[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 21, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6079-S6087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Brownback, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Risch, Mr. Bennet, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Franken, Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Johanns, and Mr. Harkin):
S. 3621. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for an exclusion for assistance provided to participants in certain
veterinary student loan repayment or forgiveness programs; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
with my friend, Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho, that will exempt
Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program, VMLRP, awards from Federal
income taxation. I drafted this bipartisan bill with the intention of
increasing veterinary services in underserved shortage areas that lack
adequate veterinary expertise.
The United States Department of Agriculture's, USDA, Veterinary
Medicine Loan Repayment Program was authorized in 2003 by the National
Veterinary Medical Services Act, NVMSA, to help qualified veterinarians
offset a significant amount of the debt they accrue while pursuing
their degrees if they in turn serve in high-priority veterinary
shortage areas for a certain length of time. It also authorizes
additional loan repayments for service in Federal emergency situations.
However, the awards are currently taxed at a rate of 39 percent. This
taxation is counterproductive and only delays delivery of veterinary
services to areas that are in desperate need.
In determining whether an area is eligible for assistance under the
VMLRP, USDA has the ability to declare ``shortage situations,'' in
which the Department makes declarations of veterinary shortage areas.
Currently, there are two circumstances that lead to such designations.
The first is by geography, when a given geographic area suffers a
shortage of veterinarians overall. The second occurs when areas suffer
a shortage of veterinarians who practice in a particular field of
veterinary specialty. My home State of South Dakota currently has four
designated shortage situations. Two of these designations are statewide
designations noting a shortage of practitioners in veterinary
specialties. On a national scale, there are 1,300 counties in the
United States that have less than one food animal veterinarian per
25,000 farm animals. Bear in mind, the demand for veterinarians across
our country could increase 14 percent by 2016.
South Dakota is truly a wonderful place to call home, but it is not
always an easy place to earn a living. This is especially true for
young people who are just starting out and are saddled with crushing
levels of school debt. I have long fought for legislation that makes it
easier for students to pay off their loans and to encourage others who
may be reluctant to pursue higher education degrees, due to a lack of
financial resources, especially when it comes to costly professional
degrees including veterinary medicine. My legislation will help
students pursue their educational goals, while also providing important
services to underserved rural areas by enhancing the assistance
veterinary graduates receive in exchange for meaningful public service.
Agriculture is the top contributor to our South Dakota economy. For
those farmers and ranchers who make their living in agriculture, this
is more than a job; it is a way of life. Our ranchers, many of whom
operate in very rural areas, rely on the access they have to qualified
veterinarians to care for their livestock. Adequate access to
veterinary care in rural areas is critical for both human and animal
health, as well as animal welfare, disease surveillance, public safety
and economic development across America. Everyone in America benefits
from the veterinary services provided in even the most remote areas of
our nation. As such, I am committed to doing all I can to help bring
veterinarians to underserved parts of our state.
I am proud to have fought for the establishment of the VMLRP program,
and through my seat on the Senate Appropriations Committee. I have
worked year after year to secure its proper funding. Unfortunately,
however, the taxes assessed on these benefits prevent us from using
congressionally appropriated funding to the fullest extent. For every
three veterinarians selected for the loan repayment awards, an
additional veterinarian could also
[[Page S6080]]
be selected if the program was made exempt from taxes. Such a tax
exemption is not without precedent; Congress exempted from taxation the
assistance received by participants in the National Health Services
Corps, NHSC, several years ago, and I hope that my colleagues will join
me in extending this same type of assistance to veterinarians
participating in the VMLRP program.
It should be noted that 122 organizations from across our Nation have
announced their support for a tax exemption for VMLRP, including the
American Veterinary Medical Association, American Association of Equine
Practitioners, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Sheep
Industry, the National Farmers Union, and the South Dakota Veterinary
Medical Association, South Dakota Farm Bureau, South Dakota Cattlemen's
Association, South Dakota Stockgrowers Association and many others.
Agriculture is the economic engine that drives our rural communities,
and without viable family farms and ranchers, our small towns and Main
Street businesses throughout South Dakota and our nation would face
significant hardships. It is absolutely essential that our agricultural
producers have access to the services they need to be successful and
responsible, and the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program
Enhancement Act will help make that possible.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
American Veterinary Medical Association Governmental
Relations Division,
Washington, DC.
Statement of Support for the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program
Enhancement Act
The undersigned organizations urge Congress to pass the
Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program Enhancement Act,
which will provide a federal income tax exemption for
payments received under the Veterinary Medicine Loan
Repayment Program (VMLRP) and similar state programs.
Since Congress passed the ``National Veterinary Medical
Services Act'' (H.R. 1397, P.L. 108-161) on December 6, 2003,
it has appropriated $9.6 million for awards. About $3.75
million will be used to pay taxes on the awards. Every dollar
spent on taxes is one less available for loan repayment
awards.
The first VMLRP awards to veterinarians practicing food
supply medicine and veterinary public health in federally
designated shortage areas across the country will be granted
by the end of fiscal year 2010. Veterinarians selected for
participation will receive up to $25,000 annually to repay
eligible student loans in exchange for three years of
practice in an approved shortage area.
Legislation amending the Internal Revenue Code to make loan
repayment awards tax exempt should take effect for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2009. Each VMLRP award
including taxes for three years will cost approximately
$104,250 per veterinarian ($75,000 for loan repayment and
$29,250 for taxes). If VMLRP were tax exempt, one additional
veterinarian could be selected for every three awarded under
current law.
There is precedent for tax exemption. The VMLRP's
counterpart program for human medicine, the National Health
Service Corps (NHSC) which provides loan repayment for
primary care medical, dental and mental health clinicians,
was made tax exempt by the ``American Jobs Creation Act of
2004'' (H.R. 4520, P.L. 108-357), enacted on October 22,
2004. Prior to that NHSC awards were treated as taxable
income.
Exempting veterinary medical loan repayment and forgiveness
program awards from federal income taxation will lead to more
communities having access to needed veterinary care sooner
than they may otherwise. We strongly support Congress'
efforts to ensure that our nation's food animals are healthy,
that our food supply is safe and secure, and our public
health is protected.
Sincerely,
American Veterinary Medical Association, Academy of Rural
Veterinarians, Alabama Veterinary Medical Association,
Alaska Veterinary Medical Association, American Animal
Hospital Association, American Academy of Veterinary
Nutrition, American Association for Laboratory Animal
Science, American Association of Avian Pathologists,
American Association of Bovine Practitioners, American
Association of Corporate and Public Practice
Veterinarians, American Association of Equine
Practitioners, American Association of Feline
Practitioners, American Association of Food Hygiene
Veterinarians, American Association of Public Health
Veterinarians, American Association of Small Ruminant
Practitioners, American Association of Swine
Veterinarians, American Association of Veterinary
Clinicians, American Association of Veterinary
Laboratory Diagnosticians, American Association of Zoo
Veterinarians, American Board of Veterinary
Practitioners,
American Board of Veterinary Toxicology, American College
of Laboratory Animal Medicine, American College of
Poultry Veterinarians, American College of
Theriogenologists, American College of Veterinary
Dermatology, American College of Veterinary
Pathologists, American College of Veterinary Radiology,
American Farm Bureau Federation ', American
Feed Industry Association, American Horse Council,
American Meat Institute, American Rabbit Breeders
Association, Inc., American Sheep Industry, American
Society of Animal Science, American Society of
Laboratory Animal Practitioners, American Veal
Association, Animal Agriculture Alliance's, Animal
Health Institute, Animal Welfare Institute, Arizona
Veterinary Medical Association, Arkansas Veterinary
Medical Association.
Association for Women Veterinarians Foundation,
Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges,
Association of Avian Veterinarians, Association of Zoos
& Aquariums, Bayer Animal Health, Boehringer Ingelheim
Vetmedica, Inc., California Veterinary Medical
Association, Center for Rural Affairs, Colorado
Veterinary Medical Association, Connecticut Veterinary
Medical Association, Delaware Veterinary Medical
Association, District of Columbia Veterinary Medical
Association, Elanco Animal Health (A Division of Eli
Lilly & Company), Federation for Animal Science
Societies, Florida Veterinary Medical Association,
Georgia Veterinary Medical Association, Hawaii
Veterinary Medical Association, Idaho Veterinary
Medical Association, Illinois State Veterinary Medical
Association, Indiana Veterinary Medical Association,
International Lama Registry.
Iowa Veterinary Medical Association, Kansas City Animal
Health Corridor, Kansas Veterinary Medical Association,
Kentucky Veterinary Medical Association, Livestock
Marketing Association, Louisiana Veterinary Medical
Association, Maine Veterinary Medical Association,
Maryland Veterinary Medical Association, Inc.,
Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association, Michigan
Veterinary Medical Association, Minnesota Veterinary
Medical Association, Mississippi Veterinary Medical
Association, Missouri Veterinary Medical Association,
Montana Veterinary Medical Association, National
Aquaculture Association, National Association of
Federal Veterinarians, National Association of State
Public Health Veterinarians, National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, National Chicken Council, National Council
of Farmer Cooperatives.
National Dairy Herd Information Association, National
Farmers Union, National Livestock Producers
Association, National Milk Producers Federation,
National Pork Producers Council, National Renderers
Association, National Turkey Federation, Nebraska
Veterinary Medical Association, Nevada Veterinary
Medical Association, New Hampshire Veterinary Medical
Association, New Jersey Veterinary Medical Association,
North American Deer Farmers Association, North Carolina
Veterinary Medical Association, North Dakota Veterinary
Medical Association, Northeast States Association for
Agriculture Stewardship, Ohio Veterinary Medical
Association, Oklahoma Veterinary Medical Association,
Oregon Veterinary Medical Association, Pet Food
Institute, Puerto Rico Veterinary Medical Association
(Colegio de Medicos Veterinarios de Puerto Rico).
Pennsylvania Veterinary Medical Association, Rhode Island
Veterinary Medical Association, Rocky Mountain Farmers
Union, Society for Theriogenology, South Carolina
Association of Veterinarians, South Dakota Stockgrowers
Association, South Dakota Veterinary Medical
Association, State Agriculture and Rural Leaders,
Student American Veterinary Medical Association,
Synbiotics Corporation, Tennessee Veterinary Medical
Association, Texas Veterinary Medical Association, Utah
Veterinary Medical Association, United Egg Producers,
United States Animal Health Association, Vermont
Veterinary Medical Association, Virginia Veterinary
Medical Association, Washington State Veterinary
Medical Association, Wisconsin Veterinary Medical
Association, Wyoming Veterinary Medical Association.
______
By Mr. JOHANNS (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
S. 3622. A bill to require the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to finalize a proposed rule to amend the spill
prevention, control, and countermeasure rule to tailor and streamline
the requirements for the dairy industry, and for other purposes;
[[Page S6081]]
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. Pesident, I rise today to offer what I consider to
be an enormously commonsense piece of legislation that is going to help
our Nation's dairy farmers. No one can make up this stuff. If you can
believe it, this legislation pertains to the EPA's regulation for
oilspills. I said that right. What do oilspills have to do with dairy
farmers, you might ask? Having grown up on a dairy farm myself, I
didn't think they had much in common at all. But EPA apparently thinks
differently on this issue than I do.
The EPA currently enforces what are known as spill prevention control
and countermeasure regulations, often referred to as SPCC regulations.
The purpose of these regulations is to prevent any oil from discharging
into U.S. waterways. It seems to make sense so far. Under SPCC
regulations, facilities that store or use oil or fuel must put in place
a prevention plan so oil does not spill--that makes sense so far--or,
if oil does spill, it is contained safely onsite.
I get all of that. These regulations have been in place since the
passage of the Clean Water Act, dating back to the 1970s. We do not
want oil spilling in our waterways. The regulations are meant to avoid
such spills. I think everybody is probably with me so far.
But there is one problem. Currently, EPA's definition of oil, under
SPCC regulation, includes, of all things--milk. If that doesn't make
you want to scratch your head, if that does not occur to you as
strange--I have to tell you that is in fact what is going on here.
Under the EPA regulations, milk containers could be subject to the
same regulations as oil. Milk, which is made up of 80 percent water,
which is an excellent source of calcium and protein--milk could be
regulated in the same way as oil. That does not make any sense. I am no
scientist but I don't think it takes a Ph.D. to see the difference
between milk and oil. I have been drinking milk my entire life. As I
said, I grew up on a dairy farm.
People drink milk because it is good for them. So these regulations
are perplexing just standing on their own. But when we get a little
deeper it is even more confusing that EPA is getting involved in the
regulation of milk at all.
The Food and Drug Administration already regulates milk storage under
what is called the pasteurized milk ordinance. Requiring milk storage
facilities to also develop a SPCC plan would, of course, be costly,
duplicative, and unnecessary.
Luckily, there is still some time remaining for us to address this
issue. In January of 2009, EPA proposed to exempt milk storage from
SPCC regulations. Way to go, EPA. If the dairy industry gets this
exemption, they will not have to develop a plan to prevent milk from
spilling.
Growing up on that dairy farm, I don't recall losing much sleep over
a little spilled milk out of the bucket, so that is a step in the right
direction. Unfortunately, and you will find this amazing, something
that is so vested in common sense has taken over 1\1/2\ years after it
was proposed. As I stand here today, the rule is not yet finalized.
Every day we wait for an answer from EPA is a day closer to a deadline
for compliance, which is November 10 of this year.
So the deadline to develop a spill plan is approaching. But the dairy
farmers still do not know whether they are going to need to comply. EPA
has been claiming they will extend the deadline until they finalize the
rule, but so far we have not seen any action.
If they move at the same pace to extend the deadline as they have
taken to finalize the proposed rule, then you can see producers and
farmers are in big trouble. It has been over a year now. The dairy
industry deserves a simple, straightforward answer from the EPA. This
should not be tough, especially in the face of deadlines that are now
only a few months away.
Today, to address this problem, I am introducing legislation to
compel EPA to act. My bill requires the EPA to finalize the proposed
rule exempting milk containers within 30 days. It also protects dairy
producers and milk processers by preventing EPA from punishing them
until EPA actually provides clarification about what they are doing.
Even though these farmers and rural businesses are facing a deadline
in a few months, they still do not know what, if anything, they will
need to do to comply, and that is not fair. This commonsense
legislation would simply help us get an answer from the EPA. It is very
concerning that anyone would ever equate milk handling with oil. That
should not be what is happening. Milk and oil should not be in the same
category.
You know what. That is just good, old-fashioned farm common sense.
But it seems EPA officials are once again out of touch with mainstream
America. I encourage those officials to leave the Beltway. There are
highways that take you out of Washington. I invite them to visit a
Nebraska dairy farm with me. It will not take long for them to see the
foolishness of this regulatory effort.
Importantly, I urge them to act. Our Nation's dairy farmers have
waited long enough with a cloud of regulatory uncertainty hanging over
their heads. But until then, my hope is my colleagues will join me in
this commonsense approach and deal with this problem.
I look forward to working with my colleagues.
______
By Mr. DeMINT (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Thune, Mr.
Coburn, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Sessions):
S. 3624. A bill to encourage continued investment and innovation in
communications networks by establishing a new, competition analysis-
based regulatory framework for the Federal Communications Commission;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from
South Carolina, Senator Jim DeMint, in introducing the Freedom for
Consumer Choice Act. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this
legislation, which would require the Federal Communications Commission,
FCC, to prove that consumers are being harmed by the lack of choice
before it imposes new regulations.
Specifically, the proposed bill would require the FCC to weigh the
potential cost of action against any benefits based on a showing of
clear and convincing evidence that marketplace competition is not
sufficient to adequately protect consumer welfare, and an act or
practice is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers. I believe
this framework, along with a 5-year sunset on any regulation, would
foster a vibrant market for Internet services and content. This
legislation is necessary to combat the FCC's latest assault on the
Internet.
In April, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
that the FCC had stepped beyond its authority by regulating the
Internet with so-called ``net neutrality'' rules. Yet, it seems the FCC
just will not take no for an answer. Just over a month after the
appeals court ruled it had overstepped its bounds, the FCC sought to
re-categorize broadband services in an effort to more actively regulate
the Internet and to establish a set of net neutrality principles. This
regulatory overreach could jeopardize hundreds of billions of dollars
in investment and accompanying hundreds of thousands of jobs that have
resulted from an Internet governed by competition.
The only reason the FCC Chairman and his colleagues are taking this
path is because there is no way they can get far-reaching and costly
net neutrality legislation through Congress. In fact it was recently
reported that 282 Members of Congress, including 74 Democrats, asked
the FCC to drop its plans to reclassify broadband. Enough is enough.
The Government needs to keep its hands off the Internet so it can
prosper and grow, benefiting consumers and our economy alike.
Net neutrality may sound like fairness but it is actually the
opposite. Bandwidth is finite, like the finite number of lanes on a
highway, and network providers must innovate in order to accommodate
the burgeoning traffic. If the FCC takes control of the Internet, we
will have the inevitable result of all poorly designed regulations:
business decisions prejudiced by politicians and political decisions
prejudiced by corporations. The Internet is about the most competitive,
efficient and consumer-driven industry in the global economy. There is
a time and
[[Page S6082]]
place for federal economic regulation, but during a recession is not
the time, and the Internet is certainly not the place.
Let me conclude my remarks by pointing out that the Freedom for
Consumer Choice Act is intended as a starting point for this debate. No
doubt further refinements will be made to this bill during the
legislative process. I am committed to moving this legislation forward
and hope that my colleagues can join efforts to refine and enact this
important bill.
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 3625. A bill to enhance public safety by making more spectrum
available to public safety agencies, to facilitate the development of a
public safety broadband network, to provide for the spectrum needs of
public safety agencies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator
McCain, to introduce legislation to ensure that we take advantage of a
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a coast-to-coast communications
network for our nation's first responders that is secure, robust and
resilient.
As it stands now, the mobile device the average teenager carries has
more capability than those of the brave men and women who put their
lives on the line for us each and every day and that's just wrong.
Today we introduce the First Responders Protection Act of 2010, which
will set aside the so-called D Block of spectrum for public safety
entities and provide them the bandwidth they need to communicate
effectively in an emergency.
I am proud to stand with the representatives of more than 40
organizations representing public safety officials, and with the ``Big
7'' associations representing State and local governments, to call on
Congress to put the D Block in the hands of public safety. Those groups
include the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the
International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Sheriffs
Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County
Sheriffs Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International,
APCO, the National Emergency Managers Association, the National
Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures,
the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties,
the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the
International City/County Management Association.
Today public safety communicates on slices of scattered spectrum that
prevent interoperable communications among agencies and jurisdictions,
and that do not allow the large data transmissions that we take for
granted in today's commercial communications.
Securing the D Block for public safety will allow us to build a
nationwide interoperable network for emergency communications that
could prevent the kinds of communication meltdowns we had during 9/11
and Hurricane Katrina.
But setting aside the D Block will also allow first responders to
send video, maps, and other large data transmissions over their mobile
devices. For example, firefighters' lives may be saved because they
will be able to access building specifications on their handhelds and
know all the exits of a burning building before they enter it.
I do not think it is wise, as the Federal Communications Commission
has proposed, to auction the D Block to commercial interests and then
to hope that public safety will be able to piggy-back on it. In a
crisis, first responders need secure, reliable and quick communications
that are not disrupted by commercial traffic.
The First Responders Protection Act of 2010 will ensure that the D
Block is licensed to the same public safety broadband licensee that
currently holds the license for 10 MHz in the 700 MHz band. The bill
would also provide up to $5.5 billion for a construction fund to assist
with the costs of constructing networks and up to $5.5 billion for an
operation and maintenance fund for long-term maintenance of networks.
These funds would come from revenues generated by the auction of a
different band of spectrum to commercial carriers.
Achieving nationwide interoperability through adequate spectrum is a
major recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that is unfulfilled. I urge
my colleagues to take bold action to remedy Congress's past inaction by
promptly passing the First Responders Protection Act of 2010.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr, President, today I share the honor with Chairman
Lieberman of introducing the First Responders Protection Act of 2010.
This bill would provide 10 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz spectrum band
to the public safety broadband licensee, make available funding for the
construction, operation and maintenance of a nationwide interoperable
communications network, and ensure proper governance.
In 2004, the 9/11 Commission's Final Report recommended the
``expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum to public safety
entities.'' Shortly thereafter, Senator Lieberman and I introduced a
bill to provide spectrum to public safety; however the Senate voted
down that bill. We reintroduced the bill in 2005--a month before
Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. But our efforts were blocked.
Fortunately, Congress finally wrestled some spectrum away from the
television broadcasters in 2009 and provided it to public safety.
However, public safety has additional spectrum needs.
Almost every other recommendation of the 9/11 Commission has been
implemented, but this important recommendation remains unfulfilled. I
can only imagine how many lives could have been saved on 9/11 if this
spectrum had been available at that time. How many firefighters would
be alive today if they could have communicated with their battalion
chief at the base of the World Trade Center? Recently, in Arizona, we
had a horrible murder committed in a rural area along the border.
Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever has stated that the lack of
interoperable communications between the sheriffs' department and other
law enforcement officers hindered the immediate investigation into
tracking the suspect.
In 2007, I introduced legislation to auction the remaining public
safety spectrum to a commercial carrier that would then build out a
network for public safety. The FCC held such an auction, but no bidder
met the reserve price. Ten megahertz of spectrum remains available for
public safety's needs. The FCC has announced its intention auction this
spectrum to a commercial provider.
Once this spectrum is auctioned, it will be impossible to ever get it
back. That is why Congress must act now and provide the remaining
spectrum directly to public safety. This legislation would do just
that.
Specifically, this legislation would license the remaining spectrum
to the public safety broadband licensee that has been previously
approved by the FCC as a qualified licensee and represents 38 national
public safety organizations. The legislation provides authority to
local jurisdictions to make decisions on the spectrum use, network
build-out and equipment. The men and women fighting crime and saving
lives know what communications systems and technology are best for
them. Not Washington.
Lastly, this bill provides funds for grants to localities for the
construction, operation and maintenance of an interoperable
communications network. These funds will come from the proceeds of a
commercial spectrum auction, thereby not adding to our nation's
burgeoning debt or raising taxes on all Americans.
As we approach the 9 year commemoration of the horrific events on
September 11 and the 5-year remembrance of the devastating tragedy of
Hurricane Katrina, it is disgraceful that police officers, sheriffs and
fire fighters still don't have a nation-wide interoperable
communications system. Our legislation provides the spectrum and
funding to first responders, while being fiscally responsible and
ensuring local control and conscientious governance.
This legislation is supported by the International Association of
Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the
National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the
Major County Sheriffs
[[Page S6083]]
Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the Association
of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International, APCO, the
National Emergency Managers Association, the National Governors
Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council
of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the
National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the
International City/County Management Association.
I hope my colleagues will join me in providing public safety with the
interoperable communications network they deserve.
______
By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Mr. Bond):
S. 3626. A bill to encourage the implementation of thermal energy
infrastructure, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Thermal
Renewable Energy and Efficiency, or TREEA, Act, on behalf of myself and
Senator Bond. I want to thank him for working with me on this bill,
which is inspired by models in both of our states. It is good policy
for the environment, for creating jobs, and for increasing the
efficiency of heating and cooling--a major yet often ignored part of
our Nation's energy consumption.
As we think about carbon emissions and energy use, most of the
conversation focuses on moving away from fossil fuels in the electric
power sector. But over 30 percent of our country's energy use goes
toward thermal energy--heating or cooling our homes, public buildings,
or industrial facilities. Thermal energy is enormously important for my
state of Minnesota, whether we're talking about heating in the midst of
a cold snowy winter or air conditioning on a blazing summer day, when
additional plants have to kick in to meet the demand.
Unfortunately, as we talk about changing the way we produce and use
energy, thermal energy is usually ignored. We talk about producing
significantly more of our electricity from renewables like solar,
geothermal, or biomass. But what we forget is that we can much more
efficiently produce thermal from these sources than we can from
electricity. After all, when we are talking about energy efficiency, we
are talking about how much of the energy produced from a given fuel is
not lost as heat. Well, that heat has a value. That is heat that can
heat the homes and buildings in Minnesota when it's 30 below zero.
That is what District energy systems have done in Minnesota and
around the country. They supply hot water or steam and chilled water to
buildings through underground pipes for space heating, domestic hot
water, air conditioning, and industrial processes. There are tremendous
efficiencies in heating and cooling buildings this way. Each building
doesn't have to have its own boiler, and instead of burning fuel to
produce electricity to heat a building, you take the heat directly from
the fuel and put it to productive use.
When you use renewable fuel to produce thermal energy--whether it's
biomass, geothermal, or solar-thermal--you cut down on greenhouse gas
emissions at the same time. So capturing and efficiently using thermal
energy is a win-win-win. It is a win for the environment through lower
greenhouse gas emissions and much higher fuel efficiency. It is a win
for consumers and businesses, who get low, stable heating prices. It is
a win for the economy, because building and maintaining these systems
creates jobs.
Minnesota is a national leader in thermal energy--in St. Paul, we
have the largest District Energy system in North America. Most of the
buildings in downtown St. Paul are heated and cooled using energy that
literally comes from residents' backyards--tree trimmings and other
waste wood.
What does this mean? It means less electricity usage for heating and
cooling, which frees up strain on the grid during hot summer days and
freezing winter nights. It means stable heating prices for consumers
and businesses--thermal systems are flexible in their fuel and can
switch to the lowest cost fuel at any time. And if these systems run on
renewable fuels, it means less pollution contributing to global
warming.
But there are some barriers to overcome. Right now, the renewable
energy production tax credit is only available for electricity
generated from renewables. We need to recognize the usefulness of
thermal energy as well, and hence extend the production credit to the
generation of thermal energy from renewables. That is exactly what our
bill does: it allows thermal-only or combined heat and power facilities
to access the production tax credit for their thermal energy, if it's
produced from renewables.
We also need to make some tweaks to existing financing structures
like tax exempt bonds. Currently, these can be used for financing
district energy piping distribution systems, but not the plant
facilities for producing the heating and cooling. Our bill would change
this. Finally, we need to make sure that the grant programs authorized
in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act are structured in a
way that actually is helpful to thermal and combined heat and power
facilities. Our bill raises the grant caps for those programs to more
realistic levels that will allow large, more efficient projects to
qualify.
This legislation is ultimately about being smarter on how we use
energy. It increases our energy efficiency, helps reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, and creates clean energy jobs. That is why it has the
support of environmental groups, labor groups, the district energy and
combined heat and power industry, and organizations promoting energy
efficiency.
I am very proud to be introducing this bill with my friend from
Missouri, and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to
make these modest changes to improve our use of thermal energy.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
included in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3626
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Thermal
Renewable Energy and Efficiency Act of 2010''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Purpose.
Sec. 4. Statement of policy.
TITLE I--MODIFICATION OF CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED FROM CERTAIN
RENEWABLE SOURCES
Sec. 101. Extension of renewable electricity credit to thermal energy.
TITLE II--EXEMPT FACILITY BONDS
Sec. 201. Exempt facility bonds.
TITLE III--ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY AND EFFICIENCY GRANTS FOR INSTITUTIONS
Sec. 301. Definition of institutional entity.
Sec. 302. Availability of grants.
Sec. 303. Authorization of appropriations for grants.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) approximately 30 percent of the total quantity of
energy consumed in the United States is used to provide
thermal energy for heating and cooling building space,
domestic hot water, and industrial processes;
(2) thermal energy is an essential, but often overlooked,
segment of the national energy mix;
(3) district energy systems use 1 or more central plants to
provide thermal energy to multiple buildings that range in
size from campus applications to systems heating entire towns
or cities;
(4) district energy systems provide sustainable thermal
energy infrastructure by producing and distributing thermal
energy from combined heat power, sources of industrial or
municipal surplus heat, and from renewable sources such as
biomass, geothermal, and solar energy;
(5) as of 2009, the United States had approximately 2,500
operating district energy systems;
(6) district energy systems provide advantages that support
secure, affordable, renewable, and sustainable energy for the
United States, including--
(A) use of local fuels or waste heat sources that keep jobs
and energy dollars in local economies;
(B) stable, predictable energy costs for businesses and
industry;
(C) reduction in reliance on fossil fuels;
(D) reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases; and
(E) flexibility to modify fuel sources in response to
future changes in fuel availability and prices and
development of new technologies;
(7) district energy helps cut peak power demand and reduce
power transmission and distribution system constraints by--
[[Page S6084]]
(A) meeting air conditioning demand through delivery of
chilled water produced with heat from combined heat and power
or other energy sources; and
(B) shifting power demand through thermal storage and, with
combined heat and power, generating power near load centers;
(8) combined heat and power systems increase energy
efficiency of power plants by capturing thermal energy and
using the thermal energy to provide heating and cooling, more
than doubling the efficiency of conventional power plants;
(9) according to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, if the
United States was able to increase combined heat and power
from approximately 9 percent of total electric generation
capacity to 20 percent by 2030, the increase would--
(A) save as much energy as half of all household energy
consumption;
(B) create approximately 1,000,000 new jobs;
(C) avoid more than 800,000,000 metric tons of carbon
dioxide emissions annually, which is equivalent to taking
half of all United States passenger vehicles off the road;
and
(D) save hundreds of millions of barrels of oil equivalent;
and
(10) constraints to significant expansion of district
energy and combined heat and power include--
(A) the lack of economic value in the energy marketplace
for the environmental, grid support, energy security, and
local economic development benefits of district energy
systems;
(B) relatively high project development costs due to the
variety of institutional, legal, and technical issues that
must be addressed; and
(C) the high costs of debt service, particularly in the
early years of systems development before a broad base of
customers has connected.
SEC. 3. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to encourage the implementation
of thermal energy infrastructure order to--
(1) increase energy efficiency;
(2) increase use of renewable energy resources;
(3) revitalize the infrastructure of the cities and
institutions of the United States;
(4) reduce local and regional air pollution;
(5) reduce emissions of greenhouse gases;
(6) reduce emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants; and
(7) enhance power grid reliability and overall energy
supply reliability and energy security.
SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
It is the policy of the United States that, in energy
policy development and program implementation, the following
factors should be considered:
(1) Thermal energy represents a significant part of the
energy requirements of the United States, providing building
heating and cooling, domestic hot water, and industrial
process energy.
(2) There are many opportunities for meeting thermal energy
requirements directly through renewable energy sources or
recycled energy (such as recovered waste heat), without
generation of electricity.
(3) Policies and incentives for encouraging renewable
energy and energy efficiency should address thermal energy as
well as electricity.
(4) District energy systems provide an important means of
delivering sustainable thermal energy to consumers, and
provide energy security benefits, by--
(A) cutting peak power demand;
(B) reducing power transmission and distribution system
constraints; and
(C) providing flexibility to modify fuel sources in
response to future changes in fuel availabilities and prices
and development of new technologies.
TITLE I--MODIFICATION OF CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED FROM CERTAIN
RENEWABLE SOURCES
SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY CREDIT TO
THERMAL ENERGY.
(a) Credit to Include Production of Thermal Energy.--
Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Credit for Production of Thermal Energy.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a taxpayer who--
``(A) produces thermal energy from a qualified energy
resource described in subparagraph (B), (C), (D), (G), (I),
or (J) of subsection (c)(1) at a qualified facility described
in paragraph (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (11), or (12) of
subsection (d), and
``(B) makes an election under this subsection with respect
to such facility,
subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting `each 3,412
Btus of thermal energy (or fraction thereof)' for `the
kilowatt hours of electricity' in paragraph (2) thereof.
``(2) Thermal energy.--For purposes of this section, the
term `thermal energy' means heat (in the form of hot water or
steam) or cooling (in the form of chilled water or ice).
``(3) Additional qualifications.--
``(A) Combined heat and power facility.--In the case of a
facility producing both electricity and thermal energy, such
facility shall not be treated as a qualified facility unless
such facility--
``(i) meets the requirements of section 48(c)(3)(A)
(without regard to clause (iv) thereof), and
``(ii) was originally placed in service after the date of
the enactment of the Thermal Renewable Energy and Efficiency
Act of 2010, and before the date which is 5 years after such
date.
``(B) Thermal facility.--In the case of a facility
producing only thermal energy, such facility shall not be
treated as a qualified facility unless such facility--
``(i) has an energy efficiency percentage (as determined
under section 48(c)(3)(C)) in excess of 60 percent, and
``(ii) was originally placed in service after the date of
the enactment of the Thermal Renewable Energy and Efficiency
Act of 2010, and before the date which is 5 years after such
date.
``(4) Denial of double benefit.--If an election under this
subsection is in effect with respect to any facility, no
credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) with respect to
the production of electricity at such facility.
``(5) Election.--
``(A) In general.--An election under this subsection shall
specify the facility to which the election applies and shall
be in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations
prescribe.
``(B) Election irrevocable.--Any election made under this
subsection may not be revoked except with the consent of the
Secretary.''.
(b) Naturally Occurring Cold Water Sources Treated as
Qualified Energy Resource.--Paragraph (1) of section 45(c) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (H),
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (I)
and inserting ``, and'', and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(J) naturally occurring cold water sources which are used
to provide thermal energy for air conditioning.''.
(c) Qualified Facilities.--Section 45(d) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(12) Natural air conditioning system facility.--In the
case of a facility providing thermal energy for air
conditioning from naturally occurring cold water sources, the
term `qualified facility' means any facility owned by the
taxpayer which is originally placed in service after the date
of the enactment of the Thermal Renewable Energy and
Efficiency Act of 2010, and before the date which is 5 years
after such date.''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 45(b)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by inserting ``or thermal energy'' after
``electricity''.
(2) Section 45(c)(2) of such Code is amended by inserting
``or thermal energy'' after ``electricity''.
(3) Section 45(d) of such Code is amended by inserting ``or
thermal energy'' after ``electricity'' each place it appears
in paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), and (11).
(4) Section 45(e) of such Code is amended by inserting ``or
thermal energy'' after ``electricity'' each place it appears
in paragraphs (1), (4), and (9).
(5) The heading of section 45 of such Code is amended by
inserting ``and thermal energy'' after ``electricity''.
(6) The item relating to section 45 in the table of
sections for subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter
1 of such Code is amended by inserting ``and thermal energy''
after ``Electricity''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to energy produced and sold after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
TITLE II--EXEMPT FACILITY BONDS
SEC. 201. EXEMPT FACILITY BONDS.
(a) Definition of Local District Heating and Cooling
Facilities.--Subparagraph (A) of section 142(g)(2) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``a
pipeline or network (which may be connected to a heating or
cooling source) providing hot water, chilled water, or
steam'' and inserting ``equipment for producing thermal
energy in the form of hot water, chilled water or steam,
distributing that thermal energy in pipelines and
transferring the thermal energy''.
(b) Public Use Requirement.--The Secretary shall promulgate
regulations establishing that a local district heating or
cooling facility will be treated in all events as serving a
general public use for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986.
TITLE III--ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY AND EFFICIENCY GRANTS FOR INSTITUTIONS
SEC. 301. DEFINITION OF INSTITUTIONAL ENTITY.
Section 399A(a)(5) of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (42 U.S.C. 6371h-1(a)(5)) is amended by inserting a
``not-for-profit district energy system,'' after
``utility,''.
SEC. 302. AVAILABILITY OF GRANTS.
Section 399A(f) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(42 U.S.C. 6371h-1(f)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``$50,000'' and
inserting ``$90,000'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``$90,000'' and
inserting ``$150,000''; and
(C) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``$250,000'' and
inserting ``$600,000''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$1,000,000'' and
inserting ``$20,000,000''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``60 percent'' and
inserting ``30 percent''.
[[Page S6085]]
SEC. 303. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR GRANTS.
Section 399A(i)(1) of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (42 U.S.C. 6371h-1(i)(1)) is amended by striking
``$250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013''
and inserting ``$500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011
through 2015''.
______
By Mr. COBURN:
S. 3627. A bill to ensure that United States global HIV/AIDS
assistance prioritizes saving lives by focusing on access to treatment;
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the introduction
of S. 3627, The HIV/AIDS Save Lives First Act of 2010. This important
piece of legislation will make crucial improvements to our approach to
bilateral global AIDS efforts. As a practicing physician and former co-
chair of President Bush's Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, I have
introduced this bill to ensure that our global AIDS continue to
prioritize life-saving medical treatment and reduce the transmission of
the disease from mother to child.
The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief--known as PEPFAR--has
been wildly successful and has begun to reverse the course of the AIDS
epidemic worldwide. Two and half million HIV/AIDS patients from 30
different countries currently have access to lifesaving treatment
because of PEPFAR. A 2009 report found that from 2004-2007 as many as
1.2 million lives had been saved because of the program.
In 2008, Congress and the President in an overwhelmingly bipartisan
fashion passed the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization
Act of 2008 to continue the important life-saving work of the PEPFAR
program.
It is of grave concern, then, that our fight against AIDS is now at
risk of failure. A recent New York Times article, ``At Front Lines,
AIDS War Is Falling Apart,'' details how hundreds of thousands of
patients are being denied promised care in countries such as Uganda--a
country once held up as PEPFAR's success story. Government officials
have confirmed the rationing of treatment slots and have advised their
partners to support ``an equitable system of triage for total ART
[antiretroviral drug treatment]
slots. . . .''
Former UNAIDS chief Dr. Piot remarked about past success and doubts
about the future: ``Then, we were at a tipping point in the right
direction,'' he explained. ``Now I'm afraid we're at a tipping point in
the wrong direction.''
We must not lose sight of the fact that HIV/AIDS is a disease that we
can diagnose, treat, and prevent. Not only does treatment save lives--
it is the best prevention tool we have. Treatment lowers viral loads,
which reduces the likelihood of individuals spreading the disease by as
much as 92 percent. Treatment reduces transmission among partners,
eliminates baby AIDS, and keeps those with HIV in the medical system
where they can receive proper counseling and care. And the availability
of treatment is integral to promoting HIV/AIDS testing and early
diagnosis.
With the U.S. spending more than $6.7 billion on global AIDS efforts,
we are not losing the war on AIDS due to lack of commitment or
resources. Instead, we are losing because of misplaced priorities.
We can eliminate the tragedies of baby AIDS and AIDS orphans and
prevent the spread of HIV by focusing on saving lives by expanding
access to treatment.
It costs less than $300 a year to keep someone with HIV healthy and
alive, about the same price to cover the airfare to send each of the
25,000 participants to the ongoing AIDS conference in Vienna. If saving
lives is truly our priority, we must ask every time we spend a dollar
intended for AIDS relief if that dollar would be better spent paying
for lifesaving treatment that would keep a mother alive, a family
together, or a baby born free of the virus.
If you ask Africans what PEPFAR is, they will tell you it is about
AIDS treatment. It is the treatment component of PEPFAR that has made
it the most successful U.S. humanitarian effort in history because it
has literally saved the lives of millions, preserved families and
communities, and rescued countless babies from being born with an AIDS
death sentence.
The PEPFAR program's long-term success relies on the promise of life-
saving medical treatment to those in need. Unfortunately, according to
a recent report the recent moratorium on new enrollees in the program
has already caused an estimated 3,000 deaths.
The HIV/AIDS Save Lives First Act strengthens the current policy that
requires a majority of all funding under PEPFAR be spent on life-saving
HIV/AIDS treatment. Specifically, this legislation would increase the
treatment allocation to 75 percent of all PEPFAR funding. It also sets
the modest goal that by 2013 we treat 5 million people with HIV/AIDS.
Many claim that we cannot treat our way out of this epidemic, but
they ignore the simple truth that treatment is prevention. Analysts
from the World Health Organization published research arguing we can
drastically reduce the transmission of AIDS and virtually halt the
widening epidemic in Africa within a decade through aggressive routine
testing and early treatment.
Other prevention efforts remain an important component of the
program. Without the reliable promise of access to treatment, however,
the PEPFAR program will not enjoy long-term success. This legislation
ensures that the PEPFAR program fulfills its promises, saves the most
lives possible, and reduces transmission of the disease.
The HIV/AIDS Save Lives First Act also allocates a small percentage
of funding for the critical diagnostic screening that must be ramped up
dramatically if we are to locate and treat every infected person in the
countries where PEPFAR operates. Finally, the bill acknowledges that
every baby infected with HIV by her mother during birth or
breastfeeding is a largely preventable tragedy. The bill would target
baby AIDS for complete elimination with 100 percent coverage with the
medical protocols that prevent almost all instances of mother-to-child
HIV transmission.
The Save Lives First Act requires recipients of funding to spend no
more than $500 in annual PEPFAR funding per patient they treat. As
recently as 2008, documents provided by the administration show that
the PEPFAR program spent $1,100 in annual treatment costs per patient.
This is unacceptable--inefficiencies come at the cost of human lives by
limiting the number of patients PEPFAR can treat.
The most commonly prescribed drug regimen costs just $64 per year and
many organizations are providing care to patients for no more than $250
per year. For example, Doctors Without Borders has had remarkable
success in achieving treatment efficiencies and now reports that its
per-patient treatment costs in Malawi were only $237 per year.
While costs may vary from country to country--and patient to
patient--it is both reasonable and important that every funding
recipient under PEPFAR limit their aggregate per patient expenditures
to $500 per patient. The costs of drug regimens continue to fall
dramatically, and PEPFAR must take advantage by providing treatment to
more individuals.
The HIV/AIDS Save Lives First Act would require that any funding
recipient under PEPFAR be limited to a treatment allocation of $500 per
patient treated. This act would also set the modest goal that PEPFAR
would treat 5 million patients by 2013. If the program's per patient
expenditures were down to $500 per patient, the program should actually
treat 6 million patients by 2013, and if everyone were as cost-
effective as Doctors Without Borders, we could be treating 10 million
patients.
In the rare instance of a country in which per patient expenditures
remain above $500 per patient, it is more than reasonable to assume
that these more developed countries have the resources--along with
other global partners--to ensure that the per patient treatment
expenditures ensure access to the highest-quality treatment for each
patient.
Everyone can agree that dollars provided to HIV/AIDS treatment should
go directly to patient care--not bloated administrative budgets. A
common way of protecting this important principle is to limit the
administrative budget for PEPFAR funding recipients.
The HIV/AIDS Save Lives First Act limits administrative overhead to
10 percent of total expenditures for every
[[Page S6086]]
funding recipient under the program. The bill also limits the State
Department's administrative budget for PEPFAR to 10 percent of total
funding.
Again, treatment is prevention. But this strategy relies on
identifying HIV positive individuals who are unaware of their status
and linking them to treatment and counseling. The first step to any
prevention strategy is an aggressive testing strategy. Unfortunately,
only about 40 percent of people with HIV in developing countries are
aware of their status.
The HIV/AIDS Save Lives First Act sets aside 5 percent of PEPFAR
funding to dramatically ramp up rapid HIV diagnosis to identify people
who do not yet know their HIV status in order to get people into
treatment and early reduce their transmission rates through treatment
and education.
This bill also sets a target of conducting 1 billion rapid tests by
2013 and sets aside 25 percent of testing money to help countries
implement a policy of universal, opt-out rapid HIV testing.
Rapid testing and access to treatment are particularly important to
end baby AIDS, babies being born infected with HIV or becoming infected
during their first year through breastfeeding, once and for all.
An estimated 430,000 children were born in 2008 newly infected with
HIV, mainly through mother to child transmission. About 90 percent of
these infections occurred in Africa. Only 28 percent of pregnant women
in Sub-Saharan Africa received an HIV test in 2008. Moreover, the World
Health Organization reports that access to AIDS drugs is severely
limited in developing countries, with fewer than 10 percent of pregnant
women with HIV in those countries having access to medication for their
own health.
Of course, dramatic gains are seen when universal testing of pregnant
women and newborns is provided along with appropriate prophylaxis of
infections that are that are identified through testing. In the United
States, new cases of baby AIDS have been virtually eliminated. Studies
have found that 99 percent of babies were born uninfected if an
infected mother was diagnosed and proper treatment was administered.
Botswana, a country that used to have HIV infection rates as high as
50 percent of child-bearing-aged women, instituted these interventions.
Ninety-two percent of pregnant women in the country are now being
tested and the drop in HIV-positive mothers delivering infected babies
dropped from 35 percent to 4 percent from 2004-2007, with 13,000 HIV-
infected moms being identified annually.
Prevention of mother-to-child-transmission, PMTCT, is cheap per life
saved: as of 2008, estimated costs of PMTCT drugs to prevent the spread
of HIV for (1) mother/child pair was US$167--generics--and US$318--
branded--and the price of drugs and treatment have only declined since.
The HIV/AIDS Save Lives First Act sets a target of eliminating baby
AIDS in all PEPFAR countries by 2013, and sets out expectations for how
to work towards that target by screening 100 percent of pregnant women
and newborns in PEPFAR countries and providing prophylactic or ARV
treatment for all HIV-positive moms or babies.
By emphasizing providing lifesaving treatment under the PEPFAR
program, we can continue the enormous success we have had in saving
lives and preventing the spread of this terrible disease. It is my
sincere hope that my colleagues adopt these common sense policy changes
that will significantly reduce human suffering, keep families together,
and save millions of lives.
______
By Mr. HATCH:
S.J. Res. 35. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States relative to a balanced budget; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my growing alarm
about the excessive amount of government spending that is adding to our
national debt at an exponential rate. We simply cannot continue to add
these annual trillion dollar-plus deficits to the amount to be repaid
by those in generations to come. Today, I am introducing a measure that
would ensure that the futures of our children and grandchildren will
not be crippled by the reckless spending of those who control Congress
and the White House today. After long study of this disturbing trend, I
have concluded that the best way to get a handle on this deficit
spending is by amending the Constitution by requiring each Congress to
put forth a balanced budget.
Amending the Constitution is no small task, nor is it a trifling
matter. Though hundreds, if not thousands, of amendments to the
Constitution have been proposed, this founding document has been
amended only 27 times in our nation's history. Amending it now to deal
with overspending may appear to be a monumental undertaking. However,
Utahns and other Americans across the nation have spoken loud and
clear--no more excessive government spending that will add to the debt
to be borne by the next generation.
The liberals in Congress have had their turn over the past couple of
years to try to revitalize our economy, and we still remain with
trillion dollar-plus deficits coupled with a stagnant unemployment rate
of nearly 10 percent.
The economy did not turn sour yesterday. It went south nearly two
years ago, and the major accomplishments of the current Administration
and its congressional allies is to enact an ineffective $1.1 trillion
stimulus bill, an exacerbation of our entitlement crisis through the
trillion dollar-plus health care bill, and an invasive and job-killing
financial regulatory bill. All of these further harmed our nation's
fiscal health.
The measure I am proposing is straightforward. It would simply
require Congress to submit a budget where the total outlays could not
exceed total revenues. It would require Treasury to use any surplus to
pay down the Nation's debt. Any tax increase would have to be approved
by two-thirds of the Members of Congress.
I realize that requiring a balanced budget will not necessarily end
the outrageous government spending that has occurred over recent years,
but it will at least provide Congress with a stronger incentive for
fiscal responsibility. Balanced budgets are about more than sound
fiscal policy; they are a moral responsibility that government often
fails to meet. Individuals and families who live wildly beyond their
means face dire consequences. Government should have to live by the
same standards, especially since this money belongs to the people. The
Constitution is the most important tool by which the people place
limits on government and it appears that the Constitution is what it
will take for the government to live within its means.
The outstanding public debt is now over $13 trillion. That equates
roughly to $42,000 for each American. This year we are estimated to add
another $1.3 trillion, which is about what we added last year. This is
more than $41,000 added to the debt every second. Most of this spending
is going towards increasing the size of the Federal Government,
creating and expanding government programs, and providing more
entitlements.
Economists agree that our Nation must get our outrageous deficit
under control. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently
released its Long-Term Budget Outlook. In this report, the CBO projects
that the national debt will reach 62 percent of GDP by the end of this
year, the highest since the end of World War II. To put this in
perspective, at the end of 2008, our debt was 40 percent of GDP and the
historic average has been around 36 percent.
The CBO also projects that deficits will average about $600 billion
annually from 2011 through 2020 and the national debt to grow by 67
percent by 2020. Congress needs to act now.
If anyone is still questioning whether this enormous debt poses a
threat to our economy, the warning signs are clear. The World Bank
cautioned that we could have a double dip recession if the financial
markets lose confidence in our ability to repay our debt. Federal
Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before the House Budget
Committee and said ``unless we as a nation make a strong commitment to
fiscal responsibility, in the long run, we will have neither financial
stability nor healthy economic growth.''
On Monday, President Obama gave a speech in the Rose Garden scolding
Republicans for what he believed was an effort to prevent the
unemployed from receiving benefits. What he has failed
[[Page S6087]]
to acknowledge is that both sides--Democrats and Republicans alike--
agree on extending the additional unemployment insurance. What fiscal
conservatives object to adding another $30 billion plus to the deficit.
The President said ``It's time to stop holding workers laid off in this
recession hostage to Washington politics.'' This same logic and
rhetoric can be applied to our children and grandchildren who will be
held hostage by, and have to pay for, the irresponsible government
spending this Congress passes today.
It is time for solutions and not just rhetoric. I believe that we can
achieve a balanced budget while promoting economic growth. We have the
strongest economy in the world, for now. Let us not have our
indebtedness create misery for us and generations to come.
____________________