[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[Issue]
[Pages 10385-10543]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 10385]]
VOLUME 156--PART 8
SENATE--Thursday, June 10, 2010
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Senator from the State of New York.
______
prayer
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Today's prayer will be offered by our guest
Chaplain, Rev. Dr. Joseph Castleberry, president of Northwest
University, in Kirkland, WA.
The guest Chaplain offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
``Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name. Thy Kingdom
come, Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in heaven.'' As our founding
mothers and fathers prayed before us, we ask again that You would make
America a shining city on a hill. Make our land a beacon to all the
world of the sacred values Your Kingly rule has taught us. Turn our
hearts anew toward You, and let righteousness exalt our Nation. Pour
out Your Spirit upon us, and hasten the day when peace will reign in
the Kingdom.
Protect our military personnel around the world with Your strong hand
and heal those who are wounded. Bless their families with the soothing
touch of Your presence.
Bless these Senators and their staffs today with love and friendship,
health and strength, wisdom and prudence, holiness and hope. Let them
feel Your presence in the godly work of justice with which we have
charged them. Let the cherished ideals of our Nation rule their
deliberations this day and always.
We pray these things in the Name of the King of Kings and Lord of
Lords. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Kirsten E. Gillibrand led the Pledge of Allegiance, as
follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd).
The bill clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, June 10, 2010.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of Rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Senator from the State of New York,
to perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Washington, Mrs. Murray, be recognized for whatever time she may
take. Following that, I will announce the schedule for today and give
an opening statement. We will see if at that time Senator McConnell
will be here to give a statement.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Washington.
____________________
THE GUEST CHAPLAIN
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I am delighted to be here today to
welcome our guest Chaplain, Dr. Joseph Castleberry, to the Senate. Dr.
Castleberry is president of Northwest University in Kirkland, a town
not far from where I grew up in Bothell, WA.
Northwest is a Christian university comprised of six schools and
colleges, including arts and sciences, business education, nursing,
social and behavioral sciences, and ministry. The university offers
about 50 undergraduate programs, eight master's degree programs, and a
doctor of psychology program.
The school prides itself on its three core values of spiritual
vitality, academic excellence, and empowered engagement.
Dr. Castleberry is an ordained minister in the Assemblies of God, the
university's sponsoring denomination. His distinguished career has
focused on both faith and education. He earned a bachelor of arts
degree from Evangel University in 1983, a master of divinity degree
from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1988, and a doctor of education
degree in international educational development from Teachers College,
Columbia University, in 1999.
In addition to that impressive background, Dr. Castleberry has a wide
array of experience as a missionary, educator, and pastor. For over two
decades, in fact, he served communities throughout Central and South
America where he was involved in education, church planning, and
community development.
Dr. Castleberry is the founder of the Freedom Valley Project. It is a
community development ministry among African-American people of
Ecuador's Chota Valley region. He is active in a number of academic and
cultural programs devoted to furthering interreligious understanding
and dialog.
Dr. Castleberry and his wife Kathleen have three daughters--Jessica,
Jodie, and Sophie. I was also very amazed to learn that he speaks a
remarkable 10 languages.
I am very pleased Dr. Castleberry could join us in the Senate today.
I thank him for his service to the students and faculty at Northwest
University, as well as his dedication to helping communities around the
world.
I also thank Senate Chaplain Dr. Black for inviting Dr. Castleberry
to deliver the opening prayer for the Senate this morning.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
[[Page 10386]]
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. REID. Madam President, today at a quarter to 10, the Republican
leader or his designee will make a motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 26,
which is a joint resolution of disapproval of a rule submitted by EPA
relating to the endangerment findings and the cause or contributing
findings for greenhouse gases. There will be up to 6 hours of debate
equally divided between Senators Murkowski and Boxer or their
designees, with the controlled time alternating in 30-minute blocks,
with Senator Murkowski controlling the first 30 minutes. If all time is
used, the vote on the motion to proceed will occur at 3:45 p.m. If the
motion to proceed is agreed to, there will be an additional 1 hour of
debate on the joint resolution prior to a vote on passage of the joint
resolution.
As I indicated yesterday, there will be no rollcall votes tomorrow or
Monday, June 14.
____________________
EPA RULE
Mr. REID. Madam President, the Murkowski resolution, which we will
take up soon, will increase pollution, increase our dependence on
foreign oil, and stall our efforts to create jobs and, in so doing,
stall our efforts to move to a clean energy economy.
This resolution does nothing to create jobs in Nevada or anyplace
else in our country. It does create jobs in places from where we are
importing oil--the Middle East, Venezuela, places such as that--but not
in our country.
In fact, this resolution will damage the certainty and clarity that
businesses want to invest in innovative and job-creating technologies
that reduce pollution. This includes clean renewable power using the
Sun, the wind, and geothermal energy.
This resolution is not going to help bring us closer to providing
more incentives for the production or use of clean-burning natural gas.
This resolution is not going to help provide funding for Nevadans or
Alaskans or any other State to cope with and adapt to a changing and
increasingly unfriendly climate.
Forcing this vote seems to be a largely partisan political ploy
designed to divide Democrats and Republicans and to pander to the
dirty, just-say-no crowd. They want business as usual with no limits on
their ability to pollute.
The White House has made it clear that the Murkowski resolution would
be vetoed if it passes. We all know, in fact, if it does pass and a
veto is made, that it would be sustained.
We also know that this resolution is a great big gift to big oil, at
least 455 million more barrels of oil would be used, making at least
$50 billion extra for the oil companies, and billions more if this
resolution were to become law. And most of that oil will come from
overseas. We know that.
Is this the kind of business as usual the American people want? Of
course not. No, the public wants companies to give them choices of
cars, products, and fuels that are less polluting, affordable, and made
in America, not from the Persian Gulf, China, or other places.
This resolution is very much a choice about the future of our
country. Do we want to return to the days when big oil and their
friends, with OPEC's help, decided America's economic destiny or are we
going to work together to solve the incredibly difficult problems posed
by the way we produce and use energy? Are we going to work together to
reduce pollution?
I am convinced that we can pass strong, bipartisan legislation to
create jobs, protect the environment, and make a safer and more secure
future. But that would require the help of everyone in the Senate to be
involved in a constructive engagement, and only a few have stepped
forward. I hope that changes soon.
Will the Chair announce the business before the Senate?
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
____________________
RESOLUTION OF OPPOSITION
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, later today, the Senate will vote on
an issue of vital importance to every American family and business, and
that is whether the Environmental Protection Agency should be allowed
to impose a backdoor national energy tax on the American people.
This vote is needed because of the administration's insistence on
advancing its goals by any means possible, in this case by going around
the legislative branch and imposing this massive, job-killing tax on
Americans through an unaccountable Federal agency.
Ironically, just last year, President Obama and EPA Administrator
Lisa Jackson took the position that on an issue of this magnitude,
which touches every corner of our economy, Congress, not the EPA,
should determine how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But now that
it is clear Congress will not pass this new national energy tax this
year, the administration has shifted course and is now trying to get
done through the backdoor what they have not been able to get through
the front door.
Like the cap-and-trade legislation they would replace, these EPA
regulations would raise the price of everything from electricity to
gasoline to fertilizer to food on our supermarket shelves. That is why
groups representing farmers, builders, manufacturers, small business
owners, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are so strongly opposed to
these EPA regulations and so supportive of the Murkowski resolution to
stop them.
These groups know these backdoor moves by EPA will deal a devastating
blow to an economy already in rough shape. And so does the President.
He said himself that his plan would cause electricity prices for
consumers to ``necessarily skyrocket.'' The President himself said this
plan would cause prices for consumers to ``necessarily skyrocket.''
At a time of nearly 10-percent unemployment, these new regulations
would kill U.S. jobs. According to one estimate, the House cap-and-
trade bill would kill more than 2 million U.S. jobs and put American
businesses at a disadvantage to their competitors overseas.
Closer to home, these regulations would be especially devastating for
States such as Kentucky and other Midwestern coal States. EPA
regulations resulting in dramatic energy price increases would
jeopardize the livelihoods of the 17,000 miners in our State and an
additional 51,000 jobs that depend on coal production and the low cost
of electricity that Kentuckians enjoy. That is why in the last few days
alone, my office has received more than 1,000 letters, e-mails, and
phone calls from Kentuckians opposed to this effort from EPA.
A lot of Kentuckians work hard to ensure that our State has the
lowest industrial electricity rate in the Nation, and that is something
we are proud of at home.
This bill would lead to a dramatic increase in these electricity
rates, punishing businesses both large and small.
But the job losses would not stop there. As I indicated, this
backdoor energy tax would be felt on farms as well, where increased
energy and fertilizer prices would drive up costs for farmers and
livestock producers who do not have the ability to pass on these
increases. This would be an especially painful blow to them, and that
is why the Farm Bureau and many other farm groups oppose what the EPA
is trying to do.
There are many different views in this body on how to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Some favor the Kerry- Lieberman cap-and-trade
bill, a significant portion of which, by the way, has been pushed by
the oil company BP. Many Members on this side of the aisle have
proposals they support as well.
[[Page 10387]]
One thing we should be able to agree on is that the worst possible
outcome is for the unelected bureaucrats at the EPA to unilaterally
impose these job-killing regulations. That is why it is my hope that
later this afternoon we will vote to stop this blatant power grab by
the administration and EPA and pass Senator Murkowski's legislation to
stop this backdoor national energy tax dead in its tracks.
This effort by the EPA would be devastating for jobs and an economy
that needs them desperately. It is bad for the economy and bad for
representative democracy. It should be stopped.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
____________________
RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL OF EPA RULE--MOTION TO PROCEED
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, during the Memorial Day recess, we
received two pieces of alarming news that should inform the work of
every Member in this Chamber. First, we learned the national debt has
surpassed $13 trillion in total, and then shortly after that, we
learned that nearly all the jobs that were added in May came from
temporary census positions. The private sector created just 41,000 jobs
last month--many fewer than expected and certainly a far cry from the
pace that will allow us to dig out from under this economic recession.
I think we all recognize there is no question that our recovery is
still fragile--very much in doubt. It is also quite clear it will take
some time for millions of unemployed Americans to find their jobs and
get back on their feet again. These tough facts should encourage us to
focus on these policies that create jobs, that reduce our debt, and at
the same time should encourage us to guard against policies that fail
in either or both of those areas.
Madam President, we are here today to debate a policy that works
against both of those goals--the Environmental Protection Agency's
effort to impose economy-wide climate regulations under the Clean Air
Act. The sweeping powers being pursued by the EPA are the worst
possible option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and there is
broad bipartisan agreement that this approach would forgo all of the
benefits, all of the protections that are possible through legislation.
It would reduce emissions at an unreasonably high cost and through an
unnecessarily bureaucratic process. It would amount to an unprecedented
power grab, ceding Congress's responsibilities to unelected
bureaucrats, and move a very important debate, a critical debate, from
our open halls to behind an agency's closed doors.
This approach should have been, could have been taken off the table
long ago. Yet because the EPA is determined to move forward
aggressively and because neither Congress nor the administration has
acted to stop them, it is now in the process of becoming our Nation's
de facto energy and climate policy.
Because this is our worst option to reduce emissions and Congress
needs time to develop a more appropriate solution, I have introduced a
resolution of disapproval--I introduced this back in January--to halt
the EPA's regulations. My resolution does not affect the science behind
the endangerment finding, but it will prevent the finding from being
enforced through economy-wide regulations.
Forty other Senators here in this body have joined me and are
cosponsors of this effort. Our resolution has garnered significant
support among the American people, and from the day it was introduced,
we have had individuals and we have had groups and organizations from
all across the country that have expressed their support and their
appreciation. It really is a tremendous coalition, a significant
coalition from farmers and manufacturers, to small business owners, to
fish processors. There are more than 530 stakeholder groups that have
endorsed our resolution's passage, and I will tell you, when you look
at some of those groups, you would not put them in a category where you
would say: Well, this is an entity that is standing up to fight, to
push back against the EPA. But I will suggest to you that the broad
range of stakeholders is really quite impressive.
Despite that support, I will still be the first to admit that we face
an uphill battle. We oppose the EPA's regulations because of their
costs, most definitely. But, unfortunately, that seems to be precisely
why some Senators have gone out front to support them, hoping these
economic costs will be so onerous that it will force us here in the
Congress, here in the Senate, to adopt legislation we otherwise
wouldn't move to do.
This has been an interesting, sometimes difficult and contentious
several months as we have moved forward with this resolution of
disapproval. Personal attacks have been directed at supporters of this
resolution in an effort, I think, to intimidate others from adding
their names.
The EPA Administrator has, somewhat incredibly, suggested our
resolution was somehow related to the oilspill that is ongoing in the
gulf. Some have even claimed the resolution is a bailout for the oil
companies and are trying to make sure we don't let another crisis go to
waste--in other individuals' terms--in their efforts to pass sweeping
cap-and-trade measures. I would suggest that the only similarity I see
between the spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the EPA's regulations is
that both of these are unmitigated disasters. One is happening now; the
other one is waiting in the wings if Congress fails to adopt this
resolution.
This decision--where we are today here in the Senate debating this
resolution of disapproval--ultimately boils down to four substantive
factors. The first one is the inappropriateness of the Clean Air Act
for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The second is the likelihood
that the courts will strike down the tailoring rule. Then we also have
the lack of economic analysis from the EPA, which is stunning--that we
do not have a better sense in terms of what the economic impact of
these regulations will be. Then finally and certainly above all else is
the undisputed fact that climate policy should be written here in
Congress. It is not just Lisa Murkowski who says that, and it is not
just the other 40 Senators who have signed on as cosponsors to this
resolution of disapproval; it is everyone from the President, to the
Administrator of the EPA, to colleagues on the House side who have said
time and time again that it should be the Congress, it should be those
of us who are elected Members of this body who set the policy of this
country and not the unelected bureaucrats within an agency.
I would like to speak to each of these four factors in a little
greater detail, so I will start by examining why the Clean Air Act is
such an awful choice for reducing these emissions. I have explained
this many times before, so I will reiterate two main points here--first
is the way these regulations are carried out.
You have command-and-control directives that are issued by the
government that affect every aspect of our lives, rather than market-
based decisions made by consumers and businesses. I wish to reinforce
that, the fact that these are directives that will impact every aspect
of our lives.
When we were debating health care reform here on this floor not too
many months ago, it was repeated time and time again that it was so
important we get this right because health care reform will impact one-
sixth of our economy. Well, I would suggest to you that when we are
talking about climate policy, that is something which is going to
impact every aspect--100 percent--of our economy.
The system imposed by the EPA will entail millions of permit
decisions--millions of permit decisions--by midlevel EPA employees,
without effective recourse, and it will leave regulated entities with
very little flexibility to comply.
Another reason the Clean Air Act is extremely complicated for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions: the Clean Air Act's explicit
regulatory thresholds. They absolutely put an exclamation mark on why
this law is such a poor choice for addressing climate change.
[[Page 10388]]
Under the Clean Air Act, if you emit more than 100 or 250 tons of a
pollutant each year, you must acquire a Federal air permit. These
relatively low limits make sense for conventional air pollutants that
are emitted in small quantities, but they become wildly problematic
when dealing with a substance emitted in huge volumes through nearly
every form of commerce, such as carbon dioxide is.
So the question needs to be asked, then, how big is this new
regulatory act we are talking about? The EPA recently projected that
some 6.1 million sources could be required to obtain new title V
operating permits. Under the current regulations, the EPA is dealing
with about 15,000. So the EPA would now be charged with moving up
dramatically from regulating and issuing about 15,000 title V operating
permits to some 6.1 million permits. Whom does this include? It would
include millions of residential buildings, small businesses, schools,
hospitals, and restaurants found in every town in America.
Over time, the EPA's approach would increase their regulation by an
order of magnitude, and the consequences would be just as enormous. And
no one is more aware of this very uncomfortable fact than the EPA
itself. They know they can't go from the 15,000 permits they currently
deal with on an annual basis up to 6.1 million permits. That is why the
Agency has attempted to very dramatically increase the threshold for
greenhouse gases in its tailoring rule. They are unhappy with the plain
language, the very direct language of the Clean Air Act. The Agency
plans to lift its limits up to 1,000 times higher than Congress has
directed.
So what you have is a situation where the EPA has simply not accepted
that the Clean Air Act is not structured for this task, and instead
they have attempted to make it so by ignoring the plain language--the
plain language that says you have to regulate at 100 or 250 tons per
year. They are effectively unilaterally amending the Clean Air Act.
Equally astounding is that by temporarily relieving part of a
permitting burden, the EPA is claiming that consumers and businesses--
the people who purchase and the people who use the energy--will face no
economic impact, which is incredible to believe.
I ask my colleagues to think about the logic behind the tailoring
rule. The EPA is asking us to accept that while greenhouse gases are
not in the Clean Air Act, the Congress clearly intended them to be
regulated under it. At the same time, we are expected to believe that
while explicit regulatory thresholds are in the act, Congress meant for
the EPA to ignore them. Well, Madam President, I would suggest to you
that is a pretty thin read, and it becomes even thinner when you
consider the changes that are made between the tailoring rule that was
proposed just last year and then the final rulemaking that was issued
just last month.
In last year's draft, what you saw was the EPA planning to ratchet
down to the Clean Air Act's actual threshold levels--to get down to the
250 tons per year--and to put that into effect over the course of the
next 5 years. Now the EPA is suggesting that it may exempt entire
sectors and never even reach the statutory limits. Think about it. What
happens then? That is when the lawsuits pop up. This is not going to
provide the level of certainty I think those in business are seeking.
What you will see is lawsuits as some sectors and some sources are
regulated while others are not. And I would suggest that difference
between the tailoring proposal from last year and where we are now is
driven not by the law but by fear of the political backlash out there--
the outrage from people all over the country in terms of the negative
economic impact to them and their families and their communities.
That is why it is tough to find an impartial legal expert who
believes this tailoring rule will actually hold up in court. Consider a
speech given last year by Judge David Tatel of the DC Circuit Court of
Appeals. This was a speech on how the EPA can avoid being sued over its
rulemakings. Judge Tatel said:
. . . whether or not agencies value neutral principles of
administrative law, courts do, and they will strike down
agency action that violates those principles--whatever the
President's party, however popular the administration, and no
matter how advisable the initiative.
Those were the comments from a DC Circuit judge specifically on this
issue as to how the EPA avoids lawsuits.
Let me move to the third area of concern I have with EPA moving to
regulate in the area of greenhouse gas emissions--the economic
consequences of EPA regulation. We have to ask the question: What
exactly are those consequences? Believe it or not, at this point in
time we still do not know because the EPA has refused to provide
projections of the economic impacts. In the various rulemakings out
there, the Agency has engaged in something of a shell game. They are
either hiding or they are simply not considering the economic cost.
The EPA has also ignored requests from Members of Congress. I have
asked them, and other Members of Congress have asked, to conduct this
very important analysis, but to this day the Agency still has not
provided anything close to a full projection of the economic impact its
economy-wide climate regulations will have.
I guess there were a couple of reasons. The EPA either has no cost
estimates or they know they are too astronomical to calculate, and they
do not want them released. My staff has had numerous briefings with EPA
officials, and they have been told essentially that we will not know
how much these regulations cost until the best available control
technologies are imposed on the regulated entities; that is, until the
EPA figures out how to deal with what it signed itself up for.
The problem is, the best available control technologies remain
completely undefined at this point. It could mean efficiency
improvements, expensive add-on technologies, or even fuel-switching
requirements. Over time, the EPA would have very little choice but to
impose all of those requirements and more, regardless of the
consequences.
Again, it is not hard to find this quite amazing and alarming. We
need to be growing our economy not paralyzing it. Everything we do
right now within this body should be focused on how we grow our
economy, how we grow the jobs from Maine to Alaska and points in
between. We know the national unemployment rate remains at almost 10
percent. Private sector job growth is anemic. Yet as millions of
Americans are doing everything they can just to find work, bureaucrats
in Washington, DC, are contemplating regulations that would destroy
these opportunities.
Worse still, the people of our States have no voice in this
bureaucratic process. They are on the verge of being subjected to
rules, subjected to regulations that will directly impact their lives,
their livelihoods, their economic opportunities, without ever having an
opportunity to express their concerns through their Representatives in
Congress.
That brings me to my final point. Politically accountable Members of
the House and the Senate, not unelected bureaucrats, must develop our
Nation's energy and climate policies. It is as direct as that. Those
policies must be able to pass on their own merits instead of serving as
a defense against ill-considered regulations.
I have said this before, but it bears repeating: Congress will not
pass--should not pass--bad legislation in order to stave off bad
regulations. We are neither incapable nor unwilling to legislate on
energy and environmental policy. We have demonstrated this in the past.
We did this with landmark environmental legislation such as the Clean
Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. We can,
we should, and we will deal with these environmental challenges that
face us. But forgoing legislation in favor of regulation would
sacrifice the priorities and protections that are sought by just about
every Member of the Senate.
The things that are being considered when we talk about climate
legislation are worker training, funding for clean
[[Page 10389]]
technologies, energy security enhancements, border adjustments,
manufacturing concessions--these would all go by the wayside if climate
policy is directed through regulation as opposed to legislation. There
will be no agricultural offsets, no free allowances, no banking, and no
borrowing under the Clean Air Act. There will be no funding for climate
research or adaptation, no protection for consumers, and no assistance
for businesses or workers.
I do understand some Members say they will only support climate
legislation that puts a price on emissions. They are frustrated that we
in the Senate have not done that--have not agreed to do that yet. But I
do not believe that mandating higher energy costs and imposing
regulations on consumers and businesses is the only way to solve this
challenge.
Some have likened the EPA regulation as the gun to the head of
Congress that will force us somehow to act more quickly on climate
legislation than we otherwise would. I think, sadly, a few Members of
the Senate have actually bought into this coercive strategy. Throughout
the yearlong debate on this issue--and it has been just about a year.
It was last September that I attempted to introduce legislation that
would put the EPA in a 1-year timeout. I was not allowed to bring that
measure to the Senate floor. But throughout this yearlong debate on the
issue, opponents have refused to discuss the actual impacts of EPA
regulation. So I want my colleagues to listen today, listen to the
debate. See if any opponents actually defend such regulation as being
good for America.
Instead, we are going to hear red herrings about science, about fuel
standards, about the oilspill. But as much as some would want it to be,
this debate is not about the science of climate change. It is not a
referendum on any other legislation that is pending in the Senate, nor
is it about fuel efficiency. The Department of Transportation is and
has been in charge for 35 years now, and we do not need another agency
and another standard thrown into the mix to do the same job.
We updated our Nation's CAFE standards less than 3 years ago to at
least 35 miles per gallon, and we left DOT in charge of their
administration. We also outlined a very rational process for standards
for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Every target set by this
administration can be met with existing authorities. As the Department
of Transportation has admitted, our resolution does not directly impact
their ability to regulate the efficiency and thus the greenhouse gas
emissions of motor vehicles.
There is one very small potential exception and that is air-
conditioning, but I have very little doubt that we would gladly provide
EPA with the specific authority to regulate those systems instead of
broad powers over our entire economy.
The EPA does not need to take over this process, and it should not be
allowed to do so under a law that was never intended to regulate fuel
economy. I understand concerns about a patchwork of standards and how
difficult it would be for the industry to comply. But while we had one
national standard at the start of 2009, we now have two national
standards set by two Federal agencies driven by California's standards.
I have a letter from the National Automobile Dealers Association dated
just yesterday that spells this out quite clearly. They indicate that
it in no way helps us to have, again, two national standards set by two
Federal agencies. The best way to avoid a messy patchwork would be to
pass our disapproval resolution, revoke California's waiver, and allow
one Federal agency to set one standard that works for all 50 States.
Bringing climate science, the oilspill, and fuel economy into this
debate are attempts at misdirection. They are red herrings that are
intended to convince Members to oppose the resolution of disapproval.
But this debate has nothing to do with those topics. It is about
finding the best approach to reduce emissions and defending against
policies that fail to strike an adequate balance between the
environment and our economy. It is about maintaining the separation of
powers between the legislative and the executive branches as our
Founding Fathers intended and rejecting an unprecedented overreach by
the EPA into the affairs of Congress. At its core, this is a debate
about jobs, about whether we should seek conditions that will lead to
their creation or enable policies that will destroy them.
This is our chance to make sure that Federal bureaucrats do not place
a new burden on millions of hard-working Americans at a time that they
cannot afford it and in a way they cannot reject. The time has come to
take the worst option for regulating greenhouse gases off the table
once and for all.
Under the procedures of the Congressional Review Act, I accordingly
move to proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 26. I encourage
Members of this Chamber to support debate on this measure and to vote
in favor of both the motion to proceed and final passage.
I know under the unanimous consent agreement, this morning and
throughout the day it is 30 minutes per side. I am not certain how much
time I have consumed this morning, if the chair can instruct me?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I know Senator Lincoln was hoping to come over this
morning. What I will do at this point in time, if I may reserve those 2
minutes, seeing that Senator Lincoln is not yet here, we can move to
the Democratic side of the aisle, if Senator Boxer is ready to proceed.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The motion having been made, under the previous order there will now
be up to 5\1/2\ hours of debate on the motion to proceed with the time
divided and controlled, in alternating 30-minute blocks, by the Senator
from California and Senator from Alaska.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, this is a very important debate. The
Murkowski resolution we are considering today would overturn the
endangerment finding developed by scientists and health experts in both
the Bush and Obama administrations that too much carbon pollution in
the air is dangerous--dangerous for our families, dangerous for our
environment. Imagine, 100 Senators--not scientists, not health
experts--deciding what pollutant is dangerous and what pollutant is
not. Personally, I believe it is ridiculous for politicians, elected
Senators, to make this scientific decision. It is not our expertise; it
is not our purview.
The Murkowski resolution threatens jobs, jobs that we need, that are
made in America for America.
Our hearts break every day that we look at what is happening in the
Gulf. It seems to me more than ironic that Senator Murkowski is
advocating repealing the scientific finding that too much carbon
pollution in the air is dangerous, at the same time every American sees
graphic evidence on television every single day of the deadly carbon
pollution in the Gulf of Mexico.
We see here in the saddest pictures what too much carbon-based
pollution does in water, what it does to our shorelines, what it does
to our beaches, what it does to our wetlands. I will show a couple of
other photographs. They are almost too painful.
But what we do here has consequences. And for someone to come to this
floor and say too much carbon is not dangerous, then I am sorry, we are
going to have to look at these pictures even though we do not want to.
We know the devastation this causes. Our eyes do not deceive us.
This horrific spill in the gulf has disrupted the lives of hundreds
of thousands of people employed by fishing industries, tourism
industries, recreation industries along the gulf coast. So, yes, this
resolution, this Murkowski resolution, is about jobs.
Yesterday, Madam President, in your committee on which you serve--and
I am so proud to have you as a member of the committee, the Environment
and Public Works Committee--we heard from Captain Michael Frenette. He
owns the Redfish Lodge in Venice, LA. He shared with us the terrible
pain, both personal and economic, that
[[Page 10390]]
the people of the gulf region are living through.
This is what he said:
The possibility truly exists for many livelihoods to cease;
livelihoods that have existed for generations and now are on
the brink of financial disaster because of poor decisions by
a supercorporate entity that has created the worst oilspill
in history off the coast of Louisiana.
This spill is threatening the $18 billion in economic activity
generated by fishing, tourism, and recreation on the gulf coast. The
economic damage in the gulf could last for years to come, although we
will, of course, do everything in our power to mitigate that damage.
I want to show you the pictures of the unspoiled California coastline
and talk a moment about our coastal economy. Ever since I have been
elected to public life--I was a county official, then a House Member,
and then the greatest privilege of all, to serve in this body--I have
fought to protect our coasts. I have fought to protect our coasts
because I believe they are a gift from God. I believe it is our
responsibility to protect that gift and to leave that gift for future
generations. I have fought to protect that coast and I have fought to
protect those businesses, the businesses that depend on it.
There are so many other beautiful areas such as this along our
Pacific coastline--spectacular rocky islands, sandy beaches, estuaries.
We must preserve these treasures.
Now $23 billion is the economic activity that supports 388,000 jobs
off the coast in California. In my home State, our 19 coastal counties
account for 86 percent of the State's annual activity, for more than $1
trillion. We must move to clean energy, to protect our environment, to
protect our jobs. We have to move away from the old ways.
No one can tell the American people that carbon is not a danger,
because they have seen it every day of this spill. To say there is no
danger, and that is what we would be saying today, is absolutely
contrary to everything people are seeing every day, and do it for big
oil. That is what this is about. Big oil backs the Murkowski
resolution.
So whose side are we on? Are we on the side of the people? Are we on
the side of clean energy jobs? Are we on the side of the lobbyists and
special interests that are behind this resolution?
How does the Murkowski resolution threaten clean energy jobs? We know
that to move forward with smart regulation of this pollutant, you have
to have the endangerment finding. It is the predicate for moving
forward. Therefore, it is the predicate for the incentives that will
come for clean energy technology.
We must transition away from those old polluting sources of energy.
We must look toward the future with optimism. And, again, all you have
to do is look at the gulf. That is the irony of the timing of this
Murkowski resolution.
I think when the timing was set, it was before the gulf spill. But
the gulf spill tells us why the Murkowski resolution is so wrong. To
repeal an endangerment finding, straightforward, made by health experts
in the Bush administration, scientists in the Bush administration,
health experts in the Obama administration, scientists in the Obama
administration, for 100 elected people, with no expertise to say, we
know more than the scientists in the Bush and Obama administrations, we
know more than the health experts in the Bush and Obama administrations
is the height of hubris. It is wrong. I know we all feel that we have
powerful positions here. We have no right to do this. What is next?
What are we going to do next, repeal the laws of gravity? If we start
down this path, there is no end in sight. Any Senator can decide that
she or he knows more than the scientists. Maybe we will say the Earth
is flat and come down here and argue that one too.
Everyone knows we are not going to move away from the old energies
overnight. We need to work together to make sure we do it right. But we
need to move, move toward a clean energy economy, and the good jobs
that come with it. This will set us back on purpose. On purpose.
Because the very people who are bringing you this have not come forward
with any bill to move us away from these old energies. They are
stopping us from doing it. They admit it.
Let's hear what John Doerr, who is one of the leading venture
capitalists in this country and in the world--he helped launch Google,
he helped launch Amazon. He tells me that more private capital moves
through the economy in a day than all of the governments of the world
in a year. This is where we are going to get the stimulus money to grow
jobs.
He told us that clean energy legislation is the spark we need to
restore America's leadership. He predicted that the investments that
flow into clean energy would dwarf the amount invested in high-tech and
biotech combined.
Mr. Doerr said:
Going green may be the largest economic opportunity of the
21st century. It is the mother of all markets.
We can either believe the oil lobbyists or we can believe the people
on the ground who have shown that they know where the economic
opportunities are. If we go this route, and we repeal this endangerment
finding, you are moving away from clean energy. You are moving away
from these opportunities. You are moving away from these technologies
that will be made in America for America and, frankly, the technologies
the whole world wants.
A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trust found that 125,000 jobs
were generated during the period of 1998 to 2007 in my home State.
Those jobs, those clean energy jobs, were generated 15 percent faster
than the economy as a whole, and 10,000 new clean energy businesses
were launched in that period. So when we look back at California, what
do we see? We see the greatest area of job growth and new businesses is
clean energy. What a tragedy. If we pass this today, and it were to
become law--which I doubt, but it could, and that is its purpose--we
would completely walk away from America's leadership in clean
technology, turning our backs on the leading venture capitalists in our
Nation who are telling us, do not do this.
Nationwide, Pew found that jobs in the clean energy economy grew much
faster than traditional jobs. Clean energy jobs grew at a national rate
of 9.1 percent, compared to 3.7 percent for traditional jobs between
1998 and 2007. So if you do not want to believe John Doerr--but I
suggest you do, because he founded Amazon and Google, he funded them--
let's listen to Thomas Friedman. His book is, ``Hot, Flat and
Crowded.'' Here is what the central theme is:
The ability to develop clean power and energy efficient
technology is going to become the defining measure of a
country's economic standing, environmental health, energy
security, and national security over the next 50 years.
As I said, the EPA finding that too much carbon pollution is
dangerous for our people and our environment is the key incentive to
moving forward toward our clean energy economy. It is the basis upon
which we move forward. It is the basis upon which we see their
incentives then in place for clean energy technologies.
If this finding were eliminated under the Murkowski resolution, not
only would it be, I believe, a worldwide embarrassment that the Senate
is now taking to repealing health findings and scientific findings, but
it would stop in its tracks the economic opportunities that come from
clean energy technology.
We cannot ignore the basic finding that is made in this endangerment
finding that carbon pollution in the air presents a very serious
danger, threatening the health of our families, our quality of life,
and our natural resources. I guess if we pass the Murkowski resolution,
there would not be any danger anymore because we said so. I mean, you
know, we can pass a resolution that says there should not be any more
rain, and I guess then there would not be any more rain. We cannot
ignore the basic scientific conclusion in that endangerment finding. If
we were to do this, it would be extraordinary and unprecedented.
In 2007, the Supreme Court was clear when it ruled that carbon
pollution and
[[Page 10391]]
other greenhouse gas emissions are air pollutants, and they directed
the EPA to determine whether this pollution endangers our health. So
EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency--and I want to say to my
colleagues, it is not the Environmental Pollution Agency. If you want
to create an Environmental Pollution Agency, let's have a vote on that.
It is the Environmental Protection Agency.
They are not supposed to be influenced by the politics of the day, as
you know. They are charged with protecting the health of the kids, of
our families, of our senior citizens, whether they are in Alaska,
California, New York, or anyplace else in America. They are not the
Environmental Pollution Agency. As much as big oil would like to
dictate to them, they are not going to be dictated to by big oil.
By the way, the EPA was set up by Richard Nixon. Let's be clear here.
Some of the officials from these States, Republicans, have weighed in
against the Murkowski resolution and we will show that in a bit here.
EPA did what they were directed to do by the court. They had to do
what the scientists and the health experts told them to do. Again, the
Murkowski resolution would overturn these findings. Leading scientists,
physicians, and many others agree with the finding and have told us how
much damage carbon pollution in the atmosphere can do. That is why they
have stated their strong opposition to the Murkowski resolution.
Less than a month ago, the National Research Council, which is an arm
of the National Academy of Sciences comprised of America's leading
scientists, concluded that climate change is occurring. It is caused
largely by human activities, and it poses significant risks for and is
already affecting a broad range of human and natural systems. The
National Research Council further concluded that changes in climate
pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems,
including freshwater resources, the coastal environment, ecosystems,
agriculture, fisheries, human health, and national security.
EPA Administrators under Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan oppose
the Murkowski resolution. Let's be clear. This should not be a partisan
issue. It may wind up being that, but it should not.
Russell Train, EPA Administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford,
writes: I urge the Senate to reject this and any other legislation that
would weaken the Clean Air Act or curtail the authority of the
Environmental Protection Agency to implements its provisions.
William Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator under Presidents Nixon and
Reagan, said: Thanks to the 2007 Supreme Court decision on global
warming, EPA clearly has the right to regulate carbon. Anyone who would
take away that power--it is a terrible idea.
William Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator under Nixon and Reagan, said
the Murkowski resolution is a terrible idea because this is the way we
are going to address the problem of climate change.
Eighteen hundred scientists wrote to us opposing efforts to overturn
this endangerment finding. In a letter to us, these scientists wrote:
We the undersigned urge you to oppose an imminent attack on the Clean
Air Act which would undermine public health and prevent action on
global warming.
They go on to say: EPA's finding is based on solid science. This
amendment represents a rejection of that science.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter
signed by 1800 scientists.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Protect the Clean Air Act
(A letter signed by 1,806 U.S. Scientists)
Dear Congress: We the undersigned urge you to oppose an
imminent attack on the Clean Air Act (CAA) that would
undermine public health and prevent action on global warming.
This attack comes in the form of House and Senate binding
resolutions that would reverse the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) finding that global warming endangers public
health and welfare. Because the EPA's finding is based on
solid science, this legislation also represents a rejection
of that science.
The EPA's ``endangerment finding'' is based on an
exhaustive review of the massive body of scientific research
showing a clear threat from climate change. The 2007 Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change found that global warming will cause water shortages,
loss of species, hazards to coasts from sea level rise, and
an increase in the severity of extreme weather events. The
most recent science includes findings that sea level rise may
be more pronounced than the IPCC report predicted and that
oceans will absorb less of our future emissions. Recently, 18
American scientific societies sent a letter to the U.S.
Senate confirming the consensus view on climate science and
calling for action to reduce greenhouse gases ``if we are to
avoid the most severe impacts of climate change.'' The U.S.
National Academy of Sciences and 10 international scientific
academies have also released such statements. Unfortunately,
the Murkowski amendment would force the EPA to ignore these
scientific findings and statements.
The CAA is a law with a nearly 40-year track record of
protecting public health and the environment and spurring
innovation by cutting dangerous pollution. This effective
policy can help address the threat of climate change--but
only if the EPA retains its ability to respond to scientific
findings. Instead of standing in the way of climate action,
the Senate should move quickly to enact climate and energy
legislation that will curb global warming, save consumers
money, and create jobs. In the meantime, I urge you to
respect the scientific integrity of the EPA's endangerment
finding by opposing Senator Murkowski's attack on the Clean
Air Act.
Mrs. BOXER. I also wish to display the public health organizations
that oppose the Murkowski resolution.
We have to decide whom we want to listen to. Do we want to listen to
big oil or politicians or do we want to listen to public health
organizations that oppose the Murkowski resolution? I ask the American
people to determine which side they are on--the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the Children's Environmental Health Network, the American
Nurses Association, the American Lung Association, the American Public
Health Association, the National Association of County and City Health
Officials, Trust for America's Health, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, National Environmental Health Association, American
College of Preventative Medicine, American Thoracic Society, the
Association of Public Health Laboratories, the Association of Schools
of Public Health, the Hepatitis Foundation International, the Union of
Concerned Scientists. Again, we have included for the record the
scientists, 1,800 of whom signed a letter to us opposing this.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter signed
by these entities as well as a separate letter from the American Lung
Association.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
February 23, 2010.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: The undersigned national organizations, with
a strong commitment to environmental public health issues,
write in opposition to a potential amendment or ``Resolution
of Disapproval'' by Senator Lisa Murkowski that would
overturn or temporarily block the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) endangerment finding for six
greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.
On December 7, 2009, EPA issued final findings that the
greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change constitute
a danger to public health and welfare. Some of the publc
health effects of climate change cited in EPA's announcement
include: increased likelihood of more frequent and intense
heat waves, more wildfires, degraded air quality, more
flooding, increased drought, more intense storms, harm to
water resources and harm to agriculture. Given the serious
public health implications of increasing greeenhouse gas
concentrations, we believe overturning EPA's endangerment
finding is bad public health policy.
We strongly urge you to oppose any amendmenmt or Resolution
of Disapproval to overturn or restrict EPAs greenhouse gas
endangerment finding.
Sincerely,
American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of
Preventive Medicine; American Public Health
Association; American Thoracic Society; Association of
Public Health Laboratories; Association of Schools of
Public Health; Children's Environmental Health Network;
Hepatitis Foundation International; National
Association of
[[Page 10392]]
County and City Health Officials; National
Environmental Health Association; Physicians for Social
Responsibility; Trust for America's Health.
____
American Lung Association,
January 26, 2010.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the American Lung Association, I
write in support of the Clean Air Act and the implementation
of the law by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The
American Lung Association urges the Senate to reject Senator
Lisa Murkowski's Resolution of Disapproval (S.J. Res 26).
The resolution would block the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Supreme Court-directed endangerment
finding that is required under Clean Air Act. EPA made this
endangerment finding after a careful review of science and an
extensive public comment process.
Specifically EPA concluded: ``Pursuant to CAA section
202(a), the Administrator finds that greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger
public health and to endanger public welfare.'' (emphasis
added)
The Senate must not vote to ignore the scientific evidence
and reject its clear conclusions. The Clean Air Act mandates
that the Environmental Protection Agency follow the science
and then implement the law accordingly. The Resolution of
Disapproval is a cynical attempt to disregard the science and
block the enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
Since its passage in 1970, the Clean Air Act has been the
nation's premier public health and environmental protection
statute. The Clean Air Act is predicated on the protection of
public health. Its implementation is grounded in sound
science. The American Lung Association is a staunch supporter
of this public health statute because of the enormous impact
that air pollution has on public health and the tremendous
improvements in the nation's air quality that have resulted
from this law.
The protection of public health is critically important.
EPA has found that climate change will make attainment and
maintenance of national ambient air quality standards more
difficult as well as more frequent and more intense heat
waves and other events that adversely impact respiratory
health. The American Lung Association urges the Senate to
support the Clean Air Act and reject S.J. Res 26.
Sincerely,
Charles D. Connor,
President & CEO.
Mrs. BOXER. These are the experts. These are the people we rely on
when our children get sick. They don't take them, with all due respect,
to Senator Boxer for a checkup or Senator Murkowski for a checkup. They
go to the pediatrician. The pediatricians oppose the Murkowski
resolution. They are afraid of it because they know who is behind it.
They know it is the special polluting interests, the big polluters who
give big money to politicians. They know that. They are smart.
Let's be clear. We have on our side the people who are responsible
for taking care of our kids, taking care of families, looking out for
their health. They don't have any political skin in this game. They
don't have any special interest in this game. They have one concern--
the health of our families.
Overturning a scientific finding that states that carbon pollution is
a threat to the health and well-being of the American public is a
dangerous step. It would lead us down a perilous road that sets a
precedent for appealing other scientific findings. I talked a little
bit about that.
I want to talk specifically about two other findings that maybe one
day any Senator, on either side of the aisle, could seek to repeal.
Imagine if we had done this on lead, lead and children.
In 1973, EPA did what it had to do and issued an endangerment finding
for lead in gasoline. At the time, the lead endangerment decision was
controversial. This was the EPA under Richard Nixon. They said there
was too much lead in gasoline. They said it was a danger to our kids.
They said it would cause harm to the brains of our children. So the
Administrator under Richard Nixon, William Ruckelshaus--who opposes the
Murkowski resolution today--reached the conclusion that lead presented
a significant risk of harm to the health of our population,
particularly our children. What if a Member of Congress came down and
said: We are going to overturn that. We don't like that rule. We don't
like that finding. We disagree. We don't think it causes a problem. Can
my colleagues imagine what would have happened? We would have seen the
phase down of lead in gasoline delayed for a decade or more, leaving
another generation of Americans exposed to serious health threats. We
would have seen hundreds of thousands more children with impaired
mental function. That is a fact. It may be a fact the other side
doesn't want to hear, but it is a fact. That is why we have former
members of the Nixon administration opposing the Murkowski resolution.
Let's look at the science behind the dangers of smoking. What would
have happened if people didn't agree with Surgeon General Everett
Koop--another Republican administration--and they came down and said:
Well, we are going to speak for the tobacco companies here. Let's
repeal that. Nicotine isn't a problem, not a problem at all. Let's just
overturn that health finding.
Again, I ask my colleagues do they want to stand with the health
experts, the lung association, the pediatricians, the nurses, or do
they want to stand with the powerful special interests? It is a simple
question. Every Member has to answer that.
We have to stop this attack on science and health. We have to stop
this attack on the safety of our citizens. Our families come first.
I think it is important to note that overturning this endangerment
finding--supporting the Murkowski resolution--is opposed by the auto
industry and the autoworkers. This is what they tell us. We are
spending $1 billion a day importing foreign oil. Do Members like that?
Then vote for the Murkowski resolution. It is going to set us back. We
won't get off foreign oil if we go down this path.
This is why we have the automakers opposing Murkowski: On behalf of
the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and its 11 member companies, I
am writing to express concern over the proposed resolutions of
disapproval. If these resolutions are enacted, the historic agreement
creating the one national program for regulating vehicle fuel economy
and greenhouse gas emissions would collapse.
The autoworkers are asking us not to do this. Let's see what they
say: The UAW is deeply concerned that overturning EPA's endangerment
finding would unravel the historic agreement on one national standard
for fuel economy. And they go on.
Clearly, we are at a point where we are finally seeing the auto
industry come back to life. Let's not pass the Murkowski resolution and
get them off track. After all the debate and all the arguments, I know
the Senators from Michigan care deeply about what is happening to their
autoworkers and their auto companies. We are very clear here what side
they are on.
In summary, the Murkowski resolution would upend a historic agreement
between auto companies, autoworkers, environmental groups, leading
States such as California that formed the foundation of the recent EPA
and DOT standards.
I am going to include for the Record a host of quotes from our
national security experts who tell us that carbon pollution leading to
climate change will be, over the next 20 years, the leading cause of
conflict putting our troops in harm's way. That is why we have so many
returning veterans who want us to move forward and address this issue
so we can create the new technologies that get us off this foreign oil.
Every time we import oil, we hurt ourselves. We have to get off these
old energy sources. It is a transition. It is not going to happen
overnight. But if we do things such as the Murkowski resolution, we
will create chaos. We are going to see jobs lost. We are going to see
us continue in an economic situation that has no new paradigm for
economic growth, as we have learned from our venture capitalists, as we
have learned from analysts, such as Thomas Friedman, who are so clear
on this point.
The question before us is this: Will we protect the people we
represent from dangerous pollution or will we choose to reject science?
Will we choose to ignore the findings of the scientific community, the
public health officials, and national security experts?
If we care about jobs--I know the Presiding Officer does--if we care
about moving to a clean energy economy, if Members care about health,
if
[[Page 10393]]
they care about our environment and our natural resources, then they
should vote no on proceeding to this resolution.
I hope we will carry the day. I know it will be close. But I have to
tell my colleagues, this is a significant moment for the Senate because
if we move down this path, ``Katy, bar the door.'' Any resolution, any
health finding, any scientific finding is subject to politics. I would
have thought that in the Senate, we might disagree with how to deal
with the scientific finding--in other words, what kinds of rules and
regulations should come out of it--but not to repeal the scientific
finding itself. That would be unprecedented in the worst of ways.
I have used my time, the first half hour; am I correct?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 10 seconds
remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have a number of fantastic speakers we
will hear from in the next ensuing time.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, at this time on the Republican side,
I ask unanimous consent that for this next half hour, the order be
Senator Lincoln for 7 minutes, followed by Senator Inhofe at 13
minutes, Senator Voinovich for 7, and Senator Graham for 5 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I rise today in support of S.J. Res.
26, Senator Murkowski's resolution of disapproval.
First, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Senator
Murkowski, for her leadership to prevent this heavy-handed EPA
regulation of carbon emissions. I am proud to be part of a bipartisan
group of Senators cosponsoring the resolution because I do believe
EPA's regulatory approach is the wrong way to promote renewable energy
and clean energy jobs in Arkansas and the rest of the country.
Allowing the courts and EPA to use the Clean Air Act to regulate
greenhouse gases is truly misguided. It would threaten valuable jobs
during an economic downturn, and it has the potential of actually
discouraging the use of clean, renewable energy that is already helping
to keep people working today.
But, first, let me say a few words on the energy challenges facing
our Nation. We have committed to ambitious renewable fuel goals, and I
have supported efforts to set a national renewable energy standard.
Just last June we passed a bipartisan energy bill out of the Senate
Energy Committee, and I was very proud of that bill and hoped we would
move forward on it.
In order to meet these goals and prosper in the 21st century, we must
develop clean domestic energy supplies. This means developing all
sources of energy--everything from wind, to natural gas, to, of course,
biofuels.
My home State of Arkansas is already leading in this effort. Wind
turbines and blades are manufactured in my home State of Arkansas,
providing hundreds of green jobs to Arkansans. These include Nordex, LM
Wind Power, Polymarin Composites, and Mitsubishi.
Arkansas is also home to the Fayetteville Shale, where clean burning
natural gas has provided an enormous boost to the economy of central
and north central Arkansas, producing jobs in a huge part of what has
been positive for our economy.
Arkansas companies such as Future Fuel in Batesville, AR, are
producing huge amounts of biodiesel, helping our Nation to meet the
renewable fuel targets set forth in the 2007 Energy bill, not to
mention their advanced battery technologies that they are researching
and building upon.
Our wood and paper industry produces about two-thirds of the energy
it needs from renewable forest biomass, providing and sustaining tens
of thousands of jobs in the process. Facilities that range from small
sawmills such as Bean Lumber in Glenwood and huge paper mills such as
Domtar in Ashdown have taken steps to increase their use of renewable
energy in recent years, saving thousands of critical jobs in the
process.
These efforts in Arkansas, and similar efforts all around our
country, are leading the way toward a clean energy future--one that
reduces our emissions, reduces our dependency on foreign oil, and
provides economic opportunity and jobs to so many of our citizens.
Unfortunately, EPA regulation of greenhouse gases does not move us
any closer to a clean energy future or to reducing our dependency on
foreign oil. Furthermore, it is simply the wrong tool for addressing
greenhouse gas emissions.
Congress, the elected representatives of the people of this Nation--
not unelected bureaucrats--should be making the complicated,
multifaceted decisions on energy and climate policy. Furthermore, it is
a widely shared view that the Clean Air Act, with its command-and-
control approach to regulating air emissions, is the wrong fit for
addressing greenhouse gas emissions.
One example of the way the EPA's approach to regulating carbon
emissions does wrong is the way the proposed tailoring rule treats
emissions from biomass energy. The tailoring rule equates carbon
emissions from renewable energy with fossil fuel emissions. This is not
consistent with years of internationally accepted policy, and it could
penalize important industries and cost thousands of jobs, including
some 10,000 direct and thousands of additional indirect jobs in our
State of Arkansas.
As chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
I am also concerned about the effects EPA's regulation of greenhouse
gases will have on production agriculture and domestic food security.
The hard-working farm families of this great Nation produce the
safest, most abundant, affordable supply of food and fiber in the
world, and they do it with greater respect to the environment than any
other growers across the globe. For every one American mouth we feed,
we feed 20 mouths globally, and it is critical we make sure we maintain
the ability to do that.
According to a recent University of Tennessee economic analysis, EPA
regulation will result in billions of dollars in losses in net returns
for agriculture from 2010 to 2015, with the largest declines occurring
in crops grown in our State of Arkansas, such as soybeans, cotton, and
rice. These figures are frightening for agriculture in our State,
particularly during a time of recession.
Furthermore, over 100 agricultural groups have expressed their
concerns with EPA regulation of carbon and expressed their support of
the Murkowski resolution. These groups include national associations
for wheat, dairy, corn, cotton, rice, poultry, beef, pork, and eggs.
These groups also include many specialty crop growers as well.
I also want to speak for a moment about what this resolution does not
do. Some think this resolution weakens the Clean Air Act. It would not
amend or otherwise affect the plain language of the Clean Air Act. It
would not change or in any other way alter the words within the
existing statute.
My colleagues and I are concerned about what will follow EPA's
decision to release the endangerment finding--a unilaterally imposed
all-sticks-no-carrot policy that actually discourages renewable energy
use and penalizes those industries that have acted early to adopt clean
energy technologies.
That is not the direction in which we want to go. We know,
desperately, that we want to lower our carbon emissions, lessen our
dependence on foreign oil, and create good, green jobs. This attempt,
overreach, and this action by unelected bureaucrats at EPA is not going
to help us achieve those goals.
Lastly, let me address a criticism heard in recent days: that a vote
for the Murkowski resolution is a bailout or somehow a boon for big oil
in the wake of the tragic oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. Nothing could
be further from the truth.
[[Page 10394]]
These critics would like the public to believe that opposing EPA
regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is somehow related to the
oilspill. Nothing could be further from the truth. We all know the
British Petroleum spill in the Gulf of Mexico needs to be addressed
through legislation that ensures the safety, effectiveness, and
sustainability of oil and other resource extractions--as we will very
soon. We are all concerned about what has happened in the gulf.
I certainly know, as a neighbor to the north of Louisiana, and one
whose economic livelihood depends on the Port of New Orleans--not to
mention the wonderful natural resources that we partner with the State
of Louisiana in trying to preserve--this is a horrific circumstance
that exists there, and we are all going to do everything we can not
only to provide the cleanup but to ensure this kind of catastrophe
never happens again.
But this issue is separate from the EPA regulation of greenhouse
gases. I do not know, in my recent election if people had listened to
what was on the TV, they would have thought I single-handedly was
responsible for what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not where
we solve that problem. We have much to do there and we should do it and
I am all about getting about that business.
What would EPA regulations affect? I think that is the question we
have before us. In Arkansas, it would affect manufacturers and their
employees.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an
additional 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. LINCOLN. In Arkansas, it would affect manufacturers and their
employees: facilities such as Great Lakes Chemicals in El Dorado, Green
Bay Packing in Morrilton, Nucor Steel in Blytheville, Georgia Pacific
in Crossett, FutureFuel Chemical Company in Batesville, and Riceland
Foods in Stuttgart.
These Arkansas facilities, employing several thousand people,
supporting families with good-paying jobs, would be threatened by EPA
regulation of greenhouse gases. That is why I encourage my Senate
colleagues, with similar consequences facing their States, to vote for
this resolution.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding I have 13
minutes. I would like to have the Acting President pro tempore tell me
when I have 1 minute left.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Of course.
Mr. INHOFE. That is kind of interesting because I have probably
talked on this subject over the last 7 years for 200 or 300 hours, and
I never had any trouble before getting time. It lets you know there is
an awakening in the people who are looking at this particular vote that
we are going to have today. Many of them believe in their hearts that
anthropogenic gases cause global warming. I do not believe that. And
there is everyone in between. The point is not that. It is, do we
really want to have this bureaucracy?
Let me just comment. I was here when my good friend, Senator Boxer,
was making her comments. That was very interesting because she spent
three-fourths of her time talking about the oilspill. Let me say, there
is no relationship between this and the oilspill. There is no reason to
talk about them in the same speech.
When they talk about big oil--as she said, ``big oil has all this
control''--well, big oil is BP. The last I checked, BP is very much
involved with the majority, with the White House. In fact, I went and
checked. I found out in my last Senate race, I was given $2,000 by BP.
And I checked, in the last Senate race, which was the first Senate race
by then-Senator Obama, he got three times as much money as I did. Now
we find out that during the Kerry-Lieberman bill that has been talked
about quite a bit, BP has been behind closed doors with them. Everybody
knows this.
Now, it is not big oil behind this bill. Behind this bill you have
the American Association of Housing Services for the Aging, Family
Dairies USA, the Farm Bureau, the National Federation of Independent
Business, the Brick Industry Association--all of these organizations,
wholesome American organizations that are behind this issue because
they do not want us to give up all the freedoms we would have to give
up.
When Senator Lincoln was talking about the tailoring rule, I know
there has been a problem with those who are pushing for the
endangerment finding, trying to make everybody believe that somehow it
was not going to happen to anyone except some of the big industries,
the refiners, the big manufacturers. No, the tailoring rule they are
talking about is something that unilaterally they thought they would be
able to get by with without anyone even noticing it, when, in fact, the
Clean Air Act very simply says the emission of 250 tons in a period of
a year.
Now, 250 tons, that is every farm in my State of Oklahoma. That is
every church. So it covers everyone. But let me go back in this brief
period of time and try to put this in perspective. Eleven years ago we
had the Kyoto Treaty. This is the big treaty then-Vice President Gore
wanted the American people to have to ratify. They wanted to bring it
to the Senate for ratification. They did sign that treaty, but it never
came up for ratification.
Do you want to know why? It did not come up because at that time it
was so objectionable that we had a resolution that passed on the floor
of this Senate 95 to 0--not one dissenting vote--saying: We do not want
to be part of any movement or bill or treaty that treats developing
nations differently than developed nations. That is exactly what it
did. That resolution also said we do not want to ratify any treaty or
pass anything that is going to be an economic hardship for the United
States of America. Obviously, this was the case.
So we set the stage 11 years ago. Now we are facing this same thing
again. I have to say that when Republicans were a majority, I chaired
the Environment and Public Works Committee, which had the jurisdiction
over most of this stuff we are talking about today. I have to also say,
back then I honestly, in my heart, believed the anthropogenic gases,
the CO2, the methane, caused global warming because everyone
said it did--catastrophic global warming. Now they do not call it that
anymore since we are in the eighth year of a cooling period. They say
``climate change.'' That sounds a little bit more palatable.
But I can remember when I did believe that, until we started looking
at the various bills that came up. We have voted in this Chamber five
times on cap-and-trade bills, starting right about 2002 and up to the
present day, and there is one pending today. During that period of
time, we started looking at it and realizing what it would cost. The
first analysis of what cap and trade would cost--and the same thing
goes for the EPA under their regulations--would have been somewhere
between $300 billion and $400 billion.
When we calculate that, in my State of Oklahoma--I always do the
math--if we take the number of families who file tax returns, that
would have been $3,100--not once but every year. So with that type of
thing, looking at it, I thought: Well, as chairman of this committee,
maybe we ought to look and be sure the science is accurate, the science
is there. So we started looking at it and finding out this whole thing
started--let's keep in mind, it started with the United Nations, the
IPCC. That is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They then
were joined by all these Hollywood elites--moveon.org, George Soros,
Michael Moore, and all these groups--until we realized they were
pushing this, but the science was flawed.
I first made my statement on the Senate floor in 2002 that created
some doubt in a lot of people's minds as to the accuracy of the science
that the IPCC was putting together. There had been inquiries by many
quality scientists who had said they rejected our input. We don't have
any kind of an input in this issue, unless you agree
[[Page 10395]]
with the United Nations and the IPCC, that categorically it is causing
catastrophic global warming. Then they didn't let the scientists have
their input.
So we started gathering all of this information. People were coming
to me saying: This is a fraud. I gathered enough material that 7 years
ago this month, I made a speech and I said the notion that
anthropogenic gases, that CO2 causes catastrophic global
warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.
Then the scientists started coming in with their stuff. I would suggest
that a lot of people don't agree with what I just said, so they ought
to look at my Web site.
Five years ago I made a speech and I talked about all the scientists
who were coming forward. As it turned out, when climategate came,
essentially it was the same thing I said 5 years ago. The scare tactics
we hear from Senator Boxer that this is all about the gulf, the
oilspill, and all of that stuff, this is what they have been using. If
we take Al Gore's science fiction movie and the IPCC and look at all of
the assertions they made in this movie and the IPCC has made, every one
has been refuted.
I can't find one assertion that has now not been refuted: melt
Himalayan glaciers by 2035, not true; endanger 40 percent of the Amazon
rain forests, not true; melt mountain ice in the Alps, Andes, and
Africa, not true; deplete water resources for 4.5 billion people by
2085, totally refuted; slash crop production by 50 percent in North
Africa by 2020; 55 percent of the Netherlands lies below sea level.
I can remember when Vice President Gore--no, it was after he was Vice
President--we had a hearing in our committee, and we had several of the
parents of young kids coming to us and saying: You know, my young
child, my elementary age child is forced to watch this movie once a
month, and they have been having nightmares and all of this stuff. So a
lot of damage was done at that time.
But when we get back to what we are faced with today, we are faced
with something they tried to pass. This administration has tried ever
since they came in to pass cap-and-trade. A cap-and-trade, logically,
you would say: Well, if you want to cut down on greenhouse gases, why
not put a tax on CO2?
The reason they don't do that is because then people would know what
it is costing them. So there were all of these cap-and-trade bills that
came up, and they were not able to pass them. So this administration
said, I am sure--I wasn't in the meeting; I am not invited to those
meetings of the President--but they said: We can't get it passed in
Congress. We can't get it passed in the House or the Senate, so let's
go ahead and do it. We will just run over them with the administration.
So they said: We are going to have an endangerment finding.
This is kind of interesting because right before going to
Copenhagen--and for those of you who don't know this, once a year the
U.N. throws a great big party and everybody goes to some exotic place
and they try to sell the idea that we need to have this international
treaty and, of course, it hasn't happened. Before Copenhagen--that was
in December of this past year I can remember that we had--I suspected
they would have an endangerment finding right while we were in
Copenhagen to make it sound as though we were going to do something in
the United States. In fact, I went over as a one-man truth squad and
had a pretty good time.
Anyway, on the endangerment finding, Lisa Jackson, who is the
Administrator of the EPA, an appointee of Obama, testified. I said to
her: You know, Madam Administrator, this is live on TV. I suspect what
is going to happen is that you are going to have an endangerment
finding and try to take this over and do all of these punitive things
to America under the Clean Air Act. If there is an endangerment
finding, it has to be based on science. What science would you use if
you are going to have an endangerment finding?
The answer was, It is going to be the IPCC, primarily, and that is
the very science that climategate used when it came along, and it has
been pretty much debunked. In fact, it was characterized in Great
Britain as the greatest political scandal in the history of our
country.
So, anyway, the endangerment finding was all based on that, and that
is where we find ourselves today. So I would say this: I only talk
about the science. I don't like to talk about the science because I
know people don't understand it. But I did it because if you are one of
those--and I say this to the Chair; I say this to anyone who might be
listening at this time--if you believe that anthropogenic gas causes
catastrophic global warming and climate change, then what would this do
to remedy that? Well, the answer is nothing because the same Lisa
Jackson who testified before our committee when I asked her this
question--
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Madam President.
I said: If we were to pass this, any of these cap-and-trade bills, or
if we were to do this through the Clean Air Act through the
Environmental Protection Agency, how much would that reduce the
worldwide CO2 emissions?
Her answer was, Well, it wouldn't reduce it because this would only
apply to the United States.
What I am saying is, if you want to invoke all of this money spent,
all of this cost on the American people, on every farmer in America,
even if you believe the concept is there, it still wouldn't reduce the
emissions. You could argue it could increase the emissions because our
manufacturing base would have to go to places such as China, India,
Mexico, places that didn't have the standards we have, and it would
have the effect of increasing--actually increasing--CO2.
So I just hope those individuals will realize if they think the
problem is real, this isn't going to solve it.
I yield back.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the
bipartisan resolution to disapprove EPA's endangerment finding, S.J.
Res. 26.
First of all, I am not here as a climate skeptic. I believe we should
reduce emissions, but the steps we take must balance our Nation's
energy and economic needs.
Climate change is a global environmental issue that cannot be solved
by America acting alone. EPA's own data shows us that unless the
rapidly expanding economies of China and India reduce emissions, U.S.
action will have no impact on global temperatures.
It is widely acknowledged that regulations that flow from EPA's
endangerment finding will jeopardize job creation, our economic
recovery, and American competitiveness. That has been made very clear
by those who have spoken before me. This was openly acknowledged by the
Obama administration last year when the White House Office of
Management and Budget cautioned:
Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the
[Clean Air Act] for the first time is likely to have serious
economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the
U.S. economy, including small businesses and small
communities.
This is far from incidental. The endangerment finding is the
centerpiece of a coercive strategy designed to force Congress into
passing cap-and-trade legislation. This was confirmed by a senior White
House economic official late last year who was quoted as saying:
If you don't pass this legislation, then . . . [EPA] is
going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which
will probably generate even more uncertainty.
Time magazine likened this approach to ``putting a gun to Congress'
head.''
But this is a false dichotomy. Senators have before them a number of
policy options to address climate change, including the power to remove
the threat of EPA regulation. That the Senate has not yet embraced a
bill speaks more to the flaws contained in those policies than to this
body's willingness to act. In fact, economic analysis of every major
piece of climate change legislation shows they would result in net job
losses and retard economic growth with little or no impact
[[Page 10396]]
on global temperatures. Why would the Senate choose to enact
economically damaging legislation in order to stave off economically
damaging regulations? This Senator certainly will not.
In their efforts to gain leverage over the legislative branch,
administrative officials claim the resolution to disapprove EPA's
endangerment findings would prevent fuel efficiency in vehicles through
new EPA regulations. More recently, claims have been made that the
resolution is a way to protect big oil in the wake of the gulf
disaster. These claims are disingenuous on their face.
First, EPA's endangerment finding does nothing to clean up the Gulf
of Mexico or prevent future spills. To suggest otherwise is an
opportunistic bait and switch and an insult to the people of the gulf,
the intelligence of the American people, and the Senate.
Second, EPA's endangerment finding has nothing to do with fuel
savings. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has had
authority to increase corporate average fuel economy--CAFE--standards
for over 30 years. Indeed, NHTSA was required by law to raise light-
duty vehicle standards to at least 35 miles per gallon when Congress
passed the Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007.
In a February 19 letter, NHTSA's general counsel stated:
The Murkowski resolution does not directly impact NHTSA's
statutory authority to set fuel economy standards.
Indeed, in its own rule, EPA confirms that ``the CAFE standards
address most, but not all, of the real world CO2 emissions''
from automobiles.
In reality, EPA's rules are the ``camel's nose'' under the regulatory
tent.
In spite of the Supreme Court's ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, only
the most tortured--tortured--reading of the act allows one to conclude
that the Clean Air Act was intended to address global climate change.
The act contains no express authorization to regulate, and there are no
provisions recognizing the international dimension of the issue. I know
this for a fact. I have been on the Environment and Public Works
Committee for almost 12 years, and during those 12 years attempts have
been made every 2 years to amend the Clean Air Act to include
CO2. In every instance, it has been turned down.
As a matter of fact, this issue has been dealt with over and over by
the Senate. In fact, starting back in 1997, the Senate spoke directly
to this issue where, by a vote of 95 to 0, it passed the Byrd-Hagel
resolution. The resolution specifically stated that the United States
should not commit itself to limits or reduce greenhouse gas emissions
unless developing countries embrace specific commitments to reduce
greenhouse gases. The overarching concern was the serious harm that
would be inflicted on the U.S. economy by unilateral action.
In other words, for us to go ahead and let the EPA regulate this and
do it on our own, in effect what we are doing is we are unilaterally
disarming the U.S. economy for absolutely no environmental gain.
Copenhagen showed us that the developing world will continue to
resist binding reduction targets, and while China continues to build
two coal-powered plants a week--in other words, while China puts up two
coal-fired plants a week, the Sierra Club and other environmental
groups in this country are shutting down any opportunity for us to use
coal in terms of generating energy.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 more minute.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Despite the fragile state of the economy and the
futility of the effort in environmental terms, this administration
presses forward.
In the final analysis, the Clean Air Act does not recognize the
international nature of climate change and is not suited to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions. The administration's attempt to use it to
force Congress to adopt economically damaging climate policy is a
reckless stunt, especially when one considers the very real challenges
America faces today.
I am hoping that the Senate supports S.J. Res. 26, removes the gun
from its head and gets on with the business of debating a sound energy
policy. I suggest that the best way we can start to do this is by
looking at the bipartisan bill--the Bingaman bill--which came out of
the Energy Committee. That is where we should start if we want to be
constructive in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. How much time remains on the Republican side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Five minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is
recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I appreciate what Senator Murkowski is
trying to do. Maybe this is a balance-of-power issue. The court ruled,
I think in 2007, that greenhouse gases could be regulated under the
Clean Air Act. Senator Voinovich is right. Congress has never made that
decision. There have been efforts in the past to get carbon pollution
regulation by the Clean Air Act, but it was never passed legislatively.
The courts have spoken.
The tool being used today is a legislative tool available to the
Congress to basically put regulatory powers in check, and what we are
doing by passing this amendment is basically stopping the EPA from
regulating carbon. And here is the real rub: If we stop them, are we
going to do anything?
My view is that we need to do several things to replace the EPA. The
EPA regulation of carbon cannot provide transition assistance to
businesses. They don't have the flexibility or the tools necessary to
create rational energy policy. That would create an economic burden at
a time we need to create economic opportunity. So I think the
regulatory system of dealing with carbon pollution is the wrong way to
go, but to do nothing would be equally bad. To do nothing means China
is going to develop the green energy technology that is coming in the
21st century.
What I propose is that the Congress, once we stop the EPA, create a
rational way forward on energy policy that includes clean air and
regulation of carbon.
No. 1, the trust fund that is used to build roads and bridges is
tremendously underfunded. Senator Inhofe and others have challenged the
Congress time and time again to do something about shortfalls in the
highway trust fund.
To the transportation community, if you are listening out there, you
have a chance, as a broader package, to be part of a broader deal to
get money for the highway trust fund. But you will never do it standing
alone. We are not going to raise taxes to put money in the
transportation trust fund and that is all we do.
I think the transportation sector needs to be looked at anew. How can
we lower emissions on the transportation side, reduce our dependency on
foreign oil, and replenish the trust fund? I would argue that Congress
could come up with policies that would dramatically reduce
CO2 emissions coming from cars and trucks without a cap on
carbon; that we could have incentives on the transportation side to
develop alternative vehicles--battery-powered cars, hydrogen-powered
cars, hybrid cars in different fashions that would break our dependency
on foreign oil.
If you take this debate and separate it from our dependency on
foreign oil, you have made a huge mistake. Madam President, $439
billion was sent overseas by the United States last year to buy oil
from countries that don't like us very much. When you talk about
controlling carbon, you ought to be talking about energy independence.
I suggest that Congress look at the transportation sector with a
comprehensive approach that will reduce our dependency on foreign oil,
that will create vehicles that are more energy efficient and produce
less carbon to clean up the air, and you can do all
[[Page 10397]]
that without a cap and put money into the trust fund to rebuild bridges
and roads that are falling apart as America grows. These are jobs that
will never go to China. We need to have a vision on transportation that
needs to be part of our broader vision.
When it comes to breaking our dependency on foreign oil, we need to
use less oil in general. The President is right. A low-carbon economy
is a safer America, a cleaner environment and I think a more prosperous
America. But we have natural fossil fuel assets in this country. We
have oil and gas.
The gulf oilspill is a tremendously catastrophic environmental
disaster, but if we overreact and say we are going to stop exploring
for domestic oil and gas--9 million barrels a day comes from domestic
exploration, and we use 21 million barrels a day--the people in the
Mideast would cheer that policy. The biggest winner in stopping
domestic exploration for oil and gas would be OPEC nations. So it is
not in our national security interest, not in our economic interest to
make a rash decision on oil and gas exploration.
I encourage the Congress to slow down, find ways to safely explore
for oil and gas, and make it part of an overall energy vision that will
allow us to break our dependency on foreign oil.
When it comes to job creation, wind, solar, battery, and nuclear
power--all of the energy efficiency green technology that will come in
this century is going to come from China if we don't get our act
together. We need a rational energy policy that would incentivize
alternative energy to be developed in America before the world takes
over this emerging market. That means incentives for wind, solar, and,
yes, nuclear power. Twenty percent of our power comes from the nuclear
industry, and 82 percent of the French economy's power comes from the
nuclear industry. Surely we can be as bold as the French. If you had a
renaissance of nuclear power in this country, you could create millions
of jobs. We could come up with ways to treat the waste.
President Obama has been very good on nuclear power. His
administration, with Secretary Chu, has been excellent in trying to
develop incentives to expand nuclear power in a safe fashion.
Carbon is bad. Let's do something about it in a commonsense way. You
don't have to believe in global warming to want clean air. This idea
about what to do with carbon--you don't have to believe the planet is
going to melt tomorrow, but this idea that what comes out of cars and
trucks and coal-fired plants is good for us makes no sense to me. If we
can clean up the air in America, we would be doing the next generation
and the world a great service. The key is, can you clean up the air and
make it good business? I believe you can. Let's pursue both things:
good business and clean air.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that whatever
extra time was given to the other side be added to our time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, at this point, we are going to hear
arguments against the Murkowski resolution from Senator Durbin for 6
minutes, followed by Senator Reed of Rhode Island for 5 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Murkowski resolution gives the
Senate a choice between real science and political science. That is
what it comes down to.
The EPA went to the scientists across America and asked them the
basic question: Do greenhouse gas emissions endanger life and the
planet on which we live? After months and thousands of comments and
380,000 scientific comments, they concluded that it does. They said
that we have a responsibility under the Clean Air Act to protect the
people in the United States and the people on Earth. We are going to
move forward with a gradual, systematic way of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions because we know they are causing damage.
Twenty-one years ago, I went to Alaska, to Prince William Sound,
after the Exxon Valdez ran aground. I saw the thousands of barrels of
black, sludgy oil covering that pristine and beautiful part of America
in Alaska.
I have spoken to the Senator who is the sponsor of this resolution.
Twenty-one years later, we still know that ecology, that environment
has not recovered from that spill. But that was very obvious. You could
see it. It was filthy. There are changes in the environment that are
hurting Alaska today that are hard to see.
We know greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution are changing
Alaska, with the loss of sea ice; the melting permafrost; coastal
erosion in villages, such as Shismaref, that have been falling into the
ocean; ocean acidification. The Arctic icecap, which is a key
ecological component of Alaska's ecology, has a record-low amount of
Arctic sea ice.
Are we to ignore this? You will ignore it if you vote yes for the
Murkowski resolution. You will choose political science over the real
science that tells us that unless we come to grips with the air
pollution that threatens us, it will not only endanger our lungs and
our lives, it will endanger the planet on which we live.
In 1970, we created the EPA, under President Richard Nixon. In those
days, 40 years ago, the environmental issues were bipartisan issues.
People came together and said: We can address the challenges facing us
in the United States and around the world on a bipartisan basis.
Well, bipartisanship is still alive when it comes to important
environmental issues. There is bipartisan opposition to the Murkowski
resolution. It turns out those who headed the EPA under Presidents
Nixon, Ford, and Reagan all oppose the Murkowski resolution. They
believe, as scientists do, that we have a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity to seize this moment and find a way to save this planet we
live on and make it healthier for all of us and for our children.
We have had great success with the Clean Air Act. We have reduced
pollution. We are moving forward. But the Murkowski resolution says
stop--stop taking those actions that have been proposed by the EPA to
reduce pollution; ignore the scientific findings and accept the
political science.
What do I mean by that? There are political forces strongly in
support of the Murkowski resolution. Big oil is one of them. Energy
companies agree we should stop this EPA regulation. Of course, they
have a vested interest. They have money on the table. How credible is
big oil today on the floor of the Senate when we have witnessed the
disaster in the Gulf of Mexico? Are we going to criticize them in the
morning in speeches and then reward them by passing this resolution in
the afternoon? I hope not.
I hope we will take an honest look at the environment we live in and
understand that to give away basic scientific findings, walk away from
them, and embrace political science is something we will never be able
to explain to future generations.
The United States should join in leading the world to clean up the
planet on which we live. Passage of the Murkowski resolution is a step
backward. It will say to the world that the United States is in
complete denial; that the Senate is rejecting the findings of
scientists all across the world; and that we don't need to address
climate change and the impact of air pollution on our lives.
This is a singular historic moment. I sincerely hope my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle--and I hope it is bipartisan again--will join
in standing up for science, for clean air, for an approach to the
environment that says our kids will have a fighting chance to live on a
planet that can sustain life and do it in a healthy way.
I reserve the remainder of my time on this side and yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Today, in the midst of the biggest oil spill in our
Nation's history, we are debating a joint resolution, supported by the
oil industry, among others, that effectively says that the Senate, with
its extensive expertise, believes the Environmental Protection
[[Page 10398]]
Agency was wrong to conclude that greenhouse gases are pollutants
despite the preponderance of the evidence, scientific evidence, that
shows this to be an accurate and correct assessment. The Senate can
pass a resolution saying practically anything, but it does not change
reality. The fact is, the best science tells us that climate change is
real and that greenhouse gas emissions contribute significantly to it.
It is also true that our continuing reliance on fossil fuel
undermines not only our environmental quality but our national and
economic security. We have seen the environmental effects played out
dramatically and catastrophically in the Gulf of Mexico with the BP
disaster. But if we do nothing, we will continue to see our economy
held hostage by our need for fossil fuels and the billions of dollars a
year we send overseas to buy oil. We will see our national security
imperiled by our over-reliance on these fossil fuels and our continuing
inability to take effective, measured action based on science to
control these greenhouse gases.
This resolution is more than just our opinion; it would effectively
and permanently block the EPA from taking concrete steps today to deal
with this problem. For example, it would prevent the EPA from
collaborating with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
on new vehicle efficiency and emission standards. These are
commonsense, doable achievements, and, in fact, we are seeing even the
automobile industry support this. It is estimated that if the EPA and
the highway traffic safety administration move forward, they could save
consumers more than $3,000 in fuel costs over the lifetime of their
vehicles. Think of that. If we were talking about a $3,000 tax rebate
to Americans, everybody would be jumping up and down saying that is
great.
By improving the efficiency of automobiles and doing it in a
thoughtful way, we can provide consumers, families, over the lifetime
of a vehicle--several years--$3,000 in benefits rather than shipping
that $3,000 overseas to buy petroleum. That is a pretty good deal. This
resolution would effectively prevent that.
The proponents of the resolution say: Congress has to act on this.
That is true, but I would be more encouraged with that line of argument
if it were matched by effective action to deal with the serious
problems that face this country today. Indeed, we have spent months and
weeks laboring over the extension of unemployment benefits. Every
significant bill that has come to this floor has been filibustered time
and time again. To suggest disingenuously that we will pass this
resolution and get on to a climate change bill, pass it within several
weeks or months is, I think, not borne out by the evidence of what we
have seen in this Chamber over the last several months.
We have to move forward. As I said, this is not only an economic
issue. It is a national security issue. The Quadrennial Defense Review
in February 2010 noted--this is the review that is done periodically to
assess the strategic position of the United States:
Assessments conducted by the intelligence community
indicate climate change could have significant geopolitical
impacts around the world, contributing to poverty,
environmental degradation, and the further weakening of
fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food
and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and
may spur or exacerbate mass migration.
In effect, what this review suggested is that it is very likely
climate change will be an accelerant of instability. At this moment in
time, the last thing we need is to accelerate instability in the world.
One of the challenges we face is that this is not the Cold War where
we are facing a monolithic Soviet Union and its allies in a strategic
conflict that can be managed through deterrence. This is a situation
where our greatest danger today is in unstable parts of the world, and
that instability is going to be accelerated if we do not take steps.
This is not just an issue of the economy, environmental rules, whether
Congress should act or the agencies act. This is whether we are going
to deal with the forces that are causing turmoil and instability in the
world.
For these reasons and many others, I urge rejection of this
resolution.
I reserve the remainder of our time, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, my esteemed colleague from New York, I
first thank our Chair, the Senator from California, who does a great
job on all of these issues. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for
his, as usual, excellent and prescient words.
I join my colleagues in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 26. This is a
joint resolution disapproving of the rules submitted by EPA which finds
that greenhouse gases threaten the public health and our environment.
This resolution, if enacted, would turn back the clock on years of
scientific research that tells us greenhouse gases are damaging to our
environment and our public health.
This resolution could not be coming at a more meaningful moment in
our Nation's history. As we speak, thousands and thousands of barrels
of oil continue to pour into the gulf, disrupting lives, posing
enormous risk to our shorelines, and costing our economy billions of
dollars. Now is certainly not the time to tie the Federal Government's
hands when it comes to weaning our Nation off unclean fuels. Now would
be the last time to allow business as usual for the oil companies who
always, as the BP incident shows, prioritize profits over clean energy
production and safety and pollution reduction.
The most enthusiastic supporters of this resolution we are debating
today are BP, its fellow oil companies, and their lobbyists in
Washington. Why should we let BP and their lobbyists take the driver's
seat? Why should we allow them to tell us how to achieve energy
independence, how to keep American people safe from greenhouse gases?
They are certainly not good about telling us how to keep safe from
oilspills.
We are witnessing firsthand what happens when industry is allowed to
do what is best for industry. There are 37 million reasons why we
cannot let this resolution pass today: 37 million barrels today have
bled into the gulf on the industry's watch.
I urge my colleagues to put aside their ideological positions on
government regulation and instead work together to rewrite energy
policy in this country. We need to focus all of our efforts on a
comprehensive solution to a complicated problem and pass legislation to
jump-start clean energy, cap greenhouse gases, and improve our energy
security. It is critical that we join together in a national commitment
to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
We have come too far to reverse the tide on investment in American
technology to reduce pollution and to produce cleaner energy. And we
still have miles to go.
Even my colleagues who argue about the science of global warming
agree that energy independence is also a national security issue. We
send $1 billion a day overseas to buy foreign oil in large part from
unstable and dangerous companies such as Iran, and unfriendly countries
such as Venezuela. Our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and
Afghanistan suffer significant casualties during the transportation of
fuel and fuel-related supplies which are prime targets for our enemies.
Because we have failed to break this dangerous cycle of dependence,
we are more reliant on foreign oil today than in the days after 9/11.
We certainly can do better. This resolution is a step back.
We also all agree that America should have the cleanest air and the
cleanest water of any place on Earth. We all know a cleaner America is
a stronger America. Placing a cap on carbon emissions is the simplest
way to achieve this collective goal while creating more U.S. jobs and
reducing our dependence on foreign oil. And, it works.
Two decades ago, President Bush implemented an air pollution cap as a
way to address the problem of airborne sulfur dioxide, known as acid
rain, greatly affecting my State. The Bush
[[Page 10399]]
plan worked. Today it is considered one of the most effective
environmental initiatives in U.S. history. Lakes in upstate New York,
in the Adirondacks and elsewhere, that once were dead are now coming
alive.
We are at a crossroads right now, and the decisions we make will have
great impacts on our economy, our air quality, and our Nation's energy
security. We can choose to deny the science and continue to pollute the
air, fall behind in the energy race, and let big oil run roughshod over
our economy and environment or we can say no.
Or we can learn the lessons from our past, carefully weigh the facts
and forge a new clean energy future to put America back on the road to
prosperity.
We need to put ideology aside and pass comprehensive energy reform
this year. Majority Leader Reid has indicated that we will make an
energy bill a top priority this summer. I look forward to working with
my colleagues to do just that.
Once again, I want to voice my opposition to S.J. Res. 26 and urge my
colleagues to vote against this attempt to undermine America's nearly
40-year effort to cut dangerous pollution, protect our air quality, and
spur innovation.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed 5 minutes.
Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, our speakers at this time will be
Senator Shaheen for 5 minutes, Senator Sanders for 5 minutes, and
Senator Cantwell for 5 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am pleased to be here to join my
colleagues and Senator Boxer--and I thank her for her leadership in
this effort--to keep from turning back the clock on our air quality. We
desperately need to reform our country's energy policies.
Our reliance on fossil fuels means polluting our air, it results in
an enormous transfer of wealth to other countries--$1 billion a day--
and it compromises our national security. We are currently sending $150
billion a year to countries that the State Department deems dangerous
and unsafe.
There are tremendous costs domestically associated with this reliance
on fossil fuels. We saw it in 1989 with the Exxon Valdez spill in
Prince William Sound, and we are seeing it now as the largest
environmental disaster in our country's history plays out before our
very eyes in the gulf--the loss of life and the tragedy to the
environment. The way of life that so many people in the gulf have
enjoyed for generations is unfortunately, we think, going to be gone.
We pay a very heavy price for our dependence on fossil fuels. Now is
the time to work together to get America running on clean energy.
Reforming our Nation's energy policies will help us take control of
our future in America, a future that will be built on clean energy and
American power.
To those who say we should not be reducing carbon pollution, I simply
disagree. We have heard the same tired stories from big oil and big
polluters again and again. They tell us reducing carbon pollution will
kill jobs and wreck our economy. Time and time again, we have heard
these same arguments, and we know they are not true.
Since we passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, we have dramatically
reduced emissions of dozens of pollutants, we have improved air
quality, and we have improved public health. The EPA estimates that
this year, the Clean Air Act prevented an estimated 20,000 deaths, more
than 23,000 cases of chronic bronchitis and asthma, and 59,000
hospitalizations.
Yet during this same period, despite the current recession that has
set us back, with the Clean Air Act, we have been able to grow our
economy. Our gross domestic product has more than tripled, and average
household income grew more than 45 percent.
We know we can protect the public health, save our environment, and
grow our economy.
The resolution we are debating today will unravel the only ability we
have right now to address carbon pollution. For those who say Congress
should make a decision about how to address carbon, they are absolutely
right. But instead of debating efforts to protect big polluters, we
should be using this time to debate how to position our country to lead
in the global clean energy economy.
I have no doubt that the American people have the ingenuity and the
competitive spirit to solve our energy challenges. What they need is
some leadership from us in Washington. Now is the time to get America
running on clean energy.
I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution and for all of us to
work together to craft energy policies that will help us transition to
a clean energy economy that will stop carbon pollution and our reliance
on fossil fuels.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to the
Murkowski resolution which, sadly, is sponsored by virtually the entire
Republican caucus, which would overturn EPA's endangerment finding
under the Clean Air Act that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to
the public health and welfare.
This resolution is not about whether EPA or Congress should regulate
greenhouse gas emissions. What this resolution is about is whether we
go forward in public policy based on science or based on politics. That
is what this resolution is about.
I have a very hard time understanding where all of this antiscience
sentiment is coming from. If an American gets sick and goes to a
doctor, she does not worry about whether that doctor is a Republican or
a Democrat, whether the doctor is conservative or progressive. The
concern is that the physician is well trained by a certified academic
institution and has the scientific knowledge needed to treat the
ailment. That is what Americans go to doctors for. It is not a
political issue. It is a matter of science and biology, of the best
medical treatment available.
But somehow when we talk about global warming, we do not have to
worry about the science, we do not have to worry about what the leading
experts and scientific institutions all over the world are telling us.
For whatever reason, this discussion about global warming is now
political, not scientific.
This is absurd. It should be no more political than the best cancer
treatment available or how we deal with a broken leg. Let's look at the
science. Let's look at the leading scientists all over the world.
Scientists at the following world-renowned American institutions have
all found that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are causing global
warming. Here they are: NASA, National Science Foundation, Departments
of Defense, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, Transportation, Health and
Human Services, State, Commerce, the Smithsonian Institute, the
National Academies of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the
American Association for the Advancement of Science. The CIA believes
global warming presents one of the major security risks facing our
country. If all of these scientific institutions are wrong, why do we
continue funding them?
But this is not an issue just for the American scientific community
or governmental agencies. This is the consensus that exists in
virtually every country in the world.
It is ironic this resolution against the science of global warming
comes from the Republican Senator from Alaska, a State clearly
experiencing the impacts of global warming. The Alaska State government
Web site says:
Global warming is currently impacting Alaska and will
continue to impact it in a number of ways. These impacts
include melting polar ice, the retreat of glaciers,
increasing storm intensity, wildfires, coastal flooding,
droughts, crop failures, loss of habitat and threatened plant
and animal species.
Three Alaskan villages have begun relocation plans, and the U.S. Army
of Corps of Engineers says over 160 more
[[Page 10400]]
rural communities are threatened by erosion from global warming
impacts. This is going on in Alaska.
The evidence of global warming is overwhelming. NASA has reported
that the previous decade was the warmest on record--90 percent of
observed glaciers are shrinking. Glacier National Park had 150 glaciers
in 1910 and now has just 30. Arctic sea ice is covering smaller areas
every summer. Sea levels have risen as much as 9 inches in some areas,
causing the island nation of Maldives to divert revenues to purchase a
new homeland for its people. Harmful insects are migrating for higher
altitudes and causing forest destruction, including 70,000 square miles
of American and Canadian forests since 2000.
So with all of this evidence, who is arguing against global warming?
Who is saying it is not real? Well, the well-known climate expert Glen
Beck has suggested climate scientists should commit suicide and
compared Al Gore to Adolf Hitler. There you go. Rush Limbaugh, another
scientist of outstanding repute, says global warming is ``bogus'' and
is the work of ``pseudoscientists.''
Well, from where are these rightwing media commentators getting their
talking points? In many cases from precisely those corporations that
want us to remain dependent on fossil fuel, that want us to continue
importing hundreds of billions of dollars a year of foreign oil, that
want to continue making record-breaking billions and billions of
dollars in profit as they charge us $3 per gallon of gas.
During the 1990s, big oil companies such as Exxon and BP funded an
industry front group called the Global Climate Coalition.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. These oil companies used tobacco industry lobbyists and
tactics to cast doubt on global warming science.
What this is about is, if our Nation is to prosper, if we are to
create the millions of jobs we desperately need, we have to have
science-based public policy and not politically based. I would hope
that we will reject, very strongly, the Murkowski resolution.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I thank Senator Boxer for her
passionate leadership in defense of the Clean Air Act and the pollution
protections this bedrock law provides every American. I appreciate her
yielding me time to speak in opposition to the Resolution of
Disapproval introduced by Senator Murkowski.
Madam President, I don't think any of my colleagues would disagree
that the Clean Air Act has been one of the most effective environmental
laws ever passed in our Nation. It has literally saved the lives of
thousands of children who would otherwise have suffered terribly from
the effects of air pollution.
The economic benefits of the Clean Air Act are immense, and it has
been credited with turning around a dire acid rain problem that was
threatening the natural heritage of all of New England. The critically
important 1970 amendments to the Act were a bipartisan bill. Those
improvements--really called the Muskie Act, in honor of the key role
played by the former Senator from Maine, Ed Muskie--were, of course,
signed into law by a Republican President, Richard Nixon.
The next major revisions came 20 years later, in 1990, and those
improvements cracked down on acid rain and lead in our gasoline supply.
But today we are talking about a Resolution that would undermine the
Clean Air Act, rather than strengthen it. We are actually debating
whether to overturn the science-based determination that greenhouse
gases pose a threat to the public health and welfare to the current and
future generations of Americans.
Madam President, the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse
gases are pollutants and are covered by the Clean Air Act.
Consequently, the court held that the Environmental Protection Agency
must make a determination, based on the available science, about
whether greenhouse gases pose a threat to the public. EPA engaged in a
thorough public process, assessed the available scientific evidence,
and ultimately determined that greenhouse gases do pose a threat to
public health and welfare.
The reason I recount all this history, Madam President, is to show
that these findings are not the casual or capricious action of a small
group of bureaucrats. Rather, they are the result of a long and
transparent process prescribed by statute and the highest court in the
land.
In announcing her resolution last January, my colleague, Senator
Murkowski, said:
We should continue our work to pass meaningful energy and
climate legislation, but in the meantime, we cannot turn a
blind eye to the EPA's efforts to impose back-door climate
regulations.
While I fully agree with my colleague on the first point--we do need
to work together on meaningful energy and climate legislation--I have
to say I disagree on the second point, about the back-door regulations.
Though Congress may not have specifically anticipated greenhouse gas
emissions when the Clean Air Act was originally passed, the same can be
said of many pollutants. Indeed, when the 1970 law passed, only five
pollutants were initially listed. Since then, dozens of additional
pollutants have been listed and the air we breathe is better for it.
This is not an example of an agency overreaching, it is the way the
Clean Air Act was designed to work.
The drafters of the Clean Air Act never claimed they could predict
all of the pollutants that might someday fall under its jurisdiction.
That is why they established a framework and a public process that
could be used to regulate any pollutant that science--science--
ultimately identified as a threat to public health and welfare.
Today, 40 years later, we have come to the point where thousands of
scientists, working throughout the Federal Government and around the
world over the course of decades, have identified a serious risk
associated with the emissions of greenhouse gases. Given these
scientific findings, the legal mandate from the United States Supreme
Court, and the statutory requirements spelled out in the Clean Air Act,
the EPA has a responsibility to act.
For Congress now to undermine this process would be----
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 15 seconds.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. For Congress now to undermine that process would be to
undermine the Clean Air Act itself and the sanctity of science-based
policymaking. It would be a very bad precedent, and it would be a
threat to our children and to the environment in which we want them to
grow up.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, for this next 30 minutes, we will be
allocating the block in a 20-minute segment that will be under the
control of Senator Barrasso to engage in a colloquy with several of our
Republican colleagues, and following that 20 minutes there will be 10
minutes under the control of Senator Nelson of Nebraska.
We have a lot of Members who wish to speak in support of this
resolution, so we are trying to accommodate as many as possible. With
that, I yield to my friend, the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I thank my colleague for allowing me
to conduct this colloquy with other colleagues who are here as part of
the Senate Western Caucus. We are here to speak in favor of the
Murkowski resolution in opposing what the Environmental Protection
Agency is trying to do in terms of its efforts to regulate climate
change because we know that is a job killer for all Americans.
I see my colleague, Senator Hatch from Utah, and I understand he has
some new information he would like to
[[Page 10401]]
share with the people of America and the Senate.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank my colleague, and I appreciate
being here with my two colleagues from Wyoming and also Idaho. Let me
start by applauding Senator Murkowski for her strong leadership on this
issue, and I stand squarely behind her effort.
To summarize what has already been laid out, the EPA has released
findings that, No. 1, human carbon emissions contribute in a
significant way to global warming, and, No. 2, global warming, which
has been going on for about 10,000 years now, is an endangerment to
humans.
The EPA's foundation for its proposal relies on the assumption that
both of these findings are the truth.
Madam President, I was sorely disappointed but not too surprised when
I learned the EPA based its ``findings'' almost entirely on the work
done by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--
or the IPCC. I have no problem with much of the science produced by the
IPCC scientists, but I have a real problem with the way that science is
summarized by the political leaders at the IPCC and by the conclusions
drawn by those same political leaders in the IPCC's Summary for
Policymakers, which is not a science document.
It becomes immediately evident that the EPA relies heavily on these
political summaries and conclusions rather than actual science produced
by the IPCC because we now have abundant proof that a wide gulf exists
between what the science indicates and what the political leaders of
the IPCC pretend that it indicates.
But I am not asking anyone to take my word for this. Instead, let's
listen to what the IPCC scientists are saying about the conclusions
that politicians at the IPCC have been selling to policymakers. Here is
what Dr. John T. Everett has to say. He was an IPCC lead author and
expert reviewer and a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration senior manager. He says:
It is time for a reality check. Warming is not a big deal
and is not a bad thing. The oceans and coastal zones have
been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present
scenarios of climate change.
Well, there is one of the IPCC's top scientists saying that the
warming we are experiencing is not an endangerment.
Let's hear another scientist, Dr. Richard Tol. He was the author of
three full U.N. IPCC working groups and the Director of the Center for
Marine and Atmospheric Science. He says:
There is no risk of damage [from global warming] that would
force us to act injudiciously.
As an illustration, he explains:
Warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be
about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-
related illnesses like the flu.
What is that, Madam President? Here we have another top scientist at
the IPCC telling us that warming will actually save lives, not endanger
them?
Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfeld, a contributing author to the U.N. IPCC
Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report, sends those of us who are
policymakers a serious warning. He says:
Only after we identify these factors and determine how they
affect one another, can we begin to produce accurate models.
And only then should we rely on those models to shape policy.
I hope my colleagues in the Senate are listening today because these
U.N. IPCC scientists are speaking directly to us. I wonder at what cost
to our economy and our competitiveness will we as policymakers continue
to ignore the actual scientists at the IPCC? There is nowhere near a
scientific consensus on either one of the EPA's ``findings'' that
humans are causing warming or that warming is necessarily bad for the
environment or for humankind.
MIT climate scientist, Dr. Richard Lindzen, another IPCC lead author
and expert reviewer, dispels the notion there is a scientific consensus
in favor of drastic climate policy. He explains:
One of the things the scientific community is pretty agreed
on is those things will have virtually no impact on climate
no matter what the models say. So the question is do you
spend trillions of dollars to have no impact? And that seems
like a nobrainer.
Another top IPCC scientist and lead author was Dr. John Christy. He
explained that the U.N. IPCC process had become corrupted by politics.
He says:
I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having
lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead
authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to
make the report so dramatic that the United States would just
have to sign that Kyoto Protocol.
The politicization at the U.N. was so egregious that Dr. Christopher
W. Landsea, U.N. IPCC author and reviewer and expert scientist with
NOAA's National Hurricane Center, pronounced:
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to
a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-
conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.
Now, Madam President, there are many more U.N. and government
scientists who have publicly expressed their professional opinions that
the IPCC political projections are overblown and not supported by the
science. I have put together a sampling of their quotations in a report
called the ``UN Climate Scientists Speak Out on Global Warming.'' It is
available for download on my Climate 101 link on my Web page. I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two documents relating
to climate change.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I would like to address an issue that has
been very carefully ignored by the EPA; that is, the--get this word--
``benefit'' Americans can expect from the EPA's actions.
As Senators, not many of us are scientists, but each of us is a
policymaker. As policymakers, we are expected to fully analyze the
costs and benefits of any proposal that comes before us.
The endangerment the EPA points to is the warming we are supposedly
causing. If warming is the endangerment, then the benefit is the amount
of warming the regulations would avoid. Thanks to the IPCC, we have all
the numbers and assumptions we need to be able to determine just how
much warming we could avoid for the amount of carbon emissions the EPA
can stop.
Let's go on the assumption that the EPA will successfully reduce
human CO2 emissions in this country by 83 percent over the
next century. According to the alarmist and some would say overblown
assumptions at the U.N. IPCC, Americans can expect a cooling benefit of
somewhere between 0.07 and 0.2 degrees Celsius after a full 100 years
of effort. That is right, we are being asked to give up trillions of
dollars in economic activity, send all manufacturing activity overseas,
give up millions of jobs, and put basic human activities under the
control of the EPA, all for a benefit that cannot be measured on a
household thermometer after 100 years of sacrifice and pain.
The EPA tells us our human carbon emissions are leading to a general
catastrophe, but then we find out that if we do what they say, it will
make no real difference. So I ask the EPA Administrator this question:
Have you done a real risk-benefit analysis of these proposed carbon
emission regulations? I don't want to hear all the scary scenarios
about general global warming; I want to know the actual risk associated
with an 0.07 to 0.2 degree decrease in temperature over 100 years
because that is what we are talking about here. That is the analysis I
want to see because when you stack up the astounding costs on the scale
against such a tiny benefit, you have the most lopsided and obvious
failure of a cost-benefit analysis I have ever seen.
I notice my other two colleagues are here. I have gone on a little
longer than I wanted to.
[[Page 10402]]
Exhibit 1
[From National Geographic News, July 31, 2009]
Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?
(By James Owen)
Desertification, drought, and despair--that's what global
warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear.
Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario,
one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of
Africans in the driest parts of the continent.
Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert
and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing
rainfall.
If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged
regions, reclaiming them for farming communities.
This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models,
which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara
into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago.
green shoots
The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite
images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone
bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400
miles (3,860 kilometers).
Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive
regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in
the journal Biogeosciences.
The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas
including central Chad and western Sudan.
The transition may be occurring because hotter air has more
capacity to hold moisture, which in turn creates more rain,
said Martin Claussen of the Max Planck Institute for
Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, who was not involved in the
new study.
``The water-holding capacity of the air is the main driving
force,'' Claussen said.
not a single scorpion
While satellite images can't distinguish temporary plants
like grasses that come and go with the rains, ground surveys
suggest recent vegetation change is firmly rooted.
In the eastern Sahara area of southwestern Egypt and
northern Sudan, new trees--such as acacias--are flourishing,
according to Stefan Kropelin, a climate scientist at the
University of Cologne's Africa Research Unit in Germany.
Shrubs are coming up and growing into big shrubs. This is
completely different from having a bit more tiny grass,''
said Kropelin, who has studied the region for two decades.
In 2008 Kropelin--not involved in the new satellite
research--visited Western Sahara, a disputed territory
controlled by Morocco.
``The nomads there told me there was never as much rainfall
as in the past few years,'' Kropelin said. ``They have never
seen so much grazing land.''
``Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single
blade of grass,'' he said.
``Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which
may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of
years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even
sorts of amphibians coming back,'' he said.
``The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is
indisputable.''
uncertain future
An explosion in plant growth has been predicted by some
climate models.
For instance, in 2005 a team led by Reindert Haarsma of the
Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute in De Bilt, the
Netherlands, forecast significantly more future rainfall in
the Sahel.
The study in Geophysical Research Letters predicated that
rainfall in the July to September wet season would rise by up
to two millimeters a day by 2080.
Satellite data shows ``that indeed during the last decade,
the Sahel is becoming more green,'' Haarsma said.
Even so, climate scientists don't agree on how future
climate change will affect the Sahel: Some studies simulate a
decrease in rainfall.
``This issue is still rather uncertain,'' Haarsma said.
Max Planck's Claussen said North Africa is the area of
greatest disagreement among climate change modelers.
Forecasting how global warming will affect the region is
complicated by its vast size and the unpredictable influence
of high-altitude winds that disperse monsoon rains, Claussen
added.
``Half the models follow a wetter trend, and half a
drier.''
____
Sample of Scientific Studies Showing Real-World Benefits of Warming for
Species and Habitat
IPCC Global Warming-Induced Extinction Hypothesis Based on Computer
Models
1. Woodwell (1989) wrote that ``the climatic changes
expected are rapid enough to exceed the capacity of forests
to migrate or otherwise adapt.''
[Woodwell, G.M. 1989. The warming of the industrialized
middle latitudes 1985-2050: Causes and consequences. Climatic
Change 15: 31-50.]
2. Davis (1989) said that ``trees may not be able to
disperse rapidly enough to track climate.''
[Davis, M.B. 1989. Lags in vegetation response to
greenhouse warming. Climatic Change 15: 75-89. Gear, A.J. and
Huntley, B. 1991. Rapid changes in the range limits of Scots
pine 4000 years ago. Science 251: 544-547. Root, T.L. and
Schneider, S.H. 1993. Can large-scale climatic models be
linked with multi scale ecological studies? Conservation
Biology 7: 256-270.]
3. Malcolm and Markham (2000) agreed that ``rapid rates of
extinction [since] many species may be unable to shift their
ranges fast enough to keep up with global warming.''
[Malcolm, J.R. and Markham, A. 2000. Global Warming and
Terrestrial Biodiversity Decline. World Wide Fund for Nature,
Gland, Switzerland.]
4. Thomas et al. (2004) developed computer models
predicting future habitat distributions. These models were
used by the IPCC to make estimates of species extinction.
[Malcolm, J.R., Liu, C., Miller, L.B., Allnutt, T. and
Hansen, L. 2002. Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species
Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. World
Wide Fund for Nature. Gland, Switzerland.]
Scientific Rebuttals to Thomas' Computer Models
1. Stockwell (2000) observes that the Thomas models, due to
lack of any observed extinction data, are not `tried and
true,' and their doctrine of `massive extinction' is actually
a case of `massive extinction bias.'
[Stockwell, D.R.B. 2004. Biased Toward Extinction, Guest
Editorial, CO2 Science 7 (19): http://www.co2science.org/
articles/V7/N19/EDIT.php]
2. Dormann (2007) concludes that shortcomings associated
with climate alarmist analyses ``are so numerous and
fundamental that common ecological sense should caution us
against putting much faith in relying on their findings for
further extrapolations.''
[Dormann, C.F. 2007. Promising the future? Global change
projections of species distributions. Basic and Applied
Ecology 8: 387-397.]
Plants' Ability to Avoid Extinction with the Help of CO2
1. Idso and Idso (1994) found that high levels of CO2 have
many positive effects on plants.
[Idso, K.E. and Idso, S.B. 1994. Plant responses to
atmospheric CO2 enrichment in the face of environmental
constraints: A review of the past 10 years' research.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 69: 153: 203.]
2. Idso and Idso (1994) also showed that the positive
effects of CO2 on plants were amplified as temperatures
increase.
[Idso, K.E. and Idso, S.B. 1994. Plabt responses to
atmospheric CO2 enrichment in the face of environmental
constraints: A review of the past 10 years' research.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 69: 153: 203.]
3. Wittwer (1988) asserts that even the most extreme global
warming envisioned by the IPCC would probably not affect the
majority of Earth's plants, because 95% of all plants can
naturally adapt to high levels of CO2 while remaining in
their current habitat.
[Wittwer, S.H. 1988. The greenhouse effect. Carolina
Biological Supply, Burlington, NC.]
4. Drake (1992) shows that increases in atmospheric C02 can
actually raise the optimum growth temperature of plants.
[Drake, B.G. 1992. Global warming: The positive impact of
rising carbon dioxide levels. Eco-Logic 1(3): 20-22.]
Real-World Examples of Plants Adapting to Climate Change
1. Allen et al. (1999) discovered that the vegetation
naturally responds to rapid changes in climate. Warmer was
always better in terms of vegetation production.
[Allen, J.R.M., Brandt, U., Brauer, A., Hubberten, H.-W.,
Huntley, B., Nowacyk, N.R., OBerhansli, H., Watts, W.A.,
Wulf, S. and Zolitschka, B. 1999. Rapid environmental changes
in southern Europe during the last glacial period. Nature
400: 740-743.]
2. Kullman (2002), in a long-term study of the Swiss Alps,
similarly shows that the Earth's vegetation can rapidly
respond to climate warming. Warming does not result in
species extinction, but actually leads to a greater number of
species.
[Kullman, L. 2002. Rapid recent range-margin rise of tree
and shrub species in the Swedish Scandes. Journal of Ecology
90: 68-77.]
Plants Do Not Need to Migrate to Adapt
1. An international team of 33 researchers found that, with
warming, ``when species were rare in a local area, they had a
higher survival rate than when they were common, resulting in
enrichment for rare species and increasing diversity with age
and size class in these complex ecosystems.''
[Wills, C., Harms, K.E., Condit, R., King, D., Thompson,
J., He, F., Muller-Landau, H.C., P., Losos, E., Cmita, L.,
Hubbell, S., LaFrankie, J., Bunyavejchewin, S., Dattaraja,
H.S., Davies, S., Esufali, S., Foster, R., Gunatilleke, N.,
Gunatilleke, S., Hall, P., Itoh, A., John, R., Kiratiprayoon,
S., de Lao, S.L., Massa, M., Nath, C., Noor, M.N.S., Kassim,
A.R., Sukumar, R., Suresch, H.S., Sun, I.-F., Tan, S.,
Yamakura, T. and Zimmerman, J. 2006. Nonrandom processes
maintain diversity in tropical forests. Science 311: 527-
531.]
Evolutionary Responses to Climatic Stresses
1. Franks et al., 2007 showed that disease incidence was
lower in environments with elevated CO2 levels.
[[Page 10403]]
[Franks, S.J., and Weis, A.E. 2008. A change in climate
causes rapid evolution of multiple life-history traits and
their interactions in an annual plant. Journal of
Evolutionary Biology 21: 1321-1334.]
2. Sage and Coleman (2001) concluded that species are
continually evolving and have high capacity for further
evolving as CO2 content continues to rise.
[Sage, R.F. and Coleman, J.R. 2001. Effects of low
atmospheric CO2 on plants: more than a thing of the past.
TRENDS in Plant Science 6: 18-24.]
Animals Avoiding Extinction--Birds
1. Thomas and Lennon (1999) showed that both British birds
and European butterflies have expanded their ranges in the
face of global warming. This is a positive response that
decreases the likelihood of extinction to a lower possibility
than it was before the warming.
[Thomas, C.D. and Lennon, J.J. 1999. Birds extend their
ranges northwards. Nature 399: 213.]
2. In a similar study (1999) Brown et al. showed that the
warming trend leads to an earlier abundance of food for the
Mexican jay. This, in turn, leads to the jay laying eggs
earlier in the season, and thus increasing the chances of
survival for young jays.
[Brown, J.L, Shou-Hsien, L. And Bhagabati, N. 1999. Long-
term trend toward earlier breeding in an American bird: A
response to global warming? Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science, U.S.A. 96: 5565-5569.]
3. Brommer (2004) demonstrates that the range of birds in a
warming world will likely increase in size, which decreases
the likelihood of extinction.
[Brommer, J.E. 2004. The range margins of northern birds
shift polewards. Annales Zoologici Fennici 41: 391-397.]
4. Lemoine et al. concludes that ``increase in temperature
appear to have allowed increases in abundance of species
whose range centers were located in southern Europe and that
may have been limited by low winter or spring temperature.''
In addition they found that, ``the impact of climate change
on bird populations increased in importance between 1990 and
2000 and is now more significant than any other tested
factor,'' because warming has tremendously benefitted
European birds and helped buffer them against extinction.
[Lemoine, N., Bauer, H.-G., Peintinger, M. And Bohning-
Gaese, K. 2007. Effects of climate and land-use change on
species abundance in a central European bird community.
Conservation Biology 21: 495-503.]
5. Hapulka and Barowiec (2008) observed that increasing
temperatures over a 36-year period led to an increase in the
length of the egg-laying period. For several reasons, these
temperature increases resulted in birds having significantly
more offspring.
[Halpuka, L., Dyrcz, A. And Borowiec, M. 2008. Climate
change affects breeding of reed warblers Acrocephalus
scirpaceus. Journal of Avian Biology 39: 95-100.]
6. UN Modeler Jensen et al (2008) stated, ``global climate
change is expected to shift species ranges polewards, with a
risk of range contractions and population declines of
especially high-Arctic species.''
[Jensen, R.A., Madsen, J., O'Connell, M., Wisz, M.S.,
Tommervick, H. And Mehlum, F. 2008. Prediction of the
distribution of Arctic-nesting pink-footed geese under a
warmer climate scenario.]
7. When this theory was actually tested, the same
researchers, Jensen et al (2008) discovered that global
warming ``will have a positive effect on the suitability of
Svalbard for nesting geese in terms of range expansion into
the northern and eastern parts of Svalbard which are curently
unsuitable.''
[Jensen, R.A., Madsen, J., O'Connell, M., Wisz, M.S.,
Tommervick, H. And Mehlum, F. 2008. Prediction of the
distribution of Arctic-nesting pink-footed geese under a
warmer climate scenario. Global Change Biology 14: 1-10.]
Other Climate Warming Bird Population Studies
1. UN modelers Seoane and Carrascal (2008) wrote that ``it
has been hypothesized that species preferring low
environmental temperatures which inhabit cooler habitats or
areas, would be negatively affected by temperature during the
last two decades.'' After an intense study of 57 species
between 1996 and 2004, they discovered that, ``one-half of
the study species showed significant increasing [italics
added] recent trends despite the public concern that bird
populations are generally decreasing,'' while ``only one-
tenth showed a significant decrease.''
[Seoane, J. And Carrascal, L.M. 2008. Interspecific
differences in population trends of Spanish birds are related
to habitat and climactic preferences. Global Ecology and
Biogeography 17: 111-121.]
Mr. BARRASSO. I think the Senator from Utah has made a clear point.
The costs are real. The costs of doing this are very real. The
benefits, however, are theoretical.
I see my colleague and friend from Idaho here. I ask him, who elected
the Environmental Protection Agency? Because we sure know the American
people are against these increased costs for energy and these job-
killing regulations.
Mr. RISCH. I thank my colleague, Senator Barrasso. You were cheating,
looking at my notes over my shoulder. A well made point.
I come at this whole proposition from a little different way than
perhaps a lot of my colleagues do. All of this debate has been about
global warming and about whether we should regulate carbon and how we
should do that and what have you. But that is not really the issue on
this resolution. This resolution is about the separation of powers. The
Constitution of this great land that we all took an oath to uphold is
very specific in separating the powers of the executive branch, the
legislative branch, and the judicial branch. The Founding Fathers
wisely separated the different branches so that none could overpower
the other. What are we doing here? The movement by the administration
and by the Environmental Protection Agency is to take from the
legislative branch the power that belongs to the legislative branch.
It is obvious in the debate that is going on here that we have deep
differences, which we should have, because this is a major policy
decision that will affect every single American. It has profound
effects on the economy. It has profound effects on the movement of jobs
overseas. These are things that should be debated and are things that
should be decided by elected persons--not by the people at the EPA, who
are not elected and who are not answerable to the electorate.
When this happens, what you get is a deterioration of the
Constitution of this great country. Each of the branches is constantly
tugging at the other, attempting to pull power away from the other and
attempting to consolidate power within itself. This movement by the EPA
to effect policy is one of those power struggles. Every single Member
of this body should be concerned about the shift of power from the
legislative branch to the administrative branch.
What has happened here, as everyone can see, is this has become
polarized. Again, it has become a partisan argument that we should
allow the EPA to do this because we can't seem to get it through the
legislative branch as quickly or as efficiently or leaning to the left
as we want. That is wrong. It is just plain wrong. It should be decided
right here. Those policy decisions should be debated here. Those policy
decisions should be made on the floor of this body and on the floor of
the House of Representatives. This is not a job for nonelected persons.
It is a job for the people who have been elected and who have to go
home again and face reelection and listen to the voters say: You did a
great job controlling global warming or, you doofus, what are you
doing? You can't possibly do it the way you want to do it.
That is a debate which should be held here. Why has this become so
partisan? At the end of the day, we all know how this is going to come
out. There are going to be 55 votes, give or take a couple, to defeat
Senator Murkowski's resolution. It is going to be generally on a party-
line basis. At the end, the administration will claim a great and
glorious victory again. But it will not be a great and glorious victory
for the American people; it will be a defeat for the American people.
And more important, it will be a defeat and another erosion of the
Constitution of this great country and movement of power from the
legislative branch where it belongs to the administrative branch, to
the bureaucrats, to the people who are not elected. That is a wrong way
to do this. It should stay right here in the legislative body.
I yield the floor back to my good friend, Senator Barrasso.
Mr. BARRASSO. I think my colleague makes a key point. My colleague
from Idaho has been discussing what has been described as the worst
disaster in American history, and it is what is happening right today
in the Gulf of Mexico. Should the Environmental Protection Agency maybe
be focusing its efforts there, where we know there is a real problem, a
real job to be done, real concerns, and the American people are looking
or should the Environmental Protection Agency
[[Page 10404]]
spend its time and spend our resources driving up the cost of energy
and doing it with the idea that perhaps 100 years from now it might
make a difference? The efforts ought to be placed today where the
efforts are needed most. The Environmental Protection Agency ought to
be focused on the gulf, not on something that theoretically may make a
difference 100 years from now.
At a time when emissions are going up in China and going up in India
and going up in Russia, going up all around the world, the
Environmental Protection Agency says: I want to handcuff the American
economy, handcuff the small businesses of this country. At a time with
9.7 percent unemployment, let's make it tougher on Americans--that is
what the Environmental Protection Agency wants to do. If this Senate
goes ahead and defeats the Murkowski amendment, they will be saying
exactly the same thing. We are going to make it tougher on small
businesses.
For the small businesses in the western part of the country, we have
our small refiners, we have our agricultural folks, tourism folks--all
of the different people as part of the Western Caucus. What is this
impact going to do to you? What is your position? We contacted
agricultural groups all around the West. Look at this map of the United
States. More than half of the square miles of the United States
included in here support the Murkowski resolution because they know it
is key to their economy. It is key to those parts of the country. It is
key to agriculture. It is key to energy production. And it is key to
families who are trying to balance their budgets, live within their
means. They do not want to see an increase in taxes, which is what this
is--an increase in energy costs at a time of 9.7 percent unemployment.
I tell you, I am here to support the Murkowski resolution of
disapproval. The EPA's endangerment finding starts the process of
taxing everything Americans do: driving cars, heating homes, powering
small businesses. This will cost millions of Americans their jobs.
It is fascinating. The Small Business Administration wrote to the EPA
a couple of times reminding the Environmental Protection Agency to stop
the endangerment finding and look at its impact on small businesses, on
small communities. The SBA basically said: Comply with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the law meant to protect small businesses from
excessive regulation from Washington.
I will tell you, when you talk about excessive regulations from
Washington, we have seen them in the last year and a half. This bedrock
law was meant to protect the ranchers, the small refiners around the
States, restaurant owners in Utah, dairy farmers--you name it. But with
unemployment hovering at about 9.7 percent, it is unacceptable that the
Environmental Protection Agency has failed to evaluate the impact of
greenhouse gas regulations on the small businesses and the communities
across America. Who grows jobs in America? Small businesses. In the
last 15 years, small business owners have been responsible for 64
percent of all job creation in America. But additional regulations,
additional rules, additional taxes make it that much harder.
Is it going to actually have an impact on the global environment? No,
not at all, not when you take a look at what is happening in China,
where their emissions are going to go up every year all the way through
2050. India's emissions are going up; more and more energy is being
used. If you want to use energy well, the United States does the best
job in using it efficiently.
It just seems that when I go home on weekends to Wyoming--and I will
be there again tomorrow--and I talk to people in various parts of the
State, they say: What are they thinking back in Washington? Why are
they going to make it harder for us to compete? Why are they going to
make it harder for us economically?
The food producers in our Nation compete globally to sell food
products, and they do it in a way where we need to use energy.
Agriculture is a hugely energy-intense operation, and anything that
increases the costs of producing that food is going to get passed on to
consumers in this country and consumers in other nations as we go ahead
and try to compete and sell our products overseas.
It does seem that this EPA endangerment rule will ruin the small
business engine that drives the economy on jobs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. BARRASSO. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, today I rise to speak in
support of the bipartisan resolution of disapproval offered by my
colleague and friend, Senator Murkowski from Alaska, and out of concern
as well about a serious, harmful impact on Nebraska's economy that
could result if the Environmental Protection Agency moves ahead with
its plans to regulate carbon emissions in our country.
While I will outline some of that impact in a moment, I wish to first
explain why I am supporting the resolution. I am supporting it to
protect the Nebraska economy and our Nation's economy from EPA
overreach. It is that simple. I want to send a clear message:
Nebraska's farmers, ranchers, business owners, cities, towns, and
hundreds of thousands of electricity consumers should not have their
economic fortunes determined by unelected bureaucrats in Washington,
DC.
Finding a national consensus on how to control the levels of carbon
emissions is the job of elected Members of Congress. Reducing carbon
emissions will have a substantial economic impact on our country but in
different ways for different States. Congress should take the lead in
determining the rules that will apply.
American people may not support. It does not change the Clean Air
Act. It says Congress should write the new rules curbing carbon
emissions.
The reason this is important can be found in what I have heard from
many Nebraskans about the impact of the EPA's proposed carbon emissions
regulations.
For nearly 2 years, since the EPA's initial Proposed Rulemaking for
Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act in July
2008, I have heard from Nebraskans.
Many agricultural, industrial and energy-related businesses and
organizations in my State have warned that the EPA regulations will
impose substantial new costs on farmers, ranchers, small businesses,
communities and users of electricity. EPA regulations would impose a
top-down government-directed regime that would raise the price of
energy in Nebraska, add greatly to administrative costs, and create new
layers of bureaucracy.
While no one can say how much, because even the EPA does not know yet
what requirements will be imposed on power suppliers, the cost in
Nebraska will be significant.
Regulated entities such as Nebraska's two Public Power companies,
which provide electricity directly to 1.34 million Nebraskans in a
State of 1.7 million residents, would be subject to an inflexible
regulatory process. It would require new permits to be acquired before
facilities are built or modified, and before Best Available Control
Technology is purchased, installed, and operated.
The application process for a single EPA permit for a new or modified
source could cost the applicant hundreds of thousands of dollars and
require more than 300 person-hours for a regulatory agency.
In Nebraska today, coal serves as our primary fuel source to produce
electricity. We also have a great potential to move to renewable energy
resources such as wind. But the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gas
emissions would force a move to other fuel alternatives at rates that
would substantially increase the cost of electricity for consumers in
our State. This is incontrovertible.
Soaring electricity rates would have a detrimental impact on many
businesses and manufacturers. One of them is Nucor Steel in Norfolk,
one of the largest users of electricity in Nebraska.
[[Page 10405]]
If you couple the electricity rate increase with new regulations and
review processes for companies like Nucor to make major modifications
to an existing facility or build a new facility, you have a recipe for
trouble. EPA regulation of greenhouse gases would have chilling effects
on new investment in our Nation's manufacturing sector that we are just
beginning to see come around from the economic downturn.
Further, these new regulatory costs are not limited to our utility
consumers and manufacturers. They could devastate Nebraska's No. 1
industry: Agriculture.
According the Nebraska Farm Bureau, were the EPA's tailoring rule not
to work, an estimated 37,000 farms nationwide would emit more
greenhouse gas emissions than the Clean Air Act threshold levels allow.
Permits generally cost more than $23,000, so the regulations could add
$886 million in costs to our farmers.
Not only will our farms bear additional bureaucratic costs, but they
will be put at a disadvantage in the global marketplace.
The Nebraska Soybean Association notes that every other row of our
State's soybean crop is exported. The EPA's new regulations will put
commodities such as Nebraska-produced soybeans at a disadvantage to our
foreign competitors who are not subject to similar burdensome
regulations.
Earlier this year, in his State of the Union Address, the President
called for doubling our exports over the next 5 years to create more
jobs in America. That goal is at cross purposes with allowing new
regulations to go forward that will hamstring our producers as they try
to compete in the global marketplace.
Additionally, the Nebraska Corn Growers point out that the increase
in the bureaucratic costs to farms will boost agriculture input costs.
With that, our Nation's farms will not even be competitive with foreign
producers here at home. That, then, in turn will lead to more foreign
dependence and less security for the U.S. food and fuels supply.
This strikes me as possibly the biggest negative consequence of the
EPA getting out ahead of Congress. As I pointed out time and time again
during debate on the 2008 farm bill:
If you love that we are dependent on other nations for our
energy needs, you'll love even more relying on other nations
for our food.
I am aware that some have argued that support of this resolution is
an attack on the Clean Air Act. Some say that if the resolution passes
it would lead to an even greater reliance on oil leading to more
situations like the spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
I am not going to go for a smokescreen argument against the Murkowski
resolution.
The resolution would only prevent an unwarranted and ill-advised
expansion of the Clean Air Act's implementation. Every current standard
and control for air pollution would be preserved exactly intact, as
written and authorized by Congress.
Now, I have no doubt that carbon emissions should be reduced in the
U.S. But not through excessively costly EPA regulations or a
complicated cap and trade proposal that could spur speculation that
enriches Wall Street, while not cleaning the air above Main Street.
In my view greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced through a
comprehensive energy bill. One that promotes efficiency, innovation,
new technology, and renewable energy such as wind and biofuels that can
be produced in Nebraska's fields. An energy bill should help, not harm,
Nebraska and the American economy as it cleans up the air.
By pursuing that kind of a sound energy policy we will take important
steps toward ending our reliance on energy from areas that can be
unstable such as the Middle East, South America and Africa. Instead, we
can create our own American energy from the Sun, the wind and the
biofuels available throughout the Midwest, and across our great land.
I believe there is bipartisan support for this type of comprehensive
energy bill. I hope we can turn our attention to it soon.
We should work together on legislation that enables our agricultural
and manufacturing industries to grow, rather than wilt under layers of
unilateral and bureaucratic EPA directives.
When Congress takes the lead in that manner, Nebraska families,
farmers and businesses will prosper, and so will America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, at this time I yield 10 minutes to
Senator Feinstein, followed by 10 minutes to Senator Carper.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I just learned, by looking at one of
the boards out here, that we have something called a Western Caucus,
and the largest State in the Union that is bigger than all of the
States in population in the caucus has not been invited to join the
Western Caucus. Well, so be it. We will have to suffer along.
This measure, I believe, sets a dangerous precedent by invalidating
the endangerment finding on greenhouse gas pollution. I strongly oppose
it. I wish to make the public health argument.
What is an ``endangerment finding''? Simply put, it is a scientific
determination made by the EPA that an air pollutant endangers the
health and welfare of the American people and, therefore, it must be
regulated under the Clean Air Act.
This came about because of a 2007 case, Massachusetts v. EPA. What
the Supreme Court said was that the EPA has an obligation to study the
impact of global warming. Specifically, the majority opinion found that
``greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's definition of an
air pollutant.'' It ordered the EPA to comply with the Clean Air Act
and make a determination about whether greenhouse gases could
``reasonably endanger public health or welfare.''
In December 2009, the EPA issued the required final endangerment
finding, and that final finding said:
The emission of six greenhouse gasses, carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons,
and sulfur hexafluoride, threaten the public health and
welfare of current and future generations.
Accordingly, the Administrator has initiated action to curb these
emissions in order to protect the health and safety. Many argue, and I
happen to concur, that a national cap-and-trade system on these gases
might be more efficient and less costly than having to regulate them
under the Clean Air Act. Yet, the Senate has failed time and again to
approve climate change legislation. We have dithered while the Earth
heats.
That means right now, EPA is the only Federal agency with the
statutory authority to protect the American public's health and safety
from greenhouse gas pollution.
The Murkowski resolution, however, would throw out this endangerment
finding. It would stop EPA dead in its tracks. This would have some
real and very serious consequences. First, it would put the Senate on
record rejecting scientific analysis of EPA experts. Second, it would
block the implementation of a new Federal fuel economy program. Third,
it would put the Senate at odds with a coalition of 115 nations that
signed the Copenhagen summit agreement. The President has threatened to
veto this resolution if it passes, and I would support that veto.
Now, health effects. The EPA's endangerment finding says that global
warming will have four significant detrimental human health effects.
One, more heat waves will mean more heat-related deaths, which is
already the leading cause of weather-related deaths in our country.
Two, increased extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, put human
lives at risk. Katrina demonstrated that in tragic fashion. And, three,
a warmer climate will likely result in an increase in the spread of
several food and waterborne pathogens, including tropical diseases.
Finally, and most important to the Chair's State and my State, EPA's
endangerment finding states:
[[Page 10406]]
Climate change is expected to increase regional ozone
pollution with associated risks in respiratory illnesses and
premature death.
California has two of the worst nonattainment regions in the country:
the South Coast Basin, including Los Angeles, and the San Joaquin
Valley. Experts tells us combined ozone and particulate matter
contribute to up to 14,000 deaths and $71 billion in health care costs
every year.
Roughly 2.5 million Californians--that is bigger than most of these
States in the Western Caucus--2.5 million Californians suffer from
asthma, and it is increasing, and other air-pollution-related
illnesses.
This is a matter of saving lives. It is a matter of major health
concern and welfare, and it should be looked at that way. If
temperatures rise as projected, these two regions of our country could
see 75 to 85 percent more days with warming-related smog and ozone
pollution. Fact. This means more asthma, more lung-related disease,
more premature deaths from air pollution. These scientific observations
are not political statements. They are fact established by scientific
study after study. Yet the resolution offered today would reject this
evidence.
The EPA is legally charged with protecting the public's health and
welfare from air pollution. Not to do so, in my opinion, is
malfeasance.
Additionally, the Murkowski resolution would invalidate the Federal
fuel economy program. On April 1, the administration finalized joint
standards issued by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, more fondly known as NHTSA, in coordination with the
State of California to require automakers to increase fleetwide fuel
efficiency from the 2008 average of 27 miles per gallon to the
equivalent of 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016. This is important. It is
based on the enacted Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act which I authored with
Senator Olympia Snowe and others. That law requires automakers to
increase fleetwide fuel economy to the maximum feasible rate beginning
with 2011 vehicle models. I have been proud and encouraged to see the
administration aggressively implement this program. Yet if EPA's
endangerment finding is invalidated by Congress and thrown out, it
would mean that the Federal fuel economy program would collapse.
If that happens, California and 14 other States are required to
enforce their respective State law, regulating tailpipe greenhouse gas
emission standards. According to the auto industry, this would reimpose
the very patchwork of regulation they have argued against for many
years. This would be a major setback. EPA Administrator Jackson has
written that Senator Murkowski's resolution:
would undo the historic agreement among states, automakers,
the federal government, and other stakeholders . . . leaving
the automobile industry without explicit nationwide
uniformity that it has described as important to its
business.
State environment commissioners from nine States have written to
Congress to explain that they prefer a national approach, but they will
enforce their State statutes as long as the Federal Government refuses
to act. So the effect of the Murkowski resolution will be to encourage
a State-by-State variation of regulation. Not good. The EPA is the
agency we have charged to protect our children and our environment from
harmful air pollution. EPA is moving forward slowly and carefully to
address this issue. Its proposed rules would apply only to the very
largest sources until 2016, 6 years from now. If we in the Senate don't
like EPA's proposal, we should pass a climate change bill. But the one
thing we should absolutely not do is deny the existence of a problem
that science says is severely dangerous to our planet.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. I wish to begin by saying some nice words about the
Senator from Alaska. When she ran for the Senate the first time, she
ran against one of my dearest friends, former Governor Tony Knowles,
whom I tried very hard to elect to the Senate. When he lost, I said:
You are here. I want to work with you. I want to be your partner on a
whole lot of things.
This is one we cannot be partners and colleagues on. I want her to
know, though, there will be other opportunities, and I look forward to
those opportunities. Today I am compelled to oppose what she is
attempting to do.
As my colleagues are aware, I go back and forth on the train every
day and night. Usually before I catch the 7:15 train in Wilmington, I
go to the YMCA and work out. Sometimes people talk to me and say: Hi,
how are you? Sometimes they try to raise issues. This week a fellow
came up to me and said: What is this all about? ``This'' being today's
debate on the proposal of the Senator from Alaska. I didn't have time
to explore it in detail in order to make my train, but I want to answer
his question today.
This is about are we going to be guided by decades of science from
thousands of respected scientists or not. This is about are we going to
seize the opportunity that is inherent in the adversity we face at home
and around the world or not. This is about are we going to get serious
about ending our addiction to oil, a lot of which in our country is in
places like the Gulf of Mexico, some thousands of feet below the
surface of the water or not. This is about are we going to stop sending
literally maybe hundreds of billions of dollars every year to places
around the world that are unstable, nondemocratic, propping up tyrants
who lead countries such as Iran and Venezuela or not. This is about are
we going to continue sending troops to places such as Iraq or other
places where they happen to have a lot of oil and we want to make sure
there is access to the oil or not. This is about whether we are going
to jump-start our economy at a time in our history when millions of
young people are graduating from colleges, universities, and high
schools wondering if they will have the kind of opportunity to find a
job and provide for themselves and their families some day, to provide
a good life, better than the one they have inherited from their
parents. That is what this is about.
We have heard--and I know my colleagues have heard--from thousands of
scientists from all over the country who give us their advice. What are
they telling us? Among the things they are telling us is that the Earth
is growing warmer. They are telling us that we are part of the cause.
They are telling us to do something about it. They are saying to us if
we won't do something about it, at least let EPA do the job they have
been told by the Supreme Court they have to do under the Clean Air Act.
Among the things they have had to do under the Clean Air Act is to
provide for ratcheting up the fuel efficiency of cars, trucks, and vans
up to about 34 miles per gallon by 2016. The effect of doing that will
take something like 50 million cars, trucks, and vans off the road by
2030. That is the kind of thing EPA needs to do, if we will let them.
Who are the scientists we are hearing from? I don't know them all. We
have heard from a couple thousand. I know a couple of them well. Their
names are Lonnie and Ellen Thompson, professors at Ohio State
University, my undergraduate alma mater. They spent a lot of the last
20, 25 years running the polar research center at Ohio State. They have
also spent a lot of the last 25 years going around the world climbing
up some of the tallest mountains, a lot of them along the equator,
where the snow caps give them the opportunity to take ice core samples.
Those snow caps over time have actually begun to largely disappear. The
ice core samples they still have frozen on the campus at Ohio State
give us an opportunity to go back in time and, as we go back in time,
to look back as much as a million years. What do we see then? We see
over that million years different levels of carbon in the air.
Sometimes it is high, sometimes it is low. They have correlated--the
Drs. Thompson; I call them the Thompson twins--the increases in carbon
with increases in temperature over time and the decreases in carbon
with the decreases in temperature. They are correlated. They are
positively correlated. Drs. Thompson say we ought to do something about
it. We ought to act on that science.
[[Page 10407]]
I believe they are absolutely right. We have also heard from
scientists that the 10 hottest years in all the years we have been
around as a country keeping records are the last 20 years. In an effort
to compel the government to take action, all kinds of campaigns have
been launched. I heard one from Senator Feinstein talking about
drought, fertile farmland turning into desert. Polar bears don't have
ice to float on. We see endangered species disappear. Movies are made
about extreme weather that is going to flow out of climate change. I am
going to leave it to others to pursue those particular agendas or
examples. I want to focus on a couple I am more familiar with. One is
Delaware, where I live. The other is Florida, where my parents lived
for the last 30 years of their lives.
This is Delaware, outlined here in black. If the melting that is
going on in Greenland and the west Antarctic ice sheets continues, if
it continues over the next 100 years or more, this will no longer be
Delaware. The green area right here will be Delaware. People won't go
to Rehoboth Beach anymore or Bethany or Dewey Beach. They will be
looking for a beach up here in Dover. They won't be going go to NASCAR
races in Dover. They will be going to a sailboat regatta in Dover.
Ocean View, which doesn't have an ocean view, will be under the ocean.
Let's take a look at Florida with about a 1-meter rise in sea level.
My parents lived in Clearwater just around here in St. Petersburg and
Tampa. The place where they used to live will be largely under water.
They lived about a half mile from the gulf. It will be pretty much
under water. Look at south Florida, go to South Beach. When we have 1
meter of sea rise, we won't find it. It will be under water. What
happens with 6 meters of sea rise? The red part is the parts of Florida
that are basically under water. Most of the people who live in Florida
live in the parts in red. Where are they going to live? I guess they
can come inland a little bit, but they won't be living in the area that
turns red because they would otherwise be under water.
There is a saying that all politics is local. That has been true for
a long time, and it is still true. The highest point of land in
Delaware is a bridge. When we get a couple feet of sea level rise, the
outline of our State changes dramatically. The quality of life in a
State that is under water changes dramatically as well. The same is
true of Florida and a bunch of other coastal States.
What do we need to do? We need to unleash market forces, put millions
of people to work building new nuclear powerplants, finding ways to
take carbon dioxide coming out of coal-fired plants, turning it into a
concrete aggregate to build roads, bridges, finding ways to take the
CO2 coming off coal-fired plants and turning it into
biofuels. We need to deploy off of our shores windmill farms. We need
to deploy windmill farms from North Carolina all the way up to Maine.
We need to take that electricity we are generating from the wind and
use that to power vehicles such as the Chevrolet Volt that will be
launched this fall or the Fisker Karma cars of Project Nina that are
going to be launched in a year or so, built in Delaware. They get 100
miles per gallon. We need to make sure that the cars, trucks, and vans
that GM and Chrysler are prepared to build, 44 miles per gallon, that
when they build them, somebody will be there to buy them.
Let me conclude with the words of a friend of Senator Boxer, an
eminent climatologist named Stephen Stills. He wrote a great song that
says: ``Something's happening here; what it is ain't exactly clear.''
It is clear to me. Our planet is getting warmer. It is clear to me
the great challenges that poses for all of us. But inherent in those
challenges are great opportunities. The thing we have to do is seize
those opportunities, to seize the day.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Menendez, followed by 5
minutes to Senator Cardin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding. I come to the floor in strong opposition to the Murkowski
resolution because it means we will needlessly use more oil. That is
why the oil industry supports this resolution, because this resolution
would increase demand for their products. In turn that is why so many
of my Republican friends support this resolution, because whenever big
oil wants something, it seems they line up to support it. When the
Republicans were in charge of MMS, they stripped the government's
ability to regulate oil drilling. Anyone who has turned on the news in
the last 52 days can see exactly what the policy of allowing industry
to police itself has gotten us. Now they want to go further and strip
the government's ability to reduce our oil consumption and regulate
pollution. This is simply a wrongheaded approach at the wrong time.
This is not the time to increase oil consumption by more than 450
million barrels, which this resolution would ultimately do. This is not
the time to prop up big oil, make ourselves less energy secure, and put
our coastlines in further peril.
The events unfolding in the gulf have vividly shown us we should not
be doubling down on 19th-century dirty fuels but, instead, moving to
clean technologies of the 21st century that will reinvigorate our
economy, allow our businesses to compete internationally, improve our
energy security, and preserve the environment.
The resolution is regressive on its face. For my home State of New
Jersey, it would increase dependence on oil by more than 14 million
barrels in 2016 and cost New Jerseyans an additional $39 million at the
gas pump in 2016.
The Federal Government gives big oil tax breaks. It gives big oil
subsidies. The government even gives big oil, so far, a cap on damages
stemming from oilspills. The resolution is just one more windfall for
big oil at the expense of American taxpayers.
So the choice is clear: We can keep protecting big oil from
regulation or we can do what reason, common sense, and good governance
dictate. In light of the facts--in light of the need to reduce
pollution; in light of the need to move toward new, smarter, greener
energy for the future; in light of what we are seeing happen every day
in the gulf--over the last 52 days--in light of the fact that this
resolution would cost consumers as much as $47 billion in additional
fuels costs, I hope the Senate soundly defeats the Murkowski
resolution.
This is a choice between polluting our environment--and stopping the
government from ensuring we do not pollute our environment--and moving
toward a cleaner, greener future. This is a choice between a quality of
life that ultimately reduces respiratory ailments and cancer versus one
that continues to perpetuate it. The choice could not be clearer. I
certainly hope my colleagues will ultimately vote for a choice that is
greener, that has a future of promise and hope and opportunity, not one
that continues to help big oil at the expense of the American taxpayer.
With that, I yield back any time I may have to the chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, as the world is looking at the worst
oilspill in America's history--it may yet become the worst oilspill
ever--everyone is saying: Well, what are we going to do about this?
What is our response? Our response needs to be, first, to stop the oil
from spilling into the Gulf of Mexico; second, to make sure we clean up
this mess and hold BP and its related companies fully responsible for
all damages, whether to the businesses that have been put out of
business, literally, by what has happened in the Gulf of Mexico or the
property owners or the taxpayers. BP has to be held fully accountable.
They are looking forward to us making sure that future drilling in
this country is done in a safe way; that we have a regulatory system in
place that
[[Page 10408]]
protects the public, that is independent, and that will protect
environmentally sensitive areas where there is currently no drilling,
such as the Mid-Atlantic, from any drilling. But they are also looking
for us to have an energy policy--an energy policy that makes sense for
America; that we invest in alternative and renewable energy sources;
that we conserve energy; and that, yes, we manage our mineral resources
as best we can and use less oil.
Well, the Murkowski resolution does just the opposite. It is very
strange, the timing of this resolution, that we are taking up what
would prevent the EPA regulations and would require us to use more oil
rather than less oil. That makes no sense at all. It stops dead in its
tracks efforts to cut the oil consumption of cars and trucks sold in
America. You may ask why this resolution is being considered. Well, it
is clearly supported by big oil. But whose side are we on? Are we on
the side of the American consumers or on the side of big oil?
On April 1, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of
Transportation completed standards to decrease the oil consumption in
model years 2012 through 2016 cars and light trucks sold in the United
States. Those standards will result in vehicles that will use almost 2
billion barrels less than current models. That is what we should be
doing: using less oil. That needs to be part of our future.
On May 21, President Obama directed EPA and DOT to follow up over the
next 2 years with standards for trucks and buses starting with model
year 2014 and for cars and light trucks starting with model year 2017.
Those follow-on standards will further reduce U.S. oil consumption by
billions of barrels.
But the Murkowski resolution would compel EPA to rescind its portion
of the completed standard and prevent the Agency from taking part in
the follow-on ones--in other words, stopping us from improving the
efficiency of our fleets, causing us to use more oil.
Not surprisingly, big oil is trying to disguise their resolution as
something other than what it is. They claim it is necessary to prevent
EPA from regulating the greenhouse gas emissions of small businesses
and even homes and farms. Nothing could be further from the truth. As
every Senator knows, EPA has already issued a final rule to shield
small businesses, to shield homes, to shield farms, and to shield all
other small sources from regulation for at least the next 6 years. Six
years is more than enough time to pass a law making the exemption for
small sources permanent.
The resolution of disapproval has just one certain outcome: that
America's dangerous dependence on oil will continue. We cannot allow
this resolution to be approved. It would eliminate the legal foundation
of the EPA oil-savings standards that are essential to breaking our
addiction to oil.
It is time to decide whose side you are on. I choose the side of the
American consumer, and I ask my colleagues to stand with me and reject
the Murkowski resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask that the time in this block be
allocated as follows: Senator Bond, 6 minutes; Senator Collins, 7
minutes; Senator Enzi, 6 minutes; Senator Chambliss, 6 minutes; Senator
Brownback, 5 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Do we have 2 unused minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mrs. BOXER. I would ask if we could carry that time to the next
segment, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise in support of the Murkowski EPA
disapproval resolution. We must prevent the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency from imposing a backdoor energy tax on suffering
families and workers. This is our chance to stand with American
families and workers and stand against unelected bureaucrats at EPA
trying to expand government's reach.
Missouri families and workers do not want the higher energy costs and
lost jobs that would come from allowing EPA's big government carbon
regulations to go forward. Missouri manufacturing workers, like those
in States across the Midwest, are dependent on affordable energy.
Missouri workers would suffer terribly when EPA's carbon regulations
drive up the cost of their energy and raw materials. Allowing the
regulations to go forward would allow India, China, and other counties
to take those energy-intensive jobs away from American workers.
Missouri families, like those in States across the Midwest, are
struggling to pay their power, heating, and cooling bills. Missouri
families would suffer even more when EPA carbon regulations drive up
the cost of their electricity, gas, and gasoline bills. Allowing EPA
carbon regulations to go forward would punish Missouri families with
higher energy prices.
Like all families and workers in the Midwest, Missourians wonder why
we would allow EPA to impose this punishing pain for no environmental
benefits. Let me make it clear: For those who want to talk about what
this vote means for the science of global emissions, EPA itself admits
that unilateral U.S. actions, without China and India, which have
clearly indicated they will not take action, will have no measurable
impact on world temperatures. So if you actually believe the climate
science and want world temperatures to stop rising, these EPA
regulations will do nothing to address your concerns. You are basically
telling us you want to impose trillions of dollars in costs, hundreds
of billions of dollars in new taxes, and hundreds of billions of
dollars in new government spending for no environmental gain.
Some also try to hide behind the auto deal between EPA, the State of
California, and automakers. We should not punish Midwestern families
and workers with a new energy tax in order to uphold some backroom deal
between EPA, the automakers, and the State of California.
Even so, these EPA regulations are totally unnecessary for those who
care about reducing carbon emissions from vehicles. Let me be clear:
Congress has already authorized the Department of Transportation to
impose new, stricter auto emissions standards, and the Obama
administration announced recently they were going to do so.
So, again, opponents want to punish American families and workers
with job-killing energy taxes for no net environmental gain.
Some also say this issue is linked to the gulf oilspill and we should
respond by allowing EPA's new backdoor energy taxes. For the life of
me, I do not see how imposing a new national energy tax is the right
response to the gulf oilspill. It will not stop the oil from flowing,
it will not mitigate the environmental damage, and it will not
compensate the workers and others for lost wages and revenue. We should
be punishing British Petroleum, not the American people with new taxes.
And do not be misled about the empty rhetoric against big oil. Big oil
just passes along the cost of these taxes to us in higher prices for
the gas and oil we must buy and we must use.
But some, as they say, never want to let a crisis go to waste.
Unfortunately, many of my Democratic colleagues seek any opportunity to
expand the reach of government and impose new taxes. They admit it,
too, although they use fancy ways to say it. This week, President Obama
repeated his call for ``putting a price'' on carbon. These are code
words for imposing a carbon tax.
We also need to stop and think about what the majority leader has
said. He and others have said that if EPA is allowed to move forward
with their carbon regulations, it will cut oil usage. The reason is
because this new energy tax will punish American consumers with so much
pain at the pump, they will use less gasoline because they cannot
afford it. It is like saying we need
[[Page 10409]]
another recession because in a recession people drive less. We want
recessions? That is hardly the way to make the economy thrive and make
the progress we need.
We must stop this policy of pain. We must stop EPA from moving
forward with job-killing, energy cost-raising regulation. The choice is
stark: Stand with EPA bureaucrats imposing a backdoor tax or stand with
American families and workers. I urge my colleagues to stand with
American families and workers and support the Murkowski amendment.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the
resolution offered by the Senator from Alaska disapproving a rule
submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency concerning the
regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
Our country must develop reasonable policies to spur the creation of
green energy jobs, lessen our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We face an international race to lead
the world in alternative energy technologies, and we can win that race
if Congress enacts legislation to put a price on carbon and thus
encourage investment here in the United States.
I have, however, serious concerns about unelected government
officials at the EPA taking on this complicated issue instead of
Congress. It is Congress that should establish the framework for
regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. And it surely is significant
that the House-passed climate bill, as well as the Kerry-Lieberman
bill, recognized that fact by preempting some of the EPA's rules in
this area.
The Agency's early rules on this topic give me cause for concern.
They could affect some 34 businesses in my State that employ nearly
8,800 people. Incredibly, the EPA proposes to ignore the carbon
neutrality of biomass and would place onerous permitting requirements
on businesses, such as Maine's biomass plants and paper mills, which
use biomass to provide energy for their operations. This reverses years
of EPA considering biomass as carbon-neutral.
EPA's decisions could well result in the loss of jobs, leading to
mill and plant closures and discouraging employers from investing. We
simply cannot afford that result, particularly not in this tough
economic climate. The EPA's apparent stunning reversal in its view of
biomass potentially would affect 14 biomass facilities in Maine in
small rural towns such as Ashland, Fort Fairfield, and Livermore Falls.
A better way forward is for Congress to finally tackle this issue and
pass comprehensive clean energy legislation. In December, I joined with
my colleague, Senator Maria Cantwell, in introducing the bipartisan
Carbon Limits and Energy for American Renewal Act, what we call the
CLEAR Act. Our legislation would set up a mechanism for selling
``carbon shares'' to the few thousand fossil fuel producers and
importers through monthly auctions. Under our bill, 75 percent of the
auction's revenues would be returned directly to every citizen of the
United States through rebate checks. The average family of four in
Maine would stand to gain almost $400 each year. Our bill represents
the right approach, a much more thoughtful approach than EPA's, and it
would spur the development of green energy and the creation of green
energy jobs.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance the practical
concepts that are embodied in the CLEAR Act.
Let me be clear because there are diverse views on this issue in this
Chamber. I believe global climate change and the development of
alternatives to fossil fuels are significant and urgent priorities for
our country. We must meet these economic and environmental challenges.
The scientific evidence demonstrates the human contribution to climate
change, and we must act to mitigate that impact. But we must proceed
with care, and we should not allow the Federal EPA to charge ahead on a
problem that affects every aspect of our already fragile economy. The
preliminary steps the EPA has taken, including its decision to revisit
the carbon neutrality of biomass, undermine my confidence in having the
EPA proceed. It is Congress's job, not the EPA's, to decide how best to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
So for this reason, I will vote for the Murkowski resolution.
Thank you, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise in support of Senator Murkowski's
resolution that would ensure this Congress keeps its responsibility to
establish our Nation's environmental regulations. The Environmental
Protection Agency's move to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air
Act is an economic and bureaucratic nightmare in the making that is
going to have a devastating effect on our economy and put a regulatory
stranglehold on businesses and individuals across the country.
The Congressional Review Act was passed in 1996 to make sure Congress
could step in when Federal agencies got off track. It was a bipartisan
bill because Senators and Representatives recognized we should not hand
off our responsibility for setting Federal policy to Federal agencies.
So when Federal agencies get off track, we have a way to bring them
back to reality. We need to bring the EPA back to reality on the
catastrophe that regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act
would create because if we don't, it will be consumers and businesses--
both small business and big business in every sector of our economy--
that will end up paying more than they can afford for these
regulations.
The consequences of allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide under
the Clean Air Act are tremendous. The EPA's rule that will go into
effect if Senator Murkowski's resolution is not adopted would not just
apply to big powerplants or industrial factories. More than 6 million
businesses and residences will come under these new regulations at a
cost of billions of dollars to our economy. The EPA is going to
regulate small business and family farms, and those who can't afford to
comply will go out of business. They will regulate office buildings and
warehouses, and if you rent space in an office building or store your
inventory in a warehouse, your costs will rise. Grocery stores,
restaurants, hotels, residential buildings, and even individual homes
will face complicated and expensive regulations.
It is not just Members on my side of the aisle who believe the EPA is
taking a disastrous approach. The White House and members of the
President's party have said EPA's move to impose ``command and
control'' regulation on greenhouse gases would be a step in the wrong
direction.
Where would the regulations stop? No one knows for sure. Cattle
produce a lot of carbon dioxide and methane, so it is hard to imagine
how the agricultural industry would not be impacted. What about people?
In a big city, people are breathing out carbon dioxide all day long.
Could that be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act? Could
breathing become a fineable violation or would there be a new tax as
breathing isn't an option?
There will be many unintended consequences if the EPA is allowed to
move forward, and we have a chance to stop that from happening today by
supporting Senator Murkowski's resolution disapproving the EPA's
action.
Our economy has lost 8 million jobs over the past 2 years, and
unemployment is still almost 10 percent. Businesses that had to lay
people off are still hurting. The last thing our economy needs and the
last thing businesses can afford is an EPA choke hold. According to the
EPA, the average cost of compliance for stationary sources that would
be regulated is more than $125,000. That is an average cost. Some will
be less, but many will be more than $125,000. It is just an average.
That is $125,000 that could be used to hire new employees. It is
$125,000 that will not be spent on business expansion. Right now, with
our economy struggling, we need to be working to encourage businesses
to hire more employees and to grow, but unless we stop
[[Page 10410]]
the EPA's overreach, businesses across this country will be facing the
harshest and most expensive regulations they have ever seen.
Some people have suggested that EPA's decision to move forward with
greenhouse gas regulation will pressure Congress into implementing a
cap-and-tax proposal. They say: We don't want EPA to regulate, but we
have to keep pressure on Congress or Congress would not act. I don't
buy that argument because, as the old saying goes, ``two wrongs don't
make a right.''
Senators are faced with a choice. If it is wrong for the EPA to
regulate, they should stop it from happening, and supporting Senator
Murkowski's resolution is the clearest way to do it. My colleagues who
oppose this resolution are voting in favor of EPA action. They are
voting to allow the EPA to set up complex regulations that will
strangle our economy, kill economic recovery, and further squeeze
consumers and businesses across the country. It is the start of a
slippery slope. How much control will the EPA reach for after this if
it isn't stopped now?
The Clean Air Act is not the EPA's regulatory Swiss Army knife.
Even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said that the Clean Air Act
was not written to apply to greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gas is not one
of the six categories of pollutants that the Clean Air Act covers and
the list of 188 specific pollutants that are regulated under the Clean
Air Act does not include carbon dioxide or methane. Even if Congress
did decide that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases should be
regulated, the Clean Air Act would be the wrong tool for the job.
Greenhouse gases come from large and small sources, from major
manufacturers and industrial plants and from community hospitals and
small-town businesses. And yes, they come from animals, and yes, from
people breathing in and out. Applying the Clean Air Act across the
board to sources that emit a small amount of carbon dioxide--as the law
requires--would be clumsy and harmful, and ultimately do tremendous
economic harm to America's businesses and consumers.
The Congressional Review Act was passed so that Congress could step
in and prevent federal agencies like the EPA from implementing rules or
regulations that don't make sense. I hope my colleagues will recognize
the tremendous harm that allowing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases
under the Clean Air Act would do to our economy. While there are many
disagreements about climate change legislation, we should all be able
to recognize that the course the EPA is on now is the worst of all
worlds. Their approach would stymie our chances of recovering from the
recession and stifle economic development for businesses and consumers
who are already struggling to make ends meet.
Is there no end to the administration's approach of believing that
any situation can be saved with more redtape, more regulations, and
more fines? Is there any end to the power grabs of this administration,
which has thrown every obstacle it can think of in the path of our
small businesses? Supporting the Murkowski resolution would check the
EPA and give our small businesses that make up the most important part
of our economy a fighting chance.
This is the last chance to stop the EPA's carbon overreach and the
slippery slope that will ensue if we allow them to move forward with
these harmful regulations. Please vote yes on the motion to proceed and
yes on the motion for disapproval.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S.J. Res.
26, the resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA, relating to the endangerment for greenhouse
gases under the Clean Air Act.
Today's debate and this resolution are about whether this Congress
will allow an executive branch agency--EPA--to unleash a regulatory
onslaught that within a few years will capture homes, small businesses,
farms, hospitals, and apartment buildings in an expensive, intrusive,
and bureaucratic regulatory program. The consideration of this
resolution is about preserving the traditional and constitutional role
of Congress as the elected representatives of the citizens of this
country to make necessary and proper laws for the Nation.
Congress is the appropriate branch of the Federal Government to
debate and design a climate change policy. Many have complained that
the Senate is taking too long to do this, but that doesn't mean EPA
should go ahead and regulate on its own. It is also highly cynical for
administration officials to suggest that the specter of EPA regulations
should force Congress to act. I don't appreciate the implied threat
that if Congress doesn't go along with EPA then the agency will impose
costly regulations.
Many argue that passage of the resolution would prevent increases in
the vehicle fuel economy and undo the ``historic'' agreement among the
Federal Government, several states, labor unions, and the auto
industry. It doesn't. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration--NHTSA--has had authority to regulate and increase
Corporate Average Fuel Economy--CAFE--standards for more than 30 years.
In fact, Congress directed the agency to increase the standards to at
least 35 miles per gallon by 2020 in the 2007 Energy Independence and
Security Act. And these new standards will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. EPA's activities on fuel economy through its so-called
tailpipe rule are unnecessary to achieve the desired results, given the
authorities already held by NHTSA.
Many also argue that passage of the resolution is contrary to the
science of climate change. A letter generated by the Union of Concerned
Scientists claims the resolution ``ignores'' the scientific findings of
EPA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and that the
resolution is an ``attack'' on the Clean Air Act. They must not have
read the resolution as even a cursory review of it will dispel this
notion.
The resolution states, ``That Congress disapproves the rule submitted
by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment
finding . . . and such rule shall have no force or effect.'' This means
the agency cannot use the Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gas
emissions. This does not speak to the issue of whether climate change
is happening or what is causing it. Those who claim the resolution
ignores science appear to be avoiding the debate over the economic
consequences and legal validity of EPA's approach. I also believe that
they are attempting an end-run around a skeptical Congress. I am sorry,
but that is not how the American system of government works.
I know the climate in changing. In 2006, I visited Greenland. I
toured the Kangia Ice Fjord and took a boat tour of Disko Bay to view
the world's largest glaciers and icebergs floating in the bay. These
glaciers were formed more than 1,000 years ago. I saw the glaciers
melting and the remains of a 4,000-year-old village. Obviously, it was
warm enough in the past for humans to live and thrive in that part of
the world, even though in recent memory we only think of Greenland as
covered in ice. I talked to the scientists who have studied Greenland's
glaciers for decades. They told me that while the climate is changing
they don't know with any certainty if the changes are natural or caused
by human activity or a combination of the two. I found it interesting
that while some glaciers are melting, some are increasing in size. We
just don't see what is happening on the back side.
The President and the Administrator of EPA, Lisa Jackson, have said
their preference is for Congress to act. They know the Clean Air Act
was not designed for controlling greenhouse gases. Yet they are swiftly
moving ahead. Last week, EPA issued a final rule for regulating
greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air
Act's permitting programs. The so-called tailoring rule is the fourth
significant action taken by the administration to regulate greenhouse
gas emissions.
[[Page 10411]]
The first major action was EPA's determination--the Endangerment
Finding--that greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-duty trucks
endanger human health and welfare. On April 1, 2010, EPA finalized the
light duty vehicle rule controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Under the
Clean Air Act, when a pollutant becomes subject to regulation by one
provision of the Act, it then becomes subject to regulation under other
provisions. Hence, greenhouse gas emissions are now subject to
regulation under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration--PSD--and
title V operating permit programs. It is only a matter of time before
greenhouse gases are subject to other provisions in the law, such as
national ambient air quality standards.
Under current law, the title V program permitting requirements are
triggered when a facility releases 100 tons per year of a regulated
pollutant. For the PSD program, the threshold is 250 tons per year. In
the final rule, EPA ``tailors'' the application of the programs to
significantly higher threshold levels. Without the tailoring rule, EPA
estimates that about 6 million sources, including 37,000 farms and 3.9
million single family homes, will be required to obtain Clean Air Act
permits.
EPA's own documents call the tailoring rule a commonsense approach to
addressing greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the
Clean Air Act permitting programs. But I don't follow the agency's
logic. The rule states emissions from small farms, restaurants, and all
but the very largest commercial facilities will not be covered by these
programs at this time. The rule establishes a schedule that will
initially focus the permitting programs on the largest sources and
without this tailoring rule the lower emissions thresholds would take
effect automatically for greenhouse gases on January 2, 2011.
The agency, in its proposed rule, recognized the inherent problems
with using the Clean Air Act. The proposed rule states, ``This
extraordinary increase in the scope of the permitting programs coupled
with the resulting burdens on the small sources and on the permitting
authorities was not contemplated by Congress in enacting the PSD and
Title V programs.'' It further states that, ``The new rules would apply
Title V to millions of sources Congress did not intend to be covered
and would impede the issuance of permits to the thousands of sources
that Congress did intend to be covered.''
It is cold comfort that the smallest sources will not be regulated
until 2016. We have a rule now that says it is not if but when
hospitals, farms, small businesses, and apartment buildings can expect
to have to apply for a clean air permit. We can only imagine what will
happen to the economy if EPA is successful and its plans to fully
regulate greenhouse gas emissions under all of the authorities of the
Clean Air Act come to fruition.
One of the most troubling aspects about the tailoring rule and EPA's
approach to its suite of greenhouse gas regulations is that there is no
economic analysis. The agency hasn't even attempted to quantify the
economic costs and regulatory burdens it will impose on American
businesses and consumers. We have no idea what it will mean for jobs,
economic growth or small businesses. Even though we can't quantify it
or point to a document, it is not hard to imagine the significant costs
it will impose.
While EPA isn't worried about this, States, businesses, unions, and
individuals are. For example, in March, 20 Governors, including
Governor Sunny Purdue of Georgia, wrote House and Senate leadership
expressing grave concern about EPA's efforts to impose greenhouse gas
regulations. They believe EPA's actions will place heavy administrative
burdens on State environmental quality agencies just as States are
expected to face their worst financial situations over the next 2
years. The Governors also are concerned that the regulations will be
costly to consumers and could be devastating to the economy and jobs.
The Governors believe that complex energy and environmental policy
initiatives should be developed by elected representatives at the State
and national level but not by a single Federal agency.
While Georgia believes the final rule is an improvement over the
proposed one, there are still significant concerns. Most notably is its
legal vulnerability. I quote from the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Air Protection Branch
comments on the proposed rule:
The GHG Tailoring Rule appears to be legally vulnerable and
may not provide intended relief from the statutory permitting
thresholds for PSD and Title V. If the Tailoring Rule is
vacated, the workload for permitting authorities will
increase exponentially at a time when State and Local
governments are experiencing severe budgetary challenges due
to the current economic climate. Vacatur of the GHG Tailoring
Rule seems to be a very real possibility.
The letter further states:
We also believe that EPA has failed to take into account
the length of time that it will take for permitting
authorities . . . to go through rulemaking, . . . hiring, and
training in order to implement the mandate of regulating GHG
emissions under the Title V and PSD permitting programs. In
Georgia, rulemaking will be required in order to insert the
new GHG emission thresholds. Rulemaking will also be required
in order to increase Title V fees consistent with the Clean
Air Act requirement that permitting programs collect enough
revenue to implement the program requirements. Given the
current state of the economic situation in our state and
country, this issue should not be taken lightly. Then,
permitting authorities must hire and train staff to issue
these complicated permits. This could take up to two years
after the requirement is triggered. Raising the regulatory
threshold will not abate the predicted permitting backlog if
additional permitting personnel are not in place at the time
the additional workload occurs.
EPA is moving ahead despite these concerns and the economic
consequences of its plans. They will increase energy prices, add to
administrative costs for companies, decrease job creation, and create a
large new government bureaucracy, which will endanger economic recovery
and limit future growth. While the final rule with its phased-in
implementation is a small step in the right direction, the Clean Air
Act continues to be the wrong tool for the job, and EPA's timeline and
its shaky legal foundation will continue to create significant
uncertainty for the State permitting agencies and businesses community.
At this time, there is no other option to stop EPA from moving ahead.
Some of our colleagues have introduced measures to provide for a time
out; others are looking at ways to codify the tailoring rule and
provide permanent exemptions for small businesses. However, there are
no plans for the Senate to consider these measures. If there were
another option, I would be open to it.
The Congressional Review Act was designed for the purpose of
reviewing agency actions. The majority leader understands this and
recognizes that, ``overburdensome and unnecessary federal regulation
can choke the life out of small businesses by imposing costly and
often-ineffectual remedies to problems that may not exist.'' No
description could be more accurate about EPA's greenhouse gas
regulatory plans.
Some argue that it would be a dangerous precedent for Congress to
stop EPA's endangerment finding. However, it is far more dangerous for
the Nation if Congress allows an agency to impose these regulations
under a law that was not designed for the purpose. By issuing the
tailoring rule, the administration has again reminded us that if
Congress won't legislate, EPA will regulate. I believe my colleague
from Alaska was correct when she called this a highly coercive
strategy. I am appalled by the actions of EPA.
There is a reason why the U.S. Senate hasn't acted on a cap and trade
bill. This is because analyses of these bills shows they cause
significant economic harm--job losses, higher energy prices, higher gas
taxes, less economic growth. It makes no sense for Congress to pass
job-killing legislation in order to stave off costly regulation.
The House and Senate cap and trade bills are truly bad for
agriculture. They would dramatically increase energy and other input
costs and, according to EPA, would cause the shift of 59
[[Page 10412]]
million acres out of production into trees. With a growing world
population to feed, our farmers and ranchers will need to produce more
food in the future, not less. If enacted as written today, cap and
trade legislation would only push agriculture production overseas,
raising many of the same concerns that have been expressed about the
loss of manufacturing jobs.
Rather than driving American agriculture offshore, a more sensible
approach would be to increase food, fuel, and fiber production right
here at home. In this Nation, we have an abundant natural resource
base, an economy built on open and transparent markets, and sufficient
protections for consumers and the environment.
Last fall, Texas A&M University released a study on the House cap and
trade bill. I mention it again today because it is most instructive of
what we can expect to see in the agricultural sector under a cap and
trade regime.
Texas A&M University used its representative farm database to study
the effects of the House bill at the farmgate level. This database was
developed to help Congress better understand the effects of legislation
at the individual producer level. The study shows that 71 out of 98
farms in the database will be worse off under the House bill. The 27
farms that benefit do so because other producers go out of business
they benefit because there are fewer acres in production, thus crop
prices rise.
Some producers will see increased revenue from an offset program, but
it is not a significant factor in the profitability of farms in the
analysis. The study also dramatically shows the regional disparities of
the House bill. Only some cornbelt farmers benefit. It's hard to
imagine that members of the Senate Agriculture Committee will be able
to endorse a policy that disproportionally favors certain commodities,
few producers and one part of the country at the expense of others.
In January, 150 agriculture organizations sent a letter to my
colleague from Alaska supporting the introduction of the resolution.
These groups wrote that, ``Such regulatory actions will carry severe
consequences for the U.S. economy, including America's farmers and
ranchers, through increased input costs and international market
disparities.'' They also believe that, ``EPA's finding puts the
agricultural economy at grave risk based on allegations of a weak,
indirect link to public health and welfare and despite the lack of any
environmental benefit.''
On May 18, I received another letter from 49 different agriculture
groups. They state:
Without relief from Congress, we fully expect the
application of these programs to have severe economic impacts
on agriculture. Not only will producers likely incur
increased costs as a result of the regulatory impacts on
other economic sectors, but agricultural producers will
eventually be directly regulated. The final EPA tailoring
rule estimates the average cost for these permits is $23,200
per permit. For the 37,000 farms identified by EPA as likely
to require permits this would cost them more than $866
million just to obtain the permit.
In contrast to the campaign slogans and feel-good messages of hope
and change for farmers, ranchers and rural America, this administration
is causing great pain through its actions, especially its economic
policies and far-reaching regulatory programs and goals. The
endangerment finding and related regulations are only one set--albeit a
very significant set--of regulatory actions facing producers and rural
America. By themselves, these will impose higher energy costs on rural
residents and businesses. Higher costs in rural areas mean fewer jobs
and opportunities for those who live there.
Another immense expansion of Federal regulatory authority that will
have severe consequences for producers and rural landowners is the
administration's support for legislation to grant EPA and the U.S.
Corps of Engineers--Corps--nearly unlimited regulatory control over all
``intrastate waters,'' including all wet areas within a State, such as
groundwater, ditches, pipes, streets, gutters, and desert features. The
administration supports giving EPA and the Corps unrestricted authority
to regulate all private and public activities that may affect
intrastate waters, regardless of whether the activity is occurring in
or may impact water at all. Unbelievably, the administration supports
eliminating the existing regulatory limitations that allow commonsense
uses such as those allowed with a prior converted cropland designation.
I strongly oppose this effort to expand EPA's and the Corps' regulatory
control. I do not believe the Federal Government should regulate all
wet areas within a State.
The administration also is attempting to circumvent one of the most
highly regarded environmental statutes--the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, that governs the licensing and use of
pesticides. This is a well-crafted law that balances the risks and
benefits of pesticide use. EPA has an excellent staff of scientists and
experts working in this area. However, the agency's political
leadership is trying to implement by regulatory fiat a precautionary
approach, which is contradictory to current law.
For example, last fall, EPA proposed to add language to pesticide
product labels that will forbid pesticide applications that result in
drift that could cause harm or adverse effects. For many years, EPA and
state pesticide regulators recognized that a small amount of drift
inevitably will occur, and that when pesticides are applied according
to their label instructions, this small amount of drift does not cause
an unreasonable adverse effect. If an unreasonable adverse effect is
likely to be caused by a certain use of a pesticide, FIFRA requires,
and Congress expects, the label to reflect that information and
appropriate mitigation be required.
In April, I wrote to EPA, along with the chairman of the Senate
Agriculture Committee and other colleagues, about the need for greater
clarity in pesticide drift policy and noted that such clarity would
benefit the agency, pesticide users and State regulatory agencies.
However, we noted that the proposal set forth vague standards and would
not have clarified pesticide drift policy. It also exceeded the
authority granted to the agency by FIFRA. We asked the proposed policy
to be reconsidered. I am pleased to note that recently EPA made the
right decision to do so.
One other issue I raise reflects the administration's willingness to
cast aside rational, science-based policy when given the opportunity to
impose additional regulation. In January 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals issued an opinion in National Cotton Council v. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency that would require pesticide
applications to be permitted under the Clean Water Act's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System--NPDES. The permit would be in
addition to any label requirements or restrictions already placed on
the use of the pesticide under FIFRA.
Unfortunately, the administration refused to appeal the decision even
though it admitted in a filing with the U.S. Supreme Court this year
that the Sixth Circuit Court reached the wrong decision. Pesticides are
not pollutants under the Clean Water Act and have never been. Instead,
EPA, for political reasons, has been working to develop a NPDES general
permit for discharges from the application of pesticides. EPA released
the draft permit last week for public comment and will issue a final
permit in December 2010. Pesticides applications must be covered by a
permit by April 9, 2011. Is your State ready to issue these permits?
Are your producers and applicators ready to apply for them?
This has been a particular concern for State and public health
officials as it has the potential to seriously affect their ability to
control mosquitoes, especially those carrying the West Nile Virus.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were
720 cases, including 32 deaths, attributed to the virus in 2009. This
is better than 2008, in which there were 1,370 cases, including 37
deaths. In 2009, two of those deaths were in my home State of Georgia.
Talk about overburdensome, unnecessary regulation! Requiring
producers,
[[Page 10413]]
pest control agencies and other users to obtain NPDES permits will do
nothing to enhance the environment. It only doubles the number of
permitted entities and creates new requirements for monitoring,
surveillance, planning, recordkeeping, and reporting that only will
create significant delays, costs, reporting burdens and legal risks
from citizen suits. These permits will provide absolutely benefit only
cost.
All issues regarding water and pesticides are addressed by EPA as
part of the pesticide registration process. If there are concerns,
mitigation is required. We are fortunate we have a strong law that
requires rigorous science and careful balancing of risks and benefits.
The Endangerment Finding and related rules, along with the other
environmental regulations planned by the administration will hurt the
productivity of American farmers and ranchers and make the future for
U.S. agriculture far less bright than it should be. These actions are
basically a backdoor tax on every American family and business by
unelected bureaucrats. Federal regulation is not the key to success or
jobs in rural areas or in any other part of this Nation.
Some claim that EPA's actions should scare Congress into passing a
cap and trade bill, but I disagree. Congress should not be bullied into
passing bad legislation and neither should it stand for an agency that
is vastly overreaching. The choice is clear to me--do Senators want EPA
to impose a regulatory regime that it has tenuous authority to create
or do you want Congress to make the laws of the land? If you believe
Congress should develop laws and set policy, then vote in support of
the resolution. I strongly oppose EPA's actions and plan to vote yes on
the Murkowski resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for this
discussion we are having. I was here when the Congressional Review Act
was put into place for the very purpose it is being used for, which is
when we have a Federal agency that overreaches and seeks to put in
place a regulation that will cost tens of billions of dollars, without
any legislative action taking place, the Congress should step in. That
is what the Congress is seeking to do with this--step in on something
that has enormous economic consequences, enormous costs across society,
and yet has not been voted on by this legislative body.
Clearly, if we are going to do something of this nature, it should
pass the Senate. It should come up in front of this body.
Toward that end, I tell my colleagues we have a bipartisan energy
bill that passed through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, which
Chairman Bingaman worked through his committee over a month's period of
time, that has a number of issues regarding renewable energy, regarding
nuclear technology, to reduce CO2 emissions. Lots of things
are in it. It passed in a bipartisan way through committee.
That is what we ought to bring up on the Senate floor. We should pass
the Murkowski disapproval resolution so that EPA doesn't act
prematurely before the Congress acts. We should bring up the bipartisan
American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, consider it, and use that
as the route forward for us as a legislative body to act on a major
issue facing our country, without having it done by fiat by an
unelected bureaucracy, which is going to make people mad, and it will
have a lot of costs.
In my State, Kansas City has a board of public utilities. If we put
these costs on their electric generation, which is mostly out of coal,
they are going to see their utility rates go up from the mid-20 percent
to 50-some percent in less than a decade's period of time. Is that
going to happen without any vote of this legislative body? We are going
to see people's utilities rates go up possibly 50 percent with no vote
taking place?
I think people would say we need to have a clear deliberation of this
body. Also on this point, the way we have solved problems of this
nature and magnitude in the past is through investment and innovation,
not through taxes and regulation. It is us saying let's figure
different ways forward to deal with this rather than let's tax people
and regulate people more and drive up their costs.
A year and a half ago, we had the first hydrogen fuel cell locomotive
roll down the tracks in Topeka, KS, done by BNSF, the Army, and several
other groups. It is replacing a diesel. It is a test unit. But that
investment and innovation by BNSF, which uses 5 percent of the diesel
fuel in the country, that is the way you move forward rather than raise
utility rates for people in Kansas City by 50 percent.
It is also a way that we as the American people have been most
successful--investment and innovation--when people look at a better way
for us to move forward, which is cost effective, and the American
people embrace it if it works well. If it is, people will embrace it.
They are delighted to do that. If we go the other route and say we are
not going to do that through investment and innovation, we are going to
do it through taxes and regulation and raise utility rates 50 percent,
people are going to be flaming mad about that, and it is being done by
an unelected bureaucracy to pursue that.
It would not work and it would not be accepted by the American
public. It is not the way we have moved forward as a society. It would
not be us leading in the world. It will be us following on, yet again--
when somebody says you have to go by taxes and regulation, we say, OK,
we will do it. That is not the American way. It is through investment
and innovation. We have done it in the past. We can do it now, and we
can have Congress's role in this on supporting a renewable energy
standard, which is one way, where we get more energy from wind,
nuclear, and a bipartisan bill that has already been produced. That is
an acceptable way, the way the American public can embrace--not this
route which raises taxes and regulation and will not be accepted by the
American public.
I urge my colleagues to support the Murkowski resolution of
disapproval and reject the EPA's endangerment finding and take up the
bipartisan Energy bill that is cleared through the Bingaman committee
for us to consider on renewable energy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico
is recognized.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
our 30-minute block, which is coming up now, be divided in the
following manner: Senator Whitehouse for 10 minutes, Senator Webb for 5
minutes, Senator Murray for 5 minutes, Senator Leahy for 5 minutes, and
I will close with 5 minutes. With that, I yield to my good friend from
Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I stand in opposition to the
resolution offered by the Senator from Alaska. The text of the
resolution asks Senators to second-guess scientists and public health
officials by voiding the scientific finding that carbon pollution may
endanger public health or welfare--like there is any legitimate dispute
about that question. The text of this resolution would halt all efforts
by EPA to address carbon pollution, including the necessary and long-
overdue fuel efficiency standards that EPA negotiated with States and
the automobile industry, to everyone's satisfaction.
Mr. President, that is the text of the resolution. But the point of
the resolution is far simpler: to delay--delay action on energy
legislation, delay action by EPA to protect public health and, more
importantly, to delay action in this Congress on energy reform and to
preserve the status quo by taking off the pressure of facts and science
and law that is now driving the process. They want to trump that with
pure politics.
What you will hear from many colleagues who support this resolution
is
[[Page 10414]]
that they want Congress to act to address carbon pollution and not the
EPA. But with all due respect, many of the resolution's supporters want
nothing to do with comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation.
What they want is for EPA to go away. If they can delay EPA's work to
address carbon pollution or stop it in its tracks altogether, they take
the pressure off of anybody to do anything serious about a new energy
policy or our addiction to fossil fuel. This is about delay on change
in our energy policy.
Congress could be spending its time now setting the country on a new
energy course by placing a price on carbon and investing in low-energy
and clean-energy alternatives. Transforming our energy base will not
happen overnight, but the longer we delay, the harder it will be.
That is what Congress could be doing. Instead, we are spending time
arguing about whether the Clean Air Act should be used to fight air
pollution. Outside these walls, in the real world, this question has to
seem absurd. What else would the Clean Air Act be used for?
This issue has been all the way to the Supreme Court, and it is
established law that the Clean Air Act applies. Then why are we
debating this legislation? We are debating this because the big
polluters--the same industries that brought us the April 5, 2010, mine
disaster in West Virginia and the explosion on the rig in the Gulf of
Mexico--like things the way they are. They like the status quo.
Under the status quo, while the rest of America was struggling to
pull out of a recession earlier this year, big oil raked in record
profits--$23 billion in just the first quarter of 2010. Under the
status quo, when workers pay the costs of mining and drilling with
their lives, when our environment pays for devastating oilspills, when
our children pay the cost of dirty air with childhood asthma, big
polluters don't have to pay the full cost of the pollution they have
caused. That is the status quo they want to preserve.
In 2009, the polluters spent $290 million lobbying Congress or 10
times what the clean energy companies spent. This year, they have
lobbied Members of the Senate to support this Murkowski resolution.
They will keep on lobbying for delay and against energy reform, that is
clear.
The question is, How will we respond to that big oil industry
pressure? Will we fold before these big companies and their corporate
lobbyists and delay again action on energy and climate change or will
we stand up to the special interests and work to enact comprehensive
climate and clean energy legislation?
This is not the first time I have spoken on the Senate floor in
opposition to an effort to delay EPA action. But it is the first time I
have done so against the backdrop of an environmental catastrophe.
This time, when I say polluters want to delay action on climate
change and energy reform, we understand in a very real way the risk
that delay poses. Despite the multimillion-dollar ad campaign by BP
telling us not to worry because they are ``beyond petroleum,'' hundreds
of thousands of gallons of crude oil now pour into the Gulf of Mexico
from a BP well that exploded 2 months ago because they were big
polluters and badly prepared.
Polluters have a powerful voice in Congress. Make no mistake about
it; if they are successful in getting Congress to keep EPA from
addressing carbon pollution, they will take all the pressure off for
clean energy jobs legislation. But the tragedy along the gulf coast
makes clear that we must do something. Today's vote will make clear who
in this Chamber is on the side of delaying action on real energy reform
and who is fighting for the American people, for jobs, and for the
environment.
America is already years, if not decades, behind in the race to lead
the global clean energy revolution. As far back as the 1890s,
scientists documented the ``greenhouse effect'' of increased carbon
dioxide in our atmosphere. The first congressional hearings on climate
change were held three decades ago.
In 1994, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change recognized
human-caused climate change. The issue has been out there for decades,
and now it is time to take action. We have to move swiftly to address
climate change and to have America in front in the global race for
clean energy jobs.
In the meantime, we have to allow EPA to use its legal authority to
reduce carbon pollution and encourage the deployment of clean energy.
The EPA isn't just inventing this authority, it is following the law of
the land. Congress enacted the Clean Air Act in 1970 under a Republican
President. For four decades, EPA has used the Clean Air Act to make our
air safer to breathe. Over that same time, guess what. Our economy
grew--many times over.
Some argue that the Clean Air Act isn't meant to clean up carbon
pollution. Well, the Supreme Court disagreed. Congress wrote a very
broad definition of ``air pollutant'' and specifically, in 1990,
defined carbon dioxide as a pollutant in the Clean Air Act amendments.
Despite this broad authority, EPA was indeed idle for many years, but
not of its own accord, and not when it was sued. In fact, the Bush EPA
fought the application of the Clean Air Act to carbon dioxide every
step of the way and to the bitter end, right up to the doors of the
Supreme Court, where they lost. Despite the heavy hand of the Bush
administration holding EPA back from doing its legal duty, the Supreme
Court--one of the most conservative Supreme Courts in generations--
ruled in 2007 that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions
were ``pollutants'' under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court held
that if the Agency thought this pollutant could ``reasonably be
anticipated'' to endanger public health or welfare, the EPA had to act.
Yet here we are, and some Senators still want delay. For delay, they
are willing to vote for a resolution that disregards science. For
delay, they are willing to vote for a resolution that undermines the
Clean Air Act. For delay, they are willing to vote for a resolution
that tosses aside a Supreme Court decision. And for delay, they are
willing to vote for a resolution that ignores the will of the American
people, largely for the benefit of big oil and other corporate
polluters.
Should we have a national discussion on how to control carbon? Yes.
Should we debate how to move to cleaner sources of energy? Absolutely.
But rather than have an honest discussion about how to do this,
supporters of this resolution want to delay doing anything at all.
The attorney general of my State of Rhode Island, Patrick Lynch, with
10 other attorneys general and the corporation counsel of New York
City, sent a letter to the Senate leadership yesterday urging us not to
vote for the Murkowski resolution because it ``would be a step
backwards undoing the settled expectations of States, industry, and
environmentalists alike.''
In closing, that is exactly the point of this resolution. It is a
deliberate step backward. It is a delay tactic. It is a last attempt by
polluters to hold onto the dirty energy economy that has treated them
so well--$23 billion well so far this year.
Under this dirty energy economy, we spend $1 billion a day on foreign
oil from countries that do not wish us well. Companies such as BP can
cut corners on worker safety and the environment and then expect the
government to come in and clean up their $30 billion mess. Twelve
percent of our children in New England downwind from the polluters
suffer from asthma and pulmonary disease. These kids matter. This issue
matters. We can delay no longer.
I urge my colleagues to say no to delay, say no to taking all the
pressure off the polluters, and vote against the Murkowski resolution
so we can get to work to forge clean energy reform in America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the
Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb.
[[Page 10415]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise today in somewhat regrettable
opposition to the resolution offered by the Senior Senator from Alaska.
I do not believe this is about big oil. This is not about oilspills.
It is not about people who like dirty air. It is about the extent to
which the executive branch in our government can act without the clear
expression of intent from this Congress. I appreciate Senator
Murkowski's efforts to illuminate this issue further in front of our
body.
Like Senator Murkowski, I have expressed deep reservations about the
consequences of the endangerment finding on carbon dioxide and five
other greenhouse gases that the Environmental Protection Agency issued
on December 7, 2009. As many of us in this body well know, without
proper boundaries, this finding could be the first step in a long and
expensive regulatory process that could inevitably lead to overly
stringent and very costly controls on carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gas emissions. This regulatory framework is so broad and
potentially far reaching that it could eventually touch nearly every
facet of this nation's economy, putting unnecessary burdens on our
industries and driving many businesses overseas purely at the
discretion of the executive branch and absent the clearly stated intent
of the Congress.
Our farms and factories, our transportation system, and our power
generating capacity would all be subject to these new regulations. This
unprecedented, sweeping authority over our economy at the hands of the
EPA is at the heart of Senator Murkowski's concern, and ultimately,
whichever way one votes on her amendment, it is what this debate is all
about.
At a time when the economy continues to struggle under the burdens of
the worst recession since the Great Depression, I do not believe that
Congress should cede its authority over an issue as important as
climate change to unelected officials of the executive branch.
Congress--and not the EPA--should make important policies, and be
accountable to the American people for them.
This is not a new concern for me. When this administration declared
last November that the President would sign a ``politically binding''
agreement at the United Nations Framework on Climate Change in
Copenhagen, I objected. I was the only Member of Congress to send the
President a letter stating clearly that ``only specific legislation
agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could
actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.''
I have also expressed on several occasions my belief that this
administration appears to be erecting new regulatory barriers to the
safe and legal mining of coal resources in my state and others. My
consistent message to the EPA is that good intentions do not in and of
themselves equal the clear and unambiguous guidance from the Congress.
In examining this issue, I have also reviewed carefully the Supreme
Court's holding in Massachusetts v. EPA. My opposition to EPA's
regulation of carbon dioxide for stationary sources stems in part from
my reading of the case. I do not believe that prior EPA Administrators
acted arbitrarily and capriciously in declining to regulate carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Nor am I convinced that the Clean
Air Act was ever intended to regulate--or to classify as a dangerous
pollutant--something as basic and ubiquitous in our atmosphere as
carbon dioxide.
Notwithstanding these serious concerns with the endangerment finding
and what I view as EPA's potentially unchecked regulation of carbon
dioxide, I have decided to vote no on the resolution before the Senate.
I have done so for two principal reasons.
First, Senator Murkowski's resolution would reverse significant
progress that this administration has made in forging a consensus on
motor vehicle fuel economy and emissions standards. A little more than
one year ago, the Obama administration brokered an agreement to
establish the One National Program for fuel economy and greenhouse gas
standards. This agreement means that our beleaguered automotive
industry will not face a patchwork quilt of varying State and Federal
emission standards. Significantly, this agreement is directly in line
with the holding in Massachusetts v. EPA, which dealt with motor
vehicle emissions. Both in the Clean Air Act and in subsequent
legislation enacted by the Congress, there has been a far greater
consensus on regulation of motor vehicle emissions than on stationary
sources with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.
It has been estimated that these new rules, which are to apply to
vehicles of model years 2012 to 2016, would save 1.8 billion barrels of
oil and millions of dollars in consumer savings. The agreement,
however, and the regulations that will effectuate it, both rest upon
the same endangerment finding that would be overturned by this
resolution. In this sense, the Murkowski resolution goes too far. And
it is for this reason that the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers and
the United Auto Workers, UAW, have publicly stated their opposition to
the legislation before us.
Second, I have concluded that an alternative, equally effective
mechanism exists to ensure that Congress--and not unelected Federal
officials--can formulate our policies on climate change and energy
legislation. Senator Rockefeller has proposed legislation to suspend
EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources for 2
years. I am a cosponsor of Senator Rockefeller's bill. His approach
would give Congress the time it needs to address our legitimate
concerns with climate change, and not disrupt or reverse the important
progress that has been made on motor vehicle fuel and emission
standards. I note that, to her credit, this was an approach that the
senior Senator from Alaska originally proposed, and I am hopeful that
we can take this approach in the future.
I am also pleased that in my discussions with the majority leader, he
has assured me of his willingness to bring the Rockefeller bill to a
vote this year.
Finally, let me say I share the hope of many Members of this body
from both sides of the aisle that we can enact some form of energy
legislation this year. I have consistently outlined key elements that I
would like to see in any energy package. The centerpiece of any climate
policy must be to encourage the development of clean energy sources and
carbon-mitigating technologies. We should explore mechanisms that will
incentivize factory owners, manufacturers, and consumers to become more
energy efficient. We should also fund research and development for
technologies that will enable the safe and clean use of this country's
vast fossil fuel resources.
In November 2009, I introduced the Clean Energy Act of 2009, S. 2776,
with Senator Lamar Alexander. This bipartisan bill will promote further
investment in clean energy technologies, including nuclear power and
renewable sources of energy. Specifically, the Clean Energy Act of 2009
authorizes $20 billion over the next 10 years to fund loan guarantees,
nuclear education and workforce training, nuclear reactor lifetime-
extension, and incentives for the development of solar power, biofuels,
and alternative power technologies. I believe it is a practical
approach toward moving our country toward providing clean, carbon-free
sources of energy, helping to invigorate the economy, and strengthening
our workforce with educational opportunities and high-paying jobs here
at home.
This legislation by itself is not intended to solve all of our
climate change challenges. It is, however, a measurable and achievable
beginning and will place the Nation on a path to a cleaner energy
future. In addition, through investment in lower emission
transportation fuels, incentives to electrify the transportation
sector, and support for technologies that will eventually enable the
burning of fossil fuels in a carbon-free fashion, it provides a
framework for technologies that will eventually enable a more effective
response to climate change.
[[Page 10416]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. My understanding is all the time is
allocated in this 30-minute block. Senators are lined up to speak, I
say to Senator Webb.
Mr. WEBB. I was told last night that I would have 10 minutes. I got
down here and discovered I have 5. Let me just say Senator
Rockefeller's bill can do the job. I hope my colleagues will look at
it.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I yield an additional minute.
Mr. WEBB. I appreciate that.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, before Senator Webb continues, may I
ask a question? If an additional minute is to be yielded to the
opposition, I request that we also have additional time added to our
side.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I have yielded 1 minute from my time out of
the 30-minute block. It is not additional time.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I rescind that request if it is coming out of the
Senator's time.
Mr. WEBB. Let me make this a lot simpler. I will take 15 seconds and
say I am a cosponsor of Senator Rockefeller's bill. I believe it is an
effective approach. To Senator Murkowski's credit, it is an approach
she originally proposed, before she was shut off from getting a vote on
that type of a procedure. I am going to vote against Senator
Murkowski's resolution, but I think she is on the right track.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the
Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will oppose the resolution. The
resolution of disapproval before us reminds me of a skills competition
for young people that has been promoted by the National Football
League. It is called Punt, Pass, and Kick. The resolution is an
engraved invitation for the Senate to make a big league handoff of a
basketful of illness, economic stalemate, and environmental pollution
to our children and grandchildren.
It would punt away constructive action to begin addressing many
threats that each and every American faces from climate change, and the
threats we face every day to our national security.
It would pass on opportunities to foster cleaner air and water for us
and for the generations that will follow us. It would kick away the
progress already negotiated by the Obama administration and key
industries, such as automobile and truck manufacturers, to usher in new
products that would pollute less while creating good American jobs--
jobs that cannot be sent overseas, jobs we need in America.
Many on the other side of the aisle have been adamant in trying to
wish these problems away and to forfeit the economic opportunities at
our fingertips to lead the world in these new energy technologies.
Powerful corporate interests are more than glad to contribute to these
efforts to stalemate any progress.
What we are debating today is whether business as usual is good
enough for the environmental challenges and economic opportunities that
are already before us. We are being asked to overturn with a political
veto the strong scientific evidence that points to a healthier future.
We are being asked to undermine America's ability to clean up our air
and our waters.
The science is clear that greenhouse gases are a danger, and they are
a clear and present health and economic threat to the American people.
At a time when our Nation is responding to our worst environmental
catastrophe of all time and oil continues to gush into the Gulf of
Mexico, passing this resolution would be the Senate's way of saying:
Nothing has changed; nothing should change. I disagree. It is a
declaration of our intent to keep relying on the outdated, dirty, and
inefficient technologies of the past, and to let every other
industrialized country create jobs in their countries, leap ahead of us
in developing and selling these new technologies. I disagree with that.
This is another proposed bailout of big polluters.
I do not think this is the path we want to chart for our children and
our Nation. A decade from now, will we be able to look back at this
vote and not be ashamed of ourselves? EPA's findings are based on sound
science and an exhaustive review of scientific research. Let's not the
100 of us cast a political vote to overturn that.
Much of what the special interests and big oil and their lobbyists
have been saying in favor of this resolution is steeped in politics and
mistruths, not in science. What we have here is the Environmental
Protection Agency focused on protecting the American people, whether it
is arsenic in our drinking water, smog in the air, mercury in the fish
we eat, or greenhouse gases. Overturning these findings would be like
trying to overturn science. You don't do it.
If we pass this resolution, it is not a case of hurting the economy.
Quite the opposite. The resolution will hurt the economy by causing the
American people to forfeit a third of the greenhouse gas emissions
reductions that are projected to come from last year's historic
agreement.
Do not overturn the EPA findings. Do not force our Nation's already
struggling automakers to spend even more money to produce more fuel-
efficient cars because a dozen States, such as Vermont and California,
could then go forward, each with their own rules and standards.
Let us not be known as the Congress to continue to punt, pass, and
kick on these crucial issues about which the American people are
looking for solutions.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the
Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington State is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong
opposition to the resolution before us that would block the EPA from
regulating greenhouse gas emissions and protecting our families and the
environment.
This resolution is not based on science, and I feel strongly it would
be a step in the wrong direction for our country. We know greenhouse
gas emissions are dangerous for our environment and to our families'
health.
The science on this issue is clear, and it is something people in my
home State of Washington take very seriously. Climate change would
wreak havoc on much of what our families treasure--our forests, our
coastlines, our salmon habitats, and our farmland.
The debate we should be having today ought to be how we move forward
on that issue, not how to obstruct and stall and maintain the status
quo. What we should be discussing is how to pass a comprehensive
climate and energy bill that would reduce our dependence on foreign
oil, support our national security objectives, and unshackle this
economy; that would tap the creative energy of our Nation's workers and
create millions of good, family-wage jobs here in this country and make
sure our workers continue leading the way in the 21st-century economy.
I know there are several proposals that have been put on the table on
this issue, but we can't just simply block EPA's endangerment findings
and expect our greenhouse gas emission problem to resolve itself. I
know there are industries that have concerns about being regulated. I
understand they would prefer a legislative solution. I would too. But
we have to keep moving forward so we can address this critical issue,
and blocking the EPA's endangerment finding is a step backward toward
the failed environmental policies of the past.
The law on this is clear. The Supreme Court has ruled that the EPA
has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. A lengthy
process
[[Page 10417]]
was conducted to determine this endangerment finding, and the public,
as well as the business community, has been fully engaged throughout.
In fact, as has been said, the auto industry opposes this resolution
because it would put them right back into a state of regulatory
uncertainty.
If we look at vehicles alone, the national clean car standards as
proposed under the Clean Air Act will cut carbon pollution from
vehicles by 30 percent. In my home State, the transportation sector
accounts for more than 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. And
increased fuel efficiency standards will save our families money at the
pump and it will cut demand for oil by an estimated 450 million barrels
over the life of this program. All of that is threatened by this
resolution.
It is especially disappointing to see this on the floor while images
of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico and devastating the local
environment and economy continue to be shown on every news channel in
this Nation.
The resolution we are debating today is going to take us back to the
failed old policies that have made us more and more dependent on oil.
If the big oil companies and their lobbyists get their way on this
vote, our families will continue to spend more on fuel, and it will be
a lot harder for our economy to make the shift to cleaner and more
efficient sources of energy.
The longer we put off dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, the more
it will cost our economy, our environment, and our health. So I
strongly oppose this resolution that prioritizes big oil companies over
our families and our small business owners. I hope that after this, we
can work together to find real solutions.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from
Washington for her comments, and I yield myself any remaining time in
our 30-minute block.
Today, America faces an energy crisis. The Senate owes the American
people solutions. But this resolution is an attempt to bury our heads
in the sand and ignore reality.
The oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico is only the most visible aspect of
our energy crisis. The true consequences of our energy policy are
spread even wider than the spill and the costs, even more deadly.
First, our dependence on imported oil is a threat to our national
security. Imported oil fuels dictators and terrorists, and the CIA
believes climate change will make the world more unstable. If we block
the clean energy transition with this resolution, we will be forced to
use an additional 450 million barrels of oil, most of which will be
imported. Instead, the Senate should reject this resolution and
recognize that the transition to a clean energy economy is a national
security priority. Americans want our national security out of the
quagmire of foreign oil dependency. This resolution puts us in deeper.
Here at home, this dependence is also a threat to the pocketbooks of
American families and businesses.
In 2008, American families and businesses sent $475 billion overseas
to pay for foreign oil. Last year, we sent over $300 billion overseas.
By the end of this year, we will have sent over $1 trillion outside the
U.S. for imported oil in the last 3 years.
That is a massive transfer of wealth from families in New Mexico and
the other 49 States to the treasuries of foreign nations.
If this resolution succeeds, we will import millions more barrels of
oil and send billions more of our hard-earned money overseas.
If the Senate fails to act, the administration must take up the
slack. This resolution would paralyze the Federal Government.
The administration is already making progress with new vehicle fuel
efficiency rules, which will save 450 million barrels of oil. This
resolution would jeopardize that effort, taking us backwards.
Further administration efforts will improve efficiency at power
plants and major factories and reduce pollution.
Small businesses, farmers, and ranchers need not worry. They will not
be subject to any EPA regulations on greenhouse gases.
Our dependence on dirty fossil fuels is also a threat to the global
climate system--the air we breathe and the water we drink--in New
Mexico and around the world. This resolution specifically rejects the
EPA's scientific finding, conducted by nonpartisan scientists, that
greenhouse gas pollution is a threat to public health and to the
environment. There are no climate scientists in the Senate. This body
has no business injecting political bias into scientific deliberations.
The resolution should be rejected for this reason alone.
It is revealing that this resolution is supported by dozens of
special interests that have worked for years to discredit strong
science. The vast majority of the evidence tells us that global warming
is real. Strong scientific evidence shows that unless we transition to
clean energy sources, our home States will pay a heavy price.
Many supporters of this resolution doubt climate science. In
response, I point to the scientists of Los Alamos National Lab. The
scientists and supercomputers there keep America's nuclear arsenal
safe, secure, and reliable. They have no margin for error. Los Alamos
also runs some of the most sophisticated global climate models used by
scientists around the United States and the world. These models
indicate a serious risk to our landscapes and water supplies. Many
scientific studies in the field confirm those risks.
In New Mexico, scientific evidence indicates devastating forest
fires, droughts, and invasive species will be worsened by global
warming. According to the Nature Conservancy, over 95 percent of New
Mexico has seen temperature increases due to global warming. Ninety-
three percent of our watersheds have become dried, and snowpack has
decreased over the last 30 years.
Making matters worse, this same reliance on fossil fuels pollutes our
atmosphere with toxic compounds such as sulfur dioxide, soot, and
mercury, alongside greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
Luckily, we have numerous cost-effective solutions at hand to address
the energy and climate crisis. New Mexico and many other States across
the Nation are rich in much cleaner domestic sources of energy, sources
such as wind, solar, geothermal, and natural gas.
Last week, a uranium enrichment plant opened in New Mexico to provide
emission-free fuel for American nuclear powerplants. Several years ago,
wind energy was unusual, but now it is increasingly common, especially
in the American West. Offshore wind has the potential to provide 30
percent of the east coast's power as well. The United States is now
installing over a gigawatt of solar power each year. And there are
another six gigawatts of concentrated solar power projects planned
nationally, particularly in the Southwest. U.S. natural gas reserves
have also increased by 35 percent in just 1 year. We now have a
century's worth of supply. While natural gas is a fossil fuel, it is
significantly cleaner than either coal or oil, and it is more abundant.
The clean energy transition does not just mean renewable energy; it
also means a renewed focus on natural gas and nuclear power.
Ironically, this resolution would also eliminate the incentive to
invest in carbon capture technologies which are the future of coal.
Even worse, this resolution undercuts the push for energy efficiency.
Without rules to reduce pollution, powerplants lack the right
incentives to save energy. Both government and industry studies have
found that the right efficiency investments could save energy and more
than $1 trillion at the same time. Energy efficiency does not mean
turning down the heater in the winter or the air-conditioner in the
summer.
Mr. President, at its core, this resolution is about delay. The House
is not going to take up this resolution. The sponsor of this resolution
knows the President does not support this. There are not the votes. And
really what is going on here is delay.
[[Page 10418]]
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at this time, the 30 minutes under
Republican control will be allocated as follows: Senator Wicker will
have 5 minutes; Senator Thune, 10 minutes; Senator Johanns, 5 minutes;
Senator Kyl, 5 minutes; and Senator Sessions, 5 minutes. Senator Thune
will lead off this block.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from South Dakota is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Alaska for
her leadership on this issue. This is an important debate to have, and
I wish to remind my colleagues what this debate is about because I have
heard lots of discussion on the floor today about how this is somehow
about the science of climate change.
This isn't about the science of climate change. Maybe we ought to
have that debate. Perhaps that is something we should debate, but that
is not what this debate is about. This debate is also not about some of
the other issues that have been thrown out here--that this is about big
oil or this is about the Republicans wanting to delay or protect
somehow the status quo. That is not what this debate is about. This is
a very simple, straightforward question. That question is, Do we, the
U.S. Senate, want to be on the record with regard to the issue of
whether the EPA ought to move forward and try to regulate
CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act or should we wait
until Congress takes up and deals with that issue?
What is ironic about what my colleagues on the other side are
suggesting is that a lot of people have said that Republicans just want
to delay; they want to delay because they do not believe in the
science. Well, we don't control the agenda; the Democratic leader
controls the agenda. They have a climate change bill they could bring
to the floor and we could debate it. They do not want to do that
because they don't want to put a lot of their Democrats on record on
that vote. So what do they do instead? We allow the EPA--a bunch of
unelected bureaucrats--to move forward and do something that would have
tremendous consequence to the American economy without hearing from the
Congress.
I think that, in a very simple, straightforward manner, is what this
debate is about. It is about, do we want the EPA to move forward with
the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions absent direction from the
Congress--the people's representatives--or do the voices of the people
need to be heard through the debate we ought to be having here in the
Congress?
I will say that irrespective of what you believe about the science
behind climate change and whether or not human activity is contributing
to it, one thing we know with great certainty is that it will have
profound economic impacts on the American economy.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. THUNE. I will yield at the conclusion of my remarks to the
Senator from Massachusetts, but I have some things to get to before
that.
Mr. President, what is important is that everyone acknowledges,
including the Obama administration, that moving forward with the EPA
regulating CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act would cause
the economy to suffer.
I want to quote something the Office of Management and Budget put out
last August in a document. It says:
Regulating CO2 under the Clean Air Act for the
time is likely to have serious economic consequences for
regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including
small businesses and small communities.
If you look at the impact on small businesses, farms, and ranches,
the proponents are going to say: Well, the EPA is not intending to
regulate smaller entities like that; we just want to get the big
polluters. OK. We start at 100,000 tons. Well, in 2012, we move to
50,000 tons.
I would argue--and it is supported by statements made by folks in the
administration--the EPA Administrator has indicated that by 2016, they
intend to regulate smaller emitters, if we get to 2016, because what
will happen is this so-called tailoring rule will get challenged in the
courts and it will likely get overturned because the Clean Air Act said
the threshold for regulation is 250 tons.
At 250 tons, you don't get just the big emitters. You don't get the
large polluters. You get over 6 million entities, to include farms,
ranches, small businesses, churches, hospitals, and you can go right
down the list. That is what happens when you regulate at the 250-ton
level. As I said, they are saying that is not going to happen, that we
have this tailoring rule. Well, the law is very clear. If we are going
to use the Clean Air Act as the authority to do this, the Clean Air Act
stipulates 250 tons. That captures a whole lot of entities that strike
at the very heart of the American economy.
The cap-and-trade legislation that was passed by the House last
summer has yet to be voted on here in the Senate, but there has been a
lot of analysis of that done in my State of South Dakota. The public
utilities commission in my State suggested that, if passed, that would
increase power rates in States such as South Dakota by 50 percent.
If you look at what the actual impacts are going to be on small
businesses across this country--not only because of the cost of the
original construction permits that would be included in this but also
operating permits--the Wall Street Journal said in a May 2009 story
that in 2007 the Clean Air Act cost those who had to apply for permits
$125,000 per permit and 866 hours to obtain it.
So whether you subscribe to the notion that this is only going to
apply to large entities or whether you subscribe, as I do, to the
belief that this is ultimately going to cover a lot more smaller
entities that are going to be adversely impacted and deal with much
higher power rates, I think it is pretty clear that whoever is covered
by these new regulations is going to be faced with a lot higher costs
when it comes to permits, a lot higher costs when it comes to the
implementation of best available technology, and therefore a lot higher
cost to the American consumer who will deal with the burden of that
when it is passed on by these various emitting entities.
My State of South Dakota, of course, is composed of a lot of farmers
and ranchers. Agriculture is a 45-percent energy-intensive business, if
you look at the inputs that are necessary to make a living in a farm or
ranch operation. That means 45 percent of a farmer or rancher's costs
are going to be increased by this backdoor energy tax imposed by the
EPA. The fees and fines that are placed upon machinery manufacturers,
energy companies, and fertilizer companies starting in 2011 and 2012
will be immediately passed down to the farm and ranch families who are
going to be impacted by this.
If the EPA is forced to regulate at the statutory 250-ton threshold--
which, as I said, once this is litigated I believe that is what the
courts are going to find--farms with as few as 25 dairy cattle would be
forced to apply for a title 5 permit and pay a fee for each ton of
greenhouse gases emitted by their cattle: the cow tax. That is what
this is about. This is not, as I said, about the science of climate
change. It is not about Republicans wanting to delay. We don't control
the agenda around here. It is not about big oil. It is about small
businesses, family farms, and ranches trying to make a living, trying
to create jobs in the economy and constantly having Washington stand in
the way and throw new hurdles and impediments and obstacles and
barriers in their way.
What the Murkowski resolution does, very simply, is it forces us to
answer a fundamental question and that is should Congress be acting on
legislation that would direct these activities or do we allow a bunch
of unelected bureaucrats at an agency downtown to move forward with
regulations that would impose massive new costs on the American economy
at a time when we are trying to create jobs and get this economy on its
feet. That is the straightforward, simple question put
[[Page 10419]]
forward by the resolution from the Senator from Alaska.
I hope my colleagues here realize, irrespective of what they think
about the science of climate change, irrespective of all the other
arguments that are being used as a distraction here on big oil and
Republicans delaying this debate, when you get down to the fundamental
question, that is what the issue is, whether this Senate wants to be on
record about allowing a bunch of unelected bureaucrats to move forward
with the regulations that would impose massive new costs on our
economy, not just on big polluters, large polluters--who, by the way,
are going to pass those costs on--but directly hitting the small
businesses, farms, the ranches that are the very backbone of the
American economy.
This is not, by the way, just a Republican issue. There are lots of
Democrats who have weighed in on this and there are lots of Democrats I
believe here in the Senate today who I hope will be willing to support
this resolution. But I want to read for you very quickly here, because
I know my time is running out, a couple of things that have been said
by Democrats in the House of Representatives. Collin Peterson, a
Congressman from Minnesota, has said:
The Clean Air Act was never meant to be used for this but
they're trying to do it anyway. . . . Most everyone I've
heard from about this thinks that elected officials--not EPA
bureaucrats--should decide how to address our energy
problems.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. THUNE. John Dingell called this a ``glorious mess,'' if the EPA
moves forward with this. I have other statements from the Democratic
Members of the House of Representatives which I will be happy to submit
for the Record, as well as a letter from a bunch of Representatives in
my State supporting the Murkowski resolution.
I yield my time and hope my colleagues will support this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the
Senator from Nebraska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, let me, if I might, start out and say how
much I appreciated the comments by the Senator from South Dakota. Many
months ago I did a roundtable with a great company in Nebraska, Nucor
Steel. Nucor Steel is one of those companies you hope takes a look at
your State and creates the jobs that they have in your State--and they
have. They employ about a thousand people. They do everything right.
They are very pro-America. They are a well-managed company. They are a
company that pays well. On average across the Nucor system, their wages
are about $70,000 a year. For that area of any rural State, that is
huge. That is huge.
We sat down in this roundtable. As the Senator from South Dakota
points out, the impact on our businesses--the first thing I asked the
folks of Nucor Steel, I said to them, Where is your competition? Who
are you competing with?
They said: The Chinese.
I said: The Chinese?
They said: Absolutely. When we go out and fight for a contract to
keep these people employed, we are fighting with the Chinese.
I said: Let me ask you, talk to me about the impact of all of this
legislation and various proposals on climate change on your company and
that competitive relationship.
They were very blunt and straightforward. They said: Very simply,
Mike, here is what happens. We go in a situation where we cannot
compete. Already, this is a very tough business. If you pile onto us
these additional requirements, we are in trouble immediately.
Here is what I want to say about the Murkowski amendment, to get
started here today. I respect the Senator from Alaska for bringing this
forward because this is the kind of debate we should be having on this
very important issue on the Senate floor and on the House floor. This
should not be a situation where we have relegated or allowed the
responsibility to be taken over by bureaucrats here in Washington, DC.
I rise today to offer my support for Senator Murkowski's resolution
of disapproval. At the end of last year, as we all know, EPA announced
that greenhouse gas emissions would be regulated under the Clean Air
Act. But Congress never designed the law to do that. Yet this
administration seems absolutely bent on this overreaching, regardless
of, congressional intent. That is why I am one of the cosponsors on
this resolution.
The resolution is very simply our way of saying, here in Congress,
the Clean Air Act was never designed to allow you, the EPA, to regulate
greenhouse gases. This endangerment finding is simply bad for
everybody. It is bad for Nucor Steel, it is bad for business, and it is
bad for every American out there who flips on a light switch.
EPA tells us over 6 million entities will be captured by these new
permitting requirements. Who are they? They are commercial buildings,
they are hospitals, they are ethanol plants. You can keep naming
business after business that will get caught up in this. Thousands of
business owners would now have to go to the EPA if they plan to expand
through new construction or modifications. One Nebraska manufacturer
recently wrote to me, concerned with this very stark reality, and said:
``These regulations will certainly influence our future decisionmaking
regarding acquisitions, expansions, and new plants.''
So at a time where our economy is struggling, where everybody is
trying to figure out the best pathway to create jobs----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The
Senator's 5 minutes has expired.
Mr. JOHANNS. Let me wrap up and ask my colleagues to support this
very important effort by Senator Murkowski.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to first say how much I support
the Murkowski resolution, and I will be voting for it. But I want to
point out, as ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, how it is
we got into this circumstance and why it is not justified. Why it
should never have happened, and why it is a product of the worst kind
of judicial activism. And finally, why we need to see how we can work
our way out of it.
In 1970, the Congress passed the Clean Air Act, and they allowed EPA
to regulate pollutants. Rather than try to specifically define
pollutants, they said it would be defined by the Director of the EPA,
and he would have that decision-making authority. That is the way it
was for many years.
Then years went by and people began to talk about global warming.
Global warming developed a certain momentum and a number of scientists
signed onto this idea. Even though CO2 is a plant food and
the more CO2 that is in the atmosphere the better plants
grow. And even though we breathe out CO2 and plants breathe
in CO2 which produces the oxygen that we breathe in this
wonderful system that we are a part of. They concluded that
CO2 was increasing because we were taking carbon fuels
mostly from our soils, burning it, and that was increasing the
percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably it had at
one time been in the atmosphere and had been sucked up by plants.
So this argument arose that it would create global warming. In 1997
Congress had a vote on the Kyoto accord, to deal with whether we wanted
to take these firm, aggressive steps to reduce CO2. By a
vote of 97 to 0 we voted not to do that. We were not prepared to do
that.
Someone filed a lawsuit. In 2007, it came before the U.S. Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court was asked to decide on the prohibition of air
pollutants, which passed in 1970 when nobody was thinking about global
warming, instead they were thinking about particulate matter,
NOX and SOX, acid rain, and those kinds of
pollutants that go
[[Page 10420]]
into the atmosphere. The question was, did that word ``pollutant''
include CO2?
To me, a responsible court would have said Congress had all these
years to pass a law and specifically add CO2 as a pollutant
if they wanted to. In fact, we have amended the law and never added it.
They would have asked, Is this a big economic issue we are deciding? It
is a huge economic issue, because it would give the Environmental
Protection Agency the right to regulate every single emission of
CO2--every automobile, every factory, every home, every
hospital, every steel mill; everybody who emits CO2 would be
under the regulation of the EPA.
They voted and by a 5-to-4 margin the Supreme Court of the United
States just declared--just by dictate declared--that Congress intended
to cover CO2 when they passed the Clean Air Act of 1970.
It is a stunning thing. It is a huge activist decision. In my
opinion, it shows how dangerous judges are who are not committed to
restraint and responsible action--how dangerous it can be when you give
them the power to pass something Congress would not have passed. They
didn't pass it then. And in my opinion, they would not pass it today.
But the Supreme Court said so.
I support the Murkowski resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I too support strongly the Murkowski
amendment. There has been a lot of misinformation spread about this.
Let me clear up a couple of things. First, this resolution is not about
the science of climate change. It has nothing to do whatsoever with
greenhouse gases or the Earth's temperature.
It would not prevent the Senate from considering climate legislation
if that is what the Senate chooses to do. Nor does this resolution have
anything to do with the spill in the gulf coast, although some have
tried to make it appear that way. Let's remember this resolution was
introduced months before that spill even began. It has nothing to do
with the disaster. We should not exploit this serious crisis for
political gain, as the White House has tried to do.
So what is the resolution about? Well, it boils down to a simple
question: Should the Environmental Protection Agency be allowed to act
unilaterally to set climate and energy policy through new Clean Air Act
regulations without the delegation or approval of Congress. And the
answer is no. It is wrong for the administration to try to achieve its
goals by any means possible, in this case by going around the
legislative branch and by using the EPA to enact sweeping economic and
energy regulation.
In order to stop that, we need to approve this resolution. Let me
provide a bit of context for how we got to this point. In December of
2009, the EPA finalized so-called endangerment findings for six
greenhouse gases, allowing it to establish greenhouse gas emission
standards for a few new motor vehicles.
Once those standards go into effect, under the law EPA has no choice
but to follow through and issue regulations for stationary sources of
greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the EPA has estimated that about 6
million of these stationary sources: buildings, and facilities,
including hospitals, nursing homes, schools, farms, and so on, will be
subject to regulation.
There will also be a new regulation of homes and RVs and cars and
tractors and so on. The new regulation will touch every corner of our
economy and necessarily lead to higher energy costs, increasing the
cost of nearly everything, and in the process killing jobs.
President Obama himself said that under the plan he favors,
electricity prices ``would necessarily skyrocket.'' Well, the Murkowski
disapproval resolution would nullify the legal effect and force of the
EPA's endangerment finding. It would prevent the EPA from using the
Clean Air Act to set up a regulatory regime to impose backdoor climate
regulations that would lead to a job-killing national energy tax.
Americans have made it very clear that they do not like the idea of
legislation that will increase their energy bills and raise their
taxes. They want Congress and the administration to focus on
strengthening the economy and providing incentives to job creators
rather than burdening them with new regulations. They deserve to be
heard. If they say through their representatives they do not want a
national energy tax in the form of cap-and-trade legislation to pass
Congress, then the administration should not be able to circumvent
their will by simply having the EPA do it.
This is a clear up-or-down vote to stop a power grab by unelected
officials at the Environmental Protection Agency, and to force any
climate and energy regulation to go through a democratic process
conducted by Congress.
I urge my colleagues to support the Murkowski resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement,
we had reserved 5 minutes for Senator Wicker, but I am to going to
yield those 5 minutes to Senator Hutchison.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Alaska for her great
leadership in bringing this to the floor. I support this resolution.
While cap-and-trade legislation has stalled in the Senate, the
administration is pursuing a backdoor approach to implement new
regulations. The EPA's use of the Clean Air Act as a vehicle to expand
its authority is a political maneuver that will allow the agency to
bypass Congress and regulate greenhouse gases.
This is the prerogative of Congress and Congress has not acted
because it would be a mistake to act. So here comes the regulatory
agency to bypass Congress because they cannot get congressional
approval to do what they are trying to do.
This vote has nothing to do with the oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico.
It is unfortunate that some are trying to use this tragedy in the Gulf
of Mexico as some sort of leverage against this resolution. We all
agree that we need a responsible energy policy that strikes a critical
balance between the protection of our environment, natural resources,
and the preservation of American jobs. It is the responsibility of
Congress to implement such a balanced policy.
It is also the responsibility of Congress to consider the economic
impact that regulations will have on Americans throughout our country.
Here is how these regulations will affect my home State of Texas. In
Texas, more than 30,000 businesses will be in industries that will now
be newly subject to the EPA regulations.
Texas' agriculture industry, which accounts for $106 billion, or 9.5
percent of Texas' total gross State product, would be
disproportionately damaged by the proposed regulations because of their
use of fertilizers which are already regulated.
Across the country, small businesses, which are the backbone of our
economy, and farmers and ranchers, which are the backbone of our
economy, will be devastated by these regulations. According to the U.S.
Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, the smallest
businesses bear a 45-percent greater burden than their larger
competitors.
The annual cost per employee for firms with fewer than 20 employees
is over $7,000 to comply with their regulatory burden. Actions from the
EPA are going to give foreign competitors an advantage over American
businesses. While our businesses will become burdened with these new
regulations, companies in China and India will have free rein in U.S.
markets.
As our economy begins to recover, the last thing families and small
businesses need is a backdoor energy tax that is going to raise their
costs across the board. Rather than imposing invasive regulations, we
need a responsible energy policy that focuses on making alternative
sources of energy, such as nuclear, wind, and solar commercially
available. We all agree on
[[Page 10421]]
that. That would be a balanced approach to an energy policy, which is
what elected representatives should be making.
This vote is to prevent a federal bureaucracy from doing the work of
the elected representatives of the people. I am alarmed by this further
attempt of the administration to circumvent congressional authority. I
am sorry to say but this is becoming a hallmark of this administration,
more regulation. And if Congress does not agree, let the agencies do
it.
I am dealing in the Commerce Committee right now with the FCC that is
doing exactly the same thing. They are going to impose net neutrality
rules when Congress has not authorized the regulation of the Internet
in that way. It is a pattern that is beginning to show itself and it is
wrong for our country.
I am going to stand strong against cap and trade. I will certainly
oppose the audacious attempt by this administration to bypass Congress
and implement new regulations without the authority of Congress.
As a solution to climate change, we need to work together to promote
the use of clean and renewable sources of energy. We need to work on
creating jobs, not tax small business to keep us from being able to
create the new jobs.
It is important that we work together. We are the elected
representatives of the people. The EPA is not. And this is overreach.
If we do not stop it, who will? Who will stop bureaucracy and agencies
that are not authorized by Congress to take on more and more regulatory
responsibility that is not theirs, and that is going to cost jobs in
our country?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. The growth of government is breathtaking in this
country. I urge my colleagues to think about this and support the
Murkowski resolution.
I yield the floor.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, has all time expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to Senator Kerry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized
for 15 minutes.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we have heard the arguments on both sides
of this debate. But for all the discussion and all the rhetoric, the
choice before us is really stark and simple. This is a vote and choice
between recognizing the greatest environmental risk of our time or
legitimizing the deniers. It is a choice between protecting the health
of our families and the air we breathe or continuing a pattern of
pollution that threatens our children and our communities. It is a
choice between getting serious about policies that will put America on
a real path to energy independence or increasing our Nation's oil
dependency by 450 million barrels.
The stakes for our country are enormous. And if you have any doubt
about that, any doubt at all, look no further than what is happening in
the Gulf of Mexico even as we debate this choice. Every hour on our
television screens we are watching another tragic and costly reminder
of the hazards of our oil addiction, all that from only a single
accident at a single offshore oil well.
In April 2007, the Supreme Court for the first time issued a ruling
on the issue of climate change. The Roberts Court was asked to consider
the Bush administration's refusal to issue greenhouse gas standards for
cars and trucks. The case hinged on two key issues: (1) does the Clean
Air Act authorize regulation of greenhouse gases and (2) if so, should
EPA set emissions standards for motor vehicles. The decision by the
majority in the landmark Massachusetts v. EPA case was conclusive on
both fronts. The justices determined that ``the harms associated with
climate change are serious and well recognized,'' and they firmly and
positively identified greenhouse gas emissions as the cause of those
harms. In light of that assessment, they found that greenhouse gases
``fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of `air
pollutant.''' In light of that, the justices directed EPA to fulfill
its obligation under the Clean Air Act to determine, based on
scientific evidence alone, whether greenhouse gas emissions from cars
and trucks pose a threat to human health or welfare. This
``endangerment finding'' was finalized in December of last year.
The resolution under consideration today, S.J. Res. 26, seeks to
overturn this finding and permanently prohibit EPA from ever issuing a
similar determination, regardless of the strength of the science and
the urgency of action.
This resolution is not based in substance or in fact. We know that
the threats of climate change are widespread, compelling and urgent.
In fact, on May 19, the National Research Council, our Nation's
leading scientific body, declared in its most comprehensive study to
date that the evidence of climate change is ``overwhelming.'' They
urged ``early, aggressive, and concerted actions to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases.''
However, the resolution we are debating today would achieve precisely
the opposite goal. We are being asked to literally vote down the
science, squander billions of barrels of oil savings, and shirk our
responsibility to address the greatest energy, national security, and
environmental challenge of our time.
By invalidating the scientific finding that greenhouse gases pose a
threat to human health and welfare, this resolution would remove the
legal basis for the landmark agreement that was reached last year to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. According to
the Union of Concerned Scientists, this agreement is on track to save
American consumers a total of $34 billion and create 263,000 American
jobs in 2020. This agreement also takes a tremendous step toward energy
independence by reducing our oil consumption by 1.8 billion barrels. By
removing EPA's authority to jointly implement these regulations with
the Department of Transportation, this resolution comes at the very
steep cost of 450 million barrels, almost one quarter of these oil
savings.
And, that is just the minimum amount by which this dangerous
resolution will increase our oil dependence. In light of President
Obama's recent announcement that the administration plans to extend the
vehicles standards beyond 2016, the prohibition on EPA action will
eliminate significant additional opportunities in the future to reduce
our Nation's oil consumption, increase our energy security, and draw a
bright line between ourselves and those nations that would do us harm.
So why are we being asked to affirmatively reject a scientific
finding based on ``overwhelming evidence'' and potentially billions of
barrels of oil savings? Congress, we are told, needs more time to
develop energy and climate legislation and the Federal Government must
be stopped from making any progress in the interim.
As someone has been meeting with my colleagues now for over a year,
sitting down with all the stakeholders, I am struck by the irony that
many of the proponents of this argument are the very same people who at
every opportunity have avoided engaging in a serious legislative effort
to tackle these issues. On the one hand, they say it is a job for
Congress not the EPA, then they stand in the way of Congress doing the
job in the first place. And they stand in the way even at a time when
we have brought together an unprecedented coalition of industry and
environmental support for action in this Congress. If you do not want
the EPA to act, but you will not let Congress lead, when are we going
to solve this challenge?
Here is how Ron Brownstein, one of the keenest observers of
Washington, summed it up: ``It's reasonable to argue that Congress, not
EPA, should decide how to regulate carbon. But most of those Senators
who endorsed Murkowski's resolution also oppose the most plausible
remaining vehicle for legislating carbon limits: The comprehensive
energy plan that Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, ID-
Conn., recently released. Together, those twin positions effectively
amount to a vote for the energy status quo.''
[[Page 10422]]
Let's not kid ourselves. The Senate has never solved a problem by
delaying. And on the issue of climate change, we have delayed action
too long, for two decades we have stood still. We have stood still
while other countries race ahead, while we lose market share in a
global market, and while China and India create jobs and profits racing
ahead with technology that Americans invented.
Mike Splinter, the CEO of Applied Materials, crystallized our choice
in his May 25 op-ed. He said, ``Our failure to act has consequences.
Ten years ago, the U.S. accounted for 40 percent of worldwide solar
manufacturing. Today that figure is less than 10 percent. Meanwhile,
China has gone from producing five percent of the world's solar panels
in 2007 to nearly half last year . . . Over the next five years, China,
India and Japan will out-invest the US in energy technology by at least
three-to-one.''
And still here we are debating the science itself, still distracted
by campaigns to foster the idea that climate change was ``theory rather
than fact.'' That is the same campaign the tobacco industry waged for
decades, arguing that the link between cigarettes and lung cancer was
``theory rather than fact.''
Well, you can delay the inevitable only so long. If you put science
on trial, as they did in the famous Scopes Monkey trial in 1925, the
truth will win out. And I will tell you the science on climate change
is more definitive than ever and more troubling than ever.
Globally, temperatures are at an all-time high, with the first decade
of this century conclusively establishing as the hottest decade on
record. Man-made pollution is acidifying our oceans at a rate at least
10 times faster than previously thought, creating inhospitable physical
conditions for shell-building animals that serve as the basis of our
ocean food chain. Sea level rise is threatening cities like Boston,
where city officials are actively planning for how to manage 100-year
floods that are now becoming 20-year floods, in the face of global sea
level rise of three to six feet by 2100. Worsening drought conditions
will create persistent drought in the Southwest and sharply increase
Western wildfire burn area. And the National Academy of Sciences has
confirmed that these damages may be irreversible for 1,000 years.
Those who say we are not ready, we need more time, miss the fact that
we know what we have to do and we know how to do it in a way that makes
economic sense. We have debated bipartisan energy and climate
legislation in the Senate for years, beginning in earnest with the
McCain-Lieberman bill of 2005. The House of Representatives passed a
comprehensive energy and climate bill nearly 1 year ago, and the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee reported out a similar bill last
fall. Over the last several months, Senator Lieberman and I, with the
help of Senator Graham, built on these efforts to develop the American
Power Act.
Our legislation adopts the formula originally developed by
Republicans and implemented by President George H.W. Bush, that
environmental goals should be achieved at the lowest possible cost to
American consumers and businesses. In fact, the nonpartisan Peterson
Institute for International Economics just completed the first
independent analysis of the American Power Act, and found that the bill
would generate a decade of multimillion-dollar investments, creating
200,000 new jobs a year and reducing foreign oil imports by 40 percent.
The study also says that because of the strong consumer protection
provisions in the bill, American families will see a $35 net decrease
in energy costs annually through 2030.
The Senate can and must take action this year, and the American Power
Act provides the foundation for getting the job done. I urge my
colleagues who recognize the threats caused by our oil dependence to
close the gap between words and action and join us in passing a bill
this year. We have collectively kicked the can down the road long
enough, and the Nation is less secure as a result. It is time to stand
with 75 percent of the American people and pass energy and climate
legislation that makes a meaningful and lasting difference.
Before I yield the floor, I would like to make one final point. While
many members have come to the floor today to eviscerate the EPA and
create a caricature, the reality is that the Agency is taking a
thoughtful, measured, step-wise approach to regulating greenhouse gas
emissions. Administrator Jackson has logically committed to addressing
the largest sources first: new power plants or factories that emit over
100,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions, or existing plants that
undergo significant expansions representing over 75,000 tons, and they
won't go into effect until over a year from now. Contrary to the wild
claims you have heard today, these regulations will not impact small
businesses or family farmers, and will remain focused on only the
largest polluters for at least the next 6 years.
Mr. President, protecting our environment does not have to be a
partisan issue. On the first Earth Day in 1970, more than 20 million
Americans, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, all turned out to
protest the pollution of our environment. And later that year,
President Nixon signed the EPA law because Republicans recognized as
much as Democrats that we had to put an end to rivers catching on fire,
Great Lakes dying, and air pollution so great that on some days here in
Washington you could barely see the Capitol from Arlington Cemetery.
It has been 40 years since we put the EPA in charge of cleaning up
our water and air, and its track record is indisputable. Russell Train,
the EPA Administrator during the Nixon and Ford administrations,
emphasized in a recent letter opposing the Murkowski resolution that
the economic benefits of the Clean Air Act have exceeded its costs 10
to 100-fold. But the resolution under consideration today would stop
the EPA in its tracks, without any sort of alternative plan for
addressing the greatest environmental threat of our time. Let's stop
the demonizing and get to work.
Today we should be debating how to craft comprehensive energy and
climate legislation, not how to reverse the important progress that is
underway. This amendment is a distraction. It is an excuse. It is time
for the Senate to do what this institution was meant to do, and provide
leadership on an issue that is crying out for it.
I have been listening carefully to a whole bunch of our colleagues on
the other side of the aisle come to the floor and talk about what this
is not about. Every single one of them has laid out a rationale for
doing away with something as if it were a regulation. They come to the
floor and, frankly, there have been very few facts here, because I keep
hearing about the tailoring rule of the EPA, that does not take effect
until 2016, which lays out a whole process by which we normally do
things.
But we keep hearing our folks on the other side of the aisle say this
is not something that Congress intended, or this is not something we
should leave to the bureaucracy. Neither could be further from the
truth.
We created the law on which this is based. The Congress passed the
Clean Air Act, and the Supreme Court of the United States, not a
bureaucracy, made a fundamental health finding decision that, in fact,
global climate change is happening, and that the pollutants of
greenhouse gases are, in fact, included in what the Clean Air Act
envisioned.
The Supreme Court has dictated this policy, and they dictated it as a
matter of health, not as a matter of some bureaucratic rule. We do not
have a rule in front of us right now. We have a process by which the
EPA is going to go through, determine what they may or may not do.
I heard my colleague from South Dakota come to the floor and say:
Well, all we are trying to do is delay this so Congress can act. This
is going to be the great hypocrisy test resolution. We are going to see
how many of those folks who are here on the floor saying: We need to
leave it to Congress, how many of them are actually going to
[[Page 10423]]
show up and vote to do what we need to do in order to change things.
How many of them are going to be on the front lines trying to, in fact,
make the things happen that have to happen in order to restrain
greenhouse gases?
We heard him say: We are just delaying this. No, they are not just
delaying it. That is not true. Because under the Administrative rule
act, when you reject a resolution, have a resolution of rejection, as
this is, you are specifically not allowed to come back with the rule or
anything like it.
Let me read specifically from there. It says:
A rule shall not take effect if the Congress enacts a joint
resolution of disapproval.
That is what this is.
(2) A rule that does not take effect under paragraph 1 may
not be reissued in substantially the same form, and the new
rule that is substantially the same as such rule may not be
issued.
There it is, plain and simple, folks. That is what is happening here.
This is an effort to permanently prevent the EPA from ever taking up
the question of greenhouse gases and their right to restrain them.
Let me read exactly what the Supreme Court said. This is the Supreme
Court. And let me put a little politics history behind this. In 1999,
under the Bush administration, the first Bush administration, they did
not want to do this, for all of the same reasons people do not want to
do it now. So people went to court to get them to do what they are
supposed to do in the public interest. But it was challenged. It went
all the way to the Supreme Court, and here is what the Supreme Court of
the United States said. Greenhouse gases ``fit well within the Clean
Air Act's capacious definition of air pollutant.''
So the Supreme Court of the United States, not a bureaucracy, found
that the intent of Congress was properly being fulfilled in the effort
to restrain greenhouse gases. What Senator Murkowski and colleagues are
trying to do here is undermine the health finding. This, in fact, is
represented by the Supreme Court.
The Court found that climate science has already indicated that
rising levels of greenhouse gases were warming and harming the Earth.
They go through that reasoning. The Court then said they reviewed the
history of the Clean Air Act and found that in 1970, Congress added a
broad definition of ``welfare,'' including ``effects on climate.''
Finally, the Court found that the Clean Air Act's sweeping definition
of ``air pollutant'' unambiguously includes greenhouse gases. That is
why we are here today.
What our colleagues are trying to do is prevent this from happening.
They are repealing an entire health finding.
It is kind of interesting. Look at the people who represent health in
the United States: the American Academy of Pediatrics, Children's
Environmental Health Network, American Nurses Association, American
Lung Association, American Public Health Association, National
Association of County and City Health Officials, Trust for America's
Health, Physicians for Social Responsibility, National Environment
Health Association, American College of Preventative Medicine, and on
it goes. All of them are opposed to what Senator Murkowski is doing
because it does not represent the health interests of the country.
We have heard a lot of arguments, but for all the discussion and
rhetoric, the choice before us is stark and simple. This is not a
simple delay. This is brought to us by some of the same people who have
resisted doing anything about many of these things for ages. Why is it
that the United States is more dependent today on foreign oil than we
were before September 11? It is because we haven't done anything to
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We have an opportunity to do it
now. This is about that.
The same people have resisted changes through the years--resisted
CAFE standards, resisted changing where and how we produce oil, a long
list of things that have been prevented from happening. The American
people today are paying $100 million a day to Ahmadinejad and Iran in
order to buy oil because we haven't reduced it.
The option is whether we are going to get serious about those other
things. This is a vote between whether we recognize the greatest
environmental risk of our time or whether we legitimize deniers of
that. It is a choice between protecting the health of our families and
the air we breathe or whether we continue a pattern of pollution that
threatens our children and communities. That is what the EPA was set up
to protect. It has protected that through the years. This is a question
of whether we are going to get serious about policies that will put
America on a path to energy independence or increase our Nation's oil
dependence by another 450 million barrels.
The stakes for our country are enormous. If Members have any doubt
about that, every day on television everybody is seeing what is
happening in the gulf, the result of one single accident, one single
offshore oil well.
In April of 2007, the Supreme Court, for the first time, issued a
ruling on the issue of climate change. Some people don't like it. The
Roberts Court was asked to consider the Bush administration's refusal
to issue greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks. The case hinged
on just two things: Does the Clean Air Act authorize the regulation of
greenhouse gases, and, if so, should the EPA set emission standards for
motor vehicles?
The decision by the majority was conclusive on both fronts. In light
of that, the Justices directed the EPA to fulfill its obligation under
the Clean Air Act to determine--I emphasize--based on scientific
evidence whether greenhouse gas emissions for cars and trucks pose a
threat to human health.
On May 19, the National Research Council, which is our Nation's
leading scientific body, declared in its most comprehensive study to
date that the evidence of climate change is overwhelming. They urged
early, aggressive, and concerted actions to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases. The resolution we are debating today would achieve
absolutely the opposite goal. We are being asked to vote down the
science, to squander billions of barrels of oil savings, and shirk our
responsibility to address the greatest national security and
environmental challenge of our time.
Some may say, no; they are just trying to restrict the bureaucrats
from doing this. Everybody understands what this battle is all about.
By invalidating the fundamental scientific finding that greenhouse
gases, in fact, pose a threat to human health and welfare, this
resolution would remove the legal basis, the legal foundation for the
agreement that was reached last year to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions from cars and trucks.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, this agreement, the
agreement to which I am referring, is on track to save American
consumers a total of $34 billion and to create 263,000 American jobs in
2020. The agreement also takes a huge step forward toward energy
independence by reducing our oil consumption by 1.8 billion barrels. If
we remove the EPA's authority to jointly implement those regulations
with the Department of Transportation, then we lose the foundation for
proceeding forward with that benefit. That is the minimum amount by
which this resolution would increase our oil dependence.
In light of President Obama's recent announcement that the
administration plans to extend the vehicle standards beyond 2016, the
prohibition on the EPA action would eliminate significant additional
opportunities in the future to reduce our Nation's oil consumption,
increase our energy security, and draw a bright line between ourselves
and those nations that want to do us harm.
Why are we being asked to affirmatively reject a scientific finding
that has been based on overwhelming evidence, and why would we be asked
to reject potentially billions of barrels of oil savings? We are told
Congress needs more time to develop energy and climate legislation. The
Federal Government has to be stopped from making progress in the
interim.
I have been meeting with my colleagues now for over a year at least,
over 20 years that I have been working
[[Page 10424]]
on this issue. The distinguished chairwoman of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, similarly, and others, have been at this for a
long time. I am struck by the irony that many of the proponents of this
argument are the very same people who, at every opportunity, have
avoided engaging in a serious legislative effort to try to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions or deal with climate change.
On the one hand they say it is the job of Congress, not the EPA. Then
they stand in the way of Congress doing its job in the first place.
They stand in the way even at a time when we have built an
unprecedented coalition of industry--the faith-based community, the
national security community, businesses small and large,
environmentalists, all of whom believe we now have a method by which we
can grow jobs in our country, increase energy independence, and reduce
pollution all at the same time.
Let me share with colleagues what Ron Brownstein, one of the keenest
observers of Washington, summed up in writing the following:
It's reasonable to argue that Congress, not EPA, should
decide how to regulate carbon. But most of those Senators who
endorsed Murkowski's resolution also opposed the most
plausible remaining vehicle for legislating carbon limits.
I want to make sure we understand something as we do this. A lot of
people have come to the Senate floor to eviscerate the EPA and create a
caricature of that Agency, when that Agency, frankly, is taking a
thoughtful, measured, stepwise approach to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions.
Administrator Jackson has said she is committed to addressing the
largest sources first, new powerplants or factories emitting more than
100,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions, and then going to those over
75,000 tons. None of that will even go into effect until a year from
now through the normal administrative public process that we have set
up for our agencies to represent us.
It is astonishing to me that this has become a partisan issue. In
1970, 20 million Americans came out of their homes to march in the
streets because they saw the Cuyahoga River in Ohio light on fire. They
wanted to stop the pollution. We passed the Clean Air Act, Clean Water
Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, marine mammal protection, coastal zone
management. The history of the implementation of those acts has been to
clean up rivers, clean up lakes, and see fish swim again where they
didn't, to be caught again by kids who go fishing with their parents.
We brought that back. Now we are trying to undermine the ability to
continue that job, to make the health and welfare of our citizens
better, and to lead the world with respect to these technologies. The
United States is not leading in one of these technologies today. It is
time for us to understand, we need to get our act together.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kerry. We now turn to
Senator Lieberman for 5 minutes, followed by Senator Merkley for 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Boxer for her
leadership in this matter.
I rise to oppose the resolution offered by my friend from Alaska, and
she is my friend. I rise to say that I think, though I oppose the
resolution, that debate on the resolution has clarified the choices
Members of the Senate have on this matter. I think it has illuminated
the scientific consensus, and in the end, the defeat of this
resolution, which I hope for and support, will actually increase
momentum to adopt comprehensive energy and climate legislation this
year which is the real alternative to executive action by EPA next
January.
I know several of my colleagues have argued today that this
resolution is about stopping EPA from regulating greenhouse gas
emissions and preserving that role for Congress. But the resolution
does, of course, much more than just offer an opinion about who should
regulate greenhouse gas emissions. It rejects EPA's finding that ``six
greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health
and the public welfare of current and future generations'' of
Americans. It would also prevent EPA from reaching a similar conclusion
in the future.
To me, that means this resolution looks an awful lot like an attempt
to impose political judgments on scientific judgments. That is wrong.
There has been a lot of talk over the years of basing what we do on
sound science. This resolution would lead us in exactly the opposite
direction. Should the resolution become law, Congress would in effect
be saying EPA was wrong when it reached its conclusion that global
warming emissions harmed public health. Since that finding was the
basis for EPA's tailpipe emissions standards, the Murkowski resolution
would send EPA back to the drawing board on those rules, which are
broadly supported by the business and environmental communities and
significantly increase both our dependence on foreign oil and air
pollution.
Regardless of whether my colleagues believe Congress or the EPA
should determine our national strategy for addressing the threat of
global warming, I hope they can agree that unchecked carbon dioxide
emissions endanger human health and welfare. Frankly, I thought that
debate was over. Climate change is happening. The science is
convincing. The current pattern of energy consumption is just making a
bad problem worse. It is time to move past the debate about climate
science and engage in an honest, productive, bipartisan conversation
about what we can do as a nation, as a people privileged to be leaders
of this Nation, to combat the problem, the challenge that science tells
us is happening.
The solution we come up with can and will create good jobs. It can
and will ensure our role as a leader in the global clean energy
economy. It can and will safeguard our national security by
safeguarding our energy security. Last month, Senator Kerry and I
presented the American Power Act, which I think achieves all of those
goals I have stated and more. It is the product of months of
discussions with Republicans and Democrats, the business community, and
the environmental community. Together I think we came up with an
innovative approach to addressing both our energy and climate
challenges. It enjoys broader support than any similar proposal I have
ever been involved in from the business and environmental communities.
It is a coming together of the work of the Environment and Public Works
Committee under Chairman Boxer and the Energy Committee under Chairman
Bingaman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I would say, finally, there is a path forward that
allows Congress to act but does not reject the science of climate
change. That path forward is a ``no'' vote on the resolution and a
``yes'' vote on comprehensive energy and climate legislation like the
American Power Act.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before we hear from Senator Merkley, I
want to note that immediately following him, Senator Bingaman will have
5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today I rise in opposition to the
resolution before us from my colleague from Alaska.
Since 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency has been charged with
responding to and identifying threats to our atmosphere, threats that
affect public health, threats that affect weather, threats that affect
climate.
During this time, the EPA has identified and responded to many
threats: sulfur dioxide; nitrogen dioxide; mercury, a potent
neurotoxin; lead, lead that was poisoning the air our children breathed
and affecting their mental development. In each of these cases, we had
a force that said: We must respond.
Now, today, we have before us a resolution which says: It does not
matter
[[Page 10425]]
that our public health is being affected. We are going to overturn the
finding. We are going to call the science invalid. We are going to say
politics, not science, should be the foundation of our policy.
This, of course, is the attitude that was put forward year after year
during the Bush administration: Take the scientific papers and shred
them. Take the scientists and set their views aside. Today, we have a
continuation of that Bush strategy of burying science. It is the wrong
foundation for public policy to bury science. We should take and
respond responsibly.
We have now before us a finding that was developed actually by the
scientists in the Bush administration. You might recall, it was the
Bush administration scientists who first developed the finding related
to changing the atmosphere with the global warming gases of methane and
carbon dioxide and other gases that are changing the chemistry of the
environment, and that we have to respond to protect the health of our
citizens--a straightforward concept, supported by the scientists of the
last administration and by the scientists of this administration.
Not only that, but we are proposing in this resolution to undo the
tailpipe emissions rules that reduce our demand on foreign oil. This
resolution will increase our demand for foreign oil by 455 million
barrels per year. That is a lot. Let me translate that. That is not
equivalent to the amount of gasoline to drive around the Equator once.
No. That is not equal to the amount of gas to drive around the Equator
10 times. Not at all. It is not even equal to the amount of gas to
drive around the Equator 1,000 times. This is an increase in our
dependence on foreign oil equal to the amount of gasoline that would
propel a car around the Equator 10 million times.
This means far more money in the hands of foreign governments that do
not share our national interests. This means a compromised national
security. This means a lot of additional carbon dioxide being put into
the air. And this means a lot more harm to the citizens of the United
States.
Burying science is wrong. This resolution that challenges our
national security, diminishes our economy, and threatens the atmosphere
and our public health is also wrong. It must be defeated in this
Chamber.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will vote ``no'' on the Murkowski
resolution of disapproval. Senator Murkowski and I have worked together
on a comprehensive energy bill this Congress and also on a cap-and-
trade bill in the last Congress. She has been very consistent in her
view that we need to act on the issue of global warming but that we
need to be sensitive to the impacts of such legislation on our economy.
I appreciate the concerns she has voiced with respect to the need to
protect industry from onerous regulation. I firmly believe those views
are sincere. I disagree, however, with the substance of this
resolution, in that, regardless of overall intent, it is asking
Congress to overturn a scientific finding made by some of our best
scientists. In my view, the EPA should not be prevented from continuing
its work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions until Congress is able to
prescribe a more permanent fix.
For the past several Congresses, we in Congress have been engaged in
a dialog on how best to provide a permanent fix. There have been many
bills introduced on the topic. We have had several votes on specific
legislation. Each time, though, we have fallen short of actually
enacting legislation. Now, as a result of the Supreme Court ruling, we
are in a situation where the EPA is required by law to take action to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
There is a near universal agreement among Members of the Senate that
it would be better for Congress, rather than the EPA, to take action
and to prescribe the means of regulating greenhouse gases. Congress has
the ability to consider the whole economy and the global scope of the
problem in a way that is not available to the Administrator of the EPA
under the Clean Air Act. Congress can design and enact policy that
would be mindful of the wide range of stakeholders and minimize its
economic impacts, and ensure a smooth transition to a clean energy
economy.
I continue to support action by the Congress to regulate greenhouse
gases instead of direct regulation by the EPA under the Clean Air Act.
However, the resolution before us is not about whether the EPA should
be regulating greenhouse gases or how they should go about it. We are,
instead, being asked to vote on whether the EPA was correct in its
finding that ``current and increasing levels of greenhouse gases
threaten the public health and welfare of current and future
generations.''
Frankly, there is nothing controversial in this fundamental
scientific finding. It has survived intense scrutiny by thousands of
scientists and interested parties the world over in the past decades.
Just last month, in a report delivered by the National Academies of
Science at the request of Congress, this finding was further supported
by our Nation's top scientists. So this vote would amount to a
congressional rejection of the most basic findings of climate science,
and how we vote today will be looked on by many, including the
international community, as they evaluate America's commitment to
address this global problem.
Finally, I have reviewed the EPA's actions on greenhouse gas
emissions and their recent tailoring rule that would ensure that only
the very largest sources would be subject to any kind of regulation. Of
these very large sources, only those that are new or are pursuing major
modifications will be required to implement new control technologies.
As EPA considers what technologies must be implemented, the economic
viability of the technology is taken into account as well. I believe it
is important that EPA continue with its work and that we in Congress
get on with taking the steps we need to take. For these reasons, I urge
a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am assuming that time on the
Democratic side has expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
At this time, in our remaining 30 minutes, it shall be allocated as
follows: Senator Coburn for 5 minutes, Senator Rockefeller for 10
minutes, followed by Senator McCain for 5 minutes, and then I will
conclude with 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have listened to a great deal of the
debate. I have heard it claimed that the EPA has scientists; that none
of us are--except that is not accurate. There are about four or five
trained scientists in the Senate, and I happen to be one of them. But
the whole predicate that we heard from the Senator from Massachusetts
was: The basis was the Supreme Court. They are certainly not
scientists.
The other thing I would reject is what the Senator from New Mexico
said. As a scientist--and if you read the minority opinions on all the
reports they have cited--this is not settled science. Even if it were,
this is one Senator who would say this is not the time to do this. Our
economy is still on its back, and it is going to be that way for the
next 4 years. We have massive problems in front of us. And we are going
to add a ruling--not a congressional ruling, a bureaucratic ruling--
that is going to kill jobs, that is going to increase the cost of
everything we produce in this country because it all starts with
energy. It is going to mandate changes in behavior that will affect
every family in this country. So even if it were absolutely true, I
would tell you we should not be doing it now.
The second thing is to say that the EPA is going to do this. Do you
realize the EPA cannot even train 250,000 contractors for lead paint?
They blew it. They totally blew it. They were incompetent, and,
consequently, we have
[[Page 10426]]
hundreds of thousands of people who today still are not working on
older homes because of the EPA's incompetence.
So for us to claim we have to do this now, and we should not reject
this now, is like cutting off our nose to spite our face. No matter
what anybody says, it is going to have a major impact on our economy at
the time when we cannot afford to have another negative drag on our
economy.
Even if it is true--it is not; but even if it is--it would be stupid
for us to do this now, especially when the rest of the world is not
coming along at all and the footprint we might minimize will not have
any impact on the health of Americans. So we are going to have a
certain amount of CO2 no matter what because the Chinese
certainly are not doing it, the Indians certainly are not doing it, and
they are building one smokestack a day in China right now.
So for us to take this action--in light of the incompetency at the
EPA, in light of our economic situation we find ourselves in--I find it
highly ironic, even if it is the right thing to do, now is not the
right time to do it, given the place where we find ourselves
economically in this country.
Then, finally, I have been in this body for 5 years, and I have
heard, time and time again, the people opposing this motion to disagree
complain about an administration taking away our rightful legislative
duty. This is not something that should come from a bureaucracy. This
has way too big of an impact.
If we cannot get it through Congress, it should not happen. That is
what our country is set up on. Instead, by default, we are going to
allow a bureaucracy to take over what we are supposed to be doing? The
way this country works is, if we do not do it, it should not be
happening because there is not a consensus in the body to get a clean
energy program out of the Senate. So you cannot have it both ways. You
cannot complain about it when you are seeing it in things you like and
not complain about it when it is things you do not like.
I will finish with this one point: We better be very careful in this
body about what we are doing. We are playing with the future of 200
million Americans that is extremely precarious at this point in time
from an economic standpoint. We can claim all the long-term negative
health consequences, but as a physician, if you do not have an economy
or you have an economy that crumbles, no matter what you have done on
that, you have not helped anybody.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I yield back and thank the Senator from
Alaska for the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
I rise today to lend my support to the Murkowski Resolution of
Disapproval for one simple but enormously important reason: because I
believe we must send this strong and urgent message that the fate of
our economy, our manufacturing industries, and our workers, including
our coal workers, should never be placed solely in the hands of the
federal Environmental Protection Agency. I have long maintained this in
Congress. I have been around here for a while. I was a Governor for 8
years. I think the elected people, and not the unelected EPA, have a
constitutional responsibility here and on an issue which is so totally
important. We are accountable to those people.
Some here seem to talk about other aspects of this. I tend to focus,
as a VISTA volunteer who went to West Virginia and lived among coal
miners, on people and all the problems, including the problem of
climate change, that attend to their future.
I am not here to deny or bicker fruitlessly about the science, as
some would suggest. In fact, I would suggest that I think the science
is correct. However, it doesn't one iota deter from my support of the
Murkowski resolution.
I care deeply about this Earth and resent anybody who suggests
otherwise about either me or the people of my State. I care about the
fundamental human commitment--the higher calling we all have--to be a
steward. Greenhouse gas emissions are not healthy for the Earth or her
people, and we must take significant action to reduce them. We must
develop and deploy clean energy, period. I accept all of that. But EPA
regulation is not the answer. EPA has little or no authority to address
economic needs. They say they do, but they don't. They have no ability
to incentivize and deploy new technologies. They have no obligation to
protect the hard-working people I represent with deep and abiding
passion--people who changed my life. I was born anew in the coalfields
of West Virginia at the age of 26. So I fight for my people. I
understand I am a Senator, but I am a Senator from West Virginia, and I
have a right to fight for them, and I do, and I support Senator
Murkowski's amendment because of that. Their jobs matter. Their people,
their work matters. Their lives matter. Any regulatory solution that
creates more problems than it fixes and causes more harm than good in
the real lives of real people, if they are affected badly, is no
solution at all. I won't accept it. It is not something I will be a
part of.
We are capable of tackling this great challenge in a way that
supports rather than undermines our economy and our future. But the
process has to work. It has to be open. It has to be not the property
of a couple of people, but it has to be something the Congress comes to
understand. I have always felt that if you went to more than 10 percent
of the Congress, House and Senate, and asked them to explain what cap
and trade means, they would have no idea. That was one of our problems
with the health bill. It is fairly important that people understand
what it means on this bill--not on this bill but the bill that is being
talked about.
I am willing to work with people on a solution, but it has to be
legislative because on this, above all, the Congress must decide. I
don't care about the Supreme Court. I don't care about EPA in the sense
of them being the final voice on the future of my people in the State
that has some of the most carbon of any in the country. I know people
laugh at coal. We don't. You can't run this country without coal. I am
for all alternative fuels, even nuclear, to my surprise. I am for all
of them. But when you add them all up, nobody can make the point that
you can do any of this without coal. Does it have to be cleaner?
Absolutely. Is there any excuse for not making it cleaner? No, there is
not. But you can take 90 to 95 percent of the carbon out of it. That is
a solution for our people, and we mine coal. We mine coal and send it
to the States of people who are drawing up this bill. I just wish they
knew us a little better.
I asked Administrator Jackson to clarify the EPA timetable as well as
the impact of EPA regulations on industrial facilities. She responded
quickly to my letter. She was nice about it. She showed some
willingness to set a timetable, moved it up about a year, and I
appreciate that. But she also made clear that the EPA's regulations
will go forward regardless of whether Congress has acted on a
comprehensive energy policy and regardless of whether Congress has
given the EPA a direction in law about how and when and upon whom those
regulations should be imposed.
So I introduced my own legislation to suspend EPA action for 2 years.
It is a little different from the Murkowski legislation, but it makes
the same point. The EPA can't decide. We have to. Some can ridicule
that. I don't. I am elected to protect my people and my country, but
first comes my people and especially on this issue.
I support legislation to prevent any future catastrophe like the oil
spill, which is, to my mind, a totally separate issue and has no
business being discussed at the same time this is being discussed. I
also support legislation to advance new clean energy and clean coal
technologies.
West Virginia is poised to lead a major part in the effort on clean
technology because we know energy. We have lived with it for the last
150 years.
[[Page 10427]]
We know coal. We know natural gas. We are coming to know CCS as few
others do. It is a triumph when one of our power plants reduces 90
percent of the carbon emissions from the flue stream that it treats.
That is a triumph to us--maybe to nobody else, but to us it is because
it happened and it came from the stimulus package and we were a part of
that.
The fact is, we in West Virginia know and embrace what too many
others either don't understand or will not choose to see, which is that
our Nation is dependent on coal for more than 50 percent of its
electricity today, and nothing is going to change that fact. All the
renewables in the world will not change that fact.
So I close. Even if the country achieves maximum success for all of
the new ideas on the table for new green energy, our American quality
of life and the rapid rise of energy needs around the globe will drive
the same or greater need for coal for many generations to come. So we
better do coal correctly. It is going to be coal that solves it.
Coal mining is hard. It is dangerous. Most people have never been
down a mine. A few people who have discussed this don't know what they
talk about when they talk about it. And it is not the fault of a coal
miner. He just mines or she mines the coal that is out there. That has
to be handled at the stationary source.
I don't want EPA making all those rules. I don't want EPA turning out
the lights on America. As I said, coal can be cleaner. But the
responsibility for putting in place laws and policies that spur new
technologies and new ideas and the responsibility for any major energy
and environmental policy change lies not with the Federal regulatory
agency acting in isolation--I don't even know where EPA is located--but
with the Congress, with the people who are elected--us--to be included
in a process which has not been well managed to do the right thing.
I proudly support the Murkowski resolution, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am here to speak on the Murkowski
resolution before us.
The American people deserve to fully understand what this vote is
really about and what is at stake for them if Congress fails to prevent
EPA from unilaterally imposing massive regulations that will damage our
economy and destroy jobs.
I wish to be clear to my colleagues and to the American people. This
vote is not about the science of climate change. It is not about
whether Congress should or should not create policies to limit carbon
emissions. It is not about protecting oil companies or, as the White
House has absurdly claimed, the oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. What
this resolution is really about is whether the American people, through
their elected representatives, get a say in our Nation's energy policy
through their elected representatives or if they will be bound by the
whims of the unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection
Agency. More importantly, it is about protecting the American people
from a crippling backdoor energy tax that we, and small businesses and
large, cannot afford.
I wish I could provide my colleagues and the American people with a
detailed assessment of the impact EPA's proposed regulations would have
on our economy, but the EPA has refused to provide Congress a
comprehensive analysis of the potential economic impact. To paraphrase
Speaker Pelosi's comment that we have to pass ObamaCare so we can find
out what is in it, I guess EPA will need to impose new regulations on 6
million buildings, facilities, farms, and other ``stationary sources''
before we find out how much it will cost or what impact it will have on
the economy.
There is one thing we can all agree on: Allowing the EPA to be turned
loose on the American people is a terrible idea that will be extremely
expensive. A spokesman from the Edison Electric Institute, which, to
their shame, supports congressional efforts to pass a cap-and-trade
bill, stated that the only certainty is that EPA regulations to limit
carbon emissions would be far more expensive than if done by Congress.
Let's not forget what we now know about the legislation that was
passed in the other body. That would cost families upwards--every
family--of $1,000 a year. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget
warned that:
Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the
Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious
economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the
U.S. economy, including small business and small communities.
Even some bureaucrats at the EPA must have realized how crippling
these regulations would be to small businesses and farmers, which is
why they proposed a tailoring rule to delay the effect these
regulations would have on the American public. Unfortunately for the
American people, the tailoring rule stands on shaky legal ground.
This is really an Orwellian kind of experience. Demonstrating an
unparalleled disregard for congressional intent, the EPA is attempting
to make a case that Congress intended to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions under the Clean Air Act, even though greenhouse gas emissions
were not formally addressed by the act. Conversely, EPA claims that the
tons-per-year threshold set by Congress in the Clean Air Act should not
apply to greenhouse gases. In simpler terms, EPA believes that although
Congress didn't cover greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, it
really did, and although Congress set thresholds for covered
pollutants, it really didn't.
Finally, for those who claim this is somehow about protecting oil
companies, I suggest we listen to what over 425 companies and
organizations are saying about these regulations. Small business men
and women across the country are telling us that EPA's proposed
greenhouse gas requirements will stifle economic growth and
disadvantage them in the global marketplace. I suggest we listen.
So here we are. Here we are. Last Tuesday, we had a vote where people
turned out in massive numbers against what is going on in Washington.
They believe their Constitution is being taken away from them. They
believe they no longer have a voice in what we do here. What this EPA
decision would do is deprive the Congress, our Nation's elected
representatives, of a role in profound decisions that would have
tremendous effects on the economy of this country.
I strongly suggest that no matter how you stand on the issue of
greenhouse gas emissions or climate change, you reject this government,
unelected bureaucrat takeover of a significant portion of the U.S.
economy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. How much time remains on the Republican side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 10 minutes remaining.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we conclude the day's debate on this
resolution of disapproval, I will say that the debate has been good.
Many points have been raised, and I appreciate that. I will say,
though, as I have listened throughout the course of the 6 hours, I have
heard consistently on the side of those who support this resolution of
disapproval--I have heard consistently that this is about jobs, it is
about the health of our economy, it is about the strength of the
economy as a whole and about really ensuring, again, that our Nation
remains strong while at the same time we take care of our environment.
These are not mutually exclusive goals--never have been and never will
be.
I want to address some of the statements that have been made here and
made very clearly.
First is the issue of overreach--overreach by the EPA into the domain
of the legislative branch. This has been spoken to so many times as we
have discussed this resolution of disapproval--that the overlapping
triggers that are contained in the Clean Air Act effectively give the
EPA control of our Nation's energy and climate policy. I do not think
that is a sane and rational
[[Page 10428]]
policy when we cede our authority in the legislative branch to
effectively allow our energy and climate policy to be developed and
implemented by an agency, that being the EPA. This has huge
implications for the separation of powers and our constitutional system
of checks and balances, not to mention what I said at the outset--the
jobs and the recovery from this economic recession.
This is not a debate about the science. Science has been discussed a
lot. Really, this is about how we respond to the science. We are not
here to decide whether greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced. We
are here to decide if we are going to allow them to be reduced under
the structures of the Clean Air Act. Unlike what some of my colleagues
have said, this resolution doesn't gut the Clean Air Act at all. It
doesn't address it. It does not change the text in any way. It only
prevents a massive expansion of its authority.
It has been suggested that somehow or other this resolution is a
bailout; somehow or other this is tied to the disaster in the gulf;
somehow or other this is all tied to the oil industry. Again, this is
absolutely not anything that has to do with the disaster in the gulf,
in no way, shape, or form.
The suggestions that somehow or other this is all about big oil
belies the coalition of support that has been built across this
country, from Maine to Alaska and all the points in between--530
organizations, different stakeholders all over the board, in terms of
why they feel EPA should not be setting climate policy for this
country.
You cannot see this chart because the print is so small. I apologize
for that. But there are 530 organizations, businesses, stakeholders,
and advocacy groups that have endorsed this bipartisan resolution. So
you look through here and you say: OK, are these all the oil and gas
organizations that are in this country? But I will just direct you to
some of the ones from, for instance, Texas. Texas is an oil- and gas-
producing State.
Look at Texas. There is the Texas Agricultural Cooperative Council,
the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, Texas Aromatics,
Texas Association of Agricultural Consultants, Texas Association of
Dairymen, Texas Cattle Feeders Association, Texas Citrus Mutual, Texas
Cotton Ginners' Association, Texas Independent Ginners Association,
Texas Food Processers Association, Texas Forestry Association, Grain
and Feeders Association, Nursery and Landscape Association--and I am
only halfway through the Texas organizations that support our
resolution of disapproval.
So the suggestion that somehow this is all tied into the oil
industry, again, just simply does not comport with what has been
happening. Why are these organizations standing up and speaking out and
saying this is not the path we should be taking with climate? It goes
back to the jobs. It goes back to the issue of where we are as an
economy. It goes back to the level of bureaucratic overlay that will be
imposed on the California Citrus Mutual or the California Cotton
Growers Association or the Carpet and Rug Institute or the pizza
company from Ohio.
This is absolutely about how we as a Nation determine those policies
that will, in fact, allow us to have the clean air we all want. But we
can achieve those goals in a way that isn't going to kick our timing in
the head. Who can do that? Is it the EPA, whose mission is solely and
exclusively that we have to follow the letter of the law here? The
letter of the law says to not only go after the big polluters but all
the way down to the small emitters, which emit 250 tons of carbon per
year. And every effort EPA may want to make in terms of tailoring, all
it is going to take is one lawsuit that challenges that tailoring to
inject the uncertainty back into the market, back into the business
place. So once again we have an economy that just can not get back on
its feet.
This is not a referendum on any other bill that is pending in
Congress, but it is a check on EPA's regulatory ambition. It presents
an opportunity for us to stop the worst option for regulating
greenhouse gases from moving forward, while we work on a more
responsible solution.
I want to take a moment to thank my colleague from West Virginia, who
spoke very passionately about why he supports this resolution--because
of the people he represents. I ask all of us to look to the people we
represent. Look at your small businesses, your farmers, your ranchers,
your pizza manufacturers. Look to them. Look to the health of their
families and their communities.
I have a packet here that outlines the broad support for this
resolution among the Alaska stakeholders. It is everything from our
Alaska State Legislature to our Governor, our seafood processors, our
small business refiners, those who are trying to get an Alaska gas line
in place, our native corporations, the assembly from Anchorage, letters
from local mayors. I am listening to what the people of Alaska are
saying. They are making very clear that they want to ensure that when
we develop climate policy, the ``we'' is ``we the people,'' we the
elected Members of Congress, and not those unelected bureaucrats within
an agency who will not only develop that policy but then in turn
implement that policy. The Alaskans I am hearing from are saying: Make
sure that as we as a State try to build our economy, we can do so in a
manner that allows us time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is up.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
remaining time on our side be divided as follows: myself, 2 minutes;
Senator Udall of Colorado, 5 minutes; Senator Lautenberg, 5 minutes;
and Senator Boxer for the remainder of the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this debate is not about the overreach of
an agency because indeed this Congress charged EPA with responding to
threats to our atmosphere that endanger the public health of our
citizens. We asked them to do that because we know that if it was
decided on this floor piece by piece, it would be politics over policy.
So we gave them the responsibility to respond to lead, to respond to
mercury, to respond to global warming gases, and they are exercising
that responsibility in a very moderate fashion.
Second, this is about science because this resolution does not say we
accept the science but we are going to change the way we respond to it.
It doesn't say that. It says we reject the science. It says we reject
the endangerment findings to the public health of our citizens.
Third, this is about big oil. Have no doubt, this resolution
increases our dependence on the Middle East and Venezuela to the tune
of an enormous amount, so much that you would have to drive a car
around the Equator 10 million times to consume that oil. It is wrong
for our national security and wrong for our economy, and if you have
any doubt, take a look at the impassioned plea from the oil industry,
saying: Please, don't pass this. Why do they not want us to pass this?
They want to sell us that gas from the Middle East and Venezuela and
drive a car around the Equator 10 million times or the equivalent
across America.
So for our national security and for our economy to create jobs, we
must reject this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from
California for her leadership on this crucial resolution before us.
I rise in opposition to the resolution offered by my good friend, the
Senator from Alaska.
Recent events have given us pause. If there has ever been a wake-up
call, then surely the images of oiled pelicans, docked charter boats,
and the sickening plume of oil cascading into the blue waters of the
gulf should provide it.
[[Page 10429]]
Time and time again, we have seen opportunities to seize our energy
future passed up because of our addiction to fossil fuels, our tendency
to put off difficult choices or our habit of letting partisanship get
in the way. This unsustainable path has led us to a complacent sense of
security, and now look at where we are--caught off guard by a tragic
set of events in the Gulf of Mexico.
As the gulf disaster has made clear, our existing sources of energy
come at a cost greater than just the price at the pump. They can be
catastrophically damaging to our economy, our national security, and
our environment. I don't have any illusions about our need for
traditional energy sources, and on that I agree with the Senator from
Alaska. The more quickly we transition to cleaner energy, the sooner we
secure a strong and vibrant future for America.
Every year, we send nearly $800 billion overseas to buy oil from
foreign countries, some of which clearly don't have our interests at
heart. But I believe the resolution we are debating today would help
continue this reliance.
Let's not be fooled. We are in a race against foreign competitors in
the European Union and in Asia to meet the world's demand for clean
energy. Advanced and entrepreneurial countries like ours should do well
in such a race. Instead, over the last 5 years, as clean energy started
to boom, the U.S. renewable energy and trade deficit ballooned by 1,400
percent. China, South Korea, and Europe are all pulling ahead of us in
this crucial race.
I just returned from China, along with Senators Feinstein and Hagan.
My impression, quite simply, is that China appears to be taking bolder
actions than the United States.
For example, the largest wind farms and solar farms in the world are
being built in China. Moreover, China is investing heavily in safe
nuclear powerplants and clean coal technology.
Perhaps, though, most troubling is their development of clean energy
is in part financed by Americans who see more stable support and a
better investing climate for clean energy abroad.
I believe the resolution from the Senator from Alaska, however well
intended, signals to investors that our country is not ready to fully
support these investments in clean energy.
While there is a compelling economic and national security case to be
made for transitioning to a clean energy portfolio, that is not the
only reason. Scientists, industry, and State and local officials all
agree that climate change is a challenge our society must address.
In my home State in Colorado, we are already witnessing the effects
of climate change. Increased threats from drought, wildfire, and the
bark beetle infestation are not theoretical, they are real. Come to my
State and see those effects.
I firmly believe to fully jump-start this inevitable revolution we
must put a price on carbon. Some have suggested this would lead to job
loss. I disagree. Our experience in Colorado tells a different story.
By setting renewable targets, we have helped create an exciting,
vibrant, growing clean energy economy in Colorado that has delivered
thousands of new jobs. Those jobs have remained in this economic
downturn because they are real jobs, they are future jobs, they provide
the energy we need.
Our financial markets and our energy markets have been waiting for
years for leadership from the Congress on this issue. Despite the
economic, the environmental, and the national security interests at
stake, some of my colleagues seem to be dead set on throwing up
barriers in front of investors. This is in part why I am opposing this
resolution. It sends a message that the status quo is acceptable. It is
not. We need a clear path forward, we need a price on carbon, and we
need to set achievable standards for renewable energy to create a
positive environment for private investment.
This resolution would block that path. No less than our safety and
our security is at stake. I urge my colleagues to vote against this
resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Udall for his remarks.
I turn to a real leader on clean air, clean water, a real fighter for
the health and safety of our children and our families, Senator
Lautenberg, for 7 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California
and commend her for the struggle we have had with this issue when, in
fact, there should not be any struggle.
This is not an issue, in my view, that ought to be debated. To reduce
the protection we want to offer our families to me sounds silly, and I
believe to the American public it is going to sound silly as well. I do
not ascribe any evil intent on the part of the Senator from Alaska, but
I think it is absolutely mistaken.
The question before us today is simply, Whose side are you on? Do you
want to afford your children and your grandchildren the most protection
they can have against foul air, against contamination, against
pollution generally, or are you worried about the oil companies? We
should not have to worry about them. As a matter of fact, they ought to
worry a little more about us--a heck of a lot more about us.
Taking nothing away from the experience and the knowledge the Senator
from Alaska brings, I was in Alaska the second day after the Exxon
Valdez ran aground. I saw the casual attitude that prevailed with
Exxon. It told me something about the thinking of these companies.
There it was, the ship was foundering. We had people already up there.
There were heroic efforts by people from Fish and Wildlife, by people
from the Park Service, Interior, up there caressing little seals,
trying to get the oil off them so they could survive, eagles and all
kinds of animals.
What happened there--and I use this as an example--what happened
there is that Exxon was assessed a penalty. They paid the compensatory
damages, but they were assigned a penalty for their behavior. They were
fined $5 billion. Instead of paying at that time when they made $3
billion--equivalent to $6 billion in today's currency--when they spent
all their time in court on lawyers, the $5 billion that was owed to the
American people was cut down to $500 million. That is the attitude. We
see it with BP--all kinds of disguises, all kinds of fabrications, all
kinds of lies, wanting to talk about: This is not such a bad thing; we
will take care of it.
First they offered to take care of it. Then they said they will pay
the claims and then legitimate claims. Always modifying.
The question is, Whose side are we on? The side of big oil, the
people who are right now responsible for much of the destruction in the
Gulf of Mexico or are you on the side of your own children, your own
grandchildren?
I have experienced it, as most families have, with a child who has
asthma and another one who has diabetes. We are not sure of the source
of these conditions, but if my colleagues vote for this resolution they
are voting to allow a clear and present danger to the health of their
own families. How can they do that?
The American Academy of Pediatrics, 60,000 members, all of them well
trained in science and medicine, has been clear in the warning that
climate change will have the most dramatic effect on children.
What is our responsibility? To me, the responsibility is to take care
of our kids however we can do it, protect them from all kinds of
dangers. Here is one that will just increase it if we permit this
resolution to go through.
Think about your grandchildren coughing and gagging on foul air in
the future. I see it in my own family. My oldest grandchild is 16. He
has asthma. When the atmosphere is bad, he is in terrible shape. When
my daughter takes him--he is a good athlete--to play baseball or
otherwise, the first thing she checks is where is the nearest clinic so
if he starts to wheeze, she can get there in a hurry.
[[Page 10430]]
We have seen a troubling increase of asthma. The rate of asthma in
children has doubled, and we know carbon pollution causes increased
asthma attacks.
More global warming means increases in malaria and food and water
shortages that will devastate children around the globe. Global warming
is upon us. We have to solve the problem and with that the pollution of
the air.
Put simply, this resolution is an attack--unintentionally I am sure--
on children's health but that is going to be the result. That is why
the groups that support children and health are opposed to Senator
Murkowski's resolution.
The resolution puts politics--politics--ahead of science. The science
is clear: Emissions from burning coal and oil are sickening children
all around the world, and if we can help them--I don't care what
country they are in--we should help them. But we want to take care of
those in our country.
The resolution asks Senators to say to the scientists: You are wrong,
scientists. I say leave the science to the scientists and not to the
politicians.
At the same time, big oil and their lobbyists will stop at nothing to
keep our country's dependence on oil, to have us victimized by people
who are not our friends, taking our money and at the same time fouling
our air. For too long, they have had our country by the barrel and by
the throat.
This resolution is a gift to BP. I don't think BP deserves any
contributions from the U.S. Congress or from the American taxpayers
right now.
This resolution is a direct attack on the Clean Air Act. For the last
40 years, the Clean Air Act has led to cleaner skies and healthier
children. When we strengthened the Clean Air Act, big oil rang an alarm
that the changes would cost too much and shut down businesses and put
Americans out of work. The actual costs were less than one-fifth of the
estimates that were projected.
I ask my colleagues to vote for their family, vote for science, which
means to vote against the Murkowski resolution. We have to meet our
obligations to future generations, and we have to get serious and solve
our Nation's problems and move toward a clean energy future and not
more carbon pollution and oil.
I urge my colleagues to please vote for their children, vote for
their families, vote no on this resolution and keep the future clean
for the sake of our children and grandchildren. Don't worry about the
oil companies. They will take care of themselves.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, anyone who has opened a newspaper or turned
on a radio in West Virginia recently is aware of the ongoing discussion
about the future of the coal and manufacturing industries. There is no
doubt that the West Virginia coal industry and many West Virginia
workers have been dealt a difficult hand over the past ten years, and
are indeed facing some uncertainty about their futures. Such
uncertainty is a pressing public concern for our State--and for many
other States--and Senator Murkowski has sought to propose a resolution
that she evidently feels would respond to those concerns. However, we
need to do something other than hold a political vote on the Murkowski
resolution, which has zero prospect of enactment, and which would not
alleviate uncertainty about the future even if it did pass the Senate.
The Murkowski resolution would only foster confusion. I believe that
the best and most practical course of action is for the Senate to pass
a bill that provides certainty and real answers for West Virginians and
all Americans--a bill that will be passed by the Congress and signed by
the President before new requirements that would broadly affect our
economy are imposed by regulation.
I understand that the Senate Democratic leadership is willing to move
forward on a bill that pre-empts EPA action, and can win 60 votes in
the Senate, be approved by the House, and be signed by the President
into law. Senator Rockefeller recently proposed legislation to provide
a temporary pre-emption of EPA. I know that I am joined by many others
in West Virginia in my belief that the Senate find a way to accomplish
that objective--an objective that I know Senator Rockefeller and I both
share.
I have recently secured commitments from my fellow Senators to
provide on the order of $2 billion for each major power plant that
installs clean coal technology during the coming decades--with
additional funding available to larger projects. I am also negotiating
a commitment to provide the West Virginia region with billions more
annually to strengthen new and existing regional businesses, to
complete the construction of better highways, and to provide other
critical investments to ensure that the next generation of West
Virginians will have a bright future at home in the Mountain State.
President Obama has also assured me of his ongoing support for these
priorities of mine.
The way to ensure that we make these transformative new investments
in the future of West Virginia, and in the Appalachian coal industry,
is for Congress to do the difficult work of enacting the necessary
policies. The Murkowski resolution does not accomplish that objective,
and it may even undercut our ability to achieve it. The resolution is
an open-ended denunciation of many leading scientific studies and
regulatory initiatives. Were it to be enacted, the resolution could
actually hamper important Federal initiatives--including rules that
will assist in the deployment of clean coal technologies like carbon
capture and storage. I also note that the Murkowski resolution is being
considered by the Senate via an unusual legislative process that
constrains debate and prohibits Senators from offering amendments.
As I have said before, to deny the mounting science of climate change
is to stick our heads in the sand and say ``deal me out'' of the
future. But we have also allowed ourselves to ignore other realities.
It is a simple fact that the costs of producing and consuming Central
Appalachian coal continue to rise rapidly. Older coal-fired powerplants
are being closed down, and they appear unlikely to be replaced by new
coal plants unless we very soon adopt several major changes in federal
energy policy. In 2009, American power companies generated less of
their electricity from coal than they have at any other time in recent
memory. In the last month alone, two major power companies have
reportedly announced that they will idle or permanently close over a
dozen coal-fired powerplant units that have consumed millions of tons
of West Virginia coal in recent years. Moreover, an even larger portion
of America's aging fleet of coal-fired powerplants could be at risk of
being permanently closed in the coming years--and the ability to sell
coal in those markets could be lost for an indefinite period, if there
is no new Federal energy policy to support the construction of new coal
plants.
Some companies may feel that it is helpful for Congress to go on
denouncing a new energy policy that makes it once more attractive to
build new coal plants. But those companies are taking this opportunity
to invest in natural gas, or other types of investments. They are not
thinking about fighting for the longer term future of coal jobs and
other jobs in West Virginia. I am. In the meantime, what happens to the
miners, other workers, local governments, and many West Virginia
citizens during the course of further delay on a new energy bill? They
continue to be laid off, and to struggle with insufficient revenue, and
to remain frustrated about their uncertain future.
So, there is a long list of compelling reasons to oppose this
resolution, and a rather short list of reasons to support it. For the
sake of West Virginia's best interests, and the vital longer-term
interests of our Nation and our world, the Senate must now move
promptly to take responsible, decisive, and effective action on a
moderate but major new energy policy.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, today, we are going to be voting on a
significant yet controversial resolution introduced by Senator
Murkowski. This resolution, S.J. Res. 26, squarely confronts the issue
of how the United States will address the issue of climate
[[Page 10431]]
change and the regulation of greenhouse gases. The resolution speaks
directly to whether or not the Environmental Protection Agency should
be allowed to regulate sources of greenhouse gases. This is an
important issue for the U.S. Senate to address.
In short, the Murkowski resolution disapproves of EPA's recent
endangerment finding that greenhouse gases are a threat to public
health. This rule is a result of a 2007 Supreme Court ruling directing
EPA to make a determination as to whether or not greenhouse gases are a
public endangerment. After 2 years of consideration of the scientific
evidence, the EPA found that six greenhouse gases are a threat to
public health. Senator Murkowski's resolution would nullify this
decision.
While I am sympathetic to the concerns raised by Senator Murkowski,
the impact of her resolution would be, among other things, to negate
the significant progress the EPA has made in increasing fuel economy
standards for vehicles. For that reason I am unable to support it.
Instead, I am working with my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, to pass
his bill, S. 3072, of which I am a cosponsor, to preserve the EPA's
ability to regulate emissions from vehicles but allow the Congress an
additional 2 years to address the regulation of all other sources of
greenhouse gases.
Like, Senator Murkowski, I believe that the best way to address
climate change is to allow Congress time to pass comprehensive
legislation, not rely on regulations handed down by the EPA. A
legislative approach would allow us to mitigate what likely would
result from EPA regulation of stationary sources: unfair cost increases
that will be borne by millions of Americans who have no choice but to
rely on energy produced from coal. This is my biggest concern, as
eighty-five percent of the energy produced in Missouri comes from coal.
I have long stated that I cannot support an approach to greenhouse
gases regulation that will unfairly impact Missourians or unduly harm
Missouri's small businesses just because they happen to be in a state
that is largely reliant on coal energy. Unfortunately, while the
resolution offered by Senator Murkowski is an attempt to give Congress
greater time to address these types of concerns in any climate
regulation, it also negates a historic agreement between the EPA and
the auto industry. This goes too far.
Last year, in an unprecedented announcement, the auto industry agreed
to allow the federal government to set new standards for vehicle
emissions and worked in concert with the government to set these new
standards. This was a model of effective, reasonable negotiated
rulemaking and should be embraced, not negated. These new standards
will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by a projected 1.8 billion
barrels, while providing real benefits for consumers. Compared with
today's vehicles, a family purchasing a vehicle under the new standards
will save, on average, more than $3,000 on fuel costs over the life of
that vehicle. If the Congress passes Senator Murkowski's resolution, it
will effectively eliminate these new standards. I believe it would be a
mistake to jeopardize the progress we have made with the auto industry,
lose the consumer benefits of increased fuel economy and lose the
benefit to our national security of reducing our dependence on foreign
oil.
This is why I am working with Senator Rockefeller to pass his
alternative approach to delay EPA regulation of all other sources of
greenhouse gases for 2 years. I believe this is a better option that
will not unfairly penalize Missourians. I look forward to working with
Senator Rockefeller, as well as Leaders Reid and McConnell to secure a
vote on this very important legislation.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the resolution
of disapproval offered by Senator Murkowski. This resolution is a
stunning departure from the science of climate change. It jeopardizes
our ability to address a continuing threat to our national security and
public health by overturning EPA's science-based finding that global
warming pollution endangers the public health and welfare. The United
States is making progress--in solar, wind and other alternative energy
sources--job creators that will sustain our future. We are also making
progress in reducing the harmful pollutants in our air which threaten
future generations. But this resolution would not continue this
progress--it would take us back by weakening the Clean Air Act, a
proven tool in addressing air pollution.
But what would taking away EPA's ability to protect the health and
welfare of Americans from greenhouse gas pollution mean in our day to
day lives? For the people of Maryland, who are particularly vulnerable
to the effects of climate change because of the state's expansive
coastline, it would mean our coasts would be eroded at an accelerated
pace---many areas losing more than 260 acres a year. It would also mean
steadily rising sea levels in Ocean City, which could lose billions of
dollars in tourism. And, it would lead to a rise in asthma and lung
disease rates, which already disproportionately hits our urban areas,
like Baltimore. With these clear threats to our livelihoods, now is not
the time to take a major tool out of the toolbox that could help combat
the prevalence of greenhouse gases in our daily lives. This is politics
as usual in a time where we need solutions.
The resolution being considered today sends the wrong message to the
American public, to our businesses and to the world. It sends the
message that the U.S. Congress is not taking the threats to our
environment seriously. It sends the message to our businesses that it
is okay to continue with the status quo. And in a time where we need
the innovation, the technology, and the workforce that is committed to
transitioning the United States to a clean energy society, this is not
the message that we want to send. The message that we need to send is
that we are committed to a national energy policy that protects our
families, protects the quality of our air and water, and creates jobs
for the 21st century.
The timing of this resolution is also very concerning. In recent
weeks, due to the crisis in the gulf, we have seen what our unhealthy
addiction to oil can do. This resolution will prevent progress that we
have made in breaking this. Without these regulations in place,
Americans will use 455 million more barrels of oil, which equals the
amount of oil that would be in the gulf if the spill raged on for 65
years. We must break this cycle.
The U.S. Senate must make it clear how we will deal with the reality
of climate change. Stripping the authority of the EPA to address the
issue is not the way to make progress. Instead it is a serious and
counterproductive step backwards. I urge my colleagues to join me in
opposing this resolution.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly support the
senior Senator from Alaska's resolution of disapproval over the
Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of greenhouse gas
emissions under the Clean Air Act. The EPA has completely overstepped
its bounds with this action and I am proud to support Senator
Murkowski's effort to undo this harmful regulation.
A colleague of mine, currently serving here in the Senate, once
remarked that: ``Overburdensome and unnecessary Federal regulations can
choke the life out of small businesses by imposing costly and often
ineffectual remedies to problems that may not exist.''
This statement was made by the majority leader and I could not agree
more with it, especially when staring such a problem in the face as we
have here with EPA's draconian new rules. The majority leader's
statement was made in 1996 shortly after passage of the Congressional
Review Act. This important tool, designed to rein in out of control
Federal bureaucracies, is the same tool that we are using today in this
disapproval resolution currently being debated.
Make no mistake--the Congressional Review Act was designed to take on
this exact sort of executive overreach. The Obama administration's EPA
is making a huge power grab by twisting the principles of the landmark
Clean Air Act and declaring greenhouse gas
[[Page 10432]]
emissions a danger to public health and welfare. Now, I will not use
this time today to debate the science of greenhouse gas effects on
climate change, nor the effects of climate change on the planet.
However, greenhouse gases are found naturally in abundance in our
atmosphere. In fact, the most famous greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is
emitted whenever we exhale. The purpose of the Clean Air Act was to
reduce substances toxic to humans, not substances that are not directly
harmful to us.
Because the Clean Air Act was not designed for this kind of
regulation, the actions EPA has taken will not work and will have a
devastating effect on the economy and business in the United States.
Carbon dioxide will be considered a ``regulated air pollutant'' under
these regulations, thus requiring EPA to massively increase the number
of entities it will regulate. In fact, the number of permits for new or
modified construction will soar from 280 to 41,000. The additional
Title V permits, which are required to begin these operations, will
explode from 14,700 to 6.1 million applications. This would seem to me
to be a regulatory burden on an agency that cannot possibly be met
without a massive infusion of taxpayer dollars.
Thus, we know that an enormous amount of new entities will come under
the regulation of the Clean Air Act. Who will be newly roped into this
government regulation? Essentially anyone, such as office buildings,
apartment complexes, large retail stores, small businesses, farms,
hospitals, power plants, and schools. It is difficult to fathom just
how massively intrusive this Federal expansion will be.
This action by EPA also represents a rule by fiat of government
bureaucrats. The Clean Air Act as written makes no mention of
addressing global warming. To change this, the elected representatives
of the people, Congress, should be the ones making the decision, not
unelected bureaucrats in Washington. When Congress considers
legislation, the people who elected them expect that they will consider
all the effects of what is being debated. The EPA does not have this
consideration, which is obvious by the way they have completely
disregarded any and all of the economic consequences of their actions.
Congress does, though, and has to weigh the effects of policies upon
those that they will be implemented on. Elected officials need to be
responsive to legislation such as this that will prevent the
strengthening and recovery of the American economy. For instance,
Congress can factor in the extremely poor timing of this as our economy
is trying to drag itself out of recession. However, proponents of this
regulation in the Obama administration know it will not pass Congress,
so they are trying to do it by bureaucratic fiat instead of letting the
elected representatives of the people work out a reasonable compromise
to the problem.
It is for these reasons that I strongly support the Murkowski
resolution of disapproval over EPA's actions. I hope the majority
leader remembers what he said almost 15 years ago about the burdens of
unnecessary regulation and the use of these sorts of resolutions. I
hope our other colleagues heed his advice, as I intend to, and vote to
support this resolution.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition
to S.J. Res. 26, which would invalidate the EPA's endangerment finding
for greenhouse gas emissions issued last December. This disapproval
resolution is the absolute wrong approach to energy and climate policy
in this country. Not only does it fly in the face of the science
currently available on this issue, but it also ties our hands at a
critical moment when we should be exploring every option available to
us for mitigating the potentially disastrous environmental, economic,
and national security-related effects of climate change.
The scientific evidence currently surrounding our planet's changing
climate could not be clearer, or the need to address it more urgent.
There is broad consensus in the scientific community that most of the
rise in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is
due to human activity and that this warming trend could have
potentially far-reaching consequences for the environment, agriculture,
and public health. The EPA's endangerment and cause or contribute
findings, which state that greenhouse gas emissions threaten public
health and that emissions from new motor vehicles regulated under the
Clean Air Act contribute to climate change, unequivocally reflect this
longstanding scientific consensus. Indeed, the EPA's conclusions are
based on empirical assessments from such highly respected, nonpartisan
institutions as the U.S. Global Climate Research Program and the
National Research Council.
Nevertheless, in spite of the veritable mountain of evidence
demonstrating that we need to immediately begin addressing this
challenge, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to
ignore the available science and bury their heads in the sand by
supporting this ill-conceived disapproval resolution. They are, in
effect, voting to continue the failed policies of the Bush
administration, which for 8 long years ignored sound science, ridiculed
good policy, and relegated the U.S. to the back bench in the race to
develop and deploy clean, renewable sources of energy.
This is not a path on which we can afford to continue. As the ongoing
tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico clearly shows, our Nation's failure to
comprehensively address climate change and free our country from its
addiction to oil and other fossil fuels poses a serious threat to our
economy and the public's well-being. It is now time for the United
States to take a leading role in this effort--to reach into the deep
well of technical expertise and ingenuity of its citizens--and build a
new, clean energy economy that will create new jobs and help rescue the
planet from some of the most deleterious impacts of climate change.
Today we are presented with a choice. Do we acknowledge the
scientific near-certainty of climate change and the critical role the
EPA must play in addressing it? Or do we hamstring our Nation's
environmental experts, gut a national oil savings program, and reject
sound science? We must send a strong message to the American people and
the rest of the world that the United States is fully committed to
robustly confronting climate change and pioneering new, innovative
approaches to energy policy that move our country away from its
dangerous overreliance on fossil fuels. I urge my colleagues to reject
this misguided legislation.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our Nation is not lacking in complex
challenges. But among the most complex and difficult is this: How can
we deal with the reality of climate change while also strengthening an
economy that has depended for so long on fossil fuels? There is no
denying the difficulty of meeting those often conflicting goals. The
resolution before us purports to respond to this challenge, but I
cannot support the approach that Senator Murkowski offers. Let me
explain why.
Senator Murkowski offers a resolution of disapproval of the
Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding regarding the
harmful effects of greenhouse gas emissions. This resolution's impact
would be to block EPA from implementing that rule.
First, I believe we all should understand that the subject of this
resolution--EPA's endangerment finding--is a product of scientific
review of the facts regarding climate change. Current law, and a
decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, require EPA to act in the face of
these facts. If you believe in the science, as I do, then you must
either acknowledge EPA's responsibility to act or seek to change the
law that imposes that responsibility.
Second, as a practical matter, I am afraid this resolution, if
enacted, would have an effect quite different from its sponsors' stated
intent. The argument in favor of the resolution is that EPA regulation
of greenhouse gases would unwisely harm our economy. In fact, for my
State, passage of this resolution more likely would produce economic
[[Page 10433]]
harm. That is because it would undo a carefully crafted agreement among
the Federal Government, auto manufacturers, environmental groups and
others, reached more than a year ago, relating to national greenhouse
gas emissions standards for vehicles. This agreement resulted in a
single, national standard for such emissions, binding on all States
through 2016. The certainty and predictability of a binding national
standard is vital for vehicle manufacturers. To help them pursue the
path to a clean-energy future, that path must be clearly marked, and
not confused by the myriad of different turns they would face if
individual states are allowed to set their own standards.
EPA at one point granted California a waiver permitting that State to
separately regulate greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources.
California officials have agreed, for 2010 to 2016, to a joint NHTSA-
EPA process for regulating carbon emissions from vehicles. If the
Murkowski resolution is enacted, California would presumably act to use
its waiver, and other States would follow. The economic impact of
varying State regulation would harm manufacturers that are the economic
backbone of many States and communities across this Nation. Auto
manufacturers and auto workers have made clear, in letters to the
Congress, their concerns that the result of this resolution's passage
would be to upend a clear national standard binding on all States.
While the supporters of this resolution may not intend such a
consequence, it is surely there, and that is why I cannot support this
resolution.
Let me also take this opportunity to point out that my commitment to
a single national emissions standard that is binding on all States also
leads me to oppose the Kerry-Lieberman climate change bill in its
current form. Why? Because carbon dioxide is a global problem. The
threat of greenhouse gas emissions is not unique to any State. There is
an urgent need for government action to confront the problem of carbon
dioxide, but the need is for strong national and international action.
To suggest that the need is different from one side of a State line to
the other actually undermines the argument that carbon dioxide is a
global threat that knows no boundaries.
Just as vehicle manufacturers and workers have made clear their
concerns that the Murkowski resolution threatens a single, binding
national standard, they have also made clear their concerns about the
effects of the Kerry-Lieberman bill as currently written. As the United
Auto Workers Union has pointed out in a letter to Senators, that
proposal ``fails to provide regulatory predictability for the
automotive sector because it does not require continuation of the Obama
administration's historic achievement in promulgating one national
standard for greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy for light duty
vehicles.'' The UAW is right. The Kerry-Lieberman bill, while hinting
that there should be a single national standard, does not commit the
Nation to such a standard. In order to gain my support, it must include
such a commitment.
So, let no one misunderstand my vote today. I oppose the Murkowski
resolution because it will unravel the agreement on a single national
carbon standard for mobile sources binding on all States through 2016.
I also oppose the Kerry-Lieberman bill as currently drafted because it
does not ensure such a standard beyond 2016.
I ask unanimous consent that several letters be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers,
Washington, DC, March 17, 2010.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Boehner,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Leader Reid, Leader Boehner, and
Leader McConnell: On behalf of the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers and its 11 member companies, I am writing to
express concern over proposed Resolutions of Disapproval that
would overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's
Endangerment Finding on greenhouse gas emissions. Automakers
agree with the fundamental premise that Congress should
determine how best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
However, if these resolutions are enacted into law, the
historic agreement creating the One National Program for
regulating vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions
would collapse.
At this time last year, the auto industry faced the
alarming possibility of having to comply with multiple sets
of inconsistent fuel economy standards. First, NHTSA was in
the process of promulgating new fuel economy standards as
required by Congress under the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007. Second, EPA was preparing to propose
greenhouse gas standards under the Clean Air Act, in the wake
of the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA.
Finally, California and 13 other states were planning to
enforce their own state-specific greenhouse gas standards.
(As a practical matter, greenhouse gas standards are the
functional equivalent of fuel economy standards, since the
amount of greenhouse gases emitted by a vehicle is
proportional to the amount of fuel consumed.) These multiple
standards would not have been aligned with each other,
presenting all automakers with a compliance nightmare across
the country. The state-by-state standards were especially
problematic for the industry, as manufacturers generally
faced the likely prospect of having to implement product
restrictions in some states, but not others, in order to
comply. Clearly, the industry wanted--then and now--a ``one
regulation fits all'' resolution to this problem.
To achieve that result, the Obama Administration brokered a
historic agreement in May 2009 to create the One National
Program for fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards. Under
that agreement, NFITSA and EPA committed to coordinate their
rulemaking processes and promulgate a joint regulation
establishing consistent fuel economy and greenhouse gas
standards for the 2012-2016 model years. California agreed
that manufacturers who complied with the federal greenhouse
gas rules would be deemed to be in compliance with the state
standards for model years 2012-2016. The auto industry agreed
to suspend litigation seeking to overturn the state
standards, and ultimately to dismiss such litigation once the
conditions agreed to by the manufacturers have been met.
In a letter to Senator Rockefeller dated February 22, 2010,
Administrator Jackson stated that the disapproval resolutions
would have the unintended effect of ``prevent[ing] EPA from
issuing its greenhouse gas standard for light-duty vehicles,
because the endangerment finding is a legal prerequisite of
that standard.'' This, in turn, would likely result in the
disintegration of the One National Program agreement. It is
our understanding that California would not abide by the
agreement if EPA is unable to regulate greenhouse gases. If
the One National Program agreement were dissolved, the
manufacturers would be back where they started last May with
a NHTSA regulation coupled with a patchwork of states
adopting regulations inconsistent with NIITSA's. As we stated
in a letter to Senator Feinstein on September 24, 2009, this
would present a myriad of problems for the auto industry in
terms of product planning, vehicle distribution, adverse
economic impacts and, most importantly, adverse consequences
for their dealers and customers.
The Alliance believes that the One National Program
resolution fostered by the Obama Administration is critical
to the efficient regulation of motor vehicle greenhouse gas
emissions and related fuel economy in the United States, not
only for the 2012-2016 model years, but also for the 2017
model year and beyond. The ongoing existence of a national
program for motor vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas
standards for all future model years should be the shared
goal of not only the Administration and the industry, but
also Congress and the States, for the benefit of the
environment, the public, and the ability of the industry to
create and maintain high quality jobs.
It is time for Congress and the Administration to enact and
implement measures to make a national program permanent for
2017 and beyond. However, given what appears to be the
inevitable consequence of the proposed Resolutions of
Disapproval, we do not believe they are the proper vehicles
for Members of Congress to express their legitimate concern
that Congress, and not EPA or the states, design the national
response to climate change. Instead we urge Congress to move
quickly to ensure that the national program does not end in
2016, and we stand ready to work with members to develop a
federally-led process to achieve a permanent national
program.
Thank you for the opportunity to explain the impact of
these resolutions on the auto industry. Please feel free to
contact me if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Sincerely,
Dave McCurdy.
[[Page 10434]]
____
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
Washington, DC, June 7, 2010.
Dear Senator: This week the Senate may take up Senator
Murkowski's disapproval resolution that would overturn the
EPA's endangerment finding on greenhouse gas emissions. The
UAW opposes this misguided effort and urges you to vote
against this disapproval resolution.
In our judgment, Congress should move forward to enact
comprehensive climate change legislation that will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Although we recognize the
difficulties involved in this effort, we believe that
legislation can be crafted that will reduce global warming
pollution while at the same time creating jobs and providing
a boost to our economy. In particular, we believe such
legislation can help to provide significant investment in
domestic production of advanced technology vehicles and their
key components, as well as other energy saving technologies.
But such progress would be undermined if a disapproval
resolution were to overturn EPA's endangerment finding.
The UAW understands the concerns that have been expressed
about EPA attempting to use its authority under the Clean Air
Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from various
industries. However, we believe the best way to address these
concerns is for Congress to move forward with comprehensive
climate change legislation that properly balances concerns of
various regions and sectors, and establishes a new coherent
national program to combat climate change.
The UAW also is deeply concerned that overturning EPA's
endangerment finding would unravel the historic agreement on
one national standard for fuel economy and greenhouse gas
emissions for light duty vehicles that was negotiated by the
Obama administration last year. As a result of this agreement
among all stakeholders, NHTSA and EPA engaged in a joint
rulemaking effort that will result in significant reductions
in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 2016. At
the same time, these joint rules retain the structural
components that Congress enacted in the 2007 energy
legislation, thereby providing important flexibility to full
line manufacturers and a backstop for the domestic car fleet.
Most importantly, California and other states have agreed to
forgo state-level regulation of tailpipe emissions and abide
by the new national standard that has been created by these
NHTSA and EPA rules. This will avoid the burdens that would
have been placed on automakers if they had been forced to
comply with a multitude of federal and state standards. The
UAW is very pleased that all stakeholders recently agreed to
continue efforts to extend this national standard from 2016
to 2025.
However, the critically important progress that has been
achieved with these historic agreements will be undermined if
EPA's endangerment finding is overturned. Without this
finding, EPA may not be able to implement the current rule on
light duty vehicles. In the absence of the EPA standard,
California and other states could move forward with their
standards, thereby subjecting auto manufacturers to all of
the burdens that the one national standard was designed to
avoid.
For all of these reasons, the UAW opposes Senator
Murkowski's disapproval resolution that seeks to overturn
EPA's endangerment finding. We urge you to vote against this
measure. Thank you for considering our views on this
important issue.
Sincerely,
Alan Reuther,
Legislative Director.
____
International Union, United automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
Washington, DC, May 19, 2010.
Dear Senator: Last week Senators Kerry and Lieberman
released a discussion draft of far reaching climate change
legislation entitled the ``American Power Act.'' The UAW
supports the enactment of an economy-wide program to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. However, we were deeply
disappointed with the Kerry-Lieberman proposal. In our
judgment, the Senate should insist that a number of
significant problems in this proposal must be corrected
before it moves forward.
First, although the American Power Act contains a program
to encourage investment in the domestic production of clean
vehicles and their key components, it fails to provide
adequate funding for this program. Significantly, the funding
(through the allocation of carbon allowances) is lower than
the funding that was provided for similar programs in the
original Boxer-Kerry bill and the Waxman-Markey bill that
passed the House. Thus, the American Power Act represents a
step backwards on this important issue.
The UAW believes that substantially higher funding levels
are justified, both by the enormous contribution that clean
vehicles will be making to the reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions, and by the much higher costs associated with these
emission reductions compared to costs in other sectors. We
also believe that higher funding levels are needed to ensure
that the vehicles of the future will be produced in this
country by American workers by building on the success of the
existing manufacturers' incentive program.
Second, the American Power Act fails to provide regulatory
predictability for the automotive sector because it does not
require continuation of the Obama administration's historic
achievement in promulgating one national standard for
greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy for light duty
vehicles. Instead, it would allow auto manufacturers to be
subjected to conflicting federal and state standards. The UAW
believes that this also represents a step backwards.
Third, the American Power Act fails to provide regulatory
predictability for businesses in general because it would
allow states to require companies to surrender federal carbon
allowances. This represents a back door means of allowing
individual states to de facto lower the federal cap on carbon
emissions, and to shift the burdens imposed on different
regions and sectors under the federal climate change program.
In addition to introducing an enormous element of
uncertainty, the UAW is deeply concerned that this will lead
to economic warfare between the states.
Fourth, the American Power Act fails to protect American
businesses and workers from unfair foreign competition
because the border adjustment provisions allow for too much
discretion, and thus may never be invoked. Furthermore, the
border adjustment provisions do not apply to finished
products that contain large amounts of energy-intensive
materials, such as motor vehicles and their parts, and hence
would not provide any protection for the domestic auto
industry.
Fifth, the American Power Act does not contain any program
to provide assistance to dislocated workers and communities.
The transition to a clean-energy economy will inevitably
cause some dislocation. In our judgment, a portion of the
revenues generated by the climate change program should be
earmarked to assure that adequate assistance is made
available to workers and communities that are adversely
impacted by this transition.
The UAW strongly urges the Senate to insist that the
foregoing defects in the American Power Act must be fixed
before this legislation moves forward. Thank you for
considering our views on these important issues.
Sincerely,
Alan Reuther,
Legislative Director.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. How much time
remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to wrap it up in about 10
minutes and then go to the vote.
Before the Senator from New Jersey leaves the floor, if I may have
his attention, I thank him so much. He put this whole vote in the exact
right perspective. Big oil supports the Murkowski resolution. That is a
fact. They have sent a letter saying they support the Murkowski
resolution.
Why do you think they support the Murkowski resolution? The reason
is, this resolution would repeal, overturn, do away with the
endangerment finding made by the Environmental Protection Agency that
says that carbon pollution is a danger to our families, to their
health.
Senator Lautenberg just said it from the heart. If ever there was a
vote to find out whose side you are on, this is it. What could be
clearer?
Let's put up a chart. Let's look at some of the public health
organizations that are opposing the Murkowski resolution. I will only
list a couple of them: The American Academy of Pediatrics--they know
that carbon is a danger to our children--the Children's Environmental
Health Network; the American Nurses Association; the American Lung
Association; the American Public Health Association.
Whose side do you want to be on? We had a letter from 1,800 U.S.
scientists, from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Do you want to be
on the side of the special interests or do you want to be on the side
of the children and the families and the people who gave their whole
professional careers to protecting the health of our families?
This is one of those votes. This is what we call a turning-point vote
in everyone's career. When we look back at this vote, our grandchildren
will want to know: Where was the Senate on this important vote?
We know this resolution is opposed by America's leading public health
experts. They do not want us to repeal a health finding. What is next?
Somebody else will have a brilliant idea to
[[Page 10435]]
repeal a scientific finding that nicotine causes cancer. Oh, we can
debate that. What is next?
Someone else will say: Lead is no problem in paint. Let's repeal that
finding. Think of all the children who would be adversely impacted with
brain damage if we did that.
The choice is with Senators: Stand with big oil or stand with the
children, the families, the doctors, the public health people. This is
a moment in time.
There may not be bipartisan opposition on this floor. I think the
vast majority of my Republican friends are going to support Senator
Murkowski. But look at the outside world where we are getting support
for our side.
EPA Administrators under Nixon, Ford, and Reagan oppose the Murkowski
resolution. People forget, the environment used to be an issue that was
bipartisan. The EPA--that has been so criticized by my Republican
friends--was created by Richard Nixon, was supported by Gerald Ford and
Ronald Reagan. What has happened? How did this happen? I think it goes
back to politics and special interests and the money that flows in
here.
But that is another debate for another time. Today, we have a very
simple proposition before us in the Murkowski resolution: Should we
repeal the health finding and the scientific finding that is the basis
for regulating greenhouse gas emissions?
Ronald Reagan's EPA Administrator, Richard Nixon's EPA Administrator,
Ford's--Russell Train, William Ruckelshaus--very strongly opposed. They
urge the Senate to reject this and any other legislation that would
weaken the Clean Air Act or curtail the authority of the Environmental
Protection Agency to implement its provisions.
It is the Environmental Protection Agency--the EPA--not the
environmental pollution agency. If somebody wants to turn it into that,
they ought to come here and make that proposal. We can debate it.
There is enough pollution in the gulf to teach us a lesson today. How
ironic that this is coming before us.
How about jobs? The people on the other side say supporting the
Murkowski resolution is supporting jobs. That is false. The U.S.
automakers oppose the Murkowski amendment. They say it will lose jobs.
If these resolutions are enacted, the historic agreement creating the
one national program for regulating vehicle fuel economy would
collapse.
We are finally getting the U.S. auto industry on its feet. With the
Murkowski resolution, if it became law, that is all over and our auto
industry will falter again.
The auto workers also come out against the Murkowski resolution. They
are deeply concerned that overturning this endangerment finding would
unravel the historic agreement on one national standard for fuel
economy and greenhouse gas emissions.
If you haven't been convinced on the jobs question in the auto
industry, if you are not convinced on the health argument, let's look
at a statement made by 33 U.S. generals and admirals. Climate change is
making the world a dangerous place, threatening our security.
I don't have time to read every word, but it says the State
Department, the National Intelligence Council, the CIA, all agree and
are all planning for future climate-based threats. America's billion-
dollar-a-day dependence on oil makes us vulnerable to unstable and
unfriendly regimes.
We have a list of the people who signed onto that. I will just read a
few, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this
document.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Climate Change is Making the World a More Dangerous Place
It's threatening America's security. The Pentagon and
security leaders of both parties consider climate disruption
to be a ``threat multiplier''--it exacerbates existing
problems by decreasing stability, increasing conflict, and
incubating the socioeconomic conditions that foster terrorist
recruitment. The State Department, the National Intelligence
Council and the CIA all agree, and all are planning for
future climate-based threats.
America's billion-dollar-a-day dependence on oil makes us
vulnerable to unstable and unfriendly regimes. A substantial
amount of that oil money ends up in the hands of terrorists.
Consequently, our military is forced to operate in hostile
territory, and our troops are attacked by terrorists funded
by U.S. oil dollars, while rogue regimes profit off of our
dependence. As long as the American public is beholden to
global energy prices, we will be at the mercy of these rogue
regimes. Taking control of our energy future means preventing
future conflicts around the world and protecting Americans
here at home.
It is time to secure America with clean energy. We can
create millions of jobs in a dean energy economy while
mitigating the effects of climate change across the globe. We
call on Congress and the administration to enact strong,
comprehensive climate and energy legislation to reduce carbon
pollution and lead the world in clean energy technology.
Lieutenant General Joseph Ballard, US Army (Ret.);
Lieutenant General John Castellaw, USMC (Ret.); Lieutenant
General Robert Gard, Jr., Army (Ret.); Lieutenant General
Claudia Kennedy, US Army (Ret.); Lieutenant General Don
Kerrick, US Army (Ret); Lieutenant General Frank Petersen,
USMC (Ret.); Lieutenant General Norman Seip, USAF (Ret.);
Vice Admiral Donald Arthur, US Navy (Ret.); Vice Admiral
Kevin Green, US Navy (Ret); Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, US Navy
(Ret); Major General Roger Blunt, US Army (Ret.); Major
General George Buskirk, US Army (Ret); Major General Paul
Eaton, US Army (Ret.); Major General Donald Edwards, US Army
(Ret); Major General Paul Monroe, US Army (Ret); Major
General Tony Taguba, US Army (Ret); Rear Admiral John Hutson,
JAGC, US Navy (Ret.); Rear Admiral Stuart Platt US Navy
(Ret.); Rear Admiral Alan Steinman, US Coast Guard (Ret.);
Brigadier General John Adams, US Army (Ret); Brigadier
General Stephen Cheney, USMC (Ret); Brigadier General John
Douglass, US Air Force (Ret.); Brigadier General Michael
Dunn, US Army (Ret.); Brigadier General Pat Foote, US Army
(Ret); Brigadier General Larry Gillespie, US Army (Ret);
Brigadier General Keith Kerr, US Army (Ret.); Brigadier
General Phil Leventis, USAF (Ret); Brigadier General George
Patrick, III, USAF (Ret); Brigadier General Virgil Richard,
US Army (Ret); Brigadier General Murray Sagsveen, US Army
(Ret.); Brigadier General Ted Vander Els, US Army (Ret);
Brigadier General John Watkins, US Army (Ret); Brigadier
General Steve Xenakis, US Army (Ret.).
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is a list of lieutenant generals,
vice admirals, major generals, rear admirals, brigadier generals--and
all of them real patriots--saying to us: We cannot become more
dependent on oil, and as a result of this Murkowski resolution, that is
what would happen.
How much more do we want to spend on importing foreign oil? We are up
to a billion dollars a day, and it is going to people who don't care
for us very much, in case you didn't notice that. We want to get off
foreign oil. We want to unleash the capital in our own country. And our
own businesses are telling us this--that those dollars would come in if
in fact we move forward and enact legislation that makes sense. The
Murkowski resolution would simply stop us in our tracks.
More than a thousand businesses have weighed in against the Murkowski
resolution--a thousand businesses. The resolution would eliminate
incentives for innovations that could drive a clean energy economy. The
Murkowski resolution would send the wrong signal to the American
business community. That is signed by an organization representing 850
business leaders. The resolution will jeopardize and hinder progress.
That is signed by Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy.
Then the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, on behalf of 320 member
companies, opposes the resolution from Senator Murkowski. The member
companies in the leadership group provide nearly 250,000 local jobs or
one out of every four private-sector jobs in Silicon Valley.
So whether you are voting on this on the basis of the health of our
children, whether you care about the auto companies, whether you care
about jobs and the rest of the economy and the ability of this economy
to create good jobs or because you feel we need to get off our billion-
dollar-a-day habit of importing oil, you have a lot of important issues
to think about.
I want to close with looking at something no one wants to look at--no
one can bear to look at. If anyone thought that carbon isn't a danger,
look at what carbon pollution is doing on the
[[Page 10436]]
ground in the gulf region--in the water, on the beaches, in the
marshlands. Do you think that a pollutant like this, when it goes in
the air, causes no problem?
There was a cartoon in today's paper that showed a cap going over the
well--which we all hope is going to succeed--and out of that well is
escaping some of the carbon pollution. It is going into the air and
under it, it says: Now it is no problem.
My colleagues of the Senate, this is a point in time we have to make
a decision. We are not experts in public health here. We chose as our
career to say that we want to be on the side of the people who send us
here. This is the moment. Choose sides: It is big oil and all that
comes with it and all the polluters or it is protecting our families.
I urge a no vote to proceed to this resolution, and I ask that the
regular order occur on the vote at this time.
I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 26.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 184 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Alexander
Barrasso
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Landrieu
LeMieux
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker
NAYS--53
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
The motion was rejected.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion upon the table.
The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mrs. BOXER. Madam 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, and that I be recognized to make some
remarks after this very historic vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen.) Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I wish to thank my colleagues from the
bottom of my heart for this vote. This was, in many ways, a turning
point for the Senate, because what was before us was unprecedented, the
first time we had ever been asked to repeal a health finding, a
scientific finding, a finding that was made by scientists and health
officials in the Bush administration and the Obama administration.
That finding, as we know, is the predicate, is the basis for curbing
pollution, carbon pollution, that we know is harmful to our families.
We see what carbon pollution is doing in the gulf, to the wildlife. We
know what it is doing to an entire way of life. We know what it is
doing to the fishermen, to the people who rely on recreation for jobs,
to the people who rely on tourism.
Tonight we had a choice. We could have decided to stand with the
polluters, big oil mostly, who were behind the Murkowski resolution, or
we could have decided, which we did, to stand with those who are
looking out for our kids, the doctors, the physicians who treat them,
the pediatricians, the Lung Association, the public health agencies in
all of our States.
We did the right thing, and this was important. It also means we are
going to move to alternative energy. We are going to move to the
millions of jobs that will come about when we have technologies made in
America for America. I want to see the words ``Made in America'' again.
So we are on that path right now.
I want to thank the extraordinary leadership of our leaders, Senators
Reid and Durbin. They went that extra mile. I want to thank the staff
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, headed by Bettina
Poirier, extraordinary staff. I want to thank the cloakroom here and
all the people here who helped us make sure that every Senator was able
to be heard.
Senator Murkowski and I worked very well together debating this in a
civil manner. I want to say, as I note Senator Lautenberg standing
here, I felt the moment this debate came together was when he came to
the floor to make a statement, brief though it was. He talked to us not
from his notes but from his heart, about what it means to him as a
grandparent to watch a grandchild suffer and struggle through asthma,
and as he has noted on this floor on more than one occasion, his family
making sure that when this child plays in an athletic tournament or
goes somewhere, how close is the emergency room.
This is what we are dealing with today, pollution. And today we said:
We stand with the physicians, we stand with the scientists, and we are
going to move forward toward a clean energy economy and all of the jobs
that will come with it, and all of the technologies that will make
America a leader in the world.
At this time I yield the floor to my friend Senator Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the submission of S. Res.
549 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and
Senate Resolutions.'')
____________________
THE NATIONAL DEBT
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I want to shift gears and kind of get
back to business a little bit. Today, I rise to discuss the extension
bill we are considering on the floor of the Senate. I will be brief.
As you know, this week our national debt crossed the $13 trillion
mark and is on pace to reach almost $20 trillion by the year 2015. That
is $20 trillion with a T.
Let's stop for a minute and take note of that amazing number. I know
I am the new guy around here, and I will probably be racing you home in
a little bit to get back to Massachusetts and New Hampshire, Madam
President. But in my short time in Washington, it has been a little
unsettling to hear the words like ``billion'' and ``trillion'' thrown
with little regard to the impact these incredible numbers have on our
economy, both now and in years to come.
For example, yesterday the Federal Reserve Chairman warned us that
the federal budget is on an unsustainable path. In 1987, when the
national debt was approaching $1 trillion, then-President Ronald Reagan
called it ``out of control.'' One can only imagine what he would be
saying today.
Some on the other side of the aisle argued that voting against the
debt extenders is about partisan politics and that borrowing another
$80 billion from China to pay for these programs is somehow just
another drop in the bucket.
I have to respectfully disagree. That could not be further from the
truth. When, if not now, when our Nation's debt is growing at a record
pace with no end in sight, will we as elected officials start standing
up and making the
[[Page 10437]]
hard decisions we were sent here to make? Today I am saying to my
colleagues: Please start to tear down the terrible prison of debt we
are building for our children, our grandchildren, and our great-
grandchildren. We need to start finding ways to pay for things and stop
spending so much, stop treating everything as an emergency to try to
get around the pay-go rules put in place before I got here.
If we continue down this path of reckless spending and borrowing, I
believe--and others do throughout the country--the consequences are
dire. To be blunt, the push for higher taxes and more dependence on
government debt threatens American leadership in the world as well as
our national and economic security. As we continue to borrow more and
more from countries that are not necessarily friendly to us, it leads
us down a path similar to what we are seeing with the European model as
it is decaying before our very eyes.
Look at Greece right now, where unchecked government spending has
threatened the financial stability of the entire European Union. We are
at a point where soon our excessive level of debt will start to hinder
the economic growth we so desperately need to get the economic engine
moving and continue to create jobs and be competitive.
Make no mistake, I believe we should temporarily extend unemployment
benefits and other measures such as the summer jobs program and address
the critical issue of lack of jobs for American citizens. We can and
should provide temporary relief for the neediest among us, but we need
to find a way to pay for it without taxing or resorting to borrowing
more money. The fact is, we could easily pay for these extensions by
cutting unnecessary spending such as the nearly $50 billion of unused,
unallocated, or unobligated stimulus funds. Instead we are raising
permanent taxes by more than $50 billion extra, including taxes on
entrepreneurial businesses and investors, the venture capitalists that
hope to be the economic engine and job creators of tomorrow.
The administration and the majority party say these taxes are
necessary to help to partially offset this extension, but these taxes
are necessary because of our reckless spending habits. During the last
18 months, this administration and the Congress have spent more money
than the previous administration spent on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the
Katrina recovery combined. It was with straight faces they promised to
usher in a new era of fiscal responsibility.
Last year the President and the Congress pushed through an Omnibus
appropriations bill that included an 8-percent increase in
discretionary spending. This was followed by the infamous, nearly
trillion-dollar stimulus bill that has not created one new net job. In
fact, the unemployment rate in Massachusetts alone since its passage
has increased. The President signed another omnibus spending bill with
a 12-percent annual increase and jammed through the trillion-dollar,
government-run health care bill that was at great cost and clearly was
opposed by the American people.
The problem is on both sides of the aisle. The President has said he
would like to go through the Federal budget line by line and identify
wasteful programs. By golly, let's do it. Let's do a top-to-bottom
review of every Federal program, weed out the waste and fraud and put
what is left over to help with these needed programs. In his budget,
the President has identified programs to terminate and cuts that would
save nearly $25 billion next year. Let's do it. This could help pay for
some of these emergency extensions.
Yet year after year, Congress continues to earmark their special pet
projects within the budget without any hope for any type of termination
of that practice.
In addition, we need to do a top-to-bottom review of all Federal
programs, including the military, and we must get aggressive about
reining in waste, fraud, and abuse and demand a clawback of some of the
billions in overpayments made to Federal contractors that have been
owed to us for many years. Let's use that money to help offset the
amount we are trying to pay in the extenders bill. Fraud in Medicare
and Medicaid costs the taxpayers more than $60 billion annually, and
the GAO has investigated numerous programs that are failing to fulfill
their missions. Yet more money from Congress is given to them each
year, year after year. No respectable business would be run this way,
not in Massachusetts, not in New Hampshire, not anywhere.
There is no shortage of ways Washington can rein in its excessive
spending habits while also funding these worthwhile programs. But it is
going to require elected officials to make hard and even sometimes
unpopular choices. If we begin using commonsense steps to get our
fiscal house in order, we can absolutely put our country back on a path
to fiscal security, get back to fiscal sanity, and get our appetite for
spending and borrowing under control. Both are crucial for the fiscal
and economic stability of our country.
We can start down the path today by saying no to the extender bill
that would add close to $80 billion to our over $13 trillion national
debt right now, an amount we cannot afford and something our children,
grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will be forced to pay back.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRANKEN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
CALL TO ACTION
Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I rise to speak about the BP Deepwater
Horizon oilspill and the need for comprehensive energy legislation.
We just defeated a resolution that was an attempt to take our country
backward in our energy policy at a time when moving forward could not
be more critical. We are in the midst of the worst environmental
catastrophe in our Nation's history. This oilspill is a tragedy--a
tragedy for our environment; our wildlife, which is dying in a coat of
crude; a tragedy for the people of the gulf whose land and livelihood
have been destroyed and threatened; and a tragedy for the workers on
that oil rig who were killed or injured and their families.
My constituents are furious, and so am I. I have gotten over 5,000
calls and letters from Minnesotans demanding action and accountability
for this disaster.
Well, let there be no question: BP, British Petroleum, will be held
responsible for all costs incurred as a result of this oilspill. The
company had no viable plan in place to deal with a spill of this
magnitude. It is an outrage, and the taxpayers must not be left holding
the bag for BP's failure.
But some losses can never be recovered. Fragile ocean and coastal
ecosystems have suffered irreparable harm, with massive losses of birds
and fish and damages to wetlands that provide a critical buffer against
gulf hurricanes. Fishermen will have no way to support their families
in these tough times. And kids will go to the beach only to find sand
and water drowned by oil. Worst of all, we can never replace the 11
workers who lost their lives in this tragedy, nor can we hope to fully
compensate the families of the victims for their losses--losses that
were entirely preventable.
While we do not yet know all of the technical details of why this
spill occurred, one thing is clear: BP blatantly neglected to invest in
safety, and the Federal Government did not do a thing to hold the
company accountable.
BP knew about safety concerns on the Deepwater Horizon long before
the explosion occurred in April. The New York Times reports that BP
knew 11 months ago that there were potential safety problems with the
well casing and the blowout preventer. The casing BP installed last
summer was never proven to withstand the water pressure
[[Page 10438]]
of deepwater drilling. Shortly before the explosion in April, the
company installed a risky, cheap casing--to save money.
And then there is the blowout preventer, which is supposed to close
off the well in the case of a disaster. The blowout preventer was
malfunctioning and leaking fluid a month before the explosion, and BP
knew this, but BP chose profits over safety.
Where was the Federal Minerals Management Service during all of this?
Where was the body charged with regulating safety in the oil industry?
This was a dismal failure of Federal oversight, with exemption after
exemption granted to BP by an ineffective agency overridden with
conflicts of interest. The ineffectiveness of MMS is inexcusable. Just
earlier this week, I asked MMS for a list of all of BP's deepwater
projects in the gulf--a seemingly simple task. Instead of getting me a
list, MMS told my staff they did not know how many deepwater projects
BP has in the gulf. This is unconscionable.
BP's poor safety record is not new. OSHA data compiled by the Center
for Public Integrity shows that the company accounted for 829 of the
851 willful safety violations industry-wide at oil refineries cited by
OSHA in the last 3 years. Those numbers speak for themselves.
It is not that BP could not afford to invest in safety. This
recession, which has been devastating to so many families in Minnesota,
in New Hampshire, and across the country, has been a lucrative time for
BP. The company's first-quarter profits this year amounted to over $6
billion--$6 billion. That is more than double their first-quarter
profits from last year. And we found out recently that BP has spent $50
million on advertising to manage its image after the oilspill and plans
to pay over $10 billion in dividends to its shareholders this week. I
would suggest they hold off on that.
So this is not a company that could not afford to invest in safety.
They just chose not to. Let me repeat that. This is not a company that
could not afford to invest in safety. They just chose not to. And if
they had, those 11 workers would be alive today and their families
would have them.
But we cannot only look back. We have to look forward. If there was
ever a moment in our history when it has become obvious we cannot drill
ourselves to energy independence, it is now. We are not just talking
about caring for the environment or worker safety. This spill is a call
to action to secure the future of our country. It is time to kick our
addiction to oil. We need to face our energy challenge head-on and
enact bold, comprehensive energy and climate legislation, and we need
to do it now.
We know it can be done. Minnesota is a national leader in renewable
energy policies. My State produces 9.4 percent of its electricity from
wind power--the second highest in the country. We are well on our way
to meeting our State renewable energy standard of 25 percent renewable
energy by 2025, and we have passed a law to increase our ethanol blend
to 20 percent starting in 2013. Minnesota shows us what is possible as
a country.
There are still Members of this body who argue that comprehensive
energy and climate legislation can wait, that we can continue with
business as usual. Well, that argument simply does not hold. What will
it take--what will it take--beyond the biggest oilspill in our
country's history to convince skeptics it is time to wean our country
off of oil? How many more oilspills will it take?
Today, we face a choice. We can choose not to enact comprehensive
legislation that puts a price on carbon and watch as the clean energy
jobs and innovation of the 21st century go oversees to China and Japan
and India and South Korea and Germany--you name it--because those
countries definitely are not waiting to act. China is now the largest
manufacturer of wind turbines and solar panels in the world. It is
adding 100,000 new clean energy jobs every year. Those are jobs that
should be here in America. Our other choice is to spur American
innovation and create jobs to build a new economy based on clean
energy. I can guarantee you that you are never going to see a 60-day
ethanol spill threaten the livelihoods of shrimpers and oystermen and
fishermen. And you are never going to see a wind turbine blow up and
pollute the ocean and threaten all manner of wildlife and the coastline
of America or kill 11 men. So the choice is obvious to me, and it is
obvious to the rest of the world too.
Earlier this week, I was in a meeting, and I heard a story about
German Chancellor Angela Merkel. When someone asked the Chancellor
about encouraging U.S. companies to support a price on carbon, she
said: No, I don't want to do that; I don't want to wake the sleeping
economic giant that is the United States. She and the rest of the world
know that if we do not put a price on greenhouse gas emissions, America
stands to lose. We stand to lose our jobs to other countries, and we
stand to lose the essence of what has made America great all throughout
history--our ability to innovate, to create, to solve the world's
problems through new technologies that make the world a better place to
live. Well, we just cannot let that happen.
It is not going to be easy to transition away from oil. But running
away from challenges has never been the American way. The American way
is to face our problems and to innovate ourselves out of them. That is
what has made us the global economic leader.
So now is our time to lead again. If we do not act on comprehensive
energy and climate legislation, even after this catastrophe in the
gulf, our children and our grandchildren are going to look back on this
and on us with complete bewilderment: What were they waiting for? That
is what they are going to ask. What were you waiting for?
This moment and this oilspill remind me of the fable of the man stuck
on the roof during a flood. Someone comes up to him with a ladder, as
the waters rise, but he waves them away, saying: No, no, no, go save
others. I know God will save me.
The water gets higher, and a man in a rescue boat comes along to help
him.
He said: No. Fine. Fine. God will save me.
Then a helicopter comes, and the man yells up: No, no, leave me. God
will save me.
Finally, the waters rise to the roof and the man drowns, and in
heaven, he asks God: Why didn't you save me?
And God says: What do you mean? I sent you a ladder, a boat, and a
helicopter. What else does it take?
Right now, the United States is the man on the roof, waiting, as our
energy problems get worse and opportunities pass us by one by one.
Well, I am not willing to let that happen. In the coming months, we in
this great body are going to have to work together, make compromises,
and craft a long-term energy and climate policy that serves our country
for the betterment of future generations. I want to be able to look my
grandchildren in the eye, I want to be able to look my great-
grandchildren in the eye, too, and tell them that we did everything we
could to leave this world a better place than the one we were born
into. The stakes are too high not to act, and not to act now. So let's
work to craft a comprehensive energy policy.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
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. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
SWIPE FEES
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, we considered the Wall Street
reform bill, and the occupant of the chair was a key player in the
activities of the Banking Committee that led up to the floor
consideration.
[[Page 10439]]
I offered an amendment during the course of that debate on the Wall
Street reform bill. I knew that the basic reason for Wall Street reform
was twofold: holding big banks accountable for how they operate and
empowering consumers to make good financial choices.
The bill Senator Dodd and the committee brought to the floor was a
strong one. In the process of taking up and voting on amendments, in
many ways the Senate made the bill even stronger. Now a conference with
the House is underway, and I look forward to seeing the best Wall
Street reform bill possible signed into law by President Obama.
During the course of that debate, I offered an amendment to the bill
that attracted a lot of attention--more than I anticipated. My
amendment sought to give small businesses and merchants and their
customers across America a real chance in the fight against the
outrageously high swipe fees charged by Visa and MasterCard credit card
companies.
Nearly $50 billion in credit and debit card interchange fees are
collected each year, and this interchange system is entirely
unregulated.
To explain the process, if I go to my favorite restaurant in Chicago
tomorrow night with my wife and receive my bill and hand over my credit
card to that restaurant--and let's say the bill is for $100--the credit
card company will honor the bill, pay it to the restaurant, but then
charge the restaurant as much as 3 percent of the bill for the use of
my credit card, and that is known as a swipe or interchange fee.
You might say, well, doesn't the restaurant negotiate with the credit
card company about whether it is 3 percent, 2 percent, or 1 percent?
The answer is no. Those fees are dictated by the credit card companies.
Merchants and businesses have little power in even challenging, let
alone changing, the so-called interchange and swipe fees.
Other than my credit card, I could present something known as a debit
card, which more and more people use every day. A debit card, instead
of allowing the Visa company to pay my bill, and then I pay them,
actually would deduct the money from my checking account, so the money
moves directly from my bank through to the bank of the restaurant to
pay the bill.
In that situation, the credit card company is not on the hook very
much because the money is moved directly from the checking account to
the account of the restaurant. It is not a question of whether I pay my
monthly bill or whether I pay the interest on that bill; there is very
little risk associated with the so-called debit card.
Yet what we are finding is that the credit card companies are
charging the same fees for debit cards they are charging for credit
cards. Merchants and businesses across America say there is not as much
risk associated with them, so why are they charging more? That is the
basic mechanism that I approached with my amendment, which was adopted
on the floor with 64 Senators voting in favor.
Visa and MasterCard dominate the credit and debit card industry in
America. They establish the interchange rates that all merchants--and
by extension, their customers--pay to banks whenever a card is swiped
or used. There is no one watching out in the process for businesses and
consumers. There is no agency of government with the authority to
ensure that these fees charged by the credit card companies are
reasonable. Visa and MasterCard just set the fees as they see fit and
tell the merchants to take it or leave it. But how easy would it be to
run a restaurant or major business in America today if you didn't
accept credit and debit cards?
Visa and MasterCard envision an American economy where ultimately all
sales are conducted electronically across their networks, where they
and the card-issuing banks receive a cut of every sale and transaction
in America.
It is no surprise they want as big a cut as possible. They want to
maximize their profits. Right now, they have the market power to make
that happen. They can raise their fees whenever they want.
Who ends up paying the highest interchange fees charged by these
credit card companies such as Visa and MasterCard? Small businesses.
Many of them are literally driven out of business by these high fees
they cannot control and cannot negotiate. They don't have the market
power to do it. Those who stay in business have to raise the prices on
customers to pay the fees.
My amendment requires debit card fees to be reasonable, and it cleans
up some of the worst abuses by Visa and MasterCard.
Yesterday, we had a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee and
present was an Under Secretary in the Department of Justice, Christine
Varney. She is in charge of the antitrust section. I asked her whether
the recent reports that had been published in many newspapers across
America that the major credit card companies are being investigated by
the antitrust division were true. She said she could not comment on the
case other than to say they have verified the fact that an antitrust
investigation is underway against Visa and MasterCard.
I applaud that. I understand why she could not go into detail. I
applaud that investigation. These major credit card companies have
become so big and powerful and coordinate their activities so much that
I think such an investigation is long overdue.
My amendment requires that debit card fees be reasonable, and it
cleans up some of the worst abuses. The amendment was adopted with 64
Senators voting in favor, including 17 Republicans. It was a major
victory for small business and merchants and consumers across America.
It will help small businesses grow and create jobs, which we definitely
need in this economy, and it will put us back on sound economic
footing. It will help American families, each of whom pays an estimated
$427 a year, to subsidize this $50 billion interchange fee system for
Visa and MasterCard.
I thank each of my colleagues who joined me in that vote, including
the Presiding Officer.
I know my amendment has earned me the wrath of Wall Street, the wrath
of the big banks, and the wrath of Visa and MasterCard. Even before the
last votes were counted on my amendment, Visa and MasterCard and
lobbyists for the big banks were already plotting a way to kill this
amendment. Financial industry lobbyists are swarming the Halls of
Congress as we speak. You can hear the stampede of the Gucci loafers
around every corner. They are arguing that reducing debit card
interchange fees to a reasonable level, as my amendment would require,
is unacceptable. In their view, there is absolutely nothing wrong with
charging unreasonably high fees in a business where there is virtually
no competition.
I urge my colleagues to consider the enormous benefits of the
amendment that was adopted. Our language will help every single Main
Street business that accepts debit cards keep more of their money,
which is a savings they can pass on to their consumers. Every grocery
store, convenience store, flower shop, and every restaurant will be
able to reduce the fees they paid to the big banks for debit card
transactions.
This is a real boost for that industry and, believe me, they know it.
They are fighting hard to convince Members of the House now that what
we did in the Senate is the right thing for small business across
America. It has led the Merchants Payments Coalition, this group that
came together in support of my amendment--2.7 million merchants,
representing 50 million American employees--to endorse this bill--the
overall bill--and to work for its passage because of this amendment.
It is not just businesses that benefit from the amendment. Charities
will benefit. Think about that. Charities that accept donations by
debit cards will see a savings. Universities will save money on card
fees, and so will public agencies, such as your local motor vehicle
commission in your home State, public transit agencies, and even the
U.S. Postal Service.
Also, under my amendment fewer taxpayer dollars will be spent by
local, State, and Federal Government agencies for the payment of these
interchange fees.
[[Page 10440]]
I am going to hold a hearing next week in my appropriations
subcommittee about the amount of money paid by American taxpayers each
year to Visa and MasterCard for interchange fees. It is an enormous
amount of money. It is an amount that I think is unwarranted because,
basically, the Federal Government is going to pay these bills. No
question about it. Yet some of the interchange fees charged to our
government are much higher than the fees charged to businesses.
Last year, the city of Chicago paid $7.5 million in interchange fees.
The Illinois Tollway authority paid $11.6 million in interchange fees.
Our cities' transit agencies and units of government could put this
money to better use than paying Visa and MasterCard.
Next week, this hearing will bring out the amount of money paid by
the Federal Government. Consumers will benefit from the amendment as
well. Debit interchange fee reductions will lead to lower consumer
prices at grocery stores, convenience stores, and other retailers that,
unlike Visa and MasterCard, have to vigorously compete with one another
on price. They will have an incentive to pass the savings on to their
consumers.
My amendment explicitly allows merchants to provide discounts when a
customer pays by cash, check, or debit, instead of credit.
I told a story on the Senate floor before, and I think it illustrates
perfectly what we are up against. When you go to the airport to leave
town, there are places where you can buy magazines, newspapers, chewing
gum, and the like. I was standing in line at a register while somebody
in front of me took a package of chewing gum, put it on the counter,
and handed over a credit card.
I noticed as she rang up the $1.50--whatever it was--and started
running the credit card through that the cashier was doing this
routinely. I asked her afterward, when I was next up: Is that the
lowest amount anyone put on a credit card while you have worked here?
She said: No. Thirty-five cents is the lowest amount.
I guarantee that merchant lost business, probably on the $1.50,
certainly on the 35 cents, because they have to pay the credit card
company regardless of the amount of the purchase, and the credit card
company forbids, prohibits the merchant, the business from saying: You
can't use a credit card for something, for example, that is under $5.
They cannot do it.
What we are trying to do is create some sense where we do not
penalize merchants and small businesses. I know Visa and MasterCard are
throwing a lot of money into their campaign against my amendment. It is
one of the most fiercely lobbied provisions I have seen since I have
served in the Congress. I have heard their arguments, and they just do
not hold water.
They argue that there have been no hearings in Congress on the issue
of interchange fees prior to my amendment. Actually, in the last 5
years, there have been six congressional hearings specifically on
interchange fees, plus two reports from the General Accountability
Office.
The second myth they have been pushing is that my amendment will hurt
small banks and credit unions. Mr. President, we discussed this after
the amendment passed, when you were on the floor. As a result of my
amendment, which I changed at the last moment, it says that any
institution issuing a credit card with less than $10 billion in assets
is not covered by the provisions of my amendment--$10 billion. That
means that out of 8,000 credit unions across America, exactly 3 would
be governed by my amendment. Yet the credit union industry and all of
their representatives are roaming all over Capitol Hill saying: This is
going to kill us. In fact, they are specifically exempted from this
amendment.
When it comes to banks, the $10 billion asset threshold would mean
that out of about 8,000 banks in America, only about 90 will end up
being covered by this amendment.
You say to yourself: Durbin, why did you go through all this trouble
for 90 banks and 3 credit unions? It turns out that these 90 banks and
3 credit unions do 65 percent of the credit card business in America.
The big boys are the ones who will be touched by this amendment, as
they should be.
I heard this line from the Independent Community Bankers of America
and the Credit Union National Association, that they are the ones who
are going to be hurt. Three credit unions, 80 banks, or 90 at the most,
will be affected by it.
I just sent a letter to these organizations telling them what I have
been telling small banks and credit unions in my home State of
Illinois--that my amendment will not disadvantage them. In fact, we
went to great lengths to protect them. We exempt 99 percent of the
banks and 99 percent of the credit unions.
Visa and MasterCard cannot come here and lobby and expect anybody to
believe them because we know what credit card companies do to you. They
do not have a lot of friends on Capitol Hill. The big banks, the ones
that issue the credit cards, cannot come around either, basically
because the Wall Street reform bill was focused on these banks and some
of their nefarious activities, at least questionable activities. Whom
do they have fronting for their arguments? The little credit unions
that come in and say this is going to be terrible. What they do not
tell Members of Congress is that the Durbin amendment specifically
exempts them from any coverage of this amendment.
My amendment does not allow merchants to discriminate against cards
issued by small banks or credit unions. That is another argument they
make: If the Durbin amendment goes through, a lot of businesses and
restaurants will not take the credit cards issued by the small
institutions. There are specific provisions now that prohibit
discrimination against the issuer of the credit card. Those are not
changed by the Durbin amendment.
Credit unions fear the card networks will reduce their fees if this
provision is enacted. Imagine--think this through. Since the Durbin
amendment will not change the fees small banks issuing credit cards
will receive, they are afraid that out of spite Visa and MasterCard
will unilaterally cut their fees. I have news for them: Visa and
MasterCard can do that today even without the Durbin amendment. They
have the power to dictate these interchange fees to small banks and
credit unions alike. That is what is fundamentally unfair, and that is
the situation facing merchants and businesses across America today.
I hear small banks say that even though the Durbin amendment reduces
the interchange fee rates, Visa and MasterCard are threatening that if
the amendment becomes law, they are going to go ahead and reduce the
rates they set for small banks. That is certainly in their power today,
but it is certainly against the economic interests of Visa and
MasterCard.
Small banks have to understand--credit unions as well--that Visa and
MasterCard want more credit cards out there, more people using them.
Discouraging the use of credit cards is certainly not in their business
model. Visa and MasterCard only get paid if the card is actually swiped
or the interchange fee is charged. They would lose that revenue if they
cut small bank interchange fees so much so that the banks would stop
issuing credit cards.
The only reason Visa and MasterCard might decide to reduce small bank
debit interchange rates is if the big banks told Visa and MasterCard
not to let the small banks get more interchange revenue than they do.
Big banks hate the thought of small banks getting higher interchange
rates because the small banks could use that money to eat into the big
banks' share of the debit card issuer market.
Many have long suspected that Visa and MasterCard operate primarily
to serve the big banks. We are certainly going to find out.
I say to those who have come to lobby me for over 25 years from the
credit union industry, I am really troubled by the pattern of conduct I
have seen on this legislation. I saw it before when we were dealing
with the issues of bankruptcy and foreclosure, when we specifically
exempted the credit unions, and yet they refused to break
[[Page 10441]]
from the biggest bankers--the American Bankers Association--in their
position on this issue. We are seeing it again today. We specifically
exempt all but three credit unions, and the credit unions are doing the
bidding of the big banks and the credit card companies.
I think of the origin of credit unions, which came to be when people
across America decided they wanted to have a fighting chance against
banks, that they would come together, pool their savings, and loan to
one another with reasonable interest rates. We rewarded this credit
union model by saying we would not consider them for-profit banks. We
would exempt them from certain Federal taxation because they were
different--different in their goals, different in their principles,
different in their business models.
But the more I watch them on issue after issue, there is not a dime's
worth of difference between the big banks and the credit unions when it
comes down to the really tough issues. As soon as the big banks snap,
the Credit Union Association jumps. That is what is going on here. It
is unfair to those who honor the credit union movement and what it
stands for, and it is unfair that their leaders do not have at least
the vision to understand that this kind of approach is at the long-term
expense of the reputation of a fine association which has served so
many millions of Americans, including my family, for a generation.
The banks also argue that because my amendment requires debit fees to
be reasonable and proportional to the cost of processing a transaction,
they will not be able to cover the possible risk of fraud. That is a
pretty bold argument for them to make.
Visa, MasterCard, and the banks for years have been urging consumers
to use payment methods that run higher fraud rates. On April 21, an
article ran in the American Banker entitled ``Counterintuitive Pitch
for Higher-Fee Debit Category.'' The article discusses how JPMorgan
Chase, one of the Nation's largest debit card issuers, has urged all
its customers to sign for its debit transactions rather than enter a
PIN number. As the article points out, entering a PIN number greatly
reduces the risk of fraud. The reason JPMorgan Chase urged its
cardholders to use signature debit cards is the interchange fees for
signature cards are higher. They make more money when you sign than
when you use a PIN number. They are willing to absorb the possibility
of fraud in a signature rather than in a PIN number, which is more
secure. The banks do not appear to be nearly as concerned about lower
fraud as they are about higher fees.
Visa, MasterCard, and the banks have also been blocking the
introduction of fraud-proof card technology in the United States, again
because they want to keep interchange rates high. For example, many
countries have chip and PIN cards where a card has a microchip that can
only be activated by the use of a PIN number. The banks and card
companies in this country have stifled that technology.
When debit fraud does happen today, the big banks usually try to
charge back the fraud loss to the merchants on the grounds that the
merchants somehow violated Visa's and MasterCard's operating rules.
As long as big banks are guaranteed the same interchange revenue no
matter how much or how little fraud they have, the banks have no
incentive to keep fraud costs low. My amendment will give big banks a
real incentive to reduce fraud.
Finally, I hear the banks argue that by reducing debit interchange
fees, my amendment would force the banks and card companies to raise
fees on customers. I try not to laugh when I hear this one because when
were the banks and card companies not raising fees on their customers?
Didn't we just see them fall all over themselves to gouge cardholders
before last year's Credit CARD Act took effect? I cannot tell you how
many letters I received in the mail during the grace period before the
law went into effect announcing higher interest rates on the credit
cards my family uses. It is not as if banks and card companies were
reducing fees to cardholders as interchange rates were being hiked over
the last few years. Rather, they ratcheted up fees on both the
cardholder side and on the merchant side. They try to take advantage of
both sides whenever they can.
We need to ensure that this system works fairly both for consumers
and for small businesses. And last year's Credit CARD Act and my
amendment will work together to do so.
In conclusion, I call on my colleagues to stand up for the merchants
and small businesses across America, to push this amendment across the
finish line in the conference committee on Wall Street reform. This
amendment represents one of the biggest wins for small businesses and
consumers in years. It will help small businesses grow and create more
jobs. Do not let the Wall Street lobbyists and the friends of the
credit unions who are working for them fool you. This is all about big
bank profits. Do not let them kill this amendment. Do not let them
bring down this broad, bipartisan effort to give small businesses a
fighting chance against Visa and MasterCard.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see my colleague from North
Dakota is with us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
____________________
BP'S RESPONSIBILITY
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the
START treaty briefly. Before I do, let me mention, as I have
previously, that I have been sending messages to the Justice Department
and others. I was pleased with the Attorney General's comments today
about the oilspill in the gulf, the gusher of oil that continues in the
gulf, and about BP's responsibility.
There is no question that BP has said they pledged to cover
legitimate costs as a result of this oilspill. The question I have is,
Is that a binding agreement? And the answer from the Justice Department
at a hearing recently was, no, it is not binding. If that is the case,
if it is not binding--and I believe it is not--we need to move to take
steps to make that pledge binding.
There are people today who are trying to figure out how on Earth do
they get through this situation. In addition to oil spilling out into
the gulf--and it has been doing that I think for 52, 53 days--there are
people on a dock in a small town somewhere who are fisher men and
women. They have a boat and they fish for a living. But their boat is
idle at the end of the dock because they cannot fish. Yet they have to
make a payment on that boat at the end of the month. Up and down the
gulf, there are significant consequences of this situation. The
question is, Who is going to reach out to help those folks? They did
not cause these problems.
I think it is important for BP to be asked to put a significant
amount of money into a fund, a recovery fund of sorts, and that fund be
handled by a special master and perhaps by a counselor from BP.
In any event, it is important to turn this from a pledge into a
binding commitment and to do so soon so that money begins flowing to
those who are substantially disadvantaged by what has happened and this
disaster that has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico.
____________________
START TREATY
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me speak for a moment with respect to
the New START treaty. Strategic arms reductions are very important. We
do not think about them very much. We deal with big issues and small
issues in the Senate. Sometimes the small issues get much more
attention than the big issues. But one is coming for sure to the floor
of the Senate that is a very big issue; that is, the Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty that was negotiated with the Russians. This is really
a big issue and very important. I want to describe why and describe why
I feel so strongly about it. I have spoken on the floor previously
about this, but I want to do it again, describing a Time magazine
article from March 11, 2002. The March 11, 2002, Time magazine article
referred back to 2001, right after 9/11--It said this:
For a few harrowing weeks last fall, a group of U.S.
officials believed that the
[[Page 10442]]
worst nightmare of their lives--something even more horrific
than 9/11--was about to come true. In October, an
intelligence alert went out to a small number of government
agencies, including the Energy Department's top-secret
Nuclear Emergency Research Team, based in Nevada. The report
said that terrorists were thought to have obtained a 10-
kiloton nuclear weapon from the Russian arsenal and planned
to smuggle it into New York City. ``It was brutal,'' a U.S.
official told Time. It was also highly classified and closely
guarded. Under the aegis of the Whitehouse's Counterterrorism
Security Group . . . the suspected nuke was kept secret so as
not to panic the people of New York. Senior FBI officials
were not in the loop.
Some while later, Graham Allison, who is an expert on nuclear
proliferation wrote about this incident in a book titled ``Nuclear
Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe.'' In his book, he
points out:
One month to the day after the attacks of 9/11, a CIA agent
codenamed Dragonfire reported that al-Qaida terrorists had
stolen a ten kiloton Russian nuclear bomb from the Russian
arsenal and may have smuggled it into New York City. Vice
President Cheney moved to a secret mountain facility along
with several hundred government employees. They were the core
of an alternative government that would operate if
Washington, DC were destroyed. President Bush dispatched
Nuclear Emergency Support Teams to New York to search for the
suspected nuclear weapon. To not cause panic, no one in New
York City was informed of the threat, not even Mayor
Giuliani. After a few weeks, the intelligence community
determined that Dragonfire's report was a false alarm.
But as they did the postmortem on this, they understood that no one
claimed it could have been impossible that a nuclear weapon could have
been stolen from the Russian arsenal. No one claimed it would have been
impossible--having stolen a Russian nuclear weapon--to smuggle it into
New York City or a major American city. No one claimed it would have
been impossible for a terrorist group--who wanted to kill several
hundred thousand people with a nuclear weapon--to have been able to
detonate that nuclear weapon.
Now, as I indicated, I describe that as it was described in Time
magazine in 2002, and as it was written about in the book by Graham
Allison, a former Clinton administration official, in his book titled,
``Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe.'' I describe
that and the apoplectic seizure that existed in parts of the U.S.
government when it was thought that 1 month after 9/11 al-Qaida had
stolen a nuclear weapon and was prepared to detonate it in an American
city. And on that day, we wouldn't have had 3,000-plus Americans
murdered, we would have had hundreds of thousands of Americans losing
their lives. Yet that was about one nuclear weapon--one, just one. The
loss of one nuclear weapon.
Now, it turns out it Dragonfire's report wasn't true. The FBI agent
codenamed Dragonfire heard it, passed it along, but it turned out it
was not accurate. But that was just one nuclear weapon. There are about
25,000 nuclear weapons on this planet. This chart shows the Union of
Concerned Scientists' estimate for 2010 estimate that Russia has 15,100
nuclear weapons, the United States has 9,400, China about 240, France
300, Britain 200, and Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea each
have some. So 25,000 nuclear weapons, and I have described the terror
of having just one end up in the hands of a terrorist group. If it ever
happens--when it ever happens, God forbid--and hundreds of thousands of
people are killed, life on this planet will be changed forever.
Now, Mr. President, we have a lot of nuclear weapons on this planet
of ours, and we understand the consequences of their use. These
pictures from August of 1945 show the consequences of the dropping of
two nuclear weapons--one in Hiroshima and one in Nagasaki. Those
pictures are, all these years later, still very hard to look at. That
is the consequence of two nuclear weapons.
I was recently in Russia visiting a site that we fund in the Congress
under the Nunn-Lugar program. I want to show some photographs about
what we have been doing to try to back away from the nuclear threat, to
try to see if we can reduce the number of nuclear weapons and the
number of delivery vehicles to deliver those nuclear weapons.
This is a photograph of the dismantlement of a Blackjack bomber. This
Blackjack bomber was a Russian bomber--a Soviet Union bomber prior to
Russia--that would carry a nuclear weapon that would potentially be
dropped on the United States, then an adversary during the Cold War.
You can see that we dismantled that Russian Blackjack bomber, and this
is a piece of a wing strut.
I ask unanimous consent to show a couple of samples.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. This is a piece of a wing strut of a Russian bomber. We
didn't shoot it down. We cut the wing off. I happen to have a piece of
it. This was happening because our colleagues, Senators Nunn and Lugar,
put together a program by which we actually paid for the dismantlement
of Russian bombers.
I also have copper wiring from the ground-up copper of the electrical
wires of a Russian submarine. We didn't sink that submarine. We paid
money to have that submarine destroyed, as part of our agreement with
Russia to reduce that country's nuclear weapons.
This is a hinge from a silo in the Ukraine that previously housed a
missile with warheads aimed at the United States. There is now planted
on that ground sunflowers, not missiles, because we paid the cost of
reducing delivery vehicles and reducing nuclear weapons in the
stockpile of the former Soviet Union.
This is a program that works--a program that is unbelievably
important. And as I and some others viewed these programs in Russia, we
understood again the importance of what we have been doing under the
Nunn-Lugar program: The Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus are now
nuclear weapons free. That didn't used to be the case. There are no
nuclear weapons in those three countries. Albania is chemical weapons
free. We have deactivated, under the Nunn-Lugar program, 7,500 former
Soviet nuclear warheads. And the numbers of weapons of mass destruction
that have been eliminated, and their delivery vehicles, are 32
ballistic missile submarines--gone, eliminated; 1,419 long-range
nuclear missiles; 906 nuclear air-to-surface missiles, and 155 nuclear
bombers. All of this has been done under a program that very few people
know about--the Nunn-Lugar program. It works. It is a great program.
But, as I have indicated, there are still thousands and thousands and
thousands--it is estimated this year 25,000--of nuclear weapons on this
planet. So what do we do about that? This administration engaged with
the Russians for a new treaty because the old START treaty had expired.
This new treaty--the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty--was
negotiated over a lengthy period of time. It required a lot of
patience, a great deal of effort, but this administration stuck with
it. They negotiated, completed, and signed this treaty.
The President of Russia and our President met in Prague, the Czech
Republic, and signed this treaty. Now it needs to be ratified by the
Senate.
I want to talk just a bit about the need to do that. I think all of
us understand the urgency. There are some who feel strongly that
perhaps we should begin the testing of nuclear weapons. I don't support
that. I don't think we should. I think we need to be world leaders on
these issues. We have stopped nuclear testing. Others have stopped
nuclear testing as well, and we ought to continue that posture.
There are some who feel we should begin building new nuclear weapons.
I don't believe we should. That doesn't make any sense. That is the
wrong signal for us to send to the world.
There are some who believe that we need to make additional
investments in the area of life extension programs and investments in
making certain that the nuclear weapons that do exist in the stockpile
are weapons in which we have the required confidence that those weapons
are available, if needed. The President has asked that funding to do
that be made available.
[[Page 10443]]
I chair the subcommittee that funds those programs, and I believe we
will make available what the President requests. It is reasonable, it
seems to me, to not only proceed--hopefully, on a bipartisan basis--to
address something as important as the START treaty, but at the same
time make sure that the programs that we have always had--the life
extension programs and the programs that make sure that we have
sufficient confidence in the weapons that exist--are funded
appropriately. That is what the President has recommended in the budget
that he has sent to the Congress.
It just seems to me there is so much to commend to this Congress the
need to ratify an arms control treaty here. Mr. Linton Brooks, the NNSA
Administrator under George W. Bush, said this, talking about the newly
negotiated treaty and the President's budget request:
START, as I now understand it, is a good idea on its own
merits, but I think for those who think it's only a good idea
if you have a strong weapons program, I think this budget
ought to take care of that. Coupled with the out-year
projections, it takes care of the concerns about the complex
and it does very good things about the stockpile and it
should keep the labs healthy.
I don't quote Henry Kissinger very often, but Henry Kissinger says it
pretty well when he says:
It should be noted I come from the hawkish side of this
debate, so I'm not here advocating these measures in the
abstract. I try to build them into my perception of the
national interest. I recommend ratification of this treaty.
Henry Kissinger says he recommends ratification of this treaty. And,
finally, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen:
I, the Vice Chairman, and the Joint Chiefs, as well as our
combatant commanders around the world, stand solidly behind
this new treaty, having had the opportunity to provide our
counsel, to make our recommendations, and to help shape the
final agreements.
It is not just us, but it is our children and their children that
have a lot at stake with respect to reducing the number of nuclear
weapons, reducing the delivery vehicles. It is the case that the amount
of plutonium that will fit in a soda can, the amount of highly enriched
uranium the size of a couple of grapefruits will produce a nuclear
weapon that will have devastating consequences. So one of our
obligations is to try to make sure nuclear material--the material with
which those who wish to make nuclear weapons can make those weapons--
stays out of the hands of terrorists. That is one of our jobs. We are
working very hard on that. We have programs that work on that
constantly.
Second is to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I described
the countries that we know have nuclear weapons. Now we have to stop
the proliferation and stop other countries from getting nuclear
weapons. That is our responsibility. We have to be a world leader to do
that.
As I said, if, God forbid, somehow in the future--5 years, 10 years,
or 20 years from now--a nuclear weapon is exploded in a major city, and
hundreds of thousands are killed, life on this planet is not going to
be the same. That is why it seems to me that a very important start--
and this is just a start, not a finish--is to take this treaty that has
been negotiated, bring it to the floor of the Senate, and have this
discussion. I would expect there will be Republicans and Democrats who
will come down on the same side of this issue--that it is a better
world, a safer world when we meet our responsibility to lead on the
issues of nonproliferation, when we meet our responsibilities to lead
on the matter of reducing nuclear weapons and reducing delivery
vehicles.
That is what this New START treaty does. It does it in a very
responsible way. So my hope will be that in the coming 2 months or so
that we will have a robust discussion of the START treaty and have the
celebration of having had the debate and had the vote and then
exclaiming to the world that this was a success--that this treaty was a
success. Yes, a first step but a success.
Beyond this treaty, there will be other negotiations that will take
us to other areas in reductions. I think, as a result, if we do what we
should be expected to do, this can be a safer world.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE DAILY SPARKS TRIBUNE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to extend my warmest
congratulation to the Daily Sparks Tribune of Sparks, NV, on their
historic milestone.
The Daily Sparks Tribune is celebrated throughout Nevada for its
first- class journalism, which continues this week for the 100th
consecutive year.
The Tribune has been in circulation since 1910, representing news of
both Sparks, NV, and the greater State. In 1901, Senator Thomas A
Kearns bought the newspaper, along with three other regional papers.
The newspaper now circulates to over 5,000 businesses and homes in
Nevada.
The Nevada Press Association has honored the work of the Daily Sparks
Tribune on many occasions for their outstanding investigatory,
editorial, journalistic, photographic, and philanthropic
accomplishments. In 2009 alone, the newspaper received 17 awards in the
annual Nevada Press Association awards.
Not only has the Daily Sparks Tribune provided Nevadans with a
spectacular news source, but it has also become a central part of our
community.
I join with Nevadans throughout the Silver State to honor the Daily
Sparks Tribune for its 100 years of circulation. It is one of Nevada's
oldest community newspapers, and we wish it many more decades of
success and readership.
____________________
HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES
Major Ronald W. Culver, Jr.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I honor MAJ Ronald W. Culver, Jr.,
44, of El Dorado. Major Culver was killed May 24 in Numaniyah, Iraq, in
support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. According to initial reports, Major
Culver died of injuries sustained when an improvised explosive device
detonated near his vehicle. Major Culver was assigned to the 2nd
Squadron, 108th Calvary, Army National Guard, Shreveport, LA.
My heart goes out to the family of Major Culver, who made the
ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our Nation. Major Culver's wife and
children reside in El Dorado. His mother and father live in Shreveport,
LA.
As a member of the Louisiana National Guard, Major Culver served
three tours of duty in Iraq. During his military career, he was awarded
numerous service medals and was posthumously awarded two Bronze Stars
and a Purple Heart, as well as a Combat Action Badge from the State of
Louisiana.
Culver was an active member of the El Dorado community, serving in
various capacities with Boy Scouts, Campfire Girls, Union County 4-H
Foundation board, Saddle Club, Main Street El Dorado, and the John C.
Carroll VFW Post 2413, where he was the post commander at the time of
his death.
Along with all Arkansans, I am grateful 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.
[[Page 10444]]
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to address comments made on
the floor of the U.S. Senate on June 8, 2010. The senior Senator from
Montana accused me of slandering an individual. That individual is
President Obama's nominee to be the next Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services, CMS, Administrator, Dr. Donald Berwick.
The Senator from Montana is incorrect. I want the record to
accurately reflect the foundation on which I made my comments on the
floor. I told the Senate that the nominee to be the next CMS
Administrator ``loves the British health care system and says we are
going to need to ration care. The new Director of Medicare is planning
to ration care.''
I based my comments solely on historic statements made and articles
written by the nominee about the British health care system and
rationing care. These statements include:
1. ``The decision is not whether or not we will ration care--the
decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.'' You can find
this statement in: ``Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,''
An Interview with Dr. Donald Berwick, Biotechnology Healthcare, June
2009.
2. ``I fell in love with the NHS to an American observer, the NHS . .
. is such a seductress.'' You can find this statement in: ``Celebrating
Quality 1998-2008'' by Donald Berwick, M.D., speech at London Science
Museum, September 30, 2008.
3. ``The NHS is not just a national treasure; it is a global
treasure. As unabashed fans, we urge a dialogue on possible forms of
stabilization to better provide the NHS with the time, space, and
constancy of purpose to realize its enormous promise.'' You can find
this statement in: ``Steadying the NHS'' by Donald Berwick, M.D. and
Sheila Leatherman, BMJ, July 29, 2006, p. 255.
4. ``Cynics beware: I am romantic about the National Health Service;
I love it. All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at
health care in my own country.'' You can find this statement in: ``A
Transatlantic Review of the NHS at 60'' by Donald Berwick, M.D., BMJ,
July 26, 2008, p. 213.
5. ``Here [in Britain], you choose the harder path. You plan the
supply; you aim a bit low; you prefer slightly too little of a
technology or a service to too much; then you search for care
bottlenecks and try to relieve them.'' You can find this statement in:
``A Transatlantic Review of the NHS at 60'' by Donald Berwick, M.D.,
BMJ, July 26, 2008, p. 213.
____________________
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION
Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Senator
McConnell dated June 9, 2010, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, June 9, 2010.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Senate Minority Leader,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: I am requesting that I be consulted
before the Senate enters into any unanimous-consent
agreements or time limitations regarding S. 3019/H.R. 3695,
Billy's Law.
I support the goals of this legislation and believe that
information regarding missing persons and unidentified
remains should be accurate and properly maintained. However,
I believe that we can and must do so in a fiscally
responsible manner. My concerns are included in, but not
limited to, those outlined in this letter.
While this bill is well-intentioned, it costs the American
people over $64 million. This legislation has received no
process in the Senate Judiciary Committee, as it was only
recently introduced on February 23, 2010. As a member of the
Judiciary Committee, I believe, prior to floor consideration,
legislation under the committee's jurisdiction should be
processed in regular order. Appropriate hearings and debate
in committee markup are essential to all legislation,
especially legislation like Billy's Law, which spends
significant federal dollars, authorizes new programs and
requires the sharing of personally identifiable information
between government databases.
Although additional resources may be necessary, we should
act responsibly by reviewing current operations, evaluating
their effectiveness, and then determining the best strategy
for addressing the areas with the most need. That cannot be
accomplished with constant use of the hotline process. The
Congressional Research Service estimates that 94% of all
measures passed by the Senate do not receive a roll call
vote. The hotline process is even more detrimental to
transparency and oversight when legislation, like Billy's
Law, is hotlined without going through regular committee
order.
Moreover, it is irresponsible for Congress to jeopardize
the future standard of living of our children by borrowing
from future generations. The U.S. national debt is now $13
trillion. That means over $42,000 in debt for each man, woman
and child in the United States. A year ago, the national debt
was $11.2 trillion. Despite pledges to control spending,
Washington adds $4.6 billion to the national debt every
single day--that is $3.2 million every single minute.
In addition to the above, there are several specific
problems with this legislation. First, Billy's Law seeks to
authorize the National Missing and Unidentified Persons
System (NamUs), an online repository for information about
missing persons and unidentified remains. However, this
database has been in operation, without Congressional
authorization, since 2007. Before we seek to condone an
existing program by providing a Congressional authorization,
we should perform rigorous oversight of NamUs to determine
whether there is existing waste, fraud and abuse or ways to
increase its efficiency. Without the opportunity to conduct
hearings and committee markup, it is impossible to
effectively examine and evaluate the current operation of
NamUs.
Second, merely to maintain NamUs, Billy's Law authorizes
$2.4 million per year for fiscal years 2011 through 2016,
totaling $14.4 million, without corresponding offsets. This
authorization exceeds the yearly sum of $1.3 million the
Department of Justice indicates is necessary to maintain the
database. Furthermore, according to the Congressional
Research Service, Congress already provides funding for NamUs
via the National Institute of Justice and the Community
Oriented Policing Service. I am concerned that this bill will
enable NamUs to double dip into multiple sources of funding
for the same purposes.
Third, the bill requires the National Crime Information
Center (NCIC) database and NamUs to share information on
missing persons and unidentified remains. While the bill
requires the Attorney General and Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to establish rules on
confidentiality of this information, I remain concerned about
the protection of this personally identifiable information.
NamUs is accessible not only by law enforcement, but also
the public. NamUs is comprised of two smaller databases--the
Missing Persons Database and the Unidentified Remains
Database. While the Unidentified Remains Database does not
allow the public to enter information and restricts certain
information from being accessed by the public, the Missing
Persons Database allows both the public and law enforcement
to submit information about missing persons. There is no way
to guarantee the consistency and accuracy of publicly entered
information. The ability of NamUs and NCIC to share
information via this legislation magnifies these concerns.
Fourth, the bill also establishes an Incentive Grants
Program to provide law enforcement, coroners, medical
examiners and other authorized agencies with grants to
facilitate reporting information to both NCIC and NamUs.
These grants can be used for very broad purposes, including
hiring, contracting and ``other purposes consistent with the
goals of this section.'' I believe that state and local law
enforcement and other state or locally-run agencies should
bear the burden of reporting state and local information. If
these databases are, in fact, effective and further the
investigations carried out by state and local law
enforcement, they should be willing to prioritize funding in
their own budgets to utilize the databases accordingly.
Furthermore, the task of investigating missing person and
unidentified remains cases often falls primarily on state and
local law enforcement. As a result, the federal government
should not bear the entire cost for either the Incentive
Grants Program or the operation of the NamUs database. For
the Incentive Grants Program, the bill authorizes $10 million
per year for fiscal years 2011 through 2015, totaling $50
million that is not offset by reductions in real spending
elsewhere in the federal budget. In addition, there is no
limit on the amount that the Attorney General may award for
each grant. Rather, the Attorney General has the discretion
to determine how much each grantee receives.
In addition to offsets for federal spending on these
programs, I believe all funding in this legislation should be
borne at least equally between the states and the federal
government. It is clear that state and local law enforcement
will be utilizing NamUs often. In fact, the Incentive Grants
Program authorized in this bill is specifically to help state
and local entities ``facilitate the process of reporting
information regarding missing persons and unidentified
remains to the NCIC database and NamUs databases. . . .''
While there is no question that law enforcement should
endeavor to quickly locate
[[Page 10445]]
missing persons and return them to their families, the
federal government is already making efforts to facilitate
this process. Congress should, like many American individuals
and companies do with their own resources, evaluate current
programs, determine any needs that may exist and prioritize
those needs for funding by cutting from the federal budget
programs fraught with waste, fraud, abuse and duplication.
Sincerely,
Tom A. Coburn, M.D.,
United States Senator.
____________________
REMEMBERING DOROTHY KAMENSHEK
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring
the memory of Dorothy Kamenshek who passed away on May 17 at her home
in Palm Desert, CA. She was 84 years old.
Dorothy Kamenshek was born in Norwood, OH, on December 21, 1925. Her
gifts on the diamond were evident from the time she attended the
tryouts for an all women's baseball league in Cincinnati while she was
a high school senior. Her performance at the tryouts earned her an
invitation to participate in the final tryouts that were held at
Wrigley Field in Chicago. From the Wrigley Field tryouts, Ms. Kamenshek
would emerge as one of two women from Cincinnati who were selected to
play in the fledgling All-American Girls Professional Baseball League.
The All-American Girls Professional Baseball League was the
brainchild of Chicago Cubs owner, Phillip Wrigley, who sought to fill
the void that had been created by the disbanding of many minor league
teams as a result of young men who were drafted into the armed services
during World War II. The existence of the All-American Girls
Professional Baseball League nearly paralleled the span of Ms.
Kamenshek's playing career from 1943-1954. During her career, Ms.
Kamenshek all-around excellence on and off the field earned her the
admiration of many fans and the respect of her peers.
Ms. Kamenshek was undoubtedly one of the finest players in the All-
American Girls Professional Baseball League. The league's all-time
batting leader with a .292 average, she had a smooth left-handed swing
that earned her consecutive batting titles in 1946 and 1947. The
leadoff hitter for the Rockford Peaches, she used her speed on the base
paths to create havoc for her opponents as she compiled 657 stolen
bases during her career. An all-around baseball player, Ms. Kamenshek's
work with the glove once prompted former New York Yankees first baseman
Wally Pipp to observe that she was ``the fanciest fielding first
baseman that I've ever seen, man or woman.''
Ms. Kamenshek would lead her team, the Rockford Peaches, to four
championships before her career was curtailed by a back injury. A
driven person who was not going to rest on her laurels, she earned a
bachelor's degree in physical therapy from Marquette University after
her baseball career. In 1961, she moved to California where she worked
as a staff physical therapist, supervisor and chief of therapy services
for the Los Angeles County disabled children's services agency. After
her retirement from Los Angeles County in 1980, she continued to treat
patients in acute care on a part-time basis for the next 6 years.
In 1992, the story of Ms. Kamenshek and the other women who played in
the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League was introduced to a
new generation of Americans by the popular movie ``A League of Their
Own.'' In the movie, the character of Dottie Hinson, played by Geena
Davis, was presented as the best player in the league and was named
Dottie as a tribute to Ms. Kamenshek, who was affectionately known as
Dottie to her friends. In 1999, Sports Illustrated named Ms. Kamenshek
one of its top 100 female athletes of the 20th century.
On the field, Dorothy Kamenshek is widely regarded as the greatest
female baseball player ever. Off the field, her legacy will be one of a
pioneer who, through sheer talent and determination, achieved
excellence in a sport that was once deemed to be beyond the physical
capacity of females. Dorothy Kamenshek inspired generations of
Americans to chip away at the glass ceiling to follow their dreams and
pursue endeavors and careers of their own choosing.
She will be dearly missed.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOUNDING OF DANTE, SOUTH DAKOTA
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the 100th
anniversary of the founding of Dante, SD. Small towns like Dante embody
South Dakota values, and are the cornerstone of our State.
Dante was founded as a railroad town when a group of farmers were
concerned with their ability to haul grain between Wagner and Avon. The
farmers approached the Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad to set
up a depot between the towns. After getting a petition signed, the
railroad expanded to the newly formed town. Planted in 1907, Dante was
incorporated in 1912. Originally called Mayo after H.T. Mayo who
donated the land to the town, the railroad company objected to the
name. Mr. Mayo was asked for a name to which he reportedly said, ``Call
it Dante's Inferno for all I care!'' In 1911, Dante had flourished
enough to support the Dante Bowling Alley and Pool Hall. The school was
opened in 1912 and stayed open until 1971.
To celebrate the town's anniversary, Dante will be having music, a
softball tournament, games and more. With something for everyone, this
weekend's celebration is sure to be an enjoyable experience as Dante
comes together to celebrate this historic anniversary. I would like to
congratulate the people of Dante on reaching this historic milestone,
and offer them best wishes on the years to come.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DR. ANN SOUTHERLAND
Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, today I wish to bring special
recognition to Dr. Ann Marie Phillips Southerland.
Dr. Southerland has elected to retire from Pensacola Junior College
after 42 years of distinguished service. She first joined the faculty
of the PJC home economics department in 1975 and was promoted as an
assistant professor in 1978, an associate professor in 1981, a full
professor in 1984 and department head in 1985.
Recognizing her devotion to student success and years of excellence
in teaching, Dr. Southerland was appointed to the position of district
director of vocational education in 1988 and district dean of
vocational education in 1990. In this capacity, Dr. Southerland
spearheaded efforts and initiatives to improve curriculum, instruction
and assessment. She challenged her colleagues to empower students and
ensure they would enter the world with the skills to compete and
succeed in the increasingly competitive global marketplace.
The success of Dr. Southerland's contributions to Pensacola Junior
College were measurable, and the college appointed her to assistant
vice president for academic affairs and career education in 2005. Yet
Dr. Southerland's reach has been felt far beyond the academic corridors
of northwest Florida. She has selflessly dedicated her time, experience
and energy to causes throughout the State of Florida--serving as a
member of the Council of Occupational Deans and working arm in arm with
her counterparts in all 28 institutions in the Florida College System.
What's more, her extensive body of academic literature has been
published in numerous scholarly journals and periodicals.
I wish to take this opportunity to commend Dr. Southerland for her
service and professionalism. She has been a role model and mentor for
many faculty, staff and students at Pensacola Junior College. She has
my sincere and heartfelt thanks for her devotion to educating
tomorrow's leaders.
[[Page 10446]]
____________________
DO THE WRITE THING WRITING CHALLENGE FINALISTS
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Do the Write Thing Challenge, or
DtWT, is a national program that provides middle school students across
the country with the opportunity to examine some of the most pressing
issues facing their community. It encourages students to examine and
confront the causes and the effects of youth violence through classroom
discussions and writings. The focus is on preventative measures with an
emphasis on personal responsibility. Since the program's founding in
1994, hundreds of thousands of students have reaped benefits from this
community-based approach to addressing these complex and tragic issues.
Middle school students from cities across the Nation participated in
DtWT. These students submitted creative and poignant essays, poems,
plays, or songs about their personal experiences with youth violence.
They wrote about the effect of violence in their lives and about how
they can contribute to efforts to eradicate it. Students also pledged
to carry out their ideas in their daily lives. This strategy, which
empowers young people to make positive changes in their lives and
communities, has surely had a positive impact on the communities in
which these students reside.
Each year, a DtWT Committee made up of business, community, and
government leaders from each participating jurisdiction reviews the
writing samples and selects two national finalists. I am pleased to
recognize this year's national finalists from Detroit, Karan Patrick
and KeJaun Williams. Their creative pieces about youth violence are
heart-wrenching and timely. Karan and KeJaun wrote personal pieces
about the profound impact violence has had on their young lives and
about the lasting consequences of their choices. They conveyed a deep
understanding of the result of youth violence. I am impressed by the
maturity they displayed in confronting this topic and congratulate them
on being selected as national finalists.
This summer, they will join other DtWT national finalists in
Washington, DC, for National Recognition Week. While here, they will
attend a ceremony in their honor. Their work also will be placed
permanently in the Library of Congress.
I invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating the work of the DtWT
finalists and the many organizers across the country who facilitated
open discussions in schools about youth violence. Their work is an
essential element in the development of local solutions to youth
violence in Michigan and across the Nation, and I applaud their
efforts.
____________________
150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CITY OF MANISTIQUE
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the small towns and cities that dot
this great Nation are at the core of our country's character and
cultural fabric. These communities, and the legacy they embody, fashion
the great American story through their unique chapters in this ongoing
narrative. It is in this spirit that I recognize the sesquicentennial
anniversary of the founding of the city of Manistique, MI. The
residents of this great city will come together to celebrate this
significant milestone with a summer of festivities.
This community in the upper peninsula was first named in 1860 by
Charles Harvey, a businessman who sought to build a small dam on the
Manistique River. He would first name the area Epsport, after his
wife's family name. In 1879, Epsport was named county seat of
Schoolcraft county, and a few years later, it was renamed Manistique
Township. This area experienced a period of rapid development,
beginning in 1872 with the relocation of Weston Lumber Company to
Manistique by its founder, Abijah Weston. The rise of the timber
industry spurred the creation of other industries, such as limestone,
shingles, cooperage, a box factory, a charcoal iron company and a
handle factory.
Like many small towns and cities in the upper peninsula, Manistique
has navigated major shifts in its core economy. The timber industry
peaked in this region around 1920 and, along with it, the city's
population, boasting close to 10,000 residents, aided also by the
expansion of the Soo Line Railroad to the area. As the timber industry
declined, it was replaced by farming, limestone production and a paper
mill, and after World War II, tourism emerged as a major industry.
Nestled along the northern shore of Lake Michigan where the lake meets
the Manistique River, this region offers tourists considerable natural
beauty and countless opportunities to experience the outdoors in its
natural state, from the shores of Lake Michigan, to the Seney National
Wildlife Refuge, to Hiawatha National Forest, to name a few.
Manistique's sesquicentennial anniversary is a tribute to the
strength and perseverance of its citizens and to the many that have
played a role in the formation and evolution of this city from its
inception. I invite my colleagues in the Senate to join me in
recognizing this milestone, and I wish the residents of this city
another century and a half of achievement and success.
____________________
REMEMBERING DAVID CURLING
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to
firefighter David Curling of Pine Bluff who made the ultimate sacrifice
while working to keep his fellow Arkansans safe.
In late May, David lost his life after a 4-month battle with injuries
he sustained when a wall fell on him during a January fire. A 14-year
firefighting veteran, he was a lieutenant assigned to Station 3 at 30th
Avenue and Ash Street in Pine Bluff.
I extend my heartfelt condolences to David's family, who mourn the
loss of their loved one. David bravely and courageously fought to
protect the lives of those under his watch.
Along with all Arkansans, I recognize the courage, bravery, and
dedication of our Arkansas emergency responders, who risk their lives
each day to keep our citizens safe. We must do all we can to honor and
remember those who make the ultimate sacrifice, as well as the family
members, friends, and fellow officers they left behind. I thank these
public servants for their service and sacrifice.
____________________
100TH ANNIVERSARY OF EUREKA SPRINGS CARNEGIE PUBLIC LIBRARY
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I join residents of Eureka
Springs in my home State of Arkansas to celebrate the 100th anniversary
of the founding of the Eureka Springs Carnegie Public Library.
Throughout the majority of the town's history, the library has served
as a vital resource for children and adults of all ages.
Eureka Springs Carnegie Public Library is one of four Arkansas
library buildings built with funding by Andrew Carnegie. The building
itself was constructed of locally quarried stone and is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places.
Libraries help build strong communities by promoting the joy of
reading, the love of knowledge, and the excitement of discovery. As the
mother of twin boys, I know that reading is the foundation for success
in the classroom, and I encourage my boys to read not only at school
but also at home. We must do everything we can to ensure that our
Arkansas children have the books and technology they need to develop
critical literacy skills and reach their full potential.
Mr. President, I commend the librarians, staff, and board members of
Eureka Springs Carnegie Library for their success in informing and
inspiring their community. I encourage all Arkansans to make a stop at
their public library today to share in the joy of learning and
knowledge.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE EL DORADO SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I salute the students,
faculty, and staff of the El Dorado School District for their
outstanding efforts to maintain the health and well-being of their
school community. The district was recently named the Gold Award Winner
[[Page 10447]]
of the 2010 Arkansas Healthy School Board, in addition to being named
the 2010 International PRIDE Team of the Year for their efforts to
prevent youth drug abuse and violence.
El Dorado was named to the Arkansas Healthy School Board for their
efforts to offer healthier school lunches and healthy food in vending
machines. As the mother of two boys, I understand how important it is
for parents to make healthy choices for their kids and help them learn
to make healthy choices for themselves. Obesity is a growing problem
across our Nation, and if kids learn good eating habits while they are
young, that knowledge will stay with them throughout their entire
lives. In addition, kids who are healthy and feel good perform better
at school and in all areas of their lives.
Unfortunately, many families in our country are unable to provide
healthy, nutritious meals. More than ever, families are looking to
programs like the National School Lunch Program to ensure children's
nutritional needs are met. My Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
invests $4.5 billion in new child nutrition program funding over the
next 10 years, the most historic investment in child nutrition programs
since their inception. This investment is fully paid for and will not
add to the national debt.
I also commend the El Dorado PRIDE Youth Team, which was named the
2010 International PRIDE Team of the Year. PRIDE Youth Programs,
formerly Parents Resource Institute for Drug Education, is the Nation's
oldest and largest organization devoted to drug abuse and violence
prevention through education. The mission of PRIDE is to educate,
promote, and support drug-free youth.
For the past 4 years, the El Dorado PRIDE team has been nominated as
one of the top three teams in the Nation. There are also 30 PRIDE
members named each year to the National Team from all over the country.
This year, three El Dorado students--Allison George, Tylor Ritz and
Amanda York--were named to the national team.
Mr. President, I salute the entire El Dorado community for their
efforts to keep their schools healthy and safe.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO PHILIP LANDER
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, last Monday, our Nation paused to
remember the sacrifices that the men and women of our Armed Forces have
made over the past 235 years. Indeed, Memorial Day is a time to reflect
on the freedoms and liberties we enjoy because of the heroic deeds of
these brave service members. For those who made it back, many seek to
continue giving back to the nation they love. Today I wish to recognize
one such veteran, Philip Lander, who is the owner of Atlantic Defense
Company, a small, service-disabled veteran-owned construction firm in
my home State of Maine that provides other veterans with an opportunity
to find meaningful employment upon their return. For his efforts, Mr.
Lander has been named the Small Business Administration's 2010 Maine
Veteran Small Business Champion, a truly prestigious honor that only
begins to highlight his incredible work to help America's veterans.
Indeed, Mr. Lander can lay claim to a distinguished record of service
to our Nation dating back to 1970, when he enlisted in the U.S. Army
during his time at the University of Maine. After 2 years of service,
he returned to Maine to complete a degree in agricultural engineering
during which time he joined the Air National Guard. Mr. Lander was
called up to active duty during several notable conflicts, including
Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm and the Bosnian war in the
1990s, and was recalled to duty after the tragic events of September
11, 2001.
Mr. Lander founded Atlantic Defense Company in 2005, after retiring
from the U.S. Air Force the year before. Atlantic Defense immediately
got to work upon its inception, renovating the well-known Jordan Pond
House in Maine's Acadia National Park, as well as taking on a contract
for the New Jersey Air National Guard rebuilding ground support
equipment. Shortly after the scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical
Center, Atlantic Defense sought to help America's veterans receive the
care they are entitled to by assisting in the rehabilitation of the
Nation's VA hospital system. The company performed work at several
hospitals across New England, including Togus in Maine and Westhaven in
Connecticut.
Always seeking to give back to those who have served, Mr. Lander is
involved in the Helmets to Hardhats program, which has the goal of
helping veterans of the military, Reserves, and Guard transition from
active duty to jobs in the construction industry. His company also
transports a medical van to remote spots throughout the northwest
portion of Maine, to ensure that veterans living in those areas are
able to receive care from the Togus VA system. Mr. Lander also seeks to
employ veterans in his company, which currently has 15 to 20 year-round
employees, as well as through subcontracting opportunities with similar
service-disabled veteran-owned firms.
It has been said of the members of our Nation's Armed Forces that
some gave all, but all gave some, and clearly, Philip Lander continues
to give back even after his longtime career of service to our nation.
His generous and selfless efforts to employ fellow veterans and provide
them with critical opportunities back home is admirable. I congratulate
him on his recognition as the 2010 Maine Veteran Small Business
Champion, and wish everyone at Atlantic Defense Company success in
future projects.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
A message from the President of the United States was communicated to
the Senate by Mr. Pate, one of his secretaries.
____________________
EXECUTIVE MESSAGE REFERRED
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
a message from the President of the United States submitting nomination
which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
(The nomination received today is printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE
At 9:58 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 5026. An act to amend the Federal Power Act to protect
the bulk-power system and electric infrastructure critical to
the defense of the United States against cybersecurity and
other threats and vulnerabilities.
H.R. 5133. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 331 1st Street in Carlstadt,
New Jersey, as the ``Staff Sergeant Frank T. Carvill and
Lance Corporal Michael A. Schwarz Post Office Building''.
H.R. 5278. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 405 West Second Street in
Dixon, Illinois, as the ``President Ronald W. Reagan Post
Office Building''.
The message also announced that the House disagrees to the amendments
of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4173) entitled ``An Act to provide for
financial regulatory reform, to protect consumers and investors, to
enhance Federal understanding of insurance issues, to regulate the
over-the-counter derivatives markets, and for other purposes'' and
agrees to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses thereon; and appoints the following Members as
managers of the conference on the part of the House:
From the Committee on Financial Services, for consideration of the
House bill and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to
conference: Messrs. Frank of Massachusetts, Kanjorski, Ms. Waters, Mrs.
Maloney, Messrs. Gutierrez, Watt, Meeks of New York, Moore of Kansas,
Ms. Kilroy, Messrs. Peters, Bachus, Royce, Mrs. Biggert, Mrs. Capito,
Messrs. Hensarling, and Garrett of New Jersey.
From the Committee on Agriculture, for consideration of subtitles A
and B
[[Page 10448]]
of title I, sections 1303, 1609, 1702, 1703, title III (except sections
3301 and 3302), sections 4205(c), 4804(b)(8)(B), 5008, and 7509 of the
House bill, and section 102, subtitle A of title I, sections 406,
604(h), title VII, title VIII, sections 983, 989E, 1027(j), 1088(a)(8),
1098, and 1099 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to
conference: Messrs. Peterson, Boswell; and Lucas.
From the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for consideration of
sections 3009, 3102(a)(2), 4001, 4002, 4101-4114, 4201, 4202, 4204-
4210, 4301-4311, 4314, 4401-4403, 4410, 4501-4509, 4601-4606, 4815,
4901, and that portion of section 8002(a)(3) which adds a new section
313(d) to title 31, United States Code, of the House bill, and that
portion of section 502(a)(3) which adds a new section 313(d) to title
31, United States Code, sections 722(e), 1001, 1002, 1011-1018, 1021-
1024, 1027-1029, 1031-1034, 1036, 1037, 1041, 1042, 1048, 1051-1058,
1061-1067, 1101, and 1105 of the Senate amendment, and modifications
committed to conference: Messrs. Waxman, Rush, and Barton of Texas.
From the Committee on the Judiciary, for consideration of sections
1101(e)(2), 1103(e)(2), 1104(i)(5) and (i)(6), 1105(h) and (i), 1110(c)
and (d), 1601, 1605, 1607, 1609, 1610, 1612(a), 3002(c)(3) and (c)(4),
3006, 3119, 3206, 4205(n), 4306(b), 4501-4509, 4603, 4804(b)(8)(A),
4901(c)(8)(D) and (e), 6003, 7203(a), 7205, 7207, 7209, 7210, 7213-
7216, 7220, 7302, 7507, 7508, 9004, 9104, 9105, 9106(a), 9110(b), 9111,
9118, 9203(c), and 9403(b) of the House bill, and sections
112(b)(5)(B), 113(h), 153(f), 201, 202, 205, 208-210, 211(a) and (b),
316, 502(a)(3), 712(c), 718(b), 723(a)(3), 724(b), 725(c), 728, 731,
733, 735(b), 744, 748, 753, 763(a), (c) and (i), 764, 767, 809(f), 922,
924, 929B, 932, 991(b)(5), (c)(2)(G) and (c)(3)(H), 1023(c)(7) and
(c)(8), 1024(c)(3)(B), 1027(e), 1042, 1044(a), 1046(a), 1047, 1051-
1058, 1063, 1088(a)(7)(A), 1090, 1095, 1096, 1098, 1104, 1151(b), and
1156(c) of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to
conference: Messrs. Conyers, Berman, and Smith of Texas.
From the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for
consideration of sections 1000A, 1007, 1101(e)(3), 1203(d), 1212, 1217,
1254(c), 1609(h)(8)(B), 1611(d), 3301, 3302, 3304, 4106(b)(2) and
(g)(4)(D), 4604, 4801, 4802, 5004, 7203(a), 7409, and 8002(a)(3) of the
House bill, and sections 111(g), (i) and (j), 152(d)(2), (g) and (k),
210(h)(8), 319, 322, 404, 502(a)(3), 723(a)(3), 748, 763(a), 809(g),
922(a), 988, 989B, 989C, 989D, 989E, 1013(a), 1022(c)(6), 1064, 1152,
and 1159(a) and (b) of the Senate amendment, and modifications
committed to conference: Messrs. Towns, Cummings, and Issa.
From the Committee on Small Business, for consideration of sections
1071 and 1104 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to
conference: Ms. Velazquez, Messrs. Shuler, and Graves.
____
At 5:05 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 bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 5072. An act to improve the financial safety and
soundness of the FHA mortgage insurance program.
The message also announced that the House has passed the following
bill, without amendment:
S. 3473. An act to amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to
authorize advances from Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bills were read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 5026. An act to amend the Federal Power Act to protect
the bulk-power system and electric infrastructure critical to
the defense of the United States against cybersecurity and
other threats and vulnerabilities; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
H.R. 5072. An act to improve the financial safety and
soundness of the FHA mortgage insurance program; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
H.R. 5133. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 331 1st Street in Carlstadt,
New Jersey, as the ``Staff Sergeant Frank T. Carvill and
Lance Corporal Michael A. Schwarz Post Office Building''; to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 5278. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 405 West Second Street in
Dixon, Illinois, as the ``President Ronald W. Reagan 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-6147. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Defense (Personnel and Readiness), transmitting the report of
(5) officers authorized to wear the insignia of the grade of
rear admiral in accordance with title 10, United States Code,
section 777; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-6148. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics),
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the
restructured Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures/Common
Missile Warning System (ATIRCM/CMWS) program; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
EC-6149. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics),
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the
restructured F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
EC-6150. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics),
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the
restructured Apache Block III (AB3) program; to the Committee
on Armed Services.
EC-6151. A communication from the Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer, Federal Home Loan Bank of
Atlanta, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Bank's management
reports and statements on system of internal controls for
fiscal year 2009; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
EC-6152. 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-
0080--2010-0088); to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-6153. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, the
certification of a proposed amendment to a manufacturing
license agreement for the export of defense articles,
including, technical data, and defense services to King
Abdullah II Design and Development Bureau (KADDB) in Jordan
for the assembly and distribution of JAWS (Jordan Arms and
Weapons Systems) Viper multi-caliber semi-automatic handguns
to various countries in the amount of $1,000,000 or more; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-6154. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a report relative to the status of the
Government of Cuba's compliance with the United States-Cuba
September 1994 ``Joint Communique'' and on the treatment of
persons returned to Cuba in accordance with the United
States-Cuba May 1995 ``Joint Statement''; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
EC-6155. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the Secretary's
recommendation to continue a waiver of application of a
section of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Belarus; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-6156. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the
extension of waiver authority for Turkmenistan; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-6157. A communication from the Director, Office of
Labor-Management Standards, Department of Labor,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Notification of Employee Rights Under Federal Labor Laws''
(RIN1215-AB70; RIN1245-AA00) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on June 8, 2010; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-6158. A communication from the Secretary of Labor,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the Semiannual Report of the
Office of Inspector General of the Department of Labor for
the period from October 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010; to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-6159. A communication from the Chairman of the Federal
Maritime Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Office of Inspector General's Semiannual Report for the
period of October 1, 2009, to March 31, 2010; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-6160. A communication from the Director, Office of
Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Annual Privacy Activity Report for 2009; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
[[Page 10449]]
EC-6161. A communication from the Director, Office of
Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Office's Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program Report
for Fiscal Year 2009; to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.
EC-6162. A communication from the Chief Executive Officer,
Millennium Challenge Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the Semiannual Report of the Corporation's Inspector
General for the six-month period from October 1, 2009, to
March 31, 2010; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-6163. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 18-414, ``Job Growth Incentive Act of
2010''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-6164. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 18-415, ``Health Insurance for Dependents
Temporary Act of 2010''; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-6165. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 18-420, ``Adoption and Guardianship
Subsidy Temporary Amendment Act of 2010''; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-6166. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 18-428, ``Healthy Schools Act of 2010'';
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
EC-6167. A communication from the Program Manager, Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of
Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Decision-Making Authority Regarding the Denial,
Suspension, or Revocation of a Federal Firearms License, or
Imposition of a Civil Fine'' (Docket No. ATF 17F) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on June 7, 2010; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
EC-6168. A communication from the Staff Director, United
States Commission on Civil Rights, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of the appointment of members to the Colorado
Advisory Committee; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
EC-6169. A communication from the Staff Director, United
States Commission on Civil Rights, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of the appointment of members to the
Louisiana Advisory Committee; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
EC-6170. A communication from the Staff Director, United
States Commission on Civil Rights, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of the appointment of members to the Oregon
Advisory Committee; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
EC-6171. A communication from the Director of Regulation
Policy and Management, Veterans Health Administration,
Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Copayment for
Medications'' (RIN2900-AN50) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on June 9, 2010; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
EC-6172. A communication from the Director of Regulation
Policy and Management, Veterans Health Administration,
Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Copayment for
Medications After June 30, 2010'' (RIN2900-AN65) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on June 9, 2010; to
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
EC-6173. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Drawbridge
Operation Regulation; Chehalis River, Aberdeen, WA, Schedule
Change'' ((RIN1625-AA09) (Docket No. USG-2009-0959)) received
in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 8, 2010;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6174. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Drawbridge
Operation Regulation; Port of Coos Bay Railroad Bridge, Coos
Bay, North Bend, OR'' ((RIN1625-AA09) (Docket No. USG-2009-
0840)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on June 8, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6175. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Drawbridge
Operation Regulation; Lower Grand River, Iberville Parish,
LA'' ((RIN1625-AA09) (Docket No. USG-2009-0686)) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on June 8, 2010; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6176. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Drawbridge
Operation Regulation; CSX Railroad, Trout River, mile 0.9,
Jacksonville, FL'' ((RIN1625-AA09) (Docket No. USG-2009-
0249)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on June 8, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6177. A communication from the Attorney, U.S. Coast
Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
Red River, MN'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USG-2010-0198))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June
8, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6178. A communication from the Attorney, U.S. Coast
Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety
Zones; Blasting Operations and Movement of Explosives, St.
Marys River, Sault Sainte Marie, MI'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket
No. USG-2010-0290)) received in the Office of the President
of the Senate on June 8, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6179. A communication from the Attorney, U.S. Coast
Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
St. Louis River, Tallas Island, Duluth, MN'' ((RIN1625-AA00)
(Docket No. USG-2010-0124)) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on June 8, 2010; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6180. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
Desert Storm, Lake Havasu, AZ'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No.
USG-2009-0809)) received in the Office of the President of
the Senate on June 8, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6181. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
United Portuguese SES Centennial Festa, San Diego Bay, San
Diego, CA'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USG-2010-0065))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June
8, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6182. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
BW PIONEER at Walker Ridge 249, Outer Continental Shelf FPSO,
Gulf of Mexico'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USG-2009-0571))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June
8, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6183. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
APBA National Tour, Parker, AZ'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No.
USG-2009-1110)) received in the Office of the President of
the Senate on June 8, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6184. A communication from the Administrator of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
relative to The National Initiative for Increasing Seat Belt
Use: Buckle Up America campaign; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6185. A communication from the Secretary of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the Annual Report for Fiscal
Year 2009 of the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry
and Security; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. DORGAN, from the Committee on Indian Affairs,
without amendment:
S. 1388. A bill to provide for equitable compensation to
the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation for
the use of tribal land for the production of hydropower by
the Grand Coulee Dam, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 111-
204).
By Mr. KERRY, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, with
an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
S. 3087. A bill to support revitalization and reform of the
Organization of American States, and for other purposes
(Rept. No. 111-205).
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:
By Mr. DORGAN for the Committee on Indian Affairs.
*Cynthia Chavez Lamar, of New Mexico, to be a Member of the
Board of Trustees of the Institute of American Indian and
Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development for a term
expiring May 19, 2010.
[[Page 10450]]
*JoAnn Lynn Balzer, of New Mexico, to be a Member of the
Board of Trustees of the Institute of American Indian and
Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development for a term
expiring May 19, 2012.
*Tracie Stevens, of Washington, to be Chairman of the
National Indian Gaming Commission for the term of three
years.
By Mr. LEAHY for the Committee on the Judiciary.
Robert Neil Chatigny, of Connecticut, to be United States
Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit.
Scott M. Matheson, Jr., of Utah, to be United States
Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit.
James Kelleher Bredar, of Maryland, to be United States
District Judge for the District of Maryland.
Ellen Lipton Hollander, of Maryland, to be United States
District Judge for the District of Maryland.
Susan Richard Nelson, of Minnesota, to be United States
District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
Thomas Edward Delahanty II, of Maine, to be United States
Attorney for the District of Maine for the term of four
years.
Wendy J. Olson, of Idaho, to be United States Attorney for
the District of Idaho for the term of four years.
James A. Lewis, of Illinois, to be United States Attorney
for the Central District of Illinois for the term of four
years.
Donald J. Cazayoux, Jr., of Louisiana, to be United States
Attorney for the Middle District of Louisiana for the term of
four years.
Henry Lee Whitehorn, Sr., of Louisiana, to be United States
Marshal for the Western District of Louisiana for the term of
four years.
Kevin Charles Harrison, of Louisiana, to be United States
Marshal for the Middle District of Louisiana for the term of
four years.
Charles Gillen Dunne, of New York, to be United States
Marshal for the Eastern District of New York for the term of
four years.
*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed
subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear
and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
(Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the
recommendation that they be confirmed.)
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. BENNET:
S. 3475. A bill to provide tighter control over and
additional public disclosure of earmarks; to the Committee on
Rules and Administration.
By Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 3476. A bill to direct the Secretary of Homeland
Security to establish national emergency centers on military
installations; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. WEBB (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mrs. McCaskill,
Mr. Burris, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr.
Tester, Mr. McCain, Mr. Brown of Massachusetts, and
Mr. Inhofe):
S. 3477. A bill to ensure that the right of an individual
to display the Service Flag on residential property not be
abridged; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr.
Whitehouse):
S. 3478. A bill to amend title 46, United States Code, to
repeal certain limitations of liability and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mrs. HAGAN (for herself, Mr. Casey, and Ms.
Landrieu):
S. 3479. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, acting through the Director of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, to establish and
implement a birth defects prevention, risk reduction, and
public awareness program; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr.
Carper):
S. 3480. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002
and other laws to enhance the security and resiliency of the
cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States;
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
By Mr. CARDIN:
S. 3481. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to clarify Federal responsibility for stormwater
pollution; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. REID:
S. 3482. A bill to provide for the development of solar
pilot project areas on public land in Lincoln County, Nevada;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Burris):
S. Res. 549. A resolution congratulating the Chicago
Blackhawks on winning the 2010 Stanley Cup; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
S. Res. 550. A resolution designating the week beginning on
June 14, 2010, and ending on June 18, 2010, as ``National
Health Information Technology Week'' to recognize the value
of health information technology to improving health quality;
considered and agreed to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 260
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Boxer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 260, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the taxation of income of
controlled foreign corporations attributable to imported property.
S. 663
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, the name of the Senator
from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 663, a bill to
amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to establish the Merchant Mariner Equity Compensation Fund to
provide benefits to certain individuals who served in the United States
merchant marine (including the Army Transport Service and the Naval
Transport Service) during World War II.
S. 1011
At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Burris) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1011, a bill to express the
policy of the United States regarding the United States relationship
with Native Hawaiians and to provide a process for the recognition by
the United States of the Native Hawaiian governing entity.
S. 1055
At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kohl) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1055, a bill to grant the
congressional gold medal, collectively, to the 100th Infantry Battalion
and the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, United States Army, in
recognition of their dedicated service during World War II.
S. 1090
At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1090, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax credit parity for
electricity produced from renewable resources.
S. 1091
At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1091, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for an energy investment
credit for energy storage property connected to the grid, and for other
purposes.
S. 1345
At the request of Mr. Reed, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Brown) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1345, a bill to aid and support
pediatric involvement in reading and education.
S. 1352
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1352, a bill to provide for the
expansion of Federal efforts concerning the prevention, education,
treatment, and research activities related to Lyme and other tick-borne
diseases, including the establishment of a Tick-Borne Diseases Advisory
Committee.
S. 1548
At the request of Mr. Cardin, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1548, a bill to
improve research, diagnosis, and treatment of musculoskeletal diseases,
conditions, and injuries, to conduct a longitudinal study on aging, and
for other purposes.
S. 1619
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor
[[Page 10451]]
of S. 1619, a bill to establish the Office of Sustainable Housing and
Communities, to establish the Interagency Council on Sustainable
Communities, to establish a comprehensive planning grant program, to
establish a sustainability challenge grant program, and for other
purposes.
S. 1620
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1620, a bill
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives
and fees for increasing motor vehicle fuel economy, and for other
purposes.
S. 1674
At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr.
Merkley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1674, a bill to provide for an
exclusion under the Supplemental Security Income program and the
Medicaid program for compensation provided to individuals who
participate in clinical trials for rare diseases or conditions.
S. 2899
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Whitehouse) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2899, a bill to
amend the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for the development
of solar energy.
S. 3036
At the request of Mr. Bayh, the name of the Senator from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Casey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3036, a bill to establish
the Office of the National Alzheimer's Project.
S. 3072
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3072, a bill to
suspend, during the 2-year period beginning on the date of enactment of
this Act, any Environmental Protection Agency action under the Clean
Air Act with respect to carbon dioxide or methane pursuant to certain
proceedings, other than with respect to motor vehicle emissions, and
for other purposes.
S. 3122
At the request of Mr. Ensign, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Voinovich) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3122, a bill to require the
Attorney General of the United States to compile, and make publicly
available, certain data relating to the Equal Access to Justice Act,
and for other purposes.
S. 3238
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. Begich) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3238, a bill to provide for
a medal of appropriate design to be awarded by the President to the
next of kin or other representative of those individuals killed as a
result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and to the
memorials established at the 3 sites that were attacked on that day.
S. 3324
At the request of Mr. Brown of Ohio, the name of the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Burris) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3324, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the qualifying
advanced energy project credit.
S. 3335
At the request of Mr. Coburn, the names of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Kaufman), the Senator from Maine (Ms. Snowe) and the Senator from
Maine (Ms. Collins) were added as cosponsors of S. 3335, a bill to
require Congress to establish a unified and searchable database on a
public website for congressional earmarks as called for by the
President in his 2010 State of the Union Address to Congress.
S. 3411
At the request of Mrs. Gillibrand, the name of the Senator from New
York (Mr. Schumer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3411, a bill to
provide for the adjustment of status for certain Haitian orphans
paroled into the United States after the earthquake of January 12,
2010.
S. 3434
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Whitehouse) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3434, a bill to
provide for the establishment of a Home Star Retrofit Rebate Program,
and for other purposes.
S. 3447
At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
Begich) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3447, a bill to amend title 38,
United States Code, to improve educational assistance for veterans who
served in the Armed Forces after September 11, 2001, and for other
purposes.
S. 3461
At the request of Mr. Vitter, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Ms. Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3461, a bill to create a
fair and efficient system to resolve claims of victims for economic
injury caused by the Deepwater Horizon incident, and to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to renegotiate the terms of the lease known
as ``Mississippi Canyon 252'' with respect to claims relating to the
Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill that exceed existing
applicable economic liability limitations.
S. 3462
At the request of Mrs. Shaheen, the names of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Merkley) and the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell) were added
as cosponsors of S. 3462, a bill to provide subpoena power to the
National Commission on the British Petroleum Oil Spill in the Gulf of
Mexico, and for other purposes.
S.J. RES. 29
At the request of Mr. McConnell, the name of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. LeMieux) was added as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 29, a joint
resolution approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in
the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.
S. RES. 519
At the request of Mr. DeMint, the name of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Crapo) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 519, a resolution expressing
the sense of the Senate that the primary safeguard for the well-being
and protection of children is the family, and that the primary
safeguards for the legal rights of children in the United States are
the Constitutions of the United States and the several States, and
that, because the use of international treaties to govern policy in the
United States on families and children is contrary to principles of
self-government and federalism, and that, because the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child undermines traditional principles
of law in the United States regarding parents and children, the
President should not transmit the Convention to the Senate for its
advice and consent.
S. RES. 548
At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. Kyl) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 548, a resolution to
express the sense of the Senate that Israel has an undeniable right to
self-defense, and to condemn the recent destabilizing actions by
extremists aboard the ship Mavi Marmara.
AMENDMENT NO. 4312
At the request of Mr. Vitter, the names of the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. Shelby) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich) were added as
cosponsors of amendment No. 4312 proposed to H.R. 4213, a bill to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring
provisions, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4321
At the request of Mr. Casey, the names of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), the
Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), the Senator from Delaware (Mr.
Kaufman), the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer), the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) were
added as cosponsors of amendment No. 4321 intended to be proposed to
H.R. 4213, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4324
At the request of Mr. Whitehouse, the names of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Brown), the Senator
[[Page 10452]]
from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 4324 intended to be proposed
to H.R. 4213, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4327
At the request of Ms. Murkowski, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. Begich) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 4327 intended to
be proposed to H.R. 4213, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4332
At the request of Mr. Kohl, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Franken) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 4332 intended
to be proposed to H.R. 4213, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4333
At the request of Mr. Thune, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 4333 intended
to be proposed to H.R. 4213, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes.
At the request of Mr. McConnell, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 4333 intended to be proposed to H.R. 4213, supra.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. HAGAN (for herself, Mr. Casey, and Ms. Landrieu):
3479. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, to establish and implement a birth defects prevention, risk
reduction, and public awareness program; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Birth
Defects Prevention, Risk Reduction, and Awareness Act. This bill would
ensure that women of childbearing age and health care professionals
have access to clinical and evidence based information about the risks
and benefits of drug, chemical, and nutritional exposures during
pregnancy and while a woman is breastfeeding.
Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding and taking medication for
chronic diseases such as asthma, hypertension, and epilepsy often have
questions about the risks and benefits. Most pregnant women, as we
witnessed last year, really want to know what the science indicates on
whether they should get vaccinated against H1N1 or the seasonal flu.
Oftentimes, women will seek answers to these important questions from
an established pregnancy and breastfeeding information service. In
fact, each year over 70,000 women and health care providers contact
these information services across the country. These information
services provide valuable information that empowers women. In fact, one
study indicated that 78 percent of women who were considering
terminating otherwise wanted pregnancies due to fears about exposing
their fetus to a medication changed their mind after receiving
appropriate counseling from a teratology information service.
It is not just women who use these services; health care providers,
including physicians and pharmacists, also utilize these pregnancy and
breastfeeding information services. A 2009 study found that over 90
percent of physicians who use these services indicated that the service
provides high quality information that has a significant impact on
clinical care.
In North Carolina, we have the North Carolina Pregnancy Exposure
Riskline, run out of Mission Health System in Asheville. The North
Carolina Pregnancy Exposure Riskline fields calls from a variety of
constituents, including health care providers, pregnant women,
preconception women, potential adoptive parents, and others. Each year,
trained genetic counselors answer questions from over 300 callers, who
want information on the impact of maternal exposures during pregnancy
and while breastfeeding.
The North Carolina Pregnancy Exposure Riskline provides detailed,
factual information to callers on the current available data, and makes
referrals to pregnancy registries that are continuing to gather
information so that researchers and health care providers can have the
best information for future women. If needed and requested, counselors
will refer women to pregnancy resources such as substances treatment
facilities or the NC Family Health Resource line, which has led North
Carolina in information campaigns on the benefits of folic acid and
``Back to Sleep.''
The North Carolina Pregnancy Exposure Riskline also supports the
North Carolina Teratology Information Specialists program to provide
outreach and education about fetal alcohol syndrome.
Although this is an invaluable service for many women, physicians,
and other health care providers, pregnancy and breastfeeding
information services across the country have been forced to close due
to insufficient funding.
The bill I am introducing today would require the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, through the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, to implement a birth defects prevention and public
awareness grant program. Specifically, CDC would initiate a national
media campaign to increase awareness among health care providers and at
risk populations about pregnancy and breast feeding information
services. Experienced organizations would be eligible to apply for
grants: to provide information; and to conduct surveillance and
research of pregnancy exposures that may cause birth defects,
prematurity or other adverse pregnancy outcomes, and maternal exposures
that may cause harm to a breast-fed infant.
I am so pleased that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American
Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the March of Dimes, the
Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, and the American
Academy of Asthma & Immunology are in support of this worthwhile bill.
I urge my other colleagues to join me in supporting this important
bill to provide valuable information about maternal exposures during
pregnancy and while breastfeeding.
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Carper):
S. 3480. A bill to amend the Homeland Seeurity Act of 2002 And other
laws to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and
communications infrastructure of the United States; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, which I believe
would help secure the Nation's cyber networks against attack.
The Internet may have started out as a communications oddity some 40
years ago but it is now a necessity of modern life and, sadly, one that
is under constant attack. Today, Senators Collins, Carper, and I are
introducing legislation which we believe would help secure the most
critical cyber networks and therefore all Americans.
For all of its ``user-friendly'' allure, the Internet can also be a
dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into
everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to
government and industrial secrets. Our economic security, national
security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of
enemies--cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyberterrorists and cyber-
criminals. That risk may be as serious to our homeland security as
anything we face today.
Computer networks at the Departments of Defense are being probed
hundreds of thousands of times a day, and networks at the Departments
of State, Homeland Security and Commerce, as well as NASA and the
National Defense University, have all suffered ``major intrusions by
unknown foreign entities,'' according to reports.
[[Page 10453]]
Key networks that control vital infrastructure, like the electric
grid, have been probed, possibly giving our enemies information that
could be used to plunge us into darkness at the press of a button from
across an ocean. Banks have had millions and millions of dollars stolen
from accounts by cyber-bandits who have never been anywhere near the
banks themselves.
In a report by McAfee--a computer security company, about 54 percent
of the executives of critical infrastructure companies surveyed said
their companies had been the victims of denial of service attacks or
network infiltration by organized crime groups, terrorists, and other
nation-states. The downtime to recover from these attacks can cost $6
million to $8 million a day.
Our present efforts at securing these vital but sprawling government
and private sector networks have been disjointed, understaffed and
underfinanced. We have not operated with the sense of urgency that is
necessary to protect Americans' cyberspace, which the President has
correctly described as a ``strategic national asset.''
Our bill would bring these disjointed efforts together so that the
federal government and the private sector can coordinate their
activities and work off the same playbook.
While President Obama's creation of a cyber-security coordinator
inside the White House was a step in the right direction, we need to
make that position permanent, transparent and accountable to Congress
and the American people.
So, our proposal would create a Senate-confirmed White House cyber-
security coordinator whose job would be to lead all federal cyber-
security efforts; develop a national strategy--that incorporates all
elements of cyberspace policy, including military, law enforcement,
intelligence, and diplomatic; give policy advice to the President; and
resolve interagency disputes.
The Director of the Office of Cyberspace Policy would oversee all
related federal cyberspace activities to ensure efficiency and
coordination and would report regularly to Congress to ensure
transparency and oversight.
Our legislation also would create a National Center for Cybersecurity
an Communications, NCCC, within the Department of Homeland Security,
DHS, to elevate and strengthen the Department's cyber security
capabilities and authorities. The NCCC would be run by a Senate-
confirmed Director who would have the authority and resources to work
with the rest of the Federal Government to protect public and private
sector cyber networks.
DHS has shown that vulnerabilities in key private sector networks--
like utilities and communications systems--could bring our economy to
its knees if attacked or commandeered by a foreign power or cyber-
terrorists. But other than pointing out a vulnerability, DHS has lacked
the power to do anything about it. Our legislation would give DHS the
authority to ensure that our nation's most critical infrastructure is
protected from cyber attack.
Defense of our cyber networks will only be successful if industry and
government work together, so this legislation sets up a collaborative
process where the best ideas of the private sector and the government
can be used to meet a baseline set of security requirements that DHS
would oversee.
Specifically, the NCCC would work with the private sector to
establish risk-based security requirements that strengthen the cyber
security for the nation's most critical infrastructure, such as vital
components of the electric grid, telecommunications networks, and
financial sector that, if disrupted, would result in a national or
regional catastrophe. Owners and operators of critical infrastructure
covered under the act could choose which security measures to implement
to meet these risk-based performance requirements. The act would
provide some liability protections to owners/operators who demonstrate
compliance with the new risk-based security requirements.
Covered critical infrastructure must also report significant breaches
to the NCCC to ensure the federal government has a complete picture of
the security of these networks. In return, the NCCC would share
information, including threat analysis, with owners and operators
regarding risks to their networks. The NCCC would also produce and
share useful warning, analysis, and threat information with other
Federal agencies, State and local governments, and international
partners.
To increase security across the private sector more broadly, the NCCC
would collaborate with the private sector to develop best practices for
cyber security. By promoting best practices and providing voluntary
technical assistance as resources permit, the NCCC would help improve
cyber security across the Nation. Information the private sector shares
with the NCCC would be protected from public disclosure, and private
sector owners and operators may obtain security clearances to access
information necessary to protect the IT networks the American people
depend upon.
Thanks to great work by Senator Carper, our legislation would update
the Federal Information Security Management Act--or FISMA--to require
continuous monitoring and protection of our federal networks and do
away with the paper-based reporting system that currently exists. The
act also would codify and strengthen DHS authorities to establish 0
complete situational awareness for Federal networks and develop tools
to improve resilience of Federal Government systems and networks.
In the event of an attack--or threat of an attack--that could have
catastrophic consequences to our economy, national security or public
safety, our bill would give the President the authority to impose
emergency measures on a select group of the most critical
infrastructure to preserve their cyber networks and assets and protect
our country and the American people. These emergency measures would
automatically expire within 30 days unless the President ordered an
extension.
These measures would be developed in consultation with the private
sector and would apply if the President has credible evidence a cyber
vulnerability is being exploited or is about to be exploited. If
possible, the President must notify Congress in advance about the
threat and the emergency measures that would be taken to mitigate it.
Any emergency measures imposed must be the least disruptive necessary
to respond to the threat. The bill does not authorize any new
surveillance authorities, or permit the government to ``take over''
private networks.
Of course, DHS would need a lot of talented people to accomplish
these missions, and our bill gives it the flexibility to recruit, hire,
and retain the experts it would need to be successful. Our bill would
require the Office of Personal Management to reform the way cyber
security personnel are recruited, hired, and trained and would provide
DHS with temporary hiring and pay flexibilities to assist in the quick
establishment of the NCCC.
Finally, our legislation would require the Federal Government to
develop and implement a strategy to ensure that almost $80 billion of
the information technology products and services it purchases each year
are secure and do not provide our adversaries with a backdoor into our
networks.
More specifically, the act would require development of a
comprehensive supply chain risk management strategy to address risks
and threats to the information technology products and services the
federal government relies upon. This strategy would allow agencies to
make informed decisions when purchasing IT products and services. This
provision would be implemented through the Federal Acquisition
Regulation, requiring contracting officers to consider the security
risks inherent in agency IT procurements. The value of this approach is
that once security features are developed to protect federal networks,
private sector customers may be able to purchase that same level of
security in the products they buy.
The need for this legislation is both obvious and urgent.
A report by the bipartisan Center for Strategic and International
Studies, CSIS, concluded that ``we face a long-
[[Page 10454]]
term challenge in cyberspace from foreign intelligence agencies and
militaries, criminals and others, and losing this struggle would wreak
serious damage on the economic health and national security of the
United States.''
Given these stakes, Senators Collins, Carper, and I are confident our
colleagues will join with us and pass the ``Protecting Cyberspace as a
National Asset Act'' in the 110th Congress.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to join Senators Lieberman and
Carper in introducing the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act
of 2010. This vital legislation would fortify the government's efforts
to safeguard America's cyber networks from attack. It would build a
public/private partnership to promote national cyber security
priorities. It would strengthen the government's ability to set,
monitor compliance with, and enforce standards and policies for
securing Federal civilian systems and the sensitive information they
contain.
The marriage of increasingly robust computer technology to expanding
and nearly instantaneous global telecommunications networks is a truly
seismic event in human history. This information revolution touches
everything, from personal relationships and entertainment to commerce,
scientific research, and the most sensitive national security
information. Cyberspace is a place of great, even unparalleled, power.
But, to tweak the familiar saying, with great power comes great
vulnerability. Cyberspace is under increasing assault on all fronts:
cyber vandalism, cyber crime, cyber sabotage, and cyber espionage.
Across the world at this moment, computer networks are being hacked,
probed, and infiltrated relentlessly. The purpose of these cyber
exploits ranges from simple mischief and massive theft to societal
mayhem and geopolitical advantage.
In February, Dennis Blair, the former Director of National
Intelligence, gave this chilling assessment before the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence:
``Malicious cyber activity is occurring on an unprecedented scale
with extraordinary sophistication. While both the threats and
technologies associated with cyberspace are dynamic, the existing
balance in network technology favors malicious actors, and is likely to
continue to do so for the foreseeable future.''
Consider these sobering facts:
Cyber crime costs our national economy nearly $8 billion annually.
Hackers can operate in relative safety and anonymity from a laptop or
desktop anywhere in the world. The expanding capabilities of wireless
hand-held devices strengthen this cloak of cyber invisibility.
As our national and global economies become ever more intertwined,
cyber terrorists have greater potential to attack high-value targets.
From anywhere in the world, they could disrupt telecommunications
systems, shut down electric power grids, or freeze financial markets.
With sufficient know-how and a few keystrokes, they could cause
billions of dollars in damage and put thousands of lives in jeopardy.
As the hackers' techniques advance, the number of hacking attempts is
exploding. Just this March, the Senate's Sergeant at Arms reported that
the computer systems of Congress and Executive Branch agencies now are
under cyber attack an average of 1.8 billion times per month.
Recent examples of cyber attacks are myriad and disturbing:
Press reports a year ago stated that China and Russia had penetrated
the computer systems of America's electrical grid. The hackers
allegedly left behind malicious hidden software that could be activated
later to disrupt the grid during a war or other national crisis.
At about the same time, we learned that, beginning in 2007 and
continuing well into 2008, hackers repeatedly broke into the computer
systems of the Pentagon's $300-billion Joint Strike Fighter project.
They stole crucial information about the Defense Department's costliest
weapons program ever.
In 2007, the country of Estonia was attacked in cyberspace. A 3-week
onslaught of botnets overwhelmed the computer systems of the nation's
parliament, government ministries, banks, telecommunications networks,
and news organizations. This attack on Estonia is a wake-up call that
has yet to be sufficiently heeded.
The private sector is also under attack. In January, Google announced
that attacks originating in China had targeted its systems as well as
the networks of more than 30 other companies. The attacks on Google
sought to access the email accounts of Chinese human rights activists.
For the other companies, lucrative information, such as critical
corporate data and software source codes, were targeted.
Last year, cyber thieves secretly implanted circuitry into keypads
sold to British supermarkets, which were then used to steal account
information and PIN numbers. This same tactic was used against a large
supermarket chain in Maine, compromising more than 4 million credit
cards.
Nor are small businesses immune. Last summer, a small Maine
construction firm found that cyber crooks had stolen nearly $600,000
through an elaborate scheme involving dozens of coconspirators
throughout the United States.
These attacks, and the hundreds like them that are occurring at any
given time whether on our government or private sector systems, have
ushered us into a new age of cyber crime and, indeed, cyber warfare.
They underscore the high priority we must give to the security of our
information technology systems.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, exposed the
vulnerability of our nation to catastrophic attacks. Since that
terrible day, we have done much to protect potential targets such as
ports, chemical facilities, transportation systems, water supplies,
government buildings, and other vital assets. We cannot afford to wait
for a ``cyber 9/11'' before our government finally realizes the
importance of protecting our digital resources, limiting our
vulnerabilities, and mitigating the consequences of penetrations of our
networks.
Chairman Lieberman and I have held a number of hearings on cyber
security in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee. Senator Carper has been similarly active, particularly on
exploring modifications to the Federal Information Security Management
Act that are designed to enhance protections of Federal networks and
information.
From our examinations of this issue, we know that there are threats
to and vulnerabilities in our cyber networks. We also know that the
tactics used to exploit these vulnerabilities are constantly evolving
and growing increasingly dangerous. Now, it is time to take action. A
strong and sustained Federal effort to promote cyber security is a key
component of effective deterrence.
For too long, our approach to cyber security has been disjointed and
uncoordinated. This cannot continue. The United States requires a
comprehensive cyber security strategy backed by aggressive
implementation of effective security measures. There must be strong
coordination among law enforcement, intelligence agencies, the
military, and the private owners and operators of critical
infrastructure.
This bill would establish the essential point of coordination. The
Office of Cyberspace Policy in the Executive Office of the President
would be run by a Senate-confirmed Director who would advise the
President on all cyber security matters. The Director would lead and
harmonize Federal efforts to secure cyberspace and would develop a
national strategy that incorporates all elements of cyber security
policy, including military, law enforcement, intelligence, and
diplomacy. The Director would oversee all Federal activities related to
the national strategy to ensure efficiency and coordination. The
Director would report regularly to Congress to ensure transparency and
oversight.
To be clear, the White House official would not be another
unaccountable czar. The Cyber Director would be a Senate-confirmed
position and thus would testify before Congress. The important
responsibilities given to the
[[Page 10455]]
Director of the Office of Cyberspace Policy related to cybersecurity
are similar to the responsibilities of the current Director of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The Cyber Director would advise the President and coordinate efforts
across the Executive Branch to protect and improve our cybersecurity
posture and communications networks. By working with a strong
operational and tactical partner at the Department of Homeland
Security, the Director would help improve the security of Federal and
private sector networks.
This strong DHS partner would be the National Center for
Cybersecurity and Communications, or Cyber Center. It would be located
within the Department of Homeland Security to elevate and strengthen
the Department's cyber security capabilities and authorities. This
Center also would be led by a Senate-confirmed Director.
The Cyber Center, anchored at DHS, with a strong and empowered
leader, will close the coordination gaps that currently exist in our
disjointed federal cyber security efforts. For day-to-day operations,
the Center would use the resources of DHS, and the Center Director
would report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security. On
interagency matters related to the security of federal networks, the
Director would regularly advise the President--a relationship similar
to the Director of the NCTC on counterterrorism matters or the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on military issues. These dual
relationships would give the Center Director sufficient rank and
stature to interact effectively with the heads of other departments and
agencies, and with the private sector.
Congress has dealt with complex challenges involving the need for
interagency coordination in the past with a similar construct. We have
established strong leaders with supporting organizational structures to
coordinate and implement action across agencies, while recognizing and
respecting disparate agency missions.
The establishment of the National Counterterrorism Center within the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence is a prime example of a
successful reorganization that fused the missions of multiple agencies.
The Director of NCTC is responsible for the strategic planning of joint
counterterrorism operations, and in this role reports to the President.
When implementing the information analysis, integration, and sharing
mission of the Center, the Director reports to the Director of National
Intelligence. These dual roles provide access to the President on
strategic, interagency matters, yet provide NCTC with the structural
support and resources of the office of the DNI to complete the day-to-
day work of the NCTC. The DHS Cyber Center would replicate this
successful model for cyber security.
As we have seen repeatedly, from the financial crisis to the
environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, what happens in the
private sector does not always affect just the private sector. The
ramifications for government and for the taxpayers often are enormous.
This bill would establish a public/private partnership to improve
cyber security. Working collaboratively with the private sector, the
Center would produce and share useful warning, analysis, and threat
information with the private sector, other Federal agencies,
international partners, and state and local governments. By developing
and promoting best practices and providing voluntary technical
assistance to the private sector, the Center would improve cyber
security across the nation. Best practices developed by the Center
would be based on collaboration and information sharing with the
private sector. Information shared with the Center by the private
sector would be protected.
With respect to the owners and operators of our most critical systems
and assets, the bill would mandate compliance with certain risk-based
performance requirements to close security gaps. These requirements
would apply to vital components of the electric grid,
telecommunications networks, financial systems, or other critical
infrastructure systems that could cause a national or regional
catastrophe if disrupted.
This approach would be similar to the current model that DHS employs
with the chemical industry. Rather than setting specific standards, DHS
would employ a risk-based approach to evaluating cyber vulnerabilities,
and the owners and operators of covered critical infrastructure would
develop a plan for protecting those vulnerabilities and mitigating the
consequences of an attack.
These owners and operators would be able to choose which security
measures to implement to meet applicable risk-based performance
requirements. The bill does not authorize any new surveillance
authorities or permit the government to ``take over'' private networks.
This model would allow for continued innovation and dynamism that are
fundamental to the success of the IT sector.
The bill would provide limited liability protections to the owners
and operators of covered critical infrastructure that comply with the
new risk-based performance requirements. Covered critical
infrastructure also would be required to report certain significant
breaches affecting vital system functions to the center. These reports
would help ensure that the Federal Government has comprehensive
awareness of the security risks facing these critical networks.
If a cyber attack is imminent or occurring, the bill would provide a
responsible framework, developed in coordination with the private
sector, for the President to authorize emergency measures to protect
the Nation's most critical infrastructure. The President would be
required to notify Congress in advance of the declaration of a national
cyber emergency, or as soon thereafter as possible. This notice would
include the nature of the threat, the reason existing protective
measures are insufficient to respond to the threat, and the emergency
actions necessary to mitigate the threat. The emergency measures would
be limited in duration and scope.
Any emergency actions directed by the President during the 30-day
period covered by the declaration must be the least disruptive means
feasible to respond to the threat. Liability protections would apply to
owners and operators required to implement these measures, and if other
mitigation options were available, owners and operators could propose
those alternative measures to the Director and, once approved,
implement those in lieu of the mandatory emergency measures.
The center also would share information, including threat analysis,
with owners and operators of critical infrastructure regarding risks
affecting the security of their sectors. The center would work with
sector-specific agencies and other Federal agencies with existing
regulatory authority to avoid duplication of requirements, to use
existing expertise, and to ensure government resources are employed in
the most efficient and effective manner.
With regard to Federal networks, the Federal Information Security
Management Act--known as FISMA--gives the Office of Management and
Budget broad authority to oversee agency information security measures.
In practice, however, FISMA is frequently criticized as a ``paperwork
exercise'' that offers little real security and leads to a disjointed
cyber security regime in which each Federal agency haphazardly
implements its own security measures.
The bill we introduce today would transform FISMA from paper-based to
real-time responses. It would codify and strengthen DHS authorities to
establish complete situational awareness for Federal networks and
develop tools to improve resilience of Federal Government systems and
networks.
The legislation also would take advantage of the Federal Government's
massive purchasing power to help bring heightened cyber security
standards to the marketplace. Specifically, the Director of the Center
would be charged with developing a supply chain risk management
strategy applicable to Federal procurements. This strategy would
emphasize the security of information systems from development to
acquisition and throughout their operational life cycle.
[[Page 10456]]
While the Director should not be responsible for micromanaging
individual procurements or directing investments, we have seen far too
often that security is not a primary concern when agencies procure
their IT systems. Recommending security investments to OMB and
providing strategic guidance on security enhancements early in the
development and acquisition process will help ``bake in'' security.
Cyber security can no longer be an afterthought in our government
agencies.
These improvements in Federal acquisition policy should have
beneficial ripple effects in the larger commercial market. As a large
customer, the Federal Government can contract with companies to
innovate and improve the security of their IT services and products.
With the Government's vast purchasing power, these innovations can
establish new security baselines for services and products offered to
the private sector and the general public.
Finally, the legislation would direct the Office of Personnel
Management to reform the way cyber security personnel are recruited,
hired, and trained to ensure that the Federal Government and the
private sector have the talent necessary to lead this national effort
and protect its own networks. The bill would also provide DHS with
temporary hiring and pay flexibilities to assist in the establishment
of the center.
Some have suggested that this effort can be led from the White House
alone--why create a new center at DHS and two Senate-confirmed Director
positions? One of the great lessons of 9/11 is that true security
demands aggressive oversight, expert evaluation, and thorough testing
of systems. There must be constant, real-time monitoring of security
and analysis of threats. This task requires much more than a cyber
czar. It requires strong civilian counterparts to the Secretary of
Defense and the Director of National Intelligence. These Directors, at
the White House and at DHS, would serve as those counterparts.
The National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies possess
enormous skills and resources, but privacy and civil liberties demands
preclude these agencies from shouldering a leadership role in the
security of our civilian information technology systems. The
intelligence community must play a critical part in providing threat
information, but it cannot lead the cyber security effort.
We are all acutely aware that there are those who seek to do harm to
this country and to our people. If hackers can nearly bring Estonia to
its knees through cyber attacks, infiltrate our military's most
closely-guarded project, and, in the case of Google, hack the computers
owned and operated by some of the world's most successful computer
experts, we must assume even more spectacular and potentially
devastating attacks lie ahead.
We must be ready. It is vitally important that we build a strong
public-private partnership to protect cyberspace. It is a vital engine
of our economy, our government, our country and our future. I urge my
colleagues to support this crucial legislation.
______
By Mr. CARDIN:
S. 3481. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
clarify Federal responsibility for stormwater pollution; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, in recent weeks the issue of polluted
stormwater runoff from federal properties has again gained significant
attention. I continue to have grave concerns about the failure of the
Federal Government to pay localities for reasonable costs associated
with the control and abatement of pollution that is originating on its
properties. At stake is a fundamental issue of equity: polluters should
be financially responsible for the pollution that they cause. That
includes the Federal Government.
Today I am introducing legislation that makes it clear. Uncle Sam
must pay his bills just like every other American.
Annually hundreds of thousands of pounds of pollutants wash off the
hardened surfaces in urban areas and into local rivers and streams,
threatening the health of our citizens and causing significant
environmental degradation. A one-acre parking lot produces about 16
times the volume of runoff that comes from a one-acre meadow. These
pollutants include heavy metals, nitrogen and phosphorous, oil and
grease, pesticides, bacteria, including deadly
e. coli, sediment, toxic chemicals, and debris. Indeed, stormwater
runoff is the largest source sector for many imperiled bodies of water
across the country. According to the Environmental Protection Agency,
stormwater pollution affects all types of water bodies including in
order of severity; ocean shoreline, estuaries such as the Chesapeake
Bay, Great Lakes shorelines, lakes and rivers. Degraded aquatic
habitats are found everywhere that stormwater enters local waterways.
On October 5, 2009, President Obama issued a Federal Executive order
on sustainability which set goals for Federal agencies and focused on
making improvements in their environmental, energy and economic
performance. Among other requirements, the order specifically requires
the implementation of the stormwater provisions of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 438.
I am the author of that provision, which requires the Federal
Government to maintain the predevelopment hydrology ``to the maximum
extent practicable'' of all new building sites or major renovations.
This requirement echoed the provision in the President's Chesapeake Bay
Protection and Restoration Executive Order issued on May 12, 2009. In
the final Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed, issued on the one-year anniversary of the Executive Order,
each Federal agency is being called upon to implement ``the stormwater
requirements for new development and redevelopment in Section 438 of
the Energy Independence and Security Act. . .'' (pp. 33-34). These
parallel Federal stormwater management requirements are explicit
recognition of the importance of controlling and managing stormwater
pollution from Federal properties.
As EPA requires more communities to address stormwater pollution
through Clean Water Act required Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
permits, these communities are responding with a variety of fee-based
management systems that will allow them to mitigate, manage and prevent
this type of pollution.
The EPA requires National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permits for
large communities. The President has issued two Executive Orders that
directly note the need to address this type of pollution ``to the
maximum extent practicable.'' Clearly, these actions demonstrate that
the administration recognizes the importance of dealing adequately with
stormwater pollution.
I believe that this administration recognizes its responsibility to
manage the stormwater pollution that comes off Federal properties. But
that responsibility needs to translate into payments to the local
governments that are forced to deal with this pollution. That
commitment needs to be more than an Executive order. Adopting the
legislation that I am introducing today will remove all ambiguity about
the responsibility of the Federal Government to pay these normal and
customary stormwater fees.
This is a matter of basic equity. I call upon all of my colleagues to
join me in supporting this simple legislative remedy.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill he
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3481
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR STORMWATER POLLUTION.
Section 313 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1323) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Federal Responsibility for Stormwater Pollution.--
Reasonable service charges described in subsection (a)
include reasonable fees or assessments made
[[Page 10457]]
for the purpose of stormwater management in the same manner
and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
``(d) No Treatment as Tax or Levy.--A fee or assessment
described in this section--
``(1) shall not be considered to be a tax or other levy
subject to an assertion of sovereign immunity; and
``(2) may be paid using appropriated funds.''.
______
By Mr. REID:
S. 3482. A bill to provide for the development of solar pilot project
areas on public land in Lincoln County, Nevada; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the American Solar
Energy Pilot Leasing Act of 2010. Solar energy development is a
critical factor in creating jobs and making the United States energy
independent. This legislation will provide a pilot program for the
Department of the Interior to develop a solar leasing program in
Nevada.
The Secretary of the Interior, though the Bureau of Land Management,
BLM, is currently developing a west wide solar energy program based on
existing laws and regulations. The BLM, however, does not currently
have the legal authority to lease public lands for solar development.
This bill will establish, in Lincoln County, the first Federal solar
leasing program in the U.S., which will serve as a pilot project for
the Department of the Interior in order to guide development of solar
leasing throughout the west in the years to come.
The American Solar Energy Pilot Leasing Act designates two solar
development zones in Lincoln County for commercial solar energy
development. The 10,945 acre Dry Lake zone and the 2,845 acre Delamar
Valley zone are within high solar potential areas identified by the BLM
and were selected by Lincoln County based on extensive public input.
Since the solar zones border the Southwest Intertie Project, SWIP,
transmission corridor, these projects will create the opportunity for
southern Nevada and California to tap directly into Lincoln County's
abundant renewable power resources.
Our bill directs the agency to consult with the County and local
stakeholders before offering both parcels for lease not more than 60
days after the bill becomes law. In order to ensure efficient and wise
development throughout the west, the BLM is also directed to establish
diligent development requirements to ensure leased areas are
efficiently developed and to promulgate regulations to guide
development of the burgeoning solar leasing program.
The act directs the BLM to set a royalty rate at a level that will
encourage efficient production of solar energy and ensure a fair return
to the public for the necessary development of the public lands. As
part of this program, the BLM is given the flexibility to charge a
lower royalty, or even no royalty, for up to five years after energy
generation begins as an incentive to promote the maximum generation of
solar energy.
Royalties and fees from these solar leasing pilot projects will be
disbursed into four accounts. Thirty-five percent will be deposited
into the Renewable Energy Mitigation Fish and Wildlife Fund--
established by this act to protect and restore wildlife and their
habitat and to implement the Land and Water Conservation Fund in
Nevada. The State of Nevada and Lincoln County will each receive 25
percent of the collected royalties and fees. The last 15 percent will
be directed to the BLM to fund renewable energy permit processing over
the next 10 years. At the end of that 10-year period, this 15 percent
will be directed to the Renewable Energy Mitigation Fish and Wildlife
Fund, in addition to the 35 percent initially set aside for this
account.
As you know, I have been a longtime champion for the development of
clean, renewable energy resources. Nevada has unparalleled potential
for solar energy development and is poised to lead our Nation in clean
energy development and innovation. This is a significant step toward
moving our country away from dirty fossil fuels and creating a new job
market in the west. The model established by this legislation will also
reinvest a responsible portion of the royalties and fees from solar
energy development into the states and rural communities whose land is
being used to power our Nation.
I would like to thank Lincoln County and a great number of sportsmen,
ranchers, and conservationists who have helped us shape this
legislation. I am pleased to bring this bill to the committee and I
look forward to working with Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member
Murkowski and the other distinguished members to move this bill through
the legislative process.
Mr. President, I ask for 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. 3482
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 ``American Solar Energy Pilot
Leasing Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) County.--The term ``County'' means Lincoln County,
Nevada.
(2) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means any of
the Federal land in the State under the administrative
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management that is
identified as a ``solar development zone'' on the maps.
(3) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Renewable Energy
Mitigation and Fish and Wildlife Fund established by section
3(d)(5)(A).
(4) Map.--The term ``map'' means each of--
(A) the map entitled ``Dry Lake Valley Solar Development
Zone'' and dated May 25, 2010; and
(B) the map entitled ``Delamar Valley Solar Development
Zone'' and dated May 25, 2010.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of
Land Management.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Nevada.
SEC. 3. DEVELOPMENT OF SOLAR PILOT PROJECT AREAS ON PUBLIC
LAND IN LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA.
(a) Designation.--In accordance with sections 201 and 202
of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1711, 1712) and subject to valid existing rights, the
Secretary shall designate the Federal land as a solar pilot
project area.
(b) Applicable Law.--The designation of the solar pilot
project area under subsection (a) shall be subject to the
requirements of--
(1) this Act;
(2) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
(3) any other applicable law (including regulations).
(c) Solar Lease Sales.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct lease sales
and issue leases for commercial solar energy development on
the Federal land, in accordance with this subsection.
(2) Deadline for lease sales.--Not later than 60 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, after
consulting with affected governments and other stakeholders,
shall conduct lease sales for the Federal land.
(3) Easements, special-use permits, and rights-of-way.--
Except for the temporary placement and operation of testing
or data collection devices, as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate, and the rights-of-way granted under section
301(b)(1) of the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and
Development Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-424; 118 Stat. 2413)
and BLM Case File N-78803, no new easements, special-use
permits, or rights-of-way shall be allowed on the Federal
land during the period beginning on the date of enactment of
this Act and ending on the date of the issuance of a lease
for the Federal land.
(4) Diligent development requirements.--In issuing a lease
under this subsection, the Secretary shall include work
requirements and mandatory milestones--
(A) to ensure that diligent development is carried out
under the lease; and
(B) to reduce speculative behavior.
(5) Land management.--The Secretary shall--
(A) establish the duration of leases issued under this
subsection;
(B) include provisions in the lease requiring the holder of
a lease granted under this subsection--
(i) to furnish a reclamation bond or other form of security
determined to be appropriate by the Secretary;
(ii) on completion of the activities authorized by the
lease--
(I) to restore the Federal land that is subject to the
lease to the condition in which the Federal land existed
before the lease was granted; or
(II) to conduct mitigation activities if restoration of the
land to the condition described in subclause (I) is
impracticable; and
[[Page 10458]]
(iii) to comply with such other requirements as the
Secretary considers necessary to protect the interests of the
public and the United States; and
(C)(i) establish best management practices to ensure the
sound, efficient, and environmentally responsible development
of solar resources on the Federal land in a manner that would
avoid, minimize, and mitigate actual and anticipated impacts
to habitat and ecosystem function resulting from the
development; and
(ii) include provisions in the lease requiring renewable
energy operators to comply with the practices established
under clause (i).
(d) Royalties.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish royalties,
fees, rentals, bonuses, and any other payments the Secretary
determines to be appropriate to ensure a fair return to the
United States for any lease issued under this section.
(2) Rate.--Any lease issued under this section shall
require the payment of a royalty established by the Secretary
by regulation in an amount that is equal to a percentage of
the gross proceeds from the sale of electricity at a rate
that--
(A) encourages production of solar energy;
(B) ensures a fair return to the public comparable to the
return that would be obtained on State and private land; and
(C) encourages the maximum energy generation practicable
using the least amount of land and other natural resources,
including water.
(3) Royalty relief.--To promote the maximum generation of
renewable energy, the Secretary may provide that no royalty
or a reduced royalty is required under a lease for a period
not to exceed 5 years beginning on the date on which
generation is initially commenced on the Federal land subject
to the lease.
(4) Disposition of proceeds.--
(A) In general.--Of the amounts collected as royalties,
fees, rentals, bonuses, or other payments under a lease
issued under this section--
(i) 25 percent shall be paid by the Secretary of the
Treasury to the State within the boundaries of which the
income is derived;
(ii) 25 percent shall be paid by the Secretary of the
Treasury to the 1 or more counties within the boundaries of
which the income is derived;
(iii) 15 percent shall--
(I) for the period beginning on the date of enactment of
this Act and ending on the date specified in subclause (II),
be deposited in the Treasury of the United States to help
facilitate the processing of renewable energy permits by the
Bureau of Land Management in the State, subject to
subparagraph (B)(i)(I); and
(II) beginning on the date that is 10 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, be deposited in the Fund; and
(iv) 35 percent shall be deposited in the Fund.
(B) Limitations.--
(i) Renewable energy permits.--For purposes of subclause
(I) of subparagraph (A)(iii)--
(I) not more than $10,000,000 shall be deposited in the
Treasury at any 1 time under that subclause; and
(II) the following shall be deposited in the Fund:
(aa) Any amounts collected under that subclause that are
not obligated by the date specified in subparagraph
(A)(iii)(II).
(bb) Any amounts that exceed the $10,000,000 deposit limit
under subclause (I).
(ii) Fund.--Any amounts deposited in the Fund under clause
(i)(II) or subparagraph (A)(iii)(II) shall be in addition to
amounts deposited in the Fund under subparagraph (A)(iv).
(5) Renewable energy mitigation and fish and wildlife
fund.--
(A) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a fund, to be known as the ``Renewable
Energy Mitigation and Fish and Wildlife Fund'', to be
administered by the Secretary, for use in the State.
(B) Use of funds.--Amounts in the Fund shall be available
to the Secretary, who may make the amounts available to the
State or other interested parties for the purposes of--
(i) mitigating impacts of renewable energy on public land,
with priority given to land affected by the solar development
zones designated under this Act, including--
(I) protecting wildlife corridors and other sensitive land;
and
(II) fish and wildlife habitat restoration; and
(ii) carrying out activities authorized under the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 et
seq.) in the State.
(C) Availability of amounts.--Amounts in the Fund shall be
available for expenditure, in accordance with this paragraph,
without further appropriation, and without fiscal year
limitation.
(D) Investment of fund.--
(i) In general.--Any amounts deposited in the Fund shall
earn interest in an amount determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury on the basis of the current average market yield on
outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of
comparable maturities.
(ii) Use.--Any interest earned under clause (i) may be
expended in accordance with this paragraph.
(e) Priority Development.--
(1) In general.--Within the County, the Secretary shall
give highest priority consideration to implementation of the
solar lease sales provided for under this Act.
(2) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall evaluate other solar
development proposals in the County not provided for under
this Act in consultation with the State, County, and other
interested stakeholders.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 549--CONGRATULATING THE CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS ON WINNING
THE 2010 STANLEY CUP
Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Burris) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Res. 549
Whereas, on June 9, 2010, the Chicago Blackhawks hockey
team won the Stanley Cup;
Whereas the 2010 Stanley Cup win is the first Stanley Cup
win for the Blackhawks since 1961, when John F. Kennedy was
president and the Peace Corps was first established;
Whereas the Blackhawks joined the National Hockey League in
1926 and have a rich history in the League;
Whereas the Blackhawks were 1 of the original 6 teams in
the National Hockey League;
Whereas, during a very difficult period for the National
Hockey League, the Blackhawks remained a strong and
competitive team, winning the Stanley Cup in 1934, 1938, and
1961;
Whereas the Stanley Cup championship appearance in 2010 is
the first for the Blackhawks since 1992;
Whereas the Blackhawks posted a regular season record of
52-22-8, and the team dominated opponents during the
playoffs, with 12 wins and only 4 losses, including a sweep
of the number 1-seeded San Jose Sharks to win the Western
Conference championship and advance to the Stanley Cup
finals;
Whereas General Manager Stan Bowman, Head Coach Joel
Quenneville, President John F. McDonough, and owner Rocky
Wirtz have put together and led a great organization;
Whereas several Blackhawks players competed in the Olympic
games and faithfully returned to the Blackhawks to help
secure a championship, including--
(1) Patrick Kane, who played for the United States;
(2) Jonathan Toews, Brent Seabrook, and Duncan Keith, who
played for Canada; and
(3) Tomas Kopecky and Marian Hossa, who played for
Slovakia;
Whereas all 34 active players, whose shared goal was to end
the 49-year championship drought, collectively contributed to
a victorious season, including Kyle Beach, Bryan Bickell,
Dave Bolland, Nick Boynton, Troy Brouwer, Adam Burish, Dustin
Byfuglien, Brian Campbell, Brian Connelly, Corey Crawford,
Jassen Cullimore, Jake Dowell, Ben Eager, Colin Fraser,
Jordan Hendry, Niklas Hjalmarsson, Marian Hossa, Cristobal
Huet, Kim Johnsson, Patrick Kane, Duncan Keith, Tomas
Kopecky, Andrew Ladd, Shawn Lalonde, John Madden, Antti
Niemi, Danny Richmond, Brent Seabrook, Patrick Sharp, Jack
Skille, Brent Sopel, Jonathan Toews, Hannu Toivonen, and Kris
Versteeg;
Whereas the 2010 Blackhawks players follow in the giant
footsteps of the great players in Blackhawk history who have
had their numbers retired, including Glenn Hall (#1), Keith
Magnuson (#3), Pierre Pilote (#3), Bobby Hull (#9), Denis
Savard (#18), Stan Mikita (#21), and Tony Esposito (#35);
Whereas the city of Chicago welcomes the first championship
in the city in 5 years with open arms;
Whereas a new generation of young fans in Chicago and
around the State of Illinois are discovering the joy of
championship hockey; and
Whereas the Nashville Predators, Vancouver Canucks, San
Jose Sharks, and the Philadelphia Flyers proved to be worthy
and honorable adversaries and also deserve recognition: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates the Chicago Blackhawks on winning the
2010 Stanley Cup;
(2) commends the fans, players, and management of the
Philadelphia Flyers for allowing the Chicago Blackhawks and
the many supporters of the Chicago Blackhawks to celebrate
the first Stanley Cup win for the team in 49 years at the
Wachovia Center, the arena of the Philadelphia Flyers; and
(3) respectfully directs the Enrolling Clerk of the Senate
to transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to--
(A) the 2010 Chicago Blackhawks hockey organization; and
(B) the Blackhawks owner Rocky Wirtz.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Chicago has its cold days, and icy
sidewalks in the winter. But this year's winter proved to be the right
opportunity for
[[Page 10459]]
the perfect conditions for Illinois' most recently acclaimed sons and
daughters, the Chicago Blackhawks hockey team, which won the Stanley
Cup last night in Philadelphia.
The city of Chicago and State of Illinois have some of the best
sports fans in America, particularly when it comes to hockey. Last
night the fans received their reward as they watched Towes, the
youngest captain in the National Hockey League at age 22, hoist the
Stanley Cup over his head as the team ended a 49-year drought and again
became the National Hockey League champions; 49 years, and now
champions again.
It gives us Cubs fans hope. The fight song of the team begins, ``Here
come the hawks, the mighty Blackhawks.'' The team lived up to that song
last night as they defeated the Philadelphia Flyers and in a hard-
fought game in overtime in the sixth game of the series. An amazing end
to a great season. Just over 4 minutes and 6 seconds into the overtime,
2010 Olympian Patrick Kane scored with an amazing shot you have to see
to believe. His efforts were matched by goals from teammates Dustin
Byfuglien, Patrick Sharp, Andrew Ladd, and 21 saves by the fabulous
goal tender Antti Niemi.
The last time the Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup was 1961. John
Kennedy was President. They also won that cup in six games with the
assistance of hockey legends Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita, and Murray
Balfour. Who can forget those legendary players?
This is the fourth Stanley Cup win for a team with a rich hockey
history that began in 1926. Today we celebrate the players who will be
tomorrow's legends. This achievement was not achieved without the hard
work and determination on the part of the team, the front office, and
those incredible players.
I congratulate their coach, Joel Quenneville, on his unbelievable 2-
year run in leading the team to victory; also to team president John
McDonough who brought new life to the Chicago Blackhawks, and the city
of Chicago, and owner Rocky Wirtz, maybe the only major sports owner in
America who is cheered wildly whenever his name is mentioned at a game.
He assembled a strong office team that developed the Blackhawks into
champions. This victory was the result of the exceptional gamesmanship
of all of the players and all of the work from the staff and the
assistance and encouragement from owners and fans.
I congratulate all of them for this remarkable achievement. I am
proud to have the Blackhawks in my State of Illinois. Illinois sports
fans have developed patience when it comes to their teams, and truly
great things can come to those who wait.
With two Illinois teams earning national championships in 5 years--
that is the Chicago White Sox and the Chicago Blackhawks--our fans can
celebrate the recent triumphs and hope for many years to come.
Now I have a resolution that I have sent to the desk. It is working
its way through the Senate, and we are hopeful that before the end of
this session, with the bipartisan cooperation of cheering for these new
Stanley Cup champions, we will be able to enact this resolution and
send it off so tomorrow's victory parade and rally will be complete. I
know they are waiting anxiously for the receipt of the Senate
resolution. So I hope we can get this done this evening.
Mr. BURRIS. Last night, and well into this morning, the sounds of
celebration rang through the streets of Chicago.
Throughout the city, a proud anthem was sung, an anthem which begins:
Here come the Hawks--the mighty Blackhawks.
Many consider the Stanley Cup to be the most difficult trophy to win
in all of professional sports.
But last night, thanks to an extraordinary Blackhawks team, the
historic Stanley Cup has returned to Chicago for the first time in
nearly half a century.
This incredible season caps an impressive renaissance for one of the
National Hockey League's oldest and most storied franchises.
When Rocky Wirtz took the helm of this organization following the
loss of his father, longtime Blackhawks owner Bill Wirtz, he moved
aggressively to restore his team to excellence.
He reached out to the Chicago community, which comprises some of the
greatest sports fans in the world.
He brought fresh talent to the team's roster and coaching staff, and
partnered with Chicago institutions like WGN-TV to bring hockey to a
wider audience.
As a result, he was able to catch lightning in a bottle, and set his
team on the path to a truly historic season.
From the very beginning of this year, every Hawks fan could tell that
this team showed some real promise.
Time and again, they battled adversity and overcame it.
Time and again they were tested, but in each successive game, they
laced up their skates and took to the ice with growing confidence and a
fiery will to win.
Finally, after a dominant regular season and an outstanding showing
against playoff opponents, only the Philadelphia Flyers stood between
them and their first national title in 49 years.
There is no question that both of these teams deserved to be in
contention for the Stanley Cup.
There is little doubt that these fine athletes, from Philadelphia and
Chicago, are among the very best in the sport of hockey.
So it was no surprise that this year's Stanley Cup Finals proved to
be an exciting and hard-fought series of games.
I congratulate the Flyers and their fans on an outstanding season,
and I applaud their sportsmanship throughout the year. They played with
grit and determination, right up to the very last moment.
But in the end, there can be only one champion.
And last night, in a thrilling overtime performance that brought the
city of Philadelphia to a standstill and the City of Chicago to its
feet, the Blackhawks indisputably won the Stanley Cup.
That is why I am proud to join my good friend Senator Durbin to
introduce a Senate Resolution in honor of this team.
And I ask my colleagues to join with us in celebrating this
remarkable achievement.
I congratulate the owners, the entire coaching staff, and every
member of the Blackhawks organization.
And I applaud each and every athlete who took part in this incredible
victory.
Their names are etched forever into Chicago sports history, just as
they will soon be etched into the Stanley Cup Trophy itself.
Finally, I would like to congratulate the people of Chicago, and
Blackhawks fans all over the country, who have kept the faith for 49
years, never doubting that greatness would one day return to their
hockey team.
I got married in 1961. That is the last time they won the Stanley
cup.
Their day has finally come, and this championship belongs to them.
I am proud to join them in celebration, and I am eager to see the
Stanley Cup on display back home in Chicago, right where it belongs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I certainly want to offer my
congratulations to the city of Chicago. Being from Massachusetts,
having the World Champion Red Sox, Celtics, New England Patriots,
Bruins, New England Revolution, I can certainly appreciate the victory
that was brought to the city of Chicago. Certainly when the President
has them to the White House, I am hoping he will offer the same
courtesy to the NCAA Champion Boston College mens' hockey team as well.
[[Page 10460]]
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 550--DESIGNATING THE WEEK BEGINNING ON JUNE 14, 2010,
AND ENDING ON JUNE 18, 2010, AS ``NATIONAL HEALTH INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY WEEK'' TO RECOGNIZE THE VALUE OF HEALTH INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVING HEALTH QUALITY
Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Ms. Snowe) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 550
Whereas the Healthcare Information and Management Systems
Society has collaborated with more than 5 dozen healthcare
organizations for almost 50 years to transform health care by
improving information technology and management systems;
Whereas the Center for Information Technology Leadership
estimates that the implementation of national standards for
interoperability and the exchange of health information would
save the United States approximately $77,000,000,000 in
expenses relating to health care each year;
Whereas health care information technology and management
systems have been recognized as essential tools for improving
the quality and cost efficiency of the health care system;
Whereas Congress has made a commitment to leveraging the
benefits of the health care information technology and
management systems, including through the adoption of
electronic medical records that will help to reduce costs and
improve quality while ensuring privacy of patients and
codification of the Office of the National Coordinator for
Health Information Technology;
Whereas Congress has emphasized improving the quality and
safety of delivery of health care in the United States; and
Whereas since 2006, organizations across the United States
have united to support National Health Information Technology
Week to improve public awareness of the benefits of improved
quality and cost efficiency of the health care system that
the implementation of health information technology could
achieve: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates the week beginning on June 14, 2010, and
ending on June 18, 2010, as ``National Health Information
Technology Week'';
(2) recognizes the value of information technology and
management systems in transforming health care for the people
of the United States; and
(3) calls on all interested parties to promote the use of
information technology and management systems to transform
the health care system in the United States.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 4334. Mr. ISAKSON (for himself, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Reid)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 4301 proposed by Mr. Baucus to the bill H.R. 4213, to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain
expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4335. Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Ms. Landrieu,
Mr. LeMieux, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Cochran,
and Mr. Schumer) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 4301 proposed by Mr. Baucus to the
bill H.R. 4213, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4336. Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Crapo,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Brownback)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill H.R. 4213, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4337. Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. Dorgan)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 4301 proposed by Mr. Baucus to the bill H.R. 4213, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4338. Mr. WICKER (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Cochran, and Mr. Vitter) submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed to amendment SA 4301 proposed by Mr. Baucus to
the bill H.R. 4213, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 4339. Mr. DORGAN (for Mr. Rockefeller) proposed an
amendment to the bill H.R. 3360, to amend title 46, United
States Code, to establish requirements to ensure the security
and safety of passengers and crew on cruise vessels, and for
other purposes.
SA 4340. Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Nelson of
Florida, Mrs. Shaheen, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Whitehouse, and
Mr. Reed) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4341. Mr. DORGAN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4342. Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Ensign)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 4301 proposed by Mr. Baucus to the bill H.R. 4213, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 4334. Mr. ISAKSON (for himself, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Reid) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 4301 proposed by
Mr. Baucus to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of part I of subtitle B of title II, insert the
following:
SEC. --. FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 36(h) is amended
by striking ``paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting
`July 1, 2010''' and inserting ``and who purchases such
residence before October 1, 2010, paragraph (1) shall be
applied by substituting `October 1, 2010'''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (B) of section
36(h)(3) is amended by inserting ``and for `October 1,
2010''' after ``for `July 1, 2010'''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to residences purchased after June 30, 2010.
______
SA 4335. Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
LeMieux, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Cochran, and Mr.
Schumer) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA
4301 proposed by Mr. Baucus to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the end of title VI, add the following:
SEC. ___. 5-YEAR NET OPERATING LOSS CARRYBACK FOR CERTAIN OIL
SPILL-RELATED LOSSES.
(a) Extension of Net Operating Loss Carryback Period.--
Paragraph (1) of section 172(b) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(K) Certain oil spill-related losses.--In the case of a
taxpayer which has a qualified oil spill loss (as defined in
subsection (k)) for a taxable year, such qualified oil spill
loss shall be a net operating loss carryback to each of the 5
taxable years preceding the taxable year of such loss.''.
(b) Qualified Oil Spill Loss.--Section 172 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection
(k) as subsection (l) and by inserting after subsection (j)
the following new subsection:
``(k) Rules Relating to Qualified Oil Spill Losses.--For
purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified oil spill losses.--
``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
paragraph, the term `qualified oil spill loss' means the
lesser of--
``(i) the excess of--
``(I) the amount of losses in a taxable year ending after
April 20, 2010, and before October 1, 2011, incurred by a
commercial or charter fishing business operating in the Gulf
of Mexico or a Gulf of Mexico tourism-related business
attributable to the discharge of oil that began in 2010 in
connection with the explosion on, and sinking of, the mobile
offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon, over
``(II) amounts received during such taxable year as
payments for lost profits and earning capacity under section
1002(b)(2)(E) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
2702(b)(2)(E)), or
``(ii) the amount of the net operating loss for such
taxable year.
``(B) Safe harbor for certain small businesses.--In the
case of--
``(i) any commercial or charter fishing business operating
in the Gulf of Mexico, or
``(ii) any Gulf of Mexico tourism-related business,
the gross revenues of which for any taxable year ending after
April 20, 2010, and before October 1, 2011, do not exceed
$5,000,000, such term means the amount of the net operating
loss of such business for such taxable year.
``(C) Coordination with qualified disaster losses.--Such
term shall not include any qualified disaster loss (as
defined in subsection (j)).
``(2) Coordination with subsection (b)(2).--For purposes of
applying subsection (b)(2), a qualified oil spill loss for
any taxable year shall be treated in a manner similar to the
manner in which a specified liability loss is treated.
``(3) Election.--Any taxpayer entitled to a 5-year
carryback under subsection (b)(1)(K) from any loss year may
elect to have the carryback period with respect to such loss
year determined without regard to subsection (b)(1)(K). Such
election shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by
the Secretary and shall be made by the due date (including
extensions of time) for filing the taxpayer's return for the
taxable year of the
[[Page 10461]]
net operating loss. Such election, once made for any taxable
year, shall be irrevocable for such taxable year.
``(4) Gulf of mexico tourism-related business.--For
purposes of this subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `Gulf of Mexico tourism-related
business' means a hotel, lodging, recreation, entertainment,
or restaurant business located in a Gulf Coast community.
``(B) Gulf coast community.--The term `Gulf Coast
community' means any county or parish in the States of
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, or Florida which borders the
Gulf of Mexico.''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to net operating losses arising in taxable years ending after
April 20, 2010.
(2) Transition rule.--In the case of a net operating loss
for a taxable year ending before the date of the enactment of
this Act--
(A) notwithstanding section 172(b)(1)(H)(iii)(II), any
election made under subsection (b)(1)(H) or 172(b)(3) of
section 172 of such Code with respect to such loss may
(notwithstanding such section) be revoked before the
applicable date,
(B) any election made under section 172(b)(1)(K) of such
Code with respect to such loss shall (notwithstanding such
section) be treated as timely made if made before the
applicable date, and
(C) any application under section 6411(a) of such Code with
respect to such loss shall be treated as timely filed if
filed before the applicable date.
For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``applicable date''
means the date which is 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______
SA 4336. Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Crapo, Mr.
Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Brownback) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring
provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
At the end, add the following:
TITLE VIII--SMALL BUSINESS PENALTY FAIRNESS
SEC. 801. LIMITATION ON PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE
REPORTABLE TRANSACTIONS BASED ON RESULTING TAX
BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 6707A of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Amount of Penalty.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amount of the penalty under subsection (a)
with respect to any reportable transaction shall be 75
percent of the decrease in tax shown on the return as a
result of such transaction (or which would have resulted from
such transaction if such transaction were respected for
Federal tax purposes).
``(2) Maximum penalty.--The amount of the penalty under
subsection (a) with respect to any reportable transaction
shall not exceed--
``(A) in the case of a listed transaction, $200,000
($100,000 in the case of a natural person),
``(B) in the case of any other reportable transaction,
$50,000 ($10,000 in the case of a natural person).
``(3) Minimum penalty.--The amount of the penalty under
subsection (a) with respect to any transaction shall not be
less than $10,000 ($5,000 in the case of a natural
person).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to penalties assessed after December 31, 2006.
SEC. 802. REPORT ON TAX SHELTER PENALTIES AND CERTAIN OTHER
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.
(a) In General.--The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall submit
to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate an
annual report on the penalties assessed by the Internal
Revenue Service during the preceding year under each of the
following provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986:
(1) Section 6662A (relating to accuracy-related penalty on
understatements with respect to reportable transactions).
(2) Section 6700(a) (relating to promoting abusive tax
shelters).
(3) Section 6707 (relating to failure to furnish
information regarding reportable transactions).
(4) Section 6707A (relating to failure to include
reportable transaction information with return).
(5) Section 6708 (relating to failure to maintain lists of
advisees with respect to reportable transactions).
(b) Additional Information.--The report required under
subsection (a) shall also include information on the
following with respect to each year:
(1) Any action taken under section 330(b) of title 31,
United States Code, with respect to any reportable
transaction (as defined in section 6707A(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986).
(2) Any extension of the time for assessment of tax
enforced, or assessment of any amount under such an
extension, under paragraph (10) of section 6501(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(c) Date of Report.--The first report required under
subsection (a) shall be submitted not later than December 31,
2010.
SEC. 803. APPLICATION OF BAD CHECKS PENALTY TO ELECTRONIC
PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 6657 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``If any check or money order in payment of
any amount'' and inserting ``If any instrument in payment, by
any commercially acceptable means, of any amount'', and
(2) by striking ``such check'' each place it appears and
inserting ``such instrument''.
(b) Effective Dates.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to instruments tendered after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 804. APPLICATION OF LEVY TO PAYMENTS TO FEDERAL VENDORS
RELATING TO PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Section 6331(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``goods or services'' and
inserting ``property, goods, or services''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to levies approved after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______
SA 4337. Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. Dorgan) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 4301 proposed by Mr.
Baucus to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 363, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
(c) Program Audits.--Subsection (b)(8)(D) of the Travel
Promotion Act of 2009 (22 U.S.C. 2131(b)(8)(D)) is amended by
striking ``2 years after the date of enactment of this
section,'' and inserting ``3 years after the date of
enactment of the Travel Promotion Act of 2009,''.
(d) Research Program.--Section 203(b) of the International
Travel Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2123a(b)) is amended by
striking ``2010 through 2014'' and inserting ``2010 through
2015''.
(e) Correction of Cross-reference.--Section 202(c)(1) of
the International Travel Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2123(c)(1))
is amended by striking ``subsection (b) of section 11 of the
Travel Promotion Act of 2009'' and inserting ``subsection (b)
of the Travel Promotion Act of 2009 (22 U.S.C. 2131(b))''.
______
SA 4338. Mr. WICKER (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Cochran, and Mr.
Vitter) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA
4301 proposed by Mr. Baucus to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the end of subpart B of part II of subtitle D of title
II, add the following:
SEC. ___. SPECIAL DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (6) of section 1400N(d)(6) is
amended by striking subparagraph (D).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2009.
______
SA 4339. Mr. DORGAN (for Mr. Rockefeller) proposed an amendment to
the bill H.R. 3360, to amend title 46, United States Code, to establish
requirements to ensure the security and safety of passengers and crew
on cruise vessels, and for other purposes, as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Cruise
Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Cruise vessel security and safety requirements.
Sec. 4. Offset of administrative costs.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) There are approximately 200 overnight ocean-going
cruise vessels worldwide. The average ocean-going cruise
vessel carries 2,000 passengers with a crew of 950 people.
(2) In 2007 alone, approximately 12,000,000 passengers were
projected to take a cruise worldwide.
(3) Passengers on cruise vessels have an inadequate
appreciation of their potential vulnerability to crime while
on ocean voyages,
[[Page 10462]]
and those who may be victimized lack the information they
need to understand their legal rights or to know whom to
contact for help in the immediate aftermath of the crime.
(4) Sexual violence, the disappearance of passengers from
vessels on the high seas, and other serious crimes have
occurred during luxury cruises.
(5) Over the last 5 years, sexual assault and physical
assaults on cruise vessels were the leading crimes
investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation with
regard to cruise vessel incidents.
(6) These crimes at sea can involve attacks both by
passengers and crewmembers on other passengers and
crewmembers.
(7) Except for United States flagged vessels, or foreign
flagged vessels operating in an area subject to the direct
jurisdiction of the United States, there are no Federal
statutes or regulations that explicitly require cruise lines
to report alleged crimes to United States Government
officials.
(8) It is not known precisely how often crimes occur on
cruise vessels or exactly how many people have disappeared
during ocean voyages because cruise line companies do not
make comprehensive, crime-related data readily available to
the public.
(9) Obtaining reliable crime-related cruise data from
governmental sources can be difficult, because multiple
countries may be involved when a crime occurs on the high
seas, including the flag country for the vessel, the country
of citizenship of particular passengers, and any countries
having special or maritime jurisdiction.
(10) It can be difficult for professional crime
investigators to immediately secure an alleged crime scene on
a cruise vessel, recover evidence of an onboard offense, and
identify or interview potential witnesses to the alleged
crime.
(11) Most cruise vessels that operate into and out of
United States ports are registered under the laws of another
country, and investigations and prosecutions of crimes
against passengers and crewmembers may involve the laws and
authorities of multiple nations.
(12) The Department of Homeland Security has found it
necessary to establish 500-yard security zones around cruise
vessels to limit the risk of terrorist attack. Recently
piracy has dramatically increased throughout the world.
(13) To enhance the safety of cruise passengers, the owners
of cruise vessels could upgrade, modernize, and retrofit the
safety and security infrastructure on such vessels by
installing peep holes in passenger room doors, installing
security video cameras in targeted areas, limiting access to
passenger rooms to select staff during specific times, and
installing acoustic hailing and warning devices capable of
communicating over distances.
SEC. 3. CRUISE VESSEL SECURITY AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 35 of title 46, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 3507. Passenger vessel security and safety
requirements
``(a) Vessel Design, Equipment, Construction, and
Retrofitting Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--Each vessel to which this subsection
applies shall comply with the following design and
construction standards:
``(A) The vessel shall be equipped with ship rails that are
located not less than 42 inches above the cabin deck.
``(B) Each passenger stateroom and crew cabin shall be
equipped with entry doors that include peep holes or other
means of visual identification.
``(C) For any vessel the keel of which is laid after the
date of enactment of the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety
Act of 2010, each passenger stateroom and crew cabin shall be
equipped with--
``(i) security latches; and
``(ii) time-sensitive key technology.
``(D) The vessel shall integrate technology that can be
used for capturing images of passengers or detecting
passengers who have fallen overboard, to the extent that such
technology is available.
``(E) The vessel shall be equipped with a sufficient number
of operable acoustic hailing or other such warning devices to
provide communication capability around the entire vessel
when operating in high risk areas (as defined by the United
States Coast Guard).
``(2) Fire safety codes.--In administering the requirements
of paragraph (1)(C), the Secretary shall take into
consideration fire safety and other applicable emergency
requirements established by the U. S. Coast Guard and under
international law, as appropriate.
``(3) Effective date.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the requirements of paragraph (1) shall take effect 18 months
after the date of enactment of the Cruise Vessel Security and
Safety Act of 2010.
``(B) Latch and key requirements.--The requirements of
paragraph (1)(C) take effect on the date of enactment of the
Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010.
``(b) Video Recording.--
``(1) Requirement to maintain surveillance.--The owner of a
vessel to which this section applies shall maintain a video
surveillance system to assist in documenting crimes on the
vessel and in providing evidence for the prosecution of such
crimes, as determined by the Secretary.
``(2) Access to video records.--The owner of a vessel to
which this section applies shall provide to any law
enforcement official performing official duties in the course
and scope of an investigation, upon request, a copy of all
records of video surveillance that the official believes may
provide evidence of a crime reported to law enforcement
officials.
``(c) Safety Information.--
``(1) Criminal Activity Prevention and Response Guide.--The
owner of a vessel to which this section applies (or the
owner's designee) shall--
``(A) have available for each passenger a guide (referred
to in this subsection as the `security guide'), written in
commonly understood English, which--
``(i) provides a description of medical and security
personnel designated on board to prevent and respond to
criminal and medical situations with 24 hour contact
instructions;
(ii) describes the jurisdictional authority applicable, and
the law enforcement processes available, with respect to the
reporting of homicide, suspicious death, a missing United
States national, kidnapping, assault with serious bodily
injury, any offense to which section 2241, 2242, 2243, or
2244(a) or (c) of title 18 applies, firing or tampering with
the vessel, or theft of money or property in excess of
$10,000, together with contact information for the
appropriate law enforcement authorities for missing persons
or reportable crimes which arise--
``(I) in the territorial waters of the United States;
``(II) on the high seas; or
``(III) in any country to be visited on the voyage;
``(B) provide a copy of the security guide to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation for comment; and
``(C) publicize the security guide on the website of the
vessel owner.
``(2) Embassy and consulate locations.--The owner of a
vessel to which this section applies shall provide in each
passenger stateroom, and post in a location readily
accessible to all crew and in other places specified by the
Secretary, information regarding the locations of the United
States embassy and each consulate of the United States for
each country the vessel will visit during the course of the
voyage.
``(d) Sexual Assault.--The owner of a vessel to which this
section applies shall--
``(1) maintain on the vessel adequate, in-date supplies of
anti-retroviral medications and other medications designed to
prevent sexually transmitted diseases after a sexual assault;
``(2) maintain on the vessel equipment and materials for
performing a medical examination in sexual assault cases to
evaluate the patient for trauma, provide medical care, and
preserve relevant medical evidence;
``(3) make available on the vessel at all times medical
staff who have undergone a credentialing process to verify
that he or she--
``(A) possesses a current physician's or registered nurse's
license and--
``(i) has at least 3 years of post-graduate or post-
registration clinical practice in general and emergency
medicine; or
``(ii) holds board certification in emergency medicine,
family practice medicine, or internal medicine;
``(B) is able to provide assistance in the event of an
alleged sexual assault, has received training in conducting
forensic sexual assault examination, and is able to promptly
perform such an examination upon request and provide proper
medical treatment of a victim, including administration of
anti-retroviral medications and other medications that may
prevent the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus and
other sexually transmitted diseases; and
``(C) meets guidelines established by the American College
of Emergency Physicians relating to the treatment and care of
victims of sexual assault;
``(4) prepare, provide to the patient, and maintain written
documentation of the findings of such examination that is
signed by the patient; and
``(5) provide the patient free and immediate access to--
``(A) contact information for local law enforcement, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Coast
Guard, the nearest United States consulate or embassy, and
the National Sexual Assault Hotline program or other third
party victim advocacy hotline service; and
``(B) a private telephone line and Internet-accessible
computer terminal by which the individual may confidentially
access law enforcement officials, an attorney, and the
information and support services available through the
National Sexual Assault Hotline program or other third party
victim advocacy hotline service.
``(e) Confidentiality of Sexual Assault Examination and
Support Information.--The master or other individual in
charge of a vessel to which this section applies shall--
``(1) treat all information concerning an examination under
subsection (d) confidential, so that no medical information
may be
[[Page 10463]]
released to the cruise line or other owner of the vessel or
any legal representative thereof without the prior knowledge
and approval in writing of the patient, or, if the patient is
unable to provide written authorization, the patient's next-
of-kin, except that nothing in this paragraph prohibits the
release of--
``(A) information, other than medical findings, necessary
for the owner or master of the vessel to comply with the
provisions of subsection (g) or other applicable incident
reporting laws;
``(B) information to secure the safety of passengers or
crew on board the vessel; or
``(C) any information to law enforcement officials
performing official duties in the course and scope of an
investigation; and
``(2) treat any information derived from, or obtained in
connection with, post-assault counseling or other supportive
services confidential, so no such information may be released
to the cruise line or any legal representative thereof
without the prior knowledge and approval in writing of the
patient, or, if the patient is unable to provide written
authorization, the patient's next-of-kin.
``(f) Crew Access to Passenger Staterooms.--The owner of a
vessel to which this section applies shall--
``(1) establish and implement procedures and restrictions
concerning--
``(A) which crewmembers have access to passenger
staterooms; and
``(B) the periods during which they have that access; and
``(2) ensure that the procedures and restrictions are fully
and properly implemented and periodically reviewed.
``(g) Log Book and Reporting Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--The owner of a vessel to which this
section applies shall--
``(A) record in a log book, either electronically or
otherwise, in a centralized location readily accessible to
law enforcement personnel, a report on--
``(i) all complaints of crimes described in paragraph
(3)(A)(i),
``(ii) all complaints of theft of property valued in excess
of $1,000, and
``(iii) all complaints of other crimes,
committed on any voyage that embarks or disembarks passengers
in the United States; and
``(B) make such log book available upon request to any
agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, any member of
the United States Coast Guard, and any law enforcement
officer performing official duties in the course and scope of
an investigation.
``(2) Details required.--The information recorded under
paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum--
``(A) the vessel operator;
``(B) the name of the cruise line;
``(C) the flag under which the vessel was operating at the
time the reported incident occurred;
``(D) the age and gender of the victim and the accused
assailant;
``(E) the nature of the alleged crime or complaint, as
applicable, including whether the alleged perpetrator was a
passenger or a crewmember;
``(F) the vessel's position at the time of the incident, if
known, or the position of the vessel at the time of the
initial report;
``(G) the time, date, and method of the initial report and
the law enforcement authority to which the initial report was
made;
``(H) the time and date the incident occurred, if known;
``(I) the total number of passengers and the total number
of crew members on the voyage; and
``(J) the case number or other identifier provided by the
law enforcement authority to which the initial report was
made.
``(3) Requirement to report crimes and other information.--
``(A) In general.--The owner of a vessel to which this
section applies (or the owner's designee)--
``(i) shall contact the nearest Federal Bureau of
Investigation Field Office or Legal Attache by telephone as
soon as possible after the occurrence on board the vessel of
an incident involving homicide, suspicious death, a missing
United States national, kidnapping, assault with serious
bodily injury, any offense to which section 2241, 2242, 2243,
or 2244(a) or (c) of title 18 applies, firing or tampering
with the vessel, or theft of money or property in excess of
$10,000 to report the incident;
``(ii) shall furnish a written report of the incident to an
Internet based portal maintained by the Secretary;
``(iii) may report any serious incident that does not meet
the reporting requirements of clause (i) and that does not
require immediate attention by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation via the Internet based portal maintained by the
Secretary; and
``(iv) may report any other criminal incident involving
passengers or crewmembers, or both, to the proper State or
local government law enforcement authority.
``(B) Incidents to which subparagraph (A) applies.--
Subparagraph (A) applies to an incident involving criminal
activity if--
``(i) the vessel, regardless of registry, is owned, in
whole or in part, by a United States person, regardless of
the nationality of the victim or perpetrator, and the
incident occurs when the vessel is within the admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction of the United States and outside the
jurisdiction of any State;
``(ii) the incident concerns an offense by or against a
United States national committed outside the jurisdiction of
any nation;
``(iii) the incident occurs in the Territorial Sea of the
United States, regardless of the nationality of the vessel,
the victim, or the perpetrator; or
``(iv) the incident concerns a victim or perpetrator who is
a United States national on a vessel during a voyage that
departed from or will arrive at a United States port.
``(4) Availability of incident data via internet.--
``(A) Website.--The Secretary shall maintain a statistical
compilation of all incidents described in paragraph (3)(A)(i)
on an Internet site that provides a numerical accounting of
the missing persons and alleged crimes recorded in each
report filed under paragraph (3)(A)(i) that are no longer
under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The data shall be updated no less frequently than quarterly,
aggregated by cruise line, each cruise line shall be
identified by name, and each crime shall be identified as to
whether it was committed by a passenger or a crew member.
``(B) Access to website.--Each cruise line taking on or
discharging passengers in the United States shall include a
link on its Internet website to the website maintained by the
Secretary under subparagraph (A).
``(h) Enforcement.--
``(1) Penalties.--
``(A) Civil penalty.--Any person that violates this section
or a regulation under this section shall be liable for a
civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each day during
which the violation continues, except that the maximum
penalty for a continuing violation is $50,000.
``(B) Criminal penalty.--Any person that willfully violates
this section or a regulation under this section shall be
fined not more than $250,000 or imprisoned not more than 1
year, or both.
``(2) Denial of entry.--The Secretary may deny entry into
the United States to a vessel to which this section applies
if the owner of the vessel--
``(A) commits an act or omission for which a penalty may be
imposed under this subsection; or
``(B) fails to pay a penalty imposed on the owner under
this subsection.
``(i) Procedures.--Within 6 months after the date of
enactment of the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of
2010, the Secretary shall issue guidelines, training
curricula, and inspection and certification procedures
necessary to carry out the requirements of this section.
``(j) Regulations.--The Secretary and the Commandant shall
each issue such regulations as are necessary to implement
this section.
``(k) Application.--
``(1) In general.--This section and section 3508 apply to a
passenger vessel (as defined in section 2101(22)) that--
``(A) is authorized to carry at least 250 passengers;
``(B) has onboard sleeping facilities for each passenger;
``(C) is on a voyage that embarks or disembarks passengers
in the United States; and
``(D) is not engaged on a coastwise voyage.
``(2) Federal and state vessels.--This section and section
3508 do not apply to a vessel of the United States operated
by the Federal Government or a vessel owned and operated by a
State.
``(l) Definitions.--In this section and section 3508:
``(1) Commandant.--The term `Commandant' means the
Commandant of the Coast Guard.
``(2) Owner.--The term `owner' means the owner, charterer,
managing operator, master, or other individual in charge of a
vessel.
``3508. Crime scene preservation training for passenger
vessel crewmembers
``(a) In General.--Within 1 year after the date of
enactment of the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of
2010, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Maritime
Administration, shall develop training standards and
curricula to allow for the certification of passenger vessel
security personnel, crewmembers, and law enforcement
officials on the appropriate methods for prevention,
detection, evidence preservation, and reporting of criminal
activities in the international maritime environment. The
Administrator of the Maritime Administration may certify
organizations in the United States and abroad that offer the
curriculum for training and certification under subsection
(c).
``(b) Minimum Standards.--The standards established by the
Secretary under subsection (a) shall include--
``(1) the training and certification of vessel security
personnel, crewmembers, and law enforcement officials in
accordance with accepted law enforcement and security
guidelines, policies, and procedures, including
recommendations for incorporating a background check process
for personnel trained and certified in foreign ports;
``(2) the training of students and instructors in all
aspects of prevention, detection, evidence preservation, and
reporting of
[[Page 10464]]
criminal activities in the international maritime
environment; and
``(3) the provision or recognition of off-site training and
certification courses in the United States and foreign
countries to develop and provide the required training and
certification described in subsection (a) and to enhance
security awareness and security practices related to the
preservation of evidence in response to crimes on board
passenger vessels.
``(c) Certification Requirement.--Beginning 2 years after
the standards are established under subsection (b), no vessel
to which this section applies may enter a United States port
on a voyage (or voyage segment) on which a United States
citizen is a passenger unless there is at least 1 crewmember
onboard who is certified as having successfully completed
training in the prevention, detection, evidence preservation,
and reporting of criminal activities in the international
maritime environment on passenger vessels under subsection
(a).
``(d) Interim Training Requirement.--No vessel to which
this section applies may enter a United States port on a
voyage (or voyage segment) on which a United States citizen
is a passenger unless there is at least 1 crewmember onboard
who has been properly trained in the prevention detection,
evidence preservation and the reporting requirements of
criminal activities in the international maritime
environment. The owner of a such a vessel shall maintain
certification or other documentation, as prescribed by the
Secretary, verifying the training of such individual and
provide such documentation upon request for inspection in
connection with enforcement of the provisions of this
section. This subsection shall take effect 1 year after the
date of enactment of the Cruise Vessel Safety and Security
Act of 2010 and shall remain in effect until superseded by
the requirements of subsection (c).
``(e) Civil Penalty.--Any person that violates this section
or a regulation under this section shall be liable for a
civil penalty of not more than $50,000.
``(f) Denial of Entry.--The Secretary may deny entry into
the United States to a vessel to which this section applies
if the owner of the vessel--
``(1) commits an act or omission for which a penalty may be
imposed under subsection (e); or
``(2) fails to pay a penalty imposed on the owner under
subsection (e).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for such
chapter is amended by adding at the end the following:
``3507. Passenger vessel security and safety requirements
``3508. Crime scene preservation training for passenger
vessel crewmembers''.
SEC. 4. OFFSET OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
(a) Repeal of Certain Report Requirements.--
(1) Section 1130 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2720 note) is amended by striking subsection
(b).
(2) Section 112 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act
of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 70101 note) is repealed.
(3) Section 676 of title 14, United States Code, is amended
by striking subsection (d).
(4) Section 355 of title 37, United States Code, is amended
by striking subsection (h) and redesignating subsection (i)
as subsection (h).
(5) Section 205 of the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2004 (14 U.S.C. 637 note) is amended by
striking subsection (d).
(b) Combination of Fisheries Enforcement Plans and Foreign
Fishing Incursion Reports.--The Secretary of the department
in which the Coast Guard is operating shall combine the
reports required under section 224 of the Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (16 U.S.C. 1861b) and
section 804 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Act of 2004 (16 U.S.C. 1828) into a single annual report for
fiscal years beginning after fiscal year 2010.
SEC. 5. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall
be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act,
submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the
Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such
statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
______
SA 4340. Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Nelson of Florida,
Mrs. Shaheen, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Reed) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring
provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
At the end of the amendment, insert the following:
TITLE __--AUTHORIZING SPECIAL MEASURES FOR JURISDICTIONS, FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS, INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS, OR TYPES OF ACCOUNTS THAT ARE
OF PRIMARY MONEY LAUNDERING CONCERN OR IMPEDE UNITED STATES TAX
ENFORCEMENT
SEC. ___. AUTHORIZING SPECIAL MEASURES FOR JURISDICTIONS,
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, INTERNATIONAL
TRANSACTIONS, OR TYPES OF ACCOUNTS THAT ARE OF
PRIMARY MONEY LAUNDERING CONCERN OR IMPEDE
UNITED STATES TAX ENFORCEMENT.
Section 5318A of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``Sec. 5318A. Special measures for jurisdictions, financial
institutions, or international transactions that are of
primary money laundering concern or impede United States
tax enforcement'';
(2) in subsection (a), by striking the subsection heading
and inserting the following:
``(a) Special Measures To Counter Money Laundering and
Efforts To Impede United States Tax Enforcement.--'';
(3) in subsection (c), by striking the subsection heading
and inserting the following:
``(c) Consultations and Information To Be Considered in
Finding Jurisdictions, Institutions, Types of Accounts, or
Transactions To Be of Primary Money Laundering Concern or To
Be Impeding United States Tax Enforcement.--'';
(4) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``or is impeding
United States tax enforcement'' after ``primary money
laundering concern'';
(5) in subsection (a)(4)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by inserting ``in matters involving money laundering,''
before ``shall consult''; and
(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) in matters involving United States tax enforcement,
shall consult with the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue,
the Secretary of State, the Attorney General of the United
States, and in the sole discretion of the Secretary, such
other agencies and interested parties as the Secretary may
find to be appropriate; and'';
(6) in each of paragraphs (1)(A), (2), (3), and (4) of
subsection (b), by inserting ``or to be impeding United
States tax enforcement'' after ``primary money laundering
concern'' each place that term appears;
(7) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (5) and
inserting the following:
``(5) Prohibitions or conditions on opening or maintaining
certain correspondent or payable-through accounts or
authorizing certain payment cards.--If the Secretary finds a
jurisdiction outside of the United States, 1 or more
financial institutions operating outside of the United
States, or 1 or more classes of transactions within or
involving a jurisdiction outside of the United States to be
of primary money laundering concern or to be impeding United
States tax enforcement, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of State, the Attorney General of the United
States, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, may prohibit, or impose conditions
upon--
``(A) the opening or maintaining in the United States of a
correspondent account or payable-through account; or
``(B) the authorization, approval, or use in the United
States of a credit card, charge card, debit card, or similar
credit or debit financial instrument by any domestic
financial institution, financial agency, or credit card
company or association, for or on behalf of a foreign banking
institution, if such correspondent account, payable-through
account, credit card, charge card, debit card, or similar
credit or debit financial instrument, involves any such
jurisdiction or institution, or if any such transaction may
be conducted through such correspondent account, payable-
through account, credit card, charge card, debit card, or
similar credit or debit financial instrument.''; and
(8) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``or is impeding
United States tax enforcement'' after ``primary money
laundering concern'';
(9) in subsection (c)(2)(A)--
(A) in clause (ii), by striking ``bank secrecy or special
regulatory advantages'' and inserting ``bank, tax, corporate,
trust, or financial secrecy or regulatory advantages'';
(B) in clause (iii), by striking ``supervisory and counter-
money'' and inserting ``supervisory, international tax
enforcement, and counter-money'';
(C) in clause (v), by striking ``banking or secrecy'' and
inserting ``banking, tax, or secrecy''; and
(D) in clause (vi), by inserting ``, tax treaty, or tax
information exchange agreement'' after ``treaty'';
(10) in subsection (c)(2)(B)--
(A) in clause (i), by inserting ``or tax evasion'' after
``money laundering''; and
(B) in clause (iii), by inserting ``, tax evasion,'' after
``money laundering''; and
(11) in subsection (d), by inserting ``involving money
laundering, and shall notify, in writing, the Committee on
Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of
the House of Representatives of any such action involving
United States tax enforcement'' after ``such action''.
[[Page 10465]]
______
SA 4341. Mr. DORGAN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of subtitle A of title IV, add the following:
SEC. ___. TAXATION OF INCOME OF CONTROLLED FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO IMPORTED PROPERTY.
(a) General Rule.--Subsection (a) of section 954 (defining
foreign base company income) is amended by striking the
period at the end of paragraph (5) and inserting ``, and'',
by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4), and by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) imported property income for the taxable year
(determined under subsection (j) and reduced as provided in
subsection (b)(5)).''.
(b) Definition of Imported Property Income.--Section 954 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(j) Imported Property Income.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(5), the
term `imported property income' means income (whether in the
form of profits, commissions, fees, or otherwise) derived in
connection with--
``(A) manufacturing, producing, growing, or extracting
imported property;
``(B) the sale, exchange, or other disposition of imported
property; or
``(C) the lease, rental, or licensing of imported property.
Such term shall not include any foreign oil and gas
extraction income (within the meaning of section 907(c)) or
any foreign oil related income (within the meaning of section
907(c)).
``(2) Imported property.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
paragraph, the term `imported property' means property which
is imported into the United States by the controlled foreign
corporation or a related person.
``(B) Imported property includes certain property imported
by unrelated persons.--The term `imported property' includes
any property imported into the United States by an unrelated
person if, when such property was sold to the unrelated
person by the controlled foreign corporation (or a related
person), it was reasonable to expect that--
``(i) such property would be imported into the United
States; or
``(ii) such property would be used as a component in other
property which would be imported into the United States.
``(C) Exception for property subsequently exported.--The
term `imported property' does not include any property which
is imported into the United States and which--
``(i) before substantial use in the United States, is sold,
leased, or rented by the controlled foreign corporation or a
related person for direct use, consumption, or disposition
outside the United States; or
``(ii) is used by the controlled foreign corporation or a
related person as a component in other property which is so
sold, leased, or rented.
``(D) Exception for certain agricultural commodities.--The
term `imported property' does not include any agricultural
commodity which is not grown in the United States in
commercially marketable quantities.
``(3) Definitions and special rules.--
``(A) Import.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
`import' means entering, or withdrawal from warehouse, for
consumption or use. Such term includes any grant of the right
to use intangible property (as defined in section
936(h)(3)(B)) in the United States.
``(B) United states.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `United States' includes the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, Guam, American
Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
``(C) Unrelated person.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `unrelated person' means any person who is not a
related person with respect to the controlled foreign
corporation.
``(D) Coordination with foreign base company sales
income.--For purposes of this section, the term `foreign base
company sales income' shall not include any imported property
income.''.
(c) Separate Application of Limitations on Foreign Tax
Credit for Imported Property Income.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 904(d) (relating
to separate application of section with respect to certain
categories of income) is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of subparagraph (A), by redesignating subparagraph (B) as
subparagraph (C), and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the
following new subparagraph:
``(B) imported property income, and''.
(2) Imported property income defined.--Paragraph (2) of
section 904(d) is amended by redesignating subparagraphs (I),
(J), and (K) as subparagraphs (J), (K), and (L),
respectively, and by inserting after subparagraph (H) the
following new subparagraph:
``(I) Imported property income.--The term `imported
property income' means any income received or accrued by any
person which is of a kind which would be imported property
income (as defined in section 954(j)).''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Clause (ii) of section
904(d)(2)(A) is amended by inserting ``or imported property
income'' after ``passive category income''.
(d) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Clause (iii) of section 952(c)(1)(B) (relating to
certain prior year deficits may be taken into account) is
amended--
(A) by redesignating subclauses (II), (III), (IV), and (V)
as subclauses (III), (IV), (V), and (VI), and
(B) by inserting after subclause (I) the following new
subclause:
``(II) imported property income,''.
(2) The last sentence of paragraph (4) of section 954(b)
(relating to exception for certain income subject to high
foreign taxes) is amended by striking ``subsection (a)(5)''
and inserting ``subsection (a)(4)''.
(3) Paragraph (5) of section 954(b) (relating to deductions
to be taken into account) is amended by striking ``and the
foreign base company oil related income'' and inserting ``the
foreign base company oil related income, and the imported
property income''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years of foreign corporations
beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act, and to
taxable years of United States shareholders within which or
with which such taxable years of such foreign corporations
end.
______
SA 4342. Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Ensign) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 4301 proposed by
Mr. Baucus to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 413.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
Committee on Commerce, science, and transportation
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate on June 10, 2010, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of
the Russell Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on finance
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on
June 10, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office
Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The U.S.-China Economic
Relationship: A New Approach for A New China.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on foreign relations
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on June 10, 2010, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled
``Strategic Arms Control and National Security (Treaty Doc. 111-5).''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on health, education, labor, and pensions
Mrs. BOXER. 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 ``Production
over Protections: A Review of Process Safety Management in the Oil and
Gas Industry'' on June 10, 2010. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m.
in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Mrs. BOXER. 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 June 10, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Indian Affairs
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on June 10, 2010, at 3 p.m. in room
[[Page 10466]]
628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on the Judiciary
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate
on June 10, 2010, at 10 a.m. in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office
Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness
and Integration
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc
Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and
Integration of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June
10, 2010, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Deep Impact:
Assessing the Effects of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on States,
Localities and the Private Sector.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Select Committee on Intelligence
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on June 10, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Julie
DeMeester, a fellow in Senator Durbin's office, be granted the
privilege of the floor for the duration of the Murkowski resolution
debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of
Senator Baucus, that a fellow, Andrew Erickson, be granted the
privileges of the floor during the consideration of this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed
to executive session to consider Calendar No. 932 and all nominations
on the Secretary's desk in the Coast Guard and NOAA; that the
nominations be confirmed en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid
upon the table en bloc; that no further motions be in order; that any
statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, and
that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:
In the Coast Guard
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Coast Guard to the grade indicated under section 271,
title 14, U.S.C.:
To be rear admiral
Rear Adm. (lh) Joseph R. Castillo
Rear Adm. (lh) Daniel R. May
Rear Adm. (lh) Roy A. Nash
Rear Adm. (lh) Peter F. Neffenger
Rear Adm. (lh) Charles W. Ray
Rear Adm. (lh) Keith A. Taylor
Nominations Placed on the Secretary's Desk
In the Coast Guard
PN1771 COAST GUARD nominations (4) beginning Emily S.
McIntyre, and ending Scott J. McCann, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of May 13, 2010.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
PN1622 NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
nominations (20) beginning REBECCA J. ALMEIDA, and ending
OLIVER E. BROWN, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of April 14,
2010.
PN1732 NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
nominations (16) beginning TIMOTHY C. SINQUEFIELD, and ending
LARRY V. THOMAS JR., which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of April 29,
2010.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, June 15, at
11:30 a.m., the Senate proceed to executive session and debate
concurrently the following nominations on the Executive Calendar for a
total of 20 minutes, with the time equally divided and controlled
between Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees: Calendar No.
732, Tanya Pratt; Calendar No. 775, Brian Jackson; and Calendar No.
776, Elizabeth Foote; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the
Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nominations in the order
listed, and that after the first vote, the succeeding votes be limited
to 10 minutes each; that upon confirmation, the motions to reconsider
be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume
legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume legislative session.
____________________
CRUISE VESSEL SECURITY AND SAFETY ACT OF 2010
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed
to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 211, H.R. 3360.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3360) to amend title 46, United States Code,
to establish requirements to ensure the security and safety
of passengers and crew on cruise vessels, and for other
purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Cruise Vessel
Security and Safety Act of 2010 and glad to join the full Senate today
in passing this important bill. This legislation will improve the
safety of Americans traveling on cruise ships by increasing security
and crime reporting regulations.
Far too many incidents of sexual assault and other serious crimes
continue to occur on board cruise ships despite ongoing media and
Congressional attention to this problem. I have long worked to improve
protections for crime victims through landmark legislation including
the Victims of Crime Act and the Violence Against Women Act. I applaud
Senator Kerry for his leadership in ensuring those protections extend
to Americans traveling aboard cruise ships.
This important legislation will require the cruise industry to comply
with a number of commonsense security provisions, such as providing
peep holes and locks in sleeping cabins, and it mandates cruise vessel
personnel to contact both the FBI and the U.S. Coast Guard as soon as a
serious crime is reported.
I am particularly pleased to see that the legislation will improve
the treatment and protections victims receive on board a cruise ship
following a crime. For example, a licensed medical practitioner will be
required on board all ships to provide immediate treatment, including
medications to prevent sexually transmitted diseases after an assault
and to conduct forensic examinations to help collect critical evidence
for later prosecution. I have worked hard to ensure that these kinds of
services to assist victims and to facilitate successful prosecution of
those who commit terrible crimes are available throughout the country.
I am glad that this bill will help ensure that Americans traveling at
sea receive these same vital services.
These important commonsense provisions will help prevent further
crimes from happening by improving security measures on our country's
cruise ships, while also improving our ability to hold the perpetrators
of these serious crimes accountable. I am pleased to support this
important legislation.
[[Page 10467]]
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Rockefeller
substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as
amended, be read a third time, the bill be passed, the motions to
reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or
debate, and any statements be printed in the Record as if read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is the Statement of
Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation for H.R. 3360, the
Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010, as amended.
This statement has been prepared pursuant to Section 4 of the
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-139), and
is being submitted for printing in the Congressional Record
prior to passage of H.R. 3360, as amended, by the Senate.
Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 3360, as amended, for the
5-year Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: $0.
Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 3360, as amended, for the
10-year Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: $0.
Also submitted for the Record as part of this statement is
a table prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, which
provides additional information on the budgetary effects of
this Act.
CBO ESTIMATE OF THE STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 3360, THE CRUISE VESSEL SECURITY AND SAFETY ACT OF 2010, AS PROVIDED TO CBO BY THE SENATE
BUDGET COMMITTEE ON JUNE 9, 2010
[Version: June 8, 2010 4:53 pm]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: H.R. 3360 would address the safety of passengers and crew members on vessels. The bill would establish new criminal and civil penalties, but CBO
estimates that any new revenues or direct spending would be less than $500,000 annually.
The amendment (No. 4339) was agreed to.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text
of Amendments.'')
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill (H.R. 3360), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________
NATIONAL HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY WEEK
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 550 submitted earlier
today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 550) designating the week beginning
on June 14, 2010, ending on June 18, 2010, as ``National
Health Information Technology Week'' to recognize the value
of health information technology to improving health quality.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the
preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the
table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 550) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 550
Whereas the Healthcare Information and Management Systems
Society has collaborated with more than 5 dozen healthcare
organizations for almost 50 years to transform health care by
improving information technology and management systems;
Whereas the Center for Information Technology Leadership
estimates that the implementation of national standards for
interoperability and the exchange of health information would
save the United States approximately $77,000,000,000 in
expenses relating to health care each year;
Whereas health care information technology and management
systems have been recognized as essential tools for improving
the quality and cost efficiency of the health care system;
Whereas Congress has made a commitment to leveraging the
benefits of the health care information technology and
management systems, including through the adoption of
electronic medical records that will help to reduce costs and
improve quality while ensuring privacy of patients and
codification of the Office of the National Coordinator for
Health Information Technology;
Whereas Congress has emphasized improving the quality and
safety of delivery of health care in the United States; and
Whereas since 2006, organizations across the United States
have united to support National Health Information Technology
Week to improve public awareness of the benefits of improved
quality and cost efficiency of the health care system that
the implementation of health information technology could
achieve: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates the week beginning on June 14, 2010, and
ending on June 18, 2010, as ``National Health Information
Technology Week'';
(2) recognizes the value of information technology and
management systems in transforming health care for the people
of the United States; and
(3) calls on all interested parties to promote the use of
information technology and management systems to transform
the health care system in the United States.
____________________
APPOINTMENT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on behalf of the President pro
tempore, upon the recommendation of the Republican leader, pursuant to
Public Law 105-292, as amended by Public Law 106-55, and as further
amended by Public Law 107-228, appoints the following individual to the
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom: Leonard A.
Leo of Virginia Vice Preeta D. Bansal.
____________________
ORDERS FOR MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2010
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m.
Monday, June 14; 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 until 3
p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with
the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or
their designees. I further ask that following morning business the
Senate resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R.
4213, the extenders package.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. DORGAN. As a reminder, there will be no rollcall votes during
Monday's session. However, the bill manager will be here in the Chamber
of the Senate to continue working through amendments on the extenders
bill. The next rollcall votes will occur around 11:50 a.m. Tuesday,
June 15, on the confirmation of several judicial nominations.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2010, AT 2 P.M.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent
[[Page 10468]]
that it stand adjourned under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 6:05 p.m., adjourned until
Monday, June 14, 2010, at 2 p.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nomination received by the Senate:
THE JUDICIARY
JAMES E. GRAVES, JR., OF MISSISSIPPI, TO BE UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, VICE RHESA H. BARKSDALE,
RETIRED.
____________________
CONFIRMATIONS
Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate, Thursday, June 10,
2010:
IN THE COAST GUARD
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES COAST GUARD TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER SECTION 271,
TITLE 14, U.S.C.:
To be rear admiral
REAR ADM. (LH) JOSEPH R. CASTILLO
REAR ADM. (LH) DANIEL R. MAY
REAR ADM. (LH) ROY A. NASH
REAR ADM. (LH) PETER F. NEFFENGER
REAR ADM. (LH) CHARLES W. RAY
REAR ADM. (LH) KEITH A. TAYLOR
THE ABOVE NOMINATIONS WERE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE
NOMINEES' COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS TO APPEAR AND
TESTIFY BEFORE ANY DULY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE.
COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH EMILY S. MCINTYRE
AND ENDING WITH SCOTT J. MCCANN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON MAY 13, 2010.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION NOMINATIONS
BEGINNING WITH REBECCA J. ALMEIDA AND ENDING WITH OLIVER E.
BROWN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND
APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON APRIL 14, 2010.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION NOMINATIONS
BEGINNING WITH TIMOTHY C. SINQUEFIELD AND ENDING WITH LARRY
V. THOMAS, JR., WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE
AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON APRIL 29, 2010.
[[Page 10469]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, June 10, 2010
The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker.
____________________
PRAYER
Bishop Miles Fowler, Big Miller Grove Missionary Baptist Church,
Lithonia, Georgia, offered the following prayer:
God of all creation, we humbly approach Thy throne asking that You
bless this august body of men and women as they endeavor to create
legislation that will impact the lives of Your people.
Lord, help these leaders to lean not to their own understanding but
to acknowledge You and seek Your guidance, that You may direct their
paths.
We pray, Lord, that You give them the wisdom of Solomon, the strength
of Sampson, the courage of Esther, and let these be tempered with Your
grace.
Finally, Lord, bless President Obama, his family, and all of the
leaders of this great Nation, in the matchless name of Your Son, Jesus,
the Christ. 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 gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) come
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. FOXX 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 MILES E. FOWLER
The SPEAKER. Without objection, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Johnson) is recognized for 1 minute.
There was no objection.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, it is my great honor to
welcome our guest chaplain, Bishop Miles E. Fowler, to the House of
Representatives, and I thank him for offering his beautiful and
thoughtful prayer to us this morning.
Bishop Miles E. Fowler joins us today from Lithonia, Georgia, where
he is the pastor of Big Miller Grove Missionary Baptist Church, a
position he has proudly held for the past 33 years.
Having served our Nation in the Air Force Reserve from 1957 to 1965,
Bishop Fowler has since committed his life to the betterment of our
country and its citizens through his ministry. As a pastor to more than
1,500 parishioners and a spiritual leader to more than 30 ministers
under the auspices of Refuge Churches, his aim, personally and through
his ministry, has always been to provide aid, assistance, and spiritual
support in every aspect of our community.
As a committed husband, father, and grandfather--and his wife and
some relatives are seated up in the gallery--Bishop Fowler recognizes
the importance of family and has published two insightful works
providing spiritual guidance for married couples.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased Bishop Fowler was able to share some of
his words of wisdom and grace with us today. We recognize him for his
continued commitment to his faith and community.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER. The Chair will entertain up to 10 further requests for
1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.
____________________
CONGRATULATING CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS ON WINNING THE STANLEY CUP
(Mr. QUIGLEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, you have no idea how much I'm going to
enjoy this, but sometime late last night, Patrick Kane put the puck
past a Philadelphia goaltender in overtime, and the Chicago Blackhawks
became the Stanley Cup champions. Congratulations to the team for their
great season. Many of these players have played over 120 games this
season, including the Olympics, to achieve their one goal.
A special thanks to the owner of the Blackhawks, Rocky Wirtz--while
hockey never left Chicago, he brought it back--the management team of
John McDonough, Jay Blunk, Stan and Scotty Bowman, Coach Quenneville,
and Dale Tallon.
Madam Speaker, today for all of us, with apology, Chicago is my kind
of town.
____________________
TIME FOR A BUDGET THAT PUTS TAXPAYERS FIRST
(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the 2010 Federal budget deficit will hit $1
trillion this month, and we've also recently learned that the Federal
debt will reach $19.5 trillion by 2015. You'd think this would be a
case for some real careful examination of the Federal budget. You'd
think Congress would be looking everywhere for areas to trim and
programs to cut. But that is not the case. It's been almost 2 months
since the deadline to introduce a budget resolution passed, and House
Democrats still haven't produced a budget. How are we going to get
spending under control and bring down the deficit if Congress won't
even consider a budget? Madam Speaker, it's time for Congress to
consider a budget, one that puts taxpayers, not big government, first.
____________________
CHECK THE DEBT
(Mr. WILSON of Ohio asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns many Americans
have about our country's financial future. I often hear from Ohioans
who are worried about the financial burden we are leaving for the next
generation. They want to know if there's anything they can do to help.
That is why yesterday I introduced the Check the Debt Act.
This bill would add a ``check the debt'' box to our annual tax forms.
This would allow individuals to contribute $3 to help pay down the
national debt, without adding to their tax bill. This option would be
similar to the public financing of campaigns check, where a check the
box is already available on tax forms. Nearly 33 million people each
year respond to public campaign financing without adding to their tax
bill. This raises nearly $100 million annually for campaign financing.
That kind of money is a step in the right direction. It will enable
and encourage Americans to lend a hand in paying down our debt. The $13
trillion debt our country has built up over the last several decades
will not go away overnight, but we must start somewhere.
[[Page 10470]]
____________________
BULGARIA'S HISTORIC ANNIVERSARY
(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago today, I
served as an election observer in Bulgaria on behalf of the
International Republican Institute, IRI. It was a life-changing dream
come true for me to experience firsthand the birth of liberty in a
captive nation which had been subjected for decades to Nazism and
Communism. As a lifelong Cold Warrior, I always promoted victory over
Communism.
On June 10, 1990, the people of Bulgaria participated in the first
free elections since the 1930s. It was inspiring to visit polling
places in the Plovdiv region and witness the young and old
participating freely. The talented people of Bulgaria were unshackled.
People did not want to be a slavish Soviet satellite.
Since then, Bulgaria has evolved from the antiquated, frozen-in-time
nation of the 1930s to being a vibrant free market democracy of today.
It is now a valued member of NATO, with troops having served in Iraq
and Afghanistan. It is a dynamic member of the European Union.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September 11th in the Global War on Terrorism. God bless Bulgaria.
____________________
$250 CHECKS FOR SENIORS
(Mrs. DAHLKEMPER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. Mr. Speaker, today, checks will go in the mail to
189,000 seniors across Pennsylvania, including thousands in my district
in Western Pennsylvania. This will help them pay for prescription
drugs. These $250 checks are on the way to seniors who fell victim to
the prescription drug donut hole in Medicare. The $250 checks are just
the first step in reducing prescription drug prices for seniors under
the new health care reform. Next year, seniors in the donut hole will
get a 50 percent discount on name-brand prescription drugs and a 75
percent discount on generics. The average Pennsylvania senior will save
$700 next year on prescription drugs because of the health care reform
bill. This is a down payment on reducing prescription drug costs for
seniors and eventually closing the donut hole altogether. I am proud
that our health care reform legislation is helping seniors during this
difficult time.
____________________
{time} 1015
DOING NOTHING
(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, once again the complete lack of leadership
demonstrated by the administration on budget issues is extremely
disappointing.
When the President introduced his budget earlier this year, he
projected trillion dollar deficits for years to come. To fix the
problem, he passed the buck to a new debt commission. This week, when
Budget Director Peter Orszag was asked about whether the administration
would send a package of budget cuts to Congress, he said that it would
be a ``fruitless exercise.''
Certainly Congress controls the purse, but the President plays a
critical role in providing leadership on spending issues. I know that
House Republicans would support a substantial package of budget cuts.
We are not going to wait for the President, however. We are going to
keep introducing sensible measures to reduce spending, and we are going
to let the American people have their say on the YouCut Web site.
Our national debt has reached the level where it is holding back our
economic growth. We shouldn't wait any longer to put the stops on
government spending and borrowing, which is out of control.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. WALZ asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity to welcome
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to my district
and to the city of Rochester, Minnesota, home to the Mayo Clinic, to
talk about the positive influence that the health care reform bill will
have on Medicare reform, paying for value over volume and continuing to
provide the highest quality care to our citizens at the lowest possible
cost.
I also went over with my friend Ron Kind into La Crosse, Wisconsin,
to talk to seniors. We heard a lot about the Medicare part D doughnut
hole. As my colleague from Pennsylvania said, this week $250 rebate
checks will be going to them to allow those seniors who have worked
their entire life to build this Nation and to prepare for a prosperous
and comfortable retirement to be able to pay for that expensive
doughnut hole as it was crafted under the previous law. There are
63,000 Minnesotans who will see that 3 weeks in advance.
This is just one of the many benefits that will come to them. It's
absolutely critical our seniors in this country hear the facts, the
real facts about health care reform, how it will end up bringing higher
quality of care and lower costs paying down the national debt. I am
proud that the Secretary could see that at the world-famous Mayo
Clinic.
____________________
ISRAEL'S BLOCKADE
(Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Israelis check cargo for hidden
weapons that is shipped into Gaza. Last week, six ships ran the
security blockade and were boarded. People on one ship attacked and
stabbed the Israeli soldiers and beat them with pipes. It was seen on
televisions throughout the world. Ten Israeli soldiers were injured as
they defended themselves, and, of course, they have the legal and moral
right of self-defense.
But the hate Israel at any price crowd denounced the Israelis, and
now our administration is telling Israel they shouldn't be so security
conscious. ``Back off a little on the blockades,'' the White House
says. And just so we don't hurt anybody's feelings, the administration
is sending $400 million to Gaza. Why? What are the Palestinians going
to do with that money. Buy more rockets to shoot into Israel? Who
knows.
Who are we to tell our ally, Israel, how to secure its borders? We
are giving advice to a country on smuggling security when we can't even
keep the smuggling contraband out of our own country.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF GEORGE TILLER
(Ms. CHU asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, in 1970, Dr. Jack Tiller traveled to a
convention in Canada with his wife and daughter. Tragically, their
plane crashed, leaving behind his children, George and Diana.
George went to Wichita. He cared for a sick grandmother and orphaned
nephew when they didn't have anyone else. He planned to be a
dermatologist. Instead, he took over his father's general practice when
he saw that local patients didn't have anyone else. Soon after, women
asked him if he would do what his father did. They were desperate women
who needed reproductive control over their lives. George said yes.
Now you know why George Tiller began the career that cost him his
life, because he decided he would be there for women facing a crisis
when they didn't have anyone else.
____________________
SPEAKING OUT FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE
(Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House
[[Page 10471]]
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the American people demand real
change in Washington. From record deficit spending to the passage of a
health care bill most Americans don't want, there is a serious
disconnect between the congressional agenda and the desires of the
American people.
America Speaking Out is a timely initiative designed to start an
honest discussion between Americans and their representatives. Through
this innovative new forum, the American people can give us their
priorities and offer their ideas for a new agenda to solve the problems
that confront our Nation.
There is a deficit of trust in Congress, and it is only by listening
to the American people that we can earn back their trust and turn the
country in the right direction.
Check out the Web site, America Speaking Out.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, the historic health reform passed earlier this
year is already having a positive impact on millions of American
seniors.
Starting today, Medicare will begin mailing out $250 rebate checks to
assist those who fall into the prescription drug doughnut hole. In my
home State of California, over 382,000 seniors will now find it a
little bit easier to afford lifesaving medicine they need, no longer
making the decision of paying for medicine, paying for mortgages, or
putting food on the table, but getting the service they need.
Starting next year, seniors in the doughnut hole will receive an
additional 50 percent discount on all brand-name drugs. By the year
2020, the new law will totally close the doughnut hole.
But the benefits don't stop there. Health reform will provide free
preventive care services to all Medicare recipients, and that extends
Medicare solvency by an additional 12 years to the year 2029.
Those who continue to call for repeal of reform want to move us back
to the era of higher drug costs and less security for seniors.
Democrats will continue to fight to protect our most vulnerable
Americans.
____________________
MR. PRESIDENT, WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. We all agree the loss of life that occurred last week when
a flotilla designed to challenge Israel's effective blockade of Gaza
ended in military confrontation, but Israel has a right to defend
itself.
The history is clear in that region. Gaza is controlled by a
terrorist organization known as Hamas. Hamas used Gaza as a launching
pad for thousands of rockets that killed innocent civilians in Israel.
Israel responded with military force and has instituted a blockade that
has saved lives in Gaza and in Israel.
There's no humanitarian crisis. Ten thousand tons of food and medical
supplies are transferred into Gaza every single week.
Remarkably, yesterday, the President said it was time for Israel to
sharply limit its effective blockade in Gaza saying, ``The situation in
Gaza is unsustainable.'' The truth is, Mr. President, your policy in
Israel is unsustainable. The American people are on the side of Israel
and Israel's right to defend herself.
Mr. President, whose side are you on?
____________________
FILLING THE DOUGHNUT HOLE
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, starting this week, tax-free rebate checks
of $250 will be sent to seniors who have already hit the part D
doughnut hole. This $250 rebate is a key improvement to Medicare and
the first Medicare benefit of the new health care reform law to take
effect.
These rebates are being sent out 3 months ahead of schedule, and the
first round of checks will reach nearly 80,000 seniors who are already
in the doughnut hole. Following this initial round of rebate checks,
additional checks will be sent to seniors as they hit the doughnut
hole. It's estimated that 4 million seniors across the country will
receive a $250 rebate check this year.
This is just a first phase of relief for seniors from prescription
drug costs. Next year, seniors in the doughnut hole will see a 50
percent discount on brand-name drugs.
While the Medicare part D prescription drug program has helped
millions of seniors obtain prescription drug coverage, seniors who fall
into the doughnut hole and receive no financial assistance with their
prescription drugs are often forced to put their health in danger by
splitting pills or skipping treatments altogether to save on costs.
Despite the clear benefits to seniors from the health care reform
legislation, Republican leaders have now made it a priority to repeal
this landmark law, which will take away these prescription drug cost
savings and other benefits for seniors and millions of Americans. It is
now time that we implement further reform.
____________________
FARM BILL ENERGY TITLE
(Mr. SMITH of Nebraska asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, one of the most difficult
challenges facing our Nation's future is providing clean, affordable,
and reliable energy. The 2008 Farm Bill Energy Title provided a
commitment to farm-based energy.
While the intent of this agenda was to expand biofuels in a timely
manner, many of my constituents have expressed frustration with the
slow pace of USDA's implementation. Nebraska's Third Congressional
District is a leader in biofuels, and I remain committed to advancing
the critical, timely development of our Nation's biofuels industry
while decreasing our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.
I am confident that we can provide a cleaner environment and
alleviate some of the economic pain Americans continue to experience.
However, without a strong commitment, our advanced biofuels industry
faces massive uncertainties, jeopardizing our Nation's path to energy
independence.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. MURPHY of New York asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. MURPHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today we see the first benefits
from the new health care reform law that was passed earlier by this
Congress and signed into law by the President.
Eighty thousand seniors across America will be receiving checks that
are being sent out, starting today, for $250 to help pay the costs of
their prescription drug coverage while they are in the doughnut hole.
Other seniors that reach the doughnut hole through the rest of this
year will also receive $250 checks to help them afford the prescription
drugs they need to live their lives safely and happily.
Over the next 10 years, this health care reform will eliminate the
doughnut hole completely for our seniors. That's a step in the right
direction, providing security and safety in the health care that our
seniors need.
Amazingly, though, some on the other side of the aisle are continuing
to call, not to change the health care reform bill but to repeal it
entirely, to cut up the checks, take them away from our seniors and
stop the help that they need to pay for their prescription drugs.
We will always be working to make our health care system better, but
repealing this positive step forward makes no sense to me.
[[Page 10472]]
____________________
$250 CHECKS TO SENIORS
(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, in 2003, Republicans said they
were overhauling Medicare, but all they succeeded in doing was creating
a prescription drug doughnut hole that, in 2009 alone, forced 63,000
Maryland seniors to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket, forcing
many to choose between buying the prescription drugs they need or
purchasing food.
The Nation's seniors shouldn't be forced to make such a choice.
That's why, under the new health care law, we are dedicated to closing
the doughnut hole once and for all.
Today, June 10, $250 checks are being mailed out to 80,000 eligible
seniors as a first step to reducing the financial burden faced by
seniors. Then next year there will be a 50 percent discount on
prescription drugs in the doughnut hole.
Mr. Speaker, the first of many benefits under the health law that my
Republican colleagues opposed and now hope to repeal is on the way. Our
seniors and the rest of the country can't afford to go back to a broken
system controlled by insurance companies with coverage gaps, denied
care, and skyrocketing costs.
____________________
$250 FOR SENIORS
(Mr. KLEIN of Florida asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today is a very important day for
seniors in south Florida.
Today, more than 3 weeks ahead of schedule, checks to help cover the
costs of prescription medication will be mailed to seniors who have
fallen into the dreaded Medicare part D doughnut hole.
I have talked to many seniors in West Palm Beach and other parts of
my district who had to make the wrenching choice between food and
medicine. This should not happen in the America that I know, and that's
why I personally have fought so hard to make sure that health care
reform included reducing the cost of medicine for our seniors.
Starting today, payments of $250 will be mailed to every senior who
falls in the doughnut hole to help cover their costs. This is an
important step, but it's just the beginning, because starting next
year, seniors will see a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs and we
will begin to close the doughnut hole for good.
Fighting for our seniors in south Florida is one of my top
priorities, and today's checks will make a real difference for seniors
who have worked hard and paid into the system. I look forward to
continuing to work together to strengthen and protect Medicare.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor of Arizona). Pursuant to clause 8
of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on the
motion 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.
Any record vote on the postponed question will be taken later.
____________________
OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (S. 3473) to amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to authorize
advances from Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
S. 3473
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ADVANCES FROM OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND FOR
DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL.
Section 6002(b) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
2752) is amended in the second sentence--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``Coast Guard''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``and (2) in the case of the discharge of oil that
began in 2010 in connection with the explosion on, and
sinking of, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater
Horizon, may, without further appropriation, obtain 1 or more
advances from the Fund as needed, up to a maximum of
$100,000,000 for each advance, with the total amount of all
advances not to exceed the amounts available under section
9509(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and within 7
days of each advance, shall notify Congress of the amount
advanced and the facts and circumstances necessitating the
advance''.
SEC. 2. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall
be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act,
submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the
Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such
statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
{time} 1030
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
General Leave
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on S. 3473.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I am grateful for the indulgence of our colleague on the
committee, our ranking member and senior Republican, Mr. Mica, for
responding so quickly to the action of the other body.
We are unaccustomed to such prompt unanimous action in the other
body, but they did pass, by unanimous consent, the bill before us now,
S. 3473, in response to requests of the Department of Homeland
Security, Secretary Napolitano, and Admiral Thad Allen, the National
Incident Commander, following up on the May 12 request of the
administration for legislative changes to, quote, ``speed assistance to
people in need,'' close quote, in response to the BP-Deepwater Horizon
tragedy.
The request further asks the Congress to, quote, ``act immediately on
return from recess,'' close quote. And that is exactly what we are
doing, but preceded by a hearing the committee held yesterday on the
many aspects of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and payment from
responsible parties and the need for future legislation.
And the gentleman from Florida had several instructive and thoughtful
suggestions that we in the committee will be acting upon per our
previous agreement.
I want to lay out the specifics.
First of all, the request: Quoting again from the Homeland Security
Department letter, ``Congress needs to act now to permit movement of
moneys from the principal fund to the emergency fund. At the current
pace of BP-Deepwater Horizon response operations, funding available in
the emergency fund will be insufficient to sustain Federal response
operations within 2 weeks.'' That's from June 4.
``At that point, the Federal on-scene coordinator would not be able
to commit sufficient funds to the agencies involved in the Federal
response, including National Guard, Department of Defense, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of Interior, and Department of Agriculture, to
continue to provide critical response services, including logistical
support, such as moving boom from Alaska and California to Louisiana;
scientific support, such as evaluating the environmental impact of the
spill and the response; and public health support, such as ensuring
seafood from the gulf region is safe and monitoring fumes that might be
a public health issue.
``Additional transfers from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
principal
[[Page 10473]]
fund to the emergency fund are needed to fulfill the President's order
to bring all available and appropriate resources to bear in response to
this disaster. Furthermore, depleting all currently available funds
puts at risk the Nation's ability to address any new spills unrelated
to the BP-Deepwater Horizon.''
Second, I must note and affirm, as was done in our hearing yesterday,
that any moneys advanced from the trust fund will be repaid by the
responsible party--in this case, BP.
I was part of crafting OPA 90 and its predecessors in my previous
service on the now-dissolved Merchant Marine Fisheries Committee, which
jurisdiction transfers to our Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. The whole concept of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
was from previous experience that there needed to be an immediate
response by government agencies on scene to lay out funds, as was
already spelled out in the letter from Homeland Security, without
having to wait for negotiations with the responsible party.
In those years, up through the 1990s, all the attention was turned to
spills from tankers, oceangoing vessels, bulk carriage of crude oil,
principally, but other product as well.
The requirement was to get on the scene quickly, corral the oil, and
contain the spill. The government needed to act quickly. The Coast
Guard had the capability to do that. But we didn't want--and we had
experience with Torrey Canyon and the Amoco Cadiz that there were long
waits for the responsible party to make payments to government agencies
responding in the case of France and the U.K. and in the case of U.S.
Government agencies.
So the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund was established to have a
financial resource for government agencies to respond quickly and then
bill the responsible party. That has been done in the case of the
Deepwater Horizon spill.
At our hearing yesterday, Craig Bennett, director of the National
Pollution Funds Center, said, ``All funds expended will be billed to BP
and ultimately recovered. These funds are deposited into the principal
fund, not the emergency fund. As of June 1, 2010, obligations against
the emergency fund for Federal response efforts totaled $93 million.''
That figure has now grown to $114 million. So it's bumping up against
the limit of $150 million--the $100 million, plus the baseline $50
million for emergency response.
``At the current pace of operations, funding available,'' continuing
with Director Bennett, ``in the emergency fund will be insufficient to
sustain Federal response operations within 2 weeks.'' And we're very
close to that number now.
The Coast Guard has, according to information supplied by the Coast
Guard, billed BP $69 million. That billing, when responded to by BP,
will be deposited in the general fund of the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund to replenish the fund. And additional expenditures will be billed
against BP for deposit in the fund.
I further note that the Senate's bill amends section 6002 of the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 and provides for, quote, ``one or more advances
from the fund, as needed, up to a maximum of $100 million for each
advance, with the total amount of all advances not to exceed amounts
available in section 9509(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986''--that deals with the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund--``and
within 7 days of each advance''--7 days' notice--``shall notify
Congress of the amount advanced and the facts and circumstances
necessitating the advance.''
Now, that language will come after the end of the period of section
6002(b) and will supplement, but not displace, the 30-day notice
requirement of the basic law.
Congress will be notified when the Coast Guard needs to borrow from
the trust fund up to the maximum of $100 million for each advance it
requests within 7 days. And we will receive all the information: the
amount they're requesting, the facts, and the circumstances justifying
the request for an advance.
I think this language parallels language that the House has included
in our supplemental appropriations bill but not yet passed. It's
important to take this action now.
This language clearly needs refinement, as was evident in the hearing
we held yesterday, and I think the gentleman from Florida will agree.
He has some very thoughtful ideas. We will merge those with other
testimony submitted at yesterday's hearing and proceed with a
legislative package in the coming 2 weeks.
Again, I thank the gentleman from Florida for participating in
yesterday's hearing and for a response today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, this is an emergency situation, and it
requires emergency action by the House of Representatives.
The United States Senate, the other body, has acted and sent us S.
3743, which will allow us to expand some of the use of the funds that
have been accumulated in the national Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund on
an emergency basis. I am pleased that the other body acted. This is a
unique and very difficult situation dealing with a very unique and
difficult national disaster.
First, I would be remiss if I didn't remember today those families
who will be in Washington visiting with President Obama. Eleven
individuals lost their lives when the oil rig, the Horizon, exploded in
April. I know the President will be meeting with them. And, on behalf
of all the Members of Congress, we extend our condolences for that loss
of life.
Right now we are dealing with the results of that disaster. This
disaster and explosion, sinking of the rig and the uncontrolled oil
spill--fortunately, there has been some progress in that regard, but
incredible amounts of oil have spilt into the gulf and now endangers
the shores of at least four of our States.
In 1990, we set up an Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and that was
after the Exxon Valdez. That fund has in it $1.6 billion, a substantial
amount of money.
Now, that fund was not set up to relieve anyone of responsibility if
they are negligent, and it was also not a fund to pay for cleanup costs
that are clearly assigned, clearly identifiable. A lot of it was
intended for what they call an ``orphan spill,'' or a spill where you
don't know where the oil came from, the polluting substance came from.
Within that $1.6 billion trust fund for oil spills that we created,
we have an emergency fund of $150 million that can be expended
immediately. Now, what has taken place is that fund, the 150 million
emergency dollars that can be spent--right now Thad Allen is doing a
great job in leading the effort for the United States--and, as you
know, he just retired from the Coast Guard--doing a wonderful job, but
he has the responsibility of reacting now and immediately.
It took some time for the administration to get him in place and also
to declare this a spill of national significance, but he is on the job
and he needs the resources.
Now, the resources are running out. We do have a letter, which I will
submit for the Record and to the Congress at this time. This is to the
Speaker of the House, and it is from the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget.
And he says, ``All the costs of this fund also that are being
expended at this point must be repaid. But, at this current time, in
just a matter of days, the emergency fund will run out.'' So we have
documentation of the need from OMB.
And just a few minutes ago, we received from the Federal on-scene
coordinator the statement that their requirements to support the
continuing ongoing effort will bring the emergency fund to a critically
low level over the next 7 days.
{time} 1045
So we can't have the cleanup efforts come to a halt. We must act.
Now, I saw the need for this yesterday and met with colleagues on my
side of the aisle. We had a hearing in the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. Mr. Oberstar and I agreed
[[Page 10474]]
that we must act. The Senate has acted.
We have before us S. 3473. This morning, myself and other colleagues
in Congress introduced H.R. 5499. That's mirror legislation. So both
the Republican and Democrat House and Senate agree on the provisions of
this legislation, which will allow in $100 million increments the
expansion of the emergency fund.
Now let me make this very clear: the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
is not going to be a piggy bank for BP or for other responsible
parties. This money must, should, and will be repaid. This is only a
temporary measure. It is only a temporary measure, too, because the
money that they are repaying goes back into that larger fund, not into
the emergency fund. This legislation will correct, again, the inability
of accessing a larger amount of money on a needed basis.
So we have introduced mirror legislation today. This is a cooperative
and bipartisan effort. However, this is a terrible disaster, and
questions need to be raised about what has caused us to get to this
situation. Quite frankly, I'm quite baffled about some of the
administration's positions on deepwater offshore drilling.
In the beginning of this year, in February, we received the budget
from the President of the United States and the administration. In this
budget, they proposed cuts to the Coast Guard of more than 1,000
positions. They also proposed cuts to and proposed the decommissioning
of some of the ships, the helicopters and the planes that we see now
involved in this very important mission. Not only did they propose cuts
to the Coast Guard, our first responder, but in February they also
proposed cuts to the Department of the Interior--and look this up, if
you will--and to the Minerals Management Service, which is responsible
for environmental reviews. This is what they proposed in February.
Then in March they proposed the expansion of drilling in the gulf. I
remember I and Frank LoBiondo, the ranking member, sent out a press
release when we read about these cuts within the Coast Guard, and we
said that this was a recipe for disaster. Fortunately, those cuts have
not been enacted; and I believe, even before this oil spill, there was
bipartisan support not to enact those cuts that were recommended.
In light of the administration's policy to expand drilling in the
gulf, some people say I've been too tough on the Obama administration.
I think the Obama administration does have a responsibility in this.
They did issue the permit that allowed the drilling, and I have the 1-
page permit.
Here is the 1-page approval: April 6, 2009, approval for deepwater
drilling at 5,000 feet.
I have what I call the ``deficient plan'' that they approved that was
submitted by BP in March. So in less days than it took in some
instances to approve now of a cleanup of proposals, they rubber-stamped
and gave carte blanche approval.
Let me say that I also criticized the Bush administration, but I went
back and looked at what the Bush administration did with the agency
that was responsible for issuing these permits. This is a memorandum
from the Office of Inspector General, and it is dated September 9,
2008, which was during the Bush administration. This is what the Bush
administration did in that agency that issued this permit under this
new administration.
This memo conveys the results of three separate Office of Inspector
General investigations into allegations against more than a dozen
current and former Minerals Management Service employees. I went on to
read what else the Bush administration did with regard to this agency
that was responsible for issuing these permits.
Listen to this: Collectively, our recent work in the Minerals
Management Service has taken well over 2 years. They investigated these
folks. It also involved the OIG, Office of Inspector General, and Human
Resources. There was an expenditure of nearly $5.3 million in OIG
funds. There were 233 witnesses and subjects who were interviewed, many
of them multiple times. Roughly 470,000 pages of documents were
reviewed, and people were prosecuted, under the former administration,
in this agency.
Now, the latest reports I have, which I discussed yesterday at the
hearing, were that, in fact, we have reports of inspections by this
agency, the Minerals Management Service, which were supposed to be done
by these officers of that Federal agency. They were actually penciled
in, we believe, and those are the reports we have by oil workers, which
were then inked over by these folks. It is nice for this administration
to have spent time rewarding BP with safety awards in the prior year.
It is nice for them to have a good working relationship with those
folks who are responsible for issuing the permits, but I think we need
to take a closer look at how we got ourselves into this situation.
What brings us to this day when we've expended the emergency fund for
cleanup that we have to take an emergency step like this?
Now, I support this measure, but I'm telling you that every penny
needs to be paid back. This fund, this Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
that was put in place, shall not and cannot be used, as I said before,
as a piggy bank for BP or for any responsible parties.
Where is the money? Where is the billing?
In the private sector, if you have a bill due, you pay it. As of
yesterday, the staff told me that BP has been billed $69 million. As of
yesterday, the information that we had is that they hadn't paid the
bill. If they paid the bill, we still probably would have to be here
because of the terms of the current legislation to allow access to
additional money, but that money needs to go back into the trust fund,
and it needs to be paid for by the responsible parties.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, June 7, 2010.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: I am writing to urge the Congress to
move quickly in enacting the FY 2010 Supplemental request. On
June 4, 2010, Secretary Napolitano announced that the Coast
Guard believes that within the next two weeks funding levels
in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund's expenditure account
will drop to levels that will force the Federal On-Scene
Coordinator to begin to cut back Federal Deepwater Horizon
response activities. We cannot allow the lack of funding to
hamstring our Federal response to this national catastrophe.
On May 12, the Administration proposed legislation to
support the BP/Deepwater Horizon response and speed
assistance to people in need. Included in this package was a
provision that would permit the Coast Guard and its National
Pollution Funds Center to move funds from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund to the Emergency Fund so that the
Federal response effort can continue without interruption.
Specifically, the legislative changes would permit the Coast
Guard to obtain additional advances in tranches of $100
million up to the incident cap for the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund. All of these costs are being billed to the
responsible parties and the receipts will be deposited in the
Trust Fund.
The President has ordered Federal agencies to bring all
available and appropriate resources to bear in response to
this disaster. Without legislative authorization, however,
the Coast Guard cannot access the additional emergency fund
resources necessary to pay for the Federal agencies' response
to this tragic oil spill.
We appreciate your support in moving this critical
legislation forward in the coming days.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Orszag,
Director.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 1 minute.
I completely agree with the gentleman. As the gentleman from Florida
and I discussed in our hearing yesterday, the purpose of the trust fund
is not to relieve anyone of responsibility.
I was part of crafting that legislation in 1990 and its predecessors.
It was clearly our intent that this should be a fund to give the
government the authority to move quickly, to get on the scene, to begin
cleanup before industry responds, to bill the industry in order to make
them pay into the trust fund, and to keep the industry responsible.
[[Page 10475]]
Secondly, the gentleman included orphan sites in his commentary. The
legislation is not exclusively limited to orphan sites.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself an additional minute.
An orphan site is one of the issues to be addressed, as we do under
the Superfund Act. Yet the order of priority for response under the
law, its first responsibility, is for the responsible party to act to
the limit of its liability under the Oil Spill Act. We have to address
that limit of liability. The hearing yesterday explored the range of
dollar amounts of liability from the current $75 million to some
greater number, including unlimited liability. That is something we are
going to have to discuss in committee.
So far, BP has, as the responsible party, spent $1 billion, and they
are responding. Yesterday, when I made the announcement at our
committee hearing that the Coast Guard had billed BP for $69 million,
we still do not have a response on what the status is of repayment by
BP into the trust fund, but we will have that information.
Thirdly, I agree with the gentleman that the trust fund is not a
piggy bank for BP.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself an additional minute.
We are going to hold them accountable. The Coast Guard will hold them
accountable. I do want to point out that the emergency fund is an
account within the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. It is not a separate
fund of its own.
Further, as the gentleman was critical of the administration's budget
and properly said this is bipartisan criticism, our committee budget,
in response to that of the administration, rejected their proposed cuts
for the Coast Guard. We understand there is no daylight between us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
I would also point out that the previous administration of 2005, six,
seven, and eight approved 4,120 offshore leases, including for this
particular MMS lease sale--or 206--an exemption from a ``blow-out
scenario requirement'' for Outer Continental Shelf actions in the gulf.
BP's exploration plan for Deepwater Horizon did not therefore include
an analysis or a response plan for a blow-out at the wellhead.
Now I yield 3 minutes to the chair of the Coast Guard Subcommittee,
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, in following up on what the chairman just
spoke about, we just got an email from the Coast Guard saying that BP
has assured them that the near $70 million for which they have been
billed will be paid by the end of next week, and we will hold their
feet to the fire.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation, I rise today in strong support of S. 3473, legislation
to amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to authorize advances from the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for the response to the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill.
The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund consists of two funds--the
principal fund and an emergency fund. As was described yesterday by Mr.
Craig Bennett, director of the National Pollution Funds Center, the
emergency fund is, in essence, the operating fund from which we take
the money necessary to pay for the operations of the 27 Federal
entities that are responding to the Deepwater Horizon crisis. On May 3,
the emergency fund received an authorized advance of $100 million.
There is currently no statutory authority for any more advances to be
made. Furthermore, as of June 1, obligations from the fund totaled $93
million.
We cannot allow the fund to go dry. This legislation simply
authorizes additional advances of up to $100 million per advance.
Nothing in this legislation relieves BP of its responsibility to cover
all of the costs which have and which will continue to result from this
tragedy.
I emphasize to our distinguished ranking member that I don't think
there is one person in this body, either on your side or on this side,
who is not adamant about making sure that BP pays every single penny--
not dime--but every single penny that is due to the American people.
However, based on the way the fund is currently established, it is
necessary to authorize additional funds today in order to ensure that
Federal response efforts are not interrupted.
I have already made two trips to the gulf coast, and I hope to make
another one. I have seen firsthand the devastation caused by this
spill. We cannot allow anything to threaten our ongoing cleanup
efforts. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join us in the passing of
S. 3473.
I also would note, Mr. Speaker, that this allows us to act with the
urgency of now to address these issues. We have windows of opportunity
within which we can act and can get things done. We can get them done.
We will get our money back, but the fact is that we have got to act now
because there are people suffering, not only in Louisiana, but,
certainly, in the ranking member's State and in so many other places.
{time} 1100
And so, with that, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking
member for expeditiously getting this bill to the floor so that we can
address the needs of our people.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Cao), also a member of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.
Mr. CAO. Mr. Speaker, right after the oil spill, I had the
opportunity to fly over the spill at ground zero, and as I flew over
the gulf, I saw thousands of square miles of our beautiful waters being
covered by this brown sludge and additional thousands of square miles
of our beautiful gulf was covered by this oily slick.
I also toured by boat just a couple of weeks ago with the officials
of Plaquemines Parish as well as Jefferson Parish, and as I was
traveling through Barataria Bay, I saw patches of brown oil infringing
on the oyster beds that are so integral to the seafood industry of
Louisiana. And as I saw the oil as it encroaches upon the marshes and
the wetlands, my heart dropped for the State of Louisiana as well as
for the many fishermen and the many small businesses that are impacted
by this catastrophe.
I also spent much of my time visiting businesses and talking to small
business owners who are being impacted by this oil spill. I visited a
seafood open market in Westwego and saw half of the businesses closed,
and the parking lot remained empty. And I spoke to the business owners,
and they informed me that their business has declined by more than half
since the oil spill. And instead of being open for 5 days out of the
week, 6 days out of the week, they are only open now 2 days out of the
week.
So we see that the oil spill has had a devastating impact on the many
people of the gulf coast and the many small businesses of the people of
my district. Therefore, I believe that it is integral that we allow the
money from the trust fund to be transferred to allow the Coast Guard
the necessary resources to address the cleaning up of this oil spill.
We saw an absence of Federal Government post-Katrina. We saw how
thousands of people struggled post-Katrina because of the absence of
government, and I do not want the same problem to occur here with
respect to this disaster caused by this oil spill. Therefore, I ask all
of the Members to support this position.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota, for the time and also for dealing promptly
with this legislation.
[[Page 10476]]
There is a more than $1.5 billion today in the trust fund, but the
Coast Guard and the other government agencies cannot access that
because of existing limits on the per incident expenses and because of
the cap on using this for natural resources and economic damages.
The trust fund exists so that we can get on with the work at hand,
and I'm pleased that the chairman and the ranking member are moving
promptly to give the administration the tools that they need to deal
with this. There is work to be done, and it must be done quickly. This
will take care of immediate expenditures.
We have also dealt with, here in the House, increasing the total
capacity of the trust fund, and we must rapidly build up those
collections from the oil companies in that trust fund. And then, of
course, we must recover from BP and the other responsible parties the
money that is used from the trust fund.
So spending this money now, and I hope the chairman has been clear
for our colleagues, spending that money now does not absolve BP of any
responsibility. It just allows the work to get on, and the funds will
be collected from BP.
Also, because this only deals with the immediate incident, there is
still a need to, I would argue, pass the Big Oil Bailout Prevention
Act, or something of the sort that I've introduced along with a number
of cosponsors, to deal with this long term, to raise the liability
limit so that we can collect everything that is necessary from oil
companies.
Mr. MICA. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Coble), also a senior member of the T and I
Committee.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3473. This
legislation is absolutely critical to continue our oil spill response
efforts in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Coast Guard and other agencies involved in the response to the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill are spending tremendous amounts of time and
effort ensuring every tangible resource is available to meet this
response. By passing this legislation, we ensure that the Coast Guard
can maintain these valiant efforts, while simultaneously ensuring other
important missions are met, including maritime safety, security,
defense, search and rescue efforts, mobility, and preparedness. As
America's maritime guardian. The Coast Guard is always ready, and this
legislation ensures this goal can continue to be met.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the oil spill
trust fund is funded by the petroleum industry and not the taxpayers.
I urge passage.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Well, Mr. Speaker, I will summarize for our side.
First of all, again, this is an emergency situation. We have to act,
we must act, and we will act. Let me make it clear, and I'm glad
everyone on the other side has made it very clear, that BP's feet will
be held to the fire to repay this money.
Now, it's good to come out here and hear that BP has called the other
side and told them that they're going to pay, the check is in the mail,
and that's all well, fine, and good. But I'd be glad to send somebody
down to OMB and show them how they can send a rapid request for payment
to BP as this thing moved forward because, again, the taxpayer
shouldn't be left on the hook nor should this fund be left on the hook
in any way for responsibility for this cleanup.
Finally, just a couple of points. It was mentioned that the Bush
administration gave 4,200 leases--I think that was the figure--and that
is true. It's also true, and the Democrat staff did an excellent job--I
complimented them yesterday--in getting a list of the current drilling
and production activities in the Gulf of Mexico, and I'll submit this
to the Record. But if you look, there are about 3,500, 3,492 wells in
relatively shallow water, 200 meters, about 600 feet up to the surface.
There are only 25 a thousand meters below.
The Obama administration, coming into office, issued--these are
deepwater, 1,000 feet to 8,000 feet--more than two dozen. We'll also
submit that to the Record.
Now, if they knew this was a management problem in the Minerals
Management Service, and I just cited the Bush administration
investigated that agency for 2 years and conducted a very thorough
review of what was going on, they must have known there was a
management problem when they inherited it.
Instead, what did they do? Faster than BP can pay their bill, they
took the proposal from BP in deepwater, some of the deepest water
drill--here are the number of ones that the committee found that
there's deepwater drilling in--and they carte blanche, rubber-stamped
approval of this outline that BP gave them. One page, April 6. Those
are the facts.
DRILLING AND PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved
Water depth in meters Active leases applications Active
to drill platforms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-200............................................................. 2,279 33,590 3,492
201-400........................................................... 143 1,099 21
401-800........................................................... 330 835 9
801-1,000......................................................... 412 506 7
1,000 and above................................................... 3,454 1,634 25
---------------------------------------------
Total......................................................... 6,618 37,664 3,554
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: MMS, current as of June 1, 2010
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Oberstar, thank you for your
leadership. Chairman Cummings, as well, thank you for your leadership.
The Coast Guard is poised in the gulf working overtime, waiting for
this drawdown, which is a reimbursable drawdown. But we have to do
something now. We have to do something for the shrimpers, the
fishermen, the oystermen, the restaurants. We have to do something for
the people who are bleeding and need our help.
This is a BP problem, but it is an oil industry problem. We have to
see them rise to the occasion, to develop a better claims system, to
develop a recovery plan. But right now, the Coast Guard, as told to us
in a meeting with them last week with Chairman Cummings and Chairwoman
Brown, they need the money now. This is an important step.
We can go back and look at the noes, but we've got to say yes today.
Vote for this legislation.
I also wish to thank Senator Reid for introducing this very important
piece of legislation in such a timely manner. Today, I rise in support
of S. 3473, an amendment that would authorize advances from the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund as created by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
BP is dragging its heels on the oil spill cleanup. The sooner we can
get the wheels turning on the cleanup, the sooner we can make families
whole again and ensure a safe environment for the Americans that had to
bear the brunt of this disaster of mammoth proportions. Releasing some
of the funds from the aforementioned trust will allow individuals to be
able to support themselves in their Gulf-based industry. Just yesterday
I testified before the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee and proposed legislation that would allow for the release of
100 million dollars from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
The sooner we address the problem, the more likely we are to prevent
more extensive damage. It has been well noted that BP's efforts alone
will not suffice. As members of Congress, we must do everything we can
to address and resolve this crisis in the most expedient manner, and
releasing these funds will allow for a more efficient response.
This amendment would provide a much-needed source of recourse and
restitution for those victimized by this environmental disaster of
massive proportions, caused by the April 20, 2010 explosion on the
Deepwater Horizon oil vessel. It will also provide an avenue for
accountability, which should be assigned, appropriately, to the parties
responsible for imposing such suffering on the residents of the Gulf
Coast area.
We are all very much aware of the hardship that has been inflicted
upon the people in the Gulf Coast region. The oil, gushing at a rate of
at least 12,000 to 19,000 barrels a day, has now spread over 42 miles
beyond the spill site, 3,300 miles beneath the surface of the ocean. In
its most concentrated areas, oil plumes created by the spill are
sometimes over 15 miles long and 1,500 feet thick, depths below the
water. This does not even account for the immense volume of oil which
[[Page 10477]]
is less concentrated, but still very much diluted with the water of the
Gulf Coast.
The immediate effects of the spill are being felt as far west as
Houma, Louisiana, and as far east as the Apalachicola Bay in Florida.
Not only have there been serious environmental effects, but marine
wildlife has been seriously impeded by the developments. Fishermen and
workers in related industries are being deprived of their very source
of income and livelihood. Even further, there are health effects
resulting from the disaster that are increasing in number, daily.
According to a recent CNN article, there have been 71 reported cases
of oil disaster related health problems ranging anywhere from headaches
and coughing to more serious ailments. Additionally, the oil has
reached shorelines across the coast, and is affecting beaches and their
patrons.
It is imperative not only that the victims and potential claimants be
afforded a source of recourse for the significant interruption of their
way of life, but that the remedy process be made available in a timely
fashion, as the effects of the oil spill are being compounded every
day.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, adopted in response to the Exxon
Valdez Alaska oil spill in 1989, governs the claims process associated
with the British Petroleum disaster. According to the Act, any party
liable for any threat or actual discharge of oil from a vessel or
facility to navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive
economic zone of the United States, is responsible for all cleanup
costs incurred. Additionally, claimants may recover damages for injury
to natural resources, loss of personal property, economic losses, and
loss of subsistence use of natural resources. However, the Act caps
economic damages at $75 million from the party or parties responsible
for an oil spill.
Seventy five million dollars is simply insufficient to compensate the
victims of such a massive disaster. The law was passed in light of the
Exxon Valdez oil spill. That spill was considered to be one of the
largest environmental disasters in history, and involved the
disgorgement of at least 10.8 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska
waters.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Again, I'm greatly appreciative of the partnership in our committee
with the gentleman from Florida and for working so expeditiously under
minimal notice that both of us had to bring this unexpected but welcome
legislation from the other body so quickly to the floor. I would hope
that this and other measures that we will enact will be seen as a
testimonial to the victims of that explosion on the Deepwater Horizon.
And as the gentleman from Florida said, I join him in commending the
President for welcoming the families and consoling with them, and join
in assurances to those families that Congress will continue to do
everything right so that their lives will not have been lost in vain.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend the debate time by 5
minutes on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBERSTAR. The purpose for this request is that we may resolve a
technical problem that the Senate notified us of in the drafting of the
language of the bill and in the reference to the appropriate section of
the Internal Revenue Code, and we need to spend just a few minutes and
get the parliamentary language correct, and that will take a few more
minutes to resolve.
I ask the gentleman from Florida to designate his staff to
participate with ours and with the Parliamentarian in assuring that we
have the language properly crafted.
{time} 1115
Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Well, maybe you could explain, for the benefit of this side
of the aisle in the House, what the changes would be.
I did have several changes that I would have liked to have addressed.
I believe this particular legislation just deals with this spill. I
would have hoped that we could have modified this so that, in the
future, we wouldn't have to come back on an individual-spill basis to
do what we are doing here today.
And also, because this is a unique circumstance, we have not found
ourselves in this situation before, we could make some additional
changes to the measure that would, in fact, sort of, clean up the
statute.
But, again, I am not sure what particular parliamentary or minor
technical changes the majority is prepared to make in the legislation
at this time. We do want to be agreeable and move the process forward.
Maybe, now, with those questions, you might respond.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Certainly. And I thank the gentleman. And I share that
concern.
In the hearing yesterday, I made it very clear that the committee
would move forward with the broader changes that the gentleman just
discussed, Madam Speaker, so that the Coast Guard will have authority
to draw larger sums, in hundred-million-dollar increments, with proper
notification to Congress, without having to come back and legislate
each time.
But that is beyond the scope of the pending bill. And the technical
changes notified to us are of a truly technical nature. Expanding into
the broader question that we are now discussing would require new
legislation.
And I commit to the gentleman that that will be part of our
bipartisan work in committee, and we will craft the appropriate
language.
Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Minnesota.
Madam Speaker, BP's failure to have a responsible plan in place to
deal with the effects of this oil spill obviously has caused untold
harm to our coastal communities and the men and women on our gulf
coast, many of which I represent.
More needs to be done at every level to respond to this crisis. But
one thing we will not tolerate is for there to be any disruption to the
ongoing cleanup and containment efforts currently under way in the
gulf, which is why I stand before you today in full support of S. 3473.
This bill ensures that the men and women fighting to contain this
disaster have all the resources they need to continue their important
work. Under this bill, the Federal Government will provide advance
funding to sustain and support the cleanup and containment efforts
currently under way.
But make no mistake: BP will be the ultimate financier. And they can
count on receiving a bill once the total cost is in.
At the same time, while we are working to contain this crisis, we
also must take steps to ensure this terrible situation does not become
worse. Last week, Madam Speaker, I sent a letter to the President,
urging his administration to develop a plan in case a tropical storm or
hurricane hits the gulf coast, and it will.
The gulf region has weathered hurricanes in the past, but the
presence of oil in our waters creates a number of unknown
circumstances. And we need to be proactive in our efforts to protect
our communities from a storm.
That is why next week I will convene the Joint Oil Spill-Hurricane
Planning Conference to develop a comprehensive hurricane preparedness
and recovery plan for north Florida. The conference will bring together
local, State, and Federal officials and key stakeholders to develop a
comprehensive and coordinated plan that identifies what actions need to
be taken before, during, and after a possible storm.
We are clearly in uncharted waters, Madam Speaker, but that is no
excuse for us failing to take action now against a threat that we know
will strike sooner or later. We must begin planning now for this
possibility.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has
expired.
Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman from Florida, my colleague from
Florida, 30 seconds of my time.
[[Page 10478]]
Mr. BOYD. I thank my colleague, Mr. Mica, for yielding.
Madam Speaker, we must begin planning now for this possibility of a
hurricane hitting the gulf coast and what effect the oil spill, what
additional damage that will cause. We must ensure the current cleanup
and containment efforts under way are able to continue unabated.
Madam Speaker, I urge support for S. 3473.
Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I guess as we conclude the extended time of
debate on this measure to again revise some of the provisions of the
emergency portion, $150 million emergency fund within the $1.6 billion
Oil Liability Trust Fund, I understand that there has been identified a
minor technical glitch in the legislation as it came from the other
body.
As a great American, former United States Senator Bob Dole, he used
to say that his body, the U.S. Senate, is a great place if you like to
see paint dry and grass grow, as far as the speed in which things are
done.
However, here they have acted with due diligence and great speed and,
in that speed, have made a minor technical error. And I am not going to
tell anyone about it. And because this is a situation in which we must
proceed on an emergency basis, I am going to overlook it, in fairness.
I would also like to yield to the gentleman, our honorable chairman
of the T&I Committee, my partner, Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding.
We have agreed that the technical issue raised by representatives of
the other body is of a nature that can be resolved by the
administration upon passage of this bill. It is better for us to pass
this bill now to address the substantive issue, release of funds from
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and not delay progress in cleanup.
For that reason, we will pass the bill intact and let the
administration deal with whatever issue comes up. Should any additional
change be necessary of a technical nature, it can be dealt with at a
later time.
I thank the gentleman for his understanding, for his patience, and
for yielding me the time.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, June 7, 2010.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: I am writing to urge the Congress to
move quickly in enacting the FY 2010 Supplemental request. On
June 4, 2010, Secretary Napolitano announced that the Coast
Guard believes that within the next two weeks funding levels
in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund's expenditure account
will drop to levels that will force the Federal On-Scene
Coordinator to begin to cut back Federal Deepwater Horizon
response activities. We cannot allow the lack of funding to
hamstring our Federal response to this national catastrophe.
On May 12, the Administration proposed legislation to
support the BP/Deepwater Horizon response and speed
assistance to people in need. Included in this package was a
provision that would permit the Coast Guard and its National
Pollution Funds Center to move funds from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund to the Emergency Fund so that the
Federal response effort can continue without interruption.
Specifically, the legislative changes would permit the Coast
Guard to obtain additional advances in tranches of $100
million up to the incident cap for the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund. All of these costs are being billed to the
responsible parties and the receipts will be deposited in the
Trust Fund.
The President has ordered Federal agencies to bring all
available and appropriate resources to bear in response to
this disaster. Without legislative authorization, however,
the Coast Guard cannot access the additional emergency fund
resources necessary to pay for the Federal agencies' response
to this tragic oil spill.
We appreciate your support in moving this critical
legislation forward in the coming days.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Orszag,
Director.
____
Timeline for Approvals of Deepwater Horizon Lease
1986: MMS issues a list of categories of activities
excluded from further review under NEPA within the Department
of the Interior's ``Department Manual.''
May 27, 2004: The Bush Administration extends process by
which MMS manages the NEPA process for offshore lease sales,
including issuance of ``categorical exclusions.''
April 2007: MMS issues a Multistate environmental impact
statement (EIS) for a proposed 5-year lease on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) that estimated a likelihood of 3
spills from platform drilling in deepwater that would produce
approximately 1,500 barrels for each spill. As a result, the
assessed impacts from oil spills under the 5-year lease were
described as minimal. No extrapolation or hypothesis for what
would happen if the spill were larger.
October 22, 2007: MMS issues its Environmental Assessment
of the Proposed Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale
206, Central Planning Area. MMS estimated, based on
historical data, that the probability of an offshore oil
spill greater than 1,000 barrels reaching an environmentally
sensitive resource was small. Accordingly, MMS finds that a
supplemental EIS is not required and issues a FONNSI (Finding
of No New Significant Impact)--over that assessed in the
Multistate EIS for the 5-year lease on the OCS.
March 2008: BP purchased rights to drill for oil at MMS
lease sale 206.
May 2008: MMS issues an exemption from a ``blowout scenario
requirement'': for OCS actions in the Gulf (Notice to Lessee
2008). Accordingly, BP's exploration plan for the Deepwater
Horizon site did not include an analysis or response plan for
a blowout of the wellhead.
March 10, 2009: BP filed a 52-page exploration and
environmental impact plan for the Macondo well, located in
the Mississippi Canyon Block 252 of the Gulf, with MMS. This
plan stated that it was ``unlikely that an accidental surface
or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed
activities.'' In the plan, the company further asserted that
if there was a spill, ``due to the distance to shore (48
miles) and the response capabilities that would be
implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected.''
Pursuant to 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1340, MMS is required to approve
the BP exploration plan within 30 days of submission.
April 6, 2009: MMS approves BP exploration plan, with a
categorical exclusion from NEPA, because the falls within the
2004 list of potential ``categorical exclusions.'' Because of
the categorical exclusion, the additional environmental
impacts for a worst case scenario were not evaluated.
Mr. MICA. Reclaiming the time, also keep in mind the time that I
yielded to the other side when they ran out of time, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. MICA. But to conclude debate, again, I thank everyone for this
bipartisan effort. Even though, again, we have a minor technical
glitch, we want to move the legislation forward; so I urge my
colleagues to pass the measure.
Mr. McMAHON. I rise today in strong support of S. 3473. Since Day 1
of this disaster the Administration has brought all resources to bear
to address ensure that damage to the environment, wildlife, and public
health of the Gulf Region was as limited as possible.
In particular the United States Coast Guard has done outstanding
work. As Vice Chair of the Coast Guard Subcommittee I know how hard the
men and women of the Coast Guard have been working to contain this
disaster. Led by Admiral Thad Allen, who has taken charge of federal
on-the-ground response as National Incident Commander, the men and
women of the Coast Guard are on the frontlines and deserve our
gratitude and support.
This legislation is critical to maintaining continuity in the federal
government's response. It amends current law to allow the
administration to take multiple advances of up to $100 million from the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Without passage of S. 3473, the Coast
Guard could run out of funding for cleanup and prevention as early as
next week. This cannot be allowed to happen. I urge all of my
colleagues to support this straightforward, common-sense legislation.
It is the least we can do at the moment to help ongoing efforts to help
the people of the Gulf region.
Mr. MICA. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, S. 3473.
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. CUMMINGS. 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
[[Page 10479]]
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________
FHA REFORM ACT OF 2010
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5072.
{time} 1125
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5072) to improve the financial safety and soundness of
the FHA mortgage insurance program, with Mr. Pastor of Arizona in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday
June 9, 2010, all time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 5072
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 ``FHA Reform Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
Subparagraph (B) of section 203(c)(2) of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(c)(2)(B)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding clause (i)--
(A) by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may''; and
(B) by striking ``0.50 percent'' and inserting ``1.5
percent''; and
(2) in clause (ii), by striking ``shall be in an amount not
exceeding 0.55 percent'' and inserting ``may be in an amount
not exceeding 1.55 percent''.
SEC. 3. INDEMNIFICATION BY MORTGAGEES.
Section 202 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1708) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Indemnification by Mortgagees.--
``(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a
mortgage executed by a mortgagee approved by the Secretary
under the direct endorsement program or insured by a
mortgagee pursuant to the delegation of authority under
section 256 was not originated or underwritten in accordance
with the requirements established by the Secretary, and the
Secretary pays an insurance claim with respect to the
mortgage within a reasonable period specified by the
Secretary, the Secretary may require the mortgagee approved
by the Secretary under the direct endorsement program or the
mortgagee delegated authority under section 256 to indemnify
the Secretary for the loss.
``(2) Fraud or misrepresentation.--If fraud or
misrepresentation was involved in connection with the
origination or underwriting, the Secretary may require the
mortgagee approved by the Secretary under the direct
endorsement program or the mortgagee delegated authority
under section 256 to indemnify the Secretary for the loss
regardless of when an insurance claim is paid.
``(3) Requirements and procedures.--The Secretary shall
issue regulations establishing appropriate requirements and
procedures governing the indemnification of the Secretary by
the mortgagee.''.
SEC. 4. DELEGATION OF INSURING AUTHORITY.
Section 256 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-
21) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c);
(2) in subsection (e), by striking ``, including'' and all
that follows through ``by the mortgagee''; and
(3) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(c) and (d), respectively.
SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO TERMINATE MORTGAGEE ORIGINATION AND
UNDERWRITING APPROVAL.
Section 533 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1735f-
11) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by inserting
``or areas or on a nationwide basis'' after ``area'' each
place such term appears; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``(c)'' and all that
follows through ``The Secretary'' in the first sentence of
paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(c) Termination of Mortgagee Origination and Underwriting
Approval.--
``(1) Termination authority.--If the Secretary determines,
under the comparison provided in subsection (b), that a
mortgagee has a rate of early defaults and claims that is
excessive, the Secretary may terminate the approval of the
mortgagee to originate or underwrite single family mortgages
for any area, or areas, or on a nationwide basis,
notwithstanding section 202(c) of this Act.
``(2) Procedure.--The Secretary''.
SEC. 6. DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF FHA FOR RISK MANAGEMENT
AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS.
(a) Establishment of Position.--Subsection (b) of section 4
of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42
U.S.C. 3533(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) There shall be in the Department, within the Federal
Housing Administration, a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Risk
Management and Regulatory Affairs, who shall be appointed by
the Secretary and shall be responsible to the Federal Housing
Commissioner for all matters relating to managing and
mitigating risk to the mortgage insurance funds of the
Department and ensuring the performance of mortgages insured
by the Department.''.
(b) Termination.--Upon the appointment and confirmation of
the initial Deputy Assistant Secretary for Risk Management
and Regulatory Affairs pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, as amended
by subsection (a) of this section, the position of chief risk
officer within the Federal Housing Administration, filled by
appointment by the Federal Housing Commissioner, is
abolished.
SEC. 7. USE OF OUTSIDE CREDIT RISK ANALYSIS SOURCES.
Section 202 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1708),
as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(j) Use of Outside Credit Risk Analysis Sources.--The
Secretary may obtain the services of, and enter into
contracts with, private and other entities outside of the
Department in--
``(1) analyzing credit risk models and practices employed
by the Department in connection with such mortgages;
``(2) evaluating underwriting standards applicable to such
mortgages insured by the Department; and
``(3) analyzing the performance of lenders in complying
with, and the Department in enforcing, such underwriting
standards.''.
SEC. 8. REVIEW OF MORTGAGEE PERFORMANCE.
Section 533 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1735f-
11) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting after the period at the
end the following: ``For purposes of this subsection, the
term `early default' means a default that occurs within 24
months after a mortgage is originated or such alternative
appropriate period as the Secretary shall establish.'';
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting after the period at the
end of the first sentence the following: ``The Secretary
shall also identify which mortgagees have had a significant
or rapid increase, as determined by the Secretary, in the
number or percentage of early defaults and claims on such
mortgages, with respect to all mortgages originated by the
mortgagee or mortgages on housing located in any particular
geographic area or areas.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(d) Sufficient Resources.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary for each of fiscal years 2010
through 2014 the amount necessary to provide additional full-
time equivalent positions for the Department, or for entering
into such contracts as are necessary, to conduct reviews in
accordance with the requirements of this section and to carry
out other responsibilities relating to ensuring the safety
and soundness of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund.
``(e) Reporting to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of the FHA Reform Act of 2010 and not
less often than annually thereafter, the Secretary shall make
available to the Committee on Financial Services of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs of the Senate any information and conclusions
pursuant to the reviews required under subsection (a). Such
report shall not include detailed information on the
performance of individual mortgages.''.
SEC. 9. USE OF NATIONWIDE MORTGAGE LICENSING SYSTEM AND
REGISTRY.
(a) Use by Mortgagees, Officers, and Owners; Use for
Insured Mortgages.--
(1) Mortgagees, officers, and owners.--Section 202 of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1708), as amended by the
preceding provisions of this Act, is further amended by
adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(k) Use of Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and
Registry for Mortgagees, Officers, and Owners.--The Secretary
may require, as a condition for approval of a mortgagee by
the Secretary to originate or underwrite mortgages on single
family that are insured by the Secretary, that the
mortgagee--
``(1) obtain and maintain a unique company identifier
assigned by the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and
Registry, as established by the Conference of State Bank
Supervisors and the American Association of Residential
Mortgage Regulators; and
``(2) obtain and maintain, as relates to any and all
officers or owners of the mortgagee who are subject to the
requirements of the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008,
or are otherwise required to register with the Nationwide
Mortgage Licensing System and Registry, the unique
[[Page 10480]]
identifier assigned by the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing
System and Registry, as established by the Conference of
State Bank Supervisors and the American Association of
Residential Mortgage Regulators.''.
(2) Insured mortgages.--Section 203 of the National Housing
Act (12 U.S.C. 1709) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(y) Use of Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and
Registry for Insured Loans.--The Secretary may require each
mortgage insured under this section to include the unique
identifier (as such term is defined in section 1503 of the
S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5102)) and
any unique company identifier assigned by the Nationwide
Mortgage Licensing System and Registry, as established by the
Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the American
Association of Residential Mortgage Regulators.''.
(b) Coordination With State Regulatory Agencies.--Section
202 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1708), as amended
by the preceding provisions of this Act, is further amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(l) Information Sharing With State Regulatory Agencies.--
``(1) Joint protocol on information sharing.--The Secretary
shall, through consultation with State regulatory agencies,
pursue protocols for information sharing, including the
appropriate treatment of confidential or otherwise restricted
information, regarding either actions described in subsection
(c)(3) of this section or disciplinary or enforcement actions
by a State regulatory agency or agencies against a mortgagee
(as such term is defined in subsection (c)(7)).
``(2) Coordination.--To the greatest extent possible, the
Secretary and appropriate State regulatory agencies shall
coordinate disciplinary and enforcement actions involving
mortgagees (as such term is defined in subsection (c)(7)).''.
SEC. 10. REPORTING OF MORTGAGEE ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST OTHER
MORTGAGEES.
Section 202 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1708(e)), as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act,
is further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(m) Notification of Mortgagee Actions.--The Secretary
shall require each mortgagee, as a condition for approval by
the Secretary to originate or underwrite mortgages on single
family or multifamily housing that are insured by the
Secretary, if such mortgagee engages in the purchase of
mortgages insured by the Secretary and originated by other
mortgagees or in the purchase of the servicing rights to such
mortgages, and such mortgagee at any time takes action to
terminate or discontinue such purchases from another
mortgagee based on any determination, evidence, or report of
fraud or material misrepresentation in connection with the
origination of such mortgages, the mortgagee shall, not later
than 15 days after taking such action, shall notify the
Secretary of the action taken and the reasons for such
action.''.
SEC. 11. ANNUAL ACTUARIAL STUDY AND QUARTERLY REPORTS ON
MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE FUND.
Subsection (a) of section 202 of the National Housing Act
(12 U.S.C. 1708(a)) is amended--
(1) in the second sentence of paragraph (4), by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``, any changes
to the current or projected safety and soundness of the Fund
since the most recent report under this paragraph or
paragraph (5), and any risks to the Fund''; and
(2) in paragraph (5)--
(A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and'';
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) any other factors that are likely to have an impact
on the financial status of the Fund or cause any material
changes to the current or projected safety and soundness of
the Fund since the most recent report under paragraph (4).
The Secretary may include in the report under this paragraph
any recommendations not made in the most recent report under
paragraph (4) that may be needed to ensure that the Fund
remains financially sound.''.
SEC. 12. REVIEW OF DOWNPAYMENT REQUIREMENTS.
Section 205 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1711) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Review of Downpayment Requirements.--If, at any time
when the capital ratio (as such term is defined in subsection
(f)) of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund does not comply
with the requirement under subsection (f)(1), the Secretary
establishes a cash investment requirement, for all mortgages
or mortgagors or with respect to any group of mortgages or
mortgagors, that exceeds the minimum percentage or amount
required under section 203(b)(9), thereafter upon the capital
ratio first complying with the requirement under subsection
(f)(1) the Secretary shall review such cash investment
requirement and, if the Secretary determines that such
percentage or amount may be reduced while maintaining such
compliance, the Secretary shall subsequently reduce such
requirement by such percentage or amount as the Secretary
considers appropriate.''.
SEC. 13. DEFAULT AND ORIGINATION INFORMATION BY LOAN SERVICER
AND ORIGINATING DIRECT ENDORSEMENT LENDER.
(a) Collection of Information.--Paragraph (2) of section
540(b) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1712 U.S.C.
1735f-18(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(C) For each entity that services insured mortgages, data
on the performance of mortgages originated during each
calendar quarter occurring during the applicable collection
period, disaggregated by the direct endorsement mortgagee
from whom such entity acquired such servicing.''.
(b) Applicability.--Information described in subparagraph
(C) of section 540(b)(2) of the National Housing Act, as
added by subsection (a) of this section, shall first be made
available under such section 540 for the applicable
collection period (as such term is defined in such section)
relating to the first calendar quarter ending after the
expiration of the 12-month period that begins on the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 14. THIRD PARTY SERVICER OUTREACH.
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development may, to the extent any amounts for fiscal year
2010 or 2011 are made available in advance in appropriation
Acts for reimbursements under this section, provide
reimbursement to servicers of covered mortgages (as such term
is defined in subsection (e)) for costs of obtaining the
services of independent third parties meeting the
requirements under subsection (b) of this section to make in-
person contact with mortgagors under covered mortgages whose
payments under such mortgages are 60 or more days past due,
solely for the purposes of providing information to such
mortgagors regarding--
(1) available counseling by housing counseling agencies
approved by the Secretary ; and
(2) available mortgage loan modification, refinance, and
assistance programs.
(b) Qualified Independent Third Parties.--An independent
third party meets the requirements of this subsection if the
third party--
(1) is an entity, including a housing counseling agency
approved by the Secretary, that meets standards,
qualifications, and requirements (including regarding
foreclosure prevention training, quality monitoring,
safeguarding of non-public information) established by the
Secretary for purposes of this section for in-person contact
about available mortgage loan modification, refinance, and
assistance programs; and
(2) does not charge any fees or require other payments,
directly or indirectly, from any mortgagor for making in-
person contact and providing information and documents under
this section.
(c) Treatment of Personal, Non-public, and Confidential
Information.--An independent third party whose services are
obtained using amounts made available for use under this
section and the mortgage servicer obtaining such services
shall not use, disclose, or distribute any personal, non-
public, or confidential information about a mortgagor
obtained during an in-person contact with the mortgagor,
except for purposes of engaging in the process of
modification or refinance of the covered mortgage.
(d) Date of Contact and Disclosures.--Each independent
third party whose services are obtained by a mortgage
servicer using amounts made available for use under this
section shall--
(1) initiate in-person contact with a mortgagor not later
than 10 days after the date upon which payments under the
covered mortgage of the mortgagor become 60 days past due;
and
(2) upon making in-person contact with a mortgagor, provide
the mortgagor with a written document that discloses--
(A) the name of, and contact information for, the
independent third party and the mortgage servicer;
(B) that the independent third party has contracted with
the mortgage servicer to provide the in-person contact at no
charge to the mortgagor;
(C) that the independent third party is an agent of the
mortgage servicer;
(D) that the in-person contact with the mortgagor consists
of providing information about available counseling by a
housing counseling agency approved by the Secretary and
available mortgage loan modification, refinance, and
assistance programs;
(E) that the independent third party and the mortgage
servicer are prohibited from the use, disclosure, or
distribution of personal, non-public, and confidential
information about the mortgagor, obtained during the in-
person contact, except for purposes of engaging in the
process of modification or refinance of the covered mortgage;
(F) any other information that the Secretary determines
should be disclosed.
(e) Definition of Covered Mortgage.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``covered mortgage'' means a mortgage on a
1- to 4-family residence insured under the provisions of
subsection (b) or (k) of section 203, section 234(c), or 251
of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709, 1715y, 1715z-
16).
SEC. 15. GAO REPORTS ON FHA AND GINNIE MAE.
Not later than the expiration of the 12-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the
Congress the following reports:
(1) FHA report.--A report on the single family mortgage
insurance programs of the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development and the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund
established under section 202(a) of the National Housing Act
(12 U.S.C. 1708(a)) that--
[[Page 10481]]
(A) analyzes such Fund, the economic net worth, capital
ratio, and unamortized insurance-in-force (as such terms are
defined in section 205(f)(4) of such Act (12 U.S.C.
1711(f)(4))) of such Fund, the risks to the Fund, how the
capital ratio of the Fund affects the mortgage insurance
programs under the Fund and the broader housing market, the
extent to which the housing markets are more dependent on
mortgage insurance provided through the Fund since the
financial crisis began in 2008, and the exposure of the
taxpayers for obligations of the Fund;
(B) analyzes the methodology of the capital ratio for the
Fund under section 205(f) of such Act and examines other
alternative methodologies with respect to which methodology
is most appropriate to meet the operational goals of the Fund
under section 202(a)(7);
(C) analyzes the effects of the increases in the limits on
the maximum principal obligation of mortgages made by the FHA
Modernization Act of 2008 (title I of division B of Public
Law 110-289), section 202 of the Economic Stimulus Act of
2008 (Public Law 110-185; 122 Stat. 620), section 1202 of
division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 225), and section 166 of
the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2010 (as added by
section 104 of division B of Public Law 111-88; 123 Stat.
29723) on--
(i) the risks to and safety and soundness of the Fund;
(ii) the impact on the affordability and availability of
mortgage credit for borrowers for loans authorized under such
higher loan limits;
(iii) the private market for residential mortgage loans
that are not insured by the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development; and
(iv) the Federal National Mortgage Association and the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; and
(D) analyzes the impact on affordability to FHA borrowers,
and the impact to the Fund, of seller concessions or
contributions to a borrower purchasing a residence using a
mortgage that is insured by the Secretary.
(2) Ginnie mae.--A report on the Government National
Mortgage Association that identifies--
(A) the volume and share of the residential mortgage market
that consists of mortgages that back securities for which the
payment for principal and interest is guaranteed by such
Association and how the Association has been affected by the
economic recession, credit crisis, and downturn in the
housing markets occurring during 2008, 2009, and 2010;
(B) the capacity of the Association to manage the volume of
business it conducts and securities it guarantees,
particularly with regard to the recent dramatic increase in
such volume, including the ability of the Association to
conduct appropriate oversight of contractors and issuers of
securities for which the payment of principal and interest is
guaranteed by the Association and to determine whether the
characteristics of various mortgage products constitute
appropriate collateral for the federally guaranteed
securities for which payment of principal and interest is
guaranteed by such Association;
(C) the impacts, if any, resulting from such increased
volume of business conducted by the Association and
securities it guarantees and the challenges such increased
volume poses to the internal controls of the Association; and
(D) the existing capital net worth requirements for
aggregators of mortgages that issue securities that are based
on or backed by such mortgages and payment of principal and
interest on which is guaranteed by such Association and
recommends an appropriate required level of net worth for
such aggregators and issuers to protect the financial
interests of the Federal Government and the taxpayers.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order
except those printed in House Report 111-503. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Waters
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 111-503.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in
order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Waters:
Page 9, line 19, after ``single family'' insert
``residences''.
Page 18, line 24, strike ``12-month'' and insert ``18-
month''.
Page 14, after line 16, insert the following new section:
SEC. 13. AUTHORIZATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ORIGINATION OF
FHA-INSURED LOANS.
(a) Single Family Mortgages.--Section 203(b) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)) is amended by
striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following new
paragraph:
``(1) Have been made to a mortgagee approved by the
Secretary or to a person or entity authorized by the
Secretary under section 202(d)(1) to participate in the
origination of the mortgage, and be held by a mortgagee
approved by the Secretary as responsible and able to service
the mortgage properly.''.
(b) Home Equity Conversion Mortgages.--Section 255(d) of
the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20(d)) is amended
by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following new
paragraph:
``(1) have been originated by a mortgagee approved by, or
by a person or entity authorized under section 202(d)(1) to
participate in the origination by, the Secretary;''.
Page 14, line 17, strike ``13'' and insert ``14''.
Page 15, line 14, strike ``14'' and insert ``15''.
Strike line 23 on page 18 and all that follows through page
22, line 20, and insert the following:
SEC. 16. GAO REPORT ON FHA.
Not later than the expiration of the 12-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the
Congress a report on the single family mortgage insurance
programs of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
and the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund established under
section 202(a) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1708(a)) that--
(1) analyzes such Fund, the economic net worth, capital
ratio, and unamortized insurance-in-force (as such terms are
defined in section 205(f)(4) of such Act (12 U.S.C.
1711(f)(4))) of such Fund, the risks to the Fund, how the
capital ratio of the Fund affects the mortgage insurance
programs under the Fund and the broader housing market, the
extent to which the housing markets are more dependent on
mortgage insurance provided through the Fund since the
financial crisis began in 2008, and the exposure of the
taxpayers for obligations of the Fund;
(2) analyzes the methodology for determining the Fund's
capital ratio under section 205(f) of such Act and examines
alternative methods for assessing the Fund's financial
condition and their potential impacts on the Fund's ability
to meet the operational goals under section 202(a)(7) of such
Act;
(3) analyzes the potential effects of the increases in the
limits on the maximum principal obligation of mortgages made
by the FHA Modernization Act of 2008 (title I of division B
of Public Law 110-289), section 202 of the Economic Stimulus
Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-185; 122 Stat. 620), section 1202
of division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 225), and section 166 of
the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2010 (as added by
section 104 of division B of Public Law 111-88; 123 Stat.
29723) on--
(A) the risks to and safety and soundness of the Fund;
(B) the impact on the affordability and availability of
mortgage credit for borrowers for loans authorized under such
higher loan limits;
(C) the private market for residential mortgage loans that
are not insured by the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development; and
(D) the Federal National Mortgage Association and the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; and
(4) analyzes the impact on affordability to FHA borrowers,
and the impact to the Fund, of seller concessions or
contributions to a borrower purchasing a residence using a
mortgage that is insured by the Secretary.
At the end of the bill, add the following new sections:
SEC. 17. INCREASED LOAN LIMITS FOR DESIGNATED COUNTIES.
(a) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (in this
section referred to as the ``Secretary'') may increase the
dollar amount limitations on the principal obligation of
mortgages otherwise determined under section 203(b)(2) of the
National Housing Act for any county that is designated under
this section.
(b) Procedure.--
(1) Federal register notice.--Any designation of a county
under this section shall be made only pursuant to application
by the county for such designation, in accordance with
procedures that the Secretary may establish. The Secretary
may establish such procedures only by publication in the
Federal Register not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(2) Final determination.--If the Secretary establishes
procedures for applications under paragraph (1) and receives
a completed application for designation under this section of
a county in accordance with such procedures, the Secretary
shall issue a final determination regarding such application
for designation, based on the criteria under subsection (c),
not later than 60 days after such receipt.
(c) Determination Criteria.--The Secretary may designate an
applicant county under this section only if the county is
located within a micropolitan area (as such term is defined
by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget) and
meets the following criteria:
[[Page 10482]]
(1) More than 70 percent of the border of the applicant
county abuts two or more metropolitan statistical areas (as
such term is defined by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget) for which each dollar amount
limitation on the principal obligation of a mortgage that may
be insured under section 203 of the National Housing Act, in
effect at the time of such determination, is at least 40
percent greater than the dollar amount limitation for the
same size residence for the applicant county. For purposes of
such calculation, the dollar amount limitations of such
abutting counties shall not include any increase attributable
to the authority under this section.
(2) The applicant county has experienced significant
population growth, as evidenced by an increase of 15 percent
or more during the 10 years preceding the application,
according to statistics of the United States Census Bureau or
such other appropriate criteria as the Secretary shall
establish.
(3) The dollar amount limitation on the principal
obligation of a mortgage on housing in the applicant county
that may be insured under section 203 of the National Housing
Act, in effect at the time of such application, is the
minimum such dollar amount limitation allowable under the
matter that follows clause (ii) in section 203(b)(2)(A) of
the National Housing Act.
(d) Establishment of Loan Limits.--For a county designated
under this section, the Secretary may increase the maximum
dollar amount limitations on the principal obligation of
mortgages otherwise determined under section 203(b)(2) of the
National Housing Act to such levels as are appropriate,
taking into consideration the criteria established for such
designation, but not to exceed the dollar amount limitations
for the abutting metropolitan statistical area meeting the
requirements of subsection (c)(1) that has the lowest such
dollar amount limitations.
(e) Effective Date and Term of Designation of New
Countywide Loan Limits.--A designation of a county under this
section, and the maximum dollar amount limitations for such
county pursuant to subsection (d), shall--
(1) take effect upon the expiration of the 60-day period
that begins upon the final determination for the county
referred to in subsection (b)(2); and
(2) remain in effect until the end of the calendar year in
which such designation takes effect.
(f) Loan Limits for Succeeding Years.--With respect to each
calendar year immediately following the calendar year in
which a county is designated under this subsection, the
Secretary may, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
continue or adjust the dollar amount limitations in effect
pursuant to this section for such designated county for such
preceding year, as appropriate, consistent with the criteria
under this section.
SEC. 18. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BORROWERS.
Section 203 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709),
as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(z) Identification Requirements for Borrowers.--No
mortgage on a 1- to 4-family dwelling may be insured under
this title unless the mortgagor under such mortgage--
``(1) provides a valid Social Security Number; and
``(2) is (A) a United States citizen, (B) a lawful
permanent resident alien, or (C) a non-permanent resident
alien who legally resides in and is authorized to work in the
United States.
The Secretary shall establish policies under which mortgagees
verify compliance with the requirements under this
subsection.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment would make technical
corrections to the underlying FHA Reform Act of 2010 and would respond
to a GAO request for more time to complete the mandated study on FHA.
This amendment would also facilitate HUD's implementation of a
recently finalized rule whereby FHA will no longer directly approve
loan correspondents or mortgage brokers but will require lenders to
approve brokers.
Under the language proposed in this amendment, loan correspondents
would be permitted to continue closing loans in their own name, a
critical business function, and continue to utilize table funding
arrangements.
This amendment also addresses eligibility for FHA loans by requiring
FHA borrowers to have a valid Social Security number and limiting FHA
loans to only U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. This language ensures
that undocumented immigrants or other individuals who are in the
country unlawfully cannot get FHA mortgages, while still providing that
lawful immigrants can continue to stimulate demand in the U.S. housing
market through the purchase of homes.
Finally, this amendment provides that the Secretary may increase loan
limits for micropolitan counties surrounded by higher-cost areas that
are experiencing significant growth.
Again, this amendment strengthens an already strong bill, and I urge
my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1130
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am
not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to thank the chairwoman of the Housing
Subcommittee for her good work on this bill and for this manager's
amendment. We have worked together on this amendment, as we have with
the rest of the bill.
As she summarized in her statement, this provides provisions that
drops out a few provisions that were problematic, but it also increases
the requirements for identification, for a valid Social Security number
and to be a U.S. citizen to be able to have access to FHA programs. I
think it goes to the core of a lot of discussion that we've had on this
floor, and certainly we want to make certain that those who are
eligible for programs are able to access them and those that are
ineligible are unable to access them.
So as I said, we've worked together on this amendment, and I plan to
support the manager's amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time on this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cardoza
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Cardoza:
Page 15, line 20, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
Page 18, after line 16, insert the following new
subsection:
(e) Priority.--In providing reimbursements under this
section, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall
provide priority to independent third parties serving
mortgagors under covered mortgages in areas experiencing a
mortgage foreclosure rate and unemployment rate higher than
the national average for the most recent 12-month period for
which satisfactory data are available.
Page 18, line 17, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cardoza) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. CARDOZA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In recent weeks we have seen a small but slow and steady improvement
in the national housing market while other parts of the country, like
my congressional district in the San Joaquin Valley, have continued to
deteriorate. I have repeatedly explained to the
[[Page 10483]]
administration that their programs are not doing enough to stem the
problems of the rising tide of foreclosures in areas like the Central
Valley in California.
As this economic devastation continues, we must redouble our efforts
to help our constituents as we work to improve the fundamentals of the
economy and hopefully eventually pull ourselves out of this situation.
We must ensure that we are doing everything that we can to help those
who are suffering the most.
Counseling services are just one component of this comprehensive
approach that we need to deal with this ongoing crisis. People must
know their options when faced with foreclosure so that they can make
informed decisions based on their own personal circumstances.
Navigating these options is often difficult, stressful, and confusing
to those who have never had to deal with such issues. Counseling can
help some people find ways to stay in their homes while it offers
others a path to resolve an impending foreclosure and get back on their
feet.
If we are going to incentivize mortgage servicers to provide third-
party counselors to borrowers who are behind on their mortgage
payments, then we ought to make sure we give priority to those areas
who are hurting the most. My amendment would prioritize foreclosure
counseling services to areas of the country that have been the hardest
hit by the housing crisis.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
amendment and to refocus our efforts on those who need the help the
most.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to claim the time in opposition, although I
am unopposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. I rise in support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California.
As my colleague from California knows all too well, rising
foreclosure and delinquency rates continue to affect all areas of the
mortgage market. Secondary markets for mortgages have seen a
significant drawback that has led to a reduction in the availability of
credit. Lenders have tightened credit standards making it more
difficult for delinquent borrowers to refinance.
At the same time, because of falling home prices and certainly in
many parts of the country, like the gentleman's home district,
borrowers are finding themselves unable to refinance into more
affordable or fixed-rate products because their outstanding mortgage
loan balances exceed their homes' values.
States such as California, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada continue to
dominate the national delinquency and foreclosure markets. The Cardoza
amendment prioritizes assistance to the areas that have been hardest
hit by foreclosure and unemployment compared to the rest of the
country.
I am prepared to support the gentleman's amendment, and I would like
to say that one area of the gentleman's amendment that I particularly
am in favor of--because we kind of go through this discussion on a lot
of different bills, where to put the greater emphasis, and I think the
greater emphasis and the greater dollar assistance need to go to the
places that are the hardest hit and do have the most difficult
problems. And so I think this is well-intentioned, and I would support
the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for her comments
and her support of my amendment. It is very important that we do move
in this direction.
At this time, I yield 1 minute to the chairwoman of the subcommittee,
a true champion for those who are trying to remain in their homes, and
she's done so much to try to help us alleviate the challenges that we
face in my district and throughout our State, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. I would like to thank my colleague from California. I
certainly support this amendment.
The gentleman from California has been one of the most active Members
of this Congress in bringing attention to the economic fallout of the
foreclosure crisis. I am well aware that his district located in my
home State of California has one of the highest foreclosure rates in
the country. California has the Nation's fourth highest foreclosure
rate with one in every 192 housing units receiving a foreclosure filing
last April.
Unfortunately, due to the economic impacts of foreclosures on
communities, high foreclosure rates are sometimes accompanied by high
unemployment rates. At 13 percent, California's unemployment rate is
higher than the national unemployment rate of 9.5 percent. By
prioritizing foreclosure counseling services to the hardest hit areas,
this amendment would ensure that the homeowners most in need of these
services would receive them, helping to stabilize communities that are
already facing economic troubles.
I support this amendment, and I certainly thank the gentleman for
offering it. I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes.''
Mrs. CAPITO. Again, I voice my support for the amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. This amendment is straightforward and common sense. I
believe that Congress must ensure that all efforts to provide
assistance during these difficult times actually help those that need
it the most.
I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cao
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. CAO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Cao:
Page 16, line 4, strike ``and''.
Page 16, line 6, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 16, after line 6, insert the following:
(3) available counseling regarding financial management and
credit risk.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Cao) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. CAO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to
H.R. 5072, the FHA Reform Act of 2010. The bill we are considering
today is a much-needed piece of legislation to help bolster the Federal
Housing Administration and help prevent another housing crisis.
As someone from a district that is both in recovery and one with
incredible housing needs, I especially appreciate this bill. I
congratulate Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus for bringing this
important legislation to the floor.
I think the portion of the bill which provides information about loan
modification and housing counseling to a mortgager at risk of early
default is important. The amendment that I propose slightly expands
this requirement by including language that includes credit risk and
financial management counseling information.
I know that many times, especially in the current economic downturn,
people headed for foreclosure have many other debt issues. Low- and
middle-income families, those most likely to have FHA loans, often
don't know that there is counseling available to help them understand
the credit risk associated with foreclosure and loan modification. Many
do not have the skills to manage this risk. They don't know that there
is often free or low-cost financial management information available to
them for help. That is why I have drafted the additional language to
help these families get information about the full range of services
available to them. This is good policy from which any constituent in my
district can benefit.
[[Page 10484]]
This is about giving people the information they need to be
successful. As policymakers, we should not only aim to preserve
homeownership but to encourage responsible homeownership. By empowering
people, we are taking a proactive stance towards aborting another
financial crisis.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not
opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman for this amendment which would
ensure that FHA borrowers who are having difficulty paying their loans
would receive counseling about credit risk and financial management in
addition to information about loan modification assistance and the
availability of housing counseling.
Financial literacy is an important tool for empowering consumers,
especially those consumers who are having difficulty making mortgage
payments. The gentleman's amendment would enhance the housing
counseling resources provided by the bill. By allowing borrowers to
learn about how to manage their non-mortgage debt, they could be
helpful in ensuring that they are able to remain current in their
mortgages after modification.
I support this amendment, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAO. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cao).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Bean
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 111-503.
Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Bean:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 16. AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH HIGHER MINIMUM CASH
INVESTMENT REQUIREMENT.
(a) Authority.--Paragraph (9) of section 203(b) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(9)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Authority to establish higher minimum requirement.--
The Secretary may establish a higher minimum cash investment
requirement than the minimum requirement under subsection
(a), for all mortgagors or a certain class or classes of
mortgagors, which may be based on criteria related to
borrowers' credit scores or other industry standards related
to borrowers' financial soundness. In establishing such a
higher minimum cash investment requirement, the Secretary
shall take into consideration the findings of the most recent
annual report to the Congress on minimum cash investments
pursuant to section 16(b) of the FHA Reform Act of 2010.''.
(b) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 12-month
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and
annually thereafter, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall submit to the Committee on Financial
Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report
detailing the implementation of the minimum cash investment
requirements under section 203(b)(9) of the National Housing
Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(9)) and discussing and analyzing
options for proposed changes to such requirements, including
changes that would take into account borrowers' credit scores
or other industry standards related to borrowers' financial
soundness. Such report shall--
(1) analyze the impacts that any actual or proposed such
changes are projected to have on--
(A) the financial soundness of the Mutual Mortgage
Insurance Fund;
(B) the housing finance market of the United States; and
(C) the number of borrowers served by the Federal Housing
Administration;
(2) explain the reasons for any actual or proposed such
changes in the such requirements made since the last report
under this subsection;
(3) evaluate the impact of any actual or proposed such
changes in such requirements on the Mutual Mortgage Insurance
Fund;
(4) evaluate the impacts of any actual or proposed such
changes on potential mortgagors under mortgages on one- to
four-family dwellings insured by the Secretary under the
National Housing Act; and
(5) evaluate the impact of any actual or proposed such
changes on the soundness of the housing market in the United
States.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Ms. Bean) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am here to talk to my colleagues about
today protects taxpayers and increases government accountability while
preserving a critical program that has helped 37 million Americans
become homeowners since 1934.
My amendment requires HUD and the FHA to conduct annual comprehensive
assessments and considerations for increased minimum down payment
requirements in the FHA mortgage guarantee program and grants the FHA
greater authority to do so.
Currently, the minimum cash investment requirement, commonly referred
to as the ``down payment requirement,'' is set at 3.5 percent. HUD has
used its existing authority to propose a 10 percent down payment
requirement for borrowers with credit scores below 580, and I applaud
FHA Commissioner Stevens and HUD for this important step to protect
taxpayer dollars.
However, it's important for HUD to be given clear direction on
evaluating future down payment increases as data suggests that the
foreclosure crisis is not yet over.
According to core logic, approximately one in four borrowers are
underwater in their mortgages, which means they owe more than their
house is currently worth. As borrowers become increasingly underwater,
they lose incentive to continue to pay their mortgage, which can lead
to delinquency and further foreclosures.
While it is difficult for individual homeowners to guard against
large swings in the housing market, one important tool for preventing
negative equity is to require a meaningful down payment. To make sure
HUD is setting down payment requirements for the FHA program that will
sufficiently protect the Federal Government from excessive defaults, my
amendment requires HUD to submit an annual report to Congress regarding
proposed or actual increases. The report would require HUD to analyze
the impacts that they would have on the financial soundness of the
Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund--which is the reserve fund referenced
frequently in today's debate--also the effect on the housing finance
market of the United States and the number of borrowers served by the
FHA program.
{time} 1145
The amendment requires HUD to consider the findings of these annual
reports in determining whether higher down payment requirements are
warranted. In addition, it grants authority to HUD to establish
requirements for all borrowers or a class or classes of borrowers, and
it directs HUD to consider a borrower's credit score when making these
decisions.
Combined, this amendment will mandate HUD to evaluate resetting down
payment requirements every year, and it will ensure the Federal
Government is effectively protected from unnecessary risk. This
amendment allows Congress to protect taxpayers without being overly
prescriptive or handcuffing the FHA with specific terms. Instead, it
provides the FHA the authority to make fact-based decisions based on
the level of defaults and market conditions.
We learned from the current mortgage crisis that the FHA needs the
data and the flexibility to address changes in today's more dynamic and
diverse mortgage market and to protect taxpayers. We also recognize the
importance of preserving access to affordable mortgages for millions of
American families. FHA has helped Americans attain home ownership and
has provided crucial mortgage insurance at times when the private
market has pulled back from the mortgage market.
[[Page 10485]]
This legislation well complements the consumer and taxpayer
protections in the Wall Street reforms Congress is moving towards final
passage.
I urge my colleagues to support the Bean amendment and the underlying
bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I rise to claim time in opposition, although I'm not
opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. As the gentlewoman from Illinois stated, this gives HUD
the authority to increase FHA down payments and would require an annual
report. I'd like to ask the gentlelady, if I could, a question about
her amendment, if she would be willing to help me out with some
clarification.
You mentioned in your statement that HUD had already raised the down
payment requirements with those of credit scores of 580 and below up to
10 percent. So my question is, it seems apparent to me that HUD already
has the authority that you are granting in this amendment. HUD can
already now go in and raise down payments. I would like to know what
the distinction is or what the difference of the authority is that
you're granting in your amendment from the authority that HUD already
has.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Ms. BEAN. Well, first of all, it's mandating it. They have to
evaluate the facts every year and then propose to Congress why they are
or aren't making changes. So that's different than what they've been
required to do in the past.
Mrs. CAPITO. But still, the authority they have to raise down payment
requirements is already existing in current law.
Ms. BEAN. They do have the authority to make changes.
Mrs. CAPITO. Basically, the change is more in the annual report and
the requirement that HUD has to look at those reports and make a
statement to the committee and to Congress?
Ms. BEAN. That's correct.
Mrs. CAPITO. I thank the gentlelady for clarification, and as I said
previously, I am prepared to support this amendment.
I don't believe I have any further requests for time; so I yield back
the balance of my time.
Ms. BEAN. I yield such time as she may consume to Congresswoman
Waters.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reiterates the existing
authority of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to raise
down payment standards if he deems it necessary to ensure the financial
health of FHA, and that is exactly what Secretary Donovan, with the
help of Commissioner Stevens is doing because data indicates it is the
best thing to do for the current economic environment. In addition, the
Secretary has the authority to reduce this down payment should economic
conditions change and data indicates that it can be done while
preserving the health of the capital reserves.
This amendment also calls for the Secretary to provide an annual
report on the implementation of the minimum down payment requirement,
the impact on FHA's capital reserves, the housing market generally, all
the number of FHA borrowers, and the impact of any proposed changes on
borrowers on the fund.
I believe this is a sensible amendment that increases transparency
and accountability and should receive strong, bipartisan support, and I
thank Congresswoman Bean for all of the work that she's done on this
committee and for this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
Page 3, after line 16, insert the following new section:
SEC. 3. DOWNPAYMENT REQUIREMENT OF 5 PERCENT AND PROHIBITION
OF FINANCING OF CLOSING COSTS.
Section 203 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(9)(A), by striking ``3.5 percent''
and inserting ``5.0 percent''; and
(2) in subsections (b)(2) and (k)(3)(A), by striking
``(including such initial service charges, appraisal,
inspection, and other fees as the Secretary shall approve)''
each place such term appears and inserting ``(which may not
include any initial service charges, appraisal, inspection,
or other fees or closing costs as the Secretary shall
prohibit)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield myself 3 minutes.
I want to begin by restating the obvious, and that is, the FHA right
now is in serious financial trouble. Their book of business during 2005
and 2006 and 2007 was really pretty small back then, and in 2008, FHA's
lending took off to really high levels and currently is around 30
percent of the market. Typically, the default from mortgages occurs not
in the first couple of years but in three, four, five, six, and seven
years.
So we've already seen a sharp increase in delinquency and defaults
with the FHA book, and we've not even gotten into the typically bad
areas, the problem years for 2008 and 2009 so we're probably going to
see those numbers go off the track.
Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say that
there isn't going to be a problem because underwriting standards have
tightened up some and the average FICO score has gone up. If you think
about it, that really misses the point. In the mortgage business, you
make pennies and you lose dollars. Because of the tremendous increase
in volume, the FHA has insured thousands of more loans from higher
credit borrowers but they insured thousands of more loans from more
credit risky borrowers, too. Those numbers just aren't going to balance
out. So, when the FHA has to pay a claim on default, it costs
significantly more than the proceeds, than the few extra pennies they
get by issuing more loans. For example, the premiums from 10 additional
good loans would not cover the losses from 10 additional riskier loans
in default. In fact, I doubt it would cover even one.
This point also debunks the claim that if you raise the down payment
you will hurt the FHA because the accompanying reduction in volume will
not allow them to collect as many fees. Why is that? The more loans you
insure, the more defaults you will experience and you will not be able
to recoup the losses with those additional premiums.
A second point. Another argument they will make is that the FHA's LTV
ratio, the loan-to-value ratio, above 95 percent are a lower percentage
of the books today than they were just a few years ago, but this fails
to acknowledge that it's because their book has grown so much over the
last few years. So I would argue this, that of the total numbers, there
are significantly more loans over there that are above 95 percent LTV
and over 96.5 which is a critical number simply because of their
ability to finance the up-front premiums now. And with more loans with
higher LTVs means what? More riskier loans.
FHA's own actuarial report says this: ``Based on previous econometric
studies of mortgage behavior, a borrower's equity position in the
mortgaged house is one of the most important drivers of default
behavior. The larger the equity position a borrower has, the greater
the incentive to avoid default on the loan.''
So that's why I've come up with this amendment. It's not a 20 percent
down payment or 15 percent or even a 10 percent, which many private
lenders right
[[Page 10486]]
now require, but we go for the reasonable one, the compromise, 5
percent down payment. I support home owners as much as the next guy,
and I want everybody to be able to afford their own home if they could.
But we have to learn something from our past history, and we have to be
responsible here in this House.
I find the debate over the problems with the FHA eerily similar to
the debates we've had leading up to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As
taxpayers now are pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into Fannie
and Freddie now, history has shown that we were on the right side of
the debate then with Fannie and Freddie then, and I want to make sure
that when this FHA bill goes through this House now, and at the
conclusion of this debate as well, I want to make sure that myself and
all of my colleagues are on the right side of this debate as well.
So I urge my colleagues to be all on the right side of this, this
debate in history and to support my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, there were several aspects of the debate over housing
during the period that led up to the crisis. Part of it was over Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, but an even bigger part--because it involved
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--was over sub-prime loans being made
largely, although not entirely, on the unregulated banking system, and
there were those who defended that. There were those who opposed
efforts to rein it in.
In fact, with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I changed my own
position with regard to them when in 2004 the administration, without
congressional input, ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy more
loans from people below the median income. We tried, many of us, during
the period of 2004, 2005, and 2006 to get legislation adopted to ban
sub-prime loans being granted imprudently. We had, the Congress, given
the Federal Reserve the authority to do that in 1994, but Mr. Greenspan
refused to do that. He since has apologized for that error.
So the question was not whether or not there was a general lack of
discipline but whether there was a particular lack of discipline in
containing sub-prime mortgages. The relevance of that is that the FHA
doesn't do that. In fact, at a time of general ideological opposition
of regulation of the mortgage market outside the banking system, there
was very little regulation of sub-prime mortgages being granted to
people who couldn't afford them, who made no down payment, who didn't
have to document their income. Because of all that, we ran into these
problems, and the FHA's percentage went down. That's a major reason why
the FHA went down. The FHA has never been guilty of that laxity of
practice.
So, part of the reason for the increase in the FHA share is that we
have been able finally to cut back on the sub-prime mortgages being
granted imprudently, and the FHA has much stricter standards. Yet, I
want to stress--and this is a major cause of the Fannie and Freddie
problem is that they were pushed into buying sub- prime mortgages that
never should have been given in the first place. That's not the FHA.
It's also the case that the FHA has stepped up in recent years,
probably at congressional urging. The down payment has gone up. The up-
front fee has gone up. The FHA has power now to go up to a 10 percent
and has done this, a 10 percent down payment for people with a weak
credit score. That's already part of the FHA's proposal.
The gentlewoman from Illinois' amendment just adopted makes it clear
they can do even more, but to go beyond that, to the degree the
gentleman from New Jersey wants to do, would undercut the ability of
people who are capable of paying their mortgages from getting mortgage
loans. That's why we have an unusual coalition opposing this amendment.
It actually included a majority of the Republicans on the Committee on
Financial Services who voted against this amendment, but it includes
people on all sides of the housing market.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
We have the Consumer Federation, the Center for Responsible Lending,
the people who have distinguished themselves by being opposed to sub-
prime lending when others in this Chamber didn't want any restriction,
and the Realtors and the home builders, those who are in the business
of providing housing, those who are advocates for consumers come
together to say this goes too far and would go beyond what is needed
for responsible lending.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of the amendment.
We can learn from history but we really can't revise it as much as we
want to try. We're hearing the same arguments now that we heard about
Fannie and Freddie, that there's no trouble, they're solvent,
everything's fine. We're hearing the same thing with FHA now, but I can
tell you, when FHA insured simply, what was it one in fifty homes, now
it's one in four, or guarantees the loan on that amount, we're going to
face trouble here unless we make additional changes to the ones that
are being proposed to this bill. This is a prudent amendment.
It would raise from 3.5 to 5 percent the minimum down payment. It
gives more individuals more skin in the game for their home and fewer
individuals will walk away. They will try to work it out and try to
make their mortgages go on.
{time} 1200
We cannot afford to ignore history, and if we reject this amendment,
we are ignoring history.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have the right to close.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, to close, I take, to begin
with, the words of the gentlewoman from Illinois who really makes my
case in her amendment which, really, unfortunately, does not go far
enough. She says, on the floor, that the FHA does need clear direction
what to do in this area of downpayments. Unfortunately, they have not
done the job up to this point in time, and now she says we have to give
them that clear direction. That is what my amendment would do.
In no uncertain terms, we would say that those people who are not the
best risks out there should have a minimum of 5 percent down. I also
take from her very own words, she points out the fact that one out of
four homes right now are under water. Well, do we want to find
ourselves in this situation again 4 or 5 years from now from those very
same people when one out of four homeowners are under water when they
only have a few couple of percentage points down on their house that
they are going to say, I can simply walk away from this house because
there is really not much of an investment in it.
I don't think we want to rehash this argument again. I don't think we
want to be in this situation again where the American taxpayer is put
on the hook, just as it is now, to the tune of $400 billion over the
life of the GSAs. We don't want to have to come out and bail out FHAs.
Let's do the prudent thing right now. Let's be on the right side of
history and make sure we have a prudent downpayment for FHA loans.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time
remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, Mr. Chairman, let me be clear, the
FHA has gone beyond the gentleman from New Jersey with regard to
borrowers who are risky. For borrowers
[[Page 10487]]
with a 580 or below credit score, the FHA has already used the
authority we have given them to raise the downpayment to 10 percent, so
we are talking about people above the 580 credit score.
Secondly, there was a total misreading of history with Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. Yes, some of us thought earlier there wasn't a problem.
After it was in order by the Bush administration in 2004 for them to
get to more than 50 percent of purchases or mortgages for people below
the median income, many of us changed our position and pushed for
reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Unfortunately, that didn't happen, because of a dispute between the
Republican House and the Republican Senate, until 2007, when this House
took the lead and finally got it done in 2008. But the problem was that
throughout that, we had ideological opposition from the deregulators
against restricting subprime loans of the sort that led to trouble, and
the FHA doesn't do that.
Mr. Speaker, I would submit for the Record letters from the Mortgage
Bankers Association, National Association of Home Builders, National
Association of REALTORS, Centers for Responsible Lending, the National
Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Council of La Raza,
Consumer Federation of America who point out not that we don't need
restriction but that the FHA already has them. Again, to confuse this
with the situation in which ideological opposition to sensible
regulation allowed subprime loans to predominate outside the FHA is a
confusion of the reality.
June 9, 2010.
Hon. Barney Frank,
Chair, House Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Frank: The Federal Housing
Administration's mortgage insurance program has never been
more important to our housing markets than it is today.
During this period of prolonged stress in our markets,
Congress should avoid making any program changes that would
further harm consumers and stall our economic recovery. The
organizations listed below strongly oppose amendments to H.R.
5072, the FHA Reform Act, which would increase FHA's
downpayment requirement, decrease FHA's loan limits, or
otherwise limit FHA's ability to insure loans.
Raising FHA's downpayment requirement will do little to
strengthen FHA's capital reserve ratio. Rather, it will put
homeownership out of reach for many families and for others
could deplete their cash reserves for home and other
emergencies. Increasing FHA's downpayment could
disenfranchise more than 300,000 responsible homeowners. We
strongly oppose this amendment offered by Rep. Garrett (R-
NJ).
We also oppose an amendment offered by Rep. Price (R-GA)
that would limit FHA's market share to 10 percent of the
housing finance market. We all welcome the return of private
lending and corresponding reduction in FHA's market share, as
that will indicate a return to a healthy housing market. But
today, FHA is appropriately serving its countercyclical role
of providing credit and needed liquidity when the private
market is not available to many homebuyers. Legislating an
arbitrary reduction in market share in the midst of a housing
downturn will have a negative impact on homeownership. We
strongly oppose this amendment which will dramatically harm
our nation's economic recovery.
Lastly, we ask you to oppose an amendment by Rep. Turner
(R-OH) that would reduce the FHA loan limits. FHA's loan
limits were temporarily increased in the Economic Stimulus
Act of 2008. These higher limits allow American families in
communities nationwide to obtain safe, affordable mortgage
financing. Decreasing these limits would have a significant
impact on the recovery of many housing markets and the
overall liquidity of the mortgage industry. Today the private
market for loans above the existing limits is small. Reducing
the FHA limits will paralyze home sales above the cap, and
hurt our housing recovery.
FHA is a critical part of our housing economy. Its programs
offer borrowers access to prime-rate mortgages, require
stringent underwriting, and will not insure a loan with a
loan-to-value greater than 96.5 percent. We urge you to
oppose these amendments that will only hamper this important
program.
Sincerely,
Mortgage Bankers Association.
National Association of Home Builders.
National Association of REALTORS'.
____
June 7, 2010.
Dear Representative: We write in strong support of H.R.
5072, FHA Reform Act of 2010, scheduled for consideration by
the House this week. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
is playing its intended countercyclical role, providing
borrowers with access to prime credit. Moreover, the FHA has
already taken aggressive steps to manage credit risk and it
has appropriate discretion to take additional action as
necessary. H.R. 5072 provides the necessary tools to insure
the financial stability of FHA and to protect taxpayers from
risk.
We strongly oppose any amendments to further raise the FHA-
required downpayment. Congress addressed this issue in 2008
with the passage of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act,
which increased FHA's downpayment requirement from 3 percent
to 3.5 percent. The current downpayment requirement
represents a significant financial commitment and sufficient
investment to insure a borrower's seriousness about
homeownership. Increasing FHA's downpayment to 5 percent
would, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, reduce the volume of loans endorsed by FHA by
more than 40 percent, while only contributing $500 million in
additional budget receipts (as opposed to the expected $4.1
billion from the other announced changes to the program).
The proposed change could have an especially harsh impact
on African-American and Hispanic borrowers, who traditionally
have much lower accumulated wealth and have benefited from
the opportunities that fully documented, standard FHA loans
with low down payments offer.
FHA is a critical part of our nation's economic recovery.
Increasing the downpayment requirement will make
homeownership more difficult for American families and
disenfranchise more than 300,000 responsible homebuyers. This
is not the time to make unnecessary steps to a program that
is serving such a vital function in our housing finance
system. We urge you to oppose any amendments to increase
FHA's downpayment requirement.
Sincerely,
Center for Responsible Lending.
Consumer Federation of America.
National Association of Consumer Advocates.
National Association of REALTORS'.
National Council of La Raza.
National Fair Housing Alliance.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Tierney
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Cuellar). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 16. MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUM REFUNDS.
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall, to the extent that amounts are made
available pursuant to subsection (c), provide refunds of
unearned premium charges paid at the time of insurance for
mortgage insurance under title II of the National Housing Act
(12 U.S.C. 1707 et seq.) to or on behalf of mortgagors under
mortgages described in subsection (b).
(b) Eligible Mortgages.--A mortgage described in this
section is a mortgage on a one- to four-family dwelling
that--
(1) was insured under title II of the National Housing Act
(12 U.S.C. 1707 et seq.);
(2) is otherwise eligible, under the last sentence of
subparagraph (A) of section 203(c)(2) of such Act (12 U.S.C.
1709(c)(2)(A)), for a refund of all unearned premium charges
paid on the mortgage pursuant to such subparagraph, except
that the mortgage--
(A) was closed before December 8, 2004; and
(B) was endorsed on or after such date.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for each fiscal year such sums as may be
necessary to provide refunds of unearned mortgage insurance
premiums pursuant to this section.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and
[[Page 10488]]
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, there are instances when, after we have done all the
research and completed all other options and exhausted them, a
legislative remedy may still be required in order to help our
constituents in our district offices with a particular problem. Those
occasions give us the opportunity to evidence how Congress can work on
their behalf, how Congress can help solve problems, and how Congress
could have a direct and positive effect on people's lives. This is one
of those times, and I appreciate the fact that the Rules Committee has
made this amendment in order.
This amendment seeks to assist those people who, while they were in
the process of pursuing their dream of homeownership, were unfairly
impacted by a statutory change to HUD's upfront mortgage insurance
premium refund policy. Now, under HUD's Upfront Mortgage Insurance
Premium Refund policy, borrowers paid an upfront mortgage insurance of
1\1/2\ percent of their FHA loan amount, and if they prepaid their
loans, the borrowers could be due refunds on that prepaid insurance
amount.
However, in 2005, with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress
included language directing that the mortgages after the time of that
date of enactment, which was December 8, 2004, that would no longer be
true. Borrowers would no longer be eligible for refunds of their
prepaid insurance.
So now there are about 15,000 people in this country who tried to do
the right thing and play by the rules. They are constituents of all of
ours who closed on their mortgage before that December 8, 2004, date in
order to be able to get their refund. But, regrettably, they were
prevented from receiving their refund because HUD didn't endorse their
loan until after December 8, 2004. Now the constituents tell us they
were never adequately informed by the lender of those potential
provisions, and the lenders tell us they didn't do it because they
weren't told by HUD until after the effective date, in fact, not until
January of 2005.
I know of one particular family in my district from Gloucester,
Massachusetts, who were harmed by that new provision in the law. They
did everything right. They played by the rules. They closed their loan
in November of 2004 without notice of the change of law, but they have
been prevented from receiving their refund of some $4,200 because HUD
didn't do their mortgage until after December 10 of 2004. Certainly,
that's an unintended consequence of the provisions in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2005.
This amendment makes a meaningful first step toward helping certain
eligible homeowners and borrowers, many of whom are low-income
families, as I say, who played by the rules. I say this is a first step
because we later have to go to Appropriations to get money to fulfill
this policy. But this clearly is the right policy. It is the fair thing
to do. It is the right thing to do, and we have to discuss and argue
about the money to appropriate in order to make whole these people at a
later date.
But I suggest that if we all want to do the right thing by policy, I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CAPITO. I think the gentleman from Massachusetts brings forward
an issue, and I have great sympathy for those who are caught basically,
it sounds like, in a bureaucratic maze here, missed a date not really
by their own doing but by maybe just because of the process they were
involved in.
The question I have, and the reason I have skepticism on the
gentleman's amendment, he began with, I think the number that the
gentleman said, this may influence 15,000 folks.
Was that the number that you said in your statement?
I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. TIERNEY. Yes, 15,593, according to the Department.
Mrs. CAPITO. The other question I would ask the gentleman, and I know
we would have to go to Appropriations to get the money allotted for
this particular amendment: What would be the approximate cost of
something like this? This is something where we are in this time of
debt and deficit, and we need to cut our spending here. I think we need
to be very vigilant on the bottom line. What is the bottom line of this
amendment?
Mr. TIERNEY. I thank you for raising that point that this is a two-
step process. This part of the process, in fact, talks about whether we
will have a policy that will enable us at some appropriate time to
appropriate the money.
Mrs. CAPITO. Right.
Mr. TIERNEY. We are not appropriating the money now, and I think
that's a debate for another day and another time if we decide whether
we want to be fair to these people or put it off for some other time,
but the total for that 15,593 people, according to the Department,
would be $10,372,661.61, more or less.
Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. Very precise. I appreciate that.
I still have skepticism even about 10 million, which in everyday
dollars is still quite a bit of money. And, as I said, we need to look
at what we are doing on the bottom line here.
So, while I am very sympathetic and I think that the amendment has
some merit, I would stand in opposition to the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand that $10 million is $10
million, and that's a lot of money to each one of us individually and,
of course, we should be concerned. It's not proportionately a lot in
our $1.7 trillion budget.
But I think the real number to look at here is what does it mean to
these individuals who are harmed by government policy on no doing of
their own. So if it's $4,200 to a family in my district or $4,200 to a
family in the gentlewoman's district, that's what's driving our economy
right now.
For people to have every expectation of getting the return of that
money and to play by the rules only to have the bureaucracy undercut
them, I think that's the issue of fairness that we are dealing with
here.
Now, we will have an issue later on about whether or not we think now
is the appropriate time to put $10 million on the floor to help people
out, and that will be a day for them. But I think we should deal with
the policy now and authorize that to be done at some date either this
year or next year, or whenever we can make the argument in Congress
that it's time to be fair.
I think we can all say in this amount, given the huge meaning this is
to individuals, now is the time to be fair; 15,000 people wronged by
government bureaucracy in amounts that are every bit as significant to
them individually, the $4,200, as $10 million may be to all of us in
the aggregate. It's an impact on their lives. It's whether or not their
families are going to be able to make it through this crisis, whether
or not they are going to be able to meet the everyday needs of food,
health care, education, clothing and those things that are important to
their family.
Again, in closing, I just reiterate, this is the authorization
process. Let's set the policy of fairness. We can debate the other
later. And let's keep in mind these people played by the rules, did
what was right, and deserve to know, at least as a policy matter,
Congress will stand with them.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
[[Page 10489]]
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 16. LIMITING ON FHA SHARE OF MORTGAGE MARKET.
(a) 10 Percent Limitation.--Section 203 of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709) is amended by inserting after
subsection (h) the following new subsection:
``(i) Limitation on FHA Market Share.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the aggregate number of mortgages
secured by one- to four-family dwellings that are insured
under this title in fiscal year 2012 or any fiscal year
thereafter may not exceed 10 percent of the aggregate number
of mortgages on such dwellings originated in the United
States (but not including mortgages insured under this
title), as determined by the Secretary after consultation
with appropriate Federal financial regulatory agencies,
during the preceding fiscal year.''.
(b) Plan.--Not later than the expiration of the 90-day
period beginning upon the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall submit
to the Congress a plan setting forth a strategy and actions
to be taken to ensure compliance with section 203(i) of the
National Housing Act, as added by the amendment made by
subsection (a) of this section.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I want to commend the chairman of the committee
and the ranking member for moving this particular piece of legislation.
I particularly want to commend the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs.
Capito) for her great work in this area. She has been a dynamic and an
excellent leader in this area and, indeed, she is to be commended.
Mr. Chairman, this bill incorporates some very positive moves.
Clearly, the housing market has had significant challenges, and the
question that we ought to be asking ourselves is how best to recover.
Most experts would agree that, in order to move forward, we need to
move toward less market distortion.
It might be helpful if we focus on the FHA's mission and the focus
and the requirements that they have on them. We all support the FHA
mission. The mission is to serve first-time homebuyers in underserved
communities, but the FHA didn't get to a 30 percent market share, Mr.
Chairman, by lending to first-time homebuyers and by serving
underserved communities.
In terms of the requirements of the FHA, the requirements of the FHA
are 3.5 percent downpayment. The private sector requires at least 10
percent. The FHA is required to hold a 2 percent capital reserve ratio,
but it's actual ratio is 0.53 percent. A bank is required to hold 10
percent capital reserve ratio.
A recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal said, According to
Mortgage Bankers Association data, more than one in eight FHA loans is
now delinquent, nearly triple the rate on conventional nonsubprime loan
portfolios. Another 7.5 percent agreed that FHA loans are in serious
delinquency, which means at least 3 months overdue. The FHA is almost
certainly going to need a taxpayer bailout in the months ahead. The
only debate will be about how much it will cost.
A former chief credit officer of Fannie and Freddie Mae, Edward
Pinto, notes that ``FHA's high-risk lending practices negatively impact
the housing finance marketplace.'' Mr. Chairman, you can translate that
into being increasing taxpayer exposure.
{time} 1215
So if we are honest with ourselves, when appropriately sized, the FHA
does indeed do a wonderful job and is very helpful. But at this point,
this is just another government program that is distorting the market.
FHA's huge market share is a hindrance to regaining equity in the
housing market. In addition, Fannie and Freddie's unlimited government
lifeline is also a hindrance to the housing recovery.
My amendment would ensure that the FHA no longer crowds out the
private market for home loans. The amendment is a modest first step to
cap FHA new origination market share to no more than 10 percent of the
private-market home loans each year, beginning in 2010 so there is
significant time to adjust, so the American people are not further
exposed to the next bailout. Mr. Chairman, that means the taxpayer is
not exposed to greater liability.
The American people are sick and tired of bailouts. They see another
one on the horizon. It is time for us to act. No more bailouts. What
they are telling us across this country is to stop the madness. This
amendment begins the process of stopping that madness.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. At best, we have a fragile recovery from a massive
recession caused by a precipitous decline in home prices. Now, I know
the gentleman is well-intentioned, but nothing is more likely to cause
a double dip in this recession than the second precipitous drop in home
prices that would be caused by pulling FHA and, as the gentleman
argues, Fannie and Freddie out of the home lending market.
Right now, FHA is 30 percent of the home purchase finance market,
about over half of that market for African Americans, 45 percent for
Hispanics. Are we going to tell one-third of American home buyers,
almost half or over half Hispanics and African Americans seeking to buy
homes, that they are not going to be able to buy those homes? Because,
if they can't get FHA financing, the private sector may be there, but
at much higher rates. And there is no way that these individuals will
be able to afford to buy those homes.
With fewer buyers, you will see a precipitous decline in prices. That
devastates communities further, devastates the American economy
further.
FHA is actuarially sound. It charges fees for the services and the
guarantees that it provides. And to cut its role in the market by a
third as part of an overall policy designed to take FHA, Fannie Mae,
and Freddie Mac out of the market ignores the fact that, in these
troubled times, those three entities--FHA, Fannie, and Freddie--account
for almost all of the home mortgages obtained by middle-class and
working families.
So we should defeat the gentleman's amendment. And I want to point
out it is opposed by the National Association of Realtors, the National
Association of Home Builders, and the Mortgage Bankers Association.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains
on each side?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 1\1/2\ minutes. The
gentleman from Massachusetts has 3 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from
California's comments. There is no doubt we are indeed in a fragile
housing market, which is precisely why this policy would not take
effect until 2012. It gives the Secretary significant flexibility in
defining what that 10 percent is, but what it tries to do is to right-
size the number of mortgages, the percent of the mortgages that the FHA
insures.
I want to point out to all that 30 percent is a huge portion,
historically, as it relates to what the FHA single-family insurance
activity has comprised. From 2001 to 2007, the numbers were under 10
percent every single year for all FHA family insurance activity. So the
amount of 10 percent is a responsible, a reasonable number.
What it tries to do, again, is to decrease the effect of intervention
into the market that distorts the market. Remember, Mr. Chairman, that
when the government distorts the market it makes it much more difficult
for the market to recover and for us to make certain that we move in
the direction of economic activity that we need.
Again, the taxpayers of this country are sick and tired of bailouts.
This is another bailout in the making if we
[[Page 10490]]
allow the process that is currently in place to continue. We should
limit the FHA exposure to 10 percent. We do it in a responsible way, by
saying that it would begin in 2012. We provide significant flexibility
for the Secretary so that the program will work well.
I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
First, I do note a certain irony. I am glad to see my colleagues, the
gentleman from New Jersey, the gentleman from Georgia, praise the
gentlewoman from West Virginia for a bill which they apparently found
severely lacking.
I do note the gentlewoman from West Virginia voted against the prior
amendment from the gentleman from New Jersey. I don't know where she is
on this one, but it wasn't in the bill that I think she introduced, and
for very good reason: A 10 percent cap is wholly arbitrary.
Now, the gentleman says it's going to crowd out the private market,
but the leading participants in the private housing market oppose this
amendment, including the Mortgage Bankers, as well as Realtors and Home
Builders, as well as all consumer groups.
Beyond that, the reason the FHA went down so far from 2001 to 2007--
interesting group of years; guess what was happening during that
time?--was that there was a resistance to regulation of the subprime
market.
The Federal Reserve was ignoring legislation Congress gave it in 1994
to regulate subprime lending. The Bush administration, in 2004, ordered
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase the subprime loans they bought,
which is one reason why I changed my position on the need to be tougher
in the regulatory field. And the FHA lost out because these imprudent
mortgages were being given without regulation. The FHA doesn't do the
kind of mortgages that led to problems.
Beyond that, in recent years, towards the end of the Bush
administration and with even greater force during the Obama
administration, the FHA has been improving. The FHA has on its own
said, if you've got a 580 credit score or below, it's a 10 percent
downpayment. We mandated that they go from 3 to 3.5 percent downpayment
and increase the upfront fees.
In this bill--and the gentlewoman from West Virginia deserves a great
deal of credit, along with our colleague, the gentlewoman from
California--the FHA is given credit to require lenders who get loans
placed with the FHA in violation of the guidelines to take back those
loans. So it wouldn't be the taxpayer that would be on the hook for
those loans that shouldn't have been granted and that violated the good
guidelines of the FHA; it will be the lender.
It also gives them the power to debar people who have a bad record,
which is something they haven't had before.
So we are not talking about the old FHA; we are talking about an
improved one. And we are talking about an FHA that stands in great
contrast to the unregulated subprime market.
Finally, the gentleman says, ``Well, it doesn't take effect until
2012.'' Neither he nor I knows what the housing market will look like
in 2012. And if there's a reason not to do it now, that might also be
there in 2012. No one can predict whether the housing--and maybe in
2015 it will be back again into trouble.
The housing market we don't believe is going to crash like it did
before, but the basic point is this: The FHA has been the alternative
to the kind of unregulated, irresponsible subprime mortgages that many
of my friends on the other side protected, the kind of mortgages which
they prevented us from regulating until 2007 when we were able to pass
a bill in the House, over the objection of many of those who have
spoken already, to regulate subprime mortgages. And because we did
that, the Federal Reserve finally used its authority.
I hope the amendment is defeated.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Weiner
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Weiner:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 16. MAXIMUM MORTGAGE AMOUNT LIMITS FOR MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING.
(a) Elevator-type Structures.--
(1) Amendments.--The National Housing Act is amended in
each of the provisions specified in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``with sound standards of construction and
design'' after ``elevator-type structures'' the first place
such term appears; and
(B) by striking ``to not to exceed'' and all that follows
through ``sound standards of construction and design'' each
place such terms appear and inserting ``by not more than 50
percent of the amounts specified for each unit size''.
(2) Provisions amended.--The provisions of the National
Housing Act specified in this paragraph are as follows:
(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 207(c)(3) (12 U.S.C.
1713(c)(3)(A)).
(B) Subparagraph (A) of section 213(b)(2) (12 U.S.C.
1715e(b)(2)(A)).
(C) Subclause (I) of section 220(d)(3)(B)(iii) (12 U.S.C.
1715k(d)(3)(B)(iii)(I)).
(D) In section 221(d) (12 U.S.C. 1715l(d))--
(i) subclause (I) of paragraph (3)(ii); and
(ii) subclause (I) of paragraph (4)(ii).
(E) Subparagraph (A) of section 231(c)(2) (12 U.S.C.
1715v(c)(2)(A)).
(F) Subparagraph (A) of section 234(e)(3) (12 U.S.C.
1715y(e)(3)(A)).
(b) Extremely High-cost Areas.--Section 214 of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715d) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``, or with respect to projects consisting
of more than four dwelling units located in an extremely
high-cost area as determined by the Secretary'' after ``or
the Virgin Islands'' the first place such term appears;
(B) by inserting ``, or to construct projects consisting of
more than four dwelling units on property located in an
extremely high-cost area as determined by the Secretary''
after ``or the Virgin Islands'' the second place such term
appears; and
(C) by inserting ``, or with respect to projects consisting
of more than four dwelling units located in an extremely
high-cost area as determined by the Secretary'' after ``or
the Virgin Islands'' the third place such term appears;
(2) in the second sentence--
(A) by inserting ``, or with respect to a project
consisting of more than four dwelling units located in an
extremely high-cost area as determined by the Secretary,''
after ``or the Virgin Islands'' the first place such term
appears; and
(B) by inserting ``, or in the case of a project consisting
of more than four dwelling units in an extremely high-cost
area as determined by the Secretary, in such extremely high-
cost area,'' after ``or the Virgin Islands'' the second place
such term appears; and
(3) in the section heading, by striking ``and the virgin
islands'' and inserting ``the virgin islands, and extremely
high-cost areas''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to mortgages insured under title II of the
National Housing Act after September 30, 2010.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Weiner) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity. I also want
to thank my colleague, Mr. Miller, with whom I offer this amendment.
This is a similar amendment--in fact, it is identical to one that was
adopted by voice vote. There are problems with some FHA programs, and
they are addressed in this bill. And there are some losing programs;
there are some programs that simply haven't worked out very well.
One program that has been a consistent money-maker for the taxpayer
and one that has driven the marketplace to do good things is the
Multifamily Loan Program. However, in that
[[Page 10491]]
program, the limits set for how much the loan can be guaranteed for
have not risen as fast as the cost in a lot of communities.
So what the Weiner-Miller amendment would do is simply raise the
limits to keep up with the cost and create something called an
``extreme high-cost area.''
The way the program works is they essentially say, this is the limit
to which we will underwrite, guarantee a loan for new construction or
to modify a home. But if you have an apartment building--four, five,
10, 50, 100 units--obviously the costs wind up going up as you need
things like elevators and HVAC going into big buildings. And what
happens is, in places like Los Angeles and New York and Las Vegas and
Miami, these costs have simply not been kept up with. The result has
been that the loan program has not been very useful there.
What we do is we take a loan limit of $183,000, almost $184,000,
create a new extreme high-cost area that the Secretary will be able to
designate where the limits will be higher, $377,000.
For those people who are concerned, well, are we going in the wrong
direction and giving too much exposure to a program that we should be
tightening up, this is a program that, unlike the single-family homes,
where the program there has an extreme delinquency rate of about 8
percent, this one only has one of 0.3 percent.
Frankly, this is not a problem program, so we are just increasing the
limits on one that really would encourage people to make loans to small
businesses for developing.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in
opposition to the amendment, although I am not in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This amendment is exactly the same as the bill that passed this body
by a voice vote last year, the FHA Multifamily Loan Limit Adjustment
Act.
FHA's multifamily mortgage insurance programs enable qualified
borrowers to obtain long-term, fixed-rate financing for a variety of
multifamily properties that are affordable to low- and moderate-income
families.
In the most expensive cites, it is very difficult for these workers,
particularly those starting out in the workforce, to find affordable
rental housing where they work. The FHA multifamily mortgage insurance
program can help, but, due to its loan limits, there were only three
FHA-insured multifamily loans for high-rise construction or
rehabilitation approved in fiscal year 2007 and 2008--understand, just
three--and that is a huge problem in this country. The loan limits in
high-cost areas are simply too low.
According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the lack of available
loans is creating serious problems concentrated in major cities where
high-rise construction is involved. In fact, their data shows that
while elevator buildings cost 45 percent more than non-elevator
structures, the current limit for these structures are less than 10
percent higher than non-elevator structures.
Developers are simply unable to provide affordable housing units in
high-cost areas because the current statutory loan limits for FHA
mortgage insurance are basically too low. I don't think we have ever
seen a housing market that has been as impacted as the one we have
faced in recent years. Low-income renters and moderate-income renters
in these particular areas are really impacted by the loan limits that
we have placed on developers.
We need to provide more housing stock, yet do it in a way that does
not put taxpayers at risk. And that is what this does. The program
makes money for the government, does not lose money for the government.
I would absolutely support this amendment and ask all my colleagues to
join us.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEINER. I think my colleague states it very well, and I urge a
``yes'' vote as well.
I just want to point out, this is not a zero-sum game. There is
nothing about the single-home market that is going to be impacted by
this. There is nothing about the higher cost that is going to be
impacted. This is just allowing this program to function in all
quarters of the housing market and to take into accommodation the
things that my colleague says, things like bigger buildings have very
often higher costs.
As I said, this has an outstanding delinquency rate of 0.3 percent.
If every housing program and every housing guarantee program, despite
the very difficult downturn, had such a small delinquency rate as this,
then I think we would all be very happy with it. So increasing these
limits I don't believe would have any deleterious effect.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I agree with what my colleague
said. When we passed this bill out last time, it had unanimous support.
There is no impact on the Federal Government. We are taking areas that
are high-cost, that have basically been discriminated against in the
past from being able to participate in either a GSA loan or an FHA
loan.
This is a good amendment. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
{time} 1230
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Turner
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Turner:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 16. FHA MAXIMUM LOAN LIMITS FOR 2010.
Section 166 of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution,
2010 (as added by section 104 of Public Law 111-88; 123 Stat.
2972) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``For'' and inserting
``Except as provided in subsection (c), for'';
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``the lesser of the
applicable amount under subsection (c) of this section or''
after ``but in no case to an amount that exceeds'' ; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Absolute Ceiling Limits.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, the maximum dollar amount
limitation on the principal obligation of a mortgage
determined under this section for any area or subarea may not
exceed, in the case of a one-family residence, $500,000, and
in the case of a 2-, 3-, or 4-family residence, the
percentage of such amount that bears the same ratio to such
amount as the dollar amount limitation determined under the
sixth sentence of section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation Act for a 2-, 3-, or 4-family residence,
respectively, bears to the dollar amount limitation
determined under such section for a 1-family residence.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Turner) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. TURNER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that caps the
temporary authority for the Federal Housing Administration to insure
homes in high-cost areas at $500,000. The current temporary authority
has the FHA insuring mortgages as high as $729,750.
Only in Washington would a government program insure a mortgage on a
home worth $750,000 for a low- and moderate-income program. Permitting
FHA loans on a $750,000 home puts American taxpayers at additional
risk. Allowing FHA-backed loans on these expensive homes contributes to
the overinflated housing values that contributed to the foreclosure
crisis from the beginning.
The mortgage foreclosure crisis is not over, Mr. Chairman. There are
still too many American families who are confronted every day with the
risk
[[Page 10492]]
that they might lose their homes. Washington should not be in the role
of enabling this crisis. We need to begin the process of reducing the
dependence of these communities from artificial support, and we need to
give the private sector the ability to step back into the market.
The best place to facilitate this is to lower the FHA loan limit to
homes under $500,000. The FHA has traditionally focused on low- to
moderate-income families who are seeking to purchase homes--and for
good reason--as these buyers need the greatest assistance in their home
purchases. The FHA should, once again, focus their efforts on these
buyers.
Permitting FHA loans to purchase a $750,000 home also means fewer
FHA-insured mortgages for Ohio families and for families across America
who truly need them. In most of my congressional district in Ohio, the
current FHA loan limit is $271,000, which is in line with the loan
limit for most of the U.S. I understand that there are high-cost urban
areas in our Nation where some homes cost more than in Ohio, but the
FHA was designed to help low and moderate homebuyers, and it should
focus on more moderately priced homes. Permitting FHA loans for these
high-priced homes only limits access to true moderately priced FHA
loans for American families who need them.
My amendment seeks to start the process of removing higher income
buyers off the government program designed for low to moderate buyers.
The effect of this amendment is to limit it to the 179 counties in the
country, but it does not reduce the assistance to the moderately priced
homes that are the majority of the Nation.
The FHA was intended to assist Americans in achieving the American
dream of homeownership. We need to work to ensure that their focus
continues to be on those who truly need the help. My amendment would
work to that purpose, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHERMAN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Gary G. Miller).
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am in strong opposition to this amendment. Over the years, I think
in about 2001, I started arguing to raise conforming loan limits in
high-cost areas, and it has had a tremendous benefit across this
Nation, but it seems like everybody who comes with amendments to oppose
that does so when it does not impact their districts.
Now, my good friend Mr. Turner--and he is a good friend of mine--if
you had introduced an amendment and had said to accept conforming as it
should be, if you applied the old principles, it would be $417,000, but
that would have had an impact on many counties in your State. So you
introduced an amendment which said, well, let's pick an amount of
$500,000, which means there is zero impact on the State of Ohio. So
$500,000 is a great amount to pull out of the air when it doesn't
impact you, personally.
In L.A. County, the loan limits are $729,750. In Orange County, the
limits are $729,750. These are some of the best-performing loans FHA is
making. When you look at GSE and FHA nationwide, they are making over
90 percent of the loans in this country. If they were not there today,
people would not be able to sell loans in high-cost areas.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SHERMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. You would not be able to sell a
home in a high-cost area, nor would you be able to buy a home in a
high-cost area. Now, if this were in some way impacting the Federal
Government or taxpayers, I would absolutely agree with my good friend.
I will say again to my good friend, Mr. Turner, that I would agree
with this, but this is not impacting taxpayers. It is not impacting
FHA. It has some of the best-performing loans. Why should people who
live in high-cost areas be basically penalized just because we want to
pick a number of $500,000 out of the air, which will have no benefit to
anybody anywhere?
I absolutely think this is a wrong amendment. I oppose it, and I ask
my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. TURNER. Well, I appreciate my good friend Mr. Miller's statement.
There is one that I do want to correct, though, which is that all of
Ohio would be under his suggested limit of 415. We certainly could have
picked a lower number. My community is at 271.
The issue becomes one of, well, we're in a financial crisis, and
we're having bailouts and mortgage foreclosures across the country. We
look to this issue as one of basic math. The larger the loan amount,
the more the risk. When there is fluctuation in the market, a
percentage of a larger number is a larger loss, leading to, certainly,
an issue of more increased incidences of a likelihood of foreclosure.
Also, the issue of larger loan amounts means fewer loans which could
be provided assistance. There is a limited amount here, and with that
limited amount, if it is carved up into $750,000 home sales versus
those that are going to more moderately priced homes, you certainly
will have less resources with which to provide that assistance.
This is basic math. When we look across the country during this
mortgage foreclosure crisis, we have to be very concerned about how we
ensure that we are assisting home buyers, low and moderate buyers. At
the same time, we have to ensure we are not overly inflating the market
and that we are not putting the taxpayers at greater risk.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHERMAN. A quick inquiry: Do I have the right to close, or does
the gentleman from Ohio have the right to close?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has the right to
close.
Mr. SHERMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this
measure, which makes good financial and fiscal sense. It would lower
the amount, providing greater assistance because there would be a
greater number of loans which could be provided assistance. At the same
time, it would lower the risk to taxpayers, and it would lower the risk
of bailouts by making these higher-cost areas, the more risky areas,
conform to an amount that really would be more reflective of our goal
of low and moderate home buyers who receive assistance from the FHA.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHERMAN. I yield myself the remainder of the time.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's definition of ``risk'' and his
arithmetic are a bit faulty. To say that $1 billion of smaller loans
carries less risk than $1 billion of larger loans is not something one
can determine except by looking at the performance of those loans.
As the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) pointed out,
those larger loans perform better. The FHA, therefore, has less
insurance risk and, actually, usually, makes a profit on those loans.
So to say that loans in Los Angeles take away from loans in Ohio and
expose the Federal Government to more risk than loans in Ohio is simply
false.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHERMAN. I will yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. A question for you: there has been
a perception created that somehow, by eliminating the high-cost areas,
the FHA could insure more loans. Yet that is not real because the FHA
can insure all of the loans they want irrespective of the volume of the
loans. It does not have any impact on FHA's ability whatsoever. Am I
correct on that?
Mr. SHERMAN. The gentleman is correct. This is not an anti-Ohio
stance that the two gentlemen from California are taking.
The fact is there is this image that some have from other parts of
the
[[Page 10493]]
country that, if a home sells for more than $500,000, the people in it
must be rich. That is not how things work in the 122 counties that are
affected by this amendment. In my area, if a police officer is married
to a teacher, they're in a home of over $500,000. Now, that's very
difficult for them to afford. That ends up tying up their retirement
money for better or for worse, but that is how expensive it is to live
in some parts of this country.
To say that, because people are buying a home of over $500,000 that
they are rich and do not deserve the same kind of help the gentleman
from Ohio thinks middle class families in his district deserve, it is
the same kind of help that middle class families in my district
deserve.
Now, this amendment is opposed by the Mortgage Bankers Association,
by the National Association of Home Builders and by the National
Association of Realtors, not just the California divisions of those
entities but entities that represent the entire country. I don't think
that the Ohio Realtors would be here supporting this amendment. I don't
think the Nebraska Realtors would be. And I don't think the National
Association of Realtors would be here opposing this amendment if the
amendment were going to help major swaths of this country.
The fact is that the FHA's current program helps California without
hurting those other States. It helps the Washington area, the New York
area, much of Virginia, et cetera. The worst thing we could do for this
economy is to cause a precipitous decline in the price of homes in the
major metropolitan areas of this country. Our recovery is fragile. The
program, the way it works now, allows middle class families in both Los
Angeles and in Ohio to be able to finance homes, and we ought to vote
down this amendment.
So please join with Chairman Frank, with Chairwoman Waters, with the
National Association of Realtors, Home Builders, and Mortgage Bankers
in urging a ``no'' vote.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Clarke
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rahall). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 10 printed in House Report 111-503.
Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 10 offered by Ms. Clarke:
Page 21, line 3, strike ``and''.
Page 21, line 8, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 21, after line 8, insert the following:
(E) analyzes the effectiveness of the loss mitigation home
retention options of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development in assisting individuals in avoiding home
foreclosure for mortgages on 1- to 4-family residences
insured under subsection (b) or (k) of section 203, section
234(c), or section 251 of the National Housing Act,
particularly for low-income individuals (as such term is
defined in section 103 of the Riegle Community Development
and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4702)).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Clarke) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues, Chair Waters and
Chairman Frank, for bringing this important bill to the floor today and
for supporting my amendment, which is cosponsored by Representative
Cuellar from Texas.
Before I speak about my amendment, I want to quickly recognize the
significance of H.R. 5072. This bill will make essential reforms to
strengthen the financial footing of the FHA, and it will enhance its
authority to go after fraudulent lenders who have preyed on the most
vulnerable of borrowers for far too long.
Mr. Chairman, many people have blamed this foreclosure crisis on the
borrowers while some individuals, desperate to achieve the American
Dream, may have sought to cut corners in the process. Fraudulent and
unscrupulous lenders ultimately held the purse strings. These lenders
bear a great deal of the burden for the foreclosure crisis, which
continues to impact Americans and to devastate communities from coast
to coast.
Last year, New York City saw a record 20,000 foreclosure filings.
According to data compiled by the Furman Center for Real Estate and
Urban Policy at New York University, in the first quarter of 2010,
there were 4,226 foreclosures across New York City, up 16.3 percent
from 2008. Brooklyn alone experienced 1,546 foreclosures in the first
quarter of 2010.
Since the beginning of the FHA, Commissioner Stevens' tenure in 2009,
the Commissioner and Deputy Assistant Secretary Bott have taken several
steps to assess and to strengthen FHA's foreclosure mitigation
capabilities, beginning with a thorough review of FHA and of private
lender loss mitigation and foreclosure preventative activities. The FHA
trained almost 2,000 staff lenders on how to better serve FHA borrowers
to avoid foreclosure, to identify lenders which are underperforming and
to share best practices to improve foreclosure mitigation performance.
{time} 1245
FHA assisted more than 450,000 borrowers in the past year to avoid
foreclosure through a variety of loss mitigation programs, but my
constituents are telling me that more can be done to support the
foreclosure counseling efforts. We must determine if enough resources
are being devoted to foreclosure mitigation, especially for low-income
borrowers. That is why I proposed this amendment, along with Mr.
Cuellar, which would direct GAO to analyze the effectiveness of HUD's
loss mitigation home retention efforts in helping distressed borrowers,
especially low-income borrowers, hold on to their American Dream. While
the FHA is working to strengthen its mitigation capabilities, resources
for these efforts are likely insufficient for the massive size of the
program.
I'd like to thank Representative Cuellar for joining me in this
effort. Low-income borrowers in rural areas such as Mr. Cuellar's
district in Texas are facing the same challenges as those in distressed
urban areas such as parts of my district in Brooklyn.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to assist our
Nation to overcome our foreclosure crisis.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition,
although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I would like to thank both
the sponsors of the bill. Certainly the intent is for more information
and certainly more accurate information to look at the programs that
we're putting forth and that have been put forth to see if the loss
mitigation efforts are working and in what ways we can improve them. So
I congratulate you and I urge support of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CLARKE. I want to thank my colleague on the other side of the
aisle for seeing the usefulness in this amendment. I want to thank Mr.
Cuellar for being a partner and for bringing this amendment forward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Nye
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. NYE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
[[Page 10494]]
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Nye:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 16. SPECIAL FORBEARANCE FOR MORTGAGORS WITH CHINESE
DRYWALL.
The provisions of Mortgagee Letter 2002-17 of the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development (regarding ``Special
Forbearance: Program Changes and Updates'') relating to Type
I Special Forbearance shall apply, until the conclusion of
fiscal year 2011 and may not be revoked, annulled, repealed,
or rescinded during such period, with respect to mortgagees
of mortgages insured under title II of the National Housing
Act that are secured by one- to four-family dwellings that
have problem or damaging drywall products.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Cuellar). Pursuant to House Resolution 1424,
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nye) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. NYE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I stand here today to continue the fight for my
constituents in Hampton Roads, Virginia, and for thousands of families
across the United States against a nefarious adversary, toxic Chinese
drywall.
Chinese drywall has serious health implications. The toxins released
from the drywall reek of chemicals and rotten eggs. They corrode a
home's electrical systems and can cause deep, hacking coughs, bloody
noses, and eye irritation. However, the scariest fact is that we still
do not know what long-term health effects Chinese drywall will have.
Since January of last year, more than 3,300 cases have been reported
from 37 States and the District of Columbia. Families have been left
with an impossible choice: live in a contaminated home or pay tens if
not hundreds of thousands of dollars to rip out and replace their
home's drywall.
In my district, I have visited these homes and I've spoken with the
families. Many of them have been forced to move in with friends or
relatives; many others are now living in rental housing, paying for
both the cost of the mortgage and the cost of rent or, even worse,
living in the home, unable to afford repairs. And still others have
made the toughest decision: walking away from their homes. This is bad
for our recovering housing market and bad for our economy, and it's bad
for American families.
Mr. Chairman, my commonsense amendment will extend the Federal
Housing Administration's special forbearance program for American
homeowners by providing forbearances for those who suffer from toxic
Chinese drywall through fiscal year 2011. This reprieve has allowed
countless families to get back on their feet and repair their homes.
As cochairman of the Congressional Contaminated Drywall Caucus, I
commend the Federal Housing Administration for working with Congress
and American homeowners. Providing temporary forbearances for those who
suffer from Chinese drywall through no fault of their own is something
the Federal Government must continue to support. I hope my colleagues
will join me in supporting this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not
opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. As the Congressman has stated, his amendment merely
ensures that HUD will take no action between now and the end of FY 2011
to bar the Chinese drywall victims from eligibility from HUD's special
mitigation and forbearance program. Since this does not create a new
program or new spending, it just ensures an existing effort by HUD to
extend aid to Chinese drywall victims remains in place through FY 2011,
I commend the gentleman on his amendment, and I support the gentleman's
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NYE. I thank my colleague from West Virginia for her support of
the amendment. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nye).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Edwards of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Edwards of Texas:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 16. REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS.
Section 203 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709),
as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(z) Required Certifications.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary may not insure any mortgage
secured by a one- to four-family dwelling unless the
mortgagor under such mortgage certifies, under penalty of
perjury, that the mortgagor has not been convicted of a sex
offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section
111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42
U.S.C. 16911)).''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Members, my amendment is a
simple, commonsense protection for children and families. It requires
anyone seeking to benefit from the terms of an FHA mortgage to certify
under penalty of perjury that they have not been convicted of a sex
offense against a minor. This amendment ensures that taxpayers will not
be on the hook for loans made to convicted child sex offenders.
There are 704,000 registered sex offenders currently living in our
communities, and experts estimate as many as 100,000 convicted sex
offenders are lost in the system. Recent research has shown that there
is a high repeat rate for sexual crimes, and even higher amongst those
who commit these crimes against children. As a result, in the past 2
years, Congress has passed a series of laws adopting the use of sex
offender registries and community notification systems for sexually
violent offenders and those committing offenses against children.
While we cannot prevent registered child sex offenders from moving
into our communities, we do not need to provide them the additional
benefits offered by an FHA home loan if they try to do so. With an FHA
home loan, taxpayers are liable if the loan defaults. I do not believe,
I don't think most Members of this House believe, and I know most
Americans do not believe that taxpayers should be on the hook for a
home loan of someone who has committed a sex offense against a minor.
A quarter of a million children are sexually assaulted every year in
my home State of Texas, according to the National Crime Victims
Research and Treatment report. There are still private market
alternatives to FHA loans, and we want to continue to discourage any
kind of federally financed reward or taxpayer-backed benefit to sex
offenders reentering our communities. For example, sex offenders are
already banned from residing in section 8 public housing. My amendment
continues that pro-family stance.
The certification requirement in this amendment is a strong
enforcement mechanism which will not put additional burdens on small
businesses.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I urge support of my amendment to protect our
communities and to prohibit those who have committed a sex offense
against a minor from benefiting from government-backed FHA loans.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to claim time in opposition, although I am
not
[[Page 10495]]
opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. The gentleman's amendment is similar to previous efforts
by Republicans in past housing debates to ensure that convicted sex
offenders are unable to receive the Federal aid to obtain housing
through the FHA. I think the intent and the direction that the
gentleman is going to absolutely appropriate. I support his amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Maffei
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Mr. Adler to
offer an amendment on behalf of Mr. Adler and myself, and it is at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Maffei:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 16. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES.
None of the funds authorized under this Act or any
amendment made by this Act may be used to pay the salary of
any individual engaged in activities related to title II of
the National Housing Act who has been officially disciplined
for violations of subpart G of the Standards of Ethical
Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch for viewing,
downloading, or exchanging pornography, including child
pornography, on a Federal Government computer or while
performing official Federal Government duties.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Maffei) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Frank and
Chairwoman Waters for bringing this bill and my amendment to the floor.
We were all outraged when we learned that dozens of employees at the
Securities and Exchange Commission were found to have been using their
government-issued computers to view pornography. Some of these
employees were senior staffers, earning as much as $222,000 a year. One
SEC attorney in Washington, D.C., spent up to 8 hours a day watching
pornography. An accountant in a regional office was denied access by
the government firewall 16,000 times when he tried to access Web pages
containing sexually explicit material.
Mr. Chairman, this behavior, these abuses are not just an abuse of
government resources but also of the public trust. It undermines
confidence in our institutions. It subjects the thousands of SEC and
other government employees who work hard every day to a diminishment,
and, simply put, it is outrageous and unacceptable.
This amendment is very simple. It simply says that if you are an FHA
employee who is officially disciplined for viewing, downloading, or
exchanging pornography, including child pornography, you lose your job.
No private business in America would tolerate this kind of behavior,
and there's no reason our government institutions should either.
Again, very, very simple. If you're caught and officially disciplined
for viewing, downloading, or exchanging pornography, you lose your job.
It's that simple.
This should not be a partisan issue, and I urge swift passage of this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am
not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would just reiterate that the Congressman's amendment
seeks to ensure that the employees hired by FHA as a result of funds
made available in this bill are in good standing and not guilty of
viewing any previous pornography or any related disciplinary measures.
As the gentleman said, I think all of us, and certainly throughout
the country, were stunned to learn some of the statistics of certain
government employees not only viewing inappropriate material, but the
absolute, incredible waste of government resources and waste of time
that these employees have engaged in.
So, I think it's right and proper, as this amendment moves forward,
to ensure that we protect against those abuses in the future. I support
the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1300
Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from West
Virginia for her support of this amendment.
I again want to reiterate that thousands and thousands of workers at
the Securities and Exchange Commission and other government agencies
are extraordinarily hardworking, would never engage in this kind of
behavior. And, in fact, the reason why this amendment is so important
is to protect their reputation for the important jobs they do.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 111-503 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Waters of California;
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey;
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Price of Georgia;
Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Turner of Ohio;
Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Edwards of Texas;
Amendment No. 13 by Mr. Maffei of New York.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Waters of California
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 417,
noes 3, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 347]
AYES--417
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
[[Page 10496]]
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown (SC)
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
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
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)
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
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
Norton
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
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)
Sablan
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
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--3
Broun (GA)
Flake
Paul
NOT VOTING--17
Barrett (SC)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Eshoo
Faleomavaega
Harman
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Inglis
Johnson (GA)
Kennedy
Kilpatrick (MI)
Lewis (GA)
McHenry
Olson
Putnam
Shuster
{time} 1329
Mr. MACK changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Pomeroy was allowed to speak out of
order.)
In Memory of Congressman Arthur A. Link
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, last week, former Congressman Arthur A.
Link who served in the 92nd Congress passed away. One week earlier, he
celebrated his 96th birthday and 71st wedding anniversary with his
beloved wife, Grace.
Mr. Link held elected office in North Dakota for 34 years, including
the State legislature, in the Congress, and as Governor from 1973 to
1980. Not bad for someone with an 8th grade education who farmed and
ranched in the sparsely populated northwestern part of our State. Art
Link's importance to North Dakota is significant not just for his time
in public office but for his 30 years of exemplary activity he and
Grace spent after Governor, remaining deeply engaged in North Dakota
activities.
He is remembered for his rock-solid values of integrity, decency,
humility, and a deep sense that we are passing stewards of the land
whose responsibility is to make certain things are in good shape for
those who follow.
His philosophy is beautifully expressed in a short but unforgettable
speech, ``When the Land is Quiet Again,'' and I will add to the Record
this speech. I commend it to each of you, for the words have timeless
relevance and seem especially pertinent given the events of these days.
[Speech given October 11, 1973]
When the Landscape Is Quiet Again
(By Governor Arthur A. Link)
We do not want to halt progress.
We do not plan to be selfish and say ``North Dakota will
not share its energy resource.''
No, we simply want to insure the most efficient and
environmentally sound method of utilizing our precious coal
and water resources for the benefit of the broadest number of
people possible.
And when we are through with that and the landscape is
quiet again, when the draglines, the blasting rigs, the power
shovels and the huge gondolas cease to rip and roar!
And when the last bulldozer has pushed the last spoil pile
into place, and the last patch of barren earth has been
seeded to grass or grain, let those who follow and repopulate
the land be able to say, our grandparents did their job well.
The land is as good and, in some cases, better than before.
Only if they can say this will we be worthy of the rich
heritage of our land and its resources.
I loved Art Link and can honestly say to each of you, this Chamber
has never seen a more genuine, committed, and thoroughly decent Member.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in honor
of former Congressman and Governor Arthur A. Link.
The Acting CHAIR. Members will rise for a moment of silence.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Garrett) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 131,
noes 289, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 348]
AYES--131
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
[[Page 10497]]
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Lamborn
Latta
Linder
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
McCaul
McClintock
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Price (GA)
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stearns
Sullivan
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
NOES--289
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boccieri
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Calvert
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleming
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Wittman
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Barrett (SC)
Blumenauer
Butterfield
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Eshoo
Faleomavaega
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Inglis
Kilpatrick (MI)
McGovern
McHenry
Putnam
Radanovich
Shuster
Spratt
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on
this vote.
{time} 1340
Messrs. DELAHUNT and MORAN of Virginia changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. FORBES and ROHRABACHER changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina was allowed to
speak out of order.)
In Honor of Rev. Eddie Lee Carter
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Today, I rise to recognize Rev. Eddie
Lee Carter on the occasion of his retirement from serving here in the
House where since 2004 Rev. Carter has been repairing and shining
shoes.
Rev. Eddie Lee Carter and I have a shared heritage. He was born at
Beech Island, South Carolina, and my grandfather was born at Beech
Island, in Aiken County, South Carolina. At a very young age, his
family moved to Augusta, Georgia, which was nearby, and he attended
elementary school with the world-famous musician James Brown, another
great South Carolinian.
Rev. Carter first began to work on shoes as a young man, even before
he joined the Army in 1953. Rev. Carter was stationed primarily in
Germany while serving in the Army. A musician himself, he was renowned
for singing and entertaining generals when they passed through the
post. In 1955, Rev. Carter left the Army with the rank of corporal and
later moved to Washington from Augusta to work at Stern Shoe Repair.
In 1992, he was ordained a Methodist minister. On June 7, 2004, Rev.
Carter came to work at the U.S. Capitol repairing and shining shoes. He
currently lives at Fort Washington, Maryland, with his wife, Molly
Anthony Carter. They have been married for 28 years. He has a son, and
Mrs. Carter has two sons. On Friday, he plans to retire to spend more
time with the congregation.
Personally, I will always remember Rev. Carter's cheerfulness and
encouragement, his quiet reading of the Bible, and his proud wearing of
U.S.-South Carolina flag pin.
Godspeed, Rev. Carter.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Price) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 106,
noes 316, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 349]
AYES--106
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Emerson
Flake
Fleming
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Issa
[[Page 10498]]
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Kingston
Lamborn
Latta
Linder
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Mack
Marchant
McCaul
McClintock
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Price (GA)
Rangel
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
NOES--316
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Calvert
Campbell
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Barrett (SC)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Eshoo
Faleomavaega
Garamendi
Gordon (TN)
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Inglis
Kilpatrick (MI)
Manzullo
McHenry
Putnam
Shuster
{time} 1350
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, June 10, 2010, I
inadvertently missed this vote. I would have recorded a ``no'' vote on
rollcall No. 349.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Turner
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Turner) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 121,
noes 301, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 350]
AYES--121
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Boustany
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Duncan
Emerson
Flake
Fleming
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
LaTourette
Latta
Linder
Loebsack
Luetkemeyer
Mack
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Miller (FL)
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Perriello
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Rehberg
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Sutton
Teague
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Wamp
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
NOES--301
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Calvert
Campbell
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Heller
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
[[Page 10499]]
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Barrett (SC)
Carnahan
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Eshoo
Garamendi
Gohmert
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Inglis
Kilpatrick (MI)
McHenry
Putnam
Schrader
Shuster
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1357
Mr. HOYER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Edwards of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 420,
noes 4, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 351]
AYES--420
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
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
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
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
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
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
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
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
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
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
Norton
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
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)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--4
Filner
Nadler (NY)
Paul
Scott (VA)
NOT VOTING--13
Barrett (SC)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Eshoo
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Inglis
Kilpatrick (MI)
Lofgren, Zoe
McCarthy (NY)
McHenry
Putnam
Shuster
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on
this vote.
{time} 1404
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Maffei
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Maffei) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 416,
noes 0, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 20, as follows:
[[Page 10500]]
[Roll No. 352]
AYES--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
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
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
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
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
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
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
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
Norton
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
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)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
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
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Edwards (MD)
NOT VOTING--20
Barrett (SC)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
Eshoo
Giffords
Gordon (TN)
Gutierrez
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Inglis
Kilpatrick (MI)
Lofgren, Zoe
McHenry
Putnam
Sessions
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Stark
Wu
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on
this vote.
{time} 1410
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Weiner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Cuellar, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5072) to
improve the financial safety and soundness of the FHA mortgage
insurance program, pursuant to House Resolution 1424, reported the bill
back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. LEE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. LEE of New York. In its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Lee of New York moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 5072,
to the Committee on Financial Services with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following new sections:
SEC. 16. PROHIBITION OF MORTGAGE INSURANCE FOR BORROWERS WITH
STRATEGIC DEFAULTS.
Section 203 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709),
as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(z) Prohibition of Mortgage Insurance for Borrowers With
Strategic Defaults.--
``(1) Prohibition.--The Secretary may not newly insure any
mortgage under this title that is secured by a 1- to 4-family
dwelling unless the mortgagee has determined, in accordance
with such standards and requirements established by the
Secretary, that the mortgagor under such mortgage has not
previously engaged in any strategic default with respect to
any residential mortgage loan.
``(2) Strategic default.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `strategic default' means, with respect to a
residential mortgage loan, an intentional default having such
characteristics or under such circumstances as the Secretary
shall, by regulation, provide.''.
SEC. 17. PROHIBITION ON TAXPAYER BAILOUT OF FHA PROGRAM.
Section 205 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1711),
as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(h) Taxpayer Protection.--The Secretary shall use all
available actions and methods authorized under law to ensure
compliance with subsection (f)(2) and to protect the
taxpayers of the United States from financial responsibility
for any obligations of the Fund, including authority to
increase insurance premiums charged under this title for
mortgages that are obligations of the Fund, authority to
establish more stringent underwriting standards for such
mortgages, and authority to increase the amount of cash
[[Page 10501]]
or its equivalent required to be paid on account of the
property subject to such a mortgage.''.
Mr. LEE of New York (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
Ms. WATERS. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue to read.
The Clerk continued to read.
{time} 1415
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEE of New York. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill that we have
been considering today is an important one, and I support the
provisions that are included in H.R. 5072, the FHA Reform Act of 2010.
It gives HUD new tools that will allow the FHA to protect taxpayers
against fraudulent or poorly underwritten and insured loans.
The goal of H.R. 5072 is for HUD to begin the process of putting FHA
back on the road to a program that has adequate capital in reserve to
weather whatever problems it encounters down the road. However, H.R.
5072 is not a cure-all. We can do more to ensure that American
taxpayers are better protected.
During the past 2 years, FHA's market share has significantly
increased from less than 5 percent to more than 30 percent. As FHA's
market share has increased, taxpayer exposure has continued to grow day
by day. That is why we must do everything we can to ensure that the
program is being run in a safe and sound manner and that the taxpayers
will not be asked to pay for yet another government bailout.
The motion does two important things. First, it prohibits the FHA
from insuring loans from borrowers who have strategically defaulted on
previous loans. Second, it prohibits a taxpayer bailout of the FHA
program.
According to a study by Experian and management consulting firm
Oliver Wyman, from 2007 to 2008, the number of strategic defaults more
than doubled to 588,000, and a separate 2009 survey found that more
than a quarter of all existing defaults were strategic.
Meanwhile, there are lawyers, scam artists and opportunists touting
the financial benefits of walking away from a mortgage and offering to
help you do that for a fee. Not a day goes by that we don't read
another news article about folks who are making calculated decisions to
stop paying their mortgages even though they still have the ability to
pay. We are not talking about those families who have fallen on hard
times or who simply can no longer afford to make their payments. We are
talking about this new trend of people who voluntarily choose to stop
paying their mortgages even though they still have the ability to pay.
While these decisions should ultimately be left to the individual, we
should put in place more stringent penalties to discourage this
irresponsible behavior. If borrowers make decisions to strategically
default on their loans, they certainly should not be allowed to benefit
from a government-subsidized program.
This motion makes it clear: if you can afford to pay your mortgage
and choose not to, you will no longer be eligible to secure an FHA
mortgage. This motion calls on the Secretary of HUD to define strategic
default and to work with lenders to identify and to prevent borrowers
from participating in the FHA program.
This motion also prohibits a taxpayer bailout of the FHA program by
requiring HUD to use all available methods at its disposal to ensure
that the program is properly capitalized and that the taxpayer is
protected, ensuring that mortgage applicants have truly enough skin in
the game.
As Ranking Member Bachus said in yesterday's motion to instruct
conferees on the financial regulatory reform conference, it is time to
end bailouts once and for all. Whether it is $145 billion for Fannie
and Freddie or another $60 billion for AIG, Chrysler and GM, the
American public has suffered enough from bailout fatigue.
This motion to recommit ensures that the FHA uses its existing
authorities to ensure that the program does not need an appropriation
and that taxpayers are protected.
While the underlying legislation makes significant improvements to
the FHA program and goes a long way to providing HUD with the tools it
will need to improve the financial condition of the FHA program, these
additional prohibitions on strategic default borrowers and on taxpayer
bailouts will ensure that the FHA program stays on a solid financial
path and that American taxpayers will be protected from yet another
bailout.
I urge the adoption of this motion, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I rise to speak on the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the motion?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I don't know yet.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I was disappointed that my
colleague on the Financial Services Committee wouldn't observe the
tradition that we have of yielding to each other. If he had, I could
have saved the Members a lot of time because I am going to urge people
to vote for it.
I will say that it might need a word or two of improvement. If it
had, in fact, been offered at the Financial Services Committee, either
provision, we could have accepted it then, but then Members wouldn't
have had a chance to make dramatic speeches on the floor, so I suppose
that explains why we had to go through this.
I urge adoption of the amendment of the recommittal motion, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was agreed to.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions
of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 5072,
back to the House with an amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
At the end of the bill, add the following new sections:
SEC. 16. PROHIBITION OF MORTGAGE INSURANCE FOR BORROWERS WITH
STRATEGIC DEFAULTS.
Section 203 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709),
as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(z) Prohibition of Mortgage Insurance for Borrowers With
Strategic Defaults.--
``(1) Prohibition.--The Secretary may not newly insure any
mortgage under this title that is secured by a 1- to 4-family
dwelling unless the mortgagee has determined, in accordance
with such standards and requirements established by the
Secretary, that the mortgagor under such mortgage has not
previously engaged in any strategic default with respect to
any residential mortgage loan.
``(2) Strategic default.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `strategic default' means, with respect to a
residential mortgage loan, an intentional default having such
characteristics or under such circumstances as the Secretary
shall, by regulation, provide.''.
SEC. 17. PROHIBITION ON TAXPAYER BAILOUT OF FHA PROGRAM.
Section 205 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1711),
as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(h) Taxpayer Protection.--The Secretary shall use all
available actions and methods authorized under law to ensure
compliance with subsection (f)(2) and to protect the
taxpayers of the United States from financial responsibility
for any obligations of the Fund, including authority to
increase insurance premiums charged under this title for
mortgages that are obligations of the Fund, authority to
establish more stringent underwriting standards for such
mortgages, and authority to increase the amount of cash or
its equivalent required to be paid on account of the property
subject to such a mortgage.''
[[Page 10502]]
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (during the reading). I ask unanimous
consent that the reading be dispensed with.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage will be followed by a 5-minute vote on
suspension of the rules with regard to S. 3473.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 406,
noes 4, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 353]
AYES--406
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
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
Brown (SC)
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
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
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
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Hunter
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
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
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
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
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
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
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--4
Broun (GA)
Flake
Honda
Paul
NOT VOTING--21
Barrett (SC)
Berman
Costa
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
Eshoo
Hensarling
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Inglis
Kilpatrick (MI)
Lummis
Marshall
McHenry
Obey
Peterson
Putnam
Roe (TN)
Shuster
Welch
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1439
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 353 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 353, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yes.''
____________________
OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3473) to amend the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to authorize advances from Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, 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 Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 410,
nays 0, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 354]
YEAS--410
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
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 (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
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
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
[[Page 10503]]
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
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
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
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
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)
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
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
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
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
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
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
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Shea-Porter
NOT VOTING--20
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Buchanan
Buyer
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
Eshoo
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Inglis
Kilpatrick (MI)
Linder
McHenry
Miller, Gary
Obey
Posey
Putnam
Shuster
Waxman
{time} 1447
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.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 10, 2010, I
was attending to a family matter and missed the following votes.
Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 347;
``no'' on rollcall No. 348; ``no'' on rollcall No. 349; ``no'' on
rollcall No. 350; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 351; ``yea'' on rollcall No.
352; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 353; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 354.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend to
several votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on
rollcall 347; ``nay'' on rollcall 348; ``nay'' on rollcall 349; ``nay''
on rollcall 350; ``aye'' on rollcall 351; ``aye'' on rollcall 352;
``aye'' on rollcall 353 and ``aye'' on rollcall 354.
____________________
AUTHORIZING THE CLERK TO MAKE CORRECTIONS IN ENGROSSMENT OF H.R. 5072,
FHA REFORM ACT OF 2010
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the
engrossment of H.R. 5072, the Clerk be authorized to correct section
numbers, punctuation, and cross-references, and to make such other
technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to accurately
reflect the actions of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert
extraneous material on the subject of the passing of the Honorable Art
Link.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
____________________
CONGRATULATING CLINTON COUNTY, OHIO
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bright). The unfinished business is the
question on suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution (H.
Res. 1121) congratulating Clinton County and the county seat of
Wilmington, Ohio, on the occasion of their bicentennial anniversaries.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
(Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the
majority leader, for the purposes of announcing next week's schedule.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate
and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30
p.m.
On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate and
10 a.m. for legislative business and recess immediately for the Former
Members Association annual meeting. The House will reconvene at
approximately 11:30 a.m.
On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for
legislative business.
On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.
We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The
complete list of all suspension bills will be announced, as is the
custom, by the close of business tomorrow.
In addition, we will consider H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending
Fund Act of 2010; and possibly H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act; and, again,
possible action on H.R. 4899, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of
2010.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, in addition to next week's
schedule, can the gentlemen tell us
[[Page 10504]]
what he expects to consider on the floor between now and the July 4
recess beyond next week?
Mr. HOYER. In addition to the legislation I have announced for next
week--the Small Business Lending Act, the DISCLOSE Act, and the
supplemental--we will also consider in the future a Wall Street reform
conference report.
As the gentleman knows, the conference is having its first session
today as an open conference, full participation. I expect that to
hopefully conclude within the next few weeks, perhaps sooner. And I
expect to have that bill on the floor and to the President by the July
4 break.
In addition to that, we have the American Jobs and Closing Tax
Loopholes Act, which is being considered by the Senate now. We passed
this bill, as you know, 2 weeks ago. The Senate, however, had left
town, and they could not take action to extend unemployment benefits
and to preclude cuts to Medicare payments to ensure seniors would get
their doctors. I know the Senate is now working on this bill. And if
they amend it, we will look at that and see what House action might be
necessary.
In addition, we are looking at a budget resolution. We are still
working with Chairman Spratt on a budget resolution that shows we have
cognizance of the concerns that all of our Members have, A, about the
deficit and also about constraining spending. As the gentleman knows,
the President has sent to us a budget that for nondefense, nonsecurity
spending is frozen not only for this year but for 2 years to come. So
we are considering that.
In addition, the gentleman and I have been working very hard on Iran
sanctions. I was at the White House today. I congratulated the
President on the administration's success in having passed through the
Security Council the Iran sanctions legislation. It is good
legislation. Hopefully, all nations will abide by it, have its impact.
On the other hand, I think the gentleman and I both agree there need
to be additional efforts made. We urge the Europeans, who will be
meeting shortly, to do the same and hopefully have an even stronger
resolution.
And then it's my expectation--I have talked to Mr. Berman, and I know
you have talked to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen--my hope is that we will have--and
my request, more than a hope, my request is that the conference report
be brought to the floor the week of the 21st. And I have indicated that
that is my expectation.
I want to also congratulate Ambassador Susan Rice for the job that
she did in drafting the resolution that was adopted and successfully
passing it yesterday. I am looking forward to working with the
gentleman.
In addition to that, as you know, we have a supplemental that we want
to have considered. We need to fund our troops that are in harm's way
and make sure they have the resources necessary to carry out the
mission they have been given. And I expect the supplemental to be on
the floor possibly as early as next week. I would hope that we could
get it that early, but certainly I expect it to pass before we leave.
It is my understanding that funding is available into July so that we
have some flexibility, but my view is that we will pass it. And I will
be pushing very hard to pass the supplemental, make sure our troops are
funded. And I would hope that we could work on that on a bipartisan
basis.
That is not all that will be done, but those are the significant
parts of what I expect the agenda to be for the next 3 weeks.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
I specifically, Mr. Speaker, want to thank the gentleman for his
efforts on behalf of trying to get a resolution out of the conference
committee on the Iran sanctions bill--again, as he says, Mr. Speaker,
something that he and I have worked on for some time now. I thank him
for his commitment to that and working on that.
I would also ask the gentleman if any of the reports that I have
heard about a possible resolution having to do with the flotilla, in
terms of the actions that occurred, that Israel undertook to defend
itself in interdicting the ship on the alleged mission of aid that it
was claiming to be on, and whether we can expect any resolution along
those lines in support of our ally Israel.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his question.
As I am sure most people know, the gentleman and I agreed--I made a
statement on the floor last night, and I made a statement immediately
after--Israel, like any other nation in the world that is assaulted by
a terrorist organization that wants its demise, wants to kill its
people and push it from its country, any nation on Earth, including
ours, would defend itself. That is what they did.
They gave 2 weeks' notice, of course, as the gentleman knows, to the
Turks and to the individuals who were undertaking this so-called
humanitarian mission.
And I might say that the gentleman and I share a humanitarian concern
about the plight of the Palestinian people. Unfortunately, they are
ill-served by some of those who have, by force, taken over their
leadership in Gaza.
But Israel did what any nation would do. It gave notice and said, if
you will deliver those to Ashdod, the port, we will offload the
humanitarian material and make sure that it's delivered to its
recipients, not to a terrorist organization that would use it for
purposes of terror and attacks on civilians, but use it for the
purposes of relieving those in some distress.
I would point out, as the gentleman well knows, international reports
are that, in fact, there are sufficient food and medicine in Gaza
today. It is my view that that mission, in effect, accomplished its
objective, and its objective was to create confrontation and to put at
risk the security of Israel and its people.
So that the answer to your question is that I have talked to Mr.
Berman and I want to talk to you, as well, so that we can determine
what is the best course of action for us to take.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his continued
commitment and share with him the commitment to strengthen the alliance
between ourselves in the United States and Israel in the continuing
struggle that all of us have in terms of pushing back against the
terrorist threat, state sponsors of terror and their proxies in the
Middle East, and as they pose the existential threats to our ally
Israel as well as U.S. interests in the region. So I look forward to
working with him on that.
Mr. Speaker, I would go back to the gentleman's statements with
regards to financial regulation and a conference report. I know there
has been a lot of indication, especially on the part of Chairman Frank,
about the willingness to be open and make sure that C-SPAN cameras are
there so the public can understand and have access.
I was somewhat alarmed, though, with the statements made by the
chairman, as reported in the press, when he said, ``Some negotiations
will take place more publicly than others,'' and just wanted the
gentleman to assure us that there will be no negotiations ongoing
without having the light of cameras on and/or at least a fair hearing
among Members of both parties.
{time} 1500
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his question.
None of us want to commit to not talking to one another privately, I
think. I think that's what the chairman was referring to. I am sure he
and Mr. Dodd will speak. I am sure that he and the gentleman from
Alabama, the ranking Republican, Mr. Shelby, may be speaking. The
chairman and I both served with Mr. Shelby, and I am sure that there
will be discussions with the ranking Republican from our side.
That may not be in the context of the conference itself where there
will be cameras, where there will be an open opportunity to offer
amendments and fully debate and discuss various options. Frankly, I've
not been too pleased personally with the fact that we don't have a lot
of conferences. I think conferences are good. I think they accomplish a
worthy objective of bringing reconciliation between the two Houses and
frankly giving an opportunity for each perspective that's
[[Page 10505]]
represented on the conference to be articulated. And I think this will
be, from that standpoint, a model conference.
And I think Mr. Frank does intend, as he has said, to have an open
conference with full debate and voting in the light of day on various
different proposals.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that.
In that spirit, Mr. Speaker, of wanting to try to work together in a
civil manner and to try to get the work of the people done, the
gentleman mentioned the war supplemental for scheduling perhaps next
week. And obviously we continue to be concerned, Mr. Speaker, on the
part of our Members, their constituents, about the involvement,
openness of discussion, debate around the issue of the spending in the
supplemental bill to fund our troops.
And this is actually, Mr. Speaker, a bill we can work on together.
And the gentleman indicates that that bill may be coming to the floor.
And I would ask the gentleman should we expect that bill to go through
the appropriations committee before it comes to the floor to allow for
that open input, that collaboration to result in a better bill that
would reflect the will of the American people?
And I yield.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I have not discussed specifically what actions Mr. Obey--Mr. Obey is
looking at the supplemental. It was sent over to us. And he's
discussing it with the various subcommittee chairs, I know. I don't
know whether he's discussed it with Mr. Lewis at this point in time.
But I do know that, as you know, he had a markup scheduled on our
supplemental the week before we left. That was canceled, so it didn't
go forward; and then the Senate passed its bill.
But I would certainly hope that your side has input on what they
want, what you want, what you think ought to be in there. Obviously, we
want to respond to some of the crisis not only offshore in Iraq--well,
this is mainly Afghanistan and Pakistan as the gentleman knows, but my
belief is Mr. Obey will want to have input as well.
So I can't give you specifically because Mr. Obey has not indicated
to me at this point in time what his specific plans are. But I
understand the gentleman's interest.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that, Mr. Speaker, and I would
indicate that having spoken with the appropriators that Mr. Lewis has
not heard from Mr. Obey on that, and we will wait to hear, and I am
sure he's anxiously awaiting.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the gentleman about the budget
and what we can expect as far as the budget having now been in June,
there having been no budget, and can we expect a markup in the Budget
Committee prior to our leaving for the July 4 recess?
I yield.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As you know, Mr. Spratt and I and others have been working on this
for many months now to try to see if there is a budget that can garner
majority support. There was some indication, I will tell the
gentleman--he's usually at the White House with us. He wasn't with us
today. But Mr. Cantor is usually joining us at the White House in our
meetings with the President.
But the fact is that the Senate Republican leader indicated he'd like
to see some bipartisan agreement, at least on spending levels and
observed that he thought the spending levels the President had sent
down for our consideration were--he would like to see a lower number
but he appreciated the fact that that number was sent down and was a
constraint on spending, in fact, froze non-defense, non-security
spending at last year's levels and did so for a number of years. So I
made the observation at that point in time that I was hopeful that we
in fact could perhaps reach some bipartisan agreement. I will be
discussing with the gentleman probably early next week that
possibility.
But I will tell you that Mr. Spratt continues to work very, very hard
at trying to see if he can come up with a budget resolution that
reflects something that can get agreement.
I want to tell the gentleman that one of the problems we have, as the
gentleman knows, is we have created a situation of where the budget
will have some very tough numbers on it. They are realistic numbers.
They are the numbers. They are what they are. We are where we are. As
the gentleman knows, I believe that we need to work very, very hard to
get back to the place where we were when we started in 2001 when we had
a balanced budget and a surplus projected.
I would call attention to a statement of Doug Holtz-Eagen, as I am
sure the gentleman knows, who was with the last administration and
indicated that this budget would have occurred under Senator McCain as
well no matter what he did. We inherited an extraordinarily depressed
economy, an exploding deficit and a substantial decrease in revenues.
So we have an extraordinarily difficult situation that we've inherited
that we're trying to deal with.
The President, as you know, has appointed a commission to try to deal
with that. We put in place statutory PAYGO to try to constrain spending
so that we can get back to where I said we were in 4 years before the
Bush administration where we had 4 years of surplus. And, regrettably,
we're not there now; but we're working on it.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that. And he knows where I
stand on that issue and where our side is continuing to want to see a
budget, just like most of the American people are having to do every
day is come up with a budget of how they can make their businesses work
and their families make it through the month. So I appreciate that
spirit with which the gentleman offers that.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I read an article in
Roll Call this week that had to do with these colloquies that somehow
indicated that the gentleman and I were unable to come to the floor and
to ``play nice together.'' I will say I know the gentleman doesn't take
any of this personally, nor do I, because I enjoy coming to the floor
to debate substance and policy in these colloquies, something that,
frankly, is not done often enough in this House, but as it relates to
the priorities that the majority has as reflected through its
scheduling abilities.
And in fact, again, Mr. Speaker, this House doesn't do nearly enough
of this kind of exchange of opinion to ferret out how we can come to
some agreement.
So I know that the gentleman shares in that spirit as we engage,
specifically as that article points to, over our differences, our
differences about the priority of cutting spending now. And I know the
gentleman does know, as I value, the opportunities to work with him on
issues as we have just discussed having to do with the promotion of the
U.S. security in the Middle East as it plays out through our ally
Israel. I enjoy the working relationship that we have had on that
issue; the issue around the Iran sanctions resolution, as well as he
knows. As well we've worked together well on the issue of Puerto Rico
statehood. So there is that history.
But I would say again there are going to be times where we do
disagree. And there is, frankly, some disagreement that our side has
with what the majority does in terms of scheduling, and that is its
priorities on cutting spending.
We have become very frustrated that we have no other vehicle to speak
out as to the priorities of the majority other than our response to the
scheduling. And these colloquies are focused on priorities the majority
has as far as how it schedules this floor.
We have become very frustrated as well, Mr. Speaker, that every time
we begin even to hint at a desire to bring spending cuts to the floor,
that somehow we need a lecture on the last couple decades as to what's
happened in this country from a fiscal standpoint. As the gentleman
knows, I'm the first one to offer up some contrition. Yes, our side is
to blame as much as the other side for bringing us to this point.
But none of that has anything to do with scheduling for the next week
or
[[Page 10506]]
the week thereafter. And what my aim is, and hopefully the gentleman
knows, in engaging in these discussions is to say, please allow us to
bring up some of the issues that the American people want us to do,
which is to stop the spending now.
And as the gentleman knows, we have launched on the Republican side
of the aisle a program called YouCut, and frankly we have seen some
bipartisan support of programs under YouCut. We have seen the
administration take on an announcement today a proposal in YouCut to
sell excess Federal property.
We want this to be a bipartisan issue. And as the gentleman has
reminded me, as he said in the article, this is a colloquy based on
scheduling.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the minority, the Republicans in
this House, intend on bringing to the House floor another YouCut vote
next week. And it will be one of five options that the public will be
voting on and has begun already. And we are well over 700,000 votes in
YouCut on a 3-week period. And, Mr. Speaker, I think that indicates
some real intensity behind the public wanting this House to finally
stop spending now.
So we will, Mr. Speaker, be bringing to the floor a vote either on
the attempt to sell excess Federal property, which is a $15 billion
savings; a provision to terminate a Federal bike and walking program,
that's another $1.8 billion; terminate a Federal truck parking program,
$62.5 million; terminate a funding for private bus companies, $120
million; or a proposal to terminate the Ready to Learn TV program at
$270 million of savings.
And I would say, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman the purpose of our
bringing these to the floor is, first of all, to reflect the will of
the American people to cut now, to go forward, to admit we are in a
real tough situation fiscally in this country. We're at a crossroads.
We've got to start changing the culture here in Washington.
So I would say to the gentleman that is the purpose as well as, Mr.
Speaker, we have no other alternative unless the majority would
schedule actual spending cuts for this debate and vote on the House
floor.
I would also say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, these votes will
occur, and we will proffer these each week. This will begin to amass a
record on which Member supports spending cuts now and which doesn't. We
have already demonstrated a commitment on this side of the aisle, as
well as some on the gentleman's side of the aisle, to cut $85 billion
over the last three votes in YouCut and will continue to do that each
week.
And I would hope that the gentleman could join us in reflecting the
priorities that our constituents are asking us to put forward, and that
is to get the Federal deficit under control.
{time} 1515
So with that, Mr. Speaker, I would thank the gentleman for his time
and will yield to him for a response.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to tell my friend that I don't seek contrition. I do seek
reconsideration of policies that have not worked, of policies that were
projected to grow the economy, bring the deficit down and make us a
healthier, wealthier country. Frankly, the policies that we pursued in
2001 through 2006, and actually through 2009 because we couldn't change
policy although we were in charge of the House and the Senate, we
couldn't override a Presidential veto--again, not contrition, but
recognition that the policies did not work.
Benjamin Franklin said, It's not a good thing to be penny wise and
pound foolish. I tell my friend that he and his colleagues from 2001
and 2006--I think he voted for each one of these--voted for over $2
trillion in unfunded spending. That is the real problem.
The gentleman is probably prepared to support, as I am--he and I will
probably vote together, I hope, on a supplemental that provides for
funding our troops. That won't be paid for. We will expect our children
and grandchildren to pay for that. Mr. Obey has suggested a tax to pay
for this war. If it is worth fighting, if it's worth protecting this
generation, it is worth paying for. I tend to agree with that.
As the gentleman knows, I'm a lot older than he is. I have three
grandchildren, and I have a great-granddaughter. Tragically, history
tells us that my grandchildren and my children are going to have their
challenge from a security standpoint, from a health standpoint, from a
natural disaster standpoint as we have today, and they're going to have
to have resources to respond to that.
I don't criticize the gentleman and I applaud him for asking the
American public what we all ought to ask the American public, what do
you think we ought to cut. The fact of the matter is that your side,
your ranking member, has prepared a budget. As I've told you before, I
think it's a budget with a great deal of integrity, great deal of
political courage, and the gentleman's indicated it's a 75-year budget.
It's a budget that affects today, tomorrow, but yes, it has a vision. I
applaud Mr. Ryan. As you know, I'm a big fan of Mr. Ryan's. I don't
agree with Mr. Ryan, but I don't have to agree with somebody to have
great respect for their intellect and their political courage and their
willingness to be real, to put something on the table that really will
make a difference.
My side, for the most part, doesn't agree with his treatment of
Social Security, Medicare, and some other things. But I asked the
gentleman last time if he wants me to put that budget on the floor with
whatever we put on the floor on our side so that both of those can be
considered. We're prepared to do that.
But my friend, I will tell you, I'm not looking, as I said before,
for contrition. I am looking for recognition that we need to work
together and be honest. Be honest with those American people that
you're asking questions to. The items you put on your list are worthy
of consideration, but they will not get us to where we need to get.
As Mr. Eakin, who was one of McCain's advisers, former Republican
director for the OMB, as the CATO Institute indicates, the policies of
the Bush administration dug a very deep hole. You have contrition about
it but that doesn't solve it. What's got to solve it is us coming
together and being honest with the American people. That's what the
commission is hopefully going to do, and it's going to give us tough
recommendations, and we will have to clasp hands together frankly if
those recommendations are real, honest, and effective because they will
be politically controversial because the medicine doesn't always go
down very well.
But we have all dug a hole. I was not for most of the Bush policies
that put us in those holes. I think giving up revenues--that's part of
the $2 trillion of spending that you made, YouCut revenues--but you did
not pay for them. The thing to do if you're going to cut taxes is to
cut spending. The American public understand that, but pay for what
you're still going to buy. Don't expect the credit card to be used by
us and paid for by our children.
So I tell my friend that the individual items which you have just
outlined are worthy of consideration, and asking the American public
their recommendations is absolutely the right thing for us to do as a
democratic body, but let us not kid the people that we can deal with
the budget hole that has been dug over the last 8 years from surplus to
deep deficit, surplus in 2001, deep, deep deficit in 2009, January of
2009, is going to be solved by simply nibbling around the edges, no
matter how big those figures may sound, and they are big. But in the
magnitude of the problem that confronts us, they will not get us to
where we need to be.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I would say I hear
the gentleman, that he thinks that contrition is not enough. I hear the
gentleman who says that he and his side is to blame as well, and I
think enough is enough about going backwards.
The gentleman's heard me before on the floor in this colloquy quote
Winston Churchill when he said, Of this I am quite sure, that if we
open a quarrel between the past and present, we shall find that we have
lost our future. And
[[Page 10507]]
I would say to the gentleman in the spirit of that quote, let's go
forward. Both of us can differ on policy, but it seems that the
gentleman is more interested in settling a score to have this side of
the aisle admit that somehow our policies were failing.
I have said here--I think most of my colleagues on this side of the
aisle would say--spending was too high. The gentleman indicates that we
voted on $2 trillion of spending while we were in the majority over the
last several years.
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield just to clarify?
Mr. CANTOR. I yield.
Mr. HOYER. We all voted for more spending than that over that period
of time, given the size of our budget. What I said was, to be precise,
you voted for $2 trillion of unpaid spending.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that correction, and would say
that with that $2 trillion figure out there, we could also look to see
how much spending is going on now, and the national debt has increased
by $4 trillion since the Democratic Party took control of this
Congress, and we've added $4.8 billion in debt per day under this
President. So there is no side immune to blame for more spending, which
is why we continue to plead that let's work together now. Let's not
kick the can down the road.
The gentleman continues to say that the YouCut proposals are too
small, though worthy, too small to even fix any problem. That is not
true, Mr. Speaker. We are about trying to change the culture here in
Washington. The gentleman shares with me concern about the life our
kids, their kids and theirs will have in this country given the actions
we are taking and those we're not on the floor of this House.
So I thank the gentleman, again, for his willingness to engage in
these substantive discussions. We need more of these debates on
substance in the workings of this House, and I appreciate, again, his
time.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2010
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House
adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for
morning-hour debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
____________________
AUTHORIZING THE SPEAKER TO DECLARE A RECESS ON TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2010,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING FORMER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in
order on Tuesday, June 15, for the Speaker to declare a recess subject
to the call of the Chair for the purpose of receiving in this Chamber
former Members of Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
____________________
BP REFUSING TO PROVIDE CRITICAL DATA AND SAMPLES
(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, it's been more than 30 days since the
Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. In that time, at
least 40 million gallons of oil have entered our oceans. To give you
some idea what this means for the gulf coast, if the oil disaster was
centered in my district, it would completely cover New York City, Long
Island, Connecticut, and northern New Jersey, and far more in the east
and the west.
With a disaster of this enormous magnitude, it's absolutely critical
we know everything we can about the oil, its scope and its effect on
the Gulf of Mexico. But according to recent reports, BP is refusing to
provide critical samples and data to scientists studying the disaster.
Scientists researching the vast underwater damage of the oil spill have
been denied oil samples from BP. Other scientists studying the flow
rate at the source of the oil haven't received high quality video they
requested from BP's underwater robots. Still more researchers have
asked for, but not received, access to much-needed data to study oil
plumes beneath the surface of the ocean.
It is imperative for BP to give scientists inside and outside of
government access to every sample, every data point, and every other
resource they need to help us understand the truth about BP's oil
disaster. The American people have a right to know.
____________________
HONORING LINDSAY POTTS
(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute and deeply thank on
her retirement from our congressional staff Ms. Lindsay Potts of
Toledo, Ohio, who, for nearly 3 decades of exemplary and extraordinary
patriotic service to the people of our district, State, and Nation has
turned in her retirement papers.
I'd like to thank Lindsay publicly for her exceptional honesty and
work ethic, her abiding kindness, her aptitude and inquiring mind, her
patience, her fine writing skills, her insatiable intellectual
curiosity. She truly is a renaissance woman.
Lindsay is also a devoted wife to David Beckwith, and they are
parents to two marvelous young people, Schuyler and Judson, and she is
sister to Leslie and to brothers near and far.
Lindsay's gifts are unmatched, her smile, her sparkle, her uncanny
ability to connect to people from all walks of life and draw the best
from them for community betterment, as well as empowerment of
marginalized people in the days that she wrote ``People Building
Neighborhoods'' for the National Neighborhood Commission.
I wish her well, as does our entire staff, in the coming days and
years. She will always have a home in our congressional family and will
be missed by all who value her precious life. From the bottom of my
heart and our hearts, Lindsay, thank you always. God bless you, Lindsay
Potts.
____________________
GREATEST ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER
(Mr. CAO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CAO. Mr. Speaker, the greatest environmental disaster in history
is unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico. The oil spill has damaged the
shoreline of the gulf coast and my home State of Louisiana.
Each day I receive from the State this report listing the affected
shoreline. I have visited many of the places, and to Louisianans and my
family, it reads like a list of old friends.
You can't really understand the impact of this disaster until you
hear the names associated with the 103 miles of Louisiana shoreline
that already have been affected.
This includes the Chandeleur Island, Breton Island, South Pass, South
West Pass, Whiskey Island, Trinity Island, East Island, Raccoon Island,
Port Fourchon, Grand Isle, Elmer's Island, Brush Island, Pass a Loutre,
Marsh Island, Timbalier Islands, Lake Raccourci, Pilot Bayou, Isle
Grande Terre, Devil's Bay, Lake Felicity, Cheniere au Tigre, Pilot Bay,
Timbalier Bay, Bay Ronquille, Casse Tete, Vermillion Bay, Bay Batiste,
Bay Long, Lake Barre, Blind Bay, Calumet Island, Barataria Bay, Bastian
Island Grande Ecaille, Wilkinson Bay Marsh.
This disaster is bigger than anything we have ever seen before. I
call upon my colleagues and the Nation to maintain our attention on
swift response and recovery and to hold the responsible parties
accountable.
____________________
{time} 1530
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
[[Page 10508]]
____________________
UNITED STATES MARINE SERGEANT BRANDON BURY
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, it is with great pride and a heavy
heart that I speak today of a young marine from my district in Texas
who gave his life while fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan.
Marine Sergeant Brandon Bury was killed on Sunday, June 6 during
combat operations in Kabul. This is a photograph of this marvelous
marine. He leaves behind his wife, Heather, and his two young sons,
Cole, who is 3-years-old, and Cade, who is 1.
Brandon was on his third tour of duty. He previously served two
deployments in Iraq, and he left for Afghanistan this April as part of
a team training Afghan police.
He was 26 years of age and a 2002 graduate of Kingwood High School in
Texas. In his 26 short years, Brandon lived a lifetime of service to
other people.
I talked to Brandon's mom, Terri, this week. She told me that Brandon
had just called her, and he had asked her to send him gifts for the
local Afghanistan children in his next care package. Brandon, always
thinking about ways to do something for somebody else.
I have been to Afghanistan and, let me tell you something, Mr.
Speaker, those Afghani kids love American warriors. They love our
troops, and I have seen how they react to those troops firsthand.
Marines like Brandon are the reason why. They are the best
ambassadors for liberty and freedom that there are in the world
because, you see, Americans never go to conquer. They go to liberate.
They go to lands they have never seen, and they fight for people they
have never known.
Brandon's mom and dad, Terri and Bryan Bury, now live in Dallas,
Texas, with his two brothers. I met Brandon 2 years ago at a 4th of
July celebration in Kingwood. He stood 6 foot 6 and he was all marine.
He was an impressive individual, and his friends say even back in
middle school Brandon knew what he wanted to do. He wanted to be a
United States marine.
He volunteered for the Marine Corps. He could have been an officer,
but he wanted to be an enlisted man so he could be on the ground with
other such marines.
You know, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing like a U.S. marine. They go
into the desert of the gun and the valley of the sun. They go where
others fear to tread and the timid are not found.
These young warriors make great sacrifices today in the heat and the
dust and the deserts and the rough, rugged mountains of Afghanistan.
They track down those terrorists wherever they try to hide.
There have been 10 Texas warriors killed this year in Afghanistan,
four from the Houston area. In our congressional district in Texas,
there have been a total of 29 warriors killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It has been said that wars may be fought by weapons, but they are won
by warriors. Brandon Bury was an American warrior. He was a hero in the
tradition of our great men and women who defend the flag and liberty.
It is America's warriors who pay the price for our freedom.
In America's first war fighting for freedom, Patrick Henry said,
``The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant,
the active, and to the brave.'' We are fortunate that these words still
ring true today and that Americans like Brandon carry those values into
battle.
While we mourn the loss of Brandon Bury, we should thank God that a
man like him ever lived.
Killed with Sergeant Bury were Lance Corporal Derek Hernandez, 20, of
Edinburg, Texas, and Corporal Donald Marler, 22, from St. Louis, part
of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division based at
Camp Pendleton. These proud, young warriors were killed on the 66th
anniversary of the D-day invasion of Europe.
Shakespeare wrote about such men in Henry V, when he said, ``From
this day to the ending of the world, we in it shall be remembered. We
few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for he today that sheds his
blood with me shall be my brother.''
Mr. Speaker, we shall always remember Brandon and his fellow marine
brothers and the lives they gave for freedom. So today I extend my
prayers and condolences to Brandon's wife and two young boys, and his
parents, his relatives, and his friends in the Kingwood community.
Mr. Speaker, when a warrior goes off to faraway lands, the family
stands vigilant at home because they, too, have really gone off to war.
Brandon was a marine. He was the poster boy for what is best about
America.
Where does America get such amazing breed, this rare breed like
Brandon Bury? Mr. Speaker, there is nothing quite like a marine. It was
said best by an Army general when he said there are only two groups
that understand marines--marines and the enemy.
So Semper Fi, Brandon Bury, Semper Fi.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
TRILLION WITH A ``T''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, a week ago Sunday, at approximately 10:06
a.m., after the House had adjourned for recess and Americans were
enjoying their holiday weekend, the Nation reached a truly disturbing
milestone. At about that moment, according to the National Priorities
Project, the combined amount of taxpayer money spent on the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan reached a staggering $1 trillion. That's trillion
with a ``T,'' Mr. Speaker.
That's a breathtaking amount of money to spend, even on something
that works. But that kind of spending on two bloody wars that have
taken thousands of American lives, destabilized other parts of the
world, and done nothing to achieve national security goals, well, it's
positively shameful.
That trillion dollars doesn't even include some bills that haven't
yet come due, like future medical costs for returning Iraq and
Afghanistan veterans, a commitment we absolutely must keep. Nor does it
include interest our grandchildren will pay on the debt we have racked
up to finance these wars.
What I can't help thinking, Mr. Speaker, is the lost opportunity
costs that we should be taking into account. What could we be spending
that kind of money on if we weren't wasting it on immoral wars?
The National Priorities Project did a few calculations that report
what we could do with a trillion dollars. They say we could provide a
year's worth of health care to 161 million low-income Americans, or we
could pay for 137 million Head Start slots, or we could put 16 million
more teachers in our elementary school classrooms.
But a funny thing happens whenever we try to make significant
investments in the American people, especially those who find
themselves struggling through no fault of their own. Suddenly, many of
the same people who want to hand a blank check to the Pentagon become
the strictest penny-pinchers. The priorities are completely distorted.
We have to fight and scrap for every dime of spending designed to help
our own people. But in the name of overseas invasion and conquest,
money is no object and no expense is spared.
We don't need to spend a trillion dollars to combat terrorism and
protect our people. Instead, we can implement a smart security strategy
that rejects warfare for the kind of real power, moral authority, and
humanitarian decency that is American. It is America at its very best.
It's time to replace the military surge with a civilian surge, Mr.
Speaker. We need aid workers, diplomatic initiatives, civil society
programs, teachers, democracy promotion specialists, agricultural
experts and much more, which would and will make us safer at a fraction
of the cost.
[[Page 10509]]
Mr. Speaker, these trillion dollar wars have to end. It's time to
move to a smart security strategy. It's time to bring our troops home.
____________________
BP OIL SPILL DISASTER: DAY 52
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, today represents day 52 of the worst
environmental disaster in U.S. history, and on this 52nd day, BP is no
closer to finding a solution. As families and small businesses in the
Florida Keys and across the gulf coast continue to suffer, BP has
failed to come through on an effective strategy for plugging the
gushing rig and for picking up the oil.
My office has been flooded with calls from constituents eager to
offer their assistance in the cleanup effort. Commercial fishermen,
charter boat captains stand ready to lay boom and skim oil before it
reaches the shore. Community organizations like United Way and the
Florida Keys Environment Coalition have gathered volunteers ready to
patrol the shoreline searching for tar balls. Unfortunately, BP has not
provided these groups with the necessary training to assist in the
cleanup effort.
As many constituents have complained to me, BP is failing to utilize
members of the Keys community. Instead, BP is waiting until oil washes
ashore to take action.
Additionally, many residents have called to offer their suggestions
on how to clean up this mess. I sincerely hope that BP is giving due
consideration to all of these suggestions. Clearly, BP's plan has not
worked. The cleanup plan in Louisiana is abysmal. It is time for BP to
look elsewhere.
Yesterday, I met with BP executives to discuss the company's slow,
uncoordinated, and half-baked response efforts in Florida. At this
meeting, I relayed the frustrations of many south Florida small
business owners who are going through the BP claims process. These
individuals are required to go through a long, complicated, and
belittling process in order to receive the compensation that they serve
because, for their economic loss, they had a downturn in business as a
result of the premature panic from the BP oil spill.
{time} 1545
Let me be clear: These hardworking men and women are not looking for
a handout, Mr. Speaker. They would much rather be working.
Unfortunately, the disaster in the gulf has taken a tremendous toll on
fishermen, on dive shops, on restaurants, on motels, and many tourist-
related businesses in the Keys.
BP needs to completely revamp its claims process. In the Keys, two
claims offices opened by BP are virtually useless. Individuals seeking
compensation leave these offices with stacks of complicated paperwork,
legal documentation, and little guidance.
I have requested detailed information from BP on its claims process.
We need to demand complete transparency in this process, including data
on how claims are being evaluated, how payment sums are being
determined, and how quickly claims are being processed. Complicated
legal documents just will not do.
On a related note, the Federal agencies need to come up with a plan
in the event of a tropical storm or hurricane in the gulf. Hurricane
season has just started. Experts at the National Hurricane Center
predict that the 2010 hurricane season could be one of the most active
on record. Forecasters are predicting anywhere between 14 to 23 named
storms this season. Of course, it only takes one. Just ask the Florida
residents who suffered through Hurricane Andrew, or just ask those
residents in New Orleans who are still recovering from Hurricane
Katrina.
In addition to a predicted active storm season, our communities are
now saddled with the uncertainty of an oil spill. The ruptured oil rig
is located right in the middle of hurricane alley. Scientists have
suggested that the sheer strength of a hurricane could turn the oil
slick into a devastating black surf. I shudder to think of the long-
term economic devastation and environmental damage caused by this toxic
combination.
BP and, indeed, all of our Federal agencies must prepare now for a
worst-case scenario later. BP cannot continue to sit idly by while
communities are destroyed.
____________________
MAVI MARMARA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the events that transpired in the
Mediterranean off the coast of Israel on May 31st were profoundly
unfortunate and the loss of life is deeply regrettable.
We await a full and credible account of what happened aboard the Mavi
Marmara, yet we know that Israel has the right and obligation to
protect her citizens and borders, in this case by enforcing a legal
naval blockade to allow certification of peaceful end use of goods
transported into Gaza.
In the days since the incident, Israel has released all people
detained and has inspected and trucked the flotilla aid cargo to Gaza,
where I understand it awaits permission from Hamas to cross.
Sadly, last week's confrontation could have been avoided. Israel
offered the flotilla organizers the chance to have their cargo
inspected at the Port of Ashdod and transported to Gaza. Five of the
six ships in the flotilla complied nonviolently, but the Mavi Marmara,
loaded with over 500 people, refused.
The sequence of events that subsequently led to violence is disputed,
but it is obvious, to me anyway, that the actions of the Mavi Marmara
were needlessly provocative.
Israel should lead an impartial, transparent, and prompt examination
of the incident. And inquiries may show how the interdiction could have
been accomplished without loss of life.
It seems to me that the Israeli soldiers were right to defend
themselves from the brutal assault. We saw this on video. It does not
seem clear that the situation had to unfold as it did, however.
Israel announced yesterday that a highly respected team of experts
will review the investigations that are now under way, with a report
expected in about a month. The United States should assist our ally in
this endeavor, and the world community should withhold judgment until a
reliable inquiry is complete. Yet many around the world, once again,
are rushing to blame Israel before fully examining all the facts.
The United States, correctly, voted against a United Nations Human
Rights Council resolution that called for an independent fact-finding
mission, while at the same time, prematurely condemning Israel's
actions. This apparent bias cannot be allowed to inflame an already
volatile situation.
I have called for increased humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza
for more than a year now. Legitimate humanitarian needs cannot be
ignored. However, continued interference and provocations by any nation
or faction in the region are unhelpful and dangerous.
The United States, the Arab states, and others must continue to
facilitate vigorous and sustained diplomacy until lasting peace is
achieved. Ultimately, only a just, permanent, and peaceful settlement
between Israelis and Palestinians can ensure the security and the
welfare of all in the region.
____________________
FREE ENTERPRISE, FREE MARKET EQUALS RECOVERY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, in today's Washington Post, the very
prominent columnist George Will has a column about how the very limited
recovery that has gone on in this country over the last few months is a
jobless recovery, a term that we are hearing from many, many experts
throughout the country.
[[Page 10510]]
I can tell you that, all over this country, college graduates are
having trouble finding jobs, and many are having to work as waiters and
waitresses in restaurants or at other very low-paying jobs. In large
part, that is because environmental radicals have forced us to send
millions of good jobs to other countries for 30 years or more now, and
that is the main cause of that problem. But another problem that is
going on all over the country is the credit situation.
Yesterday, in the Washington Times, there was a lengthy article about
the problem that is still going on, that the banks are not making loans
to anyone who really needs a loan, and particularly small businesses
are hurting.
Well, I can tell you exactly why the banks are not making loans to
the people who need them. And that is because, while the President and
the Secretary of the Treasury--and both President Bush and his
administration did this and President Obama and his Secretary of the
Treasury have been doing this--they are up here in Washington saying,
loan, loan, loan, and the banks have all this money, but the examiners
down on the local level are saying, no, no, no, and turning down what
would be really good loans even in just recent times.
Unless the examiners start giving small businesses at least some
flexibility, this economy is not really going to recover.
We know, for instance, that there have been almost no jobs created
over the last few months in the private sector. And about the only jobs
that have been created or the biggest number of jobs that have been
created have been jobs in the census, which occurs only once every 10
years.
My main purpose in coming here today is to read into the Record a
letter that I have received from one of my constituents, Mike Connor,
who started with one restaurant in 1992 and now has a chain of 15
restaurants.
He wrote this letter to me recently. He said, quote, ``We, the
middle-sized business owners, are going to need a lot of help in the
next couple of years. As I understand the current health care reform
bill, Connor Concepts, as an employer of more than 50 people, will be
required to provide health insurance for all full-time employees or
face a $3,000 fine per employee.
``We currently employ around 1,200 team members in five States. We do
provide health insurance for around 100 full-time salaried management
and upper-management staff. Of the remaining 1,100 team members, around
800 are full-time and are not provided with health insurance.
``If we are required to pay for their health insurance or pay the
penalty, we would have to pay an additional $2,400,000. If we are
forced to pay this, the five States we operate in will have an
additional 1,200 unemployed. We would lose a lot of money!''
Mr. Connor continues, ``Together with my team, I have built this
company from one restaurant in 1992, providing jobs for 80 people, to
15 restaurants, employing 1,200. Right now we plan to continue opening
one restaurant a year, employing 80 to 100 people. If something doesn't
change in the next year or 2 with this reform, we will have to stop
growth.''
I want to repeat what he said here. This 15-restaurant chain, which
is not a giant business, they will have to stop their growth if the
health care reform bill goes fully into effect as it is now written.
Mr. Connor continues, ``Though our team members are not provided
health insurance because of the expense, they are provided with a good
pay wage, excellent vacation benefits, meal privileges, and excellent
working conditions. More than anything else, though, they are provided
a good job, one that allows them to pay their bills, support their
families, or pay for their school.
``We do provide an insurance plan team members can pay for
themselves. It is an inexpensive plan that has limits on hospital stays
but does take care of routine medical care.''
Mr. Connor ends this letter by saying, ``I look forward to working
with you in whatever way I can to change this law so that I can stay in
business.''
Businesses, Mr. Speaker, all over this country are facing this same
situation. And we have got to change this and allow the free-
enterprise, free-market system to work in this country once again if
we're going to ever have the recovery that our people want.
I thank you.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO BILL HANDLEMAN
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, award-winning journalist Bill
Handleman, 62, of the Asbury Park Press, tragically passed away
yesterday after a long bout with cancer.
A family man and a humanitarian with a great big heart and incisive
wit, Bill is survived by his dear wife Judy, his three children, his
mom, extended family, and a boatload of friends.
And allow me to extend our deepest condolences to the family and to
let them know that our prayers are with them during this very, very
difficult time.
Mr. Speaker, to know Bill Handleman in person or through his prolific
pen is to respect and admire his innate goodness, his generosity, and
good humor. For years, Bill's news beat was sports, and he especially
liked the ponies. He was a four-time sportswriter of the year, in 1992,
2002, 2003, and 2005.
Asbury Park Press staff writer Shannon Mullen writes in today's
edition, however, that ``Bill soon discovered that he much preferred
writing about everyday struggles of ordinary people rather than the
coddled multimillionaire athletes he dealt with on the sports beat.''
Bill had an extraordinary penchant for finding compelling subject
matter and consistently turned the seemingly mundane, especially those
who were left out and left behind, into great human interest stories.
The Press's Shannon Mullen again summed it up well: ``Bill Handleman
was a gifted storyteller. His writing style was direct, witty, and
spare. A lifelong student of Hemingway, he used periods like an
Impressionist painter uses a brush, preferring short, incisive
sentences that packed a punch. And as a columnist, Handleman relished
championing the underdog.''
Mr. Speaker, thank God he did.
Even as he battled cancer, Bill turned out one great story after
another with intriguing titles like, ``A Man With a Hole in His Heart
(A Coach's Story)''; ``No Longer Homeless: A Former Mogul Envisions the
Future''; ``A Different Midlife Crisis: A Man Learns that He Is
Adopted''; ``During the Depression, the Poor Scramble for Work and
Cash''; ``A Father Leaves Behind a Secret''--it was a World War II
veteran story.
His stories made us laugh and touched our hearts, and they moved us
to action, like the case of David Goldman. To a large extent, David
Goldman ceased being invisible in his heroic battle to reclaim his son,
Sean, from a child abductor in Brazil because Bill Handleman made it
his passion to effectively inform, inspire, and challenge the
community, including and especially lawmakers, to join David's struggle
for justice.
{time} 1600
``For 4 years, no one could hear him. He was shouting in the dark,''
David's father, Barry, told Mr. Handleman in one column. In the 16
months since Mr. Handleman began telling this story, David's seemingly
intractable plight went from near total obscurity to huge prominence.
Public officials at every level responded to the call.
Each of Bill Handleman's approximately 24 columns not only conveyed
to readers timely and critically important information about the
Goldman case, but Mr. Handleman went deep behind the scenes to flesh
out details of uncommon courage, sacrifice and compassion. Bill
Handleman gave the community rare insights into the raw emotion and the
fleeting successes, followed by frustrating setbacks, the agony and
ultimately the ecstasy of David and Sean's permanent reunion.
In a candor and depth of reporting found nowhere else in the print
media,
[[Page 10511]]
we got to know David in his own words as he was thinking it. Readers of
the column were there with David on countless trips to Rio, to
Brasilia, to Washington, and at home with him in Monmouth County. For
more than a year, Bill Handleman allowed us to see it all as David did
and to walk, to some extent, in this left-behind-parents' shoes.
Through Bill Handleman's incisive pen, we also got to know much of
David Goldman's family and close friends.
We will miss Bill Handleman. I, along with tens of thousands of
others, read each and every column, often with tears and empathy and
resolve to do more about David Goldman's case. David Goldman was,
indeed, lucky that the columnist who embraced his quest turned out to
be a consummate storyteller and the Handleman column a true game-
changer. Bill Handleman did an exceptional job. We will miss him
dearly.
Again, our prayers and our condolences go out to Judy and to the
family.
____________________
UNDER DISCUSSION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There are three different issues that I am compelled to bring up and
to discuss.
One, first of all, is with what is going on in the Gulf of Mexico.
Being from Texas, we are particularly sensitive to what happens there.
There have been so many days on the Gulf of Mexico coast, on the Texas
coast--Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida--in all of those areas,
and to see what is happening is heartbreaking.
Two things need to be done. One is to immediately do everything we
can to stop additional oil from flowing into the area. At the same
time, we must clean up the area before we do any more devastation. Then
the other thing is we need to find out what caused the spill and what
could have been done better to prevent this kind of thing from ever
happening.
You know, we find out that British Petroleum had been cited 750
times, apparently, on rigs for safety violations. Compare that to
others. I believe Exxon and Shell may have had one during the same
period. So I mean there were indicators that perhaps BP was hurrying,
that perhaps there was a test that didn't work out. Well, we've heard
those rumors. Yet they still continued. There is the rumor of someone's
yelling on the phone after the explosion: I told you, I told you. Are
you happy? I told you. It's something to that effect. There are
indications that perhaps people at BP knew that they were moving too
fast and got careless. There was no reason for this. There was no
reason for this. Proper measures had been taken.
One of the problems we find in America is when the government decides
to get involved and to do everything itself rather than to have the
supervisory, the regulatory role, that it is supposed to have. In other
words, what the Federal Government is supposed to do is to make sure
that everybody plays fair and to then let them play. If you have a
company that is playing in Federal ocean areas, you've got to make sure
they're not breaking the rules and jeopardizing your homeland.
When asking Director Birnbaum of the Minerals Management Service why
the testing had not been disclosed, she said, Well, it's under
investigation. So those reports are being utilized in the
investigation. I publicly asked in our hearing for a copy of the
reports because we know experts as well who can look at the reports and
say, Well, it says right here that the test didn't work, that there
were problems that arose. We don't need to wait months. Let's find out
what the problem was so that we can see if we need to fix that on other
BP rigs.
In the meantime, because of the problems there, thousands and
thousands of American workers are being punished by this administration
with the overreaction. We're not just stopping BP and double checking
their work. We're going after everybody. The President said there would
be a 6-month moratorium. He's going to hurt everybody because of what
BP may have done or not done. That's no way to act. In the middle of a
crisis, in the middle of a recession, you put other people out of work?
You know, we heard from the families here on Capitol Hill. Bless
their hearts. They've been through so much with the loss of life out
there on that rig. It's my understanding that, even since the hearing,
they're not demanding that drilling stop. They've got too many friends
who will be out of work. We need to find those who are responsible.
Yet, in the meantime, what could be done?
We have heard the President very nobly say, I'm in control. The
administration says they've been in control from day one.
Yet we see this week, according to this article by Loren Steffy, in
the Houston Chronicle, posted on June 8, at 10:13 p.m.: ``Three days
after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the
Dutch Government offered to help. It was willing to provide ships
outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building
sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.
``The response from the Obama administration and British Petroleum,
BP, which are coordinating the cleanup, is, `The Embassy got a nice
letter from the administration that said, ``Thanks, but no thanks,''
said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.'''
Well, wasn't that nice. The administration has been in control, we
are told, from day one. We heard that before a lot of the people
covering the event even noticed that this administration was down there
in charge.
Apparently, within 3 days, their answer was to say we don't want
help. These people are from the Netherlands. What do they know about
dikes and sand barriers and dealing with ocean water? Oh, yeah. Their
country has been reclaimed from the ocean, a good deal of it. Why would
we want their help? These guys are experts on dealing with ocean water
problems. They've been turned away. They were turned away. What sense
does that make? Oh, we're in charge. We're in control. We're running
things. Yet, in the response to the Dutch, who had the capability to
come in and to immediately take action to protect the wildlife, the
estuaries, these important marshlands, the beaches--and 3 days after
the oil began gushing into the gulf--this administration basically put
British Petroleum in charge. It said you take care of it. You know, we
don't have your expertise. You take care of it.
We heard from Mr. Gibbs, who nicely said--or I believe it was, maybe,
Secretary Salazar, but the administration was pointing out that we have
our boot on their throat. In a hearing in our Natural Resources
Committee, I asked, What does that mean? The Deputy Secretary of the
Interior under Salazar and others there, I didn't really feel, gave
appropriate answers. I don't know. I still don't know what that means.
We've got our boot on their throat. You know, I'd rather you boot me
down there to Louisiana and to Florida and make sure that the oil is
not getting to the shore, but when in our hearing they were asked about
Louisiana's wanting to set up little barrier islands out there so the
oil wouldn't get into the sensitive areas and kill the wildlife and
kill off the livings of so many thousands of people, we were told in
that hearing, We have that under discussion. Oil was gushing and still
is, and this administration has those things under discussion.
He went on to elaborate and explain.
You see, we think it's possible that, if they build these sand
islands out there, it may actually draw more oil into the areas they
are trying to protect. So we're still talking about it.
Good grief. How about checking with the Dutch? They offered to help 3
days after the explosion.
Well, this article goes on. It says: ``Now, almost 7 weeks later, as
the oil spewing from the battered well spreads
[[Page 10512]]
across the gulf and soils pristine beaches and coastline, BP and our
government have reconsidered. U.S. ships are being outfitted this week
with four pairs of skimming booms airlifted from the Netherlands and
should be deployed within days. Each pair can process 5 million gallons
of water a day, removing 20,000 tons of oil and sludge. At that rate,
how much more oil could have been removed from the gulf during the past
month?''
But we know who is in charge. They've made it clear from day one.
They didn't want the Dutch help for 7 weeks, and now the administration
says, You know what? Maybe we'll outfit our own ships and do what you
offered to do when this first started.
The article says: ``The uncoordinated response to an offer of
assistance has become characteristic of this disaster's response. Too
often, BP and the government don't seem to know what the other is
doing, and the response has seemed too slow and too confused. Federal
law has also hampered the assistance. The Jones Act, the maritime law
that requires all goods be carried in U.S. waters by U.S.-flagged
ships, has prevented Dutch ships with spill-fighting equipment from
entering U.S. coastal areas.
```What's wrong with accepting outside help?' Visser asked.'' Again,
Visser is the consul general for the Netherlands, who offered the
assistance.
Visser said, ```If there's a country that's experienced with building
dikes and managing water, it's the Netherlands.'
``Even if, 3 days after the rig exploded, it seemed as if the Dutch
equipment and expertise wasn't needed, wouldn't it have been better to
accept it, to err on the side of having too many resources available
rather than not enough?
``BP has been inundated with well-intentioned cleanup suggestions,
but the Dutch offer was different. It came through official channels
from a government offering to share its demonstrated expertise.
``Many in the U.S., including the President, have expressed
frustration with the handling of the cleanup. In the Netherlands, the
response would have been different, Visser said.
``There, the government owns the cleanup equipment, including the
skimmers now being deployed in the gulf.
``If there's a spill in the Netherlands, we give the oil companies 12
hours to react, he said.
``If the response is inadequate or the companies are unprepared, the
government takes over and sends the companies the bill.
``While the skimmers should soon be in use, the plan for building
sand barriers remains more uncertain.''
That is as was mentioned in our hearing. We were told in our hearing
that weeks after the explosion and the oil started gushing forward,
Well, we have that under discussion. We're concerned that, if we build
these little barrier islands that prevent the oil from getting into
these sensitive areas, they could actually cause more oil to come into
the sensitive areas. So we are still having it under discussion.
Excuse me? You've got people losing their livelihoods probably for
the rest of their lives, and you want to come in and say, You know,
we're discussing it.
Well, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal supports the idea, and the
Coast Guard has tentatively approved the project. One of the proposals
being considered was developed by the Dutch marine contractor Van Oord
and Deltares, a Dutch research institute that specializes in
environmental issues in deltas, coastal areas and rivers.
{time} 1615
They have a strategy to begin building 60-mile-long sand dikes within
3 weeks. That proposal, like the offer for skimmers, was rebuffed but
then later accepted by the government. BP has begun paying about $360
million to cover the cost. Once again, though, the Jones Act may be
getting in the way.
American dredging companies, which lack the dike building expertise
of the Dutch want to do the work themselves, Visser said. We don't want
to take over, but we have the equipment, he said. The Dutch have the
equipment. They've offered it. While he battles the bureaucracy, the
people of Louisiana suffer, their livelihoods in jeopardy from the
onslaught of oil. Let's forget about politics. Let's get it done, was
Visser's last comment in the article.
It makes no sense if somebody's going to be in charge and vote
``present.'' You can't vote ``present.'' We'll think about it. We'll
talk about it. We don't want to commit, in an emergency. Err on the
side of additional help. But, here again, we've got the Jones Act from
the 1920s that stands in the way.
It's interesting, another posting on June 8. This is apparently in
American Leadership. It mentions within days of the oil spill, several
European nations and 13 countries in total apparently offered the Obama
administration ships to assist in the cleanup of the gulf. When asked
about this, a State Department press spokesman refused to identify any
offers of assistance. Wouldn't want to identify who's offering to
assist because some reporter might actually go ask them, What were you
suggesting? What were you wanting to do? Then that might put pressure
on the administration and might bring to light the fact that the
administration had turned down help that would have saved the
livelihoods and jobs for thousands and thousands of Americans. Because
we've heard over and over, this administration wants to save jobs. Not
doing much to create them other than, as we heard, 411,000 of the
431,000 last month were created as temporary census workers. We can
create new government jobs, but this would have saved jobs, and yet the
response was dilatory.
According to one newspaper, European firms could complete the task in
4 months rather than an estimated 9 months if done by the United
States. Working with the U.S., the cleanup could be accomplished in 3
months. The Belgium firm DEME contends it can clean up the oil with
accuracy at a depth of 2,000 meters. Another European firm with
capabilities is the Dutch firm Jan De Nul Group. Pardon me if I
mispronounce it. The Dutch and Belgians are long-time NATO allies and,
as such, partners in international security cooperation. To close the
door on them while they're offering a helping hand in a time of
national emergency simply makes no sense.
According to the article, no U.S. companies had the ships which can
accomplish the task, because those ships would cost twice as much to
build in the U.S. as they do outside the country. This is one adverse
impact of the Jones Act which Congress passed in the 1920s. This piece
of protectionism has only hampered an anemic American maritime
industry. It also has prevented a quicker response to the oil spill.
European firms do have the expertise to clean up the spill. And
again, this is from the posting in American Leadership on June 8 by
James Dean. If other nations have the technologies to address this oil
spill, then the administration does have the ability to accept their
help.
The point's made in this article that in response to Hurricane
Katrina, for example, Department of Homeland Security, Michael
Chertoff, temporarily waived the Jones Act in order to facilitate much
needed transport of oil throughout the country. The Jones Act, which is
supposedly about protecting jobs, is actually killing jobs.
The jobs of fishermen, people working in tourism, and others who live
along the gulf coast and earn a living there are being severely
impacted. Those are also additional private-sector jobs which are not
being created in the United States since the Jones Act effectively
prices U.S.-based companies out of the ability to be competitive in the
competitive global market.
The article says, as we strive to develop new technologies for a
cleaner environment at sea, the Jones Act continues to hobble our own
capabilities, sometimes with devastating results. The Jones Act needs
to be waived now, in light of this catastrophe, and permit those whom
we have helped and cooperated with in the past to assist us in our
need. After waiving the Jones Act for the gulf cleanup effort, Congress
and
[[Page 10513]]
the administration should repeal it altogether.
And that was coauthored by Claude Berube, and I was reading directly
from that posting.
It sure makes sense. We say we want to help folks. Why not let people
wanting to help us help us clean the mess up? It would not be that
difficult.
But one of the other things we noticed in questioning Director
Birnbaum, we find out, well, we're going to fix the problem of the
Minerals Management Service. We're going to divide it into three parts.
When I asked if she was aware that the only entity within MMS that was
unionized was the offshore inspectors, she seemed surprised, wasn't
sure if that was true.
When I asked if the union contract for offshore inspectors did as
many union contracts do and limited travel, limited hours that someone
could work, she didn't know. Nobody there at the hearing could help me,
nobody could tell me whether our offshore inspectors that stand between
our homeland and disaster by making people producing energy to help us
play by the rules so we don't have an oil spill like this. They play by
the rules. We do right. We make sure the testing's done accurately. We
don't have a problem. That's why we hadn't had one like that in that
area. That's why most of the oil spills are by tankers bringing in
foreign oil, because, in the past, we made people like British
Petroleum play by the rules, make sure things were working properly.
But that didn't happen here.
But we couldn't get the information from the MMS. But it seems to me
that allowing offshore inspectors that stand between disaster in our
homeland to have a unionized contract, if it limits travel or limits
the hours worked, would be like--and I guess this is where we're going
next, based on what he saw a couple of weeks ago. The next move will
be, That's right. We want the military to unionize as well. It makes as
much sense.
You've got people standing between disaster in our homeland. Why not
let the military unionize, and then we can have a limit on their travel
and their hours. And so they'll be able to say, Well, Sergeant, I'd
like to attack that hill, I'd like to take that bunker out for you, but
I've already worked all the hours I can work today. You're going to
have to go find somebody else. I can't do it.
Now, the reason the military has never been unionized is that it
would be disastrous to our national security. The reason that offshore
inspectors should not be unionized is because it has been disastrous to
our national security. When we lose oil, cut off drilling that will
produce oil at the same time that oil wells are playing out across the
country and there's still the moratorium on so many areas to drill, and
we had Secretary Salazar, when he took office, return the checks for
leases in other areas where drilling could commence in that 500-square
mile area, as I understand it, including some of Colorado, Utah, and
Wyoming, Secretary Salazar, if you recall, a year and a half ago, said,
Well, these leases were let at the midnight hour. We've returned the
checks. We're not going to let something the Bush administration did at
the midnight hour take place.
So this administration has already hurt us dramatically and our
ability to become energy free of countries that don't care for us.
And when you get behind Secretary Salazar's position that this was a
midnight-hour lease, well, that's when the checks were accepted. It
turns out it was a 7-year process; 7 years the oil companies have been
working on examining the possibility, the potential for production so
they could make their bids. You don't just come and make a bid at the
midnight hour without having a chance to examine what it is you're
bidding on. You don't write a check for something you've never
examined, I guess, unless you're the government. But it was a 7-year
process. It's a bit disingenuous to say that it was a midnight-hour
lease. So we hurt the country there.
And now we've got a moratorium because of two things, apparently:
British Petroleum didn't do their job. They should have had their
feet held to the fire where they played by the rules and we wouldn't
have had the problem. And then second, we had a government whose feet
were so busy being on the neck of British Petroleum, it didn't paddle
its feet on down to the gulf and deal with the issue and let countries
like the Netherlands help us that had the expertise to do it.
Now, I've got an entity, a fellow in my district, he's one of many
that have offered help, offered solutions. And in east Texas, we have
skimmers that are able to take in water, process the oil out here,
process the freshwater out the other side. So you separate the oil from
the water, but it's on such a small scale, it's not something that
would be helpful in the gulf unless you do as this gentleman apparently
did. He sent a friend to talk to me, to tell me about the problems he's
run into with this administration since they've given British Petroleum
and somehow, vaguely, their own selves control. This guy has basically
built a barge that will do, on a big scale, what the small-scale
skimmers, separators do in east Texas.
However, he sent word, wanted me to know he's got this barge ready to
process thousands of gallons of oil, separate out thousands of gallons
of oil a day. It's not as much as the Netherlands had offered. But from
the message he sent to me, apparently the Coast Guard has indicated
they want to be sure that his barge is actually worthy to be out on the
seas, because they're concerned, you know, that even though there are
people losing their jobs, losing their livelihoods, birds, animals,
water life is being killed off, just like the gentleman from the
administration testifying before our committee is under discussions
about whether or not to build barrier islands, apparently they're
trying to decide if this barge should be allowed out on the water so
that it can suck up and take out of the water thousands of gallons of
oil a day.
{time} 1630
It's just a mind-boggling thing. As Bo Pilgrim used to say, it's a
mind-boggling thing to see what is being called an emergency effort.
Now, if this were some Internet game, well, it would be interesting,
and we would see clearly which group was not very good at emergency
management. But it's not a game. Eleven lives were lost. Aquatic life,
waterfowl, life in these estuaries is being destroyed as I speak.
Now, it would be easy to say, ``Well, you guys are just talking about
it.'' But the thing is, and as I have talked about with my wife, should
we continue to sacrifice from a personal family standpoint for me to
stay in Congress? She said, ``You know, it may be that one of the last
places where there really is freedom of speech, other than calling
somebody a liar, is on the House floor. You have got to stay there
because you keep hammering the truth day after day, and eventually you
may see something done about it.'' And that's why I'm here.
Some people wonder, why does anybody go to the trouble of talking on
the House floor, Mr. Speaker? But the truth is, it is a way of getting
a message out from here so that eventually people begin to notice.
Well, one other thing about the MMS splitting into three entities. I
asked, well, are these three entities of the MMS, that MMS will be
divided into, are they going to unionize? Apparently, they are talking
about it. Well, if you let the most critical part of MMS, the offshore
inspectors, unionize, then why not?
We heard 2 weeks ago people exulting and applauding because we were
told we are actually providing civil rights to our military. Well, if
you haven't been in the military, I am sure that makes sense, to some
anyway. But if you have been in the military, you know the military
doesn't have the civil rights that every other American does.
You don't have freedom of speech; you can't. When your sergeant, your
superior commissioned officer gives you an order, you don't have the
freedom to speak your mind.
And, in fact, when I was at Fort Benning, there were a lot of us that
[[Page 10514]]
were very upset with our Commander in Chief at the time, a man named
President Carter. But if any of us said anything derogatory about
President Carter, it was a crime for which we could be jailed, could
have pay taken away, could be given extra duty, restrictions. You could
not badmouth your Commander in Chief; you don't have that freedom of
speech.
And as much as I have wanted to badmouth people, and especially when
I was in the Army and had a commander that didn't seem to know what he
should, you have got to have that discipline for the good order of the
military. Because the military is not supposed to be a socially
engineered experiment. It can't be. It is about protecting our homeland
against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Of course, domestic, you got
to make sure you don't violate Posse Comitatus, but that is another
issue.
The fact is, the military is whom we owe so much for having the
liberties protected we do. Yes, the Declaration of Independence says we
are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. The
question comes, if we are endowed by our Creator with certain
inalienable rights, then why doesn't everybody have them? It's because
everywhere people have not accepted the inheritance from our Creator,
our Heavenly Father, from whom we inherited these inalienable rights.
When you do accept your inheritance, as this Nation did back in the
1770s--and, for many, it was an ongoing process through the 1800s and
even up through the valiant work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a
Christian minister. But this country has claimed those inherited
rights.
But that is not enough. As any parent knows, if you leave an
inheritance to your children and they don't accept it, then they won't
have it. If they accept it and they are not willing to fight for it, to
keep that inheritance with which they have been endowed, they won't
keep it. Because there are evil people in this world that are glad to
take away anything you have.
And as I pointed out 2 nights ago here on the floor, you know, we
have the administration--for the first time in the modern history of
Israel, this Nation has now turned on Israel and said, we want you to
disclose all of the weaponry you have because of the nuclear
proliferation thing we are pushing.
Well, if you go back to when King Hezekiah was king in the same
location, same area Israel is now, because they did pre-date Mohammed
by several centuries, but Hezekiah thought it would be a nice gesture
to show all that he had to the Babylonians.
It's stupid to show enemies all of your armaments, all of your
armory, and to show them the treasury they could get if they
successfully attack you. It is a stupid thing to do. And this country
has done some of that. In the effort to be gracious and kind to people
that hate us and want to see us wiped off the map and have said so, we
show them what we have.
With a big superpower, you can get away with it for a while. But when
you are a small country like Israel, your closest and strongest ally
should never force you to show the defenses that you have, because then
your enemies know how they can overcome you.
And just as Hezekiah was told by Isaiah--I mean, Isaiah knew he was a
fool for doing it. And after Hezekiah admitted to Isaiah--Isaiah
already knew; God had told him. But once Isaiah had it admitted from
Hezekiah, ``I showed him all our treasury, I showed him all of our
armory, our armaments,'' and he said, ``Everything you have shown them
will be carried away.'' And it was. That's what happens.
The old saying is, those who refuse to learn from history are
destined to repeat it. It's very true. Of course, there is a corollary
that says, those that do learn from history will find new ways to screw
up. I think that's true, too. But why repeat the same mistakes for
thousands of years that have been committed when you can learn from
their mistakes and not commit them?
And one of the other great dangers that we are creating in turning on
our friend Israel--and, you know, basically, this country is still
Israel's strongest ally. A family has disagreements within itself, but
it gets very protective if attacked from the outside.
But the problem is, when you get outside Chicago and you are playing
in the international arena and you want to get cute and kind of snub
your close friends, their enemies are watching. They see that. And the
message to them is, if we are ever going to attack, now is the time,
when there is a strain and a problem between Israel and their strongest
ally; let's go now.
That is the way it appeared to North Korea after Secretary Acheson
said, you know, basically, Korea is outside our sphere of influence.
They had already been massing soldiers to the border. And, obviously,
it seems like a good time to attack your enemy when their closest,
strongest ally says, we won't protect them.
You can't send those messages out there. You can't vote ``present''
when it comes to international dilemmas and the existence of an entire
nation and all the people that have known genocide before and are
fearful of having it repeat itself. Massive mistake.
I will come back to Israel again, but one of the issues that has
arisen, as I understand it, Neil Armstrong, first man to put his foot
on the moon, has said that if we abandon our manned space program it
will be devastating to national security.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to listen to people who have more
experience in some areas than we do? Neil Armstrong can see the
national security implications of us basically giving up what has taken
us 50 years to develop: supremacy in space.
It has been very confusing to hear this administration, with the
assistance of people in Congress, in saying, in this time of monetary
problems, financial crises, this is a time to start cutting budgets, so
we really can't afford to keep pursuing these ideas with NASA that have
brought us more advancements not just in space--I mean, I take Sudafed.
It is the only thing that clears me up when I get clogged up, not
that ridiculous Sudafed PE. It was developed by the space program. They
were going to give it to astronauts. And when my doctor, when I was a
kid, said, ``There has been this wonderful decongestant developed
called Sudafed; give it a try,'' it worked. Velcro--I mean, those are
just tiny little things.
The advancement that has brought this country and kept this country
to the forefront in technology has been from the space-type ventures.
The Internet, it was a Department of Defense effort. And, lo and
behold, look at where it has taken us in the private sector now.
But we cannot afford to give up the advances made through our space
exploration to the rest of the world and let them take control. Those
are the mistakes of a country on its way to the dustbin of history.
The thing is, when you know they are mistakes and you see they are
mistakes and you see through history the things that have been done to
avoid becoming an asterisk in international history, then why wouldn't
you do them? Why wouldn't you take the steps to preserve your nation?
Instead, what we get is more cronyism. How could that be? How could
that be?
We were told that in this time of financial crisis NASA needs its
budget cut. And yet, if you look at the appropriations, the budget
increases. More money will be spent for space, but we are not going to
give it to NASA.
Well, if we are not giving it to NASA, then why wouldn't the NASA
budget reflect that it is being cut, as the administration said? Well,
apparently it's because billions of dollars are intended for a private
company that has never done this kind of space exploration. Nobody in
our country has, because it's been the Federal Government and NASA.
I understand in meetings that it has been disclosed that, of course,
we are giving all these billions of dollars to SpaceX to, kind of, take
over the space program for us, a private company. And I feel sure it
has nothing to do with how much money they donate to Democrats over
Republicans. I am sure it has no relationship to the fact that they do.
[[Page 10515]]
But, nonetheless, SpaceX--and apparently they have been critical of
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison down the hall, who has pointed out the
problems to our country and our national security by gutting NASA and
giving their jobs over to a private company that has never done these
jobs. It will make some people very, very wealthy who give heavily to
Democrats. But that is not the point.
Senator Hutchison was criticized by SpaceX, apparently back in Texas,
saying, you know, ``Somebody needs to let the Senator know she is
criticizing a Texas company.'' Well, on further checking, it turns out
they have about 100 jobs in Texas, and they have already committed to
someone else that they are going to move those jobs from Texas to where
it is more politically convenient.
We are going to turn jobs over to them that are a matter, as Neil
Armstrong said, of national security? Not a good idea.
{time} 1645
Not a good idea. As someone mentioned in private meetings, let's face
it, though, if SpaceX ends up having problems in being able to
effectuate space flight, there's no question it will be so devastating
that we'll have to bail them out. We're already setting up private
companies that don't--have never done what they are going to take away
from a government entity that's been the most successful in all of
mankind, NASA, this effort, give it to this private company and already
know that if they have a problem and they can't get the space flight
going, they'll go broke and we'll have to bail them out. We know that
going in. Is that smart? My goodness, the things we're doing at the
worst possible time make no sense. It just makes no sense.
But as time runs out as allocated, I want to finish with one other
thing going back to Israel.
The world needs to know, make no mistake about it, Israel is a close
ally. They believe in the same type of human rights that we do in this
country. And so why wouldn't you be an ally with a country that
believes in the rights of women, believes in the rights that we hold
dear here, believes that there's no such thing as an honor-killing of
women who've been raped, that has the same kind of beliefs, Judeo-
Christian beliefs, and the value of mankind that this country has
always held so dear.
For that reason and because there's been snubs by the administration
overtly that are being misread around the world, we are not going to
abandon our friend, Israel. There are too many people on both sides of
the aisle that will not stand for that.
And I've been working privately behind the scenes. I've been told by
people that I respect, the most knowledgeable people, I think, on
Israeli affairs, that it's time to start pushing this publicly so
people will publicly get on board.
So I've got a letter now, and it will be going out to all of my
colleagues. And it will ask them to get on board because I would like
them to sign on to a letter to Leader Reid down the Hall--because both
the House and Senate have to do this--and the letter simply says, Mr.
Speaker, this letter is to simply state the obvious need for the Prime
Minister of our dear friend Israel to address a joint session of
Congress. He's been here in Washington on numerous occasions but has
not addressed a joint session of Congress since 1996.
In our Nation's history, we have invited over a hundred leaders of 50
different countries to speak before joint sessions of Congress. At this
time with the enemies of America and Israel looking for weaknesses in
our close relationship, we can show them that Israel is our friend and
will be our friend and that we want to hear from its leader, Prime
Minister Netanyahu. With the magnitude of international events and the
tensions swirling in recent years and the threat of nuclear
proliferation in the Middle East, it is desperately important that we
show the world the importance of our relationship with Israel by
inviting Prime Minister Netanyahu to come address this body. The sooner
we extend such an invitation, the more stabilizing it will be. And then
signature lines from Members of Congress. I've got over 40. But we need
most of this body to sign on. We need to send that message.
The letter to colleagues basically highlights the same things.
And with regard to the flotilla, it points out in this letter that
we'll send the ``dear colleague'' letter asking them to sign on the
letter requesting Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi invite Prime
Minister Netanyahu, this letter says--and let me preface this by saying
it was entirely predictable that there would be an effort to test our
commitment to our ally Israel. It was entirely predictable. When you
show that separation between your strongest ally to your enemies, then
your enemies are going to think about testing to see if this may be a
good time to attack. And that's what the flotillas were doing. They
were a test.
And what they saw was the United States, through this administration,
being reluctant to jump out there and make it clear how inappropriate
it was to send people to intentionally run the blockade when all Israel
was trying to do was protect themselves.
So, Mr. Speaker, I'm hoping that people will encourage their Members
of Congress to sign on so we can get the Prime Minister here as quickly
as possible so that the world will see both sides of the aisle standing
and applauding this great leader of this great nation.
And then there is a resolution. People keep talking sanctions, and it
is beyond time to talk about sanctions. According to IAEA, Iran already
has enough enriched uranium for two nuclear weapons. How many do you
think it would take to wipe out the small nation of Israel?
And they made clear, Ahmadinejad's made clear, we're not going to
stop with wiping out Israel. We want to wipe out the little Satan,
Israel, and then the big Satan, the United States. And we saw on 9/11
how vulnerable we can be, and you begin to realize, man, you set off a
nuclear weapon in New York, Houston, L.A., Chicago, other points that
are critical to our protection, and with a handful of nuclear weapons,
you could debilitate this country to an enormous extent.
And then we're told a greater risk is if you can get an EMP,
electromagnetic pulse, generated from a nuclear weapon a few hundred
miles above the middle of the United States, it would fry every
computer chip in the country. The power would go out indefinitely.
Wal*Mart says they wouldn't be able to function if all of their
computers are fried.
It's time to act. We cannot wait. And this resolution goes through,
points out quotes from Ahmadinejad, quotes from our great President in
saying that as he said that bond is much more than a strategic alliance
between us and Israel.
We have got to act, and I hope people will sign on this resolution
when we come back next week because we've got to get this done. We need
to show our support for Israel. We need to quit playing games with this
critical ally in such a difficult area.
You want to talk about peace? Like Patrick Henry said, People talk
peace, but there is no peace. And I can tell you there will not be
peace in the Middle East of any nature until people know that this
Nation, America, will go to war against anyone that breaches the peace
or attempts to breach the peace as this flotilla did.
So, Mr. Speaker, I see the indication my time is expiring. And I
appreciate the opportunity to be here and discuss these important
issues.
And with that, I yield back my time.
____________________
GET A BUDGET
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Djou) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DJOU. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I'm rising to speak very
briefly on the fiscal situation facing our Nation today.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I have the privilege of having won a
special election in the State of Hawaii just a
[[Page 10516]]
couple weeks ago. I'm the junior-most Member, of course, right now in
the U.S. House of Representatives. But I ran on a very simple platform:
that we need to put our fiscal house in order, that our government is
spending far too much money, and the mentality here in Congress today
is that of spend, spend, and spend some more and if that doesn't fix
the problem, throw more money at it. That is, I believe, a recipe for a
fiscal disaster.
I pledged to my constituents in the State of Hawaii that I will never
ever forget that every single dollar the government spends comes from a
family like yours. And right now, we're spending far too much of that
money.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I want to highlight what transpired
yesterday in the Budget Committee in the hearing by Federal Reserve
Chairman Ben Bernanke.
In that hearing, during which I had the privilege of questioning the
Federal Reserve chair, I thought he highlighted some very important
measures that our Nation should take note of and this Congress must
take note of.
The Federal Reserve chairman pointed out that currently our budget
deficit here in the U.S. Congress, in his words, is not sustainable.
The Federal Reserve chairman clearly articulated that we need more
fiscal restraint, and right now unless the Federal Government gets a
control of its enormous budget deficit, major problems and consequences
will occur to our national economy.
The Federal Reserve chair pointed out to all of us right now that
although a Federal budget deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars--
or in our case right now, trillions of dollars--might be okay in the
short term if there is a fix, over the long term it will seriously
damage our Nation's economic growth prospects.
The Federal Reserve chair, when I asked him, pointed out that perhaps
a budget deficit of about $300 billion could be sustained. We are, of
course, looking today at a Federal budget deficit well in excess of $1
trillion--with no end in sight. And what's even more troubling to me is
the Federal Reserve chairman pointed out to this Congress that we have
no fix in place.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I want to reiterate and further urge all
of the Members of this Congress as we go through this budgeting
process--and it is a tragedy that this Congress has still yet to pass a
budget--we have to exercise greater fiscal restraint, reduce the amount
of enormous spending going on in this government. If we do not take
care of our Nation's budget deficit, this budget deficit will take care
of us.
I remind all of the Members of this Chamber we do not have to look
any further than what's happening in the nation of Greece right now and
the fiscal and enormous financial problems going on in Europe. If our
Nation and our Congress do not restrain the spending, reduce taxes, and
limit government, we will be in the same mess.
____________________
BP OIL SPILL DISASTER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, in the United States right now
we are experiencing an environmental catastrophe. We are experiencing
with the BP oil rig the largest single oil spill in American history.
It's a little hard to contemplate just how big this oil spill is; 21
million to 44 million gallons of oil--four times the oil spilled in the
Exxon Valdez disaster--have so far spilled into the Gulf of Mexico.
12,000 to 25,000 barrels a day--that's a million gallons a day--are
spilling, a rate 12 to 25 times higher than BP's original highest
estimate of 4,600 gallons a day. The biggest oil spill in American
history.
If we want to know just how big that is, this is the extent of the
oil spill today in the Gulf of Mexico. It is the equivalent in terms of
size of Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut combined. Think of that
geography. Hundreds of square miles. That's what this is.
Just recently it was announced that underwater plumes, not just the
surface plume depicted here, have been detected 150 miles away in
distance from the original site of the oil spill.
Locally what that means is essentially we have an oil spill, a
surface oil spill that covers the territory that would be the
equivalent of the distance between Washington, D.C., and New York City.
That's as of today. In my 11th Congressional District of Virginia, that
would mean starting in Dale City near Manassas in Prince William County
and going as far as Wilmington, Delaware. That's the thick oil spill.
The broader oil spill, as I said, would go all the way to New York
City. That's an extraordinary stretch in terms of this oil spill.
This oil spill could have been prevented.
In 1969, an oil well spilled 200,000 gallons of crude oil on the
California coast. In response, like this and other environmental
issues, like the burning of the Cuyahoga River, Congress passed the
National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA, in 1969.
{time} 1700
NEPA requires companies to plan to avoid environmental disasters like
that 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill by conducting simple environmental
impact statements. Ironically, the Minerals Management Service, known
as the MMS, granted the Deepwater Horizon rig a categorical exclusion
from this process so it did not have to conduct an environmental impact
statement based on research in 2007 in which the MMS, the regulator,
decided that a deepwater spill would not exceed 4,600 barrels and would
never reach the shoreline. What a tragic, ironic twist of fate. None of
that turned out to be true.
Congressional Republican majorities and the Bush administration even
directed agencies to use categorical exclusions for oil development.
Action by the Secretary of the Interior in managing the public lands,
it said, or the Secretary of Agriculture in managing national forest
systems lands with respect to any of the activities described in
subsection B shall be subject to a rebuttable presumption that the use
of categorical exclusion under the NEPA of 1969 would apply if the
activity is conducted pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act for the
purpose of exploration or development of oil or gas. An explicit
exemption made for oil drilling in America by the previous
administration. Just following the NEPA process could have led to a
review that would have resulted in better safety equipment. Might have
even resulted in an inspection that might have caught early the flaws
in this design.
The 2009 Government Accountability Office report said that during the
previous administration categorical exclusions were issued far too
frequently and it could lead to serious problems. Well, indeed, it did.
I find this particularly ironical because, in my district, we have been
fighting for a long time to get rail to Dulles, an extension of the
rail system here in metropolitan Washington to Dulles International
Airport. We finally got that process approved last year, but that
process required a NEPA review. This is a public transit project, but
it had to go through a 2-year environmental review that cost millions
of dollars of taxpayer-funded money for a public project. But
ironically, a private oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico was excluded from
that process. It didn't have to do it.
I see on the floor my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). I yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I
appreciate his leadership, and I think it is important for people to
understand the genesis of the problem that we are facing here now.
We've heard some of our friends on the other side of the aisle come
to the floor somehow trying to lay this at the feet of the President of
the United States, but sadly, what has happened here in the gulf is a
direct result of policies that we have seen implemented by our friends
on the other side of the aisle when they were in charge, particularly
under the watch of President Bush, where it was routine to
[[Page 10517]]
come to the floor repeatedly in efforts to undercut environmental
protections, where agencies that were supposed to regulate the industry
were stopped with refugees from the very industries, from lobbyists and
association executives who are going back now and looking at from
whence they had come.
We had situations that, by the end of the Bush administration, it was
clear in the MMS that there were people in that critical agency tasked
by law with the protection of the public interest who were not only
avoiding that responsibility, they were literally in bed with the
industry.
I look forward to an opportunity in the course of the next few
minutes to discuss with you further the genesis of the problem that we
face and approaches that we should be taking to make sure that we're no
longer held hostage to what even President Bush referred to as our
addiction to oil.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my colleague, and I think his point
is a very cogent one, and it's even worse than we're discussing because
not only did we consciously decide during the Bush administration and
by previous Congresses, frankly controlled by our friends on the other
side, consciously to exclude such oil drilling from the regular
environmental review that could have detected problems, but it was
worse than that.
Let me give an example in terms of what measures that at least could
have mitigated the impact of this disaster. Canada, as my friend from
Oregon knows, requires deepwater rigs to have contingency plans for
offshore oil drilling, including the capability to drill relief wells
soon after constructing primary wells. If this well, this Deepwater
Horizon well, had predrilled such relief wells, it would have allowed
the closing of the leak weeks ago, but they weren't required to do so.
Norway and Brazil require something called acoustic valves which are
backup devices for closing the pipe of a blowout preventer. In 2003,
under the Bush administration, the Minerals Management Service
concluded that the $550,000 acoustic system is not recommended because
it tends to be very costly. I would say to my friend from Oregon, as he
knows, as of June 7, the response to this oil spill cost $1.25 billion
and climbing. That $550,000 investment in an acoustic valve could have
saved billions of dollars and could have saved an ecosystem now at
incredible jeopardy.
I yield again to my friend from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. As I am listening to your presentation,
talking about what could have happened, what should have happened, and
looking at the magnitude of the devastation that we are facing in an
ongoing disaster, I was reflecting on my experience here in the House
under Republican control and the Bush administration where their first
instinct--the gentleman will recall because he was an important elected
official just across the Potomac and had a front-row view of what was
happening here--that the Vice President convened a secret energy
consultation group, his energy task force, which to this day has not
been revealed in terms of who were the members--although we're most
certain that there were people from BP, for instance, that were there--
that from the outset it was all about trying to cut through these red
tape items, the environmental protection, things that got in the way of
energy production, and not focusing on priorities that would have
reduced our reliance on fossil fuels.
Indeed, there were 105 recommendations. Only 7 involved renewable
energy. We watched, in the year that followed, the Bush administration
actually propose cuts in the renewable energy budget and had tax breaks
that they worked on with the Republican leadership to provide
incentives for more dirty oil production and consistently fought
against efforts that we brought to the floor, including in some
instances bipartisan amendments to raise the fuel efficiency standards
that hadn't been increased in a quarter century.
I'm reflecting on that and saddened that that was the thrust for most
of the last decade, instead of putting us in a position where we would
be less reliant and have better protection.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Again, I agree with my friend from Oregon
completely, and as he points out, this didn't happen by an act of God.
This happened because of lax or no regulation, regulation we knew was
necessary and we took a chance. We took a chance. And we took a chance,
why? Because of the almighty dollar. We took a chance because of Big
Oil money, making sure that it influenced the process and made sure
that it was exempted from normal regulatory review. And you have to ask
yourself in those kinds of circumstances, well, what could go wrong?
Let me enumerate a little bit what has gone wrong: 200,000 commercial
fishing, processing, and retail jobs in the gulf for fishing and
seafood on ice; $659 million in annual value on 1.27 billion pounds of
seafood caught in the gulf, the largest source of seafood in America,
not including the value of fish processing or retail or people's
salaries, in jeopardy; $5.5 billion annual value of commercial fishing
industry in the gulf coast, including the value of fish harvest
processing and retail, in jeopardy; $12 billion of expenditures for
25.4 million recreational trips in the Gulf of Mexico at risk; $9
billion in wages for tourism-related industries in the Gulf of Mexico,
employing 600,000 people.
That's what's at risk for a mindless, ``drill, Baby, drill''
approach, instead of a thoughtful, careful approach that balances this
kind of sourcing of oil with the readily available alternative energy
sources that we should have, could have been investing in as well.
Since this oil spill, over 27,000 claims have been filed by people
and businesses whose livelihoods have been harmed or lost entirely.
They've filed claims for damages with BP. Through June, BP will have
paid $84 million in lost income claims to people whose jobs already
have been lost in the gulf. Over 78,000 square miles of the gulf are
closed to fishing today because of this spill because it's not safe.
The University of Central Florida estimates that the oil spill could
cut Florida tourism in half, the largest single source of revenue for
the State of Florida, eliminating 195,000 tourism-related jobs and
eliminating $10.9 billion of tourist-generated economic activity in
Florida alone.
I see our colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis) is on the floor, and I
now yield to him.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
This disaster of great proportion is indicative of the culture of
deregulation and the influence of the special interests in the oil
industry and the prevalence of those interests within the Bush
administration, embedded into the regulatory structure. These interests
within the Department of the Interior fought tooth and nail Secretary
Salazar's attempts to bring balance back to the oil and gas industry.
They fought with claims of severe economic hardship. Well, as the
gentleman from Virginia talked about, I think the people of the gulf
coast will be experiencing severe economic hardship, much worse than
anything that these oil companies were worried about.
All actors involved with this unmitigated disaster have taken steps
to try to limit their own liability. BP and Transocean have tried to
spread their profits among shareholders. They've been giving dividends.
They have been trying to decentralize their coffers, already scheming
to get themselves off the hook and to put taxpayers on the hook. These
oil companies are now trying to maneuver to get taxpayer bailouts for
their own bad practices and their own failure to prevent what was a
preventable disaster.
The use of highly toxic dispersants have exacerbated the damage,
leading to underwater plumes of oil. It turns out that the emergency
response plan of BP was riddled with errors, had falsities. It even
listed people who were no longer alive as points of contact in the
event of a disaster.
We need, and I'm sure we will have, a full public accounting of the
fallacies and the flaws in the planning process with BP and their
contractors that
[[Page 10518]]
have led to this disaster, and it's critical for our Congress to make
sure that these maneuvers to get off the hook for their own failure to
prevent this catastrophe will not meet with success and that the
responsibility will reside with BP and their contractors.
NEPA requires an assessment of environmental impact for any major
project on Federal lands, but loopholes were placed in that policy in
2005, including a categorical exclusion, saying that oil drilling
doesn't have any risk and, therefore, shouldn't need to do an
environmental assessment.
{time} 1715
The Deepwater Horizon was granted a categorical exclusion in 2007
under the Bush administration. Ironic, because NEPA was first initiated
in 1968 as a response to an oil spill offshore, yes, off the coast of
California, stripped of the very provisions that are one of the main
reasons for its passage by the Bush administration.
We as a Congress need to address the statutory side, and I know that
Secretary Salazar is working hard to fight the entrenched interests
from the oil and gas industry that seek to influence the actions of the
Department of the Interior.
I thank my colleague from Virginia for helping to raise this
important issue.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my colleague from Colorado.
I yield again to our friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I do appreciate our friend from Colorado talking
about the history here, because we hear people come to the floor to
somehow lay this at the foot of President Obama, who has been busy
since the moment he took office dealing with a series of disasters that
he inherited.
But the approach that has been taken by the Republicans when they
were in the majority actually set the stage for this. In 2003, they
added an exemption for all oil and gas construction activities from the
provisions of the Clean Water Act. They had a stipulation that the BLM
had only 10 days to make drilling permit decisions. They had new
authority for the Department of the Interior to permit new energy
projects in the Outer Continental Shelf without adequate oversight or
standards and then providing, on top of that, $2 billion for already
profitable companies to drill in ultradeep water.
It is absolutely scandalous that we have had this steady assault.
Luckily, we stopped that in 2003 when the other body used the
filibuster constructively. But we faced it in 2005, as they actually
were able to put those provisions in place, which our friend from
Colorado and you, sir, Mr. Connolly, have pointed out. It continues to
bedevil us.
Sadly, some of our friends on the other side of the aisle simply
haven't gotten the point. In this Congress, the gentlewoman from
Minnesota, Mrs. Bachmann, who has no shortage of opinions on this,
introduced legislation that would have required, would have required
that the Secretary of the Interior waive any application of Federal law
that requires a permit under lease for drilling. It would require a
waiver from all of those nagging little requirements any time oil got
expensive, over $100 a barrel, throw it all out the window, and yet has
the audacity to try and shift responsibility under this.
I think it is something that we all need to be focusing on and not
allow the people who helped create this problem to rewrite history.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I, again, am in complete concurrence. This
didn't happen somehow by happenstance. This happened by virtue of a
conscious decision, by Congress' control, by our friends on the other
side, and by the Bush administration to find all kinds of waivers and
exemptions from normal regulatory review and from simple commonsense
protections in the event something did go wrong, all at the altar of
oil exploration and fossil fuel energy dependence, quite frankly. It
could have been prevented and it could have been mitigated.
There was another one of our colleagues who, during the campaign of
2008, accused the Democratic Congress that came into power after the
elections of 2006 of being the drill-nothing Congress, and she called
on Mr. McCain to open up ANWR and both the east and west coast to
unrestrained oil drilling for the sake of energy independence, a worthy
goal. But that's not the only answer, and we have to weigh the costs
and the benefits when we open up unrestricted oil drilling on pristine
coasts.
Let me talk, if I may, just about my own home State of Virginia, what
could go wrong in Virginia. I am a member of the Virginia delegation
who has opposed unrestricted opening up of our shores to oil drilling
because of the feared consequences if something went wrong.
What's at stake? Tourism in Virginia Beach alone in Virginia
generates $1.4 billion annually in economic activity. Tourism in
Virginia Beach alone supports 15,000 jobs. Virginia has the longest
stretch of undeveloped barrier islands on the east coast, irreplaceable
habitat for birds in the east coast flyaway.
All of these resources would be lost to an oil spill off Virginia's
coast if it were comparable to the oil spill that has hit the gulf
coast. In fact, closer to home, the entire Chesapeake Bay would be
covered by a film of oil today if that oil spill had occurred here
instead of occurring in the gulf coast.
In addition, unrestricted oil drilling threatens the presence of the
United States Navy in Virginia, terribly important in terms of military
investment in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Deputy Secretary of
Defense for Readiness issued a report in May that stated explicitly
that offshore oil development would impair Navy operations in 78
percent of the area, in a recently proposed lease sale, to 20.
The Department of Defense said that all development could preclude
live ordnance testing, aircraft carrier movement, shipping trials, and
other surface and subsurface training. Offshore oil development could
result in the Navy moving an aircraft carrier out of Norfolk, reducing
job opportunities and contractors in Virginia.
We have a lot at stake economically in my State. There's the
environmental consequences, but there is also the presence of the Navy
that could be jeopardized if we moved to the ``drill, baby, drill''
philosophy of offshore oil drilling.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate your putting in context not just the
potential threat to your State of Virginia, but to all of us here who
work and celebrate our capital region and the Chesapeake Bay, having
those precious resources at risk.
I appreciate your exploring a dimension that I must admit I really
hadn't thought through adequately: the threat unregulated,
indiscriminate, offshore oil drilling could pose to military readiness.
Your point about what could happen in terms of naval operations and
training is one that I don't think has been given voice in this debate.
I have been spending a lot of time working on it. This is new
information to me, and I deeply appreciate your putting it out before
the American public this evening.
I think this issue that we are wrestling with has many dimensions
that require us to step back and expand the scope of inquiry, the need
for our fixing a broken regulatory system.
We have referenced the fact that the administration, despite the
previous administration talking about the addiction to foreign oil, did
nothing about it, and, in fact, even after we regained control, worked
against our efforts to try and increase efficiencies.
It's going to take time. I agree that the administration needs to
move quickly to weed out the MMS. I wish they could have cleaned house
earlier, but obviously these things take time. It's hard to undo 12
years of running roughshod over safety and environmental regulations in
17 months. But it is also a vivid call for a new energy future in which
the deepest water is the last place we look, not the first, for new
energy sources.
I would look forward to discussing that further, but I know you have,
Mr. Connolly, some specifics in terms of some of the legislative
provisions that we have been working on as Democrats in Congress.
[[Page 10519]]
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Yes, we need to clean up the mess we
inherited from previous Congresses and, frankly, from the previous
administration. Today, for example, the House passed S. 3473, which
increases advanced cleanup funding paid for by BP so that the Coast
Guard can use those funds for oil cleanup.
I have introduced a bill just tonight that would prevent the evasion
of the NEPA process; moving forward, no more categorical exclusions for
deepwater oil drilling. They have to pass the NEPA review process, just
like my transit system and rail to Dulles did in a public project.
H.R. 5214, the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act, introduced by our
colleague, Mr. Holt from New Jersey, would raise the oil liability cap
from $75 million to $10 billion so the taxpayers aren't left holding
the bag because of an accident caused by the negligence of an oil
company such as BP.
Our colleague from the State of Washington (Mr. Inslee) is
introducing legislation to require oil wells to use the best available
safety technology, which might borrow from technology that's already
available and being used by countries like Canada, Brazil, and Norway.
Of course, you, Mr. Blumenauer, have or will soon introduce legislation
to repeal the oil and gas tax loopholes and direct funds to clean
energy.
The ultimate solution is to get off fossil fuel dependence and look
to, in a meaningful way, those alternative sources of energy that could
really help lessen our dependence, if not wean us entirely off, the
dependence on foreign oil.
In my own home State of Virginia, the potential offshore wind power
is enormous, dwarfing the potential for offshore oil.
For all of the sturm und drang in my State about whether we should
drill, baby, drill off the shores of Virginia, the entire estimate of
reserves, maximum, off the shore of Virginia, with the largest
coastline, barrier island coastline on the east coast, is the
equivalent of no more than 6 days of oil supply.
Do we really want to risk the tourism industry, our environment,
perhaps permanently, and the presence of the Navy in a State that has
always been home to the United States Navy for 6 days' worth of supply?
I think not.
So the Democrats in this House have, in fact, introduced legislation
that will address and remedy this situation and make sure that never
again are American citizens put at risk by the negligent behavior and
the unregulated behavior of Big Oil offshore oil drilling.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I must say how much I appreciate the legislative
approach that you bring to the job. I can see the experience and
leadership that you demonstrated in years of actual hands-on dealing
with the public in a very direct and personal way in local government
with some spectacular successes across the river from our Nation's
Capitol, as evidenced in the simple, commonsense approach that you are
taking here in terms of being practical, being direct, things that will
make a difference. I really appreciate that spirit that you bring to
the Capitol.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank you for your courtesy and
graciousness, but I would say that clearly my colleague from Oregon is
a model for all of us, especially those of us new here to the Congress,
for his environmental leadership and for his legislative legerdemain.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would like to pivot, if I could, just on the last
point that you made, which I think, at the final analysis, is the most
important.
It is important to understand history. It's important to not allow
people who got us into this mess to rewrite it, to point fingers, to
obscure, to try and get partisan advantage from something that they,
sadly, helped create in the first place. That would be a tragedy in and
of itself.
But it is where we go from here, what we learn from these lessons,
what we understand is required. It is outrageous to me that the spill
off the Santa Barbara coast that inspired the first Earth Day was
fought with essentially the same technologies that we have available
today.
{time} 1730
All the time, all the energy, the resources that were thrown at it by
the Federal Government was used basically by the industry to have more
and more esoteric, sophisticated deep-drilling opportunities, not
dealing with making sure that it was safe.
So we are trapped in time 40 years at the negative end of this
equation, when the ultimate disaster, which was predictable, perhaps
not avoidable, but is much worse because of the focus.
But it is the transition to clean energy technology that I would
conclude my remarks. I see we've been joined by our friend we have
referenced earlier, our colleague, Congressman Holt, who has some great
legislation moving.
But I would just conclude my observations that we don't want to be in
a position where we continue to be tethered to the oil spigot, to have
the United States consume 10 percent of the world's oil supply going
back and forth to work every day, that it is past time for us to move
forward.
I appreciate the leadership of both you gentlemen in our livable
communities issues, where we provide more tools to local government and
more choices to people so they don't have to burn a gallon of gas to
get a gallon of milk, that there are more sensitive land uses, that we
fight against mindless sprawl, that we give people an alternative to
the automobile in case they don't want to drive or can't afford to
drive or maybe there are some people that we all know who probably
shouldn't drive--giving them choices to walk and use transit, cycles;
be able to make a system that is more sustainable, that is complemented
by a clean energy future with tidal, wind, solar, geothermal, and
investment in making our facilities now more energy-efficient.
We have the capacity right now, with what we know how to do, things
that we have off the shelf or almost ready for installation, we could
be completely Kyoto-compliant, save consumers and taxpayers money, and
preserve our national security.
I hope that this is one of the lessons we carry away, not just
understanding history, not just taking some of this terrific
legislation that will help a difficult situation be a little better and
take the taxpayer off the hook, but make sure that we are not in this
dependency in the future.
Thank you. And I really appreciate your leadership in presenting this
today and your courtesy in permitting me to take part.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank you so much.
I think our colleague from Oregon has done such an incredible job in
this body on so many environmental fronts, not least of which, of
course, the livable community initiative that he made reference to.
Thank you so much for joining us tonight.
I see our friend from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) is here, and I now yield
to Mr. Holt.
Mr. HOLT. I thank my good friend from Virginia.
I, too, want to pay tribute to the work that our colleague from
Oregon has done under the umbrella of liveability, having to do with
transportation, housing, I mean, even such things as the location of
post offices in town.
There are so many things over the years that Mr. Blumenauer has
worked on to try to make communities livable and sustainable--
sustainable in the way they produce and use energy, and livable in the
sense of getting the best quality of life through our transportation
decisions, our housing decisions.
What is so heartbreaking about the catastrophe that is under way in
the Gulf of Mexico right now is that it did not have to be.
As I left to join you here on the floor, they were showing on one of
the news networks fish flopping sadly, trying to get air, trying to get
out of the oil, clearly doomed. We have seen the birds washing ashore.
It did not have to happen.
The oil spill is unprecedented in scale, but it is not unprecedented
in
[[Page 10520]]
kind, in our experience. In fact, I was talking with the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency yesterday, and she said, do you
know how many oil spills we're dealing with essentially daily? Not on
this scale, but it should be expected, it can be expected, in fact it
must be expected that, if you drill, you will spill.
As our colleague from Oregon was saying, for BP to go into this with
no preparation whatsoever--I mean, they talk about they are a company
that manages risk. Well, if they manage risk, they know, by definition,
things can go wrong. That's what risk means: There is a down side.
Well, what preparations, what plans, what studies, what research did
they do for the down side? None.
Now, we are in the process of not only extending the liability
limit--and today we removed the per-incident limit so that the Coast
Guard is not constrained by the $150 million limit, which they are
already pushing up against--but we also must make sure that there is an
enforcement of standards within the Minerals Management Agency
separating those who grant the leases from those who collect the
royalties on the leases from those who enforce the standards. We
haven't done that. So we must do that, and we must do that soon, so
that if any oil drilling is going to continue, that preparations are
made for the down side.
I hope, in fact, that we wean ourselves from this archaic fuel as
soon as possible. I mean, what does the word ``fossil'' mean to most
people? That means out of date. What we are talking about here, what
these companies have been developing ever-more-sophisticated
technologies to do is to bind ourselves more strongly to an archaic way
of powering our society and our economy. It is archaic. We should be
moving away from it as rapidly as possible so that this won't happen
again, because it need not happen again.
I thank my friend for drawing our colleagues' attention to this and
talking about those things that we will be doing over the next couple
of weeks, lifting the liability limits to put in place research
programs and regulatory programs for the future.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank our friend from New Jersey and
thank him for his leadership as well.
Let me close by pointing out that there is a danger to bumper-sticker
public policy making. Those who lived by ``drill, baby, drill'' now
have to examine not only their consciences but the consequences of the
actions that flowed from that strident call. ``Drill, baby, drill'' has
now become ``spill, baby, spill.''
The Governor of Louisiana today, Bobby Jindal, when he was in this
body in 2005 said the following: ``We have a choice. Many of my
colleagues do not want us drilling for oil off the coast of Florida and
do not want us to drill for oil off the coast of California. I would
ask those colleagues to join with me in providing incentives so that we
can drill for oil in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The people
of Louisiana,'' he said, ``welcome this production. We know it is good
for our State, our country, and our economy.''
I wonder if the Governor of Louisiana might pause today in calling
for the government's assistance to clean up the worst oil spill, and
arguably one of the worst environmental disasters ever to descend on
our country, to consider whether that public policy statement made
sense then and whether it makes sense now.
The consequences of that philosophy of unrestricted oil drilling,
irrespective of the environmental concerns, irrespective of the need
for reasonable and prudent regulatory oversight to protect the public
from precisely this kind of unmitigated disaster, have now actually
happened because a whole bunch of people in a position to know better
put oil ahead of everything else, including the public interests.
I yield to my friend from New Jersey.
Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman.
You spoke earlier about the liability, a very important principle
that has been to some extent and should be to the full extent of
American law in this area, which is, ``polluter pays.'' That has been
the basis of the Superfund program. That should be the basis for the
oil liability legislation.
BP has said they will pay reasonable costs and that sort of thing. We
shouldn't have to take their word for it. We shouldn't have to take the
word of a company that has flagrantly cut corners in the past at huge
cost to life and natural environment, whether you're talking about the
Texas City refinery, whether you're talking about the blowouts on the
North Slope of Alaska, whether you're talking about the blowouts on the
pipeline in Alaska, whether you're talking about failure to level with
the American public and even with the Coast Guard and the experts on
how much oil was escaping from this very well. The number keeps
shifting, and the oil company, I think, has not been fully forthcoming.
So this company asks us to take their word for it that they will pay,
that they will pay for the cleanup, that they will pay for the
environmental damages, they will pay for the economic damages and
dislocation. I want that established in law. The liability limit should
be raised to many billions of dollars, if there is a limit at all.
Now, some here in the Congress, particularly from the other side,
have said, ``Well, but you'll drive out the mom-and-pop, you'll drive
out the small independents.'' Well, you have to have the ability to
prevent and repair and pay for any damages when you go into business.
The point of the oil liability legislation is not to protect small
businesses; it's to protect our environment and the life of American
citizens and the well being and economic opportunities for American
citizens. And that means that the consideration should be how much
damage can be done, and the liability limit should be large enough to
cover the damage that can be done, not to ask whether this is going to
put too much of a burden on a small company. The consideration should
be, what is the damage? And there should be adequate liability to cover
that.
I'm hopeful that, in the next week or so, we will raise this
liability limit from the laughably small number of $75 million to at
least $10 billion. And I thank the gentleman for joining me in this
effort. The American public is crying for it. They want to know that in
law and in fact BP will be held responsible for the damage they have
done.
{time} 1745
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my colleague from New Jersey.
Again, I thank him so much for his participation tonight and for his
leadership, especially in leading us in a legislative remedy.
I want to end with this: on June 10, 2008, one of our colleagues
actually said the following:
There are 3,200 oil rigs off the coast of Louisiana. During Katrina,
not a single drop was spilled. Actually, 600,000 gallons were spilled,
but more than 7 billion barrels have been pumped from these wells over
the past quarter century. Yet only 1-1/1000th of 1 percent was spilled.
We would suggest that John McCain revisit his reservations about ANWR
and run against the ``drill nothing'' Congress. Energy development and
the environment are not mutually exclusive. In fact, this Republican
colleague said, we would suggest that the first joint town hall meeting
with Barack Obama, proposed by McCain, be held on one of those offshore
Louisiana rigs.
Surely, I hope our colleague did not mean this rig, the one that blew
up, caught on fire, cost a number of lives, and led to the largest
environmental disaster in American history.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Davis of Illinois (at the request of Mr. Hoyer) for today.
____________________
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 Ms. Woolsey) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
[[Page 10521]]
Mr. Towns, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Holt, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. Maloney, 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. Moran of Kansas, for 5 minutes, June 17.
Mr. Poe of Texas, for 5 minutes, June 17.
Mr. Jones, for 5 minutes, June 17.
Mr. Boozman, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Burton of Indiana, for 5 minutes, June 14, 15, 16, and 17.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 46 minutes
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, June
14, 2010, at 12:30 p.m., for morning-hour debate.
____________________
EXPENDITURE REPORTS CONCERNING OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL
Reports concerning the foreign currencies and U.S. dollars utilized
for Speaker-Authorized Official Travel during the third quarter of 2009
and the second quarter of 2010 pursuant to Public Law 95-384 are as
follows:
REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, JENNIFER M. STEWART, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN APR. 29 AND MAY 4, 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem\1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency\2\ currency\2\ currency\2\ currency\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer M. Stewart.................... 4/30 5/01 Qatar.................... ........... 164.00 ........... 8,578.00 ........... ........... ........... 8,742.00
5/01 5/02 Afghanistan.............. ........... 78.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 78.00
5/02 5/03 Pakistan................. ........... 262.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 262.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 504.00 ........... 8,578.00 ........... ........... ........... 9,082.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
HON. JOHN A. BOEHNER, May 28, 2010.
(AMENDED) REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN JULY 1 AND SEPT. 30, 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem\1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency\2\ currency\2\ currency\2\ currency\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon. Adam Schiff....................... 6/27 6/30 Jordan................... ........... $1,021.18 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... $1,021.18
6/30 7/1 Algeria.................. ........... 531.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 531.00
7/1 7/3 Tunisia.................. ........... 501.74 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 501.74
Misc. Embassy Costs................ ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... (\3\) ........... 1,570.44 ........... 1,570.44
Local Ground Transportation........ ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 573.18 ........... ........... ........... 573.18
John Blazey............................ 6/27 6/30 Jordan................... ........... 1,021.18 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,021.18
6/30 7/1 Algeria.................. ........... 531.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 531.00
7/1 7/3 Tunisia.................. ........... 501.74 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 501.74
Misc. Embassy Costs................ ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... (\3\) ........... 1,570.44 ........... 1,570.44
Local Ground Transportation........ ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 573.18 ........... ........... ........... 573.18
Shalanda Young......................... 6/27 6/30 Jordan................... ........... 1,021.18 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,021.18
6/30 7/1 Algeria.................. ........... 531.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 531.00
7/1 7/3 Tunisia.................. ........... 501.74 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 501.74
Misc. Embassy Costs................ ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... (\3\) ........... 1,570.44 ........... 1,570.44
Local Ground Transportation........ ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 573.18 ........... ........... ........... 573.18
Clelia Alvardo......................... 6/27 6/30 Jordan................... ........... 1,021.18 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,021.18
6/30 7/1 Algeria.................. ........... 531.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 531.00
7/1 7/3 Tunisia.................. ........... 501.74 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 501.74
Misc. Embassy Costs................ ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... (\3\) ........... 1,570.44 ........... 1,570.44
Local Ground Transportation........ ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 573.18 ........... ........... ........... 573.18
Elizabeth C. Dawson.................... 6/28 6/30 France................... ........... 1,418.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,418.00
6/30 7/3 Belgium.................. ........... 1,224.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,224.00
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 7,367.48 ........... ........... ........... 7,367.48
Hon. David E. Price.................... 8/1 8/3 Canada................... ........... 704.29 ........... (\4\) ........... (\5\) ........... 704.29
Hon. Harold Rogers..................... 8/1 8/3 Canada................... ........... 704.29 ........... (\4\) ........... (\5\) ........... 704.29
Hon. Ciro Rodriguez.................... 8/1 8/3 Canada................... ........... 704.29 ........... (\4\) ........... (\5\) ........... 704.29
Hon. John Carter....................... 8/1 8/3 Canada................... ........... 704.29 ........... (\4\) ........... (\5\) ........... 704.29
Stephanie Gupta........................ 8/1 8/3 Canada................... ........... 704.29 ........... (\4\) ........... (\5\) ........... 704.29
Ben Nicholson.......................... 8/1 8/3 Canada................... ........... 704.29 ........... (\4\) ........... (\5\) ........... 704.29
Kristi Mallard......................... 8/16 8/17 Norway................... ........... 539.23 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 539.23
8/17 8/20 Germany.................. ........... 1,080.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,080.00
8/20 8/24 Hungary.................. ........... 1,062.17 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,062.17
8/24 8/26 Italy.................... ........... 1,270.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,270.00
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 9,338.44 ........... ........... ........... 9,338.44
Misc. Transportation............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... \3\62.00 ........... ........... ........... 62.00
BG Wright.............................. 8/16 8/17 Norway................... ........... 539.23 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 539.23
8/17 8/20 Germany.................. ........... 1,080.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,080.00
8/20 8/24 Hungary.................. ........... 1,062.17 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,062.17
8/24 8/26 Italy.................... ........... 1,270.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,270.00
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 9,338.44 ........... ........... ........... 9,338.44
Misc. Transportation............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... \3\120.00 ........... ........... ........... 120.00
8/4 8/5 Kuwait................... ........... 494.08 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 494.08
8/5 8/7 United Arab Emirates..... ........... 827.42 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 827.42
8/7 8/9 Germany.................. ........... 722.56 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 722.56
Hon. Sanford Bishop.................... 8/4 8/5 Kuwait................... ........... 494.08 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 494.08
8/5 8/7 United Arab Emirates..... ........... 827.42 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 827.42
8/7 8/9 Germany.................. ........... 722.56 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 722.56
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick................ 8/4 8/5 Kuwait................... ........... 494.08 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 494.08
8/5 8/7 United Arab Emirates..... ........... 827.42 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 827.42
8/7 8/9 Germany.................. ........... 722.56 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 722.56
Beverly Aimaro Pheo.................... 8/4 8/5 Kuwait................... ........... 494.08 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 494.08
8/5 8/7 United Arab Emirates..... ........... 827.42 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 827.42
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... \3\4,045.02 ........... ........... ........... 4,045.02
Adam Harris............................ 8/4 8/5 Kuwait................... ........... 494.08 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 494.08
8/5 8/7 United Arab Emirates..... ........... 827.42 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 827.42
[[Page 10522]]
8/7 8/9 Germany.................. ........... 722.56 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 722.56
John Blazey............................ 8/1 8/4 Poland................... ........... 435.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 435.00
8/4 8/7 Germany.................. ........... 837.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 837.00
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 7,998.00 ........... ........... ........... 7,998.00
Misc. Transportation............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 83.30 ........... ........... ........... 83.30
Mike Ringler........................... 8/1 8/4 Poland................... ........... 564.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 564.00
8/4 8/7 Germany.................. ........... 837.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 837.00
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 8,027.50 ........... ........... ........... 8,027.50
Beverly Aimaro Pheto................... 8/11 8/12 Madrid, Spain............ ........... 443.27 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 443.27
8/12 8/13 Milan, Italy............. ........... 451.80 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 451.80
8/13 8/14 Florence, Italy.......... ........... 617.02 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 617.02
8/14 8/15 Rome, Italy.............. ........... 600.15 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 600.15
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 8,577.80 ........... ........... ........... 8,577.80
Kate Hallahan.......................... 8/9 8/10 Barcelona, Spain......... ........... 445.75 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 445.75
8/10 8/12 Madrid, Italy............ ........... 886.54 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 866.54
8/12 8/13 Milan, Italy............. ........... 451.80 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 451.80
8/13 8/14 Florence, Italy.......... ........... 617.02 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 617.02
8/14 8/15 Rome, Italy.............. ........... 600.15 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 600.15
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 8,264.80 ........... ........... ........... 8,264.80
Hon. Nita Lowey........................ 8/4 8/6 Kenya.................... ........... 1,359.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,359.00
8/6 8/9 South Africa............. ........... 5,586.37 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 5,586.37
Misc. Embassy Costs................ ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,442.50 ........... 1,442.50
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 6,226.00 ........... ........... ........... 6,226.00
Misc. Travel Expenses.............. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 235.00 ........... ........... ........... 235.50
Michele Sumilas........................ 8/3 8/6 Kenya.................... ........... 494.08 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 494.08
8/6 8/9 South Africa............. ........... 827.42 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 827.42
Misc. Embassy Costs................ ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,442.50 ........... 1,442.50
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 9,882.01 ........... ........... ........... 9,882.01
Misc. Travel Expenses.............. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 235.00 ........... ........... ........... 235.50
Hon. Kay Granger....................... 8/30 9/2 Argentina................ ........... 1,023.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,023.00
9/2 9/5 Paraguay................. ........... 780.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 780.00
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 8,101.20 ........... ........... ........... 8,101.20
John Blazey............................ 8/30 9/2 Argentina................ ........... 1,023.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,023.00
9/2 9/5 Paraguay................. ........... 780.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 780.00
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 9,763.20 ........... ........... ........... 9,763.20
Misc. Travel Expenses.............. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 132.00 ........... ........... ........... 132.00
Diana Simpson.......................... 8/30 9/2 Argentina................ ........... 1,023.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,023.00
9/2 9/5 Paraguay................. ........... 780.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 780.00
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 5,263.20 ........... ........... ........... 5,263.20
Mike Ringler........................... 8/17 8/19 El Salvador.............. ........... 542.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 542.00
8/19 8/21 Guatemala................ ........... 554.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 554.00
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 2,283.41 ........... ........... ........... 2,283.41
Misc. Travel Expenses.............. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 616.65 ........... 616.65
Anne Marie Chotvacs.................... 8/17 8/19 El Salvador.............. ........... 542.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 542.00
8/19 8/21 Guatemala................ ........... 554.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 554.00
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 2,207.70 ........... ........... ........... 2,207.70
Misc. Travel Expenses.............. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 616.65 ........... 616.65
8/29 8/31 Pakistan................. ........... 180.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 180.00
8/31 9/4 Ukraine.................. ........... 1,710.64 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,710.64
........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 335.17 ........... 335.17
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 11,490.90 ........... ........... ........... 11,490.90
Craig Higgins.......................... 8/29 8/31 Pakistan................. ........... 180.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 180.00
8/31 9/4 Ukraine.................. ........... 1,710.64 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,710.64
9/4 9/6 London................... ........... 965.31 ........... ........... ........... 2,484.31 ........... 3,449.62
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 11,629.80 ........... ........... ........... 11,629.80
Misc. Travel Expenses.............. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 335.17 ........... 335.17
Steve Marchese......................... 8/29 8/31 Pakistan................. ........... 180.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 180.00
8/31 9/4 Ukraine.................. ........... 1,710.64 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,710.64
Misc. Travel Expenses.............. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 335.17 ........... 335.17
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 11,490.90 ........... ........... ........... 11,490.90
Paula Juola............................ 8/12 8/13 United Arab Emirates..... ........... 463.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 463.00
8/13 8/15 Afghanistan.............. ........... 162.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 162.00
8/15 8/16 United Arab Emirates..... ........... 463.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 463.00
8/16 8/17 Italy.................... ........... 329.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 329.00
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 10,391.00 ........... ........... ........... 10,391.00
Misc. Travel Expenses.............. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 70.00 ........... ........... ........... 70.00
Linda Pagelsen......................... 8/12 8/13 United Arab Emirates..... ........... 463.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 463.00
8/13 8/15 Afghanistan.............. ........... 162.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 162.00
8/15 8/16 United Arab Emirates..... ........... 463.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 162.00
8/16 8/17 Italy.................... ........... 329.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 329.00
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 10,391.00 ........... ........... ........... 10,391.00
Misc. Travel Expenses.............. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 128.50 ........... ........... ........... 128.50
Christopher White...................... 8/12 8/13 United Arab Emirates..... ........... 463.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 463.00
8/13 8/15 Afghanistan.............. ........... 162.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 162.00
8/15 8/16 United Arab Emirates..... ........... 463.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 463.00
8/16 8/17 Italy.................... ........... 329.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 329.00
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 10,391.00 ........... ........... ........... 10,391.00
Misc. Travel Expenses.............. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 70.00 ........... ........... ........... 70.00
Hon. Jack Kingston..................... 8/27 8/30 Tunisia.................. ........... 725.75 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 725.75
8/30 9/1 Rwanda................... ........... 750.95 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 750.95
9/2 9/3 Zimbabwe................. ........... 142.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 142.00
9/3 9/4 Senegal.................. ........... 561.96 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 561.96
8/17 8/19 South Korea.............. ........... 798.88 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 798.88
8/19 8/20 China.................... ........... 291.31 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 291.31
8/20 8/22 Taiwan................... ........... 661.26 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 661.26
8/22 8/24 Hong Kong................ ........... 1,055.10 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,055.10
Hon. Betty McCollum.................... 9/18 9/21 Guatemala................ ........... 686.28 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 686.28
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 1,657.70 ........... ........... ........... 1,657.70
Local Transportation............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 1,340.88 ........... ........... ........... 1,340.88
Misc. Embassy Costs................ ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,080.16 ........... 2,080.16
John Blazey............................ 9/26 9/28 Chile.................... ........... 1,095.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,095.00
Commercial Airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 7,860.70 ........... ........... ........... 7,860.70
Misc. Transportation Costs......... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 36.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 73,795.05 ........... 186,757.60 ........... 16,006.04 ........... 276.558.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\Military air transportation.
\4\Part foreign, part domestic travel.
\5\Government aircraft.
HON. DAVID R. OBEY, Chairman, May 25,
2010.
[[Page 10523]]
____________________
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
7850. A letter from the Director of Legislative Affairs,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's ``Major'' final
rule -- Conservation Stewardship Program (RIN: 0578-AA43)
received June 4, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Agriculture.
7851. A letter from the Chair, Congressional Oversight
Panel, transmitting the Panel's monthly report pursuant to
Section 125(b)(1) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
of 2008, Pub. L. 110-343; to the Committee on Financial
Services.
7852. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Modification of Jet Route J-3; Spokane, WA [Docket No.: FAA-
2010-0008; Airspace Docket No. 09-ANM-21] received May 24,
2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
7853. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Commerce,
transmitting letter of certification, pursuant to Public Law
105-261, section 1512; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
7854. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the
Treasury, transmitting as required by section 401(c) of the
National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1641(c), and section
204(c) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50
U.S.C. 1703(c), a six-month periodic report on the national
emergency with respect to Belarus that was declared in
Executive Order 13405 of June 16, 2006; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
7855. A letter from the Staff Director, Commission on Civil
Rights, transmitting notification that the Commission
recently appointed members to the Ohio Advisory Committee; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
7856. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting a petition filed on behalf of
workers from the Canoga Avenue facility, Los Angeles County,
California, to be added to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC),
pursuant to the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act of 2000; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
7857. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments [Docket No.: 30722;
Amdt. No. 487] received May 24, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
7858. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400
Series Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2010-0435; Directorate
Identifier 2010-NM-084-AD; Amendment 39-16283; AD 2010-10-04]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 24, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
7859. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Amendment of Class E Airspace; Emmetsburg, IA [Docket No.:
FAA-2009-1153; Airspace Docket No. 09-ACE-13] received May
24, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
7860. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mapleton, IA [Docket No.: FAA-
2009-1155; Airspace Docket No. 09-ACE-14] received Paralegal
Specialist, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
____________________
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. PASCRELL (for himself, Mr. King of New York, Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi, Ms. Clarke, and Mr. Daniel
E. Lungren of California):
H.R. 5498. A bill to enhance homeland security by improving
efforts to prevent, deter, prepare for, detect, attribute,
respond to, and recover from an attack with a weapon of mass
destruction, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committees on
Energy and Commerce, Agriculture, Transportation and
Infrastructure, Foreign Affairs, and Intelligence (Permanent
Select), 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. MICA (for himself, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr.
Petri, Mr. Coble, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Ehlers, Mrs.
Capito, Mr. Westmoreland, Mrs. Miller of Michigan,
Mr. Cao, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Graves, Mr. Shuster, and Mr.
Fleming):
H.R. 5499. A bill to amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to
authorize advances from Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the
Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. DOYLE:
H.R. 5500. A bill to establish the Steel Industry National
Historic Site in the State of Pennsylvania; to the Committee
on Natural Resources.
By Mr. KING of New York (for himself, Mr. Pence, Mrs.
McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. McKeon, Mr.
Sessions, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Gohmert, Mr.
Tiahrt, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Buchanan, Mr.
Latta, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Miller of
Florida, Mr. Culberson, Mrs. Blackburn, Mrs.
Bachmann, Mr. Roskam, Mr. Austria, Mr. Olson, Mr.
Broun of Georgia, Mr. Posey, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr.
Campbell, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Daniel E.
Lungren of California, Mr. Lee of New York, Mr.
Carter, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Coble, Mr. Wilson of
South Carolina, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Lewis of
California, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Terry, Mr.
Kirk, and Mr. Bishop of Utah):
H.R. 5501. A bill to prohibit United States participation
on the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and
prohibit contributions to the United Nations for the purpose
of paying for any United Nations investigation into the
flotilla incident; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. MAFFEI (for himself, Mrs. Maloney, and Mrs.
McCarthy of New York):
H.R. 5502. A bill to amend the effective date of the gift
card provisions of the Credit Card Accountability
Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009; to the Committee
on Financial Services.
By Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. Melancon, Mr. Nadler
of New York, Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas, Ms. Waters,
Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Chu, Mr.
Deutch, Mr. Weiner, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of
California, and Mr. Braley of Iowa):
H.R. 5503. A bill to revise laws regarding liability in
certain civil actions arising from maritime incidents, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in
addition to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California (for himself, Mrs.
McCarthy of New York, Mr. Platts, Mr. Polis, Mr.
Courtney, Ms. Chu, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. McGovern, Mr.
Sestak, Ms. Titus, Mr. Holt, Mr. Tonko, Ms. Fudge,
Mr. Wu, Mr. Hinojosa, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Pierluisi, Mr.
Sablan, Mr. Kildee, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr.
Payne, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Andrews, Mr.
Hare, Ms. Clarke, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Bishop of New York,
Ms. Shea-Porter, Ms. Woolsey, and Mr. Scott of
Virginia):
H.R. 5504. A bill to reauthorize child nutrition programs,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and
Labor, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. BURGESS:
H.R. 5505. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Energy to
establish monetary prizes for achievements in designing and
proposing nuclear energy used fuel alternatives; to the
Committee on Science and Technology, and in addition to the
Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia (for himself and Mr.
Polis):
H.R. 5506. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act to require that treatment of the issuance of any
exploration plans, development production plans, development
operation coordination documents, and lease sales required
under Federal law for offshore drilling activity on the outer
Continental Shelf as a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment for the
purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Mr. HELLER:
H.R. 5507. A bill to require the Secretary of Defense to
identify areas on military installations and certain other
properties as acceptable, unacceptable, or unassessed
regarding their suitability for placement of geothermal,
wind, solar photovoltaic, or solar thermal trough systems,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
[[Page 10524]]
By Mr. HELLER:
H.R. 5508. A bill to provide for the development of solar
pilot project areas on public land in Lincoln County, Nevada;
to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. HOLDEN (for himself and Mr. Goodlatte):
H.R. 5509. A bill to support efforts to reduce pollution of
the Chesapeake Bay watershed and to verify that reductions in
pollution have been achieved, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in
addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. KAPTUR:
H.R. 5510. A bill to amend the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008 to allow amounts under the Troubled
Assets Relief Program to be used to provide legal assistance
to homeowners to avoid foreclosure; to the Committee on
Financial Services.
By Mr. MARSHALL:
H.R. 5511. A bill to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance
Act to codify the Transaction Account Guarantee Program of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; to the Committee
on Financial Services.
By Mr. PERRIELLO:
H.R. 5512. A bill to expand the boundary of Booker T.
Washington National Monument, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Ms. PINGREE of Maine:
H.R. 5513. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act to require payment of royalty on all oil and gas
saved, removed, sold, or discharged under a lease under that
Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Mr. POSEY:
H.R. 5514. A bill to require State governments to submit
fiscal accounting reports as a condition to the receipt of
Federal financial assistance, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. SENSENBRENNER:
H.R. 5515. A bill to amend the Federal Power Act to
establish a regional transmission planning process, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. STEARNS:
H.R. 5516. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide for certain requirements relating to the immunization
of veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. STEARNS:
H.R. 5517. A bill to amend title 13, United States Code, to
require that the questionnaire used in a decennial census of
population shall include an inquiry regarding an individual's
status as a veteran, a spouse of a veteran, or a dependent of
a veteran, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. TITUS (for herself, Mr. Heller, Mr. Franks of
Arizona, Ms. Giffords, and Ms. Berkley):
H.R. 5518. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow the energy investment tax credit and the credit
for residential energy efficient property with respect to
natural gas heat pumps; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS (for herself, Mr. Reichert,
Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Larsen of Washington,
and Mr. Hastings of Washington):
H. Con. Res. 285. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
important role that fathers play in the lives of their
children and families and supporting the goals and ideals of
designating 2010 as the Year of the Father; to the Committee
on Education and Labor.
By Mr. BACA:
H. Res. 1430. A resolution honoring and saluting golf
legend Juan Antonio ``Chi Chi'' Rodriguez for his commitment
to Latino youth programs of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus
Institute; to the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. FILNER (for himself, Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas,
and Mr. Rohrabacher):
H. Res. 1431. A resolution calling for an end to the
violence, unlawful arrests, torture, and ill treatment
perpetrated against Iranian citizens, as well as the
unconditional release of all political prisoners in Iran; to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. HEINRICH:
H. Res. 1432. A resolution honoring the State of New Mexico
on the passage of the Hispanic Education Act; to the
Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. JONES (for himself, Ms. Markey of Colorado, Mr.
Whitfield, and Mr. Loebsack):
H. Res. 1433. A resolution expressing support for
designation of September 2010 as Blood Cancer Awareness
Month; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California (for himself, Mr.
Childers, Mr. Baca, Mr. Castle, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr.
Davis of Kentucky, Mr. Calvert, and Mr. Gerlach):
H. Res. 1434. A resolution recognizing National
Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in
the United States; to the Committee on Financial Services.
____________________
MEMORIALS
Under clause 4 of rule XXII, memorials were presented and referred as
follows:
304. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the House of
Representatives of the State of Florida, relative to House
Memorial 227 urging the Congress to preserve the authority of
the Governor to retain command and control of the Florida
National Guard; to the Committee on Armed Services.
305. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of
Florida, relative to Senate Memorial 944 requesting that the
United States Congress direct that one of the retiring space
shuttle orbiters be preserved and placed on permanent display
at the Kennedy Space Center; to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 179: Mr. Garamendi.
H.R. 197: Mr. Critz.
H.R. 213: Mr. Heller.
H.R. 275: Mr. Terry.
H.R. 442: Mr. Perriello and Mr. Critz.
H.R. 510: Mr. Pomeroy.
H.R. 564: Mr. Polis.
H.R. 615: Mr. Sires.
H.R. 758: Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 775: Mr. Rogers of Michigan.
H.R. 816: Mr. Critz.
H.R. 881: Mr. McClintock and Mr. Schock.
H.R. 930: Mrs. Bono Mack.
H.R. 1034: Mr. Sablan.
H.R. 1036: Ms. Richardson.
H.R. 1132: Mr. Critz.
H.R. 1205: Mrs. Davis of California and Mr. Nye.
H.R. 1255: Mr. Calvert and Mr. Westmoreland.
H.R. 1351: Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Mr. Garamendi, Mr.
Terry, and Mr. Stark.
H.R. 1587: Mr. Critz.
H.R. 1621: Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 1625: Ms. Eshoo and Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 1751: Mr. Pierluisi.
H.R. 1829: Mrs. Dahlkemper.
H.R. 2057: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 2103: Mr. Perriello.
H.R. 2105: Mr. Ruppersberger.
H.R. 2106: Mr. Ruppersberger.
H.R. 2176: Ms. Richardson and Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 2275: Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Mr. Maffei, and Mr.
Boucher.
H.R. 2287: Mr. Upton.
H.R. 2296: Mr. Dreier and Mr. Critz.
H.R. 2298: Mr. Higgins.
H.R. 2328: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 2363: Mr. Grayson.
H.R. 2425: Mr. McCotter, Ms. Schakowsky, and Mr. Gordon of
Tennessee.
H.R. 2443: Mr. Schock.
H.R. 2492: Mr. Hare.
H.R. 2534: Ms. Herseth Sandlin.
H.R. 2575: Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 2625: Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 2782: Mr. Duncan.
H.R. 2906: Mr. Boren.
H.R. 2979: Mr. Kucinich and Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 3100: Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 3116: Mr. Schauer.
H.R. 3151: Mr. Terry and Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.R. 3286: Mr. Arcuri.
H.R. 3301: Mr. Owens, Mr. Donnelly of Indiana, Mr. Graves,
Mr. Marshall, and Ms. Herseth Sandlin.
H.R. 3355: Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania and Mr. Price of
North Carolina.
H.R. 3359: Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Lujan,
Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Waxman, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Kind, Mr. Al Green
of Texas, Mr. Nadler of New York, Mr. Capuano, Mrs. Capps,
Mr. Towns, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Stark, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms.
Kosmas, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Mr. Kanjorski,
Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Hastings of
Florida, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Oberstar, Ms.
Watson, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Grayson, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Salazar,
Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Sablan, and Mr. Ortiz.
H.R. 3408: Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Boccieri.
H.R. 3457: Mr. Ortiz.
H.R. 3668: Mr. Grayson, Ms. Chu, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Yarmuth,
Mr. Putnam, Mr. Carney, Mr. Butterfield, Ms. Speier, and Mr.
Chaffetz.
H.R. 3716: Mr. Boucher and Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H.R. 3724: Mr. Carter.
H.R. 3790: Mr. Berry.
H.R. 3989: Mr. Price of North Carolina.
H.R. 3995: Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of
Pennsylvania.
H.R. 4099: Mr. Polis.
H.R. 4128: Mr. Wu and Ms. Hirono.
[[Page 10525]]
H.R. 4195: Mr. McNerney, Ms. Richardson, and Mrs. Maloney.
H.R. 4278: Mr. Luetkemeyer.
H.R. 4302: Mr. Ortiz.
H.R. 4329: Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
H.R. 4343: Mr. Pierluisi.
H.R. 4399: Mr. Polis.
H.R. 4402: Mr. Pierluisi.
H.R. 4555: Mr. Courtney and Mr. Murphy of Connecticut.
H.R. 4568: Mr. Teague.
H.R. 4594: Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Rahall,
Mr. Waxman, and Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
H.R. 4682: Ms. Lee of California.
H.R. 4684: Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Blunt, Ms. Jenkins, Mr.
Levin, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Smith of Washington,
and Mr. Gallegly.
H.R. 4709: Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 4751: Mr. Rahall.
H.R. 4771: Mr. Payne, Mr. Rangel, and Ms. Hirono.
H.R. 4772: Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
H.R. 4785: Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Hastings of Florida,
and Mr. McIntyre.
H.R. 4787: Mr. Cole and Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 4788: Mrs. Napolitano and Mr. Foster.
H.R. 4796: Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 4879: Mr. Cohen, Ms. Matsui, Mr. George Miller of
California, Mr. Fattah, and Ms. Harman.
H.R. 4886: Mr. Walz.
H.R. 4914: Mr. Thompson of California and Mr. Sablan.
H.R. 4925: Ms. Richardson and Mr. Stark.
H.R. 4926: Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen,
Ms. Castor of Florida, Ms. Richardson, Mr. Bishop of Georgia,
and Mr. Murphy of Connecticut.
H.R. 4937: Mr. Wu.
H.R. 4958: Ms. Chu.
H.R. 4959: Mr. Price of North Carolina and Mr. Smith of
Washington.
H.R. 4971: Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Conyers, Ms. Waters, Ms.
Slaughter, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Cao, Mr. McDermott, Mr.
Butterfield, Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas, Ms. Richardson, Mr.
Lewis of Georgia, and Mr. Scott of Virginia.
H.R. 4993: Ms. Moore of Wisconsin.
H.R. 4995: Mr. McCaul.
H.R. 5012: Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 5034: Mr. Boyd and Mr. Klein of Florida.
H.R. 5066: Mr. Broun of Georgia.
H.R. 5078: Mr. Peters.
H.R. 5081: Mr. Meek of Florida.
H.R. 5111: Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Tim Murphy of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Posey, and Mr. Skelton.
H.R. 5117: Mr. Honda, Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Mr. Lewis
of Georgia, Mr. Wu, Ms. Clarke, and Mr. Nadler of New York.
H.R. 5126: Mr. Broun of Georgia.
H.R. 5141: Mr. LaTourette and Mrs. Capito.
H.R. 5142: Mr. Yarmuth.
H.R. 5143: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 5156: Mr. Polis.
H.R. 5157: Mr. Davis of Tennessee.
H.R. 5159: Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 5177: Mr. Burgess.
H.R. 5191: Mr. Honda.
H.R. 5192: Mr. Coffman of Colorado.
H.R. 5214: Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. Polis, and Mr. Courtney.
H.R. 5258: Mr. Maffei.
H.R. 5289: Mr. Ellison, Ms. Norton, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of
California, and Mr. Polis.
H.R. 5313: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.
H.R. 5324: Mr. Berman and Mr. Ellison.
H.R. 5355: Mr. Hinchey and Mr. Carnahan.
H.R. 5358: Mr. Holt.
H.R. 5400: Mr. Nye.
H.R. 5409: Mr. Kissell.
H.R. 5412: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.
H.R. 5425: Mr. Lamborn, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, and Mr.
Kingston.
H.R. 5426: Mr. Skelton.
H.R. 5430: Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 5431: Mr. Kind.
H.R. 5434: Mr. Hall of New York.
H.R. 5449: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 5457: Mr. Towns and Mr. Space.
H.R. 5481: Ms. Woolsey, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Langevin, and Mr.
Inslee.
H.R. 5487: Ms. McCollum and Ms. Richardson.
H. Con. Res. 40: Mr. Critz.
H. Con. Res. 200: Mr. Roskam.
H. Con. Res. 259: Mr. Ackerman.
H. Con. Res. 266: Mr. Simpson and Ms. Speier.
H. Con. Res. 281: Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Brown of
South Carolina, Mr. Brady of Texas, and Mr. Marchant.
H. Con. Res. 283: Mr. Owens.
H. Res. 173: Mrs. Dahlkemper, Mr. Critz, Mr. Lipinski, and
Mr. Mitchell.
H. Res. 363: Mr. Payne.
H. Res. 536: Mr. Israel.
H. Res. 546: Mr. Hastings of Florida and Mr. Cooper.
H. Res. 633: Mr. Rush and Ms. Richardson.
H. Res. 771: Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Rush,
Mr. Platts, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Akin, Ms. Schwartz, Ms.
Baldwin, and Ms. Titus.
H. Res. 953: Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Inglis, Mr.
Cao, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Ellison, and Mr. Shuler.
H. Res. 1035: Mr. Tierney.
H. Res. 1207: Mr. Sablan, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Boswell, and Mr.
Bishop of Georgia.
H. Res. 1217: Mr. Carney.
H. Res. 1241: Mr. Lee of New York.
H. Res. 1302: Mr. Space.
H. Res. 1309: Mr. Young of Florida.
H. Res. 1359: Mr. Peters, Mr. Honda, Mr. Grayson, Mr.
Rothman of New Jersey, Mr. Polis, Mr. Holt, Ms. Schakowsky,
Ms. Kilroy, Ms. Harman, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Inglis,
and Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
H. Res. 1374: Mr. Schock.
H. Res. 1375: Ms. Richardson, Ms. Sutton, Mr. Stark, and
Mr. Grijalva.
H. Res. 1379: Mr. Pomeroy and Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of
California.
H. Res. 1390: Mr. Moran of Virginia and Mr. Stark.
H. Res. 1393: Mr. Kennedy and Mr. McNerney.
H. Res. 1394: Mr. Gallegly and Mrs. Miller of Michigan.
H. Res. 1398: Mr. Stark.
H. Res. 1401: Mr. Teague and Ms. Pingree of Maine.
H. Res. 1402: Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Lee of New
York.
H. Res. 1406: Mr. Broun of Georgia and Mr. Chaffetz.
H. Res. 1407: Mr. Lance, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Wamp, Mrs.
Myrick, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Dent, Mr.
Shimkus, and Mr. Castle.
H. Res. 1414: Mr. Gutierrez.
H. Res. 1428: Ms. DeLauro.
____________________
PETITIONS, ETC.
Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the
clerk's desk and referred as follows:
141. The SPEAKER presented a petition of City of Miami
Beach, Florida, relative to Resolution No. 2010-27379 urging
the President and the Congress of the United States to Adopt
the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009 (H.R. 1283);
to the Committee on Armed Services.
142. Also, a petition of City and County of Honolulu,
Hawaii, relative to Resolution 10-56, CD1 urging the United
States Congress to support a final version of the Native
Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act; to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
143. Also, a petition of American Bar Association,
Illinois, relative to Resolution 102E urging federal, state,
territorial, and local governments to expand as appropriate
in light of security and safety concerns, initiatives that
facilitate contact and communication between parents in
correctional custody and their children; jointly to the
Committees on the Judiciary, Education and Labor, and Ways
and Means.
[[Page 10526]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
STATEMENT ON EFFIE LEE MORRIS
______
HON. NANCY PELOSI
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a longtime
literary advocate and community leader, Effie Lee Morris, who died in
San Francisco last November 10. On June 14, family, friends and San
Francisco dignitaries will gather at the San Francisco Public Library
to celebrate her lifetime of work as a librarian and advocate for
underserved children and the visually impaired. They will pay tribute
to her life as a visionary who recognized the power of literacy and
education in overcoming racism, inequality and poverty.
Morris began her life's work as a literary activist as a public
librarian in Cleveland, Ohio more than 60 years ago. Recognizing that
education is the most important investment we can make in our future,
she focused primarily on children's literacy in African American
communities and low-income urban areas, and helped to establish the
first Negro History Week. In 1955, she moved to New York City where she
worked for the New York Public Library. There she continued to work
with children and began advocating for the rights of the visually
impaired, eventually becoming a children's specialist at the New York
Public Library's Library for the Blind from 1958 to 1963.
In 1963, San Francisco was blessed when Morris arrived in our city
and became the first Coordinator of Children's Services at our Public
Library, where she established the Children's Historical and Research
Collection. It stands in tribute to her today. The children's
literature section that she created is named in her honor.
In 1968, Morris helped found the San Francisco Chapter of the Women's
National Book Association and served as the first African American
president of the Public Library Association.
Upon retirement, Morris continued to serve the San Francisco Bay Area
community, and taught courses on children's literature at Mills College
and the University of San Francisco. Morris served as the first female
chairperson of the Library of Congress as well as the President of the
National Braille Association for two terms. She also served on the
California State Library Board, and was a lifetime member of the San
Francisco African American Historical and Cultural Society.
We grieve Effie Lee Morris' passing, but celebrate her legacy, which
will live on in the many lives she touched.
____________________
RECOGNIZING COLONEL STEVEN SMITH'S SERVICE TO FORT HAMILTON
______
HON. MICHAEL E. McMAHON
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. McMAHON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Colonel
Steven V. Smith, Installation Commander, at Fort Hamilton, located in
my district of Brooklyn, New York. Fort Hamilton is the only active
military base in New York City. Colonel Smith is leaving his post as
Installation Commander to return to his alma mater, Norwich University
in Northfield, Vermont to prepare the next generation of graduates and
officers for the United States Military.
In 1984, Colonel Stephen V. Smith graduated from Norwich University
where he earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Business
Administration. Upon graduating, he was commissioned a Second
Lieutenant in the U.S. Army Infantry. He went on to pursue a Master of
Science from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and a Master's of
Strategic Studies from the U.S. Army War College.
Colonel Smith started his career at Fort Carson, Colorado, where he
was a Rifle Platoon Leader, Executive Officer, and Mortar Platoon
Leader, 2nd Battalion, 8th Infantry.
During his distinguished career, Colonel Smith was deployed to Bosnia
as the 10th Mountain G4 Plans Officer. He also served as Executive
Officer of the 10th Division Support Command, and the G4 (Logistics
Officer) for the 10th Mountain Division where he was deployed in
support of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001.
In June of 2008, Colonel Smith became, Installation Commander at Fort
Hamilton, Brooklyn, New York. During his time at his final Military
assignment, he was instrumental in providing a location for a second
National Guard Civil Support Team (Weapons of Mass Destruction) which
gave New York City's first responders a vital resource to utilize in
the event of a terrorist attack.
Colonel Smith's awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit,
the Bronze Star, the Meritorious Service Medal (4th Oak Leaf Cluster),
the Army Commendation Medal (1st Oak Leaf Cluster), the Army
Achievement Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces
Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terror Expeditionary Medal, Korean
Defense Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, Army Service and
Overseas Ribbons, NATO Medal, Air Assault and Airborne badges and the
Ranger Tab.
Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Colonel
Smith for his service to New York City and the Fort Hamilton Community.
Besides being an active base in America's largest city, Fort Hamilton
is also a community treasure for the neighborhoods and people of South
Brooklyn. Under Colonel Smith's leadership many community organizations
have been able to utilize the wonderful resources of this historic base
and he has fostered a strong sprit of patriotism in support of our men
and women in uniform throughout the broader community.
He has worked to upgrade housing on the base for active duty Members
as well as rehabilitate the historic officers clubhouse which is a
resource for not only the base but for many community organizations.
Colonel Smith truly represents the best and the brightest of the
United States Army and he will continue to serve this Country with
honors. I wish Colonel Smith, his wife Donna, daughters Elizabeth and
Colleen and son Matthew the best of luck in his next pursuit. The
students and faculty of Norwich University are incredibly lucky to gain
the talent, dedication and leadership of my friend Colonel Stephen
Smith.
____________________
HONORING THE SERVICE AND SACRIFICE OF UNITED STATES ARMY SERGEANT RAY
HICKS
______
HON. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor United States Army
Sergeant Ray Hicks, who passed away on April 24, 2010.
Son of Jimmy and Aurelia Hicks of the Federated States of Micronesia,
Ray was a Multichannel Transmission Systems Operator-Maintainer who
trained at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and Fort Gordon, Georgia before
being assigned to Fort Huachuca, Arizona.
He joined the Army in June 2006 in my district in southern Arizona
and is remembered fondly by his officers, NCOs and fellow soldiers.
According to his Battalion Commander, Sergeant Hicks was a devoted
friend and soldier who would always lend a helping hand and who was
greatly respected and admired by many.
We remember Sergeant Ray Hicks and offer our deepest condolences and
sincerest prayers to his family. My words cannot effectively convey the
feeling of great loss nor can they offer adequate consolation. However,
it is my hope that in future days, his family may take some comfort in
knowing that Ray made a difference in the lives of many others and
serves as an example of a competent and caring leader and friend that
will live on in the hearts and minds of all those he touched.
This body and this country owe Ray and his family a debt of gratitude
and it is vital that we remember him and his service to his country.
[[Page 10527]]
Sergeant Ray Hicks leaves behind his beloved wife Tressia, his
daughter Anana, his parents Jimmy and Aurelia and many aunts, uncles,
cousins and friends.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ROBERT E. LATTA
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. LATTA. Madam Speaker, on Friday, May 28, 2010, I missed a series
of votes on account of traveling back to Ohio to attend my daughter's
high school graduation. If I had been present, I would have voted
``no'' on Rollcall No. 324, ``no'' on Rollcall No. 325, ``aye'' on
Rollcall No. 326, ``aye'' on Rollcall No. 327, ``aye'' on Rollcall No.
328, ``aye'' on Rollcall No. 329, ``aye'' on Rollcall No. 330, ``aye''
on Rollcall No. 331, ``no'' on Rollcall No. 332, ``aye'' on Rollcall
No. 333, ``no'' on Rollcall No. 334, ``aye'' on Rollcall No. 335, and
``no'' on Rollcall No. 336.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF DR. CAROLYN GARVER
______
HON. PETE SESSIONS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Carolyn
Garver for her hard work and dedication to advocating on behalf of
children with autism.
Dr. Garver's lifelong passion of working with children with autism
began in 1979 when she joined the Autism Treatment Center, where she
currently serves as Program Director. In addition to her years of
experience, she is a licensed Child Care Administrator and holds a
Ph.D. in Health Studies. Dr. Garver is a recognized expert in autism
and has presented at numerous national and international forums, most
notably at the Indo-U.S. Science and Technology Forum in New Delhi,
India in September 2006. She also presented at the 2008 Texas State
Conference on Autism and the Texas State Head Start Association on
Autism Spectrum Disorder. She also serves on the Advisory Task Force at
Texas Tech University's Burkhart Center's Autism Program and is a Board
Member of the Dallas Chapter of the Autism Society of America.
Dr. Garver has devoted her life to this worthy cause, working closely
with families, individuals, and agencies. She is a tireless advocate
and a remarkable woman that possesses great compassion, patience,
knowledge, and hope--hope for a brighter future for individuals with
autism.
Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in recognizing
Dr. Carolyn Garver for her dedicated efforts to empowering individuals
with autism and helping them reach their full potential.
____________________
HONORING THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF BOY SCOUT TROOP 58 OF PHOENIXVILLE
______
HON. JIM GERLACH
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. GERLACH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Boy Scout Troop 58
of Phoenixville, Chester County as they celebrate their 75th
anniversary.
Chartered by the Knights of Columbus #1374, Troop 58 is the oldest
Scouting organization serving the youth of Phoenixville.
The Troop has enriched the lives of several generations of boys and
young men through activities geared toward building character,
developing leadership skills and instilling a commitment to serving
others.
In 1955, the Troop established a Dive and Rescue Unit with the help
of Friendship Fire Company in the Borough and Scouts have received
training from members of the Philadelphia Police Harbor Patrol.
The success of the Troop can be attributed to the dedicated
volunteers and Troop alumni who graciously commit countless hours to
area youth and the organization. The outstanding effort has resulted in
37 scouts earning their Eagle Scout Badges.
Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in
congratulating Boy Scout Troop 58 on reaching this very special
milestone and offering best wishes for continued success in mentoring
generations of local youth and building a stronger community and
nation.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF DR. ROBERT MINTURN LOCKWOOD III OF DENTON, TEXAS
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I proudly rise today to honor the memory
of Dr. Robert Minturn Lockwood III, a respected, active, and beloved
member of the North Texas community.
Known as ``Doc Lock'' to friends, employees, and patients, Dr.
Lockwood provided exceptional radiological health care in Denton, Texas
for 52 years, and his legacy will persevere for years to come.
Dr. Lockwood was born on August 28, 1922 in Philadelphia, PA. A
lifelong learner, he attended Harvard, graduated from the University of
Pennsylvania Medical School, and twice earned the Physician's
Recognition Award in Continuing Education.
In 1956, Dr. Lockwood arrived in Denton, Texas, and co-founded the
Family Radiology Clinic. Dr. Lockwood was active in the Denton County
Medical Society, and served as the President of the society for a
number of years starting in 1966. Dr. Lockwood also belonged to
multiple medical societies, including the American Medical Association,
Texas Medical Association, and the Texas Radiological Society. After
his first wife's death, Dr. Lockwood established Ann's Haven Hospice,
which provides nonprofit home health care regardless of a patient's
complex condition or ability to pay.
While Dr. Lockwood was a devoted medical professional, he also had
many hobbies and interests. Described as a jolly man with an excellent
sense of humor, Dr. Lockwood was an avid reader, fossil collector,
gardener, birdwatcher, poet and playwright. He loved music, language
and the arts, and was beloved by all who knew him.
Dr. Lockwood is survived by his wife, Sandy; his children, Ben
Lockwood, Millie Lockwood, Rachel Cross and her husband John; and his
granddaughter, Anna Morshedi and her husband Grant.
Madam Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to remember
Dr. Robert Minturn Lockwood III, for his remarkable legacy and service
to the community of North Texas. I am proud to represent such an
outstanding citizen from the 26th District of Texas in the United
States House of Representatives.
____________________
IN HONOR OF FEDERICO'S DRIVE IN SHOE SERVICE
______
HON. SAM FARR
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Federico's
Drive In Shoe Service, a local icon in my Central Coast Congressional
District, on its 70th anniversary. Since 1940, Federico's has served
the Monterey Bay area with exemplary craftsmanship, the highest quality
materials, and quick and efficient service.
Charles Federico began his career at the age of fourteen. The young
apprentice was assigned to the shoe shine stand for his first two
years, and then graduated to replacing heels. Within ten years he had
purchased his first store, handling shoe repair in one corner and
selling fishing gear in another.
His business, then called Franklin Shoe Repair, expanded quickly; in
1957 he added the extra convenience of a drive-up window to his
Monterey store which greatly increased the volume of business, and he
also opened a second shop on the former Fort Ord Army Base. He paid
particular attention to shop appearance, workmanship, merchandising and
shop management. In 1958 he won the National Leather and Shoe Finders
Association National Silver Cup Contest, as being the best shoe repair
store in America. Over the years he and his son, Henry, have won 27
local and regional industry awards.
Members of my family have patronized Federico's shop for decades, and
many of their customers cite their outstanding product knowledge and
customer service as reasons for their loyalty. Charles is now ninety-
three and his son, Henry, runs the shop. They have branched out into
engraving trophies and sewing logo merchandise. Their employees carry
on the traditions that won them the Silver Cup so many years ago.
Madam Speaker, I know my colleagues join me in wishing Federico's a
very happy 70th Anniversary, and many more to come.
[[Page 10528]]
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE LIFE OF MR. LEON HINOTE
______
HON. JEFF MILLER
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart, that
I rise to recognize the life and deeds of one of Santa Rosa County's
most respected residents, Mr. Leon Hinote. Throughout his 89 years, Mr.
Hinote spent his days as a true patriot and committed public servant.
In his passing, Madam Speaker, I am proud to honor his lifetime as a
compassionate and inspirational leader.
Born the fourth of seven children, Mr. Hinote's strong character
began to take root in the soils of Santa Rosa County; fully blooming
into the virtues of patriotism, diligence, kindness and faithfulness
which have impacted so many. To many, he was more than just a neighbor.
He was a friend to the faint hearted, a sturdy back to the heavy
burdened, and a kind voice to a weary companion.
Mr. Leon Hinote is a remarkably special man that belongs to a
remarkably special group--America's Greatest Generation. In 1942, Mr.
Hinote enlisted into the U.S. Army. Not wanting to wade in the
spotlight or expecting to be honored, he was always willing to put
others before himself. It was not until recently, that Mr. Hinote was
awarded with many of the honors he earned while bravely defending our
great nation and her ideals.
While his distinguished military record is more than enough to
warrant praise and admiration, Mr. Hinote did not stop serving the
others around him. After leaving the military, Mr. Hinote not only
served on the Milton City Council for two terms, but he was also
elected Santa Rosa County sheriff. Admired by many, Mr. Hinote is a
role model for the entire community of Northwest Florida and a rare
example of someone who truly understands what it means to lead by
example.
While we shall greatly miss Mr. Hinote, his legacy and his memory
shall remain. His life that spanned eight decades will serve as a
mirror for us all to gaze upon and find the full measure of a man.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress and a grateful
community, it is the highest privilege and with great pride that I
honor the life of Mr. Leon Hinote. My wife Vicki and I extend our
deepest sympathies to his loved ones and children: Clifton, Janet, and
Theresa.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO FORMER CONGRESSMAN FRANK EVANS
______
HON. JOHN T. SALAZAR
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to a dedicated
public servant from the State of Colorado.
Former Congressman Frank Evans passed away on Tuesday, June 8, 2010.
Colorado and the city of Pueblo have lost a tremendously respected
leader.
Congressman Evans led a remarkable life.
A Pueblo native, Congressman Evans served in the Navy, flying planes
in the Pacific Theater of World War II.
He returned to Colorado to get his law degree from the University of
Denver, before being elected to represent Pueblo in the State Assembly
in 1960.
Named ``Outstanding Freshman of the Year,'' his colleagues and
constituents alike were inspired by his dedication to public service.
From 1964-1978, the Congressman represented Colorado's third district
in the U.S. House of Representatives, the seat in which I currently
serve.
The tremendous impact his leadership has had on our district can
still be felt to this day.
Congressman Evans was responsible for bringing the Government
Printing Office Distribution Center to Pueblo, and he was the
mastermind behind the popular Payment in Lieu of Taxes program that has
brought federal dollars for federal lands to states like ours.
When serving in Congress, Congressman Evans was a fervent advocate
for the people and Western way of life in the 3rd district of Colorado.
Never losing sight of issues that were important to Coloradans, he
was also a true gentleman.
In the often contentious atmosphere of today's politics, Congressman
Evans was an example to those of us who strive to serve the public.
His close friend said of him ``That was Frank. Always a gentleman. He
wanted the facts. He wouldn't go after somebody just for partisan
reasons.''
Congressman Evans never forgot where he came from, and he lived to
serve others so that they could have a brighter future.
I am proud to serve in his former seat, and grateful for his legacy.
My condolences go out to his family during this difficult time.
He will be missed but his memory will live on through all of the
lives that he touched in western Colorado.
____________________
REINTRODUCTION OF THE NUCLEAR USED FUEL PRIZE ACT OF 2010
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce legislation I
first authored in the 110th Congress. As our country moves toward
clean, reliable energy, a natural progression will be toward nuclear
energy. Indeed, earlier this year, President Obama announced $8 billion
in new federal loan guarantees for two new nuclear power plants in
Georgia.
However, as we inevitably move toward greater use of nuclear energy,
we cannot hide our heads in the sand about the need for safe, reliable
ways to store and dispose of the waste created by such energy
production.
Nuclear power is praised for its zero carbon emissions, but it comes
at a price--radioactive fuel rods that will continue to emit dangerous
radiation and be the source of radioactive debris for thousands of
years. Congress designated Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the nation's sole
candidate site for a permanent high-level nuclear waste repository in
1987. The unused Yucca Mountain site has cost taxpayers an estimated $9
billion. Over $1.2 billion has been spent on the seventy-one claims
filed against the Department of Energy for the failure to abide by the
1987 contract to dispose of spent nuclear fuel.
There remain deep concerns that Yucca Mountain does not present a
long-term solution to nuclear waste because of uncertainty about the
long-term geologic stability of the site. The amount of existing
nuclear waste already exceeds the storage capacity at the site;
moreover, the state of Nevada adamantly opposes the site, and other
locations have not been offered. President Obama and the Secretary of
Energy Steven Chu have both stated their objections to the proposed
repository at Yucca Mountain, and President Obama stripped further
funding for Yucca Mountain in the FY2010 budget.
Delay in authorizing a nuclear waste site has wasted an enormous sum
of taxpayer dollars and resources. One proposed alternative to Yucca
Mountain has been to reprocess spent nuclear fuel in order to recover
usable fuel and cut down on the volume of waste. The issue remains
complicated; reprocessing carries the potential of creating weapons-
grade nuclear material thus presenting a global proliferation risk as
other nations employ the technology. As the United States continues to
dissuade other nations, namely Iran and North Korea, from nuclear
reprocessing, we take a dangerous political risk in engaging in the
process ourselves.
The legislation I am reintroducing today would encourage the creation
of an efficient and safe process to store nuclear waste. The Nuclear
Used Fuel Prize Act of 2010 would set up a competition to design the
best way to remove and store nuclear waste. I am a strong supporter of
nuclear power and I look forward to working toward finding a solution
to storing nuclear waste. I believe this legislation will provide the
incentives to find permanent solutions to our energy needs.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO PHIL DUDLEY
______
HON. ADRIAN SMITH
of nebraska
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize
Hastings College President Phil Dudley for his exemplary service to
Nebraska students and his community as a whole.
President Dudley has announced his retirement after nearly 40 years
of dedication to Hastings College, including 10 years as President. His
service is precluded by his doctoral education in economics and many
leadership positions within Hastings College and the surrounding
community.
[[Page 10529]]
As Hastings College President, President Dudley is credited for the
construction of the Osborne Family Sports Complex, Barrett Family
Alumni Center, Bronco Village Apartments, and the Morrison-Reeves
Science Center.
President Dudley's embrace and promotion of service learning on the
campus has led Hastings College students and faculty to dedicate
100,000 hours of their time to civic engagement. In recognition,
Hastings College has been named to the President's Higher Education
Community Service Honor Roll.
His dedication to students is further exemplified in the expansion of
academic programs. This includes the addition of majors in
biochemistry, biopsychology, wildlife biology, and a nursing dual
degree with Creighton University and Mary Lanning Memorial Hospital.
President Dudley's passionate commitment to Hastings College and its
students will be missed as he retires in July of 2011, but his support
of the institution will continue after his retirement as President
Dudley will work with the Hastings College Foundation to manage the
college's fund-raising and alumni activities.
I congratulate Phil on his outstanding career in higher education and
thank him for his contributions to Nebraska's educational reputation.
____________________
BULGARIA'S HISTORIC ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. JOE WILSON
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, twenty years ago today,
I served as an election observer in Bulgaria on behalf of the
International Republican Institute (IRI)
It was a life changing dream come true for me to experience firsthand
the birth of liberty in a captive nation, which had been subjected for
decades to Nazism and Communism. As a lifelong Cold Warrior I always
promoted victory over Communism. A strong American military developed
by President Ronald Reagan produced peace through strength and veterans
today can see with pride more counties than ever as free market
democracies.
On June 10, 1990, the people of Bulgaria participated in the first
free elections since the 1930s. It was inspiring to visit polling
places in the Plovdiv region and witness the young and old
participating freely. The talented people of Bulgaria were unshackled.
People did not want to be a slavish Soviet satellite. I have developed
a lifelong affection for the people of Bulgaria.
Since then, Bulgaria has evolved from the antiquated ``frozen in
time'' nation of the 1930s to being a vibrant free market democracy of
today. It is now a valued member of NATO with troops having served in
Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a dynamic member of the European Union. On
the evening before the election in Plovdiv I met a musician who
explained how he was inspired by Armed Forces Radio out of Greece with
his favorite composer John Philip Sousa--as he stated, ``Stars and
Stripes Forever.'' I responded, ``Bulgaria Forever.''
Two years ago I visited the training base at Novo Selo where young
Bulgarian and American troops participate in joint training exercises.
The American base was the first invited of foreign troops in Bulgaria's
1225 year history. I particularly appreciate Ambassador Elena
Poptodrova for her promotion of the Bulgaria-America partnership. I am
grateful for my first Bulgarian hosts Stefan Stoyanor, his wife
Elizabeth and daughter Jana. Their warm Bulgarian welcome will never be
forgotten.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September 11th in the Global War on Terrorism. God Bless Bulgaria.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ADAM SMITH
of washington
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, June 8, 2010, I
was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 337 (on passage of H.R.
1061, as amended), and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 338 (on the motion
to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 518, as amended).
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE RETIREMENT OF PENSACOLA CITY POLICE CHIEF JOHN W.
MATHIS
______
HON. JEFF MILLER
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is the highest honor to
recognize Chief of Police John W. Mathis, a dedicated public servant
and community leader. His service to Pensacola and his commitment to
law enforcement are truly remarkable. For that reason, Madam Speaker, I
am proud to honor Chief Mathis for his distinguished work over the last
three decades as a law enforcement officer at the Pensacola Police
Department.
Sworn in to protect and to serve, Chief Mathis first put on the badge
in 1978. Since that day he has dedicated his entire adult life to
selflessly putting the needs of others before his own while in the line
of duty. As Chief of Police, Mr. John Mathis held his officers and
himself to the highest standards of courtesy, integrity, and
professionalism. These core values have guided his philosophy and world
view, while reducing crime and improving the quality of life of
everyone in the Pensacola community.
Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that during his time in law
enforcement, Chief Mathis has never betrayed the badge, his integrity,
his character, or the public trust. On behalf of the United States
Congress, I am honored to recognize the visionary leadership and
outstanding service of a real American hero. I congratulate and thank
Chief John W. Mathis for his 32 years of service. My wife Vicki and I
wish him a happy retirement.
____________________
IN HONOR AND REMEMBRANCE OF CHARLES CRADDOCK, AN AMERICAN HERO
______
HON. RODNEY ALEXANDER
of louisiana
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember
Charles Craddock, a World War II Veteran and Prisoner of War. I offer
most heartfelt thanks to Mr. Craddock for his selfless and heroic
service to our nation and dedication to preserving our freedoms. It is
with great appreciation that I share his story in hopes of inspiring
today's generation of young men and women to live with the same sense
of duty and purpose.
In April of 1943, Mr. Craddock was drafted and sent to Ft. Sill, OK,
then to Fort Polk, LA, for basic training. From there, he was
transferred into the Air Force Cadet program and took basic training
and classification at Sheppard Field, Texas. After completing basic
training, he was sent to pre-flight training at Butler University in
Indianapolis, Ind. He was then sent to Fort Bragg, NC, for combat
training in the infantry, then to Fort Meade, MD, and Fort Dix, NJ, for
further training.
After D-Day, Mr. Craddock traveled to Omaha Beach and joined units of
the 3rd Army near Nancy, France. Mr. Craddock was assigned to the 137th
D Infantry Regiment of the 35th Division. The first two weeks his unit
spent in a defensive position, and then began a drive to the German
border.
After two months, his group made it to the border at Sarrguimens.
They crossed the Bliss River at night to take some high ground. Five of
the soldiers, including Mr. Craddock, in the company were picked to go
on patrol to see what lay ahead. They were captured behind the German
lines during this patrol.
It was hard getting to the POW camp near Stuttgart, as the Air Force
was all around. Most of the distance was covered by walking at night.
After spending about a month in Stuttgart, the American forces were
driving into this area from southern France, so the prisoners were led
into box cars for a miserable trip to the next POW camp at Luckenwald.
This train trip lasted about four days and nights for the train would
not move during the day for fear of the American Air Force.
During this trip, they never let the POWs out of the box cars and
gave them very little food or water. After spending about two months in
Luckenwald, the prisoners were broken up in small groups and marched
for two days to a camp known as Altengrabow. Once again, in two months,
they were told they had to move, and walked through the city of Berlin,
which was in ruins from the American and British Air Force bombings.
The group was sent to a small camp west of Berlin, where every night
they watched the bombings of the city. They were given no news, but
sensed the war was coming to an end.
One morning, near the end of April 1945, they were told to move
again. They marched about a day and then spent the night in a barn.
During the night, the German guards
[[Page 10530]]
left. A Russian patrol came by the next day, and escorted them to the
American lines on the Elbe River. That was on May 8, 1945, almost six
months after being captured.
For his truly brave and fearless service, Mr. Craddock received the
following decorations: Combat Infantry Badge, Bronze Star, European
Theater with two Battle Stars, and Good Conduct.
Our country and many more around the world are the beneficiaries of
his courage and vigilance. On May 16, 2010, America lost a hero with
the passing of Mr. Craddock. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join
me in paying tribute to Charles Craddock and extending thanks from a
grateful nation.
____________________
RECOGNIZING DOUG STEINHARDT, 2010 RECIPIENT OF THE WARREN COUNTY ``GOOD
SCOUT'' AWARD
______
HON. SCOTT GARRETT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, today, the Central New
Jersey Council of the Boy Scouts of America is celebrating 100 years of
Scouting at their Annual ``Good Scout'' Award dinner. The Good Scout
Award is given to individuals who exemplify the true spirit of
volunteerism and support the mission and purpose of the Scouting
movement.
The 2010 recipient of the Warren County ``Good Scout'' Award is Doug
Steinhardt. A lifelong resident of Warren County, Doug has served the
community in the tradition of the Boy Scouts of America and his work in
the private and public sector is a testament to his dedication to the
community. Some of the achievements and services Doug has provided to
Warren County include being named to the governing body of the New
Jersey State Bar, appointment to the Board of Directors of DARE,
serving on the Legislative Committee of the New Jersey League of
Municipalities and the Board of Directors of the Warren County Regional
Chamber of Commerce. An Eagle Scout, Doug was also appointed to the
Board of Directors of the Central New Jersey Council of the Boy Scouts
of America in July 2008. Doug sets the highest standard of how to lead
by example to residents of Warren County every day.
This year, Boy Scout Troop 141 from Belvidere, NJ is also being
honored tonight with the ``Boy Scouts of America's Centennial Award'',
which recognizes the troop for being the longest continuously operated
Boy Scout Troop in the Central New Jersey Council at 98 years old. They
were chartered in March of 1912 by the Belvidere Scout Home Association
who still charters the Troop today. Troop 141 Scouts camp at least once
per month, attend summer camp on an annual basis and participate in
community activities such as the annual Christmas tree presentation to
the town of Belvidere.
Today, I join the Boy Scouts of America in acknowledging Doug
Steinhardt and Belvidere Troop 141. I am proud to represent such
selfless and dedicated residents in the United States House of
Representatives.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY
of rhode island
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unable to participate
in a series of votes on the floor of the House of Representatives
today.
Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 339, Motion on Ordering
the Previous Question on the Rule for H.R. 5072--FHA Reform Act of 2010
(H. Res. 1424), I would have voted ``aye'' on the question.
Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 340, on the Rule providing
for consideration of H.R. 5072--FHA Reform Act of 2010, I would have
voted ``aye'' on the question.
Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 341, on the motion to
suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 989, expressing the sense of the
House of Representatives that the United States would adopt national
policies and pursue international agreements to prevent ocean
acidification, to study the impacts of ocean acidification, and to
address the effects of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems and
coastal economies, I would have voted ``aye'' on the question.
Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 342, on the motion to
suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 1178, directing the Clerk of the
House of Representatives to compile the cost estimates prepared by the
Congressional Budget Office which are included in reports filed by
committees of the House on approved legislation and post such estimates
on the official public Internet site of the Office of the Clerk, I
would have voted ``aye'' on the question.
Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 343, on the Republican
Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 4173--Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, I would have voted ``nay'' on the question.
Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 344, on the motion to
suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1330, Recognizing June 8, 2010,
as World Ocean Day, I would have voted ``aye'' on the question.
Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 345, on the motion to
suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 5278, to designate the facility of
the United States Postal Service located at 405 West Second Street in
Dixon, Illinois, as the ``President Ronald W. Reagan Post Office
Building,'' I would have voted ``aye'' on the question.
Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 346, on the motion to
suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 5133, to designate the facility of
the United States Postal Service located at 331 1st Street in
Carlstadt, New Jersey, as the ``Staff Sergeant Frank T. Carvill and
Lance Corporal Michael A. Schwarz Post Office Building,'' I would have
voted ``aye''' on the question.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE WEST MONROE HIGH SCHOOL CHORAL
PROGRAM
______
HON. RODNEY ALEXANDER
of louisiana
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam Speaker, I rise today with tremendous pride and
pleasure to pay tribute to the achievements of the West Monroe High
School Choral program.
Through the years, they have held numerous concerts at Carnegie Hall,
performed Mozart's Coronation Mass in Salzburg and Vienna, Austria, and
sang the mass at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, Italy. The many
recognitions they have received are the result of long hours of
practice, and dedication to excellence by the students, faculty and
their families.
The West Monroe High School Choir has once again been honored as they
have been asked to represent Louisiana at the 2010 American Celebration
of Music in France and Great Britain. This tour will provide an once-
in-a-lifetime opportunity for our young students to perform at various
venues throughout Europe. The trip's highlights include performances at
The Jesuit Church in Lucerne, Switzerland, Notre Dame Cathedral in
Paris, France, The American Cemetery in Normandy Beach, France, and St.
Paul's Cathedral in London, England.
The European concert tour will take place from May 30, 2010 to June
10, 2010, and will include 82 singers and 40 chaperones. Under the
leadership of Greg A. Oden, Director, and Vickie Freeman, Assistant
Director, the students have passionately worked through the entire year
to raise the necessary funds to achieve this aspiration.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the
wonderful achievements of the West Monroe High School Choir. The many
honors they have received are the result of long hours of practice, and
dedication to excellence by the students, faculty and their families.
They have truly made me and their community proud.
____________________
COMMEMORATING THE ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE MURDER OF DR. TILLER
______
HON. MIKE QUIGLEY
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the one-year
anniversary of the murder of Dr. Tiller.
Dr. Tiller was a respected physician who dedicated his life to
providing women with safe access to abortion care, and who was shot and
killed while attending his church in Kansas.
Sadly, the experience of Dr. Tiller is not unique--since 1993, eight
clinic workers have been murdered in the U.S.
A physician in my district recently shared with me her own account of
a scared 13-year-
[[Page 10531]]
old who came into the clinic with her mother. The girl had been
sexually assaulted by a 19-year-old and needed an abortion.
The physician was able to help that young girl, but she confided her
fear that someday she might not be able to aid young women who had no
chance to prevent pregnancy.
In the end, she said it's her patients who reconfirm her ``heartfelt
desire to continue to provide.''
As President Obama said, no one is pro-abortion, but when faced with
such a gut-wrenching decision, a woman deserves to have a physician
like Dr. Tiller to provide her with safe, quality care.
____________________
COMMEMORATING THE ONE-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE MURDER OF DR. GEORGE
TILLER
______
HON. LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the one-
year anniversary of the murder of Dr. George Tiller who was killed in
his church in Wichita, Kansas on May 31, 2009. Dr. Tiller was a
dedicated physician, and his murder was a deplorable act of violence
that violated the sanctity of his place of worship. Dr. Tiller's
shooting shattered the peace of his church, and added to an all too
long list of past tragedies in places of worship. In the past ten
years, there have been numerous instances of gun related violence in
our places of worship which resulted in 32 deaths and 26 injuries.
These sanctuaries are meant to be peaceful refuges for those who seek
serenity in times of turmoil and safety in times of hostility. On this
anniversary of Dr. Tiller's murder, we must remember and commit to our
country's tradition of cooperation and understanding. We must reaffirm
the American principle that tolerance must always be superior to
intolerance, and that violence is never an appropriate response to a
difference in beliefs.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MATT SCHILLER, 2010 RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
TEACHER OF THE YEAR
______
HON. KEN CALVERT
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate an
individual from my Congressional District who was recently named the
2010 Riverside Unified School District Teacher of the Year. Matt
Schiller, a teacher at Poly High School, was one of three teachers
honored last month at an event in Riverside, California.
Matt graduated from U.C. San Diego in 1999 with a Bachelor of Science
degree in biology and received his teaching credentials and a Master of
Science degree in biochemistry from U.C. Riverside in 2002. While
pursuing his master's degree, Matt became a teaching assistant and
realized his passion for teaching science.
After graduating from U.C. Riverside, Matt completed his student
teaching at A.B. Miller High School in Fontana, and taught physical
science and biology at Westlake High School. He also taught chemistry
through U.C. Riverside's Faststart summer program in 2008 and 2009.
Matt has been teaching chemistry and earth science at Poly High School
in Riverside since 2004.
Being recognized for his outstanding efforts is not new to Matt. In
fact, he was awarded the Walton B. Sinclair Award in 2001 for being an
outstanding student teacher at U.C. Riverside, and he also received the
``Special Friend to Special Education'' award from Conejo Valley
Unified School District in 2003 for his work with the Information
Technology Academy at Westlake High School. Additionally, he received
special recognition for his collaboration with students in publishing a
scientific article on protein structure.
True to his character of never settling for the status quo, Matt
resurrected the Advanced Placement chemistry class which had not been
available at Poly High School for several years. In his first year of
teaching, more than 60 percent of his class passed the AP test. A 60
percent passing rate is still better than the national average, but
that did not stop Matt from pushing himself to help even more of his
students succeed. In 2009, that number grew to 92.3 percent, which is
an incredible testament to Matt's dedication.
Matt has also taken the initiative to improve his contact with
parents. He regularly emails the parents of his students with upcoming
test information and packets of work, as well as routine grade checks
so parents can stay in tune with their child's progress.
Matt has shown diversity in his non-science interests as well. In
2006 he started a photography club at Poly High School to share his
interest in photography. The club has grown from a handful of students
to nearly 100 students. And at the end of each year, the students
display their work in a gallery in downtown Riverside.
Additionally, Matt coaches the Mock Trial club, and has led his team
to the state competition two of the last six years.
Matt has said that the most important part of teaching is giving back
to the community and his students; his actions have spoken much louder
than his words. Matt has truly shown that he is an exemplary educator.
Matt Schiller's tireless passion for science and education has
contributed immensely to the betterment of his students and the entire
community of Riverside, California. I am proud to call Matt a fellow
community member, American and friend. I know that many students,
parents, and faculty members are grateful for his service and join me
in congratulating Matt on receiving this prestigious award.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. PAUL RYAN
of wisconsin
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, last week, due to a death in
the family, I was not present to vote on the House floor. Had I been
present, I would have cast the following votes:
Rollcall 291: H. Con. Res. 278 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and
Agree--``yes.''
Rollcall 292: H.R. 1017 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass as
Amended--``yes.''
Rollcall 293:. H.R. 5330 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as
Amended--``yes.''
Rollcall 294: H.R. 5145 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as
Amended--``yes.''
Rollcall 295: H. Res. 1258 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree,
as Amended--``yes.''
Rollcall 296: H. Res. 1382 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree--
``yes.''
Rollcall 297: H. Res. 584 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree--
``yes.''
Rollcall 298: H.R. 3885 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass--
``yes.''
Rollcall 299: H.R. 2711 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Concur in
the Senate Amendments--``yes.''
Rollcall 300: H. Res. 1189 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree--
``yes.''
Rollcall 301: H. Res. 1172 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree--
``yes.''
Rollcall 302: H. Res. 1347 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree--
``yes.''
Rollcall 303: H. Res. 1385 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree--
``yes.''
Rollcall 304: H. Res. 1316 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree
as Amended--``yes.''
Rollcall 305: H. Res. 1169 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree,
as Amended--``yes.''
Rollcall 306: H. Con. Res. 282 On Agreeing to the Resolution--``no.''
Rollcall 307: H. Res. 1404 On Agreeing to the Resolution--``no.''
Rollcall 308: H. Res. 1161 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree--
``yes.''
Rollcall 309: H. Res. 1372 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree--
``yes.''
Rollcall 310: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``yes.''
Rollcall 311: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``yes.''
Rollcall 312: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''
Rollcall 313: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``yes.''
Rollcall 314: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''
Rollcall 315: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''
Rollcall 316: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``yes.''
Rollcall 317: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''
Rollcall 318: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``yes.''
Rollcall 319: H.R. 5136 On Approving the Journal--``no.''
Rollcall 320: H. Res. 1391 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree,
as Amended--``yes.''
Rollcall 321: H. Res. 1403 On Ordering the Previous Question--``no.''
Rollcall 322: H. Res. 1403 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''
[[Page 10532]]
Rollcall 323: H. Res. 1403 On Agreeing to the Resolution, as
Amended--``no.''
Rollcall 324: H.R. 4213 On Concurring in the Senate amdt with amdt
(except portion comprising section 532--``no.''
Rollcall 325: H.R. 4123 On concurring in Senate amdt with portion of
amdt comprising section 523--``no.''
Rollcall 326: H.R. 5116 First Portion of the Divided Question--
``yes.''
Rollcall 327: H.R. 5116 Second Portion of the Divided Question--
``yes.''
Rollcall 328: H.R. 5116 Sixth Portion of the Divided Question--
``yes.''
Rollcall 329: H.R. 5116 Seventh Portion of the Divided Question--
``yes.''
Rollcall 330: H.R. 5116 Eighth Portion of the Divided Question--
``yes.''
Rollcall 331: H.R. 5116 Ninth Portion of the Divided Question--
``yes.''
Rollcall 332: H.R. 5116 On Passage--``no.''
Rollcall 333: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the En Bloc Amendments, as
Modified--``yes.''
Rollcall 334: H.R. 5136 Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair--
``no.''
Rollcall 335: H.R. 5136 On Motion to Recommit with Instructions--
``yes.''
Rollcall 336: H.R. 5136 On Passage--``no.''
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE 125TH ANNIVERSARY OF OLLIE GROVE BAPTIST CHURCH
______
HON. RODNEY ALEXANDER
of louisiana
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 125th
anniversary of Ollie Grove Baptist Church in Choudrant, LA.
The church, which will celebrate this landmark anniversary on June
20, 2010, began in 1885 when a small group of men and women joined
forces. These pioneers initially held services in a brush arbor until
the first box-like frame building was constructed a year later. While
the church building has changed many times over the past century, the
church has continued to provide spiritual guidance to the Jackson
Parish community since its inception.
Today, Ollie Grove Baptist Church is led by a dynamic young Pastor
named Derric Chatman where he performs missionary outreach and works to
increase the number of young men and women believing in the Holy Father
and living a life in accordance to his word.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Ollie Grove
Baptist Church for its dedication to providing a steadfast place of
worship. Countless Sunday morning services, baptisms, weddings have
been held there, and I am confident it will continue to be a source of
Christian love and fellowship well over the next 100 years.
____________________
BALANCING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE REMEDIES IN ENHANCED CARTEL PROSECUTION
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, just before Congress left for the
Memorial Day recess, we passed and sent to the President H.R. 5330, the
Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 Extension
Act, and the President has just signed it into law. As Chairman of the
House Judiciary Committee, and sponsor of this legislation, I would
like to emphasize a few points about its importance.
The antitrust laws have been described as the Magna Carta of free
enterprise. They are a safeguard that protects the vitality of the free
market by preventing its becoming concentrated in too few hands. Just
as importantly, they protect consumers from unscrupulous businesses
that would conspire among themselves or illegally leverage market power
to charge artificially high prices and deny meaningful choice.
The worst kinds of antitrust offenses, conspiracies by competitors to
organize into cartels to cheat the marketplace of fair competition, are
rightly condemned and subject to high criminal fines and prison
sentences.
Treble damages in private rights of action are also an essential
element of vigorous antitrust enforcement. They not only compensate
consumers for harm they suffer from illegal anticompetitive activity,
they also create a powerful incentive for other market participants to
refrain from engaging in anticompetitive activity in the future.
The Department of Justice Antitrust Division's corporate leniency
program has worked well in exposing illegal price-fixing cartels and
bringing them to justice. Starting in 1993, the corporate leniency
program created incentives for participants in illegal price-fixing
cartels--provided that they weren't the ringleader--to come forward and
expose the cartel, in exchange for amnesty from criminal prosecution.
Although the program was achieving success, the Antitrust Division
recognized that the treble damages, as well as the joint and several
liability overall, to which amnesty applicants would be exposed in
related private actions was limiting the effectiveness of the program.
The party that was coming forward to expose the cartel could
potentially even be left paying damages for the entire cartel.
The Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act was passed
in 2004 to address these concerns, by limiting the civil liability of
amnesty applicants to their share of the legal responsibility, while
leaving the other cartel participants subject to joint and several
liability. In this way, Congress sought to balance the need for strong
incentives to uncover harmful, sometimes multi-billion-dollar price-
fixing cartels, without lessening the total amount of damages that
would be available to the victims in private civil actions.
By some measures, the 2004 changes have been effective. Since those
changes were made, the Antitrust Division has prosecuted some of the
biggest cartels ever detected, collecting more than $5 billion in
criminal fines.
However, concerns have arisen that some cartel members who have taken
advantage of the leniency program may be abusing the civil liability
relief by failing to cooperate fully and in a timely manner with the
cartel's victims in their civil actions. In reauthorizing the Act for
another 10 years, we are making some clarifying amendments to ensure
that the benefits to the Department of Justice's criminal cartel
enforcement program do not come at the expense of the victims.
One of the amendments revises the timely cooperation requirement. In
the original Act, Section 213(c) signaled the importance of timely
cooperation with civil claimants, but specifically required it only in
a very narrow set of prosecutions. This legislation revises section
213(c) to make it clear that this timely cooperation requirement
applies in all cases where amnesty is being sought under the leniency
program.
The legislation also creates a new Section 213(d) that clarifies the
necessary balance between public and private pursuit of price-fixing
cartels. The Department of Justice will frequently ask the court to
stay related civil claims in order to build its criminal case against
the rest of the cartel. These stays can sometimes last a year, or even
longer. As the Act makes clear, the judicious granting of these stays
is, and remains, fully in keeping with the purposes of the Act. We have
added a new section 213(d) to clarify that the obligation for timely
cooperation with civil claimants does not take effect until after the
stay is lifted, but that, once it is lifted, then the amnesty applicant
must cooperate in a prompt and timely fashion.
Section 213(d) does not include a reference to the 213(b)(3)
requirement to make available witnesses for deposition or testimony, in
recognition of the fact that, even after the stay is lifted generally,
there may be remaining sensitivities that, for a time, may make it
problematic for certain witnesses to provide interviews, depositions,
or trial testimony in connection with the private litigation without
disrupting or harming the ongoing criminal investigation. The omission
of this reference from section 213(d) is not intended to discount the
importance of cooperation with civil claimants in this regard; rather,
it reflects that these aspects of cooperation with civil claimants may
be more disruptive to the ongoing criminal investigation. Subject to
the additional temporary delays that the Antitrust Division may request
on a case-by-case basis, the timely cooperation requirement also
applies to witness availability. We expect that the Antitrust Division
and the courts will be appropriately sensitive to the needs and rights
of private claimants in this regard as well.
We are also commissioning a study by the Government Accountability
Office to consider other possible ways to improve the efficacy of the
Act, including, but not limited to, adding qui tam and whistleblower
protection provisions.
We believe these improvements further promote vigorous antitrust
enforcement for the protection of American consumers and free-market
competition.
[[Page 10533]]
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE LADY SEA WARRIORS OF HAWAII PACIFIC UNIVERSITY ON
WINNING THE NCAA DIVISION II SOFTBALL WORLD SERIES
______
HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO
of hawaii
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Lady Sea
Warriors of Hawaii Pacific University for winning their first NCAA
Division II Softball World Series title. On May 31, 2010, the Lady Sea
Warriors scored four runs in the fifth inning and held off Valdosta
State to win the title game by a score of 4-3.
I take great pride in extending my congratulations to players Chante
Tesoro, Kozy Toriano, Erin Fujita, Melissa Awa, Malia Killam, Chelsea
Luckey, Ashley Valine, Ciera Senas, Breanne Patton, Pomaikai Kalakau,
Casey Sugihara, Maile Kim, Ashley Fernandez, Nicole Morrow, Sherise
Musquiz, Laine Shikuma, Celina Garces, and Caira Pires, many of whom
hail from Hawaii's second congressional district. The hard work,
perseverance, and outstanding performance of these young women led to a
50-8 season, the most successful season in their program's history.
I would like to extend special congratulations to Ms. Musquiz, who
pitched every inning of the NCAA Division II tournament and amassed a
4-0 record, earning her Most Outstanding Player honors.
I would also like to commend head coach Bryan Nakasone and assistant
coaches Howard Okita, Roger Javillo, Jon Correles, and Richard Nomura
for their superb leadership throughout the Lady Sea Warriors' historic
season.
This has been a great year for Hawaii softball, and the Lady Sea
Warriors' victory on a national stage has generated much pride back
home. I congratulate the Lady Sea Warriors on their outstanding season
and wish the program continued success.
____________________
A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 38, U.S.C., TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS
RELATING TO THE IMMUNIZATION OF VETERANS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
______
HON. CLIFF STEARNS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing the ``Access to
Appropriate Immunizations for Veterans Act of 2010'' which I believe
would help advance the goal we all share of promoting lifelong health
for the men and women who fought for our freedom.
While the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, health care system is
doing an admirable job of caring for those who bore the burden of
combat, continual reform is needed to ensure the care veterans receive
represents the most up-to-date practices and procedures.
According to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control, CDC,
each year approximately 70,000 adult Americans die from vaccine-
preventable diseases. Influenza alone is responsible for over one
million ambulatory care visits, 200,000 hospitalizations and 30,000
deaths.
Many of our veterans who are in the ``high-risk'' category of
contracting vaccine-preventable diseases--including those with HIV,
Hepatitis C, and substance use disorder--are enrolled in the VA health
care system and could particularly benefit from receiving vaccinations.
Commendably, the VA has protocols in place that recommend vaccines as
protection against deadly viruses. However, VA only has established
performance measures for two vaccines making it unclear if protocols
are being routinely enforced for all CDC recommended vaccines.
The tremendous value performance measures have regarding the
increased utilization and effectiveness of vaccination distribution is
evidenced by VA's own application of performance measures for the
influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations. When these performance
measures were initially applied, VA saw vaccination rates rise
respectively from 27 percent and 26 percent to 77 percent and 80
percent. It also resulted in a 50 percent decline in pneumonia
hospitalization rates.
The legislation I am introducing today would expand VA performance
measures to cover all vaccinations recommended by the VA and CDC and
ensure that veterans receive appropriate immunizations at the time
suggested by the CDC. It would also require VA to report to Congress on
their progress in supporting vaccinations in the veteran population.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring
the Access to Appropriate Immunizations for Veterans Act of 2010. This
legislation would ensure that our veterans are receiving timely and
suitable access to vaccines and prevent those under the care of the VA
from being unnecessarily exposed to vaccine preventable diseases.
____________________
NORTH DAVIDSON WINS SOFTBALL TITLE WITH PERFECT SEASON
______
HON. HOWARD COBLE
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of the Sixth
District of North Carolina, we wish to extend our congratulations to
the North Davidson softball team for its perfect season culminated by
winning the North Carolina High School Athletic Association's 4-A state
softball championship. North Davidson finished as the runner-up 3 out
of the last 4 years, but this year they were able to win it all. The
championship game concluded the Black Knight's 32-game perfect season.
As a result of the tremendous athleticism of the players, the
outstanding direction of coach Mike Lambros, and the unyielding support
of the community, the Black Knights had all the components necessary to
clinch the State title. Furthermore, this was a particularly special
season for coach Lambros who celebrated his first championship after
having coached the Black Knights for 30 years.
The Black Knight's star pitcher Hannah Alexander won most valuable
player honors for her tremendous contribution to her team's success.
She only allowed two runs during the entire playoffs. This championship
game required tremendous amounts of teamwork and determination.
The championship team members included: Amelia Griffin, Allie
Nicholson, Paige Wall, Kathy Choplin, Tess Swing, Nichole Tuttle,
Jessica Plemmons, Shaundee Woosley, Lauren Grooms, Jordan Clodfelter,
Lindy Yount, Hannah Alexander, Morgan Koontz, Tori Hedrick, Courtney
Walker, Maggie McDowell, Mackenzie Hauser, Robyn Stanek, Missy Hunt,
Eliza Davis, Kayla Harrell, Lauren Beaver, Katie Vick, Samantha
Honeycutt, Lauren McNerney. Assisting head coach Mike Lambros on his
championship run were Lamar Powell, Billy Gerald, Thomas Vick, Ronnie
Plemmons, Jason Martin, Keith Stanek, Ben Lookabill, Blythe Craver,
Kendra Israel, Jerry Smith, Jason Israel, Jeff Pace, Charlie Nicholson,
and Tim Martin.
Again, on behalf of the Sixth District of North Carolina, we would
like to congratulate the North Davidson softball team, the faculty,
staff, students and fans for an outstanding season.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO LATE TOM LARDNER
______
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is with great
sorrow that I recognize the life and passing of Tom Lardner. I have
known this accomplished person for a long time. He was a visionary who
was not afraid to take risks. We have lost a great businessman, an
exceptional husband and terrific father.
Tom Lardner, born in Port Huron, Michigan earned his bachelor's
degree in business from Michigan State University. Mr. Lardner earned a
master's degree in education from Michigan State. Before beginning his
real estate career he was a coach at St. Gabriel High School football
team in East Lansing, Michigan where he also served as a history
teacher.
While running his real estate investment firm, Lehndorff USA, in
Chicago he spotted the potential of the area just north of the central
business district in Dallas, Texas. Eager to map out his plans he moved
to Dallas. He then saw his dream transforming into reality after years
of hard work with the construction of a luxury apartment building,
which would be the earliest of many.
Lardner purchased a large amount of the land surrounded by McKinney
Avenue, Pearl Street, Woodall Rodgers Freeway and North Central
Expressway for development. He also worked alongside city officials to
establish a tax increment financing district that would pay for street
improvements as well as other infrastructure improvements.
Although Lardner was known for his keen eye in real estate with the
development of the
[[Page 10534]]
Uptown area of Dallas, he was also concerned about the environment.
Lardner's support for Texas Business for Clean Air, allowed him to
oppose the fast-tracking of the coal-fired plants. Concerned that the
electric generating plants would hurt the North Texas air quality the
group strongly opposed the environmental abuse.
Madam Speaker, Tom Lardner's loss will be deeply felt among many, but
his work will not be forgotten. His caring nature and the creative
vision he possessed will live forever.
____________________
RECOGNIZING AGNES DILL FOR HER WORK ON BEHALF OF NATIVE AMERICANS
______
HON. HARRY TEAGUE
of new mexico
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. TEAGUE. Madam Speaker, it is with great honor that I congratulate
Agnes Dill for being awarded an honorary doctorate degree from the
University of New Mexico for her many years of outstanding service and
dedication to Indian Country.
Agnes earned her bachelor of arts degree in education in 1937 and
then taught at BIA schools in Oklahoma for over a decade. Along with
becoming an educator, Agnes devoted much of her time in the 1970's to
serving as an advocate for Native American people, particularly Native
American women. Agnes served as one of the founding members of the
North American Indian Women's Association and served as its President
in 1973.
All of her efforts led to Agnes being appointed by President Ford to
the National Advisory Council on Women's Education in 1975.
Not being one to rest on her laurels, Agnes took all of her knowledge
and traveled extensively through the country to set up job and talent
banks that would encourage Native American women to seek careers that
were thought of as ``non-traditional'' during the time. These efforts
encouraged Native American women to seek jobs in the fields of
medicine, law and business. All of her work was driven by one
motivating factor that she described in her own words in a recent
interview: ``Anything a man was doing, I tried to get a woman to do.''
Agnes continued to drive policy on these issues when she served on
the board of directors of Indian Pueblo Marketing, Inc., which promotes
and funds the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center. Agnes also served on the
National Advisory Committee for the White House Conference on Aging and
has extended her focus to Native American youth serving as President of
the New Mexico chapter of NAIWA and Director of New Mexico Indian
Council on Aging.
With such an amazing history as an advocate, I am very proud of her
numerous accomplishments and I'm proud to represent and honor her today
in the Congress. From her beginnings as an educator, to her national
advocacy roles, she has demonstrated how commitment to public service
for Native American communities can inspire us all to improve our own
lives and get involved with these important issues.
Even at the youthful age of 96 years old, her unwavering commitment
to advocating for improvements to Native American education and
healthcare is a great example for all of us to look to and continue her
work into the future.
____________________
REGARDING THE 90TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION OF THE NATIONAL AMERICAN
LEGION AUXILIARY
______
HON. DAN BOREN
of oklahoma
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. BOREN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of
the Vinita Post 40 unit of the American Legion Auxiliary in Oklahoma.
This year marks the 90th Anniversary Celebration of the National
American Legion Auxiliary. Although not the first such organization of
its kind, the National American Legion Auxiliary is the largest
patriotic women's service organization in the world. Its nearly one
million members are dedicated to promoting allegiance to God and
Country, supporting veterans and youth through various community
programs since 1919-1920.
The Vinita Post 40 unit was chartered on March 4, 1929 and has
proudly served its Oklahoma community, sponsoring events that include
the widely renowned Will Rogers Memorial Rodeo since its inception in
1935. I would like to congratulate the Vinita Post 40 unit and the
American Legion Auxiliary for their outstanding patriotism and
commitment to community, and today, I celebrate their achievement.
____________________
HONORING FLOYD CARSON FRISBEE FOR HIS SERVICE IN THE KOREAN WAR
______
HON. HEATH SHULER
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. SHULER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Floyd Carson
Frisbee of Iron Duff, North Carolina for his valiant service in the
United States Army. From March 1951 to March 1953, Mr. Frisbee fought
bravely on the Korean peninsula in order to protect the sovereignty of
South Korea, and the freedom of its people.
Mr. Frisbee received numerous medals for his service in Korea,
including the National Defense Service Medal, Korean Service Medal,
CIB, Combat, Medal, Occupation Medal, and the 50th Anniversary Medal.
These medals represent the courage and commitment that Mr. Frisbee
exhibited during his service in the 1st Cavalry Division.
After his service in the military, Floyd Frisbee continued to display
his strong personal character as well as a commitment to provide for
his family through 19 years of hard work at the Dayton Rubber plant.
Since his retirement Mr. Frisbee has maintained a strong attachment to
the Fruitland Baptist Bible Institute and has preached at various
churches in the community.
Madam Speaker, Floyd Carson Frisbee provided an exemplary service for
the people of our great country through his service in the Korean War.
His dedication and commitment to the United States is truly a source of
pride to Western North Carolina. I urge my colleagues to join me today
in honoring Floyd Carson Frisbee for his valiant service in the
military and the sacrifices he has made for our Nation.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS ON WINNING THE STANLEY CUP
______
HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the
Chicago Blackhawks on winning the 2010 Stanley Cup. After an incredible
season, no team is more deserving.
The Blackhawks lightening-fast pace and tremendous skill level
delivered the team the second-best league record in the regular season.
Coach Joel Quenneville guided his team masterfully through the
playoffs, where the Blackhawks defeated the Nashville Predators,
Vancouver Canucks, and San Jose Sharks to win the Clarence S. Campbell
Bowl as Western Conference champions.
Led by captain and Conn Smythe winner Jonathan Toews, who equaled the
Blackhawks single-season playoff scoring record with 29 points, the
team met the Philadelphia Flyers in the Stanley Cup finals. Each player
on the team made significant contributions as they battled the Flyers
until the overtime period of game six, where Patrick Kane notched the
series-winning goal, earning Chicago its first Stanley Cup since 1961.
As a lifelong fan of the Chicago Blackhawks, I take great pride in
congratulating the team on an incredibly thrilling season. I thank them
for bringing the Stanley Cup back to the Madhouse on Madison.
____________________
JOB CREATION
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss a very important
matter--job creation.
As I have previously mentioned, we have seen a lot of progress this
year. Our economy has created over 500,000 new jobs in 2010 alone. The
newest jobs numbers indicate that over 419,000 jobs were created last
month. As a country we are getting stronger and stronger.
While these are great statistics, we still have a long way to go.
Only 41,000 of these jobs were created in the private sector. Many of
the remaining jobs are temporary census positions. While temporary work
is better than no
[[Page 10535]]
work, our economy and my constituents need and demand permanent job
creation.
Some of this can certainly be government jobs, but our economy
thrives on job creation and development from the private sector. From
the mom and pop shop in Brooklyn to the company that hires by the
thousands--each contribute to the economy, to communities, and to
families.
Congress needs to continue to work together to enact policies that
create and encourage job creation. I urge my colleagues both in the
House and the Senate to come together on this important goal--jobs.
____________________
IN CELEBRATION OF NEW BETHEL MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH'S 85TH
ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. GARY C. PETERS
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. PETERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize New Bethel
Missionary Baptist Church on the occasion of its 85th Anniversary. As a
Member of Congress it is both my honor and privilege to recognize and
congratulate Reverend Keyon Payton and the congregation for reaching
this most impressive milestone.
New Bethel Missionary Baptist Church was founded on June 21, 1925 as
an institution rooted in spiritual fellowship and service to the
Pontiac community. From its inception, with 27 founding families and
under the leadership of Reverend J.W. Conyers, New Bethel found its
first home at 175 Branch Street, and became a beacon on a hill shinning
down upon the Pontiac community as a symbol of faith and fellowship.
The passion of New Bethel's leaders has forever been a core strength of
the Church. According to New Bethel history, Reverend William Bell sold
his own car and took the bus to deliver his sermons every week, so that
the Church could repair and expand their aging facilities. This
selfless act is one example of the deep devotion of New Bethel's
congregation and leadership to the Church's mission. New Bethel's
community-minded focus, first fully realized under the leadership of
Reverend Amos Johnson, drove the Church to become a ``Family Center,''
a pillar of charity and service in the Pontiac community.
Under New Bethel's current leader, Pastor Keyon Payton, the Church
has continued to prosper and expand upon its goals to join the Pontiac
community in spiritual fellowship and community service. Through
execution of Pastor Payton's bold vision, New Bethel reached out to
several of its neighboring congregations in collaboration to create
Camp Hosanna, a day camp for youth that provides them with a safe and
secure environment to explore all realms of education. Pastor Payton
has also been the driving force behind many new community-based
programs which New Bethel hopes to implement including an emergency
shelter for women and children in need, a community development
corporation to promote an economically vibrant and financially literate
Pontiac community, and a youth development center to guide and nurture
Pontiac's future leaders.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in celebrating
New Bethel Missionary Baptist Church's 85th Anniversary of spiritual
guidance and service to the Pontiac community. New Bethel's
congregation and leadership have left a profound impact on the Pontiac
community and have enriched the lives of many. I wish Pastor Payton,
the New Bethel leadership and the entire congregation, many more years
of vibrant spiritual fellowship and growth.
____________________
RETIREMENT FOR N. GARY ROOKE, FORMER CEO, GREATER SPRINGFIELD CREDIT
UNION, SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS
______
HON. RICHARD E. NEAL
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate
the retirement of Gary Rooke from the Greater Springfield Credit Union.
After 19 years of committed, dutiful and effective employment, I would
like to acknowledge the significant contribution made to the lives of
the credit union members and employees and would like to place this
tribute into the official record.
Mr. N. Gary Rooke joined the Greater Springfield Credit Union on
November 13, 1990, as manager/CEO and has significantly increased the
health of the credit union since his arrival. Since his start in 1990,
many services have been added to the Credit Union such as debit cards,
Roth IRAs, prime checking, online banking, bill pay, youth accounts,
overdraft protection, vacation/holiday/computer/energy loans, audio
response, member wire transfers, credit cards and development of the
East Longmeadow branch.
Mr. Rooke is also extremely involved in his community, serving 20
years at the Mountain View Baptist Church, in which he has participated
in many different ways. Gary served as the commander of Awana Youth
Program as well as a Sunday school teacher, treasurer, church building
committee, trustee and deacon. He has also been an active volunteer at
the Westfield Boys and Girls club. Mr. Rooke also serves on many
different committees which benefit the community.
On Thursday, July 17, Gary's colleagues, friends and family will
honor his legacy and thank him for his successful work on behalf of
others and join him in celebrating his retirement from the Greater
Springfield Credit Union.
Gary Rooke has been a tremendous CEO to the Greater Springfield
Credit Union in Springfield. I am proud to congratulate him on his
retirement.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. KEN CALVERT
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, June 8, 2010 was primary Election Day in
my state of California, which necessitated my remaining in my
congressional district on Tuesday, June 8, 2010, through Wednesday,
June 9, 2010. Consequently, I was unable to return in time for rollcall
votes 337 through 346.
I ask the Record to reflect that had I been present I would have
voted as follows:
1. On rollcall No. 337, I would have voted ``aye'' (June 8) (H.R.
1061, Hoh Indian Tribe Safe Homelands Act).
2. On rollcall No. 338, I would have voted ``aye'' (June 8) (H. Res.
518, Honoring the life of Jacques-Yves Cousteau, explorer, researcher,
and pioneer in the field of marine conservation).
3. On rollcall No. 339, I would have voted ``no'' (June 9) (Motion on
Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule for H.R. 5072--FHA Reform
Act of 2010 (H. Res. 1424).
4. On rollcall No. 340, I would have voted ``no'' (June 9) (On
Agreeing to the Resolution Providing for the consideration of the bill
H.R. 5072, the FHA Reform Act).
5. On rollcall No. 341, I would have voted ``no'' (June 9) (H. Res.
989--Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the
United States should adopt national policies and pursue international
agreements to prevent ocean acidification, to study the impacts of
ocean acidification, and to address the effects of ocean acidification
on marine ecosystems and coastal economies).
6. On rollcall No. 342, I would have voted ``aye'' (June 9) (H. Res.
1178--Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to compile
the cost estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget Office which
are included in reports filed by committees of the House on approved
legislation and post such estimates on the official public Internet
site of the Office of the Clerk).
7. On rollcall No. 343, I would have voted ``aye'' (June 9) (On the
Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 4173--Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act of 2009 which instructs the House Conferees to
end the culture of bailouts embedded in the bill.
8. On rollcall No. 344, I would have voted ``aye'' (June 9) (H. Res.
1330--Recognizing June 8, 2010, as World Ocean Day).
9. On rollcall No. 345, I would have voted ``aye'' (June 9) (H.R.
5278--To designate the ``President Ronald W. Reagan Post Office
Building'' in Dixon, Illinois).
10. On rollcall No. 346, I would have voted ``aye'' (June 9) (H.R.
5133--To designate the ``Staff Sergeant Frank T. Carvill and Lance
Corporal Michael A. Schwarz Post Office Building'' in Carlstadt, New
Jersey).
____________________
STATEMENT ON BUSINESS LEADERS LETTER TO CONGRESS
______
HON. AARON SCHOCK
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. SCHOCK. Madam Speaker, I was recently contacted by over 50 U.S.
Business leaders who all support an appropriate Foreign Affairs budget
which will help the U.S. stay competitive globally and ultimately
produce more jobs domestically. I am pleased to see
[[Page 10536]]
that the business community has joined a number of non-profits who have
come out in support of providing assistance abroad to help us reach our
goals at home. Please see their letter below:
Business Leaders Letter to Congress
June 8, 2010.
Dear Member of Congress: We are writing to urge your
support for the International Affairs Budget and its
important investments that help spur U.S. economic growth.
The importance of the International Affairs Budget's
development and diplomacy programs to U.S. national security
and our moral leadership is well recognized. However, the
vital role these programs play in creating American jobs and
trade is not fully appreciated.
Now more than ever, America's economy is linked with global
trade and economic growth. Over the past 40 years, trade has
tripled as a share of our national economy. Today, 1 out of 5
American jobs are tied to international trade. America's
fastest growing markets--representing roughly half of U.S.
exports--are developing countries. Export promotion programs
funded by the International Affairs Budget are essential to
expanding U.S. trade in these emerging markets and are
indispensable to reaching President Obama's goal of doubling
exports within five years.
U.S. businesses and entrepreneurs benefit significantly
from programs in the International Affairs Budget that
provide technical assistance, identify business
opportunities, and build stronger legal and economic policy
regimes that help developing countries become more reliable
trading partners. The International Affairs Budget is
critical to promoting U.S. exports, protecting intellectual
property rights, and advocating for American businesses
abroad.
The International Affairs Budget is a fundamental tool for
advancing U.S. economic and strategic interests around the
world. That is why we urge you to support the President's FY
2011 request for the International Affairs Budget.
Representing less than 1.5% of the total federal budget, it
is a smart economic investment in a stronger and more
prosperous future for American workers and businesses.
Sincerely,
Aerospace Industries Association (AIA); Amway
Corporation; Amgen; ARD; Biotechnology Industry
Organization; Boeing; Business Council for
International Understanding; Business Roundtable;
Campbell Soup Company; Cargill; Caterpillar; Chevron;
Cisco Systems; Inc.; Citigroup; Coalition for
Employment through Exports; Computer and Communications
Industry Association; Corporate Council on Africa;
Creative Associates International; DAI; DHL; DuPont;
Eli Lilly and Company; FMC Corporation; General
Electric Corporation; GlaxoSmithKline; Google; John
Deere; Johnson & Johnson; Kraft Foods; Land O'Lakes;
Lockheed Martin Corporation; Mars; Microsoft; Motorola;
National Foreign Trade Council; National Retail
Federation; Northrop Grumman Corporation; Pioneer Hi-
Bred International; Pfizer; Procter & Gamble; PhRMA;
Raytheon; RTI; Seaboard Corporation; Thales USA; Inc.;
United Technologies Corporation; UPS; U.S. Chamber of
Commerce; U.S.-Russia Business Council; Wal-Mart;
Xerox.
____________________
WHITE HOUSE HEALTH CARE PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN
_____
HON. TOM PRICE
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise to submit to the
Congressional Record the following opinion piece by former Speaker of
the House Newt Gingrich and Nancy Desmond, CEO at the Center for Health
Transformation. Their piece focuses on the Obama administration's
latest attempt to sell the recently enacted health care reform law to
senior citizens. The administration has embarked on its public
relations tour after numerous reports detailing that the new health
care law will reduce quality, raise costs, and limit choices for
America's seniors.
In the run-up to passing their government takeover of health care,
Congressional Democrats and the Obama administration blatantly ignored
the voices of the American people and rammed through a hyper-partisan
piece of legislation that will have a disastrous effect on our nation's
health care system. That they are now choosing to mount a propaganda
campaign at taxpayer expense to convince Americans that they should
embrace these new, unwelcome disruptions and government intrusions, the
Democrats show how out-of-touch they continue to be with the majority
of Americans.
I encourage my colleagues to read the following fact check on the
administration's claims. Our senior citizens deserve to know the truth
about the effects of ObamaCare.
[From the Investors Business Daily, June 8, 2010]
Seniors Must Scrutinize Medicare Mailer
(By Newt Gingrich and Nancy Desmond)
As weeks turned to months during the Great Debate over what
to do about health care this past year, President Obama made
one solemn pledge to the nation and its seniors:
He said health care would not add one dime to the deficit.
And if all of us liked our doctor, we would get to keep our
doctor.
Fast-forward almost 90 days after the passage of ObamaCare
and the attitude of most Americans to that pledge is: ``Prove
it.''
In the past two weeks, the Obama administration has been
trying to stem the tide of skepticism toward its health care
law with a new mailer sent directly to the nation's seniors,
titled ``Medicare and the New Health Care Law--What it Means
for You.''
Problem is, for anyone who has paid attention during the
past 12 months, the message about the biggest government
expansion into health care in our lifetime just doesn't add
up.
Let's contrast fact from fiction and the language used in
the new flier:
``The Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and signed by
President Obama this year will provide you and your family
greater savings and increased quality of care.''
Fact: Most Americans will pay higher insurance premiums,
according to the Congressional Budget Office. And more than
10 million seniors will see reduced benefits under their
private Medicare Advantage plans. Overall quality will
decline as fewer doctors take on Medicare patients.
``Your guaranteed Medicare benefits won't change--whether
you get them through Original Medicare or a Medicare
Advantage plan.''
Fact: Medicare Advantage, a private option in Medicare,
will be cut by $136 billion. On April 22, the chief actuary
for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported
that half of all seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage would
lose their coverage under the new health care bill by 2017.
The guarantee that benefits won't change isn't a guarantee at
all for millions of seniors who prefer using private
insurance companies that provide their Medicare coverage.
``Your choice of doctors will be preserved.''
Fact: Cuts to Medicare will total nearly $500 billion,
hitting hospitals, home health providers, physicians and
more. Doctors throughout the country have seen their Medicare
payments reduced in recent years and expect more cuts in the
future because of ObamaCare.
A February survey by three national neurosurgeon groups,
for example, showed that 50% of neurosurgeons were reducing
the number of Medicare patients they were accepting into
their practice. The Mayo Clinic in Arizona has also started
turning away Medicare patients. Other physicians are
following suit. How is this preserving a senior's choice of
doctors?
``If you're hospitalized, the new law also helps you return
home successfully and avoid going back--by helping to
coordinate your care and connecting you to services and
supports in your community.''
Fact: This is traditionally known as ``home health care''--
a program that helps treat patients at home for a short
period. But in the ObamaCare plan, home health care will be
cut by $40 billion. Another contradiction in terms.
Last fall, the federal government launched an investigation
into Humana for sending letters to seniors who were customers
of the Medicare Advantage program during the health care
debate.
It urged them to contact their congressman or senator
because of the then-proposed cuts to the program. Under
threat of shutting down the insurance company's contract with
Medicare, Humana was told to stop sending such information
out to its customers.
Yet today, we have the federal government offering its spin
and fabrication on ObamaCare with no one holding it
accountable. It is trying to convince seniors that despite
almost half a trillion dollars in cuts, the new law
``preserves and strengthens Medicare.'' Precious tax dollars
are being spent on a public relations campaign to try to
convince seniors that ObamaCare will keep ``Medicare strong
and solvent.''
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Record numbers of baby boomers will start retiring this
year and draw Social Security benefits and sign up for
Medicare. They are smart enough to understand that ObamaCare
is not a good deal for their golden years. A four-page
brochure will not change their minds either. It will take
more for this administration to ``prove it'' than a glossy,
four-page pamphlet.
Gingrich, former speaker of the House, is founder of the
Center for Health Transformation. Desmond is the center's
CEO.
[[Page 10537]]
____________________
WORLD CANNOT TURN A BLIND EYE TO IRAN'S REPRESSION OF ITS OWN PEOPLE
_____
HON. FRANK R. WOLF
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, a recent Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
(RFE/RL) article featured comments from Iranian-American journalist
Roxana Saberi who spent 100 days in Iran's notorious Evin prison
between February and May 2009 on espionage charges.
Saberi indicated that the day of her release was bittersweet, saying,
``As they drove me away, I remember turning my head to the side and
seeing the prison disappear behind me. And finally, I cried . . . I
realized, however, that my tears were not just tears of joy, but they
were also tears of sorrow for the many innocent prisoners I was leaving
behind. Why was I freed while all these others are still there?''
Among those she was leaving behind were the two female Baha'i leaders
who have been in jail for more than two years on baseless charges--
Fariba Kamalabadi and Mahvash Sabet.
There are news reports that these two, in addition to the five male
Baha'i leaders, are scheduled to have their fourth court session on
Saturday, June 12--the same day as the anniversary of Iran's deeply
flawed presidential election.
The RFE/RL article continues, ``Saberi believes the media attention
and international support she received during her ordeal led to her
release.''
Saberi's comments are consistent with the reflections of dissidents
dating back to the Cold War. Time and again those who are unjustly
languishing in prison have reported that their lives improved in
captivity when President Reagan and others raised their cases by name.
And in some instances, their freedom followed soon thereafter.
The U.S. and the rest of the free world must continue to speak with
one voice about the deplorable human rights situation in Iran. We must
continue to advocate for due process and a fair trial for these seven
Baha'i leaders and for basic rights for the community as a whole which
according to the recently released report of the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom, ``has long been subject to
particularly severe religious violations in Iran.''
The world cannot turn a blind eye to this regime's brutal repression
of its own people.
____________________
ENROLLED JOINT RESOLUTION 3 OF THE SIXTIETH LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF
WYOMING
______
HON. CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS
of wyoming
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, I rise to commend the State of Wyoming
for enacting a resolution in support of the 10th Amendment to the
Constitution. Enrolled Joint Resolution 3 of the Sixtieth Legislature
of the State of Wyoming demands that Congress cease and desist from
enacting mandates that are beyond the enumerated powers granted to the
Congress by the United States Constitution.
This resolution joins a groundswell of support across America for a
return to the federalist principles in our Constitution. I am proud to
insert this resolution into the Congressional Record on behalf of the
people of Wyoming.
Citizens, businesses and States across the country are bracing for
the impact of the heavy handed government mandates in President Obama's
healthcare plan. Momentum persists among some in Congress for
additional federal mandates, taxes, and regulations that will burden
State budgets and put entrepreneurs in Main Street America out of
business.
There is another way. Our nation's founders left us a recipe for
freedom and opportunity in our Constitution, under which the people of
the United States consented to a government with limited powers. As
stated in the 10th Amendment, all powers not given to the federal
government by the Constitution are reserved for the States and the
people. I have co-founded in the House of Representatives a 10th
Amendment Task Force to advance the principles of federalism and
disperse power back to States, local governments and individuals.
Before coming to Washington, I spent my entire adult life dealing
with State issues--as a rancher, as a State legislator, and as State
Treasurer. I am now astounded by the kinds of issues Members of
Congress feel are appropriate for federal intervention.
States know their people better. They know their issues better. Let's
return to States what States do best and maintain a strong limited
government in Washington to do what it does best--securing the freedom,
strength and integrity of this country.
____________________
OUR UNCONSCIONABLE NATIONAL DEBT
______
HON. MIKE COFFMAN
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today our national debt is
$13,046,148,615,770.79.
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 $2,407,722,869,476.99
so far this Congress.
This debt and its interest payments we are passing to our children
and all future Americans.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO CHIEF STEVEN FOSTER IN RECOGNITION OF HIS 20 YEARS OF
SERVICE
______
HON. DANIEL E. LUNGREN
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to
recognize and honor Fire Chief Steven Foster for his 20 years of
service to the Cosumnes Community Services District as he now retires.
The Cosumnes CSD serves an estimated 169,000 south Sacramento County
residents in a 157-square mile area. Its award-winning parks and
recreation services--including the operation of 83 CSD parks--operate
exclusively within the Elk Grove community. It provides fire protection
and emergency medical services for the cities of Elk Grove and Galt and
unincorporated areas of south Sacramento County.
Foster, in addition to his duties as Cosumnes Fire Chief, has been an
officer in the California Fire Chiefs Association and has been serving
as chair of its legislative committee this year.
Over the years, Chief Foster became the Fire Marshal and ushered in
new fire codes. Rising to the rank of Deputy Fire Chief, he was
responsible for the Department budget and guided the purchase of
numerous properties for future fire stations, managed the construction
of Fire Station 72 in Franklin Reserve, and renovated and expanded
Station 74 in Laguna.
Foster is a past President of the Sacramento County Fire Marshals and
Fire Chiefs Associations. He also has been active in the Elk Grove
Rotary Club.
Steven Foster is on the executive board for the Sacramento Area Fire
Chaplaincy. He is a member of the Elk Grove Rotary Club, and is a past
president for both the Sacramento County Fire Chiefs Association and
Sacramento County Fire Marshals Association.
I am pleased to recognize and congratulate Steven Foster on his
retirement for his dedication to our community.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF BUILDON'S COMMITMENT TO EMPOWERING YOUTH TO BECOME
LOCAL AND GLOBAL LEADERS IN SERVICE TO THEIR COMMUNITIES
______
HON. GARY C. PETERS
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. PETERS. Madam Speaker I rise today to recognize the Detroit Area
Region chapter of buildOn, on the occasion of its 2010 recognition
banquet. buildOn is a national organization dedicated to empowering
youth to serve communities locally and globally. As a Member of
Congress, it is both my honor and privilege to recognize the Detroit
Area Region chapter of buildOn for its laudable contributions to my
district, our state, and communities around the world.
[[Page 10538]]
The Detroit Area buildOn program, formerly known as ``Building with
Books,'' began in 1992 with the establishment of its first chapter at
Jackson Lumen Christi High School. This school was chosen for buildOn's
first program because it is the alma mater of Jim Ziolkowski, the
founder and now President & CEO of buildOn. The region has grown over
the years to host 14 programs in high schools across the Detroit metro
area, including three chapters in my congressional district,
transforming the lives of over two hundred students a year. The
students of buildOn make a positive difference in our community and in
the lives of people around the world.
This year, buildOn's students in the Detroit Area have committed to
over twenty thousand hours of community service and raised over $42,000
to build schools in developing nations. In fact, since the inception of
the program in the Detroit Area, buildOn students have volunteered over
one hundred and sixteen thousand hours and raised over $147,000 for
charitable causes. buildOn students volunteer across the metro area for
organizations including the Detroit Veterans Center, the Detroit Zoo,
Gleaners Food Bank, Boys and Girls Clubs, the Baldwin Center, and a
host of other deserving charities. In addition to local volunteerism,
the members of buildOn embark on global trips to places such as
Nicaragua, Mali, India, Haiti, Malawi and Senegal to participate in
cultural exchanges and live with host families, while they work with
the local community to build new schools. Since 2001, over one thousand
students have traveled to developing countries to help build over sixty
schools. This global perspective and volunteerism exemplifies the
values of the buildOn program and its mission of, ``Enhancing education
and empowering youth in the U.S. to make a positive difference in their
communities while helping people of developing countries increase their
self-reliance through education.''
Madam Speaker, in these challenging times, it is the work of
dedicated volunteers like the students and staff of buildOn that brings
hope to my local community and communities around the world. I look
forward to the continued success of the Detroit Area buildOn chapter in
all of its future endeavors, as well as many more years of inspiring
support for our community and communities around the world.
____________________
HONORING PHYLLIS WEBER
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Phyllis
Weber upon her retirement as the Principal of El Portal School and
Yosemite Park High School. After thirty-two years in education, Ms.
Weber will be honored at a retirement party in El Portal, California on
Thursday, June 10, 2010.
Ms. Weber received her Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology from the
University of Dayton in Ohio and her Master of Arts degree in
environmental and outdoor education from San Francisco State
University. After three years as an environmental investigator for the
Environmental Protection Agency, she became an instructor for the
Yosemite Institute starting in January 1976. The Yosemite Institute is
one of the nation's leading environmental education organizations
dedicated to bringing school age children to Yosemite where they have
an opportunity to experience and learn about the majestic place. Ms.
Weber became known as a dynamic naturalist and teacher who had an
amazing ability to connect with her students, a trait that carried
forward throughout her career. At the Yosemite Institute she also met
Mr. Art Baggett, a fellow instructor, and now her husband of more than
thirty years.
In 1978, Ms. Weber began teaching first, second and third grades at
El Portal Elementary School. She has also taught courses for a
wilderness program for the Saratoga/Los Gatos High School District,
winter ecology for Antioch College, mountain ecology for the University
of California at Santa Cruz, Yosemite Natural History for the College
of Marin and various college courses for the Yosemite Institute.
As the principal of Yosemite National Park's El Portal School and
Yosemite Park High School since 2000, Ms. Weber has gracefully inspired
teachers, staff and students to perform at high levels, as confirmed
annually by the high test scores at the El Portal School. She has an
uncanny ability to see the potential in her students and to draw them
out in a way that helps them fulfill their potential. She has also
developed a very positive reputation for her community through her
school's ability to communicate with, and educate, Spanish-speaking
students while making them feel welcome and part of the community.
Ms. Weber's hallmark has been her enthusiasm to encourage new and
innovative programs proposed by her teachers, students and parents and
to actively seek creative ways to fund these programs. She has become a
master at working within school district budgets and has diligently
travelled with the district office to Mariposa, Sacramento and
Washington, D.C. to support her budget, as well as working closely with
parents and the local community on fundraising and support.
In addition to her professional endeavors, Ms. Weber has been very
involved in public service and her family has been an integral part of
the Yosemite community for several generations. As part of her public
service, Ms. Weber was elected to the Board of Trustees for the
Yosemite Natural History Association in November 1979 and she began her
service on January 26, 1980. For the past thirty years she has served
on the Board for the Yosemite Natural History Association, the Yosemite
Association and now the Yosemite Conservancy, where she is currently
the chair of the education and programs committee. In this role, Ms.
Weber and her family share their deep passion for Yosemite and Mariposa
County.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and congratulate Principal
Phyllis Weber upon her retirement from El Portal School and Yosemite
Park High School. I invite my colleagues to join me in wishing Ms.
Weber many years of continued success.
____________________
HONORING STURGIS, MICHIGAN
______
HON. FRED UPTON
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the
city of Sturgis, Michigan and its trademark patriotic summer festival
that is currently under way. While the name of the festival has changed
throughout the years, this year's inaugural ``Sturgis Dam Days'' will
surely foster lasting memories for the multitude of generations that
look forward to the annual festival.
The 6-day festival brings the entire community together to celebrate
the city's rich history and pay special tribute to the Sturgis Dam,
which will celebrate its 100th anniversary in 2011.
The hydroelectric dam transmits electricity 18 miles to the Sturgis
Municipal Power Plant, giving Sturgis the moniker of the ``Electric
City.'' While the dam generates power for the town, ask most folks
about it and they will highlight the postcard-perfect views of the dam:
the flowing St. Joseph River and the surrounding scenes at the adjacent
Covered Bridge Park.
This year's Sturgis Dam Days festival includes a variety of events
throughout the week for all to enjoy. The Sturgis Chamber of Commerce
kicked off the festival by welcoming the community for dinner and the
St. Joseph Sheriff's Department transformed into the Pony Express in
period clothing to give the official proclamation to commence the
celebration. Events throughout the week include an art fair; the
American Legion Hog Roast; ``Experience Sturgis,'' a history walk
through the city; a family picnic in Franks Park; a vintage Sturgis
Biscuits baseball game; the Relay for Life at Sturgis High School; a
parade down US-I2; and the culminating event, the Sturgis Dam Rodeo.
The festival has been a beacon of economic activity and growth
through the years, and continues to draw countless families to the
region each year.
I congratulate the city of Sturgis and all of its residents for
sharing such a wonderful community event. Through the years the annual
festival has become woven into the fabric of the lives of so many folks
throughout southwest Michigan. Sturgis has such a rich heritage and
offers so much to the region's families. I look forward to the
festival's continued success with many more Sturgis Dam Day
celebrations for years to come.
____________________
HONORING CHARLOTTE ``CHUCKIE'' HOLSTEIN
______
HON. DANIEL B. MAFFEI
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. MAFFEI. Madam Speaker, I stand today to congratulate Charlotte
``Chuckie'' Holstein on being honored as the First Annual F.O.C.U.S.
Greater Syracuse Wisdom Keeper Award recipient. She has been an active
[[Page 10539]]
member of the Central New York community, and for that I am very
thankful.
Chuckie is the founder of many organizations serving the people of
Central New York, including F.O.C.U.S. Greater Syracuse, Leadership
Greater Syracuse, Youth Leadership Greater Syracuse, the Syracuse/
Onondaga County Citizens Academy, the Syracuse Commission for Women,
Meals on Wheels, and the City/County Office of the Aging.
She has served the Central New York area as the Chair of Loretto, a
Member of the Central New York District Board for Key Bank, a trustee
of Cazenovia College and the Manlius Pebble Hill School, Chair of
Advisory boards for the School of Social Work and College For Human
Development of Syracuse University and a Member of the College at
Brockport Foundation.
Chuckie has also served her state, her nation, her faith and the
world in a number of initiatives dealing with social justice, world
peace and women's issues.
In closing, I'd like to express my appreciation for all of the hard
work she has done. Please join me in congratulating Charlotte
``Chuckie'' Holstein on being honored with the First Annual F.O.C.U.S.
Greater Syracuse Wisdom Keeper Award.
____________________
INDIAN AMERICAN CULTURAL CENTER BHARATIYA TEMPLE GRAND OPENING
______
HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, it is with great honor and pleasure
that I stand before you today to recognize the Indian American Cultural
Center of Northwest Indiana as they celebrate the grand opening of the
Bharatiya Temple of Northwest Indiana. They will be commemorating the
event with the religious and historic tradition of Maha
Kumbhabhishekam. This event will take place over three days, from
Friday, June 18, 2010 to Sunday, June 20, 2010, at the Bharatiya Temple
of Northwest Indiana in Merrillville.
The Indian American Cultural Center of Northwest Indiana opened on
March 9, 2002, and operates as ``a place to preserve, nourish, and
advance the Indian culture, heritage, religious values, and social
values.'' In order to continue to advance the teachings and culture of
the Indian American people and the Hindu religion, the members of the
Indian American Cultural Center decided to expand the existing building
and to give the community a legacy in the form of the truly glorious
Bharatiya Temple of worship. The Indian American community will be
celebrating Maha Kumbhabhishekam, which is a Hindu tradition performed
when a new Temple is built and installed with new deities (Gods or
Goddesses). Many religious rituals of the Hindu religion will be
performed during the celebration which will sanctify the beloved
Bharatiya Temple of Northwest Indiana. It is a Hindu belief that taking
part and witnessing a Maha Kumbhabhishekam is a lifetime blessing.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you and my distinguished colleagues join me
in honoring the Indian American Cultural Society of Northwest Indiana
and its congregation as they celebrate the opening of the Bharatiya
Temple of Northwest Indiana and observe the religious and historic
tradition of Maha Kumbhabhishekam. Through their words and teachings,
this honorable organization shares with us the rich culture and
tradition of the Indian American people as well as the traditions of
the Hindu religion.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION ANNIE & AVERY GRANT
______
HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 50th
anniversary of the marriage of Annie and Avery Grant, both exemplary
and active members of their community. A simple glance at their
dedication to civil service in Monmouth County, New Jersey uncovers a
long history of local works and an extraordinary drive to improve the
state in all aspects of public life. On the day of their golden
anniversary, Annie and Avery Grant are indisputably worthy of this
body's recognition.
Annie Grant was born Annie Williams in New York City on October 27,
1935, and has been recognized as a New Jersey State Notary Public for
her many years of tireless service in professional and public life. In
1991, Mrs. Grant was appointed Commissioner on the Monmouth County
Board of Taxation, a position she held for 17 years until she retired
in 2008. She was the first African-American to hold this position in
Monmouth County. Mrs. Grant's accomplishments extend far beyond this
office, however, as she has also led a long life of involvement in
local politics. In addition to being the 1989 Democratic candidate for
Monmouth County Clerk, Mrs. Grant has been the Long Branch Democratic
Club's treasurer for 30 years, and was named Woman of the Year in
Politics in 1992. Her intelligence and breadth of knowledge is what led
me to invite her to speak about Social Security reform at the
Democratic Congressional Roundtable in 2005.
Avery Grant was born on July 9, 1933 in Memphis, Tennessee, and has
led a prolific life of public works. A Vietnam Veteran, Mr. Grant is a
retired Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Signal Corps, as well as a
Professional Engineer, formerly with East Orange and the New York
Transit Authority. Additionally, he is tirelessly active in the
community of Long Branch, from serving on the Board of Education for
over 12 years running to co-founding and editing the Community
Newspaper, a bi-weekly, Monmouth County African-American newspaper. He
has also been involved in over eight Monmouth County organizations,
including but not limited to the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, the
NAACP, and EXODUS, a halfway house focusing on substance abuse. His
avid dedication to the city of Long Branch and Monmouth County landed
him a spot on The City News' list of ``100 Most Influential in New
Jersey.''
These remarkable individuals married on June 12, 1960. They have two
children, Adrianne and Avery Jr., and seven grandchildren. Their
ability to maintain a beautiful, loving family in concert with their
incredible efforts in their community is an inspiration to us all. They
are valued members of their communities and a credit to the state of
New Jersey.
____________________
ANNIVERSARY OF IRAN'S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
______
HON. MARK STEVEN KIRK
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, June 12th will mark the one-year anniversary
of the fraudulent presidential elections in Iran. In the wake of street
protests that followed, human rights in Iran have gravely deteriorated.
On this day, we must remember the dozens of courageous individuals
murdered by this brutal regime and the hundreds of others detained
without legal recourse. We must remember Neda Agha Soltan, the innocent
young woman slain by the Basij militia.
The post-election crackdown fully exposed the Iranian regime's
continuing oppression of political dissidents as well as religious and
ethnic minorities.
In the spring of 2008, seven leaders of the Baha'i community were
arrested and detained in Tehran's notorious Evin prison on charges of
``spreading corruption on earth,'' among other outrageous falsehoods.
They have been incarcerated for 20 months before a show trial can even
commence. Moreover, according to the U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom, as many as 45 members of the Baha'i community are
currently imprisoned in Iran solely on the basis of their religious
identity.
The fourth court appearance of the Baha'i leaders is scheduled for
June 12 to coincide with the one-year anniversary of the stolen
election.
The cynicism of the Iranian regime knows no bounds.
It is time that the United States and the international community
hold Iran accountable for denying the fundamental freedoms to its
people.
Yesterday, in commenting on the passed UN Security Council resolution
on the Iranian nuclear program, the President stated that ``whether it
is threatening the nuclear non-proliferation regime, or the human
rights of its own citizens, or the stability of its own neighbors by
supporting terrorism, the Iranian government continues to demonstrate
that its own unjust actions are a threat to justice everywhere.''
I agree with the President. His words should now be followed with
action. We must raise the stakes for the Iranian leadership to cease
its human rights abuses and abide by the rules of the international
community.
This Administration needs to prioritize human rights as a focal point
of its Iran policy. American diplomats should continually raise the
issue of human rights in Iran. We must urge our international allies to
use their bilateral relationships and diplomatic missions in Tehran to
call for the release of Iranian dissidents, religious minorities, and
other prisoners of conscience.
[[Page 10540]]
Most importantly, the President should speak publicly and directly to
the Iranian people that the United States will never abandon them in
their struggle for freedom and fundamental human rights.
____________________
INTRODUCING THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION AND IMPROVEMENT
ACT
______
HON. BOB GOODLATTE
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague Rep.
Holden in introducing the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and
Improvement Act.
The Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the U.S., is an incredibly
complex ecosystem that includes important habitats and is a cherished
part of our American heritage. The Bay Watershed includes all types of
land uses, from intensely urban areas, spread out suburban development
and diverse agricultural practices. But unquestionably the Bay is in
need and worthy of our attention and concern and I believe everyone has
a role to play in restoring it.
I have long worked with my colleagues here in Congress to find ways
to protect and restore the Bay. In fact, Mr. Holden and I worked very
hard with the other members of the Agriculture Committee to establish a
mechanism and a funding source in the 2008 farm bill for addressing
issues related to protecting the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The farm
bill provided unprecedented incentive-based funding to help farmers and
ranchers improve management practices, which would directly result in
improving water quality in the Bay. We must now continue in our efforts
to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay by reauthorizing the
Chesapeake Bay Program.
There are other proposals to reauthorize the Bay Program. The goal of
all involved is the same, the continued health and vitality of the Bay,
but the map to that health and vitality is being strongly debated.
Unfortunately, proposals like the Presidential Executive Order, and
legislation that would codify this order, would force more mandates and
overzealous regulations on all of those who live, work, and farm in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed. This strategy will limit economic growth and
unfairly overregulate our local economies. My colleagues and I
recognized that we must form a proposal that does not pit the health of
the bay against the strength and vitality of our local communities and
that is why we rise today to introduce the Chesapeake Bay Program
Reauthorization and Improvement Act.
Instead of overregulation and intrusion into the lives and
livelihoods of those who choose to make the Bay Watershed their home,
our legislation allows States and communities more flexibility in
meeting water quality goals so that we can help restore and protect our
natural resources. Our bill sets up new programs to give farmers,
homebuilders, and localities new ways to meet their water quality
goals. This includes preserving current intrastate nutrient trading
programs that many Bay states already have in place, while also
creating a voluntary interstate nutrient trading program. Additionally,
this bill creates a voluntary assurance program for farmers. The
program will deem farmers to be fully in compliance with their water
quality requirements as long as they have undertaken appropriate
conservation activities to comply with State and federal water quality
standards.
Also, our bill makes sure that the agencies are using common sense
when regulating water quality goals for localities. Our legislation
requires the regulators to take into account the availability, cost,
effectiveness, and appropriateness of practices, techniques, or methods
in meeting water quality goals. This will ensure that localities are
not being mandated to achieve a reduction in nutrient levels by a
prescribed date, when no technology exists to achieve that reduction
within that timeline.
While our bill does a lot to improve water quality, we also call for
more oversight over the Chesapeake Bay Program. For over 3 decades
Congress has been working to preserve and protect the Chesapeake Bay.
Despite the efforts of the federal, State, and local governments, the
health of the Bay is still in peril. The participants in restoring the
Bay include 10 federal agencies, six states and the District of
Columbia, over one thousand localities and multiple nongovernmental
organizations. This legislation would fully implement two cutting-edge
management techniques, crosscut budgeting and adaptive management, to
enhance coordination, flexibility and efficiency of restoration
efforts. Neither technique is currently required or fully utilized in
the Bay restoration efforts, where results have lagged far behind the
billions of dollars spent. Further, this bill calls for a review of the
EPA's Bay model. We often hear complaints from those who make good
faith efforts to restore the Bay that their efforts are not being
recognized by EPA's Bay model. EPA's model does not account for any
voluntary measures being undertaken on farms to control nitrogen and
phosphorous nor does it even account for some of the nitrogen and
phosphorous reductions that are being achieved through government
programs like USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Effectively, EPA is ignoring nutrient reductions that have already been
achieved. Our legislation requires that an independent evaluator assess
and make recommendations to alter EPA's Bay model, so that we can
develop a model that will capture all of the nutrient reductions that
are happening in the Bay.
Madam Speaker, the people who call the Bay Watershed home are the
ones who are the most concerned about protecting and restoring the
Chesapeake Bay. Unfortunately, too often these hardworking individuals
are cast as villains and placed in a position where restoring the Bay
is pitted against the economic livelihoods of their communities. We can
restore the Bay while also maintaining the economic livelihood of these
communities. The Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Improvement
Act is the way we can do both. I look forward to working with my
colleagues in the Congress, so that we can pass this important
legislation and work to restore the Chesapeake Bay.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE FIFTY-THIRD NATIONAL PUERTO RICAN DAY PARADE
______
HON. JOSE E. SERRANO
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise
today to pay tribute to the Fifty-Third National Puerto Rican Day
Parade, which will be held on June 13, 2010, in New York City. A
radiant and star-studded event, this parade proudly recognizes the
heritage of Puerto Rican people here in the United States, and year
upon year has proven to be one of our nation's largest outdoor
festivities.
The National Puerto Rican Day Parade is the successor to the New York
Puerto Rican Day Parade, which held its inaugural celebration on
Sunday, April 12th, 1958, in ``El Barrio,'' Manhattan. The impact of
the first Puerto Rican Day Parade in New York was immediate and
resounding. Thousands of New York Puerto Ricans flooded the streets in
a very public, very proud demonstration of their emergence in the city
as an important and growing ethnic group. For the next 38 years, the
New York Puerto Rican Day Parade became a staple of New York's cultural
life. In 1995, the overwhelming success of the parade prompted
organizers to increase its size and transform it into the national and
international affair that it is today.
On June 13 delegates representing over thirty states, including
Alaska and Hawaii, will join the roughly 3 million parade goers every
year who turn New York's Fifth Avenue into a sea of traditional red,
white, and blue flags. It's a picture unlike anything you will see
anywhere else in the country. Not only because New York is the most
international city in the world, but also because of the relationship
that exists between New York and the Puerto Rican community. It's an
historic relationship essentially born of mutual benefit and respect.
Puerto Ricans have helped transform New York into a dynamic, bilingual
city that continues to welcome newcomers from all over the globe, and
the city of New York, believed by many to be a place of opportunity,
has enabled Puerto Ricans to flourish economically, culturally and
politically.
The success that the parade enjoys each year is brought about in
large measure by the continued efforts of a choice few individuals--
women and men of able leadership who believe, as I do, in the unbound
potential of people of Puerto Rican descent. The Parade's march up
Fifth Avenue, while certainly the most visible aspect of the
celebration, is hardly the only event associated with the National
Puerto Rican Day Parade, Inc.'s activities. Each year more than 10,000
people attend a variety of award ceremonies, banquets and cultural
events that strengthen the special relationship shared by Puerto Ricans
and the city of New York.
Madam Speaker, the National Puerto Rican Day Parade is an experience
unlike any other. It signals to all who witness it that the Puerto
Rican community, both in New York and nationally, represents an
exquisite tapestry of individuals. Its power can be seen on the faces
[[Page 10541]]
and heard in the streets, as millions come together to joyously
proclaim their heritage. And so, Madam Speaker, as a Puerto Rican and a
New Yorker, and as someone who participates in this parade annually, I
stand before you and my colleagues in Congress with a full and proud
heart to pay tribute to the sights and sounds and wonder that is the
National Puerto Rican Day Parade.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE ON ITS 40TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. JOHN W. OLVER
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Hampshire College
for opening its doors and welcoming its first students 40 years ago
tomorrow.
The Pioneer Valley of Western Massachusetts is home to the Five
College Consortium, which includes three private liberal arts colleges,
Amherst, Mount Holyoke and Smith; the state's flagship public
university campus, the University of Massachusetts Amherst; and a
progressive institution of higher education, Hampshire College. For 40
years now, the Consortium has served as a vehicle for collaboration and
resource sharing across all five campuses, including broadening access
to higher education and unsurpassed academic excellence. This structure
encourages the use of a vast curriculum, faculty and resources, and
presents each student with a richer and fuller educational experience.
Hampshire College was founded within this consortial setting to offer
an original education in which students design their own course of
study in close consultation with faculty mentors. Hampshire's
educational approach emphasizes individual choice and development, and
its pedagogical cornerstone is an inquiry-based mode of teaching and
learning. Just as it attracts talented and intellectually ambitious
students, Hampshire appeals to faculty who are excited to experiment
with new methods of teaching, and are keen to co-teach with their
colleagues.
Rather than being characterized by traditional, discipline-based
departments, Hampshire College has five academic schools: the School of
Cognitive Science; Interdisciplinary Arts; Humanities, Arts and
Cultural Studies; Natural Science; and the School of Critical Social
Inquiry. Each school develops an innovative curriculum, which is
project-based and immediately challenges students with current problems
in the research literature. Research and teaching at Hampshire tend to
work across discipline-based boundaries, as faculty and students
collaborate to grapple with problems from a range of perspectives, with
an eye toward community impact, social justice, and the well-being of
others. Team teaching and interdisciplinary research serve as the basis
for collaboration and reflect a remarkable degree of creativity. A low
student-faculty ratio (12:1) allows for an emphasis on individualized
and small group training, where faculty research and artistic
expression is fully integrated into coursework, inviting each class
into the process of intellectual and artistic discovery.
Within this mission--and wherever possible--Hampshire students ask
questions that motivate their undergraduate years. Careful mentoring at
Hampshire has shown to inspire and motivate students beyond the
classroom, often resulting in students continuing their education at
the graduate level, and indeed, culminating in rewarding careers.
I am honored to represent this fine institution of higher learning.
Please join me in congratulating Hampshire College as it continues to
define and communicate its extraordinary mission for the next
generations of students, their families and the general public.
____________________
HONORING DR. JOSEPH W. BASCUAS, INTERIM PRESIDENT OF BECKER COLLEGE,
WORCESTER, MA
______
HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Dr. Joseph W.
Bascuas for his accomplishments as Becker College interim president and
for his dedication to quality higher education.
Becker College, located in Worcester and Leicester, Massachusetts,
serves more than 1,700 students from 18 states and 12 countries, and
offers over 25 diverse, first-quality bachelor degree programs in
unique, high-demand career niches. Born in Cuba, he shares my
dedication to improving relations with Latin America. Dr. Bascuas
utilized his great volume of experience and passion for quality higher
education and strong relationships in his role as Becker College
interim president.
The Becker College Board of Trustees named Dr. Bascuas as interim
president on September 26, 2008. Dr. Bascuas gave his leadership and
support to the Becker College community in various ways during his
tenure. He brought more than 25 years of experience in higher education
to Becker College.
Prior to serving as interim president at Becker College, Dr. Bascuas
served as president of Medaille College, Buffalo, NY, a private
institution that offers undergraduate and graduate degrees, from 2002
through 2006. Dr. Bascuas successfully took Medaille through an
accreditation and strategic planning; completed a $2.4 million capital
campaign; nearly doubled revenue and undergraduate freshman to
sophomore retention; and increased overall and undergraduate enrollment
as well as the number of resident students. As founding president
Argosy University Atlanta, GA campus, Bascuas spent 12 years with the
Argosy Education Group. During his tenure, the Argosy corporate entity
grew from three to thirteen campuses, offering undergraduate and
graduate programs in business, education, and psychology, two law
schools, and one technology-focused school. Dr. Bascuas also increased
enrollment at all campuses, introduced new programs at five campuses,
and hired presidents at two campuses. Previously, Bascuas held
administrative and teaching positions at the Georgia School of
Professional Psychology, Antioch University, Nova/Southeastern
University and Salve Regina University. He has held a number of
positions with professional boards and associations, most recently as
site visit team chair for the Middle States Commission on Higher
Education, and he has served on the National Collegiate Athletic
Association Division III Presidents Council. Dr. Bascuas has written
and co-authored numerous papers on psychological topics and has
presented at symposia and conferences. He received a B.A. from LaSalle
University and an M.A. and a Ph.D. from Temple University.
As interim president, Dr. Bascuas encouraged Becker to find ways to
provide more aid to students who need it most, thus increasing
retention among current students and giving access to new students. Dr.
Bascuas was successful in communicating across audiences, promoting
unity among Becker College's two campuses, forging relationships with
faculty, and energizing the board of trustees. On a personal note, I
appreciate his strong interest in promoting the College's nursing
education program and his personal invitation to me to participate in
the ``Pinning'' graduation ceremony for its nursing students.
Madam Speaker, I would like to commend Dr. Joseph W. Bascuas for his
remarkable work as interim president. I ask my colleagues to join me in
thanking Dr. Bascuas for his work and wishing him all the best in his
future endeavors.
____________________
IN CELEBRATION OF DR. EDDIE GREEN'S RETIREMENT AS DIRECTOR OF THE
HORIZON-UPWARD BOUND PROGRAM OF CRANBROOK SCHOOLS AFTER HIS TEN YEARS
OF SERVICE
______
HON. GARY C. PETERS
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. PETERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Eddie Green
on the occasion of his retirement as Director of the Horizons-Upward
Bound, HUB, program at Cranbrook Schools, and to celebrate and honor
his 10 years of service. As a Member of Congress it is both my honor
and privilege to recognize and congratulate Dr. Green on this most
auspicious occasion.
Dr. Green's dedication to educating and nurturing our youth long
precedes his work with the Horizons-Upward Bound program. Prior to his
current work with HUB, Dr. Green served for many years in the Detroit
Public Schools. Dr. Green began his career as a teacher in the
classroom and through unwavering commitment to his students, fellow
educators and the community rose to become the Detroit Public Schools'
General Superintendent and Chief Executive Officer. As the Schools'
Chief Executive, Dr. Green carried out his vision of engaging all
sectors of the Detroit community in the fight to increase student
achievement by creating a confident, committed and supportive
community.
Horizons-Upward Bound was founded in 1965 with the mission of
preparing students of
[[Page 10542]]
limited opportunity in the Detroit metropolitan region to enter into
and excel in post-secondary education opportunities and beyond. When
Dr. Green began his work with HUB in May 2000, he brought with him the
same passion and zeal which made him such a strong and effective leader
for educating our youth. As its Director, Dr. Green implemented several
new programs which furthered the mission of HUB, including financial
literacy education for high school seniors, a comprehensive mentoring
program for all HUB participants, an annual east coast college tour for
high school sophomores, and the Weekend Wilderness Experience for
summer HUB participants. In each case, the programs that Dr. Green
designed furthered the educational enrichment of Detroit area youth,
while exposing them to new opportunities and experiences.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in celebrating
Dr. Eddie Green's retirement after 10 years of service as Director of
the Horizons-Upward Bound program of Cranbrook Schools and for his
lifetime of work in public education. The profound impact of Dr.
Green's work is felt in the lives of so many of our youth in the
Detroit metropolitan area and I wish him many healthy years in his
retirement.
____________________
COMEMMORATING D-DAY AND HONORING THE VIRGINIA NATIONAL GUARD
______
HON. FRANK R. WOLF
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I was honored on June 5 to join in a salute
to the Virginia National Guard and the role of its Third Battalion,
116th Infantry Regiment, 29th Infantry Division in the D-Day invasion.
The event was held at the National Guard Armory in Winchester and
organized by the Honorable Jack Marsh, former Virginia congressman and
counselor to President Ford, the longest serving secretary of the Army,
and my long-time friend and mentor. Earlier this year Jack helped draft
a resolution passed by the Virginia General Assembly which commemorated
the Virginia National Guard's 29th Division for its part in storming
Omaha Beach and invading Normandy on D-Day--June 6, 1944.
On Monday, May 31, Madam Speaker, we observed Memorial Day. We
honored those who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their
country. I also took time last week to visit Gettysburg where President
Lincoln so eloquently described that kind of sacrifice in his ringing
words of the Gettysburg Address: They gave ``the last full measure of
devotion.''
As we reflect this week on the 66th anniversary of D-Day, many people
may not know that the only National Guard Division on the beach at
Normandy was the 29th Division of Virginia, Maryland and District of
Columbia National Guard. And only one Regiment of the 29th--Virginia's
116th Infantry, which includes the 3rd Battalion that calls the
Winchester Armory home--was selected to be in the first wave at Omaha
Beach.
There were 17 Virginia communities in the Infantry units of the
116th--from Winchester, Berryville and other places stretching up and
down the Shenandoah Valley. This historic unit is the sixth oldest
regiment of the Army and its predecessors served under our forebears--
George Washington and Stonewall Jackson--giving it the name:
``Stonewall Brigade.''
The soldiers of the Stonewall Brigade stormed the beach with 3,100
officers and men. They had to cross over 300 yards of sand beach under
heavy crossfire to reach the shore and fight their way up bluffs that
towered to 100 feet. By the end of what is known as ``the longest
day,'' the 116th took over one thousand casualties. Military historians
call the Omaha battle the most violent of World War II. Only a handful
of those who crossed the beach, who Tom Brokaw has called, ``the
Greatest Generation,'' remain.
Once on shore the mission of the 29th Division was the capture of the
city of St. Lo, a key transportation hub. It proved to be an arduous
task. German defenses were formidable. Timetables were disrupted. Mid-
July found the 3rd Battalion 116th Infantry at the edge of St. Lo. It
had a new commander, Major Tom Howie of Staunton, Virginia, where he
taught English, and coached football at Staunton Military Academy.
Howie was from South Carolina and a 1929 graduate of the Citadel
where he was class president and an all-state half-back. Tom Howie
became the role model for the character Captain Miller, played by Torn
Hanks, in the film, ``Saving Private Ryan.''
The second battalion of the 116th became surrounded near St. Lo.
Major Howie's 3rd Battalion in a night attack operation broke through
German lines to relieve the 2nd Battalion. In the morning on July 17,
Howie and his troops continued the attack on St. Lo. His last words
were ``see you in St Lo'' before he was killed instantly by German
mortar fire. Loved and respected by his men, his body was draped in an
American flag and placed on the hood of a Jeep that led the victorious
troops into the city. There on a pile of rubble of the Church of St.
Croix it was placed to honor him.
A Life magazine photographer happened by, and took the famous
picture. Because of censorship neither the soldier, nor unit could be
identified. It was captioned only, ``The Major of St. Lo,'' but it was
seen round the world. The French have since built a monument to honor
him. Today there is also a Howie Bell Tower near the Citadel Parade
Ground at his alma mater.
When the 29th Division deployed to England in September 1942, Tom
Howie bid his wife and small daughter Sally, not quite 4-years-old,
goodbye. They would never see him again. His daughter, now Sally
McDivitt, age 71, of Culpeper, Virginia, was an honored guest at the
ceremony in Winchester and unveiled a portrait of her father, which
will be displayed in a classroom at the armory bearing Major Howie's
name.
Madam Speaker, Sally Howie McDivitt is a symbol of the sacrifice made
by military families, then and now. The 116th made extraordinary
contributions at Normandy and continues in that sacrifice of service
today. The spirit of the heroes of D-Day lives on in the men and women
of the 116th of today. They call the same places in Virginia home and
show the same dedication and courage by fighting for freedom and
democracy in places which are continents away.
This same unit has now served two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and
has lost two members, Staff Sgt. Craig Cherry, 39, of Winchester, and
Sgt. Bobby Beasley, 36, of Inwood, West Virginia. The Winchester Armory
now bears their names. I have visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan,
including soldiers from Virginia. They deserve our support and
gratitude for accepting the same responsibilities and hardship of those
in the uniform of their country who have gone before them.
We must always remember that when we send men and women into harm's
way, their families are also sacrificing for their country. Military
families, then and now, bear a heavy burden. They have been willing to
sacrifice their goods, their comforts, their husbands, sons, daughters,
fathers, and brothers. They are willing, as words of the Declaration of
Independence state: to pledge their lives, their fortunes and their
sacred honor for their country.
In a speech given at Point du Hoc, France, commemorating D-Day in
1984, President Reagan said:
``The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right,
faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would
grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep
knowledge--and pray God we have not lost it--that there is a profound
moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of
force for conquest.''
We call on our colleagues and every citizen of America--the land of
the free and home of the brave--to continue to strengthen the character
of our nation, which has been built through hardships, and the freedom
of our nation, which has been ensured through the lives of so many
before us, including those brave souls from Winchester and the
Shenandoah Valley who fought their way onto the shores and up the
bluffs of Omaha Beach.
____________________
RECOGNIZING DR. JOSEPH W. BASCUAS, INTERIM PRESIDENT OF BECKER COLLEGE,
LEICESTER, MASSACHUSETTS
______
HON. RICHARD E. NEAL
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute
to Dr. Joseph W. Bascuas for serving as Becker College's interim
president and for his promotion of high academic standards.
The Becker College Board of Trustees named Dr. Bascuas as interim
president on September 26, 2008. Dr. Bascuas gave his leadership and
support to the Becker College community in various ways during his
tenure. Specifically, he brought more than 25 years of experience in
higher education to Becker College.
[[Page 10543]]
During his time at Becker College, Dr. Bascuas strengthened relations
with the local community, encouraging the investment of college
resources to the benefit of the local community. Specifically, he
effectively emphasized new collaborations with the Town of Leicester
Public Schools and championed the college's plans to transition part of
the landmark Reverend Samuel May House into a visitor center for the
town. On a personal note, I appreciate his interest in promoting civil
rights and his personal invitation to address students on this
important chapter of our nation's history and served as the
commencement speaker for the graduating class of 2010.
Becker College is a unique New England college. The institution,
which traces its history to 1784, is comprised of two separate campuses
only six miles apart, one in Leicester and the other in Worcester,
Massachusetts, each with its own dormitories, library, dining hall and
academic facilities. The college serves more than 1,700 students from
18 states and 12 countries, and offers more than 25 diverse, quality
bachelor degree programs in unique, high-demand career niches ranging
from nursing and equine management to computer game design and a
variety of adult learning options.
Prior to serving as interim president at Becker College, Dr. Bascuas
served as president of Medaille College, Buffalo, NY, a private
institution that offers undergraduate and graduate degrees, from 2002
through 2006. Dr. Bascuas successfully took Medaille through an
accreditation and strategic planning; completed a $2.4 million capital
campaign; nearly doubled revenue and undergraduate freshman to
sophomore retention; and increased overall and undergraduate enrollment
as well as the number of resident students. As founding president of
Argosy University Atlanta, GA campus, Bascuas spent 12 years with the
Argosy Education Group. During his tenure, the Argosy corporate entity
grew from 3 to 13 campuses, offering undergraduate and graduate
programs in business, education, and psychology, two law schools, and
one technology-focused school. Dr. Bascuas also increased enrollment
and revenues at all campuses, introduced new programs at five campuses,
and hired presidents at two campuses. Previously, Bascuas has held
administrative and teaching positions at the Georgia School of
Professional Psychology, Antioch University, Nova/Southeastern
University and Salve Regina University. He has held a number of
positions with professional boards and associations, most recently as
site visit team chair for the Middle States Commission on Higher
Education, and he has served on the National Collegiate Athletic
Association Division III Presidents Council. Dr. Bascuas has written
and co-authored numerous papers on psychological topics and has
presented at symposia and conferences. He received a B.A. from LaSalle
University and an M.A. and a Ph.D. from Temple University.
Mr. President, I again thank Dr. Joseph W. Bascuas for his great
contributions to Becker College and the Town of Leicester. I ask my
colleagues to join me in wishing Dr. Joseph W. Bascuas all of the best
in his future endeavors.
____________________
THIRD TIME IS A CHARM FOR SOUTHWEST RANDOLPH
______
HON. HOWARD COBLE
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of the Sixth
District of North Carolina, we wish to extend our congratulations to
the Southwest Randolph High School softball team for winning the North
Carolina High School Athletic Association State 3-A softball
championship for the third time in four years.
The Southwest Randolph Cougars defeated Crest High School 6-1 on June
5, 2010, at Walnut Creek Softball Complex in Raleigh, North Carolina,
to win the title.
The win did not come easily with the Cougars trailing 1-0 after the
third inning. After readjusting to the Chargers' pitching style and
hitting fewer pop-ups, the Cougars managed to score a run in the fourth
inning.
Cougars' pitcher Julia Calicutt was able to stop the Chargers from
scoring additional runs in the fifth and sixth innings. Having played
two seasons behind Southwest Randolph's four-year starter Anna Maness,
Calicutt was finally given her chance to shine.
Calicutt's athleticism and hard work gave the Cougars the opportunity
they needed to claim the state title. The Cougars ended the game
tacking on three additional runs in the fifth inning and two in the
sixth. ``It's an awesome feeling,'' Calicutt told the Asheboro Courier-
Tribune. ``There were doubts at the beginning of the season. We had to
do this to prove ourselves,'' added Calicutt.
The championship team members included: Cythnia Hayes, Hannah Hughes,
Erin Billups, Olivia Hickman, Julia Callicutt, Kelsey Hoover, Victoria
Hunt, Sydney Hyder, Sloane King, Ashia Nicholson, Kaylee King, Paige
Parrish, Hayleigh Clapp, Brooke Hayes, Hagan Kiser, Felicia Brady,
Braden Newlin, and Alexandria O'Connell. Assisting Head Coach Ricky
Martinez were Brooke Smith, Robert Hayes and Wendell Seawell.
Again, we would like to congratulate Southwest Randolph High School's
softball team, faculty, staff, students, and fans for an outstanding
championship season.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY
of rhode island
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unable to participate
in a series of votes on the floor of the House of Representatives
today.
Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 337, on a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 1961, the Hoh Indian Tribe
Safe Homelands Act, I would have voted ``aye'' on the question.
Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 338, on a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill H. Res. 518, Honoring the life of
Jacques-Yves Cousteau, explorer, researcher, and pioneer in the field
of marine conservation, I would have voted ``aye'' on the question.