrible price. In the case of airlines, the price is very obvious.
We also authorize the Airport Improvement Program to convert
Essential Air Service; that is, small airports, into general aviation
airports. That turns out to be very convenient. There are thousands of
general aviation--big jets, little jets, and King Airs--all over this
country, and they fly everywhere, and we want them to. So we try to
encourage the EAS to do well by them.
We have increasing funding for contract towers. That is important.
You have to have a tower. I had a 9:30 appointment this morning, and
from not a large airport. Before taking off, there was fog, so they
couldn't take off. I assume they could see the fog themselves. But if
they were in doubt, the air traffic controller said: You aren't taking
off. That is called a service to them; less to me but to them, and that
is what counts.
In closing, I will mention something very important to West Virginia
and to other States. Our global economy is growing and we are much more
interconnected. It becomes very important now, for example, that
commuter services don't just take you from, let's say, Charleston, WV,
to Cincinnati. Sometimes, more importantly for business, they can take
you to Dulles Airport and you can connect to the international air
flight business, so that somebody from Bloomfield, WV, or Beckley, WV,
can be flying and go see his or her customers, or potential customers,
from a little commuter airport and a little commuter airplane, which
then turns into a much larger airport and international flow. I am
proud of this. And this is just part of our bill.
In the absence of other business, as we wait for amendments to be
worked out, we will do three of those this afternoon. Then we will
have, as I say, a tranche of agreed-to amendments--a very large
tranche. In the tranche of yesterday, which was 14 amendments, and the
tranche of today, which is almost that, that will be the bulk of the
bill.
We have been 3 years waiting on this bill. It has been sort of held
over or extended 11 times. Indeed, it will be 12 times by the time we
pass it, which will be, hopefully, tomorrow evening.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I offered, along with Senator Claire
McCaskill, my Democratic colleague, an amendment that will help contain
our tendency in this body--a bipartisan tendency, unfortunately--to
bust the budget, to spend more than we state we are going to spend. It
is a temptation that is all too real. We are faced with competing
choices to spend and spend, and some of our Members just find it hard
to say no.
We have to be careful about that because each time we do that, the
baseline of the budget or the emergency spending goes up, and we have
gotten into a habit of it that is surging us on an unsustainable path.
Mr. Bernanke, the head of the Federal Reserve, the Obama
administration's leaders, independent economists, and Republicans
across-the-board are saying we are on a spending path that is
unsustainable, that we cannot keep on. But I have to tell you, a lot of
this is bad because we budgeted it; but a lot of it is bad because we
break the budget and spend more than the budget says.
We have a historical incident in which this Congress passed statutory
caps on spending to support the budget. In effect, Congress passed laws
that said this is our budget for the next several years. We have actual
spending dollar limits in our budget. Let's pass a law that says if we
go above that, it takes a supermajority.
Our bill says it would take a two-thirds vote to exceed the spending
the budget allows. Some say: A two-thirds vote? That is a high vote.
But it is based on the budget and the passage of a budget, and the
budget is passed by a 50-vote majority. So the budget essentially will
be the Democratic colleagues' budget. What they pass is what they
expect the levels of spending should be and where we should cap it and
where we should not go any further.
This legislation would enhance our ability and state with clarity, as
a bipartisan act of this Senate and Congress, that this is where we are
going to stay and that we are serious about it this time and we are
going to do something about spending that is out of control.
The simple truth is, we cannot continue to spend as we are. The
simple truth is, we are spending into debt, deficit, more than we ever
have in our history. Let me just show this chart. I think it is a
pretty indicative chart that should cause the average person to lose
their appetite--maybe even have their hair stand up. I used this chart
a week or so ago. I was meeting later with a Foreign Minister from a
European country.
He said: I happened to be watching C-SPAN. I saw you yesterday on the
floor with this chart. He said: Do you use charts on the floor often?
I said: Yes, sir, we do, Mr. Minister.
He said: I thought it made a lot of sense. You ought to go all over
the country and show that.
This is the Congressional Budget Office numbers based on the budget
that is out there. It shows what our debt held by the public is. The
debt held by the public is the debt where we sell Treasury bills and
people give us their money. They loan us their money, and we promise to
pay them back--over 10 years or 2 years or 30 years--at a certain rate
of interest. Some people say: You should not count the internal debt;
that is not exactly accurate. The only thing that really counts is the
public debt.
[[Page 3631]]
The internal debt, the gross debt is much larger than this, but let's
just use these numbers. In 2008 the total public debt of the United
States was $5.8 trillion. Since the founding of our Republic--in 1789,
I guess, since the Constitution was written. In 2013, according to CBO
staff, it will double to $11.8 trillion. That is just 3 years from
now--double. Then, in 2019, it is projected to go to $17.3 trillion,
more than triple. This is not a little-bitty matter. That is why people
are saying we cannot continue this way. That is why Moody's, the debt
rating agency, is continuing to discuss whether to downgrade the
American debt.
There are entities out there that insure debt. Some people are so
nervous about debt they want to insure the Federal Government debt and
they pay an actual insurance premium to make sure if the government
doesn't pay them what they owe, the insurance companies will pay them
what they owe. I am not sure that is a smart deal. Maybe it is in a
smaller country. At any rate, people pay this.
The amount of insurance that has been paid on the American debt has
tripled. It is not a lot, but it says something about what independent
people are valuing.
The debt of Greece amounts to 12.9 percent. The 1-year deficit for
Greece amounts to 12.9 percent of their total economy--GDP. We are at
9.9 percent, our debt. This year--the year ending September 30, last
year--that deficit was $1.4 trillion, three times the largest debt in
the history of the American Republic--three times.
Is this year going to be better? No. This year they are projecting
when September 30 arrives, our deficit for that one fiscal year will be
$1.6 trillion. According to some of the estimates, the debt would drop
down to about $600 billion over the next 10 years, through 2019. But
now we are seeing numbers that indicate that was too rosy a scenario
and we probably will not drop below $700 billion, and then it starts up
in 2018, 2019, 2017--almost $1 trillion a year annual deficits.
These numbers are low by any estimate. Already this year's deficit
was supposed to be a little over $1 trillion, but it is going to be
$1.5 trillion; maybe $1.6 trillion. That is a lot of money. We just
passed another bill that added another $104 billion to the debt for a
jobs bill.
What we are saying is, we are on a pathway that is unsustainable. We
cannot continue to run trillion-dollar deficits. We are going to
average almost $1 trillion a year deficit for the next 10 years--
probably it will average maybe more than that. That is why I think all
of us are concerned about it.
Senator McCaskill and I, as a first step, offered legislation that
said we are going to stick with our budget. If we will just stick with
our budget things will be better than they would be if we do not stick
with our budget. It is not a cure-all. It does not deal with
entitlements and all the things with which we are confronted, but at
least our discretionary spending will stick with our budget.
The first vote was 56 voted for it. We made some changes to
accommodate concerns of some of our colleagues, and 59 voted for it--18
Democrats joined in voting for that amendment. So we need one more vote
to make it law, and I am pleased to work with Senator McCaskill because
we are serious about this good step.
When it was done, similar legislation was passed in the early 1990s
and continued throughout the 1990s. That was a factor, no doubt, in
going from substantial deficits in the early part of the 1990s and in
the 1980s to surpluses in the latter part of the 1990s. That was a big
part of it because we stuck to our budget numbers and we made progress.
Again, what number are you saying--is it a freeze on spending? Not
really. The President talked about a freeze on spending. I will support
that aggressively, but we are talking about a 1-percent or 2-percent
increase, according to the budget. So it will give us a hard limit on
how much increase in spending we will have. It will not require a cut
in spending.
How does this play out in terms of our economy? Well, what is a $1
trillion? We used to talk about millions, and then billions, now we are
talking about trillions. Is that really a lot of money? Yes, it is. One
trillion dollars is one thousand billion.
In Alabama State, we are almost 1/50 of the American population, and
Alabama's general fund budget is about $2 billion. Alabama, counting
education, is less than 10. One trillion dollars is an amount of money
difficult for us to comprehend. We have never, ever dealt with numbers
as dramatic as these numbers.
What is wrong with borrowing? Why don't we just borrow? We have to
pay interest on it. This is public debt. We do not have any internal
surpluses anymore, or very little, from Social Security and Medicare.
We have to go out and borrow this money on the marketplace and we pay
interest on it. We pay interest every year on what we borrow. Congress
passed, over my objection, an $800 billion stimulus package. Every
dollar of that was borrowed because we were already in debt, and when
we spend $800 billion more we have to borrow it and we pay somebody
interest on it. It comes out of our money that we collect in taxes. We
have to pay interest first just like you do on your mortgage. The first
thing, you pay your house note, otherwise they are coming to foreclose
and out in the street you will go.
How much interest do we pay? That is a question I think drives home
how serious our unsustainable course is. A simple truth is that the
interest on the national debt is growing in an incredible rate and will
soon surpass defense budgets and everything else in our budgetary
items. Look at these numbers.
In 2009, last year, we paid $187 billion in interest. What about the
highway program? The Federal highway program that we talk so much about
and argue and debate about exactly how much that should be is $40
billion a year, just $40 billion. We paid last year $187 billion in
interest. This is a lot of money. But as I told you, since we have an
unsustainable annual deficit every year, huge deficits on top of the
debt we have already accumulated, our interest payment on the public
debt will go up. Look at these numbers.
In 2020--from 2009 to 2020 the number hits $840 billion in 1 year we
will have to pay in interest because we borrowed so much money. That is
why we hear people say time and again this is immoral. We are borrowing
from our future, from our children and grandchildren, so we can spend
today and live well today without worrying about the impact it is going
to have in the future. Do not think this will not impact the economy
adversely also. This money is all a product of borrowing from the
economy, so the government is now crowding out private borrowing by
sucking up the money itself.
If you are a private person and you needed to borrow money and you
say: I promise to pay you back, and the guy said: I think you will pay
me back, but the U.S. Government will pay me 5 percent on a T-bill. Why
should I loan you money at 5 percent? If I loan to you, you are less
secure. I want 7 or 8 percent from you, big boy. That is how things
happen. It drives up our wealth and capital for the expansion of
businesses and home buyers and that sort of thing.
So look at that chart. It is a stunning chart, and it is a chart that
has the numbers on President Obama's budget that he submitted to
Congress, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office.
Well, that is why we have to do something. There are a lot of things
we need to do. But I am hopeful that in our debate and discussion in
recent days that we have had this vote up, this will be the third time
we vote on it. I am hopeful my colleagues will see this as at least one
firm step we will take that will help us contain our tendency to not
stay with our budget.
If we were to stay with spending increases that did not exceed 1 or 2
percent that is in the budget of the next 4 years now, according to the
budget passed last year, we would see a positive impact on spending.
Unfortunately, in the last year, we had bills such as Agriculture
increased to 10 percent; we had bills such as Interior get about 15 or
20 percent; we had
[[Page 3632]]
bills such as EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, a 30-percent
increase; State Department, a 30-percent increase.
A 30-percent increase in a budget, the budget is going to double in
about 3 or 4 years. At 7 percent, money will double in 10 years. So I
just would say, this is a dangerous thing. This will help us contain
that spending. That is why Senator McConnell and I are so interested in
seeing if we can be successful with this legislation.
I understand Senator Pryor has an alternative; they call it a side by
side. ``Vote for mine, do not vote for theirs'' kind of amendment. I am
not exactly sure what it says. Hopefully, I can support his too. I
understand his may be just a 1-year binding cap. It provides no point
of order to waive the cap. It increases spending in a number of
accounts. So we will look at that. I would like to be able to support
his too.
But what I would say to my colleagues is, the advantages of the
amendment Senator McCaskill and I are offering are, it is a proven
procedure, it requires a two-thirds vote to break the budget, it allows
us to tell ourselves, tell our constituents, and the world financial
markets that we get it, we are willing to begin to contain this
spending and that we can do better and we will do better in the future
and there will be other steps we will want to take.
But I do believe this amendment will be one of the first things we
can do, in a bipartisan way, to help control the growth of spending and
put us back on track. In the 1990s, it led to actual surplus. So I urge
my colleagues to support the Sessions-McCaskill amendment. I believe it
is the right thing for our country. It is a significant step that will
work. It is not going to solve all our problems, but it will be a big
help.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would ask if Senator Sessions notes
the absence of a quorum.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak as in
morning business for such time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me say that I do like
all the guys I am opposing on this legislation. I have been
particularly close to Jim DeMint for quite some time. It happens that
Senator DeMint and I, almost every rating that comes along, are
considered always in the top five most conservative Members of the
Senate.
In fact, I tell the occupier of the chair who already knows this,
that just last week I was declared by the National Journal to be the
most conservative Member of the Senate. I say that because I am
disagreeing with a lot of my friends who have come forth to try to do
something about what they call earmarks.
Let me try to make a couple points that I think are significant.
First of all, an earmark that is in a current underlying bill, if it is
defeated, does not save one cent, not one.
People out there believe--and I have heard the talks on the floor
where they say: Well, we have to do something about the next generation
and all that. Look, I have 20 kids and grandkids. I am the guy who is
concerned about the next generation.
So when you try to make people believe you are doing something that
is saving money and doing something about the horrible spending that is
going on, it is not sincere, because an earmark does not add money.
What you do when you kill an earmark is redirect it or you might say
you have an earmark, but you do not like what they put in, so you are
going to reearmark it to something else.
I will give you a couple examples. These examples, I know the Chair
is familiar with this because he serves on the Armed Services
Committee. They are two earmarks that Senator McCain had; one was the
earmark for the F-22, where the President had had an amount of money
for the F-22, our fifth-generation fighter. I thought it was not
enough. Several of us added more, about $1.75 billion to that program.
Senator McCain--and I respect the fact that he disagreed--disagreed
on this issue. But he had an amendment to strike that earmark, which
was a successful effort. So he struck it. However, that did not change
the fact that the NDAA, that is the National Defense Authorization Act,
was still at $679.8 billion, the same as it would have been had that
earmark not been struck.
What happens to that money? That was the $1.75. Well, that goes back
into the defense system, into the Pentagon, where President Obama and
his people can make a determination as to how to spend that.
Using another example very similar to that, when we had the
appropriations bill--that was authorization--when we had the
appropriations bill, it was at $625.8 billion. We had an earmark that--
you can call it an earmark because we increased the amount of money
within the bill, and we offset it to increase the number of C-17s. We
felt, in our judgment, that is what should happen. That would have been
$2.5 billion.
So Senator McCain tried to get that out of it, and he was
unsuccessful. So I have given you two examples, one where you
successfully defeat an earmark, one where you are not successful. But
neither one changes the underlying bill.
So for that reason, it does not happen. Another one the Senator had
was having to do with transportation. I respect him. I do not agree
with him. But he had an amendment that would strike some things from
the Transportation bill amounting to about $1.7 billion. He redirected
that to NextGen. NextGen is a program I am very familiar with because
it has to do with the next generation of avionics and all of it. I know
the Chair is aware of this; that when Senator Glenn retired, that left
me as the only active pilot in the Chamber or the only commercial
pilot. So I stay on those issues.
I found out I disagreed with Senator McCain on that because CBO said
we could do the NextGen without this additional money. So the point I
am trying to make is, eliminating earmarks does not save any money.
Here is another thing that I think is significant. Sean Hannity had a
three-night report that I enjoyed. What he did, he had a list of 102
earmarks. He went down these earmarks, and everyone enjoyed it. Last
night he had the last 20. So he went: Earmark No. 20, 19, 18, 17, 16--
went all the way down to earmark No. 1. There is not time to cover all
102 of these. I did this on Monday on the floor, by the way.
But it was such things as the $3.4 million to the Florida Department
of Transportation to build an ecopassage to allow turtles to cross
under the highway so they would not get hit by a car. That was $3.4
million; $450,000 for 22 concrete toilets in the Mark Twain National
Forest; another earmark, $325,000, to study the mating decisions of
female cactus bugs. That was another one. This country needs that, of
course; $300,000 to buy a helicopter equipped to detect radioactive
rabbit droppings; $400,000 to study whether adults with attention
deficit disorder smoke more than other adults. This is one that really
wound me up: $500,000 in a grant to a researcher named in the
climategate scandal. Here is a guy who has been cooking the science,
and we are going to give him half a million dollars. Then there is
$500,000 to study the impact of global warming on wildflowers in
Colorado.
I could go through all 102. But there is one thing they all have in
common. I will bet you not many people know what that is. Not one of
these 102 was a congressional earmark. These were all Presidential or
bureaucratic earmarks. There is where the problem is. But they won't
talk about it because
[[Page 3633]]
the public has been duped into thinking congressional earmarks are a
problem.
Let me tell you what happened over in the other House. I am
criticizing my own Republicans now. The Republican caucus got together
and they had a resolve. They said:
Resolved, that it is the policy of the Republican
Conference that no Member shall request a congressional
earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit, as
such terms are used in clause 9, rule XXI of the Rules of the
House . . .
That finally defines what an earmark is. I was thankful for that.
Even though their policy was bad, at least they talked about what an
earmark is. Here is what it is. Clause 9, rule XXI applies to all
legislation in the House of Representatives, whether it be
authorization or appropriation. That is what we do for a living around
here.
There is an old document nobody pays any attention to anymore. It is
called the Constitution. If you look up article I, section 9 of the
Constitution, it says that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury
but in consequence of the appropriations made by law. That is us.
Besides, if you remember studying about this--I know the Chair and I
have talked about his knowledge of the Constitution--it was James
Madison who was the father of the Constitution. He was the one who came
up with the three coequal branches of government--the judiciary,
executive, and legislative. He is the one who coined the phrase ``power
of the purse.'' That was James Madison. If you read the Federalist
Papers, he made it clear what we were supposed to do. What we in the
House and we in the Senate are supposed to do is pass laws that are
necessary to have appropriations and authorization.
The Chair and I are both on the Senate Armed Services Committee. That
is the authorization committee. We go through and study what we need to
defend America--missile defense, for example. We need to have
redundancy in all phases--the boost face, the midcourse face, the
terminal phase. All these things are complicated, and we really can't
expect the general public to be aware of it because they are too busy
making money to pay for all this fun we are having up here. We have
this authorization. That is what the Constitution says we are supposed
to be doing.
Then appropriations. After we authorize something, study as to
whether it should be a priority, then we have an appropriation to put
it into law. That is, again, what we are supposed to be doing. The
Constitution tells us we have to appropriate and authorize.
The oath of office--everyone here has taken the oath of office. In
that oath, we say we solemnly swear we will support and bear true
allegiance to the Constitution of the United States.
Wait a minute. They are going to uphold the Constitution, but they
have just said by their own resolution that they are going to break the
Constitution.
I look at this, and I think about how people, if they only knew this
was going on, if they only knew that all these earmarks Sean Hannity
talked about, all 102 were earmarks that came from unelected
bureaucrats--people not responsible.
There was an interesting article in the Hill paper the other day. It
was from February 4. They say lobbyists are now going to Federal
agencies because of all these efforts because of earmarks and all that.
So we have turned over and given to unelected bureaucrats what we are
supposed to be doing under our sworn oath.
I know Senator McCain is going to have an amendment coming up
tomorrow. I would like to suggest that people who talk about not doing
earmarks have done earmarks. In the case of Senator McCain, there was
an article titled ``McCain Breaks Own Pork Rule.'' This was from
November 7, 2003.
Then we have Senator DeMint, who--again, I really value him. He is
one of my closest friends. I remember when he was first running for
office. I went to South Carolina, and they talked about how roads were
so important down there, and he swore he would support them. So he did.
He kept his word. These are earmarks. Senator DeMint: $10 million for
the construction of I-73 at Myrtle Beach; $15 million to widen U.S. 278
to six lanes; $10 million, engineering, design, and construction of a
port access road; $10 million in improvements to U.S. 17; $5 million,
widening SC 9; $3 million to complete construction. These are earmarks
that were done by Senator DeMint. I don't blame him. That is what we
are supposed to be doing. I have done the same thing. You add up all
these earmarks on just that bill, and it comes to $110 million. Those
are Senator DeMint's earmarks on that one bill.
What I am saying is, these guys all earmark, but somehow the public
thinks there is something wrong with earmarks. I say: Fine. Define
earmarks. Be as honest as the House of Representatives. The House of
Representatives says earmarks are authorizations and appropriations.
What we need to do is remember what our jobs are here. Again, the
thing that frustrates me is that there are so many people writing
editorials thinking earmarks are going to somehow cut spending. They
don't cut any spending. Eliminating an earmark merely transfers it from
our constitutional responsibility to the executive branch. I am hoping
people will understand this.
I can remember 8 years ago. Everyone said at that time that global
warming was caused by manmade gases, anthropogenic gases. I thought, it
must be true; everybody says it is true, until the Wharton School of
Economics came along and did a study during the Kyoto Treaty days. They
said: What would it cost America if we were to sign and ratify that
treaty and live by its emissions restrictions? The range they gave us
was between $300 and $400 billion a year. We are talking about $300 to
$400 billion a year.
I see my friend from Arkansas. I suggest to him, that $300 to $400
billion a year would cost every taxpayer he has who files a return in
the State of Arkansas just under $3,000 a year. That is what it would
cost. We didn't ratify that.
Along came, in 2003, the McCain-Lieberman bill--another cap-and-trade
bill to do essentially the same thing Kyoto did--and then the McCain-
Lieberman bill in 2005 and the Warner-Lieberman bill in 2008 and the
Sanders-Boxer bill in 2009. All of these have one thing in common; that
is, cap and trade. Right now, we have Senator Lindsey Graham and
Senator John Kerry trying to change the word, not use ``cap and
trade,'' but essentially it would be cap and trade.
All of that would have cost between $300 and $400 billion a year. I
bring that up because it is pertinent to this. I brought it up because
8 years ago nobody believed me when I said it is going to cost that
much money and it will not accomplish anything.
Then, as the years went by, finally the Environmental Protection
Agency director, appointed by President Obama, in response to a
question I had--I asked: Let me ask you this. If we were to pass this
bill--that was the Markey bill; they are all the same; cap and trade is
cap and trade--how much would it reduce the emissions of
CO2? Her answer was: It wouldn't reduce it.
Common sense tells us it wouldn't. If we do something unilaterally in
America, it will not reduce the worldwide amount. As we lose our jobs
here, they to go China and Mexico, places where they are generating
more electricity. It will have the effect of increasing not reducing
it.
It took America 7 years. I was a bad guy for 7 years because in
advance I said that this is what it was going to cost. It was a phony
issue. Finally, they agreed.
This has endured 3 years. I have been trying to explain to people for
the last 3 years that you don't save any money if you kill earmarks. We
need to define what they are. The House has been honest. They have
defined it as authorization and appropriation, which is what the
Constitution says we are supposed to do. Everybody who says they are
against earmarks has been introducing earmarks.
The bottom line is, we need to really address something meaningful.
What I have done is I have introduced a bill that will do what
President
[[Page 3634]]
Obama said he was going to do; that is, freeze the nondefense
discretionary spending at the 2010 levels. The only problem with that
is he increased it in his budget by 20 percent. You are talking about
increasing the nondiscretionary or the discretionary nondefense
spending after you have increased it by 20 percent. So I introduced a
bill that says let's take it back.
This President is always talking about what he inherited from the
Bush administration. In 2008, the amount of money that was called
discretionary spending was 20 percent less than 2010. If it is good for
2010, let's bring it down to 2008. We have an opportunity that would
save just under $1 trillion in the next 10-year budget cycle. That is
the answer. That is what I think we ought to be doing instead of
sitting around and deceiving the public into thinking that just because
the media doesn't understand it, somehow earmarks are going to
accomplish something worthwhile.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Amendment No. 3548 to Amendment No. 3452
Mr. PRYOR. I move to set aside the pending amendment and call up
amendment No. 3548.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], for Mr. Reid, for
himself and Mr. Pryor, proposes an amendment numbered 3548.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text
of Amendments.'')
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I know this Nation is in a fiscal crisis.
Anybody who is paying attention to the details understands that. We
have to get serious about deficit reduction. I believe that in order to
do so, we have to look at the full picture. We can't just look at
discretionary spending.
I thank the President for saying he wants to freeze discretionary
spending. It is going to be an unpopular decision, but we need to start
taking steps like that. I also thank Senators Sessions and McCaskill
because they have offered an amendment that is going to be voted on in
a few minutes that freezes discretionary spending and puts a cap on it.
It is for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013. I voted for that on a
couple occasions and still support the concept.
But in order for us to get serious about getting our fiscal house in
order, we have to put everything on the table. That is the bottom line.
When we do the fiscally responsible thing, it is going to be hard. It
is going to be difficult politically. It will take determination and
political will. But we have to put everything on the table.
The multiyear discretionary spending caps were a key part of the
1990, 1993, and 1997 deficit-reduction packages. However, one of the
differences in those packages and what Senators Sessions and McCaskill
are offering today is those deficit-reduction packages looked at all
spending, mandatory and discretionary, as well as revenues. That is
what my amendment, the Reid-Pryor amendment we will also vote on this
afternoon, does. It puts everything--almost everything on the table.
We have to get serious about fiscal discipline and restoring fiscal
order in the United States. There is a story in yesterday's New York
Times--I am sure it was widely reported--that Moody's is considering
downgrading our bond rating from AAA down to something lower because of
the enormous national debt we have.
By establishing limits only on discretionary funding sources, we
greatly reduce the likelihood of any bipartisan agreement we can make
in this Chamber to fix our long-term deficits and long-term debt
problem. I think for us to fix this and to get our fiscal house where
it needs to be, we have to approach this in a bipartisan way. My
concern is, if we just do discretionary spending, we will never get to
a bipartisan agreement.
The other thing about this: If the Reid-Pryor amendment were adopted
today, I think the markets would like it. I think Wall Street and the
global markets and all these folks such as Moody's and all these other
people who are watching would see this as a very positive signal and it
would help the U.S. economy in many ways beyond just the pure numbers
in the budget.
I trust the members of the President's National Commission on Fiscal
Responsibility and Reform. I trust they will provide very viable
options and solutions. I look forward to their hearings and all of
their suggestions as they go through this year and try to address some
of the fiscal challenges we have.
The Senate has six Members on this commission: Senators Baucus,
Coburn, Conrad, Crapo, Durbin, and Gregg. All of these people bring
great experience. They all bring to the commission great depth of
knowledge on these issues. I am afraid if we do the cap on
discretionary spending, as we talked about before, it might actually
serve to undermine the commission's very challenging work.
I have a chart here that lays out a few things. This actually comes
from CQ Today, from Tuesday, February 2, so it is a little more than a
month old. But it paints a couple of pictures that I think we need to
emphasize today as we compare these two amendments.
The first picture shows these pie charts. I do not know if the
cameras can pick these up for the folks back home, but, as shown on
these two pie charts these are the 2011 revenue estimates and the 2011
proposed outlays.
One thing that I think is critically important is that when we look
at the Sessions-McCaskill amendment--you can see this purple slice of
the pie right here. You can see it is much less than half of the
Federal budget. You can see that very easily. But in the fine print
here--this is discretionary spending--that is nondefense and national
defense right there. Of course, they are carving out for national
defense. So my guess is, they are only talking about, I will guess, 20
percent of the Federal budget. I am not quite sure how much. So they
are trying to fix all of our problem with just about 20 percent of the
budget.
What our proposal does is it actually includes almost everything in
this pie, instead of saying 20 percent, probably 80 percent, 85
percent, 90 percent of the Federal budget will be included in trying to
address the fiscal challenges we have.
There is another thing I want to point out on this chart. It has been
around a long time. I have seen it in many publications. On this chart,
you can see our deficit spending, starting with the Jimmy Carter
administration, going through the Reagan years, the George Bush years,
the Clinton years, the George W. Bush years, and the Obama years. You
will see that, of course, the Obama years are mostly projections.
But what you see in these purple lines, all down here--under zero--
those are our deficits. Then they actually go up during the Clinton
years above zero. We go into surplus spending for the first time in a
long time, paying off national debt, trying to be fiscally responsible,
making tough choices. Not everybody was happy about that. We were
trying to do that. Then you see what happened after 2000, where our
numbers plummeted.
This yellow line--that maybe is hard to pick up on television--is the
percentage of GDP. But, nonetheless, you see on this chart a sharp
dropoff, and then you see this other sharp dropoff. So we have to
understand, when this President came into office, President Obama, he
did inherit a lot of problems, a lot of fiscal problems. But it is also
because of the recession, because of the near global economic collapse,
because of two wars and just because of some of these fiscal policies
of the previous administration and because of the stimulus and because
of some of his priorities. But you see the numbers going way down.
To President Obama's credit, he is moving the purple lines back up,
and that is great. But it is not enough. It is not enough. We need to
move these lines on up here, and we need to get above zero. We have to
get back to surpluses in this government so we can pay off the national
debt, and do this before our children and our grandchildren are stuck
with us living beyond our means.
[[Page 3635]]
I think that is the bottom line. I think the Reid-Pryor amendment is
the amendment that does that. We can talk about how we have an annual
deficit this year of--I think it is $1.2 trillion. I have forgotten the
number. We can talk about the national debt of--I think it is $13
trillion, and growing every single year. We have to get that turned
around. We are on an unsustainable course. We have heard the chairman
of the Budget Committee. We have heard the ranking member of the Budget
Committee. We have heard people who care about this issue say time and
again: We are on an unsustainable course.
I would ask my colleagues to look at the Reid-Pryor amendment. In
some ways, it is structured like what Senator Sessions and Senator
McCaskill have offered. Again, I voted for previous versions of that.
They changed it a little bit this time. But I think the greatest
liability for the Sessions-McCaskill amendment is it does not take in
the whole picture. Like the pie chart, it takes in a little bit of this
pie chart but not the whole thing.
If we are going to get serious--get serious--about fixing our fiscal
equation, we have to put everything on the table. That is discretionary
spending, mandatory spending, as well as revenues. We have to put it
all on the table, and we have to work through this together, hopefully
in a very bipartisan way.
I do not think we can fix this overnight. Even if our amendment were
to pass this evening, it does not mean we are out of the woods yet.
What it does is set the table for the deficit commission and others in
future Congresses to come in and do the things we need to do and get us
back where we need to be.
The last point I want to make about this chart right here is, if you
look at this purple line, this chart is basically a graph of political
courage. That is what this is. Because the easiest thing in the world
for a politician to do--the easiest thing for a politician to do--is to
cut taxes and raise spending. That is exactly what you see on this
chart. You see tax cuts coming in at various times, and you see
spending going up at various times. These purple numbers get way out of
balance when Congress and the White House take the easy way out, and
that is exactly what you see on this chart.
That is why we are in this situation today. It is not one President's
fault. I do not want to blame it all on this President or on the
previous President. This has been going on for a long time. It is not
one Congress's fault. It has been going on for a long time. But we have
to have the political will to change the way we do things around here.
I hope tonight will be a very important step in that process. I hope
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will look at the Reid-Pryor
amendment that contains all three fixes--and that is discretionary
spending, mandatory spending, as well as revenues--and try to get this
passed tonight and get us moving in the right direction.
I say to the chairman, I think we are waiting on Senator Inouye. So
until he gets here, all I wish to say is, what the Pryor amendment does
is to freeze all discretionary spending caps at the levels proposed by
President Obama for fiscal year 2011. It freezes all discretionary
spending caps for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 at 40 percent of the
difference between President Obama's budget proposal and last year's
budget resolution. The reason we do that is because Senator Sessions
and Senator McCaskill used last year's budget numbers, and it may be
fair under the circumstances this year. We are splitting the difference
there.
The third thing is that these two freezes will reduce discretionary
spending by at least $77 billion over 3 years-- reduce discretionary
spending by $77 billion over 3 years--a pretty substantial cut.
When we talk about discretionary spending, we are talking about
mostly the popular programs the government has. It may be things such
as auto safety. It may be things such as child product safety. It may
be things such as the Federal Trade Commission and some of the
oversight they have to keep consumers safe. It could be the EPA. There
are a lot of things--clean drinking water, clean air. That is what we
are talking about when we talk about discretionary spending. So we are
doing cuts there. Those are going to hurt. Again, people are not going
to be happy about that.
It also requires the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and
Reform to find at least an additional $77 billion of deficit reductions
over the 3 years to close the gap between the projected revenues and
entitlement spending. It basically says they have to find some spending
cuts as they do their work.
It also requires Congress to enact the debt commission's
recommendations by January 2, 2011, for fiscal years 2012 and 2013
discretionary spending caps to go into effect. It has a sense of the
Senate that the total amount of deficit reduction by the debt
commission shall be at least equal to the reductions in discretionary
spending.
One of the differences between the Reid-Pryor amendment and the
Sessions-McCaskill amendment is theirs is just about spending. And
listen, spending is important, and that is half of the equation. We are
spending too much money, and I recognize that, a lot of other people
recognize that. I know a lot of people in Arkansas recognize that. But
that is only half the equation. The other half is how much we are
taking in, and can we do better and smarter all around the board and
put everything on the table to try to fix this.
The real problem we face, in my view, is not spending alone but it is
the spending that is leading to these enormous deficits every year and
this enormous national debt. So I think our approach is more
comprehensive. I think it is fairer. I hope many of my colleagues, once
they see the language of the legislation, will consider voting for it.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, while we are continuing to wait, as we
have basically waited all day for amendments to be offered and debated
and voted on to the FAA reauthorization bill, Senator Rockefeller has
remained on this floor most of this day. This is a very important piece
of legislation. It is disappointing that it has slowed down, as have
most of the issues we have dealt with in recent months, in the past
year.
Apparently, we will vote either later tonight or likely tomorrow on
an amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill that has nothing to do
with the bill. It is so characteristic of the Senate that we bring a
bill on air safety and modernizing the air traffic control system, on
essential air service, on passengers bills of rights, and an amendment
is offered that has nothing to do with those subjects. The rules of the
Senate allow that.
Let me at least talk for a moment about an amendment that will be
voted on probably next and probably tomorrow, I guess, by Senator
Sessions and Senator McCaskill. I know Senator Sessions spoke about
this recently. He used a very large chart to show the growth in Federal
budget deficits and also debt. There is no question that the level of
budget deficits and debt are unsustainable and dangerous to this
country. There is no question about that.
What we ought to do is understand, No. 1, how did we get here and,
No. 2, how do we get to a different direction that addresses these
issues. Let me describe briefly the first part and then the second
part.
Ten years ago, there was a budget surplus in this country--the first
time in 30 years, a budget surplus 10 years ago. Then President Bush
was elected, and President George W. Bush said at the time: There is a
budget surplus,
[[Page 3636]]
and it is expected now there will be a surplus for the next 10 years.
He had Alan Greenspan, then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board,
whispering in his ear and saying: And, by the way, if we have surpluses
for 10 years, I worry a lot about paying down the Federal debt too
quickly. I worry that may be a real problem for our economy. I hope he
did not spend a lot of sleepless nights worrying about that. He needn't
have, I guess.
The President then, with that kind of counsel, said: I am going to
cut taxes, and I am going to cut taxes for 10 years at least. What I am
going to do is cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans because I believe
this economic engine works best by putting something in at the top and
letting it trickle down to everybody else.
We had a tax cut proposal that was very generous to the people at the
top. I stood on this floor and said: I don't think that makes any sense
at all. I think we ought to be a little conservative. First of all,
these are budget estimates of surplus. They don't exist. They are just
estimates by economists who cannot remember their home telephone
numbers, let alone what is going to happen 3 years from now. So let's
be a little conservative.
The President and those in the Chamber who voted for it in 2001 said:
Nonsense. Katy, bar the door; we are going to have budget surpluses
forever. We are giving big tax cuts and, yes, we are giving big tax
cuts to the wealthiest because they are the ones who make this economic
engine hum. And they did. I did not vote for it.
Very shortly then we found out we were in a recession.
That was a problem. Six months after that, we found out terrorists
were bent on injuring this country, and we had the 9/11 attack that
killed several thousand innocent Americans. Then we were at war with
terrorists--at war in Afghanistan and then at war in Iraq--none of it
paid for, not a penny. We sent men and women off to fight and did not
ask anybody to pay for a penny of it and put all of those costs on the
Federal budget debt. Just put it right on top of the debt.
In the meantime, as that decade--which I think will be known perhaps
as ``the lost decade'' of lost opportunity in some ways--moved on, we
also had people come into this town who were to be regulators and were
paid to be regulators who boasted: We are going to be willfully blind
for a few years. You do what you want. We won't watch. We won't tell.
The result was a field day for the biggest financial interests in
America, creating the most exotic financial instruments, such as credit
default swaps, CDOs, derivatives--by the way, synthetic derivatives.
What does that mean? That means you have an instrument that has nothing
on either side. It is just flatout gambling.
We have some of the biggest financial institutions that were spending
a decade trading trillions of dollars of derivatives, synthetic
derivatives, much of it by hedge funds and other financial entities
that were unregulated.
Again, Mr. Greenspan said, when those of us in the Senate pushed for
regulations: No, they don't need to be regulated. It will all work out
fine. Self-regulation--they are not going to do anything stupid. Self-
regulation will work just fine.
In the meantime, we had the home loan scandal, massive amounts of
money in subprime loans put out there to people who could not afford
them by companies that were making billions of dollars. Mr. Mozilo ran
Countrywide, the single largest home lender in America. He left with a
couple hundred million dollars. He is now under investigation. They
were putting teaser loans out.
They said: By the way, you have bad credit, no credit, don't pay your
bills, no pay, slow pay. They said: Come to us. We want to give you a
loan.
All of us understand that does not work. Yet that is what was going
on. They were awash in money by moving all these assets and securities
around. Unbelievable. That is the subprime loan scandal.
All of this transpired, and then it collapsed. When you create a
house of cards, the slightest little wind blows the house of cards
down. That is exactly what happened. We discovered that some of the
biggest financial institutions in this country had much more leverage
than they were able to sustain, and the entire thing came crashing
down.
The Federal Reserve Board now has spent untold amounts of money--
untold because they would not tell us. We asked them. They said: You
don't deserve to know nor do the American people deserve to know how
many trillions of dollars have gone out the back door to sustain
investment banks and others who made bad judgments. Those too-big-to-
fail institutions, no-fault capitalism, they were too big to fail, and
the American taxpayers got stuck. The American taxpayers and American
citizens lost about $15 trillion in value, and at the same time had to
bail out big financial institutions that made massive amounts of money.
By the way, right now they are paying, once again, bonuses of $120
billion, $140 billion in some of those same industries, and they are
showing record profits while some 15 million, 17 million people went
out to look for work and could not find it. Small- and medium-size
businesses are still having difficulties. Those at the top, too big to
fail, who received massive amounts of government help, are now making
record profits and paying record bonuses. All of that exists.
When we hit this ditch, this financial wreck, we lost a substantial
amount of income coming into the Federal Government--about $400
billion. The economic stabilizers we have, such as unemployment
insurance, food stamps, and others, the cost of them went way up. Had
Barack Obama, winning the Presidency, done nothing--walking across the
threshold into the White House for the first day, had he done nothing
for the next 10 to 12 months he would have had a $1.3 trillion Federal
budget deficit not of his making. That was his inheritance when he won
the Presidency.
We have these giant budget deficits. I find it interesting, people
come out and talk about these big budget deficits who have spent the
last 10 years saying: You know what. Let's go ahead and send men and
women to war, and we will just charge it. We will not ask anybody to
pay for it, ratcheting up this deficit, helping create these problems.
Now, all of a sudden they are having an apoplectic seizure over
budget deficits and the increased level of debt. We should have a
seizure over it because it is unsustainable, and we should fix it.
We need to understand what happened to create it and making sure we
fix it so that it does not happen again. That means financial reform.
That means paying for wars we are fighting, and so on, which is not
happening yet. Even more than that, the question is, What is the
medicine or the solution? So our colleagues bring an amendment that we
will vote on tomorrow that says what we should do is to freeze domestic
discretionary spending for 3 years--domestic discretionary spending.
Well, people who don't work around here don't know what that means so
much. What it means is they are proposing to freeze that portion of
Federal spending that has not blown through the lid here. What is out
of control are the entitlements--massive increases in Medicare and
Medicaid. What is out of control is the substantial increase in defense
spending that is not paid for. What is out of control is the
dramatically less revenue that comes from giving tax cuts to people who
didn't need it.
If you have a million dollar income a year--which would be a good
thing to have--and somebody says: You know what, you just won the
lottery. Our government says: We are going to give you a $79,000 tax
cut. So a proposal that says: You know what we are going to do, we are
going to take that smaller portion of the budget and we are going to
freeze that for 3 years--you know, the kinds of things that educate
kids, the sort of things that invest in people's lives, human capital,
human potential, the kinds of things that make life better. We are
going to freeze all that, but we are not going to touch anything on the
revenue side. No, we want to protect those tax cuts for the biggest
interests. We are not going to
[[Page 3637]]
do anything in the entitlement areas, despite the fact that we have
dramatic growth in Medicare. There is nothing in this that says: Let's
take a look at all spending. They say: Let's take a look at a bit of
spending. And there is nothing in here that says: Let's take a look at
revenues.
You have to look at all of these things. If you are serious, if you
are a deficit hawk and you are about getting your hands around this
deficit problem and getting rid of this problem, then you have to be
serious out here and say we are going to do it all; that we are going
to take a look at every single area of spending and we are going to
take a look at revenues as well.
Let me mention one example. In 2008, the highest income earner, pure
income, in America is a man who made $3.6 billion--$3.6 billion--
running a hedge fund. So he goes home at night and his spouse says: How
are you doing, honey? Pretty good. I made $10 million today. It is a
lot of money for a day, isn't it? Well, $3.6 billion is $300 million a
month, and so $10 million a day. But that is not his only success. It
wasn't just that he made $3.6 billion. It was that he gets to pay a
lower income tax than almost anybody in the State of Minnesota--the
State of the Presiding Officer--because most of the constituents of the
Presiding Officer pay income tax rates that are much higher than 15
percent. But that $3.6 billion earner gets to pay an income tax rate of
15 percent because it is defined as carried interest. That is a
loophole that you can drive a Humvee through, and it is one that we
ought to close right now.
You say you want to do something about deficits. How about making
somebody like that pay a fair share of taxes? If somebody is going to
work all day as a drill press operator and come home and shower after
work and try to figure out how he is going to pay the bills and so on,
if that person is paying a 20-percent, 28-percent, 30-percent, 35-
percent income tax rate, how about the person who is making $3.6
billion?
Somebody will listen to this and say: That is that old populism
again. That is not populism, to talk about things that are necessary
and right. It is not populism. It is deciding that everybody ought to
be treated fairly, and it is not fair if those who are at the low end
of the income ladder are paying the highest tax rates and those who are
at the high end are paying the lowest tax rates.
Warren Buffett, the second or third richest man in the world--a guy I
like and whom I have known a long time. He is a wonderful man. He did
an experiment at his office in Omaha, NE. I think he said they had
something like 20 or 40 or 50 people working at Berkshire Hathaway at
the office. So he asked them, I believe voluntarily, to disclose what
their income was--although his company pays them--and what their tax
rate was. What he discovered was this: Of all the people in his office,
the person who paid the lowest combined tax rate of income taxes and
payroll taxes was the third or second wealthiest man in the world:
Warren Buffet. He paid a lower tax rate than his receptionist. Warren
Buffett said to me: That is so unbelievably wrong. It has to change.
You all have to change that. I am paying what I should pay, but he
said: It is not right that you have a Tax Code that has me paying a
lower tax rate than the receptionist in my office.
My point simply is this: We could change that, and should, and
increase some revenue as a result by making the tax system fairer and
having those who should, pay their fair share. That is one way to
reduce the deficit, isn't it? Except it will never be done with this
resolution because it looks at that portion of the budget that would be
used to fund a school or to build a water project or to build a flood
protection project--just that domestic discretionary in which you
invest in America. Well, that doesn't make any sense at all.
Senator Pryor came to the floor and said he is going to offer an
alternative, which I am going to support, which includes all of these
things. It says: Yes, tackle this budget deficit, do it now, don't
delay, but tackle it with seriousness, seriousness of purpose, not just
taking one piece that hasn't exploded and ignoring the other pieces.
Take the piece of domestic discretionary spending that has not exploded
and say: Let's take all the savings out there. I don't understand that.
I understand the motive. The motive is to say: Well, we have a bunch
of people who don't want to touch taxes in any way, even asking the
$3.6 billion person who pays a 15-percent rate to start paying his fair
share. I understand they want to protect that. I don't. I want that
person to pay a fair rate of taxes to our government. They would call
that a tax increase. I don't. I think it is just evening up the score,
saying: You want all the benefits America has to offer but don't want
to pay the full obligation of being a citizen? The same is true with
some corporate interests that decide they want everything America has
to offer them but they want to run their employees through the Grand
Caymans so they can avoid paying payroll taxes.
By the way, the same people who are paying a 15-percent income tax
rate on carried interest running hedge funds are setting up deferred
compensation accounts in the Bahamas to avoid paying even that 15
percent. So is that something we can shut down? Of course. Would that
help reduce the budget deficit? Yes. Is that tackling domestic
discretionary? No. It is more effective than doing that, because we
know where this money is and we know how we could reduce the budget
this way.
I am in favor of tackling every part of the Federal budget and seeing
what works and what doesn't. There are a whole number of things this
government does that it doesn't need to do anymore.
I know Senator Kaufman wants to speak, but I want to mention one
thing first. I have been here at this desk a long time now, and let me
describe how unbelievable it is that even waste has its constituency in
this Chamber--even waste. We are doing this: We broadcast television
signals into the country of Cuba every single day that the Cuban people
can't see. We do it every single day. We have spent $\1/4\ billion
doing it. We broadcast from 3 in the morning until about 7 in the
morning and the Cubans routinely block them. The purpose of it was to
broadcast--under what is called Television Marti--and to inform the
Cubans about how wonderful freedom is. They are pretty well aware of
that by listening to Miami radio stations. And we know they understand
freedom because they get on rafts trying to find their way to this
country. But we have Television Marti, which is a big group of people
that is pretty well funded, about $20 million a year, or $25 million a
year now, and so we send television signals to the Cuban people that
they can't see. We first did it with a big blimp called Fat Albert, way
up in the air shooting signals down that the Cubans could block. Then
Fat Albert got off its tethers and landed in the Everglades, and what a
mess that was. Then they bought an airplane and they send the signal by
flying these planes, which the Cubans routinely block.
I have offered amendment after amendment after amendment to try to
stop spending to send television signals to no one, but you can't get
it done. Isn't that unbelievable? I will continue to do that because
that is an area of spending, it seems to me, where it takes a
nanosecond of thought to say: That is just stupid. That is just dumb.
So stop it. Except government doesn't quite work that way, or that
well.
But if the Pryor amendment is offered tomorrow, I fully intend to
support that aggressively because we are on an unsustainable path. Most
of us know how we got here, but not everybody yet knows how we are
going to get out of it, and I think that is a decent step in the right
direction. I would say that the Sessions-McCaskill amendment is
seriously deficient and is not, in my judgment, the serious way to
address what is a very serious problem.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
[[Page 3638]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
In Praise of Jeffrey Amos, Marvin Caraway, Jr., and Colin Richards
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise once more to highlight some of our
Nation's outstanding Federal employees. I have spoken before about
those who, in serving our Nation, place their lives in danger in order
to protect others. On March 4, a lone gunman opened fired near the main
entrance to the Pentagon, wounding two security officers before being
quickly subdued. These two officers and a third who assisted them
provide an example of the bravery and excellence of Federal employees,
and especially Federal employees in law enforcement who take risks
every day.
These three men all worked for the Pentagon Force Protection Agency,
which oversees security for the Defense Department's headquarters as
well as several other Defense facilities in the Washington area. It was
created after the attacks of September 11, 2001, to provide
comprehensive threat prevention for one of the buildings targeted on
that fateful day. Like those serving in other law enforcement and
security agencies, the men and women of the Pentagon Force Protection
Agency undergo rigorous training. Many are veterans of the Armed Forces
or have worked previously as police officers for States and
municipalities. They train to be ready at a moment's notice for
scenarios they pray will never come. Often these security officers will
stand at a checkpoint for hours at a time at the ready during days and
weeks and months of quiet.
As a youth, I worked two summers as a lifeguard in Philadelphia, and
we always used to say it was hours of boredom interspersed with seconds
of sheer terror. Well, sheer terror happened for these great Federal
employees. For these three officers from the Pentagon Force Protection
Agency such a moment came just before 7 o'clock in the evening of March
4, 2010.
Officers Marvin Caraway, Jr. and Colin Richards were standing guard
at the main entrance to the building--the Pentagon--when a suspicious
figure approached. Marvin sensed something was amiss, so he walked
toward him to check out his identification. When the man pulled a gun
from his jacket and began firing, one of the bullets grazed Marvin's
thigh. Undeterred, he held his ground and fired back. Later, his fellow
officer would tell reporters that Marvin was like ``Superman''--``a man
of steel.''
Colin ducked behind a barricade and began to return fire. Hearing the
shots, a third officer, Jeffrey Amos, ran over from his post nearby and
joined the effort to subdue the gunman. In the process, he was wounded
in the shoulder. The whole incident took only a minute and the three
officers fatally shot the assailant.
The quick reaction and undeterred professionalism of these three are
inspiring. All brought to the job a strong background in law
enforcement and public service. Marvin, who lives in Clinton, MD, is a
former marine, who served in the first Persian gulf war, and has
experience protecting our embassies overseas. Jeffrey, from Woodbridge,
VA, is a retired member of the Air Force Reserve. He spent 11 years in
the New Orleans Police SWAT team.
Colin, who resides in Arlington, VA, recalled how his experience and
training prepared him to act quickly. He said: ``My vision was big; my
hearing--I could hear everything. When the shooter started running, he
looked like a big target. At that point I felt like I couldn't miss.''
Federal security officers, such as Marvin, Jeffrey, and Colin, are
our modern-day ``Minutemen''--trained and ready to keep us safe from
threats to our liberty and security. We owe all of them our constant
appreciation.
I must add that we see the same dedication and professionalism right
here each day in our very own Capitol Police force as well. I know how
proud Majority Leader Reid is of his own service as a Capitol Police
officer when, as a young man, he stood guard at one of the entrances to
this building.
I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking Marvin Caraway, Jr.,
Jeffrey Amos, and Colin Richards for their bravery and a job well
done--as well as all those who serve as Federal security officers
standing at the ready. They are reminders of our great Federal
employees.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). Without objection, so ordered.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
new philadelphia
Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, in 1777, when our Republic was just a year
old and the Revolutionary War was raging, a man named Frank McWorter
was born in South Carolina.
In 1795, when the war was over and George Washington was President,
he moved to Kentucky. He married a woman named Lucy.
And in 1830, he and his family moved to Illinois--the very same year
that a man named Thomas Lincoln, along with his son Abraham, moved to
there from Indiana.
Frank McWorter decided he would settle down, and so he bought a farm
in Pike County's Hadley Township, and he began to plan out the town of
New Philadelphia. Other settlers moved in. Soon, there were family
homes, businesses, and even a school.
And when Frank McWorter died of natural causes in 1854, having lived
more than three-quarters of a century, he died in the town he founded
and guided to prosperity.
The community of New Philadelphia continued to thrive until it was
bypassed by the expanding railroad in 1869. Left behind by the steam
engine, and the wave of expansion it pushed across the western
frontier, the residents of New Philadelphia began to disperse by the
late 1880's, and the town gradually disappeared again into the Illinois
prairie.
The story of Frank McWorter and New Philadelphia is an extraordinary
one.
But as I told this story a moment ago, here on the Senate floor, I
left out one defining detail.
If Frank McWorter had been a farmer, or a banker, or a soldier, his
tale would be remarkable because of the era in which he lived--but in
many ways, he would have been no different from thousands of others who
grew up in the early days of our country.
But Frank McWorter's story is extraordinary because he was not a
farmer, or a banker, or a soldier--no, he was a slave.
When he moved to Kentucky in 1795, he did not go voluntarily. He went
with his owners. On the day he met Lucy, his future wife, the two of
them were slaves on neighboring farms.
Eventually, Frank was allowed to work odd jobs, and hire out his own
time and labor. He learned to mine a major component of gunpowder,
which proved profitable.
By 1817, he had earned enough money to purchase freedom for his wife.
And in 1819, he bought his own freedom--and set out to build a life for
himself, as a free American. That is the story of Frank McWorter.
So, when he started the town of New Philadelphia in 1836, he
accomplished something truly remarkable and unique. He became the first
known free African American in history to legally found and plan a
town.
And he used the proceeds from land sales to purchase freedom for 15
of his family members.
I invite my colleagues to imagine what life must have been like in
New Philadelphia in the mid-1800s. In pre-Civil War America--in a time
when this country still legally permitted slavery--New Philadelphia,
IL, was a place where people of all races lived and worked side by
side.
Federal census records indicate that the town was populated by
teachers, blacksmiths, merchants, cabinetmakers, and shoemakers. There
was a
[[Page 3639]]
seamstress, a doctor, a wheelwright, and a carpenter. New Philadelphia
even had its own post office, which also served as a stagecoach stop.
Imagine what we could learn from studying this unique place, which
existed during such an important time.
An in-depth study of New Philadelphia could yield important
information about what life was like in an integrated community during
that period. It could add new dimensions to our understanding of the
history we share.
I urge my colleagues to join with me in preserving this historic
site, which was designated a National Historic Landmark last year.
But I believe it's time to take the next step to ensure that the
extraordinary story of Frank McWorter and New Philadelphia is preserved
for generations to come.
I ask my colleagues to support S. 1629, a bill I have introduced to
direct the Secretary of the Interior to begin a Special Resource Study,
which would determine whether the New Philadelphia site can be managed
as a unit of the National Park Service.
Today, not much remains of the structures where the town's residents
lived and worked. For passersby, the site is an open field just
southeast of Springfield, IL.
But in 2004, a three-year National Science Foundation grant allowed
archaeologists to explore this site for the first time. They found
building foundations, wells, pit cellars, and a total of more than
65,000 artifacts. They recognized that these exciting discoveries have
the potential to yield even more information.
And if we pass this bill, and allow the Secretary of the Interior to
evaluate the national significance and suitability of this site, we
could pave the way for its preservation as part of the National Park
Service.
We can re-discover the incredible history that has been hidden among
the prairie grass for more than a century.
We can reclaim the spirit that drove Frank McWorter--a man born into
slavery--to reach for equality and opportunity, to establish himself
and his family as free African Americans, in a time when freedom was
extremely hard to come by, and to establish a thriving community--a
place of inter-racial peace and cooperation--in a dark period for race
relations in America.
I believe we must act to preserve this legacy. I believe we owe it to
ourselves--and to future generations of Americans--to examine the
history of New Philadelphia, and the life of pioneers like Frank
McWorter.
Let us pass S. 1629, so we can better understand those who came
before us. In the process, I have no doubt we will discover some
remarkable things about ourselves.
I yield the floor.
Social Justice
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as a result of the greed, recklessness,
and illegal behavior by a small number of executives on Wall Street,
the American people today are suffering through the most serious
economic conditions we have seen since the Great Depression of the
1930s. Since the recession started in December of 2007, 8.4 million
Americans have lost their jobs and, while the official unemployment
rate is 9.7 percent, according to the latest Gallup Poll, nearly 20
percent of the American workforce is either unemployed or
underemployed. In other words, we have people who are working, but they
are working 20 hours when they need to be working 40 hours.
Further, long-term unemployment is soaring. Today, over 6 million
Americans have been unemployed for over 6 months, the highest on
record. This is not a situation where people are losing their jobs and
a few weeks later they go out and get another job. People are losing
their jobs and they cannot find another job, which is why it is so
important that we extend unemployment benefits and so reprehensible
that there are those in this Chamber who have resisted that effort.
Today, there are fewer jobs in the United States than there were in
the year 2000, even though the workforce has grown by 12 million since
that time.
Today, we have the fewest manufacturing jobs than at any time since
April 1941, 8 months before the start of World War II.
Today, home foreclosures are the highest on record, turning the
American dream of home ownership into an American nightmare for
millions of our people.
Further--and we do not discuss this enough--in the United States
today, we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of
any major country on Earth. That means that while the middle class is
in rapid decline, while poverty is increasing, the gap between the
people on top and everybody else is wider than in any other major
country on Earth and growing wider.
The reality is, today the top 1 percent now earns more income than
the bottom 50 percent and the top 1 percent owns more wealth than the
bottom 90 percent. Meanwhile, while the folks on Wall Street give
themselves tens and tens of millions of dollars in bonuses for having
destroyed our economy, the United States has, by far, the highest rate
of childhood poverty among major countries. Almost one-quarter of our
children today are dependent on food stamps. Approximately 19 percent
of our kids are living in poverty, and one out of four kids in the
United States, in order not to be hungry, is dependent on food stamps.
While the Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, recently talked about how ``the
recession is likely over,'' I urge him to meet with America's blue-
collar workers or those few people left who do manufacturing in this
country. As the Boston Globe reported several months ago:
The recession has been more like a depression for blue-
collar workers, who are losing jobs much more quickly than
the nation as a whole. . . . [T]he nation's blue-collar
industries have slashed one in six jobs since 2007, compared
with about one in 20 for all industries, leaving scores of
the unemployed competing for the rare job opening in
construction or manufacturing, with many unlikely to work in
those fields again. . . .
Up to 70 percent of unemployed blue-collar workers have
lost jobs permanently, meaning their old jobs won't be there
when the economy recovers . . .
That is a staggering fact.
So when talking about the recession hurting people, it is hurting
some of the people who already are in the most serious trouble; people
who do not have a whole lot of money to begin with. That is what is
going on in the real world today. But, sadly and significantly, what is
going on today simply is an acceleration of what was going on the
previous 8 years. It is not like, oh, times were good, the middle class
was doing well, and, oops, the reckless behavior of Wall Street plunges
us into a major recession.
What is not talked about enough is that this continues and
accelerates a trend that has been going on for a number of years.
During the 8 years of the Bush administration, here is what happened:
Over 8 million Americans slipped out of the middle class and into
poverty. Over 7 million Americans lost their health insurance.
Our Republican friends are vehemently objecting to us going forward
in terms of health care. When they had the power, when they had the
Presidency, when they had control over the House and the Senate, during
that period millions of Americans lost their health insurance. Do you
recall them coming forward and saying: We have to do something about
this crisis; more and more people are losing their insurance; more and
more people are unable to afford their insurance? I did not hear a
word. But they are very vocal now. They are very loud: Stop it. We
cannot do anything. No. No. No. They had their chance, and it is sad to
say that right now, all they can do is play the obstructionist role and
be the party of no.
I make this point not to just relive history but to understand where
the anger comes from today. It is not just in the last year and a half
millions more people lost their jobs, lost their health insurance.
During the 8 years of President Bush, median household income declined
by over $2,100--$2,100. So people came out of that period, from 2000 to
2008, staggering. They were earning less than they did before that
decade began, and than they walked into the greed and recklessness of
Wall Street, which created a massive recession.
[[Page 3640]]
The Washington Post reported last January: The past decade was the
worst for the U.S. economy in modern times. That was before the Wall
Street crash.
Let me say it again. The Washington Post last January: The past
decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times. It was,
according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers--
a lost decade for American workers.
There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. Imagine
that. Since December 1999, the country has grown zero jobs. Middle-
income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than
they did in 1999. The number is sure to have declined further during a
difficult 2009.
So there you have it. You want to know why people are angry, why
people are frustrated, why people are pointing their finger at
Washington and us and saying: Hey, we are in trouble: massive
unemployment; real wages have gone down; people are working incredibly
hard, if they are lucky enough to have a job; and, at the end of the
day, they are worse off than they were 10 years ago.
According to a September 2009 article in USA Today--this is quite
incredible--and these are statistics that we do not talk about enough:
from 2000 to 2008, middle-class men experienced an 11.2-percent drop in
their incomes. Can you imagine that. From 2000 to 2008, middle-class
men experienced an 11.2-percent drop in their incomes, which amounts to
a reduction of $7,700 after adjusting for inflation.
So imagine that you work hard for 8 years. At the end of those 8
years, you have lost $7,700. Even worse, the USA Today article goes on
to report that many age group Americans are poorer today than they were
in the 1970s. We talk about the American dream and that parents work
hard so that their kids will do better than they did.
Well, we are moving in the wrong direction. Today the average
American worker, or at least millions of American workers, in terms of
inflation-accounted-for dollars are worse off than they were in the
1970s.
Without going through all of the reasons the middle class is
collapsing and poverty is increasing, without going into great length
about the growing gap between the very rich and everyone else, I think
it is important to say a few words about our good friends on Wall
Street, people who have made it clear to everybody in this country that
the only thing they care about is making as much money as they possibly
can in any way they possibly can.
Recently, in the last several years, 40 percent of all profits in
this country went to the relatively few people in the financial
industry--40 percent of the profits. We have seen hedge fund managers
and owners earning billions of dollars. We have seen CEOs of major Wall
Street banks being worth hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars,
all the while the middle class collapsed.
We have the highest rate of childhood poverty. Millions of people are
losing their health insurance.
We talk about people living in a gated community, people living in
very expensive homes protected by armed guards and surrounded by gates,
driving around in their chauffeured limousines, getting into their
private jets, having no clue about what is going on in the real world.
That is what Wall Street is about. They are engaged in producing
esoteric financial instruments which very few people understand which
are producing nothing real in the real world. They are not creating
real jobs. They are not creating real products, real services. They are
a gambling casino whose function in life is to make more money for the
people who own that casino.
Now, after we deal with health care, and I hope we can finish that as
soon as possible, the issue of financial reform is going to come into
this Chamber. I hope very much that we can respond to the frustration
and the anger of the American people about what Wall Street has done
and promise them, through legislation, that those people will never
again get away with the crimes they have committed against the working
families of this country.
Let me suggest a few of the areas I think a serious and real
financial reform bill should address. Every week I hear from
constituents in Vermont, and I suspect you hear from constituents in
Illinois who say: How in God's name can these large financial
institutions we bailed out with our tax dollars now charge us 25 or 30
percent interest rates on their credit cards?
I hear this all of the time. And let's be clear. When a large bank--
and about two-thirds of the credit cards in this country are issued by
the four largest financial institutions in America--when a large
financial institution is charging a working American 25 or 30 percent
interest on their credit cards, we have to be very clear and call that
what it is. That is loan sharking; that is usury; that is immoral.
The Bible, in all of the major religions--Christianity, Judaism,
Islam, all of them--talk about the fact that usury is immoral; that you
cannot lend money at excessive rates to struggling people who need that
money to survive. That is what is happening today.
The loan sharks today are not gangsters out on the street who break
kneecaps. These are guys in three-piece suits who, in some cases, make
hundreds of millions of dollars a year by stealing money from working
people through excessively high interest rates.
The middle class is collapsing, poverty is increasing, and often, in
order to deal with the day-to-day needs of a family, whether it is
food, whether it is gas to get to work, whether it is money to heat
their homes, people are using credit cards. To be charged 25 or 30
percent is simply immoral, in my view, and it is something that has to
be eliminated.
As you know, a number of States all over the country have passed
usury laws. But as a result of the Marquette Supreme Court decision a
number of years ago, these credit card companies go to certain States--
South Dakota--where there are no usury laws and charge anything they
want, all over the country. They have nullified State usury laws.
Well, you know what. We need a national usury law. We have to say
straight out it is immoral; it is wrong to be charging working people
20, 25, 30, 35 or more percent interest rates on their credit cards. As
part of any serious finance reform legislation, the American people
have to know we are going to end usury.
My view is--and I have introduced legislation to this effect--that we
should do for the private banks what we do with credit unions right
now: 15 percent max, except under certain circumstances, which now take
them up to 18 percent. No more 25 percent. No more 30, 40, 50 percent.
No more payday lending. We are going to end that.
I think that has to be incorporated into any serious financial reform
legislation. Any part of a serious financial reform bill has to deal
with the need to increase transparency at the Federal Reserve.
I will never forget, about a year ago, the Chairman of the Fed, Ben
Bernanke, came before the Budget Committee on which I serve. I asked
him if he could tell us which banks received trillions of dollars in
zero interest or almost-zero interest loans, trillions of dollars,
placing the taxpayers of this country at risk.
Mr. Bernanke said: No, I am not going to tell you that. Well, we have
introduced legislation to demand that he tell us. The American people
have a right to know which financial institutions have received
trillions of dollars in loans. One of the great scams of our time--you
want to talk about welfare. There is abuse. These are ``welfare
queens.'' We have heard that expression before. Those guys are getting
zero-interest loans from the Fed, or maybe they were paying one-half of
1 percent, and then they go out and lend that money to the Federal
Government, they buy government securities at 3\1/2\ or 4 percent,
having taken money from the government at zero percent or half a
percent. How is that? You get a nice spread there. You have a 3-percent
spread on that. The money that you are lending is guaranteed by the
faith and credit of the United States, never once failed. That is a
pretty good deal.
[[Page 3641]]
We give you money at zero interest, and you go out and get guaranteed
money at 3 percent. Not a bad deal. That is welfare for billionaires,
and that is unacceptable.
We have a right to know which financial institutions are engaged in
that. Most importantly, we have to end that right now. So we need
transparency at the Fed. They cannot continue to operate in that kind
of secrecy.
We also have to end the too-big-to-fail phenomena. Here is a fact
that I think many Americans do not know; that is, while we bailed out
Wall Street because institutions were too big to fail--if they went
down, they would take the whole economy with them--well, guess what. A
year later, three out of the four financial institutions are bigger
today than before we bailed them out.
Now, what am I missing? It does not make a whole lot of sense to me.
Not only that, not only are they a greater danger to the economy today
than they were before, but there is something else which is going on
which we also do not talk about too much. Maybe as the only Independent
in the Senate--I am not a Democrat or Republican. Maybe it is my job to
be raising these issues, but somebody has to raise them; that is, the
top four financial institutions in this country have enormous amounts
of economic power over this country.
As I mentioned earlier, they issue two-thirds of all of the credit
cards in this country. Does that sound like a very competitive
situation to you? The four largest financial institutions issue two-
thirds of the credit cards in America. I do not think that is a healthy
thing for our economy.
So not only do we have to end this, these huge financial
institutions, because they are too big to fail, but we also have to
allow for increased competition within the banking industry, in doing
away with this huge concentration of ownership. Not only do the top
four--which is JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and
Citigroup--issue two-thirds of the credit cards, they also issue half
of the mortgages. I don't think that is a healthy state for this
country. We have to start breaking up these guys.
The last point I would make is maybe the most important. In Vermont
and all over the country, small and medium-size businesses are in
desperate need of capital, of affordable loans so they can better
produce the products and services they need and, in fact, create the
jobs our economy desperately needs. I am sure the case is similar in
Illinois, but in Vermont, I have small businesses coming into my office
saying they can't get the credit they need to expand and create jobs.
You have Wall Street operating as a gambling casino, selling and
playing with esoteric financial instruments. It is time they started
investing in a productive economy and creating jobs.
The American people are hurting. They are suffering through a
terrible moment economically. People are wondering whether, for the
first time in the modern history of America, our kids will have a lower
standard of living than their parents. This is the reverse of what the
American dream is about. People are wondering how they will be able to
afford to send their kids to college, how they will pay for childcare,
how they will pay for the mortgage on their home, when they are either
losing their jobs or real wages are going down.
They are looking to Washington. They are becoming increasingly
frustrated by the Republican party of no which seems to gain
satisfaction every time they can stop legislation which attempts to
address real problems, whether it is health care, jobs, extending
unemployment benefits. It is no, no, no from the Republicans.
The American people are beginning to catch on that there have been a
record number of filibusters in this session, a recordbreaking number
of obstructionist tactics. What the American people are saying is: Hey,
Congress, Mr. President, we are hurting. We need action or else the
middle class is not going to survive.
As difficult as it is, as much as we understand that when we
deregulated Wall Street, they spent $5 billion in 10 years in lobbying
and campaign contributions, making sure the Congress did what Wall
Street wanted--in 2009, Wall Street spent $300 million on lobbying. I
don't know how you spend $300 million on lobbying. There are 100
Members in the Senate and 435 in the House. These guys will spend and
spend and spend to make sure Congress does nothing to prevent them from
going on their merry way of doing whatever they want without any
serious kind of regulation.
In these difficult moments, I hope the Senate and the House will
summon the courage to do the job we were elected to do and what we are
paid to do, and that is to represent working families and the middle
class and not only big money and Wall Street.
Amendment No. 3548
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment
No. 3548 be designated as a Pryor amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, earlier today the senior Senator from
Oklahoma incorrectly claimed that an article entitled, ``McCain Breaks
Own Pork Rule'' that ran in Roll Call on November 6, 2003, proved that
I had broken my pledge against requesting earmarks. However, the
Senator failed to mention that Roll Call subsequently ran a correction
to this article on November 17, 2003, stating that, ``the article
inaccurately stated that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) violated his own
rules against so-called ``pork barrel'' spending.'' I ask unanimous
consent that the entirety of the original story and, more importantly,
the correction published in Roll Call be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Roll Call, Nov. 6, 2003]
Correction Appended
(By Emily Pierce)
After years of crusading against ``pork-barrel'' spending
projects in Congressional appropriations bills, Sen. John
McCain (R-Ariz.) may be breaking his own rules.
McCain pushed for, and got, $14.3 million for Arizona's
Luke Air Force Base inserted into the just-completed fiscal
2004 military construction appropriations conference report.
The only problem is the project to acquire more land near
the base was not requested by President Bush or fully
authorized by the Senate Armed Services Committee--two of
McCain's criteria for identifying so-called ``pork.''
``Even though this project is in clear violation of the
McCain rule because it was not authorized nor requested, we
are happy to provide the funds at his request and the request
of other members of the Arizona delegation,'' said House
Appropriations Committee spokesman John Scofield.
Scofield also noted that the provision may violate other
tenets of McCain's ``pork'' rules because the purpose of the
funds--to acquire land to prevent the encroachment of
residential development near the base's live-fire range--is
not included in Defense's long-term strategic plans and may
not be achievable within a five-year time frame.
Senate Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who
has bitterly fought McCain's repeated attempts to strike even
the smallest of pork projects during Senate floor debate on
appropriations, was blithe about the news that McCain had
secured an earmark for his own state.
``One man's pork is another man's alternate white meat,''
said Stevens. ``We don't discriminate. . . . If he asked for
it, we put it in.''
McCain defended his actions, saying he first sought
authorization for the measure in the fiscal 2004 Defense
Department authorization bill.
``The fact that the appropriations bill may [be sent to the
president] before the authorization bill is not relevant to
my point of view, because we did the authorization before we
did the appropriations bill,'' McCain said of the order the
bills came to the Senate floor.
McCain, who sits on the Armed Services Committee in charge
of devising the Defense Department authorization, said he has
little control over the process once it passes the Senate
floor.
``It was my job to get it authorized,'' he said. ``So I had
no involvement after that.''
Part of the problem is that the Defense authorization bill,
which gives the Appropriations committees the official
authority to dole out money to the Pentagon, has been stalled
in conference negotiations for months over various issues,
most notably McCain's insistence that an Air Force-Boeing
lease deal be scrapped.
McCain has charged that the Boeing deal to lease 100 tanker
planes over several years
[[Page 3642]]
would cost much more than simply buying the planes outright.
Meanwhile, the Defense Department has argued that the plan
will expend less money in the short-term and that they don't
currently have enough money to buy the planes.
While Armed Services negotiators in both chambers say they
have made some progress toward resolving their differences on
the Boeing lease deal and other issues, it is unclear whether
the bill will actually become law this year.
Correction: Nov. 17, 2003
The article inaccurately stated that Sen. John McCain (R-
Ariz.) violated his own rules against so-called ``pork
barrel'' spending. The Senate Parliamentarian's office
maintains that the provision was properly authorized in the
Senate-passed version of the fiscal 2004 Defense
authorization bill and did not need to be signed by the
president to be considered ``authorized,'' as the article
suggested. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), chairwoman of
the Appropriations subcommittee on military construction,
told Roll Call that McCain never specifically asked her to
put the $14.3 million project for Arizona's Luke Air Force
Base into the fiscal 2004 military construction bill.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to
speak for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES
Sergeant Vincent L.C. Owens
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I honor Sergeant Vincent L.C.
Owens, 21, of Fort Smith, who died on March 1 in Afghanistan from
injuries sustained in combat. My heart goes out to the family of
Sergeant Owens, who made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our
Nation.
According to those who knew him best, Sergeant Owens was a gifted
student who enjoyed attending school in Greenwood, Fort Smith, and Van
Buren. He also was an avid athlete who liked to play soccer and
football. His hobby was motorcycles, with a special interest in trick
riding.
Sergeant Owens' awards and decorations include two Army Commendation
Medals; two Army Achievement Medals; a Valorous Unit Award; a National
Defense Service Medal; an Iraq Campaign Medal; and a Global War on
Terrorism Service Medal. He is survived by his wife Kaitlyn Owens; his
mother Sheila Real of Spiro, OK; his father Keith Owens of Missouri; a
stepson Paxton Lee Owens; one sister; and three brothers.
Along with all Arkansans, I am grateful for Sergeant Owens' service
and for the service and sacrifice of all of our military servicemembers
and their families. More than 11,000 Arkansans on active duty and more
than 10,000 Arkansas reservists have served in Iraq or Afghanistan
since September 11, 2001.
It is the responsibility of our Nation to provide the tools necessary
to care for our country's returning servicemembers and honor the
commitment our Nation made when we sent them into harm's way. Our
grateful Nation will not forget them when their military service is
complete. It is the least we can do for those whom we owe so much.
Sergeant Jonathan J. Richardson
Mr. President, today I also honor Sergeant Jonathan J. Richardson,
24, of Bald Knob, who died from combat wounds incurred in Khowst
Province, Afghanistan. My heart goes out to the family of Sergeant
Richardson, who made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our Nation.
Sergeant Richardson is survived by his grandparents, Ken and Edna
Martin of Mountain Home, AR; his wife Rachel Richardson of Clarksville,
TN; his mother Sharon Dunigan of Bridgeport, WV; and his father Jeffery
Richardson of Germany.
Along with all Arkansans, I am grateful for Sergeant Richardson's
service and for the service and sacrifice of all of our military
servicemembers and their families. More than 11,000 Arkansans on active
duty and more than 10,000 Arkansas reservists have served in Iraq or
Afghanistan since September 11, 2001.
It is the responsibility of our Nation to provide the tools necessary
to care for our country's returning servicemembers and honor the
commitment our Nation made when we sent them into harm's way. Our
grateful Nation will not forget them when their military service is
complete. It is the least we can do for those whom we owe so much.
____________________
VOTE EXPLANATION
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, during two votes this morning, I was
unavoidably absent and unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I
would have voted as follows: No--The motion to waive the Budget Act
with respect to the House message to accompany H.R. 2847, the HIRE Act.
No--The motion to concur with the House amendments to H.R. 2847, the
HIRE Act.
____________________
HEALTH CARE
Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to the
important and essential role that health care professionals play in
providing quality health care across our Nation. Our Nation's health
care system is complex and people with many different health needs are
served by the diverse group of caring, qualified professionals in the
allied health fields. Some of these important health practitioners
include respiratory therapists, music therapists, athletic trainers,
clinical laboratory scientists, radiologic technologists, medical
assistants and many others. There are more than 100 distinct
occupations in the health professions, in addition to physicians and
nurses.
These dedicated health professionals are expert in a multitude of
therapeutic, diagnostic, and preventive health interventions and
wellness initiatives in diverse settings. These professionals work in
disease prevention and control, dietary and nutritional services,
mental and physical health promotion, rehabilitation and health systems
management. They can be found in community, school and athletic
training clinics, long-term and rehabilitation facilities, hospitals,
laboratories, hospice, and private homes.
These health professionals represent about 60 percent of the health
care workforce and approximately 6 million jobs. According to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10 of the 20 fastest growing occupations
for 2008-2018 are in the health professions.
With many of these fields facing critical workforce shortages, it is
essential that we work to increase awareness of the great career
opportunities they offer, especially for racial/ethnic minorities. We
also need to support the educational programs that will produce our
future caregivers. Recent stimulus funding, for example, will go to
train 15,000 people nationwide in job skills for careers in health
care, IT, and other high-growth fields. In Park Forest, IL, Governors
State University will use its $4.9 million grant to help unemployed,
dislocated, and low-wage incumbent workers pursue careers in health
care.
I strongly support the vital role health care professionals play in
our health care system, which could not function without their tireless
efforts. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing this important
group of professionals.
____________________
TRANSPARENCY AND SUNSHINE WEEK
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this week we celebrate Sunshine Week, not
as a seasonal way to welcome the spring weather but as a time to mark
the importance of transparency in our government.
At the U.S. Helsinki Commission we monitor 56 countries, including
the United States, to ensure compliance with human rights and other
commitments made under the Helsinki Final Act.
A major part of that compliance rests on governments being open and
acting transparently--the same focus that is at the heart of the
American Society of Newspaper Editors' Sunshine Week.
[[Page 3643]]
Practicing open governance is not something countries, States, and
cities should do because they have to comply with some international
agreement or public records law; rather, being transparent should be an
organic part of providing a democratic government and empowering
citizens.
When President Obama began his Presidency he called for unprecedented
transparency. In his Open Government Directive, he outlined a clear
plan for government to become more transparent, participatory, and
collaborative.
The logic is clear--only through transparency can people gain the
knowledge needed to participate and hold their governments accountable.
And only if the people participate can government collaborate with them
to glean the best ideas.
This directive was bold and action-oriented, but sadly we have not
seen the U.S. bureaucracy react with the same swiftness with which this
directive was made. Most agencies, in fact, have not made concrete
changes to comply with the directive, according to a government-wide
audit released earlier this week by the National Security Archive based
at the George Washington University.
It seems for all the White House is doing disclosing its visitors
log, broadcasting policy meetings, increasing interactivity through
townhall meetings and YouTube interviews--a lot of work remains at the
agencies.
Most glaring to me are the delays and in some cases outright denials
of Freedom of Information Act requests. I was surprised to learn in the
National Security Archive audit that some requests have been pending
for 18 years when the law very clearly calls for responses within 20
business days when possible.
Most baffling from the audit may be what files still remain locked in
government vaults. For example, today--more than 20 years after the
fall of the Berlin Wall--the Pentagon still has not responded to a
request for records detailing the military's reaction in 1961 to the
building of the wall.
When it comes to diplomacy, this President and Secretary of State
Clinton deserve great praise for the work they have done around the
world to strengthen dialogue and improve U.S. relationships abroad.
This successful record, however, is slightly tarnished by the
Department of State's efforts on open governance. The Department more
than doubled the number of denials it issued to people filing Freedom
of Information Act requests last year--the largest increase of any
agency except for the Social Security Administration, which tripled its
denials.
Fourteen months is a short time to change a bureaucracy charged with
managing countless records. But a handful of agencies have already
shown it is possible and committed to open government changes. On top
of other positive reforms, the Departments of Agriculture and Justice,
the Small Business Administration, and the Office of Management and
Budget all increased how much information they released and decreased
how many requests they denied last year. These agencies have embraced
the spirit of transparency ushered in by President Obama, and as we
mark Sunshine Week, I hope others will follow suit with their own
innovative ways to increase transparency and spur citizen involvement.
And once agencies adopt these practices, I hope they stick with them--
not because they fulfill any Presidential directive but because they
give us a better democracy.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MITCH ALBOM
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 25 years ago, an article appeared in the
Detroit Free Press sports section headlined, ``Give Me a Sporting
Chance, And I'll Give It Right Back.'' It was the debut column from a
young writer just arrived from Florida, and he admitted to some nerves
about writing for his new audience. ``Starting tomorrow, I ask your
attention, your reaction, your letters, your laughter and, once in a
while, the benefit of the doubt,'' he wrote.
I doubt many Free Press readers knew that morning that they held the
beginning of a journalistic legend in their hands. And the writer
himself surely didn't know what he was starting. But thousands of
columns, millions of laughs, more than a few tears, 28 million books,
and dozens of awards later, Free Press sports columnist Mitch Albom has
become a Detroit institution right alongside the beloved athletes he
has covered.
Recently, it was announced that Mitch Albom will receive the ultimate
award for a sportswriter, the Red Smith Award from the Associated Press
Sports Editors. Smith, the legendary New York writer, once said his
demanding craft was really simple: ``All you do is sit down at a
typewriter and open a vein.'' And Mitch Albom is a worthy successor to
that legacy of writing with heart and emotion as well as style and
precision. In thrilling victories and painful losses, fans of
Michigan's sports teams have seen 25 years of sports history through
Albom's observant eyes. They have gotten to know the State's towering
sports figures--be they heroic, tragic, or both--through Albom's
perceptive character sketches.
That careful attention to the human element of sports allowed Albom
to branch out into other areas. His ``Tuesdays with Morrie'' is one of
the 100 best-selling books of all time. He is one of Michigan's most
listened-to radio hosts, and a regular on ESPN television. And as his
success has grown, so have his contributions to his community. His
charitable endeavors include efforts to help disadvantaged students
study the arts, get health care to homeless families, and gather
volunteers for worthy local service projects. Recently, he labored
mightily and successfully to get aid to earthquake victims in Haiti.
In winning the Red Smith Award, Albom joins a list of the most
honored names in sports journalism. The award speaks forcefully to the
respect of his professional peers. For Michigan readers, however,
Albom's ongoing legacy is his remarkable writing on the games and
athletes who are so much a part of our State's identity and DNA and his
contributions to improving his community. I congratulate him on this
latest honor, and I thank him for 25 years of great journalism. The
readers of Michigan and the Nation look forward to many, many years
more.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO RON DZWONKOWSKI
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is a truism, a belief espoused by those
of all political parties and persuasions, that the functioning of our
democracy depends on an informed citizenry to make wise decisions at
the ballot box and hold elected officials accountable.
That means our system depends on careful, thoughtful, impartial
journalists, those who bring to their work as much passion for
knowledge and understanding as we bring to our advocacy for policies we
support. In that difficult and necessary work, few Michigan journalists
have succeeded more than Ron Dzwonkowski of the Detroit Free Press,
which is why the recent announcement of his selection to the Michigan
Journalism Hall of Fame is so well-deserved.
For nearly three decades, Dzwonkowski has served the Free Press as an
editor, editorialist, and columnist. His professional peers have
awarded him a host of awards, including a Pulitzer Prize and a National
Headliner Award for work to which he has contributed. As an editor and
writer for the Free Press's editorial pages, he has shown a remarkable
commitment to accuracy, but just as important, a remarkable passion for
solving the problems of our city and State.
Whether he is praising an elected official or criticizing one, his
writing is grounded in a thorough understanding of the facts and a
commitment to looking out, above all, for the interests of Michigan's
citizens. His reporting, writing, and editing have made a significant
and lasting difference in the lives of the readers he serves, and his
selection to the State's hall of fame for journalists is a much-
deserved reward for a career of distinguished service, one I hope will
continue for many, many years to come.
[[Page 3644]]
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
TRIBUTE TO BOB SCOTT
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this
opportunity to recognize the 80th birthday of a Maryland lacrosse
legend, Mr. Bob Scott, a former Johns Hopkins University athlete,
coach, and athletic director.
Lacrosse is the official team sport of Maryland and there is perhaps
no other Marylander who has done as much for the game as Mr. Scott. His
41-year career at Johns Hopkins, spanning from 1955 to 1995, were years
of great success for Hopkins lacrosse as well as Blue Jays athletics in
general.
At a university that expects nothing less than dominance on the
lacrosse field, Mr. Scott more than lived up to the high expectations.
As the head lacrosse coach from 1955 to 1974, Mr. Scott left a legacy
that will be hard to match. He led the Blue Jays to an unparalleled
seven national championships, his players were recognized as first-team
All-Americans an outstanding 42 times, and he left his position with
158 wins, more than any other head coach in program history.
Mr. Scott was a successful lacrosse player for Johns Hopkins from
1948 to 1952 as well. During his playing days, he received national
recognition as the winner of the Penniman Award for outstanding play as
a midfielder and as an honorable mention All-American.
In addition to his playing and coaching acumen, Mr. Scott also wrote
the premier lacrosse book. ``Lacrosse: Technique and Tradition,''
written in 1976, still sits in lacrosse players' lockers and on
coaches' desks to this day. The book has since been translated into
other languages and has given Mr. Scott the vehicle to become the
sport's unofficial ambassador.
Mr. Scott is more than just a lacrosse legend, however. He helped
build Hopkins into the division III powerhouse it is today. During his
22-year tenure as director of athletics, the Blue Jays emerged as
national contenders in many different sports--including baseball,
basketball, fencing, swimming, and soccer--and Mr. Scott played a
pivotal role in successfully developing the women's athletics program
that continues to thrive today.
Most of Mr. Scott's life has been dedicated to sports, but he also
spent 2 years in the U.S. Army after graduating from Johns Hopkins. He
rose to the position of instructor in the Ranger Department and was
stationed at Fort Benning, GA.
In honor of Mr. Scott's 80th birthday today--St. Patrick's Day--I ask
my colleagues to join me in recognizing the life of a great Marylander
who has served our country and has given so much of his time to help
mold our Nation's student-athletes.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ARTHUR E. KATZ
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to honor in the Record of
the Senate an honorable American and a great Georgian, Mr. Arthur E.
Katz.
Arthur graduated from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in 1963. In
Vietnam, he served as the commanding officer, USCGC Point Cypress, a
unit attached to Division 13, Coast Guard Squadron One, from December
1965 to September 1966. For his meritorious service, Arthur received
the Bronze Star Medal, with Combat Distinguishing Device ``V''.
Arthur attended Rutgers University, where he earned a masters degree
in business administration. He is a successful small business owner,
and his commitment to volunteerism and community service is evident
through his roles as past president of Temple Emanu-Els Board of
Trustees and board member of the Marcus Jewish Community Center of
Atlanta.
A longtime resident of Sandy Springs, GA, Arthur is an avid tennis
player, fisherman, and a committed runner of the annual Peachtree Road
Race. A dedicated and loving husband of 46 years, Arthur is the father
of three daughters and is blessed with seven grandchildren.
On April 23, 2010, Arthur will be inducted to the Wall of Gallantry
at the Coast Guard Academy in New London, CT. I cannot think of anyone
more deserving of such an honor than this true champion of patriotism
and a countryman, Arthur E. Katz.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO TERRY LINDSEY
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to honor in the Record of
the Senate Terry Lindsey, who is a great Georgian, a great American,
and a great citizen of Polk County. I honor Terry upon his retirement
from Engineered Fabrics after 31 remarkable years and for his many
contributions to the quality of life in Polk County, GA.
On March 31, 2010, Terry will retire from Engineered Fabrics
Corporation in Rockmart, GA. He started with the company in 1979 as the
manager of contract management, and he ends his impressive tenure as
its vice president of marketing. I know he will be deeply missed by his
colleagues at Engineered Fabrics, which is one of the largest employers
in Rockmart.
In addition to his impressive career, Terry has a long history of
community involvement in Polk County, where he is a well-respected and
dedicated leader. Terry is a member of the Rotary and has been active
in the Polk County Chamber of Commerce for a number of years. In
particular, he has served as an inspiration and a role model to the
young men and women in the chambers Youth Leadership committee.
Terry has been a familiar face during the Polk Chambers annual trip
to Washington, DC, over the years. He has been instrumental in ensuring
members of the Polk County delegation had the opportunity to come to
Washington and discuss important issues affecting the community with
the Georgia congressional delegation through his role as a host or
sponsor of these Washington fly-ins.
It gives me a great deal of pleasure and it is a privilege to
recognize on the floor of the Senate, Terry Lindsey for his service to
Polk County and to our great State of Georgia. He and his wife Jean
have earned the many happy years of retirement ahead of them.
____________________
REMEMBERING PATRICIA MALONE
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to honor in the Record of
the Senate the life of a wonderful lady and a great Georgian, Mrs.
Patricia Malone. Her commitment to the aviation industry spanned more
than 50 years, affecting thousands of pilots through training
standards.
Patricia ``Mother'' Malone began her introduction into aviation began
during World War II when she was a link instrument training instructor
for the U.S. Navy, training fighter pilots in instrument flight
procedures. After the war, she was a civilian instructor for the U.S
Air Force.
She went to work for Delta Air Lines in 1972 and moved her family
from Quincy, MA, to Atlanta, GA. During her long career with Delta, she
created the operations specification curriculum for the airline and
served as the manager of certificate compliance by the time she retired
in 1994.
Patricia affected countless numbers of aviators through her work in
aeronautical charting, and she trained pilots from most of the major
airlines as well as military pilots. She earned the nickname ``Mother''
Malone from her pilots because she did more than teach them instrument
flying and FAA regulatory compliance; she was truly invested in the
lives of those she taught.
During her retirement years she consulted with pilots and airline
industry professionals as well as lending her time to volunteering in
her community. She selflessly gave her time to the YWCA of Cobb County,
the Delta Pioneer, American Business Womens Association, Goodwill
Industries, the American Red Cross, and her local board of elections.
Patricia W. ``Mother'' Malone passed away on August 12, 2008, at the
age of 84. She is survived by her daughters, Alison, Peggy and Tricia,
nine grandchildren, and one great grandson.
This year, Patricia will be posthumously inducted into the Georgia
Aviation Hall of Fame, and I cannot think of anyone more deserving of
this honor. It is only right that her accomplishments are permanently
enshrined in Georgia's aviation history.
[[Page 3645]]
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THEODORE ELDRIDGE
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I congratulate Theodore
Eldridge of Moro for receiving the John Gammon Award for his dedication
and service to the Arkansas agriculture industry. The award is
presented each year by the Arkansas office of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Farm Service Agency.
Theodore represents the best of our Arkansas values: hard work,
dedication, and perseverance. He currently serves as the coordinator of
the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff's 52-Acre Demonstration Farm.
He also works part-time for the UAPB Demonstration Outreach Center in
Marianna and the East Arkansas Enterprise Community.
I have had the privilege of working closely with Theodore on several
projects for the USDA Rural Development Program, where he served as
district director in Forrest City, and later as the director of water
and wastewater programs.
This past December, I was pleased to announce his appointment to
serve on the Arkansas Farm Service Agency State Committee. He has since
been elected chairman by the committee and has shown exemplary
leadership for our State's farmers and ranchers as he ensures our
producers have the tools in place to produce a safe and affordable food
supply. Theodore plays a vital role in our State's rural communities as
he works to facilitate programs that will spur local economic
development. He also oversees and informs local producers about USDA
programs.
As a seventh-generation Arkansan and farmer's daughter, and as
chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I understand firsthand
and appreciate the hard work and contributions of our Arkansas
agriculture community. Agriculture is the backbone of Arkansas's
economy, creating more than 270,000 jobs in the State and providing
$9.1 billion in wages and salaries. In total, agriculture contributes
roughly $15.9 billion to the Arkansas economy each year.
I salute Theodore and the entire Arkansans agriculture community for
their hard work and dedication.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ROBERT MOORE
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I congratulate Arkansas
State Representative Robert Moore on his recent selection to serve as
Speaker of the House for the next Arkansas General Assembly.
Born in Dumas and raised in Arkansas City, Representative Moore
exemplifies our Arkansas values of hard work, dedication, and
leadership. Throughout his 25-year career in public service,
Representative Moore has worked to keep Arkansas strong. Since 2007, he
has proudly served the residents of southeast Arkansas in the Arkansas
General Assembly.
Not only is Representative Moore one of our State's dedicated
leaders, he has also helped keep the farm family tradition alive in
Arkansas. As the owner and operator of Moore Farms in Arkansas City, he
produces rice and soybeans, with an additional focus on wildlife
management. He is also a member of the Arkansas House Committee on
Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development.
As a seventh-generation Arkansan and farmer's daughter from Helena,
and as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I understand
firsthand and appreciate the hard work and contributions of our
Arkansas agriculture community. Agriculture is the backbone of
Arkansas's economy, creating more than 270,000 jobs in the state and
providing $9.1 billion in wages and salaries.
Mr. President, I commend Representative Moore and all members of the
Arkansas Legislature for their hard work and dedication on behalf of
the people of our great State. I commend their efforts, and I remain
dedicated to working with them to help keep Arkansas strong.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO PEGGY LALLY MUNCY
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I commend fellow Arkansan
Peggy Lally Muncy for raising $25,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of
Central Arkansas.
Peggy recently completed a 7-week, 3,415-mile cross-country bicycle
tour from Los Angeles to Boston. Through per-mile monetary pledges made
by friends and family, Peggy was able to double her initial goal of
raising $10,000 for the club.
A North Little Rock resident, Peggy represents the best of our
Arkansas values of service, compassion, and commitment. Her efforts
have helped countless children and youth in central Arkansas take part
in activities that promote social, cultural, educational, recreational
and physical development.
Volunteer efforts like Peggy's can literally change lives. I salute
Peggy and all Arkansans who give back to their communities each and
every day. Together, we can make a real difference for the people of
our State.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JAMES O. POWELL
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the life
and career of respected Arkansas journalist James O. Powell, who served
as the long-time editorial page editor and columnist for the Arkansas
Gazette newspaper. James passed away on March 10 at the age of 90. He
is survived by his wife of 58 years, Ruth Powell, and son Lee Powell of
Washington, DC, who I have worked with in his role as the executive
director of the Mississippi Delta Grassroots Caucus.
During his 30-year tenure at the Gazette, James fought to preserve
the journalistic principles of integrity and honesty. Among his
memorable writings, James penned a series of editorials during the
1950s and 60s in support of the civil rights movement and opposing
school segregation. He chronicled Arkansas politics with clarity and
thoughtfulness, including extensive coverage of Arkansas Governors
Winthrop Rockefeller, Dale Bumpers, and Bill Clinton.
After retiring from the Gazette in 1987, James continued to write a
syndicated column published in many Arkansas papers until 2000. Through
his reporting, Arkansans learned the news of the day, along with
insight and analysis, to help them make informed decisions about local,
state, and national events.
Mr. President, I honor the life and legacy of James O. Powell for his
dedication to Arkansas and his commitment to excellence in journalism.
His work helped educate and inspire a generation of Arkansans.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JUDGE MARY ANN GUNN
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Judge
Mary Ann Gunn for her personal commitment and innovative approach to
public service in northwest Arkansas. Judge Gunn, who serves on the
Washington County Circuit Court, received the 2009 FBI Director's
Community Leadership Award.
The award, presented on behalf of the Director of the FBI, was
established in 1990 to recognize individuals and organizations for
their efforts in combating terrorism, drugs, and violence in America.
In addition to her duties as a circuit judge, Judge Gunn voluntarily
serves as a judge for the Washington and Madison County Drug Court, in
Arkansas. Since 2000, the drug court has accepted first-time,
nonviolent drug offenders into a nine month program of intensive
counseling and close supervision. When offenders successfully complete
the program, their criminal records are cleared of the drug offense.
Judge Gunn's courtroom is one of the most successful in the nation.
Her drug court is regularly televised in Washington and Madison
Counties, and is an excellent example of how the community, the courts,
and law enforcement work together to reduce crime. In addition, she has
held drug court sessions in school gymnasiums to show students just
where drug use can lead. According to the FBI, Judge Gunn manages ``one
of the most effective public services available in Northwest
Arkansas.''
We congratulate Judge Mary Ann Gunn on her personal accomplishment,
and we thank her for her commitment to reducing crime and protecting
citizens of Arkansas.
[[Page 3646]]
____________________
RECOGNIZING FUEL
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, restaurants in my home State
recently celebrated the second annual Maine Restaurant Week from March
1 through 10. This creative event is designed to offer Mainers and
visitors alike the opportunity to spend an evening out to try a new
restaurant at an affordable fixed price. After last year's success,
where nearly 98 percent of attendees said the event met or exceeded
their expectations, over 100 restaurants participated in this year's
celebration. I rise today to recognize one restaurant that took part in
Restaurant Week, Fuel, that has helped to lead a renaissance in
downtown Lewiston.
In 2005, Eric Agren and his wife Carrie purchased the old Lyceum Hall
in downtown Lewiston with the purpose of renovating the 135-year-old
theater, which is listed on the National Historic Register. The goal
was to transform the theater, vacant for over 50 years, into a cozy,
welcoming space while maintaining the historical nature of the
building. Mr. Agren, who is originally from the Lewiston-Auburn area,
spent several years in Chicago working for a kitchen design company,
which piqued his interest in the culinary arts, before returning home
to pursue his longtime dream of opening a restaurant. The couple also
turned the upstairs of the building into a 5,000-square-foot apartment.
Because of the Agrens' dedicated efforts, Fuel received historic
preservation awards from the State of Maine and the city of Lewiston,
both in 2007.
Fuel's menu features French country cuisine with a close-to-home
twist. Starting with French classics like escargot, fondue, and French
onion soup, the menu includes an eclectic mix of dishes from braised
short ribs and steak frites to roasted chicken and homemade macaroni
and cheese. The Agrens describe Fuel's interior decor as ``urban
cozy,'' with French vintage art, leather chairs in the bar, and butcher
paper topping the tables. The restaurant received a 2008 Editor's
Choice Award from Yankee Magazine, as well as Wine Spectator magazine's
Award of Excellence for its exceptional wine list of over 100
selections. Fuel has also been the recipient of the Androscoggin County
Chamber of Commerce's President's Award and has received recognition as
Downeast Magazine's Best Dining in Lewiston.
Since the opening of Fuel, several other restaurants have opened
across Lewiston, resulting in a burgeoning revival of the city's
downtown. Nearly a dozen new restaurants have entered the Lewiston
dining scene in recent years, leading to increased traffic and a more
vibrant atmosphere downtown, as well as creating new jobs. Indeed, to
continue this trend, the Agrens soon plan to open another restaurant
just down Lisbon Street from Fuel called Marche. In the process of
refurbishing the building, the couple also created a two-bedroom,
2,000-square-foot apartment upstairs from the restaurant. As Mr. Agren
recently explained, he hopes these efforts bring new people to the
downtown area, and expects `` to see a small core of affiliated
businesses sprout up--such as dry cleaners and specialty markets--that
would cater to a growing downtown population.''
Additionally, over the years, Fuel and other local eateries have
participated in numerous community events, raising money for charities
like the Sisters of Charity Food Pantry and the American Heart
Association. While these restaurants engage in healthy competition,
they are also team players when it comes to helping the community.
The renaissance of downtown Lewiston is well-documented, and a
welcome sign during these difficult economic times. And Eric and Carrie
Agren have played a central role in spurring this critical development.
I thank the Agrens for their commitment to the Twin Cities of Lewiston
and Auburn, and I look forward to hearing about the continued success
of their investments.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Mrs. Neiman, one of his secretaries.
____________________
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE
At 11:08 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 4628. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 216 Westwood Avenue in
Westwood, New Jersey, as the ``Sergeant Christopher R. Hrbek
Post Office Building''.
____
At 2:10 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Schiff, a manager on the part of the House to conduct the trial
of the impeachment of G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., a Judge for the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, announcing
that the House has agreed to the following resolutions:
H. Res. 1031. Resolution impeaching G. Thomas Porteous,
Jr., judge of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, for high crimes and
misdemeanors.
H. Res. 1165. Resolution appointing managers on the part of
the House to conduct the trial of the impeachment of G.
Thomas Porteous, Jr., a Judge for the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Enrolled Bill Signed
At 4:36 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker has
signed the following enrolled bill:
H.R. 2847. An act making appropriations for the Departments
of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other
purposes.
The enrolled bill was subsequently signed by the Acting President pro
tempore, Mr. Reid, pursuant to the order of today, March 17, 2010.
____
At 6:20 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 4851. An act to provide a temporary extension of
certain programs, and for other purposes.
H.R. 4853. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United
States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport
improvement program, and for other purposes.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bill was read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 4628. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 216 Westwood Avenue in
Westwood, New Jersey, as the ``Sergeant Christopher R. Hrbek
Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.
____________________
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-5070. A communication from the Director of the
Regulatory Management Division, Office of Policy, Economics,
and Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Tetraethoxysilane, Polymer with Hexamethyldisiloxane;
Tolerance Exemption'' (FRL No. 8814-3) received in the Office
of the President of the Senate on March 11, 2010; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-5071. A communication from the Director of the
Regulatory Management Division, Office of Policy, Economics,
and Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``S-Abscisic Acid, (S)-5-(1-hydroxy-
[[Page 3647]]
2,6,6-trimethyl-4-oxo-1-cyclohex-2-enyl)-3-methyl-penta-
(2Z,4E)-dienoic Acid; Amendment to an Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance'' (FRL No. 8814-5) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on March 11, 2010; to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-5072. A communication from the Director of the
Regulatory Management Division, Office of Policy, Economics,
and Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Hexythiazox; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 8813-7)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
March 11, 2010; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
EC-5073. A communication from the Congressional Review
Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Agricultural Inspection and AQI
User Fees Along the U.S./Canada Border'' (Docket No. APHIS-
2006-0096) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on March 16, 2010; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-5074. A communication from the Director of the
Regulatory Management Division, Office of Policy, Economics,
and Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Delaware; Amendment to Electric Generating Unit Multi-
Pollutant Regulation'' (FRL No. 9127-2) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on March 11, 2010; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-5075. A communication from the Director of the
Regulatory Management Division, Office of Policy, Economics,
and Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications
Rules'' (FRL No. 9127-9) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on March 11, 2010; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
EC-5076. A communication from the Director of the
Regulatory Management Division, Office of Policy, Economics,
and Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Minor Harmonizing
Changes to the General Provisions'' (FRL No. 9127-6) received
in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 11,
2010; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-5077. A communication from the Director of the
Regulatory Management Division, Office of Policy, Economics,
and Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Transportation Conformity Rule PM2.5 and PM10 Amendments''
(FRL No. 9127-7) received in the Office of the President of
the Senate on March 11, 2010; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
EC-5078. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Chile Earthquake Occurring in February 2010
Designated as a Qualified Disaster under Sec. 139 of the
Internal Revenue Code'' (Notice 2010-26) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on March 16, 2010; to
the Committee on Finance.
EC-5079. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Deemed Dispositions by Individuals
Emigrating from Canada'' (Rev. Proc. 2010-19) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on March 16, 2010; to
the Committee on Finance.
EC-5080. 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-2010-0003)) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on March 16, 2010; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-5081. A communication from the Chief Counsel, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Final Flood Elevation Determinations'' ((44 CFR Part
67)(Docket No. FEMA-2010-0003)) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on March 16, 2010; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-5082. A communication from the Assistant Legal Adviser
for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Case-Zablocki Act, 1 U.S.C. 112b, as amended,
the report of the texts and background statements of
international agreements, other than treaties (List 2010-
0037--2010-0046); to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-5083. A communication from the Chief of the Trade and
Commercial Regulations Branch, Customs and Border Protection,
Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Name Change of Two DHS
Components'' (CBP Dec. 10-03) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on March 10, 2010; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-5084. A communication from the Chairman, Office of
General Counsel, Federal Election Commission, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Funds
Received in Response to Solicitations; Allocation of Expenses
by Separate Segregated Funds and Nonconnected Committees''
(Notice 2010-08) received in the Office of the President of
the Senate on March 15, 2010; to the Committee on Rules and
Administration.
EC-5085. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics),
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the
redesignating the Air Force's Small Diameter Bomb Increment I
(SDB I) Program as an ACAT II program; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
EC-5086. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, an addendum to a
certification, transmittal number: DDTC 10-011, of the
proposed sale or export of defense articles, including
technical data, and defense services to a Middle East country
regarding any possible effects such a sale might have
relating to Israel's Qualitative Military Edge over military
threats to Israel; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-5087. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, an addendum to a
certification, transmittal number: DDTC 10-002, of the
proposed sale or export of defense articles, including
technical data, and defense services to a Middle East country
regarding any possible effects such a sale might have
relating to Israel's Qualitative Military Edge over military
threats to Israel; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-5088. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to
the U.S. engagement with Iran; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
____________________
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 Mrs. GILLIBRAND:
S. 3131. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a special resource study to evaluate resources in the
Hudson River Valley in the State of New York to determine the
suitability and feasibility of establishing the site as a
unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 3132. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to
promote and support breastfeeding through the special
supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and
children; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
By Mr. CASEY (for himself, Mr. Schumer, and Mr.
Specter):
S. 3133. A bill to provide for the construction,
renovation, and improvement of medical school facilities, and
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Graham,
Mr. Brownback, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Ms. Snowe, Mr.
Feingold, Mr. Specter, Mr. Casey, Mr. Bayh, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Cardin, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Webb, Mr.
Reed, Mrs. Lincoln, and Ms. Collins):
S. 3134. A bill to provide for identification of misaligned
currency, require action to correct the misalignment, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 3135. A bill to enhance global healthcare cooperation
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. McConnell):
S. Res. 457. A resolution to provide for issuance of a
summons and for related procedures concerning the articles of
impeachment against G. Thomas Porteous, Jr; considered and
agreed to.
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. McConnell):
S. Res. 458. A resolution to provide for the appointment of
a committee to receive and to report evidence with respect to
articles of impeachment against Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr;
considered and agreed to .
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Begich):
S. Res. 459. A resolution congratulating KICY Radio for 50
years of service to western Alaska and the Russian Far East;
considered and agreed to.
[[Page 3648]]
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Sanders):
S. Res. 460. A resolution recognizing the importance of the
Long Trail and the Green Mountain Club on the 100th
anniversary of the Long Trail; considered and agreed to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 334
At the request of Mr. Lugar, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 334, a bill to
authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade
relations treatment) to the products of Moldova.
S. 704
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 704, a bill to direct the
Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on the use
of Civil Air Patrol personnel and resources to support homeland
security missions, and for other purposes.
S. 910
At the request of Mr. Warner, the name of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Risch) was added as a cosponsor of S. 910, a bill to amend the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, to provide for additional
monitoring and accountability of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
S. 1255
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mrs. Hagan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1255, a bill to
amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to
extend the authorized time period for rebuilding of certain overfished
fisheries, and for other purposes.
S. 1408
At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. LeMieux) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1408, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage alternative energy
investments and job creation.
S. 1481
At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1481, a bill
to amend section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act to improve the program under such section for supportive
housing for persons with disabilities.
S. 1553
At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1553, a bill to require
the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the
National Future Farmers of America Organization and the 85th
anniversary of the founding of the National Future Farmers of America
Organization.
S. 1611
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Rhode Island
(Mr. Whitehouse) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1611, a bill to provide
collective bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by
States or their political subdivisions.
S. 1859
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1859, a bill to
reinstate Federal matching of State spending of child support incentive
payments.
S. 1966
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Washington
(Mrs. Murray) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1966, a bill to provide
assistance to improve the health of newborns, children, and mothers in
developing countries, and for other purposes.
S. 2743
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2743, a bill to amend
title 10, United States Code, to provide for the award of a military
service medal to members of the Armed Forces who served honorably
during the Cold War, and for other purposes.
S. 2755
At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Risch) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2755, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an investment credit for
equipment used to fabricate solar energy property, and for other
purposes.
S. 2835
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2835, a bill to reduce
global warming pollution through international climate finance,
investment, and for other purposes.
S. 2847
At the request of Mr. Whitehouse, the name of the Senator from
Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2847, a bill
to regulate the volume of audio on commercials.
S. 2974
At the request of Mr. Lugar, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2974, a bill to establish
the Return of Talent Program to allow aliens who are legally present in
the United States to return temporarily to the country of citizenship
of the alien if that country is engaged in post-conflict or natural
disaster reconstruction, and for other purposes.
S. 3036
At the request of Mr. Bayh, the name of the Senator from South Dakota
(Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3036, a bill to establish
the Office of the National Alzheimer's Project.
S. 3059
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from
Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3059, a bill to
improve energy efficiency of appliances, lighting, and buildings, and
for other purposes.
S.J. RES. 28
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Bennet) was added as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 28, a joint
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect
elections.
S. RES. 412
At the request of Mrs. Gillibrand, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Byrd) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 412, a
resolution designating September 2010 as ``National Childhood Obesity
Awareness Month''.
S. RES. 451
At the request of Mr. Burr, the name of the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 451, a resolution
expressing support for designation of a ``Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans
Day''.
S. RES. 452
At the request of Mr. Johanns, the names of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) 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. 3477
At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the name of the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Crapo) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3477 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 name of the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. Begich) was added as a cosponsor 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. 3506
At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Webb) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3506 intended to
be proposed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose an additional tax on bonuses
received from certain TARP recipients.
AMENDMENT NO. 3522
At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the name of the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3522
intended to be 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.
[[Page 3649]]
Chambliss) 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. DURBIN:
S. 3135. A bill to enhance global healthcare cooperation and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Global
Healthcare Cooperation Act of 2010. This legislation takes measured but
important steps to enhance global healthcare cooperation and help
developing countries address public health challenges. The Global
Healthcare Cooperation Act will bolster the ranks of healthcare workers
serving in developing countries by enabling American legal permanent
residents to assist with overseas public health emergencies, and by
responsibly regulating the ``brain drain'' of skilled healthcare
workers from underdeveloped countries to the U.S. I look forward to
working with my colleagues to see these provisions enacted into law.
While many nations are currently experiencing shortages of healthcare
personnel, the lack of doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers in
the world's poorest nations is an urgent crisis. There are many factors
contributing to this crisis, but the massive ``brain drain'' of trained
healthcare workers from the poorest nations to the richest is a central
cause. According to the World Health Organization, Africa loses 20,000
health professionals a year as part of this brain drain. In Ethiopia,
for example, there are only 1,806 doctors serving a population of 80
million. By comparison, there are 5,074 doctors serving the 600,000
residents of Washington D.C., and 17,507 doctors serving the 5.3
million residents of Cook County in my home state of Illinois. The
shortage of healthcare personnel is considered the single biggest
obstacle to fighting HIV/AIDS in Africa. Healthcare worker shortages
are particularly devastating when nations are confronted with natural
disasters and other humanitarian crises, such as the recent Haiti
earthquake.
I again saw this problem first hand during a trip to east Africa that
I took last month with Senator Sherrod Brown. In places such as
Tanzania and Ethiopia the story was the same--in countries already in
desperate need of health workers, many were instead leaving for work in
other countries. Many are being recruited to work in the U.S. and in
other wealthy nations.
We should do what we can here in the U.S. to make sure these talented
health professionals are free to return temporarily to help in
countries with urgent health needs without jeopardizing their
immigration status. We should also ensure they have met all medical
care obligations in their home countries that may have been tied to
their health training.
The Global Healthcare Cooperation Act would take two steps to address
these challenges. The first part of the bill would allow a healthcare
worker who is a legal permanent resident in the U.S. to temporarily
provide healthcare services in a country that is underdeveloped or that
has suffered a disaster or public health emergency without jeopardizing
his or her immigration status in the U.S. Specifically, the bill would
allow legal permanent resident healthcare workers to work in qualifying
countries for up to 36 months without running afoul of the continuous
residency requirement for naturalization. This provision will allow
immigrants in our country to lend their skills to overseas disaster
relief and public health crises while still pursuing their dream of
American citizenship.
The second part of this legislation would require a foreigner who is
petitioning to work in the U.S. as a healthcare worker to attest that
he or she has satisfied any outstanding obligation to his or her home
country under which the foreigner received money for medical training
in return for a commitment to work in that country for a period of
years. In exchange for financial support for their education or
training, some foreign doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers
have signed voluntary bonds or made promises to their governments to
remain in their home countries or to return from their studies abroad
and work in the healthcare profession. The bill provides that the
petitioner must satisfy any outstanding obligation in order to be
eligible for admission into the U.S., though the bill is flexible in
allowing the petitioner to reach agreement with the home country in
order to satisfy his or her commitment. The legislation provides a
waiver in cases of coercion by the home country government or other
extraordinary circumstances. The goal of this provision is to ensure
that foreign countries do not invest money in healthcare workers who
then renege on commitments to work in their country without satisfying
their commitment.
The small but important steps contained within the Global Healthcare
Cooperation Act will help save lives, and will demonstrate America's
leadership in the effort to improve the health of people across the
globe. The provisions in this legislation have previously passed the
Senate twice, as part of the 2006 immigration reform bill and the 2007
Labor-HHS appropriations bill, but have not yet become law. I urge my
colleagues to support the enactment of these important provisions.
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. 3135
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 ``Global Health Care
Cooperation Act''.
SEC. 2. GLOBAL HEALTH CARE COOPERATION.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) is amended by
inserting after section 317 the following:
``SEC. 317A. TEMPORARY ABSENCE OF ALIENS PROVIDING HEALTH
CARE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall allow an
eligible alien and the spouse or child of such alien to
reside in a candidate country during the period that the
eligible alien is working as a physician or other health care
worker in a candidate country. During such period the
eligible alien and such spouse or child shall be considered--
``(1) to be physically present and residing in the United
States for purposes of naturalization under section 316(a);
and
``(2) to meet the continuous residency requirements under
section 316(b).
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Candidate country.--The term `candidate country'
means a country that the Secretary of State determines to
be--
``(A) eligible for assistance from the International
Development Association, in which the per capita income of
the country is equal to or less than the historical ceiling
of the International Development Association for the
applicable fiscal year, as defined by the International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development;
``(B) classified as a lower middle income country in the
then most recent edition of the World Development Report for
Reconstruction and Development published by the International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development and having an income
greater than the historical ceiling for International
Development Association eligibility for the applicable fiscal
year; or
``(C) qualified to be a candidate country due to special
circumstances, including natural disasters or public health
emergencies.
``(2) Eligible alien.--The term `eligible alien' means an
alien who--
``(A) has been lawfully admitted to the United States for
permanent residence; and
``(B) is a physician or other healthcare worker.
``(c) Consultation.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall consult with the Secretary of State in carrying out
this section.
``(d) Publication.--The Secretary of State shall publish--
``(1) not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this section, a list of candidate countries;
``(2) an updated version of the list required by paragraph
(1) not less often than once each year; and
``(3) an amendment to the list required by paragraph (1) at
the time any country qualifies as a candidate country due to
special circumstances under subsection (b)(1)(C).''.
(b) Rulemaking.--
[[Page 3650]]
(1) Requirement.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall promulgate regulations to carry out the amendments made
by this section.
(2) Content.--The regulations promulgated pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall--
(A) permit an eligible alien (as defined in section 317A of
the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by subsection
(a)) and the spouse or child of the eligible alien to reside
in a foreign country to work as a physician or other
healthcare worker as described in subsection (a) of such
section 317A for not less than a 12-month period and not more
than a 24-month period, and shall permit the Secretary to
extend such period for an additional period not to exceed 12
months, if the Secretary determines that such country has a
continuing need for such a physician or other healthcare
worker;
(B) provide for the issuance of documents by the Secretary
to such eligible alien, and such spouse or child, if
appropriate, to demonstrate that such eligible alien, and
such spouse or child, if appropriate, is authorized to reside
in such country under such section 317A; and
(C) provide for an expedited process through which the
Secretary shall review applications for such an eligible
alien to reside in a foreign country pursuant to subsection
(a) of such section 317A if the Secretary of State determines
a country is a candidate country pursuant to subsection
(b)(1)(C) of such section 317A.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Definition.--Section 101(a)(13)(C)(ii) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C)(ii))
is amended by adding ``except in the case of an eligible
alien, or the spouse or child of such alien, who is
authorized to be absent from the United States under section
317A,'' at the end.
(2) Documentary requirements.--Section 211(b) of such Act
(8 U.S.C. 1181(b)) is amended by inserting ``, including an
eligible alien authorized to reside in a foreign country
under section 317A and the spouse or child of such eligible
alien, if appropriate,'' after ``101(a)(27)(A),''.
(3) Ineligible aliens.--Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of such
Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I)) is amended by inserting
``other than an eligible alien authorized to reside in a
foreign country under section 317A and the spouse or child of
such eligible alien, if appropriate,'' after ``Act,''.
(4) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents of such Act
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
317 the following:
``Sec. 317A. Temporary absence of aliens providing health care in
developing countries.''.
SEC. 3. ATTESTATION BY HEALTH CARE WORKERS.
(a) Attestation Requirement.--Section 212(a)(5) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Health care workers with other obligations.--
``(i) In general.--An alien who seeks to enter the United
States for the purpose of performing labor as a physician or
other health care worker is inadmissible unless the alien
submits to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the
Secretary of State, as appropriate, an attestation that the
alien is not seeking to enter the United States for such
purpose during any period in which the alien has an
outstanding obligation to the government of the alien's
country of origin or the alien's country of residence.
``(ii) Obligation defined.--In this subparagraph, the term
`obligation' means an obligation incurred as part of a valid,
voluntary individual agreement in which the alien received
financial assistance to defray the costs of education or
training to qualify as a physician or other health care
worker in consideration for a commitment to work as a
physician or other health care worker in the alien's country
of origin or the alien's country of residence.
``(iii) Waiver.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may
waive a finding of inadmissibility under clause (i) if the
Secretary determines that--
``(I) the obligation was incurred by coercion or other
improper means;
``(II) the alien and the government of the country to which
the alien has an outstanding obligation have reached a valid,
voluntary agreement, pursuant to which the alien's obligation
has been deemed satisfied, or the alien has shown to the
satisfaction of the Secretary that the alien has been unable
to reach such an agreement because of coercion or other
improper means; or
``(III) the obligation should not be enforced due to other
extraordinary circumstances, including undue hardship that
would be suffered by the alien in the absence of a waiver.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Application.--Not later than the effective date
described in subsection (b), the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall begin to carry out subparagraph (E) of section
212(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by
subsection (a), including the requirement for the attestation
and the granting of a waiver described in clause (iii) of
such subparagraph (E), regardless of whether regulations to
implement such subparagraph have been promulgated.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 457--TO PROVIDE FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUMMONS AND FOR
RELATED PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST G.
THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR.
Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 457
Resolved, That a summons shall be issued which commands G.
Thomas Porteous, Jr. to file with the Secretary of the Senate
an answer to the articles of impeachment no later than April
7, 2010, and thereafter to abide by, obey, and perform such
orders, directions, and judgments as the Senate shall make in
the premises, according to the Constitution and laws of the
United Stats.
Sec. 2. The Sergeant of Arms is authorized to utilize the
services of the Deputy Sergeant at Arms or another employee
of the Senate in serving the summons.
Sec. 3. The Secretary shall notify the House of
Representatives of the filing of the answer and shall provide
a copy of the answer to the House.
Sec. 4. The Managers on the part of the House may file with
the Secretary of the Senate a replication no later than April
21, 2010.
Sec. 5. The Secretary shall notify counsel for G. Thomas
Porteous, Jr. of the filing of a replication, and shall
provide counsel with a copy.
Sec. 6. The Secretary shall provide the answer and the
replication, if any, to the Presiding Officer of the Senate
on the first day the Senate is in session after the Secretary
receives them, and the Presiding Officer shall cause the
answer and replication, if any, to be printed in the Senate
Journal and in the Congressional Record. If a timely answer
has not been filed, the Presiding Officer shall cause a plea
of not guilty to be entered.
Sec. 7. The articles of impeachment, the answer, and the
replication, if any, together with the provisions of the
Constitution on impeachment, and the Rules of Procedure and
Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials,
shall be printed under the direction of the Secretary as a
Senate document.
Sec. 8. The provisions of this resolution shall govern
notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in the Rules
of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on
Impeachment Trials.
Sec. 9. The Secretary shall notify the House of
Representatives of this resolution.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 458--TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A COMMITTEE TO
RECEIVE AND TO REPORT EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
AGAINST JUDGE G. THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR.
Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 458
Resolved, That pursuant to Rule XI of the Rules of
Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on
Impeachment Trials, the Presiding Officer shall appoint a
committee of twelve senators to perform the duties and to
exercise the powers provided for in the rule.
Sec. 2. The majority and minority leader shall each
recommend six members, including a chairman and vice
chairman, respectively, to the Presiding Officer for
appointment to the committee.
Sec. 3. The committee shall be deemed to be a standing
committee of the Senate for the purpose of reporting to the
Senate resolutions for the criminal or civil enforcement of
the committee's subpoenas or orders, and for the purpose of
printing reports, hearings, and other documents for
submission to the Senate under Rule XI.
Sec. 4. During proceedings conducted under Rule XI the
chairman of the committee is authorized to waive the
requirement under the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the
Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials that questions by a
Senator to a witness, a manager, or counsel shall be reduced
to writing and put by the Presiding Officer.
Sec. 5. In addition to a certified copy of the transcript
of the proceedings and testimony had and given before it, the
committee is authorized to report to the Senate a statement
of facts that are uncontested and a summary, with appropriate
references to the
[[Page 3651]]
record, of evidence that the parties have introduced on
contested issues of fact.
Sec. 6(a). The actual and necessary expenses of the
committee, including the employment of staff at an annual
rate of pay, and the employment of consultants with prior
approval of the Committee on Rules and Administration at a
rate not to exceed the maximum daily rate for a standing
committee of the Senate, shall be paid from the contingent
fund of the Senate from the appropriation account
``Miscellaneous Items'' upon vouchers approved by the
chairman of the committee, except that no voucher shall be
required to pay the salary of any employee who is compensated
at an annual rate of pay.
(b). In carrying out its powers, duties, and functions
under this resolution, the committee is authorized, in its
discretion and with the prior consent of the Government
department or agency concerned and the Committee on Rules and
Administration, to use on a reimbursable, or nonreimbursable,
basis the services of personnel of any such department or
agency.
Sec. 7. The committee appointed pursuant to section one of
this resolution shall terminate no later than 60 days after
the pronouncement of judgment by the Senate on the articles
of impeachment.
Sec. 8. The Secretary shall notify the House of
Representatives and counsel for Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.
of this resolution.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 459--CONGRATULATING KICY RADIO FOR 50 YEARS OF
SERVICE TO WESTERN ALASKA AND THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST
Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Begich) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 459
Whereas KICY Radio is owned and operated by the Arctic
Broadcasting Association, a nonprofit affiliate of the
Evangelical Covenant Church;
Whereas KICY Radio has been broadcasting since April 17,
1960, on an AM frequency of 850 kilohertz;
Whereas KICY Radio is primarily staffed by volunteers;
Whereas KICY Radio broadcasts from Nome, Alaska to more
than 40 Alaska Native villages throughout the Seward
Peninsula and Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta;
Whereas KICY Radio serves the Chukotkan, Kamchatkan, and
Siberian regions of the Russian Far East for 5 hours each
day, 7 days each week, from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m.;
Whereas the signal strength of KICY Radio has expanded from
5,000 watts to 50,000 watts during the past 50 years;
Whereas 1 of the most popular KICY Radio programs over the
50-year history of the station is ``Ptarmigan Telegraph,''
which allows listeners to send in brief messages to be read
on the air for friends and relatives; and
Whereas, even today, when much of the region served by KICY
Radio is connected by telephone, ``Ptarmigan Telegraph''
remains a vital means of connecting the people of western
Alaska: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates KICY Radio for 50 years of service to
western Alaska and the Russian Far East;
(2) recognizes the volunteer staff who have kept KICY Radio
on the air for the past 50 years; and
(3) wishes the staff of KICY Radio well with the continued
efforts of the staff to serve the people of western Alaska
and the Russian Far East with culturally relevant
programming.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 460--RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LONG TRAIL AND
THE GREEN MOUNTAIN CLUB ON THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE LONG TRAIL
Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Sanders) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 460
Whereas the Long Trail is the oldest long-distance hiking
trail in the United States;
Whereas the Long Trail stretches over 273 miles, from the
Massachusetts to Canadian borders, with approximately 175
miles of side trails and more than 65 shelters;
Whereas the Long Trail has achieved the dream of founder
James Taylor of creating ``a high highway, a mountain
footpath over the skyline of Vermont'';
Whereas the Green Mountain Club is the founder, sponsor,
defender, and protector of the Long Trail;
Whereas the Green Mountain Club has delivered 100 years of
conservation, community education, and outreach on local
ecology;
Whereas the Long Trail has protected the habitat of many
important species for future generations, including the black
bear, the moose, the bobcat, and migratory songbirds;
Whereas the thousands of members and dedicated volunteers
of the Green Mountain Club have worked to maintain, manage,
and protect the Long Trail for the benefit of the people of
the State of Vermont during the last century;
Whereas the Long Trail is a popular tourist destination for
people from around the world, including Senators, a Secretary
of Agriculture, and even a President;
Whereas the Long Trail allows the people of the State of
Vermont and tourists to enjoy the Green Mountain State and
all the beauty and history the State has to offer;
Whereas the Green Mountain Club has successfully conserved
the entire corridor of the Long Trail, fought efforts to
build highways or commercial developments that intersect with
the Long Trail, and helped to maintain pristine Vermont
forestland for future generations to enjoy; and
Whereas the Green Mountain Club has recognized members
regardless of sex or race since the founding of the club:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate recognizes the 100th anniversary
of the Long Trail of the State of Vermont, the oldest long-
distance hiking trail in the United States, and applauds the
Green Mountain Club and the many volunteers of the Green
Mountain Club for a century of service and for creating,
protecting, and enjoying the Long Trail.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 3542. 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.
SA 3543. Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Rockefeller, and
Mr. Dorgan) 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 3544. Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Wyden, 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 3545. Mr. RISCH (for himself and Mr. Crapo) 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 3546. 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 3547. 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 3548. Mr. PRYOR submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1586, supra.
SA 3549. Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Sessions, and Mr.
Chambliss) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3475 proposed by Mr. McCain (for himself and Mr.
Bayh) to the amendment SA 3452 proposed by Mr. Rockefeller to
the bill H.R. 1586 , supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 3542. 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. PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL AVIATION
PRIORITIES.
(a) Airport Improvement Program.--The Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration shall ensure that any amount
made available for airport improvement under subchapter 1 of
chapter 471 of title 49, United States Code, is for a project
that--
(1) has a National Priority Rating of not less than 41; and
(2) is included in the Airports Capital Improvement Plan.
(b) Tower/Terminal Air Traffic Control Facility Replacement
Program.--The Administrator shall ensure that any amount made
available for the replacement of air traffic control
facilities under such subchapter is for a project that is on
the priority list of the Administration.
(c) Instrument Landing Systems Program Funds.--The
Administrator shall ensure that any amount made available for
instrument landing systems under such subchapter is for a
project that--
(1) has a higher benefit than cost; and
(2) complies with such other requirements of the
Administration as the Administrator considers appropriate.
[[Page 3652]]
(d) Other Projects.--The Administrator shall ensure that
any amount made available under such subchapter for a purpose
not described in subsection (a), (b), or (c) is for a project
that the Administrator considers a national priority.
(e) Annual Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2010, and
annually thereafter, the Administrator shall submit to
Congress a report that lists each project of the
Administration that failed to comply with the provisions of
this section in the most recent fiscal year ending before the
date of such submittal.
(2) Contents.--For each report submitted under paragraph
(1), the Administrator shall include, for each project listed
in such report, the following:
(A) A description of the project.
(B) A type classification of the project.
(C) The cost of the project.
(D) The impact of the project on the aviation priorities of
the United States.
______
SA 3543. Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr.
Dorgan) 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 in title III, insert the
following:
SEC. __. FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR NEXTGEN EQUIPAGE.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration may enter into agreements to fund the costs of
equipping aircraft with communications, surveillance,
navigation, and other avionics to enable NextGen air traffic
control capabilities.
(b) Funding Instrument.--The Administrator may make grants
or other instruments authorized under section 106(l)(6) of
title 49, United States Code, to carry out subsection (a).
______
SA 3544. Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Wyden, 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:
After title VII, insert the following:
TITLE VIII--ACCESS TO GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS
SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Community Airport Access
and Protection Act of 2010''.
SEC. 802. AGREEMENTS GRANTING THROUGH-THE-FENCE ACCESS TO
GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS.
(a) In General.--Section 47107 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(t) Agreements Granting Through-the-Fence Access to
General Aviation Airports.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), a sponsor of a
general aviation airport shall not be considered to be in
violation of this subtitle, or to be in violation of a grant
assurance made under this section or under any other
provision of law as a condition for the receipt of Federal
financial assistance for airport development, solely because
the sponsor enters into an agreement that grants to a person
that owns residential real property adjacent to the airport
access to the airfield of the airport for the following:
``(A) Aircraft of the person.
``(B) Aircraft authorized by the person.
``(2) Through the fence agreements.--
``(A) In general.--An agreement described in paragraph (1)
between an airport sponsor and a property owner shall be a
written agreement that prescribes the rights,
responsibilities, charges, duration, and other terms
determined necessary to establish and manage the airport
sponsor's relationship with the property owner.
``(B) Terms and conditions.--An agreement described in
paragraph (1) between an airport sponsor and a property owner
shall require the property owner, at minimum--
``(i) to pay airport access charges that are not less than
those charged to tenants and operators on-airport making
similar use of the airport;
``(ii) to bear the cost of building and maintaining the
infrastructure necessary to provide aircraft located on the
property adjacent to the airport access to the airfield of
the airport;
``(iii) to operate and maintain the property, and conduct
any construction activities on the property, at no cost to
the airport and in a manner that--
``(I) is consistent with subsections (a)(7) and (a)(9);
``(II) does not alter the airport, including the facilities
of the airport;
``(III) does not adversely affect the safety, utility, or
efficiency of the airport;
``(IV) is compatible with the normal operations of the
airport; and
``(V) is consistent with the airport's role in the National
Plan of Integrated Airport Systems;
``(iv) to maintain the property for residential,
noncommercial use for the duration of the agreement; and
``(v) to prohibit access to the airport from other
properties through the property of the property owner.
``(3) General aviation airport defined.--In this
subsection, the term `general aviation airport' means a
public airport that is located in a State and that, as
determined by the Secretary of Transportation--
``(A) does not have scheduled service; or
``(B) has scheduled service with less than 2,500 passenger
boardings each year.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to an agreement between an airport sponsor and a
property owner entered into before, on, or after the date of
enactment of this Act.
______
SA 3545. Mr. RISCH (for himself and Mr. Crapo) 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 61, strike lines 1 through 8 and insert the
following:
(c) Study by Board.--
(1) In general.--The Air Traffic Control Modernization
Oversight Board, established by section 106(p) of title 49,
United States Code, shall conduct a study of--
(A) the Administrator's recommendations for realignment;
and
(B) the opportunities, risks, and benefits of realigning
services and facilities of the Administration to reduce
capital, operating, maintenance, and administrative costs
without adversely affecting safety.
(2) Considerations.--In carrying out the study under
paragraph (1), the Board shall consider--
(A) the commercial and noncommercial use of airspace,
including Department of Defense operations, Forest Service
operations, and the operations of other Government agencies
with irregular flight times and patterns; and
(B) the safety of aircraft operations in adverse weather,
terrain, and other limiting physical factors relevant to the
airspace surrounding airports whose aviation services and
facilities have been recommended for realignment by the
Administrator.
______
SA 3546. 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) Passenger Enplanement Report.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall prepare a report on 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) Report objectives.--In carrying out the report under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall document the methods
used by each subject airport to reach the 10,000 passenger
enplanement threshold, including whether airports subsidize
commercial flights to reach such threshold.
(3) Review.--The Inspector General of the Department of
Transportation shall review the process of the Adminstrator
in developing the report under paragraph (1).
(4) Report.--The Administrator shall submit the report
prepared under paragraph (1) to Congress and the Secretary of
Transportation.
(5) Rulemaking.--After reviewing the report prepared 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 3547. 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 44, after line 25, add the following:
[[Page 3653]]
SEC. 219. STUDY ON APPORTIONING AMOUNTS FOR AIRPORT
IMPROVEMENT IN PROPORTION TO AMOUNTS OF AIR
TRAFFIC.
(a) Study and Report Required.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall--
(1) complete a study on the feasibility and advisability of
apportioning amounts under section 47114(c)(1) of title 49,
United States Code, to the sponsor of each primary airport
for each fiscal year an amount that bears the same ratio to
the amount subject to the 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; and
(2) submit to Congress a report on the study completed
under paragraph (1).
(b) Report Contents.--The report required by subsection
(a)(2) shall include the following:
(1) A description of the study carried out under subsection
(a)(1).
(2) The findings of the Administrator with respect to such
study.
(3) A list of each sponsor of a primary airport that
received an amount under section 47114(c)(1) of title 49,
United States Code, in 2009.
(4) For each sponsor listed in accordance with paragraph
(3), the following:
(A) The amount such sponsor received, if any, in 2005,
2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 under such section 47114(c)(1).
(B) An explanation of how the amount awarded to such
sponsor was determined.
(C) The average number of air passenger flights serviced
each month at the airport of such sponsor in 2009.
(D) The number of enplanements for air passenger
transportation at such airport in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and
2009.
______
SA 3548. Mr. PRYOR submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 1586, to impose an additional tax on bonuses
received from certain TARP recipients; as follows:
At the end, insert the following:
SEC. _01. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS AND OTHER DEFICIT
REDUCTION MEASURES.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``discretionary spending limits
``Sec. 316. (a) Discretionary Spending Limits.--It shall
not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that includes any provision that would
cause the discretionary spending limits as set forth in this
section to be exceeded.
``(b) Limits.--In this section, the term `discretionary
spending limits' has the following meaning subject to
adjustments in subsection (c):
``(1) For fiscal year 2011--
``(A) for the defense category (budget function 050),
$573,793,000,000 in budget authority; and
``(B) for the nondefense category, $533,159,000,000 in
budget authority.
``(2) For fiscal year 2012--
``(A) for the defense category (budget function 050),
$580,811,000,000 in budget authority; and
``(B) for the nondefense category, $559,621,000,000 in
budget authority.
``(3) For fiscal year 2013--
``(A) for the defense category (budget function 050),
$593,516,000,000 in budget authority; and
``(B) for the nondefense category, $549,562,000,000 in
budget authority.
``(4) With respect to fiscal years following 2013, the
President shall recommend and the Congress shall consider
legislation setting limits for those fiscal years.
``(c) Adjustments.--
``(1) In general.--After the reporting of a bill or joint
resolution relating to any matter described in paragraph (2),
or the offering of an amendment thereto or the submission of
a conference report thereon--
``(A) the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget
may adjust the discretionary spending limits, the budgetary
aggregates in the concurrent resolution on the budget most
recently adopted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives, and allocations pursuant to section 302(a)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, by the amount of new
budget authority in that measure for that purpose and the
outlays flowing there from; and
``(B) following any adjustment under subparagraph (A), the
Senate Committee on Appropriations may report appropriately
revised suballocations pursuant to section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this
subsection.
``(2) Matters described.--Matters referred to in paragraph
(1) are as follows:
``(A) Overseas deployments and other activities.--If a bill
or joint resolution is reported making appropriations for
fiscal year 2011, 2012, or 2013, that provides funding for
overseas deployments and other activities, the adjustment for
purposes paragraph (1) shall be the amount of budget
authority in that measure for that purpose but not to
exceed--
``(i) with respect to fiscal year 2011, $50,000,000,000 in
new budget authority;
``(ii) with respect to fiscal year 2012, $50,000,000,000 in
new budget authority; and
``(iii) with respect to fiscal year 2013, $50,000,000,000
in new budget authority.
``(B) Internal revenue service tax enforcement.--
``(i) In general.--If a bill or joint resolution is
reported making appropriations for fiscal year 2011, 2012, or
2013, that includes the amount described in clause (ii)(I),
plus an additional amount for enhanced tax enforcement to
address the Federal tax gap (taxes owed but not paid)
described in clause (ii)(II), the adjustment for purposes of
paragraph (1) shall be the amount of budget authority in that
measure for that initiative not exceeding the amount
specified in clause (ii)(II) for that fiscal year.
``(ii) Amounts.--The amounts referred to in clause (i) are
as follows:
``(I) For fiscal year 2011, $7,171,000,000, for fiscal year
2012, $7,243,000,000, and for fiscal year 2013,
$7,315,000,000.
``(II) For fiscal year 2011, $899,000,000, for fiscal year
2012, and $908,000,000, for fiscal year 2013, $917,000,000.
``(C) Continuing disability reviews and ssi
redeterminations.--
``(i) In general.--If a bill or joint resolution is
reported making appropriations for fiscal year 2011, 2012, or
2013 that includes the amount described in clause (ii)(I),
plus an additional amount for Continuing Disability Reviews
and Supplemental Security Income Redeterminations for the
Social Security Administration described in clause (ii)(II),
the adjustment for purposes of paragraph (1) shall be the
amount of budget authority in that measure for that
initiative not exceeding the amount specified in clause
(ii)(II) for that fiscal year.
``(ii) Amounts.--The amounts referred to in clause (i) are
as follows:
``(I) For fiscal year 2011, $276,000,000, for fiscal year
2012, $278,000,000, and for fiscal year 2013, $281,000,000.
``(II) For fiscal year 2011, $490,000,000; for fiscal year
2012, and $495,000,000; for fiscal year 2013, $500,000,000.
``(iii) Asset verification.--
``(I) In general.--The additional appropriation permitted
under clause (ii)(II) may also provide that a portion of that
amount, not to exceed the amount specified in subclause (II)
for that fiscal year instead may be used for asset
verification for Supplemental Security Income recipients, but
only if, and to the extent that the Office of the Chief
Actuary estimates that the initiative would be at least as
cost effective as the redeterminations of eligibility
described in this subparagraph.
``(II) Amounts.--For fiscal year 2011, $34,340,000, for
fiscal year 2012, $34,683,000, and for fiscal year 2013,
$35,030,000.
``(D) Health care fraud and abuse.--
``(i) In general.--If a bill or joint resolution is
reported making appropriations for fiscal year 2011, 2012, or
2013 that includes the amount described in clause (ii) for
the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control program at the
Department of Health & Human Services for that fiscal year,
the adjustment for purposes of paragraph (1) shall be the
amount of budget authority in that measure for that
initiative but not to exceed the amount described in clause
(ii).
``(ii) Amount.--The amount referred to in clause (i) is for
fiscal year 2011, $314,000,000, for fiscal year 2012,
$317,000,000, and for fiscal year 2013, $320,000,000.
``(E) Unemployment insurance improper payment reviews.--If
a bill or joint resolution is reported making appropriations
for fiscal year 2011, 2012, or 2013 that includes
$10,000,000, plus an additional amount for in-person
reemployment and eligibility assessments and unemployment
improper payment reviews for the Department of Labor, the
adjustment for purposes paragraph (1) shall be the amount of
budget authority in that measure for that initiative but not
to exceed--
``(i) with respect to fiscal year 2011, $51,000,000 in new
budget authority;
``(ii) with respect to fiscal year 2012, $51,000,000 in new
budget authority; and
``(iii) with respect to fiscal year 2013, $52,000,000 in
new budget authority.
``(F) Low-income home energy assistance program (liheap).--
If a bill or joint resolution is reported making
appropriations for fiscal year 2011, 2012, or 2013 that
includes $3,200,000,000 in funding for the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Program and provides an additional amount
up to $1,900,000,000 for that program, the adjustment for
purposes of paragraph (1) shall be the amount of budget
authority in that measure for that initiative but not to
exceed $1,900,000,000.
``(d) Emergency Spending.--
``(1) Authority to designate.--In the Senate, with respect
to a provision of direct spending or receipts legislation or
appropriations for discretionary accounts that Congress
designates as an emergency requirement in such measure, the
amounts of new budget authority, outlays, and receipts in all
fiscal years resulting from that provision
[[Page 3654]]
shall be treated as an emergency requirement for the purpose
of this subsection.
``(2) Exemption of emergency provisions.--Any new budget
authority, outlays, and receipts resulting from any provision
designated as an emergency requirement, pursuant to this
subsection, in any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report shall not count for purposes of this
section, and sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress)
(relating to pay-as-you-go), and section 311 of S. Con. Res.
70 (110th Congress) (relating to long-term deficits).
``(3) Designations.--If a provision of legislation is
designated as an emergency requirement under this subsection,
the committee report and any statement of managers
accompanying that legislation shall include an explanation of
the manner in which the provision meets the criteria in
paragraph (6).
``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection, the terms `direct
spending', `receipts', and `appropriations for discretionary
accounts' mean any provision of a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that affects direct
spending, receipts, or appropriations as those terms have
been defined and interpreted for purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
``(5) Point of order.--
``(A) In general.--When the Senate is considering a bill,
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report, if a
point of order is made by a Senator against an emergency
designation in that measure, that provision making such a
designation shall be stricken from the measure and may not be
offered as an amendment from the floor.
``(B) Supermajority waiver and appeals.--
``(i) Waiver.--Subparagraph (A) may be waived or suspended
in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of
the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
``(ii) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions
of the Chair relating to any provision of this paragraph
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 paragraph.
``(C) Definition of an emergency designation.--For purposes
of subparagraph (A), a provision shall be considered an
emergency designation if it designates any item as an
emergency requirement pursuant to this paragraph.
``(D) Form of the point of order.--A point of order under
subparagraph (A) may be raised by a Senator as provided in
section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
``(E) Conference reports.--When the Senate is considering a
conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in
relation to, a bill, upon a point of order being made by any
Senator pursuant to this paragraph, and such point of order
being sustained, such material contained in such conference
report shall be deemed stricken, and the Senate shall proceed
to consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede
from its amendment and concur with a further amendment, or
concur in the House amendment with a further amendment, as
the case may be, which further amendment shall consist of
only that portion of the conference report or House
amendment, as the case may be, not so stricken. Any such
motion in the Senate shall be debatable. In any case in which
such point of order is sustained against a conference report
(or Senate amendment derived from such conference report by
operation of this subsection), no further amendment shall be
in order.
``(6) Criteria.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, any
provision is an emergency requirement if the situation
addressed by such provision is--
``(i) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or
beneficial);
``(ii) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building
up over time;
``(iii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring
immediate action;
``(iv) subject to clause (ii), unforeseen, unpredictable,
and unanticipated; and
``(v) not permanent, temporary in nature.
``(7) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an
aggregate level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when
normally estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.
``(e) Limitations on Changes to Exemptions.--It shall not
be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to
consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference
report that would exempt any new budget authority, outlays,
and receipts from being counted for purposes of this section.
``national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform
``Sec. 317. (a) In General.--The National Commission on
Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (referred to in this section
as the `Commission') established by Executive Order 13531
shall not later than December 1, 2010, include in the report
of the Commission recommendations to improve the fiscal
sustainability of the Federal Government and close the gap
between the projected revenues and entitlement spending
sufficient to reduce the deficit by not less than
$77,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2011 through
2013.
``(b) Enactment by Congress of the Commission
Recommendations.--If the Commission fails to submit a final
report by December 1, 2010, and if Congress does not enact
the Commission recommendations in subsection (a) by January
2, 2011, then the discretionary spending limits in section
316(b) for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 shall not apply.
``(c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the total amount of deficit reduction recommended by the
Commission for fiscal years 2011 through 2013 shall at least
be equal to the reductions in discretionary spending achieved
in section 316 for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, and used
solely for deficit reduction.''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents set forth in
section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 315 the following new item:
``Sec. 316. Discretionary spending limits.
``Sec. 317. National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.''.
______
SA 3549. Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Chambliss)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3475
proposed by Mr. McCain (for himself and Mr. Bayh) 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:
TITLE ___--HELP ACT
SEC. _01. HELP ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Honest
Expenditure Limitation Program Act of 2010'' or the ``HELP
Act''.
(b) Expiration.--This title shall expire at the end of
fiscal year 2020.
Subtitle A--Congressional Non-Security Discretionary Spending Limits
SEC. 101. NON-SECURITY DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``non-security discretionary spending limits
``Sec. 316. (a) Non-Security Discretionary Spending
Limits.--It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report that includes any
provision that would cause the non-security discretionary
spending limits as set forth in subsection (b) to be
exceeded.
``(b) Limits.--The non-security discretionary spending
limits are as follows:
``(1) For fiscal years 2011 through 2015, the spending
level for such spending in fiscal year 2010 reduced each year
thereafter on a pro rata basis so that the level for fiscal
year 2015 does not exceed the level for fiscal year 2008.
``(2) For fiscal years 2016 through 2020, the spending
level for fiscal year 2015.
``(c) Non-Security Spending.--In this section, the term
`non-security discretionary spending' means discretionary
spending other than spending for the Department of Defense,
homeland security activities, intelligence related activities
within the Department of State, the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and national security related activities in the
Department of Energy.
``(d) Limitations on Changes to This Section.--It shall not
be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to
consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference
report that would--
``(1) repeal or otherwise change this section; or
``(2) exempt any new budget authority, outlays, and
receipts from being counted for purposes of this section.
``(e) Point of Order in the Senate.--
``(1) Waiver.--The provisions of this section shall be
waived or suspended in the Senate only--
``(A) by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members,
duly chosen and sworn; or
``(B) in the case of the defense budget authority, if
Congress declares war or authorizes the use of force.
``(2) Appeal.--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 measure.
An affirmative vote of two-thirds 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.''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents set forth in
section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 315 the following new item:
``Sec. 316. Non-security discretionary spending limits.''.
[[Page 3655]]
Subtitle B--Statutory Non-Security Discretionary Spending Limits
PART I--DEFINITIONS, ADMINISTRATION, AND SEQUESTRATION
SEC. 211. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
(1) Account.--The term ``account'' means--
(A) for discretionary budget authority, an item for which
appropriations are made in any appropriation Act; and
(B) for items not provided for in appropriation Acts,
direct spending and outlays therefrom identified in the
program and finance schedules contained in the appendix to
the Budget of the United States for the current year.
(2) Breach.--The term ``breach'' means, for any fiscal
year, the amount by which discretionary budget authority
enacted for that year exceeds the spending limit for budget
authority for that year.
(3) Budget authority; new budget authority; and outlays.--
The terms ``budget authority'', ``new budget authority'', and
``outlays'' have the meanings given to such terms in section
3 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of
1974 (2 U.S.C. 622).
(4) Budget year.--The term ``budget year'' means, with
respect to a session of Congress, the fiscal year of the
Government that starts on October 1 of the calendar year in
which that session begins.
(5) CBO.--The term ``CBO'' means the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office.
(6) Current.--The term ``current'' means--
(A) with respect to the Office of Management and Budget
estimates included with a budget submission under section
1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, the estimates
consistent with the economic and technical assumptions
underlying that budget;
(B) with respect to estimates made after that budget
submission that are not included with it, the estimates
consistent with the economic and technical assumptions
underlying the most recently submitted President's budget;
and
(C) with respect to the Congressional Budget Office,
estimates consistent with the economic and technical
assumptions as required by section 202(e)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(7) Current year.--The term ``current year'' means, with
respect to a budget year, the fiscal year that immediately
precedes that budget year.
(8) Discretionary appropriations and discretionary budget
authority.--The terms ``discretionary appropriations'' and
``discretionary budget authority'' shall have the meaning
given such terms in section 3(4) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974.
(9) Non-security discretionary spending limit.--The term
``non-security discretionary spending limit'' shall mean the
amounts specified in section 222.
(10) OMB.--The term ``OMB'' means the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget.
(11) Sequestration.--The term ``sequestration'' means the
cancellation or reduction of budget authority (except budget
authority to fund mandatory programs) provided in
appropriation Acts.
SEC. 212. ADMINISTRATION AND EFFECT OF SEQUESTRATION.
(a) Timetable.--The timetable with respect to this subtitle
is as follows:
On or before: Action to be completed:
5 days before the President's budget submission CBO Discretionary Sequestration Preview Report.
required under section 1105 of title 31, United
States Code.
The President's budget submission.................. OMB Discretionary Sequestration Preview Report.
10 days after end of session....................... CBO Final Discretionary Sequestration Report.
15 days after end of session....................... OMB Final Discretionary Sequestration/Presidential
Sequestration Order.
(b) Presidential Order.--
(1) In general.--On the date specified in subsection (a),
if in its Final Sequestration Report, OMB estimates that any
sequestration is required, the President shall issue an order
fully implementing without change all sequestrations required
by the OMB calculations set forth in that report. This order
shall be effective on issuance.
(2) Special rule.--If the date specified for the submission
of a Presidential order under subsection (a) falls on a
Sunday or legal holiday, such order shall be issued on the
following day.
(c) Effects of Sequestration.--The effects of sequestration
shall be as follows:
(1) Budgetary resources sequestered from any account shall
be permanently cancelled, except as provided in paragraph
(5).
(2) Except as otherwise provided, the same percentage
sequestration shall apply to all programs, projects, and
activities within a budget account (with programs, projects,
and activities as delineated in the appropriation Act or
accompanying report for the relevant fiscal year covering
that account).
(3) Administrative regulations or similar actions
implementing a sequestration shall be made within 120 days of
the sequestration order. To the extent that formula
allocations differ at different levels of budgetary resources
within an account, program, project, or activity, the
sequestration shall be interpreted as producing a lower total
appropriation, with the remaining amount of the appropriation
being obligated in a manner consistent with program
allocation formulas in substantive law.
(4) Except as otherwise provided in this part, obligations
or budgetary resources in sequestered accounts shall be
reduced only in the fiscal year in which a sequester occurs.
(5) Budgetary resources sequestered in special fund
accounts and offsetting collections sequestered in
appropriation accounts shall not be available for obligation
during the fiscal year in which the sequestration occurs, but
shall be available in subsequent years to the extent
otherwise provided in law.
(d) Submission and Availability of Reports.--Each report
required by this section shall be submitted, in the case of
CBO, to the House of Representatives, the Senate, and OMB
and, in the case of OMB, to the House of Representatives, the
Senate, and the President on the day it is issued. On the
following day a notice of the report shall be printed in the
Federal Register.
PART II--NON-SECURITY DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS
SEC. 221. DISCRETIONARY SEQUESTRATION REPORTS.
(a) Discretionary Sequestration Preview Reports.--
(1) Reporting requirement.--On the dates specified in
section 212(a), OMB shall report to the President and
Congress and CBO shall report to Congress a Discretionary
Sequestration Preview Report regarding discretionary
sequestration based on laws enacted through those dates.
(2) Discretionary.--The Discretionary Sequestration Preview
Report shall set forth estimates for the current year and
each subsequent year through 2014 of the applicable
discretionary spending limits and a projection of budget
authority exceeding discretionary limits subject to
sequester.
(3) Explanation of differences.--The OMB reports shall
explain the differences between OMB and CBO estimates for
each item set forth in this subsection.
(b) Discretionary Sequestration Reports.--On the dates
specified in section 212(a), OMB and CBO shall issue
Discretionary Sequestration Reports, reflecting laws enacted
through those dates, containing all of the information
required in the Discretionary Sequestration Preview Reports.
(c) Final Discretionary Sequestration Reports.--
(1) Reporting requirements.--On the dates specified in
section 212(a), OMB and CBO shall each issue a Final
Discretionary Sequestration Report, updated to reflect laws
enacted through those dates.
(2) Discretionary spending.--The Final Discretionary
Sequestration Reports shall set forth estimates for each of
the following:
(A) For the current year and each subsequent year through
2014; the applicable discretionary spending limits.
(B) For the current year, if applicable, and the budget
year; the new budget authority and the breach, if any.
(C) The sequestration percentages necessary to eliminate
the breach.
(D) For the budget year, for each account to be
sequestered, the level of enacted, sequesterable budget
authority and resulting estimated outlays flowing therefrom.
(3) Explanation of differences.--The OMB report shall
explain--
(A) any differences between OMB and CBO estimates for the
amount of any breach and for any required discretionary
sequestration percentages; and
(B) differences in the amount of sequesterable resources
for any budget account to be reduced if such difference is
greater than $5,000,000.
(d) Economic and Technical Assumptions.--In all reports
required by this section, OMB shall use the same economic and
technical assumptions as used in the most recent budget
submitted by the President under section 1105(a) of title 31,
United States Code.
SEC. 222. LIMITS.
(a) Discretionary Spending Limits.--As used in this
subtitle, the term ``non-security discretionary spending
limit'' shall have the same meaning as in section 316 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(b) Enforcement.--
(1) Sequestration.--On the date specified in section
212(a), there shall be a sequestration to eliminate a budget-
year breach.
(2) Eliminating a breach.--Each non-security discretionary
account shall be reduced by a dollar amount calculated by
multiplying the enacted level of budget authority
[[Page 3656]]
for that year in that account at that time by the uniform
percentage necessary to eliminate a breach of the
discretionary spending limit.
(3) Part-year appropriations.--If, on the date the report
is issued under paragraph (1), there is in effect an Act
making continuing appropriations for part of a fiscal year
for any budget account, then the dollar sequestration
calculated for that account under paragraph (2) shall be
subtracted from--
(A) the annualized amount otherwise available by law in
that account under that or a subsequent part-year
appropriation; and
(B) when a full-year appropriation for that account is
enacted, from the amount otherwise provided by the full-year
appropriation.
(4) Look-back.--If, after June 30, an appropriation for the
fiscal year in progress is enacted that causes a breach for
that year (after taking into account any previous
sequestration), the discretionary spending limit for the next
fiscal year shall be reduced by the amount of that breach.
(5) Within-session sequestration reports and order.--If an
appropriation for a fiscal year in progress is enacted (after
Congress adjourns to end the session for that budget year and
before July 1 of that fiscal year) that causes a breach, 10
days later CBO shall issue a report containing the
information required in section 221(c). Fifteen days after
enactment, OMB shall issue a report containing the
information required in section 221(c). On the same day as
the OMB report, the President shall issue an order fully
implementing without change all sequestrations required by
the OMB calculations set forth in that report. This order
shall be effective on issuance.
(c) Estimates.--
(1) CBO estimates.--As soon as practicable after Congress
completes action on any legislation providing discretionary
appropriations, CBO shall provide an estimate to OMB of that
legislation.
(2) OMB estimates.--Not later than 7 calendar days
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) after the
date of enactment of any discretionary appropriations, OMB
shall transmit a report to the Senate and to the House of
Representatives containing--
(A) the CBO estimate of that legislation;
(B) an OMB estimate of that legislation using current
economic and technical assumptions; and
(C) an explanation of any difference between the 2
estimates.
(3) Differences.--If during the preparation of the report
under paragraph (2), OMB determines that there is a
difference between the OMB and CBO estimates, OMB shall
consult with the Committees on the Budget of the House of
Representatives and the Senate regarding that difference and
that consultation, to the extent practicable, shall include
written communication to such committees that affords such
committees the opportunity to comment before the issuance of
that report.
(4) Assumptions and guidelines.--OMB and CBO shall prepare
estimates under this paragraph in conformance with
scorekeeping guidelines determined after consultation among
the House and Senate Committees on the Budget, CBO, and OMB.
____________________
NOTICE OF HEARING
permanent subcommittee on investigations
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs has scheduled a hearing entitled, ``Wall
Street and the Financial Crisis: The Role of High Risk Home Loans''
This hearing will be the first in a series of Subcommittee hearings
examining some of the causes and consequences of the recent financial
crisis. This first hearing will focus on the role of high risk home
loans in the financial crisis, using as a case history high risk home
loans originated, sold, and securitized by Washington Mutual Bank. A
witness list will be available Monday, March 22, 2010.
The Subcommittee hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, March 25,
2010, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. For
further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations at 224-9505.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on energy and natural resources
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate on March 17, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of
the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on environment and public works
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate on March 17, 2010, at 10:30 a.m., in room 406
of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on foreign relations
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session
of the Senate on March 17, 2010, at 10 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on health, education, labor, and pensions
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to
meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled
``Reauthorization: The Obama Administration's ESEA Reauthorization
Priorities'' on March 17, 2010. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in
room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on homeland security and governmental affairs
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized
to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2010, at 10 a.m.
to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Lessons and Implications of the
Christmas Day Attack: Intelligence Reform and Interagency
Integration.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on administrative oversight and the courts
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, be authorized
to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 17, 2010, at 10 a.m.
in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a
hearing entitled ``Could Bankruptcy Reform Help Preserve Small Business
Jobs?''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance of
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to
hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2010, at 3
p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on National Parks
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session
of the Senate on March 17, 2010 at 3:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the
Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be
authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2010,
at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Special Committee on Aging
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on March 17, 2010, at 2:30-5 p.m. in Dirksen 562 for the
purpose of conducting a hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 3657]]
____________________
CONGRATULATING KICY RADIO
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 459, which was submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 459) congratulating KICY Radio for 50
years of service to western Alaska and the Russian Far East.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to
reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 459) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 459
Whereas KICY Radio is owned and operated by the Arctic
Broadcasting Association, a nonprofit affiliate of the
Evangelical Covenant Church;
Whereas KICY Radio has been broadcasting since April 17,
1960, on an AM frequency of 850 kilohertz;
Whereas KICY Radio is primarily staffed by volunteers;
Whereas KICY Radio broadcasts from Nome, Alaska to more
than 40 Alaska Native villages throughout the Seward
Peninsula and Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta;
Whereas KICY Radio serves the Chukotkan, Kamchatkan, and
Siberian regions of the Russian Far East for 5 hours each
day, 7 days each week, from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m.;
Whereas the signal strength of KICY Radio has expanded from
5,000 watts to 50,000 watts during the past 50 years;
Whereas 1 of the most popular KICY Radio programs over the
50-year history of the station is ``Ptarmigan Telegraph,''
which allows listeners to send in brief messages to be read
on the air for friends and relatives; and
Whereas, even today, when much of the region served by KICY
Radio is connected by telephone, ``Ptarmigan Telegraph''
remains a vital means of connecting the people of western
Alaska: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates KICY Radio for 50 years of service to
western Alaska and the Russian Far East;
(2) recognizes the volunteer staff who have kept KICY Radio
on the air for the past 50 years; and
(3) wishes the staff of KICY Radio well with the continued
efforts of the staff to serve the people of western Alaska
and the Russian Far East with culturally relevant
programming.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE LONG TRAIL
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 460, submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 460) recognizing the importance of
the Long Trail and the Green Mountain Club on the 100th
anniversary of the Long Trail.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will agree to
this resolution commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Long Trail
and the Green Mountain Club. In March 1910, James P. Taylor, a teacher
from Vermont, fulfilled a dream held by many when he founded the Green
Mountain Club, and created a long-distance trail to extend from
Massachusetts to Canada.
Spanning over 273 miles, the Long Trail is the oldest long-distance
hiking trail in the United States, and has survived many floods,
hurricanes, and harsh Vermont winters. The Long Trail's scenic and
varied landscapes, from the alpine peaks of Camel's Hump and Mount
Mansfield, to quiet woodland trails and mountain streams, have
delighted countless tourists who have visited the Green Mountain state.
Several Senators, a Secretary of Agriculture, and even a President have
all enjoyed the trail.
It is only through the hard work of the thousands of Green Mountain
Club volunteers that the Long Trail has flourished and grown during the
last century. The Green Mountain Club has resisted efforts to build
highways or commercial developments that intersect with the Long Trail,
and helped to maintain pristine Vermont forestland that we all love for
future generations to enjoy. They have protected the habitat of many
important woodland species, including the black bear, the moose, the
bobcat, and migratory songbirds.
I was pleased to secure funding to help the Green Mountain Club
renovate their headquarters and visitors center in 2008 in anticipation
of the centennial, so that Vermonters and tourists alike can enjoy
Vermont's natural beauty for another 100 years. I join with all
Vermonters, and the thousands of people from across the United States
and around the world who have enjoyed the beauty of the Long Trail, in
celebrating this centennial celebration.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to
reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or
debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 460) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 460
Whereas the Long Trail is the oldest long-distance hiking
trail in the United States;
Whereas the Long Trail stretches over 273 miles, from the
Massachusetts to Canadian borders, with approximately 175
miles of side trails and more than 65 shelters;
Whereas the Long Trail has achieved the dream of founder
James Taylor of creating ``a high highway, a mountain
footpath over the skyline of Vermont'';
Whereas the Green Mountain Club is the founder, sponsor,
defender, and protector of the Long Trail;
Whereas the Green Mountain Club has delivered 100 years of
conservation, community education, and outreach on local
ecology;
Whereas the Long Trail has protected the habitat of many
important species for future generations, including the black
bear, the moose, the bobcat, and migratory songbirds;
Whereas the thousands of members and dedicated volunteers
of the Green Mountain Club have worked to maintain, manage,
and protect the Long Trail for the benefit of the people of
the State of Vermont during the last century;
Whereas the Long Trail is a popular tourist destination for
people from around the world, including Senators, a Secretary
of Agriculture, and even a President;
Whereas the Long Trail allows the people of the State of
Vermont and tourists to enjoy the Green Mountain State and
all the beauty and history the State has to offer;
Whereas the Green Mountain Club has successfully conserved
the entire corridor of the Long Trail, fought efforts to
build highways or commercial developments that intersect with
the Long Trail, and helped to maintain pristine Vermont
forestland for future generations to enjoy; and
Whereas the Green Mountain Club has recognized members
regardless of sex or race since the founding of the club:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate recognizes the 100th anniversary
of the Long Trail of the State of Vermont, the oldest long-
distance hiking trail in the United States, and applauds the
Green Mountain Club and the many volunteers of the Green
Mountain Club for a century of service and for creating,
protecting, and enjoying the Long Trail.
____________________
CONGRESSIONAL AWARD PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 317, S. 2865.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2865) to reauthorize the Congressional Award Act
(2 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the
bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any
statements related
[[Page 3658]]
to this measure be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 2865) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:
S. 2865
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Congressional Award Program
Reauthorization Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL AWARD PROGRAM.
(a) Implementation and Presentation.--Section 102 of the
Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 802) is amended--
(1) in the matter following subsection (b)(5), by striking
``under paragraph (3)''; and
(2) in subsection (c), in the second sentence, by striking
``during'' and inserting ``in connection with''.
(b) Terms of Appointment and Reappointments.--Section 103
of the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 803) is amended by
striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Terms of Appointed Members; Reappointment.--
``(1) Appointed members of the Board shall continue to
serve at the pleasure of the officer by whom they are
appointed, and (unless reappointed under paragraph (2)) shall
serve for a term of 4 years.
``(2)(A) Subject to the limitations in subparagraph (B),
members of the Board may be reappointed, except that no
member may serve more than 2 full consecutive terms. Members
may be reappointed to 2 full consecutive terms after being
appointed to fill a vacancy on the Board.
``(B) Members of the Board shall not be subject to the
limitation on reappointment in subparagraph (A) during their
period of service as Chairman of the Board and may be
reappointed to an additional full term after termination of
such Chairmanship.
``(3)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) or (2), the term of
each member of the Board shall begin on October 1 of the even
numbered year which would otherwise apply with one-half of
the Board positions having terms which begin in each even
numbered year.
``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall apply to appointments made to
the Board on or after the date of enactment of the
Congressional Award Program Reauthorization Act of 2009.''.
(c) Requirements Regarding Financial Operations.--Section
104(c) of the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 804(c)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), in the third sentence, by striking
``, in any calendar year,'' and inserting ``in any fiscal
year''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following
``(2)(A) The Comptroller General of the United States shall
determine for each fiscal year whether the Director has
substantially complied with paragraph (1). The findings made
by the Comptroller General under the preceding sentence shall
be included in the reports submitted under section 107(b).
``(B) If the Director fails to substantially comply with
paragraph (1), the Board shall instruct the Director to take
such actions as may be necessary to correct such
deficiencies, and shall remove and replace the Director if
such deficiencies are not promptly corrected.''.
(d) Funding and Expenditures.--Section 106(a) of the
Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 806(a)) is amended by
striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) the Board shall carry out its functions and make
expenditures with--
``(A) such resources as are available to the Board from
sources other than the Federal Government; and
``(B) funds awarded in any grant program administered by a
Federal agency in accordance with the law establishing that
grant program.''.
(e) Statewide Congressional Award Councils.--Section 106(c)
of the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 806(c)) is amended
by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) Each Statewide Council established under this section
may receive contributions, and use such contributions for the
purposes of the Program. The Board shall adopt appropriate
financial management methods in order to ensure the proper
accounting of these funds. Each Statewide Council shall
comply with subsections (a), (d), (e), and (h) governing the
Board.''.
(f) Contracting and Use of Funds for Scholarships.--Section
106 of the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 806) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (d), by inserting ``to be'' after
``expenditure is''; and
(2) in subsection (e)(1)(A), by inserting ``or for
scholarships'' after ``local program''.
(g) Nonprofit Corporation.--Section 106 of the
Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 806) is amended by striking
subsection (i) and inserting the following:
``(i)(1) The Board shall provide for the incorporation of a
nonprofit corporation to be known as the Congressional Award
Foundation (together with any subsidiary nonprofit
corporations determined desirable by the Board, collectively
referred to in this title as the `Corporation') for the sole
purpose of assisting the Board to carry out the Congressional
Award Program, and shall delegate to the Corporation such
duties as it considers appropriate, including the employment
of personnel, expenditure of funds, and the incurrence of
financial or other contractual obligations.
``(2) The articles of incorporation of the Congressional
Award Foundation shall provide that--
``(A) the members of the Board of Directors of the
Foundation shall be the members of the Board, with up to 24
additional voting members appointed by the Board, and the
Director who shall serve as a nonvoting member; and
``(B) the extent of the authority of the Foundation shall
be the same as that of the Board.
``(3) No director, officer, or employee of any corporation
established under this subsection may receive compensation,
travel expenses, or benefits from both the Corporation and
the Board.''.
(h) Termination.--
(1) In general.--Section 108 of the Congressional Award Act
(2 U.S.C. 808) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2009'' and
inserting ``October 1, 2013''.
(2) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect as
of October 1, 2009.
____________________
FAIR SENTENCING ACT OF 2009
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, prior to making the next unanimous consent
request, I wish to make a statement on the Record relative to the bill
that I will be asking for unanimous consent on. It is S. 1789.
This bill is known as the Fair Sentencing Act. It is bipartisan
legislation which has cleared both sides. At the conclusion of my
remarks, I will, of course, ask for unanimous consent, but will ask
permission, if possible, that the statement of Senator Sessions be
printed in the Record. I don't know if he will be able to make it this
evening, but if not, we will do our best to accommodate him.
The Fair Sentencing Act would reduce the sentencing disparity between
crack and powder cocaine and increase penalties for serious drug
offenders. Crack and powder cocaine have a devastating effect on
families in America, and tough anti-cocaine legislation is definitely
needed, but the law must also be fair. Current law is based on an
unjustified distinction between crack and powder cocaine. Simply
possessing five grams of crack--the equivalent of five tiny packets of
sugar that you find in restaurants--carries the same sentence as
selling 500 grams of powder cocaine. That is 500 packets of sugar. Five
packets for crack; 500 packets for powder, the same sentence. This is
known as the 100-to-1 disparity.
I can remember as a Member of the House of Representatives when we
enacted this legislation. Crack cocaine had just appeared on the scene
and it scared us, because it was cheap and it was addictive. We thought
it was more dangerous than many narcotics and left the legacy of crack
babies and broken lives. In our response to this terrible new narcotic
at the time, we enacted this sentencing disparity, saying that 5 five
grams of crack cocaine would lead to the same sentence as 500 grams of
powder cocaine. What it has meant is that, unfortunately, in the years
that followed, we have seen people sent to prison for extended periods
of time for possessing--merely possessing--the smallest amount of
crack.
Disproportionately, African Americans who are addicted use crack
cocaine. The use of powder cocaine is spread across the population
among Whites, Hispanics, and others. So the net result of this was that
the heavy sentencing we enacted years ago took its toll primarily in
the African-American community. It resulted in the incarceration of
thousands of people because of this heavy sentencing disparity and a
belief in the African-American community that it was fundamentally
unfair. It was the same cocaine, though in a different form, and they
were being singled out for much more severe and heavy sentences. This
debate went on and on and on. African Americans make up about 30
percent of crack users in America, but they make up more than 80
percent of those who have been convicted of Federal crack offenses.
Law enforcement experts say that the crack-powder disparity
undermines
[[Page 3659]]
trust in the criminal justice system, especially in the African-
American community. In a hearing I held last year, Asa Hutchinson, a
former Member of Congress who was also head of the Drug Enforcement
Administration during the Bush administration, testified and he said:
Under the current disparity, the credibility of our entire
drug enforcement system is weakened.
The bipartisan U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Judicial Conference
of the United States support reducing this disparity. According to the
Sentencing Commission, this:
would better reduce the gap in sentencing between blacks and
whites than any other single policy change, and it would
dramatically improve the fairness of the Federal sentencing
system.
That comes from the Sentencing Commission.
The Fair Sentencing Act, which I will call up for unanimous consent
momentarily, would reduce the current 100-to-1 disparity to basically
18 to 1. The Fair Sentencing Act would also eliminate the 5-year
mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine.
Incidentally, this is the only mandatory minimum for simple
possession of a drug by a first-time offender. For this one form of
narcotics, persons who were found in simple possession of crack cocaine
literally faced years in prison for that possession without any
evidence that they were selling it or involved in any other way.
There is a bipartisan consensus that current cocaine sentencing laws
are unjust. Now Democrats and Republicans have come together to address
the issue in a bipartisan way. Last week, the Senate Judiciary
Committee reported the Fair Sentencing Act by a unanimous 19-to-0 vote.
The bill is cosponsored by 16 of the 19 members of the Senate Judiciary
Committee. This is the first time the Senate Judiciary Committee has
ever reported a bill to reduce the crack-powder disparity, and if this
bill is enacted into law, it will be the first time since 1970--40
years ago--that Congress has repealed a mandatory minimum sentence.
Here is what Attorney General Eric Holder said last week in response:
The bill voted unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary
Committee today makes progress toward achieving a more just
sentencing policy while maintaining the necessary law
enforcement tools to appropriately punish violent and
dangerous drug traffickers. I look forward to the Senate and
the House approving this legislation quickly so that it can
be signed into law.
The Fair Sentencing Act is supported by law enforcement groups,
including the National District Attorneys Association, representing
40,000 State and local prosecutors; the National Association of Police
Organizations, representing 240,000 law enforcement officers; and the
International Union of Police Associations, representing more than
100,000 law enforcement officials.
I wish to thank my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for
supporting the Fair Sentencing Act. I especially wish to thank the
following Members who have done an extraordinary job over the last year
during which we have worked to reach this bipartisan agreement. First,
the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Pat Leahy. He is a great
leader and a patient man. This bill has been sitting on a calendar for
weeks and he keeps coming to me and saying: Durbin, when are we going
to have this ready?
I said: Mr. Chairman, we are working on it.
He had the patience of Job.
I especially wish to thank my friend from Alabama, the Judiciary
Committee ranking member, Jeff Sessions. If asked if there are two
politicians on the floor of the Senate who are dramatically different,
you couldn't find two any more different than Dick Durbin and Jeff
Sessions. We seldom agree on things, but we came together on this, and
we made mutual concessions to come up with a good bipartisan bill.
Jeff, I think, went the extra mile to find some agreement here. He held
to his principles, but we worked it out.
In the process of reaching that agreement, I wish to also thank some
Republican Members who were invaluable. Lindsey Graham was one of the
first to come up to me and say, I want to work with you on this. There
has to be a way we can work this out to the satisfaction of law
enforcement and to reach the standards of justice. I thank Senator
Lindsey Graham, the Republican from South Carolina, for all the work he
put into it.
Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is another Senator I disagree with so many
times politically. He went the extra mile on this. I know it meant a
lot to him and he was very helpful.
Finally, Orrin Hatch from Utah. Senator Hatch from the beginning
said, Don't quit, stick with it, we can reach an agreement. He was an
inspiration to us as we brought this to a conclusion.
We have talked about the need to address the crack-powder disparity
for too long. Every day that passes without taking action to solve this
problem is another day that people are being sentenced under a law that
virtually everyone agrees is unjust. I wish this bill went further. My
initial bill established a 1-to-1 ratio, but this is a good bipartisan
compromise. If this bill is enacted into law, it will immediately
ensure that every year, thousands of people are treated more fairly in
our criminal justice system. I hope my colleagues, when they hear about
our efforts on this, will join in supporting our efforts to deal with
this disparity.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement by
Wade Henderson, president of The Leadership Conference, in support of
the bill that is currently being considered by the Senate.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Wade Henderson, president of The Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights, issued the following statement
regarding the Senate Judiciary Committee's vote on March 11
to amend and pass The Fair Sentencing Act (S. 1789).
For nearly two decades, The Leadership Conference has
fought for the complete elimination of the unjustified and
racially discriminatory disparity in sentencing between the
crack and powder forms of cocaine. This disparity subverts
justice, undermines confidence in our criminal justice
system, and wreaks havoc on the African-American community.
We strongly supported Senator Dick Durbin's bill, S. 1789,
which would have completely eliminated the disparity.
While we are disappointed that the goal of complete
elimination has not yet been accomplished and that
discrimination will remain, The Leadership Conference
considers the Senate Judiciary Committee's unanimous passage
of the amended version of S. 1789, which reduces the
disparity from a ratio of 100-to-1 to 18-to-1, to be a step
forward.
This legislation represents progress but not the end of the
fight. As Dr. King said, An unjust law is a code that is out
of harmony with the moral law. We are committed to redoubling
our efforts to obtain complete elimination of this sentencing
disparity--the only fair and just solution.
We applaud Senator Durbin for his persistence in seeking
real reform, along with Chairman Patrick Leahy and Senator
Jeff Sessions for their steadfast commitment to addressing
this issue. We appreciate the contributions of Senator
Lindsey Graham toward finding a resolution. We want to note
Senator Ben Cardin's continued commitment to the complete
elimination of the disparity and Senator Russ Feingold's
courageous vote against the amendment. We also want to
recognize the leadership of Representative Bobby Scott and
the Congressional Black Caucus, who have served as the
conscience of Congress on this issue.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 316, S. 1789.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1789) to restore fairness to Federal cocaine
sentencing.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which had been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an
amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Sentencing Act of
2010''.
SEC. 2. COCAINE SENTENCING DISPARITY REDUCTION.
(a) CSA.--Section 401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)) is amended--
[[Page 3660]]
(1) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by striking ``50 grams'' and
inserting ``280 grams''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)(iii), by striking ``5 grams'' and
inserting ``28 grams''.
(b) Import and Export Act.--Section 1010(b) of the
Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.
960(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking ``50 grams'' and
inserting ``280 grams''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``5 grams'' and
inserting ``28 grams''.
SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE FOR SIMPLE
POSSESSION.
Section 404(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
844(a)) is amended by striking the sentence beginning
``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence,''.
SEC. 4. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR MAJOR DRUG TRAFFICKERS.
(a) Increased Penalties for Manufacture, Distribution,
Dispensation, or Possession With Intent To Manufacture,
Distribute, or Dispense.--Section 401(b)(1) of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$4,000,000'',
``$10,000,000'', ``$8,000,000'', and ``$20,000,000'' and
inserting ``$10,000,000'', ``$50,000,000'', ``$20,000,000'',
and ``$75,000,000'', respectively; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$2,000,000'',
``$5,000,000'', ``$4,000,000'', and ``$10,000,000'' and
inserting ``$5,000,000'', ``$25,000,000'', ``$8,000,000'',
and ``$50,000,000'', respectively.
(b) Increased Penalties for Importation and Exportation.--
Section 1010(b) of the Controlled Substances Import and
Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$4,000,000'',
``$10,000,000'', ``$8,000,000'', and ``$20,000,000'' and
inserting ``$10,000,000'', ``$50,000,000'', ``$20,000,000'',
and ``$75,000,000'', respectively; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$2,000,000'',
``$5,000,000'', ``$4,000,000'', and ``$10,000,000'' and
inserting ``$5,000,000'', ``$25,000,000'', ``$8,000,000'',
and ``$50,000,000'', respectively.
SEC. 5. ENHANCEMENTS FOR ACTS OF VIOLENCE DURING THE COURSE
OF A DRUG TRAFFICKING OFFENSE.
Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28,
United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission
shall review and amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to
ensure that the guidelines provide an additional penalty
increase of at least 2 offense levels if the defendant used
violence, made a credible threat to use violence, or directed
the use of violence during a drug trafficking offense.
SEC. 6. INCREASED EMPHASIS ON DEFENDANT'S ROLE AND CERTAIN
AGGRAVATING FACTORS.
Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28,
United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission
shall review and amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to
ensure an additional increase of at least 2 offense levels
if--
(1) the defendant bribed, or attempted to bribe, a Federal,
State, or local law enforcement official in connection with a
drug trafficking offense;
(2) the defendant maintained an establishment for the
manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance, as
generally described in section 416 of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856); or
(3)(A) the defendant is an organizer, leader, manager, or
supervisor of drug trafficking activity subject to an
aggravating role enhancement under the guidelines; and
(B) the offense involved 1 or more of the following super-
aggravating factors:
(i) The defendant--
(I) used another person to purchase, sell, transport, or
store controlled substances;
(II) used impulse, fear, friendship, affection, or some
combination thereof to involve such person in the offense;
and
(III) such person had a minimum knowledge of the illegal
enterprise and was to receive little or no compensation from
the illegal transaction.
(ii) The defendant--
(I) knowingly distributed a controlled substance to a
person under the age of 18 years, a person over the age of 64
years, or a pregnant individual;
(II) knowingly involved a person under the age of 18 years,
a person over the age of 64 years, or a pregnant individual
in drug trafficking;
(III) knowingly distributed a controlled substance to an
individual who was unusually vulnerable due to physical or
mental condition, or who was particularly susceptible to
criminal conduct; or
(IV) knowingly involved an individual who was unusually
vulnerable due to physical or mental condition, or who was
particularly susceptible to criminal conduct, in the offense.
(iii) The defendant was involved in the importation into
the United States of a controlled substance.
(iv) The defendant engaged in witness intimidation,
tampered with or destroyed evidence, or otherwise obstructed
justice in connection with the investigation or prosecution
of the offense.
(v) The defendant committed the drug trafficking offense as
part of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a
livelihood.
SEC. 7. INCREASED EMPHASIS ON DEFENDANT'S ROLE AND CERTAIN
MITIGATING FACTORS.
Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28,
United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission
shall review and amend the Federal sentencing guidelines and
policy statements to ensure that--
(1) if the defendant is subject to a minimal role
adjustment under the guidelines, the base offense level for
the defendant based solely on drug quantity shall not exceed
level 32; and
(2) there is an additional reduction of 2 offense levels if
the defendant--
(A) otherwise qualifies for a minimal role adjustment under
the guidelines and had a minimum knowledge of the illegal
enterprise;
(B) was to receive no monetary compensation from the
illegal transaction; and
(C) was motivated by an intimate or familial relationship
or by threats or fear when the defendant was otherwise
unlikely to commit such an offense.
SEC. 8. EMERGENCY AUTHORITY FOR UNITED STATES SENTENCING
COMMISSION.
The United States Sentencing Commission shall--
(1) promulgate the guidelines, policy statements, or
amendments provided for in this Act as soon as practicable,
and in any event not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, in accordance with the procedure set
forth in section 21(a) of the Sentencing Act of 1987 (28
U.S.C. 994 note), as though the authority under that Act had
not expired; and
(2) pursuant to the emergency authority provided under
paragraph (1), make such conforming amendments to the Federal
sentencing guidelines as the Commission determines necessary
to achieve consistency with other guideline provisions and
applicable law.
SEC. 9. REPORT ON EFFECTIVENESS OF DRUG COURTS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to Congress a report analyzing the
effectiveness of drug court programs receiving funds under
the drug court grant program under part EE of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3797-u et seq.).
(b) Contents.--The report submitted under subsection (a)
shall--
(1) assess the efforts of the Department of Justice to
collect data on the performance of federally funded drug
courts;
(2) address the effect of drug courts on recidivism and
substance abuse rates;
(3) address any cost benefits resulting from the use of
drug courts as alternatives to incarceration;
(4) assess the response of the Department of Justice to
previous recommendations made by the Comptroller General
regarding drug court programs; and
(5) make recommendations concerning the performance,
impact, and cost-effectiveness of federally funded drug court
programs.
SEC. 10. UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION REPORT ON IMPACT
OF CHANGES TO FEDERAL COCAINE SENTENCING LAW.
Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the United States Sentencing Commission, pursuant to the
authority under sections 994 and 995 of title 28, United
States Code, and the responsibility of the United States
Sentencing Commission to advise Congress on sentencing policy
under section 995(a)(20) of title 28, United States Code,
shall study and submit to Congress a report regarding the
impact of the changes in Federal sentencing law under this
Act and the amendments made by this Act.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I join Senators from both sides of
the aisle to pass the historic and bipartisan Fair Sentencing Act.
The racial imbalance that has resulted from the cocaine sentencing
disparity disparages the Constitution's promise of equal treatment for
all Americans. Although this bill is not perfect, its passage marks a
significant step forward in making our drug laws fairer and more
rational. Despite my belief that parity was the better policy, I have
joined with Senator Durbin and support the progress represented by his
compromise with Senator Sessions. It reduces the disparities that leave
some in jail for years while their more privileged counterparts go home
after relatively brief sentences. Today, that compromise means we are
one step closer to fixing this decades-old injustice. I commend
Senators Durbin, Sessions, Graham, Coburn, and Hatch for negotiating
the compromise that allowed this important piece of legislation to pass
the Senate Judiciary Committee by a unanimous vote. As chairman, I was
able to report on behalf of the Senate Judiciary Committee the first
measure we have ever been able to approve that begins to undo the
unjust sentencing disparity.
For more than 20 years, our Nation has used a Federal cocaine
sentencing policy that treats ``crack'' offenders 100 times more
harshly than other cocaine offenders, without a legitimate basis for
the difference. We know that there is little or no pharmacological
distinction between crack and powder cocaine, yet the resulting
punishments
[[Page 3661]]
for these offenses is radically different and unjust. This policy is
wrong and unfair, and it has needlessly swelled our prisons, wasting
precious Federal resources.
These disproportionate punishments have had a disparate impact on
minority communities. This is unjust and runs contrary to our
fundamental principles of equal justice under law. According to the
latest statistics of the independent and nonpartisan United States
Sentencing Commission, African Americans continue to make up the large
majority of Federal crack cocaine convictions, accounting for 80
percent of all Federal crack cocaine offenses, while they represent a
much smaller fraction of those who use the drug. In a letter to our
committee, John Payton, the president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund,
called this disparity ``one of the most notorious symbols of racial
discrimination in the modern criminal justice system.''
These disparate penalties, which Congress created in the mid-1980s,
have failed to address basic concerns. The primary goal underlying the
crack sentence structure was to punish the major traffickers and drug
kingpins who were bringing crack into our neighborhoods. But the law
has not been used to go after the most serious offenders. In fact, just
the opposite has happened. The Sentencing Commission has reported for
many years that more than half of Federal crack cocaine offenders are
low-level street dealers and users, not the major traffickers Congress
intended to target.
The Fair Sentencing Act of 2009 returns the focus of Federal cocaine
sentencing policy to drug kingpins, rather than street level dealers,
and eliminates the mandatory minimum sentence for possession of crack
cocaine. The 5-year mandatory minimum sentence penalty for simple
possession of crack is unique under Federal law. There is no other
mandatory minimum for mere simple possession of a commonly abused drug.
This bill does not legalize drugs, nor does it eliminate harsh
sentences. In fact, this bill toughens some penalties. It increase
fines for major drug traffickers and provides sentencing enhancements
for acts of violence committed during the course of a drug trafficking
offense. But this bill also helps to ensure that our system will no
longer affect many minority and urban communities more harshly than
offenders who use drugs in the suburbs and corporate offices. That
inequality has reduced trust in law enforcement and cooperation with
police, which makes us all less safe.
American justice is about fairness for each individual. To have faith
in our system, Americans must have confidence that the laws of this
country, including our drug laws, are fair and administered fairly. We
must be smarter in our Federal drug policy. Law enforcement has been
and continues to be a central part of our efforts against illegal
drugs, but we must also find meaningful, community-based solutions
which enable people to feel they are being treated fairly. I look
forward to working with Chief Kerlikowske, the director of the
President's Office of National Drug Control Policy, to develop and
deploy such a strategy.
Since 1995, the United States Sentencing Commission has issued report
after report calling on Congress to address this unfair sentencing
disparity. We would not be making the progress we are today without the
leadership of the United States Sentencing Commission. I thank them and
their chairman, Judge William Sessions.
I thank the U.S. Department of Justice for the testimony of Assistant
Attorney General Lanny Breuer at our hearing on this matter last year.
Attorney General Eric Holder also reminded us that ``the stakes are
simply too high to let reform in this area wait any longer.'' I agree.
It is time for the Senate and House to act.
After more than 20 years, the Senate has finally acted on legislation
to correct the crack-powder disparity and the harm to public confidence
in our justice system it created. Although this bill is not perfect and
it is not the bill we introduced in order to correct these
inequalities, I believe the Fair Sentencing Act moves us one step
closer to reaching the important goal of equal justice for all. I urge
the House to act quickly so that the President can sign this historic
legislation into law.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee
substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a
third time and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the
table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related
to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill (S. 1789), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 1586
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday,
March 18, after the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 1586, the
Senate then debate concurrently the Sessions-McCaskill amendment No.
3453 and the Pryor amendment No. 3548; that the amendments be debated
concurrently until 11:30 a.m., with the time equally divided and
controlled between Senators Sessions and Pryor or their designees, with
no amendments in order prior to the vote; that the amendments then be
set aside until 2 p.m., and at 2 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in
relation to the amendments, with the Sessions-McCaskill amendment voted
first in the sequence; that prior to each vote, there be 2 minutes of
debate, equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ORDERS FOR THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m.,
Thursday, March 18; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal
of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired,
the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the
day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for 1 hour,
with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the
Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the
final half; that following morning business, the Senate resume
consideration of H.R. 1586, as provided for under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, tomorrow we will resume consideration of
the FAA reauthorization legislation. Senators should expect at least
two votes to begin at 2 p.m.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand
adjourned under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:20 p.m., adjourned until
Thursday, March 18, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate:
The Judiciary
LEONARD PHILIP STARK, OF DELAWARE, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE, VICE KENT A.
JORDAN, ELEVATED.
[[Page 3662]]
AMY TOTENBERG, OF GEORGIA, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, VICE JACK T.
CAMP, JR., RETIRED.
In the Air Force
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be general
LT. GEN. EDWARD A. RICE, JR.
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be brigadier general
COLONEL DAVID W. ALLVIN
COLONEL BALAN R. AYYAR
COLONEL THOMAS W. BERGESON
COLONEL JACK L. BRIGGS II
COLONEL JAMES S. BROWNE
COLONEL ARNOLD W. BUNCH, JR.
COLONEL THERESA C. CARTER
COLONEL SCOTT L. DENNIS
COLONEL JOHN W. DOUCETTE
COLONEL SANDRA E. FINAN
COLONEL DONALD S. GEORGE
COLONEL JERRY D. HARRIS, JR.
COLONEL KEVIN J. JACOBSEN
COLONEL SCOTT W. JANSSON
COLONEL RICHARD A. KLUMPP, JR.
COLONEL LESLIE A. KODLICK
COLONEL GREGORY J. LENGYEL
COLONEL JAMES F. MARTIN, JR.
COLONEL ROBERT D. MCMURRY, JR.
COLONEL EDWARD M. MINAHAN
COLONEL JON A. NORMAN
COLONEL JAMES N. POST III
COLONEL STEVEN M. SHEPRO
COLONEL JAY B. SILVERIA
COLONEL DAVID D. THOMPSON
COLONEL WILLIAM J. THORNTON
COLONEL KENNETH E. TODOROV
COLONEL LINDA R. URRUTIA-VARHALL
COLONEL BURKE E. WILSON
In the Army
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be lieutenant general
MAJ. GEN. DANIEL P. BOLGER
In the Marine Corps
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES MARINE CORPS TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO
A POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be lieutenant general
LT. GEN. DUANE D. THIESSEN
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES MARINE CORPS RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER
TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be major general
BRIG. GEN. REX C. MCMILLIAN
in the Navy
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be vice admiral
VICE ADM. DAVID J. VENLET
____________________
CONFIRMATION
Executive nomination confirmed by the Senate, Wednesday, March 17,
2010:
The Judiciary
O. ROGERIEE THOMPSON, OF RHODE ISLAND, TO BE UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT.
[[Page 3663]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker.
____________________
PRAYER
Bishop Jerry Hutchins, Timothy Baptist Church, Athens, Georgia,
offered the following prayer:
Our Father in Heaven, we humbly approach Your throne today.
Your servant Solomon prayed, ``Give me an understanding mind so that
I can govern Your people well and know the difference between right and
wrong; for who, by himself, is able to govern this great nation of
Yours?''
You responded to Solomon, ``Because you have asked for wisdom in
governing My people and have not asked for a long life or riches for
yourself or for the death of your enemies, I will give you what you
have asked for. I will give you a wise and understanding mind such as
no one else has ever had or ever will have.''
Our prayer today, O God, is that You grant these men and women wisdom
to govern this great Nation. May Your wisdom guide every decision and
You be glorified. Send Your Holy Spirit to guide us in Your wisdom.
In His name we pray. Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's
proceedings and announces to the House her approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) come forward and
lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. POE of Texas led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
WELCOMING BISHOP JERRY HUTCHINS
The SPEAKER. Without objection, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Broun) is recognized for 1 minute.
There was no objection.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. All of us are influenced by the people around
us, people who come into our lives. Our guest pastor today, Bishop
Jerry Hutchins, is one of those warriors who has tremendously
influenced me and the people of Athens, Georgia. He is a warrior for
righteousness, a warrior to establish the Kingdom here on Earth as our
Lord Jesus Christ has charged us to do. He is a great friend; he is a
great pastor, and I'm honored to have him here today as our guest
pastor.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Illinois).
The Chair will entertain up to 15 further requests for 1-minute
speeches on each side of the aisle.
____________________
DEATH OF U.S. CONSULATE STAFF
(Ms. CHU asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, last weekend a tragedy sent shock waves through
the U.S. and Mexico when three U.S. consulate employees and their
family were brutally murdered in Mexico by the drug cartels. They were
all headed home from a birthday party when gunmen opened fire on the
car of Lesley Enriquez, an employee of the U.S. consulate and her
husband. Their 7-month-old infant, crying in the back seat, was
miraculously unharmed. Minutes later, Jorge Salcido, husband of a
consulate employee, was shot to death. His two young children suffered
serious injuries in the back seat of the car.
This is the latest in the string of attacks on innocent American and
Mexican citizens, including Bobby Salcedo, an elected official and
rising star from my district in El Monte, California, who was recently
murdered in a shocking execution in Durango, Mexico.
The murderers of these employees and of Bobby Salcedo must be brought
to justice and the U.S. must renew and increase efforts to help Mexico
bring an end to the terror of the drug cartels. This violence must be
stopped.
____________________
THE MONOPOLY OF GOVERNMENT
(Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when I traveled to the old Soviet
Union in the 1980s, nobody walked around smiling or joking or laughing.
It was all gloom, doom, and despair.
Living under government tyranny destroys the human spirit, the mind,
the soul, and the body. The monopoly of government kills off the notion
of individuality. Bureaucracies have an insensitive cookie-cutter
solution for everything. It's the same with government-run health care.
Thomas Jefferson was a visionary. He talked about government-run
health care. He said, ``If the government decides what foods people eat
and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a
state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.''
Government-run health care pushes us down the road to ``we the
subjects'' instead of ``we the people.'' Instead of us controlling
government, government controls us. That's what tyranny is.
The monopoly of government-run health care will have the efficiency
of the post office, the competency of FEMA, and the compassion of the
good old IRS.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. SIRES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Speaker, we must not let this historic opportunity
slip away. If we do not act, rising health care costs will continue to
crush families and businesses, forcing small business owners to choose
between health care and jobs. If we do nothing, in 30 years, $1 out of
every $3 in our economy will be tied up in the health care system. If
we fail to pass reform, premiums for both single and family policies
could more than double by 2020, continuing to pad the bottom line of
insurance companies at the expense of the American workers.
If we can pass health reform, consumers will be able to select their
insurance plan and doctors, and they would no longer be denied coverage
because of preexisting conditions and they can keep their coverage when
they change jobs.
Finally, reforming our health care system will allow us to free up
more money for jobs and for economic activity while assisting small
businesses to add an estimated 80,000 new jobs.
Mr. Speaker, how long are 46 million uninsured Americans supposed to
wait? The American people deserve to take back control over their
health care system.
[[Page 3664]]
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. INGLIS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Speaker, the government draws its legitimacy from the
consent of the governed. I have here over 3,000 letters from the
constituents in the Fourth District saying this: I write this letter to
emphatically say I do not want this massive health care bill. I believe
it costs too much, it taxes too much, and it will kill jobs.
Reconciliation is the utmost of partisan maneuvers on such a bill and
would be ill-advised. Health care reform needs to be addressed. Getting
the economy going and restoring jobs should come first. I'm among those
who favor a step-by-step commonsense approach that focuses on lowering
costs for families and small business.
Mr. Speaker, reject this bill. Give us the consent of the governed,
allow us to pass a bill that has the consent of the governed, and then
we restore the legitimacy of this body. Stop the cram-down of health
care reform.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, we must pass health care reform now. A step-
by-step approach is not the answer. If we do nothing, Americans will
continue to pay higher premiums and higher out-of-pocket costs now and
in the future. There are too many Americans that are without health
coverage.
In my district in San Bernardino County, California, there are over
220,000 without coverage. We also face a 15 percent unemployment rate
and the fourth highest foreclosure rate in the Nation.
Health care reform will lower the costs and 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 by $100 billion over 10 years; and produce over 4 million new
jobs in the coming decade.
Families, not insurance companies, deserve the right to make their
own health care decisions. Congress must not kick the can down the
road. We need health care reform now. I state, we need health care
reform now. This is a historic moment.
I ask us to support health care reform now--not tomorrow, not in the
future, but now.
____________________
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. Mr. Speaker, when you practice
law, there is an old expression that goes something like this: If you
have the facts, argue the facts; if you have the law, argue the law; if
you have neither, attack your opponent. That appears to be what's
happening.
There are those of us who have argued that the process that we are
engaged in--that is that we will not vote on the Senate bill but we
will kind of vote on the Senate bill; we will deem it passed--is
unconstitutional. And in response to that, the Speaker of the House has
said this: I think it's ridiculous and the people who are telling you
it's unconstitutional know better, and you should be very outraged that
people who know better would say things like that. They know when they
talk they're not telling the truth.
I resent being called a liar by the Speaker of the House. I resent
the fact because there are constitutional scholars who have said this
is unconstitutional.
Now, I have only argued one case before the Supreme Court--which I
won on behalf of the People of the State of California--so I am not
considered one of the great practitioners before the Supreme Court, but
we have spoken to one of them who will work with us in bringing this
case to the Supreme Court if we try this outrage against the American
people.
Let's stick to the facts, stick to the law, and stop attacking people
personally.
____________________
{time} 1015
NATIONAL AGRICULTURE WEEK
(Mr. CHILDERS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. CHILDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of National Ag Week.
This week we honor our farmers and the agriculture industry as a whole
for their critical contributions to America's local economies,
communities, and families. Agriculture is the backbone of the South and
the number one industry in the State of Mississippi. Not only is it
responsible for providing the necessities of everyday life, food,
fiber, clothing, and fuel, to name a few, but it also plays a key role
in spurring local economic development and strengthening American
competitiveness in today's global economy.
I'm very honored to serve as the only member of Mississippi's
delegation on the House Agriculture Committee. I'm also proud to co-
chair the bipartisan Congressional Rural Caucus, which I joined
Republican Adrian Smith in reestablishing last year to address
important challenges unique to rural America. Together we've reached
across party lines to promote universal broadband access, economic
development in rural communities, and the creation of a White House
Office of Rural Policy.
I urge my colleagues to join the Congressional Rural Caucus in
recognizing National Agriculture Week.
____________________
NO CLOSER FRIEND THAN ISRAEL
(Mr. MORAN of Kansas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Despite the diplomatic inconsistencies of the
Obama administration, one thing is certain: Support for the U.S.-
Israeli alliance remains strong in Congress. Israel is America's
closest friend in the most volatile region of the world. It is a
democracy that shares our values and hopes for a more peaceful world.
Regrettably, the administration's recent misstep undermines our shared
goal of peace and distracts from more pressing issues.
Israel has a history of making peace with its neighbors and is
prepared to make peace now. But peace is a two-way street, and the
Palestinians' commitment to that peace is in doubt. Rather than make
demands upon Israel for concession after concession, President Obama
should work closely and privately with Israel, recognizing our two
Nations' long and trusted alliance. Israeli peace agreements between
Egypt and Jordan have been reached in the past when U.S. support for
Israel was strong and consistent. The same level of commitment and
closeness is now needed.
Make no mistake: Israel is our ally and friend. The administration
needs to confirm that fact with its words and deeds.
____________________
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. Mr. Speaker, Congress is on the brink of
passing comprehensive health care reform to ensure that all Americans
have access to affordable and high quality care, health care that
protects consumers and not just insurance companies. We need reform to
rein in these companies and to hold them accountable for discriminatory
and inhumane practices, policies like gender rating that force women to
pay higher premiums than men just because we are women, and denials for
preexisting conditions that can even include a history of domestic
violence.
We need reform to change the practice of insurance companies denying
children with preexisting conditions or dropping someone's coverage if
that person falls ill. We can't put it off. We can't wait. If we do
nothing, in 30 years, one out of every $3 will be spent
[[Page 3665]]
on health care. If we fail, families will see spending on premiums and
out-of-pocket costs jump 34 percent in 5 years and 79 percent in 10.
The American people not only want reform, they need reform. They are
asking for reform. We made a promise to the American people to pass
health care reform. It's time to keep our promise. It's time to get
this done, and it's time to pass health care reform.
____________________
NO TRUER FRIEND THAN ISRAEL
(Mr. JORDAN of Ohio asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, America has no truer friend than
Israel. We stand together on freedom, on democracy, and on security.
More importantly, America and Israel share the unique ability to trace
our roots back to the hopes and dreams of our ancestors. Even before
the days of King David and King Solomon, Israel has been the center of
the Jewish tradition. Israel is a sovereign nation surrounded by sworn
enemies determined to wipe it off the map. Yet Israel remains committed
to freedom and democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned about the recent counterproductive
statements made by the administration that threaten to undermine
America's 60-year relationship with Israel. Criticizing Israel for
developing its land in Jerusalem is just plain wrong. Directing public
demands and unilateral deadlines with Israel while Iran continues its
pursuit of nuclear weapons is beyond wrong. It is dangerous.
Mr. Speaker, if America is to be a superpower, we must remain
steadfast when the political winds blow. If America is to lead the
world, we must act as a true friend to our ally, the nation of Israel.
____________________
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. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a physician out of
concern for my Republican colleagues, many of whom seem to be suffering
from chronic amnesia or chronic ignorance. When we started talking
about the possibility of using this ``deem and pass'' procedure to
finish the job on health care reform, Republicans couldn't run fast
enough to find a television camera to complain. Fact check: This
procedure has been widely used since the 1930s and was, in fact, used
no fewer than 202 times under Speakers Gingrich and Hastert, amounting
to 30 percent of the rules put forth by the committees under their
leadership.
All this hypocrisy is kind of galling. I hope my Republicans can
recover from this amnesia in time to watch the Congress pass a bill
that the American people need and want. They do not like the health
care system that is in this country. They want reform, and we are going
to give it to them.
____________________
PATH TO CONFLICT
(Mr. McCLINTOCK asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my great concern over
the recent statements by administration officials regarding Israeli
housing construction in that nation's capital city. History warns us
that appeasement of mutual enemies is the surest way to destroy
alliances and to invite aggression. And yet the rhetoric of this
administration is taking us down this dangerous road. Israel has every
right to allow construction in its capital city and throughout the West
Bank, over which it exercises rightful sovereignty.
The administration seems to have forgotten that Jordan attacked
Israel in 1967, not the other way around, and the result was the
Israeli acquisition of this land. The Israelis haven't forgotten that,
nor have they forgotten the folly of unilaterally giving up the Gaza
Strip from which rockets are now routinely launched against Israeli
citizens. Imagine the danger to Israel's capital by repeating that
mistake in east Jerusalem.
Mr. Speaker, appeasement all but guarantees an escalation of
conflict.
____________________
AIDS/HIV
(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the HIV/
AIDS epidemic in African-American communities. While African Americans
are 12 percent of the United States population, approximately 50
percent of HIV/AIDS patients nationwide are black. Just over the the
last 6 months, 452 new cases of HIV were reported in Los Angeles County
alone. Our prevention strategy is clearly not working for many of our
constituents. That is why I support H.R. 1964, the National Black
Clergy for the Elimination of HIV/AIDS Act. They sit up on our right in
our gallery, and I welcome them here.
This bill seeks to expand and increase programs for HIV education,
prevention, testing, care, and treatment in ways that are responsive to
the needs of African-American communities. Moreover, this bill
recognizes how important faith-based outreach is.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Speaker reminds Members that it is
against the rules to refer to guests in the gallery.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. FLEMING asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, over months of debate over the government
takeover of health care, a growing list of terms created by the
Democrats have been added to the American lexicon, terms such as
``Cornhusker kickback,'' ``Louisiana purchase,'' ``Gator aid,'' the
``doc fix,'' ``reconciliation,'' ``nuclear option,'' ``taxpayer-funded
abortions,'' and now worst of all, ``deeming a bill passed,'' ``self-
executing'' and the ``Slaughter solution.''
The Democrat House members carp that the American people don't care
about the process. After speaking to thousands of Americans about
this--not only do they absolutely hate this bill 3 to 1 and feel it
will damage America forever, they feel the Democrat Party's arrogance
of power is unprecedented in American history.
Mr. Speaker, process does matter, especially when Members of Congress
and a President get themselves elected to power on the promise of
transparency and ethics, and then stoop to a system of bribes and
creative parliamentarian procedures to ram through a government
takeover of one-sixth of the economy, health care, merely to advance
their ideology of incremental socialism, which is strongly opposed by
the American people.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. COHEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, it's March. That means March madness.
Normally it means hoops and basketball, but, no, in this United States
Congress it means more and more false statements made about health
care. The other side of the aisle continues in March madness, talking
about socialism, comparing our system to England and Canada. Nothing
like it at all. What our system proposes is subsidizing people who
don't have health care and small businesses to make sure they get
health care and can live truly: life, health, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness.
They talk about abortion. It doesn't change the Hyde amendment, which
has been on the books forever. They talk about procedure, procedure
they used. They talk about creeping socialism. There is nothing about
socialism. The fact is this country is the last industrialized country
in the world to provide health care for its citizens. It's the right
thing to do. We will be proud of this Congress when we pass it. I wish
it was bipartisan.
[[Page 3666]]
____________________
SPECIAL DEALS STILL IN OBAMACARE
(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard about the Cornhusker
kickback and the Louisiana purchase. But there are other special deals
in the Senate health care bill that are on the verge of becoming law.
In Connecticut, there is $100 million for a university hospital
inserted by Senator Dodd. There is $500 million in Medicaid to bail out
the health care program in Massachusetts. The small State of Vermont
gets $600 million for their Medicaid program. This bill will subsidize
New Jersey pharmaceutical companies and will give $5 billion to union
health care plans in Massachusetts and Michigan. It will slash Medicare
Advantage programs for every State except Florida. It will exempt Blue
Cross-Blue Shield of Michigan and Nebraska from the new annual fee on
health insurers. This bill will provide higher Medicare payments in
North Dakota and exempt hospitals in Hawaii from cuts.
All of these will become law the moment this House arrogantly ``deems
this bill passed'' to the President. Is it any wonder the American
people don't like this bill being crammed through, forced through, and
bribed through?
____________________
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. Mr. Speaker, this week we are closer than we have ever
been to passing real, comprehensive health insurance reform for the
American people.
Reform is simple. It gives consumers, working families, and small
businesses more control and forces insurance companies to do what is
right. With respect to Medicare, it extends the life of the Medicare
trust fund and improves benefits for our seniors, including improving
the prescription drug benefit.
My friends on the other side of the aisle are not interested in
passing real reform for the American people. They want to maintain the
status quo in which we see health care spending growing exponentially,
more and more families losing coverage, and health insurance companies
continuing to raise rates free of any restrictions. And they are okay
with allowing tens of millions of taxpaying, hardworking Americans to
go on without needed health insurance, the same coverage they enjoy as
Members of Congress.
They also want to eliminate Medicare as we know it today. They want
to privatize Medicare and give seniors a coupon to go out and shop for
private insurance plans from the same companies that have been raising
rates and dropping customers.
Health insurance reform is not just about insuring the uninsured.
It's about also protecting and improving Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I
encourage these reforms.
____________________
THE RELEASE OF FATHER LY
(Mr. CAO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CAO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the State Department for
finally securing the release of Father Nguyen van Ly. I have advocated
and pushed hard for Father Ly's release in the past year, and I'm glad
that my hard work has come to fruition.
Father Ly is one of the many Vietnamese citizens who have been
harassed for religious and democracy advocacy. He was placed on trial
without defense and was imprisoned for almost 17 years for promoting
human rights and religious freedom. As a Roman Catholic priest and
prominent Vietnamese dissident, Father Ly has become a powerful icon in
the ongoing fight for democracy in Vietnam. He is a hero for many
Vietnamese worldwide.
While the release of Father Ly is a good start, we still have a long
way to go. We as a country must uphold our values and must continue to
challenge countries like Vietnam and China on their human rights and
religious freedom violations. One day, maybe, my dream then will come
true: A free and democratic Vietnam.
____________________
{time} 1030
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules
on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which
the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule XX.
Record votes on postponed questions will be taken later.
____________________
HONORING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 1141) honoring the accomplishments of Supreme Court
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman to serve on the United
States Supreme Court.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 1141
Whereas Sandra Day O'Connor was born on March 26, 1930, in
El Paso, Texas and spent most of her childhood on her
family's ranch, the Lazy B, located in the high deserts
outside of Duncan, Arizona;
Whereas Sandra Day O'Connor graduated magna cum laude from
Stanford University in 1950 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in
economics, and graduated in the top three of her class at
Stanford University Law School in 1952;
Whereas Sandra Day O'Connor married John J. O'Connor III, a
fellow Stanford Law student, in December 1952 on the Lazy B
Ranch and raised three children with him in Paradise Valley,
Arizona;
Whereas after practicing law in Frankfurt, Germany, and
Phoenix, Arizona, Sandra Day O'Connor began her career in
public service as the Arizona Assistant Attorney General in
1965;
Whereas Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed to the Arizona
State Senate in 1969 and was subsequently re-elected;
Whereas Sandra Day O'Connor rose to many leadership
positions during her 6 years in the legislature, including as
the first woman State Senate majority leader in the United
States;
Whereas Sandra Day O'Connor was elected judge for Maricopa
County Superior Court in 1975;
Whereas Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed to the Arizona
Court of Appeals, the State's second-highest court, by
Governor Bruce Babbitt in 1979;
Whereas Ronald Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981
to serve as the first woman on the United States Supreme
Court, which was swiftly approved by the Senate by unanimous
consent, with the strong support of Arizona Senators Barry
Goldwater and Dennis Deconcini;
Whereas Sandra Day O'Connor was sworn in as a United States
Supreme Court Justice by Chief Justice Warren Burger on
September 25, 1981, commencing her 24 terms on the Supreme
Court, a career distinguished by her centrist role and
commitment to uphold the law and the Constitution;
Whereas Sandra Day O'Connor's support for the proposed
Equal Rights Amendment further strengthened her role as a
mentor and leader for women of all generations;
Whereas, on August 12, 2009, President Barack Obama awarded
Sandra Day O'Connor the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the
highest honor given to a civilian;
Whereas Sandra Day O'Connor has become a nationally
recognized leader in the effort to preserve judicial
independence through her strong support of selecting judges
by nonpartisan commissions;
Whereas Sandra Day O'Connor continues to honor her
commitment to public service, most recently through her web-
based education project, Our Courts, which strives to engage
young people in civics and the democratic process; and
Whereas Sandra Day O'Connor will turn 80 years old on March
26, 2010: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the
achievements and distinguished career of Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor, and recognizes her impact as an American symbol of
hard work and rugged individualism.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
[[Page 3667]]
General Leave
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. COHEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to wish you and all of America a happy St.
Patrick's Day, and in support of House Resolution 1141, to honor the
accomplishments of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Justice O'Connor blazed paths of history for women throughout her
career. In 1969, she was appointed to the Arizona State Senate, and in
1972 she became the first woman to serve as the majority leader of any
State senate in the United States.
Later, she became a trial judge for Maricopa County, Arizona, and
only a few years later was appointed to the court of appeals. Then in
1981, she was nominated to the Supreme Court, the first woman to sit on
the United States Supreme Court, and she did us proud.
Justice O'Connor retired in 2006, but she continues to be actively
involved with promoting good government and civic education. For
example, she spearheaded ``Our Courts,'' a Web-based education project
designed to reinvigorate learning inside and outside the classroom.
There were so many opinions when she was a part of the majority and
also when she was a part of the minority to where we know her voice is
missed today. Although appointed by a Republican President, she was
bipartisan and called them by the book and did a lot to see that this
country's Supreme Court was highly respected and not politicized.
This resolution is a way to honor her for service to our country. I
commend my colleague, Gabby Giffords of Arizona, for introducing this
resolution. I urge my colleagues to support it. I hope we have more
Justices like her in the future.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1141 honors the accomplishments of the Honorable
Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman to serve on the United States
Supreme Court.
Justice O'Connor was born in El Paso, Texas, in 1930, and grew up on
a cattle ranch called the Lazy-B near Duncan, Arizona. She befriended
cowboys who worked on the ranch, learned to drive a car and shoot a
gun, and became an expert horseback rider.
Her parents decided that she needed an education, so O'Connor went to
live with her maternal grandmother in El Paso. She later studied
economics at Stanford University with an eye toward running the Lazy-B
or another ranch. However, a legal dispute over the Lazy-B sparked her
interest in the law. O'Connor enrolled in Stanford's law school, and
graduated in only 2 years, third in her class, that included
valedictorian and future Chief Justice of the United States William
Rehnquist. One of her other classmates, John Jay O'Connor, became her
husband.
This was the early 1950s, and despite her stellar law school record,
O'Connor could not find work as a lawyer. But she was determined. She
started out as a legal secretary before finding employment as the
deputy county attorney for San Mateo, California. When her husband was
drafted into the Judge Advocate General's Corps, she joined him in
Frankfurt, Germany, where she served as a civilian attorney in the
Quartermaster's Corps.
Returning to the United States in 1957, the couple settled in Phoenix
and started a family. Three children arrived in the next 6 years.
O'Connor eventually hung out a shingle with one partner and began a
general law practice. But with the birth of her second child, she
devoted herself to homemaker duties, charitable work, and local
Republican politics.
Following 5 years as a full-time mother, O'Connor returned to work as
an Arizona assistant attorney general. Later, the Governor appointed
her to fill a vacant State senate seat, a position she successfully
defended twice in two elections. In 1974, O'Connor became the first
woman to serve as the majority leader in the State legislature. This
achievement propelled her to the bench, first as a Maricopa County
Superior Court judge and then in 1978 as a member of the Arizona Court
of Appeals, the State's intermediate appellate court. Justice O'Connor
distinguished herself as a smart, fair, even-tempered judge.
This compelling story intrigued President Ronald Reagan, who was
searching for a successor to replace retiring Justice Potter Stewart at
the United States Supreme Court. In Sandra Day O'Connor, he found his
nominee.
Senate confirmations are not for the faint-hearted, but O'Connor came
through like an experienced pro. She was confirmed by a vote of 99-0
and was sworn in as the 102nd member of the Court on September 21,
1981. Of obvious importance, then and now, she became the first woman
to serve as an Associate Justice. So much for glass ceilings.
Justice O'Connor served on the Court for nearly a quarter of a
century before retiring in 2006. Early in her tenure, she was known as
a conservative jurist who preferred analyzing cases with a narrow fact-
specific approach. Later, she acquired the reputation as a swing vote.
Law Professor Steven Green once paid her perhaps the ultimate
compliment when she ``seemed to look at each case with an open mind.''
Since retiring from the Court, Justice O'Connor really hasn't
retired. She selflessly devoted herself to caring for her husband,
John, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1990 and passed
away last November.
In addition to travel and spending time with other family members,
Justice O'Connor has worked on an American Bar Association project to
educate Americans about the role of judges, served as the chancellor of
the College of William and Mary, and performed trustee duties for the
National Constitution Center.
In recognition of her life's work, President Obama awarded her the
Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor of the United
States, on August 12, 2009.
Mr. Speaker, Sandra Day O'Connor is a pioneer for women and an
inspiration to all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res.
1141, which honors her many accomplishments.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reiterate my extreme
commendations of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's life and the
appropriateness of the resolution.
When I was a member of the National Conference of State Legislators,
I suggested we give an award each year to the State legislator who had
done the most later in their lives, and Sandra Day O'Connor as well as
Julian Bond were the two people I put up as examples of people who
should be honored by the National Conference of State Legislators to
encourage State legislatures to go on beyond that and to do extra in
their lives.
And Sandra Day O'Connor was a State senator who did much. And, as Mr.
Smith said, she had an open mind, and that is something we need to
commend. And in Arizona, where Representative Giffords is from and
sponsored this resolution, we had Barry Goldwater who, like her, came
in at a certain posture. But as his career went on, he had an open
mind, and he stood up for tolerance and he stood up for diversity.
I am proud to be here to speak in favor of this resolution, and I
would ask that my colleagues vote to support unanimously this
resolution and to pass H. Res. 1141.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
H. Res. 1141 honors the accomplishments of the Honorable Sandra Day
O'Connor, the first women to serve on the United States Supreme Court.
Justice O'Connor was born in El Paso, Texas, in 1930 and grew up on a
cattle ranch called the ``Lazy-B'' near Duncan, Arizona.
[[Page 3668]]
The ranch was isolated and she did not have a sibling to play with
until she turned eight. To compensate, young Sandra demonstrated the
initiative and drive that would later propel her to the Court.
She befriended cowboys who worked on the ranch, learned to drive a
car and shoot a gun, and became an expert equestrian. She also kept
many pets during her childhood, including a bobcat, which probably
taught her how to deal with lawyers.
Her parents decided she needed an education, so O'Connor went to live
with her maternal grandmother, Mamie Scott Wilkey, in El Paso. Although
homesick, O'Connor became an outstanding student and graduated from the
Radford School for Girls at age 16. O'Connor always credited Mrs.
Wilkey for instilling confidence in her.
She later studied economics at Stanford with an eye toward running
the Lazy-B or another ranch. However, a legal dispute over the Lazy-B
sparked her interest in the law. O'Connor enrolled in Stanford's law
school and graduated in only 2 years, third in her class that included
valedictorian and future Chief Justice of the United States William
Rehnquist. One of her other classmates, John Jay O'Connor, became her
husband.
This was the early 1950s and, despite her stellar law school record,
O'Connor could not find work as a lawyer. The legal profession was not
an easy place for women at that time.
But O'Connor was determined. She started out as a legal secretary
before finding employment as the deputy county attorney for San Mateo,
California. When her husband was drafted into the Judge Advocate
General's Corps, she joined him in Frankfurt, Germany, where she served
as a civilian attorney in the Quartermaster's Corps.
Returning to the United States in 1957, the couple settled in Phoenix
and started a family--three children arrived in the next six years.
O'Connor eventually hung out a shingle with one partner and began a
general law practice. But with the birth of her second child, she
devoted herself to homemaker duties, charitable work, and local
Republican politics.
Following five years as a full-time mother, O'Connor returned to work
as an Arizona assistant attorney general. Later, the governor appointed
her to fill a vacant state senate seat, a position she successfully
defended twice in successive elections. By 1974, O'Connor had become
the first woman to serve as the majority leader in a state legislature.
This achievement propelled her to the bench--first as a Maricopa County
Superior Court judge and then, in 1978, as a member of the Arizona
Court of Appeals, the state's intermediate appellate court.
Justice O'Connor distinguished herself as a smart, fair, even-
tempered judge. She had overcome de facto discrimination through
persistence, hard work, and a devotion to institutions and causes
bigger than herself.
This compelling story intrigued President Ronald Reagan, who was
searching for a successor to replace retiring Justice Potter Stewart at
the United States Supreme Court. In Sandra Day O'Connor, he found his
nominee.
Senate confirmations are not for the faint-hearted, but O'Connor came
through like an experienced pro. She was confirmed by a vote of 99-0
and was sworn as the 102nd member of the Court on September 21, 1981.
Of obvious importance then and now, she became the first women to serve
as an Associate Justice.
Justice O'Connor served on the Court for nearly a quarter of a
century before retiring in 2006. Early in her tenure, she was known as
a conservative jurist who preferred analyzing cases with a narrow,
fact-specific approach. Later, she acquired the reputation as a ``swing
vote.'' Law Professor Steven Green once paid her perhaps the ultimate
compliment when he observed that she ``seemed to look at each case with
an open mind.''
Since retiring from the Court, Justice O'Connor really hasn't
retired. She selflessly devoted herself to caring for her husband,
John, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease in 1990 and passed
away last November.
In addition to travel and spending time with other family members,
Justice O'Connor has worked on an ABA project to educate Americans
about the role of judges, served as a the Chancellor of The College of
William & Mary, and performed trustee duties for the National
Constitution Center.
In recognition of her life's work, she was awarded the Presidential
Medal of Freedom--the highest civilian honor of the United States--on
August 12, 2009.
Mr. Speaker, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is a pioneer for women and
an inspiration to all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support H.
Res. 1141, which honors her many accomplishments.
Mr. COHEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1141.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
PREVENT ALL CIGARETTE TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2009
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(S. 1147) to prevent tobacco smuggling, to ensure the collection of all
tobacco taxes, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
S. 1147
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Prevent
All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009'' or ``PACT Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the sale of illegal cigarettes and smokeless tobacco
products significantly reduces Federal, State, and local
government revenues, with Internet sales alone accounting for
billions of dollars of lost Federal, State, and local tobacco
tax revenue each year;
(2) Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda, and other terrorist
organizations have profited from trafficking in illegal
cigarettes or counterfeit cigarette tax stamps;
(3) terrorist involvement in illicit cigarette trafficking
will continue to grow because of the large profits such
organizations can earn;
(4) the sale of illegal cigarettes and smokeless tobacco
over the Internet, and through mail, fax, or phone orders,
makes it cheaper and easier for children to obtain tobacco
products;
(5) the majority of Internet and other remote sales of
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are being made without
adequate precautions to protect against sales to children,
without the payment of applicable taxes, and without
complying with the nominal registration and reporting
requirements in existing Federal law;
(6) unfair competition from illegal sales of cigarettes and
smokeless tobacco is taking billions of dollars of sales away
from law-abiding retailers throughout the United States;
(7) with rising State and local tobacco tax rates, the
incentives for the illegal sale of cigarettes and smokeless
tobacco have increased;
(8) the number of active tobacco investigations being
conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives rose to 452 in 2005;
(9) the number of Internet vendors in the United States and
in foreign countries that sell cigarettes and smokeless
tobacco to buyers in the United States increased from only
about 40 in 2000 to more than 500 in 2005; and
(10) the intrastate sale of illegal cigarettes and
smokeless tobacco over the Internet has a substantial effect
on interstate commerce.
(c) Purposes.--It is the purpose of this Act to--
(1) require Internet and other remote sellers of cigarettes
and smokeless tobacco to comply with the same laws that apply
to law-abiding tobacco retailers;
(2) create strong disincentives to illegal smuggling of
tobacco products;
(3) provide government enforcement officials with more
effective enforcement tools to combat tobacco smuggling;
(4) make it more difficult for cigarette and smokeless
tobacco traffickers to engage in and profit from their
illegal activities;
(5) increase collections of Federal, State, and local
excise taxes on cigarettes and smokeless tobacco; and
(6) prevent and reduce youth access to inexpensive
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco through illegal Internet or
contraband sales.
SEC. 2. COLLECTION OF STATE CIGARETTE AND SMOKELESS TOBACCO
TAXES.
(a) Definitions.--The Act of October 19, 1949 (15 U.S.C.
375 et seq.; commonly referred to as the ``Jenkins Act'')
(referred to in this Act as the ``Jenkins Act''), is amended
by striking the first section and inserting the following:
``SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.
``As used in this Act, the following definitions apply:
``(1) Attorney general.--The term `attorney general', with
respect to a State, means the attorney general or other chief
law enforcement officer of the State.
[[Page 3669]]
``(2) Cigarette.--
``(A) In general.--The term `cigarette'--
``(i) has the meaning given that term in section 2341 of
title 18, United States Code; and
``(ii) includes roll-your-own tobacco (as defined in
section 5702 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
``(B) Exception.--The term `cigarette' does not include a
cigar (as defined in section 5702 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986).
``(3) Common carrier.--The term `common carrier' means any
person (other than a local messenger service or the United
States Postal Service) that holds itself out to the general
public as a provider for hire of the transportation by water,
land, or air of merchandise (regardless of whether the person
actually operates the vessel, vehicle, or aircraft by which
the transportation is provided) between a port or place and a
port or place in the United States.
``(4) Consumer.--The term `consumer'--
``(A) means any person that purchases cigarettes or
smokeless tobacco; and
``(B) does not include any person lawfully operating as a
manufacturer, distributor, wholesaler, or retailer of
cigarettes or smokeless tobacco.
``(5) Delivery sale.--The term `delivery sale' means any
sale of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco to a consumer if--
``(A) the consumer submits the order for the sale by means
of a telephone or other method of voice transmission, the
mails, or the Internet or other online service, or the seller
is otherwise not in the physical presence of the buyer when
the request for purchase or order is made; or
``(B) the cigarettes or smokeless tobacco are delivered to
the buyer by common carrier, private delivery service, or
other method of remote delivery, or the seller is not in the
physical presence of the buyer when the buyer obtains
possession of the cigarettes or smokeless tobacco.
``(6) Delivery seller.--The term `delivery seller' means a
person who makes a delivery sale.
``(7) Indian country.--The term `Indian country'--
``(A) has the meaning given that term in section 1151 of
title 18, United States Code, except that within the State of
Alaska that term applies only to the Metlakatla Indian
Community, Annette Island Reserve; and
``(B) includes any other land held by the United States in
trust or restricted status for one or more Indian tribes.
``(8) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe', `tribe', or
`tribal' refers to an Indian tribe as defined in section 4(e)
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450b(e)) or as listed pursuant to section 104 of
the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25
U.S.C. 479a-1).
``(9) Interstate commerce.--
``(A) In general.--The term `interstate commerce' means
commerce between a State and any place outside the State,
commerce between a State and any Indian country in the State,
or commerce between points in the same State but through any
place outside the State or through any Indian country.
``(B) Into a state, place, or locality.--A sale, shipment,
or transfer of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco that is made
in interstate commerce, as defined in this paragraph, shall
be deemed to have been made into the State, place, or
locality in which such cigarettes or smokeless tobacco are
delivered.
``(10) Person.--The term `person' means an individual,
corporation, company, association, firm, partnership,
society, State government, local government, Indian tribal
government, governmental organization of such a government,
or joint stock company.
``(11) State.--The term `State' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession
of the United States.
``(12) Smokeless tobacco.--The term `smokeless tobacco'
means any finely cut, ground, powdered, or leaf tobacco, or
other product containing tobacco, that is intended to be
placed in the oral or nasal cavity or otherwise consumed
without being combusted.
``(13) Tobacco tax administrator.--The term `tobacco tax
administrator' means the State, local, or tribal official
duly authorized to collect the tobacco tax or administer the
tax law of a State, locality, or tribe, respectively.
``(14) Use.--The term `use' includes the consumption,
storage, handling, or disposal of cigarettes or smokeless
tobacco.''.
(b) Reports to State Tobacco Tax Administrators.--Section 2
of the Jenkins Act (15 U.S.C. 376) is amended--
(1) by striking ``cigarettes'' each place it appears and
inserting ``cigarettes or smokeless tobacco'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
(i) by inserting ``Contents.--'' after ``(a)'';
(ii) by striking ``or transfers'' and inserting ``,
transfers, or ships'';
(iii) by inserting ``, locality, or Indian country of an
Indian tribe'' after ``a State'';
(iv) by striking ``to other than a distributor licensed by
or located in such State,''; and
(v) by striking ``or transfer and shipment'' and inserting
``, transfer, or shipment'';
(B) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``with the tobacco tax administrator of the
State'' and inserting ``with the Attorney General of the
United States and with the tobacco tax administrators of the
State and place''; and
(ii) by striking ``; and'' and inserting the following: ``,
as well as telephone numbers for each place of business, a
principal electronic mail address, any website addresses, and
the name, address, and telephone number of an agent in the
State authorized to accept service on behalf of the
person;'';
(C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and the quantity
thereof.'' and inserting ``the quantity thereof, and the
name, address, and phone number of the person delivering the
shipment to the recipient on behalf of the delivery seller,
with all invoice or memoranda information relating to
specific customers to be organized by city or town and by zip
code; and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) with respect to each memorandum or invoice filed with
a State under paragraph (2), also file copies of the
memorandum or invoice with the tobacco tax administrators and
chief law enforcement officers of the local governments and
Indian tribes operating within the borders of the State that
apply their own local or tribal taxes on cigarettes or
smokeless tobacco.'';
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) by inserting ``Presumptive Evidence.--'' after ``(b)'';
(B) by striking ``(1) that'' and inserting ``that''; and
(C) by striking ``, and (2)'' and all that follows and
inserting a period; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Use of Information.--A tobacco tax administrator or
chief law enforcement officer who receives a memorandum or
invoice under paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) shall
use the memorandum or invoice solely for the purposes of the
enforcement of this Act and the collection of any taxes owed
on related sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, and
shall keep confidential any personal information in the
memorandum or invoice except as required for such
purposes.''.
(c) Requirements for Delivery Sales.--The Jenkins Act is
amended by inserting after section 2 the following:
``SEC. 2A. DELIVERY SALES.
``(a) In General.--With respect to delivery sales into a
specific State and place, each delivery seller shall comply
with--
``(1) the shipping requirements set forth in subsection
(b);
``(2) the recordkeeping requirements set forth in
subsection (c);
``(3) all State, local, tribal, and other laws generally
applicable to sales of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco as if
the delivery sales occurred entirely within the specific
State and place, including laws imposing--
``(A) excise taxes;
``(B) licensing and tax-stamping requirements;
``(C) restrictions on sales to minors; and
``(D) other payment obligations or legal requirements
relating to the sale, distribution, or delivery of cigarettes
or smokeless tobacco; and
``(4) the tax collection requirements set forth in
subsection (d).
``(b) Shipping and Packaging.--
``(1) Required statement.--For any shipping package
containing cigarettes or smokeless tobacco, the delivery
seller shall include on the bill of lading, if any, and on
the outside of the shipping package, on the same surface as
the delivery address, a clear and conspicuous statement
providing as follows: `CIGARETTES/SMOKELESS TOBACCO: FEDERAL
LAW REQUIRES THE PAYMENT OF ALL APPLICABLE EXCISE TAXES, AND
COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LICENSING AND TAX-STAMPING
OBLIGATIONS'.
``(2) Failure to label.--Any shipping package described in
paragraph (1) that is not labeled in accordance with that
paragraph shall be treated as nondeliverable matter by a
common carrier or other delivery service, if the common
carrier or other delivery service knows or should know the
package contains cigarettes or smokeless tobacco. If a common
carrier or other delivery service believes a package is being
submitted for delivery in violation of paragraph (1), it may
require the person submitting the package for delivery to
establish that it is not being sent in violation of paragraph
(1) before accepting the package for delivery. Nothing in
this paragraph shall require the common carrier or other
delivery service to open any package to determine its
contents.
``(3) Weight restriction.--A delivery seller shall not
sell, offer for sale, deliver, or cause to be delivered in
any single sale or single delivery any cigarettes or
smokeless tobacco weighing more than 10 pounds.
``(4) Age verification.--
``(A) In general.--A delivery seller who mails or ships
tobacco products--
``(i) shall not sell, deliver, or cause to be delivered any
tobacco products to a person under the minimum age required
for the legal sale or purchase of tobacco products, as
determined by the applicable law at the place of delivery;
``(ii) shall use a method of mailing or shipping that
requires--
[[Page 3670]]
``(I) the purchaser placing the delivery sale order, or an
adult who is at least the minimum age required for the legal
sale or purchase of tobacco products, as determined by the
applicable law at the place of delivery, to sign to accept
delivery of the shipping container at the delivery address;
and
``(II) the person who signs to accept delivery of the
shipping container to provide proof, in the form of a valid,
government-issued identification bearing a photograph of the
individual, that the person is at least the minimum age
required for the legal sale or purchase of tobacco products,
as determined by the applicable law at the place of delivery;
and
``(iii) shall not accept a delivery sale order from a
person without--
``(I) obtaining the full name, birth date, and residential
address of that person; and
``(II) verifying the information provided in subclause (I),
through the use of a commercially available database or
aggregate of databases, consisting primarily of data from
government sources, that are regularly used by government and
businesses for the purpose of age and identity verification
and authentication, to ensure that the purchaser is at least
the minimum age required for the legal sale or purchase of
tobacco products, as determined by the applicable law at the
place of delivery.
``(B) Limitation.--No database being used for age and
identity verification under subparagraph (A)(iii) shall be in
the possession or under the control of the delivery seller,
or be subject to any changes or supplementation by the
delivery seller.
``(c) Records.--
``(1) In general.--Each delivery seller shall keep a record
of any delivery sale, including all of the information
described in section 2(a)(2), organized by the State, and
within the State, by the city or town and by zip code, into
which the delivery sale is so made.
``(2) Record retention.--Records of a delivery sale shall
be kept as described in paragraph (1) until the end of the
4th full calendar year that begins after the date of the
delivery sale.
``(3) Access for officials.--Records kept under paragraph
(1) shall be made available to tobacco tax administrators of
the States, to local governments and Indian tribes that apply
local or tribal taxes on cigarettes or smokeless tobacco, to
the attorneys general of the States, to the chief law
enforcement officers of the local governments and Indian
tribes, and to the Attorney General of the United States in
order to ensure the compliance of persons making delivery
sales with the requirements of this Act.
``(d) Delivery.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no
delivery seller may sell or deliver to any consumer, or
tender to any common carrier or other delivery service, any
cigarettes or smokeless tobacco pursuant to a delivery sale
unless, in advance of the sale, delivery, or tender--
``(A) any cigarette or smokeless tobacco excise tax that is
imposed by the State in which the cigarettes or smokeless
tobacco are to be delivered has been paid to the State;
``(B) any cigarette or smokeless tobacco excise tax that is
imposed by the local government of the place in which the
cigarettes or smokeless tobacco are to be delivered has been
paid to the local government; and
``(C) any required stamps or other indicia that the excise
tax has been paid are properly affixed or applied to the
cigarettes or smokeless tobacco.
``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to a
delivery sale of smokeless tobacco if the law of the State or
local government of the place where the smokeless tobacco is
to be delivered requires or otherwise provides that delivery
sellers collect the excise tax from the consumer and remit
the excise tax to the State or local government, and the
delivery seller complies with the requirement.
``(e) List of Unregistered or Noncompliant Delivery
Sellers.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Initial list.--Not later than 90 days after this
subsection goes into effect under the Prevent All Cigarette
Trafficking Act of 2009, the Attorney General of the United
States shall compile a list of delivery sellers of cigarettes
or smokeless tobacco that have not registered with the
Attorney General of the United States pursuant to section
2(a), or that are otherwise not in compliance with this Act,
and--
``(i) distribute the list to--
``(I) the attorney general and tax administrator of every
State;
``(II) common carriers and other persons that deliver small
packages to consumers in interstate commerce, including the
United States Postal Service; and
``(III) any other person that the Attorney General of the
United States determines can promote the effective
enforcement of this Act; and
``(ii) publicize and make the list available to any other
person engaged in the business of interstate deliveries or
who delivers cigarettes or smokeless tobacco in or into any
State.
``(B) List contents.--To the extent known, the Attorney
General of the United States shall include, for each delivery
seller on the list described in subparagraph (A)--
``(i) all names the delivery seller uses or has used in the
transaction of its business or on packages delivered to
customers;
``(ii) all addresses from which the delivery seller does or
has done business, or ships or has shipped cigarettes or
smokeless tobacco;
``(iii) the website addresses, primary e-mail address, and
phone number of the delivery seller; and
``(iv) any other information that the Attorney General of
the United States determines would facilitate compliance with
this subsection by recipients of the list.
``(C) Updating.--The Attorney General of the United States
shall update and distribute the list described in
subparagraph (A) at least once every 4 months, and may
distribute the list and any updates by regular mail,
electronic mail, or any other reasonable means, or by
providing recipients with access to the list through a
nonpublic website that the Attorney General of the United
States regularly updates.
``(D) State, local, or tribal additions.--The Attorney
General of the United States shall include in the list
described in subparagraph (A) any noncomplying delivery
sellers identified by any State, local, or tribal government
under paragraph (6), and shall distribute the list to the
attorney general or chief law enforcement official and the
tax administrator of any government submitting any such
information, and to any common carriers or other persons who
deliver small packages to consumers identified by any
government pursuant to paragraph (6).
``(E) Accuracy and completeness of list of noncomplying
delivery sellers.--In preparing and revising the list
described in subparagraph (A), the Attorney General of the
United States shall--
``(i) use reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible
accuracy and completeness of the records and information
relied on for the purpose of determining that a delivery
seller is not in compliance with this Act;
``(ii) not later than 14 days before including a delivery
seller on the list, make a reasonable attempt to send notice
to the delivery seller by letter, electronic mail, or other
means that the delivery seller is being placed on the list,
which shall cite the relevant provisions of this Act and the
specific reasons for which the delivery seller is being
placed on the list;
``(iii) provide an opportunity to the delivery seller to
challenge placement on the list;
``(iv) investigate each challenge described in clause (iii)
by contacting the relevant Federal, State, tribal, and local
law enforcement officials, and provide the specific findings
and results of the investigation to the delivery seller not
later than 30 days after the date on which the challenge is
made; and
``(v) if the Attorney General of the United States
determines that the basis for including a delivery seller on
the list is inaccurate, based on incomplete information, or
cannot be verified, promptly remove the delivery seller from
the list as appropriate and notify each appropriate Federal,
State, tribal, and local authority of the determination.
``(F) Confidentiality.--The list described in subparagraph
(A) shall be confidential, and any person receiving the list
shall maintain the confidentiality of the list and may
deliver the list, for enforcement purposes, to any government
official or to any common carrier or other person that
delivers tobacco products or small packages to consumers.
Nothing in this section shall prohibit a common carrier, the
United States Postal Service, or any other person receiving
the list from discussing with a listed delivery seller the
inclusion of the delivery seller on the list and the
resulting effects on any services requested by the listed
delivery seller.
``(2) Prohibition on delivery.--
``(A) In general.--Commencing on the date that is 60 days
after the date of the initial distribution or availability of
the list described in paragraph (1)(A), no person who
receives the list under paragraph (1), and no person who
delivers cigarettes or smokeless tobacco to consumers, shall
knowingly complete, cause to be completed, or complete its
portion of a delivery of any package for any person whose
name and address are on the list, unless--
``(i) the person making the delivery knows or believes in
good faith that the item does not include cigarettes or
smokeless tobacco;
``(ii) the delivery is made to a person lawfully engaged in
the business of manufacturing, distributing, or selling
cigarettes or smokeless tobacco; or
``(iii) the package being delivered weighs more than 100
pounds and the person making the delivery does not know or
have reasonable cause to believe that the package contains
cigarettes or smokeless tobacco.
``(B) Implementation of updates.--Commencing on the date
that is 30 days after the date of the distribution or
availability of any updates or corrections to the list
described in paragraph (1)(A), all recipients and all common
carriers or other persons that deliver cigarettes or
smokeless tobacco to consumers shall be subject to
subparagraph (A) in regard to the corrections or updates.
``(3) Exemptions.--
``(A) In general.--Subsection (b)(2) and any requirements
or restrictions placed directly on common carriers under this
subsection, including subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph
(2), shall not apply to a common carrier that--
[[Page 3671]]
``(i) is subject to a settlement agreement described in
subparagraph (B); or
``(ii) if a settlement agreement described in subparagraph
(B) to which the common carrier is a party is terminated or
otherwise becomes inactive, is administering and enforcing
policies and practices throughout the United States that are
at least as stringent as the agreement.
``(B) Settlement agreement.--A settlement agreement
described in this subparagraph--
``(i) is a settlement agreement relating to tobacco product
deliveries to consumers; and
``(ii) includes--
``(I) the Assurance of Discontinuance entered into by the
Attorney General of New York and DHL Holdings USA, Inc. and
DHL Express (USA), Inc. on or about July 1, 2005, the
Assurance of Discontinuance entered into by the Attorney
General of New York and United Parcel Service, Inc. on or
about October 21, 2005, and the Assurance of Compliance
entered into by the Attorney General of New York and Federal
Express Corporation and FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc. on
or about February 3, 2006, if each of those agreements is
honored throughout the United States to block illegal
deliveries of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco to consumers;
and
``(II) any other active agreement between a common carrier
and a State that operates throughout the United States to
ensure that no deliveries of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco
shall be made to consumers or illegally operating Internet or
mail-order sellers and that any such deliveries to consumers
shall not be made to minors or without payment to the States
and localities where the consumers are located of all taxes
on the tobacco products.
``(4) Shipments from persons on list.--
``(A) In general.--If a common carrier or other delivery
service delays or interrupts the delivery of a package in the
possession of the common carrier or delivery service because
the common carrier or delivery service determines or has
reason to believe that the person ordering the delivery is on
a list described in paragraph (1)(A) and that clauses (i),
(ii), and (iii) of paragraph (2)(A) do not apply--
``(i) the person ordering the delivery shall be obligated
to pay--
``(I) the common carrier or other delivery service as if
the delivery of the package had been timely completed; and
``(II) if the package is not deliverable, any reasonable
additional fee or charge levied by the common carrier or
other delivery service to cover any extra costs and
inconvenience and to serve as a disincentive against such
noncomplying delivery orders; and
``(ii) if the package is determined not to be deliverable,
the common carrier or other delivery service shall offer to
provide the package and its contents to a Federal, State, or
local law enforcement agency.
``(B) Records.--A common carrier or other delivery service
shall maintain, for a period of 5 years, any records kept in
the ordinary course of business relating to any delivery
interrupted under this paragraph and provide that
information, upon request, to the Attorney General of the
United States or to the attorney general or chief law
enforcement official or tax administrator of any State,
local, or tribal government.
``(C) Confidentiality.--Any person receiving records under
subparagraph (B) shall--
``(i) use the records solely for the purposes of the
enforcement of this Act and the collection of any taxes owed
on related sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco; and
``(ii) keep confidential any personal information in the
records not otherwise required for such purposes.
``(5) Preemption.--
``(A) In general.--No State, local, or tribal government,
nor any political authority of 2 or more State, local, or
tribal governments, may enact or enforce any law or
regulation relating to delivery sales that restricts
deliveries of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco to consumers by
common carriers or other delivery services on behalf of
delivery sellers by--
``(i) requiring that the common carrier or other delivery
service verify the age or identity of the consumer accepting
the delivery by requiring the person who signs to accept
delivery of the shipping container to provide proof, in the
form of a valid, government-issued identification bearing a
photograph of the individual, that the person is at least the
minimum age required for the legal sale or purchase of
tobacco products, as determined by either State or local law
at the place of delivery;
``(ii) requiring that the common carrier or other delivery
service obtain a signature from the consumer accepting the
delivery;
``(iii) requiring that the common carrier or other delivery
service verify that all applicable taxes have been paid;
``(iv) requiring that packages delivered by the common
carrier or other delivery service contain any particular
labels, notice, or markings; or
``(v) prohibiting common carriers or other delivery
services from making deliveries on the basis of whether the
delivery seller is or is not identified on any list of
delivery sellers maintained and distributed by any entity
other than the Federal Government.
``(B) Relationship to other laws.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (C), nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed to nullify, expand, restrict, or otherwise amend or
modify--
``(i) section 14501(c)(1) or 41713(b)(4) of title 49,
United States Code;
``(ii) any other restrictions in Federal law on the ability
of State, local, or tribal governments to regulate common
carriers; or
``(iii) any provision of State, local, or tribal law
regulating common carriers that is described in section
14501(c)(2) or 41713(b)(4)(B) of title 49 of the United
States Code.
``(C) State laws prohibiting delivery sales.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii),
nothing in the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009,
the amendments made by that Act, or in any other Federal
statute shall be construed to preempt, supersede, or
otherwise limit or restrict State laws prohibiting the
delivery sale, or the shipment or delivery pursuant to a
delivery sale, of cigarettes or other tobacco products to
individual consumers or personal residences.
``(ii) Exemptions.--No State may enforce against a common
carrier a law prohibiting the delivery of cigarettes or other
tobacco products to individual consumers or personal
residences without proof that the common carrier is not
exempt under paragraph (3) of this subsection.
``(6) State, local, and tribal additions.--
``(A) In general.--Any State, local, or tribal government
shall provide the Attorney General of the United States
with--
``(i) all known names, addresses, website addresses, and
other primary contact information of any delivery seller
that--
``(I) offers for sale or makes sales of cigarettes or
smokeless tobacco in or into the State, locality, or tribal
land; and
``(II) has failed to register with or make reports to the
respective tax administrator as required by this Act, or that
has been found in a legal proceeding to have otherwise failed
to comply with this Act; and
``(ii) a list of common carriers and other persons who make
deliveries of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco in or into the
State, locality, or tribal land.
``(B) Updates.--Any government providing a list to the
Attorney General of the United States under subparagraph (A)
shall also provide updates and corrections every 4 months
until such time as the government notifies the Attorney
General of the United States in writing that the government
no longer desires to submit information to supplement the
list described in paragraph (1)(A).
``(C) Removal after withdrawal.--Upon receiving written
notice that a government no longer desires to submit
information under subparagraph (A), the Attorney General of
the United States shall remove from the list described in
paragraph (1)(A) any persons that are on the list solely
because of the prior submissions of the government of the
list of the government of noncomplying delivery sellers of
cigarettes or smokeless tobacco or a subsequent update or
correction by the government.
``(7) Deadline to incorporate additions.--The Attorney
General of the United States shall--
``(A) include any delivery seller identified and submitted
by a State, local, or tribal government under paragraph (6)
in any list or update that is distributed or made available
under paragraph (1) on or after the date that is 30 days
after the date on which the information is received by the
Attorney General of the United States; and
``(B) distribute any list or update described in
subparagraph (A) to any common carrier or other person who
makes deliveries of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco that has
been identified and submitted by a government pursuant to
paragraph (6).
``(8) Notice to delivery sellers.--Not later than 14 days
before including any delivery seller on the initial list
described in paragraph (1)(A), or on an update to the list
for the first time, the Attorney General of the United States
shall make a reasonable attempt to send notice to the
delivery seller by letter, electronic mail, or other means
that the delivery seller is being placed on the list or
update, with that notice citing the relevant provisions of
this Act.
``(9) Limitations.--
``(A) In general.--Any common carrier or other person
making a delivery subject to this subsection shall not be
required or otherwise obligated to--
``(i) determine whether any list distributed or made
available under paragraph (1) is complete, accurate, or up-
to-date;
``(ii) determine whether a person ordering a delivery is in
compliance with this Act; or
``(iii) open or inspect, pursuant to this Act, any package
being delivered to determine its contents.
``(B) Alternate names.--Any common carrier or other person
making a delivery subject to this subsection--
``(i) shall not be required to make any inquiries or
otherwise determine whether a person ordering a delivery is a
delivery seller on the list described in paragraph (1)(A) who
is using a different name or address in order to evade the
related delivery restrictions; and
[[Page 3672]]
``(ii) shall not knowingly deliver any packages to
consumers for any delivery seller on the list described in
paragraph (1)(A) who the common carrier or other delivery
service knows is a delivery seller who is on the list and is
using a different name or address to evade the delivery
restrictions of paragraph (2).
``(C) Penalties.--Any common carrier or person in the
business of delivering packages on behalf of other persons
shall not be subject to any penalty under section 14101(a) of
title 49, United States Code, or any other provision of law
for--
``(i) not making any specific delivery, or any deliveries
at all, on behalf of any person on the list described in
paragraph (1)(A);
``(ii) refusing, as a matter of regular practice and
procedure, to make any deliveries, or any deliveries in
certain States, of any cigarettes or smokeless tobacco for
any person or for any person not in the business of
manufacturing, distributing, or selling cigarettes or
smokeless tobacco; or
``(iii) delaying or not making a delivery for any person
because of reasonable efforts to comply with this Act.
``(D) Other limits.--Section 2 and subsections (a), (b),
(c), and (d) of this section shall not be interpreted to
impose any responsibilities, requirements, or liability on
common carriers.
``(f) Presumption.--For purposes of this Act, a delivery
sale shall be deemed to have occurred in the State and place
where the buyer obtains personal possession of the cigarettes
or smokeless tobacco, and a delivery pursuant to a delivery
sale is deemed to have been initiated or ordered by the
delivery seller.''.
(d) Penalties.--The Jenkins Act is amended by striking
section 3 and inserting the following:
``SEC. 3. PENALTIES.
``(a) Criminal Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
whoever knowingly violates this Act shall be imprisoned for
not more than 3 years, fined under title 18, United States
Code, or both.
``(2) Exceptions.--
``(A) Governments.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a
State, local, or tribal government.
``(B) Delivery violations.--A common carrier or independent
delivery service, or employee of a common carrier or
independent delivery service, shall be subject to criminal
penalties under paragraph (1) for a violation of section
2A(e) only if the violation is committed knowingly--
``(i) as consideration for the receipt of, or as
consideration for a promise or agreement to pay, anything of
pecuniary value; or
``(ii) for the purpose of assisting a delivery seller to
violate, or otherwise evading compliance with, section 2A.
``(b) Civil Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3),
whoever violates this Act shall be subject to a civil penalty
in an amount not to exceed--
``(A) in the case of a delivery seller, the greater of--
``(i) $5,000 in the case of the first violation, or $10,000
for any other violation; or
``(ii) for any violation, 2 percent of the gross sales of
cigarettes or smokeless tobacco of the delivery seller during
the 1-year period ending on the date of the violation.
``(B) in the case of a common carrier or other delivery
service, $2,500 in the case of a first violation, or $5,000
for any violation within 1 year of a prior violation.
``(2) Relation to other penalties.--A civil penalty imposed
under paragraph (1) for a violation of this Act shall be
imposed in addition to any criminal penalty under subsection
(a) and any other damages, equitable relief, or injunctive
relief awarded by the court, including the payment of any
unpaid taxes to the appropriate Federal, State, local, or
tribal governments.
``(3) Exceptions.--
``(A) Delivery violations.--An employee of a common carrier
or independent delivery service shall be subject to civil
penalties under paragraph (1) for a violation of section
2A(e) only if the violation is committed intentionally--
``(i) as consideration for the receipt of, or as
consideration for a promise or agreement to pay, anything of
pecuniary value; or
``(ii) for the purpose of assisting a delivery seller to
violate, or otherwise evading compliance with, section 2A.
``(B) Other limitations.--No common carrier or independent
delivery service shall be subject to civil penalties under
paragraph (1) for a violation of section 2A(e) if--
``(i) the common carrier or independent delivery service
has implemented and enforces effective policies and practices
for complying with that section; or
``(ii) the violation consists of an employee of the common
carrier or independent delivery service who physically
receives and processes orders, picks up packages, processes
packages, or makes deliveries, taking actions that are
outside the scope of employment of the employee, or that
violate the implemented and enforced policies of the common
carrier or independent delivery service described in clause
(i).''.
(e) Enforcement.--The Jenkins Act is amended by striking
section 4 and inserting the following:
``SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT.
``(a) In General.--The United States district courts shall
have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this
Act and to provide other appropriate injunctive or equitable
relief, including money damages, for the violations.
``(b) Authority of the Attorney General.--The Attorney
General of the United States shall administer and enforce
this Act.
``(c) State, Local, and Tribal Enforcement.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Standing.--A State, through its attorney general, or
a local government or Indian tribe that levies a tax subject
to section 2A(a)(3), through its chief law enforcement
officer, may bring an action in a United States district
court to prevent and restrain violations of this Act by any
person or to obtain any other appropriate relief from any
person for violations of this Act, including civil penalties,
money damages, and injunctive or other equitable relief.
``(B) Sovereign immunity.--Nothing in this Act shall be
deemed to abrogate or constitute a waiver of any sovereign
immunity of a State or local government or Indian tribe
against any unconsented lawsuit under this Act, or otherwise
to restrict, expand, or modify any sovereign immunity of a
State or local government or Indian tribe.
``(2) Provision of information.--A State, through its
attorney general, or a local government or Indian tribe that
levies a tax subject to section 2A(a)(3), through its chief
law enforcement officer, may provide evidence of a violation
of this Act by any person not subject to State, local, or
tribal government enforcement actions for violations of this
Act to the Attorney General of the United States or a United
States attorney, who shall take appropriate actions to
enforce this Act.
``(3) Use of penalties collected.--
``(A) In general.--There is established a separate account
in the Treasury known as the `PACT Anti-Trafficking Fund'.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject to
subparagraph (B), an amount equal to 50 percent of any
criminal and civil penalties collected by the Federal
Government in enforcing this Act shall be transferred into
the PACT Anti-Trafficking Fund and shall be available to the
Attorney General of the United States for purposes of
enforcing this Act and other laws relating to contraband
tobacco products.
``(B) Allocation of funds.--Of the amount available to the
Attorney General of the United States under subparagraph (A),
not less than 50 percent shall be made available only to the
agencies and offices within the Department of Justice that
were responsible for the enforcement actions in which the
penalties concerned were imposed or for any underlying
investigations.
``(4) Nonexclusivity of remedy.--
``(A) In general.--The remedies available under this
section and section 3 are in addition to any other remedies
available under Federal, State, local, tribal, or other law.
``(B) State court proceedings.--Nothing in this Act shall
be construed to expand, restrict, or otherwise modify any
right of an authorized State official to proceed in State
court, or take other enforcement actions, on the basis of an
alleged violation of State or other law.
``(C) Tribal court proceedings.--Nothing in this Act shall
be construed to expand, restrict, or otherwise modify any
right of an authorized Indian tribal government official to
proceed in tribal court, or take other enforcement actions,
on the basis of an alleged violation of tribal law.
``(D) Local government enforcement.--Nothing in this Act
shall be construed to expand, restrict, or otherwise modify
any right of an authorized local government official to
proceed in State court, or take other enforcement actions, on
the basis of an alleged violation of local or other law.
``(d) Persons Dealing in Tobacco Products.--Any person who
holds a permit under section 5712 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (regarding permitting of manufacturers and
importers of tobacco products and export warehouse
proprietors) may bring an action in an appropriate United
States district court to prevent and restrain violations of
this Act by any person other than a State, local, or tribal
government.
``(e) Notice.--
``(1) Persons dealing in tobacco products.--Any person who
commences a civil action under subsection (d) shall inform
the Attorney General of the United States of the action.
``(2) State, local, and tribal actions.--It is the sense of
Congress that the attorney general of any State, or chief law
enforcement officer of any locality or tribe, that commences
a civil action under this section should inform the Attorney
General of the United States of the action.
``(f) Public Notice.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General of the United
States shall make available to the public, by posting
information on the Internet and by other appropriate means,
information regarding all enforcement actions brought by the
United States, or reported to the Attorney General of the
United States, under this section, including information
regarding the resolution of the enforcement
[[Page 3673]]
actions and how the Attorney General of the United States has
responded to referrals of evidence of violations pursuant to
subsection (c)(2).
``(2) Reports to congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking
Act of 2009, and every year thereafter until the date that is
5 years after such date of enactment, the Attorney General of
the United States shall submit to Congress a report
containing the information described in paragraph (1).''.
SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF CIGARETTES AND SMOKELESS TOBACCO AS
NONMAILABLE MATTER.
(a) In General.--Chapter 83 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1716D the
following:
``Sec. 1716E. Tobacco products as nonmailable
``(a) Prohibition.--
``(1) In general.--All cigarettes and smokeless tobacco (as
those terms are defined in section 1 of the Act of October
19, 1949, commonly referred to as the Jenkins Act) are
nonmailable and shall not be deposited in or carried through
the mails. The United States Postal Service shall not accept
for delivery or transmit through the mails any package that
it knows or has reasonable cause to believe contains any
cigarettes or smokeless tobacco made nonmailable by this
paragraph.
``(2) Reasonable cause.--For the purposes of this
subsection reasonable cause includes--
``(A) a statement on a publicly available website, or an
advertisement, by any person that the person will mail matter
which is nonmailable under this section in return for
payment; or
``(B) the fact that the person is on the list created under
section 2A(e) of the Jenkins Act.
``(b) Exceptions.--
``(1) Cigars.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to cigars (as
defined in section 5702(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986).
``(2) Geographic exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply
to mailings within the State of Alaska or within the State of
Hawaii.
``(3) Business purposes.--
``(A) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to
tobacco products mailed only--
``(i) for business purposes between legally operating
businesses that have all applicable State and Federal
Government licenses or permits and are engaged in tobacco
product manufacturing, distribution, wholesale, export,
import, testing, investigation, or research; or
``(ii) for regulatory purposes between any business
described in clause (i) and an agency of the Federal
Government or a State government.
``(B) Rules.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of
2009, the Postmaster General shall issue a final rule which
shall establish the standards and requirements that apply to
all mailings described in subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Contents.--The final rule issued under clause (i)
shall require--
``(I) the United States Postal Service to verify that any
person submitting an otherwise nonmailable tobacco product
into the mails as authorized under this paragraph is a
business or government agency permitted to make a mailing
under this paragraph;
``(II) the United States Postal Service to ensure that any
recipient of an otherwise nonmailable tobacco product sent
through the mails under this paragraph is a business or
government agency that may lawfully receive the product;
``(III) that any mailing described in subparagraph (A)
shall be sent through the systems of the United States Postal
Service that provide for the tracking and confirmation of the
delivery;
``(IV) that the identity of the business or government
entity submitting the mailing containing otherwise
nonmailable tobacco products for delivery and the identity of
the business or government entity receiving the mailing are
clearly set forth on the package;
``(V) the United States Postal Service to maintain
identifying information described in subclause (IV) during
the 3-year period beginning on the date of the mailing and
make the information available to the Postal Service, the
Attorney General of the United States, and to persons
eligible to bring enforcement actions under section 3(d) of
the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009;
``(VI) that any mailing described in subparagraph (A) be
marked with a United States Postal Service label or marking
that makes it clear to employees of the United States Postal
Service that it is a permitted mailing of otherwise
nonmailable tobacco products that may be delivered only to a
permitted government agency or business and may not be
delivered to any residence or individual person; and
``(VII) that any mailing described in subparagraph (A) be
delivered only to a verified employee of the recipient
business or government agency, who is not a minor and who
shall be required to sign for the mailing.
``(C) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `minor'
means an individual who is less than the minimum age required
for the legal sale or purchase of tobacco products as
determined by applicable law at the place the individual is
located.
``(4) Certain individuals.--
``(A) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to
tobacco products mailed by individuals who are not minors for
noncommercial purposes, including the return of a damaged or
unacceptable tobacco product to the manufacturer.
``(B) Rules.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of
2009, the Postmaster General shall issue a final rule which
shall establish the standards and requirements that apply to
all mailings described in subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Contents.--The final rule issued under clause (i)
shall require--
``(I) the United States Postal Service to verify that any
person submitting an otherwise nonmailable tobacco product
into the mails as authorized under this paragraph is the
individual identified on the return address label of the
package and is not a minor;
``(II) for a mailing to an individual, the United States
Postal Service to require the person submitting the otherwise
nonmailable tobacco product into the mails as authorized by
this paragraph to affirm that the recipient is not a minor;
``(III) that any package mailed under this paragraph shall
weigh not more than 10 ounces;
``(IV) that any mailing described in subparagraph (A) shall
be sent through the systems of the United States Postal
Service that provide for the tracking and confirmation of the
delivery;
``(V) that a mailing described in subparagraph (A) shall
not be delivered or placed in the possession of any
individual who has not been verified as not being a minor;
``(VI) for a mailing described in subparagraph (A) to an
individual, that the United States Postal Service shall
deliver the package only to a recipient who is verified not
to be a minor at the recipient address or transfer it for
delivery to an Air/Army Postal Office or Fleet Postal Office
number designated in the recipient address; and
``(VII) that no person may initiate more than 10 mailings
described in subparagraph (A) during any 30-day period.
``(C) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `minor'
means an individual who is less than the minimum age required
for the legal sale or purchase of tobacco products as
determined by applicable law at the place the individual is
located.
``(5) Exception for mailings for consumer testing by
manufacturers.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), subsection
(a) shall not preclude a legally operating cigarette
manufacturer or a legally authorized agent of a legally
operating cigarette manufacturer from using the United States
Postal Service to mail cigarettes to verified adult smoker
solely for consumer testing purposes, if--
``(i) the cigarette manufacturer has a permit, in good
standing, issued under section 5713 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986;
``(ii) the package of cigarettes mailed under this
paragraph contains not more than 12 packs of cigarettes (240
cigarettes);
``(iii) the recipient does not receive more than 1 package
of cigarettes from any 1 cigarette manufacturer under this
paragraph during any 30-day period;
``(iv) all taxes on the cigarettes mailed under this
paragraph levied by the State and locality of delivery are
paid to the State and locality before delivery, and tax
stamps or other tax-payment indicia are affixed to the
cigarettes as required by law; and
``(v)(I) the recipient has not made any payments of any
kind in exchange for receiving the cigarettes;
``(II) the recipient is paid a fee by the manufacturer or
agent of the manufacturer for participation in consumer
product tests; and
``(III) the recipient, in connection with the tests,
evaluates the cigarettes and provides feedback to the
manufacturer or agent.
``(B) Limitations.--Subparagraph (A) shall not--
``(i) permit a mailing of cigarettes to an individual
located in any State that prohibits the delivery or shipment
of cigarettes to individuals in the State, or preempt, limit,
or otherwise affect any related State laws; or
``(ii) permit a manufacturer, directly or through a legally
authorized agent, to mail cigarettes in any calendar year in
a total amount greater than 1 percent of the total cigarette
sales of the manufacturer in the United States during the
calendar year before the date of the mailing.
``(C) Rules.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of
2009, the Postmaster General shall issue a final rule which
shall establish the standards and requirements that apply to
all mailings described in subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Contents.--The final rule issued under clause (i)
shall require--
``(I) the United States Postal Service to verify that any
person submitting a tobacco product into the mails under this
paragraph is a legally operating cigarette manufacturer
permitted to make a mailing under this paragraph, or an agent
legally authorized by
[[Page 3674]]
the legally operating cigarette manufacturer to submit the
tobacco product into the mails on behalf of the manufacturer;
``(II) the legally operating cigarette manufacturer
submitting the cigarettes into the mails under this paragraph
to affirm that--
``(aa) the manufacturer or the legally authorized agent of
the manufacturer has verified that the recipient is an adult
established smoker;
``(bb) the recipient has not made any payment for the
cigarettes;
``(cc) the recipient has signed a written statement that is
in effect indicating that the recipient wishes to receive the
mailings; and
``(dd) the manufacturer or the legally authorized agent of
the manufacturer has offered the opportunity for the
recipient to withdraw the written statement described in item
(cc) not less frequently than once in every 3-month period;
``(III) the legally operating cigarette manufacturer or the
legally authorized agent of the manufacturer submitting the
cigarettes into the mails under this paragraph to affirm that
any package mailed under this paragraph contains not more
than 12 packs of cigarettes (240 cigarettes) on which all
taxes levied on the cigarettes by the State and locality of
delivery have been paid and all related State tax stamps or
other tax-payment indicia have been applied;
``(IV) that any mailing described in subparagraph (A) shall
be sent through the systems of the United States Postal
Service that provide for the tracking and confirmation of the
delivery;
``(V) the United States Postal Service to maintain records
relating to a mailing described in subparagraph (A) during
the 3-year period beginning on the date of the mailing and
make the information available to persons enforcing this
section;
``(VI) that any mailing described in subparagraph (A) be
marked with a United States Postal Service label or marking
that makes it clear to employees of the United States Postal
Service that it is a permitted mailing of otherwise
nonmailable tobacco products that may be delivered only to
the named recipient after verifying that the recipient is an
adult; and
``(VII) the United States Postal Service shall deliver a
mailing described in subparagraph (A) only to the named
recipient and only after verifying that the recipient is an
adult.
``(D) Definitions.--In this paragraph--
``(i) the term `adult' means an individual who is not less
than 21 years of age; and
``(ii) the term `consumer testing' means testing limited to
formal data collection and analysis for the specific purpose
of evaluating the product for quality assurance and
benchmarking purposes of cigarette brands or sub-brands among
existing adult smokers.
``(6) Federal government agencies.--An agency of the
Federal Government involved in the consumer testing of
tobacco products solely for public health purposes may mail
cigarettes under the same requirements, restrictions, and
rules and procedures that apply to consumer testing mailings
of cigarettes by manufacturers under paragraph (5), except
that the agency shall not be required to pay the recipients
for participating in the consumer testing.
``(c) Seizure and Forfeiture.--Any cigarettes or smokeless
tobacco made nonmailable by this subsection that are
deposited in the mails shall be subject to seizure and
forfeiture, pursuant to the procedures set forth in chapter
46 of this title. Any tobacco products seized and forfeited
under this subsection shall be destroyed or retained by the
Federal Government for the detection or prosecution of crimes
or related investigations and then destroyed.
``(d) Additional Penalties.--In addition to any other fines
and penalties under this title for violations of this
section, any person violating this section shall be subject
to an additional civil penalty in the amount equal to 10
times the retail value of the nonmailable cigarettes or
smokeless tobacco, including all Federal, State, and local
taxes.
``(e) Criminal Penalty.--Whoever knowingly deposits for
mailing or delivery, or knowingly causes to be delivered by
mail, according to the direction thereon, or at any place at
which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it
is addressed, anything that is nonmailable matter under this
section shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more
than 1 year, or both.
``(f) Use of Penalties.--There is established a separate
account in the Treasury, to be known as the `PACT Postal
Service Fund'. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an
amount equal to 50 percent of any criminal fines, civil
penalties, or other monetary penalties collected by the
Federal Government in enforcing this section shall be
transferred into the PACT Postal Service Fund and shall be
available to the Postmaster General for the purpose of
enforcing this subsection.
``(g) Coordination of Efforts.--The Postmaster General
shall cooperate and coordinate efforts to enforce this
section with related enforcement activities of any other
Federal agency or agency of any State, local, or tribal
government, whenever appropriate.
``(h) Actions by State, Local, or Tribal Governments
Relating to Certain Tobacco Products.--
``(1) In general.--A State, through its attorney general,
or a local government or Indian tribe that levies an excise
tax on tobacco products, through its chief law enforcement
officer, may in a civil action in a United States district
court obtain appropriate relief with respect to a violation
of this section. Appropriate relief includes injunctive and
equitable relief and damages equal to the amount of unpaid
taxes on tobacco products mailed in violation of this section
to addressees in that State, locality, or tribal land.
``(2) Sovereign immunity.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be deemed to abrogate or constitute a waiver of any sovereign
immunity of a State or local government or Indian tribe
against any unconsented lawsuit under paragraph (1), or
otherwise to restrict, expand, or modify any sovereign
immunity of a State or local government or Indian tribe.
``(3) Attorney general referral.--A State, through its
attorney general, or a local government or Indian tribe that
levies an excise tax on tobacco products, through its chief
law enforcement officer, may provide evidence of a violation
of this section for commercial purposes by any person not
subject to State, local, or tribal government enforcement
actions for violations of this section to the Attorney
General of the United States, who shall take appropriate
actions to enforce this section.
``(4) Nonexclusivity of remedies.--The remedies available
under this subsection are in addition to any other remedies
available under Federal, State, local, tribal, or other law.
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to expand,
restrict, or otherwise modify any right of an authorized
State, local, or tribal government official to proceed in a
State, tribal, or other appropriate court, or take other
enforcement actions, on the basis of an alleged violation of
State, local, tribal, or other law.
``(5) Other enforcement actions.--Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed to prohibit an authorized State
official from proceeding in State court on the basis of an
alleged violation of any general civil or criminal statute of
the State.
``(i) Definition.--In this section, the term `State' has
the meaning given that term in section 1716(k).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
83 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 1716D the following:
``1716E. Tobacco products as nonmailable.''.
SEC. 4. INSPECTION BY BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS,
AND EXPLOSIVES OF RECORDS OF CERTAIN CIGARETTE
AND SMOKELESS TOBACCO SELLERS; CIVIL PENALTY.
Section 2343(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
``(c)(1) Any officer of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives may, during normal business hours,
enter the premises of any person described in subsection (a)
or (b) for the purposes of inspecting--
``(A) any records or information required to be maintained
by the person under this chapter; or
``(B) any cigarettes or smokeless tobacco kept or stored by
the person at the premises.
``(2) The district courts of the United States shall have
the authority in a civil action under this subsection to
compel inspections authorized by paragraph (1).
``(3) Whoever denies access to an officer under paragraph
(1), or who fails to comply with an order issued under
paragraph (2), shall be subject to a civil penalty in an
amount not to exceed $10,000.''.
SEC. 5. EXCLUSIONS REGARDING INDIAN TRIBES AND TRIBAL
MATTERS.
(a) In General.--Nothing in this Act or the amendments made
by this Act shall be construed to amend, modify, or otherwise
affect--
(1) any agreements, compacts, or other intergovernmental
arrangements between any State or local government and any
government of an Indian tribe (as that term is defined in
section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)) relating to the collection
of taxes on cigarettes or smokeless tobacco sold in Indian
country;
(2) any State laws that authorize or otherwise pertain to
any such intergovernmental arrangements or create special
rules or procedures for the collection of State, local, or
tribal taxes on cigarettes or smokeless tobacco sold in
Indian country;
(3) any limitations under Federal or State law, including
Federal common law and treaties, on State, local, and tribal
tax and regulatory authority with respect to the sale, use,
or distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco by or to
Indian tribes, tribal members, tribal enterprises, or in
Indian country;
(4) any Federal law, including Federal common law and
treaties, regarding State jurisdiction, or lack thereof, over
any tribe, tribal members, tribal enterprises, tribal
reservations, or other lands held by the United States in
trust for one or more Indian tribes; or
(5) any State or local government authority to bring
enforcement actions against persons located in Indian
country.
[[Page 3675]]
(b) Coordination of Law Enforcement.--Nothing in this Act
or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to
inhibit or otherwise affect any coordinated law enforcement
effort by 1 or more States or other jurisdictions, including
Indian tribes, through interstate compact or otherwise,
that--
(1) provides for the administration of tobacco product laws
or laws pertaining to interstate sales or other sales of
tobacco products;
(2) provides for the seizure of tobacco products or other
property related to a violation of such laws; or
(3) establishes cooperative programs for the administration
of such laws.
(c) Treatment of State and Local Governments.--Nothing in
this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be
construed to authorize, deputize, or commission States or
local governments as instrumentalities of the United States.
(d) Enforcement Within Indian Country.--Nothing in this Act
or the amendments made by this Act shall prohibit, limit, or
restrict enforcement by the Attorney General of the United
States of this Act or an amendment made by this Act within
Indian country.
(e) Ambiguity.--Any ambiguity between the language of this
section or its application and any other provision of this
Act shall be resolved in favor of this section.
(f) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``Indian country'' has the meaning given that
term in section 1 of the Jenkins Act, as amended by this Act;
and
(2) the term ``tribal enterprise'' means any business
enterprise, regardless of whether incorporated or
unincorporated under Federal or tribal law, of an Indian
tribe or group of Indian tribes.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this
Act shall take effect on the date that is 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(b) BATFE Authority.--The amendments made by section 4
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this
Act, or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and
the application of the Act to any other person or
circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 8. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING THE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT
OF THIS ACT.
It is the sense of Congress that unique harms are
associated with online cigarette sales, including problems
with verifying the ages of consumers in the digital market
and the long-term health problems associated with the use of
certain tobacco products. This Act was enacted recognizing
the longstanding interest of Congress in urging compliance
with States' laws regulating remote sales of certain tobacco
products to citizens of those States, including the passage
of the Jenkins Act over 50 years ago, which established
reporting requirements for out-of-State companies that sell
certain tobacco products to citizens of the taxing States,
and which gave authority to the Department of Justice and the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to
enforce the Jenkins Act. In light of the unique harms and
circumstances surrounding the online sale of certain tobacco
products, this Act is intended to help collect cigarette
excise taxes, to stop tobacco sales to underage youth, and to
help the States enforce their laws that target the online
sales of certain tobacco products only. This Act is in no way
meant to create a precedent regarding the collection of State
sales or use taxes by, or the validity of efforts to impose
other types of taxes on, out-of-State entities that do not
have a physical presence within the taxing State.
The SPEAKER pro tempore: Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
General Leave
Mr. COHEN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and provide
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. COHEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, S. 1147, the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of
2009, or PACT Act, will allow law enforcement to strengthen their
efforts to combat illegal smuggling of tobacco products. Every year,
tens of billions of cigarettes are illegally smuggled across State
lines and across borders, cheating State and local governments out of
much-needed tax revenues. In fact, tax evasion is the chief motivator
for cigarette smuggling. Buying in a State where the cigarette tax is
low and selling illegally in a State with a higher tax, the smuggler
can sell at a discount and still turn a nice profit.
Cigarette smuggling costs States $1 billion in uncollected tax
revenue each year. The size of this illicit revenue stream has
attracted organized crime and even terrorist groups. Because of the
interstate scope of this criminal activity, as well as its sheer
magnitude, States cannot adequately address it on their own. It has
long been recognized as a Federal matter.
And there are Federal statutes. The Jenkins Act requires reporting
interstate cigarette sales to tax officials in the buyer's State. And
the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act prohibits knowingly dealing in
contraband cigarettes or smokeless tobacco.
But these statutes in their current form are no match for the
Internet. The Internet is being used to shepherd tobacco products
across State lines in massive amounts, and the existing Federal
statutes are unable to effectively stop them.
Internet-based smuggling operations are so mobile, in fact, that even
when the smugglers can be identified and pursued, they can act quickly
to shut down and simply reappear under a new name on a new Web site.
The PACT Act addresses the shortcomings in current law by targeting
the delivery systems for illegal Internet tobacco sales, the postal
system, and commercial delivery services.
First, the bill permanently prohibits, with limited exceptions,
sending tobacco products through the U.S. mail.
Second, vendors using commercial delivery services for retail sales
are required to notify the tax authorities in the receiving State,
conspicuously label all tobacco products, verify the purchasers are of
legal age, and keep careful records of all sales.
Third, the bill raises the offense of cigarette trafficking from a
misdemeanor to a felony.
Finally, the bill also authorizes the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives to inspect the premises and files of sellers
of significant quantities of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco.
S. 1147 passed the Senate on March 11 and is substantially similar to
H.R. 1676, which passed the House under suspension of the rules on May
21, 2009 by a 397-11 roll call vote.
I would like to thank Mr. Weiner for his leadership in sponsoring the
House version of this legislation. I also commend our ranking member,
Lamar Smith of Texas, for his leadership in making this a bipartisan
effort.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, S. 1147, the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking, or PACT,
Act of 2009, is bipartisan legislation that will help Federal, State,
and local law enforcement officials combat cigarette smuggling and
trafficking.
Today, the House considers the Senate version of this legislation.
The House passed similar bipartisan legislation last May, which I
cosponsored with my colleague from New York (Mr. Weiner).
{time} 1045
Tobacco smuggling has become one of the most prevalent forms of
smuggling in recent years, and its effects are felt not only in America
but around the world. The World Health Organization estimates that
illegal cigarettes account for over 10 percent, or approximately 600
billion cigarettes, of the almost 6 trillion cigarettes sold globally
each year. According to a study by the World Bank, cigarettes are
appealing to smugglers because taxes typically account for a large
portion of the sale price for cigarettes. Smugglers are, therefore,
able to sell contraband cigarettes at a significantly lower price,
making it highly profitable to traffic them for resale.
Tobacco smuggling traditionally involves the diversion of large
quantities of cigarettes from wholesale distribution into the market.
This usually occurs during shipment of the cigarettes,
[[Page 3676]]
thus allowing the traffickers to avoid most, if not all, of the taxes
that will be imposed at retail. The profits from tobacco trafficking
can be used to finance illegal activities, such as organized crime and
drug trafficking syndicates. In addition, the sale of smuggled tobacco
on the market deprives States of significant amounts of tax revenue
each year.
California officials estimate that taxes are unpaid on about 15
percent of all tobacco sold in its markets at a cost of $276 million a
year. In a recently released study, the State of New York, for example,
put its losses at more than $576 million per year. Recently, my home
State of Texas raised its cigarette taxes. This increase is supposed to
generate an additional $800 million in revenue for the State. This
revenue could be lost if smugglers continue to divert cigarettes for
resale on the underground market.
The PACT Act will help to ensure that States like California, New
York, and Texas receive or recover tax revenue that is due to them.
This bipartisan legislation closes loopholes in current tobacco
trafficking laws and provides law enforcement officials with ways to
combat the innovative methods being used by cigarette traffickers to
distribute their products.
Mr. Speaker, S. 1147 is supported by the Lung Cancer Alliance, the
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and more than 20 public health advocacy
organizations. A number of tobacco manufacturers and a majority of
State attorneys general also support passage of this bill. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the
silver-throated Representative from New York's Ninth Congressional
District (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. I thank you very much, and I thank the ranking member for
his informed remarks about this bill. I want to thank also the chairman
of our full committee for reaching it to this point.
You know, the fact is that the various States have different levels
of tax on their tobacco products. Some States are very high. My State
of New York is among the highest. Our city puts an additional tax. It
is one of the prerogatives of the different States--some have chosen to
tax more; some have chosen to tax less.
But the fact is that there is an enormous economy around avoiding
that tax, essentially violating the law. There are Internet tobacco
sites that exist with their sole purpose apparently being to deliver
tobacco to people outside the realm of taxation. That's a problem. It's
a problem not just because it makes it impossible for States to collect
taxes that they've levied, but it's also a problem because the sale of
Internet tobacco encourages underage smoking. It also makes it very
easy for anyone who wants to commit illicit acts.
When the Government Accounting Office took a look at a smuggling ring
that they discovered in the early part of this century, they found that
Hezbollah, the international terrorist organization, was using this
difference in taxes to fund their illicit activities. Here's how it
worked: They would purchase tobacco at a low tax rate in North
Carolina; they would ship it to a higher tax State in Michigan; and the
difference that they'd save by selling the cheaper tobacco in Michigan
would produce millions of dollars.
But it is not just international terrorist organizations and not just
underage smokers that are using this gap in the laws to undermine our
interstate commerce. It is also just everyday citizens who have become
scofflaws by using Internet tobacco sales.
So how does this PACT Act, which was sponsored by Senator Kohl and is
sponsored by my Republican friends in the House and passed by a broad
margin when we earlier considered this, how does this solve the
problem? Well, it does it in a couple of ways.
One, it is already by agreement that UPS, FedEx, DHL, the major
common carriers have said, You know what? We think it's wrong to be
facilitating this by making deliveries for Internet tobacco companies,
so we're not going to do it. They've agreed to it. It's in place in all
50 States. There's only one common carrier that today still delivers
tobacco through the mail--the United States Postal Service. They came
to us and said, Congress, if you really want us not to mail this,
you've got to define what a nonmailable material is, and you've got to
add that to the list. That's what the PACT Act does. It says that you
can no longer mail tobacco through the mail once this becomes law. So
it's going to make it very, very difficult, if not impossible, for
Internet tobacco sales to continue.
A second thing that it does is that transaction that I described,
where you buy something cheaply and don't pay taxes on it or pay a
lower tax than you're supposed to in your State, is already a violation
of the law. But effectively, those violations are never prosecuted
because under the Jenkins Act, which is the structure of the law that
enforces this, it's only a misdemeanor. Well, that's going to change.
In this bill, it's going to become a felony. If you think you're going
to skirt the law by driving to your neighborhood Indian reservation,
buying boxes and boxes or cases and cases of cigarettes, not paying
taxes on it, well, now that's a violation of the Jenkins Act that rises
to a felony. So it might make sense for the U.S. Attorney or for an
attorney general to say, You know what? We're going to do a stakeout
here, and if we find untaxed tobacco is being sold or undertaxed
tobacco is being sold, we're going to crack down on it.
A third thing that it does is it increases the enforcement of the act
that is supposed to happen. When you buy something in a low tax State,
you're supposed to pay the taxes in your home State. So this is going
to increase the reporting requirements. Anyone that sells these
products is going to have to report back to your home State on the
taxes that are owed.
Now, what is this going to mean? In addition to cutting down on
underage smoking, this is going to mean that States and localities are
going to find that they're going to start collecting the taxes they're
supposed to. And again, we have people who support lower tobacco taxes
on this bill, people who support higher tobacco taxes on this bill.
This is not an issue of whether you think there should or should not be
tobacco taxes. I think there is bipartisan agreement that there is,
within the right of the 50 States, the ability to levy this taxes, and
the sovereignty of those 50 States depend on them being able to collect
it. What this is going to be able to do now is we are going to make
sure that, in the context of this debate, that these tobacco taxes get
collected.
No one knows exactly what was being evaded here, but there was one
estimate that said as much as $1 billion in New York State alone is
being evaded, and we are finally going to be able to get control of
this problem. All 51 State attorneys general have supported the PACT
Act, the National Association of Convenience Stores, the American
Wholesalers Association. Even the major tobacco companies who
understand that there is a regime that has been set up in the 50
States, they want it to be followed, too. So companies like Altria and
Lorillard are saying, You know what? While there are a lot of hot
debates about tobacco use in this country, there should not be a hot
debate about whether or not we enforce the laws of the 50 States.
I also want to thank my Republican colleagues here. Mr. Smith and his
colleagues and a bipartisan coalition said, You know what? You're going
to be tough on crime; we're going to be tough on this crime as well,
and have every step of the way made suggestions that have improved this
legislation.
And also--this is the part that is the toughest to say--I want to
thank my colleagues in the Senate. There have been 290 times that we
have sent legislation in their direction, and while I think it was
Benjamin Franklin who called the Senate ``the cooling saucer of our
democracy,'' they've been more akin to a meat locker in recent months.
And I want to commend Senator Kohl for figuring out a way to extract
something from that frigid environment. Hopefully, we'll be getting
this to the President's desk.
[[Page 3677]]
This is an important thing, what we're doing here. This is going to
allow States to collect the revenue they're supposed to have. Every
antismoking organization that's concerned about underage smoking has
been active in making this happen--27 public health groups, the
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the American Heart Association,
American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association. I think all of
us who are concerned about keeping tobacco out of the hands of children
recognize that this giant gap in our law that allows them to get it on
the Internet without any age verification, which is another element of
this bill that's going to become law, has a stake in making this bill a
reality.
I want to thank Mr. Cohen for so deftly managing this bill.
I would like to thank members of the Democratic and Republican staff
of the Judiciary Committee and my staff, who worked tirelessly on this
legislation. In particular, I would like to thank Perry Apelbaum, Ted
Kalo and Danielle Brown on the House Judiciary Committee, Jesselyn
McCurdy, Kimani Little and Caroline Lynch with the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, Marni Karlin on
the Senate Judiciary Committee, John Mautz with Congressman Coble's
staff and Joe Dunn on my staff.
I would also like to thank Artie Katz, Lenny Schwartz and Steve
Rosenthal with the New York Association of Wholesale Marketers, John
Hoel and Sarah Knakmuhs with Altria, Eric Lindblom and Brian Hickey
with the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, Anne Holloway with the
American Wholesale Marketers Association, Blair Tinkle with the
National Association of Attorneys General, Lyle Beckwith with the
National Association of Convenience Stores and Laurie McKay with
Dickstein Shapiro.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S.
1147. While I acknowledge the importance of curbing underage smoking
and respect this bill's intent to prevent funding of terrorist groups,
I believe the bill threatens the government-to-government relationship
with Native American tribes set out by our founders in the U.S.
Constitution.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority
to regulate commerce with Indian tribes. However, this bill would open
the door to allowing States to bring felony charges against tribes and
tribal businesses who participate in tribe-to-tribe transactions.
Two of the tribes I have the honor of representing, the Rosebud Sioux
and Yankton Sioux, have contacted me with their concerns. They also do
not object to this bill and support reducing cigarette trafficking.
They simply ask that the bill be amended so that tribal sovereignty,
recognized through hundreds of treaties and reaffirmed through
executive orders, judicial decisions, and congressional action, not be
encroached.
I urge this body to respect tribal sovereignty and it is for this
reason I could not support this bill today.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend both Ranking Member
Smith and Mr. Weiner. This is bipartisan, bicameral, and bilegally. And
since it's tri-bi, I encourage everybody to vote ``aye'' on S. 1147.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, S. 1147.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order:
H. Res. 1089, by the yeas and nays;
H. Res. 1167, by the yeas and nays;
H. Res. 1184, by the yeas and nays.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
____________________
RECOGNIZING 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF AUGUSTANA COLLEGE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1089,
as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) that the House suspend
the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1089, as amended.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 421,
nays 0, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 120]
YEAS--421
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
[[Page 3678]]
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--9
Barrett (SC)
Brown (SC)
Cuellar
Deal (GA)
Engel
Perriello
Schrader
Stark
Young (FL)
{time} 1127
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the resolution was amended so as to read: ``Recognizing
the 150th anniversary of Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, announced
that the Senate has passed without amendment a concurrent resolution of
the House of the following title:
H. Con. Res. 249. Concurrent resolution commemorating the
45th anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the role that it played
in ensuring the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The message also announced that the Senate has passed a bill of the
following title in which the concurrence of the House is requested:
S. 1782. An act to provide improvements for the operations
of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.
The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the amendment of
the House to the amendment of the Senate to the amendment of the House
to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2847) ``An Act making
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and
Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2010, and for other purposes.''.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). Without objection, 5-minute
voting will continue.
There was no objection.
____________________
SUPPORTING SOCIAL WORK MONTH AND WORLD SOCIAL WORK DAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1167,
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) that the House suspend
the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1167.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 419,
nays 0, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 121]
YEAS--419
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--11
Barrett (SC)
Bright
Brown (SC)
Cuellar
Deal (GA)
Engel
Gohmert
Markey (CO)
Schrader
Stark
Young (FL)
[[Page 3679]]
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining on this vote.
{time} 1135
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. BRIGHT. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 121, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
____________________
CONGRATULATING UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MEN'S BASKETBALL TEAM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1184,
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) that the House suspend
the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1184.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 279,
nays 132, answered ``present'' 6, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 122]
YEAS--279
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Alexander
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Butterfield
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radanovich
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--132
Aderholt
Akin
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Davis (KY)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Granger
Griffith
Guthrie
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lance
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Petri
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rahall
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Young (AK)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--6
Chandler
DeFazio
Green, Gene
Kagen
Marshall
Oberstar
NOT VOTING--13
Barrett (SC)
Brown (SC)
Cantor
Cuellar
Deal (GA)
Doyle
Engel
Grijalva
Pence
Schrader
Stark
Waxman
Young (FL)
{time} 1143
Messrs. ROGERS of Michigan, LANCE, and SMITH of Texas changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 44 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
____________________
{time} 1347
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. McCollum) at 1 o'clock and 47 minutes p.m.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules
on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which
the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule XX.
Record votes on postponed questions will be taken later.
____________________
ROY WILSON POST OFFICE
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4214) to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 45300 Portola Avenue in Palm Desert, California, as
the ``Roy Wilson Post Office''.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4214
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page 3680]]
SECTION 1. ROY WILSON POST OFFICE.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 45300 Portola Avenue in Palm Desert,
California, shall be known and designated as the ``Roy Wilson
Post Office''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Roy Wilson Post Office''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
General Leave
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. CLAY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4214, a bill to designate
the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 45300 Portola Avenue
in Palm Desert, California, as the ``Roy Wilson Post Office.'' The late
Roy Wilson devoted his career to public service, serving as county
supervisor for Riverside County, California, for 15 years. This
followed 17 years of service on the Palm Desert City Council.
His passing last August brought a great deal of sadness to his
colleagues, his staff, and his community. He is remembered for working
with his colleagues to find common ground and to seek compromise. His
hard work earned the respect and trust of his colleagues and
constituents, and today, with this measure, we honor his life and
service.
This bill was introduced by the gentlewoman from California,
Representative Mary Bono Mack, on December 7, 2009. It was referred to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which ordered it
reported by unanimous consent on March 4, 2010.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
measure.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4214, designating the
facility of the United States Post Office located at 45300 Portola
Avenue in Palm Desert, California, as the ``Roy Wilson Post Office.''
I think my illustrious colleague from Missouri said it very well. I
think there is no reason to repeat more. Mr. Wilson served his
community in many ways. As a former county supervisor myself, I think
it is very appropriate to recognize how important that level of
government, the county government, especially in California, is, and
the many years of service that Mr. Wilson gave his community, not just
as a county supervisor but in many other forms that are quite
appropriate.
I am proud to join the gentleman from Missouri and the gentlelady,
Mary Bono Mack, from California, in supporting this resolution.
I reserve my time.
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I have no speakers, so I will continue to
reserve.
Mrs. BONO MACK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory and
legacy of a dear friend and selfless public leader. Serving one of our
State's fastest growing regions, Riverside County Supervisor Roy Wilson
passed away in August after many years of service to our community. I
consider it a great privilege to honor this remarkable and humble man
by naming a post office located in Supervisor Wilson's home town of
Palm Desert, CA, as the Roy Wilson Post Office.
Some of my colleagues representing nearby Districts in southern
California may remember Roy Wilson and his many years of outstanding
work on behalf of residents of our region. His integrity and steady
leadership was invaluable and he has been missed by all who knew and
loved him. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with his loving
wife, Aurora, and the rest of his family.
Roy Wilson represented the 4th District of Riverside County for 15
years, following 17 years of service on the Palm Desert City Council.
Roy worked on many issues important to members of our community such as
improving air quality, providing valuable education, and reducing
spending to help strengthen the county's budget.
For many years, Roy Wilson taught at our local community college,
College of the Desert, in Palm Desert, California. This campus has for
decades been an important educational resource to local residents
wishing to pursue higher education. Roy was instrumental in helping the
campus grow and excel.
In addition, Roy Wilson worked to help protect the environment in our
region through his service of 22 years on the governing board of the
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Our desert community
attracts residents and visitors through its natural beauty, hiking
trails and mountainous views. Through Roy Wilson's leadership, he truly
helped preserve the health and well-being of our unique environment.
In recent years, as our County faced significant financial
challenges, Roy moved to rein in spending in order to help improve the
budget--difficult, but necessary in these financially troubling times.
The many capacities in which Roy worked to the betterment of our
community are clear, but his humble leadership is what truly made him
so unique and effective. Roy was able to engage in both sides of any
discussion and truly earned the trust and respect of many local
residents and leaders.
As a cherished member of our community, where many residents called
him a friend and neighbor, this postal naming would be a special
tribute to the late Supervisor Roy Wilson.
I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring this exceptional man and
helping me and residents living in our community honor his life and
legacy.
I'd like to thank Subcommittee Chairman Lynch and Ranking Member
Chaffetz for their help in moving this bill forward.
Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, in the spirit of cooperation with the
leadership, I will at this time yield back my time, and I ask for
support of the bill.
Mr. CLAY. I thank my friend from California (Mr. Bilbray) for joining
me in urging our colleagues to recognize the life and work of Roy
Wilson by supporting this measure, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 4214.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
PLAIN WRITING ACT OF 2010
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 946) to enhance citizen access to Government information and
services by establishing that Government documents issued to the public
must be written clearly, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 946
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 ``Plain Writing Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to improve the effectiveness and
accountability of Federal agencies to the public by promoting
clear Government communication that the public can understand
and use.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means an Executive agency,
as defined under section 105 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Covered document.--The term ``covered document''--
(A) means any document that--
(i) is relevant to obtaining any Federal Government benefit
or service or filing taxes;
(ii) provides information about any Federal Government
benefit or service; or
(iii) explains to the public how to comply with a
requirement the Federal Government administers or enforces;
[[Page 3681]]
(B) includes (whether in paper or electronic form) a
letter, publication, form, notice, or instruction; and
(C) does not include a regulation.
(3) Plain writing.--The term ``plain writing'' means
writing that the intended audience can readily understand and
use because that writing is clear, concise, well-organized,
and follows other best practices of plain writing.
SEC. 4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.
(a) Preparation for Implementation of Plain Writing
Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 9 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the head of each agency shall--
(A) designate 1 or more senior officials within the agency
to oversee the agency implementation of this Act;
(B) communicate the requirements of this Act to the
employees of the agency;
(C) train employees of the agency in plain writing;
(D) establish a process for overseeing the ongoing
compliance of the agency with the requirements of this Act;
(E) create and maintain a plain writing section of the
agency's website that is accessible from the homepage of the
agency's website; and
(F) designate 1 or more agency points-of-contact to receive
and respond to public input on--
(i) agency implementation of this Act; and
(ii) the agency reports required under section 5.
(2) Website.--The plain writing section described under
paragraph (1)(E) shall--
(A) inform the public of agency compliance with the
requirements of this Act; and
(B) provide a mechanism for the agency to receive and
respond to public input on--
(i) agency implementation of this Act; and
(ii) the agency reports required under section 5.
(b) Requirement To Use Plain Writing in New Documents.--
Beginning not later than 1 year after the date of enactment
of this Act, each agency shall use plain writing in every
covered document of the agency that the agency issues or
substantially revises.
(c) Guidance.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall develop and issue guidance on
implementing the requirements of this section. The Director
may designate a lead agency, and may use interagency working
groups to assist in developing and issuing the guidance.
(2) Interim guidance.--Before the issuance of guidance
under paragraph (1), agencies may follow the guidance of--
(A) the writing guidelines developed by the Plain Language
Action and Information Network; or
(B) guidance provided by the head of the agency that is
consistent with the guidelines referred to in subparagraph
(A).
SEC. 5. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) Initial Report.--Not later than 9 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, the head of each agency shall
publish on the plain writing section of the agency's website
a report that describes the agency plan for compliance with
the requirements of this Act.
(b) Annual Compliance Report.--Not later than 18 months
after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually
thereafter, the head of each agency shall publish on the
plain writing section of the agency's website a report on
agency compliance with the requirements of this Act.
SEC. 6. JUDICIAL REVIEW AND ENFORCEABILITY.
(a) Judicial Review.--There shall be no judicial review of
compliance or noncompliance with any provision of this Act.
(b) Enforceability.--No provision of this Act shall be
construed to create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable by any administrative or judicial
action.
SEC. 7. BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF PAYGO LEGISLATION FOR THIS ACT.
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
General Leave
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. CLAY. In recognition of Sunshine Week, today we are considering
H.R. 946, legislation aimed at making the government more open and
accessible. H.R. 946, the Plain Language Act, was introduced by
Representative Bruce Braley of Iowa. This bill requires agencies to use
plain writing in government documents.
The administration recently issued a directive on open government.
One of the simple principles of the directive is that information
should be accessible. This is the aim of this bill. This bill will make
information more accessible by requiring agencies to write documents in
a way that is clear and easily understood. We often focus on the need
to make information available, but even if the information is
available, it isn't useful unless it can be understood.
AARP wrote a letter supporting this bill. And it says, ``the use of
plain language in documents issued to the public will save the Federal
Government an enormous amount of time now spent helping citizens
understand the correspondence they receive. It will also reduce errors
in the public's response to the information the government sends out,
as well as minimize complaints from frustrated citizens trying to
decipher overly dense and nontransparent communications.''
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this worthy bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. Madam
Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I want to join with my colleague from Missouri in
supporting this bill. I really think that we need to see more bills
like this. Plain language sounds so simple, but for so long the
American people have been asking for Washington to do what it tells
everyone else to do, and that is reform itself. You shouldn't have to
hire a lawyer to be able to understand what the government is telling
you or doing, and sadly that has been historically the fact. And I want
to thank the author of this bill for bringing this forward.
I hope that this is the beginning of the melting of the gridlock of
always trying to not change the way Washington operates. I hope this is
the beginning of saying, before we ask the private citizens to change
the way they live their lifestyle, the way they act, before we start
asking the private sector to reform their way of operation, we should
lead through example by changing the way Washington operates and the
way the Federal Government relates not just to its services but to its
constituency. And I think this bill does that.
I think one of the greatest frustrations that we find in the American
people today is the fact that they feel that Washington is
disconnected. And a bill like this points out how disconnected, that
when we can't even send out notices to inform our citizens of what is
going on, what they need to do, or what is possible--we can't even do
it in plain language. We have to do it in a legalese that may sound
good here in Washington, but it is not understood out in the real
streets of America.
So I ask my colleagues, again, to use this as an example of just the
first of many. And so we can look at not just reforming how we
communicate, but how we govern, how we represent, and how we tell the
American people we really do finally care enough to change the way we
are operating, and that for once, Washington is going to lead through
example rather than edict.
I would again compliment the author and the Representative of the
majority for bringing this forward.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I yield to the chief sponsor of this
legislation, my friend from Iowa, Representative Braley, as much time
as he may consume.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. I thank my friend from Missouri for giving me
time to speak on this bill. I thank my colleague from California for
his impassioned support of this bill, because I believe this is the
little-engine-that-could in terms of how we change the way that the
Federal Government communicates with American citizens. And I think the
people would find it surprising to know that somebody who
[[Page 3682]]
spent his life practicing law would be introducing this bill. But the
amazing thing is I was introduced to the concept of plain language in
the Iowa Supreme Court's 1983 decision requiring all jury instructions
to be written in plain language so that people could understand how
their laws impact things.
That's why this bill is so important, because it gives the government
the responsibility to communicate effectively with the citizens that we
serve.
One of the things that is so amazing is that when you look at most
government publications, you would think they were not written for
their intended audience. And that is the basic premise of the plain
language movement. It's when you write, you think about your intended
audience and how you communicate effectively with them in words they
can understand.
{time} 1400
This bill requires the Federal Government to write documents, such as
letters from the Social Security Administration, notices from the
Department of Veterans Affairs, in simple, easy-to-understand language.
When I first introduced this bill in the 110th Congress, I was
pleased when it passed the House floor by a vote of 376-1.
Unfortunately, it was never taken up by the Senate. I am hopeful and
confident that this time around it will be considered by the Senate and
signed into law so that the public will get the kind of government
service they deserve.
As my colleague has pointed out, a large array of organizations who
deal with our constituents that are impacted by Federal policies
support this movement. And I want to thank the Oversight and Government
Reform chairman, my colleague, Ed Towns, and Ranking Member Darrell
Issa for their support of this important bill and also thank Oversight
Government Reform staffer Krista Boyd for all of her help in making
this happen.
Anyone who has done their own taxes knows the headache of trying to
understand pages and pages of confusing forms and instructions. There
is no reason why this bill can't eliminate Federal gobbledygook. And we
can honor our friend and former colleague, Maury Maverick, Sr., who
coined the phrased ``gobbledygook'' in describing bureaucratic language
that is as hard to understand as the call of wild turkeys in his native
Texas.
I would also remind my colleagues that this plain language in
government communications has been incorporated into the Senate-passed
health care bill, it was incorporated into the House-passed health care
bill, and it is important that we move forward from this point in
changing the way that government speaks to its citizens.
Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Again, I would like to thank the author. And let me clarify: there
are many of us who could explain what the turkeys are talking about in
Texas, but I don't think it is appropriate on this floor.
But I have to say that you are right, so much of this documentation
is written where the public can't understand it. And, to be blunt about
it, as somebody who has worked in government since I was 24, they don't
want the public to understand. They purposely think that legalese and
elite discussion and text is some way to be able to safeguard
traditional government structures; and I think that this breaks down
that, and I think you would agree.
I will say this as a former mayor. If a city manager sent out a
letter to a constituent of a mayor or city council member in the manner
that the Federal Government sends it out, that city manager wouldn't be
employed for very long. I think that is the same standard that we
should hold for the Federal Government. If it isn't appropriate for our
council members or mayors or our school district representatives to
send out those kinds of information, to have that kind of relationship
between the constituency and the taxpayer and the government, then,
doggone it, it shouldn't be appropriate for the Federal Government to
think that somehow we are so high and mighty that we can't break down
and finally start using plain speech and straight talk. And I think
that is what your bill starts with, and I think it is a step in the
right direction. I just hope to see us follow through.
And I will say this personally: my wife is a tax consultant, and I
would love to see the day that we make the IRS and tax consultants
obsolete so I can see more of my wife during certain times, put them
both out of business. And maybe this is one step there.
I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. I think you have hit on a very important point
and, that is, we don't realize how much time and money are wasted by
people trying to figure out forms that they can't understand. They call
Federal agencies, they go into phone trees where they go on hold and
they wait and wait and wait. This can be small business owners. It can
be elected officials at the level that you are talking about, because a
lot of the policy we set intersects with local and State government
agencies. And, because of that, by improving the quality of information
we are providing at the outset, it is going to greatly reduce the
demands on many Federal employees. And that is another side effect of
this legislation.
I can't agree more with you that it is important to take this step
now so that we can start to send a message that we are serious about
improved transparency in our communications with our constituents, and
I think that it is great that we are moving forward in a bipartisan
step to do that.
Mr. BILBRAY. Reclaiming my time, I would actually even ask the
gentleman to take a look at the fact that it is sad that in the United
States, that if you go to the translated interpretations of our
government regs, they tend to be much more simply put and much easier
to understand than the so-called English legalese that is being put out
there. So I think the challenge is really one that is long and weighty,
and so I thank you very much for it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). Members are gently reminded to
address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I would like to now yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I would like to first thank the chair of
the subcommittee, and of course the ranking member of the full
committee, Congressman Issa, and of course Congressman Clay who chairs
the subcommittee, and Congressman Bilbray who is the ranking member of
the subcommittee, and Congressman Braley who was really responsible for
us being here today to move this legislation forward.
This is Sunshine Week, and this is sunshine legislation. This bill
requires government documents to be in plain writing. The bill defines
plain writing as writing that the intended audience can readily
understand and use because it is clear, concise, well-organized, and
follows other best practices of plain writing.
Requiring government documents to be written clearly will make it
easier for Americans to understand government communications, and it
will make the Federal Government more accountable.
President Clinton issued a memo in 1998 directing the agencies to
write documents in plain language. Twelve years have passed since that
memo was written, and most agencies are still not taking the issue very
seriously. But I think this legislation will let them know that this is
something that we are not going to walk away from. It is important that
they follow through.
In a letter supporting this bill, the American College of Physicians
Foundation wrote: ``We frequently hear from our members that they have
trouble understanding some government letters and forms. Our intent is
to ensure that government documents created for consumers are clearly
and plainly written.''
H.R. 946 was amended during committee consideration to focus the
scope
[[Page 3683]]
of the bill on the type of documents that are most in need of
attention. As amended, the bill requires agencies to use plain writing
in documents that deal with the Federal benefits or services. This
means, for example, that the Department of Health and Human Services
will have to use plain writing when it issues instructions under the
Medicare prescription drug program; and I think that is so important.
The bill also requires the IRS to write tax documents in plain
writing, and it requires agencies to use plain writing in documents
that explain how to comply with the Federal requirements. This will
make it easier for Americans, especially small businesses, to comply
with the law.
In a letter supporting H.R. 946, a group of small business
organizations wrote: ``Small business owners strive to adhere to a vast
array of Federal obligations but often have difficulty deciphering what
is being required of them.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. TOWNS. The use of plain language is a commonsense approach to
saving the Federal Government money, and small business owners time,
effort, and money. This legislation makes good sense, it is good
government, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to use this instance to thank Chairman Towns. At a time
when the American people are crying out for bipartisan effort, I think
his leadership on a very critical committee, the Oversight Committee,
has been stellar in a manner that the rest of America I think would
love to see the rest of this town operate as well as your committee
does, Mr. Chairman. And thank you very much for that bipartisan effort,
including everyone in the process.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Again, I call on all of us to vote together to support this bill and
to use it as a marker for more progress at clarifying and opening up
the government process and allowing the average citizen to participate.
And the only way to do that is for Washington to change the way we do
business.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, in closing, let me first thank the gentleman
from California for his comments and remarks about common sense and
disclosure.
The bill requires each agency to train its employees in plain writing
and to report annually on the agency's efforts to comply with this act.
Under this bill, each agency must devote a section of its Web site to
its plain writing efforts. Agencies also must provide a way for members
of the public to provide input. This will allow small businesses or
other members of the public to highlight particular documents that are
complex or confusing. This bill will make the government more
transparent and efficient, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 946, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
ELECTRONIC MESSAGE PRESERVATION ACT
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1387) to amend title 44, United States Code, to require
preservation of certain electronic records by Federal agencies, to
require a certification and reports relating to Presidential records,
and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1387
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 ``Electronic Message
Preservation Act''.
SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF ELECTRONIC MESSAGES.
(a) Requirement for Preservation of Electronic Messages.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 29 of title 44, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 2911. Electronic messages
``(a) Regulations Required.--Not later than 18 months after
the date of the enactment of this section, the Archivist
shall promulgate regulations governing agency preservation of
electronic messages that are records. Such regulations shall,
at a minimum--
``(1) require the electronic capture, management, and
preservation of such electronic records in accordance with
the records disposition requirements of chapter 33 of this
title;
``(2) require that such electronic records are readily
accessible for retrieval through electronic searches;
``(3) establish mandatory minimum functional requirements
for electronic records management systems to ensure
compliance with the requirements in paragraphs (1) and (2);
``(4) establish a process to certify that Federal agencies'
electronic records management systems meet the functional
requirements established under paragraph (3); and
``(5) include timelines for agency compliance with the
regulations that ensure compliance as expeditiously as
practicable but not later than four years after the date of
the enactment of this section.
``(b) Coverage of Other Electronic Records.--To the extent
practicable, the regulations promulgated under subsection (a)
shall also include requirements for the capture, management,
and preservation of other electronic records.
``(c) Compliance by Federal Agencies.--Each Federal agency
shall comply with the regulations promulgated under
subsection (a).
``(d) Review of Regulations Required.--The Archivist shall
periodically review and, as necessary, amend the regulations
promulgated under this section.
``(e) Reports on Implementation of Regulations.--
``(1) Agency report to archivist.--Not later than four
years after the date of the enactment of this section, the
head of each Federal agency shall submit to the Archivist a
report on the agency's compliance with the regulations
promulgated under this section.
``(2) Archivist report to congress.--Not later than 90 days
after receipt of all reports required by paragraph (1), the
Archivist shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives a report on Federal agency compliance with
the regulations promulgated under this section.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
29 of title 44, United States Code, is amended by adding
after the item relating to section 2910 the following new
item:
``2911. Electronic messages.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 2901 of title 44, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (14);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (15) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(16) the term `electronic messages' means electronic mail
and other electronic messaging systems that are used for
purposes of communicating between individuals; and
``(17) the term `electronic records management system'
means software designed to manage electronic records,
including by--
``(A) categorizing and locating records;
``(B) ensuring that records are retained as long as
necessary;
``(C) identifying records that are due for disposition; and
``(D) ensuring the storage, retrieval, and disposition of
records.''.
SEC. 3. PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS.
(a) Additional Regulations Relating to Presidential
Records.--
(1) In general.--Section 2206 of title 44, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
[[Page 3684]]
``(5) provisions for establishing standards necessary for
the economical and efficient management of electronic
Presidential records during the President's term of office,
including--
``(A) records management controls necessary for the
capture, management, and preservation of electronic messages;
``(B) records management controls necessary to ensure that
electronic messages are readily accessible for retrieval
through electronic searches; and
``(C) a process to certify the electronic records
management system to be used by the President for the
purposes of complying with the requirements in subparagraphs
(A) and (B).''.
(2) Definition.--Section 2201 of title 44, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraphs:
``(5) The term `electronic messages' has the meaning
provided in section 2901(16) of this title.
``(6) The term `electronic records management system' has
the meaning provided in section 2901(17) of this title.''.
(b) Certification of President's Management of Presidential
Records.--
(1) Certification required.--Chapter 22 of title 44, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``Sec. 2208. Certification of the President's management of
Presidential records
``(a) Annual Certification.--The Archivist shall annually
certify whether the electronic records management controls
established by the President meet requirements under sections
2203(a) and 2206(5) of this title.
``(b) Report to Congress.--The Archivist shall report
annually to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives on the status of the certification.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
22 of title 44, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new item:
``2208. Certification of the President's management of Presidential
records.''.
(c) Report to Congress.--Section 2203(f) of title 44,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(4) One year following the conclusion of a President's
term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms
one year following the conclusion of the last term, the
Archivist shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives a report on--
``(A) the volume and format of electronic Presidential
records deposited into that President's Presidential archival
depository; and
``(B) whether the electronic records management controls of
that President met the requirements under sections 2203(a)
and 2206(5) of this title.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 4. PROCEDURES TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF
CLASSIFIED RECORDS FROM NATIONAL ARCHIVES.
(a) In General.--The Archivist of the United States shall
prescribe internal procedures to prevent the unauthorized
removal of classified records from the National Archives and
Records Administration or the destruction or damage of such
records, including when such records are accessed or searched
electronically. The procedures shall apply to all National
Archives and Records Administration facilities authorized to
store classified records and include the following
prohibitions:
(1) No person, other than covered personnel, shall view
classified records in any room that is not secure except in
the presence of National Archives and Records Administration
personnel or under video surveillance.
(2) No person, other than covered personnel, shall at any
time be left alone with classified records, unless that
person is under video surveillance.
(3) No person, other than covered personnel, shall conduct
any review of classified records while in the possession of
any cell phone or other personal communication device.
(4) All persons seeking access to review classified
records, as a precondition to such access, must consent to a
search of their belongings upon conclusion of their records
review.
(5) All notes and other writings prepared by persons other
than covered personnel during the course of a review of
classified records shall be retained by the National Archives
and Records Administration in a secure facility until such
notes and other writings are determined to be unclassified,
are declassified, or are securely transferred to another
secure facility.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``records'' has the meaning provided in
section 3301 of title 44, United States Code.
(2) The term ``covered personnel'' means any individual--
(A) who has an appropriate and necessary reason for
accessing classified records, as determined by the Archivist;
and
(B) who is either--
(i) an officer or employee of the Federal Government with
appropriate security clearances; or
(ii) any personnel with appropriate security clearances of
a Federal contractor authorized in writing to act for
purposes of this section by an officer or employee of the
Federal Government.
SEC. 5. RESTRICTIONS ON ACCESS TO PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS.
Section 2204 of title 44, United States Code (relating to
restrictions on access to presidential records) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) The Archivist shall not make available any original
presidential records to any individual claiming access to any
presidential record as a designated representative under
section 2205(3) of this title if that individual has been
convicted of a crime relating to the review, retention,
removal, or destruction of records of the Archives.''.
SEC. 6. BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF PAYGO LEGISLATION FOR THIS ACT.
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
General Leave
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 1387, the Electronic Message Preservation Act, is another open-
government bill that we are considering in celebration of Sunshine
Week. This bill modernizes the requirements of the Federal Records Act
and the Presidential Records Act to ensure that Federal agencies and
the White House preserve emails and other electronic messages. H.R.
1387 was introduced by Representative Holt, and it is substantially
similar to H.R. 5811, a bill that passed the House last year with
bipartisan support.
This bill requires agencies and the White House to adopt and maintain
records management and retention policies that are consistent with
modern technology. Under current law, Federal agencies have broad
discretion to determine how electronic messages are preserved.
In a 2008 report, the Government Accountability Office found that
many agencies rely on unreliable ``print and file'' systems for
preserving electronic records, including email. GAO reviewed the
practices of senior agency officials and determined that emails were
not retained in adequate recordkeeping systems, making the email
records easier to lose or delete and harder to find and use.
Last week, the National Security Archive awarded its sixth annual
Rosemary Award for worst open-government performance to the Chief
Information Officers Council. The council was chosen because it has
never addressed the failure of the government to save its email
electronically.
H.R. 1387 directs the Archivist of the United States to issue
regulations requiring agencies to preserve emails in an electronic
format. These regulations must cover, at a minimum, the capture,
management, preservation, and electronic retrieval of electronic
messages.
{time} 1415
The bill requires the Archivist to establish a process to certify the
electronic records management systems used by the agencies.
At this time, Madam Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to join in
passage of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page 3685]]
Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, this is a classic example of trying to work together
to open up the system, allow the transparency that the American people
are demanding, and I strongly support its intention and its execution.
Madam Speaker, you may remember, when we got here in 1995, that there
were Members of Congress who could not understand the concept of
sending electronic emails between offices or outside. It was alien to
Washington to be so technologically plugged in. It just shows you how
times have changed. Now we're finally starting to address the
technology. I think the gentleman from Missouri even recognized that we
need to really push harder at opening up the system, embracing the new
technologies that allow not only the public to know better, but also
the representatives of the public to be able to function in a much more
efficient manner.
This bill is truly one that we have been trying to work on for years.
It's one that was controversial in certain circles, but I think it's
one that we need to move forward with. I hope, again, that this is
another one of those steps that the Government Oversight Committee is
looking to to set an example for the rest the Congress and the rest of
Washington to find reasons to get to ``yes,'' to find reasons to work
together, and to find reasons to do it better. I think that that is one
thing we can do here.
Madam Speaker, I have to say while speaking on this item that it's
sad that, on the down side, we have been trying for over a decade to do
something the new President has talked a lot about, and that's using e-
technology for electronic medical records. And the fact is, the Federal
Government has been trying to develop that for our veterans and our
active duty military for over a decade and still has not been able to
implement it. So I hope this is one step towards becoming comfortable
with reviving, restoring, and really redesigning the way we approach e-
technology and new technology and that we will embrace it rather than
being terrified by it, like some people were in the nineties when we
showed up.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. I couldn't agree more with my friend from California. We
hope this is the impetus to spur the development--the successful
development of electronic medical records, because we know what the
savings would mean to our health care system and we know that it can
possibly save lives by reducing errors.
So at this time, Madam Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).
Mr. TOWNS. I thank the chair of the subcommittee for yielding and
thank Congressman Bilbray from California for his work on this
committee, and Congressman Hodes, and of course the ranking member of
the full committee, Congressman Issa. I think that when you work
together, you can come up with strong legislation that can truly make a
difference. I also would like to thank the staff who worked on this
legislation as well.
I think that when we look at electronic records, when we look at
information that needs to be preserved, I really feel that this
legislation gets us to where we need to go. I think now, more than
ever, we have to make certain that this information is held at least
for a certain period of time so people can make an assessment to see in
terms of where we might have made mistakes, they can now correct them.
So I want to salute you for the work you have done, Chairman Clay,
and of course Ranking Member Bilbray, and of course all the staff
members who worked so hard to bring us to where we are today.
Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, I would like to close by thanking the
ranking member and full committee chairman for allowing the minority to
participate in the formation of this bill. There are so many committees
that aren't allowing the minority to participate. I think this is
really a nice example of the cooperation that I think the American
people want to see and don't see enough of. I want to thank the
chairman and ranking member for allowing us to participate in the
process.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Let me also thank the ranking member for his participation.
As we have stated earlier, this is Sunshine Week. It's time for
openness and accountability. I appreciate participating with you in
these series of bills.
In closing, let me also mention that in this bill we are also
considering an amendment that makes a number of drafting corrections
suggested by the National Archives. For example, the amendment
clarifies that the bill addresses electronic Presidential records
rather than all Presidential records. H.R. 1387 will make the
government more accountable by protecting an important part of the
historical record, and I urge every Member to join me in supporting
this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 1387, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
SENSIBLE STEPS TOWARD A BALANCED BUDGET ACT
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 4825) to require any amounts remaining in a
Member's Representational Allowance at the end of a fiscal year to be
deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction or to reduce
the Federal debt.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4825
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REQUIRING AMOUNTS REMAINING IN MEMBERS'
REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCES TO BE USED FOR
DEFICIT REDUCTION OR TO REDUCE THE FEDERAL
DEBT.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, any amounts appropriated for Members' Representational
Allowances for the House of Representatives for a fiscal year
which remain after all payments are made under such
Allowances for the year shall be deposited in the Treasury
and used for deficit reduction, except that in the case of a
fiscal year for which there is no Federal budget deficit,
such amounts shall be used to reduce the Federal debt (in
such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury considers
appropriate).
(b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect
to fiscal year 2011 and each succeeding fiscal year.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Harper) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
General Leave
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill now under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. I'm delighted now to bring to the floor
this worthy bill offered by my colleague, and yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to
discuss the bill I introduced with Mr. Peters, the Sensible Steps
Toward a Balanced Budget Act, legislation that requires that money left
over in a Member's Representational Allowance, or MRA, at the end of
the fiscal year be deposited in the Treasury and used to
[[Page 3686]]
reduce the budget deficit or national debt.
As a lifelong resident of greater Arizona, I grew up around
hardworking families who knew that, when times get tough, you tighten
up your belt and make every dollar count. I brought this sort of
thinking with me when I came to Washington last year to represent those
same hardworking families. By emphasizing efficiency in my office and
focusing on the most critical items, I managed to spend over $100,000
less than what was authorized of my MRA. I was proud to save the
taxpayers money and looked forward to seeing that money used to lower
the national debt in this year and for years to come.
Every year, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee
includes language in its appropriations bill to require that unspent
allowances are used toward the national debt. Given these times, it is
important that we make this requirement permanent.
The Sensible Steps Toward a Balanced Budget Act would do three
important things. First, it would make the requirement to use unspent
MRA funds toward the national debt automatic so that congressional
action would no longer be necessary for this important provision to be
put into place. Second, it would make the requirement permanent so that
Congress does not have to pass another provision year after year.
Finally, it would put the power of Federal statute behind this
requirement rather than depending upon appropriations language.
In these tough times, we must get on a path of finding every
opportunity, big and small, to put our fiscal house in order, and I
believe that this bill is a concrete first step the Congress can take
in that direction.
Thank you again, Chairman Brady, for the opportunity to discuss the
Sensible Steps Toward a Balanced Budget, and I urge its passage.
Mr. HARPER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, I rise in support of this bill, which will require unspent
funds in a Member's Representational Allowance to be used for deficit
reduction, or in the case that no deficit exists, to be used for
reduction of an ever-growing Federal debt.
Just as we expect households to manage their budgets well and reduce
personal debt, the Federal Government must be prudent in the use of
taxpayer dollars and make diligent efforts to reduce the annual deficit
and, ultimately, the Federal debt. This bill is one small step toward
achieving that purpose; however, I hope, Madam Speaker, that this
legislation is only the first step in an effort by this Congress to get
our government's fiscal house back in order.
We all know that it is imperative for us to take a serious look at
entitlement spending. We cannot wait for another generation to take up
this mantle. We were elected to make wise and sometimes difficult
decisions, and I hope that the difficulty of the task will not prevent
wisdom from prevailing in this matter.
I would like to recognize the tireless efforts of my colleague from
Michigan (Mr. Camp), upon whose leadership we have relied for more than
14 years to carry this issue in the House. Last year, it was Mr. Camp's
provision in the Legislative Branch appropriations bill that required
the return of unspent funds to the Treasury for deficit reduction, and
I know that his efforts paved the way for this measure to come before
the House today.
I am pleased to support this bill and encourage the support of my
colleagues.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. I'd now like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).
Mr. PETERS. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4825, and I am
proud to have worked closely with Representative Kirkpatrick on this
important issue. We share the belief that government needs to do more
with less.
The Sensible Steps Toward a Balanced Budget Act simply requires that
all unused funds from each congressional office account, known as the
Members Representational Allowance, or MRA, be given back to taxpayers
to help reduce the Federal deficit. As our Nation faces a significant
budget deficit and a growing national debt, we must look for
commonsense solutions to cut spending. As Members of Congress, we
must--and can--lead by example.
As a State senator in Michigan, I ran my office so efficiently during
my 8 years that I was able to return the equivalent of a full year's
operating budget back to Michigan taxpayers. When I came to Congress at
the beginning of 2009, I made it a priority to run my office here
efficiently, as well, and came in under budget in order to return the
difference to taxpayers. Last year, my office came in $135,000 under
budget, and I'm continuing my efforts to save taxpayer dollars at every
opportunity.
I was surprised to learn, however, that the money I saved each year
would not necessarily be returned to the Treasury to help offset the
deficit. This legislation would fix that, so that funding from more
frugal Members of Congress can be saved and put back into the Treasury
to reduce the deficit.
I believe that fiscal restraint should not be a partisan issue and
that we must work together to find every opportunity to slash spending
and forge a path toward a balanced budget and a shrinking national
debt. This legislation is an important step towards our goal of a
balanced budget.
I would, again, like to thank my colleague Representative Kirkpatrick
for her hard work and leadership on this issue, and thank you, Chairman
Brady, for the opportunity to speak about the Sensible Steps Toward a
Balanced Budget Act.
I urge its passage.
{time} 1430
Mr. HARPER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Representative Flake,
the distinguished gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to commend my
colleague from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick) for introducing this
legislation. This would simply turn over to the Treasury for deficit
reduction anything left over in our account that is used to run our
offices. This is good legislation. It should move forward. I must say,
however, that we should go much further than this.
Part of the reason there is money in a lot of people's accounts to
turn back is that we are given more than we need, typically because
most Members choose to send out thinly veiled campaign mail, I would
assert, under the frank, or using taxpayer dollars. If I were to hold
up in an election year--now there are blackout dates, so you can't send
too close to an election. But still, spending goes up considerably in
Member offices during a campaign year or an election year. If I were to
hold up one of my campaign pieces of mail that I pay for with my
campaign and something that's sent out that has the little words on
there, Paid for at taxpayer expense, they're both four color, they're
both colorful, nice pieces, lauding the Member of Congress for what he
or she is doing, I defy anybody to tell the difference between regular
campaign mail paid by campaign funds and somebody's taxpayer mailings.
We shouldn't be doing this. And it seems that we get in our offices
just an increased amount that is used because nearly every office does
it.
We ought to lower that amount that every office receives or in some
way ban the use of these colorful four-color mailings that go out. I am
certainly not asserting that Members of Congress shouldn't be able to
use the frank, and a lot of the mass mailings that go out are simply to
inform constituents of town hall meetings or other events that are
coming up. That is proper and right. But when Members of Congress are
able to send out what is basically campaign mail at taxpayer expense,
that's simply not right, and it's a practice that we ought to get away
from.
I should note that over the past several years, it seems to be more
blatant and more blatant and more blatant. There are certain words you
cannot use describing yourself. There are things that are supposedly in
there to prevent this from being blatant campaign mail. But again, if I
held up two pieces, one
[[Page 3687]]
piece of campaign literature and one piece mailed at taxpayer expense,
I think the average constituent would have a hard time telling the
difference. And that money that we save from getting rid of that
practice should be applied against the deficit as well. Again, I thank
the gentlelady for introducing this legislation. I hope that in the
future we can go further.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HARPER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Representative
Heller, the distinguished gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. HELLER. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in
support of H.R. 4825. I commend my colleague from Arizona for bringing
this legislation to the floor. Our $12 trillion debt will burden future
generations, and this legislation before us today is a good start. But
I think Congress must and can do more.
You don't have to go any further than the unemployment rates in this
country. As you well know, Madam Speaker, the unemployment rate
nationwide is around 10 percent. In my State, it's closer to 13
percent. In fact, in some counties in my district, it exceeds 17
percent. Foreclosure rates are high. Families in my district and
throughout my State are losing their homes. Foreclosure rates in Nevada
were four times higher than the national average. Families are making
tough, tough decisions in the State of Nevada, and they're asking the
question, Why aren't we making these same tough decisions here in
Washington? And the reason is is that Washington feels no pain. We are
in a recession-proof zone here in Washington, D.C. As we have in the
last year hired more than 120,000 new Federal employees across this
country, States and local governments are cutting their budgets,
families are cutting their budgets, small businessmen are cutting their
budgets, medium-sized businessmen are cutting their budgets. And yet
here in Washington, D.C., we feel no pain. I think sending the unused
congressional budget account funds to pay down the debt is one thing,
but stopping the growth of this account is another.
The MRA account has grown nearly 50 percent since 2000. I introduced
the reduction of irresponsible MRA, or the TRIM Growth Act, to prevent
the MRA from increasing during times of high unemployment or public
debt. My legislation would prevent the MRA from increasing unless
national unemployment is under 6 percent or less for at least 6 months,
consistent with the unemployment levels of the 1990s, or unless
Congress reduces the national debt to less than $5.5 trillion, which
was a reduction of 50 percent at the time this bill was drafted.
Congress ultimately needs to feel the same pain as the American
people. Financial challenges facing our Nation cannot be solved in one
day. And as public servants, Members of Congress must lead by example.
In addition to passing this legislation today, I urge my colleagues to
join me in supporting the TRIM Growth Act. Let's show the Americans who
are figuring out their family budgets at the kitchen table today that
they are not alone.
Mr. HARPER. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the
remaining time.
I strongly support this bill, and I thank my colleagues from Arizona
and Michigan for offering it. Not only is it an excellent proposal, but
the timing is perfect, as the 2011 appropriations process begins. The
annual bill that funds the House usually includes this language, but
only if offered in the Appropriations Committee or on the floor, and
even then, as legislation, the language is technically subject to a
point of order that could block it. Our two colleagues rightly asked,
Why should Congress have to enact this provision every year, and why
not make it permanent?
So with that, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4825.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
STATE ADMISSION DAY RECOGNITION ACT OF 2009
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 3542) to direct the Architect of the Capitol to
fly the flag of a State over the Capitol each year on the anniversary
of the date of the State's admission to the Union, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3542
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 ``State Admission Day
Recognition Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. FLYING STATE FLAG OVER CAPITOL ON ANNIVERSARY OF
STATE'S ADMISSION TO UNION.
(a) In General.--To honor the anniversary of each State's
admission to the Union, the Architect of the Capitol shall
fly the flag of the State over the Capitol each year on the
anniversary of the date of the State's admission to the
Union.
(b) Effective Date.--The Architect of the Capitol shall fly
the first flag of a State over the Capitol under this section
on the first December 7 which occurs after the date of the
enactment of this Act, in honor of the anniversary of the
admission of Delaware, the first State admitted to the Union.
SEC. 3. REGULATIONS.
The Committee on House Administration of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration
of the Senate may promulgate jointly such regulations as may
be appropriate to carry out this Act, including regulations
permitting the Architect of the Capitol to honor the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa,
Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern
Mariana Islands by flying the flag of each such jurisdiction
over the Capitol each year on an appropriate date for that
jurisdiction.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Harper) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
General Leave
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks in the Record on H.R. 3542.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
This bill, introduced by my colleague and ranking member Mr. Lungren
of California, would commemorate each State's admission to the Union.
The bill directs the Architect of the Capitol to fly each State's flag
annually on the anniversary date of the State's admission to the Union
over the Capitol, beginning with the first State admitted, the State of
Delaware.
During markup, the committee by voice vote adopted a perfecting
amendment that I offered so that the committee may issue a regulation
to provide recognition of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands,
and the Northern Mariana Islands by flying the flag of each of these
jurisdictions over the Capitol annually on the appropriate date. This
amended bill passed through committee by unanimous vote voice and was
reported favorably.
I urge its passage.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HARPER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Today I rise in support of this bill, commemorating each of the
unique States in our Union. This bill directs the Architect of the
Capitol to fly the
[[Page 3688]]
flag of a State over the Capitol each year on the anniversary of that
State's admission into the Union. Madam Speaker, the United States of
America truly lives up to the motto found on our Great Seal, ``e
pluribus unum''--out of many, one.
We are a people of many backgrounds, of many ethnicities, and of many
characteristics. We are spread out over 50 unique, diverse, and special
entities we call States. States allow us to organize ourselves and also
give us identities that relate to our geographic and cultural
tendencies. Communal bonds are formed over time through just such
means. We now have 50 States in this wonderful Union. The first,
Delaware, was admitted as a State on December 7, 1787. The last,
Hawaii, was admitted August 21, 1959. There were 16 States admitted in
the 18th century, 29 States in the 19th century, and five were admitted
in the 20th century.
Each flag tells a unique story of its State's history, culture, and
inhabitants, which is why my colleague, Representative Lungren, the
author of this legislation who was unfortunately unable to be here this
afternoon, thought we should honor our States in this special way,
enumerated in this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this
bill.
Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi. I
thank him for his participation on the committee, and I thank the
ranking member, Mr. Lungren, for his participation in the committee on
this bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3542, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT ACT OF 2009
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3509) to reauthorize State agricultural mediation programs
under title V of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3509
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 ``Agricultural Credit Act of
2009''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 506 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7
U.S.C. 5106) is amended by striking ``2010'' and inserting
``2015''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
General Leave
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
the bill H.R. 3509.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of H.R. 3509, the Agricultural Credit Act of
2009. This bill would reauthorize funding for the State agricultural
mediation grant program, which operates under title V of the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. The grant program for the agricultural
mediation program was established more than 20 years ago to respond to
the agricultural crisis of the 1980s. Mediation helped agricultural
producers, their creditors, and USDA agencies address disputes through
a confidential and nonadversarial process that takes place outside the
traditional legal system of foreclosure, appeals or litigation. This
bypasses a lot of the bureaucratic red tape that usually comes with
resolving these conflicts, saving taxpayers money in the process.
Earlier in the month, the House Agriculture Committee approved this
bipartisan legislation by unanimous voice vote. I urge my colleagues to
support the extension of this successful initiative.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of H.R. 3509, the Agricultural Credit Act of
2009. I'm an original cosponsor of this bill, and I ask my colleagues
to join me in voting for this legislation to reauthorize the State
agricultural mediation program. The State mediation program provides
our farmers and ranchers with a voluntary and low-cost service to
mediate disputes that may arise between their creditors and themselves
and to address adverse decisions with the USDA. The State programs do
this in a confidential and nonadversarial setting outside of the
traditional legal process of foreclosure, bankruptcy, appeals, and
litigation.
Like most of the country, the agricultural sector is currently
experiencing increased financial stress, which has created a greater
need for the services of the agricultural mediator program. The
Agriculture Committee favorably considered this bill with no
opposition, and I ask my colleagues to join me today in supporting the
continuation of the USDA agricultural mediation program.
Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma
for carrying this legislation. I think it's good bipartisan
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3509.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
{time} 1445
FLORIDA NATIONAL FOREST LAND ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2009
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3954) to release Federal reversionary interests retained on
certain lands acquired in the State of Florida under the Bankhead-Jones
Farm Tenant Act, to authorize the interchange of National Forest System
land and State land in Florida, to authorize an additional conveyance
under the Florida National Forest Land Management Act of 2003, and for
other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3954
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 ``Florida National Forest Land
Adjustment Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. RELEASE OF DEED RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN LANDS
ACQUIRED UNDER THE BANKHEAD-JONES FARM TENANT
ACT IN FLORIDA.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Certain lands in the State of Florida were conveyed by
the United States to the
[[Page 3689]]
State under the authority of section 32(c) of the Bankhead-
Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1011(c)), and now are part of
the Blackwater River and Withlacoochee State Forests.
(2) The lands were conveyed to the State subject to deed
restrictions that the lands could be only used for public
purposes.
(3) The deed restrictions impede the ability of the State
to remedy boundary and encroachment problems involving the
lands.
(4) The release of the deed restrictions by the Secretary
of Agriculture (hereafter referred to as the ``Secretary'')
will further the purposes for which the lands are being
managed as State forests and will alleviate future Federal
responsibilities with respect to the lands.
(b) Release Required.--Subject to valid existing rights,
and such reservations as the Secretary considers to be in the
public interest, the Secretary shall release, convey, and
quitclaim to the State of Florida, without monetary
consideration, all rights, title, and remaining interest of
the United States in and to those lands within or adjacent to
the Blackwater River and Withlacoochee State Forests that
were conveyed to the State under the authority of section
32(c) of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C.
1011(c)) or under any other law authorizing conveyance
subject to restrictions or reversionary interests retained by
the United States.
(c) Terms and Conditions.--The conveyances authorized by
subjection (b) are subject to the following terms and
conditions.
(1) The State shall cover or reimburse the Secretary for
reasonable costs incurred by the Secretary to make the
conveyances, including title searches, surveys, deed
preparation, attorneys' fees, and similar expenses. The
Secretary may not seek reimbursement for administrative
overhead costs.
(2) By accepting the conveyances authorized by this
section, the State agrees--
(A) that all net proceeds from any sale, exchange, or other
disposition of the real property subject to deed restrictions
shall be used by the State for the acquisition of lands or
interests in lands within or adjacent to units of the state
forest and park systems;
(B) to affirmatively address and resolve boundary
encroachments in accordance with State law for the affected
State forests; and
(C) to indemnify and hold the United States harmless with
regard to any boundary disputes related to any parcel
released under this section.
SEC. 3. INTERCHANGE INVOLVING NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND AND
STATE LAND IN FLORIDA.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) There are intermingled Federal and State lands within
units of the National Forest System in Florida that are of
comparable quantity and quality and of approximately equal
value.
(2) Interchanging these lands would be in the public
interest by facilitating more efficient public land
management.
(b) Approximately Equal Value Defined.--In this section,
the term ``approximately equal value'' means a comparative
estimate of the value between lands to be interchanged,
regarding which, without the necessity of an appraisal, the
elements of value, such as physical characteristics and other
amenities, are readily apparent and substantially similar.
(c) Land Interchange Authorized.--
(1) Authorization.--Subject to valid existing rights, if
the State of Florida offers to convey to the United States
those State lands designated for interchange on the two maps
entitled ``State of Florida--U.S. Forest Service
Interchange--January, 2009'' and title to such lands is
otherwise acceptable to the Secretary of Agriculture, the
Secretary shall convey and quitclaim to the State those
National Forest System lands in the Ocala National Forest and
the Apalachicola National Forest designated for interchange
on the maps.
(2) Maps.--The maps referenced in paragraph (1) shall be
available for public inspection in the office of the Chief of
the Forest Service and in the office of the Supervisor of the
National Forests in Florida for a period of at least five
years after completion of the land interchanges authorized by
this section.
(d) Terms and Conditions.--Any land interchange under this
section shall be subject to such reservations and rights-of-
way as may be mutually acceptable to the Secretary and the
authorized officer of the State.
(e) Replacement Land.--In the event that any of the
designated lands are in whole or part found to be
unacceptable for interchange under this section due to title
deficiencies, survey problems, the existence of hazardous
materials, or for any other reason, the Secretary and the
authorized officer of the State may substitute or modify the
lands to be interchanged insofar as it is mutually agreed
that the lands are of comparable quality and approximately
equal value.
SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL LAND DISPOSAL UNDER FLORIDA NATIONAL
FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2003.
(a) Disposal Authorized.--In accordance with the provisions
of the Florida National Forest Land Management Act of 2003
(Public Law 108-152; 117 Stat. 1919), the Secretary of
Agriculture may convey, by means of sale or exchange, all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a
parcel of land comprising approximately 114 acres, located
within Township 1 South, Range 1 West, section 25, Leon
County, Florida, and designated as tract W-1979.
(b) Use of Proceeds.--
(1) Tract w-1979.--The Secretary shall use the proceeds
derived from any sale of tract W-1979, as authorized by
subsection (a), only--
(A) to acquire lands and interests in land for inclusion in
the Apalachicola National Forest; and
(B) to cover the disposal costs incurred by the Secretary
to carry out the sale of such tract.
(2) Certain other tracts.--With respect to tract A-943,
tract A-944, and tract C-2210, as described in paragraphs
(5), (6), and (16) of subsection (b) of section 3 of the
Florida National Forest Land Management Act of 2003 and
authorized for sale by subsection (a) of such section, being
lands having permanent improvements and infrastructure, the
Secretary may use the net proceeds derived from any sale of
such tracts to acquire, construct, or maintain administrative
improvements for units of the National Forest System in
Florida.
SEC. 5. REQUIRED DESIGNATION IN PAYGO ACTS.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010
(Public Law 111-39; 124 Stat. 8), 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
General Leave
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
this bill, H.R. 3954.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3954, the Florida
National Forest Land Adjustment Act. This bill would authorize the
conveyance of 114 acres in Leon County, Florida, that would allow the
U.S. Forestry to make equivalent land exchange within the Ocala and the
Apalachicola National Forests to better and more efficiently manage the
land. The bill would also clarify some boundary issues by allowing a
survey to be conducted on certain areas of Florida State forest land.
This bill has the support of the Democratic and Republican members of
the Florida delegation; I state, members of the Florida delegation,
bipartisan, as well as the U.S. Forestry. The Congressional Budget
Office has indicated that this bill has no significant impact on the
Federal budget; and it was passed by the House Agriculture Committee by
a voice vote earlier. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3954, a bill to address
several public land issues in the great State of Florida. This
legislation helps resolve significant title and boundary issues on
State and Federal lands in the State of Florida. The bill promotes
better efficiency in public land management by allowing the State and
Federal governments to exchange land that is better managed by each
other.
This bill also allows the proceeds from the sale of certain tracts of
land in the Apalachicola National Forest to be used to build a much
needed administrative facility to manage the land.
This bill has the support of the Forestry Service. It has no
budgetary impact. And I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Boyd) who has vision and outstanding leadership in this
area, and cares very much about this issue.
[[Page 3690]]
Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Baca, and also Mr.
Lucas for their help and support of this bill. I also want to thank
Chairman Colin Peterson and members and staff of the Agriculture
Committee, and particularly my friends Jeff Miller and Ander Crenshaw
for all the work they've put into moving this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I introduced this legislation to help the State of
Florida make some much needed land exchanges between State and Federal
governments. In many parts of Florida, State and Federal lands are
intermingled. This patchwork of ownership adds much expense and
confusion in the management of public lands. This legislation will help
both Federal and State agencies take better care of several lands
throughout the State, including the Apalachicola National Forest, which
is in Florida's Second Congressional District.
This exchange will also help protect the environment as well. I am
very fortunate to represent a place called Wakulla Springs, which is
one of Florida's cleanest and most beautiful spring locations. Wakulla
Springs is also a popular outdoor recreation site for many in north
Florida and others who come to visit.
Believe it or not, glass bottom boat rides are still very popular at
this spring and offer families a chance to enjoy the outdoors and see
how beautiful north Florida is.
Most recently, the springs have been under the threat of pollution.
By exchanging these lands, we will have a better ability to keep the
springs clean. This legislation will help the Forest Service better
protect lands around the springs, which impact water flow to the
springs and will help keep them crystal clear.
Protecting Florida's natural environment is very important to me.
This exchange will protect pristine forest land in the State of Florida
for future generations. And I am very proud to support this
legislation, and would urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Crenshaw) such time as he may consume.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, the National Forest Service does a
fantastic job of managing our Nation's natural resources. They manage
them in Florida as well as all across the Nation, and they deserve to
have the tools that they need to give them the flexibility to
efficiently accomplish this job.
So that's why I've joined with my fellow colleagues from Florida,
Allen Boyd and Jeff Miller, to introduce the bipartisan Florida
National Forest Land Adjustment Act, and I strongly urge its passage.
Each of us has focused on a portion of this bill to ensure this
comprehensive measure represents a strong public policy which will
enable the Forest Service to embolden its mission.
Now, in Leon County, that's the capital of Florida, there's a 114-
acre parcel known as W-1979. And it's evolved--it's a tract of land
that has evolved into a kind of unmanageable problem for the
Apalachicola National Forest, which is right outside Tallahassee.
Because of its configuration and because of the commercial development
around it, the vegetation can't be managed very well. They can't use
prescribed fire, and so although it's very important from a commercial
standpoint and a developmental standpoint, it has really lost its
national forest character.
And so in an effort to provide the Forest Service with a method to
manage this land, my provision of our joint bill would simply add this
tract of land to the list that the Secretary of Agriculture is
empowered to sell. And any proceeds from that prospective sale would
allow the Forest Service to purchase other lands within the forest; and
they'd be more manageable, and that would enhance the national forest.
So, Madam Speaker, this is the kind of flexibility that we think the
National Forest Service ought to have. They can manage our Nation's
precious resources, not only for us, but for generations to come. And
so I am grateful for the work that my colleagues have put in on this
and urge its adoption.
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I submit the following exchange of letters
between the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Natural
Resources for inclusion in the Congressional Record.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, March 17, 2010.
Hon. Collin C. Peterson,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to review
the text of H.R. 3954, the Florida National Forest Land
Adjustment Act of 2009, for provisions regarding public
domain national forests which are within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Natural Resources.
Because of the continued cooperation and consideration that
you have afforded me and my staff in developing these
provisions, I will not seek a sequential referral of H.R.
3954 based on their inclusion in the bill. Of course, this
waiver is not intended to prejudice any future jurisdictional
claims over these provisions or similar language. I also
reserve the right to seek to have conferees named from the
Committee on Natural Resources on these provisions, and
request your support if such a request is made.
Please place this letter into the Congressional Record
during consideration of H.R. 3954 on the House floor.
Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have
worked regarding this matter and others between our
respective committees.
With warm regards, I am,
Sincerely,
Nick J. Rahall II,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, March 17, 2010.
Hon. Nick J. Rahall II,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Rahall: Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 3954, the ``Florida National Forest Land Adjustment Act
of 2009.
H.R. 3954 was favorably reported by the House Agriculture
Committee on March 3. The legislation contains provisions
that are of jurisdictional interest to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
I appreciate the willingness of your committee to discharge
the bill without further consideration and understand that
this action will in no way waive your committee's
jurisdictional interests in the subject matter of the
legislation or serve as a precedent for future referrals. In
the event that a conference with the Senate is requested on
this matter, I would support naming House Natural Resources
Committee members to the conference committee.
A copy of our letters regarding this bill will be inserted
into the Congressional Record during floor consideration of
the legislation.
Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have
worked regarding this matter and others between our
respective committees.
Sincerely,
Collin C. Peterson,
Chairman.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I have one additional speaker, and I wish
to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Miller).
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, this bill does, in fact, make
important and much-needed adjustments to the Federal land provisions to
allow for better management of both Federal and State lands.
This bill provides for the interchange of Federal and State land to
make land management more contiguous for both the State of Florida and
the U.S. Department of Forestry because, within our national forest
system, adjacent land has become intermingled over the years, and
allowing Florida to interchange land with Federal land would make land
management much more efficient for both sides.
The Florida National Forest Land Adjustment Act permits both the U.S.
Department of Forestry and the State of Florida to, in fact, better
manage their forest systems.
As the vice chair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I do know
how vital Federal and State land management is in the protection of
wildlife and resource conservation. So H.R. 3954 is a significant step
toward better forest management, and I do urge my colleagues to vote in
support of this bill.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member, minority
ranking member, Mr. Lucas, for his
[[Page 3691]]
bipartisan support. I also want to thank Chairman Collins, along with
Congressmen Crenshaw and Miller, on this bipartisan legislation that's
important to a lot of us as we look at moving forward.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3954, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
CONTINUING EXTENSION ACT OF 2010
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 4851) to provide a temporary extension of certain
programs, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4851
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 ``Continuing Extension Act of
2010''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROVISIONS.
(a) In General.--(1) Section 4007 of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--
(A) by striking ``April 5, 2010'' each place it appears and
inserting ``May 5, 2010'';
(B) in the heading for subsection (b)(2), by striking
``april 5, 2010'' and inserting ``may 5, 2010''; and
(C) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``September 4, 2010''
and inserting ``October 2, 2010''.
(2) Section 2002(e) of the Assistance for Unemployed
Workers and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public
Law 111-5 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 438), is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``April 5, 2010'' and
inserting ``May 5, 2010'';
(B) in the heading for paragraph (2), by striking ``april
5, 2010'' and inserting ``may 5, 2010''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``October 5, 2010'' and
inserting ``November 5, 2010''.
(3) Section 2005 of the Assistance for Unemployed Workers
and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public Law 111-5
(26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 444), is amended--
(A) by striking ``April 5, 2010'' each place it appears and
inserting ``May 5, 2010''; and
(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``September 4, 2010''
and inserting ``October 2, 2010''.
(4) Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension
Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is
amended by striking ``September 4, 2010'' and inserting
``October 2, 2010''.
(b) Funding.--Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new
subparagraph:
``(E) the amendments made by section 2(a)(1) of the
Continuing Extension Act of 2010; and''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the amendments made by
section 2 of the Temporary Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law
111-144).
SEC. 3. EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR
COBRA BENEFITS.
Subsection (a)(3)(A) of section 3001 of division B of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law
111-5), as amended by section 3(a) of the Temporary Extension
Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-144), is amended by striking
``March 31, 2010'' and inserting ``April 30, 2010''.
SEC. 4. INCREASE IN THE MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT UPDATE.
Paragraph (10) of section 1848(d) of the Social Security
Act, as added by section 1011(a) of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118) and as amended
by section 5 of the Temporary Extension Act of 2010 (Public
Law 111-144), is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``March 31, 2010'' and
inserting ``April 30, 2010''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``April 1, 2010'' and
inserting ``May 1, 2010''.
SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF MEDICARE THERAPY CAPS EXCEPTIONS
PROCESS.
Section 1833(g)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395l(g)(5)), as amended by section 6 of the Temporary
Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-144), is amended by
striking ``March 31, 2009'' and inserting ``April 30, 2010''.
SEC. 6. EHR CLARIFICATION.
(a) Qualification for Clinic-based Physicians.--
(1) Medicare.--Section 1848(o)(1)(C)(ii) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(o)(1)(C)(ii)) is amended by
striking ``setting (whether inpatient or outpatient)'' and
inserting ``inpatient or emergency room setting''.
(2) Medicaid.--Section 1903(t)(3)(D) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(t)(3)(D)) is amended by striking
``setting (whether inpatient or outpatient)'' and inserting
``inpatient or emergency room setting''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall be effective as if included in the enactment of the
HITECH Act (included in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5)).
(c) Implementation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may implement
the amendments made by this section by program instruction or
otherwise.
SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF USE OF 2009 POVERTY GUIDELINES.
Section 1012 of the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118), as amended by section 7 of
the Temporary Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-144), is
amended by striking ``March 31, 2010'' and inserting ``April
30, 2010''.
SEC. 8. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.
(a) Extension.--Section 129 of the Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2010 (Public Law 111-68), as
amended by section 8 of Public Law 111-144, is amended by
striking ``by substituting'' and all that follows through the
period at the end and inserting ``by substituting April 30,
2010, for the date specified in each such section.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall be considered to have taken effect on February 28,
2010.
SEC. 9. SATELLITE TELEVISION EXTENSION.
(a) Amendments to Section 119 of Title 17, United States
Code.--
(1) In general.--Section 119 of title 17, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (c)(1)(E), by striking ``March 28, 2010''
and inserting ``April 30, 2010''; and
(B) in subsection (e), by striking ``March 28, 2010'' and
inserting ``April 30, 2010''.
(2) Termination of license.--Section 1003(a)(2)(A) of
Public Law 111-118 is amended by striking ``March 28, 2010'',
and inserting ``April 30, 2010''.
(b) Amendments to Communications Act of 1934.--Section
325(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325(b))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``March 28, 2010'' and
inserting ``April 30, 2010''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)(C), by striking ``March 29, 2010''
each place it appears in clauses (ii) and (iii) and inserting
``May 1, 2010''.
SEC. 10. COMPENSATION AND RATIFICATION OF AUTHORITY RELATED
TO LAPSE IN HIGHWAY PROGRAMS.
(a) Compensation for Federal Employees.--Any Federal
employees furloughed as a result of the lapse in expenditure
authority from the Highway Trust Fund after 11:59 p.m. on
February 28, 2010, through March 2, 2010, shall be
compensated for the period of that lapse at their standard
rates of compensation, as determined under policies
established by the Secretary of Transportation.
(b) Ratification of Essential Actions.--All actions taken
by Federal employees, contractors, and grantees for the
purposes of maintaining the essential level of Government
operations, services, and activities to protect life and
property and to bring about orderly termination of Government
functions during the lapse in expenditure authority from the
Highway Trust Fund after 11:59 p.m. on February 28, 2010,
through March 2, 2010, are hereby ratified and approved if
otherwise in accord with the provisions of the Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2010 (division B of Public Law
111-68).
(c) Funding.--Funds used by the Secretary to compensate
employees described in subsection (a) shall be derived from
funds previously authorized out of the Highway Trust Fund and
made available or limited to the Department of Transportation
by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-
117) and shall be subject to the obligation limitations
established in such Act.
(d) Expenditures From Highway Trust Fund.--To permit
expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund to effectuate the
purposes of this section, this section shall be deemed to be
a section of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2010
(division B of Public Law 111-68), as in effect on the date
of the enactment of the last amendment to such Resolution.
SEC. 11. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
(a) In General.--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
[[Page 3692]]
PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in
the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Committee on
the Budget of the House of Representatives, provided that
such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on
passage.
(b) Emergency Designation for Congressional Enforcement.--
This Act, with the exception of section 4, is designated as
an emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go principles. In the
Senate, this Act is designated as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2010.
(c) Emergency Designation for Statutory PAYGO.--This Act,
with the exception of section 4, is designated as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-139; 2
U.S.C. 933(g)).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
General Leave
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mrs. Capps
be allowed to control 10 minutes of the time allocated to me and be
allowed to yield time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
This bill, Madam Speaker, provides another short-term extension for a
number of programs that are expiring at the end of the month. If we
fail to act on this bill, Americans around the country will begin
running out of unemployment benefits by the beginning of the next
month. We've been here before. By the end of April, over 1 million
Americans will exhaust their unemployment benefits.
This bill would merely continue the existing Federal unemployment
programs for 1 month, as Congress works toward a longer extension. It
does not increase the number of weeks of benefits provided by these
programs.
Now, I know many of my colleagues are as frustrated as I am that we
have to keep extending these programs every month, as opposed to
continuing them to the end of the year.
Jobless Americans shouldn't have to wait until the last minute to
know whether their economic lifeline will continue. We need a long-term
extension of these programs, a goal I very much hope we will achieve
before the end of the next month.
In the meantime, I'm urging my colleagues to join me in supporting
this critical stopgap legislation to extend unemployment benefits, as
well as other critical assistance, including help for paying for
continuing health coverage under COBRA.
Before I close, let me say that I hope we don't see a repeat
performance from last month when a single Republican Senator blocked
these vital benefits for so many Americans. He complained about the
cost of these benefits for unemployed workers. Where were those
concerns when we embarked on two wars without paying for one cent of
them?
Where were the cries of outrage about the budget deficit when two tax
cuts for our wealthiest citizens were enacted with no offsets
whatsoever?
Where were my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when
President Bush turned the biggest budget surplus in our Nation's
history into the biggest deficit in our history and brought on the
unemployment which is now facing us?
When Republicans complain about the deficit, it's like an arsonist
complaining about a fire. He lit the match, but takes no responsibility
for the resulting blaze.
The truth is, there is no better use of Federal resources than
helping Americans who are struggling to find work. Workers today are
facing a situation where there are six people looking for every
available job in this country. It is a bad situation. So I hope my
friends on the other side of the aisle will join me in supporting this
bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1500
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I
would like to thank the gentleman from Washington for his magnanimous
comments and the bipartisan spirit of this bill as we come to the floor
right now. At least it is not as much animus as we find in the United
States Senate.
I rise today in support of this legislation to extend important
benefits that help long-term unemployed workers, including unemployment
insurance and health coverage assistance through COBRA. In addition,
H.R. 4851 postpones the drastic cuts to Medicare physician payment
rates, a critical factor for our health care providers, as well as a
number of other important provisions that expire at the end of the
month or sooner.
While I support this assistance, the American people should be under
no illusion that this will create jobs. It does no such thing. In spite
of claims last year that the Democrats' stimulus package would keep
unemployment from rising above 8 percent, it has risen from 5.5 to 9.7
percent nationwide and 10.7 percent in Kentucky. Just yesterday, senior
administration officials testified they don't expect to see much
improvement in the job market this year. We have already spent almost
$100 billion on unemployment benefits, with another $50 billion in the
pipeline through 2010.
I am disappointed that the majority has again chosen to subvert their
so-called PAYGO rules by not paying for this short-term extension.
Again, 83 percent of the Federal budget is exempt from the PAYGO
legislation that was supposed to pay-as-you-go. While the bill before
us today is necessary, it is not a long-term solution. It is
inefficient, and it buys us time to actually fix the root causes.
Instead of creating 3.7 million jobs as promised, the Democrats'
stimulus bill was followed by more than 3 million additional job
losses. A record 16 million are now unemployed. A significant number
are underemployed. And all Americans are asking one simple question
that I hear all the time at home, and all of my colleagues do, Where
are the jobs? Record numbers are collecting unemployment benefits
instead of paychecks.
The need to pass this bill today reflects the failure of the
Democrats' stimulus bill and subsequent efforts to create the jobs they
promised. For this failure we will spend another $6 billion next month
on Federal unemployment benefits, borrowing that money from our
children and our grandchildren. Millions will soon exhaust these
benefits and wonder what comes next.
What Americans want are jobs, not handouts. To really help unemployed
workers, we need to craft policies that will actually create jobs so
unemployed workers can get back to work, so capital will be invested,
so companies will invest in machines and development and growth, so the
market will come back and they will hire people who will in fact become
taxpayers to contribute to the economy and to meet their own needs.
Doing so requires ending the massive tax, spend, and borrow plans of
the Democrat Congress and administration. These policies have created
severe uncertainty among American workers and businesses that leads to
economic stagnation and discourages hiring.
If you want to look at the full fruit of such policies, all we need
to do is look at Eastern Europe in the 1960s, the 1970s, and the 1980s
that led to the collapse of the Soviet empire. We could eliminate all
of the uncertainty that we have today economically and get the private
sector American job creation engine humming again by immediately
providing real tax relief to businesses and families across the Nation.
In addition, we should scrap plans for a government takeover of health
care and focus on reform that actually reduces cost; reengineer the
government system that wastes almost $200 billion a year on overhead
that never
[[Page 3693]]
sees the way to senior citizen health benefits; and do the private
market reforms and bring about meaningful medical liability reform that
will end defensive medicine costs that cost almost one-third of all
medical costs.
We should rescind unspent funds from the failed stimulus bill and the
Troubled Asset Relief Program, the so-called TARP bill, and apply all
of these funds to one thing, which is reducing our deficit, which I
believe the gentleman from Kentucky, the United States Senator, tried
to do 2 weeks ago and was disparaged by people in the Democratic Party
in the House and the Senate and in the administration for simply saying
let's pay for something with money that we already have available.
Businesses can't thrive in an economy falsely buoyed by temporary
stimulus funds and taxpayer-funded bailouts. In order to create jobs,
we have got to empower the people to make their own choices. We need to
craft legislation in Congress that won't cause additional harm to our
economy but will instead give Americans the flexibility they need to
grow their businesses.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington
for yielding time.
There is a very important provision of this bill that we are hoping
to pass for a second time to send back to the other body, and that is
to correct the lapse in payment to 1,913 employees of the Federal
Highway Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, and the Research and Innovative Technology
Administration because the authority for the Federal highway program
lapsed due to the objections of the Senator, the Representative in the
other body, who held up the bill and then delayed the whole process,
and through no fault of their own, these hardworking career employees
were shortchanged.
A long-term secretary of the Federal Highway Administration office in
Seattle, who would normally net $1,548, lost $390 because of that
furlough. That is unreasonable. An entry-level program analyst in
Chicago of the Federal Highway Administration normally would take home
$1,200, but would take a $300 cut for doing his job. Well, that is
unreasonable. The bill we have before us will reinstate these funds.
And I just want to restate what I said just a couple weeks ago, the
Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan arbiter of the cost of
legislation, determined that H.R. 4786 will not require any new Federal
funding and will not increase outlays. It will draw on administrative
funding that has already been authorized and appropriated for the
department. It will not cost the Federal Government a single dollar
beyond amounts already provided. The Secretary of Transportation has
already moved, is prepared to move these dollars as soon as we give him
that authority. We ought to do that now.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the
distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I recognize myself for 1 minute, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has been yielded time, but he
does not control that time.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
the distinguished gentleman from Texas control his 10 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I appreciate the Chair insisting on regular
order. It's nice that we have that. That's a good thing, not a bad
thing.
I am going to yield myself, Madam Speaker, 1 minute.
We are here today because sometime this morning the majority decided,
or at least they decided to inform the minority, to extend a number of
bills, several of which are primary jurisdictional to the Energy and
Commerce Committee, of which I am the ranking member. Probably the most
important of the bills in terms of economic impact in the short term is
the physician reimbursement fix, the DRG fix. If I understand this bill
correctly, it has been extended for another month.
We also have the Satellite Home Viewer Reauthorization Act, which is
totally within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
And it is also being extended for 1 month.
Madam Speaker, we don't have to do this kind of thing. If we could
really get to regular order, we could bring these bills up, we could
work in a bipartisan fashion, and we could find permanent or at least
annual solutions to these bills. We don't have to hully gully this type
of thing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BARTON. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
And to be told at 10 o'clock this morning about this bill, which is a
compilation of several bills, is just a disservice to the American
people.
With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet, Mr. Cliff Stearns of Florida.
Mr. STEARNS. I thank the distinguished ranking member, and I have to
say I like his term ``hully gully.'' That is probably a good
description of what has happened here. I am sure a lot of Members don't
even know about this extension. So I think it is a credit to the
majority that they brought this up, because I think all of us want to
see this important medical correction for doctors.
Under the current SGR formula, doctors face a 21 percent cut in their
Medicare reimbursement. This fix would delay those cuts until April 30.
Because the majority has not properly addressed real Medicare reform,
we continue in the House to apply these short-term patches rather than
provide doctors with a permanent solution to the reimbursement formula.
We have known about this for a long time. There is no reason we have to
bring this up, as the ranking member says, hully gully.
Although this correction, fix, extension is important, also important
in this bill is the Satellite Home Viewers Act, which is extended
through April 30. I am glad that this extension is included, but I am
hoping we can move the 5-year extension that passed this body
overwhelmingly, bipartisan support, by a large margin, but now my
colleagues have bogged down in the United States Senate. This temporary
extension that we are voting on today includes the section 119 licenses
which actually govern the transmission of distant and local television
signals by cable and satellite television operators as well as
provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 concerning the
retransmission of broadcast station signals. As you can see, this is
very important to get this full 5-year extension.
My colleagues, in December 2009 the House passed the Satellite Home
Viewer Reauthorization Act by 394-11. And yet here we are, we can't
seem to shake the bill loose in the Senate, although the Senate
Commerce, Science and Transportation and the Senate Judiciary
Committees have all reported this measure out of their committees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 15 seconds.
Mr. STEARNS. I am glad we are extending this important law
temporarily, but I am hopeful it will move forward on a permanent
basis, a 5-year extension. And obviously, I am very glad the current
SGR formula is being fixed, corrected today, and at least we have a 30-
day hiatus.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4851.
This bill takes the necessary steps to extend crucial health care
provisions in law that would otherwise expire soon. Although there is a
sense of deja vu in voting to prevent an impending 21 percent cut to
Medicare and TRICARE reimbursements, we must take action to
[[Page 3694]]
prevent those cuts from going into effect. I am sure all of my
colleagues are well aware of what such cuts would mean to the health
providers in their own districts and the restricted access to patients
if the cuts happen.
The House can be proud of passing H.R. 3961 this last fall to
permanently solve the annual Sustainable Growth Rate, or the SGR,
program. But our friends in the other Chamber have failed thus far to
act. And until they do, we must ensure that the cuts do not go into
effect.
H.R. 4851 also provides a crucial extension to the current arbitrary
Medicare beneficiary therapy caps. When outpatient therapy is
considered medically necessary for a patient, we should never put an
arbitrary limit on the dollar amount that can be spent to provide this
important care. And I support the provisions of this bill to allow
Medicare beneficiaries to continue receiving the outpatient therapy
care that they need.
Finally, I applaud the inclusion of a provision in this bill to
correct an inadvertent error regarding electronic health records and
incentive payments for physicians who implement them. Through our
technical correction in this legislation, we will ensure that
physicians who work in outpatient clinics that are owned by hospitals
will be eligible for these important incentive payments. Encouraging
the adoption of health information technology in all health care
settings is a priority shared by my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle. I am pleased that we will further improve adoption of electronic
health records with this fix.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4851 and the important health
care provisions included in this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
It may have been explained before I got on the floor, so if I am
repeating something that has already been said, I want to apologize in
advance. But I do want the American people to know what this bill does.
It is a bill that takes eight existing laws, and as I understand it,
extends them for 1 month. It takes the unemployment insurance fund,
extends it for a month; the COBRA premium assistance fund, extends it
for a month; the Medicare physician freeze, it prohibits that for
another month--or the cut to physician reimbursement under Medicare. An
extension of Medicare therapy caps, extension for a month. A very
unusual situation where we are going to use 2009 poverty numbers
instead of 2010 poverty numbers, because apparently in 2010 the poverty
level in the United States went down, so the majority wants to use 2009
numbers so that there will be larger payments for some of the poverty
programs, which is interesting given that the deficit is over a
trillion dollars this year.
{time} 1515
An extension of the National Flood Insurance Program, extension of
the Satellite Television Home Viewer Act, a program out of the
transportation committee to repay furloughed workers on highway
projects, those are the eight current laws that are being extended.
There is also a technical fix on health IT in terms of the definition
of doctors that worked for hospitals or worked for clinics.
None of these issues, Madam Speaker, needs to be addressed in the
type of an omnibus extension on such a short term. Every one of these
on its own has merit. Every one of these on its own could come to the
floor in a bipartisan fashion and be debated and probably pass for
longer than 1 month.
I am trying to understand why the three bills that are in the
committee of jurisdiction that I am the ranking member of, the Energy
and Commerce Committee, that's the Medicare Physician Freeze, the
Medicare Therapy Caps Extension, and the Satellite Television Home
Viewers Act, why those three bills have to come to the floor for 1
month in this fashion.
I don't know when the majority decided to do this. I know that the
minority staff was informed of it at approximately 10 o'clock this
morning. We're now on the floor at 3:15 in the afternoon.
Take aside the merits of the programs on policy and process alone, we
should vote these down on suspension. In a week in which the American
public is expressing legitimate outrage because the majority is
contemplating bringing the biggest domestic policy bill of this
Congress, i.e., the health care reform package, to the floor under a
rule that would have a self-executing feature to it where we would deem
something passed if we pass the rule, it would seem to me that the
Speaker and the majority leader and the committee chairman would not
want to pile insult onto insult and bring these bills to the floor
under a process where you combine bills from numerous committees of
jurisdiction with no notice, for all intents and purposes, and bring
them to the floor. At least in this case we are going to get an up-or-
down vote on the bill, which is a good thing. But it's not a vote on
the rule that self-executes. So I want to commend Chairwoman Slaughter
of the Rules Committee for that and Speaker Pelosi.
But again, we don't have to operate, the United States of America,
like we're a third-world country that doesn't know how to run a
democracy.
Again, on the merits, Republicans have said for physician
reimbursement we believe there should be a fix. We believe that the
physicians need to be reimbursed in a fair fashion in the current
Medicare reimbursement system. We support some of these therapy cap
reforms. We certainly support the Satellite Television Home Viewer Act.
So this isn't something that the only way to do it is to put it
together in a big package and put it on the floor 1 month at a time.
The only advantage I can see is that this just kind of treads water; it
provides some sort of a vote this afternoon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would yield myself 30 additional seconds.
So I guess the other thing that I need to point out to Members of the
body and to the American public is, because of the procedure, this is
all deemed, apparently--and I hate to use that word. This is all
defined to be emergency, and so it's not paid for.
The rule that brought these bills to the floor waives PAYGO, and my
recollection is not too many months ago my friends in the majority were
beating themselves and congratulating themselves because they had
instituted these tough PAYGO rules. But if I am correct, I believe that
none of this is paid for and the rule does not require PAYGO.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. How much time do I still have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 1 minute. The
gentleman from Kentucky has 6 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would yield 1 minute to a distinguished member
of the Energy and Commerce Committee from Flower Mound and Denton,
Texas, Dr. Michael Burgess.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for the recognition.
One minute is not much time to deal with what is a very complicated
process. It is unfortunate we didn't have more time to actually look at
this bill before it came to the floor on the concept of expanding the
definition of a hospital-based physician for the use and purposes of
electronic medical records in the stimulus bill that was passed last
year. That's a good provision. That was language that we had asked for
in the letter that was signed by 293 Members of this body that went to
the acting director for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
I do have to point out, Ranking Member Barton is exactly right. This
SGR problem is not an emergency. Everyone in this body knew this was
going to happen. What this signals us is perhaps the Democrats don't
have the votes to pass their health care bill because, otherwise, the
fix would be included in their health care bill. The fact that we are
having to provide yet another month signals to me that they don't have
the votes to pass their larger underlying bill.
There is no other Member in this body that wants this SGR fixed more
[[Page 3695]]
intensely than I do, but this is not the way to go about it. It is not
an emergency. It should not come to us at the 11th hour. That is an
insult to the Nation's physicians. They can't run their businesses when
we always do it in this fashion.
Mrs. CAPPS. I continue to reserve.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, as I said in my opening
statement, I urge support for H.R. 4851 to continue unemployment and
health insurance benefits for long-term unemployed workers, along with
extensions of other important expiring provisions like the Medicare
reimbursement provisions that my colleague from Texas just mentioned.
But as we, as a Congress, redouble our efforts on the task of
empowering Americans to create jobs, we need to remember the four
causes of this. Even as we help in those places where jobs are hardest
to find, promoting job growth ultimately needs to be the broader goal.
One thing that we could do as a Congress to promote job growth and
help our economy stand up and restore confidence in investing would be
to stop the ramming of this health care bill through the House of
Representatives presumably without even taking a vote on it. I think
there is a small detail in the Constitution that would suggest my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a small problem
explaining that to their constituents.
But let's look at the base principles in this bill. There are good
elements in it, small individual elements. But the framework, the
foundation on which it is built is not only flawed, it would be
destructive to the American economy and make it into the equivalent of
an Eastern European health care system within 10 years.
First of all, it's based on huge tax increases. We still don't know
what the reconciliation numbers are, but we know by commentary off the
floor that the score from the Congressional Budget Office was far more
than anything that's been presented in public thus far. Taxing health
insurance is going to do one thing. It's going to reduce access to
health insurance because less benefits will be provided by employers.
It's very simple. Those of us who have run businesses understand this.
We go without payroll to make sure our employees are covered. But we
need to keep in mind the reality of what is happening. Taking money out
of our pockets to fuel the growth of Federal bureaucracy is not right.
The second thing that's done on the opposite end of the pipeline is a
half a trillion dollar cut in Medicare benefits. In my going on 6 years
in Congress, I have never seen $1 taken out of waste of the Center of
Medicare Services. We hire more people, we put more rules in place, but
we don't take the overhead out to simplify the processes.
Indeed, in the Ways and Means Committee, a simple amendment offered
by the gentleman from Illinois to study point of sale and credit card
architecture technology that's used in every convenience store in
America was rejected; as one gentleman from Texas called it, a pumpkin
designed to enrich insurance executives. We use that every day. We use
that in our identification cards here to vote. We don't have that
integrated in our government. That's why citizens complain all the time
about dealing with Washington, D.C.
The final thing that's done on top of all of this is the only job
creation program that's coming out of the legislation being considered
this week is the hiring of over a hundred thousand new Federal workers
who have to be paid for by taxpayers. That means that many jobs have to
be created for every one of those.
When I stop and think about this, I'm amazed, because we're not
fixing the waste, the excess, the broken processes, the unintegrated
database, and the contradictory regulations between the agencies. All
we're doing is making the problem bigger and, in the end, it will
result--as your own bill says with its waiting list language--in
rationed care.
Finally, let's talk about the overwhelming majority of the American
people. It is astounding to me the awareness level at all levels of our
society of this bill and, frankly, the fear that is out there; not fear
from things I say back home, but when people read the bill and see what
it means. I'm not talking about cable television fear mongers. I'm
talking simply about good Americans who are doing their civics homework
like some of my colleagues in both bodies have failed to do and don't
remember the basis of why we're sent here. And then when we can't get
that popular vote because of fear of Members of retribution in the
fall--which I guarantee you is going to come and all of us will be held
accountable for our vote--to deem a bill that takes over nearly one-
fifth of the economy--let's think what ``deeming'' means for my fellow
Americans watching.
I could deem each of my children a Ph.D. I could deem them a good
house. I could deem them a great future. In fact, while we're here
deeming things, let's deem world peace, then we would do away with lots
of expenditures. You all know the absurdity of that statement on the
false premise that is raised with deeming. Why are we doing it? Because
it creates a subterfuge that is wrong and violates Article 1 of the
Constitution.
At the end of the day, there will be an accounting to the American
people. We agree on good things that can get done. Let's do those good
things. Let's fix the government waste, fix the private market, and
provide real medical liability reform.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I yield back any remaining time that I
might have.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleagues. I think
they wanted the 20 minutes to talk about the health care bill. They
didn't really want to talk about this piece of legislation that's out
here in front of us.
This bill is here because the Republicans in the Senate continue to
use the filibuster to stop any orderly process over there of dealing
with the problems of this country.
And I don't know whether it's ignorance or amnesia, but ``deeming''
is a process that comes out of something that some of the senior
Members know about, maybe the junior Members don't know about. This is
called the Jefferson's Manual, and it provides the rules for the House,
and it's where ``deeming'' comes from and all of the rest of the things
that happen in the House.
In fact, just to remind you, Speaker Hastert, Speaker Gingrich used
deeming on 202 occasions. Now, this is no big surprise. This is no
surprise that fell out of the sky.
And no, I won't yield. I think I've listened to you talk about
deeming enough. I want to talk about deeming for a second.
Deeming is rules of the House, and the reason you're doing that is so
that we can get something done because people in the Senate are
requiring, through the filibuster, that 60 votes be in the way of
anything that happens. Now, if you insist on that when 50 votes is a
majority, then you're going to get things like using arcane rules in
this thousand-page rule book. And we will use it just like Speaker
Gingrich used it, just like Speaker Hastert used it, to get around
obstructionists.
And now I would yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
{time} 1530
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding. My
question is when you, as a party, deemed the debt increase of nearly $2
trillion, I would say that it makes any deeming of budgetary issues,
even the Deficit Reduction Act reconciliation process, seem almost as a
grain of sand. We might as well deem all votes and not even come here
and answer mail in our offices if we are going to continue to deem one-
fifth of the economy under government control.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Ultimately, we have to go out and face this. And when
we pass this health care bill, you are free to campaign against a bill
that gives health coverage to 30 million Americans and that closes the
doughnut hole. If you want, you can go home
[[Page 3696]]
and argue with the seniors and say, I didn't want a bill that closed
the doughnut hole. That was a stupid bill. I voted against it. What you
are free to do after this bill passes is to go home and argue against
the things that are in the bill. The people back home have no
understanding what ``deeming'' is. It's inside baseball in this place.
You wait, when you go and try, on the campaign trail, to sell the idea
that you were against doing anything for 30 million people.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. When the cashier at our local supermarket
asked me about the reconciliation process and deeming and how can you
pass something you don't vote on, I think the message is already at the
grassroots.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I would suggest that the gentleman has tried to create
an issue, but it won't last. Nobody remembers any of the debate before
Social Security. Nobody remembers any of the debate before Medicare. Of
course, there were people saying all kinds of things out here. But when
the bill is in, the people will take the benefits and be grateful for
the Congress that acted on their behalf. I urge everyone to vote for
this bill. The unemployed should not suffer again because of Senate
filibusters.
Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, drip, drip, drip.
Here we are for yet another extension of unemployment benefits and
various related programs. These programs have been repeatedly extended,
even as Democrats claim their economic stimulus plan has worked and is
creating jobs. Well, it's not, and our presence on this floor today is
yet another affirmation of that obvious fact. If stimulus was working,
more people would have paychecks. But it's not, so we are here to hand
out more unemployment checks instead.
Let's review the history of just the unemployment benefit extensions
we are continuing today.
In June 2008, Congress created a new Federal ``temporary''
unemployment benefit program paying 13 weeks of unemployment benefits,
on top of 26 weeks of State benefits. CBO said the UI portion of that
bill would cost $14 billion. Unemployment was 5.5 percent.
In November 2008, that temporary program was expanded by 20 weeks of
benefits--for a new total of 59 weeks of UI per person. CBO said that
would cost just under $6 billion. Unemployment was 6.9 percent.
In February 2009, Democrats' stimulus plan extended the temporary
program through 2009 and nationalized the Federal/State extended
benefits program, among other changes. That added another 20 weeks of
Federal benefits, for a total of up to 79 weeks per person. CBO said
that would cost $40 billion. Unemployment was 8.2 percent.
In November 2009, Congress added another 20 weeks of temporary
extended benefits, for a record total of 99 weeks of UI per person. CBO
estimated that would cost $2 billion just in the last few weeks of
2009. Unemployment was 10 percent.
In December 2009, the temporary program was extended for two months.
CBO said that would cost $14 billion. Unemployment was 10 percent.
Last month the program was extended through March, at a cost of $8
billion. Unemployment was 9.7 percent.
And here we are again today, pondering yet another extension or
expansion--the sixth of the program created in the summer of 2008--
costing yet another $6 billion. Since this program began, CBO estimates
would suggest we will have spent a total of $90 billion on Federal UI
benefits through the end of next month. And that's not counting another
$50-plus billion it would cost to extend these programs for the rest of
this year, as the Senate approved last week.
Unemployment has soared from 5.5 percent to 10 percent. Yet our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle press on with their claims
that this is somehow creating jobs. It's not.
What it is creating is more unemployment taxes, to cover the costs of
the record unemployment benefits States are paying out. Those are taxes
on jobs, which are rising in 35 States this year, by a total of 44
percent.
Madam Speaker, we have tried extending unemployment benefits again
and again. And we have only gotten more unemployment. Yet what
unemployed workers really want are jobs and paychecks. We need to start
over and do the things that really help create jobs for unemployed
workers. That means eliminating uncertainty by scrapping Democrats'
government health care takeover and cap and tax energy plans, extending
expiring tax cuts on businesses and individuals, repealing wasteful
stimulus spending, and committing to not increasing any tax until the
economy has fully recovered.
Until we do that, additional extensions of unemployment benefits will
simply spend even more money we don't have without truly helping
unemployed workers find jobs, which must be our real goal.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4851, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2010
Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4853) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations
for the airport improvement program, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4853
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Aviation
Administration Extension Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TAXES FUNDING AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST
FUND.
(a) Fuel Taxes.--Subparagraph (B) of section 4081(d)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
``March 31, 2010'' and inserting ``July 3, 2010''.
(b) Ticket Taxes.--
(1) Persons.--Clause (ii) of section 4261(j)(1)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``March
31, 2010'' and inserting ``July 3, 2010''.
(2) Property.--Clause (ii) of section 4271(d)(1)(A) of such
Code is amended by striking ``March 31, 2010'' and inserting
``July 3, 2010''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on April 1, 2010.
SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND
EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``April 1, 2010'' and inserting ``July 4,
2010''; and
(2) by inserting ``or the Federal Aviation Administration
Extension Act of 2010'' before the semicolon at the end of
subparagraph (A).
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 9502(e)
of such Code is amended by striking ``April 1, 2010'' and
inserting ``July 4, 2010''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on April 1, 2010.
SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--Section 48103(7) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(7) $3,024,657,534 for the period beginning on October 1,
2009, and ending on July 3, 2010.''.
(2) Obligation of amounts.--Sums made available pursuant to
the amendment made by paragraph (1) may be obligated at any
time through September 30, 2010, and shall remain available
until expended.
(3) Program implementation.--For purposes of calculating
funding apportionments and meeting other requirements under
sections 47114, 47115, 47116, and 47117 of title 49, United
States Code, for the period beginning on October 1, 2009, and
ending on July 3, 2010, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall--
(A) first calculate funding apportionments on an annualized
basis as if the total amount available under section 48103 of
such title for fiscal year 2010 were $4,000,000,000; and
(B) then reduce by \89/365\--
(i) all funding apportionments calculated under
subparagraph (A); and
(ii) amounts available pursuant to sections 47117(b) and
47117(f)(2) of such title.
(b) Project Grant Authority.--Section 47104(c) of such
title is amended by striking ``March 31, 2010,'' and
inserting ``July 3, 2010,''.
[[Page 3697]]
SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF EXPIRING AUTHORITIES.
(a) Section 40117(l)(7) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``April 1, 2010.'' and inserting ``July
4, 2010.''.
(b) Section 44302(f)(1) of such title is amended--
(1) by striking ``March 31, 2010,'' and inserting ``July 3,
2010,''; and
(2) by striking ``June 30, 2010,'' and inserting
``September 30, 2010,''.
(c) Section 44303(b) of such title is amended by striking
``June 30, 2010,'' and inserting ``September 30, 2010,''.
(d) Section 47107(s)(3) of such title is amended by
striking ``April 1, 2010.'' and inserting ``July 4, 2010.''.
(e) Section 47115(j) of such title is amended by striking
``April 1, 2010,'' and inserting ``July 4, 2010,''.
(f) Section 47141(f) of such title is amended by striking
``March 31, 2010.'' and inserting ``July 3, 2010.''.
(g) Section 49108 of such title is amended by striking
``March 31, 2010,'' and inserting ``July 3, 2010,''.
(h) Section 161 of the Vision 100--Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (49 U.S.C. 47109 note) is amended by
striking ``April 1, 2010,'' and inserting ``July 4, 2010,''.
(i) Section 186(d) of such Act (117 Stat. 2518) is amended
by striking ``April 1, 2010,'' and inserting ``July 4,
2010,''.
(j) The amendments made by this section shall take effect
on April 1, 2010.
SEC. 6. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OPERATIONS.
Section 106(k)(1)(F) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(F) $7,070,158,159 for the period beginning on October 1,
2009, and ending on July 3, 2010.''.
SEC. 7. AIR NAVIGATION FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT.
Section 48101(a)(6) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(6) $2,220,252,132 for the period beginning on October 1,
2009, and ending on July 3, 2010.''.
SEC. 8. RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT.
Section 48102(a)(14) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(14) $144,049,315 for the period beginning on October 1,
2009, and ending on July 3, 2010.''.
SEC. 9. EXTENSION AND FLEXIBILITY FOR CERTAIN ALLOCATED
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Surface Transportation Extension Modification Act of
2010''.
(b) Modification of Allocation Rules.--Section 411(d) of
the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2010 is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``1301, 1302,''; and
(ii) by striking ``1198, 1204,''; and
(B) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking
``apportioned under sections 104(b) and 144 of title 23,
United States Code,'' and inserting ``specified in section
105(a)(2) of title 23, United States Code (except the high
priority projects program),''; and
(ii) in clause (ii) by striking ``apportioned under such
sections of such Code'' and inserting ``specified in such
section 105(a)(2) (except the high priority projects
program)'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``1301, 1302,''; and
(ii) by striking ``1198, 1204,''; and
(B) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking
``apportioned under sections 104(b) and 144 of title 23,
United States Code,'' and inserting ``specified in section
105(a)(2) of title 23, United States Code (except the high
priority projects program),''; and
(ii) in clause (ii) by striking ``apportioned under such
sections of such Code'' and inserting ``specified in such
section 105(a)(2) (except the high priority projects
program)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Projects of national and regional significance and
national corridor infrastructure improvement programs.--
``(A) Redistribution among states.--Notwithstanding
sections 1301(m) and 1302(e) of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1202
and 1205), the Secretary shall apportion funds authorized to
be appropriated under subsection (b) for the projects of
national and regional significance program and the national
corridor infrastructure improvement program among all States
such that each State's share of the funds so apportioned is
equal to the State's share for fiscal year 2009 of funds
apportioned or allocated for the programs specified in
section 105(a)(2) of title 23, United States Code.
``(B) Distribution among programs.--Funds apportioned to a
State pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be--
``(i) made available to the State for the programs
specified in section 105(a)(2) of title 23, United States
Code (except the high priority projects program), and in the
same proportion for each such program that--
``(I) the amount apportioned to the State for that program
for fiscal year 2009; bears to
``(II) the amount apportioned to the State for fiscal year
2009 for all such programs; and
``(ii) administered in the same manner and with the same
period of availability as funding is administered under
programs identified in clause (i).''.
(c) Expenditure Authority From Highway Trust Fund.--
Paragraph (1) of section 9503(c) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as amended by the Surface Transportation Extension
Act of 2010, is amended by striking ``in effect on the date
of the enactment of such Act)'' and inserting ``in effect on
the later of the date of the enactment of such Act or the
date of the enactment of the Surface Transportation Extension
Modification Act of 2010)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect upon the enactment of the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2010 and shall be treated as
being included in that Act at the time of the enactment of
that Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Costello) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
General Leave
Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 4853.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4853, the Federal Aviation
Administration Extension Act of 2010. I want to thank Chairman Levin
and Ranking Member Camp, as well as Chairman Oberstar and Ranking
Members Mica and Petri for bringing this to the floor today.
The FAA has been operating under a series of short-term extensions
for 2\1/2\ years since the last FAA reauthorization bill expired.
Short-term extensions and uncertain funding levels can be disruptive to
the aviation industry, airports, and local communities because they do
not allow them to plan for long-term growth. Frankly, every month that
goes by without a long-term FAA authorization is a lost opportunity to
improve aviation safety and security and to create and maintain jobs
around the country.
Madam Speaker, the House did its job and passed H.R. 915, the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2009, a 3-year authorization of FAA programs.
For 8 months, we have been waiting on the other body to bring a bill to
the floor and pass it. The Senate bill is now being debated in the
other body, and we look forward to passage of that bill so that we can
complete our work and begin with the reauthorization of the FAA bill.
However, the Airport and Airways Trust Fund will expire on March 31,
2010, and the bill before us today, H.R. 4853, extends aviation taxes
and expenditure authority, and the Airport Improvement Program contract
authority, until July 3, 2010.
H.R. 4853 also provides for a total of $3 billion in AIP contract
authority through early July, which translates to an annualized amount
of $4 billion for fiscal year 2010. This level of funding is consistent
with the annual levels provided by the House and the Senate
reauthorization bills, as well as the fiscal year 2010 concurrent
budget resolution. These additional funds will allow airports to
continue critical safety and capacity enhancement projects.
Additionally, the bill provides $7 billion for FAA operations, $2.2
billion for facility and equipment programs, and $144 million for
research, engineering, and development programs. When translated to
yearly amounts, these figures equal the funding levels passed for these
programs by the fiscal year 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
In addition, the 3-month bill extends aviation excise taxes through
July 3, 2010. These taxes are necessary to support the Airport and
Airways Trust Fund, which funds a large portion of the FAA's budget.
Any lapse in these taxes could drain the trust fund's balance, so it is
important that we act now, pending the passage of a longer-term
reauthorization bill.
[[Page 3698]]
Aviation is too important to our Nation's economy, contributing $1.2
trillion in output and approximately 11.4 million jobs, to allow the
taxes or the funding for critical aviation programs to expire. Congress
must ensure that this extension passes today to reduce delays and
congestion, improve safety and efficiency, stimulate the economy, and
create jobs.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, in the 110th Congress, the House passed the
FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, H.R. 2881. That bill reauthorized the
FAA for 4 years. In May of last year, the House voted again to pass a
comprehensive reauthorization bill, H.R. 915, the FAA Reauthorization
Act of 2009.
In just the last week, the Senate has begun consideration of their
FAA reauthorization bill, and it looks quite possible that the two
Chambers will soon begin negotiations to reconcile each of their bills.
However, this reconciliation process will take time. Given that the
current FAA extension expires at the end of this month, we need to
again extend the FAA's taxes and authorities to allow time to get a
final, conferenced FAA bill.
H.R. 4853 would extend the taxes, programs, and funding of the FAA
through July 3 of this year. This bill extends FAA funding and contract
authority for just over 3 months, provides $3 billion in Airport
Improvement Program funding, extends the War Risk Insurance program,
and extends other authorities related to Small Community Air Service,
airport, and safety programs.
H.R. 4853 will ensure that our National Airspace System continues to
operate until a full FAA reauthorization can be enacted.
So as I have indicated many times since the passage of the House FAA
reauthorization bill back in 2007, we need to pass a long-term bill so
that we can meet the growing demands placed on our Nation's aviation
infrastructure. Modernizing our antiquated air traffic control system
and repairing our crumbling infrastructure need to be at the top of our
priorities.
While I'm disappointed that the FAA has gone so long without a
comprehensive reauthorization, I support this extension as the best
alternative to keep the FAA and the National Airspace System running
safely and efficiently until we can take up and pass a bipartisan and
bicameral bill. It seems that we are closer to this goal than ever
before, at least in recent Congresses.
H.R. 4853 also includes a provision that will change the way funding
is distributed for the Projects of National and Regional Significance
program and the National Corridor Infrastructure program in the surface
transportation extension that the Senate passed this morning.
In its current form, this surface extension bill would prevent 22
States from receiving any funding and would direct 56 percent of the
funding to just four States: California, Louisiana, Illinois, and
Washington. This fix ensures that the funding for those two programs is
distributed to all States through the existing Federal-aid highway
formula. And I commend the people who are responsible for that fix.
With that, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, H.R. 4853.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COSTELLO. At this time, Madam Speaker, I recognize our friend who
is a member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, I'm going to fly home hopefully later
this weekend, and it is surely important to me that the FAA continues
to do what it must do to keep the air safe. And I want to commend the
minority as well as the Chair for this extension.
But beyond the extension, there is another extremely important
element in this bill, and that is straightening out the funding for
transportation. Mr. Oberstar worked a miracle and actually managed to
give California less of more, which took a while for me to understand.
But the reality is that by being able to work out a compromise with the
Senate, we are going to be able to move the transportation programs
forward. It's a great example of what can be done with some good
leadership working both sides of the aisle.
I want to commend the bill to all of us and move this thing along so
that we can fly home safely when we get the health care bill done and
go home and tell our constituents about a good highway transportation
program that's been put together.
Mr. PETRI. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COSTELLO. At this time, Madam Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to
a member of the full committee, Mr. Sires from New Jersey.
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
4853, the Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010. This
legislation would extend the FAA's aviation programs and taxes for 3
more months, through July 3, 2010.
Funding authorization for aviation programs expired at the end of
fiscal year 2007, and since then, 11 extensions have been passed.
Although the House passed Chairman Oberstar's bill, H.R. 915, the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2009, on May 21, 2009, the Senate has not acted
on this legislation. Passage of a comprehensive reauthorization bill is
necessary, but for the time being, we must once again pass an extension
reauthorizing the FAA's aviation programs.
Included in this bill are also two very important surface
transportation provisions. These provisions would alleviate concerns
raised by Members of the House earlier this month when we passed the
House amendments to the Senate amendments of the HIRE Act.
Specifically, section 9 of this bill will amend the HIRE Act and
resolve House concerns with the formula of distributing highway funding
in the HIRE Act.
This bill would share among all States the $932 million for projects
of national and regional significance and the national corridor
programs.
Under the Senate's bill, four States would automatically receive 58
percent of this funding and 22 States would receive no funding at all.
Under this bill, all States will be allowed to compete for these
programs.
This bill also distributes additional bonus formula funds to 13
current State highway formula programs, as opposed to only six of the
highway formula programs. While the Senate Surface Transportation Act
Extension Act skewed highway formula funding to certain States, this
bill acts as a remedy. Additionally, these two surface transportation
provisions would put into law Majority Leader Reid's commitment to
rectify the two differences between the House and the Senate
transportation extension bills.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in passing the FAA
Extension Act, which includes several important provisions.
{time} 1545
Mr. PETRI. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, at this time I recognize for such time
as he may consume the chairman of the full Transportation Committee,
Chairman Oberstar.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the chair of the Aviation
Subcommittee, Mr. Costello. He has already well and duly explained the
FAA authorization extension that is before us at this moment. I want to
address, as Mr. Petri has done, as Mr. Garamendi and Mr. Sires have
done, the other provision in this bill.
When we passed the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act a time
ago, the legislation then was sent back by the Senate with some changes
in the highway funding formula that I felt were unfair, unjust,
unnecessary; and I held up House consideration of the bill until we
could reach an agreement with the other body.
As I went on to explain in meetings of the caucus, meetings with our
committee members on both sides of the aisle, the Senate version of
this bill directed major highway discretionary program funding to a
select group of States: four would get 58 percent of the funding; 22
States get nothing; the other 20 got dribbles.
[[Page 3699]]
That formulation would provide a permanent windfall for those four
States. And not just a one-time shot but a long-term windfall, because
it would skew underlying highway formulas, changing the baseline for
those four States that got the lion's share of the money.
After a good deal of discussion and consideration, I had a
conversation with my very good friend from the time he served in the
House. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed out that there was
$932 million in discretionary highway funds that we had formulated one
way in the bill we passed in December. The Senate has now taken that
language and skewed it in a different direction, and that is the wrong
thing to do and will change from our provision in the December bill
that distributed that $932 million in discretionary funding to the
Secretary to fold it into the regular highway formula for all of the
States on a proportional basis, rather than just the 29 States that had
programs and projects of national and regional significance and
national corridor infrastructure improvement programs. That included my
State of Minnesota, which would have benefited from the windfall of the
Senate formula.
I could have just said nothing, sat on my hands, let it go. It is a
very arcane, very complex formula. Few people would have understood it.
But it was the wrong thing to do. It was the wrong way to hijack the
House bill and hijack these funds and just simply allocate them to few
States.
Furthermore, the language, the provision in the other body's
legislation designated seven programs as second-tier programs and
further rated those funds--the Appalachia Development Highway System,
the Rail Highway Grade Crossing, the Equity Bonus Program, Recreational
Trail, Safe Routes to School, Coordinated Border Infrastructure, and
the Metropolitan Planning programs--relegated them to a second-tier
status, and denies them the opportunity to receive additional funding
during the extension period and weakens their standing during the long-
term authorization. That is wrong.
I explained it to Senator Reid. He fully understood it. I proposed an
exchange of letters, which he did, and he said, ``We will agree to the
adjustment,'' as proposed in the formula that I set forth and which I
will include in the Record at this point, including the exchange of
letters with Senator Reid, and our committee summary explanation of
this provision.
HIGHWAY AND BRIDGE FORMULA FUNDING BY STATE UNDER SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACTS, HIRE ACT VS. SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION MODIFICATION ACT OF 2010, MARCH 17, 2010
[37 States Fare Better under the Surface Transportation Modification Act of 2010; 14 States Fare Better under
the HIRE Act]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase
Surface (decrease)
Transportation under Surface
State HIRE Act\1\ Modification Transportation
Act\2\ Modification
Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................................... $1,160,135,018 $1,178,768,813 $18,633,795
Alaska..................................................... 698,820,601 702,234,406 3,413,805
Arizona.................................................... 1,119,833,846 1,137,317,569 17,483,723
Arkansas................................................... 780,938,283 757,601,098 (23,337,185)
California................................................. 5,540,834,984 5,348,478,144 (192,356,840)
Colorado................................................... 808,562,089 808,216,244 (345,845)
Connecticut................................................ 771,124,583 774,468,106 3,343,523
Delaware................................................... 254,115,413 258,166,183 4,050,770
Dist. of Col............................................... 241,637,283 226,506,326 (15,130,958)
Florida.................................................... 2,901,459,068 2,948,516,502 47,057,434
Georgia.................................................... 1,990,475,595 2,022,248,870 31,773,275
Hawaii..................................................... 258,011,916 262,133,940 4,122,024
Idaho...................................................... 436,473,412 443,558,991 7,085,579
Illinois................................................... 2,133,468,322 2,014,527,598 (118,940,724)
Indiana.................................................... 1,454,478,215 1,473,826,863 19,348,649
Iowa....................................................... 721,928,309 731,252,426 9,324,118
Kansas..................................................... 582,189,917 591,518,358 9,328,441
Kentucky................................................... 1,012,890,986 1,027,305,950 14,414,964
Louisiana.................................................. 1,045,633,419 1,002,664,600 (42,968,819)
Maine...................................................... 280,240,625 284,757,226 4,516,601
Maryland................................................... 918,077,359 930,393,685 12,316,326
Massachusetts.............................................. 935,232,711 950,187,222 14,954,511
Michigan................................................... 1,628,896,250 1,649,577,451 20,681,201
Minnesota.................................................. 969,838,993 960,370,670 (9,468,323)
Mississippi................................................ 730,280,701 740,066,612 9,785,911
Missouri................................................... 1,422,349,455 1,444,428,478 22,079,023
Montana.................................................... 595,326,967 604,421,087 9,094,120
Nebraska................................................... 439,714,255 446,827,117 7,112,863
Nevada..................................................... 509,981,437 517,716,094 7,734,658
New Hampshire.............................................. 255,499,273 259,619,857 4,120,584
New Jersey................................................. 1,522,180,325 1,521,313,478 (866,848)
New Mexico................................................. 558,845,157 564,388,783 5,543,626
New York................................................... 2,585,021,983 2,601,114,874 16,092,891
North Carolina............................................. 1,597,585,980 1,623,405,549 25,819,569
North Dakota............................................... 376,542,187 382,541,944 5,999,758
Ohio....................................................... 2,046,630,272 2,071,931,711 25,301,439
Oklahoma................................................... 958,778,621 936,700,103 (22,078,518)
Oregon..................................................... 745,775,067 717,111,735 (28,663,333)
Pennsylvania............................................... 2,533,737,942 2,561,421,751 27,683,809
Rhode Island............................................... 328,209,791 333,303,797 5,094,006
South Carolina............................................. 960,038,143 962,956,224 2,918,081
South Dakota............................................... 423,697,858 430,371,013 6,673,155
Tennessee.................................................. 1,286,665,098 1,280,356,104 (6,308,994)
Texas...................................................... 4,835,326,374 4,912,212,474 76,886,100
Utah....................................................... 482,941,887 490,736,905 7,795,018
Vermont.................................................... 299,846,556 304,031,221 4,184,665
Virginia................................................... 1,550,364,905 1,538,365,476 (11,999,429)
Washington................................................. 1,021,098,782 981,828,852 (39,269,930)
West Virginia.............................................. 660,653,936 651,000,745 (9,653,191)
Wisconsin.................................................. 1,135,046,618 1,138,278,090 3,231,471
Wyoming.................................................... 389,303,475 395,692,926 6,389,451
----------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 58,896,740,240 58,896,740,240 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2010, title IV of H.R. 2847, the ``Hiring Incentives to Restore
Employment Act'' (HIRE Act).
\2\The Surface Transportation Modification Act of 2010, section 9 of H.R. 4853, the ``Federal Aviation
Administration Extension Act of 2010'', implementing the February 26, 2010 written agreement among Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Chairman James L. Oberstar.
This table was prepared by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Majority staff based on technical
assistance provided by the Federal Highway Administration.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, February 26, 2010.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington,
DC.
Hon. James L. Oberstar,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker and Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your
cooperation in facilitating the House passage of the H.R.
2847, the ``Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act'',
passed by the Senate on February 24, 2010. I appreciate your
concern that the urgency of passage of the legislation did
not allow time for a Conference Committee or other
discussions to reconcile surface transportation extension act
differences between the Senate-passed amendment (Title IV)
and the House-passed bill, the ``Jobs for Main Street Act''
(Title II of H.R. 2847).
To accommodate House concerns with Title IV, the ``Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2010'', of the Senate-passed
amendment, we have reached agreement on the following changes
to H.R. 2847:
1. Distribute the Projects of National and Regional
Significance (PNRS) and National Corridor Infrastructure
Improvement (Corridor) program funding among all States based
on each State's share of fiscal year 2009 highway apportioned
funds rather than to only 29 States that had PNRS and
Corridor projects under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU).
2. Distribute ``additional'' highway formula funds (which
the bill makes available in lieu of additional
Congressionally-designated projects) among all of the highway
formula programs rather than among just six formula programs.
I pledge to you that I will make every effort to include
these provisions in the next Jobs bill passed by the Senate,
which we hope to accomplish in the next few weeks. I have
attached legislative language to accomplish these changes.
I will also join you in requesting that the Federal Highway
Administration not apportion the PNRS and Corridor funding to
States until Congress has passed this corrective legislation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Harry Reid,
Majority Leader.
____
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Summary of H.R. 4853,
the ``Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010'', March
17, 2010
BACKGROUND
The most recent long-term Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) reauthorization act, Vision 100--Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176), expired September 30,
2007. Work in the House to reauthorize the FAA culminated
most recently with the passage of H.R. 915, the ``FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2009'', on May 21, 2009. To date, the
Senate has not completed action on a long-term FAA
reauthorization bill.
In the meantime, pending completion of a long-term
reauthorization bill, Congress has passed a series of short-
term acts extending the FAA's authority. The current FAA
extension act expires on March 31, 2010.
Separately, on February 25, 2010, the Senate passed H.R.
2847, the ``Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act''
(HIRE Act), with an amendment. The HIRE Act includes an
extension of highway, highway and motor carrier safety, and
public transit programs through December 31, 2010. It also
includes a number of provisions that raised concerns for
Members of the House. The House was able to address some of
these provisions (e.g., PAYGO costs) through amendments at
that time. However, the urgent need to pass the legislation
did not allow sufficient time to resolve two major
differences between the surface transportation extension
title of the HIRE Act and the surface transportation
extension passed by the House on December 16, 2009, as part
of H.R. 2847, the ``Jobs for Main Street Act'':
1. the treatment of Projects of National and Regional
Significance and the National Corridor Infrastructure
Improvement programs; and
2. the programmatic distribution of additional formula
funds provided to States in lieu of additional
Congressionally-designated project funding.
First, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
(P.L. 109-59) established two major discretionary programs:
the
[[Page 3700]]
Projects of National and Regional Significance (PNRS) and
National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement (National
Corridor) programs. Although the programs were designed as
competitive, discretionary programs, during deliberations on
the bill in 2005, the Conference Committee decided to
designate individual projects under each program. The HIRE
Act extends funding for these two programs, providing a total
of $932 million for the PNRS and National Corridor programs
over a 15-month period (October 1, 2009 through December 31,
2010). This approach distributes these funds only to States
that had earmarks under these programs in SAFETEA-LU--with
four States receiving 58 percent of the funding and 22 States
receiving nothing. This provision would create a permanent
windfall for these four States, and would unfairly skew the
highway formulas.
Second, in fiscal years (FY) 2005 through 2009, SAFETEA-LU
included Congressionally-designated projects under several
discretionary programs (e.g., House and Senate
Congressionally-designated projects under the High Priority
Projects and Transportation Improvements programs). The HIRE
Act extends funding for these programs, but does not include
any earmarks during the extension period. Instead, it
provides each State with an amount equal to its FY 2009
Congressionally-designated projects under these discretionary
programs and distributes those additional funds through six
existing State highway formula programs.
H.R. 2847, the ``Jobs for Main Street Act'', as passed by
the House, would have distributed the additional funding
through all of the 13 current State highway formula programs:
Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, Highway
Bridge, Surface Transportation Program, Highway Safety
Improvement Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement, Metropolitan Planning, Equity Bonus, Appalachian
Development Highway System, Recreational Trails, Safe Routes
to School, Rail-Highway Grade Crossing, and Coordinated
Border Infrastructure programs. By limiting the distribution
of the additional funding through only six highway formula
programs, the HIRE Act essentially designates seven
programs--the Appalachian Development Highway System, Rail-
Highway Grade Crossing, Equity Bonus, Recreational Trails,
Safe Routes to School, Coordinated Border Infrastructure, and
Metropolitan Planning programs--as ``second-tier'' programs,
denying them the opportunity to receive additional funding
during the extension period and weakening their standing
during the ongoing authorization process.
On February 26, 2010, to accommodate House concerns with
Title IV, the ``Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2010'', Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy
Pelosi, and Chairman James L. Oberstar reached agreement on
the following changes to the HIRE Act in future legislation:
1. Distribute the PNRS and National Corridor program
funding among all States based on each State's share of FY
2009 highway apportioned funds rather than to only 29 States
that had PNRS and National Corridor projects under SAFETEA-
LU.
2. Distribute ``additional'' highway formula funds (which
the bill makes available in lieu of additional
Congressionally-designated projects) among all of the highway
formula programs rather than among just six formula programs.
On the strength of this commitment, on March 4, 2010, the
House passed the HIRE Act. The Senate is expected to vote on
final passage of the HIRE Act on March 17, 2010.
H.R.4853, THE ``FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2010''
H.R. 4853, the ``Federal Aviation Administration Extension
Act of 2010'', extends FAA programs for three months and
modifies the previously-described surface transportation
provisions of the HIRE Act.
AVIATION PROVISIONS
H.R. 4853 extends the FAA's aviation programs and taxes for
three months, through July 3, 2010. Aside from covering the
FAA's funding needs through July 3 and making appropriate
adjustments to amounts, the FAA provisions do not differ
substantially from prior three-month extension bills.
H.R. 4853 provides $3 billion in contract authority for the
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) from October 1, 2009, until
July 3, 2010. These funds will enable airports to move
forward with important safety and capacity projects. This
level of AIP funding, when annualized, is $4 billion, which
is consistent with AIP funding authorizations in both H.R.
915 and the pending Senate FAA reauthorization bill, as well
as the FY 2010 Concurrent Budget Resolution.
The bill also authorizes appropriations for FAA Operations,
Facilities and Equipment (F&E), and Research, Engineering,
and Development (RE&D) programs. Specifically, H.R. 4853
authorizes, for the period between October 1, 2009, and July
3, 2010, $7 billion for FAA Operations, $2.2 billion for F&E,
and $144 million for RE&D. When annualized, these authorized
funding levels equal the FY 2010 enacted funding levels that
have already been provided for these programs by the
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (division A of P.L. 111-
117)
In addition, the bill extends aviation excise taxes until
July 3, 2010. These taxes are necessary to support the
Airport and Airways Trust Fund, which funds a substantial
portion of the FAA's budget. The Trust Fund's uncommitted
cash balance was only $299 million at the end of FY 2009, and
any lapse in aviation taxes could put the solvency of the
Trust Fund at risk.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROVISIONS
Section 9 of H.R. 4853 amends the HIRE Act in keeping with
Majority Leader Reid's February 26, 2010 commitment,
resolving House concerns with the HIRE Act's distribution of
highway funding.
Regarding the treatment of PNRS and National Corridor
programs, section 9 of H.R. 4853 amends the HIRE Act to
achieve a compromise between the initial House and Senate
positions. Under this compromise, the $932 million will be
distributed among all States, rather than just the 29 States
that had PNRS and National Corridor projects under SAFETEA-
LU. The funds will be distributed based on each State's share
of FY 2009 highway apportioned funds.
Regarding the programmatic distribution of additional
formula funds provided to States in lieu of additional
Congressionally-designated funding, section 9 amends the HIRE
Act to distribute the additional formula funds through all 13
current State highway formula programs.
Today's action keeps faith with the House, permits Senator Reid to
keep his commitment, which he has done. He has cleared this language
with the relevant Members of the other body, and I am confident we will
correct this invasive mistake and raid on the highway trust fund with
passage of this legislation we will move today through the House and I
expect, very quickly, similarly, through the other body.
I very much appreciate the cooperation Majority Leader Reid, Speaker
Pelosi, the members of our committee, including my good friend Mr. Mica
who has been a partner in shaping this language as we moved along, and
Mr. Costello for adding this to the very important extension of the
aviation authorization.
Mr. PETRI. I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking
minority member of the full committee, my colleague from Florida,
Representative John Mica.
Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am pleased to rise in support of this legislation, which would
provide a 3-month extension for the operations of the Federal Aviation
Administration.
This is kind of interesting. I think just for the record, Madam
Speaker, and also for the benefit of our colleagues who may be
listening or their staff trying to figure out what is going on, Madam
Speaker, this is in fact the 12th extension of the FAA reauthorization.
I was the chairman back in 2001 and through the next 6 years, and my
leadership I think is looking better and better every week and every
month now.
I introduced the current bill that has been extended--today will be
the 12th time--May 15 in 2003. It actually was agreed to in conference
on November 21, 2003, and it was signed by the President on December
12, 2003. So I got it done in 6 months. Not record speed, but pretty
good speed.
My bill has been in effect for about 7 years, I think the longest FAA
authorization in history. I am quite proud of it, but in fact even my
legislation does need improvement. We do need an update in policy for
running the FAA. We need definition and delineation of projects which
are authorized, including the important next generation getting the
best technical equipment, going from a ground-based system to
satellites, and getting better utilization out of our air space, and
also using less fuel and more efficient utilization of our important
airports. But, again, I think it is incredible that we are on the 12th
extension with the passage of this, but it must be done.
The other body continues to belabor this particular bill. We are
hoping for the best and that it does come out, and that we do have new
language for the country and for the operation of our Federal Aviation
Administration.
What is sad, too, is, again, I think if you look at the 3 years that
the other side has controlled this Chamber, and this was pointed out
again in a meeting that we had with some of the former TSA
administrators, the turnover in
[[Page 3701]]
personnel, not only in TSA and failure to replace the Transportation
Security Administration leader, but also in the FAA. We had seen
turnover in the FAA administrator's position when I came to Congress
some 18 years ago. We reached a bipartisan accord and agreement to have
a 5-year appointment of an FAA administrator, and that would transcend
a Presidential term.
We had two great administrators. One appointed by President Clinton,
served for 5 years, Jane Garvey; and then we had one appointed by
President Bush for 5 years, Marion Blakey, and she did an outstanding
job.
And then what did we have? We had a period for an acting
administrator, and the other side held him up, demeaned him. While he
served in the position, we had a vacancy with an FAA administrator for
over 1 year, and we didn't adhere to the bipartisan agreement to keep
FAA out of politics and keep it with sound continuous administration.
So I am disappointed in that fact.
Then, again, Madam Speaker, and for those Members that are listening,
people are wondering what we are doing here on adjusting the jobs bill
that just passed the Senate, I am told, today.
In that bill, as you may recall, and I offer this particular exhibit
to the Record, it showed that with the extension through the end of
December, the other body in fact denied 22 States payment and gave 58
percent of payment for one of our largest portions and designations of
funding to four States. One was, of course, California; another one was
Illinois, surprise; the State of Washington, another surprise; and then
the Louisiana Purchase at the end.
But, Mr. Oberstar, I will say I have to compliment him. He did get an
agreement, and he got the correction in this legislation so it is
something we can all vote for. We can now equitably distribute the
money to all 50 States.
There was a proposal to give it to the Secretary of Transportation.
Now, I have been there and done that with the Secretary. I didn't like
that proposal, because just several weeks before this fiasco took
place, we distributed $1.5 billion worth of stimulus funds to our
economically job-disadvantaged States. And my State of Florida, seventh
in the Nation with now 11.8 percent unemployment, they ended up getting
zero, with discretionary money being distributed to again supposedly
States that were hurting, and Florida is number seven of the top 10 in
unemployment. So I wasn't a big fan of having the Secretary distribute
that money.
I think what we have done here, which I suggested to the chairman and
to the other side, was a fair distribution. Everyone knows what the
distribution formula is; everyone will be treated equitably and fairly.
So I am pleased to support both the FAA extension and then the
correction and proper distribution of highway trust funds.
Now, this takes us only, folks, through December of this year. I know
it is confusing because we are on a 30- day highway extension because
we haven't done a highway and transportation major rewrite of the TEA-
legislation, but it will take us through the end of the year.
That is somewhat good news, but it is also bad news because States
cannot plan beyond the end of the year. That means that we can't get
people working beyond the end of the year. That means that we can't
make commitments for improving our Nation's infrastructure and probably
the biggest programs that we could do as far as this Congress in
employing people.
So I am disappointed that the administration failed to support Mr.
Oberstar, my chairman, on a 6-year authorization. At a time we needed
to do it, they recommended an 18-month. And what have we got here? We
have got until December, and leaving everyone at bay, people without
work, States not knowing what to do after the end of this year.
So we have to do this. We have to get the extension as long as we can
get it. Right now the other side is saying until December. I am
disappointed in that. We have to straighten out the formula. And then
we have to extend the FAA bill, and I am so pleased that we are
extending my FAA bill, which, wasn't, I must say in closing, a bad
piece of work.
{time} 1600
Mr. PETRI. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I
ask my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 4853.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order:
H. Res. 1141, by the yeas and nays;
S. 1147, by the yeas and nays;
H.R. 3954, by the yeas and nays;
H.R. 946, by the yeas and nays;
H.R. 4825, by the yeas and nays.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
____________________
HONORING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1141,
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1141.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 416,
nays 0, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 123]
YEAS--416
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
[[Page 3702]]
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Speier
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--14
Barrett (SC)
Brown (SC)
Capito
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Fortenberry
Grayson
Larsen (WA)
Lewis (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
Space
Stark
Young (FL)
{time} 1628
Mr. HENSARLING changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PREVENT ALL CIGARETTE TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2009
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, S. 1147, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, S. 1147.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 387,
nays 25, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 124]
YEAS--387
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Speier
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--25
Boren
Broun (GA)
Campbell
Carter
Dicks
Duncan
Ellsworth
Flake
Garrett (NJ)
Halvorson
Herseth Sandlin
Kingston
Lummis
McClintock
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Paul
Petri
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--18
Barrett (SC)
Berkley
Blackburn
Brown (SC)
Capito
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
Grayson
Issa
Johnson (GA)
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Moore (WI)
Schmidt
Slaughter
Space
Stark
Young (FL)
[[Page 3703]]
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1637
Mr. BOREN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 124, had I
been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________
FLORIDA NATIONAL FOREST LAND ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2009
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3954, as amended,
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3954, as amended.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 418,
nays 1, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 125]
YEAS--418
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Speier
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NAYS--1
Whitfield
NOT VOTING--11
Barrett (SC)
Blackburn
Brown (SC)
Capito
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
Dingell
Slaughter
Space
Stark
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1646
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PLAIN WRITING ACT OF 2010
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 946, as amended, on
which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 946, as amended.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 386,
nays 33, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 126]
YEAS--386
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp
Cantor
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
[[Page 3704]]
Fattah
Filner
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Speier
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--33
Akin
Bartlett
Blackburn
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell
Chaffetz
Dreier
Flake
Garrett (NJ)
Gohmert
Jenkins
Jordan (OH)
Kingston
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Lummis
Manzullo
Marchant
McClintock
Miller, Gary
Nunes
Paul
Petri
Poe (TX)
Rooney
Royce
Sensenbrenner
Smith (NE)
Tiahrt
Whitfield
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--11
Barrett (SC)
Brown (SC)
Capito
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
Dingell
Pence
Slaughter
Space
Stark
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1654
Messrs. CHAFFETZ and BURTON of Indiana changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
SENSIBLE STEPS TOWARD A BALANCED BUDGET ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4825, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4825.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 413,
nays 1, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 127]
YEAS--413
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
[[Page 3705]]
Souder
Speier
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NAYS--1
Nadler (NY)
NOT VOTING--16
Barrett (SC)
Brown (SC)
Buyer
Capito
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
Dingell
Garamendi
Larsen (WA)
Owens
Posey
Slaughter
Space
Stark
Tierney
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this
vote.
{time} 1702
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to direct unused
appropriations for Members' Representational Allowances to be deposited
in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction or to reduce the Federal
debt.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND
THE RULES
Mr. ARCURI, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 111-441) on the resolution (H. Res. 1190) providing
for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, which was referred
to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
WOMEN WILL BENEFIT FROM HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, soon health care
insurance reform will be on this floor, and I believe that the women of
America have the most to gain from the bill.
In the individual insurance market, women are charged up to 48
percent more than men for the same coverage. The health bill will
prohibit that discrimination. Women are denied coverage for preexisting
conditions like domestic violence or C-sections or pregnancy. The
health care bill will prevent that.
We know as mothers that we are worried about our young adult
children. They can't get insurance, but the health care bill will allow
us to keep our young adult sons and daughters on our own health care
insurance plans.
Preventative services are sometimes unaffordable for women, but the
health care bill will require preventative services to be provided
without a copay.
Health insurance reform is just what the doctor ordered for the women
of America.
____________________
PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Perriello). For what purpose does the
gentleman from Kansas rise?
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. To address the House for 1 minute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman gave a 1-minute speech earlier
today. He may not be recognized for a second 1-minute speech.
____________________
NATIONAL AGRICULTURE WEEK
(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, this is National Ag Week, and I want to
express my support and appreciation for our Nation's farmers and
ranchers, especially those from my home State of Kansas.
Kansas farmers produce more than 350 million bushels of wheat, 200
million bushels of sorghum, and nearly 500 million bushels of corn,
generating more than $5 billion annually for our economy. Our ranchers
produced more than 6.3 billion head of cattle this year. Each farmer
feeds more than 130 people. It is their hard work that has ensured
America a safe, low-cost feed supply.
Now, I learned about agriculture on the seat of a tractor, not a
committee, and I know firsthand just how hard farmers work. Too many
people here in Washington have no clue how the policies they pass
affect farm life, often making things more difficult for farmers and
ranchers.
Congress and bureaucracies need to freeze regulations and let the
agricultural community do their job of feeding the world. We need to
have the EPA step back from the regulations of everything from dust to
cow gas. We need to eliminate the death tax so family farms can stay in
the family. And please, let us restore the focus of the farm bill on
the family farm and not on the cities.
So tonight, Mr. Speaker, as you sit down to dinner, remember to thank
a farmer for making your meal possible.
____________________
CONGRATULATING JACK YATES HIGH SCHOOL LIONS
(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there are many, many important
issues that we will be debating over the next couple of days. I look
forward to being engaged in helping America.
But all of us believe in saluting our youth, and so I rise today to
salute Jack Yates High School in Houston, Texas. I salute them because
of their achievement when things were going wrong. They are the AAAA
State Champions in basketball, but they are rated as the number 1 high
school basketball team in the Nation. So we stand here in the Congress
saying thank you to young men that not only know how to play sports and
basketball, but also know how to play the game of academics.
Let me salute their principal, Principal Mumphrey; their coach, Coach
Wise; and all of the team, both the starting five and others, who
showed courage and showed character. During the game Saturday at the
Erwin Center in Austin, Texas, they suffered injuries. But they didn't
give up, they didn't give out, and they didn't give up. They stood
tall; they played; they ordered themselves, and they won this game.
They have had a no-loss season.
They should be commended because they also stand for character. They
have served their community. I'm proud of the Lions in Winter. Jack
Yates High School should be congratulated.
____________________
PHYSICIANS SUPPORT HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. PINGREE of Maine asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I want to read a letter I got from
a doctor talking about the disproportionate effect of our health care
system on women. She says, ``As a health care provider, I see patients
in my office frequently who need surgery or medicine but who cannot get
the health care they really need because they do not have insurance.
``These are young, otherwise healthy women who are coping the best
they can with their personal health issues. It doesn't make the
national press, but the idea of these women suffering day after day
tugs at my heartstrings.
``We all have sisters, daughters, and cousins without insurance. We
are all touched by someone who does not qualify for government
insurance or cannot afford a private policy. At what point do you
decide that enough is enough and that private insurance companies
aren't doing their job?''
[[Page 3706]]
That doctor is right. That is why I support this bill. There are many
provisions in the health care bill that we will be taking up this week
that make sure that women are not disproportionately affected by the
lack of coverage.
I look forward to voting for this bill.
____________________
FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A further message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate has agreed to the following resolution:
S. Res. 457
In the Senate of the United States, March 17, 2010.
Resolved, That a summons shall be issued which commands G.
Thomas Porteous, Jr. to file with the Secretary of the Senate
an answer to the articles of impeachment no later than April
7, 2010, and thereafter to abide by, obey, and perform such
orders, directions, and judgments as the Senate shall make in
the premises, according to the Constitution and laws of the
United States.
Sec. 2. The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to utilize the
services of the Deputy Sergeant at Arms or another employee
of the Senate in serving the summons.
Sec. 3. The Secretary shall notify the House of
Representatives of the filing of the answer and shall provide
a copy of the answer to the House.
Sec. 4. The Managers on the part of the House may file with
the Secretary of the Senate a replication no later than April
21, 2010.
Sec. 5. The Secretary shall notify counsel for G. Thomas
Porteous, Jr. of the filing of a replication, and shall
provide counsel with a copy.
Sec. 6. The Secretary shall provide the answer and the
replication, if any, to the Presiding Officer of the Senate
on the first day the Senate is in session after the Secretary
receives them, and the Presiding Officer shall cause the
answer and replication, if any, to be printed in the Senate
Journal and in the Congressional Record. If a timely answer
has not been filed, the Presiding Officer shall cause a plea
of not guilty to be entered.
Sec. 7. The articles of impeachment, the answer, and the
replication, if any, together with the provisions of the
Constitution on impeachment, and the Rules of Procedure and
Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials,
shall be printed under the direction of the Secretary as a
Senate document.
Sec. 8. The provisions of this resolution shall govern
notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in the Rules
of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on
Impeachment Trials.
Sec. 9. The Secretary shall notify the House of
Representatives of this resolution.
The message also announced that the Senate agreed to the following
resolution:
S. Res. 458
In the Senate of the United States, March 17, 2010.
Resolved, That pursuant to Rule XI of the Rules of
Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on
Impeachment Trials, the Presiding Officer shall appoint a
committee of twelve senators to perform the duties and to
exercise the powers provided for in the rule.
Sec. 2. The majority and minority leader shall each
recommend six members, including a chairman and vice
chairman, respectively, to the Presiding Officer for
appointment to the committee.
Sec. 3. The committee shall be deemed to be a standing
committee of the Senate for the purpose of reporting to the
Senate resolutions for the criminal or civil enforcement of
the committee's subpoenas or orders, and for the purpose of
printing reports, hearings, and other documents for
submission to the Senate under Rule XI.
Sec. 4. During proceedings conducted under Rule XI the
chairman of the committee is authorized to waive the
requirement under the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the
Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials that questions by a
Senator to a witness, a manager, or counsel shall be reduced
to writing and put by the Presiding Officer.
Sec. 5. In addition to a certified copy of the transcript
of the proceedings and testimony had and given before it, the
committee is authorized to report to the Senate a statement
of facts that are uncontested and a summary, with appropriate
references to the record, of evidence that the parties have
introduced on contested issues of fact.
Sec. 6(a). The actual and necessary expenses of the
committee, including the employment of staff at an annual
rate of pay, and the employment of consultants with prior
approval of the Committee on Rules and Administration at a
rate not to exceed the maximum daily rate for a standing
committee of the Senate, shall be paid from the contingent
fund. of the Senate from the appropriation account
``Miscellaneous Items'' upon vouchers approved by the
chairman of the committee, except that no voucher shall be
required to pay the salary of any employee who is compensated
at an annual rate of pay.
(b) In carrying out its powers, duties, and functions under
this resolution, the committee is authorized, in its
discretion and with the prior consent of the Government
department or agency concerned and the Committee on Rules and
Administration, to use on a reimbursable, or nonreimbursable,
basis the services of personnel of any such department or
agency.
Sec. 7. The committee appointed pursuant to section one of
this resolution shall terminate no later than 60 days after
the pronouncement of judgment by the Senate on the articles
of impeachment.
Sec. 8. The Secretary shall notify the House of
Representatives and counsel for Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.
of this resolution.
The message also announced that pursuant to Senate Resolution 458,
111th Congress, on the appointment of an impeachment trial committee
and Impeachment Rule XI, the Chair, upon the recommendation of the
majority leader and the minority leader, appointed the following
Senators as members of the committee to receive and report evidence in
the impeachment of Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.:
The Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) (Chairman).
The Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar).
The Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse).
The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
The Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen).
The Senator from Delaware (Mr. Kaufman).
The Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) (Vice Chairman).
The Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso).
The Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
The Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).
The Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).
The Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Perriello). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the
House, the following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.
____________________
FREE SPEECH IS NO LONGER RECOGNIZED IN THE NETHERLANDS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the God-given right of free speech to
all people in all nations is no longer recognized in the Netherlands.
The Dutch Government is intolerant of intolerance for terrorists. Thou
shalt not criticize, says their commandment.
Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders made a documentary movie about real
terrorist acts and real radical Islamic clerics encouraging violence in
the name of hate. Wilders now is on trial for insulting Islam. He's
charged with discrimination and incitement to hatred.
In Amsterdam, it's illegal for a Christian or a Buddhist or an
atheist or anyone else to criticize Islam because radical Islamic
clerics will incite their followers to murder people. So the Dutch are
no longer allowed to talk about terrorism.
The Dutch Ministry of Justice says--get this--it doesn't matter if
Wilders was telling the truth. The Dutch court says it's irrelevant
whether Wilders might prove his observations to be correct. What's
relevant is his observations are illegal.
{time} 1715
Geert Wilders now lives under threat of a 5-year jail sentence from
his own government for a violation of free speech. His trial is set to
resume in July, the trial where the Dutch court said truth doesn't
matter; it only matters if Wilders' words hurt somebody's feelings.
And Wilders lives in fear under the threat of death for speaking his
mind about radical Islam. So-called religious leaders believe their
radical religion
[[Page 3707]]
says they can kill those who don't agree with them. Dutch filmmaker
Theo Van Gogh, great-grand nephew of the famous painter Vincent Van
Gogh, was a big believer in freedom of speech too. He and his partner,
Hirsi Ali, made a documentary movie about women and Islam called
``Submission.'' The radical clerics didn't like that one either, so
they had Van Gogh murdered. Six terrorists were later arrested. One of
the terrorists shot and then repeatedly stabbed Van Gogh as he rode his
bicycle to work. He slit Van Gogh's throat and then stabbed him again,
pinning a five-page radical rant to his body.
The rant listed all of the things they thought Hirsi Ali, his female
partner in the film, had done to violate the Koran. And they threatened
her with death. At the time, she was a sitting member of the Dutch
Parliament.
Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia, and her family escaped when she was a
child. She was raised a Muslim and subjected to the custom of female
mutilation against her will. After surviving refugee camps in Africa,
then a stay in Saudi Arabia, her family finally went to Canada. She was
promised in marriage to a distant cousin she had never met. She refused
that marriage and soon fled as a refugee to Holland. She became a
warrior for women's rights, becoming an elected member of the Dutch
Parliament. But after Theo Van Gogh's murder, she was run out of the
country by her own government, the Dutch Government. They would not
protect her. She was simply just too controversial. She resigned her
seat in Parliament and she fled to the United States. She lives in this
area around D.C.
Kurt Westergaard is one of the 12 artists who drew cartoons of the
prophet Mohammed. Radical clerics then incited their followers to
murder people in the streets. They rioted and they burned down
embassies. Most of them, by their own admission, had never even seen
these cartoons, and Westergaard had to flee for his life. He too lives
in the United States under armed guard.
Threatening people and killing people for speaking their mind is just
another form of terrorism. Van Gogh, Ali, Westergaard, and now Geert
Wilders, have never used or advocated violence. They simply exercised
their God-given right of free speech. So now in Amsterdam, truthful
insult speech is a crime. What kind of free society says truthful
speech can be illegal? The most controversial speech is political,
religious, and even truthful speech. That is why it's protected.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental principle, a God-given human right
to all people in all nations. It has been said, I may not agree with
what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.
But not in the Netherlands.
Geert Wilders should be able to speak his mind without becoming an
enemy of his own country. The enemy of free speech is the court of the
Netherlands and radical Islamic clerics who preach violence in the name
of hate.
And, Mr. Speaker, that's just the way it is.
____________________
STORIES FROM NORTH CAROLINA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss reforming the health
care insurance market in this country. It is really time to put health
insurance back on the side of the people back home. To me this issue
has never been about politics; it's about people. It's about North
Carolina families and small businesses. I have heard from thousands of
North Carolinians from all perspectives. And I want to share some of
their stories because my phones are still ringing. These are the
stories of real people on North Carolina's Main Streets and country
roads.
I talked the other day to a farmer in Johnston County in North
Carolina, the county where I grew up in a family of tenant farmers.
This farmer has health insurance that costs him over $20,000 a year. He
told me, We've got to fix this broken system that leaves too many
families out in the cold.
A woman from Raleigh, North Carolina, our State's capital city, fears
she will suffer the same fate as her sister who died from asthma
because she could not get coverage. There's a lot of fear out there
right now. Her fear is real. It is the fear of the consequences of a
health care system that's not working for everyone.
She wrote me and said, Like many Americans, I take health care reform
very seriously, and I feel that this is no time to bow to petty
bickering or false arguments. This issue is also very personal to me.
You see, my 33-year-old sister died just last December of asthma, a
perfectly livable condition if only she had the right treatment. She
didn't. She simply couldn't afford her medication, even with family
help.
I also suffer from the same condition as my sister, and I have to
say, it scares me to think that if it weren't for my husband's job, I
could end up like my sister. He's been at his company for less than a
year now, and I pray he doesn't lose his job or his coverage. So as you
see, Congressman Etheridge, health care reform is a deeply personal
issue for me, and it is one that I hope will finally be resolved this
year. It's too late for my sister, but I'm hoping this gets done soon,
especially before her daughter gets out on her own. I don't want her
ever to have to deal with what her mother and I are dealing with under
this ghastly system.
And a nurse from Sanford, North Carolina, recently wrote me in favor
of health reform, and she said, Insurance premiums are too high. How
can we wrestle the high cost of health insurance from the companies?
When they tell a physician how much he can charge for a procedure or
what medications he can prescribe, we are allowing untrained,
uneducated individuals to dictate health care to our system in this
country.
And a woman in Louisburg, North Carolina, says, Please vote ``yes''
on health care reform. I have a very successful new business that my
son would like to join me in, but he can't afford to leave his current
employer's health plan because he has a child with autism. No private
plan will provide coverage for him, even though he has never filed a
claim for his treatment of autism. We are not looking for a handout,
just a fair playing field. Everyone should be able to get insurance.
And a young man from Raleigh wrote and said, I want to thank you very
much for the work you have been doing in my district and urge you to
vote for the health care reform bill. Despite the misinformation and
outright lies that are being spread about the bill, I hope the House
acts to pass comprehensive reform to our broken system.
My girlfriend, whom I love very much, has a disease which prevents
her from getting coverage. In fact, the insurance company dropped her
when they found out she had it. This disease will very possibly lead to
her death. While it is too late for this bill to help her, I do not
want any other American to have to worry about how they will get
treatment for any disease that they may have. I urge you to vote for
the bill.
Another woman from Clayton, North Carolina, tells me she has a brain
tumor, and as of December of this past year, the insurance company
dropped her coverage. She is talking now to an attorney and plans to
file bankruptcy. And this is a tragedy. These are examples of why we
need reform.
Mr. Speaker, I'm listening to North Carolinians from all perspectives
and a wide range of points of view about this system. We need reform
that cuts costs, assures quality of care, patient choice and prohibits
denials for preexisting conditions.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. In order to achieve real health care reform, the
kind of change that would relieve Kansas families and business owners
from facing drastic increases in their health insurance premium costs,
we must do something to reduce health care costs. If we fail to affect
cost, then reform efforts, whatever they may be, will fail
[[Page 3708]]
because costs simply get shifted and always roll downhill to the
patient. This is one of the many reasons I'm so adamantly opposed to
the Democrat health care plan.
You may hear that the health care legislation we apparently are going
to vote on this week will reduce costs. But the accounting data shows
just the opposite. The facts are the facts. Democrats count billions in
tax revenues to pay for their plan's new programs, but then they assign
those same revenues to preserve Medicare and Social Security. They are
double counting. When all the budgetary gimmicks are removed, we see
this bill for what it is, a trillion dollar budget breaker that we
cannot afford and that won't improve everyday Americans' access to
affordable health care. It's the worst of both worlds: Breaking the
bank, breaking the Treasury and not controlling health care costs.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of America's women to urge
passage of health care reform to benefit our mothers, our sisters, our
daughters, our families, and our friends. And, of course, when we pass
health care reform, we will improve health care for all Americans.
But today I would like to concentrate on why women stand to gain the
most. Right now, being a woman is reason enough for insurance companies
to discriminate against us. Today, women are being charged higher
insurance premiums than men simply for being a woman.
Our legislation will put an end to this practice by prohibiting a
practice known as gender rating whereby women are automatically charged
higher rates. Right now, there are women who have been victims of
domestic violence who are denied health insurance coverage because
insurance companies have said that domestic violence is a preexisting
condition. Our legislation will put an end to this practice and
expressly prohibit insurance companies from considering domestic
violence a preexisting condition.
Right now, many women can only obtain an insurance policy that
excludes maternity coverage. Our legislation will put an end to this
practice by requiring coverage for maternity care. These three
provisions alone will help millions of women in this country.
Mr. Speaker, as a public health nurse, I'm particularly enthusiastic
about provisions in the bill to eliminate cost sharing for some of the
most important preventive services that women should be accessing. And,
of course, this provision is important for men as well. But many of us,
especially Members of Congress who already have comprehensive health
insurance, take it for granted that we are going to get routine
checkups. There are, however, too many women who forgo screenings for
conditions like cervical cancer or heart disease because they can't
afford these screenings, either because they are uninsured or their
insurance company requires prohibitive copays for routine screening.
The legislation we will soon pass will ensure that there is no cost
for patients to be accessing the most important screenings which are
recommended by medical experts. Those of us in the public health
community have long been advocating this because costs should never
stand in the way of lifesaving screening procedures.
In addition to the ways our legislation will benefit individual
women, it's important to keep in mind that women are often the health
care decisionmakers for their households. And that's why we all have
reason to be so hopeful about how our bill will improve health care for
families as a whole. Insurance premiums for families have risen at
alarming rates over the past decade and will continue to rise if we
don't enact health reform now.
Middle class families especially have shouldered this burden as the
rise in premiums has far outpaced any rise in wages. The announcement,
for example, by Anthem in California that it will raise premiums by up
to 40 percent is just one of the latest outrages. When premiums become
too expensive to pay, families are forced to drop coverage. And then
what happens when someone in the family gets sick? They are forced to
spend down all their assets until eventually bankruptcy may become
their only option.
Mr. Speaker, over half of all bankruptcies in the United States today
are caused by medical debt. And in 2008, over 900 families in my
congressional district alone were forced into bankruptcy because of
medical debt. And over half of these medical bankruptcies impact a
woman.
{time} 1730
When we pass this legislation, we will put an end to the annual and
lifetime limits on coverage that many insurance companies currently
impose on people. And we will put an end to bankruptcies caused by
medical debt. No longer will families have to raid their savings for a
home purchase or college tuition because someone falls ill.
Finally, as a mother and a grandmother, I couldn't be more thrilled
by the steps we will take to improve health care coverage for our
country's most precious resource, our children. We will ensure that the
Children's Health Insurance Program will thrive. We will ensure that
services like vision and dental care for children are automatically
included in all health care plans. When the bill is signed into law,
that very day it will immediately prevent health insurers from imposing
preexisting condition exclusions on children. And it will immediately
allow young adults to remain on their parents' health insurance plan
until their mid-20s so they aren't forced to forego health coverage
after college graduation.
So I urge all of my colleagues to support our efforts in health care
reform with the knowledge of how it will help the women in their lives
and in their communities.
____________________
AMERICANS DESERVE BETTER THAN OBAMACARE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respectfully
ask that my colleagues reject ObamaCare which, if enacted into law,
will seriously undermine, erode, damage and, I believe, even destroy
health care in America.
On substance, the Senate-passed text of over 2,700 pages now pending
in the House is egregiously flawed. This is truly a bad bill, and it is
anything but reform.
On process, the near total lack of transparency and the misuse of
majority party power to ram ObamaCare through the Congress makes it the
quintessential example of what is so dreadfully wrong in Washington.
No wonder growing numbers of Americans are fed up, losing faith, and
angry at the Democrat-controlled Congress and the White House. No
wonder millions of people, including TEA Party activists, are demanding
accountability and defeat of ObamaCare.
This has been, and is, an unseemly process unworthy of a national
legislature, any legislature for that matter, especially one with an
enviable two-century-old history of lawmaking.
If President Obama wins passage of this bill when it comes to a vote,
it will be a Pyrrhic victory at best. This is not Congress' finest
hour.
Rest assure that if ObamaCare was sound and prudent policy fiscally
and morally and an efficacious way of facilitating quality health care
coverage, Members of both sides of the aisle and across the ideological
spectrum would be lining up to support it. If this was a good bill,
persuasion rather than pressure would convince a large majority of
Members to embrace it.
Instead, blunt force is being applied like a vice grip to convince
the unconvinced and undecided to cave, conform, and capitulate.
On cost, ObamaCare is riddled with accounting gimmicks, all designed
to make the total price appear smaller than it really is.
[[Page 3709]]
In order to avoid sticker shock, ObamaCare collects new taxes, fees,
and shifts billions of dollars from Medicare for 4 full years before
benefits kick in. This trick results in an estimated but grossly
misleading cost of care at some $871 billion over 10 years. But when 10
years of revenue are matched with 10 years of benefits, the real cost
comes to a staggering $2.3 trillion.
I would note parenthetically that ObamaCare will exacerbate
ObamaDebt. When you eliminate double counting of Medicare costs, Social
Security cuts, and the use of CLASS Act premiums, the Democrats' claims
of deficit reduction disappears into another massive wave of red ink of
some $460 billion over 10 years and $1.4 trillion over the second 10
years.
Even without passage of this bill, under the President's 2011 budget
proposal Federal spending will increase to a record $3.8 trillion in
2011 alone. By 2020, the President's own 10-year budget analysis
projects a more than doubling of debt to a record $18.6 trillion. That
is absolutely unsustainable.
Because ObamaCare diverts $500 billion from Medicare, there is no
doubt whatsoever that senior citizens and disabled persons will lose
certain health benefits they now enjoy.
Medicare Advantage is protected in Florida, the so-called
``Gatorade'' fix, but not in my home State of New Jersey or anywhere
else. Medicare Advantage is used by over 11 million people nationwide,
including 15,983 people in my congressional district alone.
The Senate bill slashes nearly $120 billion from Medicare Advantage
plans, jeopardizing millions of seniors' existing coverage. So much for
the President's promise that if you like your health plan, you can keep
it. No, you can't. Not under this bill.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, ObamaCare forces Americans to
acquire an approved health care plan or pay a stiff penalty, like they
have somehow committed a crime. The penalty is huge: the greater of
$750 per person up to $2,250 per family, or 2 percent of household
income. No person in America should be coerced into buying medical
insurance.
Under ObamaCare, premiums for nongroup family insurance will increase
by as much as $2,000 per year. The Congressional Budget Office
estimates that by 2016, premiums will increase by 10 to 30 percent over
what would have happened under current law.
ObamaCare would also create 160 boards, commissions, and programs
which would vest sweeping powers on bureaucrats to determine what
benefits are covered and not, and at what cost.
Last September, Mr. Speaker, President Obama stood a mere 20 feet
away from where I am standing now and told a joint session of Congress
that, ``no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and Federal
conscience laws will remain in place.''
Mr. Speaker, I ask members to vote ``no'' on this bill when it comes
to the floor.
This legislation today constitutes the largest expansion of abortion
since Roe v. Wade itself, and makes a mockery of that pledge. That
means more dead babies and wounded mothers.
Additionally, Obamacare fails to institute real medical liability
reforms to end junk lawsuits and curb the costs of defensive medicine--
these have long been identified as significant forces in driving up
health costs.
The goal of responsible health care reform should be to provide
credible health insurance coverage for everyone, strengthening the
health care safety net so that no one is left out, and incentivizing
quality and innovation, as well as healthy behaviors and prevention.
This means that the current private health insurance market will have
to be reformed to put patients first, and to eliminate denials of pre-
existing conditions and lifetime caps and promoting portability between
jobs and geographic areas, including across state lines. The tax code
should be modernized to promote affordability and individual control,
provide assistance to low-income and middle-class families. Medicare
requires reform to be more efficient and responsive, with sustainable
payment rates.
Of course, responsible health care reform will respect basic
principles of justice: it will put patients and their doctors in charge
of medical decisions not insurance companies or government bureaucrats.
It will also ensure that the lives and health of all persons are
respected regardless of stage of development, age or disability.
It's time to go back to the drawling board and address what's broken
and fix it.
The American public deserve better than what's on the table.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, this is a defining week in the history of this
Republic. At no time in history has the Federal legislature mandated
that everyone in this country buy anything; yet this week we are going
to mandate, if this bill passes and is enacted into law, that everyone
in this country under the force of law has to buy health insurance.
The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves today because
they knew that we should be leery of a large central government
mandating things to even the States that they have to comply with. They
told us to have a healthy distrust of Big Brother, the Federal
Government. They told us basically to sleep with one eye open and one
eye closed because our freedoms could be at risk from within. We are at
that moment in the history of this great Nation, and we must stand
strong and resolute.
In Tennessee where I live, our Democratic Governor, Phil Bredesen,
has called this the ``mother of all unfunded mandates,'' because it
forces all these new people into State Medicaid programs. In our State
it is called TennCare. It is a multibillion dollar mandate to the
people of Tennessee, and we don't have the money to pay for it. And we
will not raise taxes to pay for it; we will not go into debt to pay for
it. It is wrong for the States to be run over like this.
They carved out the 10th Amendment and gave States some sovereignty.
There are liberal publications today writing that article VI allows the
Federal Government to override the States. But that is on matters of
equality and justice, not a decision of policy by the Federal
legislature to mandate costs and taxes and debt on its people.
We must stand strong against this bill this week in the Congress. But
if it is enacted into law, we must lead a repeal movement to
immediately, as soon as possible, repeal this bill before it goes into
effect. And then, if we are not able to repeal it, the Governors of
this country should come out of their chairs and stand against this
bill.
I will tell you, in Tennessee, if I am to become the 49th Governor of
our great State, we will meet the Federal legislature and the Federal
Government at the State line to oppose this mandate, because we will
not raise taxes, we will not go into debt, we will not be violated like
this. And we must let our Founding Fathers rest peacefully, knowing
that these living laboratories of democracy, our States, are allowed to
exist, setting our own taxes, setting our own rules, living in the
United States but not being run over by the United States.
Mr. Speaker, this is a defining moment in the history of our country.
We must be resolute. We must fight with every ounce of our energy to
stop this Federal invasion and this overriding of States' rights.
____________________
CUBA'S PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak
about Orlando Zapata Tamayo, a prisoner of conscience who went on a
hunger strike in one of the Cuban gulags, one of the many gulags that
is full of political prisoners in that island prison of Cuba.
He went on a hunger strike to protest the multiple constant beatings
that he was suffering under, that he and other political prisoners have
to deal with on a constant basis. So he did, he went on
[[Page 3710]]
a hunger strike. And after 80 days of being on a hunger strike, he
passed away. He passed away after 80 days on February 28.
Right after that, another pro-democracy activist, very well known,
another also former political prisoner named Guillermo Farinas, also
began his own hunger strike. Mr. Speaker, he is still on a hunger
strike today, 21 days after the death of Mr. Orlando Zapata Tamayo. He
is already under very, very difficult circumstances. He is exceedingly
frail, and his health is quickly deteriorating. But he is not stopping,
again, to protest the conditions of the many political prisoners, but
also to protest the lack of freedom, and to demand freedom for all
political prisoners in Cuba and demand freedom for all who live on that
enslaved island.
On March 11, Mr. Speaker, Felix Bonne announced that if and when
Guillermo Farinas were to give his life in this hunger strike, that he
would follow him; that he would be willing to give his life on a hunger
strike to protest the conditions on the island, to protest the
enslavement of all Cuban people, and the mistreatment of the political
prisoners.
Today, March 17, 30 women known as the Ladies in White who go and
protest peacefully in the streets of Havana, and what they ask for is
for the release of the political prisoners, of their relatives, their
husbands, their sons, their brothers, today, 30 of them were thrown in
prison. They were arrested, again, just because they were asking for
the freedom of the political prisoners.
Today's march was led by Reina Zapata. She is the mother of Orlando
Zapata Tamayo who, as I mentioned, died after 80 days on a hunger
strike. Again, they were also arrested, taken away. Some of them had to
be sent to the hospital because of the way that they were taken away.
And I mention this, Mr. Speaker, because it is important that the
world understand that the people of Cuba are standing up, they are
speaking out, they are protesting. They are protesting the conditions
on the island, the lack of freedom, the oppression, the brutality of
the Castro brothers who have been now the dictators on that island for
over half a century.
So it is important that we also stand up and speak out, that we stand
side by side with those in Cuba who are giving their all, including
their lives, in the cause of freedom.
I know that there are some who still believe that it is okay to
excuse those horrors; that we should try to make a buck, if we can,
from that regime, with that regime at the expense of the suffering of
the Cuban people. But, Mr. Speaker, as you know, there is no more noble
people than the American people, which is why the vast majority stand
side by side with the suffering of the Cubans, with the cause of a free
Cuba.
So it is important that we remember as we debate and as we speak and
as we live in freedom that just 90 miles away from the shores of the
United States there are people who are suffering and who are dying for
the cause of freedom. Mr. Speaker, we stand with them, we admire them,
we support them. And we know that that cause will not be in vain, that
their deaths will not be in vain, and that Cuba will be free.
____________________
{time} 1745
HEALTH CARE REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, there's a motto inscribed on Nebraska's
State Capitol. It says, ``The Salvation of the State is Watchfulness in
the Citizen.'' Mr. Speaker, Nebraskans and all Americans are watching
this health care debate. Frankly, I think they're growing tired--tired
of the backroom dealing, tired of the abuse of the legislative process,
and tired of the unwillingness of this body to craft the right policy
for our country.
Overall, Nebraskans, and I assume most Americans, want a good health
care bill, one that truly strengthens health care outcomes for everyone
and reduces cost while we protect vulnerable persons. Instead, with
Washington-style elitism, efforts are continuing behind closed doors on
a measure that is filled with special deals that will substantially
shift costs, erode health care liberties, and add to increased and
unsustainable government spending.
Mr. Speaker, our constituents are watching to see if the health care
legislation is fair--fair to seniors, fair to families, fair to small
businesses, fair to the hardworking citizens across this country.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we can do better.
____________________
HISTORIC HEALTH CARE DEBATE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in what is called an
historic debate over the issue of health care reform, and there are a
couple of issues that need to be addressed.
The area that I represent in northern Illinois, the biggest city is
at 19.7 percent unemployment. Add 7 percentage points to that, it's
nearly 27 percent unemployment. It's incredible.
The State of Illinois is laying off teachers, social workers, people
involved in all types of social services. Students at a nearby high
school went out and picketed because they're concerned over the loss of
their advanced placement classes. Yet, under the Senate bill, many more
across the country would be added to the Medicaid roles. The State of
Illinois, already bankrupt, billions of dollars in debt, would have to
take on paying an additional $400 million a year in Federal mandates
and unreimbursed increased Medicaid expenses. This doesn't make sense.
On top of it, there's a 2\1/2\ percent--we think that's the amount--
excise tax on medical equipment, medical devices, the very equipment
that was used to save the life of my wife who came down with cancer 4
years ago: the titanium brace that replaces one of her vertebrae, the
radiation machine, all the latest equipment. A tax on the very
equipment that's used to help people get excellent health care in this
country? We're not quite sure which equipment would be taxed or which
would be free of tax, but once the tax starts--and we all know what
happens with the tax. It's passed on to the consumers.
So here's this monstrous bill from the Senate that the House is
supposed to adopt by some type of unique process that's going to tax
lifesaving equipment. It just defies logic as to why this is being
done; $500 billion in tax increases. Now Social Security would apply to
dividends, interest, capital gains taxes. Tax after tax after tax
hurting the American people. I never thought that it would happen in
America when lifesaving devices would be taxed to increase the cost to
the people who use them.
This isn't what the American people want; it certainly isn't what
they deserve. There are many ways to bring down the high cost of health
care: through association health plans, through meaningful medical
liability reform, through increasing the number of community health
centers, by allowing small employers the ability to have the same tax
breaks that corporations do when using their money to buy health
insurance premiums.
America watches and looks and wonders and asks this question: Why are
the leaders in Congress doing this to us?
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm just taking a moment here to
arrange some charts and I will be right with you.
Mr. Speaker, we once again are going to be on a subject that seems to
be increasingly riveting the attention of Americans--and for good
reason. What we are talking about here this evening is the proposition
that the Congress
[[Page 3711]]
will take over, over a period of time, one-sixth of the U.S. economy.
That is the health care section of the economy.
Obviously, this big a change, a remake of health care, which is not
just changing a little portion here or there, but a complete remake of
health care, is a question of significant proportion. It is a very
costly proposition. It's one that involves a tremendous amount of
change, and any change, of course, is controversial. This proposal,
though, is more controversial than most and is resulting in a
tremendous outpouring of phone calls. The switchboards are almost shut
down here at the Capitol. But we, once again tonight, are going to be
talking about it because there is talk we might even vote on the bill
this week, and who knows what's going to happen.
I'm joined in the Chamber by Dr. Fleming, a very fine physician but
also a Member of Congress and someone who knows a considerable amount
about the health care bill. Part of what the discussion has been lately
has been a question of the procedure of how the bill would become law.
That's, I think, where we should start, because that's where the news
is right now and it's a big question.
Dr. Fleming, I thought we might start there because a lot of people
have heard about the bill, even some of the things in the bill, but the
question is how this bill would become law.
I'm going to start by just laying down the simple pattern that's in
the U.S. Constitution. The way that a bill becomes law is that it's
passed by the Senate. It's passed by the House. It's sent to the
President, and he signs it. That's the plain, bare-bones facts of how
it works. That's what the Constitution says. The Constitution gives the
House and the Senate a lot of flexibility in how we design our rules,
but ultimately the bill has to pass a straight-up vote in the Senate
and a straight-up vote in the House and has to be signed by the
President. If it doesn't do that, it doesn't meet the constitutional
standard.
Now, the process becomes a little more complicated as we go on
because the Senate has a weird rule. In fact, the Senate does a lot of
weird things, but it has a weird rule, at least to those of us who are
Members of the House, and that is that before a bill can come up for a
vote, it takes 60 votes to bring it up for a vote. So if you've got a
bill and you say, Hey, we've got a hundred Senators; I've got 55 votes
for the bill, you're in deep trouble, because you won't ever get the 60
votes to get it up for just a straight-up vote even though you've got
enough votes to pass it. In other words, the Senate has a little bit of
a higher bar to protect to make sure there's at least 60 out of 100
Senators that are willing to pass a particular piece of legislation or
bring it up for a vote. So that makes things more complicated.
The Senate took a House bill which we passed on health care. They
gutted it. They took every single thing out of it and stuck their own
language in it, a couple thousands pages of new ideas and text and all
this, took it to the Senate floor and fought and fought and fought.
Finally, on Christmas Eve, passed it by the 60 votes that were
necessary, and so the bill was passed through the Senate.
In order to do that, they put all kinds of special deals in there
just to keep certain Senators to vote for it. There was what is called
the second Louisiana purchase, a big benefit for Louisiana; the
Cornhusker kickback; a special deal for people of Florida that they get
to keep their Medicare Advantage money, but everybody else, the other
49 States, have to lose $500 billion out of Medicare.
And so there were all of these special deals in there, as well as a
whole lot of other legislation; for instance, the fact that the
government would be paying for abortions for people, which is a big
problem for many Americans, and other provisions such as there would be
health care for illegal immigrants and things like that, which are very
controversial. So all of that is then passed on Christmas Eve and comes
to the House.
Now, in order for that bill to become law, two things have to happen.
Either the House has to pass it just the way the Senate did, in which
case they can send the bill straight to the President for his
signature--so, if the House--and, of course, they have 80 votes less
over on the Republican side. So we can all vote ``no,'' but Nancy
Pelosi could lose a whole lot of votes because she has 80 votes more
than the Republicans do. So what they need is a majority of Democrats
to vote for the bill just the way the Senate passed it, could go
straight to the President and the bill could become law. That's a way
to do it.
The problem is, it has all this junk in it that nobody wants to vote
for. And so they're kind of stuck with making a decision: Are we going
to just vote on it and send it to the President or are we going to try
to amend it, which then requires it to go back to the Senate where it
has to face a 60-vote rule to get these things cleaned up? And so
that's the tension. So what's being proposed is something that is
neither. It's something that is rather unusual and completely
unprecedented, to a degree, and that is what they call deeming the bill
passed; that is, it was never really voted on to be passed.
In the past, we have done this deeming thing many times, but it's
usually after a bill has gone back and forth and we're working out the
details of an amendment. But this is thousands of pages of legislation
that's never had a vote, and they're just going to say, Well, we've
just decided it's all approved, without a vote. Now, that is really
pushing the limits on what is constitutional. So that's the beginning
of the process.
So I wanted to invite my good friend Dr. Fleming to join me. Let's
just talk about this process. Most people are really bored to death by
this stuff, but when it involves one-sixth of the U.S. economy and
everybody's health care, it's like, I guess we have to pay attention.
Please join me.
Mr. FLEMING. Well, I thank my friend from Missouri. You're absolutely
right. But you know what's interesting? Everywhere I go, there are a
lot of people around Capitol Hill today. I bump into people that I
know, people who are just average, everyday people, and it's amazing
how much they are keeping up with this even though it is getting
boring. They know about this. This is not something that they're not
tuned into, and that's for sure.
{time} 1800
What's interesting, the way I have a mental picture about this, is
that this bill way back months ago was being pushed like a locomotive
up a hill. And as it got closer and closer to the top, more and more
problems began to come out. It weighted it down. Finally as the bill,
both in the Senate and now in the House, is getting close to the top,
it's lost so much momentum because of the sleazy deals, the Louisiana
purchase, the Cornhusker kickback, the carve-out for Medicare Advantage
in Florida. These things are turning the American people off, and it's
really taking a lot of momentum out of the process. And on top of that
is the shenanigans, the fakery, if you will, the smoke and mirrors way
of financing it which is, again, $500 billion taken out of Medicare,
although no one will actually explain how we can do without $500
billion from Medicare. Then that money is used to extend the life of
Medicare, which is going to run out of money in 8 years. It's also used
to subsidize the middle class entitlement of private insurance. So it's
really the same money counted three times. One is taking it out of
something we know good and well you can't do without collapsing the
system. Two, extending the system. And then three, paying for other
entitlements, and then adding the same amount again, another $500
billion in taxes. The American people are not buying this.
Mr. AKIN. Well, there are just so many things in this bill to talk
about, and that's why you have such old and young, male and female--the
public just doesn't like this bill. And the reason is because there's
stuff for everybody to hate in this bill. I thought that this was an
amazing quote Nancy Pelosi said. I just can't resist putting this up
here. ``We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.''
[[Page 3712]]
Now what it seems like is going on now is, not only are we supposed
to not read the bill, but we're supposed to not vote for the bill. So
we want to pass a bill that we haven't read and haven't voted for. This
seems to be really twisting the long arm of conscience a little bit to
say, not only are you not supposed to read it, but now you can't vote
for it, and we still want to pass it. And we wonder why the American
public is just a teensy bit skeptical.
I think some of the shenanigans are amazing. One of the ideas is, you
have to get an assessment as to how much the bill's going to cost. The
Government Accounting Office, who is supposed to be impartial, they
take a look at a bill, and they go all through it and figure out what
they think it's going to cost. Well, one of the tricks that they're
playing is that they're going to collect taxes for a bill over a 10-
year period, but they're only going to count the bill being in effect
for 6 years. Now that's kind of an amazing way to calculate what the
bill's going to cost because the implication is that that's what it
will be running along at. And the thing is is that every time the
government's gotten into this taking over of the medical system,
anytime we do a bill like Medicaid or Medicare, it always costs at
least two times more than ever any accountant thought it was going to
be, sometimes as much as 10 times more expensive than what some
accounting office says. And yet we're going to start off with this, you
know, smoke and mirrors deal where we're going to tax people 10 years
but only run the bill six. And that's supposed to be how you figure out
how it costs $1 trillion. I think that's what you're referring to.
You're a doctor. Let me just ask you this question: What happens if
you keep cutting the money to Medicare? What's going to happen to
people?
Mr. FLEMING. Well, I will remind the gentleman that currently
physicians and hospitals are being paid 80 cents on the dollar, and the
mystery that seems to be out there and very few people are addressing
is--and you hear the other side talking about the rapid rise of private
insurance costs. Well, one of the main reasons for that is to offset
the shortfall in the Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals. So
private insurance is having to make up the difference.
Mr. AKIN. Let me stop you. Because you know this stuff cold, but
there may be some people, some of our other Members here that just
don't know this as well. So you've got Medicare, which is reimbursing
doctors at 80 cents on the dollar, which means that somebody's got to
make up the 20 cents. So we do a cost shift and shift that 20 cents
into Medicare and dump that cost onto people who have private
insurance, right?
Mr. FLEMING. That is correct.
Mr. AKIN. So we're really charging them some amount more, whatever
their bill was. If it was $100, we're going to add a little extra to
that to compensate for the Medicare thing. So now you're driving the
cost up for the guy that's really doing what we think is responsible.
And that is, going out and making sure he has insurance, and he buys
insurance in the private market. But he's paying a premium for that
insurance because he's got to cover Medicare that's underfunded. So
that's the first thing. Do I have that right?
Mr. FLEMING. That is absolutely correct. And that is not considering
Medicaid, which pays more like 30 cents on the dollar, which under this
bill will increase by 30 percent. The number of people covered, that
is.
Mr. AKIN. So let's just say for instance that we wanted to cut more
money out of Medicare. Let's say we're going to take $500 billion. But
just theoretically, if you drop the money in Medicare so we're putting
less money into it, what's the net effect of that going to be on the
person that's counting on Medicare to pay for their medical care and to
the usually older person that is counting on Medicare to cover their
doctors' bills? What's going to happen then?
Mr. FLEMING. It will cut access off to them for health care, and I
can prove it.
Mr. AKIN. Oh, wait. You are saying it will cut access for older
people to Medicare?
Mr. FLEMING. Yes.
Mr. AKIN. Okay. Can you explain that?
Mr. FLEMING. Well, if doctors and hospitals are under-reimbursed
further--they're at their limit today. If the cuts go even further--and
of course $500 billion is draconian by any stretch of the imagination;
that's as much as the entire annual budget for Medicare. If you cut it
that much, then doctors will have to opt out of Medicare altogether,
and the senior citizens won't have doctors to go to.
Mr. AKIN. Okay. So let me just see if I get this right. You're a
medical doctor. You went all through med school. You've been practicing
a number of years. You enjoy what you're doing. Old people come to you
that need medical attention. You don't mind treating them. And before
you were treating them at 80 percent of what the cost is. But let's say
you drop down how much Medicare is paying. Well, at a certain point,
you're just saying, I just can't afford to do this at this price,
because ultimately, you've got to run an office. You've got to hire
people. You've got to pay the rent on the building and all of those
kinds of things. You've got a lot of insurance you're paying for, and
you're trying to provide for your family. At a certain point, Medicare
is reimbursing so little that you basically say, Hey, the old people
I've been seeing before, I'm going to keep them on because I'm a nice
guy. But I'm not going to take any new people. And so some old person
that's sick wants to go find a doctor, perhaps they moved or something
like that. And everybody says sorry, I'm not seeing any new Medicare
patients. So while they've got Medicare, it doesn't mean they've got
health care. So they don't get any health care.
Mr. FLEMING. Absolutely.
Mr. AKIN. So that's the problem with it.
Mr. FLEMING. Absolutely. And again, it was only a month or so ago
that the Mayo Clinic--I believe their branch in Arizona--announced that
they were taking no further Medicare patients. And that's under the
current pay system.
Mr. AKIN. So this new bill is going to pull $500 billion out of
Medicare?
Mr. FLEMING. Yes.
Mr. AKIN. So if you know nothing else about the bill, this is saying,
Well, this is something to pay attention to. Now we haven't talked
about some of the other nifty features. This is what gets me worried.
This is what I don't like the most. And I don't like this bill. I want
to be completely clear. I'm a conservative Republican. I do not trust
Big Government to do a lot of stuff. And particularly, I don't want
them meddling in our health care. So I'm not, I guess, objective, or I
am objective, but it's just because we talk about how bad it is to have
an insurance agent between you and your doctor. The last thing I want
is a government bureaucrat or thousands of government bureaucrats
between me and my doctor.
This is a picture we've seen and used on the floor sometimes. But
this is a very much simplified version of thousands of pages of
legislation with shall, shall, shall, which means the government's
going to do all of this stuff. And somehow as a consumer of health
care, you're supposed to find your way all the way across, over to the
doctor over there. This is like some sort of a maze that you've got to
go through. So this is a very complicated government takeover of what
is otherwise the private system of health provision in this country. So
that, to me, is something that really causes me to say ``no'' on this
bill because as Republicans, we don't like anything that gets between
the doctor and the patient. And insurance companies, we don't like it
when they get in there. But at least if you have a bad insurance
company, you have a chance of changing your insurance company. What
happens if you've got all these bureaucrats in there? You will never
change it. And so this thing is really a very, very dangerous piece of
legislation in my opinion. But I know you've given your whole life to
taking care of patients. What's your impression of this whole deal?
[[Page 3713]]
Mr. FLEMING. Well, I thank the gentleman. I've practiced medicine for
over 30 years and still have a clinic and see patients from time to
time. You know, insurance companies are a bee in my bonnet too. You
hear the other side of the aisle talking about how insurance companies
are the bad people. They're to blame for all of these problems. Well, I
can tell you, insurance companies have been a headache for me, but
insurance companies are not the problem here. They are not the problem.
And if you don't like the bureaucracy of an insurance company, which
you point out very adroitly, you're a customer, and you can always
change who provides that service. When you get into this, not only is
it 10 times worse than any insurance company and far more powerful, but
you can't change. There is only one provider. Now you might say, Well,
there will be a number of insurance companies within the exchange, but
these insurance companies will essentially become utilities who will
simply take the administrative cost for profit and basically do the
work of the Federal Government.
Mr. AKIN. So let's try and get up to 50,000 feet here and take a look
at the sort of choices there are before Americans as to how we approach
health care. It seems to me that in the beginning, you've got the sort
of supply and demand situation. If everybody in America got absolutely
the very, very best medical care that you could get, it would just
bankrupt the country probably because the supply and demand law says
that if you don't have to pay anything at all, people are just going to
get the very most expensive thing they can do. So basically the whole
country stops if you try to give everybody the very best thing
possible.
So the question then is how do you balance supply and demand? And we
usually have a thing we call freedom, and we allow individuals to work
hard, earn money, and then they spend their money to buy what they want
to buy with it. They can choose whether they want health care, or a
vacation, or food, or shoes, or a new car, and that's called freedom.
So that's the free market, which allows people to decide how much money
they can afford to pay on health care. So that's one way to balance
that supply and demand.
Another thing: The insurance companies then came along and said,
Yeah, but we can get you some savings. We can reduce the amount of
tests and do some other things and negotiate some special rates with a
whole pool of doctors that we make a deal with so we get you a product
that gives you pretty good health care, but it's a discount-priced
product because we're doing some things to drop the cost down. So the
insurance company then is one that is starting to take part in that
management of the cost of health care. The free market, it's just a
matter of you paying the barrelhead, and you go back and forth and
figure out what the price is. That's the way we do most things. You
have the insurance company which is kind of a hybrid.
Then you can go to the socialistic model where the government does it
all. But the government still can't make mathematics change. So the
problem is that the governments in other countries that have tried it--
it's not like we're the only ones doing this. Canada and England do
this kind of thing. And what they do is, in order to keep the cost
down, they keep a big waiting line, so you have to wait a long time to
get your health care. So it's basically a form of rationing. It's kind
of a nice rationing because you're told, Get in line. We're used to
getting in line. You get in line, and that's how it is that they keep
their costs down.
The only trouble is, if you are like me, I had cancer. If I have to
get in line, that means I have to wait. If I have to wait, it reduces
my life expectancy. And that's one of the reasons why England has
really high cancer rates, because of that. But let's just talk about
places where this kind of idea has been tried before. Dr. Fleming, as I
recall, they tried something like this in Tennessee, didn't they?
Mr. FLEMING. Yeah, absolutely. Tennessee had something called
TennCare. It I think is a similar model to what Massachusetts has today
and somewhat similar to what we're looking at here. And what Tennessee
found is the thing that's really a reality that we all need to
understand. And that is that if somebody else is paying the bills, then
you're going to have an explosion of cost. When I'm in town hall
meetings, this is the way I like to put it. I say, I have a credit card
here, and of course it's a virtual credit card. It has a $10,000 limit
on it. I'm going to give you this credit card, and you can take it to
Wal-Mart or Home Depot or anyplace you want, but only buy the things
you need. Nothing that you want; only what you need.
{time} 1815
And, you know, my question is, what do you need? And of course, the
answer always comes back, well, I need a new shotgun because hunting
season is coming up and I need some more camo, and I need, need, need.
I need all kinds of things that I wouldn't pay out-of-pocket for
myself; but if somebody else is paying for it, I'm willing to do it.
So if you take that and apply it to this, and what I've witnessed
over 30 years, when it comes to HMOs, capitated models, traditional
insurance, no co-pays, high co-pays, what we find is that the more
somebody else, a third party or insurance or government, is paying the
bills, the more consumption occurs. And I'm talking about excessive
consumption, far beyond anything that's actually needed.
Mr. AKIN. So in other words, what's going on is if you tell people
with this system they can have anything they want, you're going to have
a tremendous level of demand, which is what we see in the other
countries after this gets going, and then you have all the waiting
lines because you can't do that all.
Mr. FLEMING. And then if I could just add to that, addend that, is in
theory, well, that's nice; you can have whatever you want whenever you
want it. The problem is that taxpayers ultimately end up paying for
this, and at some point you run out of taxpayers. You end up with
budget limitations. And so every country that's tried this gets back to
the same thing. And the only way to control cost, when you have a third
payer, a government or whatever, paying the bills, is to set some rate-
limiting steps, and that's basically going to be waiting lines and, of
course, rationing.
And what I like to tell people is, look at Cuba. Cuba has universal
health care. It's free. The problem is, it's not available. They have
one colonoscope in the whole country. And you may need antibiotics, and
it may be free; unfortunately, they don't have any antibiotics.
Mr. AKIN. So it's really a nice promise. The trouble is there isn't
any backup to the promise. It's just a piece of paper saying you've got
free health care, but you got what you paid for. That isn't any health
care at all.
I see my good friend from Illinois, Congressman Manzullo, and
somebody who really understands the Small Business Committee,
understands small business in general and is a fierce, fierce defender
of his section of Illinois, and a good friend of mine. And I'd like to
yield some time to my good friend, Congressman Manzullo.
Mr. MANZULLO. I thank the gentleman from Missouri. If the purpose of
any health care bill is to bring down the cost of health care, that is,
to break the curve, so instead of health care costs going up, they'll
at least be stable, if not retreat, then it really defies logic as to
why the Senate bill, which the House will take up and vote on in a very
interesting manner, sort of a backdoor approach to approving what
happened in the Senate, when that bill imposes an excise tax on medical
equipment--
Mr. AKIN. I call that the wheelchair tax. Now, I've thought of taxing
a lot of stuff, but would you ever think of taxing a wheelchair? I
mean, that's imaginative. It really is.
Mr. MANZULLO. Well, it is. And then when my wife came down with
cancer, and the neurosurgeon implanted into her spine this marvelous
titanium brace, to think that that is a medical device and could be
subject to a tax. Now--
[[Page 3714]]
Mr. AKIN. So it's not just wheelchairs. We're going to tax other
medical devices.
Mr. MANZULLO. Well, yeah. I mean, the radiology machine that was used
to kill the cancer cells around that particular level that was in her
back that had the cancer. And, yet, by increasing the cost of
lifesaving devices, has it ever occurred to people who are trying to
ram through this bill that that will increase the cost of health care?
Mr. AKIN. Now, let me just ask you a question. My friend, you come
from the Midwest. You're a commonsense kind of guy. Now here's why this
bill is having trouble getting votes, because it's like trying to grab
yourself by the boot straps and lift yourself up and fly around this
Chamber, because think about it a little bit.
We've got the U.S. economy in serious economic problem because of
three entitlement programs. They're the main things that are the budget
busters: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. So the government has
stuck its nose into what was previously a free market with Medicare and
Medicaid. And how well has the government managed those programs? It's
about to bankrupt our country.
So we've got Medicare and Medicaid about to bankrupt the country, and
the government says, trust me to take it all over. I mean, there's
something counterintuitive here somehow.
Mr. MANZULLO. It is. And there's another aspect to tax on the medical
devices. I was talking to a small businessman who runs a manufacturing
facility, and he showed me the medical device that he makes. It's a
marvelously crafted piece of aluminum that he did with a vertical mill,
just unbelievably beautiful.
And he said, I've been told by the people who order this device from
me that if we have this tax on medical devices, even though this
ostensibly would apply to imports, that they're just going to take it
and go to China to have this made because they can come in cheaper than
anything else, and that would really be the straw that breaks the
camel's back.
And so now here we are in the district I represent, with official
unemployment in Rockford, Illinois, at 19.7 percent, add 7 percentage
points to that, almost 27 percent unemployment, and now I'm looking a
manufacturer in the eye who says, Not only will this bill impose this
harsh mandate and force taxes upon me that I cannot afford, and
increase the cost of health care insurance, but I could end up losing
jobs because of people offshoring the manufacturing of these medical
devices.
And I wanted to share that with the gentleman from Missouri because
it's just----
Mr. AKIN. Let me see if I can just cut in and restate what you said,
because I know that you have an expertise in small business.
So you've got a small businessman who's showing a lot of creativity,
the sort of innovative spirit that's in America, comes up with a
medical device machined out of aluminum, which is a very specialized
kind of device. And so what's going to happen is we're going to drop a
tax on this thing, which makes it more expensive. And what you're
saying is somebody overseas is going to say, I can make that device,
and what's more, I don't have to pay the tax on it.
Mr. MANZULLO. Well, they may have to pay the tax on the import, but
no one knows. If we just throw the tax out and say, well, the tax may
apply, even if the tax applies, I say to my good friend from Missouri,
the supplier will look at that and say, or the people who order the
equipment would say, what's going to be the next shoe to drop? How much
more expensive is it going to be? And I've just had it with the
increasing cost of American manufacturing, so I'm going to go offshore,
and then that's that.
Mr. AKIN. And you're already looking at, most people are looking in
their district at a 10 percent unemployment rate. We're looking here at
a bill that's going to cost trillions of dollars, 500 million jobs, a
government takeover
Mr. MANZULLO. Not 500 million jobs. Five million jobs.
Mr. AKIN. I mean 5 million jobs. Excuse me. That would really be
something. And a government, a major government takeover, and yet what
do we have for the quality of results to expect in that we've seen it
done in other countries and in the State of Tennessee and
Massachusetts? I think Massachusetts health care costs are up 20 or 30
percent over the average of other States. That's not a very good model.
Tennessee, the Governor of that State, a Democrat Governor of
Tennessee, said this thing is the mother of all unfunded mandates. The
States are struggling with their budgets. And here you've got a guy
who's a Democrat who's experienced with this thing and saying why are
you going to impose this nationally, when it doesn't work on a State
basis.
Mr. MANZULLO. And in Illinois, which is already bankrupt. Illinois is
the State where five of the past eight Governors have been indicted.
It's a great State. They have a lot of ethical problems, you might say.
The State's broken. Public employees have been laid off. A local
school, the kids were out picketing because their AP classes may be
eliminated because of a tremendous hit in the budget. And now Illinois
would inherit a $400 million per year unfunded Federal mandate because
of the increase in Medicaid recipients.
Mr. AKIN. I notice that we're joined by another good friend of mine
from the--
Mr. MANZULLO. I thank the gentleman for letting me share.
Mr. AKIN. Well, thank you. It's good to hear from Illinois. And I
hope that you continue to join us in this discussion. We have my friend
from Ohio, another State from the Midwest, a big manufacturing State,
and a great young legislator, Congressman Jordan. I yield time.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his
leadership on many issues here in the Congress and certainly on this
issue of fighting and opposing this takeover of one-sixth of our
economy, this health care bill. I appreciate my colleagues here from
Louisiana and Illinois and their work as well.
Look, when I think about this bill, I first start with the
fundamental question, What part of ``no'' don't they get?
They have tried to pass this thing. The majority has tried to pass
this bill now for almost a year, and every single time--they tried to
pass it in September and the American people said no. They tried to
pass it in October and the American people said no. They said, oh,
we're going to get it done before Thanksgiving, and the American people
said no. Oh, well, wait a minute. We're going to get it done before
Christmas, and the American people said no. Then they said, well, we're
going to do it before the State of the Union, and the American people
said no. And now, here, we're going to get it done before Easter, and
we're going to keep all the Members here as long as it takes, twist as
many arms, do what we can. What part of ``no'' don't they get?
Mr. AKIN. You know what amazes me about that, gentleman, is I have
heard various news outlets and various individuals, even people of
political stripes saying that this bill is being held up by the
Republicans. Now, somehow that just tickles my funny bone. You know,
they've got 80 more people on this floor than we do, and if we all
voted ``no'' and lit our hair on fire, there's no way we could slow
this bill down. There's nothing we could do. The only thing slowing
this bill down is there's a whole lot of Democrats that are going, ooh,
is it ugly. So how in the world are they accusing us to be
obstructionists or, you know--there's nothing we could do. I wish there
were. But it's amazing.
What you're saying, I just want to underline because what you're
saying is it's the American people. The American people are the ones
that are really driving what's going on here. And they're looking at
this thing and they're saying, oh my goodness. What part of no don't
you understand? Go ahead. I didn't mean to interrupt the gentleman.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman. And you're exactly right.
The reason the American people are speaking out loud and clear, the
reason
[[Page 3715]]
the American people, frankly, the reason the citizens of Massachusetts
decided to send a Republican in Ted Kennedy's seat is because on a
fundamental level, there's a lot of problems with this bill; but I want
to just talk about three quick ones if I can. First and foremost--and
this is what the majority party misses--it's a fundamental fact about
Americans: Americans hate being told what to do. We're Americans. We
actually think this thing called freedom and liberty is pretty
important. And the idea that now here comes the big, not your local
government, not your community, the big Federal Government's going to
tell you and your family and you as a small business owner how health
care is going to be delivered, and you're going to have bureaucrats
getting between you and your doctor, they just fundamentally don't like
that approach. And that's what the other party's missing. Americans
don't like being told what to do.
Americans don't like, secondly, and I think this is important, and I
know Congressman Smith spoke earlier on the floor this evening,
Americans don't like the idea that their tax dollars could be used to
take the life of an unborn child. I mean, they fundamentally don't like
that, and appropriately so. And so just two basic things they don't
like.
And then I would say third is Americans understand this thing is
going to cost a lot. I mean, it's going to cost a lot.
Now, they can, you know, here's the way CBO works. We've heard a lot
of talk. More Americans know about the Congressional Budget Office then
they ever knew about them based on this debate over the last year. The
Congressional Budget Office, the data and the assumptions and the
premises that are given to them, that's what they have to work on.
They're good people over there and they do good work, but they have to
take what information they're given from the majority party when they
put together their analysis.
And so people understand that this bill has 10 years of taxes and
only 6 years of benefits in the next decade. They have all kinds of
gimmicks, all kinds of things put into the CBO assumptions and premises
when it's given to them to come up with this ``deficit neutral'' thing.
There is not--now think about this: outside of this city, this bill
is going to insure 30 million more Americans and be deficit neutral.
Now, outside of Washington, D.C. there is not one person in America who
believes that. Americans understand, on its face, that cannot be the
case.
Mr. AKIN. Let me just restate that. That is really an amazing
premise, isn't it?
This bill is going to insure 30 million more Americans and it's going
to be budget neutral. Do you think people believe that?
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. There's no way. I mean, the claim is laughable on
its face, and yet that's what we continue to hear out of the other
side. And I think it's those kind of things that deep down Americans
understand we need reform. They understand that there are some concerns
and some real problems in our health care system.
But they also fundamentally get that this bill, this package, with
the dollars being used to take the life of unborn children, with the
cost estimates that we know are really going to be there, they
understand on a basic level that they don't want the Federal Government
attempting to take over one-sixth of our economy and getting between
them and their family and their doctor.
And with that I would yield back to the gentleman.
{time} 1830
Mr. AKIN. I sure appreciate the gentleman from Ohio joining us. I had
a telephone town hall with my constituents last night, and I just asked
them whether they thought it was a good idea for the government to be
taking this over. And it was about 90 percent even said they just don't
trust the government to do that. It's that freedom point. It's that
idea of do we want a bureaucrat telling us what to do, what doctor can
treat us and all? And we are mandated to buy this?
Of course the minor point of that is that's unconstitutional. The
government can't force you to buy something. And so that's
unconstitutional on the face of it. Just absolutely amazing.
I just want to get back to my good friend, the doctor from Louisiana.
Would you like to jump in? I did throw this chart up here about cancer
rates in different countries. And so if you want to talk about that.
Mr. FLEMING. Let me address that.
We were talking a moment ago about the fact there are two ways to
save money in health care. One is to have the patient become a savvy
consumer and make choices for himself or herself in combination with
his or her doctor.
Mr. AKIN. That is called free enterprise, I guess.
Mr. FLEMING. Free enterprise. That is right. Free choice. The other
is to have total government control. And then you are going to have to
have long lines and rationing.
Now, in the countries that have the latter, that is the long lines
and rationing, and these are well-developed countries like Canada to
our north, the United Kingdom, the difference in death rates from
common cancers, breast cancer and prostate cancer, are unbelievable. We
are getting extremely high cure rates, well over 90 percent here in the
United States.
Let's take breast cancer. Breast cancer affects one in six women. Let
me say parenthetically, the other side over there talks about women's
rights and all the things we need to do for women, but yet this, if we
follow this pathway, we're going to have a lot more women dying of
things like breast cancer because here is why. You look at the U.K.,
the United Kingdom, they don't pay for mammograms. And also the better
chemotherapeutic drugs that can cure the more difficult cases of breast
cancer, they don't pay for them. Why? It costs too much. It doesn't fit
into the budget.
Mr. AKIN. So when the government doesn't have enough money to pay,
they just say, well, we're not going to cover certain things because
they're too expensive.
Mr. FLEMING. Exactly.
Mr. AKIN. So the government makes a decision as to whether or not you
are going to get care or not, which is rationing.
Mr. FLEMING. Unelected bureaucrats.
Mr. AKIN. And so you have here in the U.K., these numbers here, this
is women, but this isn't just breast cancer, but cancer in general for
women, the survival rate at 52 percent or 53 percent, 66 in the U.S. So
this difference is because of the fact they are just not covering some
things.
Mr. FLEMING. And if you multiply that times the number of women who
get cancer, you are talking hundreds of thousands of women just in that
range there.
Mr. AKIN. So if you want to know why the telephones have been ringing
off the hook, and there are a whole lot of people who don't like this
bill, here is a whole block of people. Anybody who might get cancer,
this is a pretty good reason not to like it. Is that correct, Doctor?
Mr. FLEMING. That is absolutely right. Furthermore, just as way of an
example, we actually had people from Canada and from the United
Kingdom, both patients and doctors, who came to testify before us. And
they told us really crazy things that we would never accept in the
United States under our system. One is if someone gets cancer,
oftentimes they are told, we're going to watch it. We're going to watch
cancer. That's crazy. Why would you watch cancer? You've got to treat
it. But in their country, in Canada, in some places it is 2\1/2\ years
just to get an MRI scan. Then you get in the waiting line to actually
get surgery or treatment.
Mr. AKIN. So if you are in Canada and you have cancer, what you
really don't want to do is you don't want to sign up at the hospital,
you want to sign up at the airport for a flight that is going south to
the United States so you can get taken care of.
Mr. FLEMING. Yes. Absolutely.
And just one last thing. The way they define emergency surgery in
Canada is any surgery that doesn't at this
[[Page 3716]]
moment save your life. What does that mean? Someone who needs bypass
surgery, who has a 99 percent lesion in their artery, unless they are
dying that moment, if they get bypass surgery, that is elective
surgery. And we saw a recent example where a premier from Newfoundland
literally came across the border to get his heart surgery because he
chose the United States of America to get his care as opposed to his
own homeland.
We know people come from around the world. If they have the resources
to get care here, they know where the best care in the world is. We've
got problems, but these are solvable problems that we can use a scalpel
to fix rather than taking a wrecking ball to the entire system and
rebuilding it in a socialist view.
Mr. AKIN. Right. I think the point was made once that if you've got a
bad faucet in your kitchen you don't remodel a whole kitchen, you fix
the faucet.
Again, I would like to turn to my friend from Ohio, Congressman
Jordan, and just see if he wanted to make a comment about that or a
different point.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I appreciate the gentleman yielding and
appreciate the comments from our colleague from Louisiana. I actually
just want to go back and try to give some context for why I think the
American people are so adamantly opposed to this legislation.
I think it is important to remember what we have seen over the last
year, things we never thought we would see in this great Nation. Who
would have thought in the United States of America, the greatest Nation
in history, we would see the President of the United States fire the
CEO of General Motors? Who would have thought in the United States of
America we would see the taxpayers of this country own General Motors?
Who would have thought in this great country we would own AIG, the
largest insurer? Who would have thought in the United States of America
we would have a Federal Government pay czar telling private American
citizens how much money they could make? Who would have imagined in
this great country we would have the largest deficit in American
history, $1.4 trillion? Who would have imagined in this country we
would have a $12 trillion national debt? And now who would have
imagined that this majority, this Democrat Congress, would continue to
try to pass a piece of legislation that the American people have said
time and time again they don't want?
That is the context we find ourselves in. No wonder the people of
this country have figured out this is a bad piece of legislation and
they don't want it.
I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. But I think it is sometimes
important to step back and understand the framework we are operating
in.
Mr. AKIN. Boy, I really appreciate your putting that in perspective.
Because we sort of rush through each day, each day is so busy, and we
sometimes fail to just take a look and say, oh, my goodness, what is
going on here? You know, first of all, a President of the United States
firing the president of General Motors? And then surrounding himself
with these people not approved by the Senate that he calls czars.
That's weird. I don't know where that idea comes from. And then taking
over AIG, a great big insurance company. And then you go through all of
these other things, the bailout for Wall Street and this supposedly
stimulus bill, which cost $700 billion and is not creating jobs, 10
percent unemployment.
We have just heard people critical of President Bush for spending too
much money. You take his very worst year, which was '08 with the Pelosi
Congress here, and it was $470 billion I think he overspent if I
remember. You are the expert on numbers. And yet here we go in 2009,
$1.4 trillion. That is a record since World War II. We keep setting
these bad records and then here comes this piece of legislation.
My constituents are going crazy. They are telling me, Todd, what can
we do? What can we do? What do you want me to do? We had a great big
meeting and thousands of them showed up to protest. The media covered
it. But what can you do? I mean, they are shutting the phone boards
down. Sometimes I don't know what to say, gentlemen.
We are joined here by my good friend, Congresswoman Foxx. I think of
her as somebody who is just one of those Americans who has common
sense, and she's tough. She's tougher than nails because she believes
in commonsense American values, and she doesn't put up with a whole lot
of baloney.
I am just delighted to have you on the floor joining us tonight.
Ms. FOXX. I thank you, Congressman Akin, and I thank you for leading
this special order. I want to build on what you and Mr. Jordan have
said. I had a town hall meeting in my district on Monday. The people in
my district are commonsense people. And they are saying, we just want
commonsense solutions. They want the truth. They want the simple truth
about what this bill is going to do and what needs to be done.
I find it just unbelievable that these folks who are in charge here,
the Democrats who are in charge, have such a low opinion of the
American people. I want to talk about that for just a minute because I
think that is part of the problem that we have. There is an article
today in the Washington Times, and it says, House Democrats Tuesday
defended the idea of tying together the Senate health care overhaul
bill and a companion bill of repairs that could spare Members from
having to vote outright for the Senate's tax on high-cost insurance
plans and other contentious provisions. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
said the public isn't going to be worried about how Congress passed a
bill, but rather what's in the bill, and won't differentiate between
the procedural paths. This is his quote: ``Do you think any American is
going to make a distinction,'' he asked? ``I don't think any American,
real American out there, is going to make a distinction between the
two.''
Well, the people I was dealing with on Monday are real Americans. I
can tell him that. And they don't like the Slaughter provision. I want
to add to that a comment that was made by Speaker Pelosi during a
discussion with bloggers on Monday, saying she liked the idea of tying
the bill to the rule. And her quote was, ``Because people don't have to
vote on the Senate bill.''
Now, the public understands that if these folks in charge are trying
to keep their people from voting on something that there must be
something wrong with it.
Mr. AKIN. There is something that smells, doesn't it? This thing has
been sitting around for about a half a year, and the more people find
out about it, the more they hate it. A week or two ago, I just started
making a list of all the people who would hate this bill, and there are
just circles of Americans, one on top of the other.
If you are an older person you don't want all that half a trillion
dollars taken out of Medicare.
If you are pro-life you think, well, I don't like abortion. Well, if
you don't like abortion, how do you like the fact that your taxpayer
dollar that you are forced to pay is paying for abortion? That to me is
different than just--I mean one thing people talk about is choice. I
don't call it choice, I call it killing children. But even if you
accept the idea of choice, some people think abortion is okay, some
people think it is not. But to take the people who think it is not and
force them to pay to do abortions where they think it is killing a
child even if other people don't, no wonder people don't like this
thing.
Or illegal immigrants getting medical care on the back of the
taxpayer. I could see there are so many people that wouldn't like it.
Ms. FOXX. Would my colleague yield?
Mr. AKIN. I do yield.
Ms. FOXX. I think another thing that they have a hard time
understanding is how a Member of Congress could lambast the bill one
minute and then say we need to vote on it the next. And I want to say
Chairwoman Slaughter, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, who is now
doing everything she can to get this bill passed
[[Page 3717]]
with the trick that she has come up with, the Slaughter sleight of hand
I call it, she said last year, right after the Senate bill was passed,
``The Senate should go back to the drawing board.'' And she further
said, ``The Senate bill will do almost nothing to reform health care,
but will be a windfall for insurance companies.''
So the public is really confused because one day these folks say one
thing and then the next day they are doing everything they can to
destroy our country and all that we stand for to get these bills
passed. It's got to be terribly confusing.
Mr. AKIN. Not only confusing, but in the telephone town hall I did, I
sense an anger and a frustration in the public. First of all we are
told that you don't have to read the bill, just vote on it because we
haven't even put the bill together. You don't have to read it. Now we
are being told, not only you don't have to read it, you don't have to
vote on it. That seems like the silliest thing I ever heard. And yet
that is what is being talked about, about bringing a bill to the floor,
you just vote for a rule instead of actually voting on the bill. And it
is questionable whether it is even constitutional.
My good friend, Dr. Fleming.
Mr. FLEMING. I think it bears noting that this bill defies common
sense. We just talked about the fact that you take a half a trillion
dollars out of Medicare, which is already struggling, and no one has
ever explained in this year-long debate how in the world they are going
to do that except to say fraud, waste, and abuse. But if we had the
tools to do that better today, why aren't we already doing it? That is
number one.
{time} 1845
Mr. AKIN. Sort of like fraud, waste, and abuse is like a line item in
the budget and you can just line it out and make it go away? All these
years, if we had fraud, waste, and abuse, we try to get rid of it, but
they say we're just going to line--it's really amazing. I didn't mean
to interrupt.
Mr. FLEMING. The other thing is the idea that suddenly you can cover
30 million more Americans using the same resources. Nobody buys that.
And finally, another way to say this is that there is going to be an
increase of taxes on 25 percent more Americans; they are going to pay
more taxes to cover 7 percent more Americans. The Americans are not
buying that.
Mr. AKIN. I think that's part of the reason why you see this
tremendous opposition to this legislation.
And, you know, one of the things we did, trying to get some kind of
perspective on some of these main points, imposes half a trillion in
Medicare cuts. The Republican alternative didn't do that, but the
President's bill and the Senate bill does. It enacts a job-killing tax
hike and government regulations costing hundreds of billions of
dollars. The old Democrat bill and the President's new bill do that,
and the Republican thing doesn't do it.
I mean, we have a lot of reforms. I think you're a cosponsor/sponsor
of a bunch of bills that reform things in health care, but it's not a
complete government takeover of the system, and we're not talking about
raiding Medicare and all of these other sad provisions.
Now, one of the things that I think Americans are sensitive to is
unemployment. I mean, there are a lot of people out there without a
job. According to the government numbers, there are about 10 percent
unemployed Americans. And that is not counting the people who have been
out of a job more than a year, because they take them off. They just
wipe them off the charts.
So you have got a lot of unemployment, and now what you're going to
do is you're going to enact these tax hikes on small businesses, which
is no better way to get them to want to get rid of employees than to
run their taxes up or their costs of having employees. So you're a
small business owner, and all of a sudden it's going to cost you more
to have an employee. You've just created a big economic incentive to
get rid of some employees because now you've got to get rid of the
taxes.
You're also being encouraged not to invest in your own business to
put the new wing on a building, to get the new machine tool or whatever
is going to create new jobs. You're not going to do that when you're
going to get hammered by this new tax increase.
And I think Americans are sensitive, from what I found in my
district. And I don't know about yours, but in Missouri, people don't
like unemployment and they'd like to see us--they know government
doesn't create jobs, but they'd like us to create an environment where
small businesses can prosper. And this is the exact opposite to me.
This doesn't make sense either, that we're not thinking about the
unemployment component.
Mr. FLEMING. The statistics show that the number one issue for
Americans today is jobs, without question. And that health care reform,
while it is important to you and me and all of the Republicans and
everyone in the House, for that matter, it's only, like, number five or
even lower than that on the list. Americans see that the imperative
right now is to get jobs back, and we're using a job-killing bill. How
in the world are you going to get private insurance if you don't have a
job to begin with?
A recent poll by CNN--and certainly I don't think anybody could ever
claim that CNN is a hard-right institution--says that 75 percent of
Americans feel that we should either scrap this bill completely, throw
it away and forget about it, or scrap it and start over again.
So the American people, as you say, three to one, don't like this
bill, and they don't want to see it or hear of it again.
Mr. AKIN. I think a lot of Americans feel that there are things that
need to be fixed in health care, and a lot of our colleagues that are
Republicans think there are things that need to be fixed in health
care, but we don't think you melt the whole system down.
One of the things that I was asked in my town hall meeting--and I
think maybe there are people that have this question in their minds, so
maybe I'll ask myself this question and try to answer it. They said,
Okay, you big-mouthed Republican--they didn't quite say that, but they
said, You were in the majority for 6 years and you never fixed any of
these and now you're bad mouthing them when the Democrats are doing it.
Let me tell you about when I was a Republican for the 6 years that I
was here when I was in the majority, and that was we passed a whole lot
of bills in the House, a number of them, to fix health care that nobody
has ever heard of or knows anything about. What happened to those
bills? They passed the House. They went to the Senate, and there were
Democrats in the Senate that basically filibustered it because we
didn't have 60 Republican votes to push it through reconciliation so
you could get it out to a vote on the floor. I know it's not
reconciliation. Whatever they call it on the floor. The 60 votes in the
Senate, we never had them.
What sort of bills did we pass? Well, we passed a bunch of energy
bills to deal with the high prices of gasoline that were killed by
Democrats in the Senate. We passed a bill to deal with Freddie and
Fannie that were being improperly managed financially that were going
to cause a big crisis, and that was killed by the Democrats in the
Senate. We passed associated health plans to allow small businesses to
combine their employees together to get a better price on health
insurance. That bill was killed. We passed it numerous times. It was
never taken up. They never had the 60 votes in the Senate to deal with
that.
We did tort reform, which various States have passed. Dropped health
care costs by 10 percent in some States. That went to the Senate, was
killed by the Democrats in the Senate.
So it wasn't that we didn't pass things or try to fix things as
Republicans. We had a lot of reforms, but they were always killed
because of the 60 votes in the Senate. So when people say, Hey, you
guys were in the majority, how come you didn't do anything? We did
things, but it was because of the way the Senate is set up, none of
those things passed.
[[Page 3718]]
And I think that's helpful for people to understand that because
Republicans do have ideas, but they were more selective things that we
knew were going to save money, going to give people better health care
and solutions that we knew from other States that would work. So I
think that's important to kind of get that out.
Let's see. This thing here. Benefits trial lawyers by failing to
enact meaningful lawsuit reform. Well, these bills do benefit trial
attorneys. The weird thing about these bills is they are actually sort
of antitort reform. It's not that they don't deal with those huge
punitive damages which run the cost of health care up. In fact, the
States that have tort reform, it makes it so they can't use their tort
reform. So this thing is, from a tort reform point of view, is actually
hostile to tort reform, and I'm sure you see some of that.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing us to deal with this very,
very important subject. I know the American public is interested.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM FOR SENIORS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Halvorson). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the
majority leader.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I'm so happy to be here tonight,
particularly after I have heard what my colleagues had to say. One of
them said, Our people need to hear the truth about the health care
legislation. That's exactly what we're going to talk about tonight.
Tonight we're going to talk about how this legislation helps our older
Americans, our senior citizens.
We're going to talk about how this bill protects Medicare for the
next 10 years. It's solvent for an extra 10 years so we keep our
promise for an aging population and take care of our citizens when they
get older. We're going to talk about closing the doughnut hole, about
protecting seniors from elder abuse, about making visits to the
hospital safe.
I have the pleasure of being the cochair of the Democratic Task Force
on Senior Citizens, on seniors, and my cochair is the gentlelady from
California, Doris Matsui.
And Doris, I'm going to turn it over to you to get us started
tonight.
Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, dear colleague, and I really
appreciate being the cochair with you. We certainly have the passion
for our senior citizens, and I believe that most of America understands
that, too. But I rise today to recognize significant benefits that the
emerging health care bill will have on American seniors.
Simply put, the health care bill will put forth, provides a better
deal for America's seniors than our current system. Our health care
plan takes great strides towards improving the quality of care our
seniors receive.
For starters, our bill eliminates copayments and deductibles for
preventative services under the Medicare program. This is crucially
important because we know that many seniors are not getting the
preventative care they need and are often foregoing tests because
they're too worried about the costs.
The sad fact is one out of every five women over the age of 50 has
not had a mammogram in 2 years. Also, more than a third of adults over
the age of 50 have never had a colonoscopy. Without our bill's
investments in primary care and its improved access to preventive care
under Medicare, beneficiaries will continue to lose access. We are
going to reverse this trend with the bill we pass this week.
Madam Speaker, we all know that preventative care is good for the
health of individual patients and it's good for the overall health of
our system, but without doctors to treat Medicare beneficiaries, the
entire system structure, the systemic structure just collapses. That is
why our legislation creates a more immediate pathway for more primary
care doctors, the doctors that stay with you for a lifetime and know
your medical history.
Primary care doctors are the backbone of Medicare and of our system
in general, and our bill gives medical students incentives to go into
primary care. These include grants for primary care training as well as
incentives under Medicare for primary care doctors to practice in areas
that currently have a shortage.
Right now, we know that we need many more primary care doctors in
this country. The shortage is exacerbated by the high cost of
education, which pushes more and more medical students into specialty
fields and strains Medicare. Today, about 12 million Americans lack
access to primary care doctors in their community, but by providing
immediate support for primary care physicians, we can help minimize
these shortages and restore the promise of Medicare.
Our bill also emphasizes coordinated care so that people can avoid
unnecessary tests. It provides incentives for doctors to work together
to provide seniors with high quality care that every American needs and
deserves.
This bill is about strengthening Medicare for America's seniors and
restoring the confidence that we have in our health care system. We
know that we have the best doctors and hospitals in the world. In my
hometown of Sacramento, we have models of care coordination and chronic
disease management that are the envy of other cities across this
country.
But when seniors, especially in Sacramento, are splitting pills
because they can't afford to refill their prescriptions and skipping
meals to make ends meet, this system is not working. And one of the
surest ways to help us get back on track is to close the doughnut hole
that affects millions of seniors every single day.
Between 2009 and 2010, monthly prices in the doughnut hole increased
by 5 percent or more for half of the 10 most popular brand-name drugs.
This means that brand-name drugs in the doughnut hole became more
expensive relative to the medical care of other goods. And this is not
just a recent phenomenon.
Between 2006 and 2010, prices for popular brand-name drugs in the
doughnut hole went up more than 20 percent. This means that America's
seniors are being forced to spend a greater percentage of their fixed,
disposable income on brand-name drugs. This is why it is so important
for us to pass the health insurance reform bill, which will start
closing the doughnut hole this year and completely close it within 10
years
Madam Speaker, American seniors deserve more than the status quo. Our
plan for health care reform will extend the solvency of Medicare, lower
seniors' costs for prescription drugs by beginning to close the
doughnut hole, improve the quality of seniors' care with better
coordination among doctors, cover the cost of preventive care for
Medicare patients, and expand home- and community-based services to
keep people in their homes.
{time} 1900
America's seniors deserve the best possible health care we can
provide. And that's what our health care plan will do, ensure access to
quality, affordable health care for all Americans.
Madam Speaker, I thank my wonderful colleague, and I yield back time
to her.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you so much, Representative Matsui, for being
such a strong advocate for older Americans, really for all Americans,
that are going to be helped by this legislation. And we are going to be
talking much more about that.
I wanted to just let everyone know that for 5 years I had the
pleasure of being the executive director of the Illinois State Council
of Senior Citizens. It was between 1985 and 1990, and those were among
the most fun years and learning years my life. I was a lot younger
then, not a senior citizen as I have reached today, and what I learned
is that our older Americans, while facing many, many challenges, are
the people who really helped build our middle class, who helped build
our society, and now in their older years, especially in this time of
economic downturn, are facing incredible difficulties in getting their
health care. Thank goodness for Medicare. We will talk more about that
program that was passed in 1965.
[[Page 3719]]
There is a reason why every advocacy group for older Americans is
supporting this legislation. If you look at the list, and I'm going to
read it, you will see that the people who know best, because they
either are made up of older Americans or their job is to advocate for
older Americans, are supporting this legislation. That would include
the AARP, which represents tens of millions of older Americans, people
from 50 and upward, and we will talk about how this legislation not
only helps people 65 and older, but 50 and older, the National
Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Alliance for
Retired Americans, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Families USA, the
Retirees of AFSCME, B'nai B'rith International, National Senior Corps
Association, National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, National Council
on Aging, Service Employees International Union, National Association
of Professional Geriatric Care Managers, Easter Seals, Medicare Rights
Center, American Federation of Teachers Program on Retirement and
Retirees, Volunteers of America, the American Society on Aging, and
National Senior Citizens Law Center.
I'm sure there are more that aren't on my list. I have some other
data from some of these organizations. These are the people who know
what seniors want. That is their business. They are made up of seniors
and certainly of their advocates.
And one of the advocates for the elderly is a great colleague mine.
Rush Holt from the great State of New Jersey is here tonight to talk
about how people in his State and around the country, older Americans,
are going to benefit from this legislation.
Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentlelady from Illinois for reserving this
time to take the message out. For a moment, let me speak to the 103,000
Medicare beneficiaries in the 12th Congressional District in New
Jersey, more than 100,000. This legislation would improve their
benefits. It would provide free preventive and wellness care. It would
improve the primary care and better coordination of care, not just so
there is more efficiency and less waste, although there would be, but
so that patients don't get the runaround. It does not help their health
to have unnecessary or counterproductive tests or procedures. It would
enhance nursing home care. And it would strengthen the Medicare Trust
Fund, extending solvency for another 8 or 9 years. That is real.
You had spoken earlier about the doughnut hole. I always hesitate to
talk about the doughnut hole. I think of it as a cliff. Depending on
how expensive your monthly medication is, along about August or
September or October, you have exceeded the expenditure limit on
Medicare, the way things stand now, and you fall off the cliff. And if
you want to keep taking the medicines, you have got to pay out of
pocket.
Under the bill, the beneficiaries not only would receive in 2010 a
$250 rebate and 50 percent discounts on brand-name drugs beginning in
the coming year, but also complete closure of this doughnut hole, or
better yet, filling in this cliff in the years to come. A typical
beneficiary who enters the so-called doughnut hole, again, that is too
benign a term, who falls off the cliff, will see savings of over $700
in the coming year and over $3,000 in coming years. So this is
something that, yes, it helps small businesses. Yes, it helps young
adults trying to get a start after college. Yes, it helps people who
find themselves between jobs or people who want to start small
businesses. It helps employees of large businesses. It helps anybody
who has a health insurance policy now. But tonight, we are talking
about how it will help senior Americans.
I thank the gentlelady for reserving this time. Let me turn it back
to you, and I will add some comments as we go along if I may.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Great. I thank you so much.
I wanted to talk in very specific terms. Again, you talked a little
bit about some of the issues, how this bill actually, in a concrete
way, on a day-to-day basis, is going to help older Americans. I think
it's so important that we explain the details of this bill because
there have been a lot of myths out there particularly aimed at older
Americans. And it really makes me mad. There has been a lot of fear
about how somehow this bill is going to cut Medicare. And I'm going to
talk about how that is exactly the opposite, how this bill is actually
going to extend the life of Medicare, not cut any benefits.
So let's look at some of these things, how health care reform means
security and stability for America's seniors, extends the solvency of
Medicare. What does that even mean? Extend the solvency of Medicare.
What that means is that currently if you look at the Medicare funds, by
2017, that fund is going to be in some trouble. Aha. But we pass this
bill, and the solvency, the health of the Medicare Trust Fund is going
to be extended another 9 years. So we are now up to 2026. We want to
figure out ways to even go beyond that, but that's a pretty good start,
to extend it to 2026.
Lower costs for prescription drugs. You talked a bit about the
doughnut hole. And, again, you're right, you talk about the doughnut
hole. Not only does it sound benign, a lot of people don't know what
we're talking about when we say that. But there is this gap in
coverage. And so I'm going to tell you about one of the seniors who
actually had this pretty horrible experience when she went to the
drugstore and found out that she was not covered. Here she is. My
constituent had a Humana part D Medicare, that is a prescription drug
plan, and had trouble paying the monthly premium. Humana originally
told her that she would never pay more than a few dollars for her
medications. Sounds pretty good. One day she went to CVS, she went to
the drugstore, and was told that one medication out of the eight that
she is taking was going to cost $130, whereas the previous month the
cost was $20. From $20 to $130.
At that point, the pharmacist told her about the doughnut hole. She
found out that from then on she was going to have to pay out of pocket
until she paid $3,600 out of pocket. She would continue to pay her
premiums every month, but her drug costs were going to be out of pocket
until she had paid $3,600 more.
Well, what she told us was that she stood at the pharmacy counter and
cried because she just couldn't afford to get her medicine. So she
walked out of the pharmacy. She called our office, and she was
concerned that she wouldn't be able to take her lifesaving medicine
because she didn't have the money.
And fortunately, there was an Illinois program in existence at the
time called Illinois Cares Rx, and she is able to get her medication
through that program. But fortunately, she fit the eligibility
requirements. Plenty of people don't. And then her physician gave her
some free samples. And you know that doesn't last forever. So we are
going to permanently close that doughnut hole, and we are going to
begin to do it on day one, lowering the cost of prescription drugs.
We are going to improve the quality of seniors' care with better
coordination among the doctors. And that is going to be cost savings,
too, because we are going to have coordinated care so that they get
this continuum of care. We are going to train more primary care
doctors. That's what we need to do. We are going to provide incentives
to make sure that we have more primary care doctors. We're going to
cover the cost, as you mentioned, Representative Holt, of preventive
care for Medicare patients. No more out-of-pocket costs. You have your
Medicare card--that's all you're going to need for those preventive
services.
And we're going to expand home and community-based services to keep
seniors in their homes, which, we should add, is exactly where they
want to be. People don't want to be forced into nursing homes. They
want to be able to stay at home. If we expand those home- and
community-based services, someone being able to come into the home at a
price they could afford, adult day care centers where people can go
during the day and be safe and active, then they are going to be able
to stay in their homes.
[[Page 3720]]
That's just the beginning of what we do for seniors.
Let me turn it back to Representative Holt for just a minute because
we were talking earlier about how frustrating it is that there is a
question about Democrats, the majority, wanting to somehow cut
Medicare.
Mr. HOLT. I thank Representative Schakowsky, my good friend. This is
something that has been one of the great accomplishments, not just of
the Democratic Party, but of the United States. Medicare has been a
success. It has been medically a success. It has been socially a
success. This legislation before us will only strengthen Medicare.
And to underscore a point that you were making, Ms. Schakowsky: By
getting better coordination among doctors, by having more primary care
doctors, by covering preventive care, by making sure that beneficiaries
have access to medicine, we not only get efficiencies, but each patient
gets better care.
{time} 1915
We begin to shift more attention toward the outcome, the health of
the patient.
Having extra procedures or having to go to a specialist when you
don't need to go to a specialist but only because you don't have a
primary care physician available is not only costly but it is not
healthful. It does not produce the best outcome, and it leaves the
patient frustrated and getting the runaround.
So people ask me, well, in this health care bill, how can you claim
to cut costs and not cut our benefits? How can you claim to cut costs
and not give us worse care? Well, in fact that is the point exactly. By
having primary care physicians, by paying for the medical education of
those physicians to have more of them available, to have better
coordinated care among doctors, the patients will get better care. So
it is not just a matter of efficiency, but it is that also.
And to continue on your point. The debate that we are having right
now strongly echoes the debate of the 1960s over Medicare.
``Inefficient and costly government.'' ``Putting the government between
the doctor and the patient.'' ``Socialized medicine.'' Yes, we have
heard all of those phrases this week, in fact tonight here, previously,
from the other side of the aisle. Those are quotes from the 1960s.
Now, few people today would call for a repeal of Medicare given its
success for seniors, yet it was very controversial back then. The same
arguments were made against health care reform then as are being made
now.
Some leaders, from Ronald Reagan to Bob Dole to Gerald Ford, fought
the program and voted against its creation. Since then, some opponents
of Medicare have tried to cut, or cut, Medicare. Former Speaker of the
House Gingrich spoke of cutting back Medicare so that it could, quote,
wither on the vine.
Does anybody really think that Democrats, who are so proud of the
accomplishments of Medicare, would for a moment consider cutting back
on Medicare? Does anybody reasonably think that?
This is a successful program that has taken us from 1965, when 44
percent of seniors were uninsured. They had no place to go except maybe
the emergency room if they got really sick. It has taken us to a point
where barely 1 percent of seniors today have no coverage. Seniors had
limited choices back then. They could deplete their savings or seek
assistance from their children or look for charity care, or, as was so
often the case, forego medical care entirely. Within 11 months after
President Johnson signed Medicare into law, almost 20 million Americans
had enrolled in the program, and it has virtually eliminated
uninsurance among older Americans. Today, about 1 percent of those 65
and older lack health care coverage.
So ask any of the 45 million beneficiaries if they would trade their
Medicare. You will have a hard time finding any.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you very much for reminding everybody, first of
all, that Medicare is the government program of health care for older
Americans. It is not just a made-up story that sometimes people come up
to us and say, Keep government hands off my Medicare. Well, we have to
remind people that this is a 100 percent government program. And thank
God for Medicare, because so many people, that is the only insurance
they have.
And I have to tell you, a lot of people come into my office every
week and saying, I can't wait. I can't wait for my 65th birthday so
that I can finally get the insurance and the care that I need.
I am also, as I said, going to talk about how this bill even helps
people age 50 to 65 with their health care problems. But right now, I
want to introduce somebody who knows a bit about insurance, who knows a
bit about health care, and knows a bit about what seniors in this
country, what Americans in this country need when it comes to health
care. He is a new Member, but he is not new to this issue, and he is
not new to advocacy for all good things for consumers and for the
seniors, and that is John Garamendi, my colleague from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you very much, Congresswoman Schakowsky, and
thank you for that terrific description of the history of Medicare.
This has been a Democratic program for more than 43 years now. As
Representative Schakowsky just said, I get the same thing: if I can
just live long enough to get the Medicare.
And I remember as you were saying that an experience I had. I had
visited a carpenter who had become ill with cancer and he wanted me to
stop by and see him. This was maybe 10 years ago. He was bedridden,
very, very sick. He was about 60, no longer able to work, and his wife
was about the same age. And he said, I have just got to hang on long
enough so that my wife can get to Medicare. Otherwise, she will have
nothing, and she is a diabetic.
We have got about 45,000 Americans that are dying every year because
they don't have health care and because they haven't been able to live
long enough to get to Medicare.
Medicare is a program that the Democrats have fought for, have fought
very vigorous battles in this Chamber against the Republican Party. You
mentioned Newt Gingrich, who was right out front about the Republican
goals in the 1990s to destroy Medicare.
Well, we are here to protect Medicare. And in this legislation that
will be before us for a vote very, very shortly, there is an explicit
understanding written into it that Medicare will be protected, that
benefits will not be cut, and that cost savings, wherever they may be
found in all of the Medicare system, that those cost savings will be
plowed back into the Medicare program.
So where are the cost savings going to come from? How correct you are
with your chart when you talked about where the cost savings are: well-
care, preventing illnesses, taking care of people in the continuity of
care rather than episodic care.
There is also a lot of fraud in Medicare. We know that. We also know
that it was the Bush-Cheney budget that reduced the appropriations to
fight fraud in Medicare. They basically wiped out the Department of
Health Services and the Medicare program's ability to fight fraud, and
it blossomed. But in the budget that you passed this last year, now
that we have a Democratic President and a Democratic budget, he put
money back in to fight Medicare fraud. That will save money. We have
seen ``60 Minutes''; we have seen the kind of fraud that is out there.
But what really, really makes me upset is the misinformation that is
out there, in many cases the downright lies that you see on television,
most of them paid for by the insurance industry that doesn't want to
lose their 16 percent additional payment over and above the average
cost of Medicare that is given to the insurance companies so that they
can have this Advantage program. What do the seniors get for it? Not
much.
Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman will yield. And these are not lies of
ignorance. These are people who know better.
Mr. GARAMENDI. The insurance companies? You bet they do.
[[Page 3721]]
Mr. HOLT. They know that Medicare has an overhead of about 2 percent.
So if I may make a small correction on what the gentleman has said.
There is waste and fraud in Medicare. I think the gentleman said a lot;
actually, it is a little. But when there are 44 million beneficiaries,
almost 45 million beneficiaries, a little bit of error, a little bit of
fraud can add up to a lot of money. But the program itself, if you
count administrative costs as well as waste, fraud, and abuse, it is a
couple of percent. In other words, almost all of the money in Medicare
goes to providing health care.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I have to say that it is not necessarily just a
little bit. At the beginning of September, the Department of Health and
Human Services and the Department of Justice announced the largest
health care fraud settlement in history.
Pfizer, the drug company, agreed to pay $2.3 billion for illegal
marketing practices. That is going to return about $1 billion to
Medicare and Medicaid. So that is not chump change.
Mr. HOLT. On a percentage basis, it is a small amount. When you have
45 million beneficiaries, that adds up to a lot.
Mr. GARAMENDI. The key point here is that in this legislation there
is a specific effort to eliminate the fraud that goes on in the system.
The unnecessary payments, the stealing of the Social Security cards,
all those kinds of things that are out there, we know we need to deal
with that. And we are dealing with it. Even before this piece of
legislation, we put money into the budget to deal with that; and then
this legislation strengthens that.
And, in addition to that, we now will have better medical record
technology which will also assist us in keeping track of what is going
on. It is a small piece of a much, much larger piece of legislation
that does help seniors in very, very specific ways.
Why should the insurance companies get an unnecessary boost in their
profits at the expense of the Medicare program? No reason that I know
of. They should be competing and they should be helping seniors, but
not get that additional bump. Those savings are also plowed back into
the benefits for seniors so that they can have those programs that you
talked about, those programs of prevention, of wellness, of being able
to stay in their home. All of those things are important.
If I could just take a personal moment for a moment. My mother phoned
me; she is 87. She is going to have her 88th birthday. If it is 89, I
am in deep trouble back home. But she is going to have her birthday
soon.
She phoned about 3 weeks ago and she said, John, why are you cutting
the Medicare programs? What are you talking about, Mom? Well, the TV
advertisement just said you guys are going to cut the Medicare program.
And I am going, No, we are not. But tell me about the ad.
It was an advertisement run by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the
Sacramento region of California. She saw it and became concerned.
So why are these ads out there that are on their face not truthful?
One reason: and that is to upset the seniors and to somehow give the
seniors false information about what this legislation does.
I got her straightened away. She is okay. Although when she sees this
red tie, the good Mary Jane McSorley is not going to be happy. But,
Mom, I have got a green carnation here.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You know, a lot of us have been barraged with phone
calls like your mother said to you. She believed you, didn't she?
Mr. GARAMENDI. Oh, yes. I have been a truthful son.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Good. And I hope that what you have said has now
convinced many others.
But it is really wrong, I think, to put out information that really
causes older Americans who are so dependent on Medicare, and that is
most of the people on Medicare that really rely on it for most of their
health care even if they have a supplemental, to tell them things that
just aren't true, that benefits in some way are going to be cut.
I want to introduce now someone who also has been a great advocate
for the constituents in her district and for older Americans, a great
friend of senior citizens, from Nevada, and that is Congresswoman Dina
Titus.
Ms. TITUS. Well, thank you very much. And thank you for your
leadership on this issue and for organizing tonight's discussion about
something that is so important.
Nevada has had the fastest growing senior population in the country
for the last decade. And even though we have slowed down a little
generally, that percentage is expected to continue. So you can imagine
what an important issue this is for me.
And, like Mr. Garamendi, my mother, too, is on Medicare. So I can't
imagine why anybody would think we would want to hurt Medicare benefits
when our own mothers are beneficiaries, along with so many other
seniors in this country.
I share your frustration, because I have had a lady following me
around to some of our town hall meetings wearing a T-shirt that says
``I am the grandmother you want to kill.'' She believed those early ads
about the death panels in the health care bill.
So there is an awful lot of misinformation out there that we need to
correct, and that is why a discussion like this is so important.
You know, generations of America's seniors have relied on Medicare in
their golden years, and we must ensure that it is there for them in the
future. This means that we need health reform, health care reform as
you have described on your chart there, that strengthens Medicare.
Rising health care costs threaten our current Medicare system, and we
need to be sure that it remains solvent. And we have to enact reform
that strengthens Medicare's financial footing and extends the lifetime
of the Medicare trust fund.
We also must bring down those prescription costs. We need to reduce
costs for both Medicare and for seniors, individually, and close the
doughnut hole that so many of our seniors fall into, forcing them to
choose between life-saving medication and other necessities like buying
groceries or paying the power bill.
{time} 1930
It's because of my commitment to seniors that I was proud to support
the House health care reform bill, because in addition to the things
that I just mentioned and you all have been talking about, it also
benefited seniors by removing lifetime caps on coverage and included
free preventive care; in other words, no copays on important tests like
mammograms and colonoscopies. So I'm hopeful that these reforms will be
things that we can enact in the coming days, and I look forward to
seeing that final health care language to be sure that they're in
there.
You know, I'm dedicated to protecting Medicare, and I know how
important it is for the seniors in District Three. I would never do
anything that would reduce or undermine the care that they receive.
That's why I introduced legislation--and I appreciate all of your
support on it--that protected seniors from increases in their Medicare
premiums. It was called the Medicare Premium Fairness Act. We
introduced it last year. It would protect seniors from an increase in
their premiums.
In the past years, seniors have received a cost-of-living increase in
their Social Security to offset any increase in the Medicare premium.
Well, this year, for the first time in 35 years, seniors aren't
receiving that cost-of-living increase, meaning that higher Medicare
premiums would result in lower Social Security benefits, for a net
loss. For seniors on fixed incomes who count on every dollar just to
get by, this is unacceptable, because they will be receiving less in
Social Security. My bill would protect all seniors from an increase in
those Medicare premiums this year until the cost-of-living kicks in in
the future.
Unfortunately, and how many times have we seen this--and I'm
expressing my personal frustration, but also of this body, I believe--
one Republican in the Senate has held up the speedy passage of this
bill that's so important to seniors. This shouldn't be allowed to
[[Page 3722]]
happen because it's too important to happen in the lives of the
American people. So I'm going to continue to fight to see that that
bill becomes law and in a way that would be retroactive to help the
seniors who may have already seen those deductions kick in.
So thank you again for having this discussion. Medicare is critical
to the health and well-being of our seniors, and I look forward to
working with you on the senior task force to highlight and advocate on
these important issues that affect our senior population.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. One of the great things that you pointed out is that
Medicare was passed in 1965, but we continue to work to improve it, to
make it better, to even expand the coverage so that it is more
affordable for the elderly. This is a work in progress. It's really
been a job that has been the life's work of the Democratic Party for
generations to make sure that Medicare really does do what it needs.
When Medicare first came into being in 1965, prescription drugs were
actually a very small part of the whole health care cost. Now they are
at the center--front and center, often--of extending life, of making
life more livable, of preventing death, and so we work to find all the
ways that we can perfect what has been a very successful program.
I want to once again just make sure that people see the advantages to
older Americans, how health care reform means security and stability
for America's seniors, extends the life--that's what solvency means--
extends the life of Medicare, lower seniors' cost for prescription
drugs, improves the quality of seniors' care with better coordination
among doctors, trains more primary care doctors so there will be access
when we add more people to health care.
Some seniors are worried. Okay, add 30 million people to health care
coverage, are there going to be enough doctors? We say we've got to do
that. That's what is in this bill, to make sure that we train and
create incentives for more primary care doctors, and nurses, too, so
that we have the professionals that we need. Covering the cost of
preventive care for Medicare patients, you described that. That's for
things like mammograms and colonoscopies. No out-of-pocket costs.
Expand home- and community-based services to keep seniors in their
homes.
So the question really is: What is the Republican plan if they say
our plan is bad? Well, Paul Ryan, one of the up-and-coming Republicans,
proposed the plan. He's the top Republican on the House Budget
Committee, and he put forth what they call the roadmap. The Republican
roadmap wouldn't improve Medicare. It actually ends it.
Now you're thinking, Oh, this is all partisan. That can't be true.
But, actually, it is true. It would end Medicare, when they get to be
65, for everyone who is now under the age of 55. Once those people who
are under 55 get to be 65, instead of Medicare, they get a voucher. Go
out and find health care for yourself. And the Congressional Budget
Office, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, reports that that
voucher over time would be worth about a quarter of what Medicare is
valued right now. The roadmap wouldn't require that private insurers
actually accept those vouchers or charge affordable premiums or provide
necessary benefits, making those vouchers pretty darn worthless.
Let me tell you what one of the expert groups said. This is the
nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: The Ryan plan
imposes no requirement that private insurers actually offer health
coverage to Medicare beneficiaries at an affordable price or at all.
Did you want to speak to that?
Mr. GARAMENDI. Let me just talk to that for a moment. This is
astounding.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Tell them your background, too.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, I was the insurance commissioner in California
from 1991 to 1995, and then 2003 to 2007, so I've got 8 years as the
insurance commissioner in the biggest State in this Nation, with a lot
of seniors. Our seniors haven't grown quite as fast as our friend
talked about from Nevada, but in total numbers we are so much bigger.
Major, major problem for seniors.
You're looking at the most expensive part of the population, the
senior population, and it is absolutely true that the insurance
companies do not want to ensure people that are going to get sick.
Who's going to get sick? It's the seniors. And that's why Medicare came
into place, as was described earlier, because that population has the
most difficult time of obtaining insurance, and it happens to be the
most expensive part.
We figured out here how to provide it. The Republicans are going to
do what? They're going to give you a voucher. So if I'm 54 years old
now--let me see if this is correct. I'm 54, and if the Republicans had
their way, when I become 65 in 11 years, I don't get Medicare, which
provides me with a comprehensive policy that I can take anywhere in
this Nation. I can go to Maine and get the policy. I can go to
California and get the policy. I don't get that. I get a voucher, and
I'm going to go to an insurance company that I know does not want me
because they know that at 65 I'm going to be expensive.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You've got that right. You would get a voucher.
Mr. GARAMENDI. This is the Republican program? Thank you, no.
Mr. HOLT. Let's be very clear. They are saying in this health care
bill, You want to cut Medicare. No. That's the point. We've been saying
over and over again, we're strengthening Medicare. What they want to do
is do away with Medicare, replace it with vouchers, or another term
that has been used in the past is ``privatizing.'' In other words, to
say, Well, you can take care of your health care. We'll even give you a
coupon. Now, the coupon is going to be of declining value over time,
but you're smart enough. You will have saved for your golden years and
you will be okay. That is what they propose to do.
Mr. GARAMENDI. You're suggesting you go back and take your privatized
Social Security savings? They're going to do away with Social Security,
too. So they're going to do away with Medicare and Social Security, the
two programs that provide security for seniors. The Republican Party
has said clearly they want to do away with those. That's not where we
are as Democrats. This program, as Representative Schakowsky has said
very clearly, strengthens Medicare, extends its life for at least 5
years, some would say 10 years.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Nine years.
Mr. HOLT. The best estimate is 9.
Mr. GARAMENDI. We'll just take 5, 9, whatever. It strengthens it and
pushes it out so it has the financial strength, reduces the doughnut
hole by $500 immediately, and you get----
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And then eliminates it over 10 years.
Mr. GARAMENDI. And if you're a senior of low income and moderate
income, some of your prescription drugs are reduced by 50 percent.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That's right.
Mr. GARAMENDI. This is a good deal, and yet we see the TV ads out
there scaring seniors that somehow this is a bad deal for seniors. This
program is a very good deal for seniors, wherever they happen to be,
and for every other American. We're talking about seniors here, but for
every other American they will get access to affordable, good quality
health insurance because of this legislation. Those are the facts.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I think it's really important at this point to just
mention some of the things that do happen as soon as the bill passes. A
lot of people, one of the things that the Republicans have been saying
about this legislation is that, Well, you have to wait until the bill
takes effect for another 4 years. Well, that's true that a number of
the elements of the full rollout of the bill take 4 years, but a number
of things happen right away, and among those is the beginning to close
the gap in coverage, or the doughnut hole.
A lot of seniors out there are worried about their grandchildren.
This legislation, on the day that it's enacted, says that children with
preexisting conditions will not be excluded from health
[[Page 3723]]
care. Imagine if you have a grandchild with asthma or a grandchild with
autism and suddenly they're trying to get health insurance for the
family. This child will be covered. Imagine the relief it will take off
of the parents and the grandparents' shoulders if we're able to do
that. Lifetime caps. Many people have chronic illness and right away
they find that they have reached the limit of how much their insurance
company is going to pay.
Mr. GARAMENDI. These are the worthless insurance policies that are
sold across State lines today. They have a very low lifetime cap. You
get a serious illness and you blow through that and you have no more
health insurance from that company. Not only that, but now you've got a
preexisting condition and you can't get insurance from any company. The
legislation changes that.
Thank you for pointing that out.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And annual caps----
Mr. GARAMENDI. That, too.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Where people in the first few months of the year have
great expenses on health care and suddenly they find that they're not
going to be able to be insured any more. That's it. So we do a lot of
things immediately. I will get back to some more of them later, but I
did want to talk a bit about what we do.
Go ahead.
Mr. HOLT. I wanted to address another point that I hear from folks in
central New Jersey about a lot. They get letters from their insurance
companies saying Medicare is going to be cut. Again, it's
misrepresentation, and we want to clear that up.
Let me give a little history about Medicare Advantage. A number of
years back the insurance companies came to the then-Republican majority
in Congress and said, You know, the government is really inefficient.
We, the insurance companies, can provide the benefits of Medicare a lot
more efficiently than the government can. In fact, if you give us 95
cents on the dollar, we will provide benefits to Medicare
beneficiaries.
{time} 1945
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Plus additional things. We're so good at it.
Mr. HOLT. Right. We're so good and so eager to move services into the
private sector--in other words, to privatize Medicare. The then-
congressional majority said, Fine. Well, it didn't take more than a
couple of years before the insurance companies came back, tears in
their eyes, hat in their hands saying, Well, we can't really do it for
95 cents on a dollar. It's actually about $1.15 on the dollar. And
those who liked privatization said, Hey, that's still a great deal. So
right now we find ourselves where 20 percent of Medicare beneficiaries
are getting Medicare benefits, and we are paying insurance companies a
15 percent premium to provide those benefits.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And who ends up paying for that?
Mr. HOLT. All taxpayers and the other Medicare beneficiaries. So yes,
those insurance companies, under this health care legislation, are not
going to get paid for doing no more than the Federal Government does at
a dollar on the dollar. We're not doing away with Medicare Advantage.
We're just saying, It's not going to be a giveaway for the insurance
companies. So they'll get a dollar's worth of payment for a dollar's
worth of services rendered.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Oh, that's so unfair to the insurance companies, that
you would take away their bonus for doing nothing more than you can do
in another system.
Mr. HOLT. Ask your seniors. About 20 percent of the Americans on
Medicare are a part of this Medicare Advantage program. Ask them how
many letters they have gotten from their insurance company saying that
the sky is falling and that if Congress goes through with this health
care reform, it will be curtains. Well, what it means is that there
will be fairness, once again, restored to the Medicare program. And the
Medicare beneficiaries will get a dollar's worth of services and
benefits for a dollar's worth of expenditures. That's the way it should
be.
Mr. GARAMENDI. That current unnecessary bonus that's given to the
insurance companies will be brought back and reinvested in the Medicare
program so that the Medicare program's solvency will be extended into
the future. So we're not taking that money away from the Medicare
program; we're taking it away from the insurance companies and bringing
it back to the Medicare program.
The senior Advantage program is not a free program for seniors.
They're paying for it. They're paying a premium themselves, and the
Federal Government is paying an unnecessary premium to the insurance
companies to do what doesn't cost any more in the regular system. So
it's a great savings. It's something that should be done. And oh, the
tears. The wailing and crying by the insurance companies.
Mr. HOLT. And it's based on a fallacy.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes, exactly.
Mr. HOLT. Because Medicare has low administrative overhead. It is an
efficiently run program.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. What is it, about 3 percent?
Mr. HOLT. It's a couple of percent.
Mr. GARAMENDI. It's about 2 percent.
Mr. HOLT. And Medicare's costs grow at a slower rate--at least they
have over the past 5 years--than the private health insurance for the
same benefits. So it's just another indication of the efficiency of
Medicare. Every year the government makes some changes. You know, ever
since 1965, there have been changes made from time to time about
Medicare to make it a more efficient program and to make it more
directed toward healthy outcomes for the seniors.
Mr. GARAMENDI. A big piece of what is going to happen in this reform
is that there will be a continuing study going on through the Medicare
offices and the Department of Health Services to find better ways of
treating seniors. You've talked about the home care, which we know is a
better way of doing it, the continuity of care. We know that over time,
new medical devices are found. New medical services are brought online,
and other services that have become obsolete are taken off the benefit
list, and new ones are brought on over time. That's the way it is
because medical services are constantly evolving and changing--drugs,
the kinds of services, the hospital services.
All of those things are evolving over time. So change is constant in
this program. And specifically in the legislation is an effort to bring
online those new techniques and technologies that enhance the care of
seniors. And, I will also say, for other Americans. So all of us, as a
major part of the program, but specifically for seniors. And it would
roll on. Proven, clinically proven services, evidence-based services.
And these kinds of things save costs. Again, the insurance companies
are going to cry. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending over $100
million in this last month or two with advertising designed to kill the
reform effort.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let's talk a little bit more about that, about why it
is that the insurance industry would be against this bill. Because you
could say, Well, 30 million more people are going to go into the
insurance market. Why wouldn't they want more people?
Mr. GARAMENDI. Because they are greedy, profit-driven, profit-before-
people-oriented companies.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And also, they are able to pick right now.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Exactly.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I want to talk a little bit about something else that
stops right away. And that's what is perhaps the meanest of all the
insurance company practices, and this is called rescission. Which in
plain English means canceling your health insurance when you get sick.
We had testimony in our committee from a woman who had been a nurse
most of her working life. She is now in her fifties. She left nursing
to start another kind of career, went out in the private market and
bought insurance that she could afford, thought it covered everything
she needed. Then she was diagnosed with very aggressive breast cancer.
She went to her insurance company. She got scheduled for
[[Page 3724]]
the surgery. The Friday before the Monday of her surgery--her name is
Robin Beaton. I will never forget her because we adjourned the
committee for 5 minutes while she got herself together. And she said
that on that Friday, they called her and said, I'm sorry. We went back
in your medical records, and what we found is something on there that
says that you had a preexisting condition. And do you know what it was?
There were two things. One was acne that, of course, could lead to some
sort of a cancer cell. They said that she had lied about that. She
didn't even remember that.
Mr. GARAMENDI. She must have been a teenager at that time.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And the other was that she had misstated her weight--
understated her weight. Now I make a little joke, like what woman
hasn't? You know, you have an accident, and people look at the driver's
license and say, Who is this woman? She is not 120 pounds. Anyway. And
so she was out of luck. She spent the next 9 months looking for health
care. Finally--actually it was her Congressman who convinced the
insurance company to do it. And by that time, the cancer had progressed
and was in her lymph nodes. So she was much sicker. That policy of
rescission will end on day one.
I see that we've been joined by someone else, Keith Ellison, a
Representative from Minnesota. I'm happy to turn it over to you. How
time flies.
Mr. ELLISON. To my extreme embarrassment, we're out of time. Support
health care. To the Congressman from California, thank you very much,
Mr. Garamendi.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, we have several of my colleagues here
to join us. We will just continue the discussion that we had before. I
think I'll move to the other side so I will have the easel available to
me. If Ms. Jan Schakowsky will come join us. Mr. Ellison can carry on.
I see Mr. Tonko is now in the Chair.
We've got things we want to talk about here. Let's just continue this
discussion that we had a few moments ago. Our friend on the Republican
side is either late or has decided it wasn't worth continuing to
discuss their position. We were covering the Medicare issues here in
some detail over the last hour, and some of that we want to continue
and make sure that people understand what's happened in Medicare. We
want to also talk about the rest of America, those that are not yet 65
or will not soon be 65. We'll go through those issues.
I want to just start off by laying out what's happening here in
Congress. I'm a newbie. I haven't been around all that long, and I'm
going, Wow, how's this all work? And as I've watched it, I've listened
to what our Republican colleagues talk about, ramming through this
legislation. And I'm going, gee, I was the Lieutenant Governor in
California until November 5 when I was sworn in here. And as near as I
can recall, this debate started 14 months ago.
It was the President standing right there in the Well here giving his
State of the Union--it wasn't the State of the Union at the time. It
was his first speech to the House. He said, We have got to reform the
health care system. And immediately, this House and the Senate took up
the issue, debated it. We all listened to that debate. All year long it
went on and on and on and on and on and on. And it was my good fortune,
following my November 3 election, to come back here, and on November 6,
be one of the people that were able to put before Americans from this
House, the Democratic version of health care reform. It was Christmas
Eve that the Senate finished their work and put that out on a 60 vote--
not a simple majority, but on a 60-vote bill.
So now you've got both Houses having completed their work and doing
what has been the tradition of Congress since the very inception of our
government--more than 200 years--doing the conference work, putting
together the House and the Senate versions and finding the compromise
between the two of them. And the mechanism that's going to be used is a
majority vote of both Houses--51 in the Senate and 216 I think it is
now because some of our Members have retired--to pass an
extraordinarily important piece of legislation. So the process is not
jammed down anybody's throat. This has been debated more than most
bills will ever be debated, and the debate actually goes back to the
turn of the 20th century. It's been here for a long time. So we're
moving, as we should, in a way of openness.
It was the President who had his health care summit for 7 hours on
television. That has never happened before. Discussing all the issues.
Republican ideas, many of which are going to be in the final rescission
vote that we'll take up this week. So this is not ramming anything
through. This is a very deliberative process. It's gone on for a long
time.
So I want the public to understand that. I want them to understand
that as somebody that watched it from the outside and now somebody
that's watching it from the inside, this is an extraordinarily open
public debate that's gone on for 14 months this session, and this issue
has been around for a long, long time--decades. So here we are. Let me
call upon my colleagues. What's that sign behind you, Mr. Ellison?
Mr. ELLISON. Well, what's behind me, if the gentleman will yield, is
a simple sign which just talks about the 45,000 Americans who die every
year because they are uninsured. You know, 45,000 people sounds like a
big number, and the fact is that there are families, there are
citizens, there are individual Americans behind every one of those
numbers. There is a health care nightmare for every individual
represented by each point of that 45,000.
{time} 2000
And you know what? America is a good country. We are a compassionate
country, and we are a country that will respond to the needs of
Americans.
And so, Congressman Garamendi, I want to say that you may be a new
Congressman, but you are a seasoned veteran at this fight because
you've been working in the area of State government, and State
government and local government is where the action is. You have just
come straight from the land, right off the battlefield of the campaign,
listening to people day after day about the suffering that people are
going through, people being dropped by rescission.
You know, I actually had my own little health care nightmare
recently, which I don't mind telling you about. I'm the proud father of
a 22-year-old young man who is still in college. And we recently got a
letter from Blue Cross/Blue Shield telling us that on his 22nd birthday
he was going to get a little present. Mr. Speaker, you might guess what
that little present is. He's dropped from our insurance. This health
care bill says he can stay until he is 26 years old, until he actually
has a job. He's a senior in college. He doesn't have--he works at the
library, putting books up, helping us get him through college. He's not
ready to get out there yet.
So this 45,000 Americans losing their lives every year because of a
lack of health care, that is something that we can do something about,
we will do something about in a very short order.
And I want to yield back to the gentleman from California because I
admire the work that you're doing. You're coming into this Congress
with a bang. You're not waiting around for anybody to tell you, John,
get up and do something. You're getting up and you're taking charge,
and that's the leadership we like.
I yield back.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I'm joined with three individuals that have done that
throughout their entire career here. Mr. Holt, I know you're going to
have to go off to another meeting shortly, so you wanted to fill us in
and carry on part of the conversation we were having early about the
Medicare program.
[[Page 3725]]
Mr. HOLT. Well, I hear from so many seniors in my district. And of
course, it is as we age that we become more aware of our ailments and
our need for health care coverage, and so I understand their concern. I
understand that they don't want anything that will leave them less
secure. And I want to assure them that this legislation before us would
not only leave Medicare intact under health care reform, the reform
will make it better.
It would help the constituent of mine from Milltown, who wrote me
recently about her struggles with the prescription drug program. She
said, It was quite a surprise to me to see what the doughnut hole was
all about. I'm on several inhaler drugs that are now running me $650
for a 3-month refill. I was careful as a widow to save for my
retirement. But this is going out the window very fast.
Closing that gap, filling in that cliff, where, after you've spend a
certain amount you get no help from Medicare, ending that deficiency in
Medicare will make people healthier. It is just one of the aspects that
we wanted to underscore tonight, to assure people that if you are on
Medicare, this legislation will help you.
And we will go on and talk about all of the other things. I mean,
even if you are well insured, a lot of other people come up to me and
say, my insurance is fine. My usual reply to them is, I'm pleased to
hear that you've been healthy, because it is often when you're not
healthy, when you have an accident, when you have an illness that you
discover that your insurance wasn't really quite as good as you thought
it was, when, as Ms. Schakowsky pointed out, a rescission means, and
this is a practice that, under oath, in testimony here before Congress,
the insurance companies say they do, so it's not just hearsay. It's not
just anecdote. It is policy in these companies. They will rescind your
policy because you're sick, because there is expense incurred to them.
Now, most people would say, insurance is supposed to be there when
you need it. That's kind of the definition of insurance. But not now.
But under this legislation, from day one, the practice of rescission
stops, and a lot of other consumer protections go into place to make
sure that consumers, those who pay premiums, who want insurance to
cover them, will get coverage they deserve. They won't be denied for
preexisting conditions. They won't be charged for preventive care and
so forth.
So, whether you're young or whether you're as young as Mr. Ellison's
son, let's hope he has a good job and has health care coverage even
before he's 26. But whether you're that young or whether you're on
Medicare, this legislation provides benefits across the board.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Holt, you raised a very, very important point, and
I want to just follow up. And Ms. Schakowsky also raised this point,
and it's the rescission issue.
Now, I was the insurance commissioner in California 2003 to 2007. And
during that period of time, we received complaints about rescission,
about people that had health insurance, had an illness and suddenly the
insurance company canceled them.
And I'll tell you that we took action against the largest insurance
companies, Wellpoint Anthem, that Blue Cross program in California, and
others on this specific issue. And it is a very, very, real issue. I am
so happy to be here in Congress and to vote on a bill that says no
more, no how, will you be able, Mr. Insurance, to continue that very
pernicious, very, very damaging and grossly unfair practice. Lawsuits
have gone on. This bill will put a stop to that practice.
Let me just take one other thing. Mr. Ellison had a chart: 45,000 die
for lack of insurance. Yes, but there are other things here. America,
because of the way in which we've structured our health insurance
programs, we rank 19th among the industrialized nations of the world in
preventing illnesses. And in the general health care statistics, we
ranked below the country of Colombia on how healthy our population is.
We also know--and this is one that has really upset us as it came to
all of our attention--I knew this in California, but now America knows,
that over the last 2 years, in California alone, and in most other
States, and I think in your State, 94 percent rate increase for
individual policies. Ninety-four percent. How in the world can they do
that when health care inflation has been less than 10 percent? Well,
they do it because they're more interested in their bottom line
profits. And I think Mr. Ellison's going to come to that in the next
few moments.
In California, a study done by the State government, the six largest
health insurance companies in California have denied 21 percent, this
is the average, 21 percent of all claims. The range goes from 39
percent down to about 20 percent. So if you take the six largest
companies, the number of times that they denied claims--you want to
talk about a death panel, then you talk about the insurance companies
that deny necessary treatment to keep people alive. That's what they're
doing in California. One-fifth.
And, finally, the number of Californians, 24 percent of Californians,
without insurance.
Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let's talk about rates for a minute. We had testimony
from customers of Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield, which is owned by
Wellpoint. We also had the CEO of Wellpoint, a woman named Angela
Braley, who I suppose it was somewhat rude for me to ask her how much
money she made. But she was kind enough to answer, and said that she
made $1.2 million a year, plus $8 million in stock options. That was
how well she did. But then she went on, of course, to absolutely
justify these rate increases for their private insurance market.
Three people had testified before she got up there about what these
rate increases meant to them. An individual, middle-aged guy, tended
toward younger man, who had a preexisting condition. He had seen his
rates go up about 75 percent, not quite the 90; but it was too much for
him.
A woman who, because her son had a preexisting condition, had such a
high deductible they had never even made their deductible, and yet
their rates were going to go up even higher.
And another woman who had a preexisting condition, who was unable to
keep her policy. And Ms. Braley is making all this money. The company,
overall, was making literally billions of dollars in profit.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Ellison, what's that thing behind you?
Mr. ELLISON. Well, what's behind me is just another little data point
which we're trying to get Americans to see here, and Americans know
this. Even if they don't know the number, they know it in their gut:
Health insurers break profit records as 2.7 million Americans loose
coverage. We should--that's worth saying again, I think, Mr. Speaker:
Health insurers break record profits as 2.7 million Americans lose
coverage.
As Congresswoman Schakowsky, from the great State of Illinois,
illustrated just a moment ago, Americans are struggling. People have
these high deductibles. They're not even meeting them, and they're
still getting rate increases.
Here's a stat for you that I don't have a board for: 60 percent of
all the bankruptcy filings are because of medical debt, Americans going
to bankruptcy because they can't afford to pay these ridiculous health
care bills. These are people who already have insurance.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Seventy-five percent of them already have health
insurance. They're going bankrupt.
Mr. ELLISON. Let me yield to the gentlelady from Illinois. Tell the
rest of that story: 75 percent have health insurance. Some people
think, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about the uninsured, and we are, but
that's not the only people we're talking about. Tell the story about
the insured.
I yield back to somebody.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, we all know the stories of the insured. We all
know the stories in our own districts and our own States about those
people that
[[Page 3726]]
have health insurance, but they blow through the deductible and then
they blow through the annual, or they hit the maximum benefit package
of that insurance, and then they're on their own. At that point they
sell their house, and they often wind up in bankruptcy.
The other part of what's happening is the downturn of the economy.
Millions of Americans have lost their jobs. You lose your job, you lose
your health care, you have no way of paying for COBRA. Even though this
bill and the previous bills that this House has passed and the Senate
has passed and become law do provide a subsidy to help people stay on
COBRA, if you're unemployed, you have a heck of a time trying to make
that payment.
So people lose their jobs. They lose their insurance. They lose their
health. They go bankrupt. And 45,000 Americans die because they've lost
their insurance, or they never had it to begin with. So this is the
story of America.
The legislation that will be before Congress in the days ahead
specifically deal with that problem. They deal with it, as Ms.
Schakowsky has said, by saying that no longer will you lose your policy
when you get sick with medical underwriting or post-event underwriting.
That's one thing.
Secondly, you will not be denied insurance because you have a
preexisting condition. And who doesn't have a preexisting condition?
It was at the summit that Representative Miller held up three pages,
and he read. Each of these pages, in small type, was from an insurance
company that listed the preexisting conditions that they would use to
deny coverage. Everything from acne, the story that you told earlier,
to kidney illnesses or colds or whatever.
I know a young lady, 23 today, that came off her family insurance,
tried to go back to the insurance company that she had been with for
her whole life, from the day she was born. They had all of her medical
records, denied her coverage because she had acne. I think the real
reason was that she was a female in that child-bearing age. She wasn't
pregnant, wasn't married, wasn't likely to have a child anytime soon.
But she was in that child-bearing age.
I said, This is not right. What's going on? She said, Well, I tried
to go online to get a policy. I said, That couldn't be. I said, Give it
a shot. So we went online, put down her name, female, the health
statistics: denied, no coverage available.
I said, let's try something. Let's just change one thing here. Let's
say instead of a female, you're a male. Bingo, she got coverage.
The present system discriminates in the most pernicious ways. If
you're a young female, you're likely to be expensive, medical care of
different kinds; you're going to give birth to a child. You talk about
family-friendly policies? Not from them. So these are things that are
corrected in this legislation.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me comment on this gender discrimination. I think
the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, put it really well today--some
of the women had a meeting with her--when she said, being a woman is a
preexisting condition.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Exactly.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And the truth of it is that pregnancy, in some cases,
is considered a preexisting condition. A C-section, a cesarean section,
being a victim of domestic violence is a preexisting condition that
could make you ineligible.
If you go out on the private market right now, only about 12 percent
of policies actually cover pregnancy.
{time} 2015
Women overall are charged about 38 percent more for health care than
men are. And in some cases it is as much as 70 percent more than men
for health care just because we have slightly different--well, maybe
extremely different parts to our bodies. That is so wrong. This bill
ends gender discrimination.
But I do want to say one thing about rates that I don't want to
forget to say.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Before you go there, let me just make this point. This
is the point to the insurance companies. The day the President signs
this bill, your discriminatory practices are over. You will not be able
to discriminate against Americans because of their health status, their
marital status, whether they are male or female. Those days are over.
Listen carefully, health insurance companies. I know why you are
spending that hundred million dollars trying to oppose this bill,
because you know that the day we pass this legislation, the day this is
signed by the President, your discrimination is over and every American
is protected.
Please go ahead.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you.
And that is so important to every woman in America, that we will
finally be on a par, which under current circumstances isn't good
enough, because the insurance companies--why is it that adding 30
million more people isn't good for them? Because they don't want
everybody. They want to pick and choose. They want to pick the
healthiest people. It really shouldn't be called health insurance.
Well, I guess it is, it is only for healthy people. That is accurate.
What we do is we start deciding whether or not rate increases are
reasonable or unreasonable. We are not against profits here. We are
still doing private insurance. But for heaven's sakes, when you start
talking about 50, 60, 94 percent rate increases, they are going to have
to justify that. I am proud to have introduced that amendment that says
that we are finally going to get a handle on it.
I come from a State where there are no limits, there is no regulatory
body that can say how high rates can go. And as you can see, right
now--in fact the insurance companies are kind of helping us pass this
bill because they are showing us if we do nothing, they are going to
keep raising their rates double digits, or almost triple digits and
charging people.
Mr. ELLISON. If the gentlelady will yield, she just used the phrase
``do nothing.'' It just sparked in me sort of a reflection, that is,
between the years 2000 and 2006, our caucus on the party opposite
really did do nothing to fix health care.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Right. Not our caucus.
Mr. ELLISON. No, the party opposite. The Republican caucus.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Speak the truth, man. The Republicans did nothing.
Mr. ELLISON. The Republicans didn't do anything. But then someone
corrected me and said, Keith, they did do something. They gave us the
doughnut hole. I said, well, that's not anything to brag about really.
As a matter of fact, in our health care bill we actually make some down
payments on the doughnut hole.
You know, they had the House from 1994 to 2006. They had the House,
the White House, and the Senate from 2000 to 2006. They absolutely
didn't do anything. And if you sit here and listen to this House floor,
you would actually get the impression that they were about offering
some constructive solutions. But they are not the party of constructive
solutions. They are the Party of No, the Party of No, the party of the
health care insurance industry; the wholly owned subsidiary, as Anthony
Weiner is fond of saying, of the health insurance industry. It is time
that it come to an end.
I just want to again thank all the colleagues on the floor because
you are right, when the President signs that bill, that discriminatory
behavior, no. Young people being able to stay on their insurance policy
until 26, yes. We will see free preventive care right from the
beginning. We are going to see a lot of good things happening right
away, and know more good things are going to come in as this bill is
rolled out.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Let me introduce to all of us a young woman from
California who preceded me by about 9 months in a special election last
spring, Congresswoman Judy Chu.
Thank you for joining us.
Ms. CHU. Thank you, Congressman Garamendi, for bringing this special
order together.
I wanted to say a few words as to why I think women in particular
need
[[Page 3727]]
health care reform. Republicans want you to believe that our health
care reform bill is poison and that doing nothing is better. But the
truth is doing nothing is poison. Insurance companies will in fact
continue to cheat women on their health care. And it is women of
America that truly do need health care reform.
Women have a harder time getting the care they need, women like Holly
from Georgia. Holly is 3 months into her chemotherapy treatment for
cervical cancer. She works at a small business that does not offer
insurance to its employees, and she makes too much to qualify for
Medicaid. She thought still she would do okay on her husband's plan,
but then disaster happened. They got the devastating news that her
husband lost his job. They shopped around for private insurance, but
were turned away by the best plans because of her cancer. Now they are
stuck paying $850 a month to a private insurance company to cover their
family of four, almost the same as her mortgage. It isn't fair.
Insurance companies are cheating women.
Did you know that insurance companies make women pay more for health
care? Today, women are forced to settle for less health care at a
higher price. On average we pay as much as 50 percent more than men for
the exact same coverage. But somehow the insurance companies justify
price gouging young ladies even when they are at their healthiest.
Sarah, a 22-year-old woman in Chicago, pays one-and-a-half times the
premium compared to her boyfriend for the same insurance. This type of
gender discrimination, making women pay more for the same product just
because of their sex, indicates how insurance companies are taking
advantage of us. What's worse is that this blatant gender inequity is
legal in 38 States.
Now, health care reform will make this type of gender discrimination
illegal. Insurance companies will be forced to do what is right, and
that is charge everyone the same rate for the same care.
Did you know that insurance companies don't invest in prevention even
though that would save them money? Today, millions of women have
trouble getting much-needed preventative medical services. Now we all
know the importance of prevention. It has long-term health benefits and
helps contain medical costs for patients and society. Yet women forgo
important tests and screenings simply because they can't afford the
copays.
One-third of uninsured women go without preventative care, from
mammograms and pap smears, tests that can save lives if done today.
Because of poor access to reproductive care, more women suffer from
serious STDs like gonorrhea and genital herpes than men. But early
preventive reproductive care will catch diseases that are less likely
to prove fatal with early treatment.
Now health care reform will make sure that every woman has access and
can afford the crucial preventive care that can save her life. It will
require insurance companies to offer basic prevention services,
reproductive health and maternity care, and make the preventive tests
free with insurance. That's no copays, no deductibles under health care
insurance, our plan.
Did you know that women have less access to insurance? Today, fewer
American women have access to their own health insurance compared to
American men. Many of America's women don't get health insurance
through work because they work for small businesses that can't afford
to offer their employees insurance. These small businesses can't afford
it. Or else women work part-time or stay at home to care for their
families. Making matters worse, the effect of the economic downturn
that is being felt across the Nation left women and their families even
more vulnerable. Women and their families have lost access to insurance
and a way to pay for it.
Since the recession began, over 1 million women have lost their
health insurance because their spouse was laid off. And what about
single women? Without a spouse, women are twice as likely to be
uninsured than men. And it is not just women who are hurt by a lack of
insurance. When women are denied adequate coverage or lose their job,
their families are hurt, too.
The weak job market is tough for single mothers. Unemployment for
this group has skyrocketed, leaving almost one-quarter of all single
mothers without health insurance to cover their families. That has left
275,000 children without regular access to doctors' visits or
medication. But health care reform will help every woman--single,
married, unemployed, or working part-time--to buy affordable coverage
through the insurance exchange.
And did you know that women are denied health services? Today, women
are turned away by insurance companies because of supposed preexisting
conditions. And what are those preexisting conditions? Believe it or
not, domestic violence, pregnancy, and Cesarean sections. So rather
than doing what is best for the patient or for society, the insurance
company is just looking for a way to save a dollar.
One advocate for the insurance industry argued that covering a victim
of domestic violence was like insuring a smoker who doesn't stop
smoking. A woman from Atlanta was proud to become pregnant shortly
after she began working at a small downtown law firm, but her firm's
insurance declared her pregnancy to be a preexisting condition and
refused to cover her prenatal care of the delivery, despite the fact
that the plan covered those services.
But health care reform will make it illegal to deny coverage due to
any preexisting condition. And women will no longer be denied coverage
for being mothers or finding a lump in their breasts. Basic women's
health will be covered.
So I stand here today because women must understand how little the
insurance companies look after our interests and how little the current
system promotes our health needs. Health care reform will make sure
women like Holly, Sarah, single women and moms can afford the treatment
they need from the best insurance that they can afford and that they
won't be turned away. That is why I so strongly support this
legislation. The women of America truly need health care reform.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you so very, very much for a very good and
thorough description of the problem that women face in this issue and
why this reform is so important to them.
I see our colleague from Illinois was getting kind of excited and
wanted to get into this and add to this, so please do.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I wanted to point out that our colleague,
Representative Carolyn Maloney from New York, is head of the Joint
Economic Committee, which just did a study, too, on the effects of
health care, the current health care problems that women face. One of
the things that she mentioned, which I hadn't really thought about, is
that a number of men reach the age of 65 and retire and go onto
Medicare while their wives, who are often younger than they are, are
then left stranded. Because many of them have been on their husbands'
policies, so the husbands go into retirement, they have the coverage,
and women don't. So we have this period between 50 and 65 where men and
women alike are left stranded.
One of the things our bill does is to create a $5 billion pool that
would be available for people in those 50 to 65 years to get some help
with their health care. So in addition to making sure that women can go
onto the exchange.
The other point I wanted to make about women is many women--men too,
but women--often work in small businesses. A big beneficiary of this
legislation, and it starts right away, are small businesses who are
going to get up to a 35 percent tax credit on their premiums. And that
will be immediately available to firms that choose to offer coverage to
their employees. And a lot of those employees are women. A lot of those
business owners are women. So this is another way that our bill will
help women and men alike.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Let's take this just for a little more, and then I
really want to come back to something that you talked about, and that
is the bill
[[Page 3728]]
that you introduced having to do with the rate regulation process.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Which is part of our bill.
Mr. GARAMENDI. But before we go there, the statistics just came out
from the Labor Department that the majority of workers in America are
now women. If we keep women healthy, then the productivity of America
is substantially increased. And in order to stay healthy, women or men,
you really need that health insurance that provides for the
preventative care.
{time} 2030
And that is in this legislation that there is an expansion of the
preventative care services. For seniors, they will be free. For the
rest of the public, the insurance policies will have to offer that
preventative care. So if we keep women healthy, the productivity of the
Nation is going to increase.
So for many, many reasons. We'll come back and deal with the issue of
the overall economy in a few moments, but I really would like you to
pick up the issue that you raised about rate regulation as a result of
the extraordinary announcements that the insurance companies made about
their rate increases.
Tell us about what you have introduced.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. First of all, it's no wonder that the insurance
industry is fighting us tooth and nail and with millions upon millions
of dollars in TV advertising because they are making so much money and
they do that by raising their rates. And it's really astonishing to me
that in this period when the Congress is discussing how we're going to
change and make the health care system affordable for people that they
have the utter audacity to show their true colors by raising their
rates.
Let's look again at your chart.
Anthem Blue Cross customers. That's in California, right?
Mr. GARAMENDI. That's California.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Ninety-four percent rate increases in the last 2
years. Something clearly needs to be done to get them under control.
This bill does that. It says that they will have to justify, they'll
have to open their books, they'll have to explain, and if they can't,
that those rates can be modified, consumers can get a rebate. Enough of
their taking such tremendous advantage of American consumers.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I think in the testimony that you talked about here in
Congress--and I know in California that when Blue Cross Anthem raised
their rates about 39 percent on the average, or 39 percent maximum,
about 25 percent on the average, and then had done that previously just
in the previous year, so it's actually--the 2-year period is actually
12 months over 2 years, 2 calendar years.
What happened, the profits of the company went from about $300
million to over $2.2 billion profit. And that's probably why this CEO
came before--and correctly, because I suspect she was under oath; you
don't lie to Congress--told that she now has a $2 million salary plus
an $8 million bonus because she was able, by raising the rates, to
obtain a higher bonus for herself and obviously an extraordinary
increase in the profitability of the company.
Now, if this bill passes, there will be a national standard for rate
increases. It also says that if the State governments--and many State
governments already do this--that they will be able to continue their
rate regulation process.
Now, in California, as insurance commissioner in 1991, there was a
proposition passed that set up a rate regulation system for the
property, casualty. This is auto and homeowner and business insurance.
It didn't cover health insurance. But the effect of that rate
regulation over a 20-year period as described by the Consumers Union is
over a $30 billion savings to consumers.
Now, I was able to do that because I became insurance regulator. I
set up the rate regulator system. The insurance companies are allowed a
profit. They have a steady 10 percent profit. The extraordinary swings
in the system, eliminated. The extraordinary increases and then some
decreases were eliminated. A steady state was put in place so that the
market actually became more competitive. There were more insurers. The
policy costs were held down for consumers. We were unable to get that
for the health insurance industry. We were unable to overcome the
political strength, the contributions, the advertising of the health
insurance industry. California remains today a State where consumers in
the private individual market in California faced this rate increase
because there was no rate regulation.
I am so thankful that you have introduced the legislation. This has
been the heart and soul of my work for more than 8 years over a 20-year
span of time, and if this comes into place, I know from my experience
as insurance commissioner, it will be a substantial improvement to the
cost of insurance. It will bring rates down, not just over time, but
immediately, because the insurance companies no way, no how can they
justify the kind of increases that they're imposing upon the public.
And that's now in this legislation.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That's right.
And let me say I think truly this is one of the dividing lines
between the Democratic majority that's about to pass this bill that
stands with the American people versus the Republicans who persistently
have stood on the side of the insurance companies that have raised our
rates for decades, have cut people off, have canceled policies, have
put in preexisting conditions. We want to stop those kinds of abusive
practices. That's what they are. It's really abuse. And the Democrats
are standing with the American people. It's a really, Which side are
you on?
Mr. GARAMENDI. Which side are you on?
Okay. I prepared a chart. I have got my donkey up here. This is the
Democratic proposal, and, yes, this is a very partisan thing. There is
not one Republican vote for our reform, but here's what our proposal
will do: 31 million Americans will have access to insurance, and if you
already have an insurance policy that you like, keep it. Nobody is
going to take it away from you. Keep your insurance policy.
If you happen to be of low or moderate income, there will be a
substantial--the single largest personal tax cut ever is in this
legislation. You mentioned it earlier. It is the tax credit. We're not
talking about a deduction for medical care. We're talking about a tax
credit. It is taken right off your bottom line taxes, and its up to
$53,000--or excuse me, $5,300 for a family of four with a $50,000
income. This is a substantial tax cut going right to the middle class,
middle America.
Secondly, denial of coverage. We have talked about this over and over
again. Those days are over. Hey, insurance industry, it's done. The day
the President signs this bill, you will end your discrimination. It's
over. Millions of seniors will see the prescription drug--we've talked
about that--and millions of Americans will have access to coverage.
We haven't talked about the insurance exchange. But before we go
there, you mentioned the Republicans. Okay. Here we are.
Let's talk about the Republican program. What's the Republican
program? And this is in the next 10 years.
If the Republicans have their way, 67 million Americans will remain
uninsured. That's an increase. Some 40 million, in that range, today
are uninsured. But if Republicans have their way, we're talking 67
million Americans.
Single and family health care policies will double over that period
of time. We're already paying more than can be afforded today, and if
they have their way, the Republicans have their way, you will see a
doubling.
Employer premiums, the cost to employers will double.
And you want to talk about the American economy being uncompetitive;
this is where you will find it, right here, out-of-pocket expenses.
We'll go from $315 billion today to over $564 billion in the year 2020.
And insurance availability from small businesses' employers will be cut
in half.
That's the Republican program.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That is a better Republican program, because that's
if
[[Page 3729]]
we do nothing, that's what would happen. But actually, the proposal
that was laid out by Representative Paul Ryan, the top Republican on
the House Budget Committee, he laid out what he called the roadmap that
would actually end Medicare for you as an individual.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I hope to be 65. Well, I actually am 65.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Are you?
Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So let's say you're 54. Let's pretend. Are you? Okay.
I believed you. I thought you were 54. Okay. So let's pretend you're 54
years old.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And what it means is, when you would get to 65 years
old, rather than getting Medicare, you would get a voucher and be told,
Go out and buy insurance. There is no more guaranteed Medicare for you.
There is no more guaranteed package of benefits. You go out and buy
insurance. And that is really privatizing Medicare and destroying it
for every American that is currently under 55 years old. When they get
to 65, they wouldn't have it.
Mr. GARAMENDI. So what you're saying is this is the do nothing, the
best case Republican scenario. But if they actually were able to pass a
bill, they're going to take men and women that are 54 now, that in 10
years will be 65 going for Medicare, they're going to take those men
and women and toss them into the shark pool with the insurance
companies?
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That is exactly what I'm saying. And that it would
also hurt Medicaid.
Mr. GARAMENDI. So for my Republican friends, this is the best deal
they have to offer, the do nothing deal?
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The do nothing deal is better than the plan that they
say is good for Americans.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Let's take a moment, and we can go back and forth with
the dialogue here for a moment about the American economy.
This debate has been focused principally on individuals and families
and the effect of this, of our program, and how it will help families.
Prior to, oh, the last month or so, there was a debate in America, at
least there was a discussion in America about the effect of health care
and the cost of health care on the American economy.
I don't have a diagram here. I thought I would bring it, but it
didn't get over here. And it's the fact that the American economy,
we're now spending somewhere close to 17 percent of all of our wealth,
our GDP, on health care. It's an extraordinary number, particularly
when you consider what other economies are doing around the world.
Our competitors, Japan, Korea, the European countries, all of the
European Union countries, have universal health care. All of the people
in their societies, including visitors, have access to health care.
Their health statistics are better. They live longer. They don't have
as many diseases. Their children don't die as often as our children
die. So yet the most any of those countries spend is 11 percent. Most
of them are 10 percent or 9 percent of their total wealth. So we are at
an extraordinary disadvantage.
One of the numbers I heard is like it's writing a check to our
competitors for about $800 billion a year, an advantage that we're
giving them in our economy because we're spending so much more on a
health care system that is so grossly inefficient in so many, many
ways.
Part of what is taking place with the reforms we are putting forth
here is an effort to hold down the costs in many, many ways, including
making sure that people have access to health care in the most
efficient, effective way; not waiting until they are very, very sick,
uninsured, very sick, going to the emergency room, which is the most
expensive place, and being extraordinarily sick when they arrive but,
rather, getting preventative care, getting the early care.
I will never forget a young man about 35. We were doing this debate
about 4 years ago in California and he was a speaker at this thing, and
he said, I want you to know that I am a glazer. I put glass up in
buildings. That's my business. I put glass up in buildings, and I
worked for a company for 12 years. We had good health insurance. And
the company hit upon a hard time and so they cut the health insurance,
and they then decided that they would reduce our health program. I
said, I'm a healthy young guy and I've got good health, but I will get
my children covered.
So he covered his children, and he eliminated his own coverage. He
came down with a cold, simple cold. The cold got worse. He didn't have
coverage so he didn't go to get care. He wound up with pneumonia, and
he wound up then with a collapsed lung; wound up in the hospital for 3
or 4 weeks, became bankrupt. It could have been taken care of with a
very simple antibiotic that would have cost $50. It became a $50,000
event.
This is happening across America. Those 45,000 people that die every
year, this is the young man that didn't get care.
{time} 2045
This is the extraordinary cost in our system because we don't cover
everybody. We intend to deal with that and over time bring down the
percentage of our economy that we are spending on health care as we
make it more rational, more universal and more efficient.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Those are the tragic stories that result from our
health care system. But there are also enormous lost opportunities. One
of the things that we know about our health care system is people get
locked in jobs. They may dream about creating something, a really
innovative product, or starting a new business or becoming a great
artist, thinking of a new invention that will transform medicine or
energy, but they are stuck in their job. A Canadian was telling me
about the incredible freedom that people in Canada have to innovate, to
experiment, to create, to do all the things that so many Americans,
because of our health care system, are unable to do. If America, the
United States of America, wants to be number one in innovation, we want
to release that creative spirit and that spirit of innovation which is
trapped in a job because of health care.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Let me give a personal example. My son is married with
two children. He worked for the University of California for almost 19
years. In the last 5 years, he wanted to start his own business. He and
his wife wanted to start their own business--actually it has been about
10 years. They hesitated, hesitated year after year and didn't start
their own business until finally he just said, I'm going to do it. I'm
going to run the risk. Why did he wait all that time? One very
important factor: Two young children. Obviously there were some
pregnancies and deliveries involved in that, during that period of
time. He could not afford, and he could not get, his personal health
insurance, so he stayed with the university for an extra 5, 7 years.
And the entrepreneurial spirit, his entrepreneurial spirit, was
dampened because of his inability to get health insurance in the
private individual market because of a preexisting condition that his
wife had. He knew that if he left the university, they would be
uninsurable.
That is repeated a million times across America, the great
entrepreneurial society stifled by this health insurance industry that
we have. We are going to change that. And if the Republicans want to
join us in changing and freeing the American entrepreneurial spirit,
then come and join us. Join us on this bill. Join us on a bill that
eliminates the discrimination against women, join us on a bill that
eliminates the ability of the insurance companies to discriminate
against individuals of all kinds. Free the American entrepreneurial
spirit. Give people health care. Make it affordable. We haven't talked
about the subsidies that are in this. There are extraordinary subsidies
for individuals, for small businesses, so that it becomes affordable,
available, and honest insurance.
That's our promise. That's in this bill. And we are going to pass it,
because it is the right thing for America. Thank you for joining us.
Thank you so very, very much for the leadership and all you have
brought to us.
[[Page 3730]]
And to the American people, pay attention. This is important. America
for more than a century has tried to get to the point that we are going
to be voting on in the days ahead.
____________________
VACATING 5-MINUTE SPECIAL ORDER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the request for a 5-
minute special order speech in favor of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess) is hereby vacated.
There was no objection.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tonko). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. BURGESS. The last hour just ended, and you heard the admonition
at the end of the hour that it is extremely important for people to pay
attention. And during this hour, I am going to echo that thought. It is
important for people to pay attention, Mr. Speaker, and, yes, I will
direct my remarks to the Chair. But, Mr. Speaker, if I could talk to
the American people, what I would tell them is now is the time, it is
late at night, but now is the time for you to be keeping this House
under intense scrutiny and watch what happens here over the next 72
hours as we drag this carcass of a health care bill across the finish
line.
Now, how did we get here? It's probably useful to think about things
for just a moment. We had a big election in 2008. People said they
voted for change. Right before that election in 2008, in the other
body, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee held a big meeting
over in the Library of Congress and had all the big players and the
stakeholders in health care in the room, and came up with what was
called a white paper on health care reform. For all the world, it
looked like a bill. For all the world, it looked like it would be the
bill that was brought forth in the Senate should the Democrats take
control of the White House, the House and the Senate. Indeed, the
election was held, and they did.
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised that there was
not a health care bill, no health care bill came forth in those early
days after the election. I thought perhaps we would see one in December
of 2008 during the holiday season, but no health care bill. No health
care bill in the weeks that the Congress was getting organized. We had
a big inauguration, no health care bill. We had a designee named to be
Secretary of Health and Human Services. Still no health care bill was
forthcoming. Well, surely it will come along right after that
confirmation for Health and Human Services. But as it turns out, that
individual had some tax problems and that nomination was withdrawn
before it ever got to the confirmation vote in the full Senate. So we
were left without a Secretary of Health and Human Services for several
months, no health care bill.
Suddenly, it was early summer. There was a letter sent from the other
body from the two committees of jurisdiction, the Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions Committee over in the other body, and the Senate
Finance Committee in the other body, they sent a letter to the
President and said, We will be producing a health care bill within the
next couple of weeks. In fact, the Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions Committee did produce a bill. The coverage and cost numbers
were quite startling when they were revealed: A cost of $1 trillion. It
left a lot of people uncovered as the original plan was unveiled, and
then several weeks were spent in what was called the markup of that
bill over in that committee over in the Senate.
Then the three committees of jurisdiction in the House had a health
care bill that was rapidly brought forward. We didn't really get a lot
of time to look at it. There was certainly no subcommittee markup. It
came straight to our Committee on Energy and Commerce for a markup. And
to give credit to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, we
did get a little more time than the other two committees, the Committee
on Education and Labor and the Committee on Ways and Means. They each
had a day, a 24-hour period, to mark up this bill. Think of that. This
bill, this legislation that's going to affect the lives and livelihood
of Americans for the next three generations was allowed 1 day in markup
in Ways and Means, 1 day in markup in Education and Labor. We at least
had 8 days in Energy and Commerce. Four of those days were spent
recessed because we couldn't agree on some things, but we did have more
time in the Committee on Energy and Commerce than in any other
committee in the House.
Think back, Mr. Speaker, to the Clean Air Act in the early 1990s. I'm
told it was an 8-month markup for the Clean Air Act, 8-month. Think how
the people on those committees must have hated each other at the end of
those 8 months. But what did they get? What did they get for that 8
month investment? They got a bill that had support from both
Republicans and Democrats, eventually passed the House, eventually
passed the Senate, eventually was signed into law by George Herbert
Walker Bush, and the Clean Air Act became the law of the land and
arguably has been successful since that time. So that's the way the
process is supposed to work.
Let me take one step back. The House passed a bill, the Senate passed
a bill, they went to a conference committee, had a continuation of that
long and drawn-out process, but the conference committee produced a
conference report that was endorsed by the Senate, endorsed by the
House, again bipartisan majorities on either side, the bill then went
to the President for his signature, and that's what we now know as the
Clean Air Act.
But think of the difference between that major piece of legislation
that had a great and far and reaching affect on the lives and
livelihood of every American, contrasted with what we've done over the
past year.
And quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, it's not that we didn't have time.
It's not that we didn't have time. After all, we have been working on
this thing nearly 15 months. We actually had time to do a real markup
in each of the three House committees. We had time to do a real markup.
We had time to do a real conference committee.
Look at the timeline of this bill. We got it in Energy and Commerce
in the middle in July. We didn't have a lot of time to deal with it
before, but when we got it, we worked on it, we worked hard. I offered
a multitude of amendments. I had 50 amendments prepared in committee.
Five of those were accepted by the time the bill passed out of
committee, all of those on a voice vote, so presumably a unanimous
vote, and every one of those amendments was stripped out when the bill
went to the Speaker's Office before it came back to the House, to the
House floor in late October, and then we had the vote in the House in
early November.
The Senate had their bill. The Senate Finance Committee completed
their work in the fall. They brought their bill to the Senate in the
month of December. It was voted upon, famously, on Christmas Eve, and
then the normal sequence of events would be for the bill to go to a
conference committee. And there in the conference committee, yes, the
Democrats have substantial majorities in the House and the Senate. The
Democrats would have had a significant advantage in the conference
committee. The idea of the conference committee is to meld the
differences of those two bills to create a product that can be endorsed
by both Houses in the Capitol.
But they didn't do that. They thought, well, that was hard to get
that one through the Senate. Let's not go through regular order. Let's
try something different. And that something different was, maybe we can
just get the House to pass the Senate bill because the Senate bill was,
in fact, a House bill. It has a House bill number. In fact, it was our
appropriations bill, I think, for Treasury Department appropriations
last year. It did pass the House as an appropriations bill, went over
to the Senate for work on their appropriations bills. That never
happened, but the bill was then used as a
[[Page 3731]]
shell. The legislative language for appropriations was stripped out,
the health care language was put in, so the Senate passed a House bill
on Christmas Eve, and then that bill can come back through those doors,
come into the House, and the Speaker of the House will say, the
business of the House is now, will the House concur with the Senate
amendment to H.R. whatever it is, the House agrees by a simple
majority, at that time 218 votes, and the bill goes to the President's
desk.
But House Members didn't want to do that. They didn't like the Senate
bill. For some it didn't go far enough. For some it went way too far.
But the Senate bill was not seen to be an acceptable product. So while
all of that discussion was going on, there was a little-noticed, to
that point, election that took place in the State of Massachusetts, and
the election was to fill the vacancy that was created when Senator
Kennedy died. And that election was won by Scott Brown, who is a
Republican who said he would be the 41st Republican vote against this
health care bill.
Whoa. Now, a lot of doors are closed over in the other body. They can
no longer go to a conference committee and expect that they will have
their 60-vote majority to pass anything they want. In fact, to take any
bill back to the Senate now, and under Senate rules where you need to
have 60 votes to cut off debate, that is going to be a pretty tall
order because they only have 59 votes, 41 votes on the Republican side.
So what to do? We do still have the bill that was passed by the
Senate. That Senate bill passed with a 60-vote margin, so it is still
quite viable. If there is just some way to convince the House to vote
for that bill. Now the Republican side, we didn't vote for it in the
first place, we are not likely to vote for it in the second place. But
on the Democratic side, if they can put together enough coalitions and
enough votes, now the number is only 216, with some unfortunate deaths
we have had on this side and some people who have left the House of
Representatives, so 216 is the simple majority in the House. That is
all that is required. So, well, look, maybe if we could do some
technical corrections, we can't really do them to the bill because the
bill has already passed the Senate, and if we took those corrections
back to the Senate, we would have to have 60 votes to cut off debate.
But there is a Senate process called reconciliation to deal with
budgetary and fiscal matters. And under reconciliation, only a simple
majority is required in the Senate. Maybe we could do those technical
considerations in the Senate under reconciliation and pass that through
the Senate with 51 votes.
{time} 2100
And if we, the Senate, do that, will the House then agree to pass our
bill with the understanding that these technical corrections would
quickly be instituted? That is the big question right now. And are
there going to be any problems with any of those technical corrections
to be done under reconciliation?
Well, there might be. There might be. Because, remember,
reconciliation is to pass those very tough budget and fiscal bills that
are really hard to get the number of votes because sometimes you are
actually cutting spending, sometimes you are actually irritating a
constituency back home because we are reducing Federal spending in some
of those reconciliation bills.
If it deals with budgetary issues and spending issues, then it could
pass under reconciliation with 51 votes. The Vice President gets to
vote in the case of a tie over in the Senate. So 50 Senators plus the
Vice President would actually pass any of those reconciliation
provisions, unless, unless someone makes a point of order over in the
Senate that they don't deal exclusively with budgetary issues, that
they are in fact changes in policy that are outside the budgetary
process. Then the Senate has rules that say if a point of order is
made, that it would require 60 votes to put that provision into the
reconciliation bill, the so-called Byrd rule initiated by Robert Byrd,
the dean of the Senate many, many years ago, to keep just this type of
problem from happening. Didn't want the Republicans if they got in
charge to be able to do things like this.
So the Byrd rule has been in effect for a number of years; and the
Byrd rule would say, well, say you have a contentious issue in the
House bill. Say there is some issue with the language regulating the
Federal funding of abortion. Say there is some question of what do we
do as far as dealing with people whose legal status in this country may
be in some question. Well, those issues are beyond budget and may in
fact be subject to a point of order and may require 60 votes to then be
included in the reconciliation bill.
So it is not a given that everything that is wanted by House
Democrats in changes in the Senate bill for the House to agree to pass
the Senate bill, they may not be there when those technical corrections
are finally voted on in the Senate. And that will take some time,
because every amendment in the Senate may not necessarily be debated,
but every one will be voted on; and all of that is going to take some
significant time.
So where we are in the House tonight is that my understanding is the
Rules Committee is to meet soon, if they are not already meeting, and
the Rules Committee will come up with the language for that
reconciliation bill. None of us have seen that yet. It hasn't really
been scored by the Congressional Budget Office, so no one really knows
what this bill will cost yet. So all of that is still hanging out
there.
Then there is one more wrinkle thrown in. The Speaker of the House
said it very well the other day: no one wants to vote for the Senate
bill.
Well, that is a problem if you are going to need to get 216 votes in
the House for the Senate bill to allow the reconciliation bill to then
go forward to fix the technical problems in the Senate bill. I know
this gets a little confusing, but no one wants to vote for the Senate
bill.
Is there a way around voting for the Senate bill? Probably not. But,
wait. What if we voted on a rule that allowed us to go forward with
reconciliation, and within that rule we kind of made it like the Senate
bill had already passed without actually having to vote on it?
Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the question: Do you really think the
American people are not paying attention? The last Democrat who spoke
here in the well of the House said it is time for the American people
to pay attention to this process. I would submit that is exactly right.
Now, many people will recognize this icon, the Capitol Rock figure
from when my children were young. This was the individual who was just
a bill, and one day he hoped to be a law but today he was just a bill.
But you can see today he is mad. He is angry. And why is he angry? He
is still a bill. He wants to be a law. But he doesn't want to be
deemed, and he doesn't want to be ``slaughtered,'' referring to the
Slaughter rule that the House may vote on. By this time on Sunday the
House may vote on the Slaughter rule which would deem acceptance of the
Senate product.
Well, you can see why Mr. Bill is upset. He wants to go through
regular order. He wants to go through committee, he wants to be voted
on by the House, he wants to be voted on by the Senate. He really would
have liked to have gone to a conference committee and have those two
products melded together and then come back for an up-or-down vote in
the House or the Senate. But as it appears tonight, he may not get his
wish.
And is there a consequence to doing this? Now, you are going to hear
people say that, oh, things have been deemed for a long time. This is
nothing new. I will tell you, this is different. This is new. This is
not something that, certainly in my short tenure, I have seen.
In fact, I recall a reconciliation bill in 2005 when the Republicans
were in charge, it was called the Deficit Reduction Act, a very
contentious bill, because we were trying to bend the cost curve on
Medicaid spending. Does that sound familiar? You have heard the term
``bending the cost curve.'' We
[[Page 3732]]
were trying to bend the cost curve on Medicaid spending from an
increase of 7.7 percent year over year to 7.3 percent growth year over
year. Not a heavy lift in anyone's book, but it was a big lift here in
the United States House of Representatives.
Now, we were coming to the end of the calendar year 2005. In fact, it
was coming up on to the Christmas holidays. People were anxious to get
home and be with their families. We voted on that bill, as I recall,
early on a Monday morning. We had been here through the weekend, up all
night, debates, debates, debates. A lot of changes, a lot of moving
things around on the chessboard. And then, in the final analysis, the
bill passed very early in the morning on a Monday morning. I think it
was December 19, so it was getting very close to that cutoff for
Christmas.
Later in the week, that bill was voted on in the Senate. And this was
a conference report. We had voted on the regular bills, it had gone to
a conference, so these were the conference reports that we were voting
up or down on.
The House passed its version. The Senate passed its version on
Tuesday or Wednesday, quickly left town, and were gone. The House had
already vacated the premises. And it was found that there was a little
discrepancy. There were some differences in wording between the two
bills.
Well, as they should have done, the Democrats that were then in the
majority went nuts and they said, You cannot send that bill down to the
White House for a signature because the House and the Senate did not
pass the same bill, the same identical language. And it was a big deal.
The reason I remember this so well is, remember the doctor fix that
we talked about a lot? In fact, we did a little doctor fix today. We
extended the time before the doctors get their big pay cut; we moved
that from April 1 to May 1. Well, there was a doc fix in the Deficit
Reduction Act. At that point, I think the doctors were facing a 6
percent reduction in Medicare reimbursement, and that clock ran out at
midnight on December 31.
We fixed it in the Deficit Reduction Act, but there was a problem.
The House bill and the Senate bill were not word for word identical. I
don't even remember the number of words that were different. It was not
many. It seemed like an awfully picky process. But in order to comport
with all of the laws in our Constitution, the House and the Senate had
to pass identical bills for the bill to be regarded as passed and be
available to go down to the President for his signature. So the clock
ran out on Medicare and the doc fix.
Now, everything else that was in the bill was not perishable, and it
would keep until the House came back in January of 2006 and could fix
the damage. In the meantime, there was much wailing and gnashing of
teeth here in the House on the then-minority Democratic side: this is
unconstitutional. We will go to court. We will take this down. So the
bill did not go to the President for his signature. It stayed and
languished. And then, when the House came back, they passed identical
language to the Senate. The bill was passed and went off to the
President for his signature. The doc fix was taken care of a month
late.
Dr. Mark McClellan, who was then the administrator for the Center for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, told the country's doctors that he
would make good and retroactively supply that difference in the bills
that they had submitted; they would not have to resubmit. He tried to
paper over the problem and make it as painless as possible.
But it was a big deal. It was a painful deal for the country's
doctors. That is why I remember it so well, because so many were
calling me in my district office and my staff here in Washington and
voicing their displeasure that Congress really couldn't have gotten
this right and passed the identical bill through the House and the
Senate. But the fact is they didn't. And the fact is that that was a
problem as far as passing a bill and getting it signed by the Senate.
Well, what are we doing today or this weekend? What are we doing? We
are not even going to pass the bill. We just deem it as having passed.
Because, you know, a lot of the things that are in the Senate bill are
things that we have talked about a lot here in the past 14 or 15
months, and some of them we may have even voted on a time or two. So we
can just deem it as having passed.
Well, no wonder, no wonder Mr. Bill is so mad. That is not what he
signed up to do. He didn't want to be deemed or Slaughtered.
Slaughtered refers to the chairwoman of the Rules Committee who has
created the so-called Slaughter rule, which means that the rule that
allows us to take up the reconciliation bill is a self-executing rule
and will deem passage of the Senate product that passed on Christmas
Eve.
Do you think the American people can't see through that, Mr. Speaker?
Do you think there are many phone calls going into Members' offices
over the past couple of days about this? I think so, because I have
heard from a lot of people. They are not happy about a lot of things
right now, but they are really upset about this, and I think rightly
so.
We are supposed to do things by the book. That book is called the
Constitution. And when we stray from that on something like this--and
this is no small matter--this is going to affect one-seventh of the
Nation's economy. This is going to affect the lives and livelihood of
every American not just this month, not next month, not the month after
that, but for the next three generations.
Think of Medicare, passed in 1965. How has that affected people's
lives, for good or for ill? But this is sweeping legislation that has a
long half-life and is going to affect the way of life in this country
from this day forward, really long past my time on this Earth, and I
suspect a long time past the life expectancy of almost everyone who is
serving in this body.
So it is so important that we get this right. It is our obligation.
It is the oath that we swore on this floor the early part of January of
2009 after those very famous elections, those historic elections that
created the new Presidency, created a supermajority for Democrats in
the House, created almost a filibuster-proof majority in the other
body. A historic election.
We were signed in, we put our hands on our hearts, we put our hands
on the Bible, we swore an oath to protect and defend and uphold the
Constitution.
What happened to that, men and women who are here with me tonight?
What happened to that oath? Did you not believe it then, or has
something happened that you don't believe it now?
This is critical. I know it looks lighthearted. I know I have copied
a figure from a children's musical. But this is critical. This is going
to change the way of life for every American, not just now, but for far
into the future.
Now, we don't even know yet the cost of this bill. There are multiple
iterations of the reconciliation package that have been floated around
the Congressional Budget Office. You call them up and try to get them
to do anything at all and they will not because they are working on
health care. Unfortunately, it has been that way now for well over a
year. It is almost impossible to get any piece of legislation scored by
the Congressional Budget Office, but we don't even know what this thing
is going to cost.
We talk about bending the cost curve. The Commonwealth Foundation,
the good folks at the Commonwealth Foundation, I attend a number of
their seminars. I think they do a good job of trying to educate Members
of Congress. They will talk in lofty terms about bending the cost
curve. Well, we are just bending the cost curve, all right. We are just
bending it in the wrong direction.
Now, this bill is supposed to cost on the order of $800 billion and
change. I think it was $824 billion. But anyone will tell you that is
not the real cost. In fact, when this reconciliation stuff gets scored,
it is very likely that we are going to see a number in excess of $1
trillion.
You know, just a lot of this stuff people look at it and say, What is
the
[[Page 3733]]
plain truth here? You say that you are going to raise taxes by $500
million, you are going to cut expenses in Medicare by $500 billion, and
you are going to cover 30 million more people. How is that not going to
affect me? You say if I like what I have, I can keep it, but how in the
world is it possible to do all of those things and it won't affect me?
And the President said this several times during the summer. He said:
Many people look at this bill and say, What is in it for me? What do I
see differently, either positively or negatively, after this bill has
passed?
{time} 2115
For one thing, we know what they will see is a lot of new Federal
regulations. We're going to see new fees on insurance companies, new
fees on medical devices, new fees on prescription drugs, new fees on
insurance plans. All of those, of course, have to, by definition, drive
up health care costs.
One of the things that we're not doing--and you've heard me reference
the ``doc fix'' in the Deficit Reduction Act. We had a baby ``doc
fix,'' if you will, for just the next month. But there is a looming 21
percent reduction in reimbursement for physicians who practice in the
Medicare system, doctors who take care of some of our sickest patients,
our seniors who might have multiple medical comorbidities. We've asked
them to do this, and yet we come at them every year with a formula that
says we're going to pay you a little less this year than we paid you
last year.
Now maybe that's okay if you're fortunate enough to practice medicine
in a location where energy prices are falling by 5 percent every year,
labor costs are falling by 5 percent each year, cost of capital is no
concern because the banks are just giving away plenty of money at a
zero percent interest rate. Maybe if you live in that area, this is not
a problem.
But most of the doctors who live in the real world, the same world as
you and I, know that their costs of labor are going up. Their cost of
capital is going up. In a doctor's office, you don't make a great many
large capital purchases, but you sometimes hire a new doctor; and in
order to do that, you sometimes have to go down to your friendly banker
and secure either a loan or a line of credit. So the cost of capital
goes up for those physicians' offices year after year.
Energy costs go up the same as they do for every other American. Even
the cost of the doctor buying the health insurance for their employees
will go up. Believe it or not, the insurance companies don't come into
the doctor's office and say, Doc, you know what? You've done such a
good job at taking care of all the people enrolled in our insurance
company that we're going to enroll your employees for free or at a very
reduced rate. It doesn't happen.
In fact, what happens in doctors' offices across the country every
year is the insurance underwriter comes in and says, Hey, you've had
some claims activity. Your rates are likely to go up in your small
business here. And the doctor says, Well, maybe that's okay because
maybe my reimbursement rates are going to go up enough to match it. But
then most private insurance companies actually peg their reimbursement
rates in the private sector to Medicare. So if Medicare is reduced by 5
percent, 8 percent, 21 percent, as we're scheduled to do this year,
guess what? Insurance reimbursement rates go down. So the poor doctor
is left scratching his or her head, saying, How come it costs me more
to insure my employees and my reimbursement rates are going down? How's
that going to work out for me?
The cost of doing business in a medical office is no different than
any other small business in America, and doctors' offices simply cannot
continue to survive if we continue to impose this draconian pay formula
upon them, and yet nothing in this bill fixes that problem. We had a
temporary fix today. We talked in grand terms about this great and
wonderful fix that the House passed last fall, but we all knew over
here in the House, even those of us who voted for it, we knew that the
Senate was never going to take it up and pass it. In fact, they had
already rejected it. As a consequence, this provision has been left out
of this big, gargantuan health care bill, this 2,700-page bill, and
there is no fix for the problems that the doctors face in the Medicare
reimbursement system. There is no fix in the bill.
It's a simple arithmetic problem. The simple arithmetic problem is
that it costs somewhere between $280 billion and $350 billion to fix
that problem. Well, clearly, if you're trying to keep the cost of your
bill under a trillion dollars, and I'm not sure that they have done
that, but if you're trying to do that, a $350 billion addition to the
price tag is not likely to make your life any easier.
There is a cost for simply repealing the sustainable growth rate
formula, as it's called. Medicare part B has an additional problem in
that, by law, seniors are charged 25 percent of the actual cost of
their premium. The Federal Government picks up the other 75 percent
very generously. But if the cost of the Medicare part B program
increases, then Medicare part B premiums, by law, have to increase, and
they have to increase by a formula which, again, is 25 percent of the
actual cost.
Now we hear a lot of talk about insurance companies raising the
rates. They do. Can they justify it or not? There are supposed to be
State insurance commissioners to oversee that process. I know we had a
big hearing in my committee on Energy and Commerce a few weeks ago on
the Anthem, WellPoint rate increases that occurred out in California,
but I honestly don't know where the California insurance commissioner
was when all of that was going on. And the people at Anthem did say
they submitted their paperwork to the insurance commissioner. I don't
know what happened there. I honestly don't know what the disconnect
was, but there are rules in place where these types of increases are
supposed to be justified.
But the fact is that part B recipients will likely get a big increase
in their premiums this year because the cost of paying for the part B
program goes up every year, and, just interestingly enough, that
increase is likely to be somewhere in the order of 12 to 16 percent.
The President is very critical of private insurance companies that will
do that but, wow, he is the CEO of the biggest insurance company in the
world. It's called Medicare. And he's raising his rates by 12 percent
this year. In fact, over the last decade, over the last 10 years, those
premiums have increased almost 150 percent. Again, it's by law. It's no
one doing something that they shouldn't be doing. It is just the cost
of delivering that medical care has, in fact, increased over time, more
people making claims on the system. And as a consequence, those costs
have gone up, and, by law, the seniors who are participants in the part
B program are obligated to pay 25 percent of the cost of the program in
their premium.
So when people tell you that the cost of insurance is going to
increase, that's true whether you're talking about a Federal program,
such as Medicare, or programs in the private sector.
One of the things that concerned a lot of us as the debate was going
through the House this summer was the appearance of what was called a
public option. At the time, a lot of concern by, actually, Members on
both sides of the aisle--probably voiced more consistently by people on
the Republican side--about what this public option was going to do to
pay for insurance coverage in this country. Many people on the
Democratic side said, Oh, it'll be competition for the insurance
companies so it'll bring their prices down.
Well, here's part of the problem. One of the reasons that the
insurance companies are raising their prices is because there is a
cross-subsidization, that there is a shifting of cost from the
government sector onto the private sector. Medicare reimburses at a
rate that's far lower than most of the private insurers for both
doctors and hospitals. In order for those doctors and hospitals to keep
their doors open, that means they need to charge a little bit more to
those patients who come in who have actual insurance coverage. So that
cost shifting or cross-subsidization exists because the government
[[Page 3734]]
isn't actually carrying its share of the load today. So if we expand
that part, how are we going to help keep the costs low on the private
side? Because, again, it's a cross-subsidization that we're already
doing in the existing public plans--Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and the
variety of other programs that exist. Those public programs are not
filling the holes that are being dug, the overhead holes that are being
dug at hospitals and doctors' offices, and those holes have to be
filled with dollars from private insurance.
So right now it's about a 50-50 mix. Well, that's not fair. Fifty
cents out of every health care dollar that's spent in this country
today is already spent on one of those public options--Medicare,
Medicaid, SCHIP, add the VA, Federal prison system. It's about fifty
cents out of every dollar that is spent on health care, and it is going
up. The other 50 percent is not all private insurance. Some of it is
paid out of cash flow for some families; some of it is paid out of
savings for some families, and some doctors and hospitals just simply
have to write off some debt because it will never be paid. They
certainly do contribute more than their share of charity care.
So the government, which has about 50 percent of the health care
dollar right now, is not carrying its load, which drives up the cost
for people with private insurance. So we're going to expand that part
and expect that the cost for private insurance is somehow going to go
down. You're talking about magical thinking. That's just never going to
work out. There's no way it can work out.
And sometimes you step back and you look at this and you think, Wow,
the people who want a single-payer, government-run system have really
set the wheels in motion to accomplish just that. Let's create another
public option, bleed off more dollars from those greedy folks on the
private side. Their prices go up. The President, whoever the President
is at that point, says, Well, I tried. We tried to keep the private
sector involved, but look what they've done to you. There's nothing we
can do about it. We will just have to take over everything. At that
point, you have a completely nationalized health care system in the
United States of America.
A lot of people look at that and say, No, that's not what we want.
You said, if you like what you have, you can keep it. That's what we
want.
Sixty-five percent of Americans have insurance either through their
employer or in the individual market, and they like what they've got.
They're concerned about cost, to be sure. They want costs to be held
down, but they like what they have and they want to keep it. So it does
concern them when they look out over the horizon and say, What might
have happened with this public option?
Now, the Senate bill, at least in theory, does not have the public
option written into the bill. It does. It's kind of hidden. You kind of
have to look for it a little bit. The Senate bill sets up insurance
exchanges across the country in order to ensure that everyone has
access to at least two products in an insurance exchange. The Senate
has said that the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, will ensure that
there is at least one for-profit and one not-for-profit insurance
company in each of those exchanges. Well, what happens if no one shows
up on the day they hold the auction to sell the insurance? Office of
Personnel Management will find a for-profit company and a not-for-
profit company, and if they can't find one, somehow they will make one.
Now, the Office of Personnel Management right now is a relatively
small Federal agency. It administers Federal benefits. It administers
things like the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. It does a good
job with that, arguably, but this is a vast expansion of their mission,
a vast expansion of scope to then put them in charge of these various
exchanges that are in place all around the country. The Office of
Personnel Management could become the de facto public option, and in
fact, as it was looking like this bill was getting very close to being
enacted in the early part of January before that famous election in
Massachusetts, the Office of Personnel Management was indeed gearing up
to take on that responsibility.
So whether you get the House bill or the Senate bill, there's still a
possibility that you're going to see a public option. It may not be the
so-called robust public option that you heard talked about here on the
floor of the House ad infinitum last summer, but it will be a public
option nevertheless, and it remains to be seen what happens to that
over time. It may always stay a small part of what is available to the
insurance market or it may grow significant.
What has been mystifying to me about that process, and you heard the
President say earlier or last year in the fall, he cited there's a part
of Alabama that you go to and you have only got one choice of an
insurance company; and if you've only got one choice of an insurance
company, there's not a lot of competition, so let us put a federally
administered program on the ground to compete with that one insurance
company.
{time} 2130
But there's well over 1,000--in fact, over 1,300 insurance
companies--in business right in the United States of America. What if
we changed the regulations such that more companies could, in fact,
sell in that market in Alabama? It looks to me like a market that
companies might be interested in because, after all, there's not much
competition there. That's the way to get robust competition in the
market, and that is the way to get the types of cost controls that we
would all like to see that could be delivered more efficiently by a
competitive marketplace than it can be by government regulation and
price-fixing.
We know what happens when you fix prices. Those of us my age who are
old enough to remember gasoline purchases in the 1970s, when you put
price controls on gasoline, you end up with gasoline shortages. You
remove the price controls, and miraculously there's enough gasoline for
everyone to buy. And as more gasoline becomes available, then the price
comes down. It was a wonderful study in just how markets were supposed
to work. You put the price controls on, it becomes very scarce and very
expensive. And I can remember as a young resident at Parkland Hospital
waiting for hours in line at a gas station because I did not want my
gas tank to be empty and risk running out of gasoline on the way to the
hospital in the middle of the night. It's something I couldn't afford
to let happen to me. So I missed a lot of family time sitting in those
gasoline lines. Fortunately, that didn't last long because the folly of
that decision was recognized, the price controls were removed, and the
price went up temporarily, and then it came back down as the supply of
gasoline increased.
We don't know where we're going on the cost of this bill that's
before us. The one charge that the American people gave us was, We want
you to do something about the cost of health care. The one thing that
we're not doing in this legislation is moving in a sane way towards
doing anything that would get control of those costs. In fact, some of
the things we're doing may, indeed, lead to a reduction of
availability, and that means a reduction of access for patients to
medical care.
An interesting little article that I found online on the way over
here tonight was about what will happen to health insurance premiums
under the bill that has been proposed. And what got this reporter's
attention was a Presidential speech where he said that the cost of
insurance if the bill was enacted would drop by 3,000 percent. Later
on, the White House clarified and said the President meant to say the
premiums would drop by $3,000, and that is money that could be returned
to the worker.
The next quote in the story is, ```There's no question premiums are
still going to keep going up,' said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family
Foundation, a research clearinghouse on the health care system. `There
are pieces of reform that will hopefully keep them from going up as
fast. But it would be miraculous if premiums actually went down
relative to where they
[[Page 3735]]
are today.''' So next line in the story is, ``It could be a long
wait.'' Indeed, it could.
I do urge people to pay attention. I do urge people to dig a little
deeper in the story--don't necessarily accept what I am saying here
tonight. But do look carefully into this story and understand what your
Congress is doing because if it doesn't affect you the day after the
bill passes, it will affect you at some time.
Now convincing reluctant Members to vote on this bill by doing the
Slaughter rule and deeming the bill passed may be a way to trick some
wavering Members into voting for the bill. But I promise you, it's not
tricking anyone out there in America. You hear stories of people going
to the supermarket at the checkout line, and the person who's checking
their groceries will say, You are not really going to deem that bill as
passed, are you? They get it. People understand it. They've been
watching this. We've been working on this for 14 or 15 months. Goodness
knows we're tired of it. The country is tired of it. People do
understand and are watching.
Now tomorrow in The New England Journal of Medicine, it's been widely
reported that they're going to have an article detailing the attitude
of America's physicians towards this legislation that the House of
Representatives is likely going to try to pass sometime this weekend.
The numbers were somewhat startling, and I don't have the exact numbers
in front of me. But if the bill were to pass, around 30 percent of
practicing physicians would consider concluding their practice and
finding something else to do with their time. And if a public option is
included, that number gets significantly higher--45, 46 percent.
People who have been working in the trenches, who have been
delivering the health care, understand how pernicious it has been with
the constant reduction in rates for Medicare, to be sure, Medicaid in
some States. In most States, physician reimbursement is just an easy
target. When those State budgets start getting stressed, that's one of
the first places that the State legislatures will go to try to pull
some of those dollars back in. They'll reduce reimbursement rates to
physicians. And as a consequence, if it was difficult to keep your
doors open and pay your overhead costs with the reductions that we were
seeing in Medicare, it becomes an absolute certainty that those doors
are not going to stay open if Medicaid rates are vastly curtailed.
One of the things we're going to do with this bill is significantly
expand Medicaid. The cost to the States right now is somewhat in flux.
Nebraska got a pretty good deal on the Senate floor right before
Christmas that would kind of protect them against some of the dollars
that the State would have to match into the Medicaid program. Now
there's talk of extending that to every State and not just making
Nebraska a special case but extending that to every State. I promise
you, I promise you that is not going to make the cost of this
legislation go down. It is going to make the cost of that legislation
go up significantly.
If we don't do that, right now there is a Federal share and a State
share of Medicaid expenses that are paid. It varies from State to
State. In some, it's a 50-50 proposition. In some, it's much more
generous from the standpoint of what the Federal Government
contributes. On average, about 57 percent of the Medicaid cost is
contributed by the Federal Government. The State pays 43 percent. In
this bill, the language might be more generous than that, but there
would still--unless the so-called Cornhusker kickback is applied to
every State, then States are going to be hit with additional Medicaid
expenditures.
I have received communications from senators and legislators back
home in my State where that number could approach $20 billion for the
2-year budgetary cycle that we have in Texas. And although many people
in Washington would consider that so small as to not even be worthy of
consideration, in a State budget, it is significant, and that is why
the legislators and senators have written to their Members of Congress
to advise them of this that's occurring. That means money that's not
going to be available to fund transportation projects in the State.
That means money that's not going to be available to pay for
educational activities in the State. These will be real dollars that
are taken out of circulation in the State to pay for the expansion of
Medicaid that the Federal Government is going to require.
The whole question of making everyone buy health insurance, the
question of an individual mandate that is contained within the Senate
policy, is something that this country has not done before. That is a
new phenomenon. Now I know you hear people say, Well, look, look
Massachusetts has a mandate, and it's working okay up there. Well,
maybe. Maybe not. I think the costs went up a little bit because the
insurance companies are now under no--there's no reason for them to try
to hold costs down to attract customers because, hey, you've got to buy
it. It's the law. But still, if a State wants to pass an individual
mandate or an employer mandate, for that matter, within their State to
cover health care costs, that's their business. They can do that under
the 10th Amendment, that those powers not taken by the Federal
Government are reserved to the States. That's one of those powers that
are reserved to the States. So if a State wishes to do that, and the
people who elect the Governor and State legislators and State senators
in those States are saying, Well, that's okay with us, then good on
'em. That's what they should do.
But what's working in Massachusetts likely wouldn't work in Texas.
It's a different demographic, different problems. So we can't apply a
one-size-fits-all solution across the country, and the Founding Fathers
recognized that. You will hear people say, Well, look, it's a mandate
that you've got to have car insurance if you drive your car. But you
are driving your car voluntarily on a public road, and that is a State
mandate for the purchase of that insurance. Not every State has them. I
think there are two States that don't have an insurance mandate. Texas
didn't until a few years ago. I don't know if it's actually increased
the number of people who carry insurance because you are forever
hearing about some poor soul that was hit by someone else who carried
no insurance. But that's a State issue. And the States make that
requirement.
Again, those State governments have to be responsive to their
citizens in the State. If the citizens get too upset by the liberties
that are being taken from them by a State government, they are free to
react against that. And that's what a democratic process is all about.
That's what elections are all about. But never in the history of this
country has there been required the purchase of a product just as a
condition for living in the United States.
Now we do have to pay income tax, it's true. You don't have to earn
any money. And if you don't, then you don't have to pay taxes. But in
order to ensure that this program is administered effectively, we go to
the meanest, biggest Federal agency of all, that very same Internal
Revenue Service, and say that they're going to collect--they're going
to enforce this individual mandate that you buy health insurance.
Just a thought on that in some of the moments that are remaining to
us this evening. Does putting an individual mandate on people increase
the number of people who carry, say, health insurance? Putting an
individual mandate on for the requirement that everyone have health
insurance, does that increase the number of people who have health
insurance? Right now in the country with a robust employer-sponsored
insurance program, people who are employed in the individual market,
small businesses who provide insurance in the individual market for
their employees, the compliance rate or the insured rate is about 85
percent. We hear the figure of the number of people uninsured in this
country, and it works out to be about 15 percent.
In the Federal tax system, does everyone file and pay taxes who
should? The answer is no, they don't. By the
[[Page 3736]]
IRS' own estimates, by their own estimates, 15 percent of the
population decides not to file or not to pay their income taxes. Now
that's a pretty stiff mandate that the IRS puts on us. Most people
don't know exactly what the penalty is, but they're pretty darn sure
that they don't want to find out firsthand because they do know it to
be severe. So with this very severe penalty hanging over people's
heads, you still have 15 out of 100 who will say, No, thanks, I'll
still take my chances. How many more people are going to buy health
insurance who don't already have it if we put that on as a requirement?
And then one of the other considerations is, if the fine is not as
much as the insurance policy itself, then someone who believes
themselves truly to be at zero risk for any medical condition says, You
know what, I'll just pay the fine if it's less money, and I'll worry
about insurance if I get sick. Of course under the plan that's over in
the Senate now, they can do that because there will be what's called
guaranteed issue. If they get sick, they can literally purchase the
insurance policy from the back of the ambulance on the way to the
hospital.
You know, we heard a lot during the course of this debate on health
care over these past 15 months. One of the things that I will never
forget is the energy and enthusiasm that I encountered this summer in
doing town halls during the month of August. As you will recall, we
passed the bill out of the Energy and Commerce Committee sort of at
midnight Friday night, July 31. We all went home to our districts. We
started seeing the stories on the evening news of vast throngs of
people showing up at Representatives' town halls, both Republicans and
Democrats. Whether they had come out in favor or in opposition to the
bill. We hadn't voted on the bill on the House floor at that point.
Because I was sitting in the committee that voted on the bill, I could
tell my constituents back home that I voted no in committee, and I
would vote ``no'' when it came to the floor, unless there were
substantial changes. And people supported that decision overwhelmingly
in the town halls that I did this summer.
But it doesn't mean that they said, We don't want you to do anything.
They had some rather specific things that they would like to see
Congress do to help them with the problems that they were having with
either insurance companies or with their doctors or with their
hospitals. There were some things they thought that Congress could do.
Now bear in mind the approval rating for Congress is somewhere south of
20 percent. We do not enjoy a significant amount of political capital.
In order to do something this big, you really have to have the American
people behind you, but we don't. And therein is the trouble that the
Democrats are having passing this bill. Right, they've got no
Republicans, but then they really didn't try. They weren't interested
in having any Republicans a year ago when this process was beginning.
{time} 2145
So it's no surprise that at this point, a year later, they don't have
any Republican support for their proposals. Their problem is within
their own conference.
Now, they've got 40 seats on us. It really shouldn't be a problem.
I'm sorry, they have 40 more seats than they need to pass this bill,
because in the House it's a simple majority. It really should not be a
problem. All you've got to do is keep 40 people from leaving you. That
shouldn't be that hard. These are people who feel the same as you.
They're members of your same party. They believe the same things you
do. That shouldn't be a hard lift.
Why is it so hard?
It's hard because there's not the popular support for this bill that
everyone assumed would be there shortly after the 2008 election. We had
an election. President Obama won the election. Health care was a big
deal during the election, so it was just naturally assumed that the
American people would be with the Democrats no matter what they did,
with, to or from health care. As a consequence, they didn't need any
Republicans. They really couldn't be bothered. We were noisy and
inarticulate in meetings, and they just wanted to write the bill they
wanted to write, and they'd get it passed without any Republican votes.
Now they're up against an impasse with their own side. Very difficult
to pass something this large that affects this many people without at
least some input from both sides. That's never been done before, to my
knowledge, in this country; and that's what we're trying to do tonight.
You might be able to do that if you had the popular support of the
American people behind you. You could say, well I've got the people
with me. I don't need Republicans. And that would be true, but they
don't have the people behind them.
So the fact that the Republicans are not supporting the Democratic
bill is actually of no consequence. Their difficulty is the people
don't believe what they're doing. And, quite frankly, I don't see how
there is a way to change that equation between now and Sunday, the day
we're supposedly going to vote on this monstrosity.
I did hear from people in town halls about things they do want done.
I maintain a Web site that's devoted to health care policy. It's called
healthcaucus.org, @healthcaucus.org. ``Healthcaucus'' is all one word.
Healthcaucus.org. Under the issues tab, you see Dr. Burgess'
prescription for health care reform. And I've listed there the nine
things that people told me most consistently during the summer and fall
that they wanted to see us do.
Number one thing, people sure do want some help with preexisting
conditions. There are things we can do to provide some help, and it
doesn't mean an individual mandate. It doesn't mean guaranteed issue.
It means helping those people who need help. It does cost some money.
The Congressional Budget Office scored an amendment that Ranking Member
Joe Barton had on our committee. It scored at $20 billion. Nathan Deal,
the ranking Republican on the Health Subcommittee and I have introduced
legislation that captures the spirit of that amendment. We erred on the
side of being more generous. That's a $25 billion authorization for
that program. The Congressional Budget Office said $20 billion over 10
years. We plussed it up by $5 billion. Let's start it and see what
happens.
After all, that Senate bill comes over here and becomes law, no one
gets any help tomorrow. It's 4 years before they get help. Preexisting
conditions are a problem today. We heard this over and over again in
the summer time. This is something people actually wanted us to work
on. We could work on this in a bipartisan fashion. We never even had a
hearing on how to approach the problems of preexisting conditions
without a mandate. We never even had one word of testimony about that
in our committee leading up to this.
Does there need to be some fairness in the Tax Code? You bet. Why
does someone in the individual market who's paying for their health
insurance out of pocket have to pay with after-tax dollars when someone
who works for a large multi-state corporation gets their insurance paid
for with pre-tax dollars by their employer? That fundamental unfairness
is something that has to be fixed. I'm not sure that I know the best
way to fix that, but I know we haven't even tried. We haven't even had
those discussions.
We do need some medical liability reform. It's working in Texas; it
could work in other places around the country. It does help keep costs
down, in spite of what congressional Democrats and the White House tell
you.
Portability, the ability to carry insurance with you through life, is
extremely important, especially to younger workers. Think of the
relationship with your insurance company if you had a longitudinal
relationship with that insurance company.
There are some things that we could be doing that are not that heavy
a lift and don't cost that much money. Most importantly, we can show
the American people we can deliver real value
[[Page 3737]]
and work together while we're doing it. Then we could improve those
approval rates, that low esteem that the country holds us in.
Dr. Burgess' Prescriptions For Health Care Reform
1. Insurance Reform
We should eliminate the bias against patients with pre-
existing conditions, outlaw rescissions except in cases of
fraud, and ensure states have well-designed high-risk pools.
H.R. 4019--Limiting Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions in
All Health Insurance Markets (Deal)
H.R. 4020--Guaranteed Access to Health Insurance Act
(Burgess)
2. Tax Fairness
Providing individuals the same tax benefits no matter where
they want to get their health insurance, and tax credits to
help individuals purchase insurance in the individual market.
H.R. 3218--Improving Health Care for All Americans Act
(Shadegg)
3. Medical Liability Reform
The success of Texas' 2003 reforms: Texas has licensed over
15,000 new physicians and Texas hospitals have delivered more
than $594 million in charity care.
H.R. 1468--Medical Justice Act (Burgess)
4. Portability
Allowing patients to shop for health insurance plans across
state lines = more choices at lower costs. Example: Average
health insurance premium for a family of four: New Jersey:
$10,000, Pennsylvania: $6,000, Texas: $5,000.
H.R. 3217--Health Care Choice Act (Shadegg)
5. Medicare Payment Reform
The current formula Medicare uses to pay doctors--the SGR--
is unstable, and a permanent fix is needed to ensure seniors
continue to have access to their doctors.
H.R. 3693--Ensuring the Future Physician Workforce Act
(Burgess)
6. Doctors to Care for America's Patients
We must ensure that we have enough doctors to care for all
of America's patients--now and in the future. H.R. 914--
Physician Workforce Enhancement Act (Burgess)
7. Price Transparency
Health care services are the only product that we don't
know the actual cost of before utilization, so let's have the
prices up-front, just like in a restaurant or clothing store.
H.R. 2249--Health Care Price Transparency Promotion Act
(Burgess)
8. Preventative Care and Wellness Programs
Health care reform must include participation from
America's patients, so living healthy lifestyles and making
healthy decisions is very important.
9. Create Products People Want
Mandates have no place in a free society. Instead, we
should challenge insurance companies to create innovative
health plans that Americans want. Example: Health Savings
Account--offers flexibility and control.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Young of Florida (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today on
account of illness caused by food poisoning.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Etheridge) to revise
and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Etheridge, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. Capps, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Poe of Texas) to revise
and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Smith of New Jersey, for 5 minutes, today and March 18.
Mr. Poe of Texas, for 5 minutes, March 24.
Mr. Jones, for 5 minutes, March 24.
Mr. Moran of Kansas, for 5 minutes, March 24.
Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Pence, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Wamp, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Burgess, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
Lorraine C. Miller, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly
enrolled a bill of the House of the following title, which was
thereupon signed by the Speaker:
H.R. 2847. An act making appropriations for the Departments
of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other
purposes.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 49 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, March 18, 2010, at
10 a.m.
____________________
BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF PAYGO LEGISLATION
Pursuant to Public Law 111-139, Mr. Spratt, hereby submits, prior to
the vote on passage, the attached estimate of the costs of H.R. 946,
the Plain Writing Act of 2010, as amended, for printing in the
Congressional Record.
CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 946, THE PLAIN WRITING ACT OF 2010, AS PROVIDED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET ON MARCH 12, 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2010-2015 2010-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Increase or Decrease (-) in the Deficit
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Public Law 111-139, Mr. Spratt, hereby submits, prior to
the vote on passage, the attached estimate of the costs of H.R. 1387,
the Electronic Message Preservation Act, as amended, for printing in
the Congressional Record.
CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 1387, THE ELECTRONIC MESSAGE PRESERVATION ACT, AS PROVIDED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET ON MARCH
13, 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2010-2015 2010-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Increase or Decrease (-) in the Deficit
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Public Law 111-139, Mr. Spratt, hereby submits, prior to
the vote on passage, the attached estimate of the costs of H.R. 3954,
the Florida National Forest Land Adjustment Act,
[[Page 3738]]
as amended, for printing in the Congressional Record.
CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 3954, THE FLORIDA NATIONAL FOREST LAND ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2009, AS PROVIDED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET ON MARCH 17, 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2010-2015 2010-2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Increase or Decrease (-) in the Deficit
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact..................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Public Law 111-139, Mr. Spratt, hereby submits, prior to
the vote on passage, the attached estimate of the costs of H.R. 4851,
the Continuing Extension Act of 2010, for printing in the Congressional
Record. Section 4 of the bill has been scored using a current policy
adjustment. The bill also includes emergency designations.
H.R. 4851, THE CONTINUING EXTENSION ACT OF 2010, AS AMENDED
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2010-2015 2010-2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NET INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT
Total Changes...................................................... 7,831 759 176 165 116 58 44 0 0 0 0 9,108 9,151
Less:
Designated as Emergency Requirementsa.......................... 6,773 759 176 165 116 58 44 0 0 0 0 8,050 8,093
Current-Policy Adjustmentb..................................... 1,058 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,058 1,058
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact............................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Memorandum: Components of the Emergency Designations:
Change in Outlays.............................................. 6,119 324 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,453 6,453
Changes in Revenues............................................ -654 -435 -168 -165 -116 -58 44 0 0 0 0 -1,597 -1,640
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aSection 11(c) of the Continuing Extension Act of 2010 would designate all sections of the Act, except section 4, as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-
You-Go Act of 2010.
bSection 7(c) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 provides for current-policy adjustments related to Medicare payments to physicians.
Notes: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Sources: Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
6631. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Beauveria bassiana HF23; Amendment of
Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0316; FRL-8814-6] received March 2, 2010, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
6632. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Minnesota [EPA-R05-OAR-2009-
0369; FRL-9125-3] received March 8, 2010, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6633. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to Chapter 116 which
relate to the Application Review Schedule [EPA-R06-OAR-2006-
0850; FRL-9123-7] received March 8, 2010, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6634. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to Chapter 116 which
relate to the Permit Renewal Application and Permit Renewal
Submittal [EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0192; FRL-9125-9] received March
8, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
6635. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virgina; Revision to Clean Air
Interstate Rule Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program [EPA-R03-OAR-
2009-0599; FRL-9125-2] received March 8, 2010, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6636. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Determination of Attainment, Approval
and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana
[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0512; FRL-9125-6] received March 8, 2010,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
6637. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District [EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0859; FRL-9123-3] received March
8, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
6638. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Wisconsin; NSR Reform
Regulations -- Notice of Action Denying Petition for
Reconsideration and Request for Administrative Stay [EPA-RO5-
OAR-2006-0609; FRL-9123-4] received March 2, 2010, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
6639. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; 1-Hour Oxone Extreme Area Plan
for San Joaquin Valley, California [EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0693;
FRL-9108-4] received March 2, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6640. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of Iowa [EPA-R07-OAR-2010-0011;
FRL-9122-4] received March 2, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6641. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Determination of Nonattainment and
Reclassification of the Atlanta, Georgia, 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area; Correction [EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0958-
201005(C); FRL-9122-1] received March 2, 2010, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6642. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Michigan: Final Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision [Docket No.: EPA-
R05-RCRA-2009-0762; FRL-9129-2] received March 2, 2010,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
6643. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental
[[Page 3739]]
Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule --
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Area Source Standards for Paints and Allied Products
Manufactuing ---- Technical Amendment [EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053;
FRL-9122-9] received March 2, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6644. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- National Priorities List, Final Rule
-- Gowanus Canal [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0063; FRL-9120-8]
received March 2, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6645. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- National Priorities List, Final Rule
No. 49 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0579, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0581, EPA-
HQ-SFUND-2009-0582, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0583, EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2009-0586, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0587, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0590,
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0591, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0005; FRL-9120-7]
(RIN: 2050-AD75) received March 2, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6646. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Source-Specific Federal Implementation
Plan for Navajo Generating Station; Navajo Nation [EPA-R09-
OAR-2006-0185; FRL-9122-3] (RIN: 2009-AA00) received March 4,
2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
6647. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Technical Amendment to the Outer
Continental Shelf Air Regulations Consistency Update;
Correction [EPA-R10-OAR-2009-0799; FRL-9123-1] received March
2, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
6648. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the March 2010
International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, pursuant to
22 U.S.C. 2291(b)(2); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
6649. A letter from the Acting Deputy Director, Defense
Security Cooperation Agency, transmitting various reports in
accordance with Sections 36(a) and 26(b) of the Arms Export
Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
6650. A letter from the Public Printer, Government Printing
Office, transmitting the Office's annual report for fiscal
year 2009; to the Committee on House Administration.
6651. A letter from the Ombudsman for the Energy Employees,
Occupational Illness Compensation Program, Department of
Labor, transmitting the Department's 2009 Annual Report of
the Ombudsman for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7385s-15(e); to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
6652. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Construction and Development Point Source
Category; Correction [EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465; FRL-9118-7]
received March 8, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6653. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel
Management, transmitting a legislative proposal entitled,
``Federal Civilian Employees in Zones of Armed Conflict
Benefits Act of 2010''; jointly to the Committees on
Oversight and Government Reform, Armed Services, and Foreign
Affairs.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. McGOVERN: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 1190.
Resolution providing for consideration of motions to suspend
the rules (Rept. 111-441). Referred to the House Calendar.
Mr. OBERSTAR: Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. H.R. 4715. A bill to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the National Estuary
Program, and for other purposes (Rept. 111-442). Referred to
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. SPRATT: Committee on the Budget. H.R. 4872. A bill to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202 of the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010
(Rept. 111-443). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. LYNCH (for himself and Mr. Chaffetz):
H.R. 4865. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to
provide that an employee of the Federal Government or member
of the uniformed services may contribute to the Thrift
Savings Fund any payment that the employee or member receives
for accumulated and accrued annual or vacation leave, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
By Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado:
H.R. 4866. A bill to reestablish a competitive domestic
rare earths minerals production industry; a domestic rare
earth processing, refining, purification, and metals
production industry; a domestic rare earth metals alloying
industry; and a domestic rare earth based magnet production
industry and supply chain in the United States; to the
Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the
Committees on Ways and Means, and Financial Services, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. JONES (for himself, Mr. Whitfield, and Mr.
Connolly of Virginia):
H.R. 4867. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior
to enter into an agreement to provide for management of the
free-roaming wild horses in and around the Currituck National
Wildlife Refuge; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Ms. Waters,
Mr. Gutierrez, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Capuano, Mr.
Hinojosa, Mr. Baca, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Al Green of Texas,
Ms. Kilroy, Mr. Himes, Ms. Clarke, and Mr. Delahunt):
H.R. 4868. A bill to prevent the loss of affordable housing
dwelling units in the United States; to the Committee on
Financial Services, and in addition to the Committees on the
Budget, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. TOWNS (for himself, Mr. Issa, Mr. Visclosky, and
Ms. Clarke):
H.R. 4869. A bill to provide for restroom gender parity in
Federal buildings; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. POLIS (for himself, Mr. Andrews, Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Carnahan, Mrs.
Christensen, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Conyers,
Mr. Cummings, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Delahunt,
Mr. Ellison, Mr. Filner, Ms. Fudge, Mr. Al Green of
Texas, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr.
Hinchey, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas, Ms.
Kilpatrick of Michigan, Ms. Lee of California, Mr.
Meeks of New York, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms. Norton,
Mr. Payne, Ms. Richardson, Mr. Rothman of New Jersey,
Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of
California, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Sires, Mr. Thompson
of Mississippi, Mr. Towns, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Ms.
Watson, and Mr. Kucinich):
H.R. 4870. A bill to provide plant-based commodities under
the school lunch program under the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act and the school breakfast program
under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. KRATOVIL (for himself, Mr. Childers, Mr. Moore
of Kansas, Ms. Markey of Colorado, Mr. Schrader, Mr.
Baca, Mr. Costa, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr.
Holden, Mr. Shuler, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Hill, Mr.
Wilson of Ohio, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Marshall, Mr.
Boswell, Ms. Herseth Sandlin, Mr. Donnelly of
Indiana, Mr. Tanner, Mrs. Dahlkemper, Mr. Boyd, Mr.
Minnick, Mr. Melancon, Mr. Bright, Mr. Cardoza, Mr.
Davis of Tennessee, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Barrow, Mr.
Boren, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Carney, Ms. Giffords, Ms.
Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Mitchell, Mr.
Scott of Georgia, Mr. Murphy of New York, Mr. Bishop
of Georgia, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Ross, Mr. Arcuri, Mr.
Berry, Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Space, and Mr. Nye):
H.R. 4871. A bill to amend the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to establish
nonsecurity discretionary spending caps; to the Committee on
the Budget, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. CHANDLER (for himself, Mr. Guthrie, Mr.
Whitfield, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Mr. Davis of
Kentucky, and Mr. Yarmuth):
H.R. 4873. A bill to exempt the natural aging process in
the determination of the
[[Page 3740]]
production period for distilled spirits under section 263A of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. ELLISON:
H.R. 4874. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to
authorize the Secretary of Transportation to waive, if in the
public interest, certain requirements relating to the letting
of contracts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. KANJORSKI (for himself and Mr. Carney):
H.R. 4875. A bill to provide for the construction,
renovation, and improvement of medical school facilities, and
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. GRIFFITH (for himself, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Cantor,
Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Ms. Jenkins, Mr.
Inglis, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Lance, Mr. Bachus,
Mr. Olson, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Upton, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr.
Rogers of Michigan, Mr. Heller, Mrs. Capito, Mr.
Graves, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Fortenberry, Mrs. Miller of
Michigan, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Issa, Mr. Roskam, Mr.
Conaway, Mr. Rooney, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Flake,
Mr. Rehberg, Mr. Paul, Mr. Blunt, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr.
Brady of Texas, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Wilson of South
Carolina, Mr. Jordan of Ohio, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr.
Bishop of Utah, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Shimkus,
Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Pence, Mr. Manzullo, Mr.
Gohmert, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Neugebauer,
Mr. Bilirakis, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Hastings of
Washington, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Goodlatte,
Mr. Schock, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Boozman,
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Cole, Mr.
Luetkemeyer, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Culberson, Mr.
Gallegly, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Barrett
of South Carolina, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr.
Simpson, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Lee of New York, Ms.
Granger, Mr. Platts, Mr. Walden, Mr. McCotter, Mr.
Smith of Texas, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Smith of
Nebraska, Mr. Coble, Mr. Harper, Mr. Alexander, Mr.
Johnson of Illinois, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Buchanan,
Ms. Fallin, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Burgess, Mr.
Turner, Mr. Dent, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Wittman, Mr. Akin,
Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Souder, Mr. Terry, Mr.
Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Westmoreland,
Mr. Austria, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Scalise, Mr. Marchant,
Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Linder, Mr. Forbes, Mr.
McHenry, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Taylor, Mr.
Frelinghuysen, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Carter, Mr. Davis of
Kentucky, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Coffman of Colorado,
Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Ms. Foxx, Mr.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, and Mr. Fleming):
H. Res. 1188. A resolution ensuring an up or down vote on
certain health care legislation; to the Committee on Rules.
By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska:
H. Res. 1189. A resolution commending Lance Mackey on
winning a record 4th straight Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race;
to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 39: Mr. Cummings and Mr. Lewis of Georgia.
H.R. 158: Mr. Hinchey and Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 442: Mr. Boucher, Mr. Tiahrt, and Mr. Lewis of
California.
H.R. 816: Mr. Shuler.
H.R. 868: Mr. Engel and Mr. Etheridge.
H.R. 953: Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 1034: Mr. Bishop of Utah and Mrs. McMorris Rodgers.
H.R. 1074: Mr. Wittman.
H.R. 1077: Mr. Bishop of Utah.
H.R. 1169: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 1210: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
H.R. 1283: Mr. Cao.
H.R. 1339: Mrs. Davis of California.
H.R. 1616: Mr. Doggett and Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 1796: Ms. Sutton.
H.R. 1835: Mr. Pascrell and Mr. Taylor.
H.R. 2156: Mr. Alexander.
H.R. 2296: Mr. Flake and Mr. Lewis of California.
H.R. 2358: Ms. Schwartz.
H.R. 2483: Mr. Andrews.
H.R. 2579: Mr. Kagen.
H.R. 2739: Mr. Scott of Georgia.
H.R. 3393: Mrs. Dahlkemper and Mr. Space.
H.R. 3564: Mr. Cleaver.
H.R. 3655: Mr. Barrow.
H.R. 3696: Mr. Souder.
H.R. 3790: Mr. Lewis of California, Ms. Titus, and Mr.
Lance.
H.R. 3943: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California.
H.R. 4090: Mr. Schauer.
H.R. 4150: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr.
Gonzalez, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Paul, Ms. Waters, Mr. Al Green
of Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas, Mr. Gene Green of Texas,
Mr. Reyes, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Gohmert, and
Mr. Sessions.
H.R. 4196: Mr. McNerney.
H.R. 4278: Ms. Woolsey and Mr. Larson of Connecticut.
H.R. 4353: Mr. Andrews.
H.R. 4354: Ms. Roybal-Allard.
H.R. 4415: Mr. Carter.
H.R. 4440: Mr. Kagen.
H.R. 4486: Mr. Olver.
H.R. 4494: Mr. Rush.
H.R. 4598: Mr. Quigley.
H.R. 4603: Mr. Chaffetz and Mr. Ehlers.
H.R. 4610: Mr. Holt.
H.R. 4647: Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California.
H.R. 4653: Mr. Pence.
H.R. 4684: Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Pascrell.
H.R. 4692: Mr. Arcuri.
H.R. 4720: Mr. Hodes.
H.R. 4731: Mr. Burton of Indiana.
H.R. 4732: Mr. Meeks of New York.
H.R. 4733: Mr. George Miller of California.
H.R. 4745: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas, Ms. Norton, Mr. Brady
of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Kratovil.
H.R. 4770: Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 4789: Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Delahunt, and Mr.
Welch.
H.R. 4794: Mr. Rogers of Michigan and Mrs. Schmidt.
H.R. 4805: Ms. Sutton.
H.R. 4812: Mr. Andrews, Ms. Watson, Mr. Clyburn, Mrs.
Christensen, Mr. Cleaver, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Moore of
Wisconsin, Mr. Rush, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Bishop of New York,
Ms. Schakowsky, and Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 4825: Mr. Carnahan.
H.R. 4846: Mr. Polis
H.J. Res. 80: Mr. Langevin, Mr. Michaud, Ms. DeLauro, and
Mr. Boozman.
H. Con. Res. 252: Mr. Kingston, Mr. Royce, and Mr. Shuler.
H. Con. Res. 253: Ms. Shea-Porter.
H. Res. 173: Mr. Andrews.
H. Res. 193: Mr. Price of Georgia.
H. Res. 407: Mr. Murphy of New York.
H. Res. 764: Mr. Poe of Texas and Mr. Bilirakis.
H. Res. 869: Mr. Bilirakis and Mrs. Biggert.
H. Res. 1053: Mr. Space, Mr. Inslee, Ms. Castor of Florida,
Ms. Sutton, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Tim
Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, Ms. Eshoo,
Mrs. Bono Mack, and Ms. Harman.
H. Res. 1075: Mr. Berry.
H. Res. 1139: Mr. Pence, Mr. Bartlett, Ms. Fallin, Mrs.
Bachmann, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Shimkus,
Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Manzullo, and Mr. Latta.
H. Res. 1155: Mr. McCaul, Ms. Watson, and Mr. Higgins.
H. Res. 1157: Mr. Sestak and Ms. Woolsey.
H. Res. 1171: Mr. Kildee, Mr. Markey of Massachusetts, Mr.
Israel, Mr. Hare, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Capuano, Mr.
Crowley, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Owens, Mr. King of New York, Mr.
Polis, Mr. Nadler of New York, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr.
Murphy of New York, and Mr. Kagen.
H. Res. 1174: Mrs. McMorris Rodgers and Ms. Tsongas.
H. Res. 1176: Mr. Flake.
[[Page 3741]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
HONORING ASHLEY HOWERY
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Ashley Howery, a very
special young lady who has exemplified the finest qualities of service
and citizenship. Ashley has recently been named one of the top youth
volunteers in Missouri for 2010 in the 15th annual Prudential Spirit of
Community Awards.
Ashley is recognized for this prestigious award because of the
positive impact she has made in her community. Her initiative,
creativity, and selfless volunteerism make her a worthy recipient.
Ashley should be proud to be a model citizen amongst the youth in her
community and my congressional district.
Madam Speaker, I am confident Ashley will continue to use her many
talents as tools for the betterment of her community and our nation. I
respectfully urge you to join me in commending Ashley on this
monumental achievement.
____________________
HONORING BLAIR ROBERTS
______
HON. MARY FALLIN
of oklahoma
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Ms. FALLIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and pay
tribute to a fine American, Blair Roberts, on an occasion when he and
his business have received a prestigious honor: the International
Circle of Excellence Award for 2009.
The Circle of Excellence, which is awarded by the international
dealer organization of Navistar, Inc., honors international truck
dealerships that achieve the highest level of dealer performance with
respect to operating and financial standards, market representation,
and most importantly, customer satisfaction. It is the highest honor a
dealer principal can receive from the company.
Blair's business, Roberts Truck Center, is headquartered in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, and has grown into one of the preeminent truck
dealerships in the Southwest and the entire nation. He currently
manages five of the 13 dealer locations within the Roberts Truck Center
family business, which he owns with his brother Blaine. It employs a
total of 467 in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Kansas. With this most
recent award, Roberts Truck Center has received the Circle of
Excellence, under Blair's leadership, a total of five times.
Blair has achieved this level of accomplishment and recognition
through many years of hard work and service to his industry and
community. Active in the industry, he is chairman of the International
Dealer Council and was past co-chairman of the International Product
Advisory Board. Today, in addition to his leadership of Roberts Truck
Center, he has also built a successful truck leasing business, Roberts
Idealease, which is a multi-year winner of the IdealGold Award for
Excellence.
Through his commitment to hard work and outstanding customer service,
he has built an economically vital business of which he can be justly
proud. Madam Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join with me in
congratulating Blair Roberts for his record of accomplishment and for
his many contributions to his community, State and Nation.
____________________
RECOGNIZING DUANE KYRISH, WINNER OF NAVISTAR'S CIRCLE OF EXCELLENCE
AWARD FOR 2009
______
HON. PETER J. ROSKAM
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Duane Kyrish, a
winner of Navistar's Circle of Excellence Award for 2009. Located in
Illinois, Navistar employs many of my constituents and is an important
economic engine for my district, undoubtedly so because of suppliers
like Mr. Kyrish.
The Circle of Excellence, which is awarded by the international
dealer organization of Navistar, Inc., honors international truck
dealerships that achieve the highest level of dealer performance with
respect to operating and financial standards, market representation,
and most importantly, customer satisfaction. It is the highest honor a
dealer principal can receive from the company.
Mr. Kyrish's business, Longhorn International Trucks, is
headquartered in Austin, Texas, and was acquired by the family in 1976.
Under his leadership, it has grown into one of the preeminent truck
dealerships in the Southwest and the entire nation, with 105 employees
and two dealer locations. In 1999, Duane was named the first
International Dealer of the Year, an honor awarded to the one
International dealer who exhibits the highest commitment to best-in-
class customer services. With this most recent award, Longhorn
International Trucks has now received the Circle of Excellence Award a
total of 27 times.
Duane has achieved this level of accomplishment and recognition
through many years of hard work and service to his industry and
community. He got his commercial operator's license at 17 and began
driving trucks for the International Harvester Fort Worth branch. In
August 1976, Duane began his professional careers in the truck business
at the Austin dealership. Both Duane, and his twin brother Wayne, work
for the family business. Today, in addition to leading Longhorn
International Trucks, he has also built a successful truck leasing
business, Longhorn Idealease, which is a multi-year winner of the
IdealGold Award for Excellence.
Madam Speaker and distinguished colleagues, please join me in
honoring Mr. Kyrish for his contributions to his community and to the
nation as a whole.
____________________
RECOGNIZING GEORGE WILSON FOR A CAREER IN RADIO BROADCASTING IN
LUDINGTON
______
HON. PETER HOEKSTRA
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I rise here today to honor Ludington
talk show host George Wilson for a career of service in radio
broadcasting in Mason County.
George Wilson joined WKLA radio in June of 1959. Along with his
popular morning show, Big George served in a variety of other roles
over the years, including sales manager and play-by-play sports
announcer. George left WKLA for a brief period to serve as advertising
manager at the Ludington Daily News, but returned to WKLA in 1986.
In 2007 Wilson was nominated for induction into the Michigan
Broadcasting Hall of Fame, and his name will remain on the Hall of Fame
ballot through 2012.
Throughout his morning show broadcasting career, George woke every
day at 3 a.m., but despite the hours, he always enjoyed his job,
saying, ``If you look forward to going to work every day, then that's a
good job and I've always looked forward to going to work at WKLA.''
I have interviewed with George on countless occasions throughout my
18 years in Congress, and have always enjoyed our conversations on
issues of the day.
Whether it was through our conversations, watching him lead the
Scottville Clown Band or working with him as mayor of Scottville, my
wife Diane and I have always enjoyed our friendship with George.
George Wilson's retirement marks the end of an era in Mason County,
and he will be missed by all those who tuned in to listen to his
morning show during the weekdays.
[[Page 3742]]
____________________
RECOGNIZING LYLE BASSETT, WINNER OF NAVISTAR'S CIRCLE OF EXCELLENCE
AWARD FOR 2009
______
HON. PETER J. ROSKAM
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Lyle Bassett, a
winner of Navistar's Circle of Excellence Award for 2009. Located in
Illinois, Navistar employs many of my constituents and is an important
economic engine for my district, undoubtedly so because of suppliers
like Mr. Bassett.
The Circle of Excellence, which is awarded by the international
dealer organization of Navistar, Inc., honors international truck
dealerships that achieve the highest level of dealer performance with
respect to operating and financial standards, market representation,
and most importantly, customer satisfaction. It is the highest honor a
dealer principal can receive from the company.
Mr. Bassett's business, Riverview International Trucks, LLC, is
headquartered in West Sacramento, California, and has grown sales and
revenue from $5 million in 1982 to more than $60 million in 2009, which
was a record year for the business. The business employs 78. Lyle
started out as a trainee at International Harvester in 1966 and worked
his way through various areas of the business, prior to buying
Riverview International Trucks in July 1981. With this most recent
award, Riverview International Trucks has now received the Circle of
Excellence Award a total of three times.
Lyle has achieved this level of accomplishment and recognition
through many years of hard work and service to his industry and
community. He is active in his community as a member of the Rotary Club
of Sacramento, where he supports the club's annual fundraising events
and efforts to provide college scholarships to high school students,
and as a Meal on Wheels volunteer, providing home-delivered meals to
seniors. He is known as a hard working man who takes care of his
family, employees and customers each and every day the gates are open
at Riverview International Trucks.
Madam Speaker and distinguished colleagues, please join me in
honoring Lyle Bassett for his contributions to his community and to the
nation as a whole.
____________________
HONORING THOMAS JONES
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Thomas Jones,
a very special young man who has exemplified the finest qualities of
citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the Boy Scouts
of America, Troop 374, and in earning the most prestigious award of
Eagle Scout.
Thomas has been very active with his troop participating in many
Scout activities. Over the many years Thomas has been involved with
Scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Thomas
Jones for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.
____________________
2010 BRAIN AWARENESS WEEK
______
HON. MARTIN HEINRICH
of new mexico
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. HEINRICH. Madam Speaker, today I rise to commemorate Brain
Awareness Week and the benefits of educating students on brain science
in Central New Mexico and across the country. Launched in 1996, Brain
Awareness Week brings together the Society for Neuroscience, Dana
Alliance for Brain Initiatives, and 2,400 other organizations in 76
countries that share a common interest in improving public awareness of
brain and nervous system research. During Brain Awareness Week, which
is being held March 15-21, neuroscientists around the globe educate K-
12 students, senior citizens, and the public at large on the wonders of
the human brain. These activities include tours of neuroscience
laboratories, museum exhibitions, and classroom discussions on the
elements of the human brain.
This year, the New Mexico area members of the Society for
Neuroscience hosted the 2010 Neuroscience Day at the School of Medicine
at the University of New Mexico, located in my district. During this
day-long event, many of my constituents learned about the wonders of
the mind and the nature of scientific discovery. Today, in recognition
of Brain Awareness Week, I would like to highlight a serious
neurological condition that affects many of our men and women in
uniform returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder.
Madam Speaker, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I
recognize the great urgency of understanding and treating PTSD,
especially for the new generation of U.S. soldiers returning home after
prolonged exposure to combat-related stress and trauma in the war zone.
One large study conducted by the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit, non-
partisan organization focused on improving policy and decision-making
through research and analysis, found that almost 20 percent of
returning military personnel who served in Iraq and Afghanistan report
symptoms of PTSD or major depression. Our service members aren't the
only Americans at risk for this debilitating neuropsychiatric disorder.
According to the National Institute of Mental Health, about 3.5 percent
of American adults, or 7.7 million individuals, struggle with PTSD
during any given year. Unfortunately, current drug and behavioral
treatments for PTSD are often unable to reduce or eliminate symptoms
that include intrusive memories, emotional numbness, and insomnia. In
recent years, however, neuroscientists have begun to piece together
some of the neurobiological puzzles behind this complex disorder,
offering new hope to its sufferers.
The research dollars allocated in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, which I supported, are providing scientists with
opportunities to discover new medical advances that will detect and
treat PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury, and other illnesses that affect our
service members. For example, researchers at the University of New
Mexico have found that an innovative brain imaging method, diffusion
tensor imaging, can be used to reliably detect and track brain
abnormalities in patients with mild TBI. This important application
received funding from a grant from the National Institute of
Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Recently, researchers at the Mind
Research Network, an independent non-profit organization dedicated to
advancing the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness and brain
injury, located in Albuquerque, received a $507,000 Recovery Act grant
to continue pursuing similar analyses using magnetoencephalography, a
sensitive technique for measuring the brain's electrical activity,
which is essential for evaluating and treating TBI patients. As a
result of the Recovery Act, scientific research is providing new hope
to thousands of service members returning home from the war zone who
suffer from PTSD, TBI, and other neurological trauma.
Madam Speaker, today I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing
Brain Awareness Week, which exposes our constituents to the wonders of
the brain. I also ask that you join me in continuing to support
research for new treatments for our brave men and women returning home
from combat with PTSD and other brain injuries and disorders.
____________________
HONORING SEAN MILES EMERY
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Sean Miles
Emery, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest
qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the
Boy Scouts of America, Troop 374, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Sean has been very active with his troop participating in many Scout
activities. Over the many years Sean has been involved with Scouting,
he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the respect of
his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Sean Miles
Emery for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.
[[Page 3743]]
____________________
IN HONOR OF CHIEF JAMES S. DRISCOLL OF DEDHAM, MASSACHUSETTS FOR HIS
DEDICATION AND COMMITMENT TO THE TOWN OF DEDHAM AND THE DEDHAM FIRE
DEPARTMENT
______
HON. STEPHEN F. LYNCH
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Chief James S.
Driscoll for his outstanding dedication to the town of Dedham,
Massachusetts, and to recognize his achievements during his 37 years
with the Dedham Fire Department.
James Driscoll is a lifelong resident of Dedham, Massachusetts. He
graduated from Dedham High School in 1965 and then attended Boston
College where he earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Secondary
Education in 1969. After graduating, he taught seventh and ninth grade
math at Norwood Junior High School North briefly, before following his
childhood dream of becoming a firefighter.
On June 28, 1972, he became a member of the Dedham Fire Department.
After 6 years he was promoted to fire lieutenant and held this position
until he was again promoted to Deputy Fire Chief, a position he held
until November 2001. At that time, he was named Acting Fire Chief and
served in this capacity until he became the permanent Fire Chief of the
Dedham Fire Department in August 2004.
During his tenure with the Dedham Fire Department, Chief Driscoll
continued his education, receiving a bachelor of science degree in fire
science from Boston State College and a master's degree in public
affairs from the University of Massachusetts--Boston in 1985, writing
his thesis on fire apparatus purchasing options.
Chief Driscoll and his wife of 35 years, Carol, continue to live in
Dedham, where they raised three sons, Michael G., Thomas W., and
Stephen J.; all graduates of Dedham High School.
In his retirement, Chief Driscoll enjoys running and reading,
although you will most likely find him by the pool or pushing his young
grandson, Ryan, in the stroller.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to recognize Chief James. S. Driscoll for
his 37 years of service and dedication to the people of Dedham and the
Dedham Fire Department. I applaud his commitment to his community and
to his family. I wish him my best in all of his future endeavors.
____________________
HONORING THE AMERICAN RED CROSS, SOUTH FLORIDA REGION
______
HON. MARIO DIAZ-BALART
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, just this week,
Congress declared March as Red Cross Month. Today I rise to honor the
American Red Cross, South Florida Region chapter and its leadership.
Since 1917, this chapter has been mobilizing South Floridians to aid
those in need and has provided relief in times of crisis.
The American Red Cross is a community funded and supported
organization, which arrives on the scene of an emergency, natural
disaster or catastrophic event, almost immediately, to offer moral and
material support. Volunteers assist all disaster victims, whether that
disaster is a house fire or a storm.
Time and time again the South Florida chapter has been at the
forefront of meeting our community needs. Last year, they responded to
388 local disasters, providing 727 families with direct emergency
assistance. Most recently, the South Florida chapter has played a
leading role in providing aid and relief to the people of Haiti in the
aftermath of the earthquake. The chapter helped in sending more than 80
American Red Cross Creole-speaking volunteer translators to Haiti to
support the medical mission of the USNS Comfort. The chapter also
fielded volunteers at the three airports in our region to greet and
offer assistance to repatriated Haitian Americans, and the Chapter's
headquarter office was responding to an average of 500 calls daily in
the wake of the earthquake.
Under their excellent leadership the South Florida chapter staff
works with professionalism every day and is dedicated to helping those
in need. They are local community heroes. As we celebrate Red Cross
Month, I thank the South Florida chapter for its service and
congratulate its leadership, staff and members for their continued
success. I am honored to recognize them and their work and appreciate
their invaluable contributions to our community.
____________________
HONORING GARRETT BRADLEY RAGLAND
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Garrett
Bradley Ragland, a very special young man who has exemplified the
finest qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part
in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 374, and in earning the most
prestigious award of Eagle Scout.
Garrett has been very active with his troop participating in many
Scout activities. Over the many years Garrett has been involved with
Scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Garrett
Bradley Ragland for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America
and for his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of
Eagle Scout.
____________________
HIV/AIDS AWARENESS
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to show my support and concern
about the widespread of the HIV/AIDS virus. My district of Brooklyn,
New York, is considered to be the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in
the United States for African-Americans, women, adolescents, and
children.
According to the New York City Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene, in Brooklyn, 87 percent, with 7 percent under the age of 13
are persons of color, live with the HIV/AIDS virus. The city of
Brooklyn was home to nearly 30 percent of the people living with HIV/
AIDS in New York City who died.
It is important that you get tested regularly, such as, during your
yearly physical exam; it is important, even for those who think they
are not at risk. Early detection for persons infected with HIV,
particularly before the infection progresses to AIDS, is vital for the
effectiveness of treatment. There are new testing methods, such as,
``Rapid HIV Testing'', which allows persons to receive results twenty
minutes after being tested.
Please take the preventative measures to protect yourself and your
loved ones by getting tested. It is far too important not to do; so,
please go and get tested.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF WILLIAM TOLLEY'S 35 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE AMERICAN
CONCRETE INSTITUTE
______
HON. GARY C. PETERS
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. PETERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. William
Tolley, a resident in Michigan's 9th Congressional District, for his
lifelong service to the American Concrete Institute, ACI, headquartered
in Farmington Hills, Michigan. As a Member of Congress, I am privileged
and honored to recognize Mr. Tolley for his many accomplishments and to
thank him for his dedication to strengthening the infrastructure in the
United States through his service to the ACI.
ACI is one of the world's leading authorities on concrete technology.
Concrete is the second most consumed material in the world after water.
It serves as an essential building material found in pavements,
bridges, buildings and public works projects around the world. ACI is a
nonprofit consensus organization with nearly 20,000 members
internationally whose purpose is to further engineering and technical
education, scientific investigation and research, and development of
standards for design and construction incorporating concrete and
related materials. ACI is the premier source for information on
concrete construction and uses of ACI codes include adoption by
reference in general building codes impacting potentially every
concrete project in the United States.
[[Page 3744]]
On Monday March 22, ACI friends and colleagues will participate in a
celebration dinner and toast in honor of William Tolley's retirement
from ACI at their Annual Spring Convention in Chicago. Mr. Tolley's
passionate involvement with the ACI includes serving as the manager of
Administrative Services, Senior Managing Director and most recently his
promotion to Executive Vice President in 2002. For his tireless
dedication and service he was awarded ACI's Henry L. Kennedy Award
recognizing his outstanding leadership in strengthening and expanding
chapter activities and in 2006 he was named one of the ten most
influential people in the concrete industry. In addition to his work
with the ACI, Mr. Tolley is also the Chairman of the Concrete and
Masonry Related Associations and has served as Treasurer, Board member
and chair of the Finance Committee for the Council of Engineering and
Scientific Society Executives.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today to honor Mr.
William Tolley's service to the American Concrete Institute and his
dedication to innovation in strengthening our country's infrastructure
and keeping Michigan and ACI on the cutting edge of development of
concrete technology. I wish him many more years of health and
happiness.
____________________
HONORING CHANS EDWARD DYKES
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Chans Edward
Dykes, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest
qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the
Boy Scouts of America, Troop 374, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Chans has been very active with his troop participating in many Scout
activities. Over the many years Chans has been involved with Scouting,
he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the respect of
his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Chans
Edward Dykes for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and
for his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE JUNIOR LEAGUE OF SUMMIT, NEW JERSEY
______
HON. LEONARD LANCE
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. LANCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Junior
League of Summit, New Jersey on celebrating their 80th Anniversary as a
women's volunteer organization dedicated to serving the communities of
Summit, Berkeley Heights, New Providence, and Chatham.
March 26, 2010 will mark their 80th Anniversary and I hope to join
the Junior League of Summit and its members at their planned
celebration.
The Junior League of Summit is comprised of more than 400 women in
Union County, who are united by a common goal of helping others.
Specifically, the organization promotes volunteerism, develops the
potential of women and improves the community through effective action
and leadership of trained volunteers.
Over the years, the Junior League of Summit has made significant
contributions to community service throughout Central New Jersey. In
fact, the League has many accomplishments of which to be proud.
For example, the League has raised more than $3 million through its
Summit-based Thrift Shop and returned those funds to the community by
way of grants, special projects, scholarships and programs. And Junior
League members have logged more than one million hours of community
service.
Junior League members have volunteered to help scores of causes in
New Jersey, including local area schools, Habitat for Humanity, Special
Olympics of New Jersey, Children's Specialized Hospital, Interfaith
Council for the Homeless, Union County Parks and Recreation, CASA of
Union County, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and the AIDS
Resource Foundation.
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate all of the members of the
Junior League of Summit for their outstanding efforts to help others
and make a difference to the larger community.
I am also pleased congratulate the Junior League of Summit on its
80th Anniversary as a distinguished community organization. I am proud
to share the League's good efforts with my colleagues here in the
United States Congress and with the American people.
____________________
HONORING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE WARSAW KITCHEN KONFERENCE
______
HON. CHRISTOPHER JOHN LEE
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. LEE of New York. Madam Speaker, I ask that the House join me in
recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Warsaw Kitchen Konference, held
every year for the last 50 years in Warsaw, New York.
The Warsaw Kitchen Konference first met on February 1, 1960, as a
group of Wyoming County Farm Bureau members for the purpose of
discussing issues affecting the Western New York agricultural
community. While some membership in the Konference has changed over the
last 60 years, their dedication to addressing the issues involving
agriculture has remained constant, and the group has met every year
since its founding.
Over the last 60 years, the Warsaw Kitchen Konference has hosted the
Wyoming County Board of Supervisors to discuss agricultural issues, has
promoting agriculture in the Wyoming County Fair, has hosted school
children at local farms, and have done many other activities to advance
the agriculture industry in Western New York.
Agriculture is one of Western New York's most significant industries,
and the Warsaw Kitchen Konference and its members have played an
important role in furthering this vital industry.
Madam Speaker, I ask that this House join me in honoring the Warsaw
Kitchen Konference on their 50th anniversary, and for their work in
furthering Western New York's agricultural community.
____________________
HONORING JACOB MOZER
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Jacob Mozer, a very
special young man who has exemplified the finest qualities of service
and citizenship. Jacob has recently been named one of the top youth
volunteers in Missouri for 2010 in the 15th annual Prudential Spirit of
Community Awards.
Jacob is recognized for this prestigious award because of the
positive impact he has made in his community. His initiative,
creativity, and selfless volunteerism make him a worthy recipient.
Jacob should be proud to be a model citizen amongst the youth in his
community and my congressional district.
Madam Speaker, I am confident Jacob will continue to use his many
talents as tools for the betterment of his community and our nation. I
respectfully urge you to join me in commending Jacob on this monumental
achievement.
____________________
BRADY HONORS OFFICER MARCELLO MUZZATTI
______
HON. ROBERT A. BRADY
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize
one of law enforcement's outstanding leaders. Marcello Muzzatti,
currently a police officer with the Washington Metropolitan Police
Department K9 unit, has been a member of the Fraternal Order of Police
since 1981. He currently serves as President of the Washington, DC
Fraternal Order of Police Lodge number one, after having served
fourteen (14) years as Vice-President.
In 2002, Officer Muzzatti was appointed Chairman of the National
Fraternal Order of Police Memorial Committee, by the late FOP
President, Steve Young. One of his first orders of business as Chairman
was planning the National Police Memorial Service. The Service includes
all of the fallen law enforcement officers from across the Country,
including those killed during the attacks of 9/11. He made many
positive changes to the National Memorial Committee and took the
National FOP Memorial Peace Officers Service to a new level of
excellence.
Officer Muzzatti has also worked tirelessly to strengthen and improve
the relationships
[[Page 3745]]
with many organizations. He volunteers his own time to reach out to the
fallen officers' children by attending various retreats and events
sponsored by Concerns of Police Survivors. He is also involved with the
planning and implementation of the National Law Enforcement Officers
Memorial Fund Museum project.
Madam Speaker, it is an honor to recognize the hard work of police
officers like Officer Muzzatti. He serves as an example to all and
today, I salute him.
____________________
HONORING SITKA NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK
______
HON. DON YOUNG
of alaska
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, today I would like to recognize
the centennial anniversary of the Sitka National Historic Park, which
is the oldest federally designated park in Alaska. The park was
established in 1890 to commemorate the 1804 Battle of Sitka. All that
remains of this last major conflict between Europeans and Alaska
Natives is the site of the Tlingit Fort and battlefield, located within
this scenic 113-acre park.
In 1808, following this series of battles between the Tlingit natives
and Governor Alexandr Baranov, Sitka was established as the capitol of
what was then called Russian-America. Following the sale of this land
to the United States after the decline of the otter fur trade, Sitka
continued to be the seat of government for territorial Alaska until
1906, when the capital was moved to Juneau.
Unofficially called ``lover's lane'' or ``totem park'' by Sitka
locals, the Sitka National Historic Park attracts nearly 300,000
visitors a year to its scenic coastal trails, beautiful temperate
rainforest, and world-class collection of Northwest coast totem poles.
These histories carved in cedar were donated by Native leaders from
villages in Southeast Alaska, and were then brought to Sitka by
Alaska's then District Governor John G. Brady in 1905. Many poles
exhibited along the park's two miles of wooded pathways are replicas of
the original totem poles.
The park also boasts a visitor center which contains ethnographic
exhibits and houses the Southeast Alaska Indian Cultural Center, where
visitors can watch Native artists at work. Here, the park cares for
more than 154,000 museum collection items. These include Tlingit
ethnographic pieces, Russian American archeological and historical
items, historical photos, archives and herbarium specimens. Highlights
of the collection include totem poles, Chilkat weaving, Tlingit oral
history recordings, 19th Century Russian furniture, Russian Orthodox
icons and vestments, and two hundred original glass plate negatives by
Sitkan photographer E.W. Merrill. Through these exhibits, visitors of
the park get a rare peak into the unique cultures and lifestyles of
Tlingit natives and Russian-American creoles.
The experience continues at the Russian Bishop's House, one of the
last surviving examples of Russian colonial architecture in North
America. This original 1842 log structure conveys the legacy of Russian
America through exhibits, refurbished living quarters and the Chapel of
the Annunciation. This house was once the center of the Russian
Orthodox Church authority in a diocese that stretched from California
to Siberian Kamchatka, at a time when Russia was still the dominant
power in the Pacific Northwest. Today, it is an artifact of the
heritage of Russian Orthodoxy in Alaska, which maintains a strong
presence to this day.
Given this unique combination of natural beauty, cultural history,
and rare artifacts, it is no wonder that the Park played a significant
role in Sitka's recent designation as one of the Dozen Distinctive
Destinations by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Tucked
away behind the dormant volcano Mt. Edgcumbe, the Sitka National
Historic Park remains one of Alaska's jewels. As the City of Sitka
commemorates Sitka National Historic Park month, I would like to join
Alaskans in recognizing the Park on its centennial celebration.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN GENESEO, NEW YORK ON
THEIR 200TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. CHRISTOPHER JOHN LEE
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. LEE of New York. Madam Speaker, I ask that the House join me in
recognizing the 200th Anniversary of the Central Presbyterian Church of
Geneseo, New York.
The Central Presbyterian Church of Geneseo has a rich and proud
history of service and dedication to the Western New York Community,
beginning back in 1810 when Missionary Daniel Oliver organized a small
group of Congregationalists in Geneseo.
The Church itself has been housed in several different structures
over the last 200 years but its mission and dedication to the community
have been constant. From the Reverend Daniel Oliver to its current
pastor, the Reverend Beth E. Godfrey, the Central Presbyterian Church
has been honoring its mission statement of ``encouraging spiritual
growth'' for the last 200 years.
The Church has been serving both the regional and international
community since its foundation, through numerous service projects such
as organizing food drives and participating in the Livingston County
Habitat for Humanity chapter to traveling to Juarez, Mexico to assist
in the building of a shelter for abused women.
Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate and thank the Central
Presbyterian Church of Geneseo for their dedication and service to the
community for the past 200 years. They are a true asset to Western New
York, and I ask that the House please join me in recognizing their
tremendous achievement and work they have done during this time.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MISS GREATER SPRINGFIELD SCHOLARSHIP ORGANIZATION
______
HON. GERALD E. CONNOLLY
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a
community organization serving Northern Virginia, the Miss Greater
Springfield Scholarship Organization. The Miss Greater Springfield
Scholarship Organization is an affiliate of the Miss Virginia and Miss
America Scholarship Organizations. The Miss America Organization, with
its State and local affiliates, is the number one resource in the world
for women's educational scholarships; in 2006 alone over $45 million
dollars was awarded to 12,000 women from throughout the country.
Miss Greater Springfield is now going into its 7th year, and has
consistently upheld a high standard for its competitors, attracting
participants that have demonstrated a strong commitment to the
community and a desire to improve the world around them. The
contestants support a variety of issues including autism advocacy and
awareness, The Children's Miracle Network, and promoting organ
donation. Miss Greater Springfield of 2009, Bethany Munt, has used her
title as a platform to address the challenges facing our Nation's
schools and education system, and has been active with the Boys and
Girls Clubs of America. Ms. Munt received her undergraduate degree in
child development and has taught school in New York State and New
Zealand.
Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating Ms.
Munt and the Miss Greater Springfield Scholarship Organization for
their efforts to improve our community and the lives of our young
people.
____________________
CLAUDE ARTHUR WHARTON, III
______
HON. J. GRESHAM BARRETT
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to
recognize Claude Arthur ``Skip'' Wharton, Ill, of Seneca, South
Carolina, and fellow alumnus of The Citadel, for a lifetime of
distinguished service to the citizens of our state and to our country.
From his time as a cadet at The Citadel to his current position as
Director of Business Operations for the Applied Research and
Development Institute, ARDI, of the South Carolina Research Authority,
SCRA, Skip has led an admirable life and maintained a strong work
ethic. His contributions to South Carolina and the United States in the
fields of government contract administration, compliance, finance,
budgeting, and costing are truly commendable. In my view, Skip is the
embodiment of an upstanding and fine American citizen.
After receiving his undergraduate degree from The Citadel, Skip
served our country for four years in the United States Army as an
Armored Cavalry Platoon Leader and a Troop
[[Page 3746]]
Commander in Vietnam and Germany. For his service to our country, Skip
was awarded the Silver Star Medal, the third highest medal awarded by
the United States Armed Forces, for combat valor.
After his military service, Mr. Wharton spent seven years in
management in small business in both California and Louisiana. From
1980 through 1987, Mr. Wharton was with the American Development
Corporation, ADCOR, a defense manufacturing contractor located in
Charleston, South Carolina. At ADCOR, he was responsible for adhering
to the Federal Acquisition Regulations, FAR, in the development of
annual corporate and departmental budgets, in excess of $20 million per
year; the promulgation and defense of all indirect rates; and the
formulation of all pricing proposals. In 1988, Mr. Wharton joined SCRA
in Charleston and served as the Director of Budgeting and Costing. In
this capacity, he was responsible for financial analyses at the
project, group, segment, and company levels; corporate budgeting;
management reporting; and tracking performance against stated strategic
goals.
In October of 2000, Mr. Wharton was assigned to ARDI as the Director
of Contracts and Procurement and was responsible for establishing the
contracts administration staff and the administrative functions of the
Composites Manufacturing Technology Center, a United States Navy Center
of Excellence. Skip also served as the ARDI Facility Security Officer
and was responsible for all interaction with the Defense Security
Service; physical security of the office; the safeguarding of all
classified documents, software and hardware; and the processing and
maintenance of individual security clearances.
Through hard work and dedication, Skip has made significant
contributions to our state and our country. His distinguished service
has been invaluable, and for this, I applaud him. His dedication to his
family, friends, and colleagues should stand as an example of what we
should all strive to be. I join Skip's colleagues at the Applied
Research and Development Institute, the citizens of our state, and his
entire family, including his wife, Patricia, his children and
grandchild, in commending Skip for his lifetime of service to South
Carolina and this great nation. May God bless them all.
____________________
RECOGNIZING GRACIA MOLINA de PICK UPON THE OCCASION OF HER 80TH
BIRTHDAY
______
HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Gracia
Molina de Pick, a distinguished activist, feminist, author, and
educator in the San Diego community, upon her 80th birthday.
Born into a politically active family in Mexico, Gracia Molina de
Pick moved to San Diego in 1957, and has maintained her spirit of
activism through her many years of work and service in our region.
Along the way, she received her master's degree from San Diego State
University and participated in doctoral studies at the University of
California, San Diego and a doctoral fellowship at the University of
Southern California.
Gracia Molina de Pick has been fighting for the rights of Latinos and
Chicanos since she was a teenager. She is the founder of IMPACT, an
early community grassroots organization that fought for the civil
rights of Mexican-Americans in San Diego. From 1969 to 1977 she served
on the National Council of La Raza, the first civil rights advocacy
group for Hispanic Americans. In 1970, she also founded the first
national feminist Chicana Association, the Comision Femenil Mexicana
Nacional, and the following year she served as the Chicana Caucus Chair
of the National Women's Political Caucus. She is the national organizer
for Chicana participation at the United Nations World Conferences on
Women.
Gracia Molina de Pick has tirelessly persisted in her efforts to
secure equality for women. She helped to organize and found the Partido
Popular, a Mexican political party that fought to secure voting rights
for women. A published author, she has penned numerous articles and co-
authored two books. Her most recent book, Mujeres en la Historia &
Historias de Mujeres, offers readers biographies of influential women
in Mexican history.
Understandably, many prominent organizations have honored Gracia
Molina de Pick with well-deserved awards and recognition. In 2001,
Assemblymember Christine Kehoe named Gracia ``Woman of the Year,'' and
she was inducted into the San Diego Women's Hall of Fame the year
after. In 2004, she received the Jesse de la Cruz Award from the
California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., a venerable legal advocacy and
economic justice organization.
Gracia continues to work for equality for those who are
underrepresented and underserved, particularly in the areas of service
and education. For many years, she served as a professor at Mesa
College and a lecturer at the University of California, San Diego,
where she helped found the University's Thurgood Marshall College. She
served as the Commissioner of the California Post-Secondary Education
Commission, and recently initiated the Gracia Molina de Pick Endowed
Fund for Chicano/a Studies at the University of California, San Diego.
Currently, Gracia is a member of San Diego's Human Relations
Commission, where she works to ensure that the city upholds the
protections of basic human and civil rights that she herself has worked
so hard to establish.
In keeping with her selfless spirit, Gracia is commemorating her
birthday with a benefit celebration to raise financial support for the
Logan Heights Library in San Diego. On this happy occasion, please join
me in honoring Gracia Molina de Pick and her years of hard work making
a difference in our community.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE OPENING OF A NEW BB&T BRANCH IN HAYMARKET, VA.
______
HON. GERALD E. CONNOLLY
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize
the opening of a new BB&T branch location in Haymarket, Va.
The branch location at the corner of Heathcote Boulevard and Route 15
serves Western Prince William County and creates six new jobs for the
region. The staff of the BB&T Haymarket branch are responsible stewards
of their community with affiliations to the Dominion Valley Woman's
Club, Gainesville Haymarket Rotary Club, Prince William Chapter of the
American Red Cross, Prince William County Greater Manassas Chamber of
Commerce, Haymarket Gainesville Business Association, Girl Scouts of
America, George G. Tyler Elementary Parent Teacher Association and
Haymarket Regional Food Bank.
I would like to extend my personal congratulations to the staff of
the new Haymarket branch on the occasion of their ribbon cutting and
commend them for their culture of robust civic participation.
Branch Staff
Amelia J. Stansell, Assistant Vice President & Financial
Center Leader; Liliana Grassa, Teller Supervisor; LaKeta
McSellers, Relationship Banker; Shadia Shaikh, Relationship
Teller; Erick Cabrera, Teller; Sherry Bobbitt, Area
Operations Officer.
Senior Leadership Team
Donald Strehle, Northern Virginia Regional President; Karen
Wallis, Regional Banking Manager; Sherri Hagenbuch, Sales &
Service Leader for Prince William County; Michael Pybus, City
Executive for Prince William County.
Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in celebrating the
opening of the new BB&T branch in Haymarket, Va. A business that
encourages its employees to take an active role in civic life makes an
investment far beyond that of bricks and mortar. It strengthens civic
bonds and leaves an indelible mark on the character a community. I look
forward to having a lasting community partner in BB&T's Haymarket
branch.
____________________
HONORING BRYANE HEABERLIN AND ALEXANDRA COSBY
______
HON. KENDRICK B. MEEK
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, today I rise to tell a
heartwarming story of two young soccer players united in their common
humanity.
Bryane Heaberlin is a sixteen-year-old goalkeeper from St.
Petersburg, Florida playing on the U.S. under-17 soccer team. Alexandra
Cosby is the goalkeeper on Haiti's under-17 team. Last week, after the
U.S. defeated Haiti at the Confederation of North, Central American and
Caribbean Association Football Cup
[[Page 3747]]
in Costa Rica, the young women embraced in an emotional moment replayed
around the world.
When Alexandra started crying at the end of the game, Bryane
immediately understood. Still recovering from the effects of a
devastating earthquake in her homeland, Alexandra and her teammates
suffered through unspeakable tragedy. Bryane, understanding her team's
victory was bittersweet, gave Alexandra a hug. They cried together.
Soon after, both teams embraced in an emotional display of solidarity
and friendship.
The story of Bryane and Alexandra is a testament to the enduring
union and the generosity of spirit between the United States and Haiti.
Our nations are neighbors and partners in an increasingly
interdependent world. As young Bryane said after the game, ``I did not
think about the game at that moment . . . I simply thought about the
hard times she had faced and everything she had lost. I thought that
when the game was over, she had to come back to reality, that the game
was her way of forgetting about everything for 90 minutes.''
Furthermore, Bryane's parents, Bryan and Gretchen along with the
Clearwater Soccer Club and their daughter's school, delivered a 70-
pound care package to the Haitian women's team.
Madam Speaker, as the representative of more Haitian Americans than
any other member of Congress, I am compelled to share this story with
my constituents and the broader public. Our community is hurting, but
reading this story by John Cotey in the St. Petersburg Times gave me
hope that brighter days are ahead for Haiti. These two young women are
living examples of how sports bring us together in our common humanity.
I applaud their compassion and grace in the face of adversity. Let us
not forget their example as our nations move forward together.
____________________
CELEBRATING SWEENY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL'S FORTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. RON PAUL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, on March 30, 2010 Sweeny Community Hospital
will commemorate its forty-fifth anniversary. Located west of the
Brazos River in the city of Sweeny in Brazoria County, which is in my
Congressional District, Sweeny Community Hospital is a cornerstone of
Brazoria County's health care system.
Sweeny Community Hospital has always been committed to providing top-
notch health care to all who walk through its doors. Sweeny Community
Hospital has always worked to grow and improve in order to better meet
the health care needs of the people of Brazoria County. Today Sweeny
Community Hospital employs approximately 150 people and has locations
throughout Brazoria County. Having begun my Ob/Gyn medical practice in
Brazoria County shortly after Sweeny Community Hospital opened its
doors, I am well aware of the quality of the medical services offered
at Sweeny Community Hospital. It is therefore my pleasure to offer my
congratulations to Sweeny Community Hospital on its forty-fifth
anniversary.
____________________
COMMENDING THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF NCIS SPECIAL AGENT RICHARD J. CLOONAN
______
HON. GERALD E. CONNOLLY
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute
to Special Agent (SA) Richard J. Cloonan, Deputy Assistant Director,
Counterintelligence Program, for the Naval Criminal Investigative
Service (NCIS). SA Cloonan retired from that organization on March 3,
2010 after 29 years of service, and following 33 years of Federal
Service. I am pleased to say that SA Cloonan is one of my constituents
from Manassas, VA.
SA Cloonan began his career with the then named Naval Investigative
Service (NIS) in August 1981 at NIS Resident Agency (NISRA) Point Loma,
CA. He subsequently transferred to the NISRA Naval Station in San
Diego, CA. In August 1984, SA Cloonan transferred to the Washington
Field Office (DCWA). During his time at DCWA, SA Cloonan participated
in several landmark counterintelligence (CI) investigations including
the Walker Family Spy Ring, the Jonathan Pollard Spy case, the Clayton
Lonetree investigation and the subsequent BOBSLED Task Force. Also
while at DCWA, SA Cloonan was appointed the ``Mount Up'' team leader.
The ``Mount Up'' team formed the basis of what is now the Navy's
Personal Security Operation (PSO).
In 1987, SA Cloonan transferred to NCIS Headquarters and was detailed
to the Department of the Navy's Special Programs Office, and while
there he provided comprehensive CI protection to the most sensitive
Navy research and technology, to include the USS Sea Shadow, the Navy's
STEALTH Ship prototype. In 1988, shortly before the Berlin Wall came
down, SA Cloonan deployed to East Berlin in support of a sensitive
Resource and Technology Protection (RTP) espionage investigation. SA
Cloonan recalls most vividly those anxious minutes passing thorough
``Check Point Charley.'' In December 1989, SA Cloonan transferred to
NCIS Field Office (NCISFO) Norfolk and was detailed to US Atlantic
Command as the Deputy CI Staff Officer. While in that position, SA
Cloonan coordinated the force protection support to Operation Uphold
Democracy, the US/UN Operation in Haiti.
SA Cloonan was promoted in 1995 and assigned as the Resident Agent in
Charge (RAC) at NCISRA London, UK. Under his leadership, NCISRA London
received wide recognition for its collection on terrorism in the UK. In
coordination with Scotland Yard, SA Cloonan and the late SA Tom
Marzilli provided significant high value information concerning Al
Qaeda Networks operating within the UK and Europe to the Intelligence
Community.
In July 1999, SA Cloonan transferred back to NCISFO Norfolk as the
acting Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) for CI and was promoted
in September 2001. At that time, SA Cloonan was the NCIS Senior
Representative to FBI Headquarters and his first day was September 10,
2001. Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, SA Cloonan
played a key role for the Department of Defense in the FBI's Special
Information Operations Center (SIOC) and the follow on PENTTBOM
investigation. SA Cloonan was a plank owner with the new National Joint
Terrorism Task Force (NJTTF) and launched the NCIS' Joint Terrorism
Task Force and Force Protection Detachment (FPD) programs.
In January 2004, SA Cloonan was promoted to GS-15 and assigned as the
Counterintelligence Support Officer (CISO) to US Pacific Command in
Hawaii. SA Cloonan orchestrated the CI/FP support to Joint Task Force
Provide Promise, the US response to the devastating 2005 Tsunami in
Banda Ache, Indonesia.
In August 2008, SA Cloonan returned to NCIS Headquarters as the
Deputy Assistant Director (DAD), Counterintelligence Program Direction.
SA Cloonan plans to remain in the Washington, DC area with his
family. After taking some well deserved time off from working, SA
Cloonan will continue to serve his country working for the National
Geospatial Agency (NGA) as a CI advisor.
Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in thanking SA
Cloonan for his 33 years of outstanding public service and to wish him
fair winds and following seas as he begins the next chapter in his
life.
____________________
HONORING NATIONAL PEACE CORPS WEEK
______
HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today during National Peace Corps
week to honor the immeasurable contributions of the 200,000 Americans
who have volunteered to serve in 139 countries in the cause of peace
since 1961. Through mutual respect and understanding, these men and
women have committed themselves to improving our country's
relationships with the rest of the world, and I applaud their
dedication to communities around the globe.
When President John F. Kennedy created the Peace Corps 49 years ago,
he set out to provide ordinary men and women with an opportunity to
strengthen developing countries devastated by the effects of poverty,
disease, and war. Volunteers have come from all walks of life, some
with years of experience and some just out of college.
Peace Corps volunteers have mobilized to combat some of the world's
most urgent humanitarian crises, including providing crucial assistance
to communities in need of post-conflict relief and reconstruction as
well as countries overwhelmed by natural disasters. These men and women
have helped economically depressed communities develop new business
plans, struggling farmers improve their crop production, and families
devastated by HIV/AIDS receive the care they need.
[[Page 3748]]
Currently, volunteers are serving in 76 countries, providing
development assistance while fostering new bonds of friendship and
seeking common ways to address global challenges. Over 400 men and
women have volunteered from California's Sixth District, including the
following current volunteers: Chase Adam, Samantha Atkins, Gail
Bachman, Ashley Baker, Elizabeth Bremner, Alicea Cock-Esteb, Rebecca
Como, Lindsay Crawford, Douglas Cruickshank, Jed D'Abravanel, Catherine
Fabiano, Scott Fergus, David Gomez, Stevie Greenwell, Daniel Grinnell,
James Gurney, Peter Hoge, David Hughes, Matthew Ingalls, Christina
Long, Ryan Loughlin, Mary McQuilkin, Reid Miller, Courtenay Pinder,
Ryan Reichert, Rickey Russell, Nur-Aliyya Shelley, Robin Smith, Jessica
Wright, and Pat Wrobel-Dickens.
Madam Speaker, the 49th anniversary of the establishment of the Peace
Corps is an achievement that we should all commemorate. I celebrate the
leadership and accomplishments of these compassionate Americans who
have committed themselves to promoting global peace, diplomacy, and
understanding.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE 20TH ANNUAL FAIRFAX COUNTY FOOTBALL HALL OF FAME
HONOREES
______
HON. GERALD E. CONNOLLY
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize
the Fairfax County Youth Football League and to celebrate the 20th
Anniversary of the Fairfax County Football Hall of Fame.
The importance of youth sports cannot be overstated. Participation in
organized sports teaches our youth many lessons that will serve them
well throughout life. These invaluable lessons include sportsmanship,
teamwork, honesty, a sense of belonging, and maybe most importantly,
the work ethic instilled by striving for success and working to achieve
a common goal. Organized youth sports also contributes to our society;
studies have shown a correlation between participation in sporting
activities and doing well in school. Some studies indicate that
reduction in gang activity can be partially attributed to refocusing at
risk youth into organized, supervised activities such as youth sports.
I applaud the Fairfax County Youth Football League for the
opportunities that they provide to all of our children to succeed and
be a part of a team. I also congratulate the following students,
coaches and community leaders who are being recognized at the 20th
Annual Fairfax County Football Hall of Fame:
Fairfax County Football Hall of Fame 2010 Inductees: Jason Witten
(NFL Dallas Cowboys, University of Tennessee, Elizabethton High School,
Vienna Youth Inc.), Nick Hilgert (Robinson HS), Richard Herman (Ft.
Belvoir Youth Sports).
Football Official of the Year--Youth Sports: John Page (Fairfax
County Football Officials Association).
Karl Davey Community Achievement Award: Solomon Thompson, Jr.
(President, Blue Collar Objects, Inc.).
Tom Davis Meritorious Service Award: Joe Swarm (Director of Student
Activities, Marshall HS).
Gene Nelson Commissioner of the Year Award: Damian Caracciola
(Southwestern Youth Association).
FCFHF Awards $1,500 Scholarships: Greg Gadell (O'Connell HS), Cody
Canard (Robinson HS), Nick Grinups (Westfield HS) and Emily Andrukonis
(Fairfax HS).
High School Players of the Year: Kevin Samson (Madison HS), Anton
McCallum (Hayfield HS), Josh Hogan (Woodson HS), Brian Laiti (Robinson
HS), Hunter Debutts (Episcopal HS), Bo Revell (Battlefield HS).
High School Coaches of the Year: Mickey Thompson (Stone Bridge HS),
Jim Poythress ( Lake Braddock HS).
Youth Players of the Year--Youth Sports: Steven Steenson
(Gainesville/Haymarket Youth), Tucker Harrell (McLean Youth Football),
Connor McCulloch (Alexandria Recreation), Nicholas Render (Southwestern
Youth Association), Devin Saunders (Ft. Belvoir Youth Football),
Christopher Wilson (Manassas Youth Football), Nick Bruno (Dulles South
Youth Sports), Greg Smith (Ft. Hunt Football & Cheerleading), Max
Heinemann (Reston Youth Football), Jordan McIntyre (South County
Athletic Assoc), Jake Jenkins (Gainesville/Haymarket Youth), Brendan
McCarron (Springfield Youth Club), Michael Ficarra (Chantilly Youth
Association), Tylar Thompson (Lee Franconia Football), Andrew Greer
(Braddock Road Youth Club), Luke Kaplon (Braddock Road Youth Club).
Coaches of the Year--Youth Sports: Dan Puhlick (Gainesville/Haymarket
Youth), Brian Edwards (Manassas Youth Football), Chuck Martin (Gum
Springs), Derek Wisnieski (Arlington Recreation).
Cheerleaders of the Year: Kaylie Canestra- (Gainesville/Haymarket
Youth), Imani Carpenter (Southwestern Youth Association), Morgan Clay
(Gainesville/Haymarket Youth), Shannon Kelley (Herndon Optimist Club),
Gabrielle Turner (- Dulles South Youth Sports).
Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating the
Fairfax County Youth Football League as well as those students, coaches
and community leaders who are being honored at this 2010 Hall of Fame
celebration.
____________________
HONORING MS. JUNE KENT
______
HON. BRIAN HIGGINS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. HIGGINS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the years
of service given to the people of Chautauqua County by Ms. June Kent.
Ms. Kent served her constituency faithfully and justly during her
tenure as a member of the Ellington Town Council.
Public service is a difficult and fulfilling career. Any person with
a dream may enter but only a few are able to reach the end. Ms. Kent
served her term with her head held high and a smile on her face the
entire way. I have no doubt that her kind demeanor left a lasting
impression on the people of Chautauqua County.
We are truly blessed to have such strong individuals with a desire to
make this county the wonderful place that we all know it can be. Ms.
Kent is one of those people and that is why, Madam Speaker, I rise in
honor of her today.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO MARTHA SPRIGGS
______
HON. KEITH ELLISON
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations
to fellow Minnesotan Martha Spriggs for receiving the Milken Family
Foundation National Educator Award.
Ms. Spriggs has been selected by a blue ribbon committee of education
and policy leaders appointed by state departments of education. The
award acknowledges her exceptional talent as a classroom teacher,
leader in education, and friend to students, colleagues, and
administrators. The children of Andersen United Community School in
Minneapolis benefit from her work, as well as the dedication of many
other skilled professionals.
Madam Speaker, the foundations of our democracy ultimately rest not
only on the rights and liberties which we share, but also the
willingness and dedication of its citizens to enter the education
profession and educate our youth. History has been a powerful reminder
of the need for a vibrant and well-educated society to complement the
institutions of government in a healthy democracy. Martha Spriggs has
certainly done her part and I commend her for her service.
____________________
HONORING BENJAMIN HOOPER
______
HON. TOM PRICE
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Benjamin
Ryan Hooper of Boy Scout Troop 317 in Johns Creek, Georgia.
By reaching the rank of Eagle Scout, Benjamin has done something that
fewer than two percent of all who participate in Scouting ever achieve.
This accomplishment is worthy of honor and recognition in its own
right, but it is not why I speak to you today. Instead, I rise to
commend Benjamin for the heroism he displayed, with the help of his
brother Graham.
As residents of the Sixth District of Georgia, the Hoopers are
constituents of mine. And like thousands of Georgians, they faced off
against the devastating floodwaters that ravaged our State last
September. This historic flood resulted in the deaths of at least ten
Georgians. Fourteen Georgia counties were declared federal disaster
areas, and the cost of the damage has been estimated at $500 million.
It was a difficult time, to say the least. But thanks to the actions of
Benjamin Hooper, his family was able to avoid an even greater tragedy.
[[Page 3749]]
On September 21, 2009, Benjamin and his brother Graham arrived home
from school to learn that two of their younger brothers had been
playing in a flooded area and got caught in the rising waters and
strengthening current. They had each managed to grab hold of a tree but
were unable to get away from the rushing waters. These two young boys
were now in grave danger of being swept away.
Upon hearing this, Benjamin jumped back in his car and raced to the
scene. He quickly jumped into the water in an attempt to reach his
stranded brothers, but the debris-filled creek was moving too quickly.
Graham and Mrs. Hooper soon arrived with a length of garden hose which
they passed to the two struggling boys so they could be pulled to
safety. One of the boys made it, but the youngest brother Cole lost his
grip and disappeared beneath the swiftly moving water.
Ignoring the danger to themselves, both Benjamin and Graham
immediately jumped in after Cole. The current soon pulled Graham too
far downstream, but once Cole surfaced, Benjamin was able to swim to
his younger brother and hold his head above the water. The raging
current then carried the boys downstream where they passed through a
tunnel beneath a nearby road. By this point, the water level had risen
to only a few feet below the top of this tunnel.
After successfully navigating this danger, Benjamin passed Cole off
to Graham, who was now stationed by a nearby tree. Graham was then able
to pull Cole out of the creek, but Benjamin was forced to continue
swimming until he reached an area where the current had subsided. After
exiting the creek himself, Benjamin walked back to his now reunited
family, checked everyone for injuries, took steps to prevent the onset
of hypothermia, and helped to calm his understandably upset mother.
Miraculously, none of the Hooper boys had suffered serious injuries
despite the life threatening peril they endured.
For his courageous and quick action, the Boy Scouts of America
awarded Benjamin Hooper the Medal of Honor with Crossed Palms. Only 231
of these medals have been awarded since its inception in 1938. In the
humble fashion always exhibited by true heroes, Benjamin said after
receiving the award that, ``I was just there at the right time.''
So it is with great admiration that I pay tribute to Benjamin Hooper
here in the U.S. House of Representatives today. May our entire Nation
take heed of both his immeasurable courage and tremendous humility.
____________________
OUR UNCONSCIONABLE NATIONAL DEBT
______
HON. MIKE COFFMAN
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today our national debt is
$12,643,701,402,529.55.
On January 6th, 2009, the start of the 111th Congress, the national
debt was $10,638,425,746,293.80.
This means the national debt has increased by $2,005,275,656,235.75
so far this Congress. The debt has increased $7,038,446,389.48 since
just yesterday.
This debt and its interest payments we are passing to our children
and all future Americans.
____________________
HONORING THE MEMBERS OF CHEROKEE PATROL IN BOY SCOUT TROOP 1011
______
HON. TOM PRICE
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
members of Cherokee Patrol in Boy Scout Troop 1011 for their
achievements in Scouting.
Sponsored by Mount Bethel United Methodist Church in Marietta,
Georgia, Troop 1011 has helped shape the lives of young men since its
founding in 1972. Over the years, more than 200 members of Troop 1011
have attained the coveted rank of Eagle Scout. On March 21, they will
add seven high school seniors to that list: Connor Reed Crank; Preston
William Ehlers; Kirkland Douglas Malcolm; George Capron Merriam; C.
Joseph Privateer; James Benjamin Stamberger; and Alexander Conrad
Walgren.
In Scouting, troops typically are subdivided into smaller groups
known as patrols. And the seven young men just mentioned represent the
complete membership of Troop 1011's Cherokee Patrol. Fewer than two
percent of all young men who begin Scouting ever become Eagle Scouts,
so it is exceedingly rare for each member of a single patrol to reach
this pinnacle.
In fact, Madam Speaker, it is downright extraordinary for an entire
patrol to be awarded the rank of Eagle on the exact same day.
For meeting certain measures in addition to this rare achievement,
Cherokee Patrol has also received the Honor Patrol Award. This award is
only bestowed upon patrols whose membership makes the extra effort to
be exemplary Scouts. Clearly these seven new Eagle Scouts pass that
test with flying colors.
I wish every one of these fine young men the very best in their
future endeavors.
____________________
CONGRATULATING BARBARA POSEY ON HER RECEIPT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL GOLD
MEDAL
______
HON. ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate
Barbara Posey upon her receipt of the Congressional Gold Medal on March
10, 2010 for her service with the Women's Air Force Service Pilots
(WASPs).
During World War II more than sixty years ago, the Women's Air Force
Service Pilots worked under the direction of the United States Army Air
Forces. These female civilian pilots flew fighter, bomber, transport,
and training aircraft. The women of the WASPs pioneered the
contribution of American women to the war effort. This commitment to
their country was a catalyst for the reform that led to the integration
of women pilots into the U.S. Armed Services.
Mrs. Posey's dedication to flying began when she became captivated
during her first trip on board a plane. The joy she felt in the air led
her to pursue her dream to become a pilot. She traveled to Cortland,
New York to earn her pilot's license and in January of 1944, joined the
WASPs. At Avenger field in Sweetwater, Texas she completed the same
training program required by male pilots. Barbara Posey was one of
1,074 graduates of the program, and served as a test pilot at Shaw Army
Airfield in Columbia, South Carolina, flying repaired planes that had
been damaged in training operations. Although the director of the
program had intended to militarize and commission the pilots, the
improving military situation in 1944 reduced the need for additional
pilots to be sent overseas.
In January of 1945, Barbara married John Posey before he left for the
Pacific theatre. She has been blessed with 8 children, 27
grandchildren, and 22 great grandchildren. Before her retirement in
1986, she continued her excitement for aviation by helping with a
grassroots aviation effort in the Delaware Valley.
Madam Speaker, once again I applaud Barbara Posey for her dedication,
service and accomplishment. I offer my heartfelt congratulations to her
on the momentous occasion of being awarded the Congressional Gold
Medal, the highest civilian honor that Congress can award. I am honored
to represent Barbara Posey in Congress.
____________________
HONORING ISAAC ALLEN AMES
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Isaac Allen
Ames, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest qualities
of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the Boy
Scouts of America, Troop 134, and in earning the most prestigious award
of Eagle Scout.
Isaac has been very active with his troop participating in many scout
activities. Over the many years Isaac has been involved with scouting,
he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the respect of
his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Isaac Allen
Ames for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for his
efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle Scout.
[[Page 3750]]
____________________
AMERICANS DESERVE BETTER THAN OBAMACARE
______
HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to respectfully
ask that my colleagues reject Obamacare, which if enacted into law,
will seriously undermine, erode, damage--and perhaps even destroy--
health care in America.
On substance, the Senate-passed text of over 2,700 pages now pending
in the House is egregiously flawed. This is truly a bad bill and is
anything but reform.
On process, the near total lack of transparency and misuse of
majority party power to ram Obamacare through the Congress, makes it
the quintessential example of what's so dreadfully wrong with
Washington.
No wonder growing numbers of Americans are fed up, losing faith and
angry at the Democrat-controlled Congress and the White House.
No wonder millions of people including Tea Party activists are
demanding accountability and defeat of Obamacare.
This has been--and is--an unseemly process unworthy of a national
legislature--any legislature for that matter--especially one with an
enviable two-century-old history of lawmaking.
If President Obama wins passage of this bill when it comes to a vote,
it will be a Pyrrhic victory at best.
This is not Congress' finest hour.
Rest assured that if Obamacare was sound and prudent policy--fiscally
and morally--and an efficacious way of facilitating quality health care
coverage, members of both sides of the aisle and across the ideological
spectrum would be lining up to support it.
If this was a good bill, persuasion, not pressure would convince a
large majority of the members to embrace it.
Instead, blunt force is being applied like a vice grip to
``convince'' the unconvinced and undecided to cave, conform and
capitulate.
On cost, Obamacare is riddled with accounting gimmicks--all designed
to make the total price tag appear smaller than it really is.
In order to avoid sticker shock, Obamacare collects new taxes, fees,
and shifts billions from Medicare for a full four years before benefits
kick in. This trick results in an estimated, but grossly misleading
cost of care of $871 billion over 10 years.
Let me underscore that point, the federal government will collect
huge amounts of new taxes, fees and will rob Medicare for a full 10
years--before payouts for services begin four years from now.
But when 10 years of revenue are matched with 10 years of benefits,
the real cost comes in at a staggering $2.3 trillion.
I would note parenthetically, that Obamacare will exacerbate
Obamadebt. (When you eliminate double-counting of Medicare cuts, Social
Security cuts, and the use of CLASS Act premiums, the Democrats claim
of deficit reduction disappears into another massive wave of red ink of
$466 billion over the first 10 years and $1.4 trillion over the second
10 years.) Even without passage of this bill, under the President's
2011 budget proposal, federal spending will increase to a record $3.8
trillion in 2011 alone. By 2020, the President's own 10-year budget
analysis projects a more than doubling of debt to a record $18.6
trillion.
Because Obamacare diverts $500 billion from Medicare, there is no
doubt whatsoever that senior citizens and disabled persons will lose
certain health benefits they now enjoy. Medicare Advantage is protected
in Florida--the so-called Gatorade fix--but not in my state of New
Jersey or anywhere else. Medicare Advantage is used by over 11 million
people nationwide including 15,983 people in my Congressional district
alone. The Senate bill slashes nearly $120 billion from Medicare
Advantage plans, jeopardizing millions of seniors' existing coverage.
So much for the President's promise that if you like your health plan,
you can keep it; no you can't!
Madam Speaker, for the first time ever, Obamacare forces Americans to
acquire an approved health plan or pay a stiff penalty--like they
committed a crime.
The penalty is huge--the greater of $750 per person per year (up to
$2,250 per family) or 2 percent of household income. No person in
America should be coerced into buying medical insurance.
Under Obamacare, premiums for non-group family insurance will
increase by as much as $2,000 per year. The Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) estimates that by 2016, premiums will increase by 10-13 percent
over what would happen under current law. Conversely, CBO had estimated
that the Republican plan which I strongly support would decrease some
premiums by 5-10 percent.
The Republican alternative focuses on lowering health care premiums
for families and small businesses, increasing access to affordable,
high-quality care, and promoting healthier lifestyles--without
increasing taxes or adding to the crushing debt Washington has placed
on our children and grandchildren and without cutting Medicare.
Obamacare would also create nearly 160 boards, commissions and
programs and would vest sweeping powers on bureaucrats to determine
what benefits are covered and not and at what cost.
Even though last September, President Obama stood a mere 20 feet away
from where I am standing now, and told a joint session of Congress that
``no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal
conscience laws will remain in place,'' his legislation today
constitutes the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade itself,
and makes a mockery of that pledge.
Additionally, Obamacare fails to institute real medical liability
reforms to end junk lawsuits and curb the costs of defensive medicine--
these have long been identified as significant forces in driving up
health costs.
The goal of responsible health care reform should be to provide
credible health insurance coverage for everyone, strengthening the
health care safety net so that no one is left out, and incentivizing
quality and innovation, as well as healthy behaviors and prevention.
This means that the current private health insurance market will have
to be reformed to put patients first, and to eliminate denials of pre-
existing conditions and lifetime caps and promoting portability between
jobs and geographic areas, including across state lines. The tax code
should be modernized to promote affordability and individual control,
provide assistance to low-income and middle-class families. Medicare
requires reform to be more efficient and responsive, with sustainable
payment rates.
Of course, responsible health care reform will respect basic
principles of justice: it will put patients and their doctors in charge
of medical decisions, not insurance companies or government
bureaucrats. It will also ensure that the lives and health of all
persons are respected regardless of stage of development, age or
disability.
It's time to go back to the drawing board and address what's broken
and fix it.
The American public deserves better than what's on the table.
____________________
HONORING MEREDITH O'MALLEY
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Meredith O'Malley, a
very special young lady who has exemplified the finest qualities of
service and citizenship. Meredith has recently been named one of the
top youth volunteers in Missouri for 2010 in the 15th annual Prudential
Spirit of Community Awards.
Meredith is recognized for this prestigious award because of the
positive impact she has made in her community. Her initiative,
creativity, and selfless volunteerism make her a worthy recipient.
Meredith should be proud to be a model citizen amongst the youth in her
community and my congressional district.
Madam Speaker, I am confident Meredith will continue to use her many
talents as tools for the betterment of her community and our nation. I
respectfully urge you to join me in commending Meredith on this
monumental achievement.
____________________
HONORING MEGAN CORBIN
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Megan Corbin, a very
special young lady who has exemplified the finest qualities of service
and citizenship. Megan has recently been named one of the top youth
volunteers in Missouri for 2010 in the 15th annual Prudential Spirit of
Community Awards.
Megan is recognized for this prestigious award because of the
positive impact she has made in her community. Her initiative,
creativity, and selfless volunteerism make her a worthy recipient.
Megan should be proud to be a model citizen amongst the youth in her
community and my congressional district.
Madam Speaker, I am confident Megan will continue to use her many
talents as tools for
[[Page 3751]]
the betterment of her community and our nation. I respectfully urge you
to join me in commending Megan on this monumental achievement.
____________________
IRAN EXECUTES OPPOSITION ACTIVISTS
______
HON. TED POE
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, freedom is rarely free. When you don't have
it, you're under someone else's yolk, someone else's power. And for you
to get it, you have to take that power from the oppressor. And while
history has recorded some peaceful transitions, the transfer of power
most often comes with the shedding of blood. So freedom has to be
desired, yearned for, knowing that the struggle for it could cost you
your life but is worth it--if not for you to enjoy, then for your
children and grandchildren.
The totalitarian regime in Tehran has tortured, imprisoned, and
executed thousands simply because they wanted to be free. On January
28, it continued its brutal oppression with the first known executions
of opposition activists since unrest broke out following June's
disputed presidential elections. Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash
Rahmanipour were men that courageously made the choice to stand up to
their oppressor. Faced with the choice between suffering under the
indefinite rule of an oppressive regime and giving their lives so that
others might be free, they selflessly chose the latter. We honor their
sacrifice by continuing their fight so that all Iranians may one day be
free.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ADAM H. PUTNAM
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, March 16, 2010, I was not
present for 4 recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted
the following way: roll No. 116--yea, roll No. 117--yea, roll No. 118--
yea, roll No. 119--yea.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ADAM H. PUTNAM
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, on Monday, March 15, 2010, I was not
present for 4 recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted
the following way: roll No. 112--yea; roll No. 113--yea; roll No. 114--
yea; roll No. 115--yea.
____________________
HONORING BRAIN AWARENESS WEEK
______
HON. RUSH D. HOLT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Brain Awareness
Week supported by the Society for Neuroscience and nearly 2,400 other
organizations, by highlighting a serious brain condition that affects a
large number of our men and women in uniform: Traumatic Brain Injury,
TBI.
Each year, up to 30,000 of our combat soldiers in Iraq and
Afghanistan and an estimated 1.5 million Americans sustain a traumatic
brain injury. Some patients are fortunate and heal with few long-term
symptoms. Other patients suffer significant disabilities for the rest
of their lives, while others pass away as a result of their brain
injury. In New Jersey, there are approximately 9,000 traumatic brain
injuries a year, ten percent of which prove fatal.
Research is needed to understand why some patients recover while
others face long-term health issues from brain trauma. One of the key
reasons for this is from secondary conditions that occur after the
initial injury, such as insufficient blood flow to the brain,
insufficient blood oxygen, or brain swelling. We must invest in more
research to learn how to halt or prevent these secondary conditions to
help more patients recover.
There is no standard treatment for traumatic brain injury.
Neuroscience research has contributed significantly in discovering new
medical treatments for TBI patients. For instance, this month the
Pentagon announced a new military policy where soldiers who have
experienced a vehicle or roadside blast would be pulled from the war
zone, evaluated for 24 hours, and checked for mild traumatic brain
injury. This policy change was the result of research that showed that
immediately examining and treating our troops reduces the chances of
negative effects of serious head injuries.
As a member of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force, I believe
we must continue to invest in innovative research to understand and
treat brain injury in order to ensure a better quality of life for our
soldiers and citizens struggling with this condition. For this reason,
along with many others, I ask my colleagues to support a strong
research investment in this year's budget, which will improve
treatments for brain injury and other health conditions while laying
the groundwork for our future economic growth.
____________________
SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate on February
4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized
schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees,
subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This
title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate
Daily Digest--designated by the Rules Committee--of the time, place,
and purpose of the meetings, when scheduled, and any cancellations or
changes in the meetings as they occur.
As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this
information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this
information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the
Congressional Record on Monday and Wednesday of each week.
Meetings scheduled for Thursday, March 18, 2010 may be found in the
Daily Digest of today's Record.
MEETINGS SCHEDULED
MARCH 22
2 p.m.
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
To receive a briefing on minorities and members of
immigrant communities, focusing on reported instances
of racial and ethnic profiling by police throughout the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(OCSE) region.
CVC
4 p.m.
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Business meeting to consider an original bill entitled,
``Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010''.
SD-538
MARCH 23
9:30 a.m.
Armed Services
To hold hearings to examine the nominations of Elizabeth
A. McGrath, of Virginia, to be Deputy Chief Management
Officer, Michael J. McCord, of Virginia, to be
Principal Deputy Under Secretary, Comptroller, Sharon
E. Burke, of Maryland, to be Director of Operational
Energy Plans and Programs, Solomon B. Watson IV, of New
York, to be General Counsel of the Department of the
Army, and Katherine Hammack, of Arizona, to be
Assistant Secretary of the Army, all of the Department
of Defense.
SH-216
Judiciary
To hold an oversight hearing to examine the Department of
Justice.
SD-226
11 a.m.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
To hold hearings to examine the nomination of Major
General Robert A. Harding, United States Army
(Retired), of Virginia, to be Administrator of the
Transportation Security Administration and to be
Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security.
SR-253
2:15 p.m.
Foreign Relations
Business meeting to consider S. 1382, to improve and
expand the Peace Corps for the 21st century, S. 2839,
to amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to
authorize appropriations to provide assistance for
domestic and foreign programs and centers for treatment
of victims of torture, S. 624, to provide 100,000,000
people with first-time access to safe drinking water
and sanitation on a sustainable basis by 2015 by
improving the capacity of the United
[[Page 3752]]
States Government to fully implement the Senator Paul
Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005, S. Res. 409,
calling on members of the Parliament in Uganda to
reject the proposed ``Anti-Homosexuality Bill'',
Convention Between the Government of the United States
of America and the Government of Malta for the
Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of
Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, signed
on August 8, 2008, at Valletta (Treaty Doc. 111-01),
Protocol Amending the Convention between the United
States of America and New Zealand for the Avoidance of
Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion
With Respect to Taxes on Income, signed on December 1,
2008, at Washington (Treaty Doc. 111-03), and the
nominations of Elizabeth L. Littlefield, of the
District of Columbia, to be President of the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation, Carolyn Hessler
Radelet, of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy
Director of the Peace Corps, Raul Yzaguirre, of
Maryland, to be Ambassador to the Dominican Republic,
Theodore Sedgwick, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the
Slovak Republic, and Bisa Williams, of New Jersey, to
be Ambassador to the Republic of Niger, all of the
Department of State, Lana Pollack, of Michigan, to be a
Commissioner on the part of the United States on the
International Joint Commission, United States and
Canada, and Walter Isaacson, of Louisiana, to be
Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and
Dennis Mulhaupt, of California, Victor H. Ashe, of
Tennessee, Michael Lynton, of California, S. Enders
Wimbush, of Virginia, and Susan McCue, of Virginia, all
to be a Member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors,
and a routine list in the Foreign Service.
S-116, Capitol
2:30 p.m.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
To hold hearings to examine reviewing the national
broadband plan.
SR-253
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Federal Financial Management, Government Information,
Federal Services, and International Security
Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine making the government more
transparent and accountable.
SD-342
Energy and Natural Resources
Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine S. 1546, to provide for the
conveyance of certain parcels of land to the town of
Mantua, Utah, S. 2798, to reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire through the facilitation of
insect and disease infestation treatment of National
Forest System and adjacent land, S. 2830, to amend the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to
clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have
the authority to use certain payments for certain
noncoal reclamation projects, and S. 2963, to designate
certain land in the State of Oregon as wilderness, to
provide for the exchange of certain Federal land and
non-Federal land.
SD-366
MARCH 24
9:30 a.m.
Veterans' Affairs
To hold an oversight hearing to examine Veterans' Affairs
plan for ending homelessness among veterans.
SR-418
10 a.m.
Environment and Public Works
To hold hearings to examine opportunities to improve
energy security and the environment through
transportation policy.
SD-406
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
To hold hearings to examine the nomination of Major
General Robert A. Harding, United States Army
(Retired), of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of
Homeland Security.
SD-342
Armed Services
Personnel Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine Military Health System
programs, policies, and initiatives in review of the
Defense Authorization request for fiscal year 2011 and
the Future Years Defense Program.
SR-232A
1:30 p.m.
Small Business and Entrepreneurship
To examine the President's proposed budget request for
fiscal year 2011 for the Small Business Administration.
SR-485
2 p.m.
Aging
To hold hearings to examine medicine and prescription
drugs, focusing on nursing home patients.
SD-106
2:30 p.m.
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Contracting Oversight Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine contracts for Afghan National
Police training.
SD-342
Armed Services
To hold hearings to examine U.S. Pacific Command, U.S.
Strategic Command, and U.S. Forces Korea in review of
the Defense Authorization request for fiscal year 2011
and the Future Years Defense Program; with the
possibility of a closed session in SVC-217 following
the open session.
SH-216
Appropriations
Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine proposed budget estimates for
fiscal year 2011 for the Office of Personnel
Management.
SD-192
Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine the nomination of Goodwin
Liu, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge
for the Ninth Circuit.
SD-226
MARCH 25
9:30 a.m.
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Investigations Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine Wall Street and the financial
crisis, focusing on high risk home loans.
SH-216
Appropriations
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the review and oversight of
the Federal Housing Administration and its role in the
housing crisis.
SD-138
2:15 p.m.
Indian Affairs
To hold an oversight hearing to examine youth suicides
and the need for mental health care resources in Indian
country.
SD-628
APRIL 14
9:30 a.m.
Armed Services
SeaPower Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine Navy shipbuilding programs in
review of the Defense Authorization request for fiscal
year 2011 and the Future Years Defense Program.
SD-562