[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[Issue]
[Pages 13105-13293]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 13105]]
VOLUME 151--PART 10
SENATE--Monday, June 20, 2005
The Senate met at 2 p.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Richard Burr, a Senator from the State of North Carolina.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Our Heavenly Father, Creator and Sustainer of all things, we
acknowledge You as the ultimate source of our lives and of all of the
good that we know. We look to You to speak to the questions for which
we shall never know the complete answers. We ask You only to reply in
faith strengthened, hope renewed, and love deepened.
So bless our Senators today that their lives will be a testimony that
old things have passed away and the new has come. Season their words
with kindness and their spirits with humility. Remind them that honesty
will keep them safe.
Help each of us to live with such integrity that trouble will flee.
Give us the wisdom to remember that our future belongs to You. We pray
in Your powerful Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Richard Burr 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. Stevens).
The assistant legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, June 20, 2005.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Richard Burr, a Senator from the State of North Carolina, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Ted Stevens,
President pro tempore.
Mr. BURR thereupon assumed the Chair as Acting President pro tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate majority leader is
recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume consideration
of the Energy bill, which we will complete this week. Chairman Domenici
will be here to continue working through amendments. We made very good
progress on the bill last week. We are on track to complete the bill
later this week. As I announced at the end of last week, it may be
necessary to file cloture on the bill tomorrow. If we file cloture
tomorrow, the cloture vote would then occur on Thursday, which would
allow us to complete the bill this week.
I hope we do not have to file cloture, but I think it is important
for people to realize we are going to finish the bill this week. People
had the opportunity at the end of last week to offer amendments. They
will have the same opportunity today and over the course of this week.
I do ask our Senators to work with the bill managers to expedite
consideration of their amendments early in the week.
This evening, we will have a second cloture vote on the nomination of
John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations. As announced
earlier, the debate for that vote has been scheduled between 5 and 6.
We plan on having that vote at 6 p.m. today. We have a very busy week
as we move through the Bolton nomination and the Energy bill. I expect
we will have votes every day this week, including Friday, as we wrap up
work on the energy legislation; therefore, Senators should be prepared
and should adjust their schedules accordingly to remain available until
we complete passage of this important bill.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF MINORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate minority leader is
recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished majority
leader. It would be good if we did not have to file cloture. Having
said that, I do not know what it takes to get people to come over and
offer amendments. Thursday afternoon, we were here. The two managers
were willing to stay as long as necessary to meet whatever amendments
were offered by Senators. I realize last week was somewhat disjointed
because of the various events, but there was no reason on days and
evenings when we were actually here and able to take amendments that
people could not offer amendments.
Today, we have 3 hours to offer amendments on this bill. It will be
interesting to see how many show up to offer amendments. I guess the
alternative would be to see if we could get a finite list of amendments
and have those the only amendments that would be in order prior to this
bill's termination.
The other problem we have this week is that all over the country,
there are base-closing hearings being held by the BRAC hearing
commission. For Senators who are involved in these issues, they involve
thousands of members of the military and thousands of civilians who are
tied to these bases, and they are going to leave and go to these
hearings. Everyone should know that to wait around here and want to
make sure that all of the Senators are here for a given vote--it will
not work because I think there will be Senators gone virtually every
day this week. I have received word from a couple of Senators who will
not be here tomorrow. I know some of the hearings are
[[Page 13106]]
going to be held in New Mexico, and I understand the two Senators from
New Mexico are going to leave late in the afternoon on Thursday. They
are the managers of the bill. So I hope that we can work into the night
on this bill this week because if we have any hope of doing those
appropriation bills next week, we have to finish this bill this week;
otherwise, we will spend all next week on this bill, spending a lot of
time in quorum calls waiting for people to come and offer amendments.
I am a little frustrated because I know there are people on both
sides of the aisle who say they have amendments but they are not quite
ready or they want to do it at a more convenient time. The convenient
times are over. We will not have 100 Senators here on any day this
week. That is the way it is going to be. So some of these very tough,
tight amendments are going to have to be decided on the votes of less
than 100 Senators.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from New
Mexico.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the majority leader and minority leader, I
apologize; I was not here for the entire dialog between the two of
them. I know there is this business of who is going to be absent which
days, but I say to both Senators, I do not think that should keep us
from continuing to insist that Senators who have amendments bring them
forward. We have to see them.
Mr. REID. That is what we said.
Mr. DOMENICI. We need to know about them. There are two that we know
of, one to strike the inventory of offshore assets. That will take a
little while. Somebody should offer that before the day is out. That is
an hour or two, and there will be a vote. We think Senator Feinstein
has one. We would hope that would come forth. I think over the evening
and midmorning tomorrow something will filter out with reference to
global warming. Whether it is one, two, or whatever, there will be a
conclusion, and somebody will offer an amendment. That will be the
longest one.
I do not know what the Senate leadership wants to do about the fact
that it is probably real that there will not be 100 Senators each of
the days, but I do not know that that ought to keep us from moving
forward and getting some accord as to finishing this bill. I do not
know which day, but we are not in the kind of problem we have been in
the past. As both Senators know, we can get to the amendments pretty
quickly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, to clarify the comments that were going
back and forth between the Senate Democratic leader and myself, we will
finish the bill this week. We pay our respects to the Senator from New
Mexico by saying he has been more than willing to be here to receive
amendments. The fact that there were not a lot of people either on
Thursday or today rushing to the floor to offer the amendments actually
leads me to be very hopeful that we will complete this bill Thursday,
although I know in all likelihood it is going to be Friday. We are down
to just very few amendments.
We recognize that some people will not be here over the course of
even today, voting tonight, tomorrow, and the next day. That is not
going to slow us down at all in our obligation to address the Nation's
business. When there are amendments, we will take them to the Senate
floor to debate them. I think we are discouraged a little by the fact
that people are not rushing down to offer amendments. On the other
hand, it kind of gives me a little bit of encouragement. It means we
are going to finish this bill. We are going to file cloture Tuesday in
order to finish it, in all likelihood, unless we come to some agreement
by both the managers.
I congratulate them for where we are today. We intend on finishing
the bill with certainty this week.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader.
Mr. REID. I would be totally opposed to cloture being invoked if I
felt the majority was somehow stopping us from offering amendments, but
that has not been the case. There has been ample opportunity for people
to offer amendments. So I think we either have to have a list of finite
amendments the two managers can agree on or it appears cloture would
have to be invoked.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senators for their comments.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 6, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 6) to ensure jobs for our future with secure,
affordable and reliable energy.
Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator,
Mr. Wyden, is here and desires to speak.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
Amendment No. 792
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
committee, Senator Domenici. I ask unanimous consent to call up at this
time an amendment I filed with Senator Dorgan, No. 792.
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, is there a pending
amendment?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no pending amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. He does not need consent to bring up the amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is
correct.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] for himself and Mr.
Dorgan proposes an amendment numbered 792.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for the suspension of strategic petroleum reserve
acquisitions)
On page 208, strike lines 11 through 20 and insert the
following:
(e) Fill Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Capacity.--
(1) Definition of price of oil.--In this subsection, the
term ``price of oil'' means the West Texas Intermediate 1-
month future price of oil on the New York Mercantile
Exchange.
(2) Acquisition.--The Secretary shall, as expeditiously as
practicable, without incurring excessive cost or appreciably
affecting the price of gasoline or heating oil to consumers,
acquire petroleum in quantities sufficient to fill the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the 1,000,000,000-barrel
capacity authorized under section 154(a) of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6234(a)), in accordance with
the sections 159 and 160 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 6239, 6240).
(3) Suspension of acquisitions.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall suspend acquisitions
of petroleum under paragraph (2) when the market day closing
price of oil exceeds $58.28 per barrel (adjusted in
accordance with the Consumer Price Index for all-urban
consumers United States city average, as published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics) for 10 consecutive trading days.
(B) Acquisition.--Acquisitions suspended under subparagraph
(A) shall resume when the market day closing price of oil
remains below $40 per barrel (adjusted in accordance with the
Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers United States
city average, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics)
for 10 consecutive trading days.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank the distinguished chairman for his thoughtfulness.
[[Page 13107]]
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator would watch the floor for me
while I leave for 10 minutes.
Mr. WYDEN. Absolutely. It is my intent to speak on this amendment I
offer with Senator Dorgan and then lay it aside. My hope is we can work
something out. I know Senator Collins and Senator Levin are working on
something and desire to work with you, as well. If we bring it up now,
we can start the discussion on it and work something out.
I see Senator Bingaman. He has been so thoughtful throughout the
process as well.
Mr. President and colleagues, the reason I have come to the floor
today is because oil prices per barrel are now at an all-time record
high. If you scour this legislation, it is hard to find anything in it
that would provide relief to the American consumer any time soon. It is
my hope as we go forward with this debate, at a time when prices are in
the stratosphere, that we work in a bipartisan way and at least provide
some help in this legislation for the consumer who is getting clobbered
by these historically high costs.
What especially concerns me is it seems to this Member of the Senate
that the Federal Government actually makes the problem of high oil and
gasoline prices worse every day. Every single day, the Federal
Government, through its policies, is compounding the problem the
consumers are seeing at the pump because it has been the policy of the
Federal Government to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the worst
possible time--when prices are at record-high levels.
When the prices are at a record-high level, it seems to me this is
not the time to be taking oil out of the private market and putting it
in the Government reserve. It just does not make economic sense to add
more pressure to what is already a very tight oil supply. Reducing the
supply of oil on the market, of course, leads to higher oil prices.
That is simply supply and demand. Because oil accounts for 49 percent
of the cost of gasoline, that means higher prices for consumers at the
pump. For the life of me, I do not see how it makes sense for
consumers, who are already paying sky-high prices at the pump, to then
have their Government force them to pay higher prices by taking oil out
of the private market and putting it into the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. So it does not make sense for the consumer, and, in my view,
it does not make sense for taxpayers as well, who have to pay record-
high prices for the oil that is taken off the market.
Now, this is not just my opinion. The Senate Energy Committee heard
testimony last year by experts who said the policy with respect to
filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when prices are so high jacks
up costs. I asked John Kilduff, senior vice president of energy risk
management at Fimat USA, whether the SPR fill rate of 300,000 barrels
per day was contributing to oil price increases. Before the committee
that day, which the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr.
Domenici, chairs, and our friend, Senator Bingaman, is the ranking
minority Member, when we were all in our committee, the expert
witnesses said they do believe these policies are contributing to oil
price increases. Mr. Kilduff specifically stated:
A fill rate of 100,000 represents, obviously, 700,000
barrels for a week. At 300,000 it is 2.1 million barrels. A
2.1 million barrel increase in U.S. commercial crude oil
inventory in a particular weekly report would be a big build
for the particular week and would help with downward pressure
on crude oil prices.
So I would say to colleagues that this notion that this is something
the Senate can just let the Secretary of Energy do what he wants is
belied by the expert testimony we have had before the Senate Energy
Committee where experts specifically said that a fill rate of several
hundred thousand barrels per day is contributing to oil price
increases.
As far as I can tell, under the policy we are now seeing at the
Energy Department, it does not matter how high the prices are, they are
just going to keep filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They will
continue to take oil off the private market no matter how high the
prices get.
I would just like to say, Mr. President and colleagues, I am not
talking about taking oil out of the Reserve. I know people very often
bring that up. I am just saying it does not make sense to have the same
fill rate when you are talking about historically high prices because
that very high cost of filling it at that point directly hurts the
consumer at the pump.
On Friday, and again today, when the price of oil skyrocketed to the
highest price ever recorded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, our
Government has continued to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Earlier this spring, when gasoline prices set an all-time record high
of $2.28 for a gallon of gas, the Energy Department continued to fill
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So I say to those who have
reservations about what I am advocating, I would simply ask, how high
do prices have to go before we stop pursuing policies that drive the
prices even higher? At some point, there should be some limit when it
comes to the Federal Government actually compounding the difficulties
consumers are having at the pump.
Under the language currently in the bill, there are no limits. There
seems to be some language about ``excessive'' costs, but there is
nothing that actually blocks our Government from filling the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve if the price goes even higher than the current record
price of $59.23 per barrel. So I want to repeat that. Even if the price
goes to $60 or $70 or $80, there is nothing that would force our
Government to change its policy of filling the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve at these very high prices. So with no restrictions in sight, I
guess the Government can just continue indefinitely to fill the Reserve
with these record prices.
To address this problem, my amendment directs that the Secretary of
Energy suspend the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when the
prices go above the record-high level in the market and stay above that
record-high level for 10 consecutive trading days. The suspension of
filling would continue until the price of oil falls back down for 10
consecutive days.
I also note the House of Representatives at least is trying to move
in the direction of a bit of consumer protection because they have
included a prohibition against continuing to fill the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve until the price drops below $40 per barrel. Under my
amendment, current SPR filling could go forward. But additional filling
would be halted when prices are at record-high levels unless there is
some consumer protection for our citizens.
The bottom line is we cannot continue to allow filling of the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve when our economy suffers due to high gas
and oil prices without providing some safety valve. Unless this
amendment is adopted or unless we can work out a compromise with
Senator Collins and Senator Levin and other colleagues who worked on
this--unless we can get some legislation in place--there will be no
standard for action or any certainty there will be some consumer
protection for our citizens when oil prices are out of control.
Now, some may argue there should not be these kinds of price triggers
for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I guess that argument is: Let's
just leave it to the Secretary of Energy. Well, there are parts of this
bill, such as section 313, that do not leave matters to the Secretary's
discretion, such as when you are talking about price relief, royalty
relief for oil and gas producers. Section 313 of the legislation has
clear price levels for when the oil companies get a break from the
normal royalty policy.
So what we have here is a double standard. There are price levels to
protect oil and gas producers when it comes to their royalties but
absolutely no protection for the consumer who is getting clobbered at
the pump and who could get some relief if the Government simply did not
fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a time when prices are at a
record-high level.
The last point I would make is suspending the fill of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve when prices are at a
[[Page 13108]]
record-high level will not hurt this country's energy security. The
Reserve already has more than 693 million barrels now in storage. That
is the highest level in history. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is
expected to be filled to its current authorized capacity by the end of
the summer.
What is more, a 2003 study by the Senate Permanent Investigations
Subcommittee found that increased filling of the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve when prices were high did not increase overall U.S. oil
supplies. Instead, because of the higher prices, oil companies took oil
out of their own inventories rather than buy higher priced oil on the
market. That does not increase our overall oil supply or our Nation's
energy security.
So what we have is record prices for the consumer, record costs in
terms of filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the Federal
Government, in effect, providing free oil storage for high-priced oil
in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve so oil companies can reduce their
own inventories and storage costs. That is not energy security; that is
just pounding the consumer and taxpayers once more.
For these reasons, I strongly urge colleagues to place some limits on
when the Energy Department can fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
When prices are at an all-time high, it seems that to do otherwise
denies consumers a fair shake and taxpayers a fair shake. It is my view
the Senate can take pressure off the price of a barrel of oil and off
consumers who are getting squeezed at the pump without compromising our
national security. One way to do it is along the lines of the amendment
I propose this afternoon.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Oregon for
his comments and his amendment.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Wyden, just offered
an amendment on his behalf and mine. He spoke in support of it.
Obviously, I am a cosponsor so I support the amendment. It is an
amendment that is very simple. We are putting oil away underground in
something called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or SPR. The purpose of
putting oil underground at this point is in the event that we would
have an emergency at some point in the future, we would have a
substantial inventory of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
That SPR is nearly full. As I understand, it is well over 98 percent
filled at this point. Yet we are still, each day, taking about 100,000
barrels of oil off the market and putting it underground at a time when
we are effectively paying the highest price ever for that oil in order
to put it there.
There are two problems with that. No. 1, at a time when we have very
high prices, which means we have lower supplies and higher demand, it
makes no sense to have 100,000 barrels a day taken off the market and
stuck underground. Even more than that, it makes no sense to do this,
with the last increment to be put into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,
at a time when oil is $55, $57, $58 a barrel.
Our amendment is very simple. It would suspend the acquisition of oil
at these inflated prices, suspend the acquisition of oil at a time when
we need more supply, not less, and it would allow the acquisition to
complete filling the SPR when the price of a barrel of oil reaches $40
per barrel or below.
My hope is the Senate will adopt the amendment. It is just common
sense. It is not rocket science to believe that if you have a Strategic
Petroleum Reserve almost filled, you should not go to the market and
take $55 or $57 oil in order to take inventory off the market at a time
when you have record prices. That doesn't make any sense.
We are asking that the Senate approve the amendment.
Before the Senator from New Mexico leaves the floor, I have another
matter I wish to address, but I don't intend to address something in
morning business that would interrupt the work on the bill. I ask
unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes
with the understanding that if someone comes to the floor with an
amendment on the Energy bill, I will defer. I don't want to delay the
bill. I ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes in morning business with
that understanding.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I don't think that is going to be any major obstacle to
the progress we are making on the Senate floor this afternoon. I have
no objection.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Dorgan are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for 1
minute?
Mr. BUNNING. Absolutely.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator, Mr. Bunning
from the State of Kentucky, is going to speak, and I assume he is going
to talk about the Energy bill; is that correct?
Mr. BUNNING. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wish to say as a preamble to his speech, for those
who are going to listen to him, that he is a member of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee and has been for some time. Most of the
time people think that the committee is a committee of interior, public
land States, but it also has a lot to do with coal and our energy
future, diversification of our energy resources.
We have had a marvelous committee. Part of it is because of Members
such as Senator Bunning. He has been a great participant. He comes to
the meetings, he works hard, he offers amendments. He understands we
need an energy bill. He does not win all the time, but he has his
views, and he has been a strong proponent for us getting our house in
order and to use as much American energy as possible for our future. I
commend him for it.
I trust we will get a bill out of the Senate and out of conference,
one he can vote with not just a ``yea'' but with a hearty ``yea,'' not
just one of those softballs but one of those fastballs he used to
throw. That is what we are looking for.
I yield the floor and thank the Senator.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Domenici for his
extremely hard work in trying to get an energy policy for the United
States since I have been in the Senate.
Many of us have spoken on this Senate floor several times about the
need for our national energy policy. We have been here before debating
an energy bill. To some, it may seem like the same old song and same
old dance. But here we are again. I am more optimistic than I have ever
been about finally getting an energy bill to the President's desk.
I commend Chairman Domenici for his leadership and determination in
helping to put America on an independent path with this energy
legislation. It is a pleasure to serve with him on the Energy
Committee.
The Energy bill before us is a good starting point that attempts to
strike a balance between conservation and production. In the past,
Congress failed to make progress on energy policy because we tried to
make a choice between conservation and production, but it does not have
to be one or the other.
[[Page 13109]]
Many of us understand that a balanced and sensible energy policy must
boost production of domestic energy sources as well as promote
conservation. This Energy bill takes a good step toward striking a
balance, and passing an energy bill is important now more than ever.
We all know the price of energy has risen very sharply in the last
few years, and it is only going to keep rising. It goes without saying
that energy costs touch every single part of our economy and our lives.
The average price of gasoline has risen, for unleaded regular around
this country, to about $2.13 a gallon, and the price of oil is bumping
up against $60 a barrel. Natural gas, coal, and other fuels have also
seen record prices this year. This is hitting Americans in their
wallets, especially now when so many families are hitting the road for
vacations.
Higher energy prices also slow business growth and force businesses
to pass increased pricing on to consumers with higher priced goods.
While passing an energy bill might not help energy prices in the short
term, it will make a big difference over the long term.
This bill's domestic energy production provisions and increased
conservation provisions will help slow these spikes of price increases.
But without a new energy policy, there is not much we can do about
rising energy prices. Oil producers and production are at full
capacity, and with China and India upping their demands for oil, the
world oil supply will be drawn down while prices continue to rise. This
means that we cannot just try to conserve our way out of any kind of
energy problem. We must find other sources of reliable and low-cost
fuels or our economy and national security will be at risk.
We continue to depend on oil from some of the most dangerous and
unstable parts of the world. It is a recipe for disaster.
The stock market jumps up and down, all around, depending on the
latest reports of pipeline sabotage in the Middle East. Everyone
wonders where the next terrorist attack is going to hit. We also worry
about Iran's developing nuclear weapons, and we are trying with our
allies to figure out a diplomatic answer that will bring stability to
the region. But the Iranians do not have a lot of incentive to deal
when they are getting nearly $60 a barrel for their oil. In a way, our
increasing need for energy is cutting our influence in the part of the
world where we need it the most. We have to reduce our reliance on
foreign oil and do a better job internally of taking care of our own
energy needs.
Congress has been playing political football with this issue over the
past few Congresses, and it is time to end the game. Our Nation and our
national security continue to be at risk. We do not want the United
States beholden to other countries just to keep our engines running and
our lights turned on.
It impresses me to know that the bill contains some strengthened
electrical provisions. We have outgrown our electrical system, and
changes need to be made. One of the provisions in the bill is PUHCA
repeal, which will go a long way in helping our energy system meet
increasing demands.
Also, we desperately need to build new transmission lines. I am glad
to see that this bill has some provisions which will help ensure that
happens. Building a better electric system, however, should not require
mandates for electricity companies to get into regional transmission
organizations. States and companies should be able to decide on their
own what is best for their consumers. So I am pleased to see a
provision in the bill that explicitly prevents FERC from mandating
RTOs.
The Energy bill will also help reduce our dependence on foreign oil
by increasing domestic energy production. It also provides important
conservation provisions which will help protect the environment. And
because coal is such a key industry in Kentucky, I am pleased that this
bill contains clean coal provisions that I have authored and been
pushing for a long time. The clean coal provisions will help to
increase domestic energy production and help improve the environment.
Coal is an important part of our energy plans. It is cheap,
plentiful, and we do not have to go very far to find it. For my home
State and the States of others, this means more jobs and a cleaner
place to live. Clean coal technologies will significantly reduce
emissions and sharply increase efficiencies in turning coal into
electricity.
Previously, our Government overpromoted production of one source of
energy--natural gas. This not only depleted our supply, but it created
so much demand that it completely outstripped supply and left Americans
to pay higher prices for just this one energy source.
A sound energy policy should promote the use of many different types
of fuels and technologies instead of favoring just one source. As we
have seen time and again, putting all our eggs in one basket simply
does not work.
I am glad we are turning things around and taking steps toward making
sure clean coal and other sources play a vital role in meeting our
future energy needs.
This bill encourages research and development of clean coal
technology by authorizing about $2.4 billion for the department of
energy.
These funds will be used to advance new technologies to significantly
reduce emissions and increase efficiency of turning coal into
electricity.
And almost $2 billion will be used for the clean coal power
initiative.
This is where the Department of Energy will work with industry to
advance efficiency, environmental performance, and cost competitiveness
of new clean coal technologies.
And the Finance Committee's energy tax package provides $2.7 billion
to encourage the use of coal and deployment of clean coal technologies.
Coal plays an important role in our economy. It provides over 50
percent of the energy needed for our Nation's energy.
The Energy Information Administration expects coal will continue to
remain the primary fuel for electricity generation over the next 2
decades.
As my colleagues can see, I am a little biased when it comes to coal.
It means so much to my State, and it is such an affordable and
plentiful fuel to help America in her quest for energy independency.
The 21st century economy is going to require increased amounts of
reliable, clean, and affordable energy to keep our Nation running, and
clean coal can help fill that requirement.
With research advances, we have the know-how to better balance
conservation with the need for increased energy production at home.
The diversity of this energy package to promote new fuels is quite
impressive.
There are provisions for nuclear, hydro-power, solar, wind, bio-fuels
and other renewable energy sources.
All this put together with the bill's conservation provisions will
help America meet its sensible and long-term energy strategy and goals.
I look forward to the continued debate and consideration of this
bill.
And I hope we can get it approved, conferenced and sent to the
President's desk for his consideration.
The quicker we can do this, then the sooner we can help make our
environment, economy, and national security stronger, and the sooner we
can become more energy independent from other sources.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to address some statements made
last week, during the debate on the Bingaman amendment No. 791,
regarding community acceptance of renewable energy in Vermont. After I
left the floor, one Senator tried to make a point in opposition to the
creation of a national renewable portfolio standard by referencing some
opposition to a wind power project in Vermont. I want to set the record
straight: though we have had some siting issues, Vermonters
overwhelmingly support renewable energy over nuclear, coal, or natural
gas.
The Senate should not confuse local concerns about the appropriate
location for wind power siting in Vermont as a monolithic objection to
any new renewable energy in my State. In fact, the views are contrary
to such a conjuncture, even in the case of wind
[[Page 13110]]
power. Numerous polls throughout the last decade have consistently
shown that Vermonters support wind energy. In fact, a survey in March
2004 found 74 percent of respondents said they would consider wind
turbines along a Vermont mountain ridge either beautiful or acceptable.
The same survey found 83 percent of Vermonters choose renewable energy
from wind, solar, hydro and wood as preferable to other energy sources.
Lawrence Mott, Chair of Renewable Energy Vermont, which commissioned
the energy poll said, ``It's clear, Vermonters want more renewable
energy, including wind turbines, and that they find installation on
ridgelines very acceptable.''
Vermont's history with wind power goes back to the turn of the
century when farmers used windmills to pump drinking water from their
wells. One of the first great experiments in converting wind to energy
was conducted atop a peak in Vermont called Grandpa's Knob in
Castleton, Vermont. It was, at the time, the world's largest wind
turbine and produced 1.25 MW with the first synchronous electric
generator. I recall visiting this wind turbine with my grandfather, an
architect, and we marveled at its beauty and ingenuity. It was the
first time energy from a wind turbine was interconnected to the utility
grid.
Vermont's interest in wind power has continued to grow since then.
Just look at Green Mountain Power's wind farm in Searsburg, Vermont.
Eleven wind turbines generate enough electricity to power more than
2,000 homes, reducing toxic air emissions by 22 million pounds compared
to the impacts if that amount of electricity had been produced through
combustion of fossil fuels.
Vermont has a tremendous capacity for wind power, as several of my
colleagues have demonstrated with wind maps produced from the U.S.
Department of Energy. Industry representatives in Vermont envision a
handful of wind farms scattered about Vermont producing enough
electricity to power about 50,000 homes, which would account for about
10 percent of the State's electricity needs.
Last week, Vermont Governor Jim Douglas signed a new renewable energy
bill into law. He did so at the manufacturing plant of Northern Power
Systems, a world leader in off-grid power systems. Northern Power is
about to ship seven 100-kilowatt wind turbines to three communities in
remote western Alaska, and the Governor used a 31-foot-long blade from
one of these turbines as his writing table.
Clearly, Vermont's Governor and Vermont's legislators see the value
of renewable energy. A large majority of Vermonters support wind energy
and renewable energy. And I am very optimistic about the role wind
energy can play in satisfying a growing proportion of this Nation's
energy needs.
Last week the Senate defeated an important amendment that would have
helped set this nation on a course to significantly reduce our reliance
on foreign oil. It is unfortunate that a majority of my colleagues did
not see fit to put the U.S. on the right course--to break our addiction
to foreign oil.
H.R. 6 requires a 1 million barrel a day oil saving goal.
Unfortunately, this goal would actually result in more oil being
imported, not less. In fact, the U.S. will still be importing 14.4
million barrels a day under the underlying bill's goal. Slowing down
the increased rate of consumption alone is not enough. We should be
setting an ambitious goal that actually reduces imported oil, not a
goal that will result in more oil being imported.
Instead, the Senate refused to set a national goal to reduce the
Nation's addiction to foreign oil. The Cantwell amendment would have
established that goal--to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by 40
percent by 2025. By turning our backs on this goal, we are sending the
wrong message. Reducing our addiction to foreign oil is essential to
the economic security of our Nation. We cannot continue to rely on
unstable foreign countries for the energy that runs the economic
machine of this Nation.
Fluctuating energy prices and instability in the Middle East once
again are prompting calls for energy independence for the U.S.
Federal efforts to ensure freedom from fluctuations in energy prices
have been advocated by every President, both Republican and Democrat,
since 1973 and the infamous oil boycott. As Americans we count on
energy to protect our security, to fuel our cars, to provide heat, air
conditioning and light for our homes, to manufacture goods, and to
transport supplies. In all of these needs, we, as consumers, pay the
price for fluctuations in the global energy market.
Reducing our reliance on foreign oil is essential and the most basic
step we need to take to address this crisis. The Cantwell amendment
would have resulted in about 7.6 million barrels per day less oil being
imported in 2025. Those savings are equivalent to the amount of oil the
U.S. currently imports from Saudi Arabia. We can and should stop the
oil cartels from controlling the future of this Nation.
In addition, I believe setting an oil saving goal could have
beneficial effects on our air quality. Since a vast majority of current
oil consumption is from the transportation sector, I believe setting an
oil saving goal would encourage auto manufacturers to voluntarily
improve efficiency of cars and trucks. As our population continues to
grow and more people are driving more miles, it is essential to our air
quality to continue to improve fuel efficiency of the vehicles we
drive.
As it stands now, this bill does not require auto manufacturers or
others in the transportation sector--the plane, train and truck
sector--to meet corporate average fuel economy standards. I believe
increased fuel economy standards can and should also be included in
this bill. But short of adding new standards, setting this goal would
have been a significant step in that direction.
By failing to set an oil saving goal, I think we have failed to state
one of the most basic goals of this bill--a real reduction the amount
of foreign imported oil.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered. The Senator is recognized.
Amendment No. 799
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Voinovich], for himself, Mr.
Carper, and Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered
799.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I offer this amendment today as
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air,
Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety. This amendment is a bipartisan
piece of legislation that was introduced last Thursday. It is called
the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005, or S. 1265.
This bill is cosponsored by Environment and Public Works Committee
Chairman Jim Inhofe and Ranking Member Jim Jeffords and Senators Tom
Carper, Johnny Isakson, Hillary Clinton, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and
Dianne Feinstein. Focused on improving air quality and protecting
public health, it would establish voluntary National and State-level
grant and loan programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions.
Additionally, the bill would help areas come into attainment for the
new air quality standards.
Developed with environmental, industry, and public officials, the
legislation complements Environmental Protection Agency, EPA,
regulations now
[[Page 13111]]
being implemented that address diesel fuel and new diesel engines. I am
pleased to be joined by a strong and diverse group of organizations and
officials: Environmental Defense, Clean Air Task Force, Union of
Concerned Scientists, Ohio Environmental Council, Caterpillar Inc.,
Cummins Inc., Diesel Technology Forum, Emissions Control Technology
Association, Associated General Contractors of America, State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/Association of Local
Air Pollution Control Officials, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,
Regional Air Pollution Control Agency in Dayton, OH., and the Mid-Ohio
Regional Planning Commission.
The cosponsors and these groups do not agree on many issues, which is
why this amendment is so special. I ask unanimous consent that letters
of support from these organizations be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Caterpillar Inc.,
Mossville, IL, June 16, 2005.
Hon. George Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: Caterpillar is in full support of
the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005. Thank you for
assembling a broad coalition of stakeholders in this
bipartisan effort to modernize and retrofit millions of
diesel engines across the country. It is impressive to see
such a strong coalition of environmental groups, regulators
and industry representatives working hard to advance retrofit
as a national energy and environmental policy issue.
As a company. Caterpillar has invested more than $1 billion
in new clean diesel engine technology. No power source can
match the reliability, efficiency, durability and cost
effectiveness of the diesel engine. From the late 1980s to
2007, Caterpillar will have reduced diesel emissions in on-
road trucks and school buses by 98 percent. When meeting
Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 regulations,
Caterpillar will reduce emissions for off-road machines an
additional 90 percent by 2014. This ensures that clean diesel
engines will continue to be the workhorses of our economy for
years to come.
Our customers who operate fleets of buses, trucks,
construction machines and the equipment that safeguards our
homes and lives in non-attainment areas are very interested
in retrofit technology. However, they need a nationally
consistent approach to address these challenges. Your bill,
which focuses on grants and loans, wisely lets the market
determine the right technologies for various product
applications. Retrofitted engines last longer and, most
importantly, have fewer emissions.
Thank you again for your commitment to this legislation.
You can count on Caterpillar's support as the bill moves
forward in Congress.
Sincerely,
James J. Parker,
Vice President.
____
Environmental Defense,
New York, NY, June 17, 2005.
Re Introduction of the Diesel Emission Reduction Act of 2005.
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich, I am writing to express
Environmental Defense's support for the Diesel Emission
Reduction Act of 2005 which you are introducing today.
As you are aware the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
regulations establishing new standards for diesel buses and
freight trucks and new nonroad diesel equipment will slash
diesel emissions by more than 80% from 2000 levels,
ultimately saving 20,000 lives a year in 2030. But because
these federal standards apply only to new diesel engines and
because diesel engines are so durable, the high levels of
pollution from existing diesel sources will persist
throughout the long lives of the engines in service today.
Your legislation establishing a national program to cut
pollution from today's diesel engines would speed the
transition to cleaner diesel engines and achieve healthier
air well in advance of that schedule. The program design
principles embodied in your bill help ensure that the funds
for diesel emission reduction projects will be spent in an
equitable and efficient manner.
Environmental Defense has long been a proponent of smart
policy design. We have promoted market-based and cost-
effective programs such as cap-and-trade as a solution to a
variety of environmental issues dating back to the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendment.
Environmental Defense commends you on your leadership in
cleaning up the existing diesel fleet. We look forward to
working with you and your staff to ensure the passage and
funding of the Diesel Emission Reduction Act.
Sincerely,
Fred Krupp,
President.
____
The Associated General
Contractors of America,
Alexandria, VA, June 15, 2005.
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: The Associated General Contractors
of America (AGC) thanks you for taking the lead in
introducing The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) to
provide assistance for owners to retrofit their diesel
powered equipment. The legislation would establish grant and
loan programs to achieve significant reduction in diesel
emissions. This initiative could prove to be extremely
beneficial to local areas attempting to come into compliance
with the Clean Air Act.
The construction industry welcomes this legislation because
it will provide the needed assistance to help contractors
retrofit their off road equipment. Contractors use diesel
powered off road equipment to build projects that enhance our
environment and quality of life by improving transportation
system, water quality, offices, homes, navigation and other
vital infrastructure. This equipment tends to have a long
life, and therefore is in use for many years before it is
replaced.
Reducing the emissions from the engines that power this
equipment is a costly undertaking and is particularly
burdensome for small businesses. Providing grants to aid
contractors with the expense of retrofitting is a highly cost
effective use of federal funds.
AGC applauds your efforts in taking an incentive approach
to addressing environmental concerns. AGC urges that this
legislation be enacted quickly so that environmental benefits
can be achieved as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Stephen E. Sandherr,
Chief Executive Officer.
____
Cummins Inc.,
Washington, DC, June 14, 2005.
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: Cummins Inc. strongly supports the
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005, which establishes a
voluntary national retrofit program aimed at reducing
emissions from existing diesel engines, and congratulates you
on your efforts to bring the diesel industry and
environmental groups together on this effort.
The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 recognizes the
clean air challenges ahead of us and puts in place a system
to help address them. In the near future, states must develop
plans to address particulate matter and ozone emission
reductions to meet the new air quality standards. A federally
sponsored voluntary diesel retrofit initiative is a great
tool to help states and communities meet these new air
quality standards. Your legislation recognizes that one size
does not fit all, and there are a number of technologies,
which can be implemented to modernize diesel fleets. The term
retrofit not only describes an after treatment exhaust device
used to reduce key vehicle emissions but also refers to
engine repair/rebuild, refuel, repower, and replacement.
The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 represents a
sound use of tax payer dollars. Diesel retrofits have proven
to be one of the most cost-effective emissions reductions
strategies. Furthermore, another advantage to retrofits is
that reductions can be realized immediately after
installation and can be particularly important in
metropolitan areas where high volumes of heavy-duty trucks
are prevalent and/or where major construction projects are
underway for long periods of time.
Finally, I, again, wanted to congratulate you on your
efforts to bring our industry together with the environmental
community on this legislation. This legislation is truly a
model on how to find solutions to environmental problems. It
is our hope that the process, which you put together to craft
this legislation, can be used to further address the older
fleets as well as advance efforts, which recognize the energy
efficiency and environmental benefits of clean diesel
technologies.
Again, Cummins thanks you for your vision on these issues
and looks forward to working with you to pass this
legislation.
Very truly yours,
Mike Cross,
Vice President, Cum-
mins Inc. and General Manager, Fleetguard Emission Solutions.
____
Diesel Technology Forum,
Frederick, MD, June 9, 2005.
Hon. George Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: We would like to recognize and
thank you for your leadership in developing the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act of 2005. We are especially encouraged
by the broad coalition of industry and
[[Page 13112]]
environmental groups from whom you have successfully sought
not just cooperation, but real collaboration in development
and support of this important legislation.
As you know, the recent advancements in new clean diesel
technology have been substantial. New emissions control
devices such as particulate filters oxidation catalysts, and
other technologies will play an important role in the clean
diesel system of the future, allowing new commercial truck
engines to be over 90 percent lower in emissions than those
built just a dozen years ago. And, as we have learned over
the last 5 years, these technologies can also be applied to
some existing vehicles and equipment. Your legislation will
play an important role in helping to deploy more clean diesel
retrofit technologies to thousands of small businesses and
equipment owners who might otherwise not be able to afford
the upgrading of their equipment.
Because of its unique combination of energy efficiency,
durability and reliability, diesel technology plays a
critical role in many industrial and transportation sectors,
powering two-thirds of all construction and farm equipment
and over 90 percent of highway trucks. Diesel technology has
played and will continue to play a vital role in key sectors
of our economy. Thanks to your legislation, diesel technology
will continue to serve these sectors and help assure this
country's continued clean air progress.
We look forward to continuing to promoting a greater
awareness of the benefits of clean diesel retrofits and your
legislation.
Sincerely yours,
Allen R. Schaeffer,
Executive Director.
____
State of Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency,
Columbus, OH, June 15, 2005.
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: It has been a great pleasure to
meet you and discuss air quality issues with you over these
last few months. Ohio's air quality has improved dramatically
over the last 30 years. However, as you are well aware, Ohio
faces a significant challenge in achieving compliance with
the new federal air quality standards for ozone and fine
particle matter. We have 33 counties that don't meet the more
stringent ozone standard, and all or part of 32 counties that
don't meet the more stringent particulate standard.
Diesel emissions are part of the problem in both of those
scenarios. That is why I am so encouraged by your efforts to
develop bipartisan legislation to provide federal financial
assistance for a voluntary diesel retrofit initiative. In
many cases, lack of funding is the only thing keeping people
from using the cleaner technology that is available.
As Ohio develops its clean air plans for ozone and
particulate matter, we need to consider every tool available
to us. A funding program to help reduce pollution from diesel
engines is a valuable tool.
I look forward to the successful passage of your bill and
the clean air benefits it bring to Ohio and the nation.
Sincerely,
Joseph P. Koncelik,
Director.
____
Ohio Environmental Council,
Columbus, OH, June 13, 2005.
Subject: Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005.
Hon. George Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: The Ohio Environmental Council
offers its hearty support for the Diesel Emissions Reduction
Act of 2005. This landmark legislation will help clean up one
of Ohio's and the nation's largest sources of dangerous air
pollution; diesel engines.
From our initial meeting with you in April of 2004 to
discuss the impacts of diesel pollution, we have been
impressed by your leadership in addressing this significant
contributor to Ohio's, and the nation's, air quality
problems. As you know, approximately one-third of Ohio
counties are failing federal air quality standards for
ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter. Much of the
nation faces a similar burden with an estimated 65 million
people living in areas exceeding the fine particulate
standard and 111 million people living in areas exceeding the
8-hour ozone standard.
Diesel engines contribute significantly to this problem
with on-road and off-road diesel engines accounting for
roughly one-half of the ozone contributing nitrogen oxide and
fine particulate mobile source emissions nationwide.
According to EPA, diesel exhaust also contains over 40
chemicals listed as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), some of
which are known or probable human carcinogens including
benzene and formaldehyde. Numerous studies have suggested
that diesel pollutants contribute to health effects such as
asthma attacks, reduced lung function, heart and lung
disease, cancer and even premature death.
Fortunately, unlike many complex environmental problems
that have very complicated solutions, the clean-up of diesel
air pollution is easy. Technologies are available today to
retrofit existing diesel engines, reducing emissions from the
tailpipe by 20-90%--reductions realized immediately after
installation. In fact, due to EPA's Diesel Rules, starting in
2007 we will see the cleanest diesel engines ever coming off
production lines. Unfortunately, those rules do not address
the 11 million diesel engines in use today. In order to meet
EPA's goal to modernize 100% of these existing engines by
2014, states and fleets will need assistance.
That is why the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 is
so imperative. It will establish an unprecedented $200
million annual national grant and loan program to assist
states, organizations and fleets in reducing emissions from
diesel engines. These efforts will serve to help counties in
complying with federal air standards as well as minimize the
health toll of diesel emissions on the public.
I am proud to offer the Ohio Environmental Council's
support to you, Senator Voinovich, with the introduction of
the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005.
Sincerely,
Vicki L. Deisner,
Executive Director.
____
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission,
Columbus, OH, June 14, 2005
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: Our membership, comprised of 41
local governments in central Ohio, has identified our ozone
and PM2.5 nonattainment status as one of the most daunting
challenges facing our region. Numerous health studies
demonstrate the negative health impacts of polluted air,
especially for asthmatic children and older adults with heart
disease. In addition to these, health impacts, failure to
clean up our air could inhibit business expansion and
investment in transportation.
Freight transportation is one of the primary growth sectors
for central Ohio. Yet, we do not want growth at the expense
of a diminished quality of life for our residents. Therefore,
it is important that we do whatever we can to encourage
public and private on and off-road fleets to improve
emissions from existing diesel engines that will continue to
operate for many years.
MORPC's Air Quality Committee is working diligently with a
broad coalition of local governments, manufacturers,
industry, health organizations, and environmental groups to
identify and implement cost effective ways to reduce nitrogen
oxide (NOX) and particulate matter (PM) emissions
that contribute to ozone and particle pollution in central
Ohio. We strongly support the introduction of the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 to provide federal funds to
spur local investment in voluntary diesel emission reduction
programs. This will be an invaluable tool to help us meet the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ambient air quality
standards.
We look forward to working with you to continue to develop
support for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005.
Please let me know if we can be of any assistance.
Sincerely,
William C. Habig,
Executive Director.
____
Clean Air Task Force,
Boston, MA, June 16, 2005.
Re Letter of support for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act
of 2005.
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: The Clean Air Task Force is proud
to be one of the core members of a group of industry,
environmental and government representatives that worked
together on a collaborative effort to find ways of reducing
harmful emissions of air pollution from existing diesel
engines. We strongly support legislation that grew out of
that effort, the Diesel Emissions Reductions Act of 2005. We
thank you and your staff for your leadership on this
important issue.
Heavy-duty diesel engines powering vehicles and equipment
such as long-haul trucks, buses, construction equipment,
logging and agricultural equipment, locomotives and marine
vessels produce a wide variety of dangerous air pollutants,
including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and air toxics.
These pollutants, emitted at ground level often in populated
areas, produce substantial harm to human health and the
environment, up to and including premature death.
Recently, EPA has determined that 65 million people live in
areas where the air contains unhealthy levels of fine
particulate matter (PM2.5), areas that EPA has
thus classified as nonattainment for the PM2.5
NAAQS. In order for those areas to meet the attainment
requirements in the Clean Air Act, substantial reductions of
PM2.5 emissions will be required. The largest
local source of potential PM2.5 reductions in most
urban areas is the existing fleet of heavy-duty diesel
engines. Although EPA has promulgated regulations to
substantially reduce
[[Page 13113]]
emissions from heavy duty highway and nonroad diesels, many
of these engines are long-lived and the air quality benefits
of EPA's new engine rules won't be fully realized for more
than two decades--a full generation away and long past
applicable NAAQS attainment deadlines.
Fortunately, efficient and cost-effective means of
substantially reducing diesel emissions are readily available
today. For example, diesel particulate filters can reduce
diesel PM2.5 emissions by about 90% from many
heavy-duty diesel engines. Widespread use of such controls
could dramatically reduce harmful diesel emissions in our
cities and states, would save thousands of lives, produce
billions of dollars of societal benefits, and help states
meet their attainment obligations under the Clean Air Act.
One of the primary barriers to the widespread installation
of diesel emission control technology is a lack of resources.
Many heavy-duty diesel fleets, such as buses, refuse trucks,
highway maintenance equipment, trains and ferries are owned
or operated by public agencies with limited resources.
The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 will provide
$200 per year for the next 5 years to help fund reductions of
air pollution from in-use diesel engines, including those
operated by cash-strapped public agencies. This will produce
human health and environmental benefits far in excess of the
costs, and will provide timely assistance to many areas to
help them achieve EPA's health based air quality standards
for particulate matter and ozone.
CATF urges your support of the Diesel Emissions Reductions
Act of 2005.
Very truly yours,
Conrad G. Schneider,
Advocacy Director.
____
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution
Control Officials,
Washington, DC, June 14, 2005.
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
Chairman, U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public
Works, Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change and
Nuclear Safety, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Voinovich: On behalf of the State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and
the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
(ALAPCO)--the national associations of state and local air
pollution control agencies in 53 states and territories and
more than 165 metropolitan areas across the country--I am
pleased to offer support for the Diesel Emissions Reduction
Act of 2005 and to commend your leadership in introducing
this legislation and in working with a broad coalition of
diverse stakeholders to draft it.
Emissions from dirty diesel engines pose serious threats to
public health and the environment. These emissions are not
only substantial contributors to unhealthful levels of ozone
and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), they cause or
exacerbate unacceptably high levels of toxic air pollution in
most areas of the country. Although our nation has taken
significant action to reduce emissions from new highway and
nonroad diesel engines, and additional federal measures are
planned to address new diesel marine and locomotive engines,
several critical opportunities remain for achieving further
reductions in diesel emissions. Chief among them is cleaning
up existing diesel engines by retrofitting these engines with
new emission control technologies. By authorizing funds for
grants and loans to states and other organizations for the
purpose of reducing emissions from diesel engines, the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 will help states and
localities achieve their air quality goals, including
attaining and maintaining health-based National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for ozone and PM2.5 and reducing
exposure to toxic air pollution.
STAPPA and ALAPCO are pleased to support this bill and look
forward to working with you and other stakeholders as it
proceeds through the legislative process.
Sincerely,
S. William Becker,
Executive Director.
____
Union of Concerned Scientists,
Washington, DC, June 10, 2005.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, and our 140,000 members
and activists nationwide, strongly support the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act of 2005. This landmark legislation
will improve air quality across the country by providing $200
million in grants and loans to reduce pollution from diesel
vehicles and equipment.
The exhaust from conventional diesel-powered engines may
cause or exacerbate serious health problems such as asthma,
bronchitis and cancer, and can even lead to premature death.
In addition to its public health toll, diesel exhaust exacts
enormous social costs, with escalating health care
expenditures, loss of work and school days, and the most
costly impact of all--the loss of human lives.
Although standards for new diesel engines offer important
health benefits, they do not address the biggest polluters:
existing diesel engines. The bulk of diesel pollution now and
for the next decade or more come from engines already in use.
Fortunately, there are a wide range of readily available
cleanup technologies and strategies, including replacing
high-polluting engines and retrofitting with emissions
controls. The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act will help get
diesel cleanup technologies off the shelf and onto today's
vehicles and equipment.
USC is pleased to be part of a diverse coalition of
groups--including environmental and health groups, the diesel
industry, and public agencies--that is working
collaboratively on reduciug diesel pollution. This unique mix
of voices all agree that reducing pollution from diesel
engines is a public health priority, and that federal and
state funding is a key strategy to clean up diesel engines.
The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act will accelerate the
public health benefits of the new engine emissions standards,
and will help Americans breathe easier.
Sincerely,
Patricia Monahan,
Senior Analyst, Transportation Program.
____
Regional Air
Pollution Control Agency,
Dayton, OH, June 15, 2005.
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
Chairman, U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public
Works, Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change and
Nuclear Safety, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: The Regional Air Pollution Control
Agency (RAPCA) would like to express our support for the
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005. RAPCA is a six county
local air pollution control agency charged with protecting
the residents of the Dayton/Springfield area from the adverse
health impacts of air pollution. We would like to thank you
and your staff for offering this vital piece of legislation
which will greatly help the citizens of our area breathe
healthier air.
Diesel emission reductions offer a significant opportunity
in the effort to clean the nation's air. Diesel emissions
represent approximately one-half of the nitrogen oxide and
particulate matter emissions from the mobile source sector
and numerous air toxics.
Like many areas across the county, the Dayton/Springfield
area is nonattainment for both ozone and fine particulate
matter. RAPCA strongly believes that this bill provides a
unique opportunity to help the area attain these standards,
especially fine particulates, as well as reducing the health
risks associated with air toxics. Furthermore, many of the
diesel vehicles that would be affected by this bill operate
in the urban core, thus providing health benefits to many
individuals.
Again we would like to express our sincere thanks to you
for offering the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005,
which will help millions of Americans breathe easier.
Sincerely,
John A. Paul,
Supervisor.
____
Emission Control
Technology Association,
Washington, DC, June 14, 2005.
Hon. George Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: On behalf of the Emission Control
Technology Association (ECTA), I would like to thank you for
introducing the Diesel Retrofit Reduction Act of 2005, and
advise you of our wholehearted support for this legislation.
If enacted, this legislation will help states to reduce
diesel engine emissions, thereby, strengthening the economy,
public health, and the environment.
On-road heavy duty diesel vehicles and non-road diesel
vehicles and engines account for roughly one-half of the
nitrogen oxide (NOX) and particulate matter (PM)
mobile source emissions nationwide. These emissions
contribute to ozone formation, fine particulate matter, and
regional haze. With more than 167 million Americans living in
counties that do not achieve the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) established by the Environmental Protection
Agency, it is more important than ever that states and other
organizations are given the means to address this growing
problem. Clean diesel retrofits are a highly cost effective
means of reducing these emissions, costing approximately
$5,000 per ton equivalent of air pollution removed. The
Diesel Retrofit Reduction Act of 2005 will ease the growing
burden states are feeling as they strive to reach attainment
of these national standards, by providing them with grants
and loans for the purpose of reducing emissions from diesel
engines.
There are several programs that demonstrate the
achievements made by clean diesel retrofits. A prime example
is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Retrofit
Program in San Francisco, California. As part of the MTC
program, more than 1,700 emission control systems were
installed on diesel buses. It is estimated that 2,500 pounds
of NOX and 300 pounds per day of particulates will
be eliminated as a result of the MTC transit bus retrofit
program. We are certain that the Diesel Retrofit Reduction
Act of 2005 will accomplish similar feats upon its passage.
[[Page 13114]]
ECTA thanks you for authoring this important legislation
and for your leadership on this issue. We look forward to
working with you and your staff to ensure its passage.
Sincerely,
Timothy Regan,
President.
Mr. VOINOVICH. The process for developing this legislation began last
year when several of these organizations came in to meet with me. They
informed me of the harmful public health impact of diesel emissions.
On-road and non-road diesel vehicles and engines account for roughly
one-half of the nitrogen oxide and particulate matter mobile source
emissions nationwide.
I was pleased to hear that the administration had taken strong action
with new diesel fuel and engine regulations, which were developed in a
collaborative effort to substantially reduce diesel emissions. However,
I was told that the full health benefit would not be realized until
2030 because these regulations address new engines and the estimated 11
million existing engines have a long life. Diesel engines have a very
long life.
I was pleased that they had a constructive suggestion on how we could
address this problem. They informed me of successful grant and loan
programs at the State and local level throughout the Nation that are
working on a voluntary basis to retrofit diesel engines.
I was also cognizant that the new ozone and particulate matter air
quality standards were going into effect and that a voluntary program
was needed to help the Nation's 495 and Ohio's 38 nonattainment
counties--especially those that are in moderate nonattainment like
Northeast Ohio.
Additionally, I have visited with University of Cincinnati Medical
Center doctors--as recently as earlier this month--to discuss their
Cincinnati Childhood Allergy and Air Pollution Study. Some of the early
results indicate disturbing impacts on the development of children
living near highways because of emissions from diesel engines.
It became clear to me that a national program was needed. We then
formed a strong, diverse coalition comprised of environmental,
industry, and public officials. The culmination of this work was
released last Thursday with the introduction of the Diesel Emissions
Reduction Act of 2005.
The amendment that I am offering today is the same as this bill. It
would establish voluntary national and State-level grant and loan
programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. The amendment
would authorize $1 billion over 5 years--$200 million annually. Some
will claim that this is too much money and others will claim it is not
enough--so probably it is the right number.
We should first recognize that the need far outpaces what is
contained in the legislation. This funding is also fiscally responsible
as diesel retrofits have proven to be one of the most cost-effective
emissions reduction strategies. For example, let's compare the cost
effectiveness of diesel retrofits versus current Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality program projects.
We are talking about the per ton of Nitrogen Oxides reduced, cost on
average. We are talking about 1 ton of nitrogen oxides and how much it
costs to reduce them: $126,400 for alternative fuel buses; $66,700 for
signal optimization; $19,500 for bike racks on buses; and $10,500 for
vanpool programs.
This is compared to $5,390 to repower construction equipment and
$5,000 to retrofit a transit bus.
The bottom line is that if we want to clean up our air to improve the
environment and protect public health, diesel retrofits are one of the
best uses of taxpayers' money.
Furthermore, as a former Governor, I know firsthand that the new air
quality standards are an unfunded mandate on our States and
localities--and they need the Federal Government's help. We are going
to find that out. Many Americans are not aware, because of the ozone
and particulate standards that many communities are going to have a
difficult time complying with these new ambient air standards.
This legislation would help bring counties into attainment by
encouraging the retrofitting or replacement of diesel engines,
substantially reducing diesel emissions and the formation of ozone and
particulate matter.
The amendment is efficient with the Federal Government's dollars in
several ways. First, 70 percent of the program would be administered by
the EPA. The remaining 20 percent of the funding would be distributed
to States that establish voluntary diesel retrofit programs. Ten
percent of the amendment's overall funding would be set aside as an
incentive for state's to match the Federal dollars being provided.
The hope is this amendment leverages additional public and private
funding with the creation of State level programs throughout this
country. The amendment would expand on very successful programs that
now exist in Texas and California.
Second, the program would focus on nonattainment areas where help is
needed the most.
Third, it would require at least 50 percent of the Federal program to
be used on public fleets since we are talking about using public
dollars.
Fourth, it would place a high priority on the projects that are the
most cost effective and affect the most people.
Lastly, the amendment includes provisions to help develop new
technologies, encourage more action through nonfinancial incentives,
and require EPA to reach out to stakeholders and report on the success
of the program.
EPA estimates this billion-dollar program would leverage an
additional $500 million, leading to a net benefit of almost $20 billion
with the reduction of 70,000 tons of particulate matter. This is a
quite substantial 13-1 cost-benefit ratio.
The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 enjoys broad bipartisan
support and is needed desperately. I urge my colleagues to vote for
this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays, and I ask unanimous consent 10 minutes
be set aside prior to the vote on the amendment for sponsors to speak
on its behalf.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator from Ohio a
question about his amendment?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator may.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, if we could get copies of the amendment,
Senator Domenici would be anxious to review it. I would, as well. It
sounds very meritorious as described, but before actually agreeing to a
unanimous consent as to the timing of the vote and the amount of time
needed in anticipation of a vote, it would be better to get a copy at
this point, if we could. That is just a suggestion.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There
is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I withdraw the request for the 10 minutes until the
ranking member has an opportunity to review the amendment, and we can
discuss at that time how much time the Senator is willing to give.
Mr. BINGAMAN. That will be very good. I appreciate that opportunity.
We will be back in touch with the Senator.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I will ask the Senator from Ohio a
question. I walked in about two-thirds of the way through his remarks.
Do I understand that this is legislation that helps reduce sulfur in
the air by retrofitting diesel engines so they comply with the new EPA
requirements for low sulfur?
Mr. VOINOVICH. Right. This is one of the most effective ways,
actually, to reduce nitrogen oxide and also particulate matter. In my
remarks I mentioned the study at the University of Cincinnati on
children. The negative impact is amazing on children who live very
close to freeways with this diesel fuel. Retrofitting would be the most
cost-efficient way of dealing with that problem.
This program fundamentally is a voluntary program. It is a program in
[[Page 13115]]
which we encourage all of the States to participate. If they did, each
State would get 2 percent of the money. If they didn't, those States
that participated would benefit from this on a per capita basis, 30
percent of the program allocated to them and 70 percent of it would be
distributed by the Environmental Protection Agency based on submissions
submitted and also on the basis of giving priority to public requests
for this money.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Ohio. He has
spent a long time in this session working on clean air legislation.
As one Senator, I am extremely interested in that for our country.
The Great Smoky Mountains--2 miles from where I live, and on the other
side is the Senator from North Carolina, the Presiding Officer--is the
most polluted National Park in America.
Many of our counties are not in attainment. Our biggest problem is
sulfur. But NOX is also a major problem. Of course, a major
contributor is the big diesel trucks on the road.
One of the President's greatest accomplishments in terms of sulfur is
tighter restrictions on the fuel that will be used in these trucks.
They also are major contributors to NOX, nitrogen oxide. My
understanding from my visits and discussions with people who know about
the big trucks is that the retrofitting of these older engines is not
as good as a new engine, but it is a very substantial--70 or 80 percent
as good as having a new engine.
I look forward to reading the legislation. The Clean Energy Act that
we are working on is not the Clean Air Act that the Senator spent so
much time on, but clean energy is the solution to the clean air
problem. I am glad the Senator is bringing this to our attention. I
look forward to reading it. It looks like a welcome contribution.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Senator from Tennessee. The administration
should be complimented. The new diesel regulations will go into effect
next year. The fact is, 11 million on- and off-road vehicles will still
be on the road for many years to come. As the Senator pointed out
regarding retrofitting, we had a bus retrofit. We are talking about 85
percent reduction. The diesel fuel is fine, but if you do not have the
retrofit, it will not give you the desired emissions control.
Amendment No. 800
(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1936 to provide energy
tax incentives, and for other purposes)
Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of the leader, we have cleared the amendment
at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set
aside. I further ask that the Grassley-Baucus amendment No. 800 which
is at the desk be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider
be laid on the table.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment (No. 800) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I strongly support the Finance Committee's
energy tax language.
Why are the incentives proposed in this language so important? First
and foremost, they are important because of the energy challenges
facing the Nation.
Energy is critical to our Nation's economy and security. Our
continuing dependence on foreign oil increasingly threatens our vital
national interests.
As the world's demand for oil continues to grow at a record pace, the
world's oil producers strain to meet consumption. Today, OPEC is
pumping close to full capacity. Even so, refined products remain
scarce.
The price of oil has soared to more than $55 a barrel. The price of
gas at the pump is a daily reminder of the scarcity of energy.
Increasing energy prices stifle economic growth.
Folks in my home State of Montana are hit hard by rising energy
prices. High gas prices particularly hurt folks who have to drive great
distances. And high energy prices hurt small businesses, ranchers, and
farmers by raising the costs of doing business.
We can do more to provide reliable energy from domestic sources. That
is our first challenge.
Our next great energy challenge is to ensure safe, clean, and
affordable energy from renewable resources. Energy produced from wind,
water, sun, and waste holds great potential. But that energy cannot
currently meet our national energy demands. Technology is helping to
bridge the gap. But further development requires financial assistance.
The energy tax incentives take an evenhanded approach to an array of
promising technologies. We do not yet know which new technologies will
prove to be the most effective. As we go forward and provide the needed
incentives to develop these new technologies, we also need appropriate
cost-benefit assessments to guide future investments.
The energy tax language reflects the incentives endorsed by the
Finance Committee last Thursday. These incentives make meaningful
progress toward energy independence. They provide a balanced package of
targeted incentives directed to renewable energy, traditional energy
production, and energy efficiency.
These incentives would encourage new energy production, especially
production from renewable sources.
They would encourage the development of new technology.
And they would encourage energy efficiency and conservation.
To encourage production, the tax language provides a uniform 10-year
period for claiming production tax credits under section 45 of the Tax
Code. This encourages production of electricity from all sources of
renewable energy. It would not benefit one technology over another.
In Judith Gap, MT, wind whips across the wheat plains. Wind is a
great and promising resource in Montana. But future development of wind
projects needs support, like that provided in the tax language.
The tax language recognizes the value of coal and oil to our economy.
It provides tax incentives for cleaner-burning coal and much-needed
expansion of refinery capacity.
The lack of refinery capacity is driving up the price of oil. And our
lack of domestic capacity increases our vulnerabilities. A new refinery
has not been built in the U.S. since 1976. The tax language would
encourage the development of additional refinery capacity domestically
by allowing the development costs to be expensed.
The tax language also rewards energy conservation and efficiency, and
encourages the use of clean-fuel vehicles and technologies. It provides
an investment tax credit for recycling equipment. These incentives are
environmentally responsible. They reduce pollution. And they improve
people's health.
The energy tax provisions would make meaningful progress toward
energy independence. They are balanced and fair. I encourage my
colleagues to support this legislation.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERT BOLTON TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE UNITED NATIONS--Resumed
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to executive session for the consideration of
Calendar No. 103, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of John Robert
Bolton, of Maryland, to be Representative of
[[Page 13116]]
the United States of America to the United Nations.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 6 p.m. shall be equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees.
The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today the Senate again takes up the
nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
This nomination has traveled a long road. I am hopeful that we can
conclude the debate today.
I appreciate that several of my colleagues continue to be
dissatisfied that their requests for information have not been granted
in their entirety. Under the rules, clearly they can continue to block
this nomination as long as 60 Senators do not vote for cloture.
Although I acknowledge their deeply held opposition to this nominee, we
urgently need an ambassador at the United Nations. A clear majority of
Senators is in favor of confirming Secretary Bolton.
The President has stated repeatedly that this is not a casual
appointment. He and Secretary Rice want a specific person to do a
specific job. They have said that they want John Bolton, an avowed and
knowledgeable reformer, to carry out their reform agenda at the United
Nations.
Regardless of how each Senator plans to vote today, we should not
lose sight of the larger national security issues concerning U.N.
reform and international diplomacy that are central to this nomination.
We should recall that U.N. reform is an imperative mission of the next
ambassador. In fact, on Friday, our colleagues in the House of
Representatives passed an extensive U.N. reform bill. This body is also
working on various approaches to reform.
In 2005, we may have a unique opportunity to improve the operations
of the U.N. The revelations of the oil-for-food scandal and the urgency
of strengthening global cooperation to address terrorism, the AIDS
crisis, nuclear proliferation, and many other international problems
have created momentum in favor of constructive reforms at the U.N.
Secretary General Kofi Annan has proposed a substantial reform plan
that will provide a platform for reform initiatives and discussions.
Few people in Government have thought more about U.N. reform than
John Bolton. He served 4 years as the Assistant Secretary of State
overseeing international organizations under the first President Bush.
He has written and commented extensively on the subject. During his
confirmation hearing, Secretary Bolton demonstrated an impressive
command of issues related to the United Nations. Senator Biden
acknowledged to the nominee at his hearing that, ``There is no question
you have extensive experience in U.N. affairs.'' Deputy Secretary Rich
Armitage has told reporters: ``John Bolton is eminently qualified. He's
one of the smartest guys in Washington.''
This nomination has gone through many twists and turns. But now we
are down to an issue of process. The premise expressed for holding up
the nominee is that the Senate has the absolute right as a co-equal
branch of Government to information that it requests pertaining to a
nominee. Political scientists can debate whether this right actually is
absolute, but there is a flaw in this premise as it applies to the
Bolton nomination. This is that the Senate, as a body, has not asked
for this information. The will of the Senate is expressed by the
majority. A majority of Senators have voted to end debate. By that
vote, a majority of Senators have said that they have the information
they need to make a decision.
If Members are intent upon exercising their right to filibuster this
nominee, they may do so. But they cannot claim that the Senate as an
institution is being disadvantaged or denied information it is
requesting when at least 57 Senators have supported cloture knowing
that invoking it would lead to a final vote. Senate rules give 41
Senators the power to continue debate. But neither a filibuster nor a
request from individual Senators counts as an expression of the will of
the Senate.
Minds are made up on this nomination, as they have been for weeks. In
fact, with few exceptions, minds have been made up on this nominee
since before his hearing occurred. Nevertheless, the Foreign Relations
Committee conducted an exhaustive investigation. I would remind my
colleagues that Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee assented
to every single witness that the minority wanted to interview. The
cases for and against Secretary Bolton have been made extensively and
skillfully. In the context of an 11-week investigation involving 29
witnesses and more than 1,000 pages of documents culminating in 14
hours of floor debate, the remaining process dispute over a small
amount of information seems out of proportion. This is particularly the
case given that the ostensible purpose of obtaining documents and
interviewing witnesses is to help Senators make up their minds on how
to vote.
If we accept the standard that any Senator should get whatever
documents requested on any nominee despite the will of the Senate to
move forward, then the nomination process has taken on nearly limitless
parameters. Nomination investigations should not be without limits. It
is easy to say that any inquiry into any suspicion is justified if we
are pursuing the truth. But as Senators who are frequently called upon
to pass judgment on nominees, we know reality is more complicated than
that. We want to ensure that nominees are qualified, skilled, honest
and open. Clearly, we should thoroughly examine each nominee's record.
But in doing so, we should understand that there can be human and
organizational costs if the inquiry is not focused and fair.
I reiterate that the President has tapped Secretary Bolton to
undertake an urgent mission. Secretary Bolton has affirmed his
commitment to fostering a strong United Nations. He has expressed his
intent to work hard to secure greater international support at the U.N.
for the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United
States. He has stated his belief in decisive American leadership at the
U.N. and underscored that an effective United Nations is very much in
the interest of U.S. national security. I believe that the President
deserves to have his nominee represent him at the United Nations. I
urge my colleagues to invoke cloture.
Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent that
quorum calls be charged equally to both sides.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I state at the outset that the vote we are
about to take is not about John Bolton. The vote we are about to take
is about taking a stand--about the Senate taking a stand. The vote is
about whether the Senate will allow the President to dictate to a
coequal branch of Government how we, the Senate, are to fulfill our
constitutional responsibility under the advice and consent clause. It
is that basic. I believe it is totally unacceptable for the President
of the United States, Democrat or Republican--and both have tried--to
dictate to the Senate how he, the President, thinks we should proceed.
The fact that the President of the United States in this case says he
does not believe the information we seek is relevant to our fulfilling
our constitutional responsibility is somewhat presumptuous, to say the
least. I am aware--as we all are on both sides of the aisle--of the
sometimes admirable but most times excessive obsession with secrecy on
the part of this administration. But notwithstanding that, we should
not forfeit our responsibility in order to accommodate that obsession.
I do not hold John Bolton accountable for this administration's
arrogance. John Bolton was gentleman enough to come see me. At the
request
[[Page 13117]]
of the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, who contacted me, I said I
would be willing to sit with John Bolton last week and speak with him
about what we were seeking and why we were seeking it. I did that. As a
matter of fact, one of my colleagues, the Senator from Connecticut--
although it wasn't his idea, and I caught him on the way to have dinner
with his brother--was kind enough to come and sit with me and listen to
John Bolton.
I believe Mr. Bolton would be prepared to give us this information.
Whether that is true is, quite frankly, irrelevant, because the fact is
we both told Mr. Bolton this dispute about the documents is not about
him. I say to my colleague from Indiana, this is above his pay grade.
He indicated under oath in our committee hearing that he was willing to
let all of this information come forward. So I actually went to the
extent of sitting with Mr. Bolton and suggesting how, as it related to
a matter on which I have been the lead horse--on Syria--we could
accommodate an even further narrowing and detailing of the information
we are seeking and why.
Last month, after the Senate stood up for itself and rejected cloture
on the Bolton nomination, the Democratic leader and I both promised
publicly--and today I pledge again--that once the administration
provides the information we have requested and information that no one
thus far has suggested we are not entitled to--we will agree to vote up
or down on the Bolton nomination.
At the outset, it should be emphasized that these are not--and I
emphasize ``not''--new requests made at the 11th hour to attempt to
derail a vote. Nobody is moving goalposts anywhere except closer, not
further away.
The committee made these requests, the same two requests, back in
April. First, we requested materials relating to testimony on Syria and
weapons of mass destruction prepared by Mr. Bolton and/or his staff in
the summer and fall of 2003.
We already know from senior CIA officials that Mr. Bolton sought to
stretch the intelligence that was available on Syria's WMD program well
beyond what the intelligence would support.
We think the documents we are seeking will bolster the case that he
repeatedly sought to exaggerate intelligence data. Some who are
listening might say: Why is that important? Remember the context in the
summer of 2003. In the summer of 2003, there were assertions being made
in various press accounts and by some ``outside'' experts and some
positing the possibility that those weapons of mass destruction that
turned out not to exist in Iraq had been smuggled into Syria and that
Syria had its own robust weapons of mass destruction program.
Remember, people were speculating about ``who is next?'' Newspaper
headlines and sub-headlines: Is Syria next? Syria was at the top of the
list--not the only one on the list. There was speculation, as I said,
that the weapons of mass destruction we could not find in Iraq had been
smuggled into Syria.
We know, at that same time, the CIA says Mr. Bolton was trying to
stretch--stretch--the intelligence case against Syria on weapons of
mass destruction.
The Syrian documents may also raise questions as to whether Mr.
Bolton, when he raised his hand and swore to tell the truth and nothing
but the truth, in fact may not have done that because he told the
Foreign Relations Committee that he was not in any way personally
involved in preparing that testimony. The documents we seek would
determine whether that was true or not. It may be true, but the
documents will tell us.
Second, we have requested access to 10 National Security Agency
intercepts. That means conversations picked up between a foreigner and
an American, where they may have relevance to an intelligence inquiry
and where the name of the foreigner is always listed, but it says
speaking to ``an American,'' or an American representing an American
entity.
Mr. Bolton acknowledged, under oath, that he had sought--which is not
unusual in the sense that it has never happened, but it is noteworthy--
he sought the identities of the Americans listed in 10 different
intercepts.
When I asked him why he did that, he said intellectual curiosity and
for context. It is not a surprise to say--and I am not revealing
anything confidential; I have not seen those intercepts--that there
have been assertions made by some to Members of the Senate and the
staff members of the Senate that Mr. Bolton was seeking the names of
these individuals for purposes of his intramural fights that were going
on within the administration about the direction of American foreign
policy. These requests resulted in Mr. Bolton being given the names of
19 different individuals. Nineteen identities of Americans or American
companies were on those intercepts.
Mr. Bolton has seen these intercepts. Mr. Bolton's staff has seen
some of these intercepts, but not a single Senator has seen the
identities of any of these Americans listed on the intercepts.
I might note, parenthetically, we suggested--I was reluctant to do
it, but I agreed with the leader of my committee--that we would yield
that responsibility to the chairman and vice chair of the Intelligence
Committee. Later, the majority leader, in a genuine effort to try to
resolve this issue, asked me what was needed. I said he should ask for
the names--not the chairman--he should ask for the names. He said he
did, and he said they would not give him the names either.
It has been alleged, as I said, that Mr. Bolton has been spying on
rivals within the bureaucracy, both inferior and superior to him. While
I doubt this, as I said publicly before, we have a duty to be sure that
he did not misuse this data.
The administration has argued that the Syrian testimony material is
not relevant to our inquiry. I simply leave it by saying that is an
outrageous assertion. The administration may not decide what the Senate
needs in reviewing a nomination unless it claims Executive privilege or
a constitutional prohibition of a violation of separation of power. As
my grandfather and later my mother would say: Who died and left them
boss? No rationale has been given for the testimony.
Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: How much time have I consumed?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority has just under 18
minutes.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have two colleagues who wish to speak. I
will be brief. We have narrowed the request of the documents. We
narrowed them on several different occasions. I am grateful to Chairman
Roberts and Director Negroponte for accepting the principle that they
can cross-check names on the list we have with the list of names on the
intercepts. But I hope everyone understands, as my friend from
Connecticut will probably speak to, that in offering to provide a list
of names, we were trying to make it easier. We were not trying to move
the goalposts; we were trying to make it closer for them.
The bottom line is, it is very easy to get this resolved. It is not
inappropriate for me to say that I had a very good conversation not
only with Mr. Bolton but with Mr. Card, who indicated he was sure we
could resolve the Syrian piece of this. I indicated from the beginning
that was not sufficient. We had two requests for good reason: One
relating to intercepts and one relating to the Syrian matter. The
Syrian matter is within striking distance of being resolved. I said in
good faith to him: Do not resolve that if you think that resolves the
matter, unless you are ready to resolve the matter of the issue
relating to Mr. Bolton and the intercepts.
Absent that material being made available, I urge my colleagues to
reject cloture in the hope that the administration will finally step up
to its constitutional responsibility of providing this information to
us.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of actually voting
on John Bolton's nomination. I listened to my colleague's arguments,
and I listened to the studious and accurate
[[Page 13118]]
statement of the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee regarding
this long-debated, long-considered nomination.
The Senate has had this nomination for 5 months. Ambassador to the
United Nations is a very important post. In fact, it is a very
important position at this particular time, as democracy is on the
march, as freedom is on the march throughout the world, whether in
Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere.
It is important also to note that even the United Nations recognizes
that it is time for reform. It is vitally important that the taxpayers
of this country, who put in $2 billion every year into the United
Nations, ought to have a man such as John Bolton leading our efforts.
John Bolton is a reformer, and that is why the President nominated him.
The President was elected by the people of this country. A President
needs to have the men and women he desires to effectuate his goals, his
policies, and to keep the promises he made to the people of this
country.
This nomination has been held up through obstructionist tactics. I am
hopeful that my colleagues will review the thorough and extensive
vetting process. I am hoping that they will actually take off their
political blinders and look at this nomination, look at the record of
performance, and look at all the evidence, all the charges, all the
refutations, and look at the facts regarding Mr. Bolton.
I think it is highly irresponsible for the Senate to keep obstructing
reform of the United Nations. And, Mr. President, that is what is
happening. This obstruction of John Bolton's nomination, while a
political effort, I suppose, in some people's point of view, clearly
could be characterized as obstructing reform of the United Nations.
Until we have our ambassador there with the strength and the support of
the Senate and the people of this country, we do not have someone
arguing for the American taxpayers, arguing for accountability, trying
to stop the waste, the fraud, and the corruption in the United Nations.
We have gone through every germane argument and stretched allegation
against John Bolton. Instead of talking about reforming the United
Nations, we have been on a fishing expedition. Every time on this
fishing expedition we end up seeing a dry hole.
First, there was concern about his general views in saying the United
Nations needed to be reformed. Then the opposition recognized: Gosh,
the American people also think the United Nations needs reforming.
Then there was a great fixation and focus on the drafting of
speeches. And wasn't that very interesting, how speeches are crafted?
Then there was a worry about the sensibilities of some people being
offended by John Bolton.
Then there was a worry about a woman--I forgot where it was,
Kazakhstan or Moscow--that was refuted as not being a fact.
Then there was a concern about a speech that John Bolton gave where
he said that North Korea was a repressive dictatorship and that it was
a hellish nightmare to live in North Korea. That was supposedly
terrible for him to say, when in fact that is a pretty good description
of North Korea.
Then there were worries about Great Britain and what John Bolton
might have done with Great Britain. Within hours our British friends
said: No, we had no problems whatsoever.
Then the other side said: We want a list of names; we want to see a
cross-check, that request got to Senator Roberts and Senator
Rockefeller, the chair and cochair on the Intelligence Committee.
Then there were a few names cross-checked. There was nothing new
there. What comes up? Now we want 3 dozen names cross-checked as the
fishing expedition continues.
Now there is a fixation, an interest in the crafting of testimony or
a speech dealing with Syria.
It is just going to continue and continue. It does not matter what
the answers are. It does not matter what the truth is. It does not
matter about the facts. What they want to do, unfortunately, is ignore
the dire need for reform in the United Nations. The opposition seems to
want to completely ignore John Bolton's qualifications and outstanding
record of performance for the people of this country.
John Bolton has played a significant role in negotiating a number of
treaties that will result in reducing nuclear weapons, or keeping them
from falling into the hands of rogue nations and terrorist
organizations. His work on the Moscow Treaty will reduce by two-thirds
operationally deployed nuclear weapons in both the United States and
Russia.
John Bolton also led the U.S. negotiations to develop President
Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative, which garnered the support of
60 countries. This Proliferation Security Initiative is an important
security measure to stop the shipment of weapons of mass destruction,
their delivery systems, and related materials worldwide.
John Bolton also helped create the global partnership at the G8
summit, which doubled the size of the nonproliferation effort in the
former Soviet Union. By committing our G8 partners to match the $1
billion-per-year cooperative threat reduction of the United States, or
as we call it here, the Nunn-Lugar program. John Bolton also has proven
that he can work well within the United Nations. He has previously
served as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations,
where he worked intensively on U.N. issues, including the repealing of
the offensive United Nations resolution which equated Zionism to
racism. That is one of the reasons B'nai Brith supports his nomination.
John Bolton has the knowledge, the skills, the principles, and the
experience to be an exceptional ambassador to the United Nations. He
has the right, steady, and strong principles to lead the U.S. mission
at a time when the United Nations is in desperate need of reform.
I believe the people of America do not want a lapdog as our
ambassador to the United Nations, they want a watchdog. They want to
make sure the billions of dollars we are sending to the United Nations
is actually helping advance freedom; helping to build representative,
fair, just, and free systems in countries that have long been
repressed. It is absolutely absurd and farcical that countries such as
Syria, Zimbabwe, or other repressive regimes are on the Human Rights
Commission. Even the United Nations recognizes they need reform. So
that is why the President has sent forth an individual, John Bolton, to
bring this organization into account and reform it.
Whether it is fraud or corruption, this country does not think the
United Nations ought to be placating or rewarding dictators and
oppressive tyrants. We have heard many absurd arguments since the
President has sent John Bolton's nomination to the Senate 5 months ago.
What my colleagues will see as they look at each and every one of these
charges as the process has dragged on, is that they are wild, they are
unsubstantiated, or they have been proven false. Some claims against
Mr. Bolton have even been retracted.
This nomination has been considered for a long time. Throughout, new
charges have been made, and each time they do not stand up when placed
in the accurate context or studied fully. They have been shown to be
misleading, exaggerated, false, or irrelevant.
This is the definition of a fishing expedition, and its sole goal is
to bring down a nominee because of differing policy views. Many of
those are leading very articulately, even if I disagree with them, on
the Bolton nomination. The five leading most senior members of the
Foreign Relations Committee, who talked about speeches and offending
sensibilities of people, they all were against Mr. Bolton in 2001
before any of these accusations arose. So this is just a continuation
of that opposition.
I hope Senators the other side of the aisle who are refusing to bring
this issue to a close would note what Chairman Roberts noted, that they
seem to be intent on preserving John Bolton's
[[Page 13119]]
nomination as a way to embarrass our President.
The President was elected by the people of America. It is logical and
it is important that our CEO, our President, be accorded the ability to
bring in and to lead our efforts consistent with his principles, with
people who are loyal to those views, and who will effectuate those
goals.
There is little question that one of the most fair chairmen in this
entire Senate is the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar. He has negotiated
in good faith on this issue. Unfortunately, time after time some on the
other side keep moving the goalpost. I know they do not like that term,
but every time there is something answered, every time this gets ready
for a vote, there is always a new allegation, a new request, something
else to delay a vote on this nomination. Obstruction in this case, as
in many others, has gone on for too long. It is time to vote on John
Bolton's nomination. The continued delaying tactics can only be viewed
as obstructionism for petty partisan reasons.
This nomination has received inordinate scrutiny and review. Yet
opponents of voting up or down continue to demand even more
information. This position has been vacant for 5 months, we need to
have a conclusion. Mr. Bolton has an exemplary career in public
service. The extensive oversight that the Senate has undertaken in
considering this nomination means that Senators ought to have the guts
to get out of these cushy seats and vote yes or vote no. Anyone who
votes to continue to obstruct this nomination can be fairly
characterized as delaying and obstructing the much needed, reforms in
the United Nations. And it is also contrary to the will of the American
people.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will cast my vote today in opposition
to ending the debate on the nomination of John Bolton to be the U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations.
I am distressed the administration has not provided the Congress with
the documents it has requested that are essential for judging the
quality of Mr. Bolton's performance in his past positions. When the
President sends the Congress a request for approval of a nominee for a
top position, the President must be prepared to assist Congress in a
thorough inspection of that individual's prior Government service.
Withholding information needed by Congress, even classified information
that can be handled in a secure fashion, is detrimental to the
successful functioning of our Government. The administration's full
cooperation with Congress is not optional, but essential.
If Mr. Bolton's nomination comes to the full Senate for a vote, I
plan to vote no. I do not oppose him because of his skeptical view of
the UN. I do not oppose him because he believes the UN should be
reformed. If the President wants to change U.S. policy toward the UN,
he has the right to choose an ambassador who will attempt to do so. The
Congress should evaluate that nominee on his or her ability to do the
job for which the individual has been selected.
I am opposing Mr. Bolton because his past record leads me to believe
he does not have the skills to do the job of Ambassador to the UN. As
the second-ranking foreign policy job in any administration, it is very
important that this job be done right. My review of his prior
experience leads me to conclude that Mr. Bolton is not a man who builds
consensus, who appreciates consensus, or who abides by consensus. No
matter what one thinks of the UN's performance, or how its
functionality and mission ought to be reformed, one must be able to
build support among our allies in order to effect change. As we have
seen, nothing is accomplished at the UN by banging one's shoe on the
podium. The work of the UN requires respect for national differences,
searching for common ground, and development of consensus on what
actions must be taken. It would be irresponsible to approve a UN
ambassador who is not capable of performing these tasks.
The record shows that on occasion when his personal beliefs clashed
with administration policy, Mr. Bolton has not hesitated to take
matters into his own hands, to misuse secret materials, to threaten
Federal employees with personal retribution and to endanger national
security in order to advance his own view of a situation. This is not
who we should be sending to the UN as our chief representative. We can,
and we must, do better by an institution that should be an important
part of a successful American foreign policy.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. BIDEN. I yield 6 minutes on my time, and I am told the
distinguished Senator from California has 5 minutes of leader time. I
yield to the Senator from California.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware has 16
minutes in total remaining.
Mr. BIDEN. Yes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
is equally divided until 6. Extending the time past 6 would take a
unanimous consent request.
Mrs. BOXER. Senator Reid gave me 5 minutes of his leader time, and I
ask unanimous consent that I might add that to my 6 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the unanimous
consent request?
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. I yield 6 minutes on my time to the distinguished Senator
from California.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think we need to take a deep breath and
a reality check. All this talk from Senator Allen about how
obstructionist the Democrats are being--now, here is the truth: The
Republicans run the Foreign Relations Committee. They did not even have
the votes to vote John Bolton out of that committee and bring it to the
floor with a positive recommendation.
This is a very divisive and controversial nomination. Since 1945, the
Senate has confirmed 24 men and women to serve as U.N. ambassador.
Never before has any President of either party made such a divisive and
controversial nomination. In 60 years, only two nominees have had a
single Senator cast a ``no'' vote against them. Andrew Young was one.
He was confirmed 89 to 3 in 1977, and Richard Holbrooke was confirmed
81 to 16 in 1999. Every other time the nominee has been approved
unanimously. I long for those days.
This is a President who said he wanted to be a uniter, not a divider.
Yet in light of all the controversy, he sticks with this nominee. The
fact is, 102 former diplomats, both Republican and Democrat, signed a
letter opposing John Bolton. They wrote that his past activities and
statements indicate conclusively that he is the wrong man for this
position at a time when the U.N. is entering a critically important
phase of democratic reforms.
Senator Voinovich said it well, and he is a Republican. He is a
member of the committee. He said: Frankly, I am concerned that Mr.
Bolton would make it more difficult for us to achieve the badly needed
reforms we need.
John Bolton has said that there is no United Nations. He has said if
the U.N. Secretariat Building in New York lost 10 floors, it would not
make a bit of difference. How does someone with that attitude get the
respect required to bring the reforms?
As we know, today is not about whether Senators should vote for or
against John Bolton. Today is a different vote. It is a vote as to
whether the Senate deserves, on behalf of the American people, to get
the information that Senators Biden and Dodd have taken the lead in
asking for. By the way, Senator Lugar, at one point in time, had signed
some of those letters requesting the information.
Why is this important? It is important because every Senator is going
to decide whether to vote up or down on Mr. Bolton. We need to know
what this information will show. Yes, as Senator Biden has said, we get
the information, we schedule a vote. But we will look at the
information. What if the information shows that, in fact, John Bolton
[[Page 13120]]
was trying to spy on other Americans with whom he had an ax to grind?
What if the information shows that John Bolton did not tell the truth
to the committee and that he had written a speech about Syria which was
misleading and which could have, in many ways, made that drumbeat for
war against Syria much louder than it was?
There is a third piece of information that Senators Dodd and Biden
did not think was that important, but I still think is important and we
have asked for, which is the fact that Mr. Bolton has an assistant,
someone he has hired, who has outside clients so that while he, Mr.
Matthew Friedman, is getting paid with taxpayer dollars, he has outside
clients.
Who are these outside clients? We cannot find out. We called Mr.
Friedman's office. The secretary answered. This is a private office,
his private business, and she said: Oh, yes, he is here. He will be
right with you.
Then, upon finding out it was my office, suddenly Mr. Friedman was
nowhere to be found and has not returned the call.
I represent the largest State in the Union. Believe me, it is a
diverse State. We have conservatives and liberals and everything in
between. We have every political party represented there, and many
independent voters. But they all want me to be able to make an informed
decision. This information is very important. Therefore, I think
today's vote is crucial.
There is one more point I would like to make.
Mr. President, I ask how much time I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 1 minute.
Mrs. BOXER. This is the point. When we had the whole debate over a
judge a long time ago, a judge named Richard Paez, at that time Dr.
Frist, Senator Frist supported the filibuster against Judge Paez. What
he said in explaining his vote was it is totally appropriate to have a
cloture vote--as we are going to do today--when you are seeking
information. That is totally appropriate.
I have the exact quote here, and I would like to read it. He said:
Cloture, to get more information, is legitimate.
I agree with Senator Frist. It is legitimate to hold out on an up-or-
down vote, to stand up for the rights of the American people and the
information they deserve to have through us.
I thank Senator Dodd and Senator Biden for their leadership, and I
yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time under my
control to the Senator from Connecticut.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut has 9
minutes remaining.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Delaware, as well
as my colleague from California for her comments. Let me say to the
distinguished chairman of our committee, I know this has been a long
ordeal, now going up to 2 months that this nomination has been before
us. No one, except possibly the chairman of the committee, would like
this matter to be terminated sooner rather than later more than I
would. I am sure the Senator from Delaware feels similarly, as I know
my colleague from California does as well.
But there is an important issue before this body that transcends the
nomination of the individual before us. That is whether as an
institution we have a right to certain information pertaining to the
matter before us. Certainly the matter that we have requested--Senator
Biden has and I have--regarding this nomination is directly on point
when it comes to the qualities of this nominee.
For nearly a month since our May 26th cloture vote on this
nomination, the administration has stonewalled our efforts to get the
additional information we believe the Senate should have to make an
informed judgment on this nomination.
Senator Biden and I have attempted to reach an accommodation with the
administration on the two areas of our inquiry--draft testimony and
related documents concerning Syria's weapons of mass destruction
capabilities and the nineteen names contained in ten National Security
Agency intercepts which Mr. Bolton requested and was provided during
his tenure as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and
International Security. Senator Biden has narrowed the scope of his
request related to Syria. I have offered to submit a list of names of
concern related to the NSA intercepts to be cross checked by director
Negroponte against the list of names provided to Mr. Bolton.
I am very puzzled, Mr. President, by the intransigent position that
the administration has taken, particularly with respect to the
intercept matter.
If the intercepts are ``pure vanilla'' as our colleague, Senator
Roberts, has described them, then why does the administration continue
to withhold the information from the Senate?
The answer is we don't know.
Was Mr. Bolton using the information from the intercepts to track
what other officials were doing in policy areas he disagreed with?
Or was he simply utilizing the information in the normal course of
carrying out his responsibilities?
Again, we don't know.
Under ordinary circumstances, I would not be inquiring whether a
State Department official had sought access to sensitive intelligence
for anything other than official purposes.
But we know from the Foreign Relations Committee investigation of
this nominee--from interviews of individuals who served with Mr. Bolton
in the Bush administration--that Mr. Bolton's conduct while at the
State Department was anything but ordinary.
We learned how Mr. Bolton harnessed an abusive management style to
attempt to alter intelligence judgments and to stifle the consideration
of alternative policy options--all in furtherance of his own personal
ideological agenda.
According to a story that appeared in today's Washington Post, we now
know that Mr. Bolton's machinations weren't limited to Cuba or Syria
weapons of mass destruction. It would seem he was the ``Mr. No'' of the
Department on a wide variety of policy initiatives, acting as a major
roadblock to progress on such important initiatives as U.S.-Russian
cooperative nuclear threat reduction.
Mr. Bolton has done a disservice to the Bush administration and to
the American people by putting his agenda ahead of the interests of the
administration and the American people.
It is not only that he had his own agenda that is problematic. It is
the manner in which he sought to advance that agenda by imposing his
judgments on members of the intelligence community and threatening to
destroy the careers of those with the temerity to resist his demands to
alter their intelligence judgments.
In so doing, he breached the firewall between intelligence and policy
which must be sacrosanct to protect U.S. foreign policy and national
security interests.
That is not to say there should not be a vibrant and healthy
disagreement where one exists. There ought to be, in fact, more
disagreements where these matters have caused friction. But the idea
that you would allow that friction, those disagreements to transcend
the firewall where you would then seek to have people dismissed from
their jobs because you disagreed with their conclusions, that goes too
far. Mr. Bolton went to far and for those reasons, in my view, does not
deserve to be the confirmed nominee as ambassador to the United
Nations. That fact is painfully clear to all Americans following the
serious and dangerous intelligence failures related to Iraqi weapons of
mass destruction.
We know that Mr. Bolton's efforts to manipulate intelligence wasn't
some anomaly because he was having a bad day. The entire intelligence
community knew of his reputation.
We were fortunate to have individuals, like Dean Hutchings, Chairman
of the National Intelligence Council from 2003-2005, who disapproved of
and resisted Bolton's efforts to cherry pick intelligence.
We also know that Mr. Bolton needed adult supervision to ensure that
his
[[Page 13121]]
speeches and testimony were consistent with administration policy.
Deputy Secretary Armitage took it upon himself to personally oversee
all of Mr. Bolton's public pronouncements to ensure that he stayed on
the reservation.
Is this really the kind of performance we want to reward by
confirming this individual to the position of United States
Representative to the United Nations?
Is Mr. Bolton the kind of individual who we can trust to carry out
the United States agenda at the United Nations at this critical
juncture?
I think not.
We all know that these are difficult times. Our responsibilities in
Iraq and Afghanistan are significant and costly. Other challenges to
international peace and stability loom large on the horizon: Iran,
North Korea, Middle East Peace. Humanitarian crises in Africa and Asia
cry out for attention.
The United States can not solve all these problems unilaterally. We
need international assistance and cooperation to address them. And the
logical focal point for developing that international support is the
United Nations.
But international support will not automatically be forthcoming.
It will take real leadership at the United Nations to build the case
for such cooperation. That United States leadership must necessarily be
embodied in the individual that serves as the United States Ambassador
to the United Nations. Based on what I know today about Mr. Bolton, I
believe he is incapable of demonstrating that kind of leadership.
The United States Ambassador to the United Nations is an important
position. The individual who assumes this position is necessarily the
face of our country before the United Nations.
For all of the reasons I have cited--Mr. Bolton's management style,
his attack on the intelligence community, his tunnel vision, his lack
of diplomatic temperament--I do not believe that he is the man to be
that face at the United Nations.
I hope that when it comes time for an up or down vote on Mr. Bolton
that my colleagues will join me in opposing this nominee.
But this afternoon's vote is about who determines how the Senate will
discharge its constitutional duties related to nominations. Will the
executive branch tell this body what is relevant or not relevant with
respect to its deliberations on nominations? Or will the Senate make
that determination?
If you believe as I do that the Senate is entitled to access to
information that is so clearly relevant in the case of the Bolton
nomination, then I would respectfully ask you to join Senator Biden and
me in voting against cloture.
But this vote isn't just about the nomination of Mr. Bolton, it is
also about setting a precedent for future requests by the Senate of the
executive on a whole host of other issues that may come before us--in
this administration and in future administrations.
For that reason I strongly urge all of our colleagues to support us
in sending the right signal to the administration by voting no on
cloture when it occurs at 6 p.m.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. LUGAR. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, having listened to my Democrat colleagues
discuss the Bolton nomination last week, I very briefly come to the
floor to set the record straight.
The plain, simple truth is that some on the other side of the aisle
are obstructing a highly qualified nominee and, I believe, by not
allowing him to assume this position yet, are doing harm to our
country. I say that because John Bolton has a long record of
successfully serving his country. He has been confirmed by this body no
fewer than four times.
We have had 12 hours of committee hearings, 23 meetings with
Senators, 31 interviews conducted by the staff of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, and 157 questions for the record submitted by
members of the committee. The committee has had nearly 500 pages of
documents from State and USAID. After reviewing thousands of pages of
material, the intelligence community has provided over 125 pages of
documents to the Foreign Relations Committee. The nominee has had 2
days of floor debate. The list goes on and on.
The chair and vice chair of the Intelligence Committee have both
reviewed the NSA intercepts. Both have concluded that there is nothing
there of concern.
I am satisfied with their conclusions, and I am satisfied that the
prerogatives of the Senate have been respected.
I have been more than willing to try and reach a fair accommodation
with Senators Dodd and Biden, but the goal posts keep moving from a
handful of names to now, three dozen. What is going on here looks and
smells like a fishing expedition.
I supported Senator Roberts' initiative last week to strike a
compromise. 1t made sense. It fairly and appropriately allowed the
Director of National Intelligence to review names.
The names Senator Roberts vetted with the DNI were taken straight
from the minority report of the Foreign Relations Committee. They are
also names of persons that were raised by Senator Dodd and Senator
Biden during committee hearings and deliberations.
The fact that none of these names was in any of the 10 intercepts
confirms what Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller have said
previously. John Bolton did nothing improper in requesting these
intercepts, and there is no reason for concern.
Last week, Senator Dodd and Senator Biden stated again that they
wanted to see earlier drafts of Secretary Bolton's 2003 Syria testimony
before the House.
I don't believe those documents are necessary, because what really
matters is the final draft.
That said, I have been working with the White House to make this
happen, and to give Senator Dodd and Senator Biden a chance to review
these documents.
What is important is to get this process moving, to give John Bolton
a fair up-or-down vote, and to get our Ambassador to the U.N.
We will find out today if that will happen and if Members will do
what is right for our country or if pointless obstruction will continue
to stymie the process and damage America's foreign affairs.
The United States has not had an ambassador at the U.N. for over 5
months now. It is time to stop the grandstanding and give this nominee
a vote.
John Bolton is a smart, principled, and straightforward man who will
effectively articulate the President's policies on the world stage.
We need a person with Under Secretary Bolton's proven track record of
determination and success to cut through the thick and tangled
bureaucracy that has mired the United Nations in scandal and
inefficiency.
It is no accident that polling shows that most Americans have a dim
view of the United Nations. In recent months, we have seen multiple
negative reports about the world body.
We now know that Saddam Hussein stole an estimated $10 billion
through the Oil-for-Food Program. The U.N. official who ran the
operation stands accused of taking kickbacks, along with other
officials.
Last month, the head of the Iraq Survey Group told the Council on
Foreign Relations that as a result of the Oil-for-Food corruption,
Saddam came to believe he could divide the U.N. Security Council and
bring an end to sanctions.
He did divide us, but he didn't stop us.
[[Page 13122]]
The U.N. failed to stop the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s. The U.N.
now seems to be repeating that mistake in Darfur.
In the Congo, there are numerous allegations that U.N. peacekeepers
have committed sexual abuse against the innocent, female war victims
they were sent to protect.
Meanwhile, the U.N.'s Human Rights Commission, which is charged with
protecting our human rights, includes such human rights abusers as
Libya, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and Sudan.
These failures are very real and very discouraging. They can be
measured in lives lost and billions of dollars stolen. And they can be
measured in the sinking regard for an organization that should be held
in some esteem.
America sends the United Nations $2 billion per year. Our
contribution makes up 22 percent of its budget. We provide an even
larger percentage for peacekeeping and other U.N. activities. It is no
surprise that Americans are calling out for reform.
John Bolton is the President's choice to lead that effort. He
possesses deep and extensive knowledge of the United Nations and has,
for many years, been committed to its reform
Under Secretary Bolton has the confidence of the President and the
Secretary of State, and it is to them he will directly report.
As Senator Lugar has pointed out, Under Secretary Bolton has served 4
years in a key position that technically outranks the post for which he
is now being considered.
This is a critical time for the United States and for the world.
Because of the President's vision and commitment, democracy is on the
march around the globe. The United Nations can and should play a
central role in advancing these developments.
I believe in the U.N.'s potential if it is reformed and more rightly
focused. It has been an important forum for peace and dialogue. And,
like the President, I believe that an effective United Nations is in
America's interest.
As we all know, there has been one cloture vote. Tonight, in a few
minutes, we will have that second cloture vote.
Mr. President, John Bolton is the right man to represent us in the
United Nations. He is a straight shooter, a man of integrity. He is
exactly what we need at this time in the United Nations. He is exactly
what the United Nations needs from us. A vote for John Bolton is a vote
for change there. A vote for John Bolton is a vote for reform there. We
have had dilatory tactics and obstructionism that has been thinly
veiled in words of ``Senate prerogative.'' John Bolton deserves a vote,
and the American people deserve a strong, principled voice in the
United Nations.
Mr. President, I encourage our colleagues to vote for cloture tonight
because John Bolton deserves an up-or-down vote as the nominee to the
United Nations ambassadorship.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.
Under the previous order, the motion to proceed to the motion to
reconsider the failed cloture vote on this nomination is agreed to, the
motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote is agreed to, and the
Senate will proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the
nomination.
Cloture Motion
Under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke
cloture.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Executive
Calendar No. 103:
William Frist, Richard Lugar, Richard Burr, Pat Roberts,
Mitch McConnell, Jeff Sessions, Wayne Allard, Jon Kyl,
Jim DeMint, David Vitter, Richard Shelby, Lindsey
Graham, John Ensign, Pete Domenici, Robert Bennett, Mel
Martinez, George Allen.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory
quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
Executive Calendar No. 103, the nomination of John Robert Bolton, to be
the Representative of the United States of America to the United
Nations, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory
under the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr.
Coleman), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr.
Coleman) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr.
Feingold), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl),
and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 38, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 142 Ex.]
YEAS--54
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Vitter
Warner
NAYS--38
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Voinovich
Wyden
NOT VOTING--8
Burns
Coleman
Feingold
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Levin
Thune
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are
38. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority leader.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
return to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary
situation?
Amendment No. 799
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is No. 799, the
Voinovich amendment.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, is it in order to ask unanimous
consent to lay aside the pending amendment for the purpose of speaking
on an amendment that will be offered by Senator Martinez?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may ask that consent.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I will certainly be willing to
have my colleague from Florida speak. I ask unanimous consent that I
speak after the Senator from Florida, Mr. Martinez, who will offer the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Florida.
Amendment No. 783
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 783.
[[Page 13123]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is set aside.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida [Mr. Martinez], for Mr. Nelson of
Florida, for himself, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Boxer,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Dole, and Mr.
Burr, proposes an amendment numbered 783.
(Purpose: To strike the section providing for a comprehensive inventory
of outer Continental Shelf oil and natural gas resources)
Beginning on page 264, strike line 1 and all that follows
through page 265, line 12.
Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity that the
chairman, Senator Domenici, the ranking member, Senator Bingaman, and
other members have given me to work on this important piece of
legislation.
I came late to the work of this committee on this bill, having joined
the Senate just this year. Much of the work had previously been done.
As the chairman himself has said, this bill will make a real
difference in America's energy landscape.
I must tell my colleagues that I want to vote for this bill. I think
it contains a lot of what this Nation needs.
I have grave reservations about one particular provision that calls
for an inventory of the resources off this Nation's outer continental
shelf.
It is for this reason that I rise today to oppose the inventory,
offer an amendment to strike the inventory language, and ask for the
support of my colleagues. The inventory language is opposed by both
Senators from Florida and a number of coastal State Senators because it
opens the door to the development of offshore drilling.
In my State of Florida, such an inventory off our coastlines would
take place entirely within a Federal moratorium that bans offshore
drilling.
I oppose the inventory because it encroaches on an area off of
Florida's coast that we expect will remain under that drilling ban in
perpetuity.
My colleagues should be aware that this proposed inventory will cost
in excess of a billion dollars and the result will tell us much of what
we already know.
I am asking my colleagues to strike the proposed inventory language
contained in this bill and protect the rights of States that have no
interest in drilling off their shores.
This provision offered by my colleague, Mr. Senator Landrieu of
Louisiana, proposes to require a ``seismic survey inventory'' of all
outer continental shelf areas, including within sensitive coastal
waters long-protected from all such invasive activities by the 24-year
bipartisan congressional moratorium.
I opposed this amendment in committee because it contains something
we in Florida don't want and it opens the door to a number of problems,
environmental problems, economic problems, and unnecessary challenges
for our military.
Why would we inventory an area where we are never going to drill?
The inventory is a huge problem for Florida. It tantalizes pro-
drilling interests. It basically puts the State at risk.
I have received assurances from my friends on the other side of this
issue that States such as Florida, States that do not want drilling on
their coast, will not have to do it. Fine. That is Florida's position.
I can clearly state that we do not want drilling now, and I do not
see a scenario anywhere on the horizon where we would change that
position. So why, given our objection to drilling, would we spend the
resources, more than a billion dollars, and damage the environment in
the eastern planning zone to do this inventory? I would also say to my
colleagues that an inventory is not a benign thing.
Seismic surveys involve extensive acoustic disruption to marine
ecosystems and fisheries. Recent scientific studies have documented
previously-unknown impacts from the millions of high-intensity airgun
impulses used in such inventories. These sudden, repetitive explosions
bring about a potential for harm that is simply too great.
Seismic surveys are an invasive procedure, inappropriate for
sensitive marine areas and economically important fishing grounds.
And if one looks at the cost of this inventory, the Minerals
Management Service reports that using the most up-to-date technology to
perform an inventory of this magnitude will cost between $75 million
and $125 million for each frontier planning area. Nowhere in this
legislation can I find a section that suggests how we recoup the cost
of such an inventory.
So I ask my colleagues to strike the inventory. Going forward will
encroach upon our coastal waters, waters covered by a drilling ban, and
would do little more than act as enticement to oil companies that want
our drilling moratorium lifted.
Last year, more than 74 million people visited Florida to enjoy its
coastline, its wonderful climate, its excellent fishing. Families
return year after year to their favorite vacation spots to relax under
our brilliant blue skies, our powdery white beaches, and our crystal-
clear emerald waters.
The people of Florida share a love and appreciation of the Atlantic
Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, its coastal habitat and our wetlands,
which make a very complex ecosystem, and also a very special place to
live.
I share these facts for one reason: The people of Florida are
concerned their coastal waters are coming under increased pressure to
exploit possible oil and gas resources. The people of Florida do not
want that to happen. Floridians are adamantly opposed to oil and gas
exploration off our coastal waters. We have very serious concerns that
offshore exploration will weaken the protections we have built over
these many years. The inventory is but a foot in the door; it seriously
threatens marine wildlife and the coastal habitat off the coast of
Florida.
One other area of concern that perhaps has not been highlighted
enough and I know my colleague from Florida shares my view, is that it
has a tremendous impact on military uses of waters off Florida to
conduct extensive training and testing. For whatever time it would take
to conduct an inventory off our coastline, it would be the exact amount
of time our military will be put at a disadvantage.
We must afford our military the most and best training possible for
battle preparedness. Vieques used to give our men and women that
capability. Now that Vieques is closed, Florida's Panhandle plays an
increasingly significant role. Oil and gas exploration would have the
potential to halt that important work for an indefinite period of time.
Here are just some of the current missions using our section of the
Gulf: F-15 combat crew training; F-22 combat crew training; Navy cruise
missile exercises; special forces training; carrier battle group
training; composite and joint force training exercises; air-to-surface
weapons testing; surface-to-air weapons testing; and mine warfare
testing.
Any military mind knows that it takes months to schedule training
opportunities when joint operations are involved. If we were to
continue on this path of mandating an inventory in Florida's waters, we
could bring a halt to a number of important exercises.
In fact, one of the main reasons the military uses this area so
extensively is due to the protections currently in place. Here is what
MG Michael Kostelnik, the base commander of Eglin Air Force Base, said
in May of 2000:
We continue to place the most severe restrictions in the
eastern portion of the proposed sale area where oil and gas
operations would be incompatible with military training and
testing operations.
If we allow exploration there now, the military will suffer a setback
in their training and preparedness.
As many of my colleagues know, Senator Nelson and I are working
together to engage a coalition of Senators to help beat back any
efforts to encroach upon our coastal waters. I am proud to say in doing
so I follow in the footsteps of our predecessors, former Senators
Connie Mack and Bob Graham, and a bipartisan Florida delegation, in our
firm opposition to drilling off our coasts.
Let me again take a moment to praise Chairman Domenici and Ranking
[[Page 13124]]
Member Bingaman for putting together a comprehensive, bipartisan, and
significant energy policy that is forward looking, forward thinking,
and a road map of where we as a Nation need to go in order to address
the challenges that confront us today.
The problem is that this inventory language is a bad provision in a
good bill. I cannot emphasize enough how damaging this will be to
Florida, other coastal States, and our military training and testing
operations in the Gulf. The inventory will have a chilling affect on
all of these interests.
The amendment I offer here tonight is simple in that it strikes the
language requiring a ``seismic survey inventory'' of all outer
continental shelf areas. I believe striking this language makes the
overall bill stronger and I ask for my colleagues to support such an
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague
from Florida, as we have introduced this amendment to strike the
portion of the Energy bill that would set up an inventory on the Outer
Continental Shelf.
I want to show how extensive this inventory is going to be. The Outer
Continental Shelf is all of the west coast of the United States, the
Pacific coast, the area in yellow off the coast of Washington, Oregon,
and California. All of that area would be subject to the inventory. All
of this area in the Gulf of Mexico is presently covered by the
moratorium about which Senator Martinez and I fought very hard last
week to get an agreement from the two leaders and managers of the bill
that they would not come in and support any amendments that would offer
drilling in the Gulf of Mexico off Florida.
But look at the Outer Continental Shelf. It extends from Maine all
the way down to Florida. We are talking about a huge area that would be
inventoried. That sounds innocent enough, but let me tell you why I
oppose it. I oppose it because it is unnecessary unless you are
preparing to drill in areas off our coast that are currently subject to
this moratorium; otherwise, why would we want to take an inventory if
all of this Outer Continental Shelf is now under a moratorium so you
cannot drill for oil and gas?
I oppose it also because it is harmful to marine life and commercial
fish, and the Minerals Management Service already conducts inventories
of the economically recoverable oil and gas reserves on the Outer
Continental Shelf, including moratoria areas, every 5 years. In fact,
the MMS will complete its next inventory this summer. Its last
inventory came out in the year 2000. If that is the case, why do we
need another inventory? How is the inventory in this bill different
from the one that is already in effect? Two words: seismic exploration.
What is seismic exploration--in other words, what they call survey?
It is an expensive, invasive, and harmful practice used by oil and gas
companies to determine where to drill. Why doesn't MMS use seismic
exploration currently to complete their inventory? Because it is too
costly and it is considered a precursor to drilling.
If you are not going to drill, you should not be spending hundreds of
millions of dollars to tell you where to put the drill. MMS estimates
that these surveys would cost between $75 million and $125 million for
each of the planning areas. Remember, in the Outer Continental Shelf,
there are nine planning areas. At $75 million to $125 million apiece
for seismic exploration, that means we would be having MMS spend $675
million to $1 billion to survey our moratorium areas, areas on our
coastline that are under a moratorium until the year 2012, pursuant to
a Presidential directive.
Let me tell you a little bit about what seismic exploration and
surveying is. Oil and gas companies use seismic air guns. They are
long, submersible cannons that are towed behind boats in arrays, firing
shots of compressed air into the water every 10 seconds. Interestingly,
these air guns have replaced dynamite as the industry's primary method
of exploration. But they create sound rivaling that of dynamite. A
large seismic array can produce peak pressures of sound that are higher
than virtually any other manmade source, save for explosives like
dynamite--over 250 decibels.
The oil and gas industry typically conducts several seismic surveys
over the life of their offshore leases. They use these seismic surveys
to determine the best placement of oil rigs and pipelines and to track
fluid flows within the reservoirs. Seismic surveys are massive,
covering vast areas of the ocean, with thousands of blasts going off
every few seconds, in some cases over the course of days, weeks,
months. The arrays towed by boats consist of 12 to 48 individual air
guns, synchronized to create a simultaneous pulse of sound outputting a
total of 3,000 to 8,000 cubic inches of air per shot. The sounds are so
powerful because the array is attempting to generate echoes from each
of several geologic boundary layers at the bottom of the ocean. Echoes
produced by these seismic impulses are recorded, and they are analyzed
by oil and gas companies to provide information on the subsurface
geological features.
The noise pollution from these tests can literally be heard across
oceans. If the sea floor is hard and rocky, the noise might be heard
for thousands of miles. And the sound can mask the calls of whales and
other animals that rely on the acoustic environment to breed and
survive. Scientists are documenting more and more problems associated
with the seismic surveys. Whales, dolphins, fish, sea turtles, and
squid have all been impacted adversely by the seismic activity. I sure
would not want to be a scuba diver in the water with one of these
seismic blasts going off.
The 2004 International Whaling Commission's Scientific Committee, one
of the most well-respected bodies of whale biologists in the world,
concluded that increased sound from seismic surveys was a ``cause for
concern'' because there is a growing body of evidence that seismic
pulses kill, injure, and disturb marine life.
The impacts range from strandings to temporary or permanent hearing
loss, to abandonment of habitat and disruption of vital behaviors such
as mating and feeding.
Studies have also shown substantial impacts on commercial species of
fish. Fishermen, beware. One series of studies demonstrated that air
guns caused extensive and apparently irreversible damage to the inner
ears of snapper, and the snapper were several kilometers from the
seismic surveys.
The scientific community is not the one that is raising the alarm
bells. Courts and governments are starting to realize the dangers posed
by seismic exploration. In 2002, a California Federal court stopped a
geologic research project in the Sea of Cortez, when two beaked whales
were found dead with an undeniable link to the seismic activity.
The Canadian Government slowed a geologic project off its west coast
and is looking closely at an oil and gas seismic survey off Cape Breton
as a result of dangers posed by the surveys.
The Australian Government refused to issue permits for a survey near
a marine park because the proponents of the survey could not prove it
would not harm the marine park.
And the Bermuda Government refused to issue a permit for seismic
geologic surveys off its coast, citing concerns for impacts on marine
mammals.
Air gun activity associated with seismic surveys must be considered
an invasive procedure, inappropriate for sensitive marine areas and
economically important commercial fishing grounds.
We have to continue to remember that the United States has 3 percent
of the world's oil reserves.
Yet the United States uses four times more oil than any other nation,
according to the report from the National Commission on Energy Policy.
According to Alan Greenspan in a speech he gave in April of this year,
the 200 million personal vehicles currently on the U.S. highways
consume 11 percent of the total world oil production. We cannot drill
our way to energy independence.
Spending hundreds of millions of dollars on harmful exploration in
areas
[[Page 13125]]
whose economic livelihood depends on their fishing industry and their
marine ecosystem could have devastating effects.
For these reasons, I must oppose this invasive, duplicative, and
harmful exploration on the moratoria areas on the Outer Continental
Shelf.
The bottom line is, if you have the Outer Continental Shelf under
moratoria, why do we need to try to inventory all of that if you are
not supposed to have any drilling under Presidential directive at least
until the year 2012? Why go in with the risk to Mother Nature with this
kind of seismic exploration?
I yield to my colleague from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The Senator from Florida.
Mr. MARTINEZ. If the Senator will yield, I wonder if in any part of
this bill the Senator noticed any area that would denote how the $1
billion, the cost of exploration, would be paid for?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. That is an excellent question. If you are
going to do the seismic exploration which this bill would allow in the
nine areas under the moratoria, it is going to cost between $650
million and $1 billion. In a Congress that is so concerned about budget
deficits to the tune of almost half a trillion a year, where are we
going to get that kind of money?
The Senator's point is well taken. I thank my colleague from Florida
for making that point.
Mr. MARTINEZ. A further question: It seems to me, when we have a
moratoria, drilling is prohibited right now. To do this inventory in
that particular area, it certainly seems to me to be a waste of
taxpayer dollars since there is no prospect of drilling with the
congressional and Presidential moratoriums in place.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator is correct. Since a President of
the United States established this moratorium on the Outer Continental
Shelf and it is to run to 2012, why do we need to be spending money on
seismic surveying on an area that is off limits to drilling, which the
moratorium has in place until the year 2012?
I thank the Senator for joining to offer this amendment. I ask the
Senate to consider helping continue to preserve the moratorium.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are on the eve of a turning point in
the energy future of our country. As we move closer to voting on a
comprehensive energy bill, we have a truly historic opportunity to
transform the way we think about energy. We have an opportunity to make
a decisive step away from dependence on foreign imports and fossil
fuels and toward an independent future based on the abundant natural
human and technological resources found right here within our borders.
As we wean ourselves from the oil fields of the unstable Middle East
and other parts of the world and rely increasingly on field crops and
fuel cells produced in America's heartland, we will build an energy
future that will make us more secure and a future of which we can be
proud.
This is the bottom line. When we talk about moving toward energy
independence in this country, we are talking primarily about reducing
America's dependence on imported oil. Petroleum accounts for more than
85 percent of our energy imports. As everyone is acutely aware, much of
the 85 percent comes from some of the world's most unstable and, in
some cases, openly hostile countries.
Today, rising global demand for petroleum is driving prices for
gasoline and home heating oil to record levels. This year, China passed
Japan as the world's second largest consumer of energy. China's use of
oil is expected to grow exponentially over the next few years. So the
focus of any national energy strategy must be to reduce our dependence
on foreign oil in a sustainable way and as rapidly as possible.
By far, the largest use of petroleum in this country is in the
transportation sector, and 97 percent of today's transportation fuel
comes from petroleum. Thankfully, we know the solution. It is
technologically feasible. We need to build vehicles that use less
gasoline or no gasoline, and we need to make an aggressive transition
to clean, renewable domestic fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, and fuel
cells.
The goal is a future of vehicles powered by fuel cells. The hydrogen
is used to create the electricity to turn the motors that turn the
wheels. The power from the fuel cell comes from hydrogen that will be
made by renewable resources such as wind, photovoltaic, and other forms
of renewable energy.
The biggest single step right now that we can take is to improve
vehicle fuel economy. This bill takes a modest step in this direction,
for example, by offering tax incentives for hybrid gas-electric
vehicles, but we need improvements across the board, including raising
the corporate average economy standard for vehicles.
Another commonsense way to reduce reliance on fossil fuels is to make
greater use of clean and homegrown fuels. This bill has several
provisions that take us in the right direction on this front, starting
with the robust 8-billion-plus renewable fuel standard first proposed
by Senator Lugar and I and overwhelmingly approved by this Senate last
week.
It is very disturbing that even with the price of ethanol well below
that of gasoline, fuel blenders are still turning their backs on this
cleaner, cheaper, homegrown alternative and turning instead to imports
of refined gasoline.
This chart illustrates that. Right now, going back to 5 years ago,
there has been a steady increase in the imports of gasoline. This is
weekly total gasoline imports--thousands of barrels per day. From April
28 of 2000 until March of this year, gasoline imports increased 66
percent. This is not oil, this is gasoline. This is oil that has been
refined in some foreign country, put on a tanker, and shipped to this
country. So right now, we are up to just about a million barrels a day.
Think about that, that is just gasoline. Not too many people know that.
Most people think we are just importing oil. We are importing about a
million barrels a day of refined gasoline into this country. That is at
the expense of American dollars and jobs. This is taking us in the
wrong direction.
A recent report by the Consumer Federation of America found consumers
would be saving up to 8 cents a gallon at the pump if refiners were
instead adding it to the gasoline at just 10-percent blends.
My consumers in Iowa, right now, are saving as much as 10 cents per
gallon on ethanol-blended fuels, for an average savings of at least
$100 a year for a typical family.
I believe Americans all across the country deserve the cost and clean
air benefits that ethanol-blended fuels provide. It is imperative we
insist on our strong 8-billion-gallon renewable fuels standard when
this Energy bill goes to conference with the House.
In addition to the renewable fuels standard, this bill in front of us
includes tax incentives for alternative motor vehicles and fuels. This
is very important. But we need to act more aggressively. For example, I
believe we need to mandate that gasoline vehicles sold in this country
be flexible-fuel vehicles that can run on E-85; that is, 85 percent
ethanol or some other biofuel.
Now, flexible-fuel vehicles only cost maybe, right now, between $100
and $200 per vehicle. That is with just a small amount that are being
made. If every vehicle was a flexible-fuel vehicle, the cost per
vehicle would drop way below $100 per vehicle. The savings a consumer
would get on that few dollars extra added to the sticker price of a car
would be more than made up for, probably within the first year or so of
buying flexible fuels.
So I am saying, right now we do not have that many flexible-fuel
vehicles. We need to mandate that cars sold in America--not made here,
sold in America--be a flexible-fuel vehicle. You might say: Is that
possible? Well, Brazil is planning on having all of its new cars
flexible-fuel ready by 2008. I want to ask the question: If the
Brazilians can do it, why can't we? If the Brazilians can do it, of
course we can do it.
[[Page 13126]]
Now, of course, consumers need access to the renewable fuels. So I am
glad the bill in front of us includes incentives for the installation
of flexible-fuel pumps at fueling stations. So now the bill has in it,
as I said, incentives for installing flexible-fuel pumps at fuel
stations. But we do not have a mandate to build flexible-fuel cars.
Right now, there is a fuel savings credit that auto manufacturers get
for making E-85 vehicles. It is called the CAFE credits. But it is on
the assumption that these vehicles will run on E-85 at least half the
time. In other words, an auto manufacturer gets the credits for
building a flexible-fuel vehicle on the assumption the vehicle will use
E-85 half the time.
But the truth is, most people who own flexible-fuel vehicles do not
even know it. So E-85 does not get used at all for that reason, and for
the reason there are not many pumps out there. So we call this the
dual-fuel loophole because carmakers get the credit for alternative
fuels even if no alternative fuel is used. We should close that
loophole now by tying CAFE credits to the amount of flexible fuel that
is actually used, or by simply letting the credit expire.
So what I am saying is we need a three-pronged approach. We have the
incentives in the bill to add flexible-fuel pumps at fueling stations.
Secondly, we need to provide these credits will go only--only--on the
amount of flexible fuel that is actually used. Third, what I am saying
is we actually need a mandate that cars sold in America be flexible
fueled.
Now, another important provision of the Energy bill extends the
income tax credit for the production of biodiesel, another excellent
renewable fuel. Biodiesel offers tremendous energy savings by providing
3.5 times more energy than is used to produce it, and by offering
improved air quality over traditional diesel.
In addition to investment in today's biofuels, we also need a strong
investment in the future of bio-based fuels and products of all kinds.
New technology is making it possible to produce biofuels and a host of
industrial and commercial products out of biomass; that is,
agricultural material such as corn stalks and wheat straw and
switchgrass and wood pulp and things like that--dedicated energy crops
that together are expected to produce 10 times the current volume of
ethanol at prices equal to or less than that of gasoline, and, again,
with tremendous benefits to our environment and our rural economy.
A recent study found that farmers can expect to earn an additional
$35 per acre just by selling the excess biomass--the stalks and the
straw--from traditional corn and wheat operations.
Now, ethanol made from this residual biomass is expected to have near
zero or even negative net carbon dioxide emissions. How can that be? If
you are using it, you are burning it, burning the fuel in a car, you
put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That is true. But as these
plants grow, they take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere more than
what is burned in the automobile. So biomass is a vital part of
combating climate change.
Now, the biorefineries that produce this ethanol will also give us
bio-based products to supplement or replace everyday products now made
from petroleum. I have a couple of posters that indicate that. Shipping
materials, building construction materials, roofing materials,
elastomeric-type roofing materials, paints, hand sanitizers, and even
carpets are made from renewable resources, biodegradable resources. For
home and automotive use, just think of all the plastic cups, all these
containers made out of petroleum now. And there are lubricants, soy
oil. Even rubber tires are made out of renewable resources which are
biodegradable. All of these things can be made from the biorefineries
that will be producing the ethanol and the biodiesel that we will use
in transportation. Many of these products are on the market, not in the
future but today.
Tripling the use of bio-based products could add $20 billion in
economic benefits just by the year 2010--5 years from now. Replacing
the Nation's petrochemicals with bio-based equivalents would save some
700 million barrels of petroleum a year. Just replacing plastics with
bio-based counterparts would save another 100 million barrels or more.
So there is great potential here. We need to get serious about
supporting these bio-based products, and the Federal Government needs
to take the lead.
Now, I know we are talking about the Energy bill, and that is what I
have been talking about. But I am just going to digress for a minute
and talk about a provision that was in the farm bill that was passed in
2002 because it has a lot to do with this Energy bill. Keep in mind
what I have been saying is, by getting the biorefineries going and
making more ethanol and biodiesel, we have byproducts that can also be
made. As I mentioned, they are the plastic containers and the building
materials and things like that. There is an important provision in the
farm bill, section 9002, that we worked very hard to get in the farm
bill, passed and signed by the President 3 years ago this month.
Section 9002 requires all Government Departments and Agencies to give a
purchasing preference to bio-based products. Now, here is the exact
wording. This is section 9002. This is law. It has been the law for 3
years:
Each Federal agency . . . shall--
It does not say ``may''--
shall, in making procurement decisions, give preference to
such items composed of the highest percentage of bio-based
products practicable . . . unless such items (A) are not
reasonably available; (B) fail to meet performance standards;
or (C) are available only at an unreasonable price.
So price, performance, and availability--as long as it meets those
three criteria, each Federal agency shall buy them. That is what it
says, period.
Think of all the plastic cups and forks used every day in the Senate
cafeteria alone.
Think of the Department of Defense, think about all of the plastic
materials they use in serving the troops every day. Think of the
millions of gallons of metal-working fluids, lubricants, and paint used
by the Department of Defense. Yet 3 years after the passage of the farm
bill, we still do not have a bio-based procurement program in place in
the Federal Government. That has been there. It has been the law. And
we are still not doing it. McDonald's can go buy plastic cups made out
of renewable resources. Good for them. Why can't the Department of
Defense? Why can't the Department of Interior that operates in our
national parks? Why aren't they using more biodegradable materials? The
law says they are supposed to, but they are not doing it because USDA
has yet to issue the rules.
Again, I bring that up because this is part and parcel of the Energy
bill. This saves us energy because right now all this material is made
from imported oil, or most of it. It could be made by homegrown
products here in America. We need to have the Federal Government
setting an example and leading the way in reducing dependence on
products made from foreign oil. I am sorry to say that 3 years later we
still are not doing it.
We also need to invest in research and commercialization of bio-based
fuels and products. That is why a few weeks ago, I, along with Senators
Lugar, Obama, and Coleman, introduced the National Security and
Bioenergy Investment Act of 2005. Our bill promotes targeted biomass
research and development in order to expand the cost-effective use of
bio-based fuels, products, and power. It provides incentives for the
production of the first 1 billion gallons of biofuels from cellulosic
biomass; that is, crop residues like corn stocks and wheat straw, or
wood chips from lumber mills. It provides bioeconomy development grants
to small bio-based businesses. It creates a new Assistant Secretary
position at the Department of Agriculture to carry out energy and bio-
based initiatives.
It requires the Capitol complex to lead by example by procuring bio-
based products. This bill has the support of a broad coalition of
agricultural producers, clean energy and environment groups, and
national security experts. I have a number of letters from these
organizations supporting the bill.
[[Page 13127]]
I ask unanimous consent that the letters be printed in the Record at
the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am excited about this new bill. I hope
my colleagues will get behind it. In fact, we may be offering an
amendment to the Energy bill that would take a small part of that and
add it to the Energy bill. I hope we can get that done this week.
America's dangerous dependence on fossil fuels extends beyond oil.
Natural gas prices have skyrocketed, hurting everyone who uses gas to
heat their home or fuel their appliances or to make fertilizer for our
farmers. Americans now pay two to three times what Europeans pay for
natural gas due to our ever-growing demand and limited availability.
Farmers are hit hard. Our farmers rely on natural gas not only to heat
homes and run much of their equipment but also for fertilizer in the
fields. These impacts on farmers are severe and getting worse. We need
an energy bill that looks for sensible ways to lower natural gas costs
for all Americans. We need to look for environmentally sensitive ways
to increase our supply.
That is why I keep saying, the House put in a bill to drill for oil
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but we all know that oil
doesn't amount to anything. Most of that oil--I could be corrected--I
believe all of that oil is going to go to Japan. It is a drop in the
bucket compared to what we use. But what else they have in Alaska is a
lot of natural gas, and we need to pipe that natural gas from Alaska
down to the lower 48. That has been on the drawing boards in the past
to get that natural gas down here. And for various and sundry reasons
that I don't need to go into here, it has been held up.
I call upon the Governor of Alaska to move expeditiously to reach the
agreements that are necessary to get the natural gas pipeline
constructed and built to deliver the natural gas down to the lower 48.
They have been talking a lot about how they would pipe it down--they
would liquefy it and then send it down to the west coast, or maybe to
the Gulf States. That costs a lot of money when you liquefy natural
gas, when we could build a pipeline that could be environmentally safe
and bring that gas right down to the Midwest where it is needed, not
only for the Midwest but for the upper part, the northern part of the
United States. So we need to move ahead aggressively on that, and we
are not doing it.
We need to look for all environmentally sensitive ways to increase
supply, and we need to look for solar and biomass and wind. I am glad
so many colleagues from both sides of the aisle joined together in
approving the amendment offered by Senator Bingaman requiring 10
percent of this country's electricity to come from renewable resources
by 2020. Wind power in particular has tremendous potential to provide
clean, abundant energy in many parts of the country. Wind power
generation can provide thousands of dollars in additional revenue to
our farmers and ranchers and people in rural areas, while continuing to
allow for crop production and grazing. Valuable incentives for wind
power production exist in the section 45 wind production tax credit.
However, development of this vital industry has been tied up by
Congress's refusal to provide a long-term extension of this incentive.
In 2004, when extension of the production tax credit was delayed,
more than $2 billion in wind power investment was put on hold. I am
pleased a 3-year extension of the production tax credit for wind has
been included in this bill. We could do more, much more. It should be
extended longer than that, but at least this minimal amount should
provide developers the certainty they need to move ahead with wind
power projects.
We also need to make sure farmers and farmer co-ops can be full
participants in wind power projects. The farm bill's energy title,
section 906, is providing grants and loans to farmers and rural small
businesses to install wind and other renewable energy systems on their
property. It also supports energy-efficient improvements to farm and
small business operations. This program has been a real success over
the past several years. We expect it to grow substantially in the years
ahead.
I have also introduced a bill, S. 715, to help more farmers and other
rural citizens become active investors in wind energy by removing
restrictions that are in the production tax credit. This bill I am
sponsoring includes a pass through of the wind production tax credit to
cooperative members, just like the small ethanol producer credit pass
through right now. This will provide another needed boost to rural
America's wind power development. Right now, if a co-op builds an
ethanol plant, they can get the production tax credits passed through
to their members. If a co-op wants to build windmills, however, they
can't pass it through to their members. Hopefully, we can lift this
restriction, and we can do it on this Energy bill before us.
Finally, we need to look to the longer term future, and we need to do
it now by laying the groundwork. To deliver truly sustainable energy
that will not add to climate change and global warming, that will not
pollute the environment, we must invest in clean technologies. What I
am talking about is hydrogen. It offers real potential for a clean,
domestic, sustainable energy future. But only if it is produced from
renewable resources. That is why we need to support research and
demonstration of technologies to produce hydrogen from ethanol and
other renewable resources. My bill, S. 373, the Renewable Hydrogen
Transportation Act, would do just that, by funding the installation of
an ethanol-to-hydrogen reformer, as well as the operation of hybrid
electric vehicles converted to run on renewable hydrogen instead of
gasoline.
Making hydrogen from ethanol and other renewable fuels makes a lot of
sense for transportation--one, because we can use the existing ethanol
production and distribution network; two, because it could well be the
least expensive renewable hydrogen option available. I appreciate the
willingness of the chairman and the ranking member to work with me to
put this modest, but meaningful, initiative in the bill.
Again, to get to that sustainable future, we have to think about
making hydrogen from renewable resources. You use the wind power. When
the wind blows at night and you don't need all that electricity and you
cannot store it, what do you do with it? You waste it. It is gone. But
if you can use that wind at night to turn a turbine that makes
electricity, and you can use that electricity to hydrolyze water--
remember the old chemistry experiment where you put positive and
negative in water, and off of one comes oxygen and off of the other
comes hydrogen. There are two atoms for oxygen for every atom of
hydrogen. As long as those turbines are turning, we can make hydrogen.
You can store hydrogen. You can save it. You can compress it. You can
pipe it. So, therefore, at times when you don't need a lot of
electrical power and the wind is blowing, you can make hydrogen. You
can store it and take the hydrogen and put it through a fuel cell to
make the electricity when you need it. The beauty of doing that is you
only get one product--H2O, water. Nothing else. It doesn't
pollute, doesn't add to global warming or anything. So that is the
cycle that we need. Use the Sun, use the wind, hydropower, whatever is
renewable, take that and make hydrogen, store it, compress it, put it
through a fuel cell, and make the electricity, and the cycle starts all
over again. I know a lot of this is some years down the pike. We cannot
do it tomorrow. But we can start now by building assistance that will
enable us to move to a renewable hydrogen-based economy in this
country.
Mr. President, let me close by thanking Senator Domenici and Senator
Bingaman for the extraordinary job they have done during the past
months and during floor consideration of the bill. The bipartisan
cooperation we are seeing is due largely to their example and
impressive leadership, and the entire Senate owes them a debt of
gratitude for a job well done.
[[Page 13128]]
Of course, we are not done yet. Hurdles remain. We are headed,
though, toward concluding a strong, bipartisan bill that leads America
decisively into the new world of clean, renewable, home-grown energy.
When the time comes, we need to stand firm for the Senate provisions
when we go to conference.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
June 9, 2005.
Re The National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of
2005.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Lugar,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Harkin and Lugar: The National Corn Growers
Association (NCGA), the American Soybean Association (ASA),
and the Renewable Fuels Association are writing to express
our support for the National Security and Bioenergy
Investment Act of 2005. In particular, we strongly support
the increased procurement of biobased products by Federal
agencies and all Federal government contractors. Biobased
products represent a large potential growth market for corn
and soybean growers in areas such as plastics, solvents,
packaging and other consumer goods to provide markets for
U.S.-grown crops. The biobased product industry has already
started to grow, bringing new products to consumers, new
markets to growers and new investments to our communities.
The procurement of biobased products promotes energy and
environmental security. Products made from corn and soybeans
could replace a variety of items currently produced from
petroleum, and aid in reducing dependence on imported oil.
Already the production of ethanol and biodiesel reduces
imports by more than 140 million barrels of oil. The
production of biobased products generates less greenhouse gas
than traditional petroleum-based items. There are also
tremendous opportunities for grower-owned processing
facilities and rural America and agriculture as a whole. New
jobs and investments will be brought into rural communities,
as new processing and manufacturing facilities move into
those communities to be near renewable feedstocks.
NCGA, ASA and RFA applaud your continued efforts to promote
the use of biobased I products that will encourage the
development of new markets for corn and soybeans and
ultimately help to revitalize rural economies and the
agriculture industry as a whole. We have been avid supporters
of the biobased products industry, and we look forward to
working with you as you continue to provide vision and
direction for this emerging industry.
Sincerely,
Leon Corzine,
President, National Corn Growers Association.
Neal Bredehoeft,
President, American Soybean Association.
Bob Dinneen,
President, Renewable Fuels Association.
____
Governors' Ethanol Coalition,
June 9, 2005.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington DC.
Hon. Barack Obama,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington DC.
Hon. Richard Lugar,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington DC.
Hon. Norm Coleman,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington DC.
Dear Senators: On behalf of the thirty members of the
Governors' Ethanol Coalition, we strongly support and endorse
the National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of 2005,
as well as your efforts to expand development of other
biofuels and co-products. The Governors' Ethanol Coalition is
pleased that this bill embodies the recommendations developed
by the Coalition in Ethanol From Biomass: America's 21st pi
Century Transportation Fuel. When signed into law, this act
will catalyze needed research, production, and use of
biofuels and bio-based products, thereby enhancing our
economic, environmental, and national security.
The Coalition believes that the nation's dependency on
imported oil presents a huge risk to this country's future.
The combination of political tensions in major oil-producing
nations with growing oil demand from China and India is
seriously threatening our national security. Moreover, as we
import greater amounts of oil each year, we are draining more
and more of the wealth from our states.
The key provisions contained in your bill bring focus and
resources to biomass-derived ethanol research and
commercialization efforts. The result, over time, will be the
replacement of significant amounts. of imported oil with
domestically produced fuels--improving our rural economies,
cleaning our air, and contributing to our national security.
Of particular importance is the bill's aim to broaden ethanol
production to include all regions of the nation so that many
more states will reap the benefits of biofuels.
Again, thank you for inclusion of the Coalition's
recommendations in this landmark legislation. Please let us
know how the Coalition can help with the passage of this very
important legislation. The continued expansion of ethanol
production and use, particularly biomass-derived fuels, and
the accompanying economic growth and environmental benefits
for our states is essential to the nation's long-term
economic vitality and national security.
Sincerely,
Tim Pawlenty,
Chair, Governor of Minnesota.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Vice Chair, Governor of Kansas.
____
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Washington, DC, June 7, 2005.
Dear Senators Harkin and Lugar: The Natural Resources
Defense Council strongly supports the National Security and
Bioenergy Investment Act of2005, which you introduced today.
This important bill would expand and refine research,
development, demonstration and deployment efforts for the
production of energy from crops grown by farmers here in
America. The bill would also expand and improve the
Department of Agriculture's efforts to promote a biobased
economy, federal bio-energy and bioproduct purchasing
requirements, and federal educational efforts.
The Research and Development (R&D) title of this bill
continues your tradition of leadership in this area by
updating the Biomass Research and Development Act of2000,
which you also crafted. This title will not only extend the
provisions of the original bill and greatly increase the
funding for these provisions, it will also refine the
direction of this funding. Taken together, these changes
maximize the impacts of R&D on the greatest challenges facing
cellulosic biofuels today.
Your bill also creates extremely important production
incentives for the first one billion gallons of cellulosic
biofuels. The production incentives approach taken by the
bill a combination of fixed incentives per gallon at first,
switching over to a reverse auction will maximize the
development of cellulosic biofuels production while
minimizing the cost to taxpayers.
In addition, the bill creates an Assistant Secretary of
Agriculture for Energy and Biobased Products. Coupled with
the bill's development grants, tax incentives, biobased
product procurement provisions, and educational program, the
bill would make a huge contribution to developing a
sustainable biobased economy, reducing our oil dependence and
improving our national security.
The technologies advanced by this bill will undoubtedly
make important contributions to reducing our global warming
pollution and the air and water pollution that comes from our
dependence on fossil fuels. We are concerned, however, that
the eligibility provisions for forest biomass do not exclude
sensitive areas that need protecting, including roadless
areas, old growth forests, and other endangered forests, and
do not restrict eligibility to renewable sources or prohibit
possible conversion of native forests to plantations. We know
that you do not want to see this admirable legislation
applied in ways that exploit these features, and will be
happy to work with you in the future to take any steps needed
if abuses arise.
Sincerely,
Karen Wayland,
Legislative Director.
____
Energy Future Coalition,
Washington, DC, June 8, 2005.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Hon. Richard G. Lugar,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Harkin and Lugar: On behalf of the Energy
Future Coalition, I am writing to commend your leadership and
vision in drafting the National Security and Bioenergy
Investment Act of 2005.
In our judgment, America's growing dependence on foreign
oil endangers our national and economic security. We believe
the Federal government should undertake a major new
initiative to curtail U.S. oil consumption through improved
efficiency and the rapid development and deployment of
advanced biomass, alcohol and other available petroleum fuel
alternatives.
With such a push, we believe domestic biofuels can cut the
nation's oil use by 25 percent by 2025, and substantial
further reductions are possible through efficiency gains from
advanced technologies. That is an ambitious goal, but it is
also an extraordinary opportunity for American leadership,
innovation, job creation, and economic growth.
[[Page 13129]]
You took an important step forward by introducing S. 650,
the Fuels Security Act, incorporated into the Senate energy
bill during Committee markup. This legislation is another
important step, authorizing the additional research and
development and federal incentives needed to accelerate the
adoption of biobased fuels and coproducts. We are pleased to
support it.
Sincerely,
Reid Detchon,
Executive Director.
____
National Farmers Union,
Washington, DC, June 9, 2005.
Hon. Richard Lugar,
Hart Senate Office Building,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Hart Senate Office Building,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Lugar and Harkin: On behalf of the family
farming and ranching members of the National Farmers Union,
we are writing to express our strong support for your
bipartisan, National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of
2005 legislation. The provisions within this act contain
crucial measures that will benefit not only rural, but all of
America.
Importantly, your legislation would create an Assistant
Secretary for Energy and Biobased Products position at USDA,
which we feel would complement and reinforce initiatives
created by the energy section of the 2002 Farm Bill.
We also applaud your proposals for promoting the usage of
biobased products within the U.S. government, which will
expand future development of these technologies. These
products, and their use, are an asset to the rural producers
of the commodities used in the production of these commonly
used items. Also, the more we increase the use of these
items, the better it will be environmentally for future
generations.
We wholeheartedly support your legislation and look forward
to working with you to promote the expansion of biobased
products.
Sincerely,
David J. Frederickson,
President.
____
Biotechnology
Industry Organization,
Washington, DC, June 8, 2005.
Senator Tom Harkin,
Ranking Democratic Member,
Senator Richard Lugar,
Member, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Harkin and Lugar: The Biotechnology Industry
Organization (BIO) Industrial and Environmental Section fully
supports the National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act
of 2005. We greatly appreciate your vision and initiative to
expand the Biomass Research and Development Act and to create
new incentives to produce biofuels and biobased products.
America's growing dependence on foreign energy is eroding
our national security. We must take steps to drastically
increase production of domestic energy. As an active
participant in the Energy Future Coalition, BIO believes this
country needs a major new initiative to more aggressively
research, develop and deploy advanced biofuels technologies.
With sufficient government support, we can meet up to 25% of
our transportation fuel needs by converting farm crops and
crop residues to transportation fuel.
The National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of 2005
will boost the use of industrial biotechnology to produce
fuels and biobased products from renewable agricultural
feedstocks. With the use of new biotech tools, we can now
utilize millions of tons of crop residues, such as corn
stover and wheat straw, to produce sugars that can then be
converted to ethanol, chemicals and bio-based plastics. These
biotech tools can only be rapidly deployed if federal policy
makers take steps to help our innovative companies get over
the initial hurdles they face during the commercialization
phase of bioenergy production, and your bill will help get
that job done.
We are pleased to endorse this visionary legislation.
Sincerely,
Brent Erickson,
Executive Vice President.
____
Environmental Law & Policy Center,
Chicago, IL, June 8, 2005.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Hon. Richard G. Lugar,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Harkin and Lugar: The Environmental Law and
Policy Center (``ELPC'') is pleased to support the National
Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of 2005, and we commend
you for your leadership and vision in introducing this
legislation. This bill would accelerate research,
development, demonstration and production efforts for energy
from farm crops in the United States, especially cellulosic
ethanol. It also will expand and prioritize the United States
Department of Agriculture's leadership responsibilities to
promote clean and sustainable energy development, and it will
increase procurement of biobased products.
By significantly expanding the development and production
of clean energy ``cash crops,'' this legislation will improve
our environmental quality, stimulate significant rural
economic development, and strengthen our national energy
security. ELPC also appreciates that this legislation
reflects your longstanding support for farm-based sustainable
energy programs. ELPC strongly supported your successful
efforts to create the new Energy Title in the 2002 Farm Bill,
which established groundbreaking new federal incentives for
renewable energy and energy efficiency, while renewing
existing programs such as the Biomass Research and
Development Act of 2000.
The National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of 2005
is a natural complement to the 2002 Farm Bill Energy Title
programs, and it will help to strengthen support for the
right bioenergy production programs in the 2007 Farm Bill.
Accordingly, ELPC is pleased to support this legislation.
Very truly yours,
Howard A. Learner,
Executive Director.
____
Institute for Local Self-Reliance,
June 6, 2005.
Senator Tom Harkin,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Tom Harkin: Congratulations on your bill,
National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of 2005. It is
a breakthrough piece of legislation. Your well-conceived
bill, combining needed executive branch changes, welcome
increases in research and development funding and innovative
commercialization techniques, can move the use of plants as a
fuel and industrial material from the margins of the economy
to the mainstream. I urge everyone with an interest in our
environmental, agricultural and economic future to support
this bill.
Sincerely,
David Morris,
Vice President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Amendment No. 805
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Iowa for
his being always thoughtful. We even want to produce ethanol plants and
wind in New York. We just don't want to transport it over to Iowa. I am
not from Iowa. In any case, I am not here to talk about that.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be
laid aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. SCHUMER. This is the sense of the Senate amendment on the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Mr. DOMENICI. We will temporarily set it aside, and then we will
return to where we were. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I believe the amendment is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an
amendment numbered 805.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding management of
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower the burden of gasoline prices
on the economy of the United States and circumvent the efforts of OPEC
to reap windfall profits)
On page 208, after line 24, add the following:
SEC. 303. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MANAGEMENT OF SPR.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the prices of gasoline and crude oil have a direct and
substantial impact on the financial well-being of families of
the United States, the potential for national economic
recovery, and the economic security of the United States;
(2) on June 13, 2005, crude oil prices closed at the
exceedingly high level of $55.62 per barrel, the price of
crude oil has remained above $50 per barrel since May 25,
2005, and the price of crude oil has exceeded $50 per barrel
for approximately \1/3\ of calendar year 2005;
(3) on June 6, 2005, the Energy Information Administration
announced that the national price of gasoline, at $2.12 per
gallon, could reach even higher levels in the near future;
(4) despite the severely high, sustained price of crude
oil--
(A) the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
(referred to in this section as ``OPEC'') has refused to
adequately increase
[[Page 13130]]
production to calm global oil markets and officially
abandoned its $22-$28 price target; and
(B) officials of OPEC member nations have publicly
indicated support for maintaining oil prices of $40-$50 per
barrel;
(5) the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (referred to in this
section as ``SPR'') was created to enhance the physical and
economic security of the United States;
(6) the law allows the SPR to be used to provide relief
when oil and gasoline supply shortages cause economic
hardship;
(7) the proper management of the resources of the SPR could
provide gasoline price relief to families of the United
States and provide the United States with a tool to
counterbalance OPEC supply management policies;
(8) the Administration's policy of filling the SPR despite
the fact that the SPR is nearly full has exacerbated the
rising price of crude oil and record high retail price of
gasoline;
(9) in order to combat high gasoline prices during the
summer and fall of 2000, President Clinton released
30,000,000 barrels of oil from the SPR, stabilizing the
retail price of gasoline;
(10) increasing vertical integration has allowed--
(A) the 5 largest oil companies in the United States to
control almost as much crude oil production as the Middle
Eastern members of OPEC, over \1/2\ of domestic refiner
capacity, and over 60 percent of the retail gasoline market;
and
(B) Exxon/Mobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell Group, Conoco/
Philips, and Chevron/Texaco to increase first quarter profits
of 2005 over first quarter profits of 2004 by 36 percent, for
total first quarter profits of over $25,000,000,000;
(11) the Administration has failed to manage the SPR in a
manner that would provide gasoline price relief to working
families; and
(12) the Administration has failed to adequately demand
that OPEC immediately increase oil production in order to
lower crude oil prices and safeguard the world economy.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the President should--
(1) directly confront OPEC and challenge OPEC to
immediately increase oil production; and
(2) direct the Federal Trade Commission and Attorney
General to exercise vigorous oversight over the oil markets
to protect the people of the United States from price gouging
and unfair practices at the gasoline pump.
(c) Release of Oil From SPR.--
(1) In general.--For the period beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act and ending on the date that is 30 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, 1,000,000 barrels of
oil per day shall be released from the SPR.
(2) Additional release.--If necessary to lower the burden
of gasoline prices on the economy of the United States and to
circumvent the efforts of OPEC to reap windfall crude oil
profits, 1,000,000 barrels of oil per day shall be released
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for an additional 30
days.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Mexico for his
grace, as usual. I will be brief as I make a statement on the
amendment.
I rise to offer this amendment, which will express the sense of the
Senate that the Federal Government should take long, overdue action to
curb the record-high gasoline prices that are plaguing American
consumers at the pump. As my colleagues are well aware, for weeks, oil
and gasoline prices have been placing an immense burden on working
families and threatening our fragile economic recovery, and it is time
that this body took action to protect our Nation's economic security
from the sky-high oil prices and the whims of the OPEC cartel.
This amendment would urge the administration to provide the American
consumer with relief by releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve through a swap program in order to increase the supply, quell
the markets, and bring down prices at the pump. Of course, the other
side of the swap is that we would buy back the oil when the price was
lower and put it back in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is now
just about full.
Mr. President, what we are faced with here is simple market economics
of supply and demand. If demand goes up, price goes up. If supply goes
up, price goes down. At a time facing record-breaking gasoline prices,
it is hard to believe that the Federal Government would be taking oil
off the market and exacerbate the high energy costs to working
families.
The price of crude oil has remained at near record highs for over
one-third of 2005, with oil having traded at over $50 a barrel since
May 25. Just today, we saw the biggest jump yet, with oil closing at
almost $60 a barrel. OPEC used to claim it was interested in helping to
keep prices under $30 a barrel. That is when it went from a $22 to $28
rate. It may be fun to double down in Las Vegas but not in the oil
market, and certainly not at the gas pump.
These prices have already burdened Americans in New York and in the
rest of the Northeast. We get a double whammy because we have high home
heating oil prices, as well as high gasoline prices because we depend
on heating oil more than most parts of the country. Other parts are
warmer or use more natural gas. I know these families were hoping for a
quick spring so they could enjoy a brief respite from the high energy
prices.
Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case, as the increased burden of
oil costs has just moved from the home to the highway. As Americans are
beginning to plan for their road trips and summer vacations, the
national price of gasoline has seemingly reached a new record high
every week. Last week, the Energy Information Administration reported
that prices had increased for the second straight week, to $2.13 for
regular self-service. That is an increase of almost 49 cents from last
year. Unfortunately, it could give way to even higher prices in the
future.
We know who is being hurt by these oil prices, and we know who is
benefiting--OPEC. Last year, OPEC made $300 billion in oil revenue.
They stand to gain much, much more if the price of oil stays as high as
it is--stratospheric levels. In order to institutionalize the profits
from these spikes, OPEC agreed to abandon their longstanding price
target of $22 to $28 a barrel, as I mentioned before, and some of its
members say they could be comfortable with oil remaining at $40 to $50
permanently. I know who will not be comfortable--American families who
depend on affordable oil to commute to work, heat their homes, and
provide for their energy needs.
Some of my colleagues may be asking: Didn't OPEC agree to increase
production in March by 500,000 barrels a day?
The reality is that OPEC's pledge to increase production on paper has
not reduced prices at the pump. OPEC, after having cut production by 1
million barrels in the face of rising oil prices--it is not that
amazing--claimed that they would increase production by half the
previous cut. While this would seem like a step in the right direction,
the reality is they were already producing 700,000 barrels over their
quota, so as a result this paper increase added no oil to U.S. markets.
These are exactly the type of shell games that the OPEC cartel uses
to take money out of Americans' pockets to put toward OPEC profits.
We have to act to stop it. Once again, OPEC is talking about another
500,000-barrel increase. We will see if they actually follow through.
Instead of standing up to OPEC, what has this administration done? It
has continued, incredibly enough, taking oil off the market and placing
it in the SPR. This policy, which further tightens oil markets by
taking much needed supplies out of commerce, is slated to take an
average of almost 85,000 barrels per day off the market during the
height of the driving season, between April and the end of August,
despite the fact that the SPR is almost completely full.
I understand that some of my colleagues think the SPR should never be
touched, even to safeguard our economic security. I would argue that
concerns to this degree do not properly balance America's physical
security needs against its economic security needs. With the SPR almost
full, we can easily reduce 30 million barrels through a swap and still
have an effective safeguard against a physical supply disruption.
Initiating a swap of oil from the SPR to increase the supply of oil
is a proven way to reduce the price of gasoline and heating oil. In the
fall of 2000, the Clinton administration announced a swap of 30 million
barrels over 30 days, causing crude oil prices to quickly fall by over
$6 a barrel and wholesale prices to fall 14 cents a gallon. Under a
swap, the Federal Government could decide on a set quantity of oil to
release from the
[[Page 13131]]
SPR and accept bids from private companies for the rights to that oil.
The companies would then bid on how much oil they would be willing to
return, in addition to the oil they would receive under the swap, to
the SPR at a later date.
The administration has had these tools in its hands and could have
acted more quickly, earlier, to stand up for the American consumer, but
it has not. Instead, despite repeated urgings from Members of this
body, among others, it has steadfastly refused to intervene and to
allow oil prices to soar. It has been good for oil companies, it has
been good for OPEC and bad for the American consumer.
This amendment says enough is enough and gives this body an
opportunity to do what others have refused by hitting the breaks to
stop runaway gasoline prices.
An oil swap would result in a win-win situation where gasoline prices
are lowered and long-term contributions to the SPR are augmented at no
additional cost to the taxpayers. The SPR is intended to provide relief
at times when American families are struggling to make ends meet. The
time is now. The summer driving months are just beginning.
I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting the pocketbooks of
working families from OPEC profiteering by supporting this amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we will not argue our case against the
case of the Senator from New York yet. We will do that tomorrow.
Suffice it to say we are talking about a reserve. It is there as a
safety valve in the event something were to happen, and we will talk
about the perils of that and why the amendment should not be adopted.
For now, it looks as if we are lining up a number of amendments for
tomorrow, including some amendments that should be in place with
reference to global warming and some agreements and understanding
regarding them. Later on, an amendment about the inventory of offshore
assets, resources, will be discussed and when that amendment to strike
will be taken up. So we might have some understanding by morning on a
series of votes.
For now, I do not think we are going to do anything else other than
wrap up business, and we will take care of that in due course.
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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now
be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for
up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to speak about the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting. My understanding is their board of directors is
meeting today. I don't know whether they are going to select a new
president for the corporation, but I know that was at least announced
as the intention today of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Let
me go all the way back to Big Bird. Everyone who grows up watching
Sesame Street and Children's Television Workshop understands that
Cookie Monster, Big Bird, and all of those things represent learning
devices and the wonderful characters on Sesame Street. The Corporation
for Public Broadcasting was created a long while ago as a part of an
approach to do something unique.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Public Television, and
National Public Radio have been pretty remarkable. Every week 94
million Americans watch public television or some portion of public
television and 46 million people listen to public radio. That is a
remarkable statistic. Public radio and public television are available
to over 90 percent of American homes. We have come a long way since
President Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.
It is the case that public broadcasting will tackle issues that other
broadcasters don't tackle. I admit you won't see Fear Factor on public
television. You won't tune in and see someone sitting in front of a
bowl of maggots to see whether they can eat an entire bowl in 15 or 30
seconds. That is not the kind of television I watch. But occasionally
when you are browsing through the television routine, you tune in to
programs that have that kind of approach. You wonder what has become of
good television. Or you might tune in to another program where you see
a couple of women or men engaged in a fist fight over some romance that
turned sour, where on that program day after day they hold this
imperfection up to the light and say: Isn't this ugly? Let's entertain
ourselves with everyone else's dysfunctional behavior.
You won't find that on public broadcasting. They sink their teeth
into some pretty interesting things. I mentioned Big Bird. I suppose
could you say Big Bird isn't quite so serious, but a lot of children
grow up with Sesame Street watching Big Bird and the lessons therein.
Frankly, it is wonderful television--more than television for children,
I will give you an example of the kinds of things public broadcasting
tackles that others will not.
Do you think ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX is going to tackle the question of
concentration in broadcasting? There are no more than five or six
companies and people that control what we see, hear, and read. Because
we see all of these concentrations of television stations and radio
stations, the Federal Communications Commission decided in their
ruling, which the court subsequently stayed, that it is OK to open this
up. And the Federal Communications Commission said: We believe that in
one major American city, one company ought to be able to own eight
radio stations, three television stations, the cable company, and the
dominant newspaper. We think that is fine.
It is not fine with me. It is limiting what people can see and read
and hear. The controversy surrounding public television, public radio,
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting saddens me. My hope is that
perhaps actions taken in the next couple of days might resolve that.
There is apparently a board meeting this afternoon and apparently
another meeting of some type tomorrow where they will choose a new
president. This all is with the backdrop of the chairman of the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, who has consistently and publicly
said that public broadcasting, public television, public radio has a
liberal bias. There have been all of those allegations over some long
period of time. A liberal bias, it is easy to say. It doesn't have a
liberal bias. It is just independent television which most people
appreciate.
Let me talk for a moment about my concern about where we are heading.
Press accounts from last week noted that the House Appropriations
Committee approved a spending bill on Thursday that would slash
spending for public television and radio by nearly half. That includes
a 25-percent cut in financing for the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting and a total of $112 million in additional cuts for
programs that provide continuing children's programming.
Just the news coming out of the Appropriations Committee in the House
is ominous. But more than that, inside the organization, the chairman
of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting hired a consultant to
evaluate the bias in public broadcasting. He hired a consultant to go
after the program called ``NOW with Bill Moyers.'' He hired that
consultant without notifying the board of directors. This is the
chairman of the board. He hired that consultant with public funds.
As an appropriator, I asked him: Would you provide me with the
information that the consultant provided you.
[[Page 13132]]
This is what I received. I received a substantial amount of what he
called raw data. It didn't include any summary, just raw data. I was
struck and disappointed to see that a consultant was hired, and this is
a summary of April 4 to June 4, just to pick one. And they go through
the list of programs, and they label anti-Bush, anti-Bush, anti-DeLay.
I guess if he reported on the controversy about Tom DeLay, it is anti-
DeLay programming.
It says, ``anticorporation.'' In fact, they did a program about some
waste. It might have been about Halliburton, although I have done
hearings on Halliburton. I guess that would then be declared
anticorporation. It is really not. Again, it reads anti-Bush, anti-
Bush, pro-Bush.
I am struck that it is way out of bounds to be paying money for a
consultant who decides to evaluate public broadcasting through the
prism of whether or not it supports the President. That is not the role
of public broadcasting, to decide whether it supports the President of
the United States. If we ever get to the point where you can't be
critical of public policy, Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the
President, then there is something wrong.
Interestingly enough, they used another approach on another set of
programming, and they divided these segments that were shown into
either liberal or conservative segments. And there was a segment on
June 7 last year and Senator Hagel from Nebraska, a conservative
Republican, was on that segment and apparently said something that
wasn't completely in sync with the White House. So he is labeled as a
liberal. A conservative Republican Senator from Nebraska is labeled a
liberal by the consultant for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Why? Because he said something liberal? No, apparently he just didn't
have the party line down and said something that was perhaps at odds
with policy coming out of the White House.
This list goes on and on. My guess is my colleague Senator Hagel is
going to be mighty surprised to discover that a consultant hired by the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting views his appearances on public
broadcasting as appearances that contribute to a liberal bias because a
conservative Republican Senator from Nebraska shows up on public
broadcasting.
I don't mean to make light of this. I think it is serious. In
addition to all of this, an allegation of bias--a relentless allegation
of bias by the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, in
addition to his hiring a consultant to do this kind of thing--evaluate
programming, whether it is anti-Bush or pro-Bush--in addition to all of
that, there is now a discussion and potentially even a vote today in
which they would select a new president of the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, and the leading candidate for that job is a former
cochairman of the Republican National Committee.
I would not think it appropriate for a former cochair of the
Democratic National Committee to assume the presidency of the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting; nor would I think it would be wise
for Mr. Tomlinson, the chairman of the board, to usher in a former
partisan as president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Again, I only say that, going back some 35 years and more, I think
public broadcasting has been a real service to our country. Public
television and public radio tackle things other interests will not
tackle in this country. They are, in fact, independent. That is
precisely what drives some people half-wild. My hope is that the
actions of Mr. Tomlinson, the chairman, the actions of the board,
whatever they might be today--my hope is that those actions will not
further contribute to injuring public broadcasting.
We fund public broadcasting because we think it is a great
alternative to commercial television. If you tune in--nothing against
broadcasts in the evening on the commercial station, but I happen to
think Jim Lehrer has one of the best newscasts in our country. He
covers both sides aggressively. I think it contributes to our country
and I think, in many ways, public broadcasting is a national treasure.
I regret that I have to describe these things--consultants who evaluate
whether or not something is anti-Bush. That is not the prism through
which one should evaluate whether something makes sense. I will wait to
see what happens today at the meeting taking place of the board. My
hope is that they will not take action that will further injure and be
detrimental to public broadcasting.
____________________
25TH ANNIVERSARY OF ANDRE'S FRENCH RESTAURANT
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Chef Andre
Rochat, the Dean of Las Vegas Chefs. Twenty-five years ago, he opened
the doors to his first restaurant, Andre's French Restaurant. In the
decades since, he has served patrons--including my wife Landra and I--
the finest French cuisine in the city.
I first encountered Andre in the 1970s--a few years before he opened
Andre's. At that time, he was operating the Savoy French Bakery and
selling the most wonderful pastries you could find. Bolstered by the
bakery's success, he opened Andre's in 1980 in a converted Spanish-
style home one block east of Las Vegas Boulevard. It was an unlikely
location for a restaurant--but he quickly found success.
Twenty-five years later, Andre's has become what some have called the
``most honored, awarded and respected restaurant in Las Vegas.'' The
restaurant's intimate dining rooms, wonderful food and outstanding
service have made it a landmark.
Andre's arrival in our city was the result of hard work and
determination.
He was born in the Savoie region of the French Alps and inherited a
love for his trade from his parents, who owned a delicatessen and
butcher shop. At 14, Andre left home and began an apprenticeship at
Leon de Lyon, in Lyon, France. After serving in the French Navy, Andre
came to the United States in 1965, landing in Boston with just $5 and
his knives. Eventually, he made his way to Las Vegas and forever
changed the city's dining scene.
Today Las Vegas is home to many great chefs. But Andre was one of the
first. He now has two more restaurants in the city, and both of them
continue in the award winning tradition begun by Andre's French
Restaurant 25 years ago.
I congratulate Andre on 25 great years and thank him for sharing his
outstanding gifts. Las Vegas is privileged to be able to enjoy his
world-renowned talents, and it won't be long before Landra and I return
to Andre's to enjoy our favorite meal, the Imported Dover Sole Sauteed
Veronique with Lemon Tarts for dessert.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DRAKE DeLANOY
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Drake DeLanoy
of Las Vegas, NV as he reaches two incredible milestones in life: his
55th wedding anniversary and his 77th birthday. For four decades, Drake
has been a friend and mentor of mine, and I wish him and his wife
Jackie all the best as they mark these two occasions.
Drake DeLanoy was raised in Reno. He graduated from the university of
Nevada, Reno, and married Jackie on June 19, 1950. Drake earned his law
degree from Denver University.
Following law school, Drake served in the United States Air Force and
eventually returned to Nevada to practice law, which is where I had the
good fortune of working with him.
Drake and I practiced together for 13 years, beginning in the mid-
1960s. When we started working together, I was right out of law school
and an inexperienced attorney. But Drake and his partners William
Singleton and Rex Jameson took me under their wing.
These three men were great teachers who gave me the freedom to learn
and grow. They let me take the legal cases I wanted to pursue, and they
allowed me to watch them in the courtroom and observe them work during
trials. They also gave me the opportunity to be politically involved,
and I have no doubt that the freedom and support I enjoyed with them
allowed me to serve and now be in the U.S. Senate.
[[Page 13133]]
At the age of 77, Drake DeLanoy continues to build on his strong
career. As an appointee of the Governor, Drake now serves on the
Governing Board of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, which protects
and preserves the beauty of the Tahoe basin.
I will forever be grateful to Drake DeLanoy. The lessons he taught
and the experiences he provided have stayed with me all these years.
As Drake and Jackie celebrate their 55th anniversary and Drake looks
forward to another year, I congratulate them both and wish them many
more years of happiness together.
____________________
HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES
lance corporal chad maynard
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to remember one of
Colorado's fallen heroes, Marine LCpl Chad Bryant Maynard who was
killed last week in Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was only 19 years old.
Lance Corporal Maynard hailed from Montrose, CO, on the Western
Slope. Growing up, it was his dream to serve his country. Chad
Maynard's deep patriotism was a family tradition--his father served in
the Marines, and his brother Jacob returned from his second tour in
Iraq a few months ago.
As a high school student, Chad had secretly contacted recruiters when
he was 16 about his wish to join the Marines. His parents remember him
sneaking recruiting brochures into the house. The recruiters had to ask
him to stop contacting them until he was 18.
But Lance Corporal Maynard was determined to serve his country. He
joined the junior ROTC at Montrose High School. One of his friends once
quipped, ``God rested on the seventh day and on the eighth day made
Maynard for the Marines. . . .'' He worked hard at his classes so he
could graduate early to go to boot camp. At his 2004 graduation from
Montrose High, Chad Maynard stood proudly in his Marine Corps dress
uniform.
Lance Corporal Maynard's friends and instructors remember him as a
young man who took his commitment to his country very seriously. On
September 11, Lance Corporal Maynard organized a prayer around the
flagpole at school. He sought out the Marines because he wanted to be
on the front lines, making a difference for his country.
Today in Montrose is the funeral for Lance Corporal Maynard. Just 1
year and 6 days after he picked up his diploma, Chad Maynard was taken
from us, a life of extraordinary promise snuffed out all too soon. He
served his Nation with honor and distinction.
LCpl Chad Maynard set an example for all those around him to follow
and left a positive mark on every life he touched. Chad's brave and
selfless actions have made the world a better and safer place for all
of us and we owe him a debt of gratitude which we will never be able to
pay. To his wife Becky and their soon-to-be-born child, I send my
humble thanks for Chad's sacrifice on our behalf. Your family will
remain in my thoughts and prayers.
____________________
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2005
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I speak about the need for hate crimes
legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes
legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law,
sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our
society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight
a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country.
A 17-year-old transgender woman and her 18-year-old friend were shot
in the head while sitting in a SUV, which was set on fire. The SUV was
found in an isolated parking lot after the two had been missing for a
day. Their bodies were burned beyond recognition. The perpetrator
allegedly killed the two victims when he discovered that one of them
was a crossdresser.
The Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them
against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement
Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that
by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change
hearts and minds as well.
____________________
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY IN DARFUR
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, Senator Brownback and I have submitted a
resolution to designate July 15-17, 2005 as a National Weekend of
Prayer and Reflection to draw attention to the genocide and Crimes
Against Humanity occurring in Darfur, Sudan, and to find a solution to
this great moral challenge. The resolution calls upon the people of the
United States to pray and reflect. Churches, synagogues, mosques, other
communities of faith, and all individuals of compassion will join
together to acknowledge, observe, and reflect upon the crimes against
humanity that continue to occur in Darfur, so that we can together end
the genocide and bring about lasting peace to Sudan.
The Congress and administration have already defined the atrocities
in Darfur as genocide. Estimates of the death toll range from 180,000
to 400,000. More than two million people have been displaced from their
homes, including over 200,000 refugees in Chad. Recent accounts of
these atrocities, as reported by Doctors without Borders, include
documented rapes by soldiers and government-backed militia.
Many religious and human rights leaders, communities, and
institutions throughout the world have already spoken out, and called
for an end to the genocide. In my own state, thousands participated in
a Darfur Sabbath Weekend on May 14-15, 2005, when clergy and
congregations throughout New Jersey addressed this crisis during their
worship services. With my friend and colleague Representative Donald
Payne, I was privileged to visit a mosque, a synagogue, a Catholic
rectory, an African American Baptist Church and a United Methodist
Church during those two days.
Whatever the denomination, we spoke to each other in the same
language, and committed ourselves to the same determination to act
according to our words and the dictates of our universal conscience.
That profound experience impels me to this broader outreach. I want to
take this opportunity to urge my fellow members of Congress to join me
in saying, ``never again.'' Never again, will we accept the slaughter
of fellow human beings. Never again, will we stand by as systematic
crimes are inflicted upon humanity. I ask that you join me, Senator
Brownback and people all across the globe in supporting this unified
movement to tell the world that humanity will never again allow
genocide to occur.
____________________
NATIONAL HISTORY DAY
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I salute today the students who
participated in the National History Day national contest that was held
last week at the University of Maryland. More than 700,000 students in
grades 6 through 12 from all over the country chose topics, researched,
and presented their projects at State and local competitions this year.
I am proud that 52 students from Tennessee made it to Washington. I
especially want to recognize two of those students, Daniel Jordan and
Tyler Sexton, eighth graders at St. John Neumann School in Knoxville.
Their National History Day project is a documentary on Sequoyah's
Syllabary, which they presented at the Smithsonian American Art Museum.
Sequoyah was a Cherokee warrior who was born in east Tennessee and
created a syllabary, which is often called the Cherokee alphabet. He
was born in 1776 in the village of Tuskeegee, which was very near
Vonore, TN, where the Sequoyah Birthplace Museum is located.
Daniel and Tyler say the seed for their documentary was planted
during a visit to the Sequoyah Birthplace Museum. The two boys got
tired and decided to sit on several bales of hay in the center of a
field. After a few minutes, two Cherokee approached the boys and
explained that they were sitting on a holy prayer circle. The boys
[[Page 13134]]
apologized profusely and removed themselves, but not before they
learned more from Star Medicine Woman and Elk Dreamer about the
Cherokee Indians, especially Sequoyah and the relation to present-day
culture. The boys were fascinated and appreciated the kindness shown to
them.
Along with congratulating these outstanding students, I also
recognize their teacher, Judy Buscetta, who is the winner of the
National History Day in Tennessee's Teacher of the Year award. Daniel
said it best in a letter he wrote to me to let me know he was going to
be in Washington. He said: Without good teachers, we do not have a
chance.
I am proud of Judy and Daniel and Tyler. Students and teachers like
them are who I had in mind when I introduced legislation along with the
distinguished minority leader to put the teaching of American history
and civics back into our classrooms, so our children grow up learning
what it means to be an American. I am proud that the Presidential
academies for teachers and congressional academies for students in
American history and civics through the Department of Education are
beginning this summer as a result of Congress passing and the President
signing that bill into law.
I have also introduced legislation with Senator Edward Kennedy of
Massachusetts to create a 10-State pilot study to provide State-by-
State comparisons of U.S. history and civics test data for 8th and 12th
grades administered through the National Assessment of Educational
Progress, NAEP, to assess and improve knowledge of American history.
I appreciate National History Day and its commitment to improving the
teaching and learning of American history in our schools. I also
appreciate Daniel, Tyler and Judy, fellow Tennesseans, who are working
to keep history alive.
____________________
ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC COMPENSATION
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to
celebrate a landmark achievement for former nuclear weapons workers in
Iowa. Today marks the completion of an administrative process whereby
workers from the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, who assembled some of the
most significant nuclear weapons in this Nation's history and
subsequently developed devastating forms of cancer, will become
eligible for automatic compensation.
Reaching this point has been an example of both the best and the
worst in our system of government. I first started working on this
issue back in 1997 when I received a letter from a constituent, Bob
Anderson, who wrote about how he and many of his former coworkers had
become ill after working on nuclear weapons in Burlington, IA. I shake
my head every time I think of what Bob's reaction must have been when
he got a letter back from me, telling him that the Department of the
Army had assured my office that they never made nuclear weapons in
Burlington!
In fact, the list of weapons that were made by Bob and 4,000 other
Iowans includes many familiar names: Polaris, Titan, Pershing,
Minuteman the list just goes on and on. It's a tribute to the workers
in Burlington that while the Cold War was going on, no one beyond the
workers at the plant--including me--ever had a clue about the work that
was occurring. They did their job with excellence, and they did it at
great personal peril. The men and women of Burlington truly were on the
front lines of the Cold War. They received no medals, no thank-you's,
no special pay. Instead, they paid a terrible price. The levels and
types of cancer that have afflicted this workforce are shocking. And
along with these illnesses have come financial hardships--pain and
suffering--which family members have witnessed and nursed loved ones
through--and, in too many cases, premature death.
Today, finally, workers from IAAP, including Bob Anderson, at long
last, will receive compensation. Equally importantly, at long last,
they have some measure of justice.
This has been a long process. It seems like more than seven years
since I brought then-Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson to the plant
to meet with workers. It seems like more that six years since I got a
team from the University of Iowa School of Public Health to track and
analyze the illnesses that workers had developed. And it has been
almost five years since Congress passed the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Act to actually provide compensation
to these workers.
For almost five years we have struggled through one of the worst
bureaucratic processes that I have ever seen. We have been required to
demonstrate that no documents existed that would allow the radiation
doses the workers received to be accurately reconstructed. It has been
mind-boggling that a program designed to compensate people who had been
deceived by the government, could put those same people through a
second bureaucratic nightmare.
But today is a day to celebrate. It is also a time to say thank you
for the marvelous team effort that has made this day possible. IAAP was
the first facility to file a petition for automatic compensation, and
only the 2nd in the Nation to be approved. While I have worked hard to
make that happen, it simply could not have happened without the workers
themselves, as well as the University of Iowa scientists.
I would like to say a special thank you to Jack Polson, Sy Iverson,
Paula Graham, and Vaughn Moore. It was their willingness to repeatedly
challenge the assumptions that were made about the work performed at
the plant, and about how that work was done, that forced the Government
to acknowledge that the documents from the plant were just inadequate
to accurately reconstruct the levels of radiation that workers were
exposed to.
I also want to thank Joe Shannon, Laska Yerington, Sharon Shumaker,
Marge Foster and Nancy Harman for there service on the Advisory Board
here in Burlington and Shirley Wiley and Ed Webb for their help with
the petition.
No thank-you is complete without acknowledging how fortunate we were
to have the help of the University of Iowa team: Laurence Fuortes, Bill
Field, Kristina Venske, Howard Nicholson, Christina Nichols, Marek
Mikulski, Phyllis Scheeler, Stephanie Leonard, and Laura McCormick.
I would also like to thank my own staff. Alison Hart, my staffer in
Davenport, Iowa, has put her heart into helping hundreds of workers and
their families navigate this whole process.
I would also like to thank Peter Tyler, Lowell Unger, Michelle
Evermore, Jenny Wing, Ellen Murray, and Beth Stein of my Washington,
DC, staff for their years of sustained work on this effort. And a
special thank you is owed to Richard Miller of the Government
Accountability Project for his assistance and his commitment to making
this compensation program work.
Finally, I would like to thank Bob Anderson and his wife Kathy. Bob
and Kathy have weathered the ups and downs of this process with
patience, good humor, and great fortitude. It will be a proud day for
me when they actually receive a compensation check in hand from the
Treasury. It speaks volumes that a letter from one Iowan can set in
motion a monumental process that, in the end, will bring
acknowledgement, compensation, and a measure of justice to so many.
While more than 700 former workers are still seeking compensation,
today marks our first significant victory. The people who will now be
receiving compensation include at least 364 of those who got the most
serious illnesses from their work at IAAP. Unfortunately, this group
includes far too many workers who are no longer with us. In their honor
and in their memory, I thank all of the former workers of the Iowa Army
Ammunition Plant for their patience, their persistence, and their
service to America. They are genuine patriots.
____________________
COMMEMORATING 142 YEARS OF WEST VIRGINIA STATEHOOD
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I commemorate 142 years of
[[Page 13135]]
statehood for my State of West Virginia. In doing so, I believe that it
is important to note my State's motto, ``Mountaineers Are Always
Free.'' This phrase, as relevant today as it was 142 years ago, truly
embodies a people who have done so much to contribute to our great
Nation and a State so abundant in natural beauty.
Historically, West Virginia's magnificent landscape has nurtured and
inspired her inhabitants, endowing willing adventurers the freedom to
explore, experience, and utilize her natural wonders. Native Americans
came to West Virginia over 9,000 years ago and established the State's
first permanent settlement in present-day St. Albans. Their ancient
artifacts and impressive monuments, such as the Grave Creek Burial
Mound, in Moundsville, serve as lasting tributes to the land's eternal
contributions to mankind.
Today, the people of West Virginia remain free to explore and enjoy
the State's unspoiled, majestic terrain. Mountainous views extend for
miles in every direction, and blend seamlessly with glades of
rhododendron and deep river valleys.
Hundreds of thousands of acres of forests, such as the Monongahela
National Forest, blanket our State with lush plant life. West Virginia
has over 50 State and national parks that protect our natural habitat
and provide recreation to millions of visitors each year. Nearly 20
different species of endangered or threatened animals, including the
bald eagle, have found refuge within our ecosystem.
Pocahontas County's pristine rivers and streams provide some of the
best trout fishing in the State, and offer those who visit countless
opportunities to escape into the serenity of the Appalachian Mountains.
The county is known as the ``Birthplace of Rivers'' because 8 different
rivers have headwaters there, with their only source of water being the
fresh mountain rain.
In addition to the freedoms provided by West Virginia's natural
environment, the citizens of West Virginia have fostered a social
climate of acceptance, where all are free to express their thoughts and
beliefs and take advantage of the benefits of a good education.
Booker T. Washington, following President Abraham Lincoln's
emancipation proclamation, sought refuge in West Virginia and was
raised in a small mining town called Malden. It was there that he was
encouraged to follow his dream of education, and there that he
developed the skills to become one of our country's foremost educators
and leaders.
Another location, the Sumner School in Parkersburg, became the
Nation's first free school for African-American children below the
Mason-Dixon. It was operated until school segregation ended in 1954 and
currently houses the Sumnerite African-American History Museum.
In addition to these advances to freedom and education made within
our home State, West Virginians have consistently and overwhelmingly
devoted their lives to protect the ideals on which this Nation was
founded--liberty and equality.
Five hundred thousand West Virginians, since the time of the Civil
War, have fought to protect our country in battles and conflicts all
over the world. There are currently 200,000 veterans in West Virginia,
giving my State the highest per capita ratio of veterans in the Nation.
Such an impeccable record of devotion to freedom is not surprising
from a State with origins like West Virginia. It was born out of the
Civil War in 1863 and became the ultimate manifestation of a State's
loyalty to our young country.
For 142 years West Virginians have been selfless in our love for this
Nation, and our contributions to this country are best reflected in
President Abraham Lincoln's own words. As our great President Lincoln
said:
We can scarcely dispense with the aid of West Virginia in
this struggle . . . Her brave and good men regard her
admission into the Union as a matter of life and death. They
have been true to the Union under very severe trials.
The meaning of these words, and the contributions of my State in the
development of this country's freedom, continue to hold immense
importance with West Virginians today. I am proud to be a West
Virginian. So, today, as we celebrate West Virginia's 142nd birthday,
we remember our history, celebrate our present, and look with hope
toward the future of our truly wonderful State.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
100TH ANNIVERSARY OF FORBES, NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I salute the North Dakota
community of Forbes as it celebrates its centennial this July 2-4. Its
100th anniversary is a testament to the resilience and dedication of
the 64 residents who call this North Dakota town home.
Located in Dickey County a few miles east of the Coteau Hills and on
the North Dakota border with South Dakota, Forbes is a town rich in
North Dakota history even though it is the youngest town in the county.
It boasts the Schulstad Stone House Museum, a stone house built in 1907
and furnished to that time period, and the Shimmin Tveit Museum, which
has displays of historical artifacts from American Indians and early
settlers. From railroad agent and town merchant, S.F. Forbes, for whom
the town bears its name, to current mayor, Troy Anliker, this town has
been a home on the prairie for several generations of farmers,
ranchers, and business people.
The southern Dickey County area where Forbes is located boasts a
diversified agricultural economy. The area has farmers who plant and
harvest wheat, barley, corn, sunflowers, and soybeans, along with
ranchers who manage several prominent cattle operations. Like most of
rural North Dakota, the area has a rich heritage in farming and
ranching.
As a part of the community's celebration, organizers have planned to
honor Forbes' centennial with food, a pickup pull, a demolition derby,
dancing, beard and dress judging, crafts, team penning, fireworks, a
beer garden, a pancake breakfast, and plenty of games for kids.
Again, I salute the current and past residents of Forbes as they
celebrate this momentous occasion, and urge my colleagues to
congratulate Forbes and its residents on their first 100 years and wish
them well through the next century.
____________________
100TH ANNIVERSARY OF NEKOMA, NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. CONRAD. Mr President, today I wish to honor a community in
North Dakota that is celebrating its 100th anniversary. On July 9 and
10, the residents of Nekoma, ND, will celebrate their community's
history and founding.
Nekoma is a small town in the northeastern part of North Dakota with
a population of 51. Despite its small size, Nekoma holds an important
place in North Dakota's history. Charles B. Billings was the postmaster
of the town's first post office, which opened in 1898. The town was
nearly named Polar, but it changed after the Soo Line Railroad townsite
was plotted in 1905. The name Nekoma was selected by the Postal
Department from a list of names submitted by the first appointed
postmaster, Orzo B. Aldrich.
Nekoma is the site for America's only Safeguard ABM and Missile Site
Radar military installations. Nicknamed the ``prairie pyramid,'' the
inactive installation site is just northeast of the town. The SALT
treaty between the United States and the former Soviet Union, stated
that only two safeguard sites were allowed--one of which was the site
in Nekoma, ND, and the other in Washington, DC.
Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Nekoma,
ND, and its residents on their first 100 years and in wishing them well
through the next century. By honoring Nekoma and all the other historic
small towns of North Dakota, we keep the pioneering frontier spirit
alive for future generations. It is places such as Nekoma that have
helped to shape this country into
[[Page 13136]]
what it is today, which is why Nekoma is deserving of our recognition.
Nekoma has a proud past and a bright future.
____________________
100TH ANNIVERSARY OF GARRISON, NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a
community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 100th
anniversary. On June 30-July 3, the residents of Garrison will gather
to celebrate their community's history and founding.
Garrison is a vibrant community in west-central North Dakota, along
the edge of beautiful Lake Sakakawea. Garrison holds an important place
in North Dakota's history. Founded by two brothers, Cecil and Theodore
Taylor in 1903, Garrison, like most small towns in North Dakota, got
its start when the railroad stretched throughout the State. The post
office was established in June 17, 1903, and Garrison was organized
into a city on March 20, 1916. In its early years, Garrison was known
as a town ``bustin' at the seams'' with gun carrying rascals.
Today, Garrison is a magnet for sports fisherman who venture to tap
into the abundance of walleye prevalent in Lake Sakakawea. Garrison is
the host for the North Dakota's Governor's Cup Walleye Tournament that
attracts hundreds of serious sports enthusiasts from across the
country.
For those who call Garrison home, it is a comfortable place to live,
work, and play. It is certainly true, as its residents say, that it is
``a town worth knowing from the start.'' The people of Garrison are
enthusiastic about their community and the quality of life it offers.
The community has a wonderful centennial weekend planned that includes
an all school reunion, parade, pitch fork fondue, street dance,
fireworks, games, and much more.
Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating
Garrison, ND, and its residents on their first 100 years and in wishing
them well through the next century. By honoring Garrison and all the
other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great
pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places
such as Garrison that have helped to shape this country into what it is
today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our
recognition.
Garrison has a proud past and a bright future.
____________________
100TH ANNIVERSARY OF ALSEN, NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a community
in North Dakota that is celebrating its 100th anniversary. On July 2,
2005, the residents of Alsen, ND, will celebrate their community's
history and founding.
Alsen is a small town in the northeastern part of North Dakota with a
population of 68. Despite its size, Alsen holds an important place in
North Dakota's history. In August 1905, this Soo Line Railroad townsite
was founded. Originally named Storlie when it was established on April
6, 1899, the township was named after Halvor Storlie, who was the
county clerk and postmaster. On August 31, 1905, officials of the Tri-
State Land Co. plotted a town site in another area of Storlie Township,
and named it Alsen for the local settlers, who had come from Alsen
Island off of the coast of Denmark. The village of Alsen was
incorporated in 1920 and reached its peak population of 358 in 1930.
Alsen's citizens are very proud of the Alsen Farmers' Elevator, the
Swiss Mennonite Church, and the Alsen Post Office.
Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Alsen,
ND, and its residents on their first 100 years and in wishing them well
through the next century. By honoring Alsen and all the other historic
small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great tradition of the
pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places
such as Alsen that have helped to shape this country into what it is
today, which is why Alsen is deserving of our recognition.
Alsen has a proud past and a bright future.
____________________
HIGHLAND HIGH SCHOOL WE THE PEOPLE COMPETITION
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I
rise before you today to commend the hard work and dedicated spirit of
the students from Highland High School in Albuquerque, NM. These fine
students competed in the National Finals of the We the People: The
Citizens and the Constitution contest in Washington DC, from April 30-
May 2, 2005 against more than 1,200 students from across the United
States.
The We the People competition is a national tournament designed to
forge a strong understanding of the U.S. government in the minds and
hearts of our future leaders. Students compete to demonstrate their
knowledge, not simply of how the government works, but of why it works,
and how it is best able to provide for the protection of its people and
their natural liberties.
Programs such as this help to ignite the noble flame of civic duty
and democratic spirit in the souls of our young people, and it is with
great pride that I wish to commend the students of Highland High School
for their placing in the top 10 of the Nation and received an honorable
mention. These fine students and their teachers have demonstrated to
everyone that the spirit of our founding fathers is alive and well
today.
I would like to congratulate Chad Adcox, Joseph Baca, Sarah
Bellacicco, Hannah Doran, Katye Ellison, David Estrada, Stephen Ford,
Elizabeth Jackson, Mia Kimmelman, Paul Kruchoski, Graceila Lopez,
Joshua McComas, Samuel Montoya, Samantha Morris, Ngoc-Giao Nguyen,
Maria Osornio, Martha Ramirez, Leon Richter-Freund, Julie Russell,
Benjamin Trent and teachers Steve Seth and Bob Coffee.
May Albuquerque, and New Mexico as a whole, continue to produce such
fine examples for the youth of America, and may they use the knowledge
and experience they gained with this program to help lead us all into
the next generation of American freedom, prosperity, and honor.
____________________
HONORING THE COMMUNITY OF ARLINGTON, SOUTH DAKOTA
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I wish to honor and publicly
recognize the 125th anniversary of the founding of the city of
Arlington, SD. On July 29, 2005, citizens of Arlington will celebrate
their city's proud past and look forward to a promising future.
Located near the eastern border of South Dakota in Kingsbury County,
Arlington is only 35 miles from the Minnesota line. Like many towns in
South Dakota, Arlington got its start with help from the railroad in
1880. In fact, the town's original name, Nordlund, was given by the
Dakota Central Railroad, inspired by the large number of Scandinavians
who settled in the area. In 1884, however, the Western Town Lot Company
objected and the county commissioner renamed the town Denver. That
title was also short lived, as one year later, in 1885, the local post
office insisted on again renaming the community. This time, the Dakota
Central Railroad chose Arlington, and 120 years later, its name
endures.
Arlington's spirited residents live in the midst of some of South
Dakota's most fertile farmland, as this rural community is a dependable
corn producer. Additionally, Arlington's 1,000 residents have come to
count on The Sun, founded in 1885, for quality and accurate reporting
on local events.
In the twelve and a half decades since its founding, Arlington has
proven its ability to flourish and serve farmers and ranchers
throughout the region. Arlington's proud residents celebrate its 125th
anniversary on July 29, 2005, and it is with great pleasure that I
share with my colleagues the achievements of this great
community.
____________________
HONORING THE TOWN OF WAUBAY, SOUTH DAKOTA
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I wish to publicly recognize
the 125th anniversary of the founding of the city of Waubay, South
Dakota. On July 2,
[[Page 13137]]
2005, Waubay citizens look back on their city's proud past and look
forward to a promising future.
Platted on November 16, 1880, the community was first known as
Station #50 until later that year, when crew members of the Milwaukee
Railroad Company named it Blue Lake. It was not until 1885 that the
town took on its current name of Waubay, meaning ``Nesting place of the
birds,'' given by the Sioux Indians. One hundred twenty five years
later, Waubay thrives as the oldest city in Day County.
Waubay, like many South Dakota towns and communities, got its start
with the help of the railroad. Although the rail tracks that pass
through the town ran as far as Bristol and were ready for travel in
1880, the first train to ever pass through Waubay didn't arrive until
May, 1881. A severe blizzard hit the region in October of 1880, and the
snow and subsequent run-off in the spring rendered the rail line
impassable.
The town, which was incorporated as a village in 1894 and as a city
in 1920, grew rapidly in its early years. Station #50 began with only
50 residents, yet Waubay swelled to a population of 1,007 in 1925;
currently, about 625 South Dakotans live in the town. By the early
1900s, the community boasted a general store, a lumber yard, a corner
drug store, a livery barn, a railroad depot, several coal sheds, the
Waubay Clipper, The Advocate, a power company, several banks, a
creamery, several grain elevators, a school, and many stores.
In May of 1890, the Waubay Clipper, owned by Charles W. Stafford and
his son, published the paper's first issue. It was the only newspaper
in town for two decades, until The Advocate began under the direction
of Major Maynard in 1910. However, in December 1917, the Clipper
purchased The Advocate and merged the two, again returning the
Clipper's status as Waubay's sole news publication. Despite management
turnover over the years, Waubay residents still rely on the Clipper for
quality and accurate reporting on local events 115 years later.
Prior to 1910, most Waubay residents lacked the convenience of
electricity. However, in 1884, officials partitioned the town into
wards, which Roy Thompson used to his advantage in 1900 when he devised
a lighting system utilizing windmill power. In 1910, Dr. Park Jenkins,
a prominent Waubay resident, established an electricity plant in back
of the Yellowstone Garage. Although the plant was quite successful
during the early portion of the 20th century, the Ottertail Power
Company ultimately became the primary service provider for Waubay, and
still maintains that role to this day.
Waubay was home to South Dakota's State Board of Health in the early
1900s. Headed by Dr. Park Jenkins, who in 1913 was appointed Board
Superintendent, the office employed 22 people at its peak. The board
moved to Pierre, SD in 1933.
Today, Waubay is a multicultural community that includes many
residents of Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, as well as those of European
descent. It is also home to Waubay National Wildlife Refuge, managed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Waubay's location near several area
lakes makes it a prime location for fishermen. Blue Dog State Fish
Hatchery is just one mile north of Waubay, producing walleyes,
northerns, perch, bass, bluegills, crappies, and trout.
In the twelve and a half decades since its founding, Waubay's
innovative and resourceful residents have proven their ability to
thrive as a community. It is with great pleasure that it share with my
colleagues the admirable, pioneer spirit still present in these
wonderful South Dakotans, as they celebrate Waubay's 125th anniversary
on July 2, 2005.
____________________
HONORING THE CITY OF EGAN, SOUTH DAKOTA
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I wish to honor and publicly
recognize the town of Egan, South Dakota as it celebrates its 125th
anniversary on July 4, 2005. It is at this time that I would like to
draw to my colleagues' attention the achievements and history of this
charming town on the prairie. Egan stands as an enduring tribute to all
those who had the courage to pursue their greatest dreams on the plains
of South Dakota.
Egan is a small community nestled amongst the fertile farmland of
southeastern South Dakota. It was founded in 1880 to service the
Milwaukee Railroad as it made its way west through Dakota Territory.
The town was first incorporated by Joe Enoe, Alfred Brown, and John
Hobart. Rectangular in shape, Egan grew quickly and soon included seven
square miles of Moody County, thereby encompassing a new mill on the
Big Sioux River and the small village of Roscoe--which was, by the way,
a different community than the Roscoe, SD that exists in Edmunds County
today.
Roscoe had been started four years earlier, in 1876, when Decatour D.
Bidwell chose the spot on the Big Sioux River for his new mill. Roscoe
also served as a stopping point for the numerous travelers who used a
nearby river crossing, one of the best fords for many miles. Soon the
town of Roscoe boasted two restaurants, a store, a saloon, a newspaper,
and the first courthouse in Moody County. However, due to Egan's
increasing growth and popularity, in addition to the railroad's new
sturdy and reliable bridges that phased out Roscoe's river crossing,
all that remains of the pioneer village of Roscoe is a small pasture
scattered with pieces of millstone.
The Baptist and Methodist Episcopal churches were the first to be
built in the town of Egan. These two churches were constructed by all
members of the community, regardless of faith or profession, in
response to a promise made by Mr. Egan, the prominent railroad official
for whom the city is named. Mr. Egan promised a church bell to the
first church with a belfry equipped to receive it. The Baptist Church
was the first completed, and therefore received the much-desired bell.
While the bell now hangs in the tower of the Methodist Church, it is
still used to call worshippers to services every Sunday morning.
Egan experienced a great deal of economic prosperity in the early
twentieth century. In 1904, Egan boasted nearly seven hundred people
and more than fifty prosperous business enterprises. These included a
state bank, three hotels, two hardware stores, an implement house, four
grain elevators, six general stores, a flourishing mill, two lumber
yards, two doctors, a newspaper, a furniture store, and an opera house.
The curtailment of the railroad, better roads providing alternate
routes that sidestepped Egan, and the rise of more modern methods of
transportation fostered travel to larger towns in the state, thus
making it more difficult for businesses in Egan to draw in customers.
Nevertheless, technology and progress can never undermine the firm
resolve and remarkable work ethic that is characteristic of the great
people of this country's heartland. The vision of those individuals who
had the courage to make a home for themselves on the plains of the
Dakotas serves as inspiration to all those who believe in the honest
pursuit of their dreams. On July 4, 2005, the 257 proud residents of
Egan will celebrate their vibrant history and the legacy of the pioneer
spirit with the 125th anniversary of the city's founding.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Mr. Williams: one of his secretaries.
____________________
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
[[Page 13138]]
____________________
REPORT OF THE CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO
THE RISK OF NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION CREATED BY THE ACCUMULATION OF
WEAPONS-USABLE FISSILE MATERIAL IN THE TERRITORY OF THE RUSSIAN
FEDERATION--PM-13
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying
report; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
To the Congress of the United States:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d))
provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless,
prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President
publishes in the Federal Reqister and transmits to the Congress a
notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the
anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent the
enclosed notice to the Federal Reqister for publication, stating that
the emergency declared with respect to the accumulation of a large
volume of weapons-usable fissile material in the territory of the
Russian Federation is to continue beyond June 21, 2005. The most recent
notice continuing this emergency was published in the Federal Reqister
on June 18, 2004 (69 FR 34047).
It remains a major national security goal of the United States to
ensure that fissile material removed from Russian nuclear weapons
pursuant to various arms control and disarmament agreements is
dedicated to peaceful uses, subject to transparency measures, and
protected from diversion to activities of proliferation concern. The
accumulation of a large volume of weapons-usable fissile material in
the territory of the Russian Federation continues to pose an unusual
and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of
the United States. For this reason, I have determined that it is
necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to
the accumulation of a large volume of weapons-usable fissile material
in the territory of the Russian Federation and maintain in force these
emergency authorities to respond to this threat.
George W. Bush.
The White House, June 17, 2005.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
At 3:29 p.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 bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 2745. An act to reform the United Nations, and for
other purposes.
____________________
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
The message further announced that the Speaker of the House of
Representatives has signed the following enrolled bill:
H.R. 483. An act to designate a United States courthouse in
Brownsville, Texas, as the ``Reynaldo G. Garza and Filemon B.
Vela United States Courthouse''.
The enrolled bill was signed subsequently by the President pro
tempore (Mr. Stevens).
____________________
MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME
The following bill was read the first time:
H.R. 2745. An act to reform the United Nations, and for
other purposes.
____________________
ENROLLED BILL PRESENTED
The Secretary of the Senate reported that on June 17, 2005, she had
presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled
bill:
S 643. An act to amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987
to reauthorize State mediation programs.
____________________
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and
were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:
POM-111. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Hawaii relative to Social Security reform; to
the Committee on Finance.
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 76
Whereas, Social Security is our country's most important
and successful income protection program and provides
economic security to workers, retirees, persons with
disabilities, and the surviving spouses and keiki of deceased
workers; and
Whereas, Social Security provides essential benefits to
over 195,000 people in Hawaii, including 139,300 retired
workers, 16,090 widows and widowers, 16,790 disabled workers
and 13,630 children; and
Whereas, Social Security has reduced the poverty rate of
our kupuna from over thirty per cent down to 10.2 per cent in
the last forty years, and without Social Security, thirty-
four per cent of elderly women in Hawaii would be poor; and
Whereas, six out of ten of today's beneficiaries derive
more than half of their income from Social Security, and in
most low-income households of retirement age, Social Security
represents eighty per cent or more of their retirement
income; and
Whereas, the Social Security Trust Fund is large enough to
pay one hundred per cent of promised benefits until 2042, and
after that, seventy-three per cent of benefits could still be
paid; and
Whereas, proposals are being considered in Washington, D.C.
that would privatize Social Security and threaten the
retirement security of millions of Americans and their
families; and
Whereas, diverting more than one-third of the 6.2 per cent
of wages that workers currently contribute to Social Security
into private accounts drains money from Social Security and
will cut guaranteed benefits; and
Whereas, diverting money from Social Security will increase
the national debt by almost $2 trillion over the next ten
years--a debt that will be passed on to future generations;
and
Whereas, privatization is particularly harmful to women and
minorities who rely most on Social Security by replacing a
portion of a secure benefit with investment risk--a risk that
they cannot afford; and
Whereas, widows would experience enormous cuts under
privatization--reducing their Social Security from $829 to
$456 per month, which is only sixty-three per cent of the
poverty level, even when proceeds from private accounts are
included in the total; and
Whereas, private accounts do not provide the lifetime,
inflation-adjusted benefit that Social Security does, and
they can be depleted by long life and market fluctuation; and
Whereas, Social Security needs to be strengthened now for
our children and grandchildren, but the solution should not
be worse than the problem; and
Whereas, the Social Security System also needs to be
changed sensibly in order to honor obligations to future
generations: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, by the Senate of the Twenty-third Legislature of
the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2005, the House of
Representatives concurring, That the Hawaii State Legislature
opposes the privatization of Social Security and urges
Hawaii's congressional delegation to reject such proposed
changes to the Social Security System; and be it further
Resolved, That certified copies of this Concurrent
Resolution be transmitted to the President Pro Tempore of the
United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House
of Representatives, and each member of Hawaii's congressional
delegation.
____
POM-112. A resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the Legislature of the State of Hawaii
relative to the privatization of Social Security; to the
Committee on Finance.
House Resolution No. 100
Whereas, people throughout human history have faced
uncertainties, especially those uncertainties brought on by
death, disability, and old age; and
Whereas, prior to the turn of the twentieth century, the
majority of individuals living in the United States lived and
worked on farms, relying in part on immediate and extended
family, friends, and neighbors to provide them with economic
and social security; and
Whereas, as the United States moved through the Industrial
Revolution and became an industrial power, increasing numbers
of individuals began moving to the cities and suburbs where
employment opportunities abounded; and
Whereas, this migration from the farmlands to the
industrial centers of the United States reduced the degree to
which a person's immediate and extended family and neighbors
could augment the economic security of those living in the
cities and suburbs; and
Whereas, with the stock market crash in 1929 and the
beginning of the Great Depression, the United States found
its economy in crisis and individuals in this country,
especially elder Americans, were faced with economic
hardships never before seen; and
Whereas, in an address to Congress on June 8, 1934,
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt stating that he intended
to provide a program for the social security of Americans,
[[Page 13139]]
subsequently created, by Executive Order, the Committee on
Economic Security (Committee), with instructions to study the
problem of economic insecurity and make recommendations for
legislative consideration; and
Whereas, in 1935, six months after its establishment, the
Committee made its report to the President and Congress, who
after deliberations and compromise, enacted the Social
Security Act of 1935, which created a social insurance
program designed to pay retirees age 65 or older a continuing
income after retirement, and to keep these retirees out of
poverty; and
Whereas, Social Security taxes were collected for the first
time in 1937, with initial lump-sum payments being made that
first month and regular monthly benefit payments being made
beginning in January, 1940; and
Whereas, today, Social Security provides a guaranteed
income for more than 147 million retirees, family members of
workers who have died, and persons with disabilities; and
Whereas, Social Security beneficiaries earn their benefits
by paying into the system throughout their years of
employment, and currently serves as the main source of income
for a majority of retirees, with over two-thirds of retirees
currently dependent on Social Security for financial
survival; and
Whereas, for the past 70 years Social Security has remained
solvent and has been able to pay benefits to millions of
Americans with few adjustments; and
Whereas, although the Social Security trustees state that
in its present form, Social Security has enough funds in its
reserve to be able to meet 100 percent of its obligations
until 2042 and, there is concern over the solvency of the
current Social Security system and whether it will be able to
pay benefits for the millions of Americans scheduled to
retire over the next decade; and
Whereas, individuals who support efforts to reform Social
Security are currently reviewing a three-prong approach
including raising of the retirement age, increasing the
maximum annual earnings subject to Social Security tax, and
allowing the establishment of voluntary private investment
accounts; and
Whereas, the current focus on the national level has been
the establishment of private investment accounts to allow
taxpayers to put a portion of their social security tax into
stocks, bonds, and other investments that may pay them a
higher return and increase their retirement benefits; and
Whereas, contrary to the original purpose of Social
Security, which established a comprehensive and secure safety
net to keep retirees out of poverty, private investment
accounts may result in Social Security beneficiaries with
poor returns on their investments to fall through the cracks
of the system; and
Whereas, the costs of transitioning to this system of
private investment accounts may effectively scuttle the
current Social Security system; and
Whereas, it has been estimated that transitioning to a
system of private investment accounts will generate costs as
high as $2-$3 trillion, which will degrade any investment
earnings of these private accounts; and
Whereas, diverting a portion of Social Security money to
private accounts will leave fewer dollars available to pay
Social Security benefits, and reduce system reserves and the
cash on hand to pay beneficiaries; and
Whereas, it has further been estimated that by allowing for
the establishment of private investment accounts, the current
Social Security trust fund reserves could be wiped out by
2021, a full 20 years sooner than if the system had been left
alone; and
Whereas, arguments have also been made that the way to
``fix'' Social Security is not to change the system and its
purpose, but rather to help individuals establish their own
private pensions and retirement savings accounts such as
Individual Retirement Accounts, to supplement the guaranteed
benefit of Social Security; and
Whereas, with the myriad of difficult choices to be made to
keep the Social Security system solvent, and given the fact
that the Social Security system will still be solvent for a
good number of years, the issue of strengthening Social
Security and making any changes or adjustments to the system
should be carefully studied and planned to ensure that future
generations will be provided the retirement security received
by past generations; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-
third Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of
2005, that this body hereby urges President George W. Bush to
reconsider his plans to hurriedly enter into a Social
Security privatization plan; and be it further
Resolved, that this body also urges President George W.
Bush to carefully study the effects that privatization may
have on the basic purpose of Social Security, and on the
welfare of current and future beneficiaries, and to consider
privatization within a comprehensive review of alternative
methods of adjusting Social Security, such as raising the
retirement age, increasing the maximum annual earnings
subject to Social Security tax, and helping more individuals
establish supplementary private pension and retirement
savings accounts; and be it further
Resolved, that certified copies of this Resolution be
transmitted to the President of the United States, the
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the
President of the United States Senate, the members of
Hawaii's congressional delegation, and the Governor.
____
POM-113. A resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the Legislature of the State of Utah
relative to the privatization of Social Security; to the
Committee on Finance.
House Resolution 3
Whereas, demographic changes and cost increases will drain
the existing Social Security system;
Whereas, without significant changes to the system, costs
will exceed revenues starting in 2018 and the system may not
be able to pay any benefits by 2042;
Whereas, anyone born after the year 1970 will not receive
full Social Security benefits if changes are not made to the
system;
Whereas, not reforming the system will require a tax
increase on every working American or a benefit cut; and
Whereas, allowing younger workers to invest a portion of
their income in personal retirement accounts will avoid any
benefit cuts or tax increases: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the House of Representatives of the State of
Utah urges Utah's congressional delegation to oppose
increases in payroll taxes and cuts in Social Security
benefits; and be it further
Resolved, that the House of Representatives urges Utah's
congressional delegation to support optional Social Security
Personal Retirement Accounts; and be it further
Resolved, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the
members of Utah's congressional delegation.
____
POM-114. A resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the Legislature of the State of Utah
relative to the United States entering into a Free Trade Area
of the Americas; to the Committee on Finance.
House Resolution 9
Whereas, the United States of America has always been the
world leader in pushing for free trade, which is a hallmark
of our capitalistic society;
Whereas, free trade only thrives where there is a level
playing field of government regulations between trading
partners;
Whereas, the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) was supposed to bring additional prosperity to the
United States and level the playing field with Canada and
Mexico, thus perpetuating free trade between our nations;
Whereas, notwithstanding the good intentions of NAFTA, our
nation has suffered the loss of almost 900,000 jobs due to
NAFTA, many of them coming in the manufacturing sector;
Whereas, manufacturing jobs in the United States have
plunged from 19.3 million in 1980 to only about 14.6 million
today, in large part because of these types of trade issues;
Whereas, the United States has gone from a trade surplus
with Mexico prior to NAFTA to a substantial trade deficit;
Whereas, the United States is a current member of the World
Trade Organization (WTO), which has been called ``The United
Nations of World Trade'';
Whereas, the United States consistently bows to the wishes
of the WTO, only proving the words of Texas Congressman Ron
Paul to be prophetic: ``The most important reason why we
should get out [of the WTO] is to maintain our nation's
sovereignty. We should never deliver to any international
governing body the authority to dictate what our laws should
be. And this is precisely the kind of power that has been
given to the WTO.'';
Whereas, both the WTO and NAFTA, through the use of trade
tribunals, now claim the sovereign authority to overrule
decisions of American courts and make awards to foreign
businesses for violations of trade agreements;
Whereas, Abner Mikva, a former chief judge on the federal
appellate bench and a former congressman, has stated: ``If
Congress had known there was anything like this in NAFTA,
they never would have voted for it.'';
Whereas, the United States is considering entering into a
new 34-member Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) in 2005;
and
Whereas, based upon the experience that the United States
has had with NAFTA and the WTO, United States membership in
the planned FTAA would increase manufacturing flight in the
state of Utah and throughout the United States: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, that House of Representatives of the state of
Utah respectfully but firmly urges all members of the United
States Congress to vote no on any agreement for the United
States to enter into a Free Trade Area of the Americas
(FTAA); and be it further
Resolved, that the House of Representatives of the state of
Utah urges the United States Congress to not enter into the
FTAA until the United States has had more experience with and
a greater understanding of the impacts of NAFTA and the World
Trade Organization (WTO); and be it further
Resolved, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the
Majority Leader of the United
[[Page 13140]]
States Senate, Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives, the members of Utah's congressional
delegation, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the Free
Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
____
POM-115. A joint resolution adopted by the House of the
Legislature of the State of Utah relative to United States
trade negotiations; to the Committee on Finance.
House Joint Resolution
Whereas, although the United States Constitution places the
regulation of trade with foreign countries within the
prerogative of the Federal Government, the primary
responsibility for protecting public health, welfare, and
safety is left to the states;
Whereas, the United States Congress has consistently
recognized, respected, and preserved the states' power to
protect the health, welfare, and environments of their states
and their citizens in a variety of statutes, such as the
Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act;
Whereas, it is vital that the Federal Government not agree
to proposals in the current negotiations on trade in services
that might in any way preempt or undercut this reserved state
authority;
Whereas, proposed changes should not, in the name of
promoting increased international trade, accord insufficient
regard for existing regulatory, tax and subsidy policies, and
the social, economic, and environmental values those policies
promote;
Whereas, statutes and regulations that the states and local
governments have validly adopted, that are plainly
constitutional and within their province to adopt, and that
reflect locally appropriate responses to the needs of their
citizens, should not be overridden by federal decisions
solely in the interests of increased trade;
Whereas, states are concerned about retaining a proper
scope for state regulatory authority in actual commitments in
agreements with one or more United States' trading partners;
Whereas, it is crucial to maintain the principle that the
United States may request, but not require, states to alter
their regulatory regimes in areas over which they hold
constitutional authority;
Whereas, if the United States makes broader offers later in
the negotiations and the legislation is ``fast tracked,''
there will be little opportunity for states to have improper
positions reversed;
Whereas, it is critical that there be full and effective
coordination and consultation with the states before the
United States Trade Representative (USTR) makes any binding
commitments;
Whereas, while the State Point of Contact system was meant
to create a clearly marked channel for two-way
communications, the reality has not lived up to those
intentions;
Whereas, a broader and deeper range of contacts with a
variety of state entities, particularly with those bearing
regulatory and legislative authority, must be improved and
maintained over the next several years;
Whereas, it is important for state authorities to engage
with the USTR in the communications process and to respond to
timely requests in any equally timely manner;
Whereas, as negotiations with other nations continue, they
should also be conducted in ways that will avoid litigation
in world courts;
Whereas, the United States is the signatory to the World
Trade Organization's General Agreement on Trade in Services
(GATS);
Whereas, the United States Trade Representative has
published proposals that would apply trade rules under GATS
to regulation of electricity by state and local governments;
Whereas, these proposals would cover regulation of services
related to transmission, distribution, and access of energy
traders to the grid and, if implemented, might conflict with
state energy policy and alter the balance of domestic
authority between states and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC);
Whereas, concerns include the impact of market access rules
on the structure of Regional Transmission Organization (RTO),
state jurisdiction over utilities that are part of an RTO,
RTO contracts for reliability of the electricity grid, and
potential roles for the RTO to structure or facilitate
wholesale trade and brokering services;
Whereas, another question is the impact national treatment
rules may have on tax incentives to produce wind energy, and
market access rules that may impact renewable portfolio
standards that mandate minimum quotas for acquisition from
renewable sources;
Whereas, another question is the impact that GATS rules on
domestic regulation may have on rate setting and the public
interest standard for exercising regulatory authority by
state public utility commissions; and
Whereas, in early 2004, a working group of state and local
officials consulted three times with staff of the USTR who
described the meeting as timely, productive, and
unprecedented; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Legislature of the state of Utah urges
the United States Trade Representative to conduct trade
negotiations in a manner that will preserve the
responsibility of states to develop their own regulatory
structures and that will avoid litigation in world courts,
and be it further
Resolved, that the Legislature of the state of Utah urges
the USTR to take further steps to enhance the level of
consultation before negotiations commence on any trade
commitments under the World Trade Organization's General
Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS); and be it further
Resolved, that the Legislature of the state of Utah
commends the USTR staff for its willingness to consult with
the working group and learn about the potential impact of
GATS rules on state and local regulation of the energy
sector; and be it further
Resolved, that the Legislature urges the USTR to disclose
to the public the United States' requests for GATS
commitments from other nations, and be it further
Resolved, that the Legislature urges the USTR to give prior
notice of the next United States' offer or counter offer for
GATS commitments so that state and local governments have
time to discuss its potential impact; and be it further
Resolved, that the Legislature urges the USTR to
participate in public discussions of trade policy and energy;
and be it further
Resolved, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the
United States Senate Finance Committee, the House Ways and
Means Committee, the Senate Subcommittee on International
Trade, the House Subcommittee on Trade, the Secretary of the
Department of Energy, the United States Trade Representative,
the National Association of Attorneys General, the National
Conference of State Legislatures, the President of the United
States, and Utah's Congressional delegation.
____
POM-116. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the
Legislature of the State of Utah relative to the United
States entering into a Free Trade Area of the Americas; to
the Committee on Finance.
Senate Resolution 1
Whereas, the United States of America has always been the
world leader in pushing for free trade, which is a hallmark
of our capitalistic society;
Whereas, free trade only thrives where there is a level
playing field of government regulations between trading
partners;
Whereas, the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) was supposed to bring additional prosperity to the
United States and level the playing field with Canada and
Mexico, thus perpetuating free trade between our nations;
Whereas, notwithstanding the good intentions of NAFTA, our
nation has suffered the loss of almost 900,000 jobs due to
NAFTA, many of them coming in the manufacturing sector;
Whereas, manufacturing jobs in the United States have
plunged from 19.3 million in 1980 to only about 14.6 million
today, in large part because of these types of trade issues;
Whereas, the United States has gone from a trade surplus
with Mexico prior to NAFTA to a substantial trade deficit;
Whereas, the United States is a current member of the World
Trade Organization (WTO), which has been called ``The United
Nations of World Trade'';
Whereas, the United States consistently bows to the wishes
of the WTO, only proving the words of Texas Congressman Ron
Paul to be prophetic: ``The most important reason why we
should get out [of the WTO] is to maintain our nation's
sovereignty. We should never deliver to any international
governing body the authority to dictate what our laws should
be. And this is precisely the kind of power that has been
given to the WTO'';
Whereas, both the WTO and NAFTA, through the use of trade
tribunals, now claim the sovereign authority to overrule
decisions of American courts and make awards to foreign
businesses for violations of trade agreements;
Whereas, Abner Mikva, a former chief judge on the federal
appellate bench and a former congressman, has stated: ``If
Congress had known there was anything like this in NAFTA,
they never would have voted for it'';
Whereas, the United States is considering entering into a
new 34-member Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) in 2005;
and
Whereas, based upon the experience that the United States
has had with NAFTA and the WTO, United States membership in
the planned FTAA would increase manufacturing flight in the
state of Utah and throughout the United States: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Senate of the state of Utah respectfully
but firmly urges all members of the United States Congress to
vote no on any agreement for the United States to enter into
a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) at this time; and be
it further
Resolved, that the Senate of the state of Utah urges the
United States Congress to not enter into the FTAA until the
United States has had more experience and greater
understanding of the impacts of NAFTA and the World Trade
Organization (WTO); and be it further
Resolved, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the
Majority Leader of the United States Senate, the Speaker of
the United States House of Representatives, the members of
Utah's congressional delegation, the World Trade Organization
(WTO), and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
[[Page 13141]]
____
POM-117. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Utah relative to Medicaid reform; to the
Committee on Finance.
Senate Joint Resolution 15
Whereas, the Medicaid program provides access to health
care for Utah's most vulnerable citizens, including low-
income children, parents, pregnant women, people with
disabilities, and senior citizens;
Whereas, growth in Medicaid spending per capita has
remained relatively low when compared to private health
insurance premiums;
Whereas, current federal and state Medicaid expenditures
are growing at a rate of 12% per year and averaging almost
22% of states' annual budgets primarily because of the recent
economic downturn, rising health care costs, and an increase
in the aging population; and
Whereas, new funding challenges for state government will
become more acute as states absorb new costs to help
implement the Medicaid Modernization Act: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, that the Legislature of the state of Utah urges
the United States Congress to reject any budget reduction and
budget reconciliation process for fiscal year 2006 related to
Medicaid reform that would shift additional costs to the
states; and be it further
Resolved, that the Legislature urges the United States
Congress to reject any cap on federal funding for the
Medicaid program, whether in the form of an allotment, an
allocation, or a block grant; and be it further
Resolved, that the Legislature urges the United States
Congress to work with state policymakers to enact reforms
that will result in Medicaid cost savings for both the states
and the Federal Government; and be it further
Resolved that the Legislature urges the United States
Congress to establish a benefits program for the ``dual
eligible'' population, people eligible for both Medicaid and
Medicare, that would be 100% funded by Medicare instead of
Medicaid; and be it further
Resolved, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the
Majority Leader of the United States Senate, the Speaker of
the United States House of Representatives, and to the
members of Utah's congressional delegation.
____
POM-118. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the
Legislature of the State of Hawaii relative to Medicare and
Medicaid services and benefits; to the Committee on Finance.
Senate Resolution No. 22
Whereas, Medicaid is a program that pays for medical
assistance for certain individuals and families with low
incomes and resources; and
Whereas, the Medicaid program is a critical source of
support for people with mental illness; and
Whereas, according to the Department of Human Services,
Medicaid is the single largest source of financing for mental
health care and encompasses over half of state and local
spending on mental health services; and
Whereas, the federal government is planning to reduce
Medicaid funding due to federal budget shortfalls; and
Whereas, additional cuts in federal Medicaid funding will
mean fewer low-income people will receive mental health
services; and
Whereas, more restrictions will be applied to the services
that are available; and
Whereas, any reduction in benefits or the level of benefits
by the federal government would place more burden on the
State of Hawaii to make up for the cutback; and
Whereas, limiting Medicaid services would not reduce costs,
but would transfer them to already overburdened hospital
emergency rooms or criminal justice systems; and
Whereas, under current law, emergency rooms cannot turn
away someone in crises, and emergency care is one of the most
expensive types of health care and far more costly than
routine mental health treatment; and
Whereas, individuals unable to receive suitable mental
health treatment often end up in the criminal justice system,
increasing legal and prison costs in a system that is neither
designed nor capable of meeting their needs; now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, by the Senate of the Twenty-third Legislature of
the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2005, that the
President of the United States, the United States Congress
and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are urged to
preserve the amount of Medicaid coverages and the amount of
benefits; and be it further
Resolved, that certified copies of this Resolution be
transmitted to the President of the United States, the
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the
President of the United States Senate, the Director of
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the members
of Hawaii's congressional delegation.
____
POM-119. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Hawaii relative to Medicare and Medicaid
services and benefits; to the Committee on Finance.
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 44
Whereas, Medicaid is a program that pays for medical
assistance for certain individuals and families with low
incomes and resources; and
Whereas, the Medicaid program is a critical source of
support for people with mental illness; and
Whereas, according to the Department of Human Services,
Medicaid is the single largest source of financing for mental
health care and encompasses over half of state and local
spending on mental health services; and
Whereas, the federal government is planning to reduce
Medicaid funding due to federal budget shortfalls; and
Whereas, additional cuts in federal Medicaid funding will
mean fewer low-income people will receive mental health
services; and
Whereas, more restrictions will be applied to the services
that are available; and
Whereas, any reduction in benefits or the level of benefits
by the federal government would place more burden on the
State of Hawaii to make up for the cutback; and
Whereas, limiting Medicaid services would not reduce costs,
but would transfer them to already overburdened hospital
emergency rooms or criminal justice systems; and
Whereas, under current law, emergency rooms cannot turn
away someone in crises, and emergency care is one of the most
expensive types of health care and far more costly than
routine mental health treatment; and
Whereas, individuals unable to receive suitable mental
health treatment often end up in the criminal justice system,
increasing legal and prison costs in a system that is neither
designed nor capable of meeting their needs: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, by the Senate of the Twenty-third Legislature of
the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2005, the House of
Representatives concurring, that the President of the United
States, the United States Congress and Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services are urged to preserve the amount of
Medicaid coverages and the amount of benefits; and be it
further
Resolved, that certified copies of this Concurrent
Resolution be transmitted to the President of the United
States, the Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives, the President of the United States Senate,
the Director of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,
and the members of Hawaii's congressional delegation.
____
POM-120. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the
Legislature of the State of Hawaii relative to national park
status for the Kawainui Marsh Complex; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Senate Resolution No. 51
Whereas, the Convention on Wetlands was signed on February
2, 1971 in Ramsar, Iran; and
Whereas, in 1987, the United States joined the Ramsar
Convention, an international treaty that aims at halting the
worldwide loss of wetlands and to conserve those that remain;
and
Whereas, the treaty's one hundred forty-four contracting
parties have designated one thousand four hundred four
wetlands sites totaling more than three hundred million acres
for inclusion in the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International
Importance; and
Whereas, despite the great value of wetlands, they have
been shrinking worldwide, including in the United States; and
Whereas, on Earth Day 2004, President George W. Bush
announced an aggressive new national initiative to create,
improve, and protect at least three million wetland acres
over the next five years in order to increase overall wetland
acreage and quality; and
Whereas, wetlands are a source of water, food, recreation,
transportation, and, in some places, are part of the local
religious and cultural heritage. They provide groundwater
replenishment, benefiting inhabitants of entire watersheds;
and
Whereas, wetlands play a vital role in storm and flood
protection and water filtration. In addition, they provide a
rich feeding ground for migratory birds, fish, and other
animals; and
Whereas, the United States designated three new Ramsar
sites last month: the two thousand five hundred-acre Tijuana
River National Estuarine Research Reserve in San Diego
County, California; the one hundred sixty thousand-acre
Grassland Ecological Area in western Merced County,
California; and the one thousand-acre Kawainui and Hamakua
Marsh Complex located on the northeast coast of the island of
Oahu; and
Whereas, these additional sites bring the total number of
United States Ramsar sites to twenty-two, covering nearly 3.2
million acres: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, by the Senate of the Twenty-third Legislature of
the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2005, that the State
of Hawaii's elected Representatives and Senators in the
United States Congress are respectfully requested to support,
work to pass, and vote for National Park protection for the
one thousand-acre Kawainui and Hamakua Marsh Complex located
on the northeast coast of the island of Oahu; and be it
further
Resolved, that certified copies of this Senate Resolution
be transmitted to the President of the United States, the
President of
[[Page 13142]]
the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States
House of Representatives, and the State of Hawaii's
Congressional Delegation.
____
POM-121. A resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the Legislature of the State of Utah
relative to the participation of Taiwan in the World Health
Organization; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
House Resolution 10
Whereas, the World Health Organization's (WHO) Constitution
states that ``The objective of the World Health Organization
shall be the attainment by all peoples of the highest
possible level of health'';
Whereas, this position demonstrates that the WHO is
obligated to reach all peoples throughout the world,
regardless of state or national boundaries;
Whereas, the WHO Constitution permits a wide variety of
entities, including nonmember states, international
organizations, national organizations, and nongovernmental
organizations, to participate in the activities of the WHO;
Whereas, five entities, for example, have acquired the
status of observer of the World Health Assembly (WHA) and are
routinely invited to its assemblies;
Whereas, both the WHO Constitution and the International
Covenant of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
declare that health is an essential element of human rights
and that no signatory shall impede on the health rights of
others;
Whereas, Taiwan seeks to be invited to participate in the
work of the WHA simply as an observer, instead of as a full
member, in order to allow the work of the WHO to proceed
without creating political frictions and to demonstrate
Taiwan's willingness to put aside political controversies for
the common good of global health;
Whereas, this request is fundamentally based on
professional health grounds and has nothing to do with the
political issues of sovereignty and statehood;
Whereas, Taiwan currently participates as a full member in
organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO), Asia-
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and several other
international organizations that count the People's Republic
of China among their membership;
Whereas, Taiwan has become an asset to all these
institutions because of a flexible interpretation of the
terms of membership;
Whereas, closing the gap between the WHO and Taiwan is an
urgent global health imperative;
Whereas, the health administration of Taiwan is the only
competent body possessing and managing all the information on
any outbreak in Taiwan of epidemics that could potentially
threaten global health;
Whereas, excluding Taiwan from the WHO's Global Outbreak
Alert and Response Network (GOARN), for example, is dangerous
and self defeating from a professional perspective;
Whereas, good health is a basic right for every citizen of
the world and access to the highest standard of health
information and services is necessary to help guarantee this
right;
Whereas, direct and unobstructed participation in
international health cooperation forms and programs is
therefore crucial, especially with today's greater potential
for the cross-border spread of various infectious diseases
through increased trade and travel;
Whereas, the WHO sets forth in the first chapter of its
charter the objectives of attaining the highest possible
level of health for all people;
Whereas, Taiwan's population of 23 million people is larger
than that of three quarters of the member states already in
the WHO who shares the noble goals of the organization;
Whereas, Taiwan's achievements in the field of health are
substantial, including one of the highest life expectancy
levels in Asia, maternal and infant mortality rates
comparable to those in western countries, the eradication of
such infectious diseases as cholera, smallpox, and the
plague, and the first country in the world to provide
children with free hepatitis B vaccinations;
Whereas, Taiwan is not allowed to participate in any WHO-
organized forums and workshops concerning the latest
technologies in the diagnosis, monitoring, and control of
diseases;
Whereas, in recent years both the Taiwanese Government and
individual Taiwanese experts have expressed a willingness to
assist financially or technically in WHO-supported
international aid and health activities, but have ultimately
been unable to render assistance;
Whereas, the WHO does allow observers to participate in the
activities of the organization; and
Whereas, in light of all the benefits that participation
could bring to the state of health of people not only in
Taiwan, but also regionally and globally it seems
appropriate, if not imperative, for Taiwan to be involved
with the WHO: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the House of Representatives of the state of
Utah urges the Bush Administration to support Taiwan and its
23 million people in obtaining appropriate and meaningful
participation in the World Health Organization (WHO); and be
it further
Resolved, that the House of Representatives urges that
United States' policy should include the pursuit of some
initiative in the WHO which would give Taiwan meaningful
participation in a manner that is consistent with the
organization's requirements; and be it further
Resolved, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the
President of the United States, the United States Secretary
of State, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the
majority leader of the United States Senate, the Speaker of
the United States House of Representatives, the members of
Utah's congressional delegation, the Government of Taiwan,
and the World Health Organization.
____
POM-122. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Hawaii relative to supporting the government
and the people of the Republic of Kiribati in their efforts
to address war reparations; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
House Concurrent Resolution No. 62
Whereas, two days after the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor,
Japanese aircraft bombed the Republic of Kiribati, formerly
known as the Gilbert Islands, including Banaba, and later
reconnaissance parties landed on Tarawa and Butaritari; and
Whereas, in 1942, Japanese armed forces occupied the
Republic of Kiribati; and
Whereas, American forces invaded Tarawa in late 1943 and
drove the Japanese from most of the Gilbert Islands; and
Whereas, Banaba was not reoccupied by American forces until
1945, by which time the Japanese had massacred all but one
man of the imported labor force; and
Whereas, native inhabitants of Banaba, the Banabans, had
been deported to Nauru and Kosrae (Caroline Islands) and
after their rescue, Banabans elected to live on Rabi Island,
Fiji, which had earlier been bought for them; and
Whereas, the people of Kiribati suffered tremendous
atrocities and losses as a result of the occupation of the
island by Japanese armed forces during World War II; and
Whereas, many people of Kiribati were not given the
opportunity during the aftermath of World War II to file a
war reparations claim; and
Whereas, after sixty years, the people of Kiribati deserve
to have a final resolution on the long-awaited issue of war
reparations and due recognition for their heroic sacrifices
and struggle during the Japanese occupation; and
Whereas, the member nations of the Association of Pacific
Island Legislatures recognize the sacrifice and suffering of
the people of the Republic of Kiribati and the injustice
further inflicted upon them due to the lack of resolution by
the governments of Japan and the United States to address war
reparations for the people of the Republic of Kiribati: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-
third Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of
2005, the Senate concurring, that the Legislature of the
State of Hawaii strongly supports the government and the
people of the Republic of Kiribati in their efforts to
address war reparations; and be it further
Resolved, that certified copies of this Concurrent
Resolution be transmitted to the President of the United
States through the Secretary of State, the President of the
United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House
of Representatives, the Prime Minister of Japan through the
Consulate General of Japan in Honolulu, the President of the
Republic of Kiribati through the Consulate of the Republic of
Kiribati in Honolulu, the President of the Association of
Pacific Island Legislatures, and the members of Hawaii's
congressional delegation.
____
POM-123. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Nevada relative to the Community Services Block
Grant Program; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Senate Joint Resolution No. 13
Whereas, The Community Services Block Grant program,
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services,
was created by the federal Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1981 and is designed to provide a range of services to
address the needs of low-income persons to ameliorate the
causes and conditions of poverty; and
Whereas, The money allocated by the program is used to
provide services that assist such persons in attaining the
skills, knowledge and motivation necessary to achieve self-
sufficiency and may also be used to provide the immediate
necessities of life such as food, shelter and medicine; and
Whereas, Throughout the nation, local governments have
created more than 1,080 Community Action Agencies as public
or private entities to channel the money provided by the
Community Services Block Grant program into communities to
coordinate resources and empower communities in rural and
urban areas; and
Whereas, In Nevada, each dollar received by Community
Action Agencies leverages at least $19 brought in from other
sources, and this money is reinvested in the business
communities of Nevada, thus enhancing the economic vitality
as well as the social fabric of the entire State; and
[[Page 13143]]
Whereas, Using money provided by the Community Services
Block Grant program, Community Action Agencies in this State
not only assist low-income persons in obtaining employment,
training, education, including participation in Head Start,
energy assistance, senior services, and health and nutrition
benefits, but the Agencies also acquire the infrastructure to
develop affordable housing projects, assist first-time home
buyers in paying down-payment and closing costs, and help
senior citizens repair their homes; and
Whereas, When such activities relating to housing are
considered, the leverage for each federal dollar received by
the State of Nevada increases up to $29; and
Whereas, The proposed federal budget for Fiscal Year 2006
recommends the elimination of the Community Services Block
Grant program; and
Whereas, The elimination of the program would negatively
impact not only the residents of Nevada but citizens all
across the United States and would significantly hinder the
ability of Community Action Agencies and other businesses to
improve the economic viability of families and businesses,
hurting those in need and lessening their ability to live a
decent life; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of Nevada,
Jointly, That the members of the 73rd Session of the Nevada
Legislature urge Congress to preserve the Community Services
Block Grant program as an independent program administered by
the Department of Health and Human Services and to
appropriate money for the program for Fiscal Year 2006 that
meets or exceeds the funding level for Fiscal Year 2005; and
be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate prepare and
transmit a copy of this resolution to the Vice President of
the United States as the presiding officer of the Senate, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services, and each member of
the Nevada Congressional Delegation; and be it further
Resolved, That this resolution becomes effective upon
passage.
____
POM-124. A resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania relative to ``Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Awareness Month''; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
House Resolution No. 277
Whereas, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is better
known as Lou Gehrig's disease; and
Whereas, ALS is a fatal neurodegenerative disease
characterized by degeneration of cell bodies of the lower
motor neurons in the gray matter of the anterior horns of the
spinal cord; and
Whereas, The initial symptom of ALS is weakness of the
skeletal muscles, especially those of the extremities; and
Whereas, As ALS progresses, the patient experiences
difficulty in swallowing, talking and breathing; and
Whereas, ALS eventually causes muscles to atrophy, and the
patient becomes a functional quadriplegic; and
Whereas, ALS does not affect a patient's mental capacity,
so a patient remains alert and aware of the loss of motor
functions and the inevitable outcome of continued
deterioration and death; and
Whereas, ALS occurs in adulthood, most commonly between the
ages of 40 and 70, with the peak age about 55, and affects
men two to three times more often than women; and
Whereas, More than 5,600 new ALS patients are diagnosed
annually; and
Whereas, It is estimated that 30,000 Americans may have ALS
at any given time; and
Whereas, On average, patients diagnosed with ALS survive
two to five years from the time of diagnosis; and
Whereas, ALS has no known cause, prevention or cure; and
Whereas, ``Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Awareness
Month'' will increase public awareness of ALS patients
circumstances, acknowledge the terrible impact this disease
has on patients and families and recognize the research for
treatment and cure of ALS: Therefore be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania recognize the month of May 2005
as ``Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Awareness Month'' in
Pennsylvania; and be it further
Resolved, That the House of Representatives urge the
President and Congress of the United States to enact
legislation to provide additional funding for ALS research;
and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to
the President of the United States, to the Vice President of
the United States, to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, to the members of Congress from Pennsylvania
and to the United States Secretary of Health and Human
Services.
____
POM-125. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Utah relative to the federal No Child Left
Behind Act; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
House Joint Resolution No. 3
Whereas, the state of Utah applauds the laudable goals
proposed by the President and the United States Congress and
articulated in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, those
goals being to close the achievement gap and increased
student performance;
Whereas, these are the same goals the state of Utah has
pursued and continues to pursue under the Utah Performance
Assessment System for Student (U-PASS), which accounts for
individual student growth and the difference among our
children;
Whereas, the stakeholders in public education in the state
of Utah are more experienced and have a better understanding
of the unique needs of Utah students, evident by the fact
that the state has performed above the national average on
the National Assessment of Educational Progress while
maintaining the lowest per pupil expenditures in the nation;
Whereas, No Child Left Behind greatly expends the reach of
the federal government into the education governance
structure in Utah, bypassing critical stakeholders in the
policymaking process and dealing directly with individual
schools and districts, negating state and local board control
and undermining the state's ability to meet its
constitutional duty to provide a system of public education
in Utah;
Whereas, prior to No Child Left Behind, the federal
government's involvement in education in the state was
focused primarily on a small percentage of students,
commensurate, with the 7% contribution to the state's
aggregate spending on K-12 education;
Whereas, No Child Left Behind greatly expands the authority
of the U.S. Department of Education by impacting all students
in the state, without a significant increased in its 7%
contribution to the state, making the U.S. Department of
Education's mandates on public education no longer
commensurate with the resources it provided to Utah;
Whereas, federal funding for No Child Left Behind falls
dramatically short of sufficient funds for remedial services
for struggling students, and No Child Left Behind therefore
requires substantial supplemental state funding;
Whereas, No Child Left Behind represents the greatest
federal intrusion in the history of our nation, over what has
historically been a right of the states, to direct public
education in a way that best fits the needs of individual
students;
Whereas, while No Child Left Behind was appropriately
intended, it was nonetheless poorly designed, in that it is
too punitive, too prescriptive, and sets unrealistic
expectations that demoralize students and educators and
confuse the general public;
Whereas, No Child Left Behind contains fundamental
conflicts between competing federal education laws that
govern the treatment of students with special needs, as well
as between federal law and state statutory and constitutional
requirements, and is built on inadequate methods for
measuring student and school performance;
Whereas, No Child Left Behind may cause unintended
consequences to Utah's education system in that it will
redirect the allocation of resources, amend state and local
curriculum, standards, and assessments, and do more damage in
labeling Utah's schools and students than it does to improve
student performance, making it a less effective method for
Utah to measure student achievement;
Whereas, No Child Left Behind includes expectations for
teacher qualifications that ignore realities in rural
settings and in specialty assignments; and
Whereas, while No Child Left Behind includes provisions,
such as Sections 9401 and 9527, that would protect states and
provide regulatory relief from concerns raised about its
shortcomings, there has been very little effort by the U.S.
Department of Education to encourage or allow states to
utilize these provisions: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah
recognizes that the Legislature, the Utah State Board of
Education, and local boards of education have an
understanding of Utah's schools that surpasses that of
federal government entities in terms of missions, needs,
goals, and values of those schools; and be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature recognizes that the U-PASS
should be the basis by which students and schools in Utah
will be assessed and monitored; and be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature recognizes that in order to
increase student achievement, Utah should utilize competency-
measured education and student growth measurements as
described in U-PASS and Utah State Senate bill 154, 2003
General Session; and be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature recognizes that the state
should control its public education budget and allocate
education dollars according to Utah's priorities and needs,
driven by decision-making of local school boards; and be it
further
Resolved, That the Legislature recognizes that until and
unless the federal government substantially amends No Child
Left Behind,
[[Page 13144]]
extends waiver authority under Section 9401 to acknowledge
that Utah is complying with the intent and spirit of the law
through U-PASS, and that the federal government provides
funding commensurate with what an independent analysis of
implementation costs indicates is required to fully implement
the law or the Congress significantly alters the law such
that control of public education is fully restored to our
state, Utah should utilize its own proven system of student
accountability and reassert its historic leadership role in
providing a quality public education for its citizens; and be
it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the
Utah State Board of Education, each of Utah's local boards of
education, the United States Department of Education, and to
the members of Utah's congressional delegation.
____
POM-126. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Hawaii relative to the Even Start Family
Literacy Program; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
House Concurrent Resolution No. 208
Whereas, the federal Even Start Family Literacy Program
(Literacy Program) (Title I, Part B, subpart 3 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) was first
authorized in 1988 with an appropriation of $14,800,000; and
Whereas, the Literacy Program became state-administered in
1992 at which time the appropriation exceeded $50,000,000;
and
Whereas, the Literacy Program was most recently
reauthorized by the Learning Involves Families Together
(LIFT) Act of 2000 and the federal No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act of 2001; and
Whereas, the Literacy Program offers hope for breaking the
intergenerational cycle of poverty and poor literacy rates
that afflict the nation by embracing the whole family as
pupils and incorporating four core components as follows:
early childhood education; adult literacy; parenting
education; and interactive literacy activities between
parents and their children;
Whereas, the Literacy Program is designed to help parents
from low-income families improve their own education skills
and vocational opportunities, making them more effective
parents and improving the academic achievement of their young
children, by: building on existing community resources of
high quality; promoting the academic achievement of children
and adults; incorporating research-based practices into the
instructional programs for adults and children; promoting
healthy relationships and interaction between children and
adults; and helping children and adults meet the state's
challenging content standards; and
Whereas, the Literacy Program at Blanche Pope Elementary
School in Waimanalo and at other sites in Hawaii has
successfully helped Literacy Program partners integrate their
efforts into a more unified, effective, and accountable
system than the previously fragmented adult and family-
focused services; and
Whereas, the Literacy Program, such as the one at Blanche
Pope Elementary School in Waimanalo, is a state-administered
discretionary program; and
Whereas, the goals of raising quality and accountability in
family education under the LIFT Act of 2000 and the NCLB Act
of 2001 are being achieved in Hawaii; and
Whereas, the President of the United States, in his public
comments and proposed budget to Congress, has expressed a
loss of confidence in, or concern for, the Literacy Program;
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-
third Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of
2005, the Senate concurring, that the Legislature urges the
President of the United States, the United States Congress,
and the United States Department of Education to continue
funding the Even Start Family Literacy Program; and be it
further
Resolved, That certified copies of this Concurrent
Resolution be transmitted to the President of the United
States, Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives, President of the United States Senate,
Secretary of the United States Department of Education, and
Members of Hawaii's congressional delegation.
____
POM-127. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania relative to ``Amyotrophic
Lateral Sclerosis Awareness Month''; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Senate Resolution No. 96
Whereas, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is better
known as Lou Gehrig's disease; and
Whereas, ALS is a fatal neurodegenerative disease
characterized by degeneration of cell bodies of the lower
motor neurons in the gray matter of the anterior horns of the
spinal cord; and
Whereas, The initial symptom of ALS is weakness of the
skeletal muscles, especially those of the extremities; and
Whereas, As ALS progresses, the patient experiences
difficulty in swallowing, talking and breathing; and
Whereas, ALS eventually causes muscles to atrophy, and the
patient becomes a functional quadriplegic; and
Whereas, ALS does not affect a patient's mental capacity,
so a patient remains alert and aware of the loss of motor
functions and the inevitable outcome of continued
deterioration and death; and
Whereas, ALS occurs in adulthood, most commonly between the
ages of 40 and 70, with the peak age about 55, and affects
men two to three times more often than women; and
Whereas, More than 5,000 new ALS patients are diagnosed
annually; and
Whereas, On average, patients diagnosed with ALS survive
two to five years from the time of diagnosis; and
Whereas, ALS has no known cause, prevention or cure; and
Whereas, ``Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Awareness
Month'' will increase public awareness of ALS patients'
circumstances, acknowledge the terrible impact this disease
has on patients and families and recognize the research for
treatment and cure of ALS: Therefore be it
Resolved, That the Senate of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania recognize the month of May 2005 as ``Amyotrophic
Lateral Sclerosis Awareness Month'' in Pennsylvania; and be
it further
Resolved, That the Senate urge the President and Congress
of the United States to enact legislation to provide
additional funding for ALS research, and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to
the President of the United States, to the Vice President of
the United States, to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, to the members of Congress from Pennsylvania
and to the United States Secretary of Health and Human
Services.
____
POM-128. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of California relative to Equal Pay Day; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Senate Joint Resolution 7
Whereas, Forty-two years after the passage of the Federal
Equal Pay Act of 1963 and forty-one years after the passage
of Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964,
American women continue to suffer disparities in wages that
cannot be accounted for by age, education, or work
experience; and
Whereas, According to statistics released in 2004 by the
U.S. Census Bureau, year-round, full-time working women in
2003 earned only 76% of the earnings of year-round, full-time
working men, indicating little change or progress in pay
equity; and,
Whereas, A General Accounting Office report on women's
earnings shows that there exists an inexplicable wage gap of
approximately 20 percent between men and women, even after
taking into account work experience, education, occupation,
industry of current employment, and other demographic and job
characteristics; and
Whereas, Since, the passage of the Equal Pay Act, the gap
has narrowed by less than half, from 41 cents per dollar to
22 cents, and research by the Institute for Women's Policy
Research finds that recent change is due in large part to
men's real wages falling, not women's wages rising; and
Whereas, California ranks fifth among all states in equal
pay, yet it ranks 39th among all states in progress in
closing the hourly wage gap, and at the current rate of
change California working women will not have equal pay for
another 40 years; and
Whereas, The consequences of the wage gap reach beyond
working women and extend to their families and the economy to
the extent that; in 1999, even after accounting for
differences, in education, age, location, and the number of
hours worked, America's working families lost $200 billion of
annual income to the wage gap, with an average of $4,000 per
family; and
Whereas, Women play a crucial role in maintaining the
financial well-being of their families by providing
significant percentage of their household incomes and, in
many cases, women head their own households; and
Whereas, Pay inequity results in a higher poverty rate for
women, particularly in women-headed households, as evidenced
by figures from the McAuley Institute which indicate that for
families that are headed by a woman and have children under
the age of five years, the poverty rate is an astonishing
46.4 percent; and
Whereas, Women currently comprise 48 percent of the labor
force; and
Whereas, Educated women are not exempt from pay disparity;
and
Whereas, In 2001 the average income for a woman with a
bachelor's degree was 24 percent lower than that of a man
with the same level of education--$32,238 versus $42,292; and
Whereas, The wage gap is also prevalent within minority
communities, as shown by a 2002 report that African-American
women earned 91 percent of what African-American men earned,
and Hispanic women earned 88 percent of what Hispanic men
earned; and
Whereas, Even in professions in which women comprise a
majority of workers, such as nursing and teaching, men earn
an average of 20 percent more than women working in these
same occupations; and
Whereas, According to the data analysis of over 300 job
classifications provided by the United States Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, women are paid less in
every occupational classification for which sufficient
information is available; and
[[Page 13145]]
Whereas, The average 25-year-old woman who works fulltime,
year round, is projected to earn $523,000 less over the
course of her career than the average 25-year-old man who
works full time, year round; and
Whereas, If women were paid the same as men who work the
same number of hours, have the same education and same union
status, are the same age, and live in the same region of the
country, then the annual family income, of each of these
women would rise by $4,000, and the number of families who
live below the poverty line would be reduced by half; and
Whereas, The wage gap continues to affect women in their
senior years as lower wages result in lower pensions and
incomes after, retirement, and affect a woman's ability to
save, thereby contributing to a higher poverty rate for
elderly women; and
Whereas, Half of all older women with income from a private
pension receive less than $5,600 per year, as compared with
$10,340 per year for older men; and
Whereas, Men live an average of 77 years and women live an
average of 81.7 years; and
Whereas, Assuming men and women retire at age 65; men will
rely on their state pensions to help them through 12 years of
life, while a woman's pension will have to last 16.7 years;
and
Whereas, There is a greater likelihood that a female worker
would outlive her defined contribution plan; and
Whereas, It is estimated that it would cost a man $654,000
to purchase an annuity based on 25 years of service and a
$6,000 final-month salary, while it would cost a woman over
$700,000 to purchase the same annuity with the same monthly
benefits; and
Whereas, if both a man and a woman invested $750,000 in
this same annuity, it is estimated the women would receive a
little under $3,420 per month while the man would receive
$3,670, or a 7-percent difference: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, by the Senate and the Assembly of the State of
California, jointly, That the Legislature hereby declares
April 19, 2004, to be ``Equal Pay Day'' in California and
urges California citizens to recognize the full' value and
worth of women and their contributions to the California
workforce; and be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature respectfully, urges the
Congress of the United States to protect the fundamental
right of all American women to receive equal pay, for equal
work, and to continue to provide more effective remedies to
victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the
basis of sex; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies
of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the
United States, to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, to the Majority Leader of the Senate, and to
each Senator and Representative from California in the
Congress of the United States.
____
POM-129. A concurrent resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the Legislature of the State of Louisiana
relative to the federal estate tax; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
House Concurrent Resolution No. 94
Whereas, under tax relief legislation passed in 2001, the
estate tax was temporarily phased out but not permanently
eliminated; and
Whereas, farmers and other small business owners will face
losing their farms and businesses if the federal government
resumes the heavy taxation of citizens at death; and
Whereas, this is a tax that is particularly damaging to
families who are working their way up the ladder and trying
to accumulate wealth for the first time; and
Whereas, employees suffer layoffs when small and medium
businesses are liquidated to pay estate taxes; and
Whereas, if the estate tax had been repealed in 1996, the
United States economy would have realized billions of dollars
each year in extra output, and an average of one hundred
forty-five thousand additional new jobs would have been
created; and
Whereas, having repeatedly passed in the United States
House of Representatives and Senate, repeal of the estate tax
holds wide bipartisan support: and therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby
memorialize the Congress of the United States of America to
take such actions as are necessary to work to abolish the
federal estate tax permanently; and be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to
the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the Congress of the United States of
America and to each member of the Louisiana congressional
delegation.
____
POM-130. A concurrent memorial adopted by the House of
Representatives of the Legislature of the State of Arizona
relative to sending federal funds directly to the Arizona
Legislature for appropriation and oversight; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
House Concurrent Memorial 2009
Whereas, the State of Arizona receives nearly $6 billion in
federal grant funds each year; and
Whereas, currently, the bulk of these federal funds that
flow into state government are sent directly from federal
agencies to state agencies and local governments; and
Whereas, the current system of distribution of federal
funds gives the state legislature little input into how the
funds are received, allocated or spent; and
Whereas, the direct allocation of federal funds, including
funds that have been earmarked by the federal government for
a specific purpose at the state level, to the legislature
would give the legislature appropriation authority over those
funds and would provide additional financial and programmatic
information necessary to make more informed budgeting
decisions. Wherefore your memorialist, the House of
Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate
concurring, prays:
1. That the Congress of the United States send federal
funds directly to the Arizona Legislature for appropriation
and oversight.
2. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona
transmit copies of this Memorial to the President of the
United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House
of Representatives and each Member of Congress from the State
of Arizona.
____
POM-131. A resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the Legislature of the State of Utah
relative to the permanent repeal of the Federal Inheritance
Tax; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
House Resolution 2
Whereas, under tax relief legislation passed in 2001, the
Federal Inheritance Tax, or death tax, was temporarily phased
out but not permanently eliminated;
Whereas, farmers and other small business owners will face
losing their farms and businesses if the federal government
resumes the heavy taxation of citizens at death;
Whereas, the death tax is particularly damaging to families
who are working hard to accumulate wealth for the first time;
Whereas, employees suffer layoffs when small and medium
businesses are liquidated to pay death taxes;
Whereas, if the death tax had been repealed in 1996, the
United States economy would have realized billions of dollars
each year in extra output and an average of 145,000
additional new jobs would have been created; and
Whereas, having repeatedly passed in the United States
House of Representatives and the United States Senate, repeal
of the death tax holds wide bipartisan support: Now
Therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the state of
Utah requests that Utah's congressional delegation support,
work to pass, and vote for the immediate and permanent repeal
of the death tax; and be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the
members of Utah's congressional delegation.
____
POM-132. A concurrent resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the Legislature of the State of Louisiana
relative to authorizing state governors to proclaim that the
United States flag be flown at half-staff upon the death of a
member of the United States armed forces from their
respective states who died on active duty; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
House Concurrent Resolution No. 117
Whereas, according to Section 7 of Chapter 1 of Title 4 of
the United States Code, in the event of the death of a
present or former official of the government of any state,
territory, or possession of the United States, the governor
of that state, territory, or possession may proclaim that the
national flag shall be flown at half-staff; and
Whereas, it is only fitting that the United States Code
also authorize a state governor to proclaim that the flag
shall be flown at half-staff upon the death of members of the
United States armed forces from that state who have given
their lives for their country; and
Whereas, the long-held tradition of lowering of the flag to
half-staff in periods of recognition of the deceased would be
an appropriate way to pay respect to the memories of these
honorable men and women; and
Whereas, the valor displayed by fallen members of the
military in the defense of democratic ideals and the right of
free people to live in peaceful coexistence with their
neighbors is a proud example of the American spirit in which
all Louisianians take great pride; and
Whereas, flying the flag at half-staff would serve as a
solemn and suitable reminder of the heroism of those who have
made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom; and therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby
memorialize the United States Congress to take such actions
as are necessary to amend the United States Code to authorize
state governors to proclaim that the United States flag shall
be flown at half-staff upon the death of a member of the
United States armed forces from their respective states who
died on active duty; and be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to
the presiding officers of the
[[Page 13146]]
Senate and the House of Representatives of the Congress of
the United States of America and to each member of the
Louisiana congressional delegation.
____
POM-133. A concurrent memorial adopted by the House of
Representatives of the Legislature of the State of Arizona
relative to amending the Constitution of the United States
concerning marriage; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
House Concurrent Memorial 2005
Whereas, the union of man and woman in marriage has been
recognized as the foundation of society since the beginning
of time; and
Whereas, marriage between one man and one woman
substantially and undeniably benefits the individuals
involved, any children resulting from the union and society
at large; and
Whereas, the founders of our country decreed marriage
between a man and a woman to be ``the highest and most
blessed of relationships''; and
Whereas, nearly three-fourths of the states already have
enacted laws to define marriage as being only between a man
and a woman and the federal government enacted the Defense of
Marriage Act in 1996; and
Whereas, seventeen states have adopted amendments to their
constitutions to protect the definition of marriage as being
only between a man and a woman; and
Whereas, the people of the State of Arizona view with
growing concern attempts to change the definition of marriage
through judicial action, including, most recently, rulings by
the courts in Canada, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and
the State of Washington; and
Whereas, in addition to simply stating that marriage in the
United States consists of the union of a male and a female,
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States ensures
the democratic process by allowing the states to establish
their own policy in the area of marital benefits, including
privileges associated with marriage.
Wherefore your memorialist, the House of Representatives of
the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring, prays:
1. That, pursuant to article V of the Constitution of the
United States, the Congress of the United States propose an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to be
ratified by the legislatures or by conventions in three-
fourths of the several states, stating that marriage in the
United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a
woman.
2. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona
transmit a copy of this Memorial to the President of the
United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House
of Representatives and each Member of Congress from the State
of Arizona.
____
POM-134. A resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the Legislature of the State of Utah
relative to the support of the United States Senate for the
President's Supreme Court nominees; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
House Resolution 4
Whereas, Article II, Section 2 of the United States
Constitution states the President ``shall nominate, and by
and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of
the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United
States'';
Whereas, there is a high likelihood of at least one vacancy
on the United States Supreme Court during the 109th Congress;
Whereas, activist judges on some federal courts have
frustrated the constitutional structure which prescribes that
laws shall be written by elected legislatures;
Whereas, President Bush has expressed his commitment to
appoint federal judges who will strictly interpret the United
States Constitution; and
Whereas, in the past, a minority of Senators has used
dilatory tactics to prevent a Senate floor vote on several of
President Bush's judicial nominees, all of whom were reported
favorably by the United States Senate Committee on the
Judiciary; and now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the state of
Utah requests that the United States Senate move quickly to
confirm all presidential nominations to the United States
Supreme Court; and be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the
Majority Leader of the United States Senate and to the
members of Utah's congressional delegation.
____
POM-135. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Maine relative to allowing Poland's citizens to
travel in the United States without visas; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Joint Resolution
Whereas the visa waiver program was established under 8
United States Code, Section 1187 to provide under certain
conditions a visa waiver to citizens of certain countries;
and
Whereas 8 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 217.2 (2005)
delineates the specific requirements of the visa waiver
program, including the list of countries whose citizens may
take advantage of its provisions; and
Whereas the list of countries allowed to have the visa
requirement waived includes Andorra, Australia, Austria,
Belgium, Brunei, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland,
Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino,
Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the
United Kingdom; and
Whereas citizens from Poland are still required to go
through the visa process, despite the change in circumstances
of that nation during the last 15 years and its being a
staunch ally of the United States; and
Whereas since the breakup of the Soviet Union, Poland has
been a free and democratic nation and is a member of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, known as NATO, and is an
indispensable ally to our own Nation, actively participating
in Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Iraqi reconstruction with
troops serving alongside American soldiers; and
Whereas the President of the United States, George W. Bush,
and other high-ranking officials in our government have
described Poland as one of our best allies; and
Whereas many Polish citizens wanting to visit the United
States are relatives of American citizens and they face major
impediments in the visa process, while Americans going to
Poland have had the visa requirement waived for them since
1991; and
Whereas in view of the enormous strides that Poland has
made in democratic reform and the new status of Poland as a
major ally of the United States, as firm and staunch as our
oldest allies who have had the visa requirement waived: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That We, your Memorialists, respectfully urge
that Poland be included in the United States Department of
Homeland Security's visa waiver program as codified in 8 Code
of Federal Regulations, Section 217.2; and be it further
Resolved, That suitable copies of this resolution, duly
authenticated by the Secretary of State, be transmitted to
the Honorable George W. Bush, President of the United States,
the United States Secretary of Homeland Security, the Speaker
of the United States House of Representatives and the
President of the United States Senate and to each Member of
the Maine Congressional Delegation.
____
POM-136. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Hawaii relative to conferring veterans'
benefits on Filipino veterans of World War II; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
House Concurrent Resolution 249
Whereas approximately 142,000 Philippine nationals were
inducted into the United States armed forces in 1941, when
their country was under American control; and
Whereas Filipino soldiers fought bravely beside American
troops to restore liberty and democracy to their homeland by
volunteering as spies, serving as guerrillas in the jungles,
and fighting in American units in the war against Japan; and
Whereas these soldiers exhibited great courage at the
battles of Corregidor and Bataan, and their bravery and self-
sacrifice contributed to the Allied victory in World War II;
and
Whereas the United States promised Filipino solders the
same benefits as American soldiers, then rescinded that
promise five years later; and
Whereas the Legislature finds that the United States should
honor its promise to the Filipino veterans; and
Whereas Filipino interest groups estimate that there are
approximately 58,000 Filipino World War II veterans still
alive, 12,000 of them living in the United States; and
Whereas time is running out for the United States to
correct the injustice committed against Filipino World War II
veterans as most are now elderly and frail, and approximately
eight die per day based on 2004 mortality statistics from the
United States Department of Veterans Affairs; and
Whereas there are several measures pending in Congress that
propose to confer veterans' benefits on Filipino veterans of
World War II; and
Whereas these legislative measures include S. 146, H.R.
302, and H.R. 170; and
Whereas S. 146 and H.R. 302, (Filipino Veterans Equity Act
of 2005), amend Title 38 of the United States Code to deem
certain service in the organized military forces of the
Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the
Philippine Scouts to be active service for purposes of
benefits under programs administered by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs; and
Whereas under H.R. 170, (Filipino Veterans Fairness Act)
Filipino World War II veterans who became United States
citizens or legal aliens are entitled to service-connected
disability payments, vocational rehabilitation, and housing
loans; Filipino World War II veterans residing in the
Philippines are entitled to out-patient health care; and
veterans' spouses and dependents are entitled to educational
and vocational assistance; and
Whereas passage of these measures will mean official
recognition of Filipino veterans as American veterans, who
will become eligible for veterans' benefits such as health
care, disability compensation, pension, burial, housing
loans, education, and vocational rehabilitation: Now,
therefore, be it
[[Page 13147]]
Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-
third Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of
2005, the Senate concurring, that the United States Congress
is urged to support and pass legislation conferring veterans'
benefits on Filipino World War II veterans; and be it further
Resolved, That certified copies of this Concurrent
Resolution be transmitted to the President of the United
States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives, and the members of Hawaii's delegation to
the Congress of the United States.
____
POM-137. A resolution adopted by the Lexington-Fayette
Urban County Government, relative to the Community
Development Block Grant Program; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
____
POM-138. A resolution adopted by the Municipal Legislature
of Moca, Puerto Rico relative to the opposition of the
elimination of the Community Development Block Grant Program,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
____
POM-139. A resolution adopted by the City Counsel of the
City of Oceanside, California relative to the funding of
Amtrak; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
____
POM-140. A resolution adopted by the Passaic County (New
Jersey) Board of Chosen Freeholders relative to the Passaic
River Restoration Initiative; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
____
POM-141. A resolution adopted by the Mayor and Municipal
Council of the City of Clifton, New Jersey relative to the
Passaic River Restoration Initiative; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 4, 2005,
the following reports of committees were submitted on June 10, 2005:
By Mr. BURNS, from the Committee on Appropriations, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute:
H.R. 2361. A bill making appropriations for the Department
of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes
(Rept. No. 109-80).
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORT OF COMMITTEE
The following executive report of committee was submitted:
By Mr. ENZI for the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions:
*Lester M. Crawford, of Maryland, to be Commissioner of
Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services.
*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.
____________________
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. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 1268. A bill to expedite the transition to digital
television while helping consumers to continue to use their
analog televisions; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Crapo,
Mr. Bond, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Isakson,
Mr. Thomas, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Roberts):
S. 1269. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to clarify certain activities the conduct of
which does not require a permit; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 1270. A bill to provide for the implementation of a
Green Chemistry Research and Development Program, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mrs. MURRAY:
S. 1271. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide improved benefits for veterans who are former
prisoners of war; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. NELSON of Nebraska:
S. 1272. A bill to amend title 46, United States Code, and
title II of the Social Security Act 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; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. REID:
S. 1273. A bill to provide for the sale and adoption of
excess wild free-roaming horses and burros; 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. KENNEDY:
S. Res. 176. A resolution congratulating Cam Neely on his
induction into the Hockey Hall of Fame; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Leahy,
Mr. DeWine, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Coleman, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. Res. 177. A resolution encouraging the protection of the
rights of refugees; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. BENNETT (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
S. Res. 178. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate regarding the United States-European Union Summit;
considered and agreed to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 258
At the request of Mr. DeWine, the names of the Senator from Kansas
(Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) were
added as cosponsors of S. 258, a bill to amend the Public Health
Service Act to enhance research, training, and health information
dissemination with respect to urologic diseases, and for other
purposes.
S. 300
At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 300, a bill to extend the
temporary increase in payments under the medicare program for home
health services furnished in a rural area.
S. 392
At the request of Mr. Levin, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Voinovich) was added as a cosponsor of S. 392, a bill to authorize the
President to award a gold medal on behalf of Congress, collectively, to
the Tuskegee Airmen in recognition of their unique military record,
which inspired revolutionary reform in the Armed Forces.
S. 407
At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. Vitter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 407, a bill to restore
health care coverage to retired members of the uniformed services, and
for other purposes.
S. 441
At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from
Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) was added as a cosponsor of S. 441, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the
classification of a motorsports entertainment complex.
S. 501
At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Corzine) was added as a cosponsor of S. 501, a bill to
provide a site for the National Women's History Museum in the District
of Columbia.
S. 557
At the request of Mr. Coburn, the names of the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. Sessions) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi) were added as
cosponsors of S. 557, a bill to provide that Executive Order 13166
shall have no force or effect, to prohibit the use of funds for certain
purposes, and for other purposes.
S. 558
At the request of Mr. Reid, the names of the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) were added as
cosponsors of S. 558, a bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
permit certain additional retired members of the Armed Forces who have
a service-connected disability to receive both disability compensation
from the Department of Veterans Affairs for their disability and either
retired pay by reason of their years of military service or Combat-
Related Special compensation
[[Page 13148]]
and to eliminate the phase-in period under current law with respect to
such concurrent receipt.
S. 603
At the request of Ms. Landrieu, the name of the Senator from
Washington (Ms. Cantwell) was added as a cosponsor of S. 603, a bill to
amend the Consumer Credit Protection Act to assure meaningful
disclosures of the terms of rental-purchase agreements, including
disclosures of all costs to consumers under such agreements, to provide
certain substantive rights to consumers under such agreements, and for
other purposes.
S. 611
At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Ms. Landrieu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 611, a bill to establish
a Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services and a
Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services Advisory
Council, and for other purposes.
S. 619
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Corzine) was added as a cosponsor of S. 619, a bill to
amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government
pension offset and windfall elimination provisions.
S. 633
At the request of Mr. Johnson, the names of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Thune), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the
Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad) and the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. Vitter) were added as cosponsors of S. 633, a bill to require the
Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of veterans
who became disabled for life while serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States.
S. 642
At the request of Mr. Frist, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 642, a bill to support
certain national youth organizations, including the Boy Scouts of
America, and for other purposes.
S. 647
At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the name of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. DeMint) was added as a cosponsor of S. 647, a bill to
amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to authorize physical
therapists to evaluate and treat medicare beneficiaries without a
requirement for a physician referral, and for other purposes.
S. 662
At the request of Ms. Collins, the names of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee) were added
as cosponsors of S. 662, a bill to reform the postal laws of the United
States.
S. 685
At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Harkin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 685, a bill to amend title IV of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to require the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, in the case of airline pilots who
are required by regulation to retire at age 60, to compute the
actuarial value of monthly benefits in the form of a life annuity
commencing at age 60.
S. 687
At the request of Mr. Burns, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 687, a bill to regulate the
unauthorized installation of computer software, to require clear
disclosure to computer users of certain computer software features that
may pose a threat to user privacy, and for other purposes.
S. 689
At the request of Mr. Domenici, the name of the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Ensign) was added as a cosponsor of S. 689, a bill to amend the
Safe Drinking Water Act to establish a program to provide assistance to
small communities for use in carrying out projects and activities
necessary to achieve or maintain compliance with drinking water
standards.
S. 695
At the request of Mr. Byrd, the names of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Harkin), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard) and the Senator from
Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) were added as cosponsors of S. 695, a bill to
suspend temporarily new shipper bonding privileges.
S. 709
At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Dayton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 709, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to establish a grant program to provide
supportive services in permanent supportive housing for chronically
homeless individuals, and for other purposes.
S. 752
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 752, a bill to
require the United States Trade Representative to pursue a complaint of
anti-competitive practices against certain oil exporting countries.
S. 776
At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Conrad) was added as a cosponsor of S. 776, a bill to
designate certain functions performed at flight service stations of the
Federal Aviation Administration as inherently governmental functions,
and for other purposes.
S. 877
At the request of Mr. Domenici, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Burr) was added as a cosponsor of S. 877, a bill to
provide for a biennial budget process and a biennial appropriations
process and to enhance oversight and the performance of the Federal
Government.
S. 924
At the request of Mr. Corzine, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Salazar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 924, a bill to establish a
grant program to enhance the financial and retirement literacy of mid-
life and older Americans to reduce financial abuse and fraud among such
Americans, and for other purposes.
S. 933
At the request of Mr. Hagel, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
933, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide
for improvements in access to services in rural hospitals and critical
access hospitals.
S. 986
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, the name of the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 986, a bill
to authorize the Secretary of Education to award grants for the support
of full-service community schools, and for other purposes.
S. 1046
At the request of Mr. Kyl, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. Vitter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1046, a bill to amend title
28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal
courts over certain cases and controversies involving the Pledge of
Allegiance.
S. 1066
At the request of Mr. Voinovich, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1066, a bill to authorize
the States (and subdivisions thereof), the District of Columbia,
territories, and possessions of the United States to provide certain
tax incentives to any person for economic development purposes.
S. 1081
At the request of Mr. Kyl, the names of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1081, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to provide for a minimum update for physicians' services
for 2006 and 2007.
S. 1120
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Ms. Landrieu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1120, a bill to reduce
hunger in the United States by half by 2010, and for other purposes.
S. 1137
At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. Kyl) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1137, a bill to include
dehydro-
epiandrosterone as an anabolic steroid.
[[Page 13149]]
S. 1172
At the request of Mr. Specter, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1172, a bill
to provide for programs to increase the awareness and knowledge of
women and health care providers with respect to gynecologic cancers.
S. 1178
At the request of Mr. Martinez, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1178, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a refundable credit
against income tax for the purchase of private health insurance.
S. 1186
At the request of Mr. Domenici, the names of the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Warner) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) were added
as cosponsors of S. 1186, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide the same capital gains treatment for art and
collectibles as for other investment property and to provide that a
deduction equal to fair market value shall be allowed for charitable
contributions of literary, musical, artistic, or scholarly compositions
created by the donor.
S. 1197
At the request of Mr. Biden, the names of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin)
were added as cosponsors of S. 1197, a bill to reauthorize the Violence
Against Women Act of 1994.
S. 1214
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the names of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Dayton), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator
from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from Maine (Ms. Collins) and
the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) were added as cosponsors of S.
1214, a bill to require equitable coverage of prescription
contraceptive drugs and devices, and contraceptive services under
health plans.
S. 1215
At the request of Mr. Gregg, the names of the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Lautenberg) and the Senator from Maine (Ms. Collins) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1215, a bill to authorize the acquisition of interests
in underdeveloped coastal areas in order better to ensure their
protection from development.
S. 1246
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1246, a bill to require the
Secretary of Education to revise regulations regarding student loan
payment deferment with respect to borrowers who are in postgraduate
medical or dental internship, residency, or fellowship programs.
S. 1248
At the request of Ms. Landrieu, the name of the Senator from Ohio
(Mr. Voinovich) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1248, a bill to
establish a servitude and emancipation archival research clearinghouse
in the National Archives.
S.J. RES. 14
At the request of Mr. Santorum, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S.J. Res. 14, a joint resolution providing for the recognition of
Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel before the United States
recognizes a Palestinian state, and for other purposes.
S. RES. 31
At the request of Mr. Coleman, the name of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Domenici) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 31, a
resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the week of August
7, 2005, be designated as ``National Health Center Week'' in order to
raise awareness of health services provided by community, migrant,
public housing, and homeless health centers, and for other purposes.
S. RES. 39
At the request of Mr. Smith, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
Res. 39, a resolution apologizing to the victims of lynching and the
descendants of those victims for the failure of the Senate to enact
anti-lynching legislation.
At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, her name was added as a cosponsor
of S. Res. 39, supra.
S. RES. 162
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the names of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee)
were added as cosponsors of S. Res. 162, a resolution expressing the
sense of the Senate concerning Griswold v. Connecticut.
S. RES. 165
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Bond) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 165, a resolution
congratulating the Small Business Development Centers of the Small
Business Administration on their 25 years of service to America's small
business owners and entrepreneurs.
AMENDMENT NO. 783
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the name of the Senator from
Washington (Ms. Cantwell) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 783
proposed to H.R. 6, a bill Reserved.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 1268. A bill to expedite the transition to digital television
while helping consumers to continue to use their analog televisions; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
support the Nation's finest: our police, fire fighters and other
emergency response personnel. The ``Spectrum Availability for
Emergency-response and Law-enforcement to Improve Vital Emergency
Services Act,'' otherwise known as ``The SAVE LIVES Act of 2005.'' This
bill is drafted in response to the 9/11 Commission's Final Report,
which recommended the ``expedited and increased assignment of radio
spectrum for public safety purposes.''
To meet this recommendation, the SAVE LIVES Act would set a date
certain for the allocation of spectrum to public safety agencies,
specifically the 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band that Congress
promised public safety agencies in 1997. This is a promise Congress has
yet to deliver to our Nation's first responders. Access to this
specific spectrum is essential to our Nation's safety and welfare as
emergency communications sent over these frequencies are able to
penetrate walls and travel great distances, and can assist multiple
jurisdictions in deploying interoperable communications systems.
In addition to setting a date certain, this bill would authorize
funds for public safety agencies to purchase emergency communications
equipment and ensure that Congress has the ability to consider whether
additional spectrum should be provided for public safety communications
prior to the recovered spectrum being auctioned. The bill contains
significant language concerning consumer education in anticipation of
the digital television transition. The bill would mandate that warning
labels be displayed on analog television sets sold prior to the
transition, require warning language to be displayed at television
retailers, command the distribution at retailers of brochures
describing the television set options available to consumers, and call
on broadcasters to air informational programs to better prepare
consumers for the digital transition.
The bill would ensure that no television viewer's set would go
``dark'' by providing digital-to-analog converter boxes to over-the-air
viewers with a household income at or below 200 percent of the poverty
line and by allowing cable companies to down convert digital signal
signals if necessary. I continue to believe that broadcast television
is a powerful communications tool and important information source for
citizens. I know that on 9/11, I learned about the attack on the Twin
Towers and the Pentagon by watching television like most Americans.
Therefore, this bill seeks to not only protect citizens' safety, but
also the distribution of broadcast television.
[[Page 13150]]
Lastly, the bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency to
report to Congress on the need for a national electronic waste
recycling program.
The 9/11 Commission's final report contained harrowing tales about
police officers and fire fighters who were inside the twin towers and
unable to receive evacuation orders over their radios from commanders.
In fact, the report found that this inability to communicate was not
only a problem for public safety organizations responding at the World
Trade Center, but also for those responding at the Pentagon and
Somerset County, Pennsylvania crash sites where multiple organizations
and multiple jurisdictions responded. Therefore, the Commission
recommended that Congress accelerate the availability of additional
spectrum for public safety.
The SAVE LIVES Act would implement that important recommendation and
ensure that WHEN our Nation experiences another attack, or other
critical emergencies occur, our police, fire fighters and other
emergency response personnel will have the ability to communicate with
each other and their commanders to prevent another catastrophic loss of
life. Now is the time for Congressional action before another national
emergency or crisis takes place.
Several lawmakers attempted to act last year during the debate on the
Intelligence reform bill, but our efforts were thwarted by the powerful
National Association of Broadcasters. This year, I hope we can all work
together and pass a bill that ensures the country is not only better
prepared in case of another attack, but also protects the vital
communications outlet of broadcast television. I believe the SAVE LIVES
Act achieves both goals.
In an effort to expeditiously retrieve the spectrum for the Nation's
first responders, to preserve over-the-air television accessibility to
consumers and to ensure the adequate funding of both, I urge the
enactment of The SAVE LIVES Act. Additionally, I ask unanimous consent
that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1268
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 ``Spectrum Availability for
Emergency-Response and Law-Enforcement to Improve Vital
Emergency Services Act'' or the ``SAVE LIVES Act''.
SEC. 2. SETTING A SPECIFIC DATE FOR THE AVAILABILITY OF
SPECTRUM FOR PUBLIC SAFETY ORGANIZATIONS AND
CREATING A DEADLINE FOR TRANSITION TO DIGITAL
TELEVISION.
(a) Amendments.--Section 309(j)(14) of the Communications
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(14)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``December 31, 2006''
and inserting ``December 31, 2008'';
(2) by striking subparagraph (B);
(3) in subparagraph (C)(i)(I), by striking ``or (B)'';
(4) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``(C)(i)'' and
inserting ``(B)(i)''; and
(5) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as
subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively.
(b) Implementation.--
(1) Final dtv allotment table of in-core channels for full-
power stations.--The Federal Communications Commission (in
this Act referred to as the ``Commission'') shall--
(A) release by December 31, 2006, a report and order in MB
Docket No. 03-15 assigning all full-power broadcast
television stations authorized in the digital television
service a final channel between channels 2 and 36, inclusive,
or 38 and 51, inclusive (between frequencies 54 and 698
megahertz, inclusive); and
(B) conclude by July 31, 2007, any reconsideration of such
report and order.
(2) Status reports.--Beginning February 1, 2006, and ending
when international coordination with Canada and Mexico of the
DTV table of allotments is complete, the Commission shall
submit reports every 6 months on the status of that
international coordination to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate and to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives.
(3) Terminations of analog licenses and broadcasting.--The
Commission shall take such actions as may be necessary to
terminate all licenses for full-power broadcasting stations
in the analog television service and to require the cessation
of broadcasting by full-power stations in the analog
television service by January 1, 2009.
SEC. 3. AUCTION OF RECOVERED SPECTRUM.
(a) Deadline for Auction.--Section 309(j)(14) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(14)), as amended
by section 2, is amended in subparagraph (B)--
(1) in clause (ii), by striking the second sentence; and
(2) by adding at the end following new clause:
``(iii) Additional deadlines for recovered analog
spectrum.--
``(I) In general.--Not earlier than 1 year after the date
on which the Commission submits to Congress the report
required under section 7502(a) of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 118
Stat. 3855), and not later than April 1, 2008, the Commission
shall--
``(aa) conduct the auction of the licenses for recovered
analog spectrum; and
``(bb) not later than June 30, 2008, deposit the proceeds
of such auction in accordance with paragraph (8), except for
those funds authorized to be used in accordance with sections
4(f) and 5 of the SAVE LIVES Act.
``(II) Recovered analog spectrum defined.--In this clause,
the term `recovered analog spectrum' means the spectrum
reclaimed from analog television service broadcasting under
this paragraph, other than--
``(aa) the spectrum required by section 337 to be made
available for public safety services;
``(bb) the spectrum auctioned prior to the date of
enactment of the SAVE LIVES Act; and
``(cc) any spectrum designated by Congress for use by
public safety services between the date of enactment of the
SAVE LIVES Act and the auction described in subclause (I).''.
(b) Extension of Auction Authority.--Paragraph (11) of
section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
309(j)(11)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2007'' and
inserting ``September 30, 2009''.
SEC. 4. DIGITAL TRANSITION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Beginning no earlier than January 1, 2008,
and not later than July 1, 2008, the Commission, in
consultation with commercial television broadcast licensees,
shall distribute to eligible persons digital-to-analog
converter devices that will enable television sets that
operate only with analog signal processing to continue to
operate when receiving a digital signal.
(b) Application.--Each eligible person seeking a digital-
to-analog converter device under subsection (a) shall submit
an application to the Commission at such times, in such
manner, and containing such information as the Commission
requires.
(c) Procurement.--The provisions, rules, and regulations of
the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
(41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.) shall apply to the procurement, by
the Comptroller General of the United States, of the digital-
to-analog converter devices described in subsection (a).
(d) Study.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall, in consultation
with commercial television broadcast licensees, consumer
groups, and other interested parties, complete a study of--
(1) the geographic location of eligible persons by Nielsen
Designated Market Areas;
(2) the use of not only broadcast studios for distribution
of such digital-to-analog converter devices, but the ability
of commercial television broadcast licensees to partner with
grocery stores, electronics stores, and post offices to serve
as distribution centers for such devices; and
(3) the ability of the Commission and commercial television
broadcast licensees to partner together to develop a public
communications campaign to inform over-the-air viewers of--
(A) the need for a digital-to-analog converter device; and
(B) the availability of such a digital-to-analog converter
device free of charge for eligible persons.
(e) Eligible Person Defined.--In this section, the term
``eligible person'' means any person relying exclusively on
over-the-air television broadcasts with a household income
that does not exceed 200 percent of the poverty line, as such
line is published in the Federal Register by the Department
of Health and Human Services under the authority of section
673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C.
9902(2)).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
$468,000,000 from the proceeds of the auction of licenses for
recovered analog spectrum under section 309(j)(14) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(14)).
(2) Distribution.--Of the funds authorized to be
appropriated under paragraph (1)--
(A) $463,000,000 shall be available to procure digital-to-
analog converter devices; and
(B) $5,000,000 shall be available to to cover the costs of
administration of the digital
[[Page 13151]]
transition program established under this section.
SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT AND AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR
GRANT PROGRAM TO PROVIDE ENHANCED
INTEROPERABILITY OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR FIRST
RESPONDERS.
(a) Establishment of Program to Assist First Responders.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
establish a program to help State, local, tribal, and
regional first responders--
(A) acquire and deploy interoperable communications
equipment;
(B) purchase such equipment; and
(C) train personnel in the use of such equipment.
(2) Common standards.--The Secretary, in cooperation with
the heads of other Federal departments and agencies who
administer programs that provide communications-related
assistance programs to State, local, and tribal public safety
organizations, shall develop and implement common standards
to the greatest extent practicable.
(b) Applications.--To be eligible for assistance under the
program established in subsection (a), a State, local,
tribal, or regional first responder agency shall submit an
application, at such time, in such form, and containing such
information as the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for
Science and Technology may require, including--
(1) a detailed explanation of how assistance received under
the program would be used to improve local communications
interoperability and ensure interoperability with other
appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, and regional
agencies in a regional or national emergency;
(2) assurance that the equipment and system would--
(A) not be incompatible with the communications
architecture developed under section 7303(a)(1)(E) of the
Intelligence Reform Act of 2004;
(B) would meet any voluntary consensus standards developed
under section 7303(a)(1)(D) of that Act; and
(C) be consistent with the common grant guidance
established under section 7303(a)(1)(H) of that Act.
(c) Review.--The Under Secretary of Homeland Security for
Science and Technology shall review and approve, in the
discretion of the Under Secretary, all applications submitted
under subsection (b).
(d) Single Grants.--The Secretary of Homeland Security,
pursuant to an application approved by the Under Secretary of
Homeland Security for Science and Technology, may make the
assistance provided under the program established in
subsection (a) available to all approved applicants in the
form of a single grant for a period of not more than 3 years.
(e) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2008, the Commission
shall report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and
Commerce of the House of Representatives the amount required
to carry out the program described in section 4.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--To the extent that
proceeds from the auction of licenses for recovered analog
spectrum under section 309(j)(14) of the Communications Act
of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(14)) are available and exceed the
amount required to carry out the program described in section
4, there are authorized to be appropriated from such proceeds
such sums as are available to fund the grant program
established under this section.
SEC. 6. CONSUMER EDUCATION REGARDING THE DIGITAL TELEVISION
TRANSITION.
(a) Commission Authority.--Section 303 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 303) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(z) Require the consumer education measures specified in
section 330(d) in the case of apparatus designed to receive
television signals that--
``(1) are shipped in interstate commerce or manufactured in
the United States after 180 days after the date of enactment
of the SAVE LIVES Act; and
``(2) are not capable of receiving and displaying broadcast
signals in the digital television service on the channels
allocated to such broadcasts.''.
(b) Consumer Education Requirements.--Section 330 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 330) is amended--
(1) in subsection (d), by striking ``sections 303(s),
303(u), and 303(x)'' and inserting ``subsections (s), (u),
(x), and (z) of section 303'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection:
``(d) Consumer Education Regarding Equipment, Television
Receivers, and Other Materials Related to the Digital to
Analog Conversion.--
``(1) Requirements for manufacturers.--Any manufacturer of
any apparatus described in section 303(z) shall--
``(A) place on the screen of any such apparatus that such
manufacturer ships in interstate commerce or manufactures in
the United States after 180 days after the date of enactment
of the SAVE LIVES Act, a removable label containing the
warning language required by paragraph (3); and
``(B) also include such warning language on the outside of
the retail packaging of such apparatus in a manner that
cannot be removed.
``(2) Requirements for retail distributors.--Any retail
distributor shall place adjacent to each apparatus described
in section 303(z) that such distributor displays for sale or
rent after 180 days after the date of enactment of the SAVE
LIVES Act, a separate sign containing the warning language
required by paragraph (3).
``(3) Warning language.--
``(A) Rulemaking proceeding.--Not later than 120 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission, in
consultation with consumers and representatives from the
broadcast, cable, and satellite industries, shall complete a
rulemaking proceeding to develop warning language to be used
by manufacturers and retail distributors concerning the size
and format of the warning language required by this
paragraph.
``(B) Content of warning.--The warning language required by
this paragraph shall clearly inform consumers, in plain
English understandable to the average consumer, of the
following:
``(i) After December 31, 2008, television broadcasters will
cease analog over-the-air broadcasts and will broadcast only
in digital format.
``(ii) That a television set carrying the label required
under paragraph (1) will no longer be able to receive
broadcast programming unless it is connected to a digital
tuner, a digital-to-analog converter device, or cable,
satellite, or other multichannel video services.
``(iii) Beyond December 31, 2008, a television set carrying
the label required under paragraph (1) will, however,
continue to display images from devices such as DVD recorders
and video game consoles or content recorded for display on an
analog television using devices such as VCRs, digital video
recorders, or DVD recorders.
``(iv) For more information regarding the transition to
digital television consumers should call the Federal
Communications Commission at 1-888-225-5322 (TTY: 1-888-835-
5322) or visit the Commission's website at: www.fcc.gov.
``(4) Enforcement.--Any violation of the requirements of
this section, shall be enforced by the Federal Trade
Commission as if it were an unfair or deceptive act or
practice proscribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal
Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
``(5) Sunset.--The warning language required by paragraph
(3) shall not apply to any manufacturer or retail distributor
on or after January 1, 2009.
``(6) Commission outreach.--Beginning not later than 1
month after the date of enactment of the SAVE LIVES Act, the
Commission shall engage in a public outreach program to
educate consumers about--
``(A) the deadline for termination of analog television
broadcasting; and
``(B) the options consumers have after such termination to
continue to receive broadcast programming.''
(c) Preserving and Expediting Digital Television Tuner
Mandates.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall require not later
than--
(A) July 1, 2005, that digital television tuners be
integrated into television receivers having analog tuners in
the case of television sets with screen sizes 36 inches or
greater;
(B) March 1, 2006, that digital television tuners be
integrated into television receivers having analog tuners in
the case of television sets with screen sizes between 25
inches and 35 inches; and
(C) March 1, 2007, that digital television tuners be
integrated into television receivers having analog tuners in
the case of television sets with screen sizes between 14
inches and 24 inches.
(2) Study.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall conduct a study
to determine whether digital television tuners are necessary
in television sets with screen sizes 13 inches or smaller.
(B) Mandates for television sets with screen sizes 13
inches or smaller.--Upon completion of the study required
under subparagraph (A), if the Commission determines that
digital television tuners are necessary in television sets
with screen sizes 13 inches or smaller, the Commission shall
enact, not later than July 1, 2008, digital television tuner
mandates for such television sets.
(d) Informed Consumer Requirement.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau of the Commission shall develop
and distribute to all consumers seeking to purchase a
televison set a brochure that clearly describes the different
options available to a consumer, including information that--
(1) in order for a consumer to receive and display a
digital television signal, a consumer must have--
(A) both a digital television display or monitor and a
digital tuner; or
(B) an integrated digital television set;
[[Page 13152]]
(2) there is a difference between a digital television and
high-definition digital television signals and a digital
television and high-definition digital television set; and
(3) current televisions--
(A) are not obsolete;
(B) can receive digital television signals with the use of
a digital-to-analog converter device and will display such
signals in an analog format; and
(C) will continue to work with cable, satellite, VCRs, DVD
recorders, and other devices.
SEC. 7. DIGITAL TO ANALOG CONVERSION AVAILABLE FOR CABLE
SUBSCRIBERS.
(a) Digital to Analog Conversion Permitted.--Section 614(b)
of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 534(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(11) Digital.--
``(A) Digital primary video signal.--A cable operator shall
carry the primary video of the digital signal of a local
broadcast station in its originally broadcast format without
material degradation upon such local broadcast station's--
``(i) cessation of analog broadcasting; and
``(ii) election of cable carriage under this section or
section 615.
``(B) Digital to analog conversions permitted.--
Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the conversion by a cable
operator, at any location from the cable headend through
equipment on the premises of a subscriber, of a digital
television signal into a signal capable of being viewed by
such subscriber with an analog television receiver shall be
permitted subject to the conditions described in subparagraph
(C).
``(C) Conditions on permitted downcon-
version.--If a cable operator provides a converted signal for
any station in a local market under subparagraph (B), that--
``(i) is carried under this section or section 615; and
``(ii) has ceased to broadcast in the analog television
service;
such cable operator shall provide such a converted signal for
each such station that is located within the same local
market.
``(D) Conversion sunset.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), beginning not
earlier than December 31, 2011 and not later than December
31, 2012, the Commission shall cease to impose on a cable
operator the requirement under subparagraph (B), if the
Commission determines that such requirement is not necessary
to ensure the continued ability of the audiences for foreign-
language and religious television broadcast stations to view
the signals of such stations.
``(ii) Considerations.--In making a determination under
clause (i), the Commission shall take into consideration--
``(I) the penetration of digital televisions, digital
receivers, and digital-to-analog converter devices among
audiences of foreign-language and religious television
broadcast stations; and
``(II) the market incentives of cable operators, in the
absence of the requirement under subparagraph (B), to carry
the signals of foreign-language and religious television
broadcast stations in the format most available to be viewed
by the audiences of such stations.
``(E) Review.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the SAVE LIVES Act, and every 2 years thereafter
until December 31, 2012, the Commission shall review the
considerations described in subparagraph (D)(ii).''.
(b) Tiering.--
(1) Amendment to communications act.--Section
623(b)(7)(A)(iii) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 543(b)(7)(A)(iii)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Any signal'' and inserting ``Any analog
signal''; and
(B) by inserting ``and a single digital video programming
stream, designated by such station, that is transmitted over-
the-air by such station, and'' after ``television broadcast
station''.
(2) Effective date.--This subsection and the amendments
made by this subsection shall take effect on January 1, 2009.
SEC. 8. STUDY OF NATIONWIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM.
(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, in consultation with appropriate executive
agencies (as determined by the Administrator), shall conduct
a study of the feasibility of establishing a nationwide
recycling program for electronic waste that preempts any
State recycling program.
(2) Inclusions.--The study shall include an analysis of
multiple programs, including programs involving--
(A) the collection of an advanced recycling fee;
(B) the collection of an end-of-life fee;
(C) producers of electronics assuming the responsibility
and the cost of recycling electronic waste; and
(D) the extension of a tax credit for recycling electronic
waste.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall submit to Congress a report
describing the results of the study conducted under
subsection (a);
SEC. 9. COMPLETION OF CERTAIN PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
(a) In General.--The Commission shall complete action on
and issue a final decision not later than--
(1) July 31, 2007, in the Matter of Second Periodic Review
of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the
Conversion to Digital Television, MB Docket No. 03-15;
(2) July 31, 2007, should the Commission begin a Third
Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies
Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television;
(3) December 31, 2007, in the Matter of Public Interest
Obligations of Television Broadcast Licensees, MM Docket No.
99-360;
(4) December 31, 2007, in the Matter of Standardized and
Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for Television Broadcast
Licensee Public Interest Obligations, MM Docket No. 00-168;
(5) December 31, 2007, in the Matter of Children's
Television Obligations Of Digital Television Broadcasters,
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 00-167;
(6) December 31, 2007, in the proceeding on rules regarding
the use of distributed transmission system technologies as
referenced in paragraph 5 of MB Docket No. 03-15; and
(7) December 31, 2007, in the proceeding adopting digital
standards for an Emergency Alert System.
(b) Two-way Devices.--
(1) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 3 months thereafter until
July 1, 2007, the parties in the matter of the Implementation
of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices, Second Report
and Order, CS Docket No. 97-80, shall report to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and
the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives on the status of negotiations for two-way
devices.
(2) Final order.--Not later than December 31, 2007, the
Commission shall complete action on and issue a final
decision in the matter of the Implementation of Section 304
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Commercial
Availability of Navigation Devices, Second Report and Order,
CS Docket No. 97-80.
SEC. 10. EXCEPTION TO REMOVAL AND RELOCATION OF INCUMBENT
BROADCAST LICENSEES OPERATING BETWEEN 746 AND
806 MEGAHERTZ.
Section 337(e) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
337(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
``(A) television translator stations;
``(B) low-power television stations; or
``(C) class A television stations.''.
______
By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Bond,
Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Hagel,
Mr. Craig, and Mr. Roberts):
S. 1269. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
clarify certain activities the conduct of which does not require a
permit; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pest
Management and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act. I am proud to be
joined by ten of my colleagues, Senators Lincoln, Crapo, Bond, Isakson,
Craig, Chambliss, Cochran, Thomas, Hagel and Roberts. This legislation
codifies long-standing Democratic and Republican Administration policy
of not requiring a Clean Water Act permit for pesticides in full
compliance with their EPA-approved label. It will further affirm
historic a Federal practices with regard to the Clean Water Act and
fire suppression and other foreset management activities.
In 1972, Congress enacted both the Clean Water Act and the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. CWA authorized the
Environmental Protection Agency to protect the Nation's waterways by
regulating discharges of large industrial operations and wastewater
facilities through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
FIFRA proyided the EPA with the authority to regulate the sale and use
of pesticides through a comprehensive registration and labeling
protocol.
Until some recent court decisions, the application of agricultural
and other pesticides in full compliance with labeling requirements did
not require NPDES permits. Because pesticides undergo lengthy testing
under FIFRA including tests to ensure water quality and aquatic species
preservation, a NPDES permit was considered unnecessary and
duplicative. These
[[Page 13153]]
court decisions commonly known as Talent and Forsgren contradict years
of Federal policy and undermine the manner in which the Federal
Government regulates farmers, foresters, irrigators, mosquito abatement
officials, and other pesticide applicators.
Similar cases are pending. Groups are now using the notice of intent
to sue to intimidate farmers, mosquito abatement districts and Federal
and State agencies into stopping or reducing West Nile virus prevention
and crop loss rangeland protection operations. While EPA has proposed a
rule to ensure that pesticides sprayed to, near, or over waters do not
need a permit, the rule needs to be codified in statute.
Environmentalists who filed notices of intent to sue Maine's two
largest blueberry farmers have indicated that they plan on threatening
others with lawsuits including more farmers and foresters.
Our legislation fills this regulatory gap left by EPA. While the
agency's rule is a step in the right direction, our legislation
codifies the agency's longstanding policy that the application of
agricultural and other pesticides, in accordance with their label, does
not require an NPDES permit. Moreover, the rule does not protect
farmers, irrigators, mosquito abatement districts, fire fighters,
Federal and State agencies, pest control operators or foresters
vulnerable to citizen's suits, simply for performing long-practiced,
expressly approved and already heavily regulated pest management and
public health protection activities. Without such protection, those who
protet us from mosquito borne illnesses and other pest outbreaks or
combat destructive and potentially deadly forest fires will continue to
be potential victims of mischievous citizen's suits.
My bill codifies EPA's rulemaking, as well as affirms Congressional
intent and the long-held positions of Republican and Democratic
administrations with regard to the CWA and pesticide applications
generally, as well as fire suppression and other forest management
activities. I am pleased to be joined by so many of my colleagues in
this effort and encourage others to cosponsor our proposal.
______
By Mr. NELSON of Nebraska:
S. 1272. A bill to amend title 46, United States Code, and title II
of the Social Security Act 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;
to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection; the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1272
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 ``Belated Thank You to the
Merchant Mariners of World War II Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. MONTHLY BENEFIT FOR WORLD WAR II MERCHANT MARINERS
AND SURVIVORS UNDER TITLE 46, UNITED STATES
CODE.
(a) Monthly Benefit.--Chapter 112 of title 46, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting after the table of sections the following
new subchapter heading:
``SUBCHAPTER I--VETERANS' BURIAL AND CEMETERY BENEFITS''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subchapter:
``SUBCHAPTER II--MONTHLY BENEFIT
``Sec. 11205. Monthly benefit
``(a) Payment.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall pay
to each person issued a certificate of honorable service
pursuant to section 11207(b) of this title a monthly benefit
of $1,000.
``(b) Surviving Spouses.--
``(1) Payment to surviving spouses.--The Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall pay to the surviving spouse of each
person issued a certificate of honorable service pursuant to
section 11207(b) of this title a monthly benefit of $1,000.
``(2) Exclusion.--No benefit shall be paid under paragraph
(1) to a surviving spouse of a person issued a certificate of
honorable service pursuant to section 11207(b) unless the
surviving spouse was married to such person for no less than
1 year.
``(c) Exemption From Taxation.--Payments of benefits under
this section are exempt from taxation as provided in section
5301(a) of title 38.
``Sec. 11206. Qualified service
``For purposes of this subchapter, a person shall be
considered to have engaged in qualified service if, between
December 7, 1941, and December 31, 1946, the person--
``(1) was a member of the United States merchant marine
(including the Army Transport Service and the Naval Transport
Service) serving as a crewmember of a vessel that was--
``(A) operated by the War Shipping Administration or the
Office of Defense Transportation (or an agent of such
Administration or Office);
``(B) operated in waters other than--
``(i) inland waters;
``(ii) the Great Lakes; and
``(iii) other lakes, bays, and harbors of the United
States;
``(C) under contract or charter to, or property of, the
Government of the United States; and
``(D) serving the Armed Forces; and
``(2) while serving as described in paragraph (1), was
licensed or otherwise documented for service as a crewmember
of such a vessel by an officer or employee of the United
States authorized to license or document the person for such
service.
``Sec. 11207. Documentation of qualified service
``(a) Application for Service Certificate.--A person
seeking benefits under section 11205 of this title shall
submit an application for a service certificate to the
Secretary of Transportation, or in the case of personnel of
the Army Transport Service or the Naval Transport Service,
the Secretary of Defense.
``(b) Issuance of Service Certificate.--The Secretary who
receives an application under subsection (a) shall issue a
certificate of honorable service to the applicant if, as
determined by that Secretary, the person engaged in qualified
service under section 11206 of this title and meets the
standards referred to in subsection (d) of this section.
``(c) Timing of Documentation.--A Secretary receiving an
application under subsection (a) shall act on the application
not later than 1 year after the date of that receipt.
``(d) Standards Relating to Service.--In making a
determination under subsection (b), the Secretary acting on
the application shall apply the same standards relating to
the nature and duration of service that apply to the issuance
of honorable discharges under section 401(a)(1)(B) of the GI
Bill Improvement Act of 1977 (38 U.S.C. 106 note).
``Sec. 11208. Definitions
``In this subchapter, the term `surviving spouse' has the
meaning given such term in section 101 of title 38, except
that in applying the meaning in this subchapter, the term
`veteran' shall include a person who performed qualified
service as specified in section 11206 of this title.
``Sec. 11209. Authorization of appropriations
``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs such sums as may be necessary for the
purpose of carrying out this subchapter.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsection (c) of section 11201
of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``chapter'' and inserting
``subchapter''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``chapter'' the second
place it appears and inserting ``subchapter''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 112 of title 46, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting at the beginning the following new item:
``Subchapter I--Veterans' Burial and Cemetery Benefits'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new items:
``Subchapter II--Monthly Benefit
``11205. Monthly benefit
``11206. Qualified service
``11207. Documentation of qualified service
``11208. Definitions
``11209. Authorization of appropriations''.
(d) Effective Date.--Subchapter II of chapter 112 of title
46, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this
section, shall take effect with respect to payments for
periods beginning on or after the date of the enactment of
this Act, regardless of the date of application for benefits.
SEC. 3. BENEFITS FOR WORLD WAR II MERCHANT MARINERS UNDER
TITLE II OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.
(a) Benefits.--Section 217(d) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 417(d)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(3) The term `active military or naval service' includes
the service, or any period of forcible detention or
internment by an enemy government or hostile force as a
result of action against a vessel described in subparagraph
(A), of a person who--
``(A) was a member of the United States merchant marine
(including the Army Transport Service and the Naval Transport
Service) serving as a crewmember of a vessel that was--
[[Page 13154]]
``(i) operated by the War Shipping Administration or the
Office of Defense Transportation (or an agent of such
Administration or Office);
``(ii) operated in waters other than--
``(I) inland waters;
``(II) the Great Lakes; and
``(III) other lakes, bays, and harbors of the United
States;
``(iii) under contract or charter to, or property of, the
Government of the United States; and
``(iv) serving the Armed Forces; and
``(B) while serving as described in subparagraph (A), was
licensed or otherwise documented for service as a crewmember
of such a vessel by an officer or employee of the United
States authorized to license or document the person for such
service.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply only with respect to benefits for months
beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. REID:
S. 1273. A bill to provide for the sale and adoption of excess wild
free-roaming horses and burros; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of myself and Senator
Ensign to offer legislation that will give greater protections to our
Nation's wild horses and make needed improvements to the Bureau of Land
Management's wild horse and burro adoption program.
Right now there are an estimated 32,000 wild horses on our Nation's
public lands. This is 4,000 more horses than our rangeland can sustain.
The Bureau of Land Management has established that nationwide, the
Appropriate Management Level for wild horses and burros is 28,000.
Unfortunately, after many years of trying, the BLM has been unable to
reach this benchmark, even after many significant budget increases for
the wild horse and burro program. This situation is compounded by the
fact that wild horses naturally reproduce at a rate of 20 percent per
annum, adding to management difficulties and placing greater strain on
our public rangelands.
In Nevada, we feel the failures of the wild horse and burro program
most acutely. Of the 32,000 horses on America's public lands, roughly
half are in Nevada. So when the program fails, it hits us hard. In
recent years, the program's shortcomings have been amplified by an
ongoing drought in the Southwest that has, in places, seriously
jeopardized the health and well-being of wild horses and burros and has
devastated the rangeland upon which they depend for their survival.
At present, the wild horse program is failing on both ends. The BLM
is struggling to remove sufficient numbers of horses from the range and
many of the horses that are removed are placed into an adoption program
that is not locating a sufficient number of willing adopters. This
means that more horses stay in Government hands, driving the cost of
this troubled program ever higher. As a result, today we have nearly
22,000 wild horses sitting in long-term holding facilities in the
Midwest, costing the U.S. taxpayer approximately $465 per horse, per
year. And this is only part of the roughly $40 million we are spending
this year to manage our Nation's wild horses and burros. Add this to
the fact that the cost of running this program has doubled in the last
five years and it becomes clear that reform is needed.
Last year, Congress passed language that allowed the BLM to sell a
limited number of the horses that are held in long-term holding
facilities. Unfortunately, this additional management tool has been
abused by a handful of people and a small number of horses ended up at
slaughter. These unfortunate events have led to calls for greater
protections for wild horses that are being offered to the public under
the sale program.
Mr. President, the legislation that we offer today provides that
greater protection for wild horses, while also giving the BLM greater
leverage to put more horses into the hands of good, caring owners.
Currently, wild horses that are acquired through the BLM's adoption
program are federally protected for 1 year. This is the strongest
protection available to wild horses that are placed into private
ownership and our bill extends this protection to horses that are
acquired under sale authority.
Our legislation also gives the BLM more flexibility in finding good
homes for wild horses. We do this by giving the BLM the authority to
make all horses that are not suitable for the adoption program
available for purchase by caring owners.
We also lift the limit on the number of horses that an approved
adopter can take title to in a single year, and we lower the minimum
adoption fee from $125 to $25. It is our firm belief that when good
people want to adopt horses and meet the requirements set forth by the
BLM, they should have as few barriers to overcome as possible. By
increasing the number of horses that can be adopted and lowering the
adoption fee, we believe that we can put more horses into the hands of
more quality owners.
Our goal is to give all wild horses the maximum protection available
under our current system and to provide the BLM with the management
tools they need to get tens of thousands of wild horses and burros into
safe and caring homes. We believe that this is the right thing to do. I
look forward to working with the Energy Committee and the Senate to
move this legislation expeditiously.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1273
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 ``Wild Free-Roaming Horses and
Burros Sale and Adoption Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. SALE AND ADOPTION OF WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND
BURROS.
Section 3 of Public Law 92-195 (16 U.S.C. 1333) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``: Provided'' and all
that follows through ``adopting party''; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) Additional excess wild free-roaming horses and burros
for which an adoption demand by qualified individuals does
not exist shall be sold under subsection (e).'';
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``not more than four
animals'' and inserting ``excess animals transferred '';
(3) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraph (A) and
inserting the following:
``(A) the Secretary determines that there is no adoption
demand from qualified individuals for the excess animal;'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``without limitation'';
and
(C) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) Effect of sale.--At the end of the 1-year period
following the sale of any excess animal under this
subsection--
``(A) the Secretary shall grant to the transferee title to
the excess animal; and
``(B) the excess animal transferred shall no longer be
considered to be a wild free-roaming horse or burro for
purposes of this Act.''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Minimum Fees and Bids.--The minimum adoption fee
required for the adoption of an excess animal under this
section shall be $25.''.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 176--CONGRATULATING CAM NEELY ON HIS INDUCTION INTO
THE HOCKEY HALL OF FAME
Mr. KENNEDY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Res. 176
Whereas on June 8, 2005, Cam Neely was elected to the
Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Canada, and will be formally
inducted into the Hall of Fame on November 7, 2005;
Whereas as a member of the Boston Bruins, Cam Neely became
one of ice hockey's greatest players, defining the position
of ``power forward'';
Whereas although his career was cut short when he retired
at the age of 31 due to injury, Cam Neely scored 395 goals
and had 299 assists in 726 games in his brilliant career;
Whereas Cam Neely led the Boston Bruins in goals for 7
seasons, led the team in scoring for 2 seasons, and was the
team's all-time leader in goals during playoffs;
[[Page 13155]]
Whereas Cam Neely had three 50-goal seasons for the Boston
Bruins, including back-to-back 50-goal seasons in 1989-1990
and 1991-1992;
Whereas Cam Neely, returning to the Boston Bruins after an
injury in 1993-1994, scored 50 goals and was awarded the
National Hockey League's Bill Masterton Trophy as the
``player who best exemplifies the qualities of perseverance,
sportsmanship, and dedication to hockey'';
Whereas Cam Neely, number 8, became the tenth Boston Bruin
to be honored by having his uniform number retired;
Whereas Cam Neely continues to provide invaluable
assistance to charitable causes in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, including the establishment of the Neely House
and the Neely Foundation, which comfort, support, and offer
hope to cancer patients and their families: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) honors the extraordinary achievements of Cam Neely
during his brilliant career in ice hockey with the Boston
Bruins;
(2) commends Cam Neely for his recent and eminently well-
deserved induction into the Hockey Hall of Fame; and
(3) directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit an
enrolled copy of this resolution to:
(A) Cam Neely;
(B) Jeremy Jacobs, owner of the Boston Bruins;
(C) Harry Sinden, president of the Boston Bruins; and
(D) Mike Sullivan, head coach of the Boston Bruins.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier this month, Cam Neely of the
Boston Bruins was elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto,
Canada, and he will be formally inducted into the Hall on November 7.
Cam has inspired a generation of ice hockey fans in Boston and New
England, and throughout the Nation with his extraordinary skill and
brilliant accomplishments. He is truly one of hockey's immortals, and
he eminently deserves this high honor.
In addition, he is also well-known to all of us in Boston for his
good citizenship and impressive participation in inspiring our
community.
I am submitting a resolution today to honor Cam Neely for his on-ice
accomplishments and also for his continuing commitment to charitable
causes in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 177--ENCOURAGING THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF
REFUGEES
Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Leahy, Mr. DeWine, Mr.
Lieberman, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Lautenberg)
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee
on Foreign Relations:
S. Res. 177
Whereas the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
dated July 28, 1951 (189 UST 150) (hereinafter referred to as
the ``Convention'') and the Protocol Relating to the Status
of Refugees done at New York January 31, 1967 (19 UST 6223)
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Protocol'') provide that
individuals who flee a country to avoid persecution deserve
international protection;
Whereas such protection includes freedom from forcible
return and the basic rights necessary for a refugee to live a
free, dignified, self-reliant life, even while in exile;
Whereas such rights, as recognized in the Convention,
include the right to earn a livelihood, to engage in wage-
employment or self-employment, to practice a profession, to
own property, to freedom of movement and residence, and to
receive travel documents;
Whereas such rights are applicable to a refugee independent
of whether a solution is available that would permit the
refugee to return to the country that the refugee fled;
Whereas such rights are part of the core protection mandate
of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees;
Whereas warehoused refugees have been confined to a camp or
segregated settlement or otherwise deprived of their basic
rights;
Whereas more than 50 percent of the refugees in the world
are effectively warehoused in a situation that has existed
for at least 10 years;
Whereas donor countries, including the United States, have
typically offered less developed countries hosting refugees
assistance if they keep refugees warehoused in camps or
segregated settlements but have not provided adequate
assistance to host countries that permit refugees to live and
work among the local population; and
Whereas warehousing refugees not only violates the rights
of the refugees but also debilitates their humanity, often
reducing the refugees to enforced idleness, dependency,
disempowerment, and despair: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the United States Senate--
(1) expresses deep appreciation and gratitude for those
States which have and continue to host refugees and offer
refugee resettlement;
(2) denounces the practice of warehousing refugees, which
is the confinement of refugees to a camp or segregated
settlement or other deprivation of the refugees' basic rights
in a protracted situation, as a denial of basic human rights
and a squandering of human potential;
(3) urges the Secretary of State to actively pursue models
of refugee assistance that permit refugees to enjoy all the
rights recognized in the Convention and the Protocol;
(4) urges the Secretary of State to encourage other donor
nations and other members of the Executive Committee of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Programme to
shift the incentive structure of refugee assistance and to
build mechanisms into relief and development assistance to
encourage the greater enjoyment by refugees of their rights
under the Convention;
(5) encourages the international community, including donor
countries, host countries, and members of the Executive
Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees' Programme, to denounce resolutely the practice of
warehousing refugees in favor of allowing refugees to
exercise their rights under the Convention;
(6) calls upon the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees to monitor refugee situations more effectively for
the realization of all the rights of refugees under the
Convention, including those related to freedom of movement
and the right to earn a livelihood;
(7) encourages those countries that have not yet ratified
the Convention or the Protocol to do so;
(8) encourages those countries that have ratified the
Convention or the Protocol, but have done so with
reservations on key articles pertaining to the right to work
and freedom of movement, to remove such reservations; and
(9) encourages all countries to enact legislation or
promulgate policies to provide for the legal enjoyment of the
basic rights of refugees as outlined in the Convention.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today is World Refugee Day and I welcome
this opportunity to reaffirm the fundamental rights embodied in the
United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951. It is an honor to join my
colleagues--Senators Brownback, Leahy, DeWine, Lieberman, Snowe,
Durbin, Coleman, and Lautenberg--in introducing this bipartisan
resolution to focus attention on the plight of millions of refugees
throughout the world who are endlessly confined in refugee camps or
segregated settlements. These ``ware-
housed'' refugees are denied basic rights under the Convention, such as
the right to work, to move freely, and to receive a basic education.
The deprivation goes on for years and in some cases, even for
generations.
Worldwide, more than 7 million refugees have been restricted to camps
or isolated settlements for 10 years or more. These populations
constitute more than half of the refugees around the world.
In Tanzania, nearly 400,000 refugees from Burundi and the Democratic
Republic of Congo are confined in 13 camps along the western border.
Some of these camps have existed for more than a decade. Many refugees
confined in these camps find it extremely difficult to find employment,
let alone obtain other basic necessities of life. Other refugee
populations have been warehoused and forgotten for over 20 years, such
as Angolans in Zambia, Afghans in Iran and Pakistan, Bhutanese in
Nepal, Burmese in Thailand, and Somalians and Sudanese in Kenya.
Sadly, the number of warehoused refugees may soon increase as violent
conflicts continue around the world. According to the recently
published 2005 World Refugee Survey, the total number of refugees and
asylum seekers worldwide exceeds 11 million, and 21 million more are
internally displaced. As these shameful statistics demonstrate, there
is far more the world community can do to ease their plight.
The resolution we are offering denounces the practice of warehousing
refugees and urges all nations to grant them their basic rights under
the Refugee Convention of 1951. Refugee camps are often created quickly
to address a crisis. But the solution creates a greater problem, if
temporary camps are allowed to become long-term places of confinement.
Under the 1951 Convention, refugees have the right to earn a
livelihood, to have a job and earn wages, to practice a profession, to
own property, and to
[[Page 13156]]
have freedom of movement and residence. Warehoused refugees can do none
of these things. Unable to work, travel, own property or obtain an
education, they live unlived lives, without the basic freedoms they are
entitled to have under the 1951 Convention.
This resolution denounces the practice of warehousing refugees and
calls for conditions that enable refugees to exercise their rights. It
encourages donor countries, including the United States, to increase
their assistance to host countries that allow refugees to live and work
among the local population.
It urges the Secretary of State and the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees to adopt models of refugee assistance that
achieve the rights recognized in the Refugee Convention. It also
encourages all nations to ratify the Convention, and without
reservations, and to enact legislation and policies that protect human
rights and end the denial of these rights to any refugees.
The U.S. must strengthen our own commitment and work with other
countries to solve this problem.
As a number of authorities have pointed out, we may well have to face
an urgent aspect of the issue ourselves if conditions in Iraq continue
to deteriorate and significant numbers of Iraqis are forced to become
refugees because of their ties to us.
Over 130 international organizations support the end of warehousing,
including more than 25 agencies based in the United States. Nobel
Laureates have condemned this practice, including Archbishop Desmond
Tutu of South Africa, and so has the Vatican.
We must find long-term solutions and alternatives to this abominable
practice. It is a gross violation of both refugee rights and human
rights. It is wrong to squander the immense human potential and condemn
human refugees to live in despair and isolation for unacceptable
lengths of time.
Refugees around the world depend on us to hear their pleas and
respond to the assistance they so desperately need and deserve. We must
do all we can to protect the rights and dignity of refugees everywhere.
I look forward to working with our colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, as well as in the international community, to pass this
important resolution and take steps toward implementing its provisions
and achieving its objectives.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 178--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE
UNITED STATES-EUROPEAN UNION SUMMIT
Mr. BENNETT (for himself and Mr. Lugar) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 178
Whereas over the past 55 years the United States and the
European Union have built a strong transatlantic partnership
based upon the common values of freedom, democracy, rule of
law, human rights, security, and economic development;
Whereas working together to promote these values globally
will serve the mutual political, economic, and security
interests of the United States and the European Union;
Whereas cooperation between the United States and the
European Union on global security issues such as terrorism,
the Middle East peace process, the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, ballistic missile technology, and the
nuclear activities of rogue nations is important for
promoting international peace and security;
Whereas the common efforts of the United States and the
European Union have supported freedom in countries such as
Lebanon, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Moldova, Belarus, and
Uzbekistan;
Whereas through coordination and cooperation during
emergencies such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami disaster,
the AIDS pandemic in Africa, and the ongoing situation in
Darfur, the United States and the European Union have
mitigated the effects of humanitarian disasters across the
globe;
Whereas economic cooperation such as removing impediments
to transatlantic trade and investment, expanding regulatory
dialogues and exchanges, integrating capitol markets, and
ensuring the safe and secure movement of people and goods
across the Atlantic will increase prosperity and strengthen
the partnership between the United States and the European
Union; and
Whereas although disagreements between the United States
and the European Union have existed on a variety of issues,
the transatlantic relationship remains strong and continues
to improve: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) welcomes the leadership of the European Union to the
2005 United States-European Union Summit to be held in
Washington, DC, on June 20, 2005;
(2) highlights the importance of the United States and the
European Union working together to address global challenges;
(3) recommends--
(A) expanded political dialogue between Congress and the
European Parliament; and
(B) that the 2005 United States-European Union Summit focus
on both short and long-term measures that will allow for
vigorous and active expansion of the transatlantic
relationship;
(4) encourages--
(A) the adoption of practical measures to expand the United
States-European Union economic relationship by reducing
obstacles that inhibit economic integration; and
(B) encourages continued strong and expanded cooperation
between Congress and the European Parliament on global
security issues.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 797. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Ms.
Cantwell, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Schumer, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Reed, Mr. Durbin, and Mrs. Murray) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill H.R. 6,
Reserved; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 798. Mr. PRYOR submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 6, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 799. Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Carper, and Mrs.
Feinstein) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 6, supra.
SA 800. Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Baucus) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R.
6, supra.
SA 801. Mrs. LINCOLN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 800 submitted by Mr. Grassley (for
himself and Mr. Baucus) to the bill H.R. 6, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 802. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 6, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 803. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 6, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 804. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 6, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 805. Mr. SCHUMER proposed an amendment to the bill H.R.
6 supra.
SA 806. Mrs. HUTCHISON submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by her to the bill H.R. 6, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 807. Mr. OBAMA submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 6, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 808. Mr. OBAMA (for himself and Mr. Lugar) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 6,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 797. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Collins, Mr. Reed, Mr. Durbin,
and Mrs. Murray) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her
to the bill H.R. 6, Reserved; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 424, line 9, strike ``SEC. 711'' and insert the
following:
SEC. 711. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Automobile Fuel Economy
Act of 2005''.
SEC. 712. INCREASED AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARD FOR LIGHT
TRUCKS.
(a) Definition of Light Truck.--Section 32901(a) of title
49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in each of paragraphs (1) through (14), by striking the
period at the end and inserting a semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (15), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and'';
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (12) through (16) as
paragraphs (13) through (17), respectively; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (11) the following:
``(12) `light truck' has the meaning given that term in
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation in
the administration of this chapter;''.
(b) Requirement for Increased Standard.--Section 32902(a)
of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``AUTOMOBILES.--'';
(2) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``Subject
to paragraph (2), the Secretary''; and
[[Page 13157]]
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) The average fuel economy standard for light trucks
manufactured by a manufacturer may not be less than--
``(A) 23.5 miles per gallon for model year 2008;
``(B) 24.8 miles per gallon for model year 2009;
``(C) 26.1 miles per gallon for model year 2010; and
``(D) 27.5 miles per gallon for model year 2011 and each
model year thereafter.''.
(c) Applicability.--Section 32902(a)(2) of title 49, United
States Code, as added by subsection (b)(3), shall not apply
with respect to light trucks manufactured before model year
2008.
SEC. 713. FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS FOR AUTOMOBILES UP TO 10,000
POUNDS GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT.
(a) Vehicles Defined as Automobiles.--Section 32901(a)(3)
of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking
``rated at--'' and all that follows and inserting ``rated at
not more than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on January 1, 2011.
SEC. 714. FUEL ECONOMY OF THE FEDERAL FLEET OF VEHICLES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``class of vehicles'' means a class of
vehicles for which an average fuel economy standard is in
effect under chapter 329 of title 49, United States Code;
(2) the term ``executive agency'' has the meaning given the
term in section 4(1) of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(1)); and
(3) the term ``new vehicle'', with respect to the fleet of
vehicles of an executive agency, means a vehicle procured by
or for the agency after September 30, 2007.
(b) Baseline Average Fuel Economy.--The head of each
executive agency shall determine the average fuel economy for
all of the vehicles in each class of vehicles in the agency's
fleet of vehicles in fiscal year 2006.
(c) Increase of Average Fuel Economy.--The head of each
executive agency shall manage the procurement of vehicles in
each class of vehicles for that agency to ensure that--
(1) not later than September 30, 2008, the average fuel
economy of the new vehicles in the agency's fleet of vehicles
in each class of vehicles is not less than 3 miles per gallon
higher than the baseline average fuel economy determined for
that class; and
(2) not later than September 30, 2011, the average fuel
economy of the new vehicles in the agency's fleet of vehicles
in each class of vehicles is not less than 6 miles per gallon
higher than the baseline average fuel economy determined for
that class.
(d) Calculation of Average Fuel Economy.--For purposes of
this section--
(1) average fuel economy shall be calculated in accordance
with guidance prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation
for the implementation of this section; and
(2) average fuel economy calculated under subsection (b)
for an agency's vehicles in a class of vehicles shall be the
baseline average fuel economy for the agency's fleet of
vehicles in that class.
SEC. 715.
______
SA 798. Mr. PRYOR submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 6, Reserved; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
On page 755, after line 25, add the following:
SEC. 13__. ALTERNATIVE FUELS REPORTS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
reports on the potential for each of biodiesel and hythane to
become major, sustainable, alternative fuels.
(b) Biodiesel Report.--The report relating to biodiesel
submitted under subsection (a) shall--
(1) provide a detailed assessment of--
(A) potential biodiesel markets and manufacturing capacity;
and
(B) environmental and energy security benefits with respect
to the use of biodiesel;
(2) identify any impediments, especially in infrastructure
needed for production, distribution, and storage, to
biodiesel becoming a substantial source of fuel for
conventional diesel and heating oil applications;
(3) identify strategies to enhance the commercial
deployment of biodiesel; and
(4) include an examination and recommendations, as
appropriate, of the ways in which biodiesel may be modified
to be a cleaner-burning fuel.
(c) Hythane Report.--The report relating to hythane
submitted under subsection (a) shall--
(1) provide a detailed assessment of potential hythane
markets and the research and development activities that are
necessary to facilitate the commercialization of hythane as a
competitive, environmentally-friendly transportation fuel;
(2) address--
(A) the infrastructure necessary to produce, blend,
distribute, and store hythane for widespread commercial
purposes; and
(B) other potential market barriers to the
commercialization of hythane;
(3) examine the viability of producing hydrogen using
energy-efficient, environmentally friendly methods so that
the hydrogen can be blended with natural gas to produce
hythane; and
(4) include an assessment of the modifications that would
be required to convert compressed natural gas vehicle engines
to engines that use hythane as fuel.
(d) Grants for Report Completion.--The Secretary may use
such sums as are available to the Secretary to provide, to 1
or more colleges or universities selected by the Secretary,
grants for use in carrying out research to assist the
Secretary in preparing the reports required to be submitted
under subsection (a).
______
SA 799. Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Carper, and Mrs. Feinstein)
proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 6, Reserved; as follows:
On page 446, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
Subtitle E--Diesel Emissions Reduction
SEC. 741. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Certified engine configuration.--The term ``certified
engine configuration'' means a new, rebuilt, or
remanufactured engine configuration--
(A) that has been certified or verified by--
(i) the Administrator; or
(ii) the California Air Resources Board;
(B) that meets or is rebuilt or remanufactured to a more
stringent set of engine emission standards, as determined by
the Administrator; and
(C) in the case of a certified engine configuration
involving the replacement of an existing engine or vehicle,
an engine configuration that replaced an engine that was--
(i) removed from the vehicle; and
(ii) returned to the supplier for remanufacturing to a more
stringent set of engine emissions standards or for scrappage.
(3) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means--
(A) a regional, State, local, or tribal agency with
jurisdiction over transportation or air quality; and
(B) a nonprofit organization or institution that--
(i) represents organizations that own or operate diesel
fleets; or
(ii) has, as its principal purpose, the promotion of
transportation or air quality.
(4) Emerging technology.--The term ``emerging technology''
means a technology that is not certified or verified by the
Administrator or the California Air Resources Board but for
which an approvable application and test plan has been
submitted for verification to the Administrator or the
California Air Resources Board.
(5) Heavy-duty truck.--The term ``heavy-duty truck'' has
the meaning given the term ``heavy duty vehicle'' in section
202 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521).
(6) Medium-duty truck.--The term ``medium-duty truck'' has
such meaning as shall be determined by the Administrator, by
regulation.
(7) Verified technology.--The term ``verified technology''
means a pollution control technology, including a retrofit
technology, that has been verified by--
(A) the Administrator; or
(B) the California Air Resources Board.
SEC. 742. NATIONAL GRANT AND LOAN PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--The Administrator shall use 70 percent of
the funds made available to carry out this subtitle for each
fiscal year to provide grants and low-cost revolving loans,
as determined by the Administrator, on a competitive basis,
to eligible entities to achieve significant reductions in
diesel emissions in terms of--
(1) tons of pollution produced; and
(2) diesel emissions exposure, particularly from fleets
operating in areas designated by the Administrator as poor
air quality areas.
(b) Distribution.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall distribute funds
made available for a fiscal year under this subtitle in
accordance with this section.
(2) Fleets.--The Administrator shall provide not less than
50 percent of funds available for a fiscal year under this
section to eligible entities for the benefit of public
fleets.
(3) Engine configurations and technologies.--
(A) Certified engine configurations and verified
technologies.--The Administrator shall provide not less than
90 percent of funds available for a fiscal year under this
section to eligible entities for projects using--
(i) a certified engine configuration; or
(ii) a verified technology.
(B) Emerging technologies.--
(i) In general.--The Administrator shall provide not more
than 10 percent of funds available for a fiscal year under
this section to eligible entities for the development and
commercialization of emerging technologies.
(ii) Application and test plan.--To receive funds under
clause (i), a manufacturer, in consultation with an eligible
entity, shall submit for verification to the Administrator
[[Page 13158]]
or the California Air Resources Board a test plan for the
emerging technology, together with the application under
subsection (c).
(c) Applications.--
(1) In general.--To receive a grant or loan under this
section, an eligible entity shall submit to the Administrator
an application at a time, in a manner, and including such
information as the Administrator may require.
(2) Inclusions.--An application under this subsection shall
include--
(A) a description of the air quality of the area served by
the eligible entity;
(B) the quantity of air pollution produced by the diesel
fleet in the area served by the eligible entity;
(C) a description of the project proposed by the eligible
entity, including--
(i) any certified engine configuration, verified
technology, or emerging technology to be used by the eligible
entity; and
(ii) the means by which the project will achieve a
significant reduction in diesel emissions;
(D) an evaluation (using methodology approved by the
Administrator or the National Academy of Sciences) of the
quantifiable and unquantifiable benefits of the emissions
reductions of the proposed project;
(E) an estimate of the cost of the proposed project;
(F) a description of the age and expected lifetime control
of the equipment used by the eligible entity;
(G) a description of the diesel fuel available to the
eligible entity, including the sulfur content of the fuel;
and
(H) provisions for the monitoring and verification of the
project.
(3) Priority.--In providing a grant or loan under this
section, the Administrator shall give priority to proposed
projects that, as determined by the Administrator--
(A) maximize public health benefits;
(B) are the most cost-effective;
(C) serve areas--
(i) with the highest population density;
(ii) that are poor air quality areas, including areas
identified by the Administrator as--
(I) in nonattainment or maintenance of national ambient air
quality standards for a criteria pollutant;
(II) Federal Class I areas; or
(III) areas with toxic air pollutant concerns;
(iii) that receive a disproportionate quantity of air
pollution from a diesel fleet, including ports, rail yards,
and distribution centers; or
(iv) that use a community-based multistakeholder
collaborative process to reduce toxic emissions;
(D) include a certified engine configuration, verified
technology, or emerging technology that has a long expected
useful life;
(E) will maximize the useful life of any retrofit
technology used by the eligible entity; and
(F) use diesel fuel with a sulfur content of less than or
equal to 15 parts per million, as the Administrator
determines to be appropriate.
(d) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--An eligible entity may use a grant or loan
provided under this section to fund the costs of--
(A) a retrofit technology (including any incremental costs
of a repowered or new diesel engine) that significantly
reduces emissions through development and implementation of a
certified engine configuration, verified technology, or
emerging technology for--
(i) a bus;
(ii) a medium-duty truck or a heavy-duty truck;
(iii) a marine engine;
(iv) a locomotive; or
(v) a nonroad engine or vehicle used in--
(I) construction;
(II) handling of cargo (including at a port or airport);
(III) agriculture;
(IV) mining; or
(V) energy production; or
(B) an idle-reduction program involving a vehicle or
equipment described in subparagraph (A).
(2) Regulatory programs.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), no grant or
loan provided under this section shall be used to fund the
costs of emissions reductions that are mandated under
Federal, State or local law.
(B) Mandated.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), voluntary
or elective emission reduction measures shall not be
considered ``mandated'', regardless of whether the reductions
are included in the State implementation plan of a State.
SEC. 743. STATE GRANT AND LOAN PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Subject to the availability of adequate
appropriations, the Administrator shall use 30 percent of the
funds made available for a fiscal year under this subtitle to
support grant and loan programs administered by States that
are designed to achieve significant reductions in diesel
emissions.
(b) Applications.--The Administrator shall--
(1) provide to States guidance for use in applying for
grant or loan funds under this section, including information
regarding--
(A) the process and forms for applications;
(B) permissible uses of funds received; and
(C) the cost-effectiveness of various emission reduction
technologies eligible to be carried out using funds provided
under this section; and
(2) establish, for applications described in paragraph
(1)--
(A) an annual deadline for submission of the applications;
(B) a process by which the Administrator shall approve or
disapprove each application; and
(C) a streamlined process by which a State may renew an
application described in paragraph (1) for subsequent fiscal
years.
(c) Allocation of Funds.--
(1) In general.--For each fiscal year, the Administrator
shall allocate among States for which applications are
approved by the Administrator under subsection (b)(2)(B)
funds made available to carry out this section for the fiscal
year.
(2) Allocation.--Using not more than 20 percent of the
funds made available to carry out this subtitle for a fiscal
year, the Administrator shall provide to each State described
in paragraph (1) for the fiscal year an allocation of funds
that is equal to--
(A) if each of the 50 States qualifies for an allocation,
an amount equal to 2 percent of the funds made available to
carry out this section; or
(B) if fewer than 50 States qualifies for an allocation, an
amount equal to the amount described in subparagraph (A),
plus an additional amount equal to the product obtained by
multiplying--
(i) the proportion that--
(I) the population of the State; bears to
(II) the population of all States described in paragraph
(1); by
(ii) the amount of funds remaining after each State
described in paragraph (1) receives the 2-percent allocation
under this paragraph.
(3) State matching incentive.--
(A) In general.--If a State agrees to match the allocation
provided to the State under paragraph (2) for a fiscal year,
the Administrator shall provide to the State for the fiscal
year an additional amount equal to 50 percent of the
allocation of the State under paragraph (2).
(B) Requirements.--A State--
(i) may not use funds received under this subtitle to pay a
matching share required under this subsection; and
(ii) shall not be required to provide a matching share for
any additional amount received under subparagraph (A).
(4) Unclaimed funds.--Any funds that are not claimed by a
State for a fiscal year under this subsection shall be used
to carry out section 742.
(d) Administration.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) and, to
the extent practicable, the priority areas listed in section
742(c)(3), a State shall use any funds provided under this
section to develop and implement such grant and low-cost
revolving loan programs in the State as are appropriate to
meet State needs and goals relating to the reduction of
diesel emissions.
(2) Apportionment of funds.--The Governor of a State that
receives funding under this section may determine the portion
of funds to be provided as grants or loans.
(3) Use of funds.--A grant or loan provided under this
section may be used for a project relating to--
(A) a certified engine configuration; or
(B) a verified technology.
SEC. 744. EVALUATION AND REPORT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and biennially thereafter, the
Administrator shall submit to Congress a report evaluating
the implementation of the programs under this subtitle.
(b) Inclusions.--The report shall include a description
of--
(1) the total number of grant applications received;
(2) each grant or loan made under this subtitle, including
the amount of the grant or loan;
(3) each project for which a grant or loan is provided
under this subtitle, including the criteria used to select
the grant or loan recipients;
(4) the estimated air quality benefits, cost-effectiveness,
and cost-benefits of the grant and loan programs under this
subtitle;
(5) the problems encountered by projects for which a grant
or loan is provided under this subtitle; and
(6) any other information the Administrator considers to be
appropriate.
SEC. 745. OUTREACH AND INCENTIVES.
(a) Definition of Eligible Technology.--In this section,
the term ``eligible technology'' means--
(1) a verified technology; or
(2) an emerging technology.
(b) Technology Transfer Program.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall establish a
program under which the Administrator--
(A) informs stakeholders of the benefits of eligible
technologies; and
(B) develops nonfinancial incentives to promote the use of
eligible technologies.
(2) Eligible stakeholders.--Eligible stakeholders under
this section include--
(A) equipment owners and operators;
(B) emission control technology manufacturers;
[[Page 13159]]
(C) engine and equipment manufacturers;
(D) State and local officials responsible for air quality
management;
(E) community organizations; and
(F) public health and environmental organizations.
(c) State Implementation Plans.--The Administrator shall
develop appropriate guidance to provide credit to a State for
emission reductions in the State created by the use of
eligible technologies through a State implementation plan
under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7410).
(d) International Markets.--The Administrator, in
coordination with the Department of Commerce and industry
stakeholders, shall inform foreign countries with air quality
problems of the potential of technology developed or used in
the United States to provide emission reductions in those
countries.
SEC. 746. EFFECT OF SUBTITLE.
Nothing in this subtitle affects any authority under the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) in existence on the
day before the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 747. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subtitle $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through
2010, to remain available until expended.
______
SA 800. Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Baucus) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 6, Reserved;
as follows:
At the end add the following:
TITLE XV--ENERGY POLICY TAX INCENTIVES
SEC. 1500. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE; TABLE OF
CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Energy
Policy Tax Incentives Act of 2005''.
(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this title an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
title is as follows:
TITLE XV--ENERGY POLICY TAX INCENTIVES
Sec. 1500. Short title; amendment of 1986 Code; table of contents.
Subtitle A--Electricity Infrastructure
Sec. 1501. Extension and modification of renewable electricity
production credit.
Sec. 1502. Clean renewable energy bonds.
Sec. 1503. Treatment of income of certain electric cooperatives.
Sec. 1504. Dispositions of transmission property to implement FERC
restructuring policy.
Sec. 1505. Credit for production from advanced nuclear power
facilities.
Sec. 1506. Credit for investment in clean coal facilities.
Sec. 1507. Clean energy coal bonds.
Subtitle B--Domestic Fossil Fuel Security
Sec. 1511. Credit for investment in clean coke/cogeneration
manufacturing facilities.
Sec. 1512. Temporary expensing for equipment used in refining of liquid
fuels.
Sec. 1513. Pass through to patrons of deduction for capital costs
incurred by small refiner cooperatives in complying with
Environmental Protection Agency sulfur regulations.
Sec. 1514. Modifications to enhanced oil recovery credit.
Sec. 1515. Natural gas distribution lines treated as 15-year property.
Subtitle C--Conservation and Energy Efficiency Provisions
Sec. 1521. Energy efficient commercial buildings deduction.
Sec. 1522. Credit for construction of new energy efficient homes.
Sec. 1523. Deduction for business energy property.
Sec. 1524. Credit for certain nonbusiness energy property.
Sec. 1525. Energy credit for combined heat and power system property.
Sec. 1526. Credit for energy efficient appliances.
Sec. 1527. Credit for residential energy efficient property.
Sec. 1528. Credit for business installation of qualified fuel cells and
stationary microturbine power plants.
Sec. 1529. Business solar investment tax credit.
Subtitle D--Alternative motor Vehicles and Fuels Incentives
Sec. 1531. Alternative motor vehicle credit.
Sec. 1532. Modification of credit for qualified electric vehicles.
Sec. 1533. Credit for installation of alternative fueling stations.
Sec. 1534. Volumetric excise tax credit for alternative fuels.
Sec. 1535. Extension of excise tax provisions and income tax credit for
biodiesel.
Subtitle E--Additional Energy Tax Incentives
Sec. 1541. Ten-year recovery period for underground natural gas storage
facility property.
Sec. 1542. Expansion of research credit.
Sec. 1543. Small agri-biodiesel producer credit.
Sec. 1544. Improvements to small ethanol producer credit.
Sec. 1545. Credit for equipment for processing or sorting materials
gathered through recycling.
Sec. 1546. 5-year net operating loss carryover if any resulting refund
is used for electric transmission equipment.
Sec. 1547. Credit for qualifying pollution control equipment.
Sec. 1548. Credit for production of Indian Country coal.
Sec. 1549. Credit for replacement wood stoves meeting environmental
standards in non-attainment areas.
Sec. 1550. Exemption for equipment for transporting bulk beds of farm
crops from excise tax on retail sale of heavy trucks and
trailers.
Sec. 1551. National Academy of Sciences study and report.
Subtitle F--Revenue Raising Provisions
Sec. 1561. Treatment of kerosene for use in aviation.
Sec. 1562. Repeal of ultimate vendor refund claims with respect to
farming.
Sec. 1563. Refunds of excise taxes on exempt sales of fuel by credit
card.
Sec. 1564. Additional requirement for exempt purchases.
Sec. 1565. Reregistration in event of change in ownership.
Sec. 1566. Treatment of deep-draft vessels.
Sec. 1567. Reconciliation of on-loaded cargo to entered cargo.
Sec. 1568. Taxation of gasoline blendstocks and kerosene.
Sec. 1569. Nonapplication of export exemption to delivery of fuel to
motor vehicles removed from United States.
Sec. 1570. Penalty with respect to certain adulterated fuels.
Sec. 1571. Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund financing rate.
Sec. 1572. Extension of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
financing rate.
Subtitle A--Electricity Infrastructure
SEC. 1501. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF RENEWABLE
ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION CREDIT.
(a) 3-Year Extension for Certain Facilities.--Section 45(d)
(relating to qualified facilities) is amended--
(1) by striking ``January 1, 2006'' each place it appears
in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5), (6), and (7) and inserting
``January 1, 2009'', and
(2) by striking ``January 1, 2006'' in paragraph (4) and
inserting ``January 1, 2009 (January 1, 2006, in the case of
a facility using solar energy)''.
(b) Increase in Credit Period.--Section 45(b)(4)(B)
(relating to credit period) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or clause (iii)'' after ``clause (ii)''
in clause (i), and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) Termination.--Clause (i) shall not apply to any
facility placed in service after the date of the enactment of
this clause.''.
(c) Expansion of Qualified Resources To Include Fuel
Cells.--
(1) In general.--Section 45(c)(1) (defining qualified
energy resources) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end
of subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (G) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(H) fuel cells.''.
(2) Fuel cell facility.--Section 45(d) (relating to
qualified facilities) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(9) Fuel cell facility.--In the case of a facility using
an integrated system comprised of a fuel cell stack assembly
and associated balance of plant components which converts a
fuel into electricity using electrochemical means, the term
`qualified facility' means any facility owned by the taxpayer
which--
``(A) is originally placed in service after December 31,
2005, and before January 1, 2009,
``(B) has a nameplate capacity rating of at least 0.5
megawatt of electricity, and
``(C) has an electricity-only generation efficiency greater
than 30 percent.''.
(3) Conforming amendments relating to coordination with
energy credit.--
(A) In general.--Section 45(e) (relating to definitions and
special rules) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(10) Coordination with energy credit.--The term
`qualified facility' shall not include any property described
in section 48(a)(3) the basis of which is taken into account
by the taxpayer for purposes of determining the energy credit
under section 48.''.
[[Page 13160]]
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 45(d)(4) is amended by
striking the last sentence.
(d) Expansion of Qualified Resources To Certain
Hydropower.--
(1) In general.--Section 45(c)(1) (defining qualified
energy resources), as amended by this Act, is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (G), by striking
the period at the end of subparagraph (H) and inserting ``,
and'', and by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(I) qualified hydropower production.''.
(2) Credit rate.--Section 45(b)(4)(A) (relating to credit
rate) is amended by striking ``or (7)'' and inserting ``(7),
or (10)''.
(3) Definition of resources.--Section 45(c) (relating to
qualified energy resources and refined coal) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Qualified hydropower production.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified hydropower
production' means--
``(i) in the case of any hydroelectric dam which was placed
in service on or before the date of the enactment of this
paragraph, the incremental hydropower production for the
taxable year, and
``(ii) in the case of any low-head hydroelectric facility
or nonhydroelectric dam described in subparagraph (C), the
hydropower production from the facility for the taxable year.
``(B) Determination of incremental hydropower production.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A),
incremental hydropower production for any taxable year shall
be equal to the percentage of average annual hydropower
production at the facility attributable to the efficiency
improvements or additions of capacity placed in service after
the date of the enactment of this paragraph, determined by
using the same water flow information used to determine an
historic average annual hydropower production baseline for
such facility. Such percentage and baseline shall be
certified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
``(ii) Operational changes disregarded.--For purposes of
clause (i), the determination of incremental hydropower
production shall not be based on any operational changes at
such facility not directly associated with the efficiency
improvements or additions of capacity.
``(C) Low-head hydroelectric facility or nonhydroelectric
dam.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a facility is
described in this subparagraph if--
``(i) the facility is licensed by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and meets all other applicable
environmental, licensing, and regulatory requirements,
``(ii) the facility did not produce hydroelectric power on
the date of the enactment of this paragraph, and
``(iii) turbines or other generating devices are to be
added to the facility after such date to produce
hydroelectric power, but only if the installation of the
turbine or other generating device does not require any
enlargement of the diversion structure or the impoundment or
any withholding of any additional water from the natural
stream channel.
``(D) Low-head hydroelectric facility defined.--For
purposes of this paragraph, the term `low-head hydroelectric
facility' means a minor diversion structure which is less
than 10 feet in height.''.
(3) Facilities.--Section 45(d) (relating to qualified
facilities), as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(10) Qualified hydropower facility.--In the case of a
facility producing qualified hydroelectric production
described in subsection (c)(8), the term `qualified facility'
means--
``(A) in the case of any facility producing incremental
hydropower production, such facility but only to the extent
of its incremental hydropower production attributable to
efficiency improvements or additions to capacity described in
subsection (c)(8)(B) placed in service after the date of the
enactment of this paragraph and before January 1, 2009, and
``(B) any other facility placed in service after the date
of the enactment of this paragraph and before January 1,
2009.
``(C) Credit period.--In the case of a qualified facility
described in subparagraph (A), the 10-year period referred to
in subsection (a) shall be treated as beginning on the date
the efficiency improvements or additions to capacity are
placed in service.''.
(e) Technical Amendment Related To Trash Combustion
Facilities.--Section 45(d)(7) (relating to trash combustion
facilities) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Such term shall include a new unit placed in service in
connection with a facility placed in service on or before the
date of the enactment of this paragraph, but only to the
extent of the increased amount of electricity produced at the
facility by reason of such new unit.''.
(f) Additional Technical Amendments Related To Section 710
of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.--
(1) Clause (ii) of section 45(b)(4)(B) is amended by
striking ``the date of the enactment of this Act'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2005,''.
(2) Clause (ii) of section 45(c)(3)(A) is amended by
inserting ``or any nonhazardous lignin waste material'' after
``cellulosic waste material''.
(3) Subsection (e) of section 45 is amended by striking
paragraph (6).
(4)(A) Paragraph (9) of section 45(e) is amended to read as
follows:
``(9) Coordination with credit for producing fuel from a
nonconventional source.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified facility' shall not
include any facility which produces electricity from gas
derived from the biodegradation of municipal solid waste if
such biodegradation occurred in a facility (within the
meaning of section 29) the production from which is allowed
as a credit under section 29 for the taxable year or any
prior taxable year.
``(B) Refined coal facilities.--The term `refined coal
production facility' shall not include any facility the
production from which is allowed as a credit under section 29
for the taxable year or any prior taxable year.''.
(B) Subparagraph (C) of section 45(e)(8) is amended by
striking ``and (9)''.
(5) Subclause (I) of section 168(e)(3)(B)(vi) is amended to
read as follows:
``(I) is described in subparagraph (A) of section 48(a)(3)
(or would be so described if `solar and wind' were
substituted for `solar' in clause (i) thereof and the last
sentence of such section did not apply to such
subparagraph),''.
(6) Paragraph (4) of section 710(g) of the American Jobs
Creation Act of 2004 is amended by striking ``January 1,
2004'' and inserting ``January 1, 2005''.
(g) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall take effect of the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Technical amendments.--The amendments made by
subsections (e) and (f) shall take effect as if included in
the amendments made by section 710 of the American Jobs
Creation Act of 2004.
SEC. 1502. CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY BONDS.
(a) In General.--Part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1
(relating to credits against tax) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subpart:
``Subpart H--Nonrefundable Credit to Holders of Certain Bonds
``Sec. 54. Credit to holders of clean renewable energy bonds.
``SEC. 54. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY BONDS.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--If a taxpayer holds a clean
renewable energy bond on 1 or more credit allowance dates of
the bond occurring during any taxable year, there shall be
allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter
for the taxable year an amount equal to the sum of the
credits determined under subsection (b) with respect to such
dates.
``(b) Amount of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the credit determined
under this subsection with respect to any credit allowance
date for a clean renewable energy bond is 25 percent of the
annual credit determined with respect to such bond.
``(2) Annual credit.--The annual credit determined with
respect to any clean renewable energy bond is the product
of--
``(A) the credit rate determined by the Secretary under
paragraph (3) for the day on which such bond was sold,
multiplied by
``(B) the outstanding face amount of the bond.
``(3) Determination.--For purposes of paragraph (2), with
respect to any clean renewable energy bond, the Secretary
shall determine daily or cause to be determined daily a
credit rate which shall apply to the first day on which there
is a binding, written contract for the sale or exchange of
the bond. The credit rate for any day is the credit rate
which the Secretary or the Secretary's designee estimates
will permit the issuance of clean renewable energy bonds with
a specified maturity or redemption date without discount and
without interest cost to the qualified issuer.
``(4) Credit allowance date.--For purposes of this section,
the term `credit allowance date' means--
``(A) March 15,
``(B) June 15,
``(C) September 15, and
``(D) December 15.
Such term also includes the last day on which the bond is
outstanding.
``(5) Special rule for issuance and redemption.--In the
case of a bond which is issued during the 3-month period
ending on a credit allowance date, the amount of the credit
determined under this subsection with respect to such credit
allowance date shall be a ratable portion of the credit
otherwise determined based on the portion of the 3-month
period during which the bond is outstanding. A similar rule
shall apply when the bond is redeemed or matures.
``(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--The credit
allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not
exceed the excess of--
``(1) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
[[Page 13161]]
``(2) the sum of the credits allowable under this part
(other than subpart C thereof (relating to refundable
credits) and this subpart) and section 1397E.
``(d) Clean Renewable Energy Bond.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--The term `clean renewable energy bond'
means any bond issued as part of an issue if--
``(A) the bond is issued by a qualified issuer pursuant to
an allocation by the Secretary to such issuer of a portion of
the national clean renewable energy bond limitation under
subsection (f)(2),
``(B) 95 percent or more of the proceeds from the sale of
such issue are to be used for capital expenditures incurred
by qualified borrowers for 1 or more qualified projects,
``(C) the qualified issuer designates such bond for
purposes of this section and the bond is in registered form,
and
``(D) the issue meets the requirements of subsection (h).
``(2) Qualified project; special use rules.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified project' means any
qualified facility (as determined under section 45(d) without
regard to any placed in service date) owned by a qualified
borrower.
``(B) Refinancing rules.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B),
a qualified project may be refinanced with proceeds of a
clean renewable energy bond only if the indebtedness being
refinanced (including any obligation directly or indirectly
refinanced by such indebtedness) was originally incurred by a
qualified borrower after the date of the enactment of this
section.
``(C) Reimbursement.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), a
clean renewable energy bond may be issued to reimburse a
qualified borrower for amounts paid after the date of the
enactment of this section with respect to a qualified
project, but only if--
``(i) prior to the payment of the original expenditure, the
qualified borrower declared its intent to reimburse such
expenditure with the proceeds of a clean renewable energy
bond,
``(ii) not later than 60 days after payment of the original
expenditure, the qualified issuer adopts an official intent
to reimburse the original expenditure with such proceeds, and
``(iii) the reimbursement is made not later than 18 months
after the date the original expenditure is paid.
``(D) Treatment of changes in use.--For purposes of
paragraph (1)(B), the proceeds of an issue shall not be
treated as used for a qualified project to the extent that a
qualified borrower takes any action within its control which
causes such proceeds not to be used for a qualified project.
The Secretary shall prescribe regulations specifying remedial
actions that may be taken (including conditions to taking
such remedial actions) to prevent an action described in the
preceding sentence from causing a bond to fail to be a clean
renewable energy bond.
``(e) Maturity Limitations.--
``(1) Duration of term.--A bond shall not be treated as a
clean renewable energy bond if the maturity of such bond
exceeds the maximum term determined by the Secretary under
paragraph (2) with respect to such bond.
``(2) Maximum term.--During each calendar month, the
Secretary shall determine the maximum term permitted under
this paragraph for bonds issued during the following calendar
month. Such maximum term shall be the term which the
Secretary estimates will result in the present value of the
obligation to repay the principal on the bond being equal to
50 percent of the face amount of such bond. Such present
value shall be determined using as a discount rate the
average annual interest rate of tax of tax-exempt obligations
having a term of 10 years or more which are issued during the
month. If the term as so determined is not a multiple of a
whole year, such term shall be rounded to the next highest
whole year.
``(3) Ratable principal amortization required.--A bond
shall not be treated as a clean renewable energy bond unless
it is part of an issue which provides for an equal amount of
principal to be paid by the qualified issuer during each
calendar year that the issue is outstanding.
``(f) Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
``(1) National limitation.--There is a national clean
renewable energy bond limitation of $1,000,000,000.
``(2) Allocation by secretary.--The Secretary shall
allocate the amount described in paragraph (1) among
qualified projects in such manner as the Secretary determines
appropriate.
``(g) Credit Included in Gross Income.--Gross income
includes the amount of the credit allowed to the taxpayer
under this section (determined without regard to subsection
(c)) and the amount so included shall be treated as interest
income.
``(h) Special Rules Relating to Expenditures.--
``(1) In general.--An issue shall be treated as meeting the
requirements of this subsection if, as of the date of
issuance, the qualified issuer reasonably expects--
``(A) at least 95 percent of the proceeds from the sale of
the issue are to be spent for 1 or more qualified projects
within the 5-year period beginning on the date of issuance of
the clean energy bond,
``(B) a binding commitment with a third party to spend at
least 10 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the issue
will be incurred within the 6-month period beginning on the
date of issuance of the clean energy bond or, in the case of
a clean energy bond the proceeds of which are to be loaned to
2 or more qualified borrowers, such binding commitment will
be incurred within the 6-month period beginning on the date
of the loan of such proceeds to a qualified borrower, and
``(C) such projects will be completed with due diligence
and the proceeds from the sale of the issue will be spent
with due diligence.
``(2) Extension of period.--Upon submission of a request
prior to the expiration of the period described in paragraph
(1)(A), the Secretary may extend such period if the qualified
issuer establishes that the failure to satisfy the 5-year
requirement is due to reasonable cause and the related
projects will continue to proceed with due diligence.
``(3) Failure to spend required amount of bond proceeds
within 5 years.--To the extent that less than 95 percent of
the proceeds of such issue are expended by the close of the
5-year period beginning on the date of issuance (or if an
extension has been obtained under paragraph (2), by the close
of the extended period), the qualified issuer shall redeem
all of the nonqualified bonds within 90 days after the end of
such period. For purposes of this paragraph, the amount of
the nonqualified bonds required to be redeemed shall be
determined in the same manner as under section 142.
``(i) Special Rules Relating to Arbitrage.--A bond which is
part of an issue shall not be treated as a clean renewable
energy bond unless, with respect to the issue of which the
bond is a part, the qualified issuer satisfies the arbitrage
requirements of section 148 with respect to proceeds of the
issue.
``(j) Cooperative Electric Company; Qualified Energy Tax
Credit Bond Lender; Governmental Body; Qualified Borrower.--
For purposes of this section--
``(1) Cooperative electric company.--The term `cooperative
electric company' means a mutual or cooperative electric
company described in section 501(c)(12) or section
1381(a)(2)(C), or a not-for-profit electric utility which has
received a loan or loan guarantee under the Rural
Electrification Act.
``(2) Clean renewable energy bond lender.--The term `clean
renewable energy bond lender' means a lender which is a
cooperative which is owned by, or has outstanding loans to,
100 or more cooperative electric companies and is in
existence on February 1, 2002, and shall include any
affiliated entity which is controlled by such lender.
``(3) Governmental body.--The term `governmental body'
means any State, territory, possession of the United States,
the District of Columbia, Indian tribal government, and any
political subdivision thereof.
``(4) Qualified issuer.--The term `qualified issuer'
means--
``(A) a clean renewable energy bond lender,
``(B) a cooperative electric company,
``(C) a governmental body, or
``(D) the Tennessee Valley Authority.
``(5) Qualified borrower.--The term `qualified borrower'
means--
``(A) a mutual or cooperative electric company described in
section 501(c)(12) or 1381(a)(2)(C),
``(B) a governmental body, or
``(C) the Tennessee Valley Authority.
``(k) Special Rules Relating to Pool Bonds.--No portion of
a pooled financing bond may be allocable to any loan unless
the borrower has entered into a written loan commitment for
such portion prior to the issue date of such issue.
``(l) Other Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) Bond.--The term `bond' includes any obligation.
``(2) Pooled financing bond.--The term `pooled financing
bond' shall have the meaning given such term by section
149(f)(4)(A).
``(3) Partnership; s corporation; and other pass-thru
entities.--
``(A) In general.--Under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary, in the case of a partnership, trust, S
corporation, or other pass-thru entity, rules similar to the
rules of section 41(g) shall apply with respect to the credit
allowable under subsection (a).
``(B) No basis adjustment.--Rules similar to the rules
under section 1397E(i)(2) shall apply.
``(4) Bonds held by regulated investment companies.--If any
clean renewable energy bond is held by a regulated investment
company, the credit determined under subsection (a) shall be
allowed to shareholders of such company under procedures
prescribed by the Secretary.
``(5) Treatment for estimated tax purposes.--Solely for
purposes of sections 6654 and 6655, the credit allowed by
this section to a taxpayer by reason of holding a clean
renewable energy bond on a credit allowance date shall be
treated as if it were a payment of estimated tax made by the
taxpayer on such date.
``(6) Reporting.--Issuers of clean renewable energy bonds
shall submit reports similar to the reports required under
section 149(e).
[[Page 13162]]
``(m) Termination.--This section shall not apply with
respect to any bond issued after December 31, 2008.''.
(b) Reporting.--Subsection (d) of section 6049 (relating to
returns regarding payments of interest) is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Reporting of credit on clean renewable energy
bonds.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term
`interest' includes amounts includible in gross income under
section 54(g) and such amounts shall be treated as paid on
the credit allowance date (as defined in section 54(b)(4)).
``(B) Reporting to corporations, etc.--Except as otherwise
provided in regulations, in the case of any interest
described in subparagraph (A), subsection (b)(4) shall be
applied without regard to subparagraphs (A), (H), (I), (J),
(K), and (L)(i) of such subsection.
``(C) Regulatory authority.--The Secretary may prescribe
such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations which
require more frequent or more detailed reporting.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The table of subparts for part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
``SUBPART H. NONREFUNDABLE CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF CERTAIN BONDS.''.
(2) Section 1397E(c)(2) is amended by inserting ``and H''
after ``subpart C''.
(3) Section 6401(b)(1) is amended by striking ``and G'' and
inserting ``G, and H''.
(d) Issuance of Regulations.--The Secretary of Treasury
shall issue regulations required under section 54 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section) not
later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after December 31, 2005.
SEC. 1503. TREATMENT OF INCOME OF CERTAIN ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVES.
(a) Elimination of Sunset on Treatment of Income From Open
Access and Nuclear Decommissioning Transactions.--Section
501(c)(12)(C) is amended by striking the last sentence.
(b) Elimination of Sunset on Treatment of Income From Load
Loss Transactions.--Section 501(c)(12)(H) is amended by
striking clause (x).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1504. DISPOSITIONS OF TRANSMISSION PROPERTY TO IMPLEMENT
FERC RESTRUCTURING POLICY.
(a) In General.--Section 451(i)(3) (defining qualifying
electric transmission transaction) is amended by striking
``2007'' and inserting ``2008''.
(b) Technical Amendment Related To Section 909 of the
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.--Clause (ii) of section
451(i)(4)(B) is amended by striking ``the close of the period
applicable under subsection (a)(2)(B) as extended under
paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``December 31, 2007''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall
apply to transactions occurring after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(2) Technical amendment.--The amendment made by subsection
(b) shall take effect as if included in the amendments made
by section 909 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
SEC. 1505. CREDIT FOR PRODUCTION FROM ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER
FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to business related credits) is amended
by adding after section 45I the following new section:
``SEC. 45J. CREDIT FOR PRODUCTION FROM ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER
FACILITIES.
``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the
advanced nuclear power facility production credit of any
taxpayer for any taxable year is equal to the product of--
``(1) 1.8 cents, multiplied by
``(2) the kilowatt hours of electricity--
``(A) produced by the taxpayer at an advanced nuclear power
facility during the 8-year period beginning on the date the
facility was originally placed in service, and
``(B) sold by the taxpayer to an unrelated person during
the taxable year.
``(b) National Limitation.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of credit which would (but
for this subsection and subsection (c)) be allowed with
respect to any facility for any taxable year shall not exceed
the amount which bears the same ratio to such amount of
credit as--
``(A) the national megawatt capacity limitation allocated
to the facility, bears to
``(B) the total megawatt nameplate capacity of such
facility.
``(2) Amount of national limitation.--The national megawatt
capacity limitation shall be 6,000 megawatts.
``(3) Allocation of limitation.--The Secretary shall
allocate the national megawatt capacity limitation in such
manner as the Secretary may prescribe.
``(4) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
prescribe such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate
to carry out the purposes of this subsection. Such
regulations shall provide a certification process under which
the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of
Energy, shall approve and allocate the national megawatt
capacity limitation.
``(c) Other Limitations.--
``(1) Annual limitation.--The amount of the credit
allowable under subsection (a) (after the application of
subsection (b)) for any taxable year with respect to any
facility shall not exceed an amount which bears the same
ratio to $125,000,000 as--
``(A) the national megawatt capacity limitation allocated
under subsection (b) to the facility, bears to
``(B) 1,000.
``(2) Other limitations.--Rules similar to the rules of
section 45(b)(1) shall apply for purposes of this section.
``(d) Advanced Nuclear Power Facility.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `advanced nuclear power
facility' means any advanced nuclear facility--
``(A) which is owned by the taxpayer and which uses nuclear
energy to produce electricity, and
``(B) which is placed in service after the date of the
enactment of this paragraph and before January 1, 2021.
``(2) Advanced nuclear facility.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the term `advanced nuclear facility' means any nuclear
facility the reactor design for which is approved after
December 31, 1993, by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (and
such design or a substantially similar design of comparable
capacity was not approved on or before such date).
``(e) Other Rules To Apply.--Rules similar to the rules of
paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of section 45(e) shall
apply for purposes of this section.''
(b) Credit Treated as Business Credit.--Section 38(b) is
amended by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (18), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (19) and
inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at the end the following:
``(20) the advanced nuclear power facility production
credit determined under section 45J(a).''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 45J. Credit for production from advanced nuclear power
facilities.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to production in taxable years beginning after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1506. CREDIT FOR INVESTMENT IN CLEAN COAL FACILITIES.
(a) In general.--Section 46 (relating to amount of credit)
is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1),
by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2), and by
adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(3) the qualifying advanced coal project credit, and
``(4) the qualifying gasification project credit.''.
(b) Amount of Credits.--Subpart E of part IV of subchapter
A of chapter 1 (relating to rules for computing investment
credit) is amended by inserting after section 48 the
following new sections:
``SEC. 48A. QUALIFYING ADVANCED COAL PROJECT CREDIT.
``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 46, the
qualifying advanced coal project credit for any taxable year
is an amount equal to 20 percent of the qualified investment
for such taxable year.
``(b) Qualified Investment.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the
qualified investment for any taxable year is the basis of
property placed in service by the taxpayer during such
taxable year which is part of a qualifying advanced coal
project--
``(A)(i) the construction, reconstruction, or erection of
which is completed by the taxpayer, or
``(ii) which is acquired by the taxpayer if the original
use of such property commences with the taxpayer, and
``(B) with respect to which depreciation (or amortization
in lieu of depreciation) is allowable.
``(2) Applicable rules.--For purposes of this section,
rules similar to the rules of subsection (a)(4) and (b) of
section 48 shall apply.
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualifying advanced coal project.--The term
`qualifying advanced coal project' means a project which
meets the requirements of subsection (e).
``(2) Advanced coal-based generation technology.--The term
`advanced coal-based generation technology' means a
technology which meets the requirements of subsection (g).
``(3) Coal.--The term `coal' means any carbonized or
semicarbonized matter, including peat.
``(4) Greenhouse gas capture capability.--The term
`greenhouse gas capture
[[Page 13163]]
capability' means an integrated gasification combined cycle
technology facility capable of adding components which can
capture, separate on a long-term basis, isolate, remove, and
sequester greenhouse gases which result from the generation
of electricity.
``(5) Electric generation unit.--The term `electric
generation unit' means any facility at least 50 percent of
the total annual net output of which is electrical power,
including an otherwise eligible facility which is used in an
industrial application.
``(6) Integrated gasification combined cycle.--The term
`integrated gasification combined cycle' means an electric
generation unit which produces electricity by converting coal
to synthesis gas which is used to fuel a combined-cycle plant
which produces electricity from both a combustion turbine
(including a combustion turbine/fuel cell hybrid) and a steam
turbine.
``(d) Qualifying Advanced Coal Project Program.--
``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this section, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall establish a
qualifying advanced coal project program for the deployment
of advanced coal-based generation technologies.
``(2) Certification.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may certify a qualifying
advanced coal project as eligible for a credit under this
section.
``(B) Period of issuance.--A certificate of eligibility
under this paragraph may be issued only during the 10-fiscal
year period beginning on October 1, 2005.
``(3) Aggregate generating capacity.--
``(A) In general.--The aggregate generating capacity of
projects certified by the Secretary under paragraph (2) may
not exceed 7,500 megawatts.
``(B) Particular projects.--Of the total megawatts of
capacity which the Secretary is authorized to certify--
``(i) 4,125 megawatts shall be available only for use for
integrated gasification combined cycle projects, and
``(ii) 3,375 megawatts shall be available only for use for
projects which use other advanced coal-based generation
technologies.
``(C) Determination of capacity.--In determining capacity
under this paragraph in the case of a retrofitted or
repowered plant, capacity shall be determined based on total
design capacity after the retrofit or repowering of the
existing facility is accomplished.
``(4) Applications.--The Secretary shall act on
applications for certification as the applications are
received.
``(5) Determination.--In determining whether to certify a
qualifying advanced coal project, the Secretary shall take
into account any written statement from the Governor of the
State in which the project is to be sited that the
construction and operation of the project is consistent with
State environmental and energy policy and requirements.
``(6) Review and redistribution.--
``(A) Review.--Not later than 6 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall review the
projects certified and megawatts allocated under this section
as of the date which is 6 years after the date of enactment
of this section.
``(B) Redistribution.--The Secretary may reallocate the
megawatts available under clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph
(3)(B) if the Secretary determines that--
``(i) capacity cannot be used because there is an
insufficient quantity of qualifying applications for
certification pending for any available capacity at the time
of the review, or
``(ii) any certification commitment made pursuant to
subsection (e)(4)(B) has not been revoked pursuant to
subsection (f)(2)(B)(ii) because the project subject to the
certification commitment has been delayed as a result of
third party opposition or litigation to the proposed project.
``(e) Qualifying Advanced Coal Projects.--
``(1) Requirements.--For purposes of subsection (c)(1), a
project shall be considered a qualifying advanced coal
project that the Secretary may certify under subsection
(d)(2) if the Secretary determines that, at a minimum--
``(A) the project uses an advanced coal-based generation
technology--
``(i) to power a new electric generation or polygeneration
unit, or
``(ii) to retrofit or repower an existing electric
generation unit (including an existing natural gas-fired
combined cycle unit),
``(B) the fuel input for the project, when completed, is at
least 75 percent coal,
``(C) the applicant provides an assurance satisfactory to
the Secretary that--
``(i) the project is technologically feasible, and
``(ii) the project is not financially feasible without the
Federal financial incentives, after taking into account--
``(I) regulatory approvals or power purchase contracts
referred to in subparagraph (D),
``(II) arrangements for the supply of fuel to the project,
``(III) contracts or other arrangements for construction of
the project facilities,
``(IV) any performance guarantees to be provided by
contractors and equipment vendors, and
``(V) evidence of the availability of funds to develop and
construct the project,
``(D) the applicant demonstrates that the applicant has
obtained--
``(i) approval by the appropriate regulatory commission of
the recovery of the cost of the project, or
``(ii) a power purchase agreement (or letter of intent,
subject to paragraph (3)) which has been approved by the
board of directors of, and executed by, a creditworthy
purchasing party,
``(E) except as provided in subsection (f)(2), the
applicant demonstrates that the applicant has, or will,
obtain all project agreements and approvals, and
``(F) the project will be located in the United States.
``(2) Priority for integrated gasification combined cycle
projects.--In determining which qualifying advanced coal
projects to certify under subsection (d)(3)(B)(i), the
Secretary shall--
``(A) certify capacity to--
``(i) projects using bituminous coal as a primary
feedstock,
``(ii) projects using subbituminous coal as a primary
feedstock, and
``(iii) projects using lignite as a primary feedstock, and
``(B) give high priority to projects which include, as
determined by the Secretary--
``(i) greenhouse gas capture capability,
``(ii) increased by-product utilization, and
``(iii) other benefits.
``(3) Letter of intent.--A letter of intent described in
paragraph (1)(D)(ii) shall be replaced by a binding contract
before a certificate may be issued.
``(f) Project Agreements and Approvals.--
``(1) Definition of project agreements and approvals.--For
purposes of this subsection, the term `project agreements and
approvals' means--
``(A) all necessary power purchase agreements, and all
other contracts, which the Secretary determines are necessary
to construct, finance, and operate a project, and
``(B) all authorizations by Federal, State, and local
agencies which are required to construct, operate, and
recover the cost of the project.
``(2) Certification commitment.--
``(A) In general.--If the applicant has not obtained all
agreements and approvals prior to application, the Secretary
may issue a certification commitment.
``(B) Requirements.--
``(i) In general.--An applicant which receives a
certification commitment shall obtain any remaining project
agreements and approvals not later than 4 years after the
issuance of the certification commitment.
``(ii) Revocation.--If all project agreements and approvals
are not obtained during the 4-year period described in clause
(i), the certification commitment is terminated without any
other action by the Secretary.
``(iii) Final certificate.--No certificate may be issued
until all project agreements and approvals are obtained.
``(g) Advanced Coal-Based Generation Technology.--
``(1) In general.--For the purpose of this section, an
electric generation unit uses advanced coal-based generation
technology if--
``(A) the unit--
``(i) uses integrated gasification combined cycle
technology, or
``(ii) except as provided in paragraph (3), has a design
net heat rate of 8530 Btu/kWh (40 percent efficiency), and
``(B) the vendor warrants that the unit is designed to meet
the performance requirements in the following table:
Performance Design level for project:
characteristic:
SO2 (percent removal)................... 99 percent
NOx (emissions)......................... 0.07 lbs/MMBTU
PM* (emissions)......................... 0.015 lbs/MMBTU
Hg (percent removal).................... 90 percent
``(2) Design net heat rate.--For purposes of this
subsection, design net heat rate with respect to an electric
generation unit shall--
``(A) be measured in Btu per kilowatt hour (higher heating
value),
``(B) be based on the design annual heat input to the unit
and the rated net electrical power, fuels, and chemicals
output of the unit (determined without regard to the
cogeneration of steam by the unit),
``(C) be adjusted for the heat content of the design coal
to be used by the unit--
``(i) if the heat content is less than 13,500 Btu per
pound, but greater than 7,000 Btu per pound, according to the
following formula: design net heat rate = unit net heat rate
x [1-{((13,500-design coal heat content, Btu per pound)/
1,000)* 0.013}], and
``(ii) if the heat content is less than or equal to 7,000
Btu per pound, according to the following formula: design net
heat rate = unit net heat rate x [1-{((13,500-design coal
heat content, Btu per pound)/1,000)* 0.018}], and
``(D) be corrected for the site reference conditions of--
``(i) elevation above sea level of 500 feet,
``(ii) air pressure of 14.4 pounds per square inch
absolute,
``(iii) temperature, dry bulb of 63/o/F,
``(iv) temperature, wet bulb of 54/o/F, and
[[Page 13164]]
``(v) relative humidity of 55 percent.
(3) Existing units.--In the case of any electric generation
unit in existence on the date of the enactment of this
section, such unit uses advanced coal-based generation
technology if, in lieu of the requirements under paragraph
(1)(A)(ii), such unit achieves a minimum efficiency of 35
percent and an overall thermal design efficiency improvement,
compared to the efficiency of the unit as operated, of not
less than--
(A) 7 percentage points for coal of more than 9,000 Btu,
(B) 6 percentage points for coal of 7,000 to 9,000 Btu, or
(C) 4 percentage points for coal of less than 7,000 Btu.
``SEC. 48B. QUALIFYING GASIFICATION PROJECT CREDIT.
``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 46, the
qualifying gasification project credit for any taxable year
is an amount equal to 20 percent of the qualified investment
for such taxable year.
``(b) Qualified Investment.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the
qualified investment for any taxable year is the basis of
property placed in service by the taxpayer during such
taxable year which is part of a qualifying gasification
project--
``(A)(i) the construction, reconstruction, or erection of
which is completed by the taxpayer, or
``(ii) which is acquired by the taxpayer if the original
use of such property commences with the taxpayer, and
``(B) with respect to which depreciation (or amortization
in lieu of depreciation) is allowable.
``(2) Applicable rules.--For purposes of this section,
rules similar to the rules of subsection (a)(4) and (b) of
section 48 shall apply.
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualifying gasification project.--The term
`qualifying gasification project' means any project which--
``(A) employs gasification technology,
``(B) will be carried out by an eligible entity, and
``(C) any portion of the qualified investment in which is
certified under the qualifying gasification program as
eligible for credit under this section in an amount (not to
exceed $1,000,000,000) determined by the Secretary.
``(2) Gasification technology.--The term `gasification
technology' means any process which converts a solid or
liquid product from coal, petroleum residue, biomass, or
other materials which are recovered for their energy or
feedstock value into a synthesis gas composed primarily of
carbon monoxide and hydrogen for direct use or subsequent
chemical or physical conversion.
``(3) Biomass.--
``(A) In general.--The term `biomass' means any--
``(i) agricultural or plant waste,
``(ii) byproduct of wood or paper mill operations,
including lignin in spent pulping liquors, and
``(iii) other products of forestry maintenance.
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `biomass' does not include paper
which is commonly recycled.
``(4) Carbon capture capability.--The term `carbon capture
capability' means a gasification plant design which is
determined by the Secretary to reflect reasonable
consideration for, and be capable of, accommodating the
equipment likely to be necessary to capture carbon dioxide
from the gaseous stream, for later use or sequestration,
which would otherwise be emitted in the flue gas from a
project which uses a nonrenewable fuel.
``(5) Coal.--The term `coal' means any carbonized or
semicarbonized matter, including peat.
``(6) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means
any person whose application for certification is principally
intended for use in a domestic project which employs domestic
gasification applications related to--
``(A) chemicals,
``(B) fertilizers,
``(C) glass,
``(D) steel,
``(E) petroleum residues,
``(F) forest products, and
``(G) agriculture, including feedlots and dairy operations.
``(7) Petroleum residue.--The term `petroleum residue'
means the carbonized product of high-boiling hydrocarbon
fractions obtained in petroleum processing.
``(d) Qualifying Gasification Project Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Energy, shall establish a qualifying
gasification project program to consider and award
certifications for qualified investment eligible for credits
under this section to qualifying gasification project
sponsors under this section. The total qualified investment
which may be awarded eligibility for credit under the program
shall not exceed $4,000,000,000.
``(2) Period of issuance.--A certificate of eligibility
under paragraph (1) may be issued only during the 10-fiscal
year period beginning on October 1, 2005.
``(3) Selection criteria.--The Secretary shall not make a
competitive certification award for qualified investment for
credit eligibility under this section unless the recipient
has documented to the satisfaction of the Secretary that--
``(A) the award recipient is financially viable without the
receipt of additional Federal funding associated with the
proposed project,
``(B) the recipient will provide sufficient information to
the Secretary for the Secretary to ensure that the qualified
investment is spent efficiently and effectively,
``(C) a market exists for the products of the proposed
project as evidenced by contracts or written statements of
intent from potential customers,
``(D) the fuels identified with respect to the gasification
technology for such project will comprise at least 90 percent
of the fuels required by the project for the production of
chemical feedstocks, liquid transportation fuels, or
coproduction of electricity,
``(E) the award recipient's project team is competent in
the construction and operation of the gasification technology
proposed, with preference given to those recipients with
experience which demonstrates successful and reliable
operations of the technology on domestic fuels so identified,
and
``(F) the award recipient has met other criteria
established and published by the Secretary.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 49(a)(1)(C) is amended by striking ``and'' at
the end of clause (ii), by striking clause (iii), and by
adding after clause (ii) the following new clauses:
``(iii) the basis of any property which is part of a
qualifying advanced coal project under section 48A, and
``(iv) the basis of any property which is part of a
qualifying gasification project under section 48B.''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart E of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 48 the following new items:
``48A. Qualifying advanced coal project credit.
``48B. Qualifying gasification project credit.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to periods after the date of the enactment of
this Act, under rules similar to the rules of section 48(m)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect on the day
before the date of the enactment of the Revenue
Reconciliation Act of 1990).
SEC. 1507. CLEAN ENERGY COAL BONDS.
(a) In General.--Subpart H of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to credits against tax), as added by this
Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``SEC. 54A. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF CLEAN ENERGY COAL BONDS.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--If a taxpayer holds a clean
energy coal bond on 1 or more credit allowance dates of the
bond occurring during any taxable year, there shall be
allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter
for the taxable year an amount equal to the sum of the
credits determined under subsection (b) with respect to such
dates.
``(b) Amount of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the credit determined
under this subsection with respect to any credit allowance
date for a clean energy coal bond is 25 percent of the annual
credit determined with respect to such bond.
``(2) Annual credit.--The annual credit determined with
respect to any clean energy coal bond is the product of--
``(A) the credit rate determined by the Secretary under
paragraph (3) for the day on which such bond was sold,
multiplied by
``(B) the outstanding face amount of the bond.
``(3) Determination.--For purposes of paragraph (2), with
respect to any clean energy coal bond, the Secretary shall
determine daily or cause to be determined daily a credit rate
which shall apply to the first day on which there is a
binding, written contract for the sale or exchange of the
bond. The credit rate for any day is the credit rate which
the Secretary or the Secretary's designee estimates will
permit the issuance of clean energy coal bonds with a
specified maturity or redemption date without discount and
without interest cost to the qualified issuer.
``(4) Credit allowance date.--For purposes of this section,
the term `credit allowance date' means--
``(A) March 15,
``(B) June 15,
``(C) September 15, and
``(D) December 15.
Such term also includes the last day on which the bond is
outstanding.
``(5) Special rule for issuance and redemption.--In the
case of a bond which is issued during the 3-month period
ending on a credit allowance date, the amount of the credit
determined under this subsection with respect to such credit
allowance date shall be a ratable portion of the credit
otherwise determined based on the portion of the 3-
[[Page 13165]]
month period during which the bond is outstanding. A similar
rule shall apply when the bond is redeemed or matures.
``(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--The credit
allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not
exceed the excess of--
``(1) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(2) the sum of the credits allowable under this part
(other than subpart C thereof (relating to refundable
credits) and this section) and section 1397E.
``(d) Clean Energy Coal Bond.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--The term `clean energy coal bond' means
any bond issued as part of an issue if--
``(A) the bond is issued by a qualified issuer pursuant to
an allocation by the Secretary to such issuer of a portion of
the national clean energy coal bond limitation under
subsection (f)(2),
``(B) 95 percent or more of the proceeds from the sale of
such issue are to be used for capital expenditures incurred
by qualified borrowers for 1 or more qualified projects,
``(C) the qualified issuer designates such bond for
purposes of this section and the bond is in registered form,
and
``(D) the issue meets the requirements of subsection (h).
``(2) Qualified project; special use rules.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified project' means a
qualifying advanced coal project (as defined in section
48A(c)(1)) placed in service by a qualified borrower.
``(B) Refinancing rules.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B),
a qualified project may be refinanced with proceeds of a
clean energy coal bond only if the indebtedness being
refinanced (including any obligation directly or indirectly
refinanced by such indebtedness) was originally incurred by a
qualified borrower after the date of the enactment of this
section.
``(C) Reimbursement.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), a
clean energy coal bond may be issued to reimburse a qualified
borrower for amounts paid after the date of the enactment of
this section with respect to a qualified project, but only
if--
``(i) prior to the payment of the original expenditure, the
qualified borrower declared its intent to reimburse such
expenditure with the proceeds of a clean energy coal bond,
``(ii) not later than 60 days after payment of the original
expenditure, the qualified issuer adopts an official intent
to reimburse the original expenditure with such proceeds, and
``(iii) the reimbursement is made not later than 18 months
after the date the original expenditure is paid.
``(D) Treatment of changes in use.--For purposes of
paragraph (1)(B), the proceeds of an issue shall not be
treated as used for a qualified project to the extent that a
qualified borrower takes any action within its control which
causes such proceeds not to be used for a qualified project.
The Secretary shall prescribe regulations specifying remedial
actions that may be taken (including conditions to taking
such remedial actions) to prevent an action described in the
preceding sentence from causing a bond to fail to be a clean
energy coal bond.
``(e) Maturity Limitations.--
``(1) Duration of term.--A bond shall not be treated as a
clean energy coal bond if the maturity of such bond exceeds
the maximum term determined by the Secretary under paragraph
(2) with respect to such bond.
``(2) Maximum term.--During each calendar month, the
Secretary shall determine the maximum term permitted under
this paragraph for bonds issued during the following calendar
month. Such maximum term shall be the term which the
Secretary estimates will result in the present value of the
obligation to repay the principal on the bond being equal to
50 percent of the face amount of such bond. Such present
value shall be determined using as a discount rate the
average annual interest rate of tax of tax-exempt obligations
having a term of 10 years or more which are issued during the
month. If the term as so determined is not a multiple of a
whole year, such term shall be rounded to the next highest
whole year.
``(3) Ratable principal amortization required.--A bond
shall not be treated as a clean energy coal bond unless it is
part of an issue which provides for an equal amount of
principal to be paid by the qualified issuer during each
calendar year that the issue is outstanding.
``(f) Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
``(1) National limitation.--There is a national clean
energy coal bond limitation of $1,000,000,000.
``(2) Allocation by secretary.--The Secretary shall
allocate the amount described in paragraph (1) among
qualified projects in such manner as the Secretary determines
appropriate.
``(g) Credit Included in Gross Income.--Gross income
includes the amount of the credit allowed to the taxpayer
under this section (determined without regard to subsection
(c)) and the amount so included shall be treated as interest
income.
``(h) Special Rules Relating to Expenditures.--
``(1) In general.--An issue shall be treated as meeting the
requirements of this subsection if, as of the date of
issuance, the qualified issuer reasonably expects--
``(A) at least 95 percent of the proceeds from the sale of
the issue are to be spent for 1 or more qualified projects
within the 5-year period beginning on the date of issuance of
the clean energy bond,
``(B) a binding commitment with a third party to spend at
least 10 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the issue
will be incurred within the 6-month period beginning on the
date of issuance of the clean energy bond or, in the case of
a clean energy bond the proceeds of which are to be loaned to
2 or more qualified borrowers, such binding commitment will
be incurred within the 6-month period beginning on the date
of the loan of such proceeds to a qualified borrower, and
``(C) such projects will be completed with due diligence
and the proceeds from the sale of the issue will be spent
with due diligence.
``(2) Extension of period.--Upon submission of a request
prior to the expiration of the period described in paragraph
(1)(A), the Secretary may extend such period if the qualified
issuer establishes that the failure to satisfy the 5-year
requirement is due to reasonable cause and the related
projects will continue to proceed with due diligence.
``(3) Failure to spend required amount of bond proceeds
within 5 years.--To the extent that less than 95 percent of
the proceeds of such issue are expended by the close of the
5-year period beginning on the date of issuance (or if an
extension has been obtained under paragraph (2), by the close
of the extended period), the qualified issuer shall redeem
all of the nonqualified bonds within 90 days after the end of
such period. For purposes of this paragraph, the amount of
the nonqualified bonds required to be redeemed shall be
determined in the same manner as under section 142.
``(i) Special Rules Relating to Arbitrage.--A bond which is
part of an issue shall not be treated as a clean energy coal
bond unless, with respect to the issue of which the bond is a
part, the qualified issuer satisfies the arbitrage
requirements of section 148 with respect to proceeds of the
issue.
``(j) Cooperative Electric Company; Qualified Energy Tax
Credit Bond Lender; Governmental Body; Qualified Borrower.--
For purposes of this section--
``(1) Cooperative electric company.--The term `cooperative
electric company' means a mutual or cooperative electric
company described in section 501(c)(12) or section
1381(a)(2)(C), or a not-for-profit electric utility which has
received a loan or loan guarantee under the Rural
Electrification Act.
``(2) Clean energy bond lender.--The term `clean energy
bond lender' means a lender which is a cooperative which is
owned by, or has outstanding loans to, 100 or more
cooperative electric companies and is in existence on
February 1, 2002, and shall include any affiliated entity
which is controlled by such lender.
``(3) Governmental body.--The term `governmental body'
means any State, territory, possession of the United States,
the District of Columbia, Indian tribal government, and any
political subdivision thereof.
``(4) Qualified issuer.--The term `qualified issuer'
means--
``(A) a clean energy bond lender,
``(B) a cooperative electric company,
``(C) a governmental body, or
``(D) the Tennessee Valley Authority.
``(5) Qualified borrower.--The term `qualified borrower'
means--
``(A) a mutual or cooperative electric company described in
section 501(c)(12) or 1381(a)(2)(C),
``(B) a governmental body, or
``(C) the Tennessee Valley Authority.
``(k) Special Rules Relating to Pool Bonds.--No portion of
a pooled financing bond may be allocable to any loan unless
the borrower has entered into a written loan commitment for
such portion prior to the issue date of such issue.
``(l) Other Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) Bond.--The term `bond' includes any obligation.
``(2) Pooled financing bond.--The term `pooled financing
bond' shall have the meaning given such term by section
149(f)(4)(A).
``(3) Partnership; s corporation; and other pass-thru
entities.--
``(A) In general.--Under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary, in the case of a partnership, trust, S
corporation, or other pass-thru entity, rules similar to the
rules of section 41(g) shall apply with respect to the credit
allowable under subsection (a).
``(B) No basis adjustment.--Rules similar to the rules
under section 1397E(i)(2) shall apply.
``(4) Bonds held by regulated investment companies.--If any
clean energy coal bond is held by a regulated investment
company, the credit determined under subsection (a) shall be
allowed to shareholders of such company under procedures
prescribed by the Secretary.
``(5) Treatment for estimated tax purposes.--Solely for
purposes of sections 6654 and 6655, the credit allowed by
this section to a taxpayer by reason of holding a clean
[[Page 13166]]
energy coal bond on a credit allowance date shall be treated
as if it were a payment of estimated tax made by the taxpayer
on such date.
``(6) Reporting.--Issuers of clean energy coal bonds shall
submit reports similar to the reports required under section
149(e).
``(m) Termination.--This section shall not apply with
respect to any bond issued after December 31, 2010.''.
(b) Reporting.--Subsection (d) of section 6049 (relating to
returns regarding payments of interest), as amended by this
Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(9) Reporting of credit on clean energy coal bonds.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term
`interest' includes amounts includible in gross income under
section 54A(g) and such amounts shall be treated as paid on
the credit allowance date (as defined in section 54A(b)(4)).
``(B) Reporting to corporations, etc.--Except as otherwise
provided in regulations, in the case of any interest
described in subparagraph (A), subsection (b)(4) shall be
applied without regard to subparagraphs (A), (H), (I), (J),
(K), and (L)(i) of such subsection.
``(C) Regulatory authority.--The Secretary may prescribe
such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations which
require more frequent or more detailed reporting.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
H of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1, as added by this
Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 54A. Credit to holders of clean energy coal bonds.''.
(d) Issuance of Regulations.--The Secretary of Treasury
shall issue regulations required under section 54A of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section) not
later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after December 31, 2005.
Subtitle B--Domestic Fossil Fuel Security
SEC. 1511. CREDIT FOR INVESTMENT IN CLEAN COKE/COGENERATION
MANUFACTURING FACILITIES.
(a) Allowance of Clean Coke/Cogeneration Manufacturing
Facilities Credit.--Section 46 (relating to amount of
credit), as amended by this Act, is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of paragraph (3), by striking the period
at the end of paragraph (4), and inserting ``, and'', and by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) the clean coke/cogeneration manufacturing facilities
credit.''.
(b) Amount of Clean Coke/Cogeneration Manufacturing
Facilities Credit.--Subpart E of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to rules for computing investment
credit), as amended by this Act, is amended by inserting
after section 48B the following new section:
``SEC. 48C. CLEAN COKE/COGENERATION MANUFACTURING FACILITIES
CREDIT.
``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 46, the clean
coke/cogeneration manufacturing facilities credit for any
taxable year is an amount equal to 20 percent of the
qualified investment for such taxable year.
``(b) Qualified Investment.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the
qualified investment for any taxable year is the basis of
each clean coke/cogeneration manufacturing facilities
property placed in service by the taxpayer during such
taxable year.
``(2) Clean coke/cogeneration manufacturing facilities
property.--For purposes of this section, the term `clean
coke/cogeneration manufacturing facilities property' means
real and tangible personal property which--
``(A) is depreciable under section 167,
``(B) is located in the United States,
``(C) is used for the manufacture of metallurgical coke or
for the production of steam or electricity from waste heat
generated during the production of metallurgical coke, and
``(D) does not exceed any of the following emission
limitations--
``(i) 0.0 percent leaking for any coke oven doors unless
the operation of ovens is under negative pressure,
``(ii) 0.0 percent leaking for any topside port lids,
``(iii) 0.0 percent leaking for any offtake system,
determined as provided for in section 63.303(b)(1)(ii) or
63.309(d)(1) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
``(c) Termination.--This subsection shall not apply to
property for periods after December 31, 2009.''.
(c) Technical Amendment.--Section 50(c) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Special rule for coke/cogeneration facilities.--
Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to any property with
respect to the credit determined under section 48C.''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 49(a)(1)(C), as amended by this Act, is amended
by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iii), by striking
the period at the end of clause (iv) and inserting ``, and'',
and by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(v) the basis of any clean coke/cogeneration
manufacturing facilities property.''
(2) The table of sections for subpart E of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1, as amended by this Act, is amended
by inserting after the item relating to section 48B the
following new item:
``48C. Clean coke/cogeneration manufacturing facilities credit.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to periods after the date of the enactment of
this Act, under rules similar to the rules of section 48(m)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect on the day
before the date of the enactment of the Revenue
Reconciliation Act of 1990).
SEC. 1512. TEMPORARY EXPENSING FOR EQUIPMENT USED IN REFINING
OF LIQUID FUELS.
(A) In General.--Part VI of subchapter B of chapter 1 is
amended by inserting after section 179B the following new
section:
``SEC. 179C. ELECTION TO EXPENSE CERTAIN REFINERIES.
``(a) Treatment as Expenses.--A taxpayer may elect to treat
the cost of any qualified refinery property as an expense
which is not chargeable to capital account. Any cost so
treated shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year
in which the qualified refinery is placed in service.
``(b) Election.--
``(1) In general.--An election under this section for any
taxable year shall be made on the taxpayer's return of the
tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year. Such
election shall be made in such manner as the Secretary may by
regulations prescribe.
``(2) Election irrevocable.--Any election made under this
section may not be revoked except with the consent of the
Secretary.
``(c) Qualified Refinery Property.--The term `qualified
refinery property' means any refinery or portion of a
refinery--
``(1) the original use of which commences with the
taxpayer,
``(2) the construction of which--
``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), is subject to
a binding construction contract entered into after June 14,
2005, and before January 1, 2008, but only if there was no
written binding construction contract entered into on or
before June 14, 2005, or
``(B) in the case of self-constructed property, began after
June 14, 2005,
``(3) which is placed in service by the taxpayer after the
date of the enactment of this section and before January 1,
2012,
``(4) in the case of any portion of a refinery, which meets
the requirements of subsection (d), and
``(5) which meets all applicable environmental laws in
effect on the date such refinery or portion thereof was
placed in service.
A waiver under the Clean Air Act shall not be taken into
account in determining whether the requirements of paragraph
(5) are met.
``(d) Production Capacity.--The requirements of this
subsection are met if the portion of the refinery--
``(1) increases the rated capacity of the existing refinery
by 5 percent or more over the capacity of such refinery as
reported by the Energy Information Agency on January 1, 2005,
or
``(2) enables the existing refinery to process qualified
fuels (as defined in section 29(c)) at a rate which is equal
to or greater than 25 percent of the total throughput of such
refinery on an average daily basis.
``(e) Election To Allocate Deduction to Cooperative
Owner.--If--
``(1) a taxpayer to which subsection (a) applies is an
organization to which part I of subchapter T applies, and
``(2) one or more persons directly holding an ownership
interest in the taxpayer are organizations to which part I of
subchapter T apply,
the taxpayer may elect to allocate all or a portion of the
deduction allowable under subsection (a) to such persons.
Such allocation shall be equal to the person's ratable share
of the total amount allocated, determined on the basis of the
person's ownership interest in the taxpayer. The taxable
income of the taxpayer shall not be reduced under section
1382 by reason of any amount to which the preceding sentence
applies.
``(f) Ineligible Refineries.--No deduction shall be allowed
under subsection (a) for any qualified refinery property--
``(1) the primary purpose of which is for use as a topping
plant, asphalt plant, lube oil facility, crude or product
terminal, or blending facility, or
``(2) which is built solely to comply with Federally
mandated projects or consent decrees.
``(g) Reporting.--No deduction shall be allowed under
subsection (a) to any taxpayer for any taxable year unless
such taxpayer files with the Secretary a report containing
such information with respect to the operation of the
refineries of the taxpayer as the Secretary shall require.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1245(a) is amended by inserting ``179C,'' after
``179B,'' both places it appears in paragraphs (2)(C) and
(3)(C).
(2) Section 263(a)(1) is amended by striking ``or'' at the
end of subparagraph (H), by
[[Page 13167]]
striking the period at the end of subparagraph (I) and
inserting ``, or'', and by inserting after subparagraph (I)
the following new subparagraph:
``(J) expenditures for which a deduction is allowed under
section 179C.''.
(3) Section 312(k)(3)(B) is amended by striking ``179 179A,
or 179B'' each place it appears in the heading and text and
inserting ``179, 179A, 179B, or 179C''.
(4) The table of sections for part VI of subchapter B of
chapter 1 is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 179B the following new item:
``Sec. 179C. Election to expense certain refineries.''.
(c) Effective Date.-- The amendments made by this section
shall apply to properties placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1513. PASS THROUGH TO PATRONS OF DEDUCTION FOR CAPITAL
COSTS INCURRED BY SMALL REFINER COOPERATIVES IN
COMPLYING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SULFUR REGULATIONS .
(a) In General.--Section 179B (relating to deduction for
capital costs incurred in complying with Environmental
Protection Agency sulfur regulations) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Election To Allocate Deduction to Cooperative
Owner.--If--
``(1) a small business refiner to which subsection (a)
applies is an organization to which part I of subchapter T
applies, and
``(2) one or more persons directly holding an ownership
interest in the refiner are organizations to which part I of
subchapter T apply,
the refiner may elect to allocate all or a portion of the
deduction allowable under subsection (a) to such persons.
Such allocation shall be equal to the person's ratable share
of the total amount allocated, determined on the basis of the
person's ownership interest in the taxpayer. The taxable
income of the refiner shall not be reduced under section 1382
by reason of any amount to which the preceding sentence
applies.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the amendment made by
section 338(a) of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
SEC. 1514. MODIFICATIONS TO ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY CREDIT.
(a) Enhanced Credit for Carbon Dioxide Injections.--Section
43 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(f) Enhanced Credit for Projects Using Qualified Carbon
Dioxide.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of any qualified enhanced
oil recovery project described in paragraph (2), subsection
(a) shall be applied by substituting `20 percent' for `15
percent'.
``(2) Specified qualified enhanced oil recovery project.--
``(A) In general.--A qualified enhanced oil recovery
project is described in this paragraph if--
``(i) the project begins or is substantially expanded after
December 31, 2005, and
``(ii) the project uses qualified carbon dioxide in an oil
recovery method which involves flooding or injection.
``(B) qualified carbon dioxide.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `qualified carbon dioxide' means carbon
dioxide that is--
``(i) from an industrial source, or
``(ii) separated from natural gas and natural gas liquids
at a natural gas processing plant.
``(3) Termination.--This subsection shall not apply to
costs paid or incurred for any qualified enhanced oil
recovery project after December 31, 2009.''.
(b) Deep Gas Well Projects.--Section 43(c) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Application of section to qualified deep gas well
projects.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the
taxpayer's qualified deep gas well project costs for any
taxable year shall be treated in the same manner as if they
were qualified enhanced oil recovery costs.
``(B) Qualified deep gas well project costs.--For purposes
of this paragraph, the term `qualified deep gas well project
costs' shall be the costs determined under paragraph (1) by
substituting `qualified deep gas well project' for `qualified
enhanced oil recovery project' each place it appears.
``(C) Qualified deep gas well project.--For purposes of
this paragraph, the term `qualified deep gas well project'
means any project--
``(i) which involves the production of natural gas from
onshore formations deeper than 20,000 feet, and
``(ii) which is located in the United States.
``(D) Termination.--This paragraph shall not apply to
qualified deep gas well project costs paid or incurred after
December 31, 2009.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to costs paid or incurred in taxable years ending
after December 31, 2005.
SEC. 1515. NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTION LINES TREATED AS 15-YEAR
PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Section 168(e)(3)(E) (defining 15-year
property) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause
(v), by striking the period at the end of clause (vi) and by
inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following
new clause:
``(vii) any natural gas distribution line the original use
of which commences with the taxpayer and which is placed in
service before January 1, 2008.''.
(b) Alternative System.--The table contained in section
168(g)(3)(B) (relating to special rule for certain property
assigned to classes) is amended by adding after the item
relating to subparagraph (E)(vi) the following new item:
``(E)(vii)........................................................35''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to property placed in service after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(2) Exception.--The amendments made by this section shall
not apply to any property with respect to which the taxpayer
or a related party has entered into a binding contract for
the construction thereof on or before June 14, 2005, or, in
the case of self-constructed property, has started
construction on or before such date.
Subtitle C--Conservation and Energy Efficiency Provisions
SEC. 1521. ENERGY EFFICIENT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS DEDUCTION.
(a) In General.--Part VI of subchapter B of chapter 1
(relating to itemized deductions for individuals and
corporations), as amended by this Act, is amended by
inserting after section 179C the following new section:
``SEC. 179D. ENERGY EFFICIENT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS DEDUCTION.
``(a) In General.--There shall be allowed as a deduction an
amount equal to the cost of energy efficient commercial
building property placed in service during the taxable year.
``(b) Maximum Amount of Deduction.--The deduction under
subsection (a) with respect to any building for any taxable
year shall not exceed the excess (if any) of--
``(1) the product of--
``(A) $2.25, and
``(B) the square footage of the building, over
``(2) the aggregate amount of the deductions under
subsection (a) with respect to the building for all prior
taxable years.
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Energy efficient commercial building property.--The
term `energy efficient commercial building property' means
property--
``(A) with respect to which depreciation (or amortization
in lieu of depreciation) is allowable,
``(B) which is installed on or in any building which is--
``(i) located in the United States, and
``(ii) within the scope of Standard 90.1-2001,
``(C) which is installed as part of--
``(i) the interior lighting systems,
``(ii) the heating, cooling, ventilation, and hot water
systems, or
``(iii) the building envelope, and
``(D) which is certified in accordance with subsection
(d)(6) as being installed as part of a plan designed to
reduce the total annual energy and power costs with respect
to the interior lighting systems, heating, cooling,
ventilation, and hot water systems of the building by 50
percent or more in comparison to a reference building which
meets the minimum requirements of Standard 90.1-2001 using
methods of calculation under subsection (d)(2).
``(2) Standard 90.1-2001.--The term `Standard 90.1-2001'
means Standard 90.1-2001 of the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers and the
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (as in
effect on April 2, 2003).
``(d) Special Rules.--
``(1) Partial allowance.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (f),
if--
``(i) the requirement of subsection (c)(1)(D) is not met,
but
``(ii) there is a certification in accordance with
paragraph (6) that any system referred to in subsection
(c)(1)(C) satisfies the energy-savings targets established by
the Secretary under subparagraph (B) with respect to such
system,
then the requirement of subsection (c)(1)(D) shall be treated
as met with respect to such system, and the deduction under
subsection (a) shall be allowed with respect to energy
efficient commercial building property installed as part of
such system and as part of a plan to meet such targets,
except that subsection (b) shall be applied to such property
by substituting `$.75' for `$2.25'.
``(B) Regulations.--The Secretary, after consultation with
the Secretary of Energy, shall establish a target for each
system described in subsection (c)(1)(C) which, if such
targets were met for all such systems, the building would
meet the requirements of subsection (c)(1)(D).
``(2) Methods of calculation.--The Secretary, after
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall promulgate
regulations which describe in detail methods for calculating
and verifying energy and power consumption and cost, based on
the provisions of the 2005 California Nonresidential
Alternative Calculation Method Approval Manual.
[[Page 13168]]
``(3) Computer software.--
``(A) In general.--Any calculation under paragraph (2)
shall be prepared by qualified computer software.
``(B) Qualified computer software.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `qualified computer software' means
software--
``(i) for which the software designer has certified that
the software meets all procedures and detailed methods for
calculating energy and power consumption and costs as
required by the Secretary,
``(ii) which provides such forms as required to be filed by
the Secretary in connection with energy efficiency of
property and the deduction allowed under this section, and
``(iii) which provides a notice form which documents the
energy efficiency features of the building and its projected
annual energy costs.
``(4) Allocation of deduction for public property.--In the
case of energy efficient commercial building property
installed on or in property owned by a Federal, State, or
local government or a political subdivision thereof, the
Secretary shall promulgate a regulation to allow the
allocation of the deduction to the person primarily
responsible for designing the property in lieu of the owner
of such property. Such person shall be treated as the
taxpayer for purposes of this section.
``(5) Notice to owner.--Each certification required under
this section shall include an explanation to the building
owner regarding the energy efficiency features of the
building and its projected annual energy costs as provided in
the notice under paragraph (3)(B)(iii).
``(6) Certification.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall prescribe the manner
and method for the making of certifications under this
section.
``(B) Procedures.--The Secretary shall include as part of
the certification process procedures for inspection and
testing by qualified individuals described in subparagraph
(C) to ensure compliance of buildings with energy-savings
plans and targets. Such procedures shall be comparable, given
the difference between commercial and residential buildings,
to the requirements in the Mortgage Industry National
Accreditation Procedures for Home Energy Rating Systems.
``(C) Qualified individuals.--Individuals qualified to
determine compliance shall be only those individuals who are
recognized by an organization certified by the Secretary for
such purposes.
``(e) Basis Reduction.--For purposes of this subtitle, if a
deduction is allowed under this section with respect to any
energy efficient commercial building property, the basis of
such property shall be reduced by the amount of the deduction
so allowed.
``(f) Interim Rules for Lighting Systems.--Until such time
as the Secretary issues final regulations under subsection
(d)(1)(B) with respect to property which is part of a
lighting system--
``(1) In general.--The lighting system target under
subsection (d)(1)(A)(ii) shall be a reduction in lighting
power density of 25 percent (50 percent in the case of a
warehouse) of the minimum requirements in Table 9.3.1.1 or
Table 9.3.1.2 (not including additional interior lighting
power allowances) of Standard 90.1-2001.
``(2) Reduction in deduction if reduction less than 40
percent.--
``(A) In general.--If, with respect to the lighting system
of any building other than a warehouse, the reduction in
lighting power density of the lighting system is not at least
40 percent, only the applicable percentage of the amount of
deduction otherwise allowable under this section with respect
to such property shall be allowed.
``(B) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the applicable percentage is the number of percentage
points (not greater than 100) equal to the sum of--
``(i) 50, and
``(ii) the amount which bears the same ratio to 50 as the
excess of the reduction of lighting power density of the
lighting system over 25 percentage points bears to 15.
``(C) Exceptions.--This subsection shall not apply to any
system--
``(i) the controls and circuiting of which do not comply
fully with the mandatory and prescriptive requirements of
Standard 90.1-2001 and which do not include provision for
bilevel switching in all occupancies except hotel and motel
guest rooms, store rooms, restrooms, and public lobbies, or
``(ii) which does not meet the minimum requirements for
calculated lighting levels as set forth in the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America Lighting Handbook,
Performance and Application, Ninth Edition, 2000.
``(g) Coordination With Other Tax Benefits.--In any case in
which a deduction under section 200 or a credit under section
25C has been allowed with respect to property in connection
with a building for which a deduction is allowable under
subsection (a)--
``(1) the annual energy and power costs of the reference
building referred to in subsection (c)(1)(D) shall be
determined assuming such reference building contains the
property for which such deduction or credit has been allowed,
and
``(2) any cost of such property taken into account under
such sections shall not be taken into account under this
section.
``(h) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate such
regulations as necessary--
``(1) to take into account new technologies regarding
energy efficiency and renewable energy for purposes of
determining energy efficiency and savings under this section,
and
``(2) to provide for a recapture of the deduction allowed
under this section if the plan described in subsection
(c)(1)(D) or (d)(1)(A) is not fully implemented.
``(i) Termination.--This section shall not apply with
respect to property placed in service after December 31,
2009.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1016(a) is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of paragraph (30), by striking the period at the end of
paragraph (31) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(32) to the extent provided in section 179D(e).''.
(2) Section 1245(a), as amended by this Act, is amended by
inserting ``179D,'' after ``179C,'' both places it appears in
paragraphs (2)(C) and (3)(C).
(3) Section 1250(b)(3) is amended by inserting before the
period at the end of the first sentence ``or by section
179D''.
(4) Section 263(a)(1), as amended by this Act, is amended
by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (I), by
striking the period at the end of subparagraph (J) and
inserting ``, or'', and by inserting after subparagraph (J)
the following new subparagraph:
``(K) expenditures for which a deduction is allowed under
section 179D.''.
(5) Section 312(k)(3)(B), as amended by this Act, is
amended by striking ``179, 179A, 179B, or 179C'' each place
it appears in the heading and text and inserting ``179, 179A,
179B, 179C, or 179D''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VI
of subchapter B of chapter 1, as amended by this Act, is
amended by inserting after section 179C the following new
item:
``Sec. 179D. Energy efficient commercial buildings deduction.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act in taxable years ending after such
date.
SEC. 1522. CREDIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ENERGY EFFICIENT
HOMES.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to business related credits), as amended
by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``SEC. 45K. NEW ENERGY EFFICIENT HOME CREDIT.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 38, in the case
of an eligible contractor, the new energy efficient home
credit for the taxable year is the applicable amount for each
qualified new energy efficient home which is--
``(A) constructed by the eligible contractor, and
``(B) acquired by a person from such eligible contractor
for use as a residence during the taxable year.
``(2) Applicable amount.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
the applicable amount is an amount equal to--
``(i) in the case of a dwelling unit described in paragraph
(1) or (3) of subsection (c), $1,000, and
``(ii) in the case of a dwelling unit described in
paragraph (2) or (4) of subsection (c), $2,000.
``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Eligible contractor.--The term `eligible contractor'
means--
``(A) the person who constructed the qualified new energy
efficient home, or
``(B) in the case of a qualified new energy efficient home
which is a manufactured home, the manufactured home producer
of such home.
If more than 1 person is described in subparagraph (A) or (B)
with respect to any qualified new energy efficient home, such
term means the person designated as such by the owner of such
home.
``(2) Qualified new energy efficient home.--The term
`qualified new energy efficient home' means a dwelling unit--
``(A) located in the United States,
``(B) the construction of which is substantially completed
after the date of the enactment of this section, and
``(C) which meets the energy saving requirements of
subsection (c).
``(3) Construction.--The term `construction' includes
substantial reconstruction and rehabilitation.
``(4) Acquire.--The term `acquire' includes purchase and,
in the case of reconstruction and rehabilitation, such term
includes a binding written contract for such reconstruction
or rehabilitation.
``(c) Energy Saving Requirements.--A dwelling unit meets
the energy saving requirements of this subsection if such
unit is--
``(1) certified--
``(A) to have a level of annual heating and cooling energy
consumption which is at least
[[Page 13169]]
30 percent below the annual level of heating and cooling
energy consumption of a comparable dwelling unit--
``(i) which is constructed in accordance with the standards
of chapter 4 of the 2003 International Energy Conservation
Code, as such Code (including supplements) is in effect on
the date of the enactment of this section, and
``(ii) for which the heating and cooling equipment
efficiencies correspond to the minimum allowed under the
regulations established by the Department of Energy pursuant
to the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 and
in effect at the time of construction, and
``(B) to have building envelope component improvements
account for at least \1/3\ of such 30 percent,
``(2) certified--
``(A) to have a level of annual heating and cooling energy
consumption which is at least 50 percent below such annual
level, and
``(B) to have building envelope component improvements
account for at least \1/5\ of such 50 percent,
``(3) a manufactured home which conforms to Federal
Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (section
3280 of title 24, Code of Federal Regulations) and which--
``(A) meets the requirements of clause (i), or
``(B) meets the requirements established by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under
the Energy Star Labeled Homes program, or
``(4) a manufactured home which conforms to Federal
Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (section
3280 of title 24, Code of Federal Regulations) and which
meets the requirements of clause (ii).
``(d) Certification.--
``(1) Method of certification.--A certification described
in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (c) shall be made in
accordance with guidance prescribed by the Secretary, after
consultation with the Secretary of Energy. Such guidance
shall specify procedures and methods for calculating energy
and cost savings.
``(2) Form.--Any certification described in subsection (c)
shall be made in writing in a manner which specifies in
readily verifiable fashion the energy efficient building
envelope components and energy efficient heating or cooling
equipment installed and their respective rated energy
efficiency performance.
``(e) Basis Adjustment.--For purposes of this subtitle, if
a credit is allowed under this section in connection with any
expenditure for any property, the increase in the basis of
such property which would (but for this subsection) result
from such expenditure shall be reduced by the amount of the
credit so determined.
``(f) Coordination With Other Credits and Deductions.--
``(1) Special rule with respect to buildings with energy
efficient property.--In the case of property which is
described in section 200 which is installed in connection
with a dwelling unit, the level of annual heating and cooling
energy consumption of the comparable dwelling unit referred
to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (c) shall be
determined assuming such comparable dwelling unit contains
the property for which such deduction or credit has been
allowed.
``(2) Coordination with investment credit.--For purposes of
this section, expenditures taken into account under section
47 or 48(a) shall not be taken into account under this
section.
``(g) Application of Section.--
``(1) 50 percent homes.--In the case of any dwelling unit
described in paragraph (2) or (4) of subsection (c),
subsection (a) shall apply to qualified new energy efficient
homes acquired during the period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this section and ending on December 31, 2009.
``(2) 30 percent homes.--In the case of any dwelling unit
described in paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection (c),
subsection (a) shall apply to qualified new energy efficient
homes acquired during the period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this section and ending on December 31, 2007.''.
(b) Credit Made Part of General Business Credit.--Section
38(b) (relating to current year business credit), as amended
by this Act, is amended by striking ``plus'' at the end of
paragraph (19), by striking the period at the end of
paragraph (20) and inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(21) the new energy efficient home credit determined
under section 45K(a).''.
(c) Basis Adjustment.--Subsection (a) of section 1016, as
amended by this Act, is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of paragraph (31), by striking the period at the end of
paragraph (32) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(33) to the extent provided in section 45K(e), in the
case of amounts with respect to which a credit has been
allowed under section 45K.''.
(d) Deduction for Certain Unused Business Credits.--Section
196(c) (defining qualified business credits) is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (11), by striking
the period at the end of paragraph (12) and inserting ``,
and'', and by adding after paragraph (12) the following new
paragraph:
``(13) the new energy efficient home credit determined
under section 45K(a).''.
(e) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1, as amended by this
Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 45K. New energy efficient home credit.''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1523. DEDUCTION FOR BUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Part VI of subchapter B of chapter 1 is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 200. ENERGY PROPERTY DEDUCTION.
``(a) In General.--There shall be allowed as a deduction
for the taxable year an amount equal to the greater of--
``(1) the amount determined under subsection (b) for each
energy property of the taxpayer placed in service during such
taxable year, or
``(2) the energy efficient residential rental building
property deduction determined under subsection (e).
``(b) Amount for Energy Property.--The amount determined
under this subsection for the taxable year shall be--
``(1) $150 for any advanced main air circulating fan,
``(2) $450 for any qualified natural gas, propane, or oil
furnace or hot water boiler, and
``(2) $900 for any energy efficient building property.
``(c) Energy Property Defined.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this part, the term
`energy property' means any property--
``(A) which is--
``(i) energy-efficient building property,
``(ii) a qualified natural gas, propane, or oil furnace or
hot water boiler, or
``(iii) an advanced main air circulating fan,
``(B)(i) the construction, reconstruction, or erection of
which is completed by the taxpayer, or
``(ii) which is acquired by the taxpayer if the original
use of such property commences with the taxpayer,
``(C) with respect to which depreciation (or amortization
in lieu of depreciation) is allowable, and
``(D) which meets the performance and quality standards,
and the certification requirements (if any), which--
``(i) have been prescribed by the Secretary by regulations
(after consultation with the Secretary of Energy or the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, as
appropriate),
``(ii) in the case of the energy efficiency ratio (EER) for
central air conditioners and electric heat pumps--
``(I) require measurements to be based on published data
which is tested by manufacturers at 95 degrees Fahrenheit,
and
``(II) may be based on the certified data of the Air
Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute that are prepared in
partnership with the Consortium for Energy Efficiency,
``(iii) in the case of geothermal heat pumps--
``(I) shall be based on testing under the conditions of
ARI/ISO Standard 13256-1 for Water Source Heat Pumps or ARI
870 for Direct Expansion GeoExchange Heat Pumps (DX), as
appropriate, and
``(II) shall include evidence that water heating services
have been provided through a desuperheater or integrated
water heating system connected to the storage water heater
tank, and
``(iv) are in effect at the time of the acquisition of the
property, or at the time of the completion of the
construction, reconstruction, or erection of the property, as
the case may be.
``(2) Exception.--Such term shall not include any property
which is public utility property (as defined in section
46(f)(5) as in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990).
``(d) Definitions Relating to Types of Energy Property.--
For purposes of this section--
``(1) Energy-efficient building property.--The term
`energy-efficient building property' means--
``(A) an electric heat pump water heater which yields an
energy factor of at least 2.0 in the standard Department of
Energy test procedure,
``(B) an electric heat pump which has a heating seasonal
performance factor (HSPF) of at least 9, a seasonal energy
efficiency ratio (SEER) of at least 15, and an energy
efficiency ratio (EER) of at least 13,
``(C) a geothermal heat pump which--
``(i) in the case of a closed loop product, has an energy
efficiency ratio (EER) of at least 14.1 and a heating
coefficient of performance (COP) of at least 3.3,
``(ii) in the case of an open loop product, has an energy
efficiency ratio (EER) of at least 16.2 and a heating
coefficient of performance (COP) of at least 3.6, and
``(iii) in the case of a direct expansion (DX) product, has
an energy efficiency ratio (EER)
[[Page 13170]]
of at least 15 and a heating coefficient of performance (COP)
of at least 3.5,
``(D) a central air conditioner which has a seasonal energy
efficiency ratio (SEER) of at least 15 and an energy
efficiency ratio (EER) of at least 13, and
``(E) a natural gas, propane, or oil water heater which has
an energy factor of at least 0.80.
``(2) Qualified natural gas, propane, or oil furnace or hot
water boiler.--The term `qualified natural gas, propane, or
oil furnace or hot water boiler' means a natural gas,
propane, or oil furnace or hot water boiler which achieves an
annual fuel utilization efficiency rate of not less than 95.
``(3) Advanced main air circulating fan.--The term
`advanced main air circulating fan' means a fan used in a
natural gas, propane, or oil furnace originally placed in
service by the taxpayer during the taxable year and which has
an annual electricity use of no more than 2 percent of the
total annual energy use of the furnace (as determined in the
standard Department of Energy test procedures).
``(e) Energy Efficient Residential Rental Building Property
Deduction.--
``(1) Deduction allowed.--For purposes of subsection (a)--
``(A) In general.--The energy efficient residential rental
building property deduction determined under this subsection
is an amount equal to energy efficient residential rental
building property expenditures made by a taxpayer for the
taxable year.
``(B) Maximum amount of deduction.--The amount of energy
efficient residential rental building property expenditures
taken into account under subparagraph (A) with respect to
each dwelling unit shall not exceed--
``(i) $6,000 in the case of a percentage reduction of 50
percent or more as determined under paragraph (2)(B)(ii), and
``(ii) $12,000 times the percentage reduction in the case
of a percentage reduction which is less than 50 percent as
determined under paragraph (2)(B)(ii).
``(C) Year deduction allowed.--The deduction under
subparagraph (A) shall be allowed in the taxable year in
which the construction, reconstruction, erection, or
rehabilitation of the property is completed.
``(2) Energy efficient residential rental building property
expenditures.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `energy efficient residential
rental building property expenditures' means an amount paid
or incurred for energy efficient residential rental building
property--
``(i) in connection with construction, reconstruction,
erection, or rehabilitation of residential rental property
(as defined in section 168(e)(2)(A)) other than property for
which a deduction is allowable under section 179D,
``(ii) for which depreciation is allowable under section
167,
``(iii) which is located in the United States, and
``(iv) the construction, reconstruction, erection, or
rehabilitation of which is completed by the taxpayer.
Such term includes expenditures for labor costs properly
allocable to the onsite preparation, assembly, or original
installation of the property.
``(B) Energy efficient residential rental building
property.--
``(i) In general.--The term `energy efficient residential
rental building property' means any property which,
individually or in combination with other property, reduces
total annual energy and power costs with respect to heating
and cooling of the building by 20 percent or more when
compared to--
``(I) in the case of an existing building, the original
condition of the building, and
``(II) in the case of a new building, the standards for
residential buildings of the same type which are built in
compliance with the applicable building construction codes.
``(ii) Procedures.--
``(I) In general.--For purposes of clause (i), energy usage
and costs shall be demonstrated by performance-based
compliance in accordance with the requirements of clause
(iv).
``(II) Computer software.--Computer software shall be used
in support of performance-based compliance under subclause
(I) and such software shall meet all of the procedures and
methods for calculating energy savings reductions which are
promulgated by the Secretary of Energy. Such regulations on
the specifications for software and verification protocols
shall be based on the 2005 California Residential Alternative
Calculation Method Approval Manual.
``(III) Calculation requirements.--In calculating tradeoffs
and energy performance, the regulations prescribed under this
clause shall prescribe for the taxable year the costs per
unit of energy and power, such as kilowatt hour, kilowatt,
gallon of fuel oil, and cubic foot or Btu of natural gas,
which may be dependent on time of usage. If a State has
developed annual energy usage and cost calculation procedures
based on time of usage costs for use in the performance
standards of the State's building energy code prior to the
effective date of this section, the State may use those
annual energy usage and cost calculation procedures in lieu
of those adopted by the Secretary.
``(IV) Approval of software submissions.--The Secretary
shall approve software submissions which comply with the
requirements of subclause (II).
``(V) Procedures for inspection and testing of homes.--The
Secretary shall ensure that procedures for the inspection and
testing for compliance comply with the calculation
requirements under subclause (III) of this clause and clause
(iv).
``(iii) Determinations of compliance.--A determination of
compliance with respect to energy efficient residential
rental building property made for the purposes of this
subparagraph shall be filed with the Secretary not later than
1 year after the date of such determination and shall include
the TIN of the certifier, the address of the building in
compliance, and the identity of the person for whom such
determination was performed. Determinations of compliance
filed with the Secretary shall be available for inspection by
the Secretary of Energy.
``(iv) Compliance.--
``(I) In general.--The Secretary, after consultation with
the Secretary of Energy, shall establish requirements for
certification and compliance procedures after examining the
requirements for energy consultants and home energy ratings
providers specified by the Mortgage Industry National Home
Energy Rating Standards.
``(II) Individuals qualified to determine compliance.--The
determination of compliance may be provided by a local
building regulatory authority, a utility, a manufactured home
production inspection primary inspection agency (IPIA), or an
accredited home energy rating system provider. All providers
shall be accredited, or otherwise authorized to use approved
energy performance measurement methods, by the Residential
Energy Services Network (RESNET).
``(C) Allocation of deduction for public property.--In the
case of energy efficient residential rental building property
which is property owned by a Federal, State, or local
government or a political subdivision thereof, the Secretary
shall promulgate a regulation to allow the allocation of the
deduction to the person primarily responsible for designing
the improvements to the property in lieu of the owner of such
property. Such person shall be treated as the taxpayer for
purposes of this subsection.
``(f) Basis Reduction.--For purposes of this subtitle, if a
deduction is allowed under this section with respect to any
property, the basis of such property shall be reduced by the
amount of the deduction so allowed.
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate such
regulations as necessary to take into account new
technologies regarding energy efficiency and renewable energy
for purposes of determining energy efficiency and savings
under this section.
``(h) Termination.--This section shall not apply with
respect to any property placed in service after December 31,
2008.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1016(a), as amended by
this Act, is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
paragraph (32), by striking the period at the end of
paragraph (33) and inserting ``, and'', and by inserting the
following new paragraph:
``(34) for amounts allowed as a deduction under section
200(a).''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VI
of subchapter B of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:
``Sec. 200. Energy property deduction.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1524. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits) is
amended by inserting after section 25B the following new
section:
``SEC. 25C. NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual, there
shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this
chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the greater
of--
``(A) the amount of residential energy property
expenditures made by the taxpayer during such taxable year,
or
``(B) the amount specified in paragraph (2) for any
building owned by the taxpayer which is certified as a highly
energy-efficient principal residence during such taxable
year.
``(2) Credit amount.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), the
credit amount with respect to a highly energy-efficient
principal residence is--
``(A) $2,000 in the case of a percentage reduction of 50
percent or more as determined under subsection (c)(4)(C), and
``(B) $4,000 times the percentage reduction in the case of
a percentage reduction which is 20 percent or more but less
than 50 percent as determined under subsection (c)(4)(C).
``(b) Limitation.--The amount of the credit allowed under
this section by reason of subsection (a)(1)(A) shall not
exceed--
``(1) $50 for any advanced main air circulating fan,
[[Page 13171]]
``(2) $150 for any qualified natural gas, propane, or oil
furnace or hot water boiler, and
``(2) $300 for any item of energy efficient property.
``(c) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) Residential energy property expenditures.--The term
`residential energy property expenditures' means expenditures
made by the taxpayer for qualified energy property installed
on or in connection with a dwelling unit which--
``(A) is located in the United States, and
``(B) is used as a principal residence.
Such term includes expenditures for labor costs properly
allocable to the onsite preparation, assembly, or original
installation of the property.
``(2) Qualified energy property.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified energy property'
means--
``(i) energy-efficient building property,
``(ii) a qualified natural gas, propane, or oil furnace or
hot water boiler, or
``(iii) an advanced main air circulating fan.
``(B) Required standards.--Property described under
subparagraph (A) shall meet the performance and quality
standards and certification standards of section
200(c)(1)(D).
``(3) Energy-efficient building property; qualified natural
gas, propane, or oil furnace or hot water boiler; advanced
main air circulating fan.--The terms `energy-efficient
building property', `qualified natural gas, propane, or oil
furnace or hot water boiler', and `advanced main air
circulating fan' have the meanings given such terms in
section 200.
``(4) Highly energy-efficient principal residence.--
``(A) In general.--A building is a highly energy-efficient
principal residence if--
``(i) such building is located in the United States,
``(ii) the building is used as a principal residence,
``(iii) in the case of a new building, the building is not
acquired from an eligible contractor (within the meaning of
section 45K(b)(1)), and
``(iv) the building is certified in accordance with
subparagraph (D) as meeting the requirements of subparagraph
(C).
``(B) Principal residence.--
``(i) In general.--The term `principal residence' has the
same meaning as when used in section 121, except that--
``(I) no ownership requirement shall be imposed, and
``(II) the period for which a building is treated as used
as a principal residence shall also include the 60-day period
ending on the 1st day on which it would (but for this
subparagraph) first be treated as used as a principal
residence.
``(ii) Manufactured housing.--The term `residence' shall
include a dwelling unit which is a manufactured home
conforming to Federal Manufactured Home Construction and
Safety Standards (24 C.F.R. 3280).
``(C) Requirements.--The requirements of this subparagraph
are met if the projected heating and cooling energy usage of
the building, measured in terms of average annual energy cost
to taxpayer, is reduced by 20 percent or more in comparison
to--
``(i) in the case of an existing building, the original
condition of the building, and
``(ii) in the case of a new building, a comparable
building--
``(I) which is constructed in accordance with the standards
of chapter 4 of the 2003 International Energy Conservation
Code, as such Code (including supplements) is in effect on
the date of the enactment of this section, and
``(II) for which the heating and cooling equipment
efficiencies correspond to the minimum allowed under the
regulations established by the Department of Energy pursuant
to the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 and
in effect at the time of construction.
``(D) Certification procedures.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(iv),
energy usage shall be demonstrated by performance-based
compliance in accordance with the requirements of subsection
(d)(2).
``(ii) Computer software.--Computer software shall be used
in support of performance-based compliance under clause (i)
and such software shall meet all of the procedures and
methods for calculating energy savings reductions which are
promulgated by the Secretary of Energy. Such regulations on
the specifications for software and verification protocols
shall be based on the 2005 California Residential Alternative
Calculation Method Approval Manual.
``(iii) Calculation requirements.--In calculating tradeoffs
and energy performance, the regulations shall prescribe the
costs per unit of energy and power, such as kilowatt hour,
kilowatt, gallon of fuel oil, and cubic foot or Btu of
natural gas, which may be dependent on time of usage. If a
State has developed annual energy usage and cost calculation
procedures based on time of usage costs for use in the
performance standards of the State's building energy code
before the effective date of this section, the State may use
those annual energy usage and cost calculation procedures in
lieu of those adopted by the Secretary.
``(iv) Approval of software submissions.--The Secretary
shall approve software submissions which comply with the
calculation requirements of clause (ii).
``(v) Procedures for inspection and testing of dwelling
units.--The Secretary shall ensure that procedures for the
inspection and testing for compliance comply with the
calculation requirements under clause (iii) and subsection
(d)(2).
``(d) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Determinations of compliance.--A determination of
compliance made for the purposes of this section shall be
filed with the Secretary within 1 year of the date of such
determination and shall include the TIN of the certifier, the
address of the building in compliance, and the identity of
the person for whom such determination was performed.
Determinations of compliance filed with the Secretary shall
be available for inspection by the Secretary of Energy.
``(2) Compliance.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary, after consultation with
the Secretary of Energy, shall establish requirements for
certification and compliance procedures after examining the
requirements for energy consultants and home energy ratings
providers specified by the Mortgage Industry National Home
Energy Rating Standards.
``(B) Individuals qualified to determine compliance.--The
determination of compliance may be provided by a local
building regulatory authority, a utility, a manufactured home
production inspection primary inspection agency (IPIA), or an
accredited home energy rating system provider. All providers
shall be accredited, or otherwise authorized to use approved
energy performance measurement methods, by the Residential
Energy Services Network (RESNET).
``(3) Dollar amounts in case of joint occupancy.--In the
case of any dwelling unit which is jointly occupied and used
during any calendar year as a principal residence by 2 or
more individuals, the following rules shall apply:
``(A) The amount of the credit allowable under subsection
(a) by reason of expenditures made during such calendar year
by any of such individuals with respect to such dwelling unit
shall be determined by treating all of such individuals as 1
taxpayer whose taxable year is such calendar year.
``(B) There shall be allowable with respect to such
expenditures to each of such individuals, a credit under
subsection (a) for the taxable year in which such calendar
year ends in an amount which bears the same ratio to the
amount determined under subparagraph (A) as the amount of
such expenditures made by such individual during such
calendar year bears to the aggregate of such expenditures
made by all of such individuals during such calendar year.
``(4) Tenant-stockholder in cooperative housing
corporation.--In the case of an individual who is a tenant-
stockholder (as defined in section 216) in a cooperative
housing corporation (as defined in such section), such
individual shall be treated as having made his tenant-
stockholder's proportionate share (as defined in section
216(b)(3)) of any expenditures of such corporation and such
credit shall be allocated pro rata to such individual.
``(5) Condominiums.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of an individual who is a
member of a condominium management association with respect
to a condominium which he owns, such individual shall be
treated as having made his proportionate share of any
expenditures of such association and any credit shall be
allocated appropriately.
``(B) Condominium management association.--For purposes of
this paragraph, the term `condominium management association'
means an organization which meets the requirements of
paragraph (1) of section 528(c) (other than subparagraph (E)
thereof) with respect to a condominium project substantially
all of the units of which are used as principal residences.
``(6) Joint ownership of energy items.--
``(A) In general.--Any expenditure otherwise qualifying as
an expenditure under this section shall not be treated as
failing to so qualify merely because such expenditure was
made with respect to 2 or more dwelling units.
``(B) Limits applied separately.--In the case of any
expenditure described in subparagraph (A), the amount of the
credit allowable under subsection (a) shall (subject to
paragraph (1)) be computed separately with respect to the
amount of the expenditure made for each dwelling unit.
``(7) Allocation in certain cases.--If less than 80 percent
of the use of an item is for nonbusiness purposes, only that
portion of the expenditures for such item which is properly
allocable to use for nonbusiness purposes shall be taken into
account.
``(8) Year credit allowed.--The credit under subsection
(a)(2) shall be allowed in the taxable year in which the
percentage reduction with respect to the principal residence
is certified.
``(9) When expenditure made; amount of expenditure.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
an expenditure with respect to an item shall be treated as
made when the original installation of the item is completed.
[[Page 13172]]
``(B) Expenditures part of building construction.--In the
case of an expenditure in connection with the construction of
a structure, such expenditure shall be treated as made when
the original use of the constructed structure by the taxpayer
begins.
``(10) Property financed by subsidized energy financing.--
``(A) Reduction of expenditures.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C),
for purposes of determining the amount of expenditures made
by any individual with respect to any dwelling unit, there
shall not be taken into account expenditures which are made
from subsidized energy financing.
``(ii) Subsidized energy financing.--For purposes of clause
(i), the term `subsidized energy financing' has the same
meaning given such term in section 48(a)(4)(C).
``(B) Dollar limits reduced.--The dollar amounts in
subsection (b)(3) with respect to each property purchased for
such dwelling unit for any taxable year of such taxpayer
shall be reduced proportionately by an amount equal to the
sum of--
``(i) the amount of the expenditures made by the taxpayer
during such taxable year with respect to such dwelling unit
and not taken into account by reason of subparagraph (A), and
``(ii) the amount of any Federal, State, or local grant
received by the taxpayer during such taxable year which is
used to make residential energy property expenditures with
respect to the dwelling unit and is not included in the gross
income of such taxpayer.
``(C) Exception for state programs.--Subparagraphs (A) and
(B) shall not apply to expenditures made with respect to
property for which the taxpayer has received a loan, State
tax credit, or grant under any State energy program.
``(11) Coordination with section 25D.--In any case in which
a credit under section 25D has been allowed with respect to
property in connection with a building for which a credit is
allowable under this section by reason of subsection
(a)(1)(B)--
``(A) for purposes of subsection (c)(4)(C), the average
annual energy cost with respect to heating and cooling of--
``(i) for purposes of subsection (c)(4)(C)(i), the original
condition of the building, and
``(ii) for purposes of subsection (c)(4)(C)(ii), the
comparable building,
shall be determined assuming such building contains the
property for which such credit has been allowed, and
``(B) any cost of such property taken into account under
such section shall not be taken into account under this
section.
``(e) Basis Adjustments.--For purposes of this subtitle, if
a credit is allowed under this section for any expenditure
with respect to any property, the increase in the basis of
such property which would (but for this subsection) result
from such expenditure shall be reduced by the amount of the
credit so allowed.
``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate such
regulations as necessary to take into account new
technologies regarding energy efficiency and renewable energy
for purposes of determining energy efficiency and savings
under this section.
``(g) Termination.--This section shall not apply with
respect to any property placed in service after December 31,
2008.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subsection (a) of section 1016, as amended by this Act,
is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (33),
by striking the period at the end of paragraph (34) and
inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(35) to the extent provided in section 25C(e), in the
case of amounts with respect to which a credit has been
allowed under section 25C.''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 25B the following new item:
``Sec. 25C. Nonbusiness energy property.''.
(c) Effective Dates.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2005.
SEC. 1525. ENERGY CREDIT FOR COMBINED HEAT AND POWER SYSTEM
PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Section 48(a)(3)(A) (defining energy
property) is by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i), by
inserting ``or'' at the end of clause (ii), and by adding at
the end the following new clause:
``(iii) combined heat and power system property,''.
(b) Combined Heat and Power System Property.--Section 48
(relating to energy credit; reforestation credit) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Combined Heat and Power System Property.--For
purposes of subsection (a)(3)(A)(iii)--
``(1) Combined heat and power system property.--The term
`combined heat and power system property' means property
comprising a system--
``(A) which uses the same energy source for the
simultaneous or sequential generation of electrical power,
mechanical shaft power, or both, in combination with the
generation of steam or other forms of useful thermal energy
(including heating and cooling applications),
``(B) which has an electrical capacity of not more than 15
megawatts or a mechanical energy capacity of not more than
2,000 horsepower or an equivalent combination of electrical
and mechanical energy capacities,
``(C) which produces--
``(i) at least 20 percent of its total useful energy in the
form of thermal energy which is not used to produce
electrical or mechanical power (or combination thereof), and
``(ii) at least 20 percent of its total useful energy in
the form of electrical or mechanical power (or combination
thereof),
``(D) the energy efficiency percentage of which exceeds 60
percent, and
``(E) which is placed in service before January 1, 2008.
``(2) Special rules.--
``(A) Energy efficiency percentage.--For purposes of this
subsection, the energy efficiency percentage of a system is
the fraction--
``(i) the numerator of which is the total useful
electrical, thermal, and mechanical power produced by the
system at normal operating rates, and expected to be consumed
in its normal application, and
``(ii) the denominator of which is the lower heating value
of the fuel sources for the system.
``(B) Determinations made on btu basis.--The energy
efficiency percentage and the percentages under paragraph
(1)(C) shall be determined on a Btu basis.
``(C) Input and output property not included.--The term
`combined heat and power system property' does not include
property used to transport the energy source to the facility
or to distribute energy produced by the facility.
``(D) Certain exception not to apply.--The first sentence
of the matter in subsection (a)(3) which follows subparagraph
(D) thereof shall not apply to combined heat and power system
property.
``(3) Systems using bagasse.--If a system is designed to
use bagasse for at least 90 percent of the energy source--
``(A) paragraph (1)(D) shall not apply, but
``(B) the amount of credit determined under subsection (a)
with respect to such system shall not exceed the amount which
bears the same ratio to such amount of credit (determined
without regard to this paragraph) as the energy efficiency
percentage of such system bears to 60 percent.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to periods after the date of the enactment of
this Act, in taxable years ending after such date, under
rules similar to the rules of section 48(m) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect on the day before the date
of the enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990).
SEC. 1526. CREDIT FOR ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCES.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to business-related credits), as amended
by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``SEC. 45L. ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCE CREDIT.
``(a) General Rule.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 38, the energy
efficient appliance credit determined under this section for
any taxable year is an amount equal to the sum of the credit
amounts determined under paragraph (2) for each type of
qualified energy efficient appliance produced by the taxpayer
during the calendar year ending with or within the taxable
year.
``(2) Credit amounts.--The credit amount determined for any
type of qualified energy efficient appliance is--
``(A) the applicable amount determined under subsection (b)
with respect to such type, multiplied by
``(B) the eligible production for such type.
``(b) Applicable Amount.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)--
``(A) Dishwashers.--The applicable amount is the energy
savings amount in the case of a dishwasher which--
``(i) is manufactured in calendar year 2006 or 2007, and
``(ii) meets the requirements of the Energy Star program
which are in effect for dishwashers in 2007.
``(B) Clothes washers.--The applicable amount is--
``(i) $50, in the case of a clothes washer which--
``(I) is manufactured in calendar year 2005, and
``(II) has an MEF of at least 1.42,
``(ii) $100, in the case of a clothes washer which--
``(I) is manufactured in calendar year 2005, 2006, or 2007,
and
``(II) meets the requirements of the Energy Star program
which are in effect for clothes washers in 2007, and
``(iii) the energy and water savings amount, in the case of
a clothes washer which--
``(I) is manufactured in calendar year 2008, 2009, or 2010,
and
``(II) meets the requirements of the Energy Star program
which are in effect for clothes washers in 2010.
``(C) Refrigerators.--
[[Page 13173]]
``(i) 15 percent savings.--The applicable amount is $75 in
the case of a refrigerator which--
``(I) is manufactured in calendar year 2005 or 2006, and
``(II) consumes at least 15 percent but not more than 20
percent less kilowatt hours per year than the 2001 energy
conservation standard.
``(ii) 20 percent savings.--In the case of a refrigerator
which consumes at least 20 percent but not more than 25
percent less kilowatt hours per year than the 2001 energy
conservation standards, the applicable amount is--
``(I) $125 for a refrigerator which is manufactured in
calendar year 2005, 2006, or 2007, and
``(II) $100 for a refrigerator which is manufactured in
calendar year 2008.
``(iii) 25 percent savings.--In the case of a refrigerator
which consumes at least 25 percent less kilowatt hours per
year than the 2001 energy conservation standards, the
applicable amount is--
``(I) $175 for a refrigerator which is manufactured in
calendar year 2005, 2006, or 2007, and
``(II) $150 for a refrigerator which is manufactured in
calendar year 2008, 2009, or 2010.
``(2) Energy savings amount.--For purposes of paragraph
(1)(A)--
``(A) In general.--The energy savings amount is the lesser
of--
``(i) the product of--
``(I) $3, and
``(II) 100 multiplied by the energy savings percentage, or
``(ii) $100.
``(B) Energy savings percentage.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the energy savings percentage is the ratio
of--
``(i) the EF required by the Energy Star program for
dishwashers in 2007 minus the EF required by the Energy Star
program for dishwashers in 2005, to
``(ii) the EF required by the Energy Star program for
dishwashers in 2007.
``(3) Energy and water savings amount.--For purposes of
paragraph (1)(B)(iii)--
``(A) In general.--The energy and water savings amount is
the lesser of--
``(i) the product of--
``(I) $10, and
``(II) 100 multiplied by the energy and water savings
percentage, or
``(ii) $200.
``(B) Energy and water savings percentage.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the energy and water savings percentage is
the average of the MEF savings percentage and the WF savings
percentage.
``(C) MEF savings percentage.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the MEF savings percentage is the ratio of--
``(i) the MEF required by the Energy Star program for
clothes washers in 2010 minus the MEF required by the Energy
Star program for clothes washers in 2007, to
``(ii) the MEF required by the Energy Star program for
clothes washers in 2010.
``(D) WF savings percentage.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the WF savings percentage is the ratio of--
``(i) the WF required by the Energy Star program for
clothes washers in 2007 minus the WF required by the Energy
Star program for clothes washers in 2010, to
``(ii) the WF required by the Energy Star program for
clothes washers in 2007.
``(c) Eligible Production.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), the eligible production in a calendar year with respect
to each type of energy efficient appliance is the excess of--
``(A) the number of appliances of such type which are
produced by the taxpayer in the United States during such
calendar year, over
``(B) the average number of appliances of such type which
were produced by the taxpayer (or any predecessor) in the
United States during the preceding 3-calendar year period.
``(2) Special rule for refrigerators.--The eligible
production in a calendar year with respect to each type of
refrigerator described in subsection (b)(1)(C) is the excess
of--
``(A) the number of appliances of such type which are
produced by the taxpayer in the United States during such
calendar year, over
``(B) 110 percent of the average number of appliances of
such type which were produced by the taxpayer (or any
predecessor) in the United States during the preceding 3-
calendar year period.
``(3) Special rule for 2005 production.--For purposes of
determining eligible production for calendar year 2005--
``(A) only production after the date of enactment of this
section shall be taken into account under paragraphs (1)(A)
and (2)(A), and
``(B) the amount taken into account under paragraphs (1)(B)
and (2)(B) shall be an amount which bears the same ratio to
the amount which would (but for this paragraph) be taken into
account under such paragraph as--
``(i) the number of days in calendar year 2005 after the
date of enactment of this section, bears to
``(ii) 365.
``(d) Types of Energy Efficient Appliance.--For purposes of
this section, the types of energy efficient appliances are--
``(1) dishwashers described in subsection (b)(1)(A),
``(2) clothes washers described in subsection (b)(1)(B)(i),
``(3) clothes washers described in subsection
(b)(1)(B)(ii),
``(4) clothes washers described in subsection
(b)(1)(B)(iii),
``(5) refrigerators described in subsection (b)(1)(C)(i),
``(6) refrigerators described in subsection
(b)(1)(C)(ii)(I),
``(7) refrigerators described in subsection
(b)(1)(C)(ii)(II),
``(8) refrigerators described in subsection
(b)(1)(C)(iii)(I), and
``(9) refrigerators described in subsection
(b)(1)(C)(iii)(II).
``(e) Limitations.--
``(1) Aggregate credit amount allowed.--The aggregate
amount of credit allowed under subsection (a) with respect to
a taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed $75,000,000
reduced by the amount of the credit allowed under subsection
(a) to the taxpayer (or any predecessor) for all prior
taxable years.
``(2) Amount allowed for certain appliances.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of appliances described in
subparagraph (C), the aggregate amount of the credit allowed
under subsection (a) with respect to a taxpayer for any
taxable year shall not exceed $20,000,000 reduced by the
amount of the credit allowed under subsection (a) to the
taxpayer (or any predecessor) for all prior taxable years
with respect to such appliances.
``(B) Election to increase allowable credit.--In the case
of any taxpayer who makes an election under this
subparagraph--
``(i) subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting
`$25,000,000' for `$20,000,000', and
``(ii) the aggregate amount of the credit allowed under
subsection (a) with respect to such taxpayer for any taxable
year for appliances described in subparagraph (C) and the
additional appliances described in subparagraph (D) shall not
exceed $50,000,000 reduced by the amount of the credit
allowed under subsection (a) to the taxpayer (or any
predecessor) for all prior taxable years with respect to such
appliances.
``(C) Appliances described.--The appliances described in
this subparagraph are--
``(i) clothes washers described in subsection (b)(1)(B)(i),
and
``(ii) refrigerators described in subsection (b)(1)(C)(i).
``(D) Additional appliances.--The additional appliances
described in this subparagraph are--
``(i) refrigerators described in subsection
(b)(1)(C)(ii)(I), and
``(ii) refrigerators described in subsection
(b)(1)(C)(ii)(II).
``(3) Limitation based on gross receipts.--The credit
allowed under subsection (a) with respect to a taxpayer for
the taxable year shall not exceed an amount equal to 2
percent of the average annual gross receipts of the taxpayer
for the 3 taxable years preceding the taxable year in which
the credit is determined.
``(4) Gross receipts.--For purposes of this subsection, the
rules of paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 448(c) shall
apply.
``(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified energy efficient appliance.--The term
`qualified energy efficient appliance' means--
``(A) any dishwasher described in subsection (b)(1)(A),
``(B) any clothes washer described in subsection (b)(1)(B),
and
``(C) any refrigerator described in subsection (b)(1)(C).
``(2) Dishwasher.--The term `dishwasher' means a
residential dishwasher subject to the energy conservation
standards established by the Department of Energy.
``(3) Clothes washer.--The term `clothes washer' means a
residential model clothes washer, including a residential
style coin operated washer.
``(4) Refrigerator.--The term `refrigerator' means a
residential model automatic defrost refrigerator-freezer
which has an internal volume of at least 16.5 cubic feet.
``(5) MEF.--The term `MEF' means the modified energy factor
established by the Department of Energy for compliance with
the Federal energy conservation standards.
``(6) EF.--The term `EF' means the energy factor
established by the Department of Energy for compliance with
the Federal energy conservation standards.
``(7) WF.--The term `WF' means Water Factor (as determined
by the Secretary of Energy).
``(8) Produced.--The term `produced' includes manufactured.
``(9) 2001 energy conservation standard.--The term `2001
energy conservation standard' means the energy conservation
standards promulgated by the Department of Energy and
effective July 1, 2001.
``(g) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--Rules similar to the rules of
subsections (c), (d), and (e) of section 52 shall apply.
[[Page 13174]]
``(2) Controlled group.--
``(A) In general.--All persons treated as a single employer
under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52 or subsection (m)
or (o) of section 414 shall be treated as a single producer.
``(B) Inclusion of foreign corporations.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), in applying subsections (a) and (b) of
section 52 to this section, section 1563 shall be applied
without regard to subsection (b)(2)(C) thereof.
``(3) Verification.--No amount shall be allowed as a credit
under subsection (a) with respect to which the taxpayer has
not submitted such information or certification as the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy,
determines necessary.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 38(b) (relating to
general business credit), as amended by this Act, is amended
by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (20), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (21) and
inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(22) the energy efficient appliance credit determined
under section 45L(a).''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1, as amended by this
Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 45L. Energy efficient appliance credit''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to appliances produced after the date of the
enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such
date.
SEC. 1527. CREDIT FOR RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENT PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits), as
amended by this Act, is amended by inserting after section
25C the following new section:
``SEC. 25D. RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENT PROPERTY.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the sum
of--
``(1) 30 percent of the qualified photovoltaic property
expenditures made by the taxpayer during such year,
``(2) 30 percent of the qualified solar water heating
property expenditures made by the taxpayer during such year,
``(3) 30 percent of the qualified fuel cell property
expenditures made by the taxpayer during such year,
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Maximum credit.--The credit allowed under subsection
(a) shall not exceed--
``(A) $2,000 for property described in paragraph (1) or (2)
of subsection (d), and
``(B) $500 for each 0.5 kilowatt of capacity of property
described in subsection (d)(4).
``(2) Certifications.--No credit shall be allowed under
this section for an item of property unless--
``(A) in the case of solar water heating property, such
property is certified for performance by the non-profit Solar
Rating Certification Corporation or a comparable entity
endorsed by the government of the State in which such
property is installed, and
``(B) in the case of a photovoltaic property or a fuel cell
property such property meets appropriate fire and electric
code requirements.
``(c) Carryforward of Unused Credit.--If the credit
allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed
by section 26(a) for such taxable year reduced by the sum of
the credits allowable under this subpart (other than this
section), such excess shall be carried to the succeeding
taxable year and added to the credit allowable under
subsection (a) for such succeeding taxable year.
``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified solar water heating property expenditure.--
The term `qualified solar water heating property expenditure'
means an expenditure for property to heat water for use in a
dwelling unit located in the United States and used as a
residence by the taxpayer if at least half of the energy used
by such property for such purpose is derived from the sun.
``(2) Qualified photovoltaic property expenditure.--The
term `qualified photovoltaic property expenditure' means an
expenditure for property which uses solar energy to generate
electricity for use in a dwelling unit located in the United
States and used as a residence by the taxpayer.
``(3) Solar panels.--No expenditure relating to a solar
panel or other property installed as a roof (or portion
thereof) shall fail to be treated as property described in
paragraph (1) or (2) solely because it constitutes a
structural component of the structure on which it is
installed.
``(4) Qualified fuel cell property expenditure.--The term
`qualified fuel cell property expenditure' means an
expenditure for qualified fuel cell property (as defined in
section 48(d)(1)) installed on or in connection with a
dwelling unit located in the United States and used as a
principal residence (within the meaning of section 121) by
the taxpayer.
``(5) Labor costs.--Expenditures for labor costs properly
allocable to the onsite preparation, assembly, or original
installation of the property described in paragraph (1), (2),
(4), (5), or (6) and for piping or wiring to interconnect
such property to the dwelling unit shall be taken into
account for purposes of this section.
``(6) Swimming pools, etc., used as storage medium.--
Expenditures which are properly allocable to a swimming pool,
hot tub, or any other energy storage medium which has a
function other than the function of such storage shall not be
taken into account for purposes of this section.
``(e) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Dollar amounts in case of joint occupancy.--In the
case of any dwelling unit which is jointly occupied and used
during any calendar year as a residence by 2 or more
individuals the following rules shall apply:
``(A) The amount of the credit allowable, under subsection
(a) by reason of expenditures (as the case may be) made
during such calendar year by any of such individuals with
respect to such dwelling unit shall be determined by treating
all of such individuals as 1 taxpayer whose taxable year is
such calendar year.
``(B) There shall be allowable, with respect to such
expenditures to each of such individuals, a credit under
subsection (a) for the taxable year in which such calendar
year ends in an amount which bears the same ratio to the
amount determined under subparagraph (A) as the amount of
such expenditures made by such individual during such
calendar year bears to the aggregate of such expenditures
made by all of such individuals during such calendar year.
``(2) Tenant-stockholder in cooperative housing
corporation.--In the case of an individual who is a tenant-
stockholder (as defined in section 216) in a cooperative
housing corporation (as defined in such section), such
individual shall be treated as having made his tenant-
stockholder's proportionate share (as defined in section
216(b)(3)) of any expenditures of such corporation.
``(3) Condominiums.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of an individual who is a
member of a condominium management association with respect
to a condominium which the individual owns, such individual
shall be treated as having made the individual's
proportionate share of any expenditures of such association.
``(B) Condominium management association.--For purposes of
this paragraph, the term `condominium management association'
means an organization which meets the requirements of
paragraph (1) of section 528(c) (other than subparagraph (E)
thereof) with respect to a condominium project substantially
all of the units of which are used as residences.
``(4) Allocation in certain cases.--If less than 80 percent
of the use of an item is for nonbusiness purposes, only that
portion of the expenditures for such item which is properly
allocable to use for nonbusiness purposes shall be taken into
account.
``(5) When expenditure made; amount of expenditure.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
an expenditure with respect to an item shall be treated as
made when the original installation of the item is completed.
``(B) Expenditures part of building construction.--In the
case of an expenditure in connection with the construction or
reconstruction of a structure, such expenditure shall be
treated as made when the original use of the constructed or
reconstructed structure by the taxpayer begins.
``(C) Amount.--The amount of any expenditure shall be the
cost thereof.
``(6) Property financed by subsidized energy financing.--
For purposes of determining the amount of expenditures made
by any individual with respect to any dwelling unit, there
shall not be taken into account expenditures which are made
from subsidized energy financing (as defined in section
48(a)(4)(C)).
``(f) Basis Adjustments.--For purposes of this subtitle, if
a credit is allowed under this section for any expenditure
with respect to any property, the increase in the basis of
such property which would (but for this subsection) result
from such expenditure shall be reduced by the amount of the
credit so allowed.
``(g) Termination.--The credit allowed under this section
shall not apply to property placed in service after December
31, 2009.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1016(a), as amended by this Act, is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (34), by striking
the period at the end of paragraph (35) and inserting ``,
and'', and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(36) to the extent provided in section 25D(f), in the
case of amounts with respect to which a credit has been
allowed under section 25D.''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1, as amended by this Act, is amended
by inserting after the item relating to section 25C the
following new item:
``Sec. 25D. Residential energy efficient property.''.
[[Page 13175]]
(c) Effective Dates.--Except as provided by paragraph (2),
the amendments made by this section shall apply to property
placed in service after December 31, 2005, in taxable years
ending after such date.
SEC. 1528. CREDIT FOR BUSINESS INSTALLATION OF QUALIFIED FUEL
CELLS AND STATIONARY MICROTURBINE POWER PLANTS.
(a) In General.--Section 48(a)(3)(A) (defining energy
property), as amended by this Act, is amended by striking
``or'' at the end of clause (ii), by adding ``or'' at the end
of clause (iii), and by inserting after clause (iii) the
following new clause:
``(iv) qualified fuel cell property or qualified
microturbine property,''.
(b) Qualified Fuel Cell Property; Qualified Microturbine
Property.--Section 48 (relating to energy credit) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Qualified Fuel Cell Property; Qualified Microturbine
Property.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(1) Qualified fuel cell property.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified fuel cell property'
means a fuel cell power plant which--
``(i) has a nameplate capacity of at least 0.5 kilowatt of
electricity using an electrochemical process, and
``(ii) has an electricity-only generation efficiency
greater than 30 percent.
``(B) Limitation.--In the case of qualified fuel cell
property placed in service during the taxable year, the
credit otherwise determined under paragraph (1) for such year
with respect to such property shall not exceed an amount
equal to $500 for each 0.5 kilowatt of capacity of such
property.
``(C) Fuel cell power plant.--The term `fuel cell power
plant' means an integrated system comprised of a fuel cell
stack assembly and associated balance of plant components
which converts a fuel into electricity using electrochemical
means.
``(D) Special rule.--The first sentence of the matter in
subsection (a)(3) which follows subparagraph (D) thereof
shall not apply to qualified fuel cell property which is used
predominantly in the trade or business of the furnishing or
sale of telephone service, telegraph service by means of
domestic telegraph operations, or other telegraph services
(other than international telegraph services).
``(E) Termination.--The term `qualified fuel cell property'
shall not include any property for any period after December
31, 2009.
``(2) Qualified microturbine property.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified microturbine
property' means a stationary microturbine power plant which--
``(i) has a nameplate capacity of less than 2,000
kilowatts, and
``(ii) has an electricity-only generation efficiency of not
less than 26 percent at International Standard Organization
conditions.
``(B) Limitation.--In the case of qualified microturbine
property placed in service during the taxable year, the
credit otherwise determined under paragraph (1) for such year
with respect to such property shall not exceed an amount
equal $200 for each kilowatt of capacity of such property.
``(C) Stationary microturbine power plant.--The term
`stationary microturbine power plant' means an integrated
system comprised of a gas turbine engine, a combustor, a
recuperator or regenerator, a generator or alternator, and
associated balance of plant components which converts a fuel
into electricity and thermal energy. Such term also includes
all secondary components located between the existing
infrastructure for fuel delivery and the existing
infrastructure for power distribution, including equipment
and controls for meeting relevant power standards, such as
voltage, frequency, and power factors.
``(D) Special rule.--The first sentence of the matter in
subsection (a)(3) which follows subparagraph (D) thereof
shall not apply to qualified microturbine property which is
used predominantly in the trade or business of the furnishing
or sale of telephone service, telegraph service by means of
domestic telegraph operations, or other telegraph services
(other than international telegraph services).
``(E) Termination.--The term `qualified microturbine
property' shall not include any property for any period after
December 31, 2008.''.
(c) Energy Percentage.--Section 48(a)(2)(A) (relating to
energy percentage) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--The energy percentage is--
``(i) in the case of qualified fuel cell property, 30
percent, and
``(ii) in the case of any other energy property, 10
percent.''.
(d) Conforming Amendment.-- Section 48(a)(1) is amended by
inserting ``except as provided in paragraph (1)(B) or (2)(B)
of subsection (d),'' before ``the energy''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to periods after December 31, 2005, in taxable
years ending after such date, under rules similar to the
rules of section 48(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of
the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990).
SEC. 1529. BUSINESS SOLAR INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT.
(a) Increase in Energy Percentage.--Section 48(a)(2)(A)
(relating to energy percentage), as amended by this Act, is
amended to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--The energy percentage is--
``(i) in the case of energy property described in paragraph
(3)(A)(i) and qualified fuel cell property, 30 percent, and
``(ii) in the case of any other energy property, 10
percent.''.
(b) Hybrid Solar Lighting Systems.--Clause (i) of section
48(a)(3)(A) is amended to read as follows:
``(i) equipment which uses solar energy to generate
electricity for use in a structure, to heat or cool (or
provide hot water for use in) a structure, to illuminate the
inside of a structure using fiber-optic distributed sunlight
or to provide solar process heat, excepting property used to
generate energy for the purposes of heating a swimming
pool,''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to periods after December 31, 2005, in taxable
years ending after such date, and before January 1, 2010,
under rules similar to the rules of section 48(m) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect on the day before
the date of the enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act
of 1990).
Subtitle D--Alternative Motor Vehicles and Fuels Incentives
SEC. 1531. ALTERNATIVE MOTOR VEHICLE CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to foreign tax credit, etc.) is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 30B. ALTERNATIVE MOTOR VEHICLE CREDIT.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--There shall be allowed as a
credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the
taxable year an amount equal to the sum of--
``(1) the new qualified fuel cell motor vehicle credit
determined under subsection (b),
``(2) the new qualified hybrid motor vehicle credit
determined under subsection (c), and
``(3) the new qualified alternative fuel motor vehicle
credit determined under subsection (d).
``(b) New Qualified Fuel Cell Motor Vehicle Credit.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the new
qualified fuel cell motor vehicle credit determined under
this subsection with respect to a new qualified fuel cell
motor vehicle placed in service by the taxpayer during the
taxable year is--
``(A) $8,000 ($4,000 in the case of a vehicle placed in
service after December 31, 2009), if such vehicle has a gross
vehicle weight rating of not more than 8,500 pounds,
``(B) $10,000, if such vehicle has a gross vehicle weight
rating of more than 8,500 pounds but not more than 14,000
pounds,
``(C) $20,000, if such vehicle has a gross vehicle weight
rating of more than 14,000 pounds but not more than 26,000
pounds, and
``(D) $40,000, if such vehicle has a gross vehicle weight
rating of more than 26,000 pounds.
``(2) Increase for fuel efficiency.--
``(A) In general.--The amount determined under paragraph
(1)(A) with respect to a new qualified fuel cell motor
vehicle which is a passenger automobile or light truck shall
be increased by--
``(i) $1,000, if such vehicle achieves at least 150 percent
but less than 175 percent of the 2002 model year city fuel
economy,
``(ii) $1,500, if such vehicle achieves at least 175
percent but less than 200 percent of the 2002 model year city
fuel economy,
``(iii) $2,000, if such vehicle achieves at least 200
percent but less than 225 percent of the 2002 model year city
fuel economy,
``(iv) $2,500, if such vehicle achieves at least 225
percent but less than 250 percent of the 2002 model year city
fuel economy,
``(v) $3,000, if such vehicle achieves at least 250 percent
but less than 275 percent of the 2002 model year city fuel
economy,
``(vi) $3,500, if such vehicle achieves at least 275
percent but less than 300 percent of the 2002 model year city
fuel economy, and
``(vii) $4,000, if such vehicle achieves at least 300
percent of the 2002 model year city fuel economy.
``(B) 2002 model year city fuel economy.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the 2002 model year city fuel economy with
respect to a vehicle shall be determined in accordance with
the following tables:
``(i) In the case of a passenger automobile:
``If vehicle inertia weight clThe 2002 model year city fuel economy is:
1,500 or 1,750 lbs............................................45.2 mpg
2,000 lbs.....................................................39.6 mpg
2,250 lbs.....................................................35.2 mpg
2,500 lbs.....................................................31.7 mpg
2,750 lbs.....................................................28.8 mpg
3,000 lbs.....................................................26.4 mpg
3,500 lbs.....................................................22.6 mpg
4,000 lbs.....................................................19.8 mpg
4,500 lbs.....................................................17.6 mpg
5,000 lbs.....................................................15.9 mpg
5,500 lbs.....................................................14.4 mpg
6,000 lbs.....................................................13.2 mpg
6,500 lbs.....................................................12.2 mpg
7,000 to 8,500 lbs............................................11.3 mpg.
``(ii) In the case of a light truck:
[[Page 13176]]
``If vehicle inertia weight clThe 2002 model year city fuel economy is:
1,500 or 1,750 lbs............................................39.4 mpg
2,000 lbs.....................................................35.2 mpg
2,250 lbs.....................................................31.8 mpg
2,500 lbs.....................................................29.0 mpg
2,750 lbs.....................................................26.8 mpg
3,000 lbs.....................................................24.9 mpg
3,500 lbs.....................................................21.8 mpg
4,000 lbs.....................................................19.4 mpg
4,500 lbs.....................................................17.6 mpg
5,000 lbs.....................................................16.1 mpg
5,500 lbs.....................................................14.8 mpg
6,000 lbs.....................................................13.7 mpg
6,500 lbs.....................................................12.8 mpg
7,000 to 8,500 lbs............................................12.1 mpg.
``(C) Vehicle inertia weight class.--For purposes of
subparagraph (B), the term `vehicle inertia weight class' has
the same meaning as when defined in regulations prescribed by
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for
purposes of the administration of title II of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.).
``(3) New qualified fuel cell motor vehicle.--For purposes
of this subsection, the term `new qualified fuel cell motor
vehicle' means a motor vehicle--
``(A) which is propelled by power derived from 1 or more
cells which convert chemical energy directly into electricity
by combining oxygen with hydrogen fuel which is stored on
board the vehicle in any form and may or may not require
reformation prior to use,
``(B) which, in the case of a passenger automobile or light
truck, has received on or after the date of the enactment of
this section a certificate that such vehicle meets or exceeds
the Bin 5 Tier II emission level established in regulations
prescribed by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency under section 202(i) of the Clean Air Act
for that make and model year vehicle,
``(C) the original use of which commences with the
taxpayer,
``(D) which is acquired for use or lease by the taxpayer
and not for resale, and
``(E) which is made by a manufacturer.
``(c) New Qualified Hybrid Motor Vehicle Credit.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the new
qualified hybrid motor vehicle credit determined under this
subsection with respect to a new qualified hybrid motor
vehicle placed in service by the taxpayer during the taxable
year is the credit amount determined under paragraph (2) or
(3).
``(2) Credit amount for lighter vehicles.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a new qualified hybrid
motor vehicle which is a passenger automobile, medium duty
passenger vehicle, or light truck, the credit amount
determined under this paragraph shall be--
``(i) $400, if such vehicle achieves at least 125 percent
but less than 150 percent of the 2002 model year city fuel
economy,
``(ii) $800, if such vehicle achieves at least 150 percent
but less than 175 percent of the 2002 model year city fuel
economy,
``(iii) $1,200, if such vehicle achieves at least 175
percent but less than 200 percent of the 2002 model year city
fuel economy,
``(iv) $1,600, if such vehicle achieves at least 200
percent but less than 225 percent of the 2002 model year city
fuel economy,
``(v) $2,000, if such vehicle achieves at least 225 percent
but less than 250 percent of the 2002 model year city fuel
economy, and
``(vi) $2,400, if such vehicle achieves at least 250
percent of the 2002 model year city fuel economy.
``(B) 2002 model year city fuel economy.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the 2002 model year city fuel economy with
respect to a vehicle shall be determined on a gasoline gallon
equivalent basis as determined by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency using the tables provided in
subsection (b)(2)(B) with respect to such vehicle.
``(3) Credit amount for heavier vehicles.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a new qualified hybrid
motor vehicle which is a heavy duty hybrid motor vehicle, the
credit amount determined under this paragraph is an amount
equal to the applicable percentage of the incremental cost of
such vehicle placed in service by the taxpayer during the
taxable year.
``(B) Incremental cost.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the incremental cost of any heavy duty hybrid motor vehicle
is equal to the amount of the excess of the manufacturer's
suggested retail price for such vehicle over such price for a
comparable gasoline or diesel fuel motor vehicle of the same
model, to the extent such amount does not exceed--
``(i) $7,500, if such vehicle has a gross vehicle weight
rating of more than 8,500 pounds but not more than 14,000
pounds,
``(ii) $15,000, if such vehicle has a gross vehicle weight
rating of more than 14,000 pounds but not more than 26,000
pounds, and
``(iii) $30,000, if such vehicle has a gross vehicle weight
rating of more than 26,000 pounds.
``(C) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the applicable percentage shall be determined in
accordance with the following table:
``If percent increase in fuel economy of hybrid over comparable vehicle
is: The applicable percentage is:
At least 30 but less than 40 percent........................20 percent.
At least 40 but less than 50 percent........................30 percent.
At least 50 percent.........................................40 percent.
``(4) New qualified hybrid motor vehicle.--For purposes of
this subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `new qualified hybrid motor
vehicle' means a motor vehicle--
``(i) which draws propulsion energy from onboard sources of
stored energy which are both--
``(I) an internal combustion or heat engine using
consumable fuel, and
``(II) a rechargeable energy storage system,
``(ii) which, in the case of a passenger automobile, medium
duty passenger vehicle, or light truck--
``(I) has received a certificate that such vehicle meets or
exceeds the Bin 5 Tier II emission level established in
regulations prescribed by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency under section 202(i) of the
Clean Air Act for that make and model year vehicle, and
``(II) has a maximum available power of at least 5 percent,
``(iii) which, in the case of a heavy duty hybrid motor
vehicle--
``(I) which has a gross vehicle weight rating of more than
8,500 but not more than 14,000 pounds, has a maximum
available power of at least 10 percent, and
``(II) which has a gross vehicle weight rating of more than
14,000 pounds, has a maximum available power of at least 15
percent,
``(iv) the original use of which commences with the
taxpayer,
``(v) which is acquired for use or lease by the taxpayer
and not for resale, and
``(vi) which is made by a manufacturer.
``(B) Consumable fuel.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A)(i)(I), the term `consumable fuel' means any solid,
liquid, or gaseous matter which releases energy when consumed
by an auxiliary power unit.
``(C) Maximum available power.--
``(i) Passenger automobile, medium duty passenger vehicle,
or light truck.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii)(II),
the term `maximum available power' means the maximum power
available from the rechargeable energy storage system, during
a standard 10 second pulse power or equivalent test, divided
by such maximum power and the SAE net power of the heat
engine.
``(ii) Heavy duty hybrid motor vehicle.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A)(iii), the term `maximum available power'
means the maximum power available from the rechargeable
energy storage system, during a standard 10 second pulse
power or equivalent test, divided by the vehicle's total
traction power. The term `total traction power' means the sum
of the peak power from the rechargeable energy storage system
and the heat engine peak power of the vehicle, except that if
such storage system is the sole means by which the vehicle
can be driven, the total traction power is the peak power of
such storage system.
``(4) Heavy duty hybrid motor vehicle.--For purposes of
this subsection, the term `heavy duty hybrid motor vehicle'
means a new qualified hybrid motor vehicle which has a gross
vehicle weight rating of more than 8,500 pounds. Such term
does not include a medium duty passenger vehicle.
``(d) New Qualified Alternative Fuel Motor Vehicle
Credit.--
``(1) Allowance of credit.--Except as provided in paragraph
(5), the new qualified alternative fuel motor vehicle credit
determined under this subsection is an amount equal to the
applicable percentage of the incremental cost of any new
qualified alternative fuel motor vehicle placed in service by
the taxpayer during the taxable year.
``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the applicable percentage with respect to any new
qualified alternative fuel motor vehicle is--
``(A) 50 percent, plus
``(B) 30 percent, if such vehicle--
``(i) has received a certificate of conformity under the
Clean Air Act and meets or exceeds the most stringent
standard available for certification under the Clean Air Act
for that make and model year vehicle (other than a zero
emission standard), or
``(ii) has received an order certifying the vehicle as
meeting the same requirements as vehicles which may be sold
or leased in California and meets or exceeds the most
stringent standard available for certification under the
State laws of California (enacted in accordance with a waiver
granted under section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act) for that
make and model year vehicle (other than a zero emission
standard).
For purposes of the preceding sentence, in the case of any
new qualified alternative fuel motor vehicle which weighs
more than 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating, the most
stringent standard available shall be such standard available
for certification on the date of the enactment of the Energy
Tax Incentives Act.
``(3) Incremental cost.--For purposes of this subsection,
the incremental cost of any new qualified alternative fuel
motor vehicle is equal to the amount of the excess of the
[[Page 13177]]
manufacturer's suggested retail price for such vehicle over
such price for a gasoline or diesel fuel motor vehicle of the
same model, to the extent such amount does not exceed--
``(A) $5,000, if such vehicle has a gross vehicle weight
rating of not more than 8,500 pounds,
``(B) $10,000, if such vehicle has a gross vehicle weight
rating of more than 8,500 pounds but not more than 14,000
pounds,
``(C) $25,000, if such vehicle has a gross vehicle weight
rating of more than 14,000 pounds but not more than 26,000
pounds, and
``(D) $40,000, if such vehicle has a gross vehicle weight
rating of more than 26,000 pounds.
``(4) New qualified alternative fuel motor vehicle.--For
purposes of this subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `new qualified alternative fuel
motor vehicle' means any motor vehicle--
``(i) which is only capable of operating on an alternative
fuel,
``(ii) the original use of which commences with the
taxpayer,
``(iii) which is acquired by the taxpayer for use or lease,
but not for resale, and
``(iv) which is made by a manufacturer.
``(B) Alternative fuel.--The term `alternative fuel' means
compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied
petroleum gas, hydrogen, and any liquid at least 85 percent
of the volume of which consists of methanol.
``(5) Credit for mixed-fuel vehicles.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a mixed-fuel vehicle
placed in service by the taxpayer during the taxable year,
the credit determined under this subsection is an amount
equal to--
``(i) in the case of a 75/25 mixed-fuel vehicle, 70 percent
of the credit which would have been allowed under this
subsection if such vehicle was a qualified alternative fuel
motor vehicle, and
``(ii) in the case of a 90/10 mixed-fuel vehicle, 90
percent of the credit which would have been allowed under
this subsection if such vehicle was a qualified alternative
fuel motor vehicle.
``(B) Mixed-fuel vehicle.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `mixed-fuel vehicle' means any motor vehicle
described in subparagraph (C) or (D) of paragraph (3),
which--
``(i) is certified by the manufacturer as being able to
perform efficiently in normal operation on a combination of
an alternative fuel and a petroleum-based fuel,
``(ii) either--
``(I) has received a certificate of conformity under the
Clean Air Act, or
``(II) has received an order certifying the vehicle as
meeting the same requirements as vehicles which may be sold
or leased in California and meets or exceeds the low emission
vehicle standard under section 88.105-94 of title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, for that make and model year vehicle,
``(iii) the original use of which commences with the
taxpayer,
``(iv) which is acquired by the taxpayer for use or lease,
but not for resale, and
``(v) which is made by a manufacturer.
``(C) 75/25 mixed-fuel vehicle.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `75/25 mixed-fuel vehicle' means a
mixed-fuel vehicle which operates using at least 75 percent
alternative fuel and not more than 25 percent petroleum-based
fuel.
``(D) 90/10 mixed-fuel vehicle.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `90/10 mixed-fuel vehicle' means a
mixed-fuel vehicle which operates using at least 90 percent
alternative fuel and not more than 10 percent petroleum-based
fuel.
``(e) Application With Other Credits.--The credit allowed
under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed
the excess (if any) of--
``(1) the regular tax for the taxable year reduced by the
sum of the credits allowable under subpart A and sections 27,
29, and 30, over
``(2) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year.
``(f) Other Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) Motor vehicle.--The term `motor vehicle' has the
meaning given such term by section 30(c)(2).
``(2) City fuel economy.--The city fuel economy with
respect to any vehicle shall be measured in a manner which is
substantially similar to the manner city fuel economy is
measured in accordance with procedures under part 600 of
subchapter Q of chapter I of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, as in effect on the date of the enactment of
this section.
``(3) Other terms.--The terms `automobile', `passenger
automobile', `medium duty passenger vehicle', `light truck',
and `manufacturer' have the meanings given such terms in
regulations prescribed by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency for purposes of the
administration of title II of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7071 et seq.).
``(4) Reduction in basis.--For purposes of this subtitle,
the basis of any property for which a credit is allowable
under subsection (a) shall be reduced by the amount of such
credit so allowed (determined without regard to subsection
(e)).
``(5) No double benefit.--The amount of any deduction or
other credit allowable under this chapter--
``(A) for any incremental cost taken into account in
computing the amount of the credit determined under
subsection (d) shall be reduced by the amount of such credit
attributable to such cost, and
``(B) with respect to a vehicle described under subsection
(b) or (c), shall be reduced by the amount of credit allowed
under subsection (a) for such vehicle for the taxable year.
``(6) Property used by tax-exempt entity.--In the case of a
vehicle whose use is described in paragraph (3) or (4) of
section 50(b) and which is not subject to a lease, the person
who sold such vehicle to the person or entity using such
vehicle shall be treated as the taxpayer that placed such
vehicle in service, but only if such person clearly discloses
to such person or entity in a document the amount of any
credit allowable under subsection (a) with respect to such
vehicle (determined without regard to subsection (e)).
``(7) Property used outside united states, etc., not
qualified.--No credit shall be allowable under subsection (a)
with respect to any property referred to in section 50(b)(1)
or with respect to the portion of the cost of any property
taken into account under section 179.
``(8) Recapture.--The Secretary shall, by regulations,
provide for recapturing the benefit of any credit allowable
under subsection (a) with respect to any property which
ceases to be property eligible for such credit (including
recapture in the case of a lease period of less than the
economic life of a vehicle).
``(9) Election to not take credit.--No credit shall be
allowed under subsection (a) for any vehicle if the taxpayer
elects to not have this section apply to such vehicle.
``(10) Carryback and carryforward allowed.--
``(A) In general.--If the credit allowable under subsection
(a) for a taxable year exceeds the amount of the limitation
under subsection (e) for such taxable year (in this paragraph
referred to as the `unused credit year'), such excess shall
be a credit carryback to each of the 3 taxable years
preceding the unused credit year and a credit carryforward to
each of the 20 taxable years following the unused credit
year, except that no excess may be carried to a taxable year
beginning before the date of the enactment of this section.
The preceding sentence shall not apply to any credit
carryback if such credit carryback is attributable to
property for which a deduction for depreciation is not
allowable.
``(B) Rules.--Rules similar to the rules of section 39
shall apply with respect to the credit carryback and credit
carryforward under subparagraph (A).
``(11) Interaction with air quality and motor vehicle
safety standards.--Unless otherwise provided in this section,
a motor vehicle shall not be considered eligible for a credit
under this section unless such vehicle is in compliance
with--
``(A) the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act for
the applicable make and model year of the vehicle (or
applicable air quality provisions of State law in the case of
a State which has adopted such provision under a waiver under
section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act), and
``(B) the motor vehicle safety provisions of sections 30101
through 30169 of title 49, United States Code.
``(g) Regulations.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall promulgate such regulations as necessary to
carry out the provisions of this section.
``(2) Coordination in prescription of certain
regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination
with the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, shall prescribe such
regulations as necessary to determine whether a motor vehicle
meets the requirements to be eligible for a credit under this
section.
``(h) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any
property purchased after--
``(1) in the case of a new qualified fuel cell motor
vehicle (as described in subsection (b)), December 31, 2014,
``(2) in the case of a new qualified hybrid motor vehicle
(as described in subsection (c)), December 31, 2009, and
``(3) in the case of a new qualified alternative fuel
vehicle (as described in subsection (d)), December 31,
2010.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1016(a), as amended by this Act, is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (35), by striking
the period at the end of paragraph (36) and inserting ``,
and'', and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(37) to the extent provided in section 30B(f)(4).''.
(2) Section 55(c)(2), as amended by this Act, is amended by
inserting ``30B(e),'' after ``30(b)(2),''.
(3) Section 6501(m) is amended by inserting ``30B(f)(9),''
after ``30(d)(4),''.
(4) The table of sections for subpart B of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 30A the following new item:
[[Page 13178]]
``Sec. 30B. Alternative motor vehicle credit.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such
date.
SEC. 1532. MODIFICATION OF CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED ELECTRIC
VEHICLES.
(a) Amount of Credit.--
(1) In general.--Section 30(a) (relating to allowance of
credit) is amended by striking ``10 percent of''.
(2) Limitation of credit according to type of vehicle.--
Paragraph (1) of section 30(b) (relating to limitations) is
amended to read as follows:
``(1) Limitation according to type of vehicle.--The amount
of the credit allowed under subsection (a) for any vehicle
shall not exceed the greatest of the following amounts
applicable to such vehicle:
``(A) In the case of a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight
rating not exceeding 8,500 pounds--
``(i) except as provided in clause (ii) or (iii), $4,000,
``(ii) $6,000, if such vehicle is--
``(I) capable of a driving range of at least 100 miles on a
single charge of the vehicle's rechargeable batteries as
measured pursuant to the urban dynamometer schedules under
appendix I to part 86 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, or
``(II) capable of a payload capacity of at least 1,000
pounds, and
``(iii) if such vehicle is a low-speed vehicle which
conforms to Standard 500 prescribed by the Secretary of
Transportation (49 C.F.R. 571.500), as in effect on the date
of the enactment of the Energy Tax Incentives Act, the lesser
of--
``(I) 10 percent of the manufacturer's suggested retail
price of the vehicle, or
``(II) $1,500.
``(B) In the case of a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight
rating exceeding 8,500 but not exceeding 14,000 pounds,
$10,000.
``(C) In the case of a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight
rating exceeding 14,000 but not exceeding 26,000 pounds,
$20,000.
``(D) In the case of a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight
rating exceeding 26,000 pounds, $40,000.''.
(b) Qualified Battery Electric Vehicle.--
(1) In general.--Section 30(c)(1)(A) (defining qualified
electric vehicle) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) which is--
``(i) operated solely by use of a battery or battery pack,
or
``(ii) powered primarily through the use of an electric
battery or battery pack using a flywheel or capacitor which
stores energy produced by an electric motor through
regenerative braking to assist in vehicle operation,''.
(2) Leased vehicles.--Section 30(c)(1)(C) is amended by
inserting ``or lease'' after ``use''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subsections (a), (b)(2), and (c) of section 30 are each
amended by inserting ``battery'' after ``qualified'' each
place it appears.
(B) The heading of subsection (c) of section 30 is amended
by inserting ``Battery'' after ``Qualified''.
(C) The heading of section 30 is amended by inserting
``BATTERY'' after ``QUALIFIED''.
(D) The item relating to section 30 in the table of
sections for subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of chapter
1 is amended by inserting ``battery'' after ``qualified''.
(E) Section 179A(c)(3) is amended by inserting ``battery''
before ``electric''.
(F) The heading of paragraph (3) of section 179A(c) is
amended by inserting ``battery'' before ``electric''.
(c) Additional Special Rules.--
(1) In general.--Section 30(d) (relating to special rules)
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(5) No double benefit.--The amount of any deduction or
other credit allowable under this chapter for any cost taken
into account in computing the amount of the credit determined
under subsection (a) shall be reduced by the amount of such
credit attributable to such cost.
``(6) Property used by tax-exempt entity.--In the case of a
vehicle whose use is described in paragraph (3) or (4) of
section 50(b) and which is not subject to a lease, the person
who sold such vehicle to the person or entity using such
vehicle shall be treated as the taxpayer that placed such
vehicle in service, but only if such person clearly discloses
to such person or entity in a document the amount of any
credit allowable under subsection (a) with respect to such
vehicle (determined without regard to subsection (b)(3)).
``(7) Carryback and carryforward allowed.--
``(A) In general.--If the credit allowable under subsection
(a) for a taxable year exceeds the amount of the limitation
under subsection (b)(2) for such taxable year (in this
paragraph referred to as the `unused credit year'), such
excess shall be a credit carryback to each of the 3 taxable
years preceding the unused credit year and a credit
carryforward to each of the 20 taxable years following the
unused credit year, except that no excess may be carried to a
taxable year beginning before the date of the enactment of
this paragraph. The preceding sentence shall not apply to any
credit carryback if such credit carryback is attributable to
property for which a deduction for depreciation is not
allowable.
``(B) Rules.--Rules similar to the rules of section 39
shall apply with respect to the credit carryback and credit
carryforward under subparagraph (A).''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 30(d)(3) is amended--
(A) by striking ``section 50(b)'' and inserting ``section
50(b)(1)'', and
(B) by striking ``, etc.,'' in the heading thereof.
(d) Termination.--Section 30(e) (relating to termination)
is amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting ``2009''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such
date.
SEC. 1533. CREDIT FOR INSTALLATION OF ALTERNATIVE FUELING
STATIONS.
(a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to other credits), as amended by this
Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``SEC. 30C. ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE REFUELING PROPERTY
CREDIT.
``(a) Credit Allowed.--There shall be allowed as a credit
against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year
an amount equal to 50 percent of the cost of any qualified
alternative fuel vehicle refueling property placed in service
by the taxpayer during the taxable year.
``(b) Limitation.--The credit allowed under subsection (a)
with respect to any alternative fuel vehicle refueling
property shall not exceed--
``(1) $30,000 in the case of a property of a character
subject to an allowance for depreciation, and
``(2) $1,000 in any other case.
``(c) Qualified Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling
Property.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
term `qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property'
has the meaning given to such term by section 179A(d), but
only with respect to any fuel at least 85 percent of the
volume of which consists of ethanol, natural gas, compressed
natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas,
and hydrogen.
``(2) Residential property.--In the case of any property
installed on property which is used as the principal
residence (within the meaning of section 121) of the
taxpayer, paragraph (1) of section 179A(d) shall not apply.
``(d) Application With Other Credits.--The credit allowed
under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed
the excess (if any) of--
``(1) the regular tax for the taxable year reduced by the
sum of the credits allowable under subpart A and sections 27,
29, 30, and 30B, over
``(2) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year.
``(e) Carryforward Allowed.--
``(1) In general.--If the credit amount allowable under
subsection (a) for a taxable year exceeds the amount of the
limitation under subsection (d) for such taxable year, such
excess shall be allowed as a credit carryforward for each of
the 20 taxable years following the unused credit year.
``(2) Rules.--Rules similar to the rules of section 39
shall apply with respect to the credit carryforward under
paragraph (1).
``(f) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Basis reduction.--The basis of any property shall be
reduced by the portion of the cost of such property taken
into account under subsection (a).
``(2) No double benefit.--No deduction shall be allowed
under section 179A with respect to any property with respect
to which a credit is allowed under subsection (a).
``(3) Property used by tax-exempt entity.--In the case of
any qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property the
use of which is described in paragraph (3) or (4) of section
50(b) and which is not subject to a lease, the person who
sold such property to the person or entity using such
property shall be treated as the taxpayer that placed such
property in service, but only if such person clearly
discloses to such person or entity in a document the amount
of any credit allowable under subsection (a) with respect to
such property (determined without regard to subsection (d)).
``(4) Property used outside united states not qualified.--
No credit shall be allowable under subsection (a) with
respect to any property referred to in section 50(b)(1) or
with respect to the portion of the cost of any property taken
into account under section 179.
``(5) Election not to take credit.--No credit shall be
allowed under subsection (a) for any property if the taxpayer
elects not to have this section apply to such property.
``(6) Recapture rules.--Rules similar to the rules of
section 179A(e)(4) shall apply.
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as necessary to carry out the provisions of this
section.
``(h) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any
property placed in service--
[[Page 13179]]
``(1) in the case of property relating to hydrogen, after
December 31, 2014, and
``(2) in the case of any other property, after December 31,
2009.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1016(a), as amended by this Act, is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (36), by striking
the period at the end of paragraph (37) and inserting ``,
and'', and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(38) to the extent provided in section 30C(f).''.
(2) Section 55(c)(2), as amended by this Act, is amended by
inserting ``30C(e),'' after ``30B(e),''.
(3) Section 6501(m) is amended by inserting ``30C(f)(5),''
after ``30B(f)(9),''.
(4) The table of sections for subpart B of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1, as amended by this Act, is amended
by inserting after the item relating to section 30B the
following new item:
``Sec. 30C. Clean-fuel vehicle refueling property credit.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2005, in taxable years ending after such date.
SEC. 1534. VOLUMETRIC EXCISE TAX CREDIT FOR ALTERNATIVE
FUELS.
(a) Imposition of Tax.--
(1) In general.--Section 4041(a)(2)(B) (relating to rate of
tax) is amended--
(A) by adding ``and'' at the end of clause (i),
(B) by striking clauses (ii) and (iii),
(C) by striking the last sentence, and
(D) by adding after clause (i) the following new clause:
``(ii) in the case of liquefied natural gas, any liquid
fuel (other than ethanol and methanol) derived from coal
(including peat), and liquid hydrocarbons derived from
biomass (as defined in section 29(c)(3)), 24.3 cents per
gallon.''.
(2) Treatment of compressed natural gas.--Section
4041(a)(3) (relating to compressed natural gas) is amended--
(A) by striking ``48.54 cents per MCF (determined at
standard temperature and pressure)'' in subparagraph (A) and
inserting ``18.3 cents per energy equivalent of a gallon of
gasoline'', and
(B) by striking ``MCF'' in subparagraph (C) and inserting
``energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline''.
(3) Zero rate for hydrogen.--Section 4041(a)(2)(A) is
amended by inserting ``liquefied hydrogen,'' after ``fuel
oil,''.
(4) New reference.--The heading for paragraph (2) of
section 4041(a) is amended by striking ``Special motor
fuels'' and inserting ``Alternative fuels''.
(b) Credit for Alternative Fuel and Alternative Fuel
Mixtures.--
(1) In general.--Section 6426(a) (relating to allowance of
credits) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Allowance of Credits.--There shall be allowed as a
credit--
``(1) against the tax imposed by section 4081 an amount
equal to the sum of the credits described in subsections (b),
(c), and (e), and
``(2) against the tax imposed by section 4041 an amount
equal to the sum of the credits described in subsection (d).
No credit shall be allowed in the case of the credits
described in subsections (d) and (e) unless the taxpayer is
registered under section 4101.
(2) Alternative fuel and alternative fuel mixture credit.--
Section 6426 (relating to credit for alcohol fuel and
biodiesel mixtures) is amended by redesignating subsections
(d) and (e) as subsections (f) and (g) and by inserting after
subsection (c) the following new subsections:
``(d) Alternative Fuel Credit.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the
alternative fuel credit is the product of 50 cents and the
number of gallons of an alternative fuel or gasoline gallon
equivalents of a nonliquid alternative fuel sold by the
taxpayer for use as a fuel in a motor vehicle or motorboat,
or so used by the taxpayer.
``(2) Alternative fuel.--For purposes of this section, the
term `alternative fuel' means--
``(A) liquefied petroleum gas,
``(B) P Series Fuels (as defined by the Secretary of Energy
under section 13211(2) of title 42, United States Code),
``(C) compressed or liquefied natural gas,
``(D) hydrogen,
``(E) any liquid fuel derived from coal (including peat)
through the Fischer-Tropsch process,
``(F) liquid hydrocarbons derived from biomass (as defined
in section 29(c)(3)).
Such term does not include ethanol, methanol, or biodiesel.
``(3) Gasoline gallon equivalent.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `gasoline gallon equivalent' means, with
respect to any nonliquid alternative fuel, the amount of such
fuel having a Btu content of 124,800 (higher heating value).
``(4) Termination.--This subsection shall not apply to any
sale, use, or removal for any period after September 30,
2009.
``(e) Alternative Fuel Mixture Credit.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the
alternative fuel mixture credit is the product of 50 cents
and the number of gallons of alternative fuel used by the
taxpayer in producing any alternative fuel mixture for sale
or use in a trade or business of the taxpayer.
``(2) Alternative fuel mixture.--For purposes of this
section, the term `alternative fuel mixture' means a mixture
of alternative fuel and taxable fuel (as defined in
subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 4083(a)(1)) which--
``(A) is sold by the taxpayer producing such mixture to any
person for use as fuel, or
``(B) is used as a fuel by the taxpayer producing such
mixture.
``(3) Termination.--This subsection shall not apply to any
sale, use, or removal for any period after September 30,
2009.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) The section heading for section 6426 is amended by
striking ``ALCOHOL FUEL AND BIODIESEL'' and inserting
``ALCOHOL FUEL, BIODIESEL, AND ALTERNATIVE FUEL''.
(B) The table of sections for subchapter B of chapter 65 is
amended by striking ``alcohol fuel and biodiesel'' in the
item relating to section 6426 and inserting ``alcohol fuel,
biodiesel, and alternative fuel''.
(C) Section 6427(e) is amended--
(i) by inserting ``or the alternative fuel mixture credit''
after ``biodiesel mixture credit'' in paragraph (1),
(ii) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3) and
paragraph (4) as paragraph (5),
(iii) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) Alternative fuel.--If any person sells or uses an
alternative fuel (as defined in section 6426(d)(2)) for a
purpose described in section 6426(d)(1) in such person's
trade or business, the Secretary shall pay (without interest)
to such person an amount equal to the alternative fuel credit
with respect to such fuel.'',
(iv) by striking ``under paragraph (1) with respect to any
mixture'' in paragraph (3) (as redesignated by clause (ii))
and inserting ``under paragraph (1) or (2) with respect to
any mixture or alternative fuel'',
(v) by inserting after paragraph (3) (as so redesignated)
the following new paragraph:
``(4) Registration requirement for alternative fuels.--The
Secretary shall not make any payment under this subsection to
any person with respect to any alternative fuel credit or
alternative fuel mixture credit unless the person is
registered under section 4101.'',
(vi) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5)(A) (as
redesignated by clause (ii)),
(vii) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5)(B)
(as so redesignated) and inserting a comma,
(viii) by adding at the end of paragraph (4) (as so
redesignated) the following new subparagraphs:
``(C) except as provided in subparagraph (D), any
alternative fuel or alternative fuel mixture (as defined in
section 6426 (d)(2) or (e)(3)) sold or used after September
30, 2009, and
``(D) any alternative fuel or alternative fuel mixture (as
so defined) involving hydrogen sold or used after December
31, 2014.'', and
(ix) by striking ``or Biodiesel Used To Produce Alcohol
Fuel and Biodiesel Mixtures'' in the heading and inserting
``, Biodiesel, or Alternative Fuel''.
(c) Additional Registration Requirements.--Section
4101(a)(1) (relating to registration) is amended--
(1) by striking ``4041(a)(1)'' and inserting ``4041(a)'',
and
(2) by inserting ``or hydrogen'' before ``shall register''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to any sale, use, or removal for any period after
September 30, 2006.
SEC. 1535. EXTENSION OF EXCISE TAX PROVISIONS AND INCOME TAX
CREDIT FOR BIODIESEL.
(a) In General.--Sections 40A(e), 6426(c)(6), and
6427(e)(4)(B) are each amended by striking ``2006'' and
inserting ``2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Subtitle E--Additional Energy Tax Incentives
SEC. 1541. TEN-YEAR RECOVERY PERIOD FOR UNDERGROUND NATURAL
GAS STORAGE FACILITY PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 168(e)(3)
(relating to 10-year property) is amended by striking ``and''
at the end of clause (i), by striking the period at the end
of clause (ii) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the
end the following new clause:
``(iii) any qualified underground natural gas storage
facility property.''.
(b) Definition.--Section 168(i) (relating to definitions
and special rules) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(17) Qualified underground natural gas storage facility
property.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified underground natural
gas storage facility property' means any underground natural
gas storage facility and any equipment related to such
facility, including any nonrecoverable cushion gas, the
original use of which commences with the taxpayer.
``(B) Cushion gas.--The term `cushion gas' means the
minimum volume of natural gas
[[Page 13180]]
necessary to provide the pressure to facilitate the flow of
natural gas from a storage reservoir, aquifer, or cavern to a
pipeline.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1542. EXPANSION OF RESEARCH CREDIT.
(a) Credit for Expenses Attributable to Certain
Collaborative Energy Research Consortia.--
(1) In general.--Section 41(a) (relating to credit for
increasing research activities) is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of paragraph (1), by striking the period
at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting ``, and'', and by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) 20 percent of the amounts paid or incurred by the
taxpayer in carrying on any trade or business of the taxpayer
during the taxable year (including as contributions) to an
energy research consortium.''.
(2) Energy research consortium defined.--Section 41(f)
(relating to special rules) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(6) Energy research consortium.--
``(A) In general.--The term `energy research consortium'
means any organization--
``(i) which is--
``(I) described in section 501(c)(3) and is exempt from tax
under section 501(a) and is organized and operated primarily
to conduct energy research, or
``(II) organized and operated primarily to conduct energy
research in the public interest (within the meaning of
section 501(c)(3)),
``(ii) which is not a private foundation,
``(iii) to which at least 5 unrelated persons paid or
incurred during the calendar year in which the taxable year
of the organization begins amounts (including as
contributions) to such organization for energy research, and
``(iv) to which no single person paid or incurred
(including as contributions) during such calendar year an
amount equal to more than 50 percent of the total amounts
received by such organization during such calendar year for
energy research.
``(B) Treatment of persons.--All persons treated as a
single employer under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52
shall be treated as related persons for purposes of
subparagraph (A)(iii) and as a single person for purposes of
subparagraph (A)(iv).''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Section 41(b)(3)(C) is amended
by inserting ``(other than an energy research consortium)''
after ``organization''.
(b) Repeal of Limitation on Contract Research Expenses Paid
to Small Businesses, Universities, and Federal
Laboratories.--Section 41(b)(3) (relating to contract
research expenses) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(D) Amounts paid to eligible small businesses,
universities, and federal laboratories.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of amounts paid by the
taxpayer to--
``(I) an eligible small business,
``(II) an institution of higher education (as defined in
section 3304(f)), or
``(III) an organization which is a Federal laboratory,
for qualified research which is energy research, subparagraph
(A) shall be applied by substituting `100 percent' for `65
percent'.
``(ii) Eligible small business.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term `eligible small business' means a
small business with respect to which the taxpayer does not
own (within the meaning of section 318) 50 percent or more
of--
``(I) in the case of a corporation, the outstanding stock
of the corporation (either by vote or value), and
``(II) in the case of a small business which is not a
corporation, the capital and profits interests of the small
business.
``(iii) Small business.--For purposes of this
subparagraph--
``(I) In general.--The term `small business' means, with
respect to any calendar year, any person if the annual
average number of employees employed by such person during
either of the 2 preceding calendar years was 500 or fewer.
For purposes of the preceding sentence, a preceding calendar
year may be taken into account only if the person was in
existence throughout the year.
``(II) Startups, controlled groups, and predecessors.--
Rules similar to the rules of subparagraphs (B) and (D) of
section 220(c)(4) shall apply for purposes of this clause.
``(iv) Federal laboratory.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term `Federal laboratory' has the meaning
given such term by section 4(6) of the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3703(6)), as in
effect on the date of the enactment of the Energy Tax
Incentives Act.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the
enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such
date.
SEC. 1543. SMALL AGRI-BIODIESEL PRODUCER CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 40A (relating to
biodiesel used as a fuel) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the
biodiesel fuels credit determined under this section for the
taxable year is an amount equal to the sum of--
``(1) the biodiesel mixture credit, plus
``(2) the biodiesel credit, plus
``(3) in the case of an eligible small agri-biodiesel
producer, the small agri-biodiesel producer credit.''.
(b) Small Agri-biodiesel Producer Credit Defined.--Section
40A(b) (relating to definition of biodiesel mixture credit
and biodiesel credit) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(5) Small agri-biodiesel producer credit.--
``(A) In general.--The small agri-biodiesel producer credit
of any eligible small agri-biodiesel producer for any taxable
year is 10 cents for each gallon of qualified agri-biodiesel
production of such producer.
``(B) Qualified agri-biodiesel production.--For purposes of
this paragraph, the term `qualified agri-biodiesel
production' means any agri-biodiesel which is produced by an
eligible small agri-biodiesel producer, and which during the
taxable year--
``(i) is sold by such producer to another person--
``(I) for use by such other person in the production of a
qualified biodiesel mixture in such other person's trade or
business (other than casual off-farm production),
``(II) for use by such other person as a fuel in a trade or
business, or
``(III) who sells such agri-biodiesel at retail to another
person and places such agri-biodiesel in the fuel tank of
such other person, or
``(ii) is used or sold by such producer for any purpose
described in clause (i).
``(C) Limitation.--The qualified agri-biodiesel production
of any producer for any taxable year shall not exceed
15,000,000 gallons.''.
(c) Definitions and Special Rules.--Section 40A is amended
by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f) and by
inserting after subsection (d) the following new subsection:
``(e) Definitions and Special Rules for Small Agri-
biodiesel Producer Credit.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Eligible small agri-biodiesel producer.--The term
`eligible small agri-biodiesel producer' means a person who,
at all times during the taxable year, has a productive
capacity for agri-biodiesel not in excess of 60,000,000
gallons.
``(2) Aggregation rule.--For purposes of the 15,000,000
gallon limitation under subsection (b)(5)(C) and the
60,000,000 gallon limitation under paragraph (1), all members
of the same controlled group of corporations (within the
meaning of section 267(f)) and all persons under common
control (within the meaning of section 52(b) but determined
by treating an interest of more than 50 percent as a
controlling interest) shall be treated as 1 person.
``(3) Partnership, s corporation, and other pass-thru
entities.--In the case of a partnership, trust, S
corporation, or other pass-thru entity, the limitations
contained in subsection (b)(5)(C) and paragraph (1) shall be
applied at the entity level and at the partner or similar
level.
``(4) Allocation.--For purposes of this subsection, in the
case of a facility in which more than 1 person has an
interest, productive capacity shall be allocated among such
persons in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe.
``(5) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary--
``(A) to prevent the credit provided for in subsection
(a)(3) from directly or indirectly benefiting any person with
a direct or indirect productive capacity of more than
60,000,000 gallons of agri-biodiesel during the taxable year,
or
``(B) to prevent any person from directly or indirectly
benefiting with respect to more than 15,000,000 gallons
during the taxable year.
``(6) Allocation of small agri-biodiesel credit to patrons
of cooperative.--
``(A) Election to allocate.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of a cooperative
organization described in section 1381(a), any portion of the
credit determined under subsection (a)(3) for the taxable
year may, at the election of the organization, be apportioned
pro rata among patrons of the organization on the basis of
the quantity or value of business done with or for such
patrons for the taxable year.
``(ii) Form and effect of election.--An election under
clause (i) for any taxable year shall be made on a timely
filed return for such year. Such election, once made, shall
be irrevocable for such taxable year. Such election shall not
take effect unless the organization designates the
apportionment as such in a written notice mailed to its
patrons during the payment period described in section
1382(d).
``(B) Treatment of organizations and patrons.--
``(i) Organizations.--The amount of the credit not
apportioned to patrons pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be
included in the amount determined under subsection (a)(3) for
the taxable year of the organization.
[[Page 13181]]
``(ii) Patrons.--The amount of the credit apportioned to
patrons pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be included in the
amount determined under such subsection for the first taxable
year of each patron ending on or after the last day of the
payment period (as defined in section 1382(d)) for the
taxable year of the organization or, if earlier, for the
taxable year of each patron ending on or after the date on
which the patron receives notice from the cooperative of the
apportionment.
``(iii) Special rules for decrease in credits for taxable
year.--If the amount of the credit of the organization
determined under such subsection for a taxable year is less
than the amount of such credit shown on the return of the
organization for such year, an amount equal to the excess
of--
``(I) such reduction, over
``(II) the amount not apportioned to such patrons under
subparagraph (A) for the taxable year,
shall be treated as an increase in tax imposed by this
chapter on the organization. Such increase shall not be
treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of
determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or
for purposes of section 55.''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (4) of section 40A(b) is amended by striking
``this section'' and inserting ``paragraph (1) or (2) of
subsection (a)''.
(2) The heading of subsection (b) of section 40A is amended
by striking ``and Biodiesel Credit'' and inserting ``,
Biodiesel Credit, and Small Agri-biodiesel Producer Credit''.
(3) Paragraph (3) of section 40A(d) is amended by
redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D) and by
inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) Producer credit.--If--
``(i) any credit was determined under subsection (a)(3),
and
``(ii) any person does not use such fuel for a purpose
described in subsection (b)(5)(B),
then there is hereby imposed on such person a tax equal to 10
cents a gallon for each gallon of such agri-biodiesel.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1544. IMPROVEMENTS TO SMALL ETHANOL PRODUCER CREDIT.
(a) Definition of Small Ethanol Producer.--Section 40(g)
(relating to definitions and special rules for eligible small
ethanol producer credit) is amended by striking
``30,000,000'' each place it appears and inserting
``60,000,000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1545. CREDIT FOR EQUIPMENT FOR PROCESSING OR SORTING
MATERIALS GATHERED THROUGH RECYCLING.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to business-related credits), as amended
by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``SEC. 45M. CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED RECYCLING EQUIPMENT.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--For purposes of section 38, the
qualified recycling equipment credit determined under this
section for the taxable year is an amount equal to the amount
paid or incurred during the taxable year for the cost of
qualified recycling equipment placed in service or leased by
the taxpayer.
``(b) Limitation.--The amount allowable as a credit under
subsection (a) with respect to any qualified recycling
equipment shall not exceed 15 percent of the cost of such
qualified recycling equipment.
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified recycling equipment.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified recycling equipment'
means equipment, including connecting piping, employed in
sorting or processing residential and commercial qualified
recyclable materials for the purpose of converting such
materials for use in manufacturing tangible consumer
products, including packaging. Such term includes equipment
which is utilized at commercial or public venues, including
recycling collection centers, where the equipment is utilized
to sort or process qualified recyclable materials for such
purpose.
``(B) Exclusion.--Such term does not include rolling stock
or other equipment used to transport recyclable materials.
``(2) Qualified recyclable materials.--The term `qualified
recyclable materials' means any packaging or printed material
which is glass, paper, plastic, steel, or aluminum generated
by an individual or business and which has been separated
from solid waste for the purposes of collection and
recycling.
``(3) Processing.--The term `processing' means the
preparation of qualified recyclable materials into feedstock
for use in manufacturing tangible consumer products.
``(d) Amount Paid or Incurred.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--The term `amount paid or incurred'
includes installation costs.
``(2) Lease payments.--In the case of the leasing of
qualified recycling equipment by the taxpayer, the term
`amount paid or incurred' means the amount of the lease
payments due to be paid during the term of the lease
occurring during the taxable year other than such portion of
such lease payments attributable to interest, insurance, and
taxes.
``(3) Grants, etc. excluded.--The term `amount paid or
incurred' shall not include any amount to the extent such
amount is funded by any grant, contract, or otherwise by
another person (or any governmental entity).
``(e) Other Tax Deductions and Credits Available for
Portion of Cost Not Taken Into Account for Credit Under This
Section.--No deduction or other credit under this chapter
shall be allowed with respect to the amount of the credit
determined under this section.
``(f) Basis Adjustments.--For purposes of this subtitle, if
a credit is allowed under this section for any amount paid or
incurred with respect to any property, the increase in the
basis of such property which would (but for this subsection)
result from such expenditure shall be reduced by the amount
of the credit so allowed.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Credit made part of general business credit.--
Subsection (b) of section 38, as amended by this Act, is
amended by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (21), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (22) and
inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(23) the qualified recycling equipment credit determined
under section 45M(a).''.
(2) Subsection (a) of section 1016, as amended by this Act,
is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (37),
by striking the period at the end of paragraph (38) and
inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(39) to the extent provided in section 45M(f), in the
case of amounts with respect to which a credit has been
allowed under section 45M.''.
(3) The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1, as amended by this Act, is amended
by inserting after the item relating to section 45L the
following new item:
``Sec. 45M. Credit for qualified recycling equipment.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2005.
SEC. 1546. 5-YEAR NET OPERATING LOSS CARRYOVER IF ANY
RESULTING REFUND IS USED FOR ELECTRIC
TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 172(b) (relating
to net operating loss carrybacks and carryovers) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(I) Transmission property investment.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of a net operating loss in a
taxable year ending after December 31, 2002, and before
January 1, 2006, there shall be a net operating loss
carryback to each of the 5 years preceding the taxable year
of such loss to the extent that any refund resulting from
such carryback is used for electric transmission property
capital expenditures or pollution control facility capital
expenditures.
``(ii) Refund claim.--Any refund resulting from the
application of clause (i) may be claimed by the taxpayer for
any taxable year ending after December 31, 2005, and before
January 1, 2009, except that the portion of such refund which
may be claimed during any taxable year shall not exceed the
sum of the taxpayer's electric transmission property capital
expenditures and pollution control facility capital
expenditures made in the preceding taxable year.
``(iii) Carryover of excess refunds.--Any portion of such
refund that exceeds the sum of the taxpayer's electric
transmission property capital expenditures and pollution
control facility capital expenditures made during the
preceding taxable year shall, subject to clause (ii), be
considered a refund due to the taxpayer and claimed in the
succeeding taxable year if such taxable year begins before
January 1, 2009.
``(iv) Definitions.--For purposes of this subparagraph--
``(I) Electric transmission property capital
expenditures.--The term `electric transmission property
capital expenditures' means any expenditure, chargeable to
capital account, made by the taxpayer which is attributable
to electric transmission property used in the transmission at
69 or more kilovolts of electricity for sale.
``(II) Pollution control facility capital expenditures.--
The term `pollution control facility capital expenditures'
means any expenditure, chargeable to capital account, made by
an electric utility company (as defined in section 2(3) of
the Public Utility Holding Company Act (15 U.S.C. 79b(3))
which is attributable to a facility which will qualifiy as a
certified pollution control facility as determined under
section 169(d)(1) by striking `before January 1, 1976,' and
by substituting `an identifiable' for `a new identifiable'.''
(b) Election to Disregard Carryback.--Section 172(j)
(relating to disregard 5-year carryback for certain net
operating losses) is
[[Page 13182]]
amended by inserting ``or (b)(1)(I)'' after ``(b)(1)(H)''
both places it appears.
(c) Application.--In the case of a net operating loss
described in section 172(b)(1)(I) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (as added by subsection (a)) for a taxable year
ending in 2003, 2004, or 2005, any election made under
section 172(j) of such Code (as amended by subsection (b))
shall be treated as timely made if made before January 1,
2009.
SEC. 1547. CREDIT FOR QUALIFYING POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT.
(a) Allowance of Qualifying Pollution Control Equipment
Credit.--Section 46 (relating to amount of credit), as
amended by this Act, is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end of
paragraph (5) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(6) the qualifying pollution control equipment credit.''.
(b) Amount of Qualifying Pollution Control Equipment
Credit.--Subpart E of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1
(relating to rules for computing investment credit), as
amended by this Act, is amended by inserting after section
48C the following new section:
``SEC. 48D. QUALIFYING POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT CREDIT.
``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 46, the
qualifying pollution control equipment credit for any taxable
year is an amount equal to 15 percent of the basis of the
qualifying pollution control equipment placed in service at a
qualifying facility during such taxable year.
``(b) Qualifying Pollution Control Equipment.--For purposes
of this section, the term `qualifying pollution control
equipment' means any technology installed in or on a
qualifying facility to reduce air emissions of any pollutant
regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency under the
Clean Air Act, including thermal oxidizers, regenerative
thermal oxidizers, scrubber systems, evaporative control
systems, vapor recovery systems, flair systems, bag houses,
cyclones, continuous emissions monitoring systems, and low
nitric oxide burners.
``(c) Qualifying Facility.--For purposes of this section,
the term `qualifying facility' means any facility which
produces not less than 1,000,000 gallons of ethanol during
the taxable year.
``(d) Special Rule for Certain Subsidized Property.--Rules
similar to section 48(a)(4) shall apply for purposes of this
section.
``(e) Certain Qualified Progress Expenditures Rules Made
Applicable.--Rules similar to the rules of subsections (c)(4)
and (d) of section 46 (as in effect on the day before the
enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990) shall
apply for purposes of this subsection.''.
(c) Recapture of Credit Where Emissions Reduction Offset is
Sold.--Paragraph (1) of section 50(a) is amended by
redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C) and by
inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) Special rule for qualifying pollution control
equipment.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), any investment
property which is qualifying pollution control equipment (as
defined in section 48D(b)) shall cease to be investment
credit property with respect to a taxpayer if such taxpayer
receives a payment in exchange for a credit for emission
reductions attributable to such qualifying pollution control
equipment for purposes of an offset requirement under part D
of title I of the Clean Air Act.''.
(d) Special Rule for Basis Reduction; Recapture of
Credit.--Paragraph (3) of section 50(c) (relating to basis
adjustment to investment credit property), as amended by this
Act, is amended by inserting ``or qualifying pollution
control equipment credit'' after ``energy credit''.
(e) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 49(a)(1)(C), as amended by this Act, is amended
by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iv), by striking
the period at the end of clause (v) and inserting ``, and'',
and by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(vi) the basis of any qualifying pollution control
equipment.''
(2) The table of sections for subpart E of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1, as amended by this Act, is amended
by inserting after the item relating to section 48C the
following new item:
``48D. Qualifying pollution control equipment.''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to periods after the date of the enactment of
this Act, in taxable years ending after such date, under
rules similar to the rules of section 48(m) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect on the day before the date
of the enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990).
SEC. 1548. CREDIT FOR PRODUCTION OF COAL OWNED BY INDIAN
TRIBES.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to business-related credits), as amended
by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``SEC. 45N. CREDIT FOR PRODUCTION OF COAL OWNED BY INDIAN
TRIBES.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--For purposes of section 38, the
Indian coal production credit determined under this section
for the taxable year is an amount equal to the product of--
``(1) the applicable dollar amount for the calendar year in
which the taxable year begins, and
``(2) the number of tons of Indian coal--
``(A) the production of which is attributable to the
taxpayer (determined under rules similar to the rules under
section 29(d)(3)), and
``(B) which is sold by the taxpayer to an unrelated person
during the taxable year.
``(b) Indian Coal.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `Indian coal' means coal which
is produced from coal reserves which, on June 14, 2005--
``(A) were owned by an Indian tribe, or
``(B) were held in trust by the United States for the
benefit of an Indian tribe or its members.
``(2) Indian tribe.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `Indian tribe' has the meaning given such term by
section 7871(c)(3)(E)(ii).
``(c) Other terms.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Applicable dollar amount.--
``(A) In general.--The term `applicable dollar amount'
means--
``(i) $1.50 in the case of calendar years 2006 through
2009, and
``(ii) $2.00 in the case of calendar years beginning after
2009.
``(B) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any calendar
year after 2006, each of the dollar amounts under
subparagraph (A) shall be equal to the product of such dollar
amount and the inflation adjustment factor determined under
section 45(e)(2)(B) for the calendar year, except that such
section shall be applied by substituting `2005' for `1992'.
``(2) Unrelated person.--The term `unrelated person' has
the same meaning as when such term is used in section 45.
``(d) Termination.--This section shall not apply to sales
after December 31, 2012.''
(b) Credit Made Part of General Business Credit.--
Subsection (b) of section 38, as amended by this Act, is
amended by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (22), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (23) and
inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(24) the Indian coal production credit determined under
section 45N(a).''.
(c) Allowance Against Minimum Tax.--Section 38(c)(4)
(relating to specified credits) is amended by striking the
period at the end of clause (ii) and inserting ``, or'' and
by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) the credit determined under section 45N.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to sales after December 31, 2005.
SEC. 1549. CREDIT FOR REPLACEMENT STOVES MEETING
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS IN NON-ATTAINMENT
AREAS.
(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits), as
amended by this Act, is amended by inserting after section
25D the following new section:
``SEC. 25E. REPLACEMENT STOVES IN AREAS WITH POOR AIR
QUALITY.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the
lesser--
``(1) the qualified stove replacement expenditures of the
taxpayer for the taxable year, or
``(2) $500 multiplied by the number of noncompliant wood
stoves replaced by the taxpayer during the taxable year.
``(b) Qualified Stove Replacement Expenditures.--For
purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified stove replacement
expenditures' means expenditures made by the taxpayer for the
installation of a compliant stove which--
``(A) is installed in a dwelling unit which--
``(i) is located in the United States in an area which, at
the time of the installation, is designated by the
Environmental Protection Agency as a non-attainment area for
particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter or a
non-attainment area for particulate matter less than 10
micrometers in diameter, and
``(ii) is used as a residence, and
``(B) replaces a noncompliant wood stove used in the
dwelling unit.
Such term includes expenditures for labor costs properly
allocable to the onsite preparation, assembly, or original
installation of the compliant stove.
``(2) Compliant stove.--The term `compliant stove' means a
solid fuel burning stove which meets the requirements set
forth in the `Standards of Performance for Residential Wood
Heaters' issued by the Environmental Protection Agency.
``(3) Noncompliant wood stove.--The term `noncompliant wood
stove' means any wood stove other than a compliant stove.
``(c) Other Rules.--Rules similar to the rules of
paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 25C(d) shall apply for
purposes of this section.
``(d) Basis Adjustment.--If an expenditure to which this
section applies results in an increase in basis in any
property, the increase
[[Page 13183]]
shall be reduced by the amount of the credit allowed under
this section with respect to the expenditure.
``(e) Termination.--This section shall not apply to
expenditures made after December 31, 2008.''
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subsection (a) of section 1016, as amended by this Act,
is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (38),
by striking the period at the end of paragraph (39) and
inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(40) to the extent provided in section 25E(e), in the
case of amounts with respect to which a credit has been
allowed under section 25E.''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1, as amended by this Act, is amended
by inserting after the item relating to section 25D the
following new item:
``Sec. 25E. Replacement stoves in areas with poor air quality.''.
(c) Effective Dates.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to expenditures for stoves purchased after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1550. EXEMPTION FOR EQUIPMENT FOR TRANSPORTING BULK BEDS
OF FARM CROPS FROM EXCISE TAX ON RETAIL SALE OF
HEAVY TRUCKS AND TRAILERS.
(a) In General.--Section 4053 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to exemptions) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(9) Bulk beds for transporting farm crops.--Any box,
container, receptacle, bin, or other similar article the
length of which does not exceed 26 feet, which is mounted or
placed on an automobile truck, and which is sold to a person
who certifies to the seller that--
``(A) such person is actively engaged in the trade or
business of farming, and
``(B) the primary use of the article is to haul to farms
(and on farms) farm crops grown in connection with such trade
or business.''.
(b) Recapture of Tax Upon Resale or Nonexempt Use.--Section
4052 (relating to definitions and special rules) is amended
by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h) and by
inserting after subsection (f) the following new subsection:
``(g) Imposition of Tax on Sales, Etc., Within 2 Years of
Bulk Beds for Transporting Farm Crops Purchased Tax-free.--
``(1) In general.--If--
``(A) no tax was imposed under section 4051 on the first
retail sale of any article described in section 4053(9) by
reason of its exempt use, and
``(B) within 2 years after the date of such first retail
sale, such article is resold by the purchaser or such
purchaser makes a substantial nonexempt use of such article,
then such sale or use of such article by such purchaser shall
be treated as the first retail sale of such article for a
price equal to its fair market value at the time of such sale
or use.
``(2) Exempt use.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `exempt use' means any use of an article described in
section 4053(9) if the first retail sale of such article is
not taxable under section 4051 by reason of such use.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to sales after September 30, 2005.
SEC. 1551. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STUDY AND REPORT.
(a) Study.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences
under which the National Academy of Sciences shall conduct a
study to define and evaluate the health, environmental,
security, and infrastructure external costs and benefits
associated with the production and consumption of energy that
are not or may not be fully incorporated into the market
price of such energy, or into the Federal tax or fee or other
applicable revenue measure related to such production or
consumption.
(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date on which
the agreement under subsection (a) is entered into, the
National Academy of Sciences shall submit to Congress a
report on the study conducted under subsection (a).
Subtitle F--Revenue Raising Provisions
SEC. 1561. TREATMENT OF KEROSENE FOR USE IN AVIATION.
(a) All Kerosene Taxed at Highest Rate.--
(1) In general.--Section 4081(a)(2)(A) (relating to rates
of tax) is amended by adding ``and'' at the end of clause
(ii), by striking ``, and'' at the end of clause (iii) and
inserting a period, and by striking clause (iv).
(2) Exception for use in aviation.--Subparagraph (C) of
section 4081(a)(2) is amended to read as follows:
``(C) Taxes imposed on fuel used in aviation.--In the case
of kerosene which is removed from any refinery or terminal
directly into the fuel tank of an aircraft for use in
aviation, the rate of tax under subparagraph (A)(iii) shall
be--
``(i) in the case of use for commercial aviation by a
person registered for such use under section 4101, 4.3 cents
per gallon, and
``(ii) in the case of use for aviation not described in
clause (i), 21.8 cents per gallon.''.
(3) Applicable rate in case of certain refueler trucks,
tankers, and tank wagons.--Section 4081(a)(3) (relating to
certain refueler trucks, tankers, and tank wagons treated as
terminals) is amended--
(A) by striking ``a secured area of'' in subparagraph
(A)(i), and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Applicable rate.--For purposes of paragraph (2)(C),
in the case of any kerosene treated as removed from a
terminal by reason of this paragraph--
``(i) the rate of tax specified in paragraph (2)(C)(i) in
the case of use described in such paragraph shall apply if
such terminal is located within a secured area of an airport,
and
``(ii) the rate of tax specified in paragraph (2)(C)(ii)
shall apply in all other cases.''.
(4) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Sections 4081(a)(3)(A) and 4082(b) are amended by
striking ``aviation-grade'' each place it appears.
(B) Section 4081(a)(4) is amended by striking ``paragraph
(2)(C)'' and inserting ``paragraph (2)(C)(i)''.
(C) The heading for paragraph (4) of section 4081(a) is
amended by striking ``aviation-grade''.
(D) Section 4081(d)(2) is amended by striking so much as
precedes subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
``(2) Aviation fuels.--The rates of tax specified in
subsections (a)(2)(A)(ii) and (a)(2)(C)(ii) shall be 4.3
cents per gallon--''.
(E) Subsection (e) of section 4082 is amended--
(i) by striking ``aviation-grade'',
(ii) by striking ``section 4081(a)(2)(A)(iv)'' and
inserting ``section 4081(a)(2)(A)(iii)'', and
(iii) by striking ``Aviation-Grade Kerosene'' in the
heading thereof and inserting ``Kerosene Removed Into an
Aircraft''.
(b) Reduced Rate for Use of Certain Liquids in Aviation.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 4041 (relating
to imposition of tax) is amended--
(A) by striking ``aviation-grade kerosene'' in paragraph
(1) and inserting ``any liquid for use as a fuel other than
aviation gasoline'',
(B) by striking ``aviation-grade kerosene'' in paragraph
(2) and inserting ``liquid for use as a fuel other than
aviation gasoline'',
(C) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Rate of tax.--The rate of tax imposed by this
subsection shall be 21.8 cents per gallon (4.3 cents per
gallon with respect to any sale or use for commercial
aviation).'', and
(D) by striking ``Aviation-Grade Kerosene'' in the heading
thereof and inserting ``Certain Liquids Used as a Fuel in
Aviation''.
(2) Partial refund of full rate.--
(A) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 6427(l) (relating
to nontaxable uses of diesel fuel, kerosene and aviation
fuel) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Nontaxable use.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `nontaxable use' means any use which is exempt from the
tax imposed by section 4041(a)(1) other than by reason of a
prior imposition of tax.''.
(B) Refunds for noncommercial aviation.--Section 6427(l)
(relating to nontaxable uses of diesel fuel, kerosene and
aviation fuel) is amended by redesignating paragraph (5) as
paragraph (6) and by inserting after paragraph (4) the
following new paragraph:
``(5) Refunds for kerosene used in noncommercial
aviation.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of kerosene used in aviation
not described in paragraph (4)(A) (other than any use which
is exempt from the tax imposed by section 4041(c) other than
by reason of a prior imposition of tax), paragraph (1) shall
not apply to so much of the tax imposed by section 4081 as is
attributable to--
``(i) the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
financing rate imposed by such section, and
``(ii) so much of the rate of tax specified in section
4081(a)(2)(A)(iii) as does not exceed the rate specified in
section 4081(a)(2)(C)(ii).
``(B) Payment to ultimate, registered vendor.--The amount
which would be paid under paragraph (1) with respect to any
kerosene shall be paid only to the ultimate vendor of such
kerosene. A payment shall be made to such vendor if such
vendor--
``(i) is registered under section 4101, and
``(ii) meets the requirements of subparagraph (A), (B), or
(D) of section 6416(a)(1).''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 4041(a)(1)(B) is amended by striking the last
sentence.
(B) The heading for subsection (l) of section 6427 is
amended by striking ``, Kerosene and Aviation Fuel'' and
inserting ``and Kerosene''.
(C) Section 4082(d)(2)(B) is amended by striking ``section
6427(l)(5)(B)'' and inserting ``section 6427(l)(6)(B)''.
(D) Section 6427(i)(4)(A) is amended--
(i) by striking ``paragraph (4)(B) or (5)'' both places it
appears and inserting ``paragraph (4)(B), (5), or (6)'', and
(ii) by striking ``subsection (b)(4) and subsection
(l)(5)'' in the last sentence and inserting ``subsections
(b)(4), (l)(5), and (l)(6)''.
(E) Paragraph (4) of section 6427(l) is amended--
(i) by striking ``aviation-grade'' in subparagraph (A),
[[Page 13184]]
(ii) by striking ``section 4081(a)(2)(A)(iv)'' and
inserting ``section 4081(a)(2)(iii)'',
(iii) by striking ``aviation-grade kerosene'' in
subparagraph (B) and inserting ``kerosene used in commercial
aviation as described in subparagraph (A)'', and
(iv) by striking ``aviation-grade kerosene'' in the heading
thereof and inserting ``kerosene used in commercial
aviation''.
(F) Section 6427(l)(6)(B), as redesignated by paragraph
(2)(B), is amended by striking ``aviation-grade kerosene''
and inserting ``kerosene used in aviation''.
(c) Transfers From Highway Trust Fund of Taxes on Fuels
Used in Aviation to Airport and Airway Trust Fund.--
(1) In general.--Section 9503(c) (relating to expenditures
from Highway Trust Fund) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(7) Transfers from the trust fund for certain aviation
fuel taxes.--The Secretary shall pay at least monthly from
the Highway Trust Fund into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund
amounts (as determined by the Secretary) equivalent to the
taxes received on or after October 1, 2005, and before
October 1, 2011, under section 4081 with respect to so much
of the rate of tax as does not exceed--
``(A) 4.3 cents per gallon of kerosene with respect to
which a payment has been made by the Secretary under section
6427(l)(4), and
``(B) 21.8 cents per gallon of kerosene with respect to
which a payment has been made by the Secretary under section
6427(l)(5).
Transfers under the preceding sentence shall be made on the
basis of estimates by the Secretary, and proper adjustments
shall be made in the amounts subsequently transferred to the
extent prior estimates were in excess of or less than the
amounts required to be transferred.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 9502(a) is amended by striking ``appropriated
or credited to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund as provided
in this section or section 9602(b)'' and inserting
``appropriated, credited, or paid into the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund as provided in this section, section 9503(c)(7),
or section 9602(b)''.
(B) Section 9502(b)(1) is amended--
(i) by striking ``subsections (c) and (e) of section 4041''
in subparagraph (A) and inserting ``section 4041(c)'', and
(ii) by striking ``and aviation-grade kerosene'' in
subparagraph (C) and inserting ``and kerosene to the extent
attributable to the rate specified in section
4081(a)(2)(C)''.
(C) Section 9503(b) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
(d) Certain Refunds Not Transferred From Airport and Airway
Trust Fund.--Section 9502(d)(2) (relating to transfers from
Airport and Airway Trust Fund on account of certain refunds)
is amended by inserting ``(other than subsections (l)(4) and
(l)(5) thereof)'' after ``or 6427 (relating to fuels not used
for taxable purposes)''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fuels or liquids removed, entered, or sold
after September 30, 2005.
SEC. 1562. REPEAL OF ULTIMATE VENDOR REFUND CLAIMS WITH
RESPECT TO FARMING.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 6427(l)(6)
(relating to registered vendors to administer claims for
refund of diesel fuel or kerosene sold to farmers and State
and local governments), as redesignated by section 1561, is
amended to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to diesel
fuel or kerosene used by a State or local government.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading of paragraph (6) of
section 6427(l), as so redesignated, is amended by striking
``farmers and''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to sales after September 30, 2005.
SEC. 1563. REFUNDS OF EXCISE TAXES ON EXEMPT SALES OF FUEL BY
CREDIT CARD.
(a) Registration of Person Extending Credit on Certain
Exempt sales of Fuel.--Section 4101(a) (relating to
registration) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(4) Registration of persons extending credit on certain
exempt sales of fuel.--The Secretary shall require
registration by any person which--
``(A) extends credit by credit card to any ultimate
purchaser described in subparagraph (C) or (D) of section
6416(b)(2) for the purchase of taxable fuel upon which tax
has been imposed under section 4041 or 4081, and
``(B) does not collect the amount of such tax from such
ultimate purchaser.''.
(b) Refunds of Tax on Gasoline.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (4) of section 6416(a) (relating
to condition to allowance) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``except as provided in subparagraph
(B),'' after ``For purposes of this subsection,'' in
subparagraph (A),
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C)
and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) Credit card issuer.--For purposes of this subsection,
if the purchase of gasoline described in subparagraph (A)
(determined without regard to the registration status of the
ultimate vendor) is made by means of a credit card issued to
the ultimate purchaser, paragraph (1) shall not apply and the
person extending the credit to the ultimate purchaser shall
be treated as the person (and the only person) who paid the
tax, but only if such person--
``(i) is registered under section 4101(a)(4), and
``(ii) has established, under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary, that such person--
``(I) has not collected the amount of the tax from the
person who purchased such article, or
``(II) has obtained the written consent from the ultimate
purchaser to the allowance of the credit or refund, and
``(iii) has so established that such person--
``(I) has repaid or agreed to repay the amount of the tax
to the ultimate vendor,
``(II) has obtained the written consent of the ultimate
vendor to the allowance of the credit or refund, or
``(III) has otherwise made arrangements which directly or
indirectly assure the ultimate vendor of reimbursement of
such tax.
If clause (i), (ii), or (iii) is not met by such person
extending the credit to the ultimate purchaser, then such
person shall collect an amount equal to the tax from the
ultimate purchaser and only such ultimate purchaser may claim
such credit or refund.'',
(C) by striking ``subparagraph (A)'' in subparagraph (C),
as redesignated by paragraph (2), and inserting
``subparagraph (A) or (B)'',
(D) by inserting ``or credit card issuer'' after ``vendor''
in subparagraph (C), as so redesignated, and
(E) by inserting ``or credit card issuer'' after ``vendor''
in the heading thereof.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 6416(b)(2) is amended by
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Subparagraphs
(C) and (D) shall not apply in the case of any tax imposed on
gasoline under section 4081 if the requirements of subsection
(a)(4) are not met.''
(c) Diesel Fuel or Kerosene.--Paragraph (6) of section
6427(l) (relating to nontaxable uses of diesel fuel and
kerosene), as redesignated by section 1561, is amended--
(1) by striking ``The amount'' in subparagraph (C) and
inserting ``Except as provided in subparagraph (D), the
amount'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Credit card issuer.--For purposes of this paragraph,
if the purchase of any fuel described in subparagraph (A)
(determined without regard to the registration status of the
ultimate vendor) is made by means of a credit card issued to
the ultimate purchaser, the Secretary shall pay to the person
extending the credit to the ultimate purchaser the amount
which would have been paid under paragraph (1) (but for
subparagraph (A)), but only if such person meets the
requirements of clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of section
6416(a)(4)(B). If such clause (i), (ii), or (iii) is not met
by such person extending the credit to the ultimate
purchaser, then such person shall collect an amount equal to
the tax from the ultimate purchaser and only such ultimate
purchaser may claim such amount.''.
(d) Conforming Penalty Amendments.--
(1) Section 6206 (relating to special rules applicable to
excessive claims under sections 6420, 6421, and 6427) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``Any portion'' in the first sentence and
inserting ``Any portion of a refund made under section
6416(a)(4) and any portion'',
(B) by striking ``payments under sections 6420'' in the
first sentence and inserting ``refunds under section
6416(a)(4) and payments under sections 6420'',
(C) by striking ``section 6420'' in the second sentence and
inserting ``section 6416(a)(4), 6420'', and
(D) by striking ``SECTIONS 6420, 6421, and 6427'' in the
heading thereof and inserting ``CERTAIN SECTIONS''.
(2) Section 6675(a) is amended by inserting ``section
6416(a)(4) (relating to certain sales of gasoline),'' after
``made under''.
(3) Section 6675(b)(1) is amended by inserting
``6416(a)(4),'' after ``under section''.
(4) The item relating to section 6206 in the table of
sections for subchapter A of chapter 63 is amended by
striking ``sections 6420, 6421, and 6427'' and inserting
``certain sections''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to sales after December 31, 2005.
SEC. 1564. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR EXEMPT PURCHASES.
(a) State and Local Governments.--
(1) Subparagraph (C) of section 6416(b)(2) (relating to
specified uses and resales) is amended to read as follows:
``(C) sold to a State or local government for the exclusive
use of a State or local government (as defined in section
4221(d)(4) and certified as such by the State) or sold to a
qualified volunteer fire department (as defined in section
150(e)(2) and certified as such by the State) for its
exclusive use;''.
(2) Section 4041(g)(2) (relating to other exemptions) is
amended by striking ``or the District of Columbia'' and
inserting ``the District of Columbia, or a qualified
volunteer fire department (as defined in section 150(e)(2))
(and certified as such by the State or the District of
Columbia)''.
[[Page 13185]]
(b) Nonprofit Educational Organizations.--
(1) Section 6416(b)(2)(D) is amended by inserting ``(as
defined in section 4221(d)(5) and certified to be in good
standing by the State in which such organization is providing
educational services)'' after ``organization''.
(2) Section 4041(g)(4) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(certified to be in good standing by the
State in which such organization is providing educational
services)'' after ``organization'' the first place it
appears, and
(B) by striking ``use by a'' and inserting ``use by such
a''.
(c) Nonapplication of certification requirements for the
refund of certain taxes.--Section 6416(b)(2) is amended by
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``With respect
to any tax paid under subchapter D of chapter 32, the
certification requirements under subparagraphs (C) and (D)
shall not apply.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to sales after December 31, 2005.
SEC. 1565. REREGISTRATION IN EVENT OF CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP.
(a) In General.--Section 4101(a) (relating to registration)
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Reregistration in event of change in ownership.--
Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, a person
(other than a corporation the stock of which is regularly
traded on an established securities market) shall be required
to reregister under this section if after a transaction (or
series of related transactions) more than 50 percent of
ownership interests in, or assets of, such person are held by
persons other than persons (or persons related thereto) who
held more than 50 percent of such interests or assets before
the transaction (or series of related transactions).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Civil penalty.--Section 6719 (relating to failure to
register) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``or reregister'' after ``register'' each
place it appears,
(B) by inserting ``or Reregister'' after ``Register'' in
the heading for subsection (a), and
(C) by inserting ``OR REREGISTER'' after ``REGISTER'' in
the heading thereof.
(2) Criminal penalty.--Section 7232 (relating to failure to
register under section 4101, false representations of
registration status, etc.) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``or reregister'' after ``register'',
(B) by inserting ``or reregistration'' after
``registration'', and
(C) by inserting ``OR REREGISTER'' after ``REGISTER'' in
the heading thereof.
(3) Additional civil penalty.--Section 7272 (relating to
penalty for failure to register) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``or reregister'' after ``failure to
register'' in subsection (a),
(B) by inserting ``OR REREGISTER'' after ``REGISTER'' in
the heading thereof.
(3) Clerical amendments.--The item relating to section 6719
in the table of sections for part I of subchapter B of
chapter 68, the item relating to section 7232 in the table of
sections for part II of subchapter A of chapter 75, and the
item relating to section 7272 in the table of sections for
subchapter B of chapter 75 are each amended by inserting ``or
reregister'' after ``register''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to actions, or failures to act, after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1566. TREATMENT OF DEEP-DRAFT VESSELS.
(a) In General.--On and after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall require that a
vessel described in section 4042(c)(1) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 be considered a vessel for purposes of
the registration of the operator of such vessel under section
4101 of such Code, unless such operator uses such vessel
exclusively for purposes of the entry of taxable fuel.
(b) Exemption for Domestic Bulk Transfers by Deep-Draft
Vessels.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 4081(a)(1)
(relating to tax on removal, entry, or sale) is amended to
read as follows:
``(B) Exemption for bulk transfers to registered terminals
or refineries.--
``(i) In general.--The tax imposed by this paragraph shall
not apply to any removal or entry of a taxable fuel
transferred in bulk by pipeline or vessel to a terminal or
refinery if the person removing or entering the taxable fuel,
the operator of such pipeline or vessel (except as provided
in clause (ii)), and the operator of such terminal or
refinery are registered under section 4101.
``(ii) Nonapplication of registration to vessel operators
entering by deep-draft vessel.--For purposes of clause (i), a
vessel operator is not required to be registered with respect
to the entry of a taxable fuel transferred in bulk by a
vessel described in section 4042(c)(1).''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1567. RECONCILIATION OF ON-LOADED CARGO TO ENTERED
CARGO.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 343 of the Trade
Act of 2002 is amended by inserting at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(4) Transmission of data.--Pursuant to paragraph (2), not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
paragraph, the Secretary of Homeland Security, after
consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall
establish an electronic data interchange system through which
the United States Customs and Border Protection shall
transmit to the Internal Revenue Service information
pertaining to cargoes of any taxable fuel (as defined in
section 4083 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) that the
United States Customs and Border Protection has obtained
electronically under its regulations adopted in accordance
with paragraph (1). For this purpose, not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this paragraph, all filers of
required cargo information for such taxable fuels (as so
defined) must provide such information to the United States
Customs and Border Protection through such electronic data
interchange system.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1568. TAXATION OF GASOLINE BLEND-
STOCKS AND KEROSENE.
With respect to fuel entered or removed after September 30,
2005, the Secretary of the Treasury shall, in applying
section 4083 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986--
(1) prohibit the nonbulk entry or removal of any gasoline
blend stock without the imposition of tax under section 4081
of such Code, and
(2) shall not exclude mineral spirits from the definition
of kerosene.
SEC. 1569. NONAPPLICATION OF EXPORT EXEMPTION TO DELIVERY OF
FUEL TO MOTOR VEHICLES REMOVED FROM UNITED
STATES.
(a) In General.--Section 4221(d)(2) (defining export) is
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``Such term does not include the delivery of a taxable fuel
(as defined in section 4083(a)(1)) into a fuel tank of a
motor vehicle which is shipped or driven out of the United
States.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 4041(g) (relating to other exemptions) is
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``Paragraph (3) shall not apply to the sale of a liquid for
delivery into a fuel tank of a motor vehicle which is shipped
or driven out of the United States.''.
(2) Clause (iv) of section 4081(a)(1)(A) (relating to tax
on removal, entry, or sale) is amended by inserting ``or at a
duty-free sales enterprise (as defined in section 555(b)(8)
of the Tariff Act of 1930)'' after ``section 4101''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to sales or deliveries made after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1570. PENALTY WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN ADULTERATED FUELS.
(a) In General.--Part I of subchapter B of chapter 68
(relating to assessable penalties) is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
``SEC. 6720A. PENALTY WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN ADULTERATED
FUELS.
``(a) In General.--Any person who knowingly transfers for
resale, sells for resale, or holds out for resale any liquid
for use in a diesel-powered highway vehicle or a diesel-
powered train which does not meet applicable EPA regulations
(as defined in section 45H(c)(3)), shall pay a penalty of
$10,000 for each such transfer, sale, or holding out for
resale, in addition to the tax on such liquid (if any).
``(b) Penalty in the Case of Retailers.--Any person who
knowingly holds out for sale (other than for resale) any
liquid described in subsection (a), shall pay a penalty of
$10,000 for each such holding out for sale, in addition to
the tax on such liquid (if any).''.
(b) Dedication of Revenue.--Paragraph (5) of section
9503(b) (relating to certain penalties) is amended by
inserting ``6720A,'' after ``6719,''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part I
of subchapter B of chapter 68 is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:
``Sec. 6720A. Penalty with respect to certain adulterated fuels.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to any transfer, sale, or holding out for sale or
resale occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1571. OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND FINANCING RATE.
Section 4611(f) (relating to application of oil spill
liability trust fund financing rate) is amended to read as
follows:
``(f) Application of Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
Financing Rate.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund financing rate under
subsection (c) shall apply on and after April 1, 2007, or if
later, the date which is 30 days after the last day of any
calendar quarter for which the Secretary estimates that, as
of the close of that quarter, the unobligated balance in the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is less than $2,000,000,000.
[[Page 13186]]
``(2) Fund balance.--The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
financing rate shall not apply during a calendar quarter if
the Secretary estimates that, as of the close of the
preceding calendar quarter, the unobligated balance in the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund exceeds $3,000,000,000.
``(3) Termination.--The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
financing rate shall not apply after December 31, 2014.''.
SEC. 1572. EXTENSION OF LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
TRUST FUND FINANCING RATE.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 4081(d) (relating
to Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund financing
rate) is amended by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2011''.
(b) Application of tax on dyed fuel.--
(1) In general.--Section 4082(a) (relating to exemptions
for diesel fuel and kerosene) is amended by inserting
``(other than such tax at the Leaking Underground Storage
Tank Trust Fund financing rate)'' after ``section 4081''.
(2) No refund.--Section 6427(l)(1) is amended by adding at
the end the following new sentence: ``The preceding sentence
shall not apply to so much of the tax imposed by section 4081
on dyed fuel described in section 4082(a) as is attributable
to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund financing
rate imposed by such section.''.
(c) Certain Refunds and Credits Not Charged to LUST Trust
Fund.--Subsection (c) of section 9508 (relating to Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund) is amended to read as
follows:
``(c) Expenditures.--Amounts in the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Trust Fund shall be available, as provided in
appropriation Acts, only for purposes of making expenditures
to carry out section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
as in effect on the date of the enactment of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.''.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall take effect on October
1, 2005.
(2) Application of tax on dyed fuel.--The amendment made by
subsection (b) shall apply to fuel entered, removed, or sold
after December 31, 2005.
______
SA 801. Mrs. LINCOLN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 800 submitted by Mr. Grassley (for himself and Mr.
Baucus) to the bill H.R. 6, Reserved; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
At the end of subtitle E of title XV (relating to energy
policy tax incentives) add the following:
SEC. __. RENEWABLE LIQUID FUELS EXCISE TAX CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subchapter B of chapter 65 (relating to
rules of special application) is amended by inserting after
section 6426 the following new section:
``SEC. 6426A. CREDIT FOR RENEWABLE LIQUID FUELS.
``(a) Allowance of Credits.--There shall be allowed as a
credit against the tax imposed by section 4081 an amount
equal to the renewable liquid mixture credit.
``(b) Renewable Liquid Mixture Credit.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the
renewable liquid mixture credit is the product of the
applicable amount and the number of gallons of renewable
liquid used by the taxpayer in producing any renewable liquid
mixture for sale or use in a trade or business of the
taxpayer.
``(2) Applicable amount.--For purposes of this section, the
applicable amount is $1.00.
``(3) Renewable liquid mixture.--For purposes of this
section, the term `renewable liquid mixture' means a mixture
of renewable liquid and taxable fuel which--
``(A) is sold by the taxpayer producing such mixture to any
person for use as a fuel or feedstock, or
``(B) is used as a fuel or feedstock by the taxpayer
producing such mixture.
For purposes of subparagraph (A), a mixture produced by any
person at a refinery prior to a taxable event which includes
renewable liquid shall be treated as sold at the time of its
removal from the refinery (and only at such time) or sold to
another person for use as a fuel or feedstock.
``(c) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
``(1) Renewable liquid.--The term `renewable liquid' means
liquid fuels derived from waste and byproduct streams
including; agricultural byproducts and wastes, aqua-culture
products produced from waste streams, food processing plant
byproducts, municipal solid and semi-solid waste streams,
industrial waste streams, automotive scrap waste streams, and
as further provided by regulations.
``(2) Taxable fuel.--The term `taxable fuel' has the
meaning given such term by section 4083(a)(1).
``(3) Feedstock.--The term `feedstock' means any precursor
material subject to further processing to make a
petrochemical, solvent, or other fuel which has the effect of
displacing conventional fuels, or products produced from
conventional fuels.
``(4) Additional definitions.--Any term used in this
section which is also used in section 40B shall have the
meaning given such term by section 40B.
``(d) Certification for Renewable Liquid Fuel.--No credit
shall be allowed under this section unless the taxpayer
obtains a certification (in such form and manner as
prescribed by the Secretary) from the producer of the
renewable liquid fuel, which identifies the product produced.
``(e) Mixture Not Used as Fuel, Etc.--
``(1) Imposition of tax.--If--
``(A) any credit was determined under this section with
respect to renewable liquid used in the production of any
renewable liquid mixture, and
``(B) any person--
``(i) separates the renewable liquid from the mixture, or
``(ii) without separation, uses the mixture other than as a
fuel,
then there is hereby imposed on such person a tax equal to
the product of the applicable amount and the number of
gallons of such renewable liquid.
``(2) Applicable laws.--All provisions of law, including
penalties, shall, insofar as applicable and not inconsistent
with this section, apply in respect of any tax imposed under
paragraph (1) as if such tax were imposed by section 4081 and
not by this section.
``(f) Coordination With Exemption From Excise Tax.--Rules
similar to the rules under section 40 (c) shall apply for
purposes of this section.
``(g) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any
sale, use, or removal for any period after December 31,
2010.''.
(b) Registration Requirement.--Section 4101(a)(1) (relating
to registration), as amended by this Act, is amended by
inserting ``and every person producing or importing renewable
liquid as defined in section 6426A(c)(1)'' before ``shall
register with the Secretary''.
(c) Payments.--Section 6427 is amended by inserting after
subsection (f) the following new subsection:
``(g) Renewable Liquid Used to Produce Mixture.--
``(1) Used to produce a mixture.--If any person produces a
mixture described in section 6426A in such person's trade or
business, the Secretary shall pay (without interest) to such
person an amount equal to the renewable liquid mixture credit
with respect to such mixture.
``(2) Coordination with other repayment provisions.--No
amount shall be payable under paragraph (1) with respect to
any mixture with respect to which an amount is allowed as a
credit under section 6426A.
``(3) Termination.--This subsection shall not apply with
respect to any renewable liquid fuel mixture (as defined in
section 6426A(b)(3) sold or used after December 31, 2010.''.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--The last sentence of section
9503(b)(1) is amended by striking ``section 6426'' and
inserting ``sections 6426 and 6426A''.
(e) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for
subchapter B of chapter 65 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 6426 the following new item:
``Sec. 6426A. Credit for renewable liquid fuels.''.
(f) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to fuel sold or used on or after January 1, 2005.
(2) Registration requirement.--The amendment made by
subsection (b) shall take effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. __. RENEWABLE LIQUID INCOME TAX CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to business related credits) is amended
by inserting after section 40A the following new section:
``SEC. 40B. RENEWABLE LIQUID USED AS FUEL.
``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the
renewable liquid credit determined under this section for the
taxable year is an amount equal to the sum of--
``(1) the renewable liquid mixture credit, plus
``(2) the renewable liquid credit.
``(b) Definition of Renewable Liquid Mixture Credit and
Renewable Liquid Credit.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Renewable liquid mixture credit.--
``(A) In general.--The renewable liquid mixture credit of
any taxpayer for any taxable year is $1.00 for each gallon of
renewable liquid fuel used by the taxpayer in the production
of a qualified renewable liquid fuel mixture.
``(B) Qualified renewable liquid mixture.--The term
`qualified renewable liquid mixture' means a mixture of
renewable liquid and taxable fuel (as defined in section
4083(a)(1)), which--
``(i) is sold by the taxpayer producing such a mixture to
any person for use as a fuel or feedstock, or
``(ii) is used as a fuel or feedstock by the taxpayer
producing such mixture.
``(C) Sale or use must be in trade or business, etc.--
Renewable liquid used in the production of a qualified
renewable liquid fuel mixture shall be taken into account--
``(i) only if the sale or use described in subparagraph (B)
is in a trade or business of the taxpayer, and
[[Page 13187]]
``(ii) for the taxable year in which such sale or use
occurs.
``(2) Renewable liquid credit.--
``(A) In general.--The renewable liquid credit of any
taxpayer for any taxable year is $1.00 for each gallon of
renewable liquid which is not in a mixture with taxable fuel
and which during the taxable year--
``(i) is used by the taxpayer as a fuel or feedstock in a
trade or business, or
``(ii) is sold by the taxpayer at retail to a person and
placed in the fuel tank of such person's vehicle.
``(B) User credit not to apply to renewable liquid sold at
retail.--No credit shall be allowed under subparagraph (A)(i)
with respect to any renewable liquid which was sold in a
retail sale described in subparagraph (A)(ii).
``(c) Certification for Renewable Liquid.--No credit shall
be allowed under this section unless the taxpayer obtains a
certification (in such form and manner as prescribed by the
Secretary) from the producer or importer of the renewable
liquid fuel which identifies the product produced and
percentage of renewable liquid fuel in the product.
``(d) Coordination With Credit Against Excise Tax.--The
amount of the credit determined under this section with
respect to any renewable liquid fuel shall be properly
reduced to take into account any benefit provided with
respect to such renewable liquid fuel solely by reason of the
application of section 6426A or 6427(g).
``(e) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
section, the term `renewable liquid' means liquid fuels
derived from waste and byproduct streams including;
agricultural byproducts and wastes, agriculture materials
produced from waste streams, food processing plant
byproducts, municipal solid and semi-solid waste streams,
industrial waste streams, automotive scrap waste streams, as
further provided by regulations.
``(f) Mixture or Renewable Liquid Not Used as a Fuel,
Etc.--
``(1) Mixtures.--If--
``(A) any credit was determined under this section with
respect to renewable liquid used in the production of any
qualified renewable liquid mixture, and
``(B) any person--
``(i) separates the renewable liquid from the mixture, or
``(ii) without separation, uses the mixture other than as a
fuel,
then there is hereby imposed on such person a tax equal to
the product of the rate applicable under subsection (b)(1)(A)
and the number of gallons of such renewable liquid in such
mixture.
``(2) Renewable liquid.--If--
``(A) any credit was determined under this section with
respect to the retail sale of any renewable liquid, and
``(B) any person mixes such renewable liquid or uses such
renewable liquid other than as a fuel, then there is hereby
imposed on such person a tax equal to the product of the rate
applicable under subsection (b)(2)(A) and the number of
gallons of such renewable liquid.
``(3) Applicable laws.--All provisions of law, including
penalties, shall, insofar as applicable and not inconsistent
with this section, apply in respect of any tax imposed under
subparagraph (A) or (B) as if such tax were imposed by
section 4081 and not by this chapter.
``(g) Pass-Thru in the Case of Estates and Trusts.--Under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary, rules similar to the
rules of subsection (d) of section 52 shall apply.
``(h) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any
sale or use after December 31, 2010.''.
(b) Credit Treated as Part of General Business Credit.--
Section 38(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to current year business credit), as amended by this Act, is
amended by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (23), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (24), and
inserting ``, plus'', and by inserting after paragraph (24)
the following new paragraph:
``(25) The renewable liquid credit determined under section
40B.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter I of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 40A the following new item:
``Sec. 40B. Renewable liquid used as fuel.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fuel produced, and sold as used, on or after
January 1, 2005.
______
SA 802. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 6, Reserved; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
Beginning on page 245, strike line 7 and all that follows
through page 250, line 11, and insert the following:
(a) Amendment.--
(1) In general.--Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(p)(1) The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary
of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating and
other relevant departments and agencies of the Federal
Government, may grant a lease, easement, right-of-way,
license, or permit on the outer Continental Shelf for
activities not otherwise authorized under this Act, the
Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9101
et seq.), or other applicable law, if those activities
support or promote--
``(A) exploration, development, production, transportation,
or storage of oil, natural gas, or other minerals;
``(B) production, transportation, or transmission of energy
from sources other than oil and gas; or
``(C) use, for energy-related or marine-related purposes,
of facilities in use on or before the date of enactment of
this subsection for activities authorized under this Act.
``(2)(A)(i) Subject to paragraph (3), the Secretary shall
establish reasonable forms of payment for any lease,
easement, right-of-way, license, or permit under this
subsection, including a royalty, fee, rental, bonus, or other
payment, as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
``(ii) The Secretary may establish a form of payment
described in clause (i) by rule or by agreement with the
holder of the lease, easement, right-of-way, license, or
permit.
``(B) In establishing a form of, or schedule relating to, a
payment under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall take into
consideration the economic viability of a proposed activity.
``(C) The Secretary may, by rule, provide for relief from
or reduction of a payment under subparagraph (A)--
``(i) if, without the relief or reduction, an activity
relating to a lease, easement, right-of-way, license, or
permit under this subsection would be uneconomical;
``(ii) to encourage a particular activity; or
``(iii) for another reason, as the Secretary determines to
be appropriate.
``(D) If the holder of a lease, easement, right-of-way,
license, or permit under this subsection fails to make a
payment by the date required under a rule or term of the
lease, easement, right-of-way, license, or permit, the
Secretary may require the holder to pay interest on the
payment in accordance with the underpayment rate established
under section 6621(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, for the period--
``(i) beginning on the date on which the payment was due;
and
``(ii) ending on the date on which the payment is made.
``(E)(i) The Secretary may allow a credit in the amount of
any excess payment made by the holder of a lease, easement,
right-of-way, license, or permit under this subsection or
provide a refund in the amount of the excess payment from the
account to or in which the excess payment was paid or
deposited.
``(ii) The Secretary shall pay, or allow the holder of a
lease, easement, right-of-way, license, or permit under this
subsection a credit in the amount of, any interest on an
amount refunded or credited under clause (i) in accordance
with the overpayment rate established under section
6621(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, for the
period--
``(I) beginning on the date on which the Secretary received
the excess payment; and
``(II) ending on the date on which the refund or credit is
provided.
``(F)(i) The Secretary, in coordination with the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, may establish reasonable forms of payment, as
determined by the Secretary, for a license issued under the
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9101
et seq.), including a royalty, fee, rental, bonus, or other
payment, as the Secretary determines to be appropriate, in
addition to the administrative fee under section 102(h) of
that Act (42 U.S.C. 9112(h)).
``(ii) A form of payment under clause (i) may be
established by rule or by agreement with the holder of the
lease, easement, right-of-way, license, or permit.
``(3)(A) Any funds received by the Secretary from a holder
of a lease, easement, right-of-way, license, or permit under
this subsection shall be distributed in accordance with this
paragraph.
``(B)(i) If a lease, easement, right-of-way, license, or
permit under this subsection covers a specific tract of, or
regards a facility located on, the outer Continental Shelf
and is not an easement or right-of-way for transmission or
transportation of energy, minerals, or other natural
resources, the Secretary shall pay 50 percent of any amount
received from the holder of the lease, easement, right-of-
way, license, or permit to the State off the shore of which
the geographic center of the area covered by the lease,
easement, right-of-way, license, permit, or facility is
located, in accordance with Federal law determining the
seaward lateral boundaries of the coastal States.
``(ii) Not later than the last day of the month after the
month during which the Secretary receives a payment from the
holder of a lease, easement, right-of-way, license, or permit
described in clause (i), the Secretary shall make payments in
accordance with clause (i).
``(C)(i) The Secretary shall deposit 20 percent of the
funds described in subparagraph
[[Page 13188]]
(A) to a special account maintained and administered by the
Secretary to provide research and development grants for
improving energy technologies.
``(ii) An amount deposited under clause (i) shall remain
available until expended, without further appropriation.
``(D) The Secretary shall credit 5 percent of the funds
described in subparagraph (A) to the annual operating
appropriation of the Minerals Management Service.
``(E) The Secretary shall deposit any funds described in
subparagraph (A) that are not deposited or credited under
subparagraphs (B) through (D) in the general fund of the
Treasury.
``(F) This paragraph does not apply to any amount received
by the Secretary under section 9701 of title 31, United
States Code, or any other law (including regulations) under
which the Secretary may recover the costs of administering
this subsection.
``(4) Before carrying out this subsection, the Secretary
shall consult with the Secretary of Defense and other
appropriate Federal agencies regarding the effect of this
subsection on national security and navigational obstruction.
``(5)(A) The Secretary may issue a lease, easement, right-
of-way, license, or permit under paragraph (1) on a
competitive or noncompetitive basis.
``(B) In determining whether a lease, easement right-of-
way, license, or permit shall be granted competitively or
noncompetitively, the Secretary shall consider factors
including--
``(i) prevention of waste and conservation of natural
resources;
``(ii) the economic viability of a project;
``(iii) protection of the environment;
``(iv) the national interest and national security;
``(v) human safety;
``(vi) protection of correlative rights; and
``(vii) the potential return of the lease, easement, right-
of-way, license, or permit.
``(6) The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of
the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, other
relevant Federal agencies, and affected States, as the
Secretary determines appropriate, shall promulgate any
regulation the Secretary determines to be necessary to
administer this subsection to achieve the goals of--
``(A) ensuring public safety;
``(B) protecting the environment;
``(C) preventing waste;
``(D) conserving the natural resources of, and protecting
correlative rights in, the outer Continental Shelf;
``(E) protecting national security interests;
``(F) auditing and reconciling payments made and owed by
each holder of a lease, easement, right-of-way, license, or
permit under this subsection to ensure a correct accounting
and collection of the payments; and
``(G) requiring each holder of a lease, easement, right-of-
way, license, or permit under this subsection to--
``(i) establish such records as the Secretary determines to
be necessary;
``(ii) retain all records relating to an activity under a
lease, easement, right-of-way, license, or permit under this
subsection for such period as the Secretary may prescribe;
and
``(iii) produce the records on receipt of a request from
the Secretary.
``(7) Section 22 shall apply to any activity relating to a
lease, easement, right-of-way, license, or permit under this
subsection.
``(8) The Secretary shall require the holder of a lease,
easement, right-of-way, license, or permit under this
subsection to--
``(A) submit to the Secretary a surety bond or other form
of security, as determined by the Secretary; and
``(B) comply with any other requirement the Secretary
determines to be necessary to protect the interests of the
United States.
``(9) Nothing in this subsection displaces, supersedes,
limits, or modifies the jurisdiction, responsibility, or
authority of any Federal or State agency under any other
Federal law.
``(10) This subsection does not apply to any area on the
outer Continental Shelf designated as a National Marine
Sanctuary.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 8 of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) is amended in
the section heading by striking ``LEASING'' and all that
follows and inserting ``LEASES, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY
ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.''.
(3) Savings provision.--Nothing in the amendment made by
paragraph (1) requires any resubmission of documents
previously submitted or any reauthorization of actions
previously authorized with respect to any project--
(A) for which offshore test facilities have been
constructed before the date of enactment of this Act; or
(B) for which a request for proposals has been issued by a
public authority.
______
SA 803. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 6, Reserved; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
SECTION 1. DOMESTIC OFFSHORE ENERGY REINVESTMENT.
(a) In General.--The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 32. COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
``(a) In this section:
``( 1) The term `approved plan' means a secure energy
reinvestment plan approved by the Secretary under this
section.
``(2) The term `coastal energy State' means a coastal State
off the coastline of which, within the seaward lateral
boundary, an outer Continental Shelf bonus bid or royalty is
generated.
``(3) The term `coastal political subdivision' means a
county, parish, or other equivalent subdivision of a coastal
energy State, all or part of which, on the date of the
enactment of this section, lies wthin the boundaries of the
coastal zone of the State, as identified in the coastal zone
management program of the State approved under the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.).
``(4) The term `coastal population' means the population of
a coastal political subdivision, as determined by the most
recent official data of the Census Bureau.
``(5) The term `coastline' has the meaning given the term
`coast line' in section 2(c) of the Submerged Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1301(c)).
``(6) The term `Fund' means the Secure Energy Reinvestment
Fund established by subsection (b)(1).
``(7) The term `leased tract' means a tract maintained
under section 6 or leased under section 8 for the purpose of
drilling for, developing, and producing oil and natural gas
resources.
``(8) The term `qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues'
means all amounts received by the United States on or after
October 1, 2005, from each leased tract or portion of a
leased tract lying seaward of the zone defined and governed
by section 8(g) (or lying within that zone but to which
section 8(g) does not apply), including bonus bids, rents,
royalties (including payments for royalties taken in kind and
sold), net profit share payments, and related interest.
``(9) The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the
Interior.
``(b)(1)(A) There is established in the Treasury of the
United States a separate account to be known as the `Secure
Energy Reinvestment Fund'.
``(B) The Fund shall consist of--
``(i) any amount deposited under paragraph (2); and
``(ii) any other amounts that are appropriated to the Fund.
``(2) For each fiscal year 2006 through 2009, the Secretary
of the Treasury shall deposit into the Fund $300,000,000.
``(B) All repayments made under subsection (f).
``(3) For each of fiscal years 2006 through 2020, in
addition to the amounts deposited into the Fund under
paragraph (2), there are authorized to be appropriated to the
Fund an amount equal to 27 percent of the qualified outer
Continental Shelf revenues received by the United Stated
during the preceding fiscal year.
``(c)(1)(A) The Secretary shall use any amount remaining in
the Fund after the application of subsection (h) to pay to
each coastal energy State, and any coastal political
subdivision of a State, the secure energy reinvestment plan
of which is approved by the Secretary under this section, the
amount allocated to the State or coastal political
subdivision, respectively, under this subsection.
``(B) During December 2006, and each December thereafter,
the Secretary shall make any payment under this paragraph
from revenues received in the Fund by the United States
during the preceding fiscal year.
``(2) The Secretary shall allocate any amount deposited
into the Fund for a fiscal year, and any other amount
determined by the Secretary to be available, among coastal
energy States, and coastal political subdivisions of those
States, that have a plan approved by the Secretary under this
section as follows:
``(A)(i) Of the amounts made available for each fical year
for which amounts are available for allocation under this
paragraph, the allocation for each coastal energy State shall
be calculated based on qualified Outer Continental Shelf
revenues from each leased tract or portion of a leased tract
the geographic center of which is within a distance (to the
nearest whole mile) of 200 miles from the coastline of the
State and shall be inversely proportional to the distance
between point nearest point on the coastline of such coastal
energy State and the geographic center of each such leased
tract or portion of a leased tract, as determined by the
Secretary.
``(ii) For the purposes of this subparagraph, qualified
outer Continental Shelf revenues shall be considered to be
generated off the coastline of a coastal energy State if the
geographic center of the lease tract from which the revenues
are generated is located within the area formed by the
extension of the seaward lateral boundaries of the State,
calculated using the conventions established to delimit
international lateral boundaries under the Law of the Sea.
``(B) 35 percent of the allocable share of each coastal
energy State, as determined under subparagraph (A), shall be
allocated among and paid directly to the coastal political
subdivisions of the State by the Secretary based on the
following formula:
[[Page 13189]]
``(i) 25 percent shall be allocated based on the ratio
that--
``(I) the coastal population of each coastal political
subdivision; bears to
``(II) the coastal population of all coastal political
subdivisions of the coastal energy State.
``(ii)(I) 25 percent shall be allocated based on the ratio
that--
``(aa) the length, in miles, of the coastal of each coastal
political subdivision; bears to
``(bb) the length, in miles, of the coastline of all
coastal political subdivisions of the State.--
``(II) For purposes of this clause, in the case of a
coastal political subdivision in Louisiana without a
coastline, the coastline of the political subdivision shall
be considered as \1/3\ the average length of the coastline of
the other coastal political subdivisions of the State.
(III) Exception for the State of Alaska.-- For the purposes
of carrying out subparagraph (c)(2)(B) in the State of
Alaska, the amounts allocated shall be divided equally among
the 2 coastal political subdivisions that are closest to the
geographic center of a leased tract.
``(iii) 50 percent shall be allocated based on a formula
that allocates--
``(I) 75 percent of the funds based on the relative
distance of the coastal political subdivision from any leased
tract used to calculate the allocation to that State; and
``(II) 25 percent of the funds based on the relative level
of outer Continental Shelf oil and gas activities in a
coastal political subdivision to the level of outer
Continental Shelf oil and gas activities in all coastal
political subdivisions in the State, as determined by the
Secretary.
``(3) Any amount allocated to a coastal energy State or
coastal political subdivision that is not disbursed because
of a failure of a Coastal energy State to have an approved
plan shall be reallocated by the Secretary among all other
coastal energy States in a manner consistent with this
subsection, except that the Secretary--
``(A) shall hold the amount in escrow within the Fund until
the earlier of--
``(i) the end of the next fiscal year during Which the
allocation is made; or
``(ii) the date on which a final resolution of an appeal
regarding the disapproval of a plan submitted by the State
under this section is filed; and
``(B) shall continue to hold the amount in escrow until the
end of the subsequent fiscal year, if the Secretary
determines that a State is making a good faith effort to
develop and submit, or update, a secure energy reinvestment
plan under subsection (d).
``(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subsection, the amount allocated under this subsection to
each coastal energy State during a fiscal year shall be not
less than 5 percent of the total amount available for that
fiscal year for allocation under this subsection to coastal
energy States.
``(5) If the allocation to 1 or more coastal energy States
under paragraph (4) during any fiscal year is greater than
the amount that would be allocated to those States under this
subsection if paragraph (4) did not apply, the allocations
under this subsection to all other coastal energy States
shall be--
``(A) paid from the amount remaining after the amounts
allocated under paragraph (4) are deducted; and
``(B) reduced on a pro rata basis by the sum of the
allocations under paragraph (4) so that not more than 100
percent of the funds available in the Fund for allocation
with respect to that fiscal year is allocated.
``(d)(1)(A) The Governor of a State seeking to receive
funds under this section shall prepare, and submit to the
Secretary, a secure energy reinvestment plan describing
planned expenditures of funds received under this section.
``(B) The Governor shall include in the State plan any plan
prepared by a coastal political subdivision of the State.
``(C) In the development of the State plan, the Governor
and the coastal political subdivision shall--
``(i) solicit local input;
``(ii) provide for public participation; and
``(iii) in describing the planned expenditures, include
only uses of funds described in subsection (e).
``(2)(A)(i) The Secretary shall not disburse funds to a
State or coastal political subdivision under this section
before the date on which the plan of the State is approved
under this subsection.
``(ii) The Secretary shall approve a plan submitted by a
State under paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that--
``(I) each expenditures provided for in the plan is an
authorized use under subsection (e); and
``(II) the plan contains--
``(aa) the name of the State agency that will have the
authority to represent and act for the State in dealing with
the Secretary for purposes of this section;
``(bb) goals including improving the environment and
addressing the impacts of oil and gas production from the
outer Continental Shelf;
``(cc) a description of how the State and coastal political
subdivisions of the State will evaluate the effectiveness of
the plan;
``(dd) a certification by the Governor that ample
opportunity has been accorded for public participation in the
development and revision of the plan;
``(ee) measures for taking into account other relevant
Federal resources and programs;
``(ff) assurance that the plan is correlated as much as
practicable with other State, regional, and local plans;
``(gg) for any State for which the ratio determined under
clause (i) or (ii) of subsection (c)(2)(A), expressed as a
percentage, exceeds 25 percent, a plan to spend not less than
30 percent of the total funds provided to that State and
appropriate coastal political subdivisions under this section
during any fiscal year to address the socioeconomic or
environmental impacts identified in the plan that remain
significant or progressive after implementation of mitigation
measures identified in the most current environmental impact
statement as of the date of enactment of this section
required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for lease sales under his Act; and
``(hh) a plan to use at least \1/2\ of the funds provided
pursuant to subsection (c)(2)(B), and a portion of other
funds provided to a State under this section, on programs or
projects that are coordinated and conducted by a partnership
between the State and a coastal political subdivision.
``(B) Not later than 90 days after a plan of a State is
submitted under this subsection, the Secretary shall approve
or disapprove the Plan.
``(3) Any amendment to or revision of a plan approved under
this section shall be--
``(A) prepared and submitted in accordance with the
requirements of this paragraph; and
``(B) approved or disapproved by the Secretary in
accordance with paragraph (2)(B).
``(e) A coastal energy State, and a coastal political
subdivision, shall use any amount paid under this section
(including any amounts deposited into a trust fund
administered by the State or coastal political subdivision
consistent with this subsection), consistent with Federal and
State law and the approved plan of the State--
``(1) to carry out a project or activity for the
conservation, protection, or restoration of coastal areas
including wetlands;
``(2) to mitigate damage to, or protect, fish, wildlife, or
natural resources;
``(3) to implement a federally approved plan or program
for--
``(A) marine, coastal, subsidence, or conservation
management; or
``(B) protection of resources from natural disasters; and
``(4) to mitigate the effect of an outer Continental Shelf
activity by addressing impacts identified in an environmental
impact statement as of the date of enactment of this section
required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 V.S.C. 432 et seq.) for lease sales under this Act.
``(f) If the Secretary determines that an expenditure made
by a coastal energy State or coastal political subdivision is
not in accordance with the approved plan of the State
(including any plan of a coastal political subdivisionl
included in the plan of the State), the Secretary shall not
disburse any additional amount under this section to that
coastal energy State or coastal political subdivision until--
``(1) the amount of the expenditure is repaid to the
Secretary; or
``(2) the Secretary approves an amendment to the plan that
authorizes the expenditure.
``(g) The Secretary may require, as a condition of any
payment under this section, that a State or coastal political
subdivision shall submit to arbitration--
``(1) any dispute between the State or coastal political
subdivision and the Secretary regarding implementation of
this section and
``(2) any dispute between the State and political
subdivision regarding implementation of this section,
including any failure to include in the plan submitted by the
State under subsection (d) any spending plan of the coastal
political subdivision.
``(h) The Secretary may use not more than \1/2\ of 1
percent of the amount in the Fund during a fiscal year to pay
the administrative costs of implementing this section.
``(i) A coastal energy State or coastal political
subdivision may use funds provided to that State or coastal
political subdivision under this section for any payment that
is eligible to be made with funds provided to States under
section 35 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 191) to
carry out approved plan activities under subsection (e).
``(j)(1) The Governor of a coastal energy State, in
coordination with the coastal political subdivisions of that
State, shall account for all funds received under this
section during the previous fiscal year in a written report
to the Secretary.
``(2) The report shall include, in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary, a description of all
projects and activities that received funds under this
section.
``(3) The report may incorporate by reference any other
report required to be submitted under another provision of
law.
``(k) The Secretary shall require, as a condition of any
allocation of funds provided under this section, that a State
or coastal political subdivision shall include on any
[[Page 13190]]
sign installed at a site at or near an entrance or public use
area for which funds provided under this section are used a
statement that the existence or development of the site is a
product of those funds.''.
______
SA 804. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 6, Reserved; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
At the end of subtitle B of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. SEAWARD BOUNDARY EXTENSION.
(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
(1) to provide equity to the States of Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama with respect to the seaward
boundaries of the States in the Gulf of Mexico by extending
the seaward boundaries from 3 geographical miles to 3 marine
leagues if the State meets certain conditions not later than
5 years after the date of enactment of this Act;
(2) to convey to the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Alabama the interest of the United States in the submerged
land of the outer Continental Shelf that is located in the
extended seaward boundaries of the States;
(3) to provide that any mineral leases, easements, rights-
of-use, and rights-of-way issued by the Secretary of the
Interior with respect to the submerged land to be conveyed
shall remain in full force and effect; and
(4) in conveying the submerged land, to ensure that the
rights of lessees, operators, and holders of easements,
rights-of-use, and rights-of-way on the submerged land are
protected.
(b) Extension.--Title II of the Submerged Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1311 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 11 as section 12; and
(2) by inserting after section 10 the following:
``SEC. 11. EXTENSION OF SEAWARD BOUNDARIES OF THE STATES OF
LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, AND ALABAMA.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Existing interest.--The term `existing interest'
means any lease, easement, right-of-use, or right-of-way on,
or for any natural resource or minerals underlying, the
expanded submerged land that is in existence on the date of
the conveyance of the expanded submerged land to the State
under subsection (b)(1).
``(2) Expanded seaward boundary.--The term `expanded
seaward boundary' means the seaward boundary of the State
that is 3 marine leagues seaward of the coast line of the
State as of the day before the date of enactment of this
section.
``(3) Expanded submerged land.--The term `expanded
submerged land' means the area of the outer Continental Shelf
that is located between 3 geographical miles and 3 marine
leagues seaward of the coast line of the State as of the day
before the date of enactment of this section.
``(4) Interest owner.--The term `interest owner' means any
person that owns or holds an existing interest in the
expanded submerged land or portion of an existing interest in
the expanded submerged land.
``(5) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
``(6) State.--The term `State' means each of the States of
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
``(b) Conveyance of Expanded Submerged Land.--
``(1) In general.--Effective beginning on the date that is
10 years after the date of enactment of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005, if a State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Secretary that the conditions described in paragraph (2) will
be met, the Secretary shall, subject to valid existing rights
and subsection (c), convey to the State the interest of the
United States in the expanded submerged land of the State.
``(2) Conditions.--A conveyance under paragraph (1) shall
be subject to the condition that--
``(A) on conveyance of the interest of the United States in
the expanded submerged land to the State under paragraph
(1)--
``(i) the Governor of the State (or a delegate of the
Governor) shall exercise the powers and duties of the
Secretary under the terms of any existing interest, subject
to the requirement that the State and the officers of the
State may not exercise the powers to impose any burden or
requirement on any interest owner that is more onerous or
strict than the burdens or requirements imposed under
applicable Federal law (including regulations) on owners or
holders of the same type of lease, easement, right-of-use, or
right-of-way on the outer Continental Shelf seaward of the
expanded submerged land; and
``(ii) the State shall not impose any administrative or
judicial penalty or sanction on any interest owner that is
more severe than the penalty or sanction under Federal law
(including regulations) applicable to owners or holders of
leases, easements, rights-of-use, or rights-of-way on the
outer Continental Shelf seaward of the expanded submerged
lands for the same act, omission, or violation;
``(B) not later than 10 years after the date of enactment
of this section--
``(i) the State shall enact laws or promulgate regulations
with respect to the environmental protection, safety, and
operations of any platform pipeline in existence on the date
of conveyance to the State under paragraph (1) that is
affixed to or above the expanded submerged land that impose
the same requirements as Federal law (including regulations)
applicable to a platform pipeline on the outer Continental
Shelf seaward of the expanded submerged land; and
``(ii) the State shall enact laws or promulgate regulations
for determining the value of oil, gas, or other mineral
production from existing interests for royalty purposes that
establish the same requirements as the requirements under
Federal law (including regulations) applicable to Federal
leases for the same minerals on the outer Continental Shelf
seaward of the expanded submerged land; and
``(C) the State laws and regulations enacted or promulgated
under subparagraph (B) shall provide that if Federal law
(including regulations) applicable to leases, easements,
rights-of-use, or rights-of-way on the outer Continental
Shelf seaward of the expanded submerged land are modified
after the date on which the State laws and regulations are
enacted or promulgated, the State laws and regulations
applicable to existing interests will be modified to reflect
the change in Federal laws (including regulations).
``(c) Exceptions.--
``(1) Mineral lease or unit divided.--
``(A) In general.--If any existing Federal oil and gas or
other mineral lease or unit would be divided by the expanded
seaward boundary of a State, the interest of the United
States in the leased minerals underlying the portion of the
lease or unit that lies within the expanded submerged
boundary shall not be considered to be conveyed to the State
until the date on which the lease or unit expires or is
relinquished by the United States.
``(B) Applicability for other purposes.--Notwithstanding
subparagraph (A), the expanded seaward boundary of a State
shall be the seaward boundary of the State for all other
purposes, including the distribution of revenues under
section 8(g)(2) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1337(g)(2)).
``(2) Laws and regulations not sufficient.--If the
Secretary determines that any law or regulation enacted or
promulgated by a State under subparagraph (B) of subsection
(b)(2) does not meet the requirements of that subparagraph,
the Secretary shall not convey the expanded submerged land to
the State.
``(d) Interest Issued or Granted by the State.--This
section does not apply to any interest in the expanded
submerged land that a State issues or grants after the date
of conveyance of the expanded submerged land to the State
under subsection (b)(1).
``(e) Liability.--
``(1) In general.--By accepting conveyance of the expanded
submerged land, the State agrees to indemnify the United
States for any liability to any interest owner for the taking
of any property interest or breach of contract from--
``(A) the conveyance of the expanded submerged land to the
State; or
``(B) the State's administration of any existing interest
under subsection (b)(2)(A)(i).
``(2) Deduction from oil and gas leasing revenues.--The
Secretary may deduct from the amounts otherwise payable to
the State under section 8(g)(2) of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(g)(2)) the amount of any
final nonappealable judgment for a taking or breach of
contract described in paragraph (1).''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2(b) of the Submerged
Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301(b)) is amended by striking
``section 4 hereof'' and inserting ``section 4 or 11''.
______
SA 805. Mr. SCHUMER proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 6,
Reserved; as follows:
On page 208, after line 24, add the following:
SEC. 303. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MANAGEMENT OF SPR.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the prices of gasoline and crude oil have a direct and
substantial impact on the financial well-being of families of
the United States, the potential for national economic
recovery, and the economic security of the United States;
(2) on June 13, 2005, crude oil prices closed at the
exceedingly high level of $55.62 per barrel, the price of
crude oil has remained above $50 per barrel since May 25,
2005, and the price of crude oil has exceeded $50 per barrel
for approximately \1/3\ of calendar year 2005;
(3) on June 6, 2005, the Energy Information Administration
announced that the national price of gasoline, at $2.12 per
gallon, could reach even higher levels in the near future;
(4) despite the severely high, sustained price of crude
oil--
(A) the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
(referred to in this section as ``OPEC'') has refused to
adequately increase production to calm global oil markets and
[[Page 13191]]
officially abandoned its $22-$28 price target; and
(B) officials of OPEC member nations have publicly
indicated support for maintaining oil prices of $40-$50 per
barrel;
(5) the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (referred to in this
section as ``SPR'') was created to enhance the physical and
economic security of the United States;
(6) the law allows the SPR to be used to provide relief
when oil and gasoline supply shortages cause economic
hardship;
(7) the proper management of the resources of the SPR could
provide gasoline price relief to families of the United
States and provide the United States with a tool to
counterbalance OPEC supply management policies;
(8) the Administration's policy of filling the SPR despite
the fact that the SPR is nearly full has exacerbated the
rising price of crude oil and record high retail price of
gasoline;
(9) in order to combat high gasoline prices during the
summer and fall of 2000, President Clinton released
30,000,000 barrels of oil from the SPR, stabilizing the
retail price of gasoline;
(10) increasing vertical integration has allowed--
(A) the 5 largest oil companies in the United States to
control almost as much crude oil production as the Middle
Eastern members of OPEC, over \1/2\ of domestic refiner
capacity, and over 60 percent of the retail gasoline market;
and
(B) Exxon/Mobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell Group, Conoco/
Philips, and Chevron/Texaco to increase first quarter profits
of 2005 over first quarter profits of 2004 by 36 percent, for
total first quarter profits of over $25,000,000,000;
(11) the Administration has failed to manage the SPR in a
manner that would provide gasoline price relief to working
families; and
(12) the Administration has failed to adequately demand
that OPEC immediately increase oil production in order to
lower crude oil prices and safeguard the world economy.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the President should--
(1) directly confront OPEC and challenge OPEC to
immediately increase oil production; and
(2) direct the Federal Trade Commission and Attorney
General to exercise vigorous oversight over the oil markets
to protect the people of the United States from price gouging
and unfair practices at the gasoline pump.
(c) Release of Oil From SPR.--
(1) In general.--For the period beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act and ending on the date that is 30 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, 1,000,000 barrels of
oil per day shall be released from the SPR.
(2) Additional release.--If necessary to lower the burden
of gasoline prices on the economy of the United States and to
circumvent the efforts of OPEC to reap windfall crude oil
profits, 1,000,000 barrels of oil per day shall be released
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for an additional 30
days.
______
SA 806. Mrs. HUTCHISON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by her to the bill H.R. 6, Reserved; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
On page 767, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
(3) Petroleum coke gasification projects.--At least 5
petroleum coke gasification projects.
______
SA 807. Mr. OBAMA submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 6, Reserved; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
On page 37, between the matter following line 12 and line
13, insert the following:
SEC. 109. INDUSTRIAL NATURAL GAS EFFICIENCY PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a 2-year
pilot program (referred to in this section as the
``program'') to demonstrate the effectiveness of energy
efficiency improvements that reduce natural gas usage in the
industrial sector.
(b) Program Coordinator.--
(1) In general.--The program shall be administered by a
program coordinator, to be designated by the Secretary in
accordance with paragraph (2).
(2) Designation.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment this Act, the Secretary shall designate as program
coordinator an energy resource center that is--
(1) located in the midwestern United States;
(2) affiliated with a major land-grant university; and
(3) certified by a State board of higher education.
(c) Grants.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary
shall provide, in accordance with the guidelines established
under paragraph (2), grants to eligible entities from the
industrial sector to pay the Federal share of the costs of
eligible projects to reduce natural gas usage by implementing
energy efficiency improvements.
(2) Requirements.--Grants shall be provided under paragraph
(1) on a competitive basis, in accordance with guidelines
established by the program coordinator.
(3) Eligible energy efficiency improvements.--A project for
which assistance may be provided a grant under this
subsection includes a project for--
(A) steam production and distribution;
(B) efficiency upgrades and heat recovery for process
heating and cooling project;
(C) compressed air technologies;
(D) combined heat and power applications; and
(E) improvements in motor technologies.
(4) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out a project under this subsection shall be not
more than 30 percent.
(d) Education.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary
and the program coordinator shall make available to
industries information on energy-efficient technologies that
reduce industrial natural gas usage to encourage industries
to invest in the energy-efficient technologies.
(e) Report.--On completion of the program, the program
coordinator shall submit to Congress a report that--
(1) describes the results and successes of the program; and
(2) makes recommendations for any appropriate actions that
would encourage industrial energy-efficiency investments.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2008, of which
$8,000,000 shall be made available to carry out subsection
(c).
______
SA 808. Mr. OBAMA (for himself and Mr. Lugar) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 6, Reserved; which was
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 346, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
SEC. 4__. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TRANSPORTATION FUELS FROM
ILLINOIS BASIN COAL.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program to
evaluate the commercial and technical viability of advanced
technologies for the production of Fischer-Tropsch
transportation fuels, and other transportation fuels,
manufactured from Illinois basin coal, including the capital
modification of existing facilities and the construction of
testing facilities under subsection (b).
(b) Facilities.--For the purpose of evaluating the
commercial and technical viability of different processes for
producing Fischer-Tropsch transportation fuels, and other
transportation fuels, from Illinois basin coal, the Secretary
shall support the use and capital modification of existing
facilities and the construction of new facilities at--
(1) Southern Illinois University Coal Research Center;
(2) University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy
Research; and
(3) Energy Center at Purdue University.
(c) Gasification Products Test Center.--In conjunction with
the activities described in subsections (a) and (b), the
Secretary shall construct a test center to evaluate and
confirm liquid and gas products from syngas catalysis in
order that the system has an output of at least 500 gallons
of Fischer-Tropsch transportation fuel per day in a 24-hour
operation.
(d) Milestones.--
(1) Selection of processes.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall select
processes for evaluating the commercial and technical
viability of different processes of producing Fischer-Tropsch
transportation fuels, and other transportation fuels, from
Illinois basin coal.
(2) Agreements.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall offer to enter
into agreements--
(A) to carry out the activities described in this section,
at the facilities described in subsection (b); and
(B) for the capital modifications or construction of the
facilities at the locations described in subsection (b).
(3) Evaluations.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of the Act, the Secretary shall begin, at the
facilities described in subsection (b), evaluation of the
technical and commercial viability of different processes of
producing Fischer-Tropsch transportation fuels, and other
transportation fuels, from Illinois basin coal.
(4) Construction of facilities.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall construct the
facilities described in subsection (b) at the lowest cost
practicable.
(B) Grants or agreements.--The Secretary may make grants or
enter into agreements or contracts with the institutions of
higher education described in subsection (b).
(e) Cost Sharing.--The cost of making grants under this
section shall be shared in accordance with section 1002.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $85,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
[[Page 13192]]
____________________
NOTICES OF HEARINGS/MEETINGS
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been
scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
The hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at 3 p.m. in Room
SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the water
supply status in the Pacific Northwest and its impact on power
production, as well as to receive testimony on S. 648, to amend the
Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 to extend the
authority for drought assistance.
Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written
testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their
testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United
States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.
____________________
UNITED STATES-EUROPEAN UNION SUMMIT
Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that
the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 178, which was
submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 178) expressing the sense of the
Senate regarding the United States-European Union Summit.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed
to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 178) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 178
Whereas over the past 55 years the United States and the
European Union have built a strong transatlantic partnership
based upon the common values of freedom, democracy, rule of
law, human rights, security, and economic development;
Whereas working together to promote these values globally
will serve the mutual political, economic, and security
interests of the United States and the European Union;
Whereas cooperation between the United States and the
European Union on global security issues such as terrorism,
the Middle East peace process, the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, ballistic missile technology, and the
nuclear activities of rogue nations is important for
promoting international peace and security;
Whereas the common efforts of the United States and the
European Union have supported freedom in countries such as
Lebanon, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Moldova, Belarus, and
Uzbekistan;
Whereas through coordination and cooperation during
emergencies such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami disaster,
the AIDS pandemic in Africa, and the ongoing situation in
Darfur, the United States and the European Union have
mitigated the effects of humanitarian disasters across the
globe;
Whereas economic cooperation such as removing impediments
to transatlantic trade and investment, expanding regulatory
dialogues and exchanges, integrating capitol markets, and
ensuring the safe and secure movement of people and goods
across the Atlantic will increase prosperity and strengthen
the partnership between the United States and the European
Union; and
Whereas although disagreements between the United States
and the European Union have existed on a variety of issues,
the transatlantic relationship remains strong and continues
to improve: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) welcomes the leadership of the European Union to the
2005 United States-European Union Summit to be held in
Washington, DC, on June 20, 2005;
(2) highlights the importance of the United States and the
European Union working together to address global challenges;
(3) recommends--
(A) expanded political dialogue between Congress and the
European Parliament; and
(B) that the 2005 United States-European Union Summit focus
on both short and long-term measures that will allow for
vigorous and active expansion of the transatlantic
relationship;
(4) encourages--
(A) the adoption of practical measures to expand the United
States-European Union economic relationship by reducing
obstacles that inhibit economic integration; and
(B) encourages continued strong and expanded cooperation
between Congress and the European Parliament on global
security issues.
____________________
MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--H.R. 2745
Mr. DOMENICI. I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for
its first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2745) to reform the United Nations, and for
other purposes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I now ask for a second reading in order to place the
bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV. I object to my
own request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
____________________
ORDERS FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2005
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes
its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday,
June 21. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the
morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved
to date, the time of the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then
resume consideration of H.R. 6, the Energy bill; provided further that
the Senate resume consideration of Martinez amendment No. 783 and there
be 80 minutes of debate with Senators Martinez, Nelson, Corzine,
Landrieu, Bingaman, and Domenici each in control of 10 minutes, the two
leaders or their designees in control of 10 minutes each; provided that
following that time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the
amendment with no second degrees in order prior to the vote.
I further ask consent that the Senate recess from 11:30 a.m. until
2:15 p.m. for the weekly party luncheons.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. DOMENICI. Tomorrow, the Senate will resume consideration of the
Energy bill under the previous order, and there will be up to 80
minutes of debate on the pending Martinez amendment on OCS inventory.
Following the debate, the Senate will proceed to a vote in relation to
the amendment. Therefore, the first vote of tomorrow's session will
occur at 11 a.m.
For the remainder of the day, we will continue working through the
remaining amendments to the bill. We have a couple of amendments
pending, including the Voinovich diesel emission amendment. It is my
hope that we can lock in time agreements on those amendments tomorrow
afternoon.
I also remind my colleagues that we will complete action on this bill
this week. This is the statement of the leader. In an effort to move
this process forward, we may file cloture on the bill tomorrow;
therefore, Senators who have amendments should contact the bill
managers as soon as possible.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:45 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. DOMENICI. If there is no further business to come before the
Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment
under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:59 p.m., adjourned until
Tuesday, June 21, 2005, at 9:45 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate June 20, 2005:
department of justice
TIMOTHY ELLIOTT FLANIGAN, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERAL, VICE JAMES B. COMEY, RESIGNED.
SUE ELLEN WOOLDRIDGE, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, VICE THOMAS L. SANSONETI, RESIGNED.
[[Page 13193]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Monday, June 20, 2005
The House met at 12:30 p.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
June 20, 2005.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Jeff Fortenberry to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
MORNING HOUR DEBATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 4, 2005, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour
debates. The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with
each party limited to not to exceed 30 minutes, and each Member, except
the majority leader, the minority leader, or the minority whip, limited
to not to exceed 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for 5
minutes.
____________________
CANADA SUPREME COURT STRIKES BAN ON PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month the Supreme Court
overturned a law that prevented people from buying health insurance,
that is, private health insurance, to pay for medical services
available from and through Medicare, the publicly funded system. The
ruling means that citizen residents can pay privately for medical
service, even if the services are already covered under the state-
provided health care system.
Now, what does that mean? Perhaps you did not see this ruling, but
that is because it was not the United States Supreme Court and Medicare
and ``private contract'' we are talking about. It was the Canadian
Supreme Court and Canada's socialized health care program under
Medicare and Quebec's ban.
Now, how did this come about? Well, a courageous Canadian doctor,
Jacques Chaoulli, and his patient, 70-year-old Montreal businessman,
George Zeliotis, waited for a hip surgery replacement, decided enough
is enough, and challenged the constitionality of the Canadian ban on
private payment. He argued that long waiting lines and times for
surgery contradicted the country's constitutional guarantee of ``life,
liberty and the security of the person.'' He argued that the wait was
unreasonable, endangered his life, and infringed on his constitutional
rights.
The Court split 3-3 over whether the ban on private insurance
violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, something like
our Bill of Rights, but agreed in striking the ban, saying that,
``Access to a waiting list is not access to health care'', in its
ruling. They went on further to say, ``The evidence in this case shows
that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that,
in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for
public health care. The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition
against private health insurance and its consequences of denying people
vital health care results in physical and psychological suffering that
meets a threshold test of seriousness.''
Now, my colleagues, while the ruling applies only to the province of
Quebec, one wonders if this could fundamentally change the way health
care is delivered across that country. Canada is currently the only
major industrialized country in the world that does not allow any
private administration of health care services that are provided by the
public system.
Now, John Williamson, President of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
said with hope, ``This is a breach in government monopoly health care
in this country''. That is in Canada. ``It is going to open up
litigation across the country and the other nine provinces as taxpayers
there press for their same right, which is the right to seek and buy
insurance to cover private health care.''
And some Canadians worry that this is the beginning of the end of
what they considered a national treasure. Well, this is not cause for
alarm, or by those who have for years argued for our Medicare private
contract ban here in the United States, it simply is not a threat, said
the Court. ``It cannot be concluded from the evidence concerning the
Quebec plan or the plans of the other provinces of Canada, or from the
evolution of the systems of various OECD countries, that an absolute
prohibition on private insurance is necessary to protect the integrity
of the public plan.''
And I would argue, my colleagues, in fact, it is the Canadian middle
class who have probably been most injured, not the very, very wealthy,
because they just pay out of pocket. They can afford it. Remember that
the ban is on private insurance, not private health care, so the very
rich could still go on and get out of this waiting line that the rest
of the middle class have to continue to participate in.
And furthermore, a whole industry of medical tourism was spawned. For
decades Canadians of means have been traveling to the premiere medical
facilities here in the United States, especially in my sunny locales in
the State of Florida to enjoy lovely weather, while they are also
getting the benefits of health care facilities in Florida.
This means that the Court, the Canadian Court, sees that a national
comprehensive coverage program can peacefully coexist with private
health insurance. My colleagues, we have been saying that in the United
States for years.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until 2 p.m. today.
Accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 36 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess until 2 p.m.
____________________
{time} 1400
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Boozman) at 2 p.m.
____________________
PRAYER
The Reverend Stan Scroggins, Associate Pastor, First Baptist Church,
Magnolia, Arkansas, offered the following prayer:
O God, we thank You for blessing this Nation. Help us not to forget
that with Your blessing comes our responsibility to bless the peoples
of the Earth.
We confess our need for Your guidance. Extend Your mercy and love,
forgive us of our self-seeking ways, and make us into a Nation after
Your own heart.
We recognize that these are challenging days, and the decisions made
by this House will have profound effect on our Nation and the world.
Help every Representative to seek wisdom
[[Page 13194]]
from You with every decision to be made.
Deliver us from our enemies, grant protection to our citizens, and
forever allow this Nation to be a beacon of freedom and peace so that
Your name will forever be honored on the Earth.
Hear our prayer, O God, and continue to bless America, we pray. Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida 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.
____________________
IDENTITY THEFT
(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, every year more than 3 million
Americans have their identities stolen. That is one every 10 seconds.
These incredible statistics show that identity theft both online and
offline is not slowing down. Just this past week we learned of another
incident where up to 40 million identities were compromised.
The last Congress overwhelmingly approved legislation known as the
FACT Act, and President Bush signed it into law. It helps you to
protect your identity by providing a free credit report every year,
requiring creditors who lent money in your name to a thief to help you
clear your name, and creating a single place where a fraud alert can be
put on your credit history and honored all across America.
Congress has taken steps to strengthen identity theft laws, but the
bad guys are still out there, and commonsense precautions are the key
to help Americans from becoming victims.
Mr. Speaker, people do not give the keys to their house to complete
strangers, and that same lesson applies to identity theft. I urge all
Americans to guard the keys to their identity as we in Congress
continue to find aggressive solutions.
____________________
THE WAR IN IRAQ
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, depending on whom you listen to, the
insurgents in Iraq are either in their last throes or they are growing
in size and strength. But both the administration and critics seem to
agree that the U.S. military will be deployed to Iraq for a long time
to come. It is our quagmire.
Every day our forces wake up in Iraq, more die and are wounded, and
more families on the home front are strained and suffer losses. At some
terrible point in the future, the Nation's leaders will say, Enough is
enough. Whether the number of casualties at that point will be 5,000 or
10,000 or 50,000, I do not know. Whether the cost at that point will be
$250 billion, $350 billion, or $500 billion, I do not know. At some
point, the terrible arithmetic of the war will add up to overwhelm
everybody.
But this war can end another way. It can end if enough Members of
Congress consider and cosponsor House Joint Resolution 55, a bipartisan
bill introduced last week to require the President to initiate troop
withdrawal no later than October 1, 2006. Thank the troops, and bring
them home.
____________________
JUNETEENTH
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there are many times that this
Nation has celebrated its freedom. One that comes to mind is the
celebration after the Revolutionary War, then the celebration after
Abraham Lincoln pronounced the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. But
today I rise to celebrate Juneteenth, a holiday that is now celebrated
across the Nation, but Texans and Louisianans know it well, for because
the Union soldiers were too busy, the slaves in Texas, some 200,000,
did not know of emancipation until 1865.
When General Granger landed in Galveston, he read the words, ``The
people of Texas are informed that in accordance with a proclamation
from the executive of the United States, all slaves are free.'' And so
this weekend on June 19, across the State of Texas and Louisiana and
around the Nation, we celebrated freedom. We sang, we spoke about
freedom and the preciousness of it. We thanked America for its values
and belief in freedom.
I would like to thank State Representative Al Edwards, a Texan and a
constituent of my congressional district, who is known as the Father of
Juneteenth. It is important to honor freedom wherever it is found.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO BOARD OF VISITORS TO UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
ACADEMY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Price of Georgia). Pursuant to 10 U.S.C.
9355(a), amended by Public Law 108-375, and the order of the House of
January 4, 2005, the Chair announces the Speaker's appointment of the
following Member of the House to the Board of Visitors to the United
States Air Force Academy:
Ms. Kilpatrick, Michigan.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE HONORABLE RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, MEMBER OF
CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Honorable Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, Member of
Congress:
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 16, 2005.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you formally, pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that I have been served with a subpoena, issued by the
Superior Court for Imperial County, California, for
documents.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the precedent and privileges of the House.
Sincerely,
Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
Member of Congress.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material and that I may include tabular
material on the consideration of H.R. 2863, Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2006.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 315 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2863.
The Chair designates the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) as
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) to assume the chair temporarily.
[[Page 13195]]
{time} 1407
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2863) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Boozman (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as
having been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, first I want to say to the House that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has been a partner in this effort from
day one in preparing and presenting this national defense bill. It is a
truly bipartisan appropriations bill to provide for the security of our
Nation and to provide for the troops who serve our Nation and to
provide them with the equipment and the technology necessary to
accomplish their mission and to protect themselves while they do that.
I extend my thanks to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I also thank
Chairman Lewis of the Appropriations Committee for the support that he
has given us as well as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the
ranking member on the Appropriations Committee.
This appropriations bill is a good bipartisan bill, a nonpartisan
bill. There are no politics involved at all. It is simply to provide
for maintaining our security and to provide for our troops. Copies of
this legislation have been available for several weeks now. There have
been reports distributed to all of the Members. Although this bill is
$3.3 billion less than the budget resolution provided for us, we were
able to use some skillful oversight and be able to produce this bill at
$3.3 billion less than the President's request and less than the budget
had provided.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill.
Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to come to the floor to present the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006. This
legislation includes $363.7 billion in the base appropriations bill, of
which $363.4 billion is new discretionary budget authority.
In addition, $45.3 billion is provided in a bridge fund to support
ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; this is consistent with
authority provided in the budget resolution, and follows the lead of
the Armed Services Committee, which authorized $49 billion for this
purpose in the House-passed version of the National Defense
Authorization Act.
The Subcommittee allocation for the base bill is $3.3 billion below
the President's request. This presented us with some difficult
challenges, but I believe we have made appropriate choices given our
allocation.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, was a full partner in
this process. This bill was developed with bipartisan support and
deserves bipartisan support.
Let me discuss some of the major funding highlights in the base bill:
For military personnel, we fully fund the pay raise of 3.1 percent as
requested by the President, and we fully support quality of life and
family-oriented programs.
To support our soldiers and their families, we have added $30 million
for Impact Aid and increased Family Advocacy programs by $20 million.
In operation and maintenance, the base bill provides funding for
critical training, readiness and I maintenance activities at roughly
the historic level for these programs; the overall increase is $3.2
billion over the 2005 level.
In the Army acquisition accounts, we fully fund the request of $882.4
million for 240 Stryker vehicles. We also fully fund the request of
$443.5 million for modifications and improvements to the M1 Abrams
tank, an increase of $326.5 million over the 2005 level.
In Naval aviation we fully fund the request for 130 aircraft,
including 42 F/A-18's, compared to 115 total aircraft provided in
fiscal year 2005. In addition, 8 aircraft are shifted back to the Air
Force consistent with the restoration of the C-130J multiyear
procurement contract.
In shipbuilding we make some significant adjustments to the
President's request:
We are funding the new construction of 8 ships, as opposed to 4 new
ships as proposed in the budget.
We continue production of an additional DDG-51 destroyer, which was
proposed for termination in the budget.
Funds are provided to acquire 2, rather than just 1, T-AKE ammunition
ships, consistent with the authorization bill.
In addition, we're providing funds for 3 littoral combat ships, 2
more than were included in the President's budget request.
For the Air Force:
We are fully funding the budget request for procurement of 24 F/A-22
Raptors in 2006, and advance procurement for 29 aircraft in 2007.
We are restoring funding for the C-130J multiyear procurement program
by transferring funding from the Navy to the Air Force. The Air Force
will procure 9 aircraft; the Navy will procure 4 tanker variants.
Full funding is recommended for the procurement of 15 C-17 aircraft,
with advance procurement for 7 additional aircraft in 2007.
In the research and development accounts:
We follow the lead of the Armed Services Committee in recommending no
funds for advance procurement for the DD(X) destroyer, but are keeping
the program alive by providing $670 million in R&D.
We are accelerating development of the CG(X) cruiser, by increasing
funding from $30 million to $80 million.
Full funding of $935.5 million is provided for 5 V-XX helicopters.
We provide a total of $4.9 billion, as requested by the President,
for research and development associated with the Joint Strike Fighter
program.
As I mentioned earlier, the bill also includes $45.3 billion in
fiscal year 2006 funding to sustain the war effort in a bridge fund.
The 2006 budget resolution reserves $50 billion for contingency
operations in support of the global war on terrorism. In addition, the
Armed Services Committee proposed, and the House has approved, an
authorization of over $49 billion for the same purposes. This bill has
slightly lower levels for the military personnel accounts and the
procurement accounts based on more recent information we have received
from the Department of Defense.
I believe the $45 billion bridge fund in this bill for contingency
operations is the responsible thing to do to support our troops. It
will ensure they face no interruption in funding for the first six
months of fiscal year 2006 as they face our enemies abroad.
Over 80 percent of the funds in title IX are provided for military
personnel, and operation and maintenance accounts. In addition, $2.5
billion is for intelligence activities; $2.1 billion is for fuel and
war consumables; and $2.9 billion is for procurement to replace war
losses and provide force protection for our men and women in uniform.
Mr. Chairman, this summarizes the major elements of the
recommendations before you. We have not been able to meet all the needs
identified by the Defense Department and by Members of Congress.
However, within the budget constraints we faced, I think we struck a
fair balance that deserves the support of the House.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this legislation.
[[Page 13196]]
TH20JN05.001
[[Page 13197]]
TH20JN05.002
[[Page 13198]]
TH20JN05.003
[[Page 13199]]
TH20JN05.004
[[Page 13200]]
TH20JN05.005
[[Page 13201]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I say that I agree with the chairman completely. It is the best we
could do with the amount of money they gave us. It is completely
bipartisan. It takes care of the troops. It has been distributed to
everybody. We will go right to the 5-minute rule.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to pay
tribute to a longtime staffer of this defense subcommittee. This is the
first time that I have had the opportunity to bring a defense
appropriations bill to the floor without having Kevin Roper sitting
here beside me and providing the staff assistance that he has provided
so eloquently.
He served this committee for 20 years, first as the aide to the then-
ranking member, Congressman Joe McDade. Prior to the 20 years that he
served this committee in the minority status and the majority status,
he served 10 years in the United States Air Force. Kevin Roper is just
a very, very special patriot. His knowledge of the defense
establishment, his knowledge of the defense appropriations bill is
extremely unique. I am just really proud to call him a friend. I am
very, very heavyhearted to announce that he is leaving the committee to
move on to spending more time with his family, his wife, and his
children.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the fact that this Kevin
Roper that I am speaking about, everyone on the floor should recognize
him. He has been here so long. Kevin Roper, God bless you for the good
work you have done. Thank you very much. We appreciate you.
Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that I have brought a Defense
Appropriations Bill to the floor that I haven't had Kevin Roper by my
side as the Staff Director of the Subcommittee and as he leaves the
Committee staff to pursue other interests, I wanted to let the record
show how much we all have valued his counsel over the years.
Kevin served the Appropriations Committee for more than 20 years, and
he had a distinguished career in the Air Force for 10 years before
that. He came to the committee in August of 1984 when he served as
Congressman and Ranking Minority member Joe McDade's associate staff
for Defense matters. Joe appointed him to be the Minority staff
director in 1988 when our dear friend George Allen, his predecessor,
passed away during an official mission overseas.
When the Republicans became the majority party in 1995, Kevin became
the Majority staff director serving both me and Chairman Jerry Lewis
for the past 10 years in that capacity. During that period of time he
assisted me and Chairman Lewis in the preparation, passage, and
conference of 10 annual Defense Appropriation bills and more than 21
Supplemental and wrap up bills which contained Defense Chapters.
Kevin to this day loves his work and worked tirelessly to assist us
in providing our men and women in uniform the tools they need to carry
out their mission. He joined us when we were at the height of the cold
war and assisted us in bringing that era to a successful conclusion. He
was at his best when we were at war through two Gulf Wars, Panama,
Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and probably would have left a couple of
years ago had it not been for the terrorist attacks before and on
September 11th.
Kevin always made great contributions and we wish him well as he
plans a career which will allow him to spend more time with his family.
He doted on his family and our loss is the gain of his wife Klytia and
his children Katie, Audrey and Matthew.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, this measure--the Defense Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2006, H.R. 2863--is the most significant component
of our wartime budget for America. It funds the bulk of the national
defense commitment, particularly the global war against terrorism. As
Chairman of the Budget Committee, I am also pleased to report that the
measure is consistent with the levels established by the conference
report to H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2006.
The budget resolution called for $441.6 billion in discretionary
budget authority for the national defense function in 2006, and an
additional $50 billion under a special Exemption of Overseas
Contingency Operations that would not count against the Defense
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. In this way the budget resolution
anticipated costs for continuing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. A
portion of the budget resolution's total national defense funding went
toward the recently passed military quality of life and energy and
water bills.
This bill provides the balance of $363.4 billion in new discretionary
budget authority towards funding the President's February defense
budget request. It includes $45.3 billion that has been designated
pursuant to section 401(a) of the budget resolution for Overseas
Contingency Operations which are thereby exempt from the 302(b)
allocations. These funds will, however, be counted against the
discretionary totals identified in the budget resolution.
Excluding the emergency portion, the bill's funding shows a 3.5-
percent increase from the previous year, and it builds on a 5-year
average annual growth rate of 10.5 percent for defense appropriations.
The base amount is equal to the 302(b) allocation to the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. I should note that the bill
includes rescissions of prior year funds in the amount of $634 million
which enable it to meet this allocation.
Accordingly, the bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act,
which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays
established in the budget resolution.
One factor I wish to note is that the bill reduces funding for
operations and maintenance considerably from the President's February
request. Although there is a widespread belief that any potential
operations and maintenance shortfall can simply be made up for with
supplemental spending, Congress should avoid making a regular practice
of budgeting by supplemental for predictable events. There is also a
risk that cutting Defense spending may lead to a commensurate increase
in discretionary non-defense spending. This would be inconsistent with
the President's request to put the Nation's security first by reducing
non-defense non-homeland security domestic discretionary growth to less
than 1 percent.
With that, I wish to reiterate my support for H.R. 2863.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, terrorist events have brought this
point to light, dramatically illustrating how the security of the
United States is dependent upon its strength in the area of foreign
language competency. If the United States is truly committed to
continuing as the leader in the global economic community, as well as
in the on-going fight against terrorism dictated by the global war on
terrorism, some very serious commitments will have to be made in
support of language study. Our history, and particularly our recent
history, has repeatedly illustrated the consequences of not having
adequate foreign language expertise available in times of crisis.
In 1988 the satellite communications language training activities
(SCOLA) became the first broad-scale provider of authentic foreign
television and today provides this resource from 75 countries. From the
beginning the Federal Government has recognized the importance of
authentic foreign programming as a tool to help teach foreign
languages. By watching and listening, students are able to actually
experience the foreign culture and develop their language skills in the
native real-life environment. This programming is also a vital
intelligence resource since it provides significant insight into the
internal happenings of the various countries.
Throughout its long-time relationship with the Defense Language
Institute (DLI), National Security Agency (NSA), Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), State Department, military and other government sectors,
SCOLA has been particularly responsive to requests for programming from
specific areas of the world, with a major portion of its current
programming schedule developed as a direct result of specific requests.
In addition SCOLA offered this resource from regions of the world that
never really had a significant presence in the United States before.
SCOLA is a unique satellite-based language training activity that
provides television programming in a variety of languages from around
the world. Language students and seasoned linguists have found this
augmentation of their normal language training to be very helpful.
SCOLA also has an Internet-based streaming video capability that
greatly increases the availability of this training medium to military
and civilian linguists, virtually anywhere they can obtain an Internet
connection. In addition, SCOLA is developing a digital archive that
will allow users anywhere to review and sort language training
information on demand. The development of these capabilities will make
SCOLA training assistance much more widely available, but requires
additional
[[Page 13202]]
investment. The committee is concerned that even after three years of
encouragement from the Congress, and in an operational environment
where the value of language training is of great importance to the
nation, the Department of Defense has not fully funded the innovative
language training concepts that can help sustain and significantly
improve the skills of military and civilian linguists in the
Department.
Mr. Chairman, the Senate FY 2006 Defense Authorization, S. 1042,
recommends an increase of $6.0 million in Operations Maintenance--Army,
for the Defense Language Institute, for funding of SCOLA related
training activities. In light of current events, the significance of
SCOLA's widespread availability to the U.S. military and other
government users cannot be overstated.
It is my hope that with the House and Senate appropriators will
ensure that vital funding for SCOLA is included in the final H.R.
2863--Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to recoginize the continuing
role that the Government of Japan is playing to promote peace and
democracy in Iraq and around the world. The determination and
commitment of Japan, one of our Nation's most important allies, is
particularly significant, especially at this time. We all read news
stories about the difficulties and tensions that the United States has
with our allies and even with coalition partners in Iraq, but we rarely
read about the good news.
As the House debates funding for our troops at home and abroad, I
believe it is timely and important to highlight several recent
developments in Japan's contributions to these efforts.
iraq and afghanistan
In April, the Government of Japan decided to extend for an additional
6 months, until November 1, 2005, the operation of Japan's Self Defense
Forces (SDF) in support of ``Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).'' As
part of these operations, Japan has dispatched destroyers and supply
ships to the Indian Ocean to provide at-sea refueling to U.S. and other
allied naval vessels in the campaign. As of March 29, the Maritime SDF
has completed more than 500 refueling operations for those naval
vessels. As a result, Japan supplies about 30 percent of all fuel
consumed by U.S. and allied naval vessels. Since last November, the
Maritime SDF has begun to supply water and fuel for helicopters to the
allied countries.
Japan has also sent their SDF forces to Iraq. The operations have
included ground troops, naval vessels and aircraft, all involved in
reconstruction and humanitarian projects. At one point, the total
number of Japanese SDF forces in the Iraq theater was approximately
1,000, including about 600 ground troops. These are historic
operations, the first of their kind by Japan since the end of World War
II.
In addition, the Air SDF of Japan has provided airlift support to the
U.S. Forces with C-130 transport aircraft and other planes. The Air SDF
has completed more than 400 transport missions both in Japan and
overseas in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
Further, Japan is the second largest donor in Iraq after the United
States, with over $5 billion dollars for humanitarian, infrastructure
and reconstruction projects. Japan also hosted a donor's conference
last October, and continues to play an active role in the core group of
donors.
With respect to the reconstruction for Afghanistan, Japan has
committed, in total, $1 billion of assistance, of which about $900
million have been disbursed so far.
japan's efforts in the middle east peace process
Japan is actively involved in advancing the Middle East peace
process, including the provision of assistance to the Palestinians. To
support Palestinians' peace efforts, Japan announced at the summit
meeting between Prime Minister Koizumi and Mr. Abbas, the President of
the Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, that it will provide
additional assistance of approximately 100 million U.S. dollars to the
Palestinians for the immediate future, in addition to the 90 million
U.S. dollars it already provided in the last fiscal year.
bilateral security cooperation
It is significant that Secretary of State Rice and Japanese Foreign
Minister Machimura have already held 3 bilateral meetings, the most
recent being on May 2 here in Washington. Among the issues discussed
were the creation of a Japan-U.S. strategic dialogue led by the two
ministers, increased security cooperation, North Korea and United
Nations Reform. During her visit to Tokyo in March, Secretary Rice
cited Japan as a model for political and economic progress in all of
East Asia and praised Japan's partnership with the United States in the
global war on terror.
north korea
Japan continues to work closely with the United States on the issue
of the North Korean nuclear crisis and has played an important and
constructive role in the Six-Party talks. Japan supports an early
resumption of these talks with an emphasis on the role of China.
weapons of mass destruction (wmd)
Japan is a strong supporter of the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime
and has reached out to other countries, especially in Asia, to build a
broader coalition against the spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Last fall, Japan hosted Australia, France and the United States (as
well as 44 observer countries) in the first Proliferation Security
Initiative (PSI) Maritime Interdiction exercise. The PSI is a global
effort among governments to prevent the spread of weapons of mass
destruction and other missiles. Japan again showed its commitment to
the global war on terror by using its Maritime Self Defense Forces to
counter proliferation in this multinational exercise.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, these initiatives by Japan are but a few examples of
the growing role that Japan is playing in the maintenance of
international peace and security. And it is a powerful reminder of the
importance and strength of the Japan-U.S. security relationship. I
believe it is therefore appropriate that the House of Representatives
recognize these actions and commend the Government of Japan.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Defense
Appropriations bill.
I cannot support legislation that throws more money at President
Bush's quagmire in Iraq without the Bush Administration providing a
withdrawal date or exit strategy. Even with bipartisan Congressional
calls for this timetable, President Bush still has provided no such
strategy.
The Administration also refuses to estimate the true costs of the
war. The war has already cost $208 billion, including an additional
$80.5 billion approved by Congress just this year. In fact, Congress
was forced to add in another $45.3 billion for the war in Iraq in this
bill, against the President's wishes. While the funding will only cover
6 months of costs, at least my colleagues across the aisle are willing
to level with the American people as to the cost of the war even if the
leader of their party is not.
As we all know, these additional funds are not helping the situation
in Iraq. Insurgents continue to kill scores of American soldiers and
Iraqi civilians and security forces. More than 1,700 young Americans
and more than 20,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. As long as the
United States is in Iraq, the Iraqi insurgency will continue to have a
justification to carry out their savage attacks on Iraqi security
forces and American soldiers.
I also oppose provisions in this bill that continue the Republican
tradition of funding wasteful weapons systems. It appropriates $7.6
billion on pie-in-the-sky Star Wars missile defense. This system has
been proven to be inoperable. It seems like the real purpose of
building this system is to provide corporate welfare to defense
contractors rather than to protect American lives or make the world a
safer place.
The bill provides additional funding to build ships that the Navy has
not requested and military airplanes that are unnecessary and
redundant. For instance, it adds $3.2 billion, on top of the $40
billion already used, to build 22 F/A-22 Raptors that were justified as
necessary in order to compete with a new generation of Soviet fighters.
Since the collapse of the Russian air force, there is no nation that
has, or is planning to have, fighter jets as dominant as the ones the
U.S. Air Force currently uses in combat. The recent conflicts in Iraq,
Kosovo and Afghanistan have shown the superiority of current U.S.
fighters to other nation's combat aircraft. Not only is there no need
for the F/A-22, the GAO adds further rationale for its demise by
reporting that its costs have ballooned to $1.3 billion more than
budgeted for by the Air Force.
Finally, this bill wrongly encourages the development of nuclear
weapons. As we fight terrorism and nuclear proliferation overseas, it
is reckless to believe that more nuclear bombs at home will result in
fewer bombs abroad. In fact, expanding our own nuclear capability will
encourage terrorists and nations, like Iran, to build nuclear programs
to match U.S. firepower, thus making them more of a threat to U.S.
national security.
I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that encourages the
proliferation of nuclear weapons, continues to place our troops in
harms way with no plan to bring them home and provides billions of
dollars in gifts to defense contractors. I urge my colleagues to vote
down this defense bill that does nothing to keep our Nation safe and,
in fact, makes the world a much more dangerous place.
[[Page 13203]]
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my support to H.R.
2863, the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Appropriations Bill. I commend the
Subcommittee Chair, my good friend, Bill Young for tackling many
important, yet difficult issues.
For the past few years, I have been deeply troubled by the Navy's
shipbuilding budgets. Each year when the President's Budget is
submitted, the number of ships procured in that year is always lower
than the year before, however the amount of ships planned for the out
years keeps growing and growing. For example in this year's budget, the
Navy had requested 4 new ships for a total amount of $6.2 billion, but
believes that they can sustain a shipbuilding budget of $17.7 billion
for 12 ships in Fiscal Year 2011. As a man with an investment banking
background, I can tell you that you can never rely on the certainty of
the out years.
I believe this budgeting trend will continue not because the Navy
needs fewer ships, but because our shipbuilding programs have become
unaffordable. Unless the Navy makes some radical changes to the way
they budget and account for new ship construction, our ship numbers
will continue to drop. We talk about transformational technologies and
weaponry everyday in Congress, we need to begin talking about
transformational and innovative accounting.
According to a GAO audit published earlier this year, simple business
accounting practices such as independent cost estimates and uncertainty
analysis could have saved the Navy millions in cost growth from a
number of shipbuilding programs, including our most expensive ship, the
nuclear aircraft carrier.
This Committee on Appropriations has recognized this dangerous trend
and the need for change. In addition to doubling the amount of ships
procured in Fiscal Year 2006 from 4 to 8, the committee report contains
strong language and direction that will hopefully stop cost overruns
from draining our future ship resources.
I look forward to continuing to work with the Subcommittee Chairman
to see if we, on Appropriations, can begin to transform the way this
Nation builds and procures ships. We will need innovative thoughts and
practices from corporate America.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and its innovative
approaches to our national defense.
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, two long years have passed since our
soldiers left for Iraq. We all have constituents serving overseas now
and it's these brave men and women and their families that I keep in
mind these days.
I wish that we had more people on their way home, than on their way
to Iraq right now. Last week, soldiers from the Triple Deuce--a field
artillery battalion headquartered in my district--left home for final
training at Camp Shelby. After that they'll be sent to Iraq for the
next year.
Members of the Triple Deuce include a small town mayor, a local fire
chief and many ordinary citizens who--when we are not at war--make up
the fabric of everyday life in Utah.
These Americans are in the infantry. They're going to serve our
country in a dark corner of the Middle East and I'm very worried about
them. But I do know that they have lots of loved ones and fellow Utahns
back home thinking about them and praying for them.
I heard that their family and friends lined the streets of St. George
today to say goodbye and I wish I could have been there too.
This is a good bill--I'm proud to support it. My vote will go towards
more armor, more vehicles, better weapons, and better compensation for
the countless soldiers who are serving our country.
We all want these brave Americans to return home as soon as possible.
I believe that we need to accurately measure our progress in Iraq and
continue taking care of our troops.
Passage of this legislation demonstrates our commitment to our brave
men and women in uniform and acknowledges that they need resources in
order to accomplish their mission and return home safely. It also
offers support for the families when a loved one pays the ultimate
sacrifice in the cause of fighting for freedom.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, our highest duty as Members of this Congress
is to ensure our national security, to protect our homeland and to
defend our people.
We must use every tool in our arsenal--including military force--to
capture, kill or disrupt international terrorists who are intent on
striking the United States and our interests overseas. We must do
whatever it takes to prevent the unthinkable--a nuclear, biological or
chemical attack--from occurring on American soil. We must ensure that
the American military remains the finest fighting force in the history
of the world. And, we must succeed in Iraq--for the sake of our own
national security, the stability of Iraq and the Middle East region,
and our global standing and credibility.
This defense appropriations bill will help us accomplish most of our
national security objectives, and I will vote for it. It provides $409
billion for defense functions for fiscal 2006, including $45.3 billion
in so-called emergency spending for operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan--bringing the total appropriation from this Congress for
these two missions to $314 billion.
However, even though I support this bill, I believe it is simply
Orwellian to call this new funding for Iraq and Afghanistan an
``emergency.'' Emergencies are unforeseen events that are difficult, if
not impossible, to plan for. The idea that this administration cannot
predict and budget for the costs of our on-going military efforts in
both Iraq and Afghanistan is ludicrous.
Furthermore, this budgetary sleight of hand epitomizes this
administration's failure to level with the American people on many
aspects of this military action, as well as the unwillingness of this
Republican Congress to fulfill its Constitutional duty to exercise
real, effective oversight on the administration's policies.
We are simply not asking the tough questions that voters expect us to
ask on national security. In Iraq, it is obvious that our mission is
not accomplished, let alone succeeding. More than 1,700 American
soldiers have lost their lives there. Americans account for 85 percent
of the coalition forces in Iraq, but represent 98 percent of the
casualties.
And, as Tom Friedman wrote last week in the New York Times:
Our core problem in Iraq remains Donald Rumsfeld's
disastrous decision--endorsed by President Bush--to invade
Iraq on the cheap. From the day the looting started, it has
been obvious that we did not have enough troops there.
Mr. Friedman added:
Almost every problem we face in Iraq today . . . Flows from
not having gone into Iraq with the Powell doctrine of
overwhelming force. We cannot even secure the two miles of
highway that separates the Baghdad Airport and the Green
Zone.
Yet, this Congress has not conducted effective oversight on the
administration's refusal to heed the advice of senior military
officials, who said more troops would be needed to secure Iraq; on the
costs of this action; on the incompetent post-war reconstruction
effort; or, on detainee abuses in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo.
Effective Congressional oversight need not be adversarial. I believe
that every American wants our Nation to succeed in Iraq. But the truth
is, this administration has failed to articulate a convincing,
compelling success strategy.
And, even as I vote for this defense appropriations bill today, I
believe it is imperative that this Congress embrace its legislative
duty, work with this administration, and ensure that such a strategy is
implemented immediately. Our troops--and the American people--deserve
no less.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that Tom Friedman's column from
June 15 in the New York Times be admitted into the record of this
debate.
[From the New York Times, June 15, 2005]
Let's Talk About Iraq
(By Thomas L. Friedman)
Ever since Iraq's remarkable election, the country has been
descending deeper and deeper into violence. But no one in
Washington wants to talk about it. Conservatives don't want
to talk about it because, with a few exceptions, they think
their job is just to applaud whatever the Bush team does.
Liberals don't want to talk about Iraq because, with a few
exceptions, they thought the war was wrong and deep down
don't want the Bush team to succeed. As a result, Iraq is
drifting sideways and the whole burden is being carried by
our military. The rest of the country has gone shopping,
which seems to suit Karl Rove just fine.
Well, we need to talk about Iraq. This is no time to give
up--this is still winnable--but it is time to ask: What is
our strategy? This question is urgent because Iraq is inching
toward a dangerous tipping point--the point where the key
communities begin to invest more energy in preparing their
own militias for a scramble for power--when everything falls
apart, rather than investing their energies in making the
hard compromises within and between their communities to
build a unified, democratizing Iraq.
Our core problem in Iraq remains Donald Rumsfeld's
disastrous decision--endorsed by President Bush--to invade
Iraq on the cheap. From the day the looting started, it has
been obvious that we did not have enough troops there. We
have never fully controlled the terrain. Almost every problem
we face in Iraq today--the rise of ethnic militias, the
weakness of the economy, the shortages of gas and
electricity, the kidnappings, the flight of middle-class
professionals--flows from not
[[Page 13204]]
having gone into Iraq with the Powell Doctrine of
overwhelming force.
Yes, yes, I know we are training Iraqi soldiers by the
battalions, but I don't think this is the key. Who is
training the insurgent-fascists? Nobody. And yet they are
doing daily damage to U.S. and Iraqi forces. Training is
overrated, in my book. Where you have motivated officers and
soldiers, you have an army punching above its weight. Where
you don't have motivated officers and soldiers, you have an
army punching a clock.
Where do you get motivated officers and soldiers? That can
come only from an Iraqi leader and government that are seen
as representing all the country's main factions. So far the
Iraqi political class has been a disappointment. The Kurds
have been great. But the Sunni leaders have been shortsighted
at best and malicious at worst, fantasizing that they are
going to make a comeback to power through terror. As for the
Shiites, their spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani,
has been a positive force on the religious side, but he has
no political analog. No Shiite Hamid Karzai has emerged.
``We have no galvanizing figure right now,'' observed Kanan
Makiya, the Iraqi historian who heads the Iraq Memory
Foundation. ``Sistani's counterpart on the democratic front
has not emerged. Certainly, the Americans made many mistakes,
but at this stage less and less can be blamed on them. The
burden is on Iraqis. And we still have not risen to the
magnitude of the opportunity before us.''
I still don't know if a self-sustaining, united and
democratizing Iraq is possible. I still believe it is a vital
U.S. interest to find out. But the only way to find out is to
create a secure environment. It is very hard for moderate,
unifying, national leaders to emerge in a cauldron of
violence.
Maybe it is too late, but before we give up on Iraq, why
not actually try to do it right? Double the American boots on
the ground and redouble the diplomatic effort to bring in
those Sunnis who want to be part of the process and fight to
the death those who don't. As Stanford's Larry Diamond,
author of an important new book on the Iraq war, ``Squandered
Victory,'' puts it, we need ``a bold mobilizing strategy''
right now. That means the new Iraqi government, the U.S. and
the U.N. teaming up to widen the political arena in Iraq,
energizing the constitution-writing process and developing a
communications-diplomatic strategy that puts our bloodthirsty
enemies on the defensive rather than us. The Bush team has
been weak in all these areas. For weeks now, we haven't even
had ambassadors in Iraq, Afghanistan or Jordan.
We've already paid a huge price for the Rumsfeld Doctrine--
``Just enough troops to lose.'' Calling for more troops now,
I know, is the last thing anyone wants to hear. But we are
fooling ourselves to think that a decent, normal, forward-
looking Iraqi politics or army is going to emerge from a
totally insecure environment, where you can feel safe only
with your own tribe.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Defense
Appropriations subcommittee's decision to provide $4 million for a
conventional earth penetrator in the fiscal year 2006 Defense
Appropriations bill.
Many rogue nations, unable to face the threat of our awesome
firepower and precision bombs, are increasingly hiding their military
assets under hard geologies, making it more difficult for us to hold
them at risk and undermining our ability to protect the nation.
I believe it is vitally important that we do all we can to provide
our military with the right weapons to destroy these buried targets.
This, however, does not include nuclear weapons.
Nuclear bunker busters advocated by the administration and by their
allies in Congress are the dangerous fantasy of a few who are desperate
to find new missions for nuclear weapons.
Using a nuclear weapon to try to destroy a buried bunker or other
target would produce significant civilian casualties and radioactive
fallout.
A recent National Academy of Sciences report states that a nuclear
earth penetrator ``could . . . kill up to a million people or more if
used in heavily populated areas.''
In addition, U.S. military personnel operating in the area would be
at risk of death and injury.
The President's repeated requests for funding a robust nuclear earth
penetrator undermines the United States' leadership role in
nonproliferation.
We cannot credibly ask other countries to restrain their nuclear
weapons programs while we aggressively advance work on new weapons.
I applaud and share Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha's
concern with defeating hard and deeply buried targets while reducing
fallout and collateral damage.
It is vital that Congress send a strong message that we reject the
administration's rush to find new uses for nuclear weapons.
The appropriations committee's decision to focus taxpayer dollars on
perfecting conventional means of defeating hardened targets instead of
investigating nuclear option is the right thing to do.
The head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, Linton
Brooks has testified that a nuclear earth penetrator would cause
massive radioactive fallout and our own uniformed military does not
want a nuclear device that would put at risk our own troops.
Even the Defense Science Board that advises the Pentagon recently
stated that ``US interests are best served by preserving into the
future the half century plus non-use of nuclear weapons.''
I agree.
Until we have exhausted all conventional mean to defeat hardened
targets and there is a true military requirement for an RNEP, it would
be irresponsible for Congress to rush to find new uses for what should
always be a weapon of last resort.
I am pleased that the funds in this bill are only to be used to study
the effectiveness of a conventional device to defeat hard and deeply
buried targets.
I urge my colleagues to ensure that the language achieved by the
appropriators be preserved in conference.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a provision in
this bill that will help us start to get a handle on cleaning up
unexploded ordnance (UXO). I want to thank Chairman Young and Ranking
Member Murtha and their staff for providing an additional $10 million
for the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)
for research and development of unexploded ordnance cleanup technology.
I also want to thank my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo, for
his leadership on this issue.
The safety and environmental hazards of unexploded ordnance are a
national problem. Bombs and shells that failed to explode during
military training or testing may be found on or buried under the
surface of more than 39 million acres of former military properties.
According to the Department of Defense, the cost of cleaning up these
sites will be at least $16.3 billion, and possibly as much as $35
billion. At an annual funding level of $106 million, cleanup at the
remaining munitions sites in DOD's current inventory will take at least
150 years to complete. An increase in funding for UXO research and
development will allow the DOD to more quickly develop safer and
cheaper technology for dealing with UXO.
The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on UXO quantified the
potential impact advanced technology can have to reduce these costs.
They concluded that the cost of cleanup could be reduced to one-third
of what we now expect through the development and application of
advanced technologies for the detection of UXO. The DSB report called
on the DOD to take two critical steps to reduce the costs of UXO
cleanup and improve the efficiency of the current program: first,
conduct a wide area assessment of possibly-contaminated land to allow
for rapid transfer of uncontaminated land and, second, develop and use
technologies that can differentiate between a bomb and hubcap to
drastically reduce the cost of cleanup.
Congress directed the Department to conduct an initial pilot project
of wide area assessment technologies in the FY 05 Defense
Appropriations bill. Early results indicate that this approach shows
great promise. The $10 million in this bill will allow this effort to
continue and expand to test these technologies over a wider variety of
contaminated sites to assess their applicability across the nation.
Addressing the UXO issue, brings many clear benefits: it will
preserve the ability of our armed forces to train effectively and
ensure the safety of our armed forces as new military housing is
constructed on closed ranges. It will release more acreage for other
uses, including private development that will generate tax revenues and
free up thousands of acres for recreational uses. Finally, it will
allow the development of new technologies than can be used to clean-up
land mines and other ordnance that threatens our troops in Afghanistan
and Iraq and innocent civilians everywhere.
I am also pleased that we are beginning to see partial funding for
the war in Iraq contained within the regular budget and appropriations
process, though not to the extent that it should be. I have always
opposed funding for the war in Iraq because I believed it gave too much
money to the wrong people to do the wrong things. I hope that we can
continue to make progress on this issue and this bill takes the small
step to begin doing just that.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. This bill appropriated
$408.9 billion for the Department of Defense. This included a $45.3
billion appropriation for the ongoing U.S. military operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
[[Page 13205]]
I am pleased that this bill helps keep our faith to our service
members by providing them with a much needed pay increase. It
authorizes a 3.1 percent across-the-board pay raise for our active duty
and reserve troops. This is the seventh consecutive year that Congress
has provided a pay raise for our men and women in uniform. This will
help to reduce the pay gap between average military and civilian pay.
I am glad that this bill does not fund the Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator. While I understand the threat that certain underground
bunkers or facilities may pose, creating these weapons would only serve
to undermine our global counterproliferation goals. Moving forward with
a new generation of nuclear weapons would send a simple message to
Iran, North Korea and other emerging or potential nuclear-armed states:
``We want new nuclear weapons, and you should, too.'' I am glad this
program has thus far been rejected and I will continue to oppose any
efforts to fund it.
The bill also provides $416 million for the Cooperative Threat
Reduction program, to help prevent the nuclear weapons of the former
Soviet Union from falling into the hands of terrorists or others who
would wish to do us harm. I am pleased that we are providing more than
we did last year for this important program, but we have a lot of work
remaining to do, and I regret that we did not provide more money to
help secure, dismantle and eliminate WMD's and WMD facilities.
I am glad that after three years, we have finally started to fund the
ongoing operation in Iraq and Afghanistan through the normal
legislative process. I believe we should not be funding military
operations that are foreseen through emergency supplemental
appropriations, as we have done in the past. We have soldiers in the
field, and we know that we'll be continuing military operations against
al Qaeda and its surrogates for the foreseeable future. The bridge
funding provided for Iraq and Afghanistan in this bill recognizes this.
I am, however, concerned by some of the provisions contained within
this bill.
First, I am deeply troubled that this bill again contains funding for
missile defense. Under this bill, $7.6 billion would be appropriated
for ballistic-missile defense programs within the Missile Defense
Agency. The total includes funding for the initial deployment of a
national missile-defense system based in Alaska and California. Not
only has this program continually failed to work even under less-than-
real-world test scenarios, but it is a dangerous system that could
jeopardize our national security.
While I support providing our troops in harm's way with the best
equipment possible, I am troubled by the ever increasing human toll the
Iraq war is inflicting on our nation. Last week, some of my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle introduced legislation calling for the
withdrawal of American forces, and a clear majority of Americans
understand that things are badly off track in Iraq.
Indeed, there is good reason to believe that the centerpiece of the
Bush administration's exit strategy for Iraq--the program to train and
equip the Iraqi security forces to take over the domestic security
mission from our troops--is in grave peril.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a statement regarding the
importance of investing in fundamental research at the Department of
Defense. This statement would have been offered as a colloquy, but
unfortunately my flight was delayed and I was unable to participate in
a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Defense.
Scientific research and development forms the foundation of increased
innovation, economic vitality and national security. In 2001, the Hart-
Rudman Commission concluded that, ``. . . the inadequacies of our
systems of research and education pose a greater threat to U.S.
national security over the next quarter century than any potential
conventional war that we might imagine.''
While our focus on immediate national security threats is certainly
warranted, it is necessary for us also to consider longer-term threats.
Basic research is essential to advances in medicine, military
applications and continued economic prosperity. In fact, the
development of cancer therapies, global positioning system (GPS),
laser-guided missiles, and the Internet are all products of DOD
fundamental research endeavors. Who could have imagined that
physicists' experimentation with the atomic clock in the 1950s and
1960s would provide the foundation for a technology that allows any
soldier to know his precise location no matter where he or she is on
this planet? The diversity of the basic science research portfolio
ensures discoveries that lay the foundation for advances in defense. As
a Nation, we cannot afford to starve basic science research.
Historically, a fifth of DOD basic and applied research has been
performed by universities and colleges. This year, we see a continuing
disturbing trend of cutting the fundamental research budget at DOD in
favor of focusing funds toward more applications-oriented research, or
away from research altogether and shifting toward development. I
recognize that this committee worked to restore many of the proposed
cuts to these areas, and sincerely appreciate those efforts. However,
we are still faced with a 4 percent reduction in our fundamental
research budget at DOD. We can't expect to defend our nation twenty or
fifty years from now if we focus only on the needs of today. We have to
prepare for the future, and that investment takes place through
university partnerships.
I hope that in the event that any additional funds may become
available in the future, that the Committee and Chairman would be
willing to examine the possibility of devoting such funds to the basic
research budget. I believe the support in these areas must remain
strong to foster new ideas generated by the unique intellectual
resources of our universities and colleges.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, despite its claims to the contrary, the
Bush Administration continues to be dishonest with the American people
about the situation in Iraq. First, it leads our country into war with
Iraq under false pretenses--a war that has already cost more than 1,700
American lives and thousands more Iraqi lives. The Administration then
refuses to admit that it does not have a viable plan to win the peace
in Iraq and possesses no strategy for a withdrawal of United States
troops. And most recently, while the President campaigns as a so-called
``War President,'' he refuses to request funding for military
operations in Iraq in his own budget, instead funding it through the
emergency appropriations process, a tactic that allows the President to
keep the high costs of war out of his budget.
Although today Congress has the opportunity to insert some much-
needed accountability into the funding process, it will--like it has so
many other times--function as a rubber stamp and approve another large
funding bill--$45 billion--for Iraq without demanding answers from the
Administration. Once this is approved, total funding for the military
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will reach a mind-boggling $322
billion. And this certainly won't be the last of it. In fact, at
current expenditure rates, the $45 billion will only cover the first
six months of 2006, which means that Congress will be forced to approve
tens of billions more in funding for Iraq in a matter of months.
I believe it is critical that our country properly fund the
operations in Iraq to ensure that our soldiers in the field have the
equipment, munitions and protection they need and the benefits they so
rightfully deserve when they return home. The majority of the $45
billion will go directly to support our troops in the form of
equipment, body armor, increased pay and improved benefits for them and
their families. While I will vote for this $45 billion funding package,
I am concerned that the Majority in Congress has once again rebuffed
efforts to require the Administration to be honest with the people
about the situation in Iraq. To date, despite repeated requests from
members of Congress, the Administration refuses to provide any sort of
timeline for the withdrawal of United States troops, will not account
for much of the current funding to Iraq, and resists coming clean about
the full cost of future military efforts in Iraq.
At the same time the Administration and the Republican Majority in
Congress unabashedly spend billions of dollars in Iraq without
question, they make cuts to crucial domestic programs in the name of
fiscal responsibility--cuts, which compared to the budget for Iraq,
have a negligible impact on our country's deficit. In fact, funding for
this misguided war so significantly dwarfs funding for domestic
programs that if we were to take just a fraction of this spending
package for Iraq, we could fully fund No Child Left Behind, the Small
Business Administration loan program, Head Start, Medicaid, and
numerous other programs that make a daily difference in the lives of
Americans.
I find it truly ironic that Congress will spend a good portion of
this week discussing the alleged lack of accountability at the United
Nations, but refuses to acknowledge the abrogation of all
accountability and responsibility that has been allowed to occur for
too long in its own backyard--at 16th and Pennsylvania. It is time that
the Administration owns up to the situation it has needlessly thrust
our country in--it needs to formulate and disseminate a strategy for an
eventual U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and must be upfront with Congress
and the American people about the future costs of military operations
in Iraq.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I commend the following comments
and questions,
[[Page 13206]]
posed by the National League of Families of American Prisoners and
Missing in Southeast Asia, to my colleagues as they consider relations
between the aforementioned organization and the Defense POW/Missing
Persons Office. I also ask that you note my June 20, 2005 floor
colloquy with Mr. Young on this subject.
Congressional Requests
Prime Minister of Vietnam is visiting the U.S. June 21. The
focus seems to be on economics, trade and religious rights.
What about accountability?
1. Vietnam is NOT cooperating in ``full faith''. We have
never had access to the Central Highlands since the War was
over where hundreds of our Americans are Missing--no chance
to interview witnesses who are dying who might have valuable
information on crash and grave sights plus documents.
2. Two U.S. war ships have been allowed to come into
Vietnamese ports but never a salvage ship that could recover
remains from known crash sights off the coast. We have
offered to make this an educational venture but denied
access.
Accountability should be a priority especially in a time of
war--not just rhetoric but action. The families should be
treated with respect.
Why does Jerry Jennings, head of the Defense POW/MIA Office
still have a job? He has been under investigation for sexual
harassment and hostile environment charges by his staff +
alleged misappropriation of government funds. He has tried
for over a year to undermine the family organizations. Three
groups have released a vote of No Confidence in Jerry and his
leadership staffers.
The league is very concerned over policy being pursued by
the office assigned the responsibility within the Defense
Department, headed by DASD Jerry Jennings.
The President in 2002 and Secretary of State in 2004
defined criteria expected of Vietnam, namely unilateral
actions that Vietnam should take to be fully cooperative,
including on cases of Americans missing in Laos and Cambodia
controlled by Vietnamese forces during the war.
These pertain to unilateral provision of relevant archival
records from ALL ministries and unilateral repatriation of
remains that can't be recovered in the field with joint
operations, for example Last Known Alive (LKA) cases where
Americans were captured on alive on the ground in immediate
proximity to hostile forces.
If dead, their remains should be readily available to the
Vietnamese, but could be sensitive in view of the many years
withheld on manner of death, readily determined by the
experts at CIL.
We'd appreciate your reading this ``End-of-Year Policy
Assessment,'' prepared at our request by our Policy Adviser
Richard Childress, a retired U.S. Army COL who served on
President Reagan's NSC staff as Director Political Military,
then Director for Asian Affairs from 1981--1989
League is not interested re-fighting the war or placing
blame; we just want answers for the families, not
recriminations, on all possible cases, and we base our
expectations on USG intelligence and logic.
We're also deeply concerned over Mr. Jennings' handling of
the U.S.-Russia Joint Commission on POW/MIA Affairs, a
presidential commission that has been reduced in stature and
effectiveness, despite having extremely talented staff within
DPMO, the Joint Commission Support Directorate, or JCSD.
The league has great confidence in JCSD's abilities, plus
has been working hard to get active Senate and House
replacements for vacancies or positions held by inactive
Members of the House and Senate.
We just succeeded in convincing Senator Saxby Chambliss to
accept the Senate Republican position, but the Democrat
Senator position is held by Senator John Kerry who has not
participated at all in plenary or internal U.S. sessions.
The House Democrat position is held by Rep. Lane Evans, but
we understand his tragic illness impeded active
participation, and we need active committed Members to signal
the Russians that the U.S. is serious.
Recently, Mr. Jennings' was reportedly appointed by the
White House to assume the role of U.S. Chairman, an
appointment that is too low level and without the prestige
required for the Russian Government to take it seriously;
they stated this fact to U.S. officials.
Mr. Jennings was the Commissioner representing DOD, and
that was fine, but he is not the appropriate level to be a
Presidential Envoy serving as U.S. Chairman; thus, we also
oppose him in this second position.
The League has received countless complaints from DPMO
staff members and we are VERY concerned about internal
disruption, even implosion, of this organization that would
not exist if were not for the League's efforts over the years
that raised the priority.
We've been informed that there are at least six official
complaints against Mr. Jennings for hostile workplace
environment, including one for sexual harassment, that are
now under investigation by the DOD Inspector General's
office.
Our Executive Director Ann Mills Griffiths was interviewed
a couple of weeks ago, and the Chairman of the Korea/Cold War
Families of the Missing was reportedly being called today; we
strongly oppose Mr. Jennings continuing as DPMO Director, his
third position.
Our objections to Mr. Jennings are focused 1st on policy
weaknesses and the manner in which he develops policy without
substantive interagency integration and dismisses Vietnam's
ability to provide answers, 2nd on his hostility toward the
families, and 3rd his attempts to take total control of our
annual meetings AND operations of the Joint POW/MIA
Accounting Command and all DOD-related organizations.
Mr. Jennings plan is increasing DPMO control over
operations, and he has several senior personnel assigned to
this task, already having published an innocuous-sounding
Strategic Plan, but the real agenda is fussy in its
portrayal.
Close attention by Congress is his greatest fear, as
careful scrutiny would reveal greater intrusion into
operations, inappropriate behavior toward DPMO staff and
employees, mismanagement of tax-payer funds allocated for the
POW/MIA accounting effort, implementing plans to circumvent
GS guidelines and attempts to subvert the League and other
nonprofit, humanitarian organizations.
Our Board of Directors unanimously voted NO CONFIDENCE in
DASD Jennings and the current leadership of DPMO; we are
joined by unanimous vote of the Korea/Cold War Families of
the Missing Board of Directors, headed by Irene Mandra, New
York.
Both have provided our separate views to Dep. Sec. of
Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Assistant Secretary, International
Security Affairs, Peter Rodman, as has The Chosin Few, the
organization of Korean War veterans who survived the horrible
battles at the Chosin Reservoir; their vote was
straightforward--to seek Mr. Jennings' removal.
DPMO staff were directed to revise their charter documents
to ensure that DPMO is the sole USG organization to negotiate
with foreign governments, speak to Congress, the media, the
veterans' community and the families on the issue, take
control of all field operations worldwide, and to find a way
to control and take over all annual meetings of POW/MIA
families.
They cite one provision of the DOD regulations pertaining
to the ethics code to back their plan to take control of the
League's annual meetings, but ignore the provision that
allows all DoD elements to respond to invitations to
participate in non-government conferences and events, as they
routinely do for the Legion, VFW, DAV and countless other
community groups, never seeking to control them, or their
agenda and program.
In S. 1245/H.R. 2996, the Defense Authorization Bill of
1983, Congress amended 157 of title 10, U.S. Code, to
``authorize the Sec. of Defense to provide transportation for
next-of-kin of certain persons who are unaccounted for to
attend annual national meetings sponsored by the National
League of Families of American Prisoners and Missing in
Southeast Asia.
That authorization was amended by the 107th Congress to
include the Korea/Cold War families by noting families of
American military and certain civilians unaccounted for since
the end of World War II, are entitled to DOD transportation
to attend the annual meetings (plural).
When we raised this to Assistant Secretary for
International Security Affairs Peter Rodman, Mr. Jennings,
who had joined the meeting, stated that ``Congressional
intent is irrelevant.''
For the past year, the League has endured repeated attempts
by Mr. Jennings and his immediate front-office staff to take
total control of our annual meetings, not only the agenda
during which the briefings are presented, but even selecting
the hotel, setting the date, and holding Congressionally-
authorized transportation as leverage to force the League to
accede to DPMO's demands.
Mr. Jennings has now gone too far, insisting on total
control, contracted with another hotel in Crystal City, set
the date one day earlier, has distributed his plan to all
Vietnam War POW/MIA families and given instructions to the
Military Services about transportation.
For the good of the issue and our system of checks and
balances, as well as unity in pursuing answers from what are
mostly communist-controlled countries, Mr. Jennings' control
mentality must stop.
The League and the Korea/Cold War Families of the Missing
have called for his removal, or resignation, in the best
interest of the issue, the families and the USG, particularly
DPMO employees, but also JPAC and other operational
organizations and the Military Service Casualty Offices.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
legislation.
The Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006 funds our
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, among many other things.
It is very similar to the Defense Authorization bill that I supported
in the Armed Services Committee and on the House floor.
In general, the bill fully funds military pay, benefits, the pay
raise for the base force, and all military readiness programs,
including all requested increases for Special Operations Forces.
[[Page 13207]]
The bill also includes $45.3 billion of unrequested emergency
supplemental funding (the ``bridge fund'') to cover contingency
operations and personnel costs during the first six months of the
fiscal year that begins on October 1st. This comes on the heels of the
$75.9 billion FY05 supplemental funding bill that the Congress passed
only a month ago.
I think this is realistic and necessary, because we must support our
men and women in uniform, but I also believe the administration must
begin to take responsibility for the full cost of the war in Iraq and
consider these costs through the regular appropriations process. There
is no ``emergency'' here--we know that since this bridge fund would
take us only halfway through FY06, we should be expecting another
request of about $40 billion before the year is over. The American
people deserve greater candor from the administration about both the
predictable costs as well as the anticipated benefits of our
undertakings in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once this bill is signed into law, defense spending in FY06 will
total about 55 percent of the entire Federal discretionary budget.
Overall defense spending, in real terms, will be more than 20 percent
higher than the average Cold War budget. The administration needs to
clearly recognize these realities and be open with the American people
about its spending priorities.
I want to briefly discuss a few other specific parts of the bill.
I am pleased that the bill does not include funding for earth-
penetrating nuclear weapons, which a recent National Academy of
Sciences report found would destroy military targets underground but
also cause massive casualties above ground. The bill strikes a
compromise, providing $4 million for the Air Force for work on a
conventional (non-nuclear) version of the bunker buster.
Importantly, it also includes cost-containment measures on a number
of weapons systems that have yet to be fully funded. This is critical
at a time when costs of our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
are also increasing exponentially.
In the area of operation and maintenance, the bill provides important
funding for added fuel costs and body armor, and $147 million for Army
National Guard recruiting. The measure contains $2.9 billion for
various procurement accounts, including $170 million for up-armored
Humvees, $20 million for bolt-on armor kits for trucks, and $35 million
for roadside bomb jammers.
The bill also provides $8 billion in extra funding for military
personnel accounts, including funds for incremental wartime costs of
pays and allowances for active-duty and reserve personnel, for
recruiting and retention, and for an expanded death gratuity.
I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee accepted and the House
approved an amendment on the floor to lift the $500 million cap in the
bill on training the Iraqi National Army. Since the timing of the draw-
down of U.S. forces is linked to the ability of Iraqi troops to defend
themselves and their country, we shouldn't impose an arbitrary limit on
this funding.
I am also pleased that the bill provides the president's request of
$416 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, known as CTR
or Nunn-Lugar, to assist in the denuclearization and demilitarization
of the states of the former Soviet Union. The total is $6 million more
than the current level.
Finally, I would like to comment on amendments offered by
Representatives Duncan Hunter and David Obey.
As it came to the floor, the bill included language approved by the
full Appropriations committee expressing the sense of Congress that the
expression of personal religious faith is welcome in the U.S. military,
``but coercive and abusive religious proselytizing at the U.S. Air
Force Academy by officers assigned to duty at the academy. . . . as has
been reported, is inconsistent with the professionalism and standards
required of those who serve at the academy.'' The bill directed the Air
Force to develop a plan to ensure that the academy maintains a climate
free from coercive religious intimidation and inappropriate
proselytizing.
As a Coloradan and a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I have
been following this matter closely and have noted that Lt. Gen. John
Rosa, the Academy's superintendent, has said that the problem is
``something that keeps me awake at night,'' and estimated it will take
6 years to fix.
The good news is that several reviews of the situation at the Academy
are underway, and a task force report is due this week. I am also
appreciative that the Academy has already begun taking steps to address
the issue by holding classes on religious tolerance. But it is
important to remember that an unwillingness to tolerate other cultures
and faiths is not only inconsistent with our constitutional principles,
but detrimental to the mission of the Air Force and of the military in
general. Our men and women in uniform need to work together to be
successful, and can only inspire others to serve and serve well if they
are able to demonstrate tolerance toward all.
Representative Hunter's amendment removed the language calling for
corrective action. His amendment appeared to downplay the seriousness
of a problem that Air Force Academy officials themselves have
acknowledged. In response, Representative Obey offered an amendment
that slightly revised the language adopted by the Appropriations
Committee but retained its essential elements.
I voted for that Obey amendment, and regret that it was not approved
and that the Hunter amendment prevailed. I hope that the Air Force does
not make the mistake of concluding that adoption of the Hunter
amendment means that they should lessen their efforts to respond to the
problem they have identified.
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I strongly disagree with
the defense policy of the Bush Administration. While I disagree with
the policy, I do not believe we should deprive our troops in the field
and our military of the funds they need to protect our country.
Since 2003, Congress has appropriated almost $250 billion for the war
efforts by passing supplemental appropriations bills in 2003, 2004 and
2005. U.S. spending in Iraq will be at least $75 billion to $80 billion
this year and could approach $400 billion by 2006, according to
Congressional Quarterly. This approaches the $406 billion cost of the
Korean War. Last month we passed a fiscal year 2005 supplemental
appropriation that totaled $82 billion, the second largest supplemental
in history. Only one month has passed, and we find ourselves voting for
another $45 billion for war funding for the first 6 months of the 2006
fiscal year.
Assuming the size of the U.S. military presence in Iraq and
Afghanistan will remain at approximately the same level through 2006,
the war costs will require another $40 to $45 billion. No money will be
spent that is not directly related to the war. No money under the $45
billion supplemental portion of the bill will be spent on the Army's
modularity initiative or to increase the permanent end strength of
active duty forces.
I am a strong advocate for developing a plan for withdrawing U.S.
forces from Iraq. We should keep in mind that the FY05 supplemental
contained language that requires the Defense Department to provide
Congress with a set of performance indicators and measures of stability
and security in Iraq and a timetable for achieving these goals. The
first report is due in July. We look forward to how DoD will define its
strategies for success.
This bill is framed principally by our missions in Afghanistan and
Iraq. In my judgment the forces we have on the ground in Operations
Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom are doing a fabulous job, but the
size of our Army and Marine Corps is just too small to do the job we
are asking them to do. I hope the funds in the bill will provide for
that shortfall.
I support this bill in order to properly equip our troops with body
armor, vehicle armor and other equipment to protect them from insurgent
attacks. As much as I regret the War in Iraq, I cannot ignore the fact
that we are a Nation at war. This bill recognizes and provides our
troops with the tools they need to do their job.
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, for the past few years, I have voted to
redirect funding in support of smart bombs and other weapons that are
actually usable against hardened, deeply buried targets. I'm pleased to
see that this appropriations bill provides funding for conventional
studies to defeat hard and deeply buried targets. I also understand
that the funding provided within this bill for B2 bomber integration
efforts is also intended for non-nuclear earth penetrators.
Last month, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the use
of a nuclear ``bunker buster'' would cause massive civilian causalities
if used. That's assuming we can overcome serious design problems and
assuming we can live with the consequences of putting U.S. troops in
danger from radioactive fallout if we ever used an RNEP or a similar
weapon.
In the past, Utahns suffering from cancer as a result of radioactive
fallout exposure had to wait to receive compensation because federal
funds ran out. It's wrong to spend precious dollars on unusable fantasy
weapons that our military doesn't seem to need or want.
We live in an era when terrorism and national security concerns
dominate the political landscape, as well they should. We should
[[Page 13208]]
focus limited funding dollars on usable warheads that can actually make
a difference in combating our enemies.
I have always been a strong supporter of the military and I'm well
aware of the unconventional war we face against terrorists. However,
the threats we face as a nation provide the best reason for Congress to
fund only the best usable weaponry to support American soldiers.
Many of my colleagues in the House recognize the importance of this
issue and they share my concerns about competing efforts in the Senate
to fund RNEP. I hope that during conference negotiations on this bill,
the conferees maintain this language.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2863
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2006, for military functions
administered by the Department of Defense and for other
purposes, namely:
TITLE I
MILITARY PERSONNEL
Military Personnel, Army
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence,
interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station
travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational
movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between
permanent duty stations, for members of the Army on active
duty, (except members of reserve components provided for
elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; for members of the
Reserve Officers' Training Corps; and for payments pursuant
to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C.
402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military
Retirement Fund, $24,357,895,000.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
On page 2, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $300,000,000)''.
On page 3, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $250,000,000)''.
On page 3, line 13, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
On page 4, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $250,000,000)''.
On page 4, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
On page 5, line 3, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
On page 5, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
On page 6, line 5, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
On page 6, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
On page 7, line 8, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
On page 29, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000,000)''.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there is some confusion on which
amendment this is. I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Clerk to read
a portion of the amendment because we know that there is no point of
order on this, so if she could read so that I can understand the
gentleman has the right one.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will read the
amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
{time} 1415
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Boozman). Is there objection to the request
of the gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all,
acknowledge the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the
subcommittee; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), ranking
member, and thank them for their due diligence on behalf of the United
States military. Though there have been those who have tried to divide
our commitment to the personnel of the United States military, it is
very clear, Mr. Chairman, that we are united as Americans, as Members
of Congress, local elected officials and families and supporters on
behalf of our military.
As I flew in today, I watched a number of our returning military
arrive at their destination and be embraced by their family members.
Besides acknowledging the love extended, I thought about the commitment
that we owe to those families. And so I bring to the attention the
headline in my newspaper ``Troops' Best Gift: Family Support'' of the
Sunday Chronicle, and I would say that the best gift we can give to
those families is the compensation of our particular personnel.
I rise today to offer the amendment to the Defense appropriation
which would increase military pay raises by an additional $1 billion
overall. This amendment would have been necessary in order to better
compensate our brave men and women who are fighting for our Nation. The
appropriation provides an average 3.1 percent pay increase for military
personnel, equal to the President's request and extends certain special
pay and bonuses for reserve personnel. Our men and women in the Armed
Forces deserve these pay increases, but the simple truth is that they
deserve much more for the sacrifice that they are making for our
Nation. This amendment would result in funds for military pay increases
of $300 million for the Army, $250 million for the Navy, $50 million
for Marine Corps, $250 million for Air Force, $25 million for Army
Reserves, $25 million for Navy Reserves, $25 million for Marine Corps
Reserves, $25 million for Air Force Reserves, $25 million for Army
National Guard, and $25 million for Air Force National Guard personnel.
The Congressional Budget Office has declared that this amendment not
only does not increase revenues in this bill, but actually decreases
outlays by $215 million.
The offset for this amendment would come from missile defense
programs, which are appropriated at a staggering $7.9 billion. Missile
defense systems are not new. In fact, they have been discussed for
decades. The truth is that missile defense systems have proven to be
overly complex, unreliable, and often been little more than a pipe
dream. I believe our military personnel deserve our first priority,
affection, admiration, and love. And I frankly believe we owe this to
their families, the many thousands that are in Texas, reservists,
National Guard, and enlisted and active duty. Why in good conscience in
this time of budget constraints and increased need would we allocate
even more money for these failed programs?
This amendment does not end research for the missile defense program.
It simply pares it down to a more reasonable number in order to pay for
the best defense system in our entire military system: our American
troops.
Missile defense systems are great in theory. They were especially
important during the Cold War, but now, in fact, the world has changed.
In fact, the war is considered the war on terrorism. I hope we will
never forget the sacrifices of our troops made on behalf of all of
[[Page 13209]]
us. Right now there are 136,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, 34,000 soldiers in
Kuwait, and 9,600 personnel in Afghanistan.
So I would ask any colleagues to consider paying tribute to these
soldiers by considering an amendment in this category.
I rise today to support my amendment to this Defense Appropriation
bill, which would increase military pay raises by an additional $1
billion overall. This amendment is necessary in order to better
compensate our brave men and women who are fighting for our Nation
abroad. This appropriation provides an average 3.1 percent pay increase
for military personnel in fiscal year 2006, equal to the President's
request, and extends certain special pay and bonuses for reserve
personnel. Our men and women in the Armed Forces deserve these pay
increases, but the simple truth is tha they deserve much more for the
sacrifice they are making for our Nation abroad. This amendment would
result in funds for military pay increases of $300 million for Army,
$250 million for Navy, $50 million for Marine Corps, $250 million for
Air Force, $25 million for Army Reserves, $25 million for Navy
Reserves, $25 million for Marine Corps Reserves, $25 million for Air
Force Reserves, $25 million for Army National Guard, and $25 million
for Air Force National Guard personnel. The Congressional Budget Office
has declared that this amendment not only does not increase revenues in
this bill, but actually decreases outlays by $215 million.
The offset for this amendment would come from missile-defense
programs, which are appropriated at a staggering $7.9 billion. Missile
defense systems are not new; in fact they have been discussed for
decades. The truth is that missile defense systems have proven to be
overly complex, unreliable, and often been little more than a pipe
dream. Why in good conscience, in this time of budget constraints and
increased need, would we allocate even more money for these failed
programs? This amendment does not end research for missile-defense
programs it simply pares it down to a more reasonable number in order
to pay more for the best defense system in our entire military system:
our American troops. Missile-defense systems are great in theory, they
were especially important during the Cold War, but now the world has
changed and we need troops more than we need overly complex defense
systems that may never work.
I hope we never forget the sacrifices our troops make on behalf of
all of us. Right now there are 136,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, 34,000
soldiers in Kuwait, and 9,600 personnel in Afghanistan. I hear people
in Washington complaining about how hot its been recently, just imagine
how uncomfortable our Armed Forces feel, they have to suffer the heat
under their Kevlar helmets and heavy bulletproof vests. They can't sit
inside and enjoy themselves, these days they are on constant high alert
because of the Iraqi insurgency. Just last week a roadside bomb blast
killed five U.S. Marines who were riding in a vehicle during a combat
operation near Ramadi. The facts are plain, a total of 1,713 Americans
including 159 people from Texas alone have lost their lives since this
war in Iraq began and more than 12,000 have been wounded in action and
yet we play politics with giving them due compensation?
This amendment is about our national defense, we are only as strong
as our men and women in the Armed Forces. In the end, this amendment is
about shifting some money from a defense system that may never work to
a group of Americans who have never stopped working for this Nation.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I would hope that the gentlewoman would withdraw this amendment. We
have worked so hard to balance this out. And I understand her
sentiments, and we appreciate that, but I would hope that we could take
a look at this in conference.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, I
have spoken to him about this amendment, and staff. I have reviewed
what we have done in the appropriations, and I am prepared today to
withdraw the amendment. I am appreciative of the fact that he is
willing to work with me in conference. I think that this is a tough
job, but I also know that we all believe in our personnel.
So with the commitment to be able to work with the conferees or to
work through this process, I know that the commitment of the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murtha), I am willing and would like to be able to work with them.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman
that we are willing to work with her as we go to the conference, and in
view of her willingness to withdraw the amendment, I withdraw my point
of order that I reserved.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, first I would like to add my words of thanks and praise
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his great leadership in
making our Nation's defense strong and secure and extend that praise
also to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who does such a
wonderful job on this Defense Subcommittee.
I rise for the purpose now of engaging in a colloquy with the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Defense
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, regarding the
penetrator study for Hard and Deeply Buried Target defeat authorized in
the fiscal year 2006 National Defense Authorization bill passed by the
House last month.
Mr. Chairman, during hearings and briefings in support of the fiscal
year 2006 budget request, the House Committee on Armed Services heard
from General Cartwright, Commander United States Strategic Command, and
Secretary Rumsfeld, on the importance of exploring all options for
holding Hard and Deeply Buried Targets at risk. The United States
currently does not have any viable options to put at risk many of these
targets which may contain chemical, biological, nuclear, or command and
control capabilities. And, very simply, the people who would pull the
trigger on a military operation are typically those, the leadership
people, who would go to the bunkers. And it is very important to deter
those people, and sometimes that means having the ability to reach them
with a deep bunker penetrator.
Both General Cartwright and Secretary Rumsfeld felt that it was
important to explore all options, conventional as well as nuclear,
against these targets that pose a threat to our national security.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly agree with that. As the gentleman knows, the
House Committee on Armed Services mark recommended in the fiscal year
2006 National Defense Authorization bill, H.R. 1815, authorized $4
million within the Department of Defense for research into various
options of penetrators that could hold Hard and Deeply Buried Targets
at risk.
The fiscal year 2006 budget requested funds for only a nuclear
penetrator option under the Department of Energy. In order to explore
all options and specifically to include conventional in addition to
nuclear options, the defense authorization bill moves this penetrator
study from the Department of Energy to the Department of Defense,
broadens its scope to include both the conventional and nuclear
penetrator options, and authorizes $4 million for the study.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the authorizing
committee intended that this penetrator study include exploring the
feasibility of various options for penetrators that could hold Hard and
Deeply Buried Targets at risk, and as we all know, there are many of
those. As the gentleman knows, H.R. 2683 would appropriate $4 million
for a study. We want to work with the gentleman from California
(Chairman Hunter), the very strong leader of the authorizing committee,
and his colleagues and our colleagues to do our
[[Page 13210]]
best to reflect the understandings and intent of the Committee on Armed
Services on this matter as we move forward to conference with the
Senate Appropriations Committee on this legislation.
In that regard, I pledge to continue to work closely with the
gentleman from California on this issue and many others in the weeks
ahead, and I thank him for clarifying the intent of the Committee on
Armed Services, which he so ably chairs.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the
gentleman and thank the ranking member for their commitment to work
with us on this matter and all matters of national security and we
appreciate their dedication.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Military Personnel, Navy
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence,
interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station
travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational
movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between
permanent duty stations, for members of the Navy on active
duty (except members of the Reserve provided for elsewhere),
midshipmen, and aviation cadets; for members of the Reserve
Officers' Training Corps; and for payments pursuant to
section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402
note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement
Fund, $19,417,696,000.
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence,
interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station
travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational
movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between
permanent duty stations, for members of the Marine Corps on
active duty (except members of the Reserve provided for
elsewhere); and for payments pursuant to section 156 of
Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to
the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund,
$7,839,813,000.
Military Personnel, Air Force
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence,
interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station
travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational
movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between
permanent duty stations, for members of the Air Force on
active duty (except members of reserve components provided
for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; for members of
the Reserve Officers' Training Corps; and for payments
pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42
U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military
Retirement Fund, $20,083,037,000.
Reserve Personnel, Army
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army
Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10302, and 3038
of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active
duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code,
in connection with performing duty specified in section
12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing
reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent
duty or other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131
of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the
Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund,
$2,862,103,000.
Reserve Personnel, Navy
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Navy
Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10,
United States Code, or while serving on active duty under
section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in
connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a)
of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve
training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and
expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United
States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense
Military Retirement Fund, $1,486,061,000.
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Marine
Corps Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10,
United States Code, or while serving on active duty under
section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in
connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a)
of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve
training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and
for members of the Marine Corps platoon leaders class, and
expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United
States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense
Military Retirement Fund, $472,392,000.
Reserve Personnel, Air Force
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air Force
Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10305, and 8038
of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active
duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code,
in connection with performing duty specified in section
12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing
reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent
duty or other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131
of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the
Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund,
$1,225,360,000.
National Guard Personnel, Army
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army
National Guard while on duty under section 10211, 10302, or
12402 of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States
Code, or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of
title 10 or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code,
in connection with performing duty specified in section
12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing
training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or
other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title
10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of
Defense Military Retirement Fund, $4,359,704,000.
National Guard Personnel, Air Force
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air
National Guard on duty under section 10211, 10305, or 12402
of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States Code,
or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of title 10
or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in
connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a)
of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing
training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or
other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title
10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of
Defense Military Retirement Fund, $2,028,215,000.
TITLE II
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and Maintenance, Army
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of the Army, as authorized by law;
and not to exceed $11,478,000 can be used for emergencies and
extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or
authority of the Secretary of the Army, and payments may be
made on his certificate of necessity for confidential
military purposes, $22,432,727,000: Provided, That of funds
made available under this heading, $2,500,000 shall be
available for Fort Baker, in accordance with the terms and
conditions as provided under the heading ``Operation and
Maintenance, Army'', in Public Law 107-117.
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of the Navy and the Marine Corps,
as authorized by law; and not to exceed $6,003,000 can be
used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be
expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the
Navy, and payments may be made on his certificate of
necessity for confidential military purposes,
$28,719,818,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of the Marine Corps, as authorized
by law, $3,123,766,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of the Air Force, as authorized by
law; and not to exceed $7,699,000 can be used for emergencies
and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or
authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, and payments may
be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential
military purposes, $28,659,373,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the
Department of Defense (other than the military departments),
as authorized by law, $18,323,516,000: Provided, That not
more than $25,000,000 may be used for the Combatant Commander
Initiative Fund authorized under section 166a of title 10,
United States Code, and of which not to exceed $40,000,000
can be used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be
expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of
Defense, and payments may be made on his certificate of
necessity for confidential military purposes: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, of
the funds provided in this Act for Civil Military programs
under this heading, $500,000 shall be available for a grant
for Outdoor Odyssey, Roaring Run, Pennsylvania, to support
the Youth Development and Leadership program and Department
of Defense STARBASE program: Provided further, That of the
funds made available under this heading, $5,000,000 is
available for contractor support to coordinate a wind test
demonstration project on an Air Force installation using wind
turbines manufactured in the United
[[Page 13211]]
States that are new to the United States market and to
execute the renewable energy purchasing plan: Provided
further, That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be used to plan or implement
the consolidation of a budget or appropriations liaison
office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the office
of the Secretary of a military department, or the service
headquarters of one of the Armed Forces into a legislative
affairs or legislative liaison office: Provided further, That
$4,000,000, to remain available until expended, is available
only for expenses relating to certain classified activities,
and may be transferred as necessary by the Secretary to
operation and maintenance appropriations or research,
development, test and evaluation appropriations, to be merged
with and to be available for the same time period as the
appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, That
any ceiling on the investment item unit cost of items that
may be purchased with operation and maintenance funds shall
not apply to the funds described in the preceding proviso:
Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under
this heading is in addition to any other transfer authority
provided elsewhere in this Act.
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance, including training, organization,
and administration, of the Army Reserve; repair of facilities
and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and
transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of
services, supplies, and equipment; and communications,
$1,791,212,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance, including training, organization,
and administration, of the Navy Reserve; repair of facilities
and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and
transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of
services, supplies, and equipment; and communications,
$1,178,607,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance, including training, organization,
and administration, of the Marine Corps Reserve; repair of
facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles;
travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting;
procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and
communications, $199,929,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance, including training, organization,
and administration, of the Air Force Reserve; repair of
facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles;
travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting;
procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and
communications, $2,465,122,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the
Army National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment
and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance,
operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; hire of
passenger motor vehicles; personnel services in the National
Guard Bureau; travel expenses (other than mileage), as
authorized by law for Army personnel on active duty, for Army
National Guard division, regimental, and battalion commanders
while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard
Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief,
National Guard Bureau; supplying and equipping the Army
National Guard as authorized by law; and expenses of repair,
modification, maintenance, and issue of supplies and
equipment (including aircraft), $4,142,875,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the
Air National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment
and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance,
operation, and repairs to structures and facilities;
transportation of things, hire of passenger motor vehicles;
supplying and equipping the Air National Guard, as authorized
by law; expenses for repair, modification, maintenance, and
issue of supplies and equipment, including those furnished
from stocks under the control of agencies of the Department
of Defense; travel expenses (other than mileage) on the same
basis as authorized by law for Air National Guard personnel
on active Federal duty, for Air National Guard commanders
while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard
Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief,
National Guard Bureau, $4,547,515,000.
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Account
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
For expenses directly relating to Overseas Contingency
Operations by United States military forces, $20,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary
of Defense may transfer these funds only to military
personnel accounts; operation and maintenance accounts within
this title; procurement accounts; research, development, test
and evaluation accounts; and to working capital funds:
Provided further, That the funds transferred shall be merged
with and shall be available for the same purposes and for the
same time period, as the appropriation to which transferred:
Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part
of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not
necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may
be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further,
That the transfer authority provided in this paragraph is in
addition to any other transfer authority contained elsewhere
in this Act.
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
For salaries and expenses necessary for the United States
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, $11,236,000, of which
not to exceed $5,000 may be used for official representation
purposes.
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
For expenses relating to the Overseas Humanitarian,
Disaster, and Civic Aid programs of the Department of Defense
(consisting of the programs provided under sections 401, 402,
404, 2557, and 2561 of title 10, United States Code),
$61,546,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007.
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Account
For assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union,
including assistance provided by contract or by grants, for
facilitating the elimination and the safe and secure
transportation and storage of nuclear, chemical and other
weapons; for establishing programs to prevent the
proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and weapon-
related technology and expertise; for programs relating to
the training and support of defense and military personnel
for demilitarization and protection of weapons, weapons
components and weapons technology and expertise, and for
defense and military contacts, $415,549,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2008.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Spratt
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Spratt:
Page 15, line 12, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $83,900,000)''.
Page 29, line 17, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $83,900,000)''.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, before mentioning my amendment, let me also
commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the chairman of the subcommittee and the
ranking member. There are not two Members of the House for whom I have
greater respect. This is a good bill. I intend to support it. But I
have an amendment which I think will make it a better bill.
My amendment is simple and it is straightforward. It would take $84
million in funding for missile defense that is not needed and add it to
an area where it is woefully in need, to the nonproliferation of
nuclear weapons and nuclear materials.
Everyone here remembers the first debate between Senator Kerry and
President Bush last year. They agreed on one thing for sure, that the
gravest threat facing the United States is that of terrorists armed
with nuclear weapons. Our front line in the defense of this threat is
variously called Cooperative Threat Reduction, nonproliferation, or
Nunn-Lugar. Whatever we call it, its object is to stop, secure, and
dispose of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials at the source if at
all possible.
I referred to the President. Just this past February, he met with the
President of the Russian Federation, and together they cited the fact
that nuclear nonproliferation is a matter of compelling importance for
both countries. Five years ago we appointed a bipartisan commission
headed by Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler. They came back after 1\1/2\
years of lengthy study and recommended to us that we take these
accounts dealing with nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and increase
them to $3 billion over the next 10 years.
{time} 1430
Here is how they sized up the threat 4 years ago: ``The most urgent,
unmet national security threat to the United
[[Page 13212]]
States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-
usable materials in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or
hostile nation states and used against American troops abroad or
citizens at home.''
That was 4 years ago. And DOD's nonproliferation budget, together
with the DOE budget and the State Department budget today, all together
come to $1.9 billion, way short of what was recommended 4 years ago by
Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler.
The DOD program called Cooperative Threat Reduction, CTR, Nunn-Lugar,
was launched in 1991 to secure, to deactivate, to dispose of weapons of
mass destruction in the former Soviet Union and in other countries.
Since then, it has racked up quite a scorecard. Since 1991, the CTR
program has deactivated 6,564 warheads, destroyed 570 ICBMs, eliminated
543 SLBMs, retired 142 bombers, and I could go on with a host of other
potentially threatening missile and nuclear components which this
program has eliminated.
Despite these successes, the CTR program has been virtually flat-
funded since its inception at around $400 million a year. This year,
the budget request of $416 million falls $27.6 million below the level
at which this program was funded on 9/11; $26 million less than 9/11.
My amendment makes a modest correction to this shortfall. It
allocates an additional $84 million to Cooperative Threat Reduction to
bring total funding to $500 million. It pluses up the CTR budget,
allowing DOD, the Department of Defense, to do something it has
urgently wanted to do: upgrade security at Russian weapons storage
sites.
DOD has indicated that to get all of the upgrades needed at Russian
sites, to secure nuclear weapons and nuclear components, it will need
funding each year that is about $150 million more than the budget
provides for the next 5 to 7 years. My amendment puts up about half of
that shortfall.
We make this funding possible by an offset that I think we can all
accept. My amendment reduces the Ground-Based Missile Defense budget by
$84 million. Now, here is how it does it. It would do so by limiting
the funding for silos at Fort Greely, Alaska, to 26 silos this year,
and Vandenberg to four silos. In other words, my amendment would
permit, would fund 30 ground-based GBIs and silos. The Missile Defense
Agency is planning to provide 34 silos for the first 30 GBIs. The extra
four silos are referred to as ``swing space,'' additional, nice to
have; but this is a cost, nearly $16 million, that we can avoid per
silo that we can avoid for now and spend more wisely elsewhere. So my
amendment does just that. It withholds funding for these four extra
swing silos and saves $63 million.
The fiscal year 2006 budget also includes $20.7 million as an
advanced payment on 10 additional silos, even though the chairman's
mark cuts the funding for the missiles that would actually go in these
silos. My amendment, therefore, eliminates this funding at least for
2006.
If the interceptors work, 30 silos should be sufficient for defense
against a rogue nation like North Korea, and 30 silos should be
sufficient for now for the ground-based interceptor until testing has
finally shown that it works.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and
I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. In any event, let me suggest simply that we ask
ourselves, which is a more likely threat, that we be attacked by ICBM
with a return signature on it, or by some stealthy terrorist in the
back of a paneled truck with some hidden device in Lower Manhattan or
Los Angeles? I think the answer is obvious.
That is why I think our money is better spent putting it into
nonproliferation to avoid that threat as opposed to putting more money
on top of the $7.8 billion into ballistic missile defense.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, when I went down to Austin after the
election, but before the inauguration, I said to President Bush,
President-elect Bush, we should worry more about terrorism and nuclear
nonproliferation than worry about missile defense.
But we worked out the best we can work out. I mean, we know they have
not spent nearly the money they have, and I think the gentleman just
stated that, I do not remember an exact amount, but I think it is only
1 or 2 percent of what we have already appropriated for
nonproliferation.
So I would appreciate it if the gentleman would consider letting us
work on it and seeing what we can do. But we are just about to the
point where I do not think we can put any more money in that they will
spend. If it looks like we can work out a deal where they are going to
spend more money, then it would be well worth considering what the
gentleman has in mind. But, as it is, I feel the same way; but we tried
to work out a balance where we knew we could get a bill signed, and I
think we have come pretty well where it is. But I still think we would
be quite willing to work with him.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, there is $7.8 billion provided for this
program, vastly more than any other program in the budget. We are
shaving it at the edges and putting it into an area where I think we
would all agree there is a critical threat and a real need.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what I said when I went
down to Austin is exactly what I am repeating now. We have to worry
about nonproliferation and terrorism and not as much about missile
defense. But I am saying, and the gentleman knows the bill we put
together, we have to be realistic. So I am asking the gentleman to just
desist and let us see what we can work out.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment; and I do so
reluctantly, because there are some interesting points that he makes.
However, the program that his amendment would add money to already has
$465 million in unobligated balances from prior year appropriations, so
the money really is not needed; and we fully funded the President's
request, which is millions over last year.
Now, where he would take the money from, again, we have already taken
money from the Missile Defense Agency. We reduced funding for the
agency in this fiscal year 2006 budget. The President's budget request
itself was a reduction of over $1 billion from last fiscal year, and
the committee recommendation trimmed that by another $143 million.
So we brought down the money that the gentleman's amendment would
take away, and we have increased over last year the money that he would
add it to.
So the amendment really is not necessary, and I think the committee
has done a good job in having to very delicately balance the gives and
the takes on these various accounts.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment, and let me commend
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his leadership in
offering it, because he has been such a noted expert on this entire
area, and I think that this is a step in the right direction.
As he has noted, in the very contentious Presidential debate, the two
candidates agreed on one crucial thing. They agreed that the most
dangerous threat facing our Nation was nuclear weapons in the hands of
terrorists. Yet funding for the program to secure nuclear materials in
the former Soviet Union does not reflect the magnitude of this threat.
The Department of Defense requested $415 million for the Cooperative
Threat Reduction program this year, roughly the same as it was last
year. The Spratt amendment would recognize we need to take this threat
much more seriously by putting the resources into it that would allow
us to secure more sites faster.
President Bush and President Putin have met in Bratislava; and last
February, they pledged to further their cooperation on nuclear security
by establishing a plan for security upgrades of
[[Page 13213]]
nuclear facilities through and beyond 2008. Funding this amendment
would help in that agreement.
The amendment does this without doing harm to our missile defense
capability. The Spratt amendment will not affect the deployment of the
30 ground-based intercept missiles scheduled for 2006.
I have supported a strong ballistic missile defense system. I
strongly believe that this amendment allows that capability to go
forward, but I also believe that our ability to protect this Nation
from terrorists wielding weapons of mass destruction is much stronger
if we put all of our resources into it that we possibly can.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spratt amendment to the
defense appropriations bill.
This amendment, as he told us, will take $84 million from the missile
defense program, the single largest defense program in our Nation's
history, and add it to an area that we have neglected for far too long:
nonproliferation.
The missile defense program has never been proven successful, but the
nonproliferation programs have proven extremely successful.
In particular, we need to ramp up funds for the Cooperative Threat
Reduction program, CTR. This successful nonproliferation program has
succeeded at reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the states of
the former Soviet Union. In November 1991, to address the massive
quantity of nuclear material left over in the former Soviet Union as a
result of ending the Cold War, Congress initiated Cooperative Threat
Reduction, also known as the Nunn-Lugar program, which gives the
Department of Defense the task of dismantling nuclear warheads,
reducing nuclear stockpiles, and securing nuclear weapons and materials
in the states of the former Soviet Union.
In 1991, an estimated 30,000 nuclear weapons existed throughout the
former Soviet Union. These conditions raised the serious concern that
nuclear materials could be smuggled beyond the borders of the former
USSR. Fortunately, CTR was created to help secure these nuclear
weapons. Under CTR, more than 20,000 Russian scientists, formerly
tasked to create nuclear weapons, now work to dismantle them.
Since 1991, CTR has dismantled nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads, not to
mention nearly 500 ballistic missiles, over 300 submarine-launched
missiles, and nearly 500 missile silos. This program clearly works, and
that is what we need to support it through the annual appropriations
process. Unfortunately, CTR has been funded at the same level since its
creation in 1991, about $400 million per year. The total amount we have
spent on CTR equals around 1 year of spending on missile defense.
Unfortunately, this year's defense appropriations bill provides $27.6
million less for CTR than it did before September 11. So while the
threat of nuclear terrorism has increased, our efforts to prevent it
have diminished.
The smart response to this threat is to fund the peaceful Cooperative
Threat Reduction, Nunn-Lugar, all the programs to reduce the world's
supply of nuclear weapons, and not promote the aggressive and expensive
missile defense programs which have never tested successfully. That is
why I urge Members of this House to vote for the Spratt amendment which
will take money out of the missile defense system and put it into the
nonproliferation programs. In the long run, Americans will be far safer
if Congress promotes and properly funds good nonproliferation
initiatives like CTR.
I urge all of my colleagues to keep Americans and the world safe.
Vote for the Spratt amendment.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, as I understood the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, my good friend (Mr. Murtha), he is offering us a deal,
namely, if we will withdraw the amendment, he will endeavor to raise
nonproliferation to a level that is commensurate with the need,
particularly for upgrading nuclear storage areas in the former Soviet
Union. With that commitment to go to conference and try to improve the
allocation within this bill for nonproliferation, with that
understanding, I will withdraw my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
South Carolina?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE III
PROCUREMENT
Aircraft Procurement, Army
For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance,
ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories
therefor; specialized equipment and training devices;
expansion of public and private plants, including the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$2,879,380,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2008, of which $203,500,000 shall be available
for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve: Provided, That
$75,000,000 of the funds provided in this paragraph are
available only for the purpose of acquiring four (4) HH-60L
medical evacuation variant Blackhawk helicopters for the C/1-
159th Aviation Regiment (Army Reserve): Provided further,
That three (3) UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters in addition to
those referred to in the preceding proviso shall be available
only for the C/1-159th Aviation Regiment (Army Reserve).
Missile Procurement, Army
For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of missiles, equipment, including ordnance,
ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories
therefor; specialized equipment and training devices;
expansion of public and private plants, including the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$1,239,350,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2008, of which $150,000,000 shall be available
for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, equipment, including
ordnance, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized
equipment and training devices; expansion of public and
private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for
the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein,
may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to
approval of title; and procurement and installation of
equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and
private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the
foregoing purposes, $1,670,949,000, to remain available for
obligation until September 30, 2008, of which $614,800,000
shall be available for the Army National Guard and Army
Reserve.
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized
equipment and training devices; expansion of public and
private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized
by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$1,753,152,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2008, of which $119,000,000 shall be available
for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.
Other Procurement, Army
For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of vehicles, including tactical, support, and non-tracked
combat
[[Page 13214]]
vehicles; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only; communications and electronic equipment;
other support equipment; spare parts, ordnance, and
accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training
devices; expansion of public and private plants, including
the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and
such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$4,491,634,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2008, of which $765,400,000 shall be available
for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance,
spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment;
expansion of public and private plants, including the land
necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may
be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to
approval of title; and procurement and installation of
equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and
private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
owned equipment layaway, $9,776,440,000, to remain available
for obligation until September 30, 2008, of which $57,779,000
shall be available for the Navy Reserve and the Marine Corps
Reserve.
Weapons Procurement, Navy
For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of missiles, torpedoes, other weapons, and
related support equipment including spare parts, and
accessories therefor; expansion of public and private plants,
including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and
interests therein, may be acquired, and construction
prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and
procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and
machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and
Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway,
$2,596,781,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2008.
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized
equipment and training devices; expansion of public and
private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized
by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code and the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$885,170,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2008, of which $19,562,000 shall be available
for the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve.
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition,
or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including
armor and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and
machine tools and installation thereof in public and private
plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned
equipment layaway; procurement of critical, long leadtime
components and designs for vessels to be constructed or
converted in the future; and expansion of public and private
plants, including land necessary therefor, and such lands and
interests therein, may be acquired, and construction
prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, as follows:
Carrier Replacement Program (AP), $564,913,000;
Virginia Class Submarine, $1,637,698,000;
Virginia Class Submarine (AP), $763,786,000;
SSGN Conversion, $286,516,000;
CVN Refueling Overhauls, $1,300,000,000;
CVN Refueling Overhauls (AP), $20,000,000;
SSN Engineered Refueling Overhauls (AP), $39,524,000;
SSBN Engineered Refueling Overhauls, $230,193,000;
SSBN Engineered Refueling Overhauls (AP), $62,248,000;
DDG-51 Destroyer, $1,550,000,000;
DDG-51 Destroyer Modernization, $50,000,000;
Littoral Combat Ship, $440,000,000;
LHD-1, $197,769,000;
LPD-17, $1,344,741,000;
LHA-R (AP), $200,447,000;
Service Craft, $46,000,000;
LCAC Service Life Extension Program, $100,000,000;
Prior year shipbuilding costs, $394,523,000; and
Outfitting, post delivery, conversions, and first
destination transportation, $385,000,000.
In all: $9,613,358,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2010: Provided, That additional
obligations may be incurred after September 30, 2010, for
engineering services, tests, evaluations, and other such
budgeted work that must be performed in the final stage of
ship construction: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided under this heading for the construction or
conversion of any naval vessel to be constructed in shipyards
in the United States shall be expended in foreign facilities
for the construction of major components of such vessel:
Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this
heading shall be used for the construction of any naval
vessel in foreign shipyards.
Other Procurement, Navy
For procurement, production, and modernization of support
equipment and materials not otherwise provided for, Navy
ordnance (except ordnance for new aircraft, new ships, and
ships authorized for conversion); the purchase of passenger
motor vehicles for replacement only; expansion of public and
private plants, including the land necessary therefor, and
such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway,
$5,461,196,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2008, of which $43,712,000 shall be available
for the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve.
Procurement, Marine Corps
For expenses necessary for the procurement, manufacture,
and modification of missiles, armament, military equipment,
spare parts, and accessories therefor; plant equipment,
appliances, and machine tools, and installation thereof in
public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and
contractor-owned equipment layaway; vehicles for the Marine
Corps, including the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only; and expansion of public and private plants,
including land necessary therefor, and such lands and
interests therein, may be acquired, and construction
prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title,
$1,426,405,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2008.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
For construction, procurement, and modification of aircraft
and equipment, including armor and armament, specialized
ground handling equipment, and training devices, spare parts,
and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; expansion of
public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and
installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures,
and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment
layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing
purposes including rents and transportation of things,
$12,424,298,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2008, of which $380,000,000 shall be available
for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.
Missile Procurement, Air Force
For construction, procurement, and modification of
missiles, spacecraft, rockets, and related equipment,
including spare parts and accessories therefor, ground
handling equipment, and training devices; expansion of public
and private plants, Government-owned equipment and
installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures,
and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment
layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing
purposes including rents and transportation of things,
$5,062,949,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2008.
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized
equipment and training devices; expansion of public and
private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized
by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$1,031,907,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2008, of which $164,800,000 shall be available
for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.
Other Procurement, Air Force
For procurement and modification of equipment (including
ground guidance and electronic control equipment, and ground
electronic and communication equipment), and supplies,
materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise provided
for; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement
only; lease of passenger motor vehicles; and expansion of
public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and
[[Page 13215]]
installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures,
and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon, prior to approval of title;
reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment
layaway, $13,737,214,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2008, of which $135,800,000 shall be
available for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department
of Defense (other than the military departments) necessary
for procurement, production, and modification of equipment,
supplies, materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise
provided for; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only; expansion of public and private plants,
equipment, and installation thereof in such plants, erection
of structures, and acquisition of land for the foregoing
purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be
acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to
approval of title; reserve plant and Government and
contractor-owned equipment layaway, $2,728,130,000, to remain
available for obligation until September 30, 2008.
Defense Production Act Purchases
For activities by the Department of Defense pursuant to
sections 108, 301, 302, and 303 of the Defense Production Act
of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2078, 2091, 2092, and 2093),
$28,573,000, to remain available until expended.
TITLE IV
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific
research, development, test and evaluation, including
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of
facilities and equipment, $10,827,174,000, to remain
available for obligation until September 30, 2007.
{time} 1445
Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
In title IV, under ``Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Army'', insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $10,000,000) (increased by
$10,000,000)''.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman makes his
statement, I would like to advise him that we have reviewed this
amendment. And since you did make a change that was agreeable to both
of us, we are prepared to accept this amendment at any time that you
wish.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young) very much and thank the ranking member, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) as well, and just to say
briefly that this budget neutral amendment will improve the health of
veterans past, present and future, by funding research on Gulf War
Illnesses.
I am proud to do so with my colleagues, the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). I
want to thank both of the cosponsors for their commitment to veterans
health.
Mr. Chairman, I would include for the Record my entire statement,
along with statements of support from veterans groups.
Mr. Chairman, this budget-neutral amendment will improve the health
of veterans past, present and future by funding research on Gulf War
illnesses. I am proud to do so with my colleagues, Mr. Shays, and Mr.
Sanders. I thank both of the cosponsors for their commitment to
veterans' health.
I would also like to point out that this amendment is endorsed by the
American Legion, Paralyzed Veterans of America, the National Gulf War
Resource Center, Vietnam Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign
Wars.
Mr. Chairman, fourteen years after the 1990-1991 Gulf War, between 26
and 32 percent of those who served in that war continue to suffer from
serious and persistent health problems--typically multiple symptoms
that include severe headaches, memory problems, muscle and joint pain,
severe gastrointestinal problems, respiratory problems, skin disorders
and other problems. These conditions are often called ``Gulf War
illnesses'' or Gulf War syndrome.
In the early years after the war, little was understood about this
problem. In fact, many attributed the problems to stress or
psychological trauma incurred on the battlefield. So in the late
1990's, Congress authorized a scientific research program and created a
committee to advise the VA on how to prioritize that research. That
committee, the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans'
illnesses, released their report last November. It had several landmark
findings.
First, they determined that the existence of these serious and often
debilitating problems could not be scientifically explained by stress
or psychiatric illness.
Second, they noticed that we are starting to find that the veteran's
are having problems with their neurological and immunological systems.
For example, ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease, which is a rapidly
progressive, fatal neuromuscular disease, occurs in Persian Gulf
veterans with twice the frequency of peer veterans that were not
deployed.
Third, they found that there are several possible causes of these
diseases. A list of potential exposures demonstrates the complexity of
what we are dealing with. A short list includes chemical weapons,
biological weapons, drugs to protect from biological and chemical
weapons, oil-well-fire smoke, pesticides, insect repellants, individual
or multiple vaccines, and many, many more.
Fourth, the Committee found that this type of research is important
not only for ill veterans, but for current military personnel and for
homeland security. This research can prepare us to counter or treat
chemical weapons exposures and tell us whether our existing
countermeasures may do long term harm.
Finally, they found that there is still no effective treatment for
those suffering from Gulf War illnesses.
The result of the collective findings of the VA report is this:
Significant scientific progress has been made and more research is
needed.
Our amendment earmarks $10 million out of the account called Army
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation. The money would go to a
research program administered by the Army Medical Research and Materiel
Command in the DoD, for identifying the biological mechanisms behind
the illnesses--particularly the neurological and immunological ones;
the chronic disease effects; better diagnostic criteria for the
illnesses; and identification of treatments. The MRMC will design a
research plan for that purpose, relying heavily on the expertise
outside DoD and the VA. It will be subject to peer review by experts, a
significant number of which will be independent of DoD.
$10 million will have a large impact on veterans who rely on the
government to take care of them after they have taken care of us.
I urge my colleagues to support the Kucinich-Shays-Sanders amendment.
Vote ``yes'' to restore research funding for Gulf War Illnesses.
I wish to insert letters of support from Veteran's groups into the
Record.
The American Legion,
Washington, DC, June 13, 2005.
Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich,
U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Kucinich: On behalf of the 2.8 million
members of The American Legion, I would like to offer full
support of your proposed amendment to the Department of
Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act for FY 2006, specifically
designating $15 million for research on chronic illnesses
affecting thousands of veterans of the 1991 Gulf War.
More than fourteen years have passed since the end of the
first Gulf War and we have failed to identify effective
treatments for ill Gulf War veterans. Lack of solid research
identifying causes for these illnesses has also prevented a
large number of ill veterans from receiving the service-
related compensation they deserve.
Historically, DOD has provided over 75 percent of the
funding for Gulf war-related research. Just as there is a
real opportunity for breakthroughs, as highlighted in the
September 2004 report of the Department of Veterans Affairs
Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' illnesses,
your colleagues plan to eliminate funding for Gulf War
illness research. Clearly, DOD has more expertise in this
area and is able to fund the most promising researchers.
Without question, this research has major national security
implications against future threats to military forces and
civilians. Recently, your colleagues cut $9 million from
medical and prosthetics research in the Department of
Veterans Affairs' FY 2006 appropriations--another fiscal blow
to America's veterans.
Again, we appreciate your efforts on behalf of this
nation's ill Gulf War veterans. Your amendment acknowledges,
that while we are at war in the Middle East once again, there
are still thousands of ill veterans from the first Gulf War
waiting for answers, treatment, and cures--that must not be
forgotten or simply ignored.
[[Page 13216]]
Sincerely,
Steve Robertson,
Director,
National Legislative Commission.
____
Vietnam Veterans of America,
Washington, DC, June 15, 2005.
Hon. Dennis Kucinich,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Kucinich, Vietnam Veterans of America
(VVA) strongly endorses your amendment to the Defense
Appropriations bill which would mandate that $15 million of a
$10.8 billion Army research account be dedicated to research
on Gulf War illnesses.
Passage of this amendment, which we understand is being co-
sponsored by Congressmen Chris Shays and Bernie Sanders,
should go a long way toward identifying neurological and
immunological abnormalities in many Gulf War veterans and the
chronic health effects of exposure to these neurotoxic
substances; and toward identifying promising treatments.
Enactment of this amendment also would help fulfill one of
the recommendations in the 2004 report of the VA Research
Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses.
It is our collective obligation to do what we can to ease
the physical and psychological burdens experienced by too
many Gulf War veterans, who served our nation with honor and
dignity. Additional research that might help them is long
overdue.
Sincerely,
Thomas H. Corey,
National President.
____
Dear Honorable Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich: Please let
it be known to your fellow members of Congress that the Order
of the Silver Rose, a 501(c)(3) Veterans Organization fully
endorses the amendment that directs $15 million out of a
$10.8 billion Army research account be dedicated to Gulf War
illnesses research, in accordance and compliance with the VA
Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' illnesses
recommendation in their 2004 report.
It is hoped that the appropriation for research on chronic
illnesses affecting veterans of the 1991 Gulf War be used for
a coherent research program focusing on:
(1) identification of mechanisms underlying Gulf War
illnesses,
(2) chronic effects of neurotoxic substances to which
veterans were exposed during deployment;
(3) studies that expand on earlier research identifying
neurological and immunological abnormalities in ill Gulf War
veterans;
(4) identification of promising treatments. The primary
objective of the research program will be to elucidate
pathophysiological mechanisms underlying Gulf War illnesses,
which may subsequently be targeted to developing treatments
for these conditions. A further objective will be to identify
and evaluate treatments which currently exist and which hold
promise for treating these illnesses.
The U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command shall,
in consultation with experienced research scientists in
relevant fields, establish a list of research questions to
address the above topics, and design a program of specific
research studies that together constitute a coherent plan to
answer these questions, each identified study to be conducted
by the most qualified researcher, which may include consulted
scientists. As part of this process, there shall be a public
solicitation of research proposals (which may include concept
exploration and pilot projects) on these questions and at
least twenty-five percent of the program (measured by amount
funded) shall be made up of proposals selected from this
solicitation, as modified if necessary to increase the value
of the proposed research to the overall program. At least
twenty percent of the program (measured by amount funded)
shall address the objective of identifying and evaluating
promising existing treatments, such as observation and pilot
studies. The program shall be submitted for determination of
scientific merit through independent peer review.''
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Rekowski,
National Commander,
Order of the Silver Rose.
____
Language for the Congressional Record Regarding the Kucinich-Shays-
Sanders Amendment to the FY06 Defense Appropriations Bill for Gulf War
Illnesses Research Funding
``It is intended that the appropriation for research on
chronic illnesses affecting veterans of the 1991 Gulf War be
used for a coherent research program focusing on (1)
identification of mechanisms underlying Gulf War illnesses,
(2) chronic effects of neurotoxic substances to which
veterans were exposed during deployment; (3) studies that
expand on earlier research identifying neurological and
immunological abnormalities in ill Gulf War veterans; and (4)
identification of promising treatments. The primary objective
of the research program will be to elucidate
pathophysiological mechanisms underlying Gulf War illnesses,
which may subsequently be targeted to developing treatments
for these conditions. A further objective will be to identify
and evaluate treatments which currently exist and which hold
promise for treating these illnesses.
The U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command shall,
in consultation with experienced research scientists in
relevant fields, establish a list of research questions to
address the above topics, and design a program of specific
research studies that together constitute a coherent plan to
answer these questions, each identified study to be conducted
by the most qualified researcher, which may include consulted
scientists. As part of this process, there shall be a public
solicitation of research proposals (which may include concept
exploration and pilot projects) on these questions and at
least twenty-five percent of the program (measured by amount
funded) shall be made up of proposals selected from this
solicitation, as modified if necessary to increase the value
of the proposed research to the overall program. At least
twenty percent of the program (measured by amount funded)
shall address the objective of identifying and evaluating
promising existing treatments, such as observation and pilot
studies. The program shall be submitted for determination of
scientific merit through independent peer review.''
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific
research, development, test and evaluation, including
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of
facilities and equipment, $18,481,862,000, to remain
available for obligation until September 30, 2007: Provided,
That funds appropriated in this paragraph which are available
for the V-22 may be used to meet unique operational
requirements of the Special Operations Forces: Provided
further, That funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be
available for the Cobra Judy program.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific
research, development, test and evaluation, including
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of
facilities and equipment, $22,664,868,000, to remain
available for obligation until September 30, 2007.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department
of Defense (other than the military departments), necessary
for basic and applied scientific research, development, test
and evaluation; advanced research projects as may be
designated and determined by the Secretary of Defense,
pursuant to law; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and
operation of facilities and equipment, $19,514,530,000, to
remain available for obligation until September 30, 2007.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Ms. jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 13 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 29, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $500,000,000)''.
Page 102, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $500,000,000)''.
Page 112, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $500,000,000)''.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want you to know and my
colleagues to know that I am trying to engage in discussions with the
ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I have
mentioned this one to the chairman.
I would like to have the opportunity to discuss, in a very lucid
manner, my great concern, recognizing that we have tried to fund the
support system for the Iraqi nationals.
It is well known, Mr. Chairman, that a number of us are concerned
about the ongoing violence in Iraq and the front line, if you will,
attacks and loss of life that our brave men and women are accumulating
in Iraq and, of course, Afghanistan.
USA Today recounts for us that over the weekend, a bomb killed at
least 23 in Baghdad. If you talk to families around America whose young
men and women and Reservists and National Guard are over in Iraq and
Afghanistan, their concern, of course, is the continued violence of the
insurgents
[[Page 13217]]
and the IEDs. Our soldiers are on the front lines.
And beyond the question of bringing our soldiers home, which the
American people have gone enthusiastically on record for, recognizing
the bravery of those young men and women, Reservists and National
Guard, we have got to find a way to transition this war to Iraqis. In
the Houston Chronicle, the headline reads: American sacrifices buying
time for Iraqis.
So my amendment is simple--$500 million from the missile defense to
go into the Iraqi Freedom Fund. Allow me to read this one anecdotal
story, and I would ask my colleagues to listen, because I would like to
work with you on this.
This is about Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Crowe, one of the highest
ranked soldiers in the United States military. He was a senior U.S.
military advisor to Iraqi forces, and he was ambushed while leading
Iraqi soldiers on June 7.
Through the bravery of Sergeant First Class Gary Villaboso, who is
now being recommended for a Silver Cross, this brave sergeant was able
to drag, while fighting off alone, the Iraqi snipers, this brave
wounded Lieutenant Colonel, Terrence Crowe, out of harm's way, at least
to get him out.
He performed heroically in extricating the mortally wounded Crowe,
while wiping out Iraqi attackers. The 17 Iraqi soldiers broke rank and
fled the scene. We realize they may have been well-intentioned, but
most of the 17 Iraqis in the patrol broke rank during the initial
outbreak of the gunfire and faded from the street fight.
Villaboso, a fine soldier in his own right, did not want to condemn,
and he said these words: He is unsure if Crowe, 44, who was hit
instantly several times as the shooting began, could have survived if
the Iraqis had effectively returned fire and swiftly evacuated the
wounded officer.
But what he did say is, I think he would have been able to be helped,
if we could have gotten him out in a few minutes instead of 15.
Training, training, training and transition. This is a simple question
and equation. We need to provide the resources, and I know the
distinguished gentlemen have had a number of dollars that went out into
the original authorization, and, of course, $500 million, I believe,
that are in this particular appropriation.
But I ask my colleagues to consider, if we are going to move, we have
got to move on behalf of our soldiers and provide the resources for the
Iraqi nationals to serve our military personnel for Iraq.
Finally, my deepest respect and sympathy to the family of Lt. Colonel
Terrence Crowe; and to Sgt. Villaboso, thank you for your commitment.
I rise today to support my Amendment to this Defense Appropriation
bill, which increases funding for training the Iraqi National Army by
$500 million. This Amendment would double the amount of money
appropriated for training the Iraqi National Army within the Iraq
Freedom Fund. In addition, it will reinforce the point that the best
way to get U.S. troops out of Iraq is to train the Iraqi troops to take
care of their own nation. Clearly, more money is needed to not only
train these inexperienced troops to defeat the insurgency, but also to
pay troops to enlist in this new army despite the obvious danger they
face. At this time of increased danger for our troops, this Amendment
reiterates the fact that we need to be transferring more responsibility
upon the Iraqis to take care of their nation and develop a plan to
remove our U.S. troops.
Just last week a roadside bomb blast killed five U.S. Marines who
were riding in a vehicle during a combat operation near Ramadi. On this
very same day a suicide bombing at a restaurant on an Iraqi military
base killed 23 Iraqi soldiers and wounded 28 other people. Clearly,
this war is not getting any easier; clearly our troops are still very
much in danger. Our best solution is to train and supply the Iraqi
National Army to beat back this insurgency and gain the trust of their
people so that one day soon our troops can go home and the Iraqi
National Army can bring peace and prosperity to Iraq. I know it sounds
too simple, I but the truth is we have no other solution, that is
unless you believe our U.S. troops should be in Iraq indefinitely.
There is an old saying that the best offense is a good defense and the
best way to maintain that posture is to have a strong Iraqi National
Army supplementing the heroic effort of our troops.
The offset for this Amendment would come from missile-defense
programs, which are appropriated at a staggering $17.9 billion. Missile
defense systems are not new; in fact they have been talked about,
researched and tested for decades. The sad truth is that missile
defense systems have proven to be overly complex, unreliable, and often
been little more than a pipe dream. Why in the world can't we shift a
little bit of this money to train the Iraqi National Army and relieve
much of the burden on our own troops? This Amendment does not end
research for missile-defense programs it simply pares it down slightly
to offer hope for the Iraqi people that one day soon they can rule
their own nation.
The Congressional Budget Office has declared that this Amendment not
only does not increase revenues in this bill, but actually decreases
outlays by $30 million. Right now there are 136,000 U.S. troops in Iraq
and their mission is not getting any easier. The facts are plain, a
total of 1,713 Americans including 159 people from Texas alone have
lost their lives since this War in Iraq began and more than 12,000 have
been wounded in action. We must move to the obvious solution, that the
Iraqi National Army must soon take over their own nation and provide
for the protection of their people.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, we have said for the last year and a half,
if you remember I said a year ago, we are not going to be able to
prevail unless we get the Iraqis to take over the fighting themselves.
Now, we put $5.7 billion in. I think we are going to consider a
little bit later lifting the cap on the $500 million so it can be
spent. So if the gentlewoman would withdraw this amendment, we will try
to work this thing out. Because it is such a delicately balanced bill,
if we go through a long harangue about something we are already trying
to do; in other words, we put $5.7 billion in. We have $500 million in
this bill. We just remove the limitation if the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee) prevails. I think that will solve your problem.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman. As you well know, I hopefully will have three bites of the
apple of working with you on the military pay, and, of course, I did
not offer the amendment dealing with armor, and I want to thank you for
the work that has been done with providing our soldiers the armor.
Let me say that this is a passionate desire of many of my
constituents, as well as the military families around America. I would
very much like to, I hope I will have the opportunity, to work with the
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) as well.
I would very much like to be concretely, though not a member of your
august body, the Committee on Appropriations, to at least try to get a
slice, if we remove the cap, to increase the dollars, because leaving
our soldiers bare like this, losing the senior advisor of the Iraqi
forces is really devastating.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would just hope that we can really focus on how we
align the funds as well in training these Iraqi forces.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I want to say to the gentlewoman that I agree with her and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) that it is extremely important
that we prepare the Iraqi security forces to meet their own
responsibilities so that we can bring our soldiers home.
That is in the forefront of what we are doing. But, we have
delicately written this bill. And we will be very happy to work with
gentlewoman as we go through the whole process. But, as I
[[Page 13218]]
said earlier, we bring a bill that is $3.3 billion less than the
President requested, and less than the budget resolution provided for.
So we had to balance. And we are very happy to work with the
gentlewoman, because we understand the importance of getting the Iraqis
ready to provide for their own security.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that I have
joined a number of my colleagues in asking for soldiers to come home in
the fall of 2006.
But I think the priority of my amendment, or at least the focus of my
amendment today is, of course, the safety and security of our troops. I
welcome both gentlemen. They are men of their word. I thank you very
much. I would like to be able to pursue this with staff and with the
committee. And I hope that the amendment of the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee) will be accepted, that we will have the
opportunity to increase those numbers, because I think we owe it to the
families of Lieutenant Colonial Terrence Crowe and many others.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
independent activities of the Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation, in the direction and supervision of operational
test and evaluation, including initial operational test and
evaluation which is conducted prior to, and in support of,
production decisions; joint operational testing and
evaluation; and administrative expenses in connection
therewith, $168,458,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2007.
TITLE V
REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS
Defense Working Capital Funds
For the Defense Working Capital Funds, $1,154,340,000.
National Defense Sealift Fund
For National Defense Sealift Fund programs, projects, and
activities, and for expenses of the National Defense Reserve
Fleet, as established by section 11 of the Merchant Ship
Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App. 1744), and for the
necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a U.S.-flag
merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the
United States, $1,599,459,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That none of the funds provided in this
paragraph shall be used to award a new contract that provides
for the acquisition of any of the following major components
unless such components are manufactured in the United States:
auxiliary equipment, including pumps, for all shipboard
services; propulsion system components (that is; engines,
reduction gears, and propellers); shipboard cranes; and
spreaders for shipboard cranes: Provided further, That the
exercise of an option in a contract awarded through the
obligation of previously appropriated funds shall not be
considered to be the award of a new contract: Provided
further, That the Secretary of the military department
responsible for such procurement may waive the restrictions
in the first proviso on a case-by-case basis by certifying in
writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes.
TITLE VI
OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical
agents and munitions in accordance with the provisions of
section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act,
1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the destruction of other
chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical
weapon stockpile, $1,355,827,000, of which $1,191,514,000
shall be for Operation and maintenance; $116,527,000 shall be
for Procurement to remain available until September 30, 2008;
$47,786,000 shall be for Research, development, test and
evaluation to remain available until September 30, 2007; and
not less than $119,300,000 shall be for the Chemical
Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program, of which
$36,800,000 shall be for activities on military installations
and $82,500,000 shall be to assist State and local
governments.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
For drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the
Department of Defense, for transfer to appropriations
available to the Department of Defense for military personnel
of the reserve components serving under the provisions of
title 10 and title 32, United States Code; for Operation and
maintenance; for Procurement; and for Research, development,
test and evaluation, $906,941,000: Provided, That the funds
appropriated under this heading shall be available for
obligation for the same time period and for the same purpose
as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further,
That upon a determination that all or part of the funds
transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the
purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred
back to this appropriation: Provided further, That the
transfer authority provided under this heading is in addition
to any other transfer authority contained elsewhere in this
Act.
Office of the Inspector General
For expenses and activities of the Office of the Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, $209,687,000, of which
$208,687,000 shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which
not to exceed $700,000 is available for emergencies and
extraordinary expenses to be expended on the approval or
authority of the Inspector General, and payments may be made
on the Inspector General's certificate of necessity for
confidential military purposes; and of which $1,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2008, shall be for
Procurement.
TITLE VII
RELATED AGENCIES
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund
For payment to the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement
and Disability System Fund, to maintain the proper funding
level for continuing the operation of the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System,
$244,600,000.
Intelligence Community Management Account
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Intelligence Community
Management Account, $376,844,000 of which $27,454,000 for the
Advanced Research and Development Committee shall remain
available until September 30, 2007: Provided, That of the
funds appropriated under this heading, $39,000,000 shall be
transferred to the Department of Justice for the National
Drug Intelligence Center to support the Department of
Defense's counter-drug intelligence responsibilities, and of
the said amount, $1,500,000 for Procurement shall remain
available until September 30, 2008 and $1,000,000 for
Research, development, test and evaluation shall remain
available until September 30, 2007: Provided further, That
the National Drug Intelligence Center shall maintain the
personnel and technical resources to provide timely support
to law enforcement authorities and the intelligence community
by conducting document and computer exploitation of materials
collected in Federal, State, and local law enforcement
activity associated with counter-drug, counter-terrorism, and
national security investigations and operations.
TITLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 8001. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not
authorized by the Congress.
Sec. 8002. During the current fiscal year, provisions of
law prohibiting the payment of compensation to, or employment
of, any person not a citizen of the United States shall not
apply to personnel of the Department of Defense: Provided,
That salary increases granted to direct and indirect hire
foreign national employees of the Department of Defense
funded by this Act shall not be at a rate in excess of the
percentage increase authorized by law for civilian employees
of the Department of Defense whose pay is computed under the
provisions of section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, or
at a rate in excess of the percentage increase provided by
the appropriate host nation to its own employees, whichever
is higher: Provided further, That this section shall not
apply to Department of Defense foreign service national
employees serving at United States diplomatic missions whose
pay is set by the Department of State under the Foreign
Service Act of 1980: Provided further, That the limitations
of this provision shall not apply to foreign national
employees of the Department of Defense in the Republic of
Turkey.
Sec. 8003. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year, unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 8004. No more than 20 percent of the appropriations in
this Act which are limited
[[Page 13219]]
for obligation during the current fiscal year shall be
obligated during the last 2 months of the fiscal year:
Provided, That this section shall not apply to obligations
for support of active duty training of reserve components or
summer camp training of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 8005. Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense
that such action is necessary in the national interest, he
may, with the approval of the Office of Management and
Budget, transfer not to exceed $4,000,000,000 of working
capital funds of the Department of Defense or funds made
available in this Act to the Department of Defense for
military functions (except military construction) between
such appropriations or funds or any subdivision thereof, to
be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and
for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to
which transferred: Provided, That such authority to transfer
may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on
unforeseen military requirements, than those for which
originally appropriated and in no case where the item for
which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify
the Congress promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this
authority or any other authority in this Act: Provided
further, That no part of the funds in this Act shall be
available to prepare or present a request to the Committees
on Appropriations for reprogramming of funds, unless for
higher priority items, based on unforeseen military
requirements, than those for which originally appropriated
and in no case where the item for which reprogramming is
requested has been denied by the Congress: Provided further,
That a request for multiple re-
programmings of funds using authority provided in this
section must be made prior to June 30, 2006: Provided
further, That transfers among military personnel
appropriations shall not be taken into account for purposes
of the limitation on the amount of funds that may be
transferred under this section.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 8006. During the current fiscal year, cash balances in
working capital funds of the Department of Defense
established pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United
States Code, may be maintained in only such amounts as are
necessary at any time for cash disbursements to be made from
such funds: Provided, That transfers may be made between such
funds: Provided further, That transfers may be made between
working capital funds and the ``Foreign Currency
Fluctuations, Defense'' appropriation and the ``Operation and
Maintenance'' appropriation accounts in such amounts as may
be determined by the Secretary of Defense, with the approval
of the Office of Management and Budget, except that such
transfers may not be made unless the Secretary of Defense has
notified the Congress of the proposed transfer. Except in
amounts equal to the amounts appropriated to working capital
funds in this Act, no obligations may be made against a
working capital fund to procure or increase the value of war
reserve material inventory, unless the Secretary of Defense
has notified the Congress prior to any such obligation.
Sec. 8007. Funds appropriated by this Act may not be used
to initiate a special access program without prior
notification 30 calendar days in session in advance to the
congressional defense committees.
Sec. 8008. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
available to initiate: (1) a multiyear contract that employs
economic order quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000
in any 1 year of the contract or that includes an unfunded
contingent liability in excess of $20,000,000; or (2) a
contract for advance procurement leading to a multiyear
contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in
excess of $20,000,000 in any 1 year, unless the congressional
defense committees have been notified at least 30 days in
advance of the proposed contract award: Provided, That no
part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be
available to initiate a multiyear contract for which the
economic order quantity advance procurement is not funded at
least to the limits of the Government's liability: Provided
further, That no part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available to initiate multiyear procurement
contracts for any systems or component thereof if the value
of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000 unless
specifically provided in this Act: Provided further, That no
multiyear procurement contract can be terminated without 10-
day prior notification to the congressional defense
committees: Provided further, That the execution of multiyear
authority shall require the use of a present value analysis
to determine lowest cost compared to an annual procurement:
Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this Act
may be used for a multiyear contract executed after the date
of the enactment of this Act unless in the case of any such
contract--
(1) the Secretary of Defense has submitted to Congress a
budget request for full funding of units to be procured
through the contract;
(2) cancellation provisions in the contract do not include
consideration of recurring manufacturing costs of the
contractor associated with the production of unfunded units
to be delivered under the contract;
(3) the contract provides that payments to the contractor
under the contract shall not be made in advance of incurred
costs on funded units; and
(4) the contract does not provide for a price adjustment
based on a failure to award a follow-on contract.
Funds appropriated in title III of this Act may be used for
a multiyear procurement contract as follows:
UH-60/MH-60 Helicopters;
Apache Block II Conversion; and
Modernized Target Acquisition Designation Sight/Pilot Night
Vision Sensor (MTADS/PNVS).
Sec. 8009. Within the funds appropriated for the operation
and maintenance of the Armed Forces, funds are hereby
appropriated pursuant to section 401 of title 10, United
States Code, for humanitarian and civic assistance costs
under chapter 20 of title 10, United States Code. Such funds
may also be obligated for humanitarian and civic assistance
costs incidental to authorized operations and pursuant to
authority granted in section 401 of chapter 20 of title 10,
United States Code, and these obligations shall be reported
as required by section 401(d) of title 10, United States
Code: Provided, That funds available for operation and
maintenance shall be available for providing humanitarian and
similar assistance by using Civic Action Teams in the Trust
Territories of the Pacific Islands and freely associated
states of Micronesia, pursuant to the Compact of Free
Association as authorized by Public Law 99-239: Provided
further, That upon a determination by the Secretary of the
Army that such action is beneficial for graduate medical
education programs conducted at Army medical facilities
located in Hawaii, the Secretary of the Army may authorize
the provision of medical services at such facilities and
transportation to such facilities, on a nonreimbursable
basis, for civilian patients from American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Marshall
Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and Guam.
Sec. 8010. (a) During fiscal year 2006, the civilian
personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on
the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such
personnel during that fiscal year shall not be subject to any
constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength) on the
number of such personnel who may be employed on the last day
of such fiscal year.
(b) The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Department
of Defense as well as all justification material and other
documentation supporting the fiscal year 2007 Department of
Defense budget request shall be prepared and submitted to the
Congress as if subsections (a) and (b) of this provision were
effective with regard to fiscal year 2007.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to
military (civilian) technicians.
Sec. 8011. None of the funds appropriated in this or any
other Act may be used to initiate a new installation overseas
without 30-day advance notification to the Committees on
Appropriations.
Sec. 8012. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to
influence congressional action on any legislation or
appropriation matters pending before the Congress.
Sec. 8013. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available for the basic pay and allowances of any member
of the Army participating as a full-time student and
receiving benefits paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
from the Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund when
time spent as a full-time student is credited toward
completion of a service commitment: Provided, That this
subsection shall not apply to those members who have
reenlisted with this option prior to October 1, 1987:
Provided further, That this subsection applies only to active
components of the Army.
Sec. 8014. (a) Limitation on Conversion to Contractor
Performance.--None of the funds appropriated by this Act
shall be available to convert to contractor performance an
activity or function of the Department of Defense that, on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act, is performed by
more than 10 Department of Defense civilian employees
unless--
(1) the conversion is based on the result of a public-
private competition that includes a most efficient and cost
effective organization plan developed by such activity or
function;
(2) the Competitive Sourcing Official determines that, over
all performance periods stated in the solicitation of offers
for performance of the activity or function, the cost of
performance of the activity or function by a contractor would
be less costly to the Department of Defense by an amount that
equals or exceeds the lesser of--
(A) 10 percent of the most efficient organization's
personnel-related costs for performance of that activity or
function by Federal employees; or
(B) $10,000,000; and
(3) the contractor does not receive an advantage for a
proposal that would reduce costs for the Department of
Defense by--
[[Page 13220]]
(A) not making an employer-sponsored health insurance plan
available to the workers who are to be employed in the
performance of that activity or function under the contract;
or
(B) offering to such workers an employer-sponsored health
benefits plan that requires the employer to contribute less
towards the premium or subscription share than the amount
that is paid by the Department of Defense for health benefits
for civilian employees under chapter 89 of title 5, United
States Code.
(b) Exceptions.--
(1) The Department of Defense, without regard to subsection
(a) of this section or subsections (a), (b), or (c) of
section 2461 of title 10, United States Code, and
notwithstanding any administrative regulation, requirement,
or policy to the contrary shall have full authority to enter
into a contract for the performance of any commercial or
industrial type function of the Department of Defense that--
(A) is included on the procurement list established
pursuant to section 2 of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41
U.S.C. 47);
(B) is planned to be converted to performance by a
qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or by a qualified
nonprofit agency for other severely handicapped individuals
in accordance with that Act; or
(C) is planned to be converted to performance by a
qualified firm under at least 51 percent ownership by an
Indian tribe, as defined in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b(e)), or a Native Hawaiian Organization, as defined in
section 8(a)(15) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
637(a)(15)).
(2) This section shall not apply to depot contracts or
contracts for depot maintenance as provided in sections 2469
and 2474 of title 10, United States Code.
(c) Treatment of Conversion.--The conversion of any
activity or function of the Department of Defense under the
authority provided by this section shall be credited toward
any competitive or outsourcing goal, target, or measurement
that may be established by statute, regulation, or policy and
is deemed to be awarded under the authority of, and in
compliance with, subsection (h) of section 2304 of title 10,
United States Code, for the competition or outsourcing of
commercial activities.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 8015. Funds appropriated in title III of this Act for
the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protege Program may be
transferred to any other appropriation contained in this Act
solely for the purpose of implementing a Mentor-Protege
Program developmental assistance agreement pursuant to
section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2302 note),
as amended, under the authority of this provision or any
other transfer authority contained in this Act.
Sec. 8016. None of the funds in this Act may be available
for the purchase by the Department of Defense (and its
departments and agencies) of welded shipboard anchor and
mooring chain 4 inches in diameter and under unless the
anchor and mooring chain are manufactured in the United
States from components which are substantially manufactured
in the United States: Provided, That for the purpose of this
section manufactured will include cutting, heat treating,
quality control, testing of chain and welding (including the
forging and shot blasting process): Provided further, That
for the purpose of this section substantially all of the
components of anchor and mooring chain shall be considered to
be produced or manufactured in the United States if the
aggregate cost of the components produced or manufactured in
the United States exceeds the aggregate cost of the
components produced or manufactured outside the United
States: Provided further, That when adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis, the Secretary of the service
responsible for the procurement may waive this restriction on
a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to the
Committees on Appropriations that such an acquisition must be
made in order to acquire capability for national security
purposes.
Sec. 8017. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1
Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles,
.30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols.
Sec. 8018. No more than $500,000 of the funds appropriated
or made available in this Act shall be used during a single
fiscal year for any single relocation of an organization,
unit, activity or function of the Department of Defense into
or within the National Capital Region: Provided, That the
Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
case basis by certifying in writing to the congressional
defense committees that such a relocation is required in the
best interest of the Government.
Sec. 8019. In addition to the funds provided elsewhere in
this Act, $8,000,000 is appropriated only for incentive
payments authorized by section 504 of the Indian Financing
Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544): Provided, That a prime
contractor or a subcontractor at any tier that makes a
subcontract award to any subcontractor or supplier as defined
in 25 U.S.C. 1544 or a small business owned and controlled by
an individual or individuals defined under 25 U.S.C. 4221(9)
shall be considered a contractor for the purposes of being
allowed additional compensation under section 504 of the
Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544) whenever the
prime contract or subcontract amount is over $500,000 and
involves the expenditure of funds appropriated by an Act
making Appropriations for the Department of Defense with
respect to any fiscal year: Provided further, That
notwithstanding 41 U.S.C. 430, this section shall be
applicable to any Department of Defense acquisition of
supplies or services, including any contract and any
subcontract at any tier for acquisition of commercial items
produced or manufactured, in whole or in part by any
subcontractor or supplier defined in 25 U.S.C. 1544 or a
small business owned and controlled by an individual or
individuals defined under 25 U.S.C. 4221(9): Provided
further, That businesses certified as 8(a) by the Small
Business Administration pursuant to section 8(a)(15) of
Public Law 85-536, as amended, shall have the same status as
other program participants under section 602 of Public Law
100-656, 102 Stat. 3825 (Business Opportunity Development
Reform Act of 1988) for purposes of contracting with agencies
of the Department of Defense.
Sec. 8020. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available to perform any cost study pursuant to the
provisions of OMB Circular A-76 if the study being performed
exceeds a period of 24 months after initiation of such study
with respect to a single function activity or 30 months after
initiation of such study for a multi-function activity.
Sec. 8021. Funds appropriated by this Act for the American
Forces Information Service shall not be used for any national
or international political or psychological activities.
Sec. 8022. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or
regulation, the Secretary of Defense may adjust wage rates
for civilian employees hired for certain health care
occupations as authorized for the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs by section 7455 of title 38, United States Code.
Sec. 8023. During the current fiscal year, the Department
of Defense is authorized to incur obligations of not to
exceed $350,000,000 for purposes specified in section
2350j(c) of title 10, United States Code, in anticipation of
receipt of contributions, only from the Government of Kuwait,
under that section: Provided, That upon receipt, such
contributions from the Government of Kuwait shall be credited
to the appropriations or fund which incurred such
obligations.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8024. (a) Of the funds made available in this Act, not
less than $33,767,000 shall be available for the Civil Air
Patrol Corporation, of which--
(1) $24,376,000 shall be available from ``Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force'' to support Civil Air Patrol
Corporation operation and maintenance, readiness, counterdrug
activities, and drug demand reduction activities involving
youth programs;
(2) $8,571,000 shall be available from ``Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force''; and
(3) $820,000 shall be available from ``Other Procurement,
Air Force'' for vehicle procurement.
(b) The Secretary of the Air Force should waive
reimbursement for any funds used by the Civil Air Patrol for
counter-drug activities in support of Federal, State, and
local government agencies.
Sec. 8025. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act
are available to establish a new Department of Defense
(department) federally funded research and development center
(FFRDC), either as a new entity, or as a separate entity
administrated by an organization managing another FFRDC, or
as a nonprofit membership corporation consisting of a
consortium of other FFRDCs and other non-profit entities.
(b) No member of a Board of Directors, Trustees, Overseers,
Advisory Group, Special Issues Panel, Visiting Committee, or
any similar entity of a defense FFRDC, and no paid consultant
to any defense FFRDC, except when acting in a technical
advisory capacity, may be compensated for his or her services
as a member of such entity, or as a paid consultant by more
than one FFRDC in a fiscal year: Provided, That a member of
any such entity referred to previously in this subsection
shall be allowed travel expenses and per diem as authorized
under the Federal Joint Travel Regulations, when engaged in
the performance of membership duties.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the
funds available to the department from any source during
fiscal year 2006 may be used by a defense FFRDC, through a
fee or other payment mechanism, for construction of new
buildings, for payment of cost sharing for projects funded by
Government grants, for absorption of contract overruns, or
for certain charitable contributions, not to include employee
participation in community service and/or development.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the
funds available to the department during fiscal year 2006,
not more than 5,537 staff years of technical effort (staff
years) may be funded for defense FFRDCs: Provided, That this
subsection shall not apply to staff years funded in the
National Intelligence Program.
[[Page 13221]]
(e) The Secretary of Defense shall, with the submission of
the department's fiscal year 2007 budget request, submit a
report presenting the specific amounts of staff years of
technical effort to be allocated for each defense FFRDC
during that fiscal year.
(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
total amount appropriated in this Act for FFRDCs is hereby
reduced by $40,000,000.
Sec. 8026. None of the funds appropriated or made available
in this Act shall be used to procure carbon, alloy or armor
steel plate for use in any Government-owned facility or
property under the control of the Department of Defense which
were not melted and rolled in the United States or Canada:
Provided, That these procurement restrictions shall apply to
any and all Federal Supply Class 9515, American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Iron and Steel
Institute (AISI) specifications of carbon, alloy or armor
steel plate: Provided further, That the Secretary of the
military department responsible for the procurement may waive
this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in
writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes: Provided further, That these restrictions
shall not apply to contracts which are in being as of the
date of the enactment of this Act.
Sec. 8027. For the purposes of this Act, the term
``congressional defense committees'' means the Armed Services
Committee of the House of Representatives, the Armed Services
Committee of the Senate, the Subcommittee on Defense of the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives.
Sec. 8028. During the current fiscal year, the Department
of Defense may acquire the modification, depot maintenance
and repair of aircraft, vehicles and vessels as well as the
production of components and other Defense-related articles,
through competition between Department of Defense depot
maintenance activities and private firms: Provided, That the
Senior Acquisition Executive of the military department or
Defense Agency concerned, with power of delegation, shall
certify that successful bids include comparable estimates of
all direct and indirect costs for both public and private
bids: Provided further, That Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-76 shall not apply to competitions conducted under
this section.
Sec. 8029. (a)(1) If the Secretary of Defense, after
consultation with the United States Trade Representative,
determines that a foreign country which is party to an
agreement described in paragraph (2) has violated the terms
of the agreement by discriminating against certain types of
products produced in the United States that are covered by
the agreement, the Secretary of Defense shall rescind the
Secretary's blanket waiver of the Buy American Act with
respect to such types of products produced in that foreign
country.
(2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is any
reciprocal defense procurement memorandum of understanding,
between the United States and a foreign country pursuant to
which the Secretary of Defense has prospectively waived the
Buy American Act for certain products in that country.
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress a
report on the amount of Department of Defense purchases from
foreign entities in fiscal year 2006. Such report shall
separately indicate the dollar value of items for which the
Buy American Act was waived pursuant to any agreement
described in subsection (a)(2), the Trade Agreement Act of
1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), or any international agreement
to which the United States is a party.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Buy American
Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An Act making
appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office Departments
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for other
purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
Sec. 8030. Appropriations contained in this Act that remain
available at the end of the current fiscal year, and at the
end of each fiscal year hereafter, as a result of energy cost
savings realized by the Department of Defense shall remain
available for obligation for the next fiscal year to the
extent, and for the purposes, provided in section 2865 of
title 10, United States Code.
Sec. 8031. The President shall include with each budget for
a fiscal year submitted to the Congress under section 1105 of
title 31, United States Code, materials that shall identify
clearly and separately the amounts requested in the budget
for appropriation for that fiscal year for salaries and
expenses related to administrative activities of the
Department of Defense, the military departments, and the
defense agencies.
Sec. 8032. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds available during the current fiscal year and hereafter
for ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities,
Defense'' may be obligated for the Young Marines program.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8033. During the current fiscal year, amounts
contained in the Department of Defense Overseas Military
Facility Investment Recovery Account established by section
2921(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991
(Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) shall be available
until expended for the payments specified by section
2921(c)(2) of that Act.
Sec. 8034. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of the Air Force may convey
at no cost to the Air Force, without consideration, to Indian
tribes located in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota,
Montana, and Minnesota relocatable military housing units
located at Grand Forks Air Force Base and Minot Air Force
Base that are excess to the needs of the Air Force.
(b) Processing of Requests.--The Secretary of the Air Force
shall convey, at no cost to the Air Force, military housing
units under subsection (a) in accordance with the request for
such units that are submitted to the Secretary by the
Operation Walking Shield Program on behalf of Indian tribes
located in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana,
and Minnesota.
(c) Resolution of Housing Unit Conflicts.--The Operation
Walking Shield Program shall resolve any conflicts among
requests of Indian tribes for housing units under subsection
(a) before submitting requests to the Secretary of the Air
Force under subsection (b).
(d) Indian Tribe Defined.--In this section, the term
``Indian tribe'' means any recognized Indian tribe included
on the current list published by the Secretary of the
Interior under section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian
Tribe Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-454; 108 Stat. 4792; 25
U.S.C. 479a-1).
Sec. 8035. During the current fiscal year, appropriations
which are available to the Department of Defense for
operation and maintenance may be used to purchase items
having an investment item unit cost of not more than
$250,000.
Sec. 8036. (a) During the current fiscal year, none of the
appropriations or funds available to the Department of
Defense Working Capital Funds shall be used for the purchase
of an investment item for the purpose of acquiring a new
inventory item for sale or anticipated sale during the
current fiscal year or a subsequent fiscal year to customers
of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds if such an
item would not have been chargeable to the Department of
Defense Business Operations Fund during fiscal year 1994 and
if the purchase of such an investment item would be
chargeable during the current fiscal year to appropriations
made to the Department of Defense for procurement.
(b) The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Department
of Defense as well as all justification material and other
documentation supporting the fiscal year 2007 Department of
Defense budget shall be prepared and submitted to the
Congress on the basis that any equipment which was classified
as an end item and funded in a procurement appropriation
contained in this Act shall be budgeted for in a proposed
fiscal year 2007 procurement appropriation and not in the
supply management business area or any other area or category
of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds.
Sec. 8037. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for
programs of the Central Intelligence Agency shall remain
available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year,
except for funds appropriated for the Reserve for
Contingencies, which shall remain available until September
30, 2007: Provided, That funds appropriated, transferred, or
otherwise credited to the Central Intelligence Agency Central
Services Working Capital Fund during this or any prior or
subsequent fiscal year shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That any funds appropriated or transferred
to the Central Intelligence Agency for advanced research and
development acquisition, for agent operations, and for covert
action programs authorized by the President under section 503
of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, shall
remain available until September 30, 2007.
Sec. 8038. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds made available in this Act for the Defense Intelligence
Agency may be used for the design, development, and
deployment of General Defense Intelligence Program
intelligence communications and intelligence information
systems for the Services, the Unified and Specified Commands,
and the component commands.
Sec. 8039. Of the funds appropriated to the Department of
Defense under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide'', not less than $10,000,000 shall be made
available only for the mitigation of environmental impacts,
including training and technical assistance to tribes,
related administrative support, the gathering of information,
documenting of environmental damage, and developing a system
for prioritization of mitigation and cost to complete
estimates for mitigation, on Indian lands resulting from
Department of Defense activities.
Sec. 8040. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act
may be expended by an entity of the Department of Defense
unless
[[Page 13222]]
the entity, in expending the funds, complies with the Buy
American Act. For purposes of this subsection, the term ``Buy
American Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An Act
making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office
Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for
other purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et
seq.).
(b) If the Secretary of Defense determines that a person
has been convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing
a ``Made in America'' inscription to any product sold in or
shipped to the United States that is not made in America, the
Secretary shall determine, in accordance with section 2410f
of title 10, United States Code, whether the person should be
debarred from contracting with the Department of Defense.
(c) In the case of any equipment or products purchased with
appropriations provided under this Act, it is the sense of
the Congress that any entity of the Department of Defense, in
expending the appropriation, purchase only American-made
equipment and products, provided that American-made equipment
and products are cost-competitive, quality-competitive, and
available in a timely fashion.
Sec. 8041. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available for a contract for studies, analysis, or
consulting services entered into without competition on the
basis of an unsolicited proposal unless the head of the
activity responsible for the procurement determines--
(1) as a result of thorough technical evaluation, only one
source is found fully qualified to perform the proposed work;
(2) the purpose of the contract is to explore an
unsolicited proposal which offers significant scientific or
technological promise, represents the product of original
thinking, and was submitted in confidence by one source; or
(3) the purpose of the contract is to take advantage of
unique and significant industrial accomplishment by a
specific concern, or to insure that a new product or idea of
a specific concern is given financial support: Provided, That
this limitation shall not apply to contracts in an amount of
less than $25,000, contracts related to improvements of
equipment that is in development or production, or contracts
as to which a civilian official of the Department of Defense,
who has been confirmed by the Senate, determines that the
award of such contract is in the interest of the national
defense.
Sec. 8042. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and
(c), none of the funds made available by this Act may be
used--
(1) to establish a field operating agency; or
(2) to pay the basic pay of a member of the Armed Forces or
civilian employee of the department who is transferred or
reassigned from a headquarters activity if the member or
employee's place of duty remains at the location of that
headquarters.
(b) The Secretary of Defense or Secretary of a military
department may waive the limitations in subsection (a), on a
case-by-case basis, if the Secretary determines, and
certifies to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate that the granting of the waiver
will reduce the personnel requirements or the financial
requirements of the department.
(c) This section does not apply to field operating agencies
funded within the National Intelligence Program.
Sec. 8043. The Secretary of Defense, acting through the
Office of Economic Adjustment of the Department of Defense,
may use funds made available in this Act under the heading
``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' to make grants
and supplement other Federal funds in accordance with the
guidance provided in the report of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives accompanying
this Act, and the projects specified in such guidance shall
be considered to be authorized by law.
(rescissions)
Sec. 8044. Of the funds appropriated in Department of
Defense Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby
rescinded from the following accounts and programs in the
specified amounts:
``Other Procurement, Army, 2005/2007'', $60,500,000;
``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 2005/2011'',
$325,000,000;
``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 2005/2007'',
$10,000,000;
``Other Procurement, Air Force, 2005/2007'', $3,400,000;
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 2005/
2006'', $21,600,000;
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, 2005/
2006'', $5,100,000;
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force,
2005/2006'', $142,000,000; and
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide,
2005/2006'', $65,950,000.
Sec. 8045. None of the funds available in this Act may be
used to reduce the authorized positions for military
(civilian) technicians of the Army National Guard, the Air
National Guard, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve for the
purpose of applying any administratively imposed civilian
personnel ceiling, freeze, or reduction on military
(civilian) technicians, unless such reductions are a direct
result of a reduction in military force structure.
Sec. 8046. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be obligated or expended for
assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea
unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
Sec. 8047. Funds appropriated in this Act for operation and
maintenance of the Military Departments, Combatant Commands
and Defense Agencies shall be available for reimbursement of
pay, allowances and other expenses which would otherwise be
incurred against appropriations for the National Guard and
Reserve when members of the National Guard and Reserve
provide intelligence or counterintelligence support to
Combatant Commands, Defense Agencies and Joint Intelligence
Activities, including the activities and programs included
within the National Intelligence Program, the Joint Military
Intelligence Program, and the Tactical Intelligence and
Related Activities aggregate: Provided, That nothing in this
section authorizes deviation from established Reserve and
National Guard personnel and training procedures.
Sec. 8048. (a) None of the funds available to the
Department of Defense for any fiscal year for drug
interdiction or counter-drug activities may be transferred to
any other department or agency of the United States except as
specifically provided in an appropriations law.
(b) None of the funds available to the Central Intelligence
Agency for any fiscal year for drug interdiction and counter-
drug activities may be transferred to any other department or
agency of the United States except as specifically provided
in an appropriations law.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 8049. Appropriations available under the heading
``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' for the current
fiscal year and hereafter for increasing energy and water
efficiency in Federal buildings may, during their period of
availability, be transferred to other appropriations or funds
of the Department of Defense for projects related to
increasing energy and water efficiency, to be merged with and
to be available for the same general purposes, and for the
same time period, as the appropriation or fund to which
transferred.
Sec. 8050. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be used for the procurement of ball and roller bearings other
than those produced by a domestic source and of domestic
origin: Provided, That the Secretary of the military
department responsible for such procurement may waive this
restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing
to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes: Provided further, That this restriction
shall not apply to the purchase of ``commercial items'', as
defined by section 4(12) of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act, except that the restriction shall apply to ball
or roller bearings purchased as end items.
Sec. 8051. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
purchase any supercomputer which is not manufactured in the
United States, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to
the congressional defense committees that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes that is not available from United States
manufacturers.
Sec. 8052. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each
contract awarded by the Department of Defense during the
current fiscal year for construction or service performed in
whole or in part in a State (as defined in section 381(d) of
title 10, United States Code) which is not contiguous with
another State and has an unemployment rate in excess of the
national average rate of unemployment as determined by the
Secretary of Labor, shall include a provision requiring the
contractor to employ, for the purpose of performing that
portion of the contract in such State that is not contiguous
with another State, individuals who are residents of such
State and who, in the case of any craft or trade, possess or
would be able to acquire promptly the necessary skills:
Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive the
requirements of this section, on a case-by-case basis, in the
interest of national security.
Sec. 8053. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act may be used to pay the salary of any officer or
employee of the Department of Defense who approves or
implements the transfer of administrative responsibilities or
budgetary resources of any program, project, or activity
financed by this Act to the jurisdiction of another Federal
agency not financed by this Act without the express
authorization of Congress: Provided, That this limitation
shall not apply to transfers of funds expressly provided for
in Defense Appropriations Acts, or provisions of Acts
providing supplemental appropriations for the Department of
Defense.
Sec. 8054. (a) Limitation on Transfer of Defense Articles
and Services.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
none of
[[Page 13223]]
the funds available to the Department of Defense for the
current fiscal year may be obligated or expended to transfer
to another nation or an international organization any
defense articles or services (other than intelligence
services) for use in the activities described in subsection
(b) unless the congressional defense committees, the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of
the Senate are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
(b) Covered Activities.--This section applies to--
(1) any international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement
operation under the authority of chapter VI or chapter VII of
the United Nations Charter under the authority of a United
Nations Security Council resolution; and
(2) any other international peacekeeping, peace-
enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operation.
(c) Required Notice.--A notice under subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) A description of the equipment, supplies, or services
to be transferred.
(2) A statement of the value of the equipment, supplies, or
services to be transferred.
(3) In the case of a proposed transfer of equipment or
supplies--
(A) a statement of whether the inventory requirements of
all elements of the Armed Forces (including the reserve
components) for the type of equipment or supplies to be
transferred have been met; and
(B) a statement of whether the items proposed to be
transferred will have to be replaced and, if so, how the
President proposes to provide funds for such replacement.
Sec. 8055. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense under this Act shall be obligated or expended to pay
a contractor under a contract with the Department of Defense
for costs of any amount paid by the contractor to an employee
when--
(1) such costs are for a bonus or otherwise in excess of
the normal salary paid by the contractor to the employee; and
(2) such bonus is part of restructuring costs associated
with a business combination.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8056. During the current fiscal year, no more than
$30,000,000 of appropriations made in this Act under the
heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' may be
transferred to appropriations available for the pay of
military personnel, to be merged with, and to be available
for the same time period as the appropriations to which
transferred, to be used in support of such personnel in
connection with support and services for eligible
organizations and activities outside the Department of
Defense pursuant to section 2012 of title 10, United States
Code.
Sec. 8057. During the current fiscal year, in the case of
an appropriation account of the Department of Defense for
which the period of availability for obligation has expired
or which has closed under the provisions of section 1552 of
title 31, United States Code, and which has a negative
unliquidated or unexpended balance, an obligation or an
adjustment of an obligation may be charged to any current
appropriation account for the same purpose as the expired or
closed account if--
(1) the obligation would have been properly chargeable
(except as to amount) to the expired or closed account before
the end of the period of availability or closing of that
account;
(2) the obligation is not otherwise properly chargeable to
any current appropriation account of the Department of
Defense; and
(3) in the case of an expired account, the obligation is
not chargeable to a current appropriation of the Department
of Defense under the provisions of section 1405(b)(8) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991,
Public Law 101-510, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1551 note):
Provided, That in the case of an expired account, if
subsequent review or investigation discloses that there was
not in fact a negative unliquidated or unexpended balance in
the account, any charge to a current account under the
authority of this section shall be reversed and recorded
against the expired account: Provided further, That the total
amount charged to a current appropriation under this section
may not exceed an amount equal to 1 percent of the total
appropriation for that account.
Sec. 8058. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Chief of the National Guard Bureau may permit the use of
equipment of the National Guard Distance Learning Project by
any person or entity on a space-available, reimbursable
basis. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall establish
the amount of reimbursement for such use on a case-by-case
basis.
(b) Amounts collected under subsection (a) shall be
credited to funds available for the National Guard Distance
Learning Project and be available to defray the costs
associated with the use of equipment of the project under
that subsection. Such funds shall be available for such
purposes without fiscal year limitation.
Sec. 8059. Using funds available by this Act or any other
Act, the Secretary of the Air Force, pursuant to a
determination under section 2690 of title 10, United States
Code, may implement cost-effective agreements for required
heating facility modernization in the Kaiserslautern Military
Community in the Federal Republic of Germany: Provided, That
in the City of Kaiserslautern such agreements will include
the use of United States anthracite as the base load energy
for municipal district heat to the United States Defense
installations: Provided further, That at Landstuhl Army
Regional Medical Center and Ramstein Air Base, furnished heat
may be obtained from private, regional or municipal services,
if provisions are included for the consideration of United
States coal as an energy source.
Sec. 8060. None of the funds appropriated in title IV of
this Act may be used to procure end-items for delivery to
military forces for operational training, operational use or
inventory requirements: Provided, That this restriction does
not apply to end-items used in development, prototyping, and
test activities preceding and leading to acceptance for
operational use: Provided further, That this restriction does
not apply to programs funded within the National Intelligence
Program: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense may
waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying
in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate that it is in the national
security interest to do so.
Sec. 8061. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to approve or license the sale of the F/A-22 advanced
tactical fighter to any foreign government.
Sec. 8062. (a) The Secretary of Defense may, on a case-by-
case basis, waive with respect to a foreign country each
limitation on the procurement of defense items from foreign
sources provided in law if the Secretary determines that the
application of the limitation with respect to that country
would invalidate cooperative programs entered into between
the Department of Defense and the foreign country, or would
invalidate reciprocal trade agreements for the procurement of
defense items entered into under section 2531 of title 10,
United States Code, and the country does not discriminate
against the same or similar defense items produced in the
United States for that country.
(b) Subsection (a) applies with respect to--
(1) contracts and subcontracts entered into on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) options for the procurement of items that are exercised
after such date under contracts that are entered into before
such date if the option prices are adjusted for any reason
other than the application of a waiver granted under
subsection (a).
(c) Subsection (a) does not apply to a limitation regarding
construction of public vessels, ball and roller bearings,
food, and clothing or textile materials as defined by section
11 (chapters 50-65) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and
products classified under headings 4010, 4202, 4203, 6401
through 6406, 6505, 7019, 7218 through 7229, 7304.41 through
7304.49, 7306.40, 7502 through 7508, 8105, 8108, 8109, 8211,
8215, and 9404.
Sec. 8063. (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds made
available by this Act may be used to support any training
program involving a unit of the security forces of a foreign
country if the Secretary of Defense has received credible
information from the Department of State that the unit has
committed a gross violation of human rights, unless all
necessary corrective steps have been taken.
(b) Monitoring.--The Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Secretary of State, shall ensure that prior to a
decision to conduct any training program referred to in
subsection (a), full consideration is given to all credible
information available to the Department of State relating to
human rights violations by foreign security forces.
(c) Waiver.--The Secretary of Defense, after consultation
with the Secretary of State, may waive the prohibition in
subsection (a) if he determines that such waiver is required
by extraordinary circumstances.
(d) Report.--Not more than 15 days after the exercise of
any waiver under subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense
shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees
describing the extraordinary circumstances, the purpose and
duration of the training program, the United States forces
and the foreign security forces involved in the training
program, and the information relating to human rights
violations that necessitates the waiver.
Sec. 8064. None of the funds appropriated or made available
in this Act to the Department of the Navy shall be used to
develop, lease or procure the T-AKE class of ships unless the
main propulsion diesel engines and propulsors are
manufactured in the United States by a domestically operated
entity: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive
this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in
writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes or there exists a significant cost or
quality difference.
Sec. 8065. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or other Department of Defense
Appropriations Acts may be obligated or expended for the
purpose of performing repairs or maintenance to military
family housing units of the Department of Defense, including
areas in such
[[Page 13224]]
military family housing units that may be used for the
purpose of conducting official Department of Defense
business.
Sec. 8066. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' for any new
start advanced concept technology demonstration project may
only be obligated 30 days after a report, including a
description of the project, the planned acquisition and
transition strategy and its estimated annual and total cost,
has been provided in writing to the congressional defense
committees: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive
this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying to the
congressional defense committees that it is in the national
interest to do so.
Sec. 8067. The Secretary of Defense shall provide a
classified quarterly report to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees, Subcommittees on Defense on
certain matters as directed in the classified annex
accompanying this Act.
Sec. 8068. During the current fiscal year, refunds
attributable to the use of the Government travel card,
refunds attributable to the use of the Government Purchase
Card and refunds attributable to official Government travel
arranged by Government Contracted Travel Management Centers
may be credited to operation and maintenance, and research,
development, test and evaluation accounts of the Department
of Defense which are current when the refunds are received.
Sec. 8069. (a) Registering Financial Management Information
Technology Systems With DOD Chief Information Officer.--None
of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for a
mission critical or mission essential financial management
information technology system (including a system funded by
the defense working capital fund) that is not registered with
the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense. A
system shall be considered to be registered with that officer
upon the furnishing to that officer of notice of the system,
together with such information concerning the system as the
Secretary of Defense may prescribe. A financial management
information technology system shall be considered a mission
critical or mission essential information technology system
as defined by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
(b) Certifications as to Compliance With Financial
Management Modernization Plan.--
(1) During the current fiscal year, a financial management
automated information system, a mixed information system
supporting financial and non-financial systems, or a system
improvement of more than $1,000,000 may not receive Milestone
A approval, Milestone B approval, or full rate production, or
their equivalent, within the Department of Defense until the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) certifies, with
respect to that milestone, that the system is being developed
and managed in accordance with the Department's Financial
Management Modernization Plan. The Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) may require additional certifications, as
appropriate, with respect to any such system.
(2) The Chief Information Officer shall provide the
congressional defense committees timely notification of
certifications under paragraph (1).
(c) Certifications as to Compliance With Clinger-Cohen
Act.--
(1) During the current fiscal year, a major automated
information system may not receive Milestone A approval,
Milestone B approval, or full rate production approval, or
their equivalent, within the Department of Defense until the
Chief Information Officer certifies, with respect to that
milestone, that the system is being developed in accordance
with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).
The Chief Information Officer may require additional
certifications, as appropriate, with respect to any such
system.
(2) The Chief Information Officer shall provide the
congressional defense committees timely notification of
certifications under paragraph (1). Each such notification
shall include, at a minimum, the funding baseline and
milestone schedule for each system covered by such a
certification and confirmation that the following steps have
been taken with respect to the system:
(A) Business process reengineering.
(B) An analysis of alternatives.
(C) An economic analysis that includes a calculation of the
return on investment.
(D) Performance measures.
(E) An information assurance strategy consistent with the
Department's Global Information Grid.
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) The term ``Chief Information Officer'' means the senior
official of the Department of Defense designated by the
Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 3506 of title 44,
United States Code.
(2) The term ``information technology system'' has the
meaning given the term ``information technology'' in section
5002 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401).
Sec. 8070. During the current fiscal year, none of the
funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to
provide support to another department or agency of the United
States if such department or agency is more than 90 days in
arrears in making payment to the Department of Defense for
goods or services previously provided to such department or
agency on a reimbursable basis: Provided, That this
restriction shall not apply if the department is authorized
by law to provide support to such department or agency on a
nonreimbursable basis, and is providing the requested support
pursuant to such authority: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
case basis by certifying in writing to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
that it is in the national security interest to do so.
Sec. 8071. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used to transfer to any nongovernmental entity ammunition
held by the Department of Defense that has a center-fire
cartridge and a United States military nomenclature
designation of ``armor penetrator'', ``armor piercing (AP)'',
``armor piercing incendiary (API)'', or ``armor-piercing
incendiary-tracer (API-T)'', except to an entity performing
demilitarization services for the Department of Defense under
a contract that requires the entity to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Department of Defense that armor piercing
projectiles are either: (1) rendered incapable of reuse by
the demilitarization process; or (2) used to manufacture
ammunition pursuant to a contract with the Department of
Defense or the manufacture of ammunition for export pursuant
to a License for Permanent Export of Unclassified Military
Articles issued by the Department of State.
Sec. 8072. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau, or his designee, may
waive payment of all or part of the consideration that
otherwise would be required under 10 U.S.C. 2667, in the case
of a lease of personal property for a period not in excess of
1 year to any organization specified in 32 U.S.C. 508(d), or
any other youth, social, or fraternal non-profit organization
as may be approved by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau,
or his designee, on a case-by-case basis.
Sec. 8073. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be used for the support of any nonappropriated funds activity
of the Department of Defense that procures malt beverages and
wine with nonappropriated funds for resale (including such
alcoholic beverages sold by the drink) on a military
installation located in the United States unless such malt
beverages and wine are procured within that State, or in the
case of the District of Columbia, within the District of
Columbia, in which the military installation is located:
Provided, That in a case in which the military installation
is located in more than one State, purchases may be made in
any State in which the installation is located: Provided
further, That such local procurement requirements for malt
beverages and wine shall apply to all alcoholic beverages
only for military installations in States which are not
contiguous with another State: Provided further, That
alcoholic beverages other than wine and malt beverages, in
contiguous States and the District of Columbia shall be
procured from the most competitive source, price and other
factors considered.
Sec. 8074. Funds available to the Department of Defense for
the Global Positioning System during the current fiscal year
may be used to fund civil requirements associated with the
satellite and ground control segments of such system's
modernization program.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8075. (a) Of the amounts appropriated in this Act
under the heading, ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $90,000,000 shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Secretary of Defense is
authorized to transfer such funds to other activities of the
Federal Government.
(b) Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under the
heading, ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $147,900,000
shall remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Defense is authorized to transfer such funds to other
activities of the Federal Government: Provided further, That
the Secretary of Defense is authorized to enter into and
carry out contracts for the acquisition of real property,
construction, personal services, and operations related to
projects described in further detail in the Classified Annex
accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2006, consistent with the terms and conditions set forth
therein: Provided further, That contracts entered into under
the authority of this section may provide for such
indemnification as the Secretary determines to be necessary:
Provided further, That projects authorized by this section
shall comply with applicable Federal, State, and local law to
the maximum extent consistent with the national security, as
determined by the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 8076. Section 8106 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 1997 (titles I through VIII of the matter
under subsection
[[Page 13225]]
101(b) of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-111; 10 U.S.C.
113 note) shall continue in effect to apply to disbursements
that are made by the Department of Defense in fiscal year
2006.
Sec. 8077. In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in
this Act, $2,500,000 is hereby appropriated to the Department
of Defense, to remain available for obligation until
expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, these funds shall be available only for a grant to
the Fisher House Foundation, Inc., only for the construction
and furnishing of additional Fisher Houses to meet the needs
of military family members when confronted with the illness
or hospitalization of an eligible military beneficiary.
Sec. 8078. Amounts appropriated in title II of this Act are
hereby reduced by $264,630,000 to reflect savings
attributable to efficiencies and management improvements in
the funding of miscellaneous or other contracts in the
military departments, as follows:
(1) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $12,734,000.
(2) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $91,725,000.
(3) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'',
$1,870,000.
(4) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'',
$158,301,000.
Sec. 8079. The total amount appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act is hereby reduced by $167,000,000 to
limit excessive growth in the procurement of advisory and
assistance services, to be distributed as follows:
``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $24,000,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $19,000,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $74,000,000; and
``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', $50,000,000.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8080. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under
the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Defense-Wide'', $77,616,000 shall be made available for the
Arrow missile defense program: Provided, That of this amount,
$15,000,000 shall be available for the purpose of producing
Arrow missile components in the United States and Arrow
missile components and missiles in Israel to meet Israel's
defense requirements, consistent with each nation's laws,
regulations and procedures: Provided further, That funds made
available under this provision for production of missiles and
missile components may be transferred to appropriations
available for the procurement of weapons and equipment, to be
merged with and to be available for the same time period and
the same purposes as the appropriation to which transferred:
Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under
this provision is in addition to any other transfer authority
contained in this Act.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8081. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under
the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'',
$394,523,000 shall be available until September 30, 2006, to
fund prior year shipbuilding cost increases: Provided, That
upon enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall
transfer such funds to the following appropriations in the
amounts specified: Provided further, That the amounts
transferred shall be merged with and be available for the
same purposes as the appropriations to which transferred:
To: Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy,
1998/2007'':
NSSN, $28,000,000.
Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy,
1999/2009'':
LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship, $25,000,000; and
NSSN, $72,000,000.
Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy,
2000/2009'':
LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship, $41,800,000.
Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy,
2001/2007'':
Carrier Replacement Program, $145,023,000; and
NSSN, $82,700,000.
Sec. 8082. The Secretary of the Navy may settle, or
compromise, and pay any and all admiralty claims under 10
U.S.C. 7622 arising out of the collision involving the U.S.S.
GREENEVILLE and the EHIME MARU, in any amount and without
regard to the monetary limitations in subsections (a) and (b)
of that section: Provided, That such payments shall be made
from funds available to the Department of the Navy for
operation and maintenance.
Sec. 8083. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or
regulation, the Secretary of Defense may exercise the
provisions of 38 U.S.C. 7403(g) for occupations listed in 38
U.S.C. 7403(a)(2) as well as the following:
Pharmacists, Audiologists, and Dental Hygienists.
(A) The requirements of 38 U.S.C. 7403(g)(1)(A) shall
apply.
(B) The limitations of 38 U.S.C. 7403(g)(1)(B) shall not
apply.
Sec. 8084. Funds appropriated by this Act, or made
available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for
intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically
authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal
year 2006 until the enactment of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006.
Sec. 8085. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
initiate a new start program without prior written
notification to the Office of Secretary of Defense and the
congressional defense committees.
Sec. 8086. The amounts appropriated in title II of this Act
are hereby reduced by $250,000,000 to reflect cash balance
and rate stabilization adjustments in Department of Defense
Working Capital Funds, as follows:
(1) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $107,000,000.
(2) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'',
$143,000,000.
Sec. 8087. (a) In addition to the amounts provided
elsewhere in this Act, the amount of $6,000,000 is hereby
appropriated to the Department of Defense for ``Operation and
Maintenance, Army National Guard''. Such amount shall be made
available to the Secretary of the Army only to make a grant
in the amount of $6,000,000 to the entity specified in
subsection (b) to facilitate access by veterans to
opportunities for skilled employment in the construction
industry.
(b) The entity referred to in subsection (a) is the Center
for Military Recruitment, Assessment and Veterans Employment,
a nonprofit labor-management co-operation committee provided
for by section 302(c)(9) of the Labor-Management Relations
Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 186(c)(9)), for the purposes set forth
in section 6(b) of the Labor Management Cooperation Act of
1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a note).
Sec. 8088. Financing and Fielding of Key Army
Capabilities.--The Department of Defense and the Department
of the Army shall make future budgetary and programming plans
to fully finance the Non-Line of Sight Future Force cannon
and resupply vehicle program (NLOS-C) in order to field this
system in fiscal year 2010, consistent with the broader plan
to field the Future Combat System (FCS) in fiscal year 2010:
Provided, That if the Army is precluded from fielding the FCS
program by fiscal year 2010, then the Army shall develop the
NLOS-C independent of the broader FCS development timeline to
achieve fielding by fiscal year 2010. In addition the Army
will deliver eight (8) combat operational pre-production
NLOS-C systems by the end of calendar year 2008. These
systems shall be in addition to those systems necessary for
developmental and operational testing: Provided further, That
the Army shall ensure that budgetary and programmatic plans
will provide for no fewer than seven (7) Stryker Brigade
Combat Teams.
Sec. 8089. In addition to the amounts appropriated or
otherwise made available elsewhere in this Act, $14,400,000
is hereby appropriated to the Department of Defense, to
remain available until September 30, 2006: Provided, That the
Secretary of Defense shall make grants in the amounts
specified as follows: $4,500,000 to the Intrepid Sea-Air-
Space Foundation; $1,000,000 to the Pentagon Memorial Fund,
Inc.; $4,400,000 to the Center for Applied Science and
Technologies at Jordan Valley Innovation Center; $1,000,000
to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund for the Teach Vietnam
initiative; $500,000 for the Westchester County World Trade
Center Memorial; $1,000,000 for the Women in Military Service
for America Memorial Foundation; and $2,000,000 to the
Presidio Trust.
Sec. 8090. None of the funds appropriated in this Act under
the heading ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer
Account'' may be transferred or obligated for Department of
Defense expenses not directly related to the conduct of
overseas contingencies: Provided, That the Secretary of
Defense shall submit a report no later than 30 days after the
end of each fiscal quarter to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives
that details any transfer of funds from the ``Overseas
Contingency Operations Transfer Account'': Provided further,
That the report shall explain any transfer for the
maintenance of real property, pay of civilian personnel, base
operations support, and weapon, vehicle or equipment
maintenance.
Sec. 8091. For purposes of section 1553(b) of title 31,
United States Code, any subdivision of appropriations made in
this Act under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy'' shall be considered to be for the same purpose as any
subdivision under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy'' appropriations in any prior fiscal year, and the 1
percent limitation shall apply to the total amount of the
appropriation.
Sec. 8092. The budget of the President for fiscal year 2007
submitted to the Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title
31, United States Code shall include separate budget
justification documents for costs of United States Armed
Forces' participation in contingency operations for the
Military Personnel accounts, the Operation and Maintenance
accounts, and the Procurement accounts: Provided, That these
documents shall include a description of the funding
requested for each contingency operation, for each military
service, to include all Active and Reserve components, and
for each appropriations account: Provided further, That
[[Page 13226]]
these documents shall include estimated costs for each
element of expense or object class, a reconciliation of
increases and decreases for each contingency operation, and
programmatic data including, but not limited to, troop
strength for each Active and Reserve component, and estimates
of the major weapons systems deployed in support of each
contingency: Provided further, That these documents shall
include budget exhibits OP-5 and OP-32 (as defined in the
Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation) for
all contingency operations for the budget year and the two
preceding fiscal years.
Sec. 8093. None of the funds in this Act may be used for
research, development, test, evaluation, procurement or
deployment of nuclear armed interceptors of a missile defense
system.
Sec. 8094. Of the amounts provided in title II of this Act
under the heading, ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
Wide'', $20,000,000 is available for the Regional Defense
Counter-terrorism Fellowship Program, to fund the education
and training of foreign military officers, ministry of
defense civilians, and other foreign security officials, to
include United States military officers and civilian
officials whose participation directly contributes to the
education and training of these foreign students.
Sec. 8095. None of the funds appropriated or made available
in this Act shall be used to reduce or disestablish the
operation of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the
Air Force Reserve, if such action would reduce the WC-130
Weather Reconnaissance mission below the levels funded in
this Act: Provided, That the Air Force shall allow the 53rd
Weather Reconnaissance Squadron to perform other missions in
support of national defense requirements during the non-
hurricane season.
Sec. 8096. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
available for integration of foreign intelligence information
unless the information has been lawfully collected and
processed during the conduct of authorized foreign
intelligence activities: Provided, That information
pertaining to United States persons shall only be handled in
accordance with protections provided in the Fourth Amendment
of the United States Constitution as implemented through
Executive Order No. 12333.
Sec. 8097. (a) From within amounts made available in title
II of this Act under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army'' $4,500,000 is only for an additional amount for the
project for which funds were appropriated in section 8103 of
Public Law 106-79, for the same purposes, which shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That no funds in this or
any other Act, nor non-appropriated funds, may be used to
operate recreational facilities (such as the officers club,
golf course, or bowling alleys) at Ft. Irwin, California, if
such facilities provide services to Army officers of the
grade O-7 or higher, until such time as the project in the
previous proviso has been fully completed.
(b) From within amounts made available in title II of this
Act under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine
Corps'', the Secretary of the Navy shall make a grant in the
amount of $2,000,000, notwithstanding any other provision of
law, to the City of Twentynine Palms, California, for the
widening of off-base Adobe Road, which is used by members of
the Marine Corps stationed at the Marine Corps Air Ground
Task Force Training Center, Twentynine Palms, California, and
their dependents, and for construction of pedestrian and bike
lanes for the road, to provide for the safety of the Marines
stationed at the installation.
Sec. 8098. (a) At the time members of reserve components of
the Armed Forces are called or ordered to active duty under
section 12302(a) of title 10, United States Code, each member
shall be notified in writing of the expected period during
which the member will be mobilized.
(b) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirements of
subsection (a) in any case in which the Secretary determines
that it is necessary to do so to respond to a national
security emergency or to meet dire operational requirements
of the Armed Forces.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8099. The Secretary of the Navy may transfer funds
from any available Department of the Navy appropriation to
any available Navy ship construction appropriation for the
purpose of liquidating necessary changes resulting from
inflation, market fluctuations, or rate adjustments for any
ship construction program appropriated in law: Provided, That
the Secretary may transfer not to exceed $100,000,000 under
the authority provided by this section: Provided further,
That the funding transferred shall be available for the same
time period as the appropriation to which transferred:
Provided further, That the Secretary may not transfer any
funds until 30 days after the proposed transfer has been
reported to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, unless sooner notified by the
Committees that there is no objection to the proposed
transfer: Provided further, That the transfer authority
provided by this section is in addition to any other transfer
authority contained elsewhere in this Act.
Sec. 8100. (a) The total amount appropriated or otherwise
made available in title II of this Act is hereby reduced by
$147,000,000 to limit excessive growth in the travel and
transportation of persons.
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall allocate this reduction
proportionately to each budget activity, activity group,
subactivity group, and each program, project, and activity
within each applicable appropriation account.
Sec. 8101. Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act, a reduction of $176,500,000 is hereby
taken from title III, Procurement, from the following
accounts in the specified amounts:
``Missile Procurement, Army'', $9,000,000;
``Other Procurement, Army'', $112,500,000; and
``Procurement, Marine Corps'', $55,000,000:
Provided: That within 30 days of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Navy shall
provide a report to the House Committee on Appropriations and
the Senate Committee on Appropriations which describes the
application of these reductions to programs, projects or
activities within these accounts.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8102. (a) Three-Year Extension.--During the current
fiscal year and each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008, the
Secretary of Defense may transfer not more than $20,000,000
of unobligated balances remaining in the expiring RDT&E,
Army, appropriation account to a current Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, appropriation account
to be used only for the continuation of the Army Venture
Capital Fund demonstration.
(b) Expiring RDT&E, Army, Account.--For purposes of this
section, for any fiscal year, the expiring RDT&E, Army,
account is the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Army, appropriation account that is then in its last fiscal
year of availability for obligation before the account closes
under section 1552 of title 31, United States Code.
(c) Army Venture Capital Fund Demonstration.--For purposes
of this section, the Army Venture Capital Fund demonstration
is the program for which funds were initially provided in
section 8150 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2002 (division A of Public Law 107-117; 115 Stat. 2281), as
extended and revised in section 8105 of Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 107-248; 116 Stat.
1562).
(d) Administrative Provisions.--The provisos in section
8105 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2003
(Public Law 107-248; 116 Stat. 1562), shall apply with
respect to amounts transferred under this section in the same
manner as to amounts transferred under that section.
TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS
MILITARY PERSONNEL
Military Personnel, Army
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'',
$5,877,400,000: Provided, That the amount provided under this
heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Military Personnel, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'',
$282,000,000: Provided, That the amount provided under this
heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine
Corps'', $667,800,000: Provided, That the amount provided
under this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Military Personnel, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air
Force'', $982,800,000: Provided, That the amount provided
under this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Reserve Personnel, Army
For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Army'',
$138,755,000: Provided, That the amount provided under this
heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
National Guard Personnel, Army
For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel,
Army'', $67,000,000: Provided, That the amount provided under
this
[[Page 13227]]
heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and Maintenance, Army
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army'', $20,398,450,000: Provided, That the amount provided
under this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Navy'', $1,907,800,000: Provided, That the amount provided
under this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps'', $1,827,150,000: Provided, That the amount
provided under this heading is designated as making
appropriations for contingency operations related to the
global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2006.
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air Force'', $3,559,900,000: Provided, That the amount
provided under this heading is designated as making
appropriations for contingency operations related to the
global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2006.
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide'', $826,000,000: Provided, That the amount
provided under this heading is designated as making
appropriations for contingency operations related to the
global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2006.
Iraq Freedom Fund
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
For an additional amount for ``Iraq Freedom Fund'',
$3,500,000,000, to remain available for transfer until
September 30, 2007, only to support operations in Iraq or
Afghanistan and classified activities: Provided, That the
Secretary of Defense may transfer the funds provided herein
to appropriations for military personnel; operation and
maintenance; Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid;
procurement; research, development, test and evaluation; and
working capital funds: Provided further, That of the amounts
provided under this heading, not less than $2,500,000,000
shall be for classified programs, which shall be in addition
to amounts provided for elsewhere in this Act: Provided
further, That funds transferred shall be merged with and be
available for the same purposes and for the same time period
as the appropriation or fund to which transferred: Provided
further, That this transfer authority is in addition to any
other transfer authority available to the Department of
Defense: Provided further, That upon a determination that all
or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation are
not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts
may be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided
further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not fewer than
5 days prior to making transfers from this appropriation,
notify the congressional defense committees in writing of the
details of any such transfer: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall submit a report no later than 30 days after
the end of each fiscal quarter to the congressional defense
committees summarizing the details of the transfer of funds
from this appropriation: Provided further, That the amount
provided under this heading is designated as making
appropriations for contingency operations related to the
global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2006.
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army Reserve'', $35,700,000: Provided, That the amount
provided under this heading is designated as making
appropriations for contingency operations related to the
global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2006.
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps Reserve'', $23,950,000: Provided, That the
amount provided under this heading is designated as making
appropriations for contingency operations related to the
global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2006.
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army National Guard'', $159,500,000: Provided, That the
amount provided under this heading is designated as making
appropriations for contingency operations related to the
global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2006.
PROCUREMENT
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'', $455,427,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That the amount
provided under this heading is designated as making
appropriations for contingency operations related to the
global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2006.
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition,
Army'', $13,900,000, to remain available until September 30,
2008: Provided, That the amount provided under this heading
is designated as making appropriations for contingency
operations related to the global war on terrorism pursuant to
section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Other Procurement, Army
For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army'',
$1,501,270,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008:
Provided, That of the amount provided in this paragraph, not
less than $200,370,000 shall be available only for the Army
Reserve: Provided further, That the amount provided under
this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Weapons Procurement, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Weapons Procurement, Navy'',
$81,696,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008:
Provided, That the amount provided under this heading is
designated as making appropriations for contingency
operations related to the global war on terrorism pursuant to
section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition,
Navy and Marine Corps'', $144,721,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2008: Provided, That the amount provided
under this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Other Procurement, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Navy'',
$48,800,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008:
Provided, That the amount provided under this heading is
designated as making appropriations for contingency
operations related to the global war on terrorism pursuant to
section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Procurement, Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Marine Corps'',
$389,900,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008:
Provided, That the amount provided under this heading is
designated as making appropriations for contingency
operations related to the global war on terrorism pursuant to
section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, Air
Force'', $115,300,000, to remain available until September
30, 2008: Provided, That the amount provided under this
heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Other Procurement, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air
Force'', $2,400,000, to remain available until September 30,
2008: Provided, That the amount provided under this heading
is designated as making appropriations for contingency
operations related to the global war on terrorism pursuant to
section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'',
$103,900,000, to remain
[[Page 13228]]
available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That the amount
provided under this heading is designated as making
appropriations for contingency operations related to the
global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2006.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Navy'', $13,100,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2007: Provided, That the amount provided
under this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $75,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2007: Provided, That the amount
provided under this heading is designated as making
appropriations for contingency operations related to the
global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2006.
REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS
Defense Working Capital Funds
For an additional amount for ``Defense Working Capital
Funds'', $2,055,000,000: Provided, That the amount provided
under this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
GENERAL PROVISIONS, TITLE IX
Sec. 9001. Appropriations provided in this title are
available for obligation until September 30, 2006, unless
otherwise so provided in this title.
Sec. 9002. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of
this Act, funds made available in this title are in addition
to amounts provided elsewhere in this Act.
(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Sec. 9003. Upon his determination that such action is
necessary in the national interest, the Secretary of Defense
may transfer between appropriations up to $2,500,000,000 of
the funds made available to the Department of Defense in this
title: Provided, That the Secretary shall notify the Congress
promptly of each transfer made pursuant to the authority in
this section: Provided further, That the authority provided
in this section is in addition to any other transfer
authority available to the Department of Defense and is
subject to the same terms and conditions as the authority
provided in section 8005 of this Act: Provided further, That
the amounts transferred under the authority of this section
are designated as making appropriations for contingency
operations related to the global war on terrorism pursuant to
section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Sec. 9004. Funds appropriated in this title, or made
available by the transfer of funds in or pursuant to this
title, for intelligence activities are deemed to be
specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of
section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
414) during fiscal year 2006 until the enactment of the
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006.
Sec. 9005. None of the funds provided in this title may be
used to finance programs or activities denied by Congress in
fiscal years 2005 or 2006 appropriations to the Department of
Defense or to initiate a procurement or research,
development, test and evaluation new start program without
prior written notification to the congressional defense
committees.
Sec. 9006. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, from
funds made available in this title to the Department of
Defense for operation and maintenance, not to exceed
$500,000,000 may be used by the Secretary of Defense, with
the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to train, equip
and provide related assistance only to military or security
forces of Iraq and Afghanistan to enhance their capability to
combat terrorism and to support U.S. military operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan: Provided, That such assistance may
include the provision of equipment, supplies, services,
training, and funding: Provided further, That the authority
to provide assistance under this section is in addition to
any other authority to provide assistance to foreign nations:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify
the congressional defense committees, the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives, and
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate not less
than 15 days before providing assistance under the authority
of this section.
{time} 1500
Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 112, line
19, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment
at any point.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we are in
title 8 right now; is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. KUCINICH. I had an amendment, Mr. Chairman, at the desk I believe
under title 8. I just wanted to make sure that that will not be lost in
this UC.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we are not aware of that
amendment. We do not have a copy. We are not aware that the gentleman
has an amendment. We can change our request if he would provide us with
a copy of the amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure that there is
the amendment at the desk regarding space-based weapons under title 8.
Mr. Chairman, I have just been informed by the Parliamentarian that
if the UC goes through, I can still seek recognition, so I will
withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?
Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
Page 112, beginning on line 2, strike ``from funds made
available in this title to the Department of Defense for
operation and maintenance, not to exceed $500,000,000 may be
used'' and insert ``funds made available in this title to the
Department of Defense for operation and maintenance may be
used''.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It lists the
cap that is presently written into the bill to limit the amount of
money that we would commit to the training and equipping of the Iraqi
securities forces, to limit that to $500 million.
I hope that we are united in the belief that the way to bring our
troops home is to fulfill the training and equipping of the Iraqi
security forces so that they can become responsible for Iraq's destiny
and our troops can coming home in dignity and as quickly as possible.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to the
gentleman that we think this is a good amendment, and it certainly is
consistent with the conversation that the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Murtha) and I have both had with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee), and we are prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his interest and
leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I will close briefly by saying this is an important
amendment. I appreciate the Chair's acceptance of it. We hope that the
administration does listen to the voices in Congress that are basically
saying if we can train one more trainer one day earlier, we should do
so; if we can provide one more piece of equipment for the Iraqi
security forces one day earlier, we should do so; if we can employ one
more interpreter so that these folks can be trained earlier, we should
do so. This amendment will hasten that. I hope the administration will
bear heed on that, and that General Patrais is successful.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support my
colleague Mr. Inslee's amendment to this Defense Appropriation bill,
which lifts the $500 million cap on funds within the Iraq Freedom Fund
for training the Iraqi National Army. Earlier in this debate I offered
and withdrew an amendment that would have increased funding for
training the Iraqi National Army by an additional $500 million. This
Amendment would have doubled
[[Page 13229]]
the amount of money appropriated for training the Iraqi National Army
within the Iraq Freedom Fund. If Mr. Inslee's amendment is accepted
into this Appropriation, I will work with Chairman Young and Ranking
Member Murtha to insure that additional funds are appropriated for
training the Iraqi National Army.
The Inslee amendment reinforces the point that the best way to get
U.S. troops out of Iraq is to train the Iraqi troops to take care of
their own nation. Clearly, more money is needed to not only train these
inexperienced troops to defeat the insurgency, but also to pay troops
to enlist in this new army despite the obvious danger they face. At
this time of danger for our troops, this Amendment reiterates the fact
that we need to be transferring more responsiblity upon the Iraqis to
take care of their nation and develop a plan to remove our U.S. troops.
Just last week a roadside bomb blast killed five U.S. Marines who
were riding in a vehicle during a combat operation near Ramadi. On this
very same day a suicide bombing at a restaurant on an Iraqi military
base killed 23 Iraqi soldiers and wounded 28 other people. Clearly,
this war is not getting any easier; clearly our troops are still very
much in danger. Our best solution is to train and supply the Iraqi
National Army to beat back this insurgency and gain the trust of their
people so that one day soon our troops can go home and the Iraqi
National Army can bring peace and prosperity to Iraq. I know it sounds
too simple, but the truth is we have no other solution, that is unless
you believe our U.S. troops should be in Iraq indefinitely. There is an
old saying that the best offense is a good defense and the best way to
maintain that posture is to have a strong Iraqi National Army
supplementing the heroic effort of our troops.
Right now there are 136,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and their mission is
not getting any easier. The facts are plain, a total of 1,713 Americans
including 159 people from Texas alone have lost their lives since this
War in Iraq began and more than 12,000 have been wounded in action. We
must move to the obvious solution, that the Iraqi National Army must
soon take over their own nation and provide for the protection of their
people. Therefore, I reiterate my strong support for the Inslee
Amendment and the appropriation of additional funding to train the
Iraqi National Army. Our troops should be able to return home with an
exit strategy of success.
The CHAIRMAN. The question on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
Page 99, after line 4, insert the following new section:
Sec. 8103. (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as
the ``Space Preservation Act of 2005''.
(b) Reaffirmation of Policy on the Preservation of Peace in
Space.--Congress reaffirms the policy expressed in section
102(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42
U.S.C. 2451(a)), stating that it ``is the policy of the
United States that activities in space should be devoted to
peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.''.
(c) Ban on Basing of Weapons in Space and the Use of
Weapons Against Objects in Space in Orbit.--The President
shall--
(1) implement a ban on space-based weapons of the United
States and the use of weapons of the United States to destroy
or damage objects in space that are in orbit; and
(2) immediately order the termination of research and
development, testing, manufacturing, production, and
deployment of all space-based weapons of the United States.
(d) International Treaty Banning Space-Based Weapons and
the Use of Weapons Against Objects in Space in Orbit.--The
President shall direct the United States representatives to
the United Nations and other international organizations to
immediately work toward negotiating, adopting, and
implementing an international treaty banning space-based
weapons and the use of weapons to destroy or damage objects
in space that are in orbit.
(e) Report.--The President shall submit to Congress not
later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, and every 6 months thereafter, a report on--
(1) the implementation of the ban on space-based weapons
and the use of weapons to destroy or damage objects in space
that are in orbit required by subsection (c); and
(2) progress toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing
the treaty described in subsection (d).
(f) Space-Based Nonweapons Activities.--Nothing in this
section may be construed as prohibiting the use of funds
for--
(1) space exploration;
(2) space research and development;
(3) testing, manufacturing, or production that is not
related to space-based weapons or systems; or
(4) civil, commercial, or defense activities (including
communications, navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance,
early warning, or remote sensing) that are not related to
space-based weapons or systems.
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``space'' means all space extending upward
from an altitude greater than 110 kilometers above the
surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.
(2) The terms ``space-based weapon'' and ``space-based
system'' mean a device capable of damaging or destroying an
object or person (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere,
or on Earth) by--
(A) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that
object or person;
(B) detonating one or more explosive devices in close
proximity to that object or person; or
(C) any other undeveloped means.
Mr. KUCINICH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order
against the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment to the defense
appropriations bill would make a policy statement regarding the
preservation of peace in space. It would ban the research, testing,
development, and deployment of space-based weapons. It would ban the
targeting of objects in orbit in space, that is, satellites, by any
weapon, whether land, sea, air or space-based and would call on the
President to negotiate an international treaty banning space-based
weapons.
The policy of preserving peace in space was first established by law
in 1958 with the National Aeronautics and Space Act. Specifically, this
law stated: ``It is the policy of the United States that activities in
space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all
mankind.''
Yet despite any amendment to law or consideration by Congress, this
policy has changed significantly behind closed doors. The Air Force is
moving forward with a plan to weaponize space. At an Air Force
conference last September, Air Force General Lance Lord, who leads the
Air Force Space Command, said, ``Space superiority is not our
birthright, but it is our destiny. Space superiority is our day-to-day
mission. Space supremacy is our vision for the future.''
With little public debate, the Pentagon has already spent billions of
dollars through appropriations bills such as this one to developing
space weapons and preparing plans to deploy them. The Air Force has
recently sought President Bush's approval of a national security
directive that could move the United States closer to fielding
offensive and defensive space weapons. This new policy would be opposed
by our friends and our potential enemies.
Our largest possible adversaries, China and Russia, have agreed for a
global ban on space weapons. Yet moving forward with plans to weaponize
space would most certainly create an arms race in space, and it would
certainly be counterproductive to the national security of the United
States to give potential adversaries reason to accelerate development
of space weapons technology.
Again, I ask this Congress to remember that in 1958 when the National
Aeronautics and Space Act was passed, it stated that: ``It is the
policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted
to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.''
That was a good act in 1958, and it would be good for this Congress
to preserve that policy, and that is the intention of this amendment.
At this point, understanding the rules, I will concede to the
gentleman from Florida the point of order that he raised.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Government Reform
Subcommittee on National Security, which I chair, has held 17 hearings
on Gulf War veterans' illnesses. Over the last decade, we've followed
the hard path traveled by sick Gulf War veterans as they bore the
burdens of their physical illnesses and the mental anguish caused by
official skepticism and intransigence.
[[Page 13230]]
It was their determination that overcame entrenched indifference and
bureaucratic inertia. Their persistence, and a home video of chemical
weapons munitions being blown up at Khamisiyah eventually persuaded the
Departments of Defense and VA that post-war illnesses are linked to
wartime exposures.
But characterizing the subtle linkage between low-level toxic
assaults and varied chronic health consequences remains a complex
research challenge. The objective markers of physiological damage are
only now coming into view using techiques and technologies not
available ten years ago, when some were so willing to conclude Gulf War
veterans' illnesses were nothing more than stress. But promising
research hypotheses and treatment concepts still face institutional
obstacles to federal support as both funding and momentum behind Gulf
War illnesses research have been waning.
This amendment allows us to capture the emerging breakthroughs
purchased with $315 million in DOD and VA research investments over the
past decade. This would build on last year's appropriation of $3.7
million for extramural, peer-reiewed research to address the chronic
illnesses affecting veterans of the 1991 Gulf War. The research focuses
on the chronic effects of neurotoxic exposures, underlying mechanisms,
identified neurological abnormalities, and the identification of
treatments.
The battlefield is a dangerous and toxic workplace. The veterans of
the 1991 war, those on the field of battle today and those we deploy in
the future will benefit from this research into the diagnosis and
treatment of the health consequnces of toxic exposures.
Point of Order
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, on my reservation, I make a point
of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing
law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and,
therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment imposes additional duties.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I will concede the
point of order, and I thank the gentleman and the ranking member for
this opportunity to make this statement regarding my concern about
peaceful uses in space.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) concedes the
point of order.
The point of order is sustained.
Are there any other amendments to this portion of the bill?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 9007. (a) Fiscal Year 2006 Authority.--During the
current fiscal year, from funds made available to the
Department of Defense for operation and maintenance pursuant
to title IX, not to exceed $500,000,000 may be used by the
Secretary of Defense to provide funds--
(1) for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program
established by the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional
Authority for the purpose of enabling United States military
commanders in Iraq to respond to urgent humanitarian relief
and reconstruction requirements within their areas of
responsibility by carrying out programs that will immediately
assist the Iraqi people; and
(2) for a similar program to assist the people of
Afghanistan.
(b) Quarterly Reports.--Not later than 15 days after the
end of each fiscal year quarter, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report
regarding the source of funds and the allocation and use of
funds during that quarter that were made available pursuant
to the authority provided in this section or under any other
provision of law for the purposes stated in subsection (a).
(c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Funds authorized for the
Commanders' Emergency Response Program by this section may
not be used to provide goods, services, or funds to national
armies, national guard forces, border security forces, civil
defense forces, infrastucture protection forces, highway
patrol units, police, special police, or intelligence or
other security forces.
(d) Secretary of Defense Guidance.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense shall issue to the commander of the United States
Central Command detailed guidance concerning the types of
activities for which United States military commanders in
Iraq may use funds under the Commanders' Emergency Response
Program to respond to urgent relief and reconstruction
requirements and the terms under which such funds may be
expended. The Secretary shall simultaneously provide a copy
of that guidance to the congressional defense committees.
Sec. 9008. During the current fiscal year, funds available
to the Department of Defense for operation and maintenance
may be used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to
provide supplies, services, transportation, including airlift
and sealift, and other logistical support to coalition forces
supporting military and stability operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense shall
provide quarterly reports to the congressional defense
committees regarding support provided under this section.
Sec. 9009. Congress, consistent with international and
United States law, reaffirms that torture of prisoners of war
and detainees is illegal and does not reflect the policies of
the United States Government or the values of the people of
the United States.
Sec. 9010. The reporting requirements of section 9010 of
Public Law 108-287 regarding the military operations of the
Armed Forces and the reconstruction activities of the
Department of Defense in Iraq and Afghanistan shall apply to
the funds appropriated in this Act.
Sec. 9011. The Secretary of Defense may present promotional
materials, including a United States flag, to any member of
an Active or Reserve component under the Secretary's
jurisdiction who, as determined by the Secretary,
participates in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi
Freedom.
Sec. 9012. Sense of Congress and Report Concerning
Inappropriate Proselytizing of United States Air Force
Academy Cadets.--
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the expression of personal religious faith is welcome
in the United States military, but coercive and abusive
religious proselytizing at the United States Air Force
Academy by officers assigned to duty at the Academy and
others in the chain-of-command at the Academy, as has been
reported is inconsistent with the professionalism and
standards required of those who serve at the Academy;
(2) the military must be a place of tolerance for all
faiths and backgrounds; and
(3) the Secretary of the Air Force and other appropriate
civilian authorities, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force
and other appropriate military authorities, must continue to
undertake corrective action, as appropriate, to address and
remedy the inappropriate proselytizing of cadets at the Air
Force Academy.
(b) Report on Plan.--
(1) Plan.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall develop a
plan to ensure that the Air Force Academy maintains a climate
free from coercive religious intimidation and inappropriate
proselytizing by Air Force officials and others in the chain-
of-command at the Air Force Academy. The Secretary shall work
with experts and other recognized notable persons in the area
of pastoral care and religious tolerance to develop the plan.
(2) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report providing the plan
developed pursuant to paragraph (1). The Secretary shall
include in the report information on the circumstances
surrounding the removal of Air Force Captain Melinda Morton
from her position at the Air Force Academy on May 4, 2005.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hunter
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hunter:
Strike section 9012 (page 115, line 14, through page 117,
line 5) and insert the following:
Sec. 9012. Sense of Congress and Report Concerning
Religious Freedom and Tolerance at United States Air Force
Academy.--
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the expression of personal religious faith is welcome
in the United States military;
(2) the military must be a place where there is freedom for
religious expression for all faiths; and
(3) the Secretary of the Air Force and the Department of
Defense Inspector General have undertaken several reviews of
the issues of religious tolerance at the Air Force Academy.
(b) Report.--
(1) Recommendations.--The Secretary of the Air Force, based
upon the reviews referred in subsection (a)(3), shall develop
recommendations to maintain a positive climate of religious
freedom and tolerance at the United States Air Force Academy.
(2) Secretary of air force report.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report
providing the recommendations developed pursuant to paragraph
(1).
[[Page 13231]]
Mr. HUNTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to section 9012 as it is
currently written and a number of other members of the Committee on
Armed Services are opposed to them as well, and you will hear from them
in the ensuing minutes here.
We were informed that we had the right to assert that this was, in
fact, authorizing on an appropriations bill and to ask the Committee on
Rules, which we initially did, to not protect this provision and allow
it to be stricken. But I was informed by the chairman of the full
committee that this was an important issue for members of the minority
on the Committee on Appropriations, and they wanted to have a
discussion. And our Members agreed with that. So I think we will have a
full discussion of this issue.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment will require the Defense Department to
provide Congress with recommendations on maintaining a climate of
religious freedom and tolerance at the Air Force Academy. The amendment
also expresses a sense of Congress that personal expressions of faith,
that is, all faiths, are welcome in the United States military.
My objection to section 9012 is that the section concludes based on
newspaper accounts that officers assigned to duty at the U.S. Air Force
Academy and others in the chain of command are engaged in ``abusive and
coercive religious proselytizing'' based on reports.
{time} 1515
Mr. Chairman, Members may have read press accounts regarding issues
of religious freedom and tolerance at the Air Force Academy.
What may not be known is that many of the allegations reported by the
press were first discovered by the Air Force through internal surveys.
In response, the Academy superintendent has been quite open that there
have been instances where respect for others has been lacking. He also
suggested that Academy practices and processes may also have
contributed to the appearance of a lack of respect for members of
minority religious traditions.
Overall, the Air Force has taken aggressive action on these important
issues of religious freedom and tolerant at the Academy, and the
Secretary to the Air Force detailed those actions to me in a June 7
letter which I would like to submit for the Record at this point.
Secretary of the Air Force,
Washington, DC, June 7, 2005.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The media contains a steady flow of
stories decrying religious intolerance at the United States
Air Force Academy (USAFA). In late Spring 2004, the
Superintendent of the Academy, Lt Gen John Rosa, detected
religious tolerance concerns through surveys he initiated. He
subsequently brought the issue--and the corrective measures
he was taking--to the attention of the Academy's Board of
Visitors and the Air Force leadership. Together, we have been
addressing the issue openly for the past several months.
As of today, the Academy's Board of Visitors has looked at
this situation during three separate meetings. They will do
so again this summer. In addition to the Board's inquiries, I
have deployed four separate teams from the Pentagon to
address one or another aspect of the Academy climate for
religious tolerance. The first team, led by the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Equal Opportunity, visited the
Academy last fall and assisted Lt Gen Rosa in scoping the
problem and designing a campaign to correct the situation.
The second visited USAFA last month and is led by Deputy
Chief of Staff for Personnel, Lt Gen Roger Brady. This team
is in the final stages of assessment of the Academy climate,
leadership practices, and the corrective actions that should
be initiated. Specific allegations of improper conduct
against the Commandant of Cadets, Brig Gen John Weida, are
being separately examined by the Office of the Air Force
Inspector General. Last week, the DoD Inspector General
began--at my request--an inquiry to determine whether Air
Force reassignment of Chaplain (Capt) Melinda Morton was
handled properly. Please note that the visit to the Academy
in July 2004 by a group of Yale Divinity School students and
an Associate Professor of Counseling was not part of our
assessment or corrective measures, and did not focus on the
religious tolerance issue. Nevertheless, we have reviewed and
considered the submission of that group in connection with
our on-going reviews. Finally, this week, a group from the
National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces (NCMAF)
is also visiting USAFA at my request to provide an external
look by a private organization of religious leaders who
understand the military in a pluralistic society, and who
represent their faith group communities to the military.
Thus far, results indicate--and the Academy Superintendent
continues to openly acknowledge--there have been instances
where respect has been lacking. Academy practices and
processes may also have contributed to the appearance of a
lack of respect for members of minority religious traditions.
The multiple reviews I have asked for, together with
aggressive leadership action, will help us correct Academy
climate and culture.
Recently, the Air Force Chief of Staff, General John
Jumper, in a written communication, reminded all Air Force
commanders of their responsibilities for establishing a
climate and culture that promotes respect for individual
beliefs. This message reemphasized the importance of respect
and its role as the foundation of our core values. In
constructing his message, General Jumper used the lessons we
have already learned from our work with the Academy
leadership team. As our work at USAFA progresses, we will
continue to incorporate lessons learned into actions that
will help us reinforce the culture of respect throughout the
Air Force.
Air Force and Academy leadership are deeply engaged in the
question of respect for individual beliefs. As this work
progresses, our work--and critics of that work--will generate
news stories. I ask that you reserve your opinions on this
matter until I can get to ground truth through the objective
processes now on going. The Inspectors General and Lt Gen
Brady's team, including consideration of the NCMAF external
assessment, will report back to me within the next few weeks.
These results will provide a factual basis for deciding what
further actions may need to be taken. Completing these
reviews quickly and consulting with the Secretary of Defense,
Congress and the Academy Board of Visitors regarding next
steps is my highest priority.
Sincerely,
Michael L. Dominguez,
Acting Secretary of the Air Force.
Mr. HUNTER. Based on cadet surveys administered in late spring 2004
suggesting religious tolerance concerns, the Air Force Academy
superintendent took a number of corrective actions, including a
training and education program for cadets and faculty to develop
respect for the diversity of faiths represented at the Academy.
He brought the issues to the attention of the Academy's Board of
Visitors, and accordingly, the Air Force leadership continues to work
with the board to address these issues.
He sent a team led by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for equal
opportunity to the Academy in the fall of 2004 to design a campaign to
assist Academy leadership in addressing the issues.
Last month, the Air Force deputy chief of staff took another team to
the Academy to assess Academy climate, leadership practices and
corrective actions that should be taken.
The facts are, and I could go down through the office of the
Inspector General, DOD Inspector General, at the request of the
Secretary of the Air Force, is conducting a review of the reassignment
of Academy chaplain, Captain Melinda Morton.
A group from the National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces
visited the Academy last week to provide an external look by a private
organization of religious leaders, and Mr. Chairman, I could go on and
on.
My point is this, there are a number of reviews that are ongoing
right now at the Academy, and in this letter that Acting Secretary of
the Air Force, Secretary Michael Dominguez, sent to me, I think the
crux of our amendment is laid out and I think justifies. He talks about
the work that is ongoing to make sure that the Academy has religious
freedom and religious tolerance. He says, As this work progresses, and
I am quoting the Secretary, our work and critics of that work will
generate news stories. It was a news story that generated this base
provision that is in the bill. I ask that you reserve your
[[Page 13232]]
opinions on this matter until I can get to ground truth through the
objective processes now ongoing.
That is what he asks for. He has got lots of reviews, and what we say
is, we reestablish, revalidate that there should be both freedom of
religion and religious tolerance, and we set a date for a report to
come back after the reviews are done, for the Secretary of the Air
Force to report back to us with the reviews and with recommendations.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I cannot forget the last time we landed in
Bailad, Iraq, and I was with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), and
we had a couple of mortar rounds come into the base. The CO said,
Quick, get into this building, and we hustled into the nearest
building. It turned out to be 400 GIs who were undertaking a religious
service. I do not know if it was official or unofficial. I do know they
had quite a service going, and we, Congressmen, were forced to actually
go to church I guess because those mortar rounds were coming in. We
could not leave until it was over.
The word ``proselytizing'' could possibly be applied to what they
were doing in that battleground in Iraq. I have always thought that
when I argue religion I am making reasoned judgments and the other guy
is proselytizing, and the problem is with that word. With establishing
that as a standard, that people in uniform have to adhere to, the
average person in uniform is going to say, what does proselytizing
mean? Am I proselytizing, and if they are not sure whether or not their
statement is proselytizing, you know what they are going to do? They
are not going to say anything, and we are going to put a chill on what
we have heretofore for our entire history welcomed, and that is,
expression of religious views by our uniformed personnel.
I would hope that Members and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
in the spirit of this debate would accept this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the language of the committee amendment does nothing
whatsoever to discourage proselytizing. What it does is make clear that
the Congress of the United States is opposed to coercive and abusive
proselytizing. I think it would be good to go back and look at the
history of this problem.
The LA Times broke the story about disrespectful treatment of cadets
based on religious affiliation on April 20. On June 3, Lieutenant
General John Rosa, who is the superintendent of the Academy, in a
speech to the Anti-Defamation League, acknowledged that the Academy has
a problem with religious intolerance. He called it insidious and said
it could take 6 years to fix.
He described two Academy-wide e-mails that were sent out by another
high-ranking officer, which he described as ``inappropriate.'' He
described other later events that involved religious pressures and
said, ``They were wrong.''
Academy officials have said that they have received 55 complaints
from cadets on this problem. Academy spokesman John Whitaker said,
``There have been cases of maliciousness, mean-spiritedness and
attacking or baiting someone over religion.''
No one is objecting to anyone trying to talk about religion. What
they are objecting to is the malicious and mean-spirited attacking of
other people for the religious views that they do or do not hold.
The Air Force officials said they got an inkling of the problem after
reading the results of a student survey last May. Many cadets expressed
concern over the lack of religious respect and tolerance. This comes on
top of revelations 2 years ago of a scandal when dozens of female
cadets said that their complaints about sexual assaults were ignored.
Mr. Whitaker, the spokesman for the Academy, forthrightly said that
it was insensitivity and ignorance on the part of people who are,
``going into a diverse Air Force where they are going to have to deal
with people of all faiths.''
Mickey Weinstein, a father of one of the cadets, who himself was a
lawyer and an Academy graduate, described the harassment that his son
had undergone and said, ``I love the Academy, but do you know how much
courage it took for these cadets to come forward?''
Another person who did not want to be identified because of fear of
retaliation said, ``Cadets are given the impression they must embrace
the beliefs of their commanders in order to succeed at the Academy.''
Chaplain Melinda Morton described the problem as systemic, and she
said that she had spoken up about the problem because, ``It is in the
Constitution, it is not just a nice rule that you can follow or not
follow.'' Then she said, ``I realize this is the end of my Air Force
Academy career.''
My problem with the amendment that is being proposed by the gentleman
is not what it says. My problem with the gentleman's amendment is what
it takes out of the original committee language.
It removes the language that puts the Congress foresquare in the
position of saying that coercive and abusive religious proselytizing at
the Academy is over the line and is inconsistent with professional
standards required of those who serve at the Academy.
It eliminates the requirements for corrective action by the Academy
in the Air Force.
Thirdly, it removes the requirement for a plan to develop an
atmosphere that is free of religious coercion at the Academy.
Fourth, it removes the requirement in the committee language which
asks for an investigation and a report by the Air Force on the
circumstances surrounding the dismissal of Chaplain Melinda Morton, who
is the person who blew the whistle on this in the first place.
I do not think the Congress wants to go on record as taking out all
of that language, which is what the gentleman's amendment would do.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Chairman
Hunter's amendment upholding religious freedom at the United States Air
Force Academy. Protecting the religious freedom of our military cadets
and service members is critically important to me, and should be
critically important to this Congress.
During full committee consideration of the Defense Appropriations
bill, Ranking Member Obey inserted a provision condemning the Air
Force, the Air Force Academy and its Cadets. The allegations on which
this provision is based have not been substantiated by any credible
source. They are simply rumors advanced by a very few disgruntled
individuals.
Nonetheless, the Air Force has taken these allegations very seriously
since they were made in late April. First, the Academy established a
new mandatory course to encourage respect for all religions. Second,
the Air Force launched several investigations. These investigations are
still ongoing and a report is expected shortly. The task force charged
with looking into these allegations has been directed to assess:
(1) Air Force and USAFA policy and guidance on the subject of
religious respect and tolerance.
(2) The appropriateness of relevant training, for the cadet wing,
faculty, and staff.
(3) The religious climate and assessment tools used at USAFA.
(4) The effectiveness of USAFA mechanisms to address complaints on
this subject, to include the chain of command, the Academy's Inspector
General and the Military Equal Opportunity office.
(5) The practices of the chain of command, faculty, staff or cadet
wing that either enhance or detract from a climate that respects both
the ``free exercise of religion'' and the ``establishment'' clauses of
the First Amendment.
(6) The relevance of the religious climate at the USAFA to the entire
Air Force.
Additionally, the Task Force's final assessment will include an Air
Force Inspector General report on the removal of Air Force Captain
Melinda Morton from her position at the Academy.
The Air Force has made progress to ensure that no one feels pressure
from religious groups, and is continuing these efforts. This final
report should be released in the next couple of weeks. I have full
confidence that this report will provide a thorough and complete report
as to the truth of these rumors.
Congress must reserve judgment until all of the facts are revealed.
The Air Force has yet to tell its side of the story. Until they do, we
do not know what actually happened in Colorado Springs. For this House
to condemn the Air Force and the Academy at this time, before all the
information is available, is wrong.
[[Page 13233]]
This provision simply has no place in an otherwise tremendous bill.
The Obey provision is all the more disappointing because men and
women in our Nation's Air Force have sacrificed immeasurable blood and
treasure to protect the principles of freedom and liberty. Today, we
are engaged in a global war on terrorism--aimed directly at our
Nation's democracy and core values. Our young men and women are
fighting and dying for these freedoms. It is wrong for Congress to chip
away at the very freedoms these heroes are shedding their own blood to
protect.
When a young man or woman stands up to fight for this country, he or
she does not surrender his or her Constitutional rights. The men and
women of our military have the right to freely practice their religion,
and Congress has a solemn duty to fight to protect their rights.
I would ask my colleagues to join me in support of Chairman Hunter's
amendment. The Obey provision is wrong. It is bad policy, and it is
misguided, and it is inappropriate. Congress should wait to act until
we have all the facts. Please stand up for the Air Force, the Academy,
the Cadets, and the First Amendment that guarantees every American the
freedom of religion. Vote to the Hunter Amendment.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Hunter
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Obey to the amendment offered by
Mr. Hunter:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:
``Sec. 9012. Sense of Congress and Report Concerning
Inappropriate Proselytizing of United States Air Force
Academy Cadets.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the expression of personal religious faith is welcome
in the United States military, but coercive and abusive
religious proselytizing at the United States Air Force
Academy by officers assigned to duty at the Academy and
others in the chain-of-command at the Academy, as has been
reported, is inconsistent with the professionalism and
standards required of those who serve at the Academy;
(2) the military must be a place of tolerance for all
faiths and backgrounds; and
(3) the Secretary of the Air Force and other appropriate
civilian authorities, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force
and other appropriate military authorities, must continue to
undertake corrective action, as appropriate, to address and
remedy any inappropriate proselytizing of cadets at the Air
Force Academy that may have occurred.
(b) Report on Plan.--
(1) Plan.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall develop a
plan to ensure that the Air Force Academy maintains a climate
free from coercive religious intimidation and inappropriate
proselytizing by Air Force officials and others in the chain-
of-command at the Air Force Academy. The Secretary shall work
with experts and other recognized notable persons in the area
of pastoral care and religious tolerance to develop the plan.
(2) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report providing the plan
developed pursuant to paragraph (1). The Secretary shall
include in the report information on the circumstances
surrounding the removal of Air Force Captain Melinda Morton
from her position at the Air Force Academy on May 4, 2005.''
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what this perfecting amendment does is to
restore with some minor changes the basic thrust of the committee
language. Let me explain why I do this.
Two weeks ago, I appointed a young man to the Air Force Academy. One
week later, he was killed by a drunken driver. Now, if that young man
had been fortunate enough to live so that he could have gone to the
Academy, I would want his parents, his family and his community, to
know that the Academy that he was going to is one which will allow him
to practice whatever religion he believed, without any kind of
coercion, either from other cadets or from anyone in the chain of
command at the Academy. I do not think that is too much to expect.
I understand the gentleman from California is unhappy because he
considers this to be an authorizing issue. Well, the fact is the
authorizing committee had an opportunity to deal with similar language,
not identical but similar language, when they considered the
authorization bill, and they declined to do so. That means that each
and every one of us as individual members of this place has
jurisdiction on this matter because we all appoint cadets to the
Academy, and we have an obligation to those cadets to tell them,
whether they are Catholic or Lutheran or any kind of Protestant
denomination or Jewish or Muslim or even if they are of no religion, we
have an obligation to assure them that they are going to be going to an
Academy that is free from any kind of coercion, free from any kind of
ridicule.
That is what this language does. This language in the committee bill
which would be modified only slightly by the amendment I have just
offered, this language maintains the integrity of the thrust of the
language of the original committee action.
{time} 1530
The purpose of this language is not to accuse any individual person.
We do not in any way prejudge any individual action. All we do is to
say that the activities which have already been described and admitted
by the academy as having occurred, all we are saying is that conduct is
inappropriate to the military. That conduct is not something that the
Congress of the United States will stand for.
If Members believe in religious freedom, they have an obligation to
stand foursquare for sending a message that we want this problem
corrected. If Members turn down this language and adopt the Hunter
language, you are removing the language which makes clear that the
Congress finds that kind of intimidation objectionable, and you are
removing the kind of language which will require a report to us about
the circumstances surrounding the courageous chaplain who sacrificed
her military career to blow the whistle on this.
She said she knew when she blew the whistle on it she was ending her
military career. This Congress has an obligation to see that does not
happen.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am looking at the text of the Obey amendment, and it
is essentially a restatement of the base language. It has the same
problem that I spoke about earlier, and that is this: the Secretary of
the Air Force is undergoing a number of reviews. He is investigating
this situation, but as he says, he has not gotten to ground truth on
this thing yet. Yet this amendment is the judge, jury and executioner
of the persons who are reported. I am looking at these last three words
that say we should not have any inappropriate proselytizing that may
have occurred. What we have is a newspaper story.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we do not just have newspaper stories. We
have the direct statement from the director of the academy that that
conduct has occurred and in his view is inappropriate. Do we want to
take a position that is any less firm than he has?
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
said we are angry because this has come up. That is not so. We were
offered under the Army provision in our conference that this provision
not be protected and simply strike it on the floor. I was advised that
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wanted to have a full
discussion on this, and I said let us do it. So that is why we are
doing this.
The reason we did not act on this is laid out and validated by the
Secretary of the Air Force's letter where he says: ``As this work
progresses, I ask you to reserve your opinions on this matter until I
can get to ground truth through the objective processes now ongoing.''
If something is this serious, and I have never seen any statement by
the Secretary of the Air Force that said abusive and coercive
proselytizing has occurred, but that is the language that the gentleman
has in his bill. So we have a difference of opinion on this.
I think we should wait until the reports come in, until the DOD IG
comes back with his report on the captain that the gentleman has
referred to, and until, in the words of the Secretary of the Air Force,
we get to ground truth. And we require in my amendment a report back to
Congress within 90 days on
[[Page 13234]]
the findings that the Secretary of the Air Force comes to and
recommendations for action.
Let me say one other thing. The gentleman said he is not accusing
anybody of proselytizing. I am reading his plan. It says: ``The
Secretary of the Air Force shall develop a plan to ensure that the Air
Force Academy maintains a climate free from coercive intimidation and
inappropriate proselytizing by Air Force officials and others in the
chain of command at the Air Force Academy.''
That is a heck of a strong dose of preventive maintenance. The
gentleman's position, what he has read in the Los Angeles Times is good
enough for him, and it is now time for us to take remedial action even
before the Secretary of the Air Force comes back with his
recommendations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, let
me simply say this language of the committee, which I am repeating
almost word for word in the amendment, does not single out any
individual or claim to know the facts on any individual case. What it
does most definitely assert is that the conduct, through the official
spokesman for the academy, did take place and was inappropriate. We are
simply backing up that statement.
Mr. Whitaker, who is the official academy spokesman, said there were
cases of maliciousness, mean-spiritedness, and attacking or baiting
someone over religion.
We do not have to withhold our judgment about the details of the case
to know that that kind of action is across the line.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would just respond, that is not the
Secretary of the Air Force; and if the gentleman is holding this up as
something that justifies a condemnatory statement by the United States
House of Representatives, then it has to be something that is
representative of the actions of the officials of the Air Force
Academy; and no one has used language as strong as the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) who states, and I am going to state this one more
time because we keep moving off it, the gentleman's statement is that
``SEC Air Force shall develop a plan to ensure that Air Force Academy
maintains a climate free from coercive and religious intimidation and
inappropriate proselytizing by Air Force officials and others in the
chain of command.'' The amendment does not even say ``some Air Force
officials.'' He is holding that out as representative of what is going
on in the chain of command in the academy.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, am I correct that the superintendent, the head of the
Air Force, has indicated it is a problem and it would take him 6 years
to fix the problem?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. That is exactly right.
Mr. SABO. And the chaplain at the Air Force who blew the whistle on
this problem is no longer there?
Mr. OBEY. She has been removed from her position.
Mr. SABO. The minister of the church that I go to locally is a former
Navy chaplain and also served in the Marines. He felt strongly enough
about this issue it was part of his sermon yesterday. His response to
the 6-year problem was that if this were a problem for the Marines, it
would have been taken care of in 6 weeks or less.
I would only suggest there is a problem. It is obvious it is great.
The amendment is sort of mild. If the Air Force is with it, they will
get it taken care of shortly before any of the reports in either of
these amendments are required.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment and in
support of the Hunter amendment. I think the Obey amendment passes
judgment before we know what the judgment ought to be in this thing.
We are assuming that this chaplain, one of the many chaplains that
they have at the Air Force Academy, we are assuming she was reassigned
because she blew the whistle, as the expression has been used here.
What blew the whistle on this was the survey that they did of cadets,
and a few of them said there was something wrong. And she said, yes,
there was something wrong; and she has been reassigned.
When the Air Force was asked why she has been reassigned, they tell
us it was because the person she was working for reassigned and it is
customary to reassign. So let us not pass that judgment right now.
I think the Hunter amendment strikes the kind of balance that we
really want. It does not pass judgment. It recognizes that studies are
going on so we can get to the bottom of it and find out how much of a
problem there might be there. It emphasizes that religious intolerance
is unacceptable, and we all agree with that. Religious intolerance is
unacceptable.
But it also recognizes the importance of the spiritual side of our
lives and does not try to scrub religion from public life in America.
There are some who would like to do that. We are looking up here at
``In God We Trust'' over the Speaker's rostrum. We open each day with a
prayer. We do not want to scrub religion or faith from all public life.
I think the Hunter amendment emphasizes that, but it also recognizes
that we need to wait and pass judgment when we get all of the facts.
Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Board of Visitors at the Air Force
Academy. This was not discovered by newspapers or a chaplain who blew
the whistle. This was discovered during the normal administrative
process of the Air Force Academy. They have discussed it with the Board
of Visitors, and we have dealt with it for some time.
First of all, the Air Force Academy recognized there might be a
problem, and they immediately jumped on it. They have had some problems
out there. I do not know how it tied into this, but the gentleman from
Wisconsin mentioned the sexual thing. That really was a scandal. I
question whether we have a scandal going here.
But they knew that they were under the bright light because of what
happened in the past, and they were on this immediately; and they are
in the process of taking action. I do not think they need the help of
the Congress of the United States to do this. I think they are on top
of it.
As I said earlier, I do not think we have a scandal here. I think we
have an administrative situation that the Air Force Academy and the Air
Force are perfectly capable of taking care of. If that is not the case,
when the studies come in, we will be able to see that and maybe we do
need to get into it. We need to let this process work. We need to, I
hope, not support the Obey amendment with that kind of language and
support the Hunter amendment which strikes the kind of balance that I
think we want. Then we will watch until the results of these studies
come in and see if we need to move any further. I encourage defeat of
the Obey amendment and passing of the Hunter amendment.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege of serving with the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) on
the Committee on Armed Services, and it is a privilege to work with
them.
I offered a very similar amendment during the authorization process.
The chairman asked if I would withdraw that amendment so we could work
together, and I did that in the spirit of bipartisanship and good
faith.
But now we are being told, let us not work together, let us wait. We
cannot wait any longer.
The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) said we are trying to scrub
religion from public places. On the contrary. We are not doing that.
The language of the Obey amendment explicitly says the expression of
personal religious faith is welcome in the United States military. That
is the line we are drawing.
Mr. Chairman, the Constitution of the United States, which we have
sworn to protect and defend, guarantees religious freedom and talks
about
[[Page 13235]]
the need. We were founded as a diverse country based on tolerance. We
take the oath to the Constitution. We ask the Members of the military
to take the same oath and fight to protect and defend the Constitution.
For over 1 year there have been persistent reports that religious
freedom and constitutional protections have not been respected at the
Air Force Academy, cadets forced to mark on heathen flight lines,
cadets being given and denied privileges based on a religious view,
cadets encouraged to tell other cadets they will burn in hell if they
do not embrace a certain view. When the Air Force attempted a review
and corrective action, it was diluted. When a Lutheran chaplain
complained it was diluted, she was dismissed.
Mr. Chairman, even the superintendent of the Air Force, someone I
have a very high regard and respect for, has said these reports keep
him up at night and they may take 6 years to fix. As I said before, we
have a constitutional civilian oversight responsibility for the
military, and we are being told today do not take a position, let the
Air Force investigate itself; and at that point Congress should weigh
in.
Here is the problem with that: this has been going on for over a
year. Congress has done nothing.
{time} 1545
The appropriations bill will pass tonight. After tonight, it will be
too late for Congress to take a position on this issue. The principal
vehicle of funding for the military will have passed and the
opportunity to defend tolerance, respect, and religious pluralism and
freedom will have passed us by.
Delaying is not a matter of fairness. Delaying is a matter of delay.
It is a matter of complicity. If the House Armed Services Committee
cannot exercise its full constitutional oversight responsibility on
this issue, why are we in existence?
My chairman knows that I have been a stalwart supporter of the
military on every amendment, every bill, supporting more resources for
the military, more investments, increasing end strength, because I want
the military to be able to protect and defend the Constitution at home
and abroad and I want it to respect the Constitution and embrace the
personal expression of religious view at its own home. That is why I
rise to support the Obey amendment, and that is why I oppose the Hunter
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize one thing. The gentleman
from California said that his amendment will preserve the understanding
that religious faiths are welcome at the academy. That is true. His
amendment does. But I would point out, it simply repeats the first
sentence of the committee language in the Obey amendment. We all agree.
We all agree that the expression of personal religious faith is
welcome. That is exactly why we are here standing pushing for this
committee language today, because we want to make sure that the Pledge
of Allegiance that we take every day says ``liberty and justice for
all'', not just ``for almost everybody.''
The gentleman said that he did not want to see religion scrubbed out.
I do not, either. But 55 cadets have said that there were efforts at
the academy to scrub out their expression of religious belief. That is
what we want to stop. I want to make sure that every single person who
attends that academy feels free from intimidation and does not feel
that they have to go along with the attitudes of those in the chain of
command or their senior cadets in order to get along at the academy.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for the
spirit in which this debate is conducted. The gentleman from Wisconsin
and I do have similar expression in welcoming religious expression at
the academy. Where we do differ is that in our amendment we do not
prejudge that officials are abusively proselytizing; and with the IG
report coming in from DOD, not just the Air Force, but the IG report
coming in from DOD and the Air Force IG report coming in, I think we
need to get those reports and then take congressional action.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, at the risk of offending the gentleman from California
(Mr. Hunter), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the
Appropriations Committee, it looks to me like this debate, which is a
really good debate and has been back and forth, the only problem so far
is that most everything has been said, but not everyone has said it
yet.
It looks to me like this is going to take more time to settle an
issue that has nothing to do with the war in Iraq or the war against
terrorism, going to take more time than the bill that does provide for
the security of the Nation. We ought to get to the end of this debate
and get back to the real business at hand today.
Mr. Chairman, I may offer a bit of a facetious statement, but if we
cannot get this thing ended, I may ask unanimous consent that the staff
can go outside and have their own debate rather than handing stuff to
the Members in order to have that debate. I have probably offended both
sides. I do not know who applauded, but I probably offended both sides.
But we ought to get to the business that we came here today for and
that is to provide for the security of the United States of America and
to provide the troops what they need to do their job, perform their
mission, and protect themselves while they do it.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, the long war on Christianity in America continues today
on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. It
continues unabated with aid and comfort to those who would eradicate
any vestige of our Christian heritage being supplied by the usual
suspects, the Democrats. Do not get me wrong. Democrats know they
should not be doing this. The spirit of, if not the exact, language in
the underlying bill added by the Democrat ranking member, the gentleman
from Wisconsin was offered by a Democrat in the Armed Services
Committee during consideration of the fiscal year 2006 DOD
authorization bill.
The author of that language in the authorizing committee, the
gentleman from New York, has suggested since that time that ``extremist
groups'' are behind the removal of language similar to his. I and
others who spoke in opposition to that amendment had never even heard
of the notion of such an amendment until the gentleman from New York
actually offered it during the committee markup. And so I am curious as
to who these extremists are that the gentleman from New York spoke of.
Mr. Chairman, we may never know because that is the nature of this
debate, name-calling of unspecified people and groups who hold a world
view different than many of these Democrats. And, as I said, Mr.
Chairman, Democrats know they should not be doing this. Following the
overwhelming opposition voiced at the DOD markup, the Democrat ranking
member of the committee requested the gentleman from New York to
withdraw the amendment, which he did. * * *
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the gentleman's words be taken
down.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
The Clerk will transcribe the words.
{time} 1626
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
last sentence I spoke.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I think the
House needs to understand why I objected to the language of the
gentleman.
[[Page 13236]]
As I understand it, the language that the gentleman is saying he will
withdraw is the following: ``Like moth to a flame, Democrats can't help
themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians.''
What I would have asked the gentleman, since he referred earlier in
his remarks to me and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), I would
have asked him if he really believed that the gentleman from New York's
(Mr. Israel) efforts to attach similar language in the Committee on
Armed Services, the language that the gentleman referred to earlier in
his discussion, whether he really thought that the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Israel) was engaging in an anti-Christian act. I would have
asked him whether he really thought that the language that I was trying
to offer to protect people of all religions at the Air Force Academy,
whether he really thought I was being anti-Christian. I would have
asked him if he thought that the chaplain at the Air Force Academy who
laid her career on the line in order to protect the religious freedom
of those cadets who she felt were being intimidated, whether her
actions were anti-Christian.
{time} 1630
I would have asked whether he thinks that the kind of conduct which
the superintendent of the Academy has already admitted occurred, which
among other things had one cadet calling another a ``filthy Jew,'' or
when they had cadets who did not subscribe to a specific kind of
Christianity being told that they were going to, ``burn in hell,'' I
would have asked him whether or not the Chaplain's objection to that
kind of conduct was anti-Christian?
I would have suggested that when Mr. Whitaker, the official spokesman
for the Academy indicated that he thought the problem at the Academy
was one of ``insensitivity and ignorance,'' I would have asked whether
or not, unfortunately, we did not often see those same qualities
displayed elsewhere, including on the floor of this House?
And I would have suggested that I think his outburst, and the
specific language he used, is perhaps a perfect example of why we need
to pass the language in my amendment, which states, ``coercive and
abusive religious proselytizing at the United States Air Force Academy
by officers assigned to duty at the Academy and others in the chain of
command at the Academy, as has been reported, is inconsistent with the
professionalism and standards required of those who serve at the
Academy.
And I would add, also, of those who serve in this House and speak on
this floor. So those are the questions I would have asked. If the
gentleman is withdrawing those words, fine, I think it is constructive
that he do so.
But, before I do that, I would, under my reservation, yield to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, the words that we heard, as unfortunate and
as hurtful as they were, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
says, testimony for the passage of our amendment.
I have never heard it suggested that by somehow saying that with a
personal expression of religious observance and freedom, as the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wrote in his amendment, as I
included in my amendment, could somehow be characterized in the way it
just was.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will just state for the record, with respect to
the Air Force Academy, by one estimate, of the 117 Academy cadets,
staff members and faculty members who complained about religious
intimidation and proselytizing, eight happened to be Jewish, one
happens to be atheist, 10 happen to be Catholic, and all of the rest
happen to be Protestants.
So this is not being for or against any one faith, I would say to the
gentleman. This is about respect for all faiths. And that is why we
offer this amendment, and that is why we believe now more than ever
that it is critical that it be passed, and that the American people
know that we embrace religious viewpoints in our military, but we also
want respect for the spiritual values of all people.
Mr. OBEY. Continuing my reservation, Mr. Chairman. I would simply say
that perhaps the speech of my good friend from Florida (Mr. Young)
urging that we stop talking on this amendment and get to the vote,
perhaps his speech came 5 minutes too late. It is too bad, not too
late, because if we had voted before the last speaker, the House would
not have seen this unfortunate event present itself.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I think perhaps the best
thing to do in the interests of restoring a decent amount of civility
and comity to the House this afternoon is for the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) as he has suggested, to withdraw his words and
for us to get onto a vote and pass this amendment to make quite clear
that every Member of this House, save perhaps a few, recognize that we
have an obligation to each and every cadet at the Air Force Academy, to
see that they can practice their religion without fear of ridicule,
without fear of condemnation, without fear of intimidation by anyone
else, be they Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or any other
religion that anyone of us can think of.
This language in the committee bill, the language which we are
restoring by my amendment, is an effort to protect all religions, all
religions. I would ask for an aye vote when the amendment comes.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the words designated by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) are withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the assertions in the
language of the bill, the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) at this point, even the press has recently
indicated the fallacious nature of those assertions.
In the sense of Congress portion of the bill, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) states, ``coercive and abusive religious
proselytizing at the United States Air Force Academy by officers
assigned to duty at the Academy and others in the chain of command at
the Academy, as has been reported, inconsistent with the
professionalism and standards required of those who served at the
Academy.
Coercive and abusive religious proselytizing, as has been reported.
The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, defines the
word ``proselytize'' to mean, ``to convert from one belief or faith to
another.''
Are the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and others providing one
shred of evidence that there has been a forced conversion from one
belief to another at the Air Force Academy? And if so, from what belief
to what belief did the abusive and coercive conversion take place?
No, there is not a single reported incident of the proselytizing that
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) attempts to persuade us is
gospel.
Noting this, today's issues of CQ Today, writing about this issue,
speaks of our ``spirited debate over whether Congress should speak out
about reports that some Christian officials at the U.S. Air Force
Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado, coercively sought to proselytize
non-Christian students.''
Sought to proselytize, that is not what this debate or the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is about. The
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), as my chairman of the Authorizing
Committee has stated earlier, has indicted, convicted and sentenced the
leadership of the Academy, without any evidence, reported or otherwise,
that coerced conversions have taken place at the Academy.
And for that miscarriage of justice, Mr. Chairman, this amendment
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
[[Page 13237]]
Obey) should be defeated, and the underlying amendment from the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) adopted.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment and in favor of the Hunter
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. Why do I rise in
this body, on this floor at this time and make this statement about my
personal religious faith? Because I can. Because it is inherent in the
concept of democracy and our Constitution that we value the protections
of freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the protection of
the freedom of the practice of religion.
Because of this, I can stand here today and make my statement of
faith, just as any other Member of this body or any other citizen of
this Nation can make their statement of faith, whatever their faith or
religion may be, or they may make a statement of a lack of faith, a
statement of having no belief in any religion.
Mr. Chairman, we value this so much that not only is it a right that
we protect, but we further protect individuals from discrimination
based upon their religion or their belief in no religion. This body has
many times voted to ensure that no American is discriminated against
based upon their religious faith or lack of religious faith.
In ensuring that our laws against discrimination are enforced, we do
not need to pass additional laws that would undermine one of the basic
tenets founding this country, which is the belief in the free practice
of religion, and the freedom of speech which includes the freedom of
the expression of religious faith.
Our men and women in uniform serve their country by serving in our
military. Their service is based upon an allegiance to our Constitution
and its basic principles of freedom and liberty. We must never forget
that many of our forefathers came here escaping countries that have
laws and rules that restricted the practices of certain types of
religion.
There are countries today where citizens or members of government are
restricted and cannot stand, as I just did, stating their faith and
belief in God. May there never be a time when a Member of Congress or
our men in uniform may not freely and openly acknowledge their God or
express their faith and belief in their religion or openly acknowledge
their lack of religious faith.
The Obey amendment should be defeated. The Hunter amendment supports
our freedoms and protections guaranteed by the Constitution. I strongly
encourage my colleagues to support the Hunter amendment and oppose the
Obey amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, briefly I would note that what we have been objecting
to is precisely the denial to some cadets at the Air Force Academy of
the very freedom that the previous speaker proclaimed.
No one has criticized anyone's profession of his or her religion. The
animus here, the gravimen of this charge is, that other people have
been penalized for it, and the Superintendent to the Air Force Academy
himself acknowledged it.
Now, I apologize for prolonging this, and I would say that when the
chairman of the subcommittee, the former chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) appealed for an end
to the debate, he got acquiescence on this side.
Two Members on his side decided to prolong it. I wish that others had
followed our example. But since they have not, I do think that things
have to be answered.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take more than 30 seconds. I simply
want to reiterate what the Obey amendment does before us, restores,
almost word for word, the original language of the committee bill. What
that language tries to do is to assure the full protection of, well let
me put it another way, because this is a sense of the Congress
language.
What we attempt to do is to put the Congress on record squarely, as
saying that we want every cadet, regardless of religion, to be able to
fully practice their religion without intimidation, without ridicule,
without restraint.
That is what we are trying to do. I think it speaks for itself. If
people do not believe the Congress should stand for that, then they can
vote against the amendment. If they do, I would appreciate a yes vote.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would repeat
what has been said before, but apparently with sufficient clarity, I
guess. The one person, who more than any other, was penalized for
speaking out in this matter, in defense of the principles that the
previous speaker articulated was a chaplain, the chaplain who was sent
to Okinawa in a punitive transfer, and I know people have said that the
Air Force gave different reasons for that. I do not think anyone really
believes that.
It is clear that she was transferred for punitive reasons, because
she spoke out against what she thought was an inappropriate set of
actions against people's freedom of religion. She was, as we said and
is, a chaplain.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this issue has a special relevance to each of us
because, we actually name the young men and women who go to these
academies. And each of us take this responsibility with a great deal of
responsibility.
And to the parents who entrust these children, these young men and
woman, to us and through us to the academies, there is an expectation
that regardless of the religion of any of these families, that they
will, on the one hand, be able to fully practice their religion, but at
the same time they will also be free from coercion of other religions
as they leave home for the first time.
{time} 1645
So we have, I think, the greatest responsibility because we play a
role in selecting these young men and women to ensure that they are
protected and that their parents, their families, back home are
protected from the beliefs which they are sent with being attacked or
undermined by those that do not respect the beliefs that those young
people brought with them. So I agree that this amendment is absolutely
essential and that the statement must come from this body of all bodies
on this most important of issues.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
At the risk of unnecessarily continuing this debate, I must stand in
opposition to the Obey amendment and in favor of the Hunter amendment.
The words ``coercive and abusive proselytizing'' are particularly
troubling. I too am a Christian and one of the basic tenets of my faith
is that I must share that faith. I am instructed to go and tell. And
the going and telling of that involves looking someone face to face and
explaining the tenets of my religion, one of which is a heaven and a
hell.
If I were to do that on the Air Force Academy, then I could be
accused of abusive and coercive proselytizing and be charged, and that
is not the case. Of course, were that charge to be made, then I would
make a charge of the religious intolerance of the person that made that
charge against me. We seem to get into a loop here that does not make
any sense.
Both sides want freedom of religion. Both sides want freedom of
expression of religion. The Hunter amendment calls for doing it in a
way that allows for a due process on the campus to continue, all of the
studies and reviews to get done. The Obey amendment unfortunately is a
ready-aim-fire approach that I stand in opposition to.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
Ranking Member Obey's amendment, which seeks to protect religious
freedom at the Air Force Academy. This amendment condemns coercive or
[[Page 13238]]
abusive proselytizing at the Academy and reaffirms that the military
must be a place of tolerance for all faiths and backgrounds. Indeed, we
hold our nation to high ideals of religious freedom and this amendment
ensures that the Air Force Academy meets these ideals.
Thankfully, this issue of infringement on religious freedom was
reported by cadets at the Academy. The Los Angeles Times reported on
April 20, 2005, that an atmosphere existed on the campus of the U.S.
Air Force Academy that appeared to tolerate disrespectful treatment of
persons who were not evangelicals. Air Force officials have
acknowledged the problem, which initially surfaced in early May 2004
when a survey of present and former cadets revealed that some students
felt that `born-again' Christians received favorable treatment and that
persons of faith that did not consider themselves born-again had been
verbally abused. These reports are unacceptable; truly we can not
tolerate even the hint of religious intolerance or persecution anywhere
in our nation, but especially not in any sector of our Armed Forces.
Our brave men and women in the Armed Forces are fighting and in many
cases are dying to protect the idea of religious freedom for all
Iraqis, it would be a true shame if religious intolerance were given
even the slightest legitimacy here in the United States. At this time
when recruitment levels are low we do not need to send out the message
that anyone who joins the Air Force Academy and is not a strong
evangelical Christian may face persecution.
I was disappointed by the words heard on the floor by one Republican
that Democrats are declaring war on Christians; thankfully he decided
to strike this offensive statement from the record. However, he brings
up an issue that must be addressed despite its outrageousness. The
simple truth is that Democrats are supporting this amendment to
strengthen the voice of religion, not weaken it. I affirm the tolerance
of all religions. As Democrats we believe that all faiths have a right
to practice freely and share their beliefs. This freedom of religion
strengthens and gives voice to the entire faith community. The Obey
amendment is not any radical measure, it simply states that: ``(1) the
expression of personal religious faith is welcome in the United States
military, but coercive and abusive religious proselytizing at the
United States Air Force Academy by officers assigned to duty at the
Academy and others in the chain-of-command at the Academy, as has been
reported, is inconsistent with the professionalism and standards
required of those who serve at the Academy; (2) the military must be a
place of tolerance for all faiths and backgrounds; and (3) the
Secretary of the Air Force and other appropriate civilian authorities,
and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and other appropriate military
authorities, must continue to undertake corrective action, as
appropriate, to address and remedy the inappropriate proselytizing of
cadets at the Air Force Academy.'' It also calls for the Secretary of
the Air Force to develop a plan ``to ensure that the Air Force Academy
maintains a climate free from coercive religious intimidation and
inappropriate proselytizing by Air Force officials and others in the
chain-of-command at the Air Force Academy. The Secretary shall work
with experts and other recognized notable persons in the area of
pastoral care and religious tolerance to develop the plan.''
Clearly, the requirements of this amendment are not burdensome or
complex, but they are necessary. This amendment gives peace of mind to
all students who enter the Air Force Academy that they will not face
intimidation when making choices about their faith. Truly, this is an
American ideal and we can never stray from that path.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment and
opposition to the Hunter amendment.
Religious freedom is bedrock principle for which the United States
stands, and which the military is meant to defend.
Unfortunately the environment at the U.S. Air Force Academy appears
consumed by religious intolerance.
Some chaplains encourage cadets to convert their colleagues to
Christianity.
And one has publicly declared that cadets who do not accept
proselytization will ``burn in the fires of hell.''
The football coach is reported to use his position to urge players to
go to church and to be Christians.
He even went so far as to put a banner in the Academy football team
locker room reading ``I am a Christian first and last. I am a member of
Team Jesus Christ.''
Cadets who do not go to church are organized into groups called
``Heathen Flights'' by their cadet officers.
And high ranking officers, including the Commandant of Cadets, have
given the Academy's official sanction to religious events geared
towards promoting Christianity, including screenings of ``The Passion
of the Christ.''
The problem is so pervasive that the Superinendent of the Academy,
Lt. General Rosa, publicly acknowledged it in a speech to the Anti-
Defamation League.
It is appalling that the young men and women who volunteer to defend
our Nation should be subject to religious harassment and intolerance of
this kind.
It clearly violates the Constitution. And it undermines the unity of
the armed forces.
If this were going on at University of Colorado, students could
easily just ignore it as they probably do almost everything else the
school tells them.
But Air Force cadets are members of the miltary and part of the chain
of command, and all that entails.
The Academy tells cadets when to wake up and go to sleep, when to
eat, how to dress, where to go and when to go there, when they can
leave campus and how they must behave.
If the cadets ignore their superiors on any of these issues they
would be sternly disciplined.
This is why it is critical that the officers and staff at the Air
Force Academy not be permitted to inappropriately press their religious
beliefs onto their cadets.
This is where the coercion that Mr. Hostettler was asking about takes
place.
The military has a special obligation to ensure that its members do
not abuse the extraordinary influence that chain of command gives them.
Clearly, that has not been the case at the Air Force academy. And now
Congress has a duty to address these concerns.
When the Constitution of the United States is being disregarded in
such blatant fashion we have no choice. We must act.
For that reason I applaud the leadership of Ranking Member Obey and
the members of the Appropriations Committee.
The language they included clearly expresses our objection to these
practices, and demands a plan of action from the Air Force Secretary.
I also want to commend my colleague Mr. Israel for offering this same
language in the Armed Services Committee.
Last month I, along with 45 of my colleagues, sent a letter to the
Air Force Secretary asking for a thorough and public investigation.
I am pleased to know that the Air Force's internal investigation of
these issues will soon be complete. This is a good first step.
Unfortunately there has been a history at the Air Force Academy of
trying to cover up embarrassing scandals rather than deal with them.
It took considerable Congressional pressure to force the Air Force
and the Academy to take the matter of sexual harassment and assault
seriously.
The Academy's initial response to the issue of religious freedom has
not inspired confidence that they are acting differently here.
One Academy chaplain, Captain Melinda Morton, pressed hard for
changes to ensure religious tolerance and was recently removed from her
post and her reassignment has the appearance of the Air Force punishing
an officer for looking after the spiritual well-being and
constitutional rights of all the cadets.
So the Congress clearly has enough information to take the step
included in this bill.
The language in this bill will send an unmistakable signal to the Air
Force that we are watching, and we will not allow them to sweep this
under the rug.
We should not dilute it by passing the Hunter amendment. I urge my
colleagues to oppose it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter)
will be postponed.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill which I am pleased
to see includes an additional $20 million for the Department of Defense
Family Advocacy Program.
In an era of extended and repeated deployments, our military families
are under more strain than ever before and
[[Page 13239]]
the services of the Family Advocacy Program are desperately needed.
DOD has made progress in its efforts to prevent domestic violence,
but I hope that some of this additional funding will also be used to
strengthen intervention programs which are still in need of
improvement.
As important as the Family Advocacy Program is, let me stress that it
is only one part of the total domestic violence prevention and response
effort envisioned by the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence in its
2003 final report.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the future to ensure
that the recommendations of the task force are fully implemented and
that our military families get what they deserve. I would like to thank
the subcommittee chairman and my good friend, the ranking member, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for recognizing that there
remains significant work to be done on this issue and for making the
safety and well-being of military spouses and children a top priority
in this bill.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of
the subcommittee on the subject of the Defense POW/Missing Persons
Office.
It has come to my attention, Mr. Chairman, that the Defense POW/
Missing Persons Office, the DPMO, has received complaints from such
groups as the National League of Families of American Prisoners and
Missing in Southeast Asia and the organization of Korea/Cold War
Families of the Missing. In particular these groups object to the
DPMO's action in the following areas:
one, the manner in which they have developed policy without
substantive interagency integration and dismiss Vietnam's ability to
provide answers;
two, their hostility towards the POW/MIA families;
three, their attempt to take total control of the League of Families'
annual meetings and operations of the Joint POW/MIA Account Command;
four, the use of the COIN Assist fund as a leveraging mechanism to
control agenda of the League of Families.
I specifically ask that a report be completed assessing the level of
cooperation and interaction between the Defense POW/Missing Persons
Office with the National League of Families of American Prisoners and
Missing in Southeast Asia and the Organization of Korea/Cold War
Families of the Missing and all other members of those organizations,
particularly with respect to compliance with all applicable provisions
of law. Further, I ask that the report be included in the Statement of
Managers to accompany the conference report for this bill, H.R. 2863.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns, and
the gentleman and I have spoken at length about these issues and I am
equally concerned as is he. And I think it is appropriate that we do
ask for such a report; and when we meet with the Senate for conference
on this bill, we will seek to include such a report.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the chairman.
I would ask unanimous consent to insert certain documents into the
Record. These documents represent and outline the various frustrations
and concerns of the National League of Families of American Prisoners
and Missing in Southeast Asia and should be considered and addressed by
the Office of the Secretary of Defense and their report.
I believe this report must reflect a comprehensive study of DPMO's
guidance and policy initiatives. I am particularly concerned that the
concerns of the National League of Families be seriously addressed. A
report that merely waxes over such differences as a ``family feud''
would not be found acceptable.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I certainly agree to work with the gentleman on
this matter to have a satisfactory conclusion.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the chairman again.
I ask that upon completion of this report that it be submitted to the
House Committee on Appropriations, the House Committee on Armed
Services, and that it be made available to the personal offices of all
members of the POW/MIA congressional caucus.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal)
for yielding. I thank my colleague and good friend, the chairman, for
allowing this time.
As co-chair of the Congressional POW/MIA Caucus I appreciate the
leadership of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) on this issue.
The POW/MIA Caucus recognizes that policy coordination and
cooperation must include not only congressional oversight but also a
continued strong working relationship with nongovernmental
organizations such as those you have talked about, the National League
of American Prisoners and Missing in Southeast Asia, the Organization
of Korea/Cold War Families of Missing.
It is the members of these organizations and others like them who
stand to gain the most by the implementation of government policy. The
elimination of nongovernmental organization participation in this
process would impede progress, and the caucus supports the leadership
of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) on this issue and looks
forward to working with the Defense POW/Missing Persons Office, the
committees of jurisdiction, and these organizations to ensure that our
shared goals are met.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, and I
look forward to working with him on this issue in conference.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Pelosi
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Pelosi:
At the end of title IX, insert the following new section:
Sec. ___. (a) Not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to the
Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives
and the majority leader and minority leader of the Senate a
report on a strategy for success in Iraq that identifies
criteria to be used by the Government of the United States to
determine when it is appropriate to begin the withdrawal of
United States Armed Forces from Iraq.
(b) The report shall include a detailed description of each
of the following:
(1) The criteria for assessing the capabilities and
readiness of Iraqi security forces, goals for achieving
appropriate capability and readiness levels for such forces,
as well as for recruiting, training, and equipping such
forces, and the milestones and timetable for achieving such
goals.
(2) The estimated total number of Iraqi personnel trained
at the levels identified in paragraph (1) that are needed for
Iraqi security forces to perform duties currently being
undertaken by United States and coalition forces, including
defending Iraq's borders and providing adequate levels of law
and order throughout Iraq.
(3) The number of United States and coalition advisors
needed to support Iraqi security forces and associated
ministries.
(4) The measures of political stability for Iraq, including
the important political milestones to be achieved over the
next several years.
(c) The report shall be transmitted in unclassified form
but may contain a classified annex.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order
against the amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I regret that a point of order was raised,
but I do want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his
outstanding leadership to protect our country. He is a champion for
national security, a champion for our troops. I respect him enormously.
I wish he had not raised this point of order.
I want to commend the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lewis), who is in the Chamber right now, for his
distinguished leadership on behalf of America's troops and on behalf of
our national security. They have worked in a
[[Page 13240]]
bipartisan manner with our distinguished ranking member, former chair
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). By
working together with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) in the
last session of Congress and on an ongoing basis with the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young), they have really tried very hard to provide
our troops with what they need to do their job and to come home safely
and soon.
I also want to recognize the outstanding leadership of the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the full committee,
former chair of the committee. I think these four gentleman have worked
very closely together, removed the doubt in anyone's minds that we
understand our obligation under the Constitution to provide for the
common defense and they help us honor that commitment. I thank them
all.
The legislation that we are considering today contains in it another
$45 billion for the war in Iraq that has already consumed nearly $200
billion, ended the lives of over 1,700 of our troops, and thousands
more Iraqis, and changed forever the lives of tens of thousands more
who have been wounded in that war.
They were sent into the war without the intelligence about where they
were going, what they were going to confront, without adequate
equipment to protect them and without a plan for what would happen
after the fall of Baghdad.
As I referenced earlier, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis),
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) have
fought hard, especially the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) last year in the defense
Committee on Appropriations to correct the inadequacy of the equipment
they had.
Many of us have visited with soldiers in Iraq. Some of them are on
their second tour of duty. I conveyed to these brave soldiers, as I
have to soldiers in hospitals here and abroad, how grateful the
American people are to them for their valor, for their patriotism, for
the sacrifices they are willing to make for our country. They have
performed their duties with great courage and skill, and we are deeply
in their debt.
Disagreement with the policies that sent our troops to Iraq and which
keep them in danger today in no way diminishes the respect and
admiration that we have for our troops. Sadly, the level of their
sacrifice has not been met by a level of language by the
administration, and now the American people agree that this war is not
making us safer.
Republican Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, who in time became the
Republican leader in the United States Senate, had this to say about
our duty in time of war as Members of Congress. He said, ``Criticism in
time of war is essential to the maintenance of a governing democracy.''
He was a Republican. This was World War II. He was a Republican in
the Senate. He said that, and he was right.
It is in that spirit that I disagree with those Republicans who
continue the course of action that we are on now. When we went into
this war, it was a war of choice. President Bush sent us into a war of
choice, a preemptive war. When you have a war, you have to go in with
the preparation that you have. But when it is a war of choice, you have
an increased responsibility to be prepared and to have a plan for what
happens after the fall of, in this case Baghdad, but we have not.
{time} 1700
Vice President Cheney at the time said that our troops would be met
with rose petals. Instead, they were met with rocket-propelled
grenades.
Under Secretary Wolfowitz said that this is a country that can easily
afford its own reconstruction and soon, and the U.S. taxpayer is still
paying the tab.
This is a war that each passing day confirms what I have said before
and I will say again, that this war in Iraq is a grotesque mistake. It
is not making America safer and the American people know it.
Early on, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) said what a
Democratic, what a bipartisan proposal should be as far as going into
Iraq, that with the fall of Baghdad, we should move quickly to
Iraqtize, to turn the security of Iraq over to the Iraqis. We should
internationalize, that we should form the diplomatic alliances in the
region for the Iraqi government so that our troops could accomplish
their goals militarily with the help of diplomacy. It simply cannot be
done alone.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), in leading our House
Democrats on this issue, said that we should energize, we must turn on
the light, we must have reconstruction in Iraq, and because of some of
the poor planning or lack of planning, the reconstruction has taken
much longer, is much more costly, and again, the security is making it
almost impossible.
You cannot go forward with the social services and the rest unless
you have a secure Iraq. You cannot have it be secure and bring our
troops home unless you turn over that security responsibility to the
Iraqis.
So we go to a place where we should expect the least Congress should
do is to insist that the President provide the details on how it will
be determined when the responsibility for Iraq's security can be turned
over to the Iraqis and how Iraq's economic and political stability will
be assessed. That is what my amendment would have done, would do, if it
were made in order.
The failure by the President and his administration to plan
adequately for the conduct of war to date has made it all the more
imperative that Congress ensure the planning be done competently for
bringing our troops home. If our troops are to leave when the mission
has succeeded, we need to know how success will be defined.
Despite the manner in which the administration has chosen to fund the
war, relying totally on supplemental appropriations up until now, as
though it was a surprise that keeping hundreds of thousands of military
personnel in and near Iraq would have a cost, our commitment in Iraq
cannot be open-ended. Congress should have insisted long ago that the
limits on that commitment be publicly shared and well understood.
The Iraq money in this bill is described as a bridge fund. Congress
and the American people have a right to ask: A bridge to what? A bridge
to where? The report required by my amendment would have built on the
report request in the recently enacted supplemental appropriations bill
and help answer that question, and that request was agreed to in a
bipartisan way. This is really an endorsement of that, taking it from
report language, putting it into law and raising its profile so the
administration knows that it must answer those questions in the
supplemental.
Republicans apparently prefer to keep their heads in the sand and
continue to provide money for the Iraq War with no questions asked.
Congress did not discharge its responsibility to oversee these
policies at the start of the war, and it has not done so since. The
American people deserve better. More importantly, Mr. Chairman, our
troops who serve in harm's way deserve better. They are owed more by
those who sent them there than lack of planning.
We must do everything in our power to honor our obligation to our
troops. Only then will we be fulfilling our responsibility.
Point of Order
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore,
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment gives affirmative direction. I ask for a ruling from
the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman wish to be heard on the point of
order?
[[Page 13241]]
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I do have a question to follow up on the
distinguished gentleman's point of order, and that is, almost the same
language was contained in the supplemental that passed the House a few
weeks ago, and I do not know why the criteria that he establishes here
for my amendment would not have then applied then and if that, in fact,
does not serve as a model for us now.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting
direction to the President. The amendment, therefore, constitutes
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Doggett
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Doggett:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for activities in Uzbekistan.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, this Defense bill has many good aspects,
but I believe that it does contain at least one soft spot that
undermines the high level of security that our families demand.
The safety of our families is just too important to be dependent on
the word of a terrorist. Unfortunately, that is what this
administration has done in a little known corner of the world called
Uzbekistan. In a desperate search for allies against terrorism, the
administration has actually teamed up with the chief terrorist in that
far away land, its President Islam Karimov.
Before the Bush administration befriended him, Mr. Karimov was known
for his rather peculiar habit of boiling alive some of the local
opponents to his police state. In what President Bush's own State
Department described in February as an atmosphere of repression, where
torture was common, other favored methods of dealing with differing
opinion in Uzbekistan includes suffocation, electric shock, rape,
sexual abuse. However, beating, according to the State Department, is
the most commonly reported method of torture.
Another tactic that perhaps Mr. Karimov learned through his earlier
tenure on the Soviet Politburo is the practice of having local
political and human rights activists declared insane to stop their
activities. A woman in Tashkent, for example, was committed to a
psychiatric hospital, apparently in part for asking that her neighbors'
taxes be reduced. Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty reported that
torture, and the fear of it, may even serve as the primary tool of
controlling society in Uzbekistan.
Most recently, the Uzbek dictator participated in what is known as
``Bloody Friday,'' where hundreds of men, women and children were
murdered on May 13. Since then, he has successfully led efforts to
thwart any independent investigation.
The New York Times reported on Saturday that ``Uzbek Ministries in
Crackdown Received U.S. Aid.'' The United States has provided extensive
aid to the very Uzbek ministries and the types of units that took part
in this murderous May 13 crackdown.
To those who say, well, ``he is a thug but he is our thug,'' I would
say that this is no way to ensure the protection of our families. Even
to those in this administration whose interest in human rights has
waned significantly in recent years, I would say that when you place
the future of our families in the hands of someone who can cling to
power only by killing, maiming, and boiling his opponents, you place
our future in very unreliable hands, and we already have another
example of this thug's unreliability.
Mr. Karimov's decision recently to deny nighttime flights and heavy
cargo flights into our K-2 air base in southern Uzbekistan. Apparently,
these restrictions result from the fact that Mr. Karimov is peeved at
the Bush administration because they have not yet spent all the $42.5
billion appropriated for the K-2 base, and they just soft-pedaled
international criticism of the latest round of murders, instead of
fulfilling his desire that they remind the world what a big buddy of
America he is.
Undoubtedly, he will be happier with the decision of Secretary
Rumsfeld, reported last week in The Washington Post, to squelch a call
by all the other defense ministers of NATO for a transparent,
independent, and international probe of the Bloody Friday murders.
During the Memorial Day recess, three Republican Senators took an
uninvited trip to Uzbekistan where they received firsthand reports of
the shocking increase in Mr. Karimov's violent repression. All three of
these Republicans have called for a fundamental change in our dealings
with the Uzbek people and have suggested that we should reconsider
long-term commitments. This amendment will accomplish just that.
As to the form of the amendment, our House rules, as we just saw with
the amendment offered by the minority leader when she was thwarted in
an effort to get information about Iraq, severely limit our ability to
address this concern. Therefore, this particular amendment is simply
worded, ``Stop all expenditures immediately.''
I have another version I would be pleased to offer, giving the
administration more of the flexibility that it is always so eager to
have, but whatever the specific language, I am confident that the
conferees, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the people from the Senate can make any
modifications they deem necessary to this amendment to ensure the
orderly removal of what was supposed to be a temporary presence in
Uzbekistan and to provide emergency reentry should this be absolutely
necessary in the war on terrorism.
My only goal is the recognition that the United States cannot lead in
the fight on terrorism by funding a terrorist. Our association with
thugs like Karimov in Uzbekistan does not enhance our security. It
jeopardizes that security. We should adopt this amendment because, in
short, the Bush administration's terrorist in Tashkent is a security
risk. We risk our security by the bad company Mr. Rumsfeld is keeping.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The gentleman, in his own discussion, has talked about the K-2
airfield. Afghanistan being one of the battlefields in the global war
on terrorism. It is extremely important in order for that war to be
successful.
K-2 airfield in Uzbekistan is important to our functioning in
Afghanistan. It is the logistical center where we get things from here
to Afghanistan that need to get from here to Afghanistan.
This amendment is a one sentence amendment and says none of the funds
can be spent in Uzbekistan. We cannot afford not to have the K-2
airfield in the global war on terror and especially the Afghanistan
battlefield in that war.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I would direct the gentleman, the chairman, for whom I have profound
respect, to an editorial that appeared today in The Weekly Standard,
which indicates that President Karzai of Afghanistan is more than
willing to provide the bases necessary that the gentleman alludes to
for the global war on terror, and I dare say I would much prefer to do
business with President Karzai than with this gentleman here who is
Islam Karimov.
He is the dictator who runs Uzbekistan, which is a Nation of some 25
million in central Asia, about the size of California. He is a murderer
and he is a thug. He holds in his gulag some 6,000 political prisoners.
He will not allow opposition parties, making any elections a farce. He
restricts freedom of religion. There is no free press, and as my friend
from Texas indicated, he recently ordered the slaughter of hundreds of
innocent civilians who were protesting the systemic abuse of
fundamental human rights, but maybe they were lucky. At least they were
not boiled alive in water.
[[Page 13242]]
This thug has created a culture of torture, and it has been reported
in media outlets that the CIA has sent recalcitrant individuals there
under the so-called rendition concept, to torture them and to provide
intelligence in the war on terrorism.
Now we know that Saddam has been alluded to as the butcher of
Baghdad. I would suggest that Islam Karimov can appropriately be
described as the tyrant of Tashkent.
{time} 1715
As the gentleman from Texas said, we have a problem. Karimov is a
thug, but he is our thug. This photo to my right depicts him with
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who has praised the thug's wonderful
cooperation with the United States, and it was President Bush's former
Secretary of the Treasury who expressed admiration of the thug's, and I
am quoting here, ``very keen intellect and deep passion for improving
the lives of his people.'' I presume he did not read the Department of
State's human rights reports enumerating the abuses that the people of
Uzbekistan endure on a regular basis.
In his inaugural address, President Bush promised oppressed people
that we would not excuse your oppressors, and when you stand for
liberty, we will stand with you, and one day this untamed fire of
freedom will reach the darkest corner of this world.
Well, I would suggest that now is the time to go to that dark corner
of the world called Uzbekistan and say enough. We can begin by cutting
off aid, both military and economic, to this thug. We should begin to
walk the democratic walk and not just indulge in the democratic
rhetoric because in the end, it is in our best interest as well as the
people of Uzbekistan.
A recent GAO report said, ``Recent polling data show that anti-
Americanism is spreading and deepening around the world. Such anti-
American sentiments can increase foreign public support for terrorism
directed against Americans, impact the cost and effectiveness of
military operations, weakening the United States' ability to align with
other nations in pursuit of common policy objectives, and dampen
foreign publics' enthusiasm for U.S. business services and products.''
Given how we are supporting this particular thug, is it any wonder
that we are being charged with hypocrisy and that people doubt the
President's words. This perceived hypocrisy hurts us. It undermines our
credibility. And as de Tocqueville said, America is great because
America is good and if America ever ceases to be good and not express
its values, then we lose our greatness.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I wanted to rise in strong support of the Doggett amendment. Members
understand why in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when the United
States was preparing to overthrow the Taliban regime in Afghanistan,
countries like Kazakhstan and Turk-
menistan and Uzbekistan were considered important allies in the war on
terrorism. But even then, Members expressed caution about tying U.S.
interests too closely to these government which have consistently poor
human rights records.
This is especially true in the case of Uzbekistan where the Karimov
government, in the past few months, has wielded power with a
particularly bloody hand. According to the International Crisis Group,
on May 13 and 14, the government brutally suppressed a popular uprising
in the eastern city of Andijan, ostensibly to quell a revolt of Islamic
extremists. But instead, over 750 unarmed civilians, many of them
children, were massacred.
More recently, on June 16, Human Rights Watch reported that a four-
person delegation from the International Helsinki Federation visiting
the eastern region were detained and forced to leave the region. This
is just the latest attack against human rights defenders in Uzbekistan.
In the wake of the Andijan massacre, the Uzbek government has been
targeting human rights defenders and opposition leaders for arrest,
beatings, intimidation and other brutal acts. This House cannot stand
by silently and support such brutality. We cannot continue with
business as usual and issue another blank check for Uzbekistan.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a copy of the Human Rights
Watch report titled ``Uzbekistan: Rights Defenders Targeted After
Massacre.''
Uzbekistan: Rights Defenders Targeted After Massacre
In the wake of the Andijan massacre, the Uzbek government
is targeting human rights defenders and opposition activists
for arrest, beatings and intimidation, Human Rights Watch
said today.
``The government harassment of human rights defenders is a
transparent attempt to hide the truth about what happened in
Andijan,'' said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia
director at Human Rights Watch.
Human Rights Watch has documented evidence of a government
cover up in Andijan following the government's use of
excessive force against demonstrators there on May 13. Human
Rights Watch has labeled the incident a massacre.
The Uzbek government has a longstanding record of harsh
treatment of human rights activists and political opponents.
In just the past two weeks, Uzbek authorities have arrested
at least 10 human rights defenders and opposition activists
in Andijan and other cities on trumped up charges. Others
have been beaten by unknown assailants, threatened by local
authorities, and placed under house arrest.
Officials involved in these incidents made specific
reference to the defenders' human rights activities,
including their work documenting the killings in Andijan. In
Tashkent and Jizzakh, numerous human rights activists have
been questioned about the events in Andijan and threatened
with arrest or criminal charges should they engage in
demonstrations or other public activities.
On May 31, a coalition of Uzbek rights defenders issued a
plea for help. The group wrote to the United Nations, the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the
European Parliament stating that persecution of Uzbek rights
activists and opposition members has increased since the
Andijan killings.
``We are deeply troubled by this growing crackdown on human
rights defenders,'' Cartner said. ``The international
community must intervene to stop this campaign and ensure the
safety of human rights activists in Uzbekistan.''
Human Rights Watch has gathered information, including
firsthand testimony, concerning 16 separate incidents of
arrests, beatings, preventative detention and other
intimidation of activists and opposition party members during
the past three weeks, including many in Andjian province.
On Tuesday, June 7, Andijan police detained Hamdam
Sulaimonov, deputy chairman of the Fergana Valley branch of
the opposition party Birlik (``Unity''). After searching
Sulaimonov's home, police seized his computer. He was
interrogated about the distribution of a statement about the
Andijan events by Birlik party chairman Abdurakhim Polat
during a U.S. Helsinki Commission briefing on Uzbekistan in
Washington on May 19. Sulaimonov was released on bail, but
yesterday was summoned for additional interrogation.
On June 3, police arrested Mizaffarmizo Iskhakov, a
longtime human rights defender and head of the Andijan branch
of the human rights group Ezgulik (``Goodness''). Police
seized human rights publications and a computer during a
search of Iskhakov's home on June 2. Iskhakov was released on
bail on Monday, but police retained his passport and ordered
him not to leave the city.
On June 2, Andijan police also arrested Nurmukhammad Azizov
and Akbar Oripov of the Andijan branch of Birlik. During
searches of the men's homes, police confiscated human rights
publications and computers containing a copy of the Birlik
statement about the events in Andijan. Azizov and Oripov
remain in custody.
On May 28, authorities in Andjian arrested two members of
the Markhamat district branch of Ezgulik: the chairman,
Dilmurod Muhiddinov, and Musozhon Bobozhonov. They also
arrested Muhammadqodir Otakhonov, of the Uzbek branch of the
International Human Rights Society. Police seized human
rights materials and copies of the Birlik statement about the
events in Andijan from the men's homes. The men are being
charged with ``infringement of the constitutional order,''
``forming a criminal group,'' and ``preparation and
distribution of materials containing threats to public order
and security.'' They remain in custody and are being
questioned without the presence of a lawyer.
Saidjahon Zainabitdinov, an outspoken human rights defender
and chairman of the Andijan human rights group Appelliatsia
(``Appeal''), was detained on May 21. Zainabitdinov's
description of the killings in Andijan was widely reported in
the media. He remains in custody.
The government campaign against human rights defenders has
also spread to other Uzbek cities.
[[Page 13243]]
On Sunday, June 5, according to the Human Rights Society of
Uzbekistan (HRSU), Uzbek security agents arrested Norboy
Kholjigitov, a member of the HRSU, in the village of Bobur
near Samarkand on charges of corruption. Kholijigitov's
whereabouts remain unknown.
On June 4, police in Karshi arrested Tulkin Karaev, a human
rights activist and journalist, and sentenced him to 10 days
of administrative arrest. Karaev is one of the few
independent Uzbek journalists who has covered the events in
Andijan. The HRSU reported that pretext for the arrest was
provided when an unknown woman accosted Karaev at a bus stop
and then claimed that Karaev had threatened her. Karaev has
been denied contact with his lawyer.
On May 30, two unknown men in civilian clothing beat
Sotvoldi Abdullaev of the Uzbek branch of the International
Human Rights Society outside his house in Tash-
kent. The assailants had been monitoring the house from a
parked car for several days in attempt to prevent Abdullaev
from leaving his house. Abdullaev suffered a severe
concussion as a result of the beating and was hospitalized.
On May 29, 30 armed policemen beat and detained
approximately 17 members of Ezgulik from the Fergana Valley
area who were participating in a seminar in Tashkent, calling
them ``Andijani terrorists.'' The activists were forcibly
transported back to the Fergana Valley. The event's
organizer, Vasila Inoyatova, head of Ezgulik and a senior
member of the Birlik opposition party, was detained by police
together with her family. They were released the next day.
On May 28, Samarkand police arrested Kholiqnazar Ganiyev,
head of the Samarkand province offices of both Ezgulik and
the Birlik, on charges of ``hooliganism'' and sentenced him
to 15 days of administrative arrest. A group of women,
apparently government provocateurs, attacked Ganiyev's house
and then brought charges against him when he asked them to
leave.
On May 26, a police official in Jizzakh came to the home of
Tatiana Dovlatova, an activist with the Society for Human
Rights and Freedoms of the Citizens of Uzbekistan, and
aggressively demanded that she go with him to the
prosecutor's office. She refused to go unless provided with
an official summons. The official then placed her under armed
house arrest for the day and threatened to send her to a
psychiatric hospital if she attempted to leave.
On May 22, 70 people, including representatives of various
government agencies, forcibly entered the Jizzakh home of
Bakhtior Kamroev, chairman of the Jizzakh province branch of
the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan. The crowd conducted a
Soviet-style hate rally against Khamroev right in his home.
They accused him of being a traitor for passing information
to Western organizations, including human rights groups, and
of being a ``Wahabbist'' and a ``terrorist.'' The authorities
also pressured Kamroev to leave Jizzakh and made threats
against his life and against his family.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that even those
individuals, who may be concerned more about that air base than whether
hundreds of people were murdered, raped, suffocated or boiled alive, I
think the point here is not just about human rights, it is about the
security of American families.
When we rely on a thug like Karimov, we end up with him squeezing us,
just like he is doing now by not letting us have nighttime flights at
the K-2 base, not letting heavy cargo planes come in. His limitations
are imposed not on the basis that we have criticized him, but that we
have not done enough to praise him. We have a base in Kyrgyzstan, we
have bases in Afghanistan. We have other ways of continuing the war on
terrorism, but we make a mistake when we put the security of our
families in the hands of someone who is a terrorist himself.
And how ironic that we would be doing this at the same time the
recent elections in Iran were criticized by the administration for not
being fair enough. There is no danger that Uzbekistan will ever get to
the level of Iran. At least Iran has elections, however deficient they
may be. We do not have that in Uzbekistan.
In short, the administration says democracy is on the march, but in
Uzbekistan it is democracy that is getting marched on. I believe we
jeopardize our security by contributing to what is a boiling pot. That
pot is, Mr. Karimov's method of dealing with his opponents. When that
pot eventually boils over, we will lose more than an air base. We will
be burned by the injustice that he has been a part of and that is why I
offer this amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas is absolutely
right, and that is why Members should support the Doggett amendment.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to my colleagues
that in the 1980s we dealt with a thug by the name of Saddam Hussein
because we believed we had common mutual interests, particularly during
the course of the war between Iraq and Iran.
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, we allied ourselves with Osama
bin Laden against the Soviets, and what did we get for it. Let us be
careful.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) pointed out, this is about human
rights, but it is more about our long-term national security interests,
and it seems to me that we need to take a different approach here.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) will
be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
Page 117, after line 5, insert the following title:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10___. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to initiate military operations except in
accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of
the United States.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. Let me read it in
its entirety. ``None of the funds made available by this Act may be
used to initiate military operations except in accordance with Article
I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.''
The intent of this is simple: To prevent the President from
committing U.S. forces to additional wars without first coming to
Congress for a vote authorizing such military action. If the President
wishes or feels it is necessary to have a war with Syria, Iran, North
Korea or any other nation, then under the U.S. Constitution and my
amendment, he must first come to Congress.
Some will try and argue that this would tie the hands of the
President and the Pentagon and the CIA when it comes down to tracking
down al Qaeda. My amendment would not impact the government's ability
to hunt, apprehend or kill members of al Qaeda. On September 18,
Congress adopted a broad authorization of force that says the President
is authorized to use all necessary appropriate force against nations,
organizations, and persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, aided the terrorist attacks, or harbored such organizations
or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international
terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or
persons.
Referring back to the preceding list of countries, if the President
could demonstrate that any of them were involved in 9/11, he would not
need further authorization from Congress. Nor would my amendment impact
on our ongoing military operations in Iraq. On October 16, 2002,
Congress authorized
[[Page 13244]]
those actions under the United States Constitution.
Further, there are those who would say what about covert activities?
It is important to note that title 50, United States Code, section 413,
already provides Congressional authorization pursuant to amendments in
1980 to the National Security Act of 1947, for the President to
authorize covert operations under certain circumstances on behalf of
the United States.
In other words, if my amendment passes, the President will still have
all of the authorization from Congress he needs to actively pursue al
Qaeda operations in Iraq and other terrorist activities around the
globe.
The amendment simply seeks to reinforce war powers granted solely to
Congress under the U.S. Constitution to ensure the President cannot
launch a major war against Iran, Syria, North Korea or any other nation
without a vote from Congress.
Some will say, Is that really necessary? On April 18, 2002, in
response to a letter I and other Members sent to the President about
the need to authorize the war with Iraq, I received a letter from then-
White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez, now Attorney General. Mr.
Gonzalez stated that the President has broad Constitutional authority
as Commander-in-Chief, and as the sole organ of the Federal Government
in foreign affairs to deploy the Armed Forces of the United States, a
formal declaration of war or other authorization from the Congress is
not required to enable the President to undertake the full range of
actions that may be necessary to protect our national security. That is
an extraordinarily broad assertion not supported by a President after
more than 200 years of interpretation of the Constitution.
So I feel my amendment, as narrow as it is, is necessary to protect
the war powers separation of the President as the Commander-in-Chief.
The Congress of the United States has the sole authority to declare
war, except in case of sudden attack upon the United States, its
citizens, or armed forces. Ample opportunity exists for the President
to continue to pursue al Qaeda and others and the war in Iraq under
this amendment.
I urge my colleagues, if they support that interpretation of the
Constitution, which is broadly acknowledged by most legal scholars,
except Mr. Gonzalez, and I do not know if he is a legal scholar, and
would uphold our authority.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the war we are involved in now is not a war against a
country or against an armed force that is organized and structured and
representing a country. We are in a war against terrorism. We did not
start the war. They started it. The terrorists started it when they
attacked the World Trade Center, when they attacked the Pentagon,
attacked the USS Cole, attacked Khobar Towers, which housed our airmen.
They started it in many, many ways.
But who would we declare war against for the World Trade Center or
for the USS Cole? They were acts of terror. They were not acts by some
nation or some organized military.
This amendment sounds good. I can almost be persuaded, but it just
does not work. Let us suppose our military intelligence detected that
an enemy of the United States was preparing to take military action
against our country or our troops overseas. We could not take military
action to prevent that attack without a specific declaration of war.
{time} 1730
It might be too late then. Prohibiting initiating military operations
could be read to prohibit military action to capture, kill, or pursue
terrorists who are operating in a third country, not as part of that
country but operating within the country, which is what they do. Even
if that country is a friend of ours, they would still operate within
that country.
Do you really want to say that we should not try to capture or kill
Osama bin Laden if we find that he has traveled to a country where we
currently do not have ongoing military operations? I think we hunt
Osama bin Laden no matter where he is, a friend or a foe or anyplace
else. Waiting for formal congressional approval for such military
action might mean we miss the opportunity to capture the man who is
responsible for thousands of American deaths. On its face, it sounds
like a pretty good idea; but it just does not work in the type of world
that we live in today, in the type of enemy that we face today, the
enemy that has killed so many innocent Americans right here in our own
country.
This is not a good amendment, and it should be defeated.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I
appreciate what the gentleman from Oregon is doing, and I know what he
has in mind. I know in 1991, President Bush had a number of us at the
White House. He did not think he needed to come to Congress, but he
did.
I know that this last war, a number of people from the former
administration called me, from the former Bush administration, called
me and asked me to talk to the President about making sure he came to
Congress and came to the U.N. before they went. So I understand what
the gentleman is trying to do. I cannot imagine a President going into
an independent country, and we have been trying to keep as close ties
as we can in this bill on the President or the administration when they
try to go into these other countries. I know that they thought they
could go before, and they did not.
And so I would say to the gentleman, I would hope that he would
believe that Congress would have a role and we certainly have to fund
it, so at any time we could just not fund it. Our role is a big role,
and I know to stop the Vietnam War, the funding was reduced
substantially. I can remember the exact incident on this floor when
that happened. The public was for it up to a point. The public has
turned against this war, as all of us know, in Iraq. But we still have
some problems.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Florida's speech
was written by his staff, but he said that we could not pursue Osama
bin Laden. If he had listened to my speech where I quoted back
legislation that he voted for and I voted for which authorized the war
with Afghanistan, it went on to the fact of any nation that harbors
such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of
international terrorism. That pretty well covers Osama bin Laden.
I do not appreciate the gentleman raising these bizarre allegations.
He may disagree with me, he may want to cede this authority to the
President of the United States and abdicate our constitutional duties.
That is fine. But do not raise these false issues. It does not go to
Osama bin Laden. He is already covered. It does not go to Iraq. It is
already covered. It does not go to a third country that is potentially
threatening or any group threatening the United States. That is covered
under war powers.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand that, but
what I am saying is under the Constitution we have a responsibility. I
do not think any of us want to cede that responsibility to any
President, no matter if he is Democrat or Republican. The only time it
happens is when we may be misled or something like that, but as a whole
the Congress wants to do what is right. I would be very concerned if we
passed something that might limit us here.
I appreciate the passion of the gentleman. I feel the same way. I
feel just as strongly as he does, that the Congress has the ultimate
say about whether we go to war. I would urge the Members to vote
against this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
[[Page 13245]]
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio)
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Markey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used in contravention of the following laws enacted or
regulations promulgated to implement the United Nations
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (done at New York on
December 10, 1984):
(1) Section 2340A of title 18, United States Code.
(2) Section 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (division G of Public Law 105-277;
112 Stat. 2681-822; 8 U.S.C. 1231 note) and any regulations
prescribed thereto, including regulations under part 208 of
title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, and part 95 of title
22, Code of Federal Regulations.
Mr. MARKEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering deals with the
issue of the outsourcing of torture. It is identical to amendments that
this House has previously approved to the emergency supplemental
appropriations bill in March and the State-Justice appropriations last
week. Very simply, it states that none of the funds appropriated in
this bill may be spent in contravention of laws and regulations adopted
to implement the convention against torture.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I want to say to him that this is a good amendment. As the gentleman
pointed out, it was agreed to overwhelmingly in the supplemental. We
accept the amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman for his acceptance. I will try to
conclude briefly on my time so that the House can understand what it is
that they are accepting.
The convention against torture is a treaty signed by the United
States under President Ronald Reagan, and it was ratified by the Senate
in 1994. It prohibits any use of torture or other cruel or degrading
treatment. It also prohibits the outsourcing of torture by sending
people to any country where there is a reasonable likelihood that they
will face torture.
My amendment simply ratifies America's commitment to the convention.
It does not change current law. It is a simple funding restriction
aimed at underscoring to all of the defense and intelligence agencies
funded under this bill that they need to ensure that all of their
activities are fully compliant with America's treaty obligations and
with the requirements of United States law and regulation.
It is wrong for the United States to capture prisoners, put them on
Gulfstreams and fly them to Syria or Uzbekistan with the assurance
given by those countries which we know are human rights abusers that
they will not torture prisoners. If the United States captures a
prisoner, we should keep that prisoner in our possession, or send him
to a country which has the same values which we have. But it would be
wrong to continue to engage in a process where we send these prisoners
to Syria, for example, which administers electrical shocks, pulling out
of fingernails, forcing prisoners to engage in inhumane acts.
I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his acceptance of this
amendment.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey amendment to the
Defense Appropriations Bill. This important amendment prohibits defense
funds from being used for torture, or to transfer prisoners-of-war to
countries that employ the use of torture. That should be a simple
decision, a ``no brainer'' vote for Markey--stop funding torture. Vote
against Markey--agree to funding torture.
This decision is important because the way we treat our enemies
speaks volumes about our character as a Nation, as Americans. I am
embarrassed to say that America's treatment of prisoners over the last
several years does not speak highly of our national integrity, of the
people we really are.
Over the last 2 years, news of prisoners being mistreated, beaten,
sexually assaulted, and even killed while in U.S. custody has become
all too commonplace and I fear we have yet to hear the whole story.
Prisoners have been tortured in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo
Bay. Considering the widespread use of torture, no one can claim that
these are isolated incidents, that it's merely the work of ``a few bad
apples.''
The fact that torture occurred in separate places, and under the
command of different interrogators, leads me to believe that a more
systemic failure took place, a system that starts from the very top,
not from a few misguided enlisted personnel.
You could say that the turning point--the day torture became a
routine tactic employed by the United States--was August 1, 2002. The
day the Justice Department sent a memo to the White House, stating that
torturing terrorists in captivity ``may be justified.''
It's not just that physical abuse has taken place under our watch.
That's bad enough, but what is just as appalling is that legal abuses
have taken place here at home. We have kept people in prison for more
than 3 years without charging them with a crime, and the administration
has affirmed this practice through legal memos.
This approval of torture--by the White House, the Pentagon, and the
Justice Department--is not only shameful, it also endangers the United
States.
At a time when the U.S. is courting the support of the international
world--particularly the Arab world--the torture of foreign prisoners,
along with our invasion of Iraq, gives the world's extremists what they
believe to be a legitimate reason to hate the United States. There has
been no better recruiting tool for al Qaeda than preemptively attacking
Iraq and the events at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, we must end this shameful chapter in our Nation's
history by pledging that the United States will not engage in the act
of torture. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Markey
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Velazquez:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to carry out sections 701 through 722 of the
Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program Act of
1988 (Public Law 100-656; 15 U.S.C. 644 note).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, the Federal marketplace has experienced
amazing growth over the past 4 years, increasing by $100 billion. Given
this increase, it would only be logical that our Nation's small
businesses would see similar growth in contracting opportunities.
However, this has not been the case. The reality is that small firms
continue to be shut out of the Federal marketplace. The Federal
Government has failed to reach its small business goal of 23 percent
for the past 4 years now, costing small businesses $15 billion in lost
contracting opportunity in fiscal year 2003 alone.
The Department of Defense has been an agency that has had a
significant amount of trouble with this. One of the main causes has
been contract bundling, which is the practice of combining contracts
previously performed
[[Page 13246]]
by small businesses into one mega-
contract that is simply too large for small firms to bid on. But often
overlooked is that a significant contribution to the inability of the
Department of Defense to make its goal is the comp demo program.
The comp demo program was created in 1989, but was made permanent
during the Clinton administration under the guise of increasing small
business participation. The theory behind it was to give agencies
direction in finding small business contracting opportunities in
nontraditional industries. This would be done by capping the amount of
contracts in those industries that have been historically dominated by
small businesses.
However, this is not what the program has done. Instead, it has
limited small business participation in the Federal marketplace. The
comp demo program diverts contracting opportunities to large firms,
effectively limiting the ability of small companies to compete. While
DOD is required to meet a 23 percent small business goal, the comp demo
program ties its hands and restricts awarding contracts in the
industries where small businesses excel. At a time when agencies are
already struggling to meet their small business goals, this simply
makes no sense. For an agency that represents 70 percent of all
government contracting, this is clearly having a negative impact on our
Nation's entrepreneurs.
The reality is that this program simply does not work, and this
program has been recognized by the administration and the Department of
Defense themselves. They proposed to eliminate the comp demo program
altogether in the DOD's legislative package for 2006.
My amendment acknowledges the problem and provides a viable solution
to fix it by prohibiting the use of funds for fiscal year 2006 to
implement the comp demo program. This is supported by the Associated
General Contractors, the American Nursery and Landscape Association,
the National Small Business Association, and the National Black Chamber
of Commerce. This action alone would have the impact of awarding some
$4.3 billion in additional contracts to small businesses.
In today's Federal marketplace, small businesses are losing traction,
and they cannot afford to be deprived of these opportunities. The comp
demo program is only making small business owners' struggle to break
into the Federal marketplace all the more difficult. By adopting this
amendment, we will be taking a step to fix this problem. When small
businesses say the program does not work, DOD says it and the
administration is saying it, clearly something needs to change.
My amendment will do this. It is not only good for small businesses
but also for the taxpayer and our Nation's economy. If we want to get
this economy back on track and create the jobs we need, then we must
give small business the opportunity and tools to do so. The comp demo
program is simply not doing that, and it needs to end.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' today on this amendment for
better use of the taxpayers' dollars and to help our Nation's small
businesses compete in the Federal marketplace.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the concerns of the ranking
minority member of the Committee on Small Business. I know exactly what
she is trying to do here, because I understand that the Defense
Department also would support suspension of the small business
competitive demonstration program. But it is also my understanding that
the chairman of the Committee on Small Business supports its
continuation. To me, this appears to be a dispute between the chairman
and the ranking minority member of the authorizing committee. It seems
to me that it should be addressed on an authorizing bill rather than on
the appropriations bill. The appropriations committee is being asked to
referee a program where we do not really have sufficient knowledge of
the program.
I just wonder how the gentlewoman would react if I suggested that she
might withdraw her amendment and work with her chairman on these
matters of concern. It seems to me the Committee on Small Business is
the proper place to adjudicate this matter.
{time} 1745
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the authorizing committee
was not able to come together for the small business authorization to
report a bill out of our committee. And for those people and Members
who are always talking about helping small businesses and providing
opportunities in the Federal marketplace and when the Department of
Defense is saying that this does not make sense, this is an opportunity
to do it, and this is why I want a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, believe me, I
understand the gentlewoman's concerns. As I suggested, the Department
of Defense understands that concern as well. But it was just a
suggestion that maybe we could have the two of them work this out. But,
anyway, I have made my suggestion.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Let me say to my friend from New York, I appreciate very much the
intention of the amendment. I have got to oppose it in its current
form. It seems to me that this Act has some very good attributes to it,
and the argument may be in some of the designated industry groups that
are listed.
One of the problems is that the participating agencies currently will
designate areas that are currently dominated by small businesses as
small business set-asides. These are areas that in full and open
competition, small businesses are going to win anyway, and by using
their percentages in these areas, it means that small businesses who
could use the set-asides in other areas are not able to use it. So I
think what we have here is the law of unintended consequences.
We are taking areas such as lawn services, roofing, siding
contractors, glass and glazing contractors, masonry, areas that in full
and open competition, small businesses are winning by overwhelming
margins; but the agencies are taking these areas and saying we are
going to designate these as small business set-asides and use their
percentages in these areas, and that means that small businesses cannot
penetrate other areas.
So it is really for these reasons that I rise to oppose the
amendment, because I think it shifts the burden in these cases where
small businesses are currently winning open competition, and it uses
the allocation for set-asides into these areas that I think small
businesses could benefit in other areas, in some of the technology
areas, in some of the IT areas. That is my concern.
Let me just make one point. I think the argument ought to be some of
the designated industry groups in this case where maybe we see large
businesses coming in and taking over, and we could work under those
areas appropriately if the case can be made that small business
dominance in these areas is not hit, but without that we have not added
a nickel to what small businesses get under the set-aside programs. We
have not added a percentage. We just shift the burden.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, before the Comp Demo program, small
businesses in those selective industries were making 78 percent of all
the contracts. Right now they are doing only 38 percent, almost cut in
half. And, besides, I thought that the gentleman represented the party
where people are rewarding small businesses or businesses that are
exceeding. So now if they are doing a little bit better, then we are
going to punish them?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time,
absolutely because what happens is when we shift the small business
set-aside allocations into these programs, we are
[[Page 13247]]
taking it away from other programs, these areas where small businesses
are designated.
I do not know about the gentlewoman's percentage of 78 percent 38
percent, but what I would argue is if there is an issue here, I know I
would be happy to work with her, and I am sure the chairman of the
Committee on Small Business, to look at some of these designated
industry groups where perhaps small business is not dominating and was
intended to, and we work on that rather than gutting the whole
provision. That would be the approach that I would take. I would be
happy to work with the gentlewoman on that.
But this amendment guts the whole program, and I think ultimately it
is not good for the government because I think the government is not
getting small business set-asides in some of the innovative areas where
they can go and they are giving it to areas where small businesses tend
to dominate in full and open competition. So that is my rationale for
opposing the amendment.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, this is about economic opportunity for
small businesses. The fact of the matter is that the Federal
marketplace is growing and that small businesses are losing out; that
their number of dollars and contracts are shrinking, and the Federal
Government is not achieving the 23 percent statutory goal set by
Congress.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this
does not add a percentage. This does not add a nickel to the small
business set-aside program. It does not add a percentage. It just
shifts the burden. And the argument ought to be going into the
particular designated industry groups where the gentlewoman is claiming
small businesses used to dominate and are losing out, and let us look
at those and let us try to be fair in that way.
But for heaven's sake, in areas like lawn care, in some of these
services levels that are low tech, let us not set aside small
businesses set-asides there where small businesses dominate in full and
open competition. Let us put them in areas where we can improve it.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense is saying that
immediately small businesses will get $4.4 billion if this is fixed.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, they may
get it here, but they will take it away from set-asides in other areas
because the overall set-aside percentages in these participating
agencies does not change at all. So the problem with that is that we
are shifting it and we are moving the small business set-asides into
areas that small businesses also dominate.
I will refer the gentlewoman, frankly, to the statute in the areas
that are the designated industry groups under the statute, and I think
it is clear looking at this that many of these areas, siding
contractors, roofing, masonry, framing contractors, these are areas
that are traditionally dominated by small business and will continue to
be.
But I will be happy to work with the gentlewoman on designated
industry groups and changing that around if she can make the case.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this Velazquez amendment is an effort to kill the Small
Business Comp Demonstration program. The issue is more appropriately
settled in the authorizing committee and not on an appropriations bill.
First of all, the Comp Demonstration program does not cost the
taxpayers one dime. There is no money appropriated for it. The Small
Business Competitive Demonstration program began in 1988 with three
purposes: first, to help emerging small businesses; second, to expand
the participation of small businesses and industries that were
traditionally dominated by large businesses; and, third, to test the
competitiveness of small businesses in industries in which small
businesses are well represented. The Comp Demo program was renewed in
1992, made permanent in 1997, and slightly expanded in 2004 as a part
of larger bills that passed by wide margins or unanimous consent.
Prior to the adoption of the Comp Demonstration program, small
businesses were relegated to industries dominated by small businesses.
Federal agencies could say they met their overall small business goals
while not doing much to provide more contracts to small businesses in
more higher-end, higher-paying industries. The Comp Demo program ended
this practice all while showing that small businesses are still
competitive in the industries where they have been historically well
represented. These industries include construction, garbage collection,
architectural engineering, surveying and mapping, non nuclear
shipbuilding and ship repair, landscaping, and pest control. The Comp
Demo program requires that small businesses receive a ``fair
proportion'' of government contracts in each industry rather than just
a few.
The principles upon which the program were established are still
valid. Emerging small businesses still need help. Small businesses need
to participate in industries in which they have traditionally not had a
chance to obtain a Federal contract.
I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Velazquez amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, not very often will Members hear me contradict the
ranking member of the Committee on Small Business. But I rise in
opposition to this amendment and will include my entire statement in
the Record.
I rise in opposition to this amendment, even though I have the utmost
respect for its author and have long appreciated her work and her
leadership on so many issues which have come before this House.
But the amendment before the House today attempts to effectively
repeal the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program Act of
1988, better known as the ``Comp Demo'' law, by prohibiting the use of
funds to carry out its implementing provisions.
Comp Demo has not been an effective tool for over 17 years in helping
assure that small businesses across a wide array of industries gain
Federal contracts. Equally important, Comp Demo does not affect
contracts which are set-aside for minority-owned, socially
disadvantaged, and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses.
From its inception, the Comp Demo law has sought to address the
tendency of agencies to disproportionately rely upon a small number of
NAICS codes to meet their small business set-aside goals rather than
finding and developing a broad array of codes from which to meet these
goals, a practice which, if unremedied, would have the practical effect
of precluding small businesses outside those disproportionately used
industries from assessing the benefits of the small business set-aside
program.
And that is why I oppose this amendment. The Comp Demo law has proven
its effectiveness during its 17-year history. It is fair to small
businesses interested in Federal contracting and assures that Federal
agencies meet the spirit and the letter of the law regarding small
business set-asides.
I agree with those who would suggest that this program, as well as
practically all, need to undergo changes and need to be shaped in a
better way to help make absolutely certain that small businesses have
the greatest amount of opportunity to procure business from the Federal
Government.
However, I also believe that small businesses that have reached a
certain level of their being also need the opportunity to continue to
grow and to develop, that small businesses that might be part of
franchises but are nevertheless small businesses need the opportunity
to participate.
And for those reasons, I would be in disagreement with this
amendment. I urge that it be not approved and would look forward to
working with all of
[[Page 13248]]
those who would want to work to try to reshape the law in such a manner
that it would be more fair and more equitable to small businesses.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentlelady
from New York, Ms. Velazquez, and I ask unanimous consent that my
entire statement be included in the Record.
I rise in opposition to this amendment even though I have the utmost
respect for its author and I have long appreciated her good work on so
many other issues which have come before this House.
The amendment before the House today attempts to
effectively repeal the Small Business Competitiveness
Demonstration Program Act of 1988, better known as the ``Comp
Demo'' law, by prohibiting the use of funds to carry out its
implementing provisions.
Comp Demo has been an effective tool for over 17 years in helping
assure that small businesses across a wide array of industries gain
Federal contracts. Equally important, Comp Demo does not effect
contracts which are set aside for minority-owned, socially
disadvantaged and service disabled veteran-owned businesses.
From its inception, the Comp Demo law has sought to address the
tendency of agencies to disproportionately rely upon a small number of
NAICS codes to meet their small business set-aside goals rather than
finding and developing a broad array of NAICS codes from which to meet
those goals--a practice which, if unremedied, would have the practical
effect of precluding small businesses outside those disproportionately
used industries from accessing the benefits of the small business set-
aside program that Congress intended.
That is why I oppose the amendment before the House today. The Comp
Demo law has proven its effectiveness during its 17-year history. It is
fair to small businesses interested in Federal contracting and assures
that Federal agencies meet the spirit and the letter of the law
regarding small business set asides.
As background, Members should be informed that the Comp Demo program
was passed in 1988 to assure that small businesses in all product and
service categories receive the benefits of the current Small Business
Set Aside program when pursuing Federal contracts, rather than just a
few, ``easy-to-do'' industries.
As such, Comp Demo has effectively worked for the past 17 years to
assure that competition and diversity occurs in small business
procurement (See: section 921 of P.L. 99-661) and that small businesses
receive a ``fair proportion'' of government contracts in each industry,
rather than just a few.
The Comp Demo program recognizes that contracts in certain NAICS
codes--including construction, architectural and engineering, surveying
and mapping, shipbuilding and ship repair, refuse systems, landscaping
and pest control services--have had a history of being
disproportionately set aside for small business, even though overall
small business participation in the open marketplace in these
industries was high.
And while the NAICS codes covered by the Comp Demo program had a
significant amount of contracts historically set aside for small
business, very talented small businesses in many other NAICS codes have
seen little, if any, small business set-aside contracts come their way,
despite representation of capable small firms in those other NAICS
codes.
Moreover, the practice of disproportionately using a small,
unrepresentative sample of NAICS codes for meeting small business set-
aside goals has the practical effect of precluding small businesses
outside those disproportionately used industries from realizing the
benefits of the small business set-aside program as Congress intended.
This practice can also operate to relegate the small business set-
aside program to lower-tech products and services while leaving higher-
tech NAICS codes less open to small business penetration and success in
Federal contracting--something that clearly runs contrary to Congress's
desires to both strengthen the diversity of the defense industrial base
and assure fairness in Federal contracting.
On the basis of its operation over 17 years, Comp Demo has shown that
small businesses covered by Comp Demo can and do compete for and win
the majority of the contracts, though on an unrestricted basis. Equally
important, Comp Demo does not effect set asides for:
Minority-owned and socially disadvantaged businesses--that is, set
asides for 8(a) and HUB Zone companies are not subject to the Comp Demo
law.
Similarly, Comp Demo does not apply to set asides for service-
disabled veteran owned businesses either.
In addition, very small/local businesses retain important set-aside
protections under Comp Demo as well, including:
All contracts under $25,000 on the Comp Demo list must be set aside
for restricted competition only among qualified emerging small
businesses, i.e., small businesses that are less than 50 percent of the
applicable size limit.
Moreover, Comp Demo also requires that all contracts over $25,000 in
each designated NAICS category on the Comp Demo list must be set aside
for restricted competition only among qualified small businesses, until
the agency has met its goal of awarding 40 percent of contracts within
that industry group to small businesses.
Only after an agency has met its goal of awarding 40 percent of
contracts within a listed NAICS category can contracts over $25,000 in
that designated NAICS category be awarded on unrestricted competition--
again, except for those contracts set aside as 8(a), HUB Zone or
service-disabled veteran owned companies.
Finally, Comp Demo was begun as a demonstration project some 17 years
ago. It was renewed in 1992, made permanent in 1997, and slightly
expanded in 2004 to include two additional NAICS codes. In all
instances, Comp Demo was part of a larger bill which passed by wide,
bipartisan margins or unanimous consent.
Comp Demo was set up to expand opportunities for small businesses
across a broad and diverse set of NAICS codes, rather than in a few,
``easy-to-do'' categories. The repeal of the program has no real
justification, would harm overall, broad-based small business
participation in Federal contracting, and harm the development of a
diverse defense industrial base. As such, I urge its rejection by the
House.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I had not planned on speaking on the small business
issue, but let me give an area in which my friends may be able to work
and not just even in this bill, but in the Military Construction bill.
In San Diego, where we have a lot of military construction in bases,
a lot of those packages are put together so large that only an out-of-
town, out-of-State company can bid on those packages to build houses
and military facilities. And we have tried over the years to try to
break it down where they can break down those large packages so that
smaller firms, the independent contractors, the little guys, can have a
shot and an opportunity at building those. And I would work with the
gentlewoman and the gentleman to make that happen because it is just
not right to have an out-of-town company because the bid is so large to
do that.
I would also like to bring up the bill itself. When one is in the
military, they look at a couple of things. One, they look at a Congress
that will give them the tools to fight, to train, and to win. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), it is the
most bipartisan committee that we have, I think, in this House. The
work that they have done to make sure that our troops are taken care
of, even the ones coming back. The gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Young)
wife, I do not think there is a day that she is not out there at one of
the hospitals comforting the men or the women that came back that are
wounded. But even more in this, for San Diego to shipbuilding, ship
repair, Admiral Clark, who is CNO, has done his absolute best to make
sure that it is balanced between the private and the public yards,
between the east and the west coast.
{time} 1800
There is an aircraft in here that is key. There is a system called
the F-22. Right now, our fighters, our best fighters, which most people
do not know, the F-14, the F-16, the F-18, if they go against the SU-30
or the SU-37, our American fighters lose over 90 percent of the time,
both in the intercept and in the dog fight. The F-22 gives us the
opportunity to put our pilots back into an airplane that can at least
go neutral with the enemy. The Joint Strike Fighter is coming up; and
in my personal opinion, we need to add to that to make sure that it is
viable against whatever the threat is as well.
But I also want to thank the chairman and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman
[[Page 13249]]
from Florida (Mr. Young). San Diego or any port that has a lot of bases
is very critical to homeland security. From the Coast Guard to the
border patrol, to INS, to this bill, they have done a good job. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has been, and I have been on
this committee ever since I have been here, and I want to thank him for
his personal attention, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) as well.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
There was no objection.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, there are some who said that capping
small business opportunity in certain industries increases
opportunities in other industries. That might have been the theory
behind the program in 1988 when it was created, but that has not been
the case. Different industries offer different opportunities; some are
very favorable to small businesses.
The Department of Defense has not achieved its small business goal
for the past 4 years. That is the reality. So, clearly, they are not
making up the difference someplace else.
Under the comp demo program, small businesses are guaranteed 40
percent participation in the targeted industries. If the agency does
not achieve 40 percent with small firms, it can reinstate small
businesses' set-asides. One need look no further than the goal for
architectural and engineering services, which has never been achieved.
We have asked the Department of Defense. They do not reinstate set-
asides when the achievement with small businesses is less than 40
percent.
Forty percent small business participation is a good thing. Normally,
small businesses only get 23 percent. If a small business's
participation decreases from 78 percent to 40 percent, that is the loss
of 38 percent, and that is what is happening now.
The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is, if you support small business
opportunity in the Federal marketplace, you should support this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez) will be postponed.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise to engage in a colloquy with a great
leader, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who, of course,
is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations.
First, I just want to thank the gentleman for the very hard work that
he consistently does for the security of our Nation. I appreciate this
opportunity to discuss an issue that is of great importance, and that
is ensuring that our Federal defense dollars are not used to support
groups or individuals engaged in efforts to overthrow democratically
elected governments.
Mr. Chairman, in an ideal world, we would not need to have to
explicitly stipulate this, but events in Haiti last year and, more
recently in Venezuela, have led me to wonder whether we need to codify
this straightforward, nonpartisan position.
Furthermore, the administration has committed its second term to
spreading democracy around the world. This is an important sentiment,
Mr. Chairman, but we need to be sure that if this administration, or
equally any future administration, does not agree with certain
democratically elected governments, that it does not use the Department
of Defense funds to overthrow those democratically elected governments.
Such actions fly in the face of our own fundamental democratic
principles.
I would like to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) if
he could comment on this and what his views are with regard to the
ideas that we are presenting today.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentlewoman from
California that I agree, we certainly should not overthrow a
democratically elected government. I appreciate the gentlewoman's
intention in raising this issue, and I want to assure her that as this
bill moves forward, we will be mindful to work with her and her staff
to do everything we can to help.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to thank the
gentleman for his attention to this issue and so many issues that are
important to our Nation. I also look forward to working together and
especially will request his help in developing a working definition in
the United States Code because now, quite frankly, there is no working
definition for ``democratically elected governments.'' We have been
searching legal databases, and I am frankly quite surprised that no
such definition exists in the U.S. Code.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to see that the amendment that was
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) to prevent any
funds in this bill from being used to contravene the United Nations'
acts and other acts against torture. I think that is a very good thing.
But I need to take this opportunity to point out to the House that we
are foregoing our responsibility here to investigate these kinds of
acts that have taken place over the course of the last 2 years or so in
places like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Camp Cropper, Bagram Air Base in
Afghanistan; and we have an increasing amount of evidence indicating
that these kinds of torturous activities were not just carried out
incidentally by low-ranking members of the armed services, but that
this was systemic and systematic.
We have, for example, recently released documents from Lieutenant
General Ricardo Sanchez which seem to indicate that he approved
interrogation techniques outside of the Geneva Convention, outside of
international law, and outside the U.S. Army's own field manual. These
activities included prolonged stress positions, sensory deprivation,
use of dogs to induce stress and fear. We have the first Abu Ghraib
report directed by U.S. Army Major General Antonio Taguba, who wrote in
his conclusion that ``between October and December of 2003 at the Abu
Ghraib confinement facility, numerous incidents and sadistic, blatant,
and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted. This systemic,'' he says,
``systemic and illegal abuse was intentionally perpetrated.''
It is clear from General Taguba's reports that these were not
incidental, and that they were inflicted broadly.
The Red Cross reported, by eye witnesses at about the same time,
``these methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the
military intelligence in a systematic way to gain confessions and
extract information or other forms of cooperation from persons who had
been arrested or deemed to have security value.'' That is a quote from
the Red Cross report.
Officials implicated in abuse now, interestingly enough, are being
promoted. There has been no action taken against the officials
implicated in this abuse at the highest levels.
This Congress is abrogating its responsibility. This House of
Representatives should be holding hearings. It may be necessary to
appoint a special counsel out of the Justice Department to look into
this. We need to get to the bottom of this. Our reputation as a Nation
is at stake.
Now, we might ask, as others have, how did all of this begin? Well,
here is what the circumstantial evidence indicates. The circumstantial
evidence, backed up by the report from which I just quoted, written by
Major General Antonio Taguba, shows that it originated at the highest
levels of the Pentagon, communicated by Steven
[[Page 13250]]
Cambone, who was appointed by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to be the
first Under Secretary for Intelligence.
This is the first time that the Secretary of Defense or that the
Pentagon has had an Under Secretary for Intelligence. That man is
Steven Cambone. He communicated to General Geoffrey Miller, the
commander of the detention and interrogation center at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, that these kinds of activities needed to take place.
Now, General Geoffrey Miller, according to the Taguba report, said
that detention operations must act as enablers for interrogation. He
introduced into Iraq the exclusive and illegal interrogation tactics
used at Guantanamo to ``GITMO-ize'' the prison system in Iraq. They
told our good soldiers in Iraq that no rules apply, no rules apply; and
then people wonder how these low-ranking individuals carried out the
acts that have been documented now in court proceedings as well as in
photographs.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that the House of
Representatives is not fulfilling its obligations under the law and
under the Constitution. The system of checks and balances has broken
down. It seems as though the executive branch of government is behaving
in a way outside of the law. We need to pay attention to this. This
House needs to engage itself in the right kinds of activities for the
right kinds of purposes.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. __. If funds provided in this or any other Act for
military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan would cause
Federal deficit levels to exceed those set in House
Concurrent Resolution 95 for FY 2006 or any subsequent year,
the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives
shall report a concurrent resolution on the budget that would
maintain the deficit levels set in House Concurrent
Resolution 95 while including this additional discretionary
spending in spending totals.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we have so far appropriated $277 billion for
activities in Afghanistan and Iraq; $168 billion of that has been
appropriated after the President declared an end to major conflict in
the region. The budget resolution, which passed this House about a
month ago, provided authority for an additional $50 billion to be spent
this year for Iraq and Afghanistan. This bill spends $45 billion of
that $50 billion.
The problem that we will face is that this bill is only enough to pay
for that war for the first 6 months of the fiscal year. That means that
when a new supplemental is submitted to the Congress to pay for the
last half of the fiscal year, we will wind up having to appropriate at
least another $40 billion. And when we do that, it will mean that the
Congress will have, in effect, busted the budget by at least $40
billion.
So what this amendment says is that if and when that happens, and it
will assuredly happen, if and when that happens, we are saying that the
Committee on the Budget must then bring forth a new budget resolution
which shows us how we can pay for that extra $40 billion without
raising the deficit.
{time} 1815
If we are not prepared to do that, then that means that we will
simply slip in that extra $40 billion, without any notice by the
public, without any attention being paid to the fact that what we are
really doing is raising the deficit by another $40 billion.
Regardless of how any Member of this House feels on this war, Members
ought to feel that if we pass a budget resolution, it ought to be a
legitimate one, that it ought to be laying out honestly what we expect
to spend.
Without this amendment, it will mean that we, sometime during the
fiscal year, will spend $40 billion more, only we will not be admitting
it on the budget resolution side. If we do not adopt this amendment,
what we will really be saying is that the budget that was adopted just
a month ago was a sham, that it was just a device to govern and to
limit the amount of spending that we were going to be engaged in for
education, for health care, for science, for agriculture, but that we
intended to really bust the budget to the tune of least $40 billion
when it came to the war in Iraq.
I do not think that many Members of the House would like to say that
that was their position, but absent the acceptance or the adoption of
this amendment, that is precisely what will happen. The administration
will come up here with another budget in order to pay for the last 6
months of the fiscal year for the war, and we will have busted the
budget to the tune of $40 billion and jacked up that deficit by the
same amount.
The administration is fond of saying that they adopted a budget
resolution which is going to cut the deficit in half. Without this
amendment, not a prayer, not a prayer. So I would urge adoption of the
amendment.
Point of Order
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the amendment, because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, therefore it
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The
amendment gives affirmative direction.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wish to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, the purpose of this amendment
is to see to it that the House stays within the deficit levels laid out
by the budget resolution passed just a few weeks ago.
The Budget Committee routinely sends instructions to the
Appropriations Committee about what it must do. I think this is an
instance in which the Appropriations Committee ought to send a signal
back that the Budget Committee ought to conform itself to reality and
budgetary honesty.
As I understand it, the rule under which this bill is being debated
provides that if no Member does lodge a point of order, than indeed
this amendment could be passed by the House. Unfortunately, the rule
did not protect this amendment from a point of order. And so if the
gentleman persists in his point of order, I will have to reluctantly
concede that point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
The amendment is not in order.
Are there any further amendments?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as we conclude debate, all of us want to thank again
Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha for their leadership, putting
together this bipartisan bill, and especially the good men and women
behind them, both of the minority party and the majority party who
helped to put this appropriations bill together.
Mr. Chairman, as we consider this important legislation, we must be
mindful that our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, all volunteers, I may
add, are on the battlefield as we speak, brave men and women fighting a
new kind of war where everyone literally is on the front line.
As we all know, the Army and Marines are carrying the brunt of the
battle in Iraq and Afghanistan, with an unprecedented level of
partnership by our Guard and Reserve components. And the young men and
women from the Air Force and Navy stand with them, as do we.
Their service and dedication on the battlefields of Iraq and
Afghanistan are making our Nation safer from terrorists who seek to do
us harm and other freedom-loving nations. Make no mistake, our success
in Iraq is hugely important. And our enemies in Iraq are thinking
enemies. They are adaptable and would like nothing better for us to
step back, or as some say, retreat, or to set arbitrary dates for
withdrawal and then come back after our departure to reinstall a new
Saddam Hussein or a regime even more oppressive, fanatical or more
horrendous and more dangerous than the last.
We should never forget that the soldiers we support through this
appropriations have freed nearly 50 million
[[Page 13251]]
people in Iraq and Afghanistan from killer regimes, where protests and
dissent were answered by killing fields and genocide, where women were
denied basic freedoms: Education, health and the right to vote.
But, of course, the loss of any young soldier from our ranks is
heartbreaking. And so is the death of innocent civilians killed by
roadside bombs, but we are dealing with Saddam loyalists, jihadists,
imported terrorists and domestic criminals who play by no rules. And do
not hesitate to bomb Iraqi weddings, funerals, gatherings of school
children, and behead innocent civilians as well as kill our soldiers.
Since we are engaged in a global war on terrorism with Iraq and
Afghanistan being countries of conflict and violence, our soldiers and
Marines need every possible advantage as this appropriations bill
allows. This legislation provides our fighting men and women with the
resources they need to be more deployable, more agile, more flexible,
more interoperable and more lethal in the execution of their mission.
It provides for better training, better equipment, better weapons. Of
course, our bill supports the troops by providing a pay increase,
enhanced life insurance coverage, and housing allowances. And this bill
also provides funding for new equipment, additional trucks, radios,
electronic jammers, uparmored HUMVEES, attack helicopters, warships and
fighter aircraft.
Most important, this bill provides an additional $1.2 billion for
personnel protection items, such as body armor. As troops rotate in and
out of the theater, they need the latest equipment and weapons systems.
Mr. Chairman, I also welcome increased funding for research and
development. Our bill exceeds the President's budget by $2.3 billion,
so we can speed important new technology from the drawing board to the
laboratory, to the test bed into the arsenal of our warfighter.
My colleagues, the global war on terrorism will not be short, it will
require deep and enduring commitment. As we look down the road we face
many potential and real threats. We cannot know what hostile forces
will face us next year, much less 5 years from now. So we must take
care to ensure that we have laid the proper foundation for a secure
national defense. These investments now and these appropriations will
pay off in more capability in the future. They deserve to be supported.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have seen a lot of chairmen presiding over the House
in the many years that I have been on one side or the other of this
bill. And I want to tell you, you do as good as job as anybody. And my
compliments to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for the way you
handled this bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
We are not at the 6:30 time for voting yet.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my chairman, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want
to take just this minute to express my deepest respect and appreciation
to both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for a fabulous job. We had a rather extended
discussion today, which is not usual for this bill.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, you think he is kind of giving us a little business
here, Mr. Chairman, on this thing here? We did the best we could do
under the circumstances. Right?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate both of
my friends yielding and having this discussion. But, this extended kind
of dialogue and exchange we had on the floor today was one that was a
very healthy discussion.
I have had many experiences here of late with my friend, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). And when I have had a great day,
and when I really had a great day, it has involved a week in which we
have worked our way through the processes that lead to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I having more than one discussion a day
for several days during that week.
And I go home to California. And then, kind of taking in a deep
breath on Saturday. Sunday morning I go out back, smile when I am
feeling good, and I walk across the pool. And, gentlemen, I want you to
know I get wet every time.
In the meantime, it is a wonder, and a wonderment working with the
two of you. You have done a fabulous job. We very much appreciate the
leadership on both sides of the aisle on this very important matter.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of our
chairman. He did such a tremendous job when he chaired this
subcommittee for the past 6 years.
I want to take now just a minute, because we have, before we can
start to vote, we have 2\1/2\ minutes to the 6:30 hour. This
subcommittee has worked really hard and on a very bipartisan basis. We
had the largest part of the supplemental early this year. We have this
very large bill now, which is the largest appropriations bill in the
system.
And the Members of the subcommittee, with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), we have had an opportunity to be the leaders
of the subcommittee. But all of these Members have worked really hard
and have paid strict attention to what it was that we were about, to
provide for our Nation's security.
But I also want to pay tribute to members of our staff. Members of
our staff, during the hearing periods and during the markup periods,
they do not have weekends. They are here on weekends. They have very
few hours at night with their families, because they are here many
times all night long.
That is when you hear about, something was done in the dark of night.
Well, my friend, if we do not do things in the dark of night, we would
never get them done, so we knew we worked long days, long hours, long
nights.
But the staff on both sides are just as bipartisan and nonpartisan as
the Members. And this is just a really good positive subcommittee, and
the work that it does is very bipartisan. We believe strongly in our
country. We believe strongly in those volunteers who serve in our
military, and who carry the burden of providing for the security.
I just recently attended the burial of a soldier from my district
killed in Iraq. And my final comment was that you can sleep in peace
tonight, America, because our heroes are out there on the front line
standing guard.
And that is what this bill is all about.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin to the amendment by Mr. Hunter of
California.
Amendment by Mr. Hunter of California.
Amendment by Mr. Doggett of Texas.
Amendment number 8 by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.
Amendment by Ms. Velazquez of New York.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
{time} 1830
Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Hunter
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
[[Page 13252]]
The Clerk will designate the amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment to the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198,
noes 210, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 283]
AYES--198
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
Kirk
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--210
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--25
Baker
Brown, Corrine
Conyers
Ehlers
Flake
Granger
Harris
Herseth
Istook
Kilpatrick (MI)
Knollenberg
Lantos
Lewis (KY)
Moore (WI)
Platts
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Schwarz (MI)
Shimkus
Souder
Towns
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Wexler
{time} 1854
Mr. NEUGEBAUER and Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. ROSS and Mrs. BIGGERT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 283, I was
detained today because of flight delays, and had I been here, I would
have voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 283 I missed the vote
because my flight arrived nearly two hours late. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 283, I missed
the vote due to a traffic delay. Had I been present, I would have voted
``no.''
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 283 I was unavoidably
delayed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered By Mr. Hunter
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Doggett
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 84,
noes 329, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 284]
AYES--84
Abercrombie
Allen
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Blumenauer
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Conyers
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Doggett
Emanuel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Markey
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Serrano
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Weiner
Woolsey
NOES--329
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
[[Page 13253]]
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Watt
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--20
Baker
Boyd
Brown, Corrine
Crenshaw
Flake
Granger
Harris
Herseth
Istook
Lewis (KY)
Moore (WI)
Reynolds
Schwarz (MI)
Souder
Towns
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Weller
Wexler
{time} 1903
Mr. McINTYRE and Mr. CLEAVER changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. ABERCROMBIE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 284, I was unavoidably
delayed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 284, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 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 CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 136,
noes 280, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 285]
AYES--136
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--280
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cox
Cramer
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
[[Page 13254]]
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Baker
Boyd
Brown, Corrine
Crenshaw
Flake
Granger
Harris
Herseth
Istook
Lewis (KY)
Moore (WI)
Schwarz (MI)
Souder
Towns
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Wexler
{time} 1911
Messrs. RYAN of Ohio, BOREN and VISCLOSKY changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. EDWARDS and Mr. ENGEL changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180,
noes 235, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 286]
AYES--180
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--235
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Sodrel
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Baker
Boyd
Brown, Corrine
Crenshaw
Flake
Granger
Harris
Herseth
Istook
Lewis (KY)
McKinney
Moore (WI)
Schwarz (MI)
Souder
Towns
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Wexler
{time} 1919
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the last two lines.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2006''.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with
the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill,
as amended, do pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman 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. 2863) making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, had directed him to report
the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as
amended, do pass.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 315, the
previous question is ordered.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Doggett was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Announcing the Passing of Hon. J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty to inform the House of
the passing of a friend to many of us and a long-term colleague here in
the House, J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle of Austin. Jake passed away at the age
of 91, peacefully, on Saturday. He had a long career here in
Washington, having served as a night watchman over in the Cannon
Building, a job he told me he never did very well, but he sure worked
night and day in the 31 years that he served here in the House of
Representatives, working with colleagues on both sides
[[Page 13255]]
of the aisle, bringing not only his legislative talents but his
tremendous good humor.
He has more stories than anyone can remember, many of them collected
with his daughter Peggy in a book. We have got an elementary school, a
research center and a Federal building named after him, but I think he
lives on in the hearts of the many who worked with him here in
Washington and certainly in the lives of the thousands of people he
helped in central Texas, most of whom have a squeaky green pickle to
remember him by, along with his many good deeds.
Services will be at 4 o'clock on Wednesday in Austin. I know all of
our colleagues will join in expressing our sympathies to his wife,
Beryl; daughter, Peggy; and all the members of the Pickle family and in
saying, Jake, a job well done.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were 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.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 398,
nays 19, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 287]
YEAS--398
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--19
Baldwin
Conyers
Duncan
Filner
Hinchey
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
McDermott
McKinney
Owens
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Schakowsky
Stark
Waters
Watt
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--16
Baker
Boyd
Brown, Corrine
Crenshaw
Flake
Granger
Harris
Herseth
Istook
Lewis (KY)
Moore (WI)
Schwarz (MI)
Souder
Towns
Waxman
Wexler
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). Members are
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1939
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
REPORT ON H.R. 2985, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
Mr. YOUNG of Florida, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted
a privileged report (Rept. No. 109-139) on the bill (H.R. 2985) making
appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, which was referred to the
Union Calendar and ordered to be printed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1, rule XXI, all points
of order are reserved on the bill.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 10,
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AUTHORIZING CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT PHYSICAL
DESECRATION OF THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. GINGREY, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 109-140) on the resolution (H. Res. 330) providing
for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 10) proposing an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the
Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United
States, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2475,
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
Mr. GINGREY, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 109-141) on the resolution (H. Res. 331) providing
for consideration of
[[Page 13256]]
the bill (H.R. 2475) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006
for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United
States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other
purposes, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBERS AS COSPONSORS OF H.R. 2646
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on June 17, the following Members were
inadvertently added as cosponsors of H.R. 2646: the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Brown), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Lucas), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Rehberg), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster),
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Keller).
I ask unanimous consent to have their names removed as cosponsors of
H.R. 2646 at this time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
____________________
SENATOR DURBIN'S COMMENTS
(Mrs. BLACKBURN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, last week Senator Durbin compared
American soldiers to Nazis, to the Soviets in the Gulags, and to Pol
Pot.
These comments were the latest in a series of leftist attacks on our
war against the terror in the Middle East and on our hard-line approach
to terrorism here at home.
I want to assure my constituents that neither my party nor I believe
America is what is wrong with this world. And no one should think for a
minute, not even for a second, that we are in the wrong here. I have
been to Iraq and to Afghanistan, and this political tactic sickens me.
If one wants to criticize our policies, fine. If one wants to call
for withdrawal, that is just fine. But characterizing the actions of
our Armed Forces as Nazi-like is reprehensible.
And to our Armed Forces and their wonderful families, I just want to
say ``thank you.'' They are making a difference, and most of us are
standing with them 100 percent of the time.
____________________
PUBLIC BROADCASTING
(Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we are facing a storm of controversy
surrounding public broadcasting. There are ominous signs of
interference and people concerned about trying to impose their
political agenda on our independent public broadcasting system.
We have seen Draconian and unjustified proposals coming from the
Committee on Appropriations to slash funding for the next year and
eliminate Federal support altogether in the future.
In 2001, we formed the Public Broadcasting Caucus in Congress
precisely for the reason to enable us to come together in a bipartisan
way to deal with the controversial and complex issues surrounding
public broadcasting. This would be a great time for Members who have
not yet joined to become members to enable their staff to take
advantage of opportunity and information and, frankly, in a small way,
to show some measure of support.
I look forward to the debate later this week during the Labor-HHS
appropriations bill not just to restore critical funding. My hope is
that as a result of this controversy, we will emerge with a better
understanding of why we support the public broadcasting. I hope we are
doing so in a way that provides the continuity and stability so
essential to the critical service enjoyed by 28 million listeners each
month and the 70 percent of television owners who watch public
television.
____________________
{time} 1945
A VOTE FOR CAFTA IS A VOTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, as all of us know, CAFTA was finished
last year and will soon be taken up by the Congress.
While trade is a critical component of CAFTA, we must recognize that
CAFTA is more than just about trade. We have a national security
imperative in passing CAFTA. It is an important component of U.S.
efforts to address the conditions that breed instability, terrorism,
and international criminal activity.
We must help ensure that the countries in Central America have the
ability to fight the threats to their democratic institutions. Helping
their economic growth is a critical factor to achieving success.
CAFTA is the vehicle for achieving such important U.S. foreign policy
and security objectives. CAFTA's defeat would harm not only trade, but
antiterrorism and antinarcotic efforts as well.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of CAFTA. A
vote for CAFTA is a vote for U.S. national security.
____________________
COMMERCE AND CENSORSHIP
(Mr. BROWN of Ohio asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as Congress considers the Central
American Free Trade Agreement, we can look on the other side of the
world on what our trade agreements and trade policies have wrought.
USA Today has an editorial today I will read from for a moment:
``Part of the Internet's magic is the freedom it bestows to travel as
far as your mind can take you. But not if you're in China.
``Software giant Microsoft has agreed to block certain words:
democracy, freedom, and human rights among them,'' on the Internet as
part of its new Chinese Internet portal. They have been joined by Yahoo
and by Google.
So, Mr. Speaker, write in the words ``democracy'' or ``freedom'' or
the phrase ``human rights,'' and what comes up on your screen as those
words are blocked? It says, ``This item should not contain forbidden
speech, such as profanity.'' Human rights, freedom, democracy? That is
profanity?
Mr. Speaker, these trade agreements we have signed, coupled with our
striving for freedom around the world and what our businesses say about
their wanting to promote freedom and democracy, sound a bit hollow.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 2005, and under a previous order of the House, the
following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.
____________________
THE HIGH COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FOR AMERICANS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to talk about an issue
that altogether too many Americans know more about than perhaps some
folks here in Washington, and that is the almost inexcusable high
prices for prescription drugs here in the United States. The more we
learn about this subject, the more frustrating it becomes, because what
we have learned over the last 5 or 6 years is it is not just that
Americans pay high prices for prescription drugs; it is that people in
industrialized countries like Germany and France and Switzerland pay so
much less than we do.
What I have here is a chart, and I know these letters are almost too
[[Page 13257]]
small to see on the television cameras, but let me point out a couple
of the numbers. This is a chart of comparative prices that we got from
a pharmacy in Frankfurt, Germany, called Metropolitan Pharmacy; and
then we got prices from a local pharmacy in Rochester, Minnesota, for
exactly the same drugs made in the same plants under the same FDA
approval. What we see are some amazing differences.
Look at, for example, the drug Nexium, 30 tablets, 20 milligrams. In
Germany, you can walk in with a prescription and buy that drug at the
Metropolitan Pharmacy for $60.25. That exact same drug in Rochester,
Minnesota, will cost you $145.33.
Let me just say that prices do vary from pharmacy to pharmacy; but I
would guarantee that here in Washington, D.C., the price would probably
be at least $145.33.
Let us take the drug Zocor, 30 tablets, 10 milligrams. In Germany you
can buy that drug for $23.83, but here in the United States you would
have to pay $85.39.
Now, that is bad enough. But if you total all of these up, these are
10 of the more commonly prescribed drugs in the United States and
Germany, the total for those drugs for a month's supply in Frankfurt,
Germany, $455.57. Those same drugs here in the United States, $1,040.4.
That is a 128 percent difference.
Now, this chart actually gets more interesting, because we have
pharmacists all over the world now who send us their prices on a
regular basis so we can compare what is happening to drug prices. One
year ago, when we compared a basket, now the drugs changed slightly,
because some of these drugs went off patent, and so the basket of drugs
changed slightly, but 1 year ago, the difference between the basket of
10 of the most commonly prescribed drugs in Germany was $430, and here
in the United States it was $866. It was exactly a 100 percent
difference.
The point I want to make here is during that period, during that 1-
year time period, what happened was the value of the dollar relative to
the euro actually came down.
Now, I am not a monetarist, I do not quite understand these exchanges
sometimes, but the people who do tell me that actually what should have
happened is the price differential between the United States and
Germany should have gotten less. It actually got worse.
People ask, well, how could that happen? How could it be that the
difference between what Americans pay and Germans pay actually got
worse? Well, the reason is Americans are held hostage. The American
market is a captive market, because not only do we give the
pharmaceutical companies, which I believe we should give them the
rights that they have in terms of their patent rights and so forth, I
do not think that we should do anything to hurt people's patent rights;
but what we have done in the United States is different than just
giving them patent rights. Intellectual property deserves patent
protection.
For example, we know that when Intel comes out with a new computer
chip, that first chip off the line can cost $500 million, but we do not
tell Intel that you can also control that product after you make the
first sale. In other words, if they sell that chip to a distributor in
Japan for $25 and they want to sell it to American manufacturers for
$75, they cannot control what that distributor in Japan does. We have
open markets.
That is what we want to create here in the Congress. We have a
majority of the House and a majority of the Senate who believe that it
is time to stop holding Americans captive. We understand that these
drugs cost a lot of money to develop.
We as Americans are willing to pay our share in terms of developing
those drugs; but, unfortunately, Americans pay in three different ways
for these drugs. First of all, we pay in the prices, and they are
inflated. They are the highest prices in the world for these drugs.
Secondly, we pay, in some respects, through our Tax Code, because when
companies develop these drugs here in the United States, they get to
write off all of the cost of those research and development dollars.
But, third, and this is also important, Americans pay more than any
other country through our tax dollars to help develop these drugs. This
year, we will spend over $20 billion through various agencies, the
National Science Foundation, the various groups at NIH, and even
through the Defense Department, to help develop these miracle drugs.
So in some respects, we pay for them in the prices we pay, we pay in
the Tax Code, and we pay in the research that we pay for.
It is time to give Americans access to world-class drugs at world-
market prices.
____________________
SMART SECURITY AND IRAQ'S SOLDIERS
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, on April 12 at Fort Hood, Texas, President
Bush told an audience of thousands of servicemembers that, for the
first time, Iraqi soldiers outnumbered U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
Specifically, he put the number of trained Iraqi forces at 150,000.
This rosy assessment of the situation in Iraq is shocking, not only
for its arrogance, but also for its ignorance. Is the President totally
oblivious of Iraq's true security failures, or is he misleading the
American people into thinking that peace has taken hold?
Either way, the President's assessment misleads the American people
about the true situation in Iraq. Take, for example, his claim that
150,000 Iraqi soldiers have been trained. Iraqi military leaders
actually reveal that the number of trained soldiers is closer to
75,000, about half of the President's estimate. But the actual number
of trained security personnel committed to a secure and democratic Iraq
is even less than that, because many soldiers use their posts to
assassinate political opponents. Others simply have no desire to help
secure Iraq.
The chief of police in Basra, General Hassan al-Sade, stated that at
least half of his 14,000-member militia are openly opposed to a secure
Iraq, and another quarter are politically neutral and do not follow his
military orders. General al-Sade recently told the Guardian newspaper,
``I trust 25 percent of my force, no more.''
After giving his Fort Hood speech, the President never again
mentioned that 150,000 Iraqi security personnel have been trained.
Perhaps that is because he realized that his assessment was entirely
inaccurate.
But the President never admitted to the American people that he was
wrong in this assessment, and he still has not told the American people
how he plans to help secure Iraq or how and when he plans to bring the
troops home.
Mr. Speaker, the best way to help secure Iraq and protect our troops
is to remove U.S. troops from the country. Nothing enrages and unites
Iraq's insurgency more than the presence of nearly 140,000 American
soldiers on Iraqi soil.
One option is to bring one American soldier home for every
trustworthy Iraqi soldier that has been trained. If 75,000 Iraqi
soldiers have been trained, half the President's April 12 assessment,
then why can we not remove the same number of our own soldiers?
This is just one plan to exit from Iraq. We have asked the President
to come up with his own plan for securing Iraq. I am not against
supporting the President's plan if it is a good one; but right now, he
does not even have a plan. So we will develop a plan of our own.
Fortunately, there is a plan that would secure America for the future
once we have cleaned up the mess we made in Iraq: SMART Security. SMART
is a Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism for the 21st
Century, and it will help us address the threats we face as a Nation.
SMART Security will prevent acts of terrorism in countries like Iraq
by addressing the very conditions which allow terrorism to take root:
poverty, despair, resource scarcity, lack of education, and economic
opportunities.
[[Page 13258]]
SMART Security encourages the United States to work with other nations
to address the most pressing global issues. SMART Security addresses
global crises diplomatically instead of by resorting to armed conflict.
Efforts to help the Iraqi people must follow the SMART approach:
humanitarian assistance coordinated with our international allies to
rebuild Iraq's war-torn physical and economic infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, it has been more than 2 years since the United States
started the war in Iraq. Do the American people, especially the
soldiers who are bravely serving our country halfway across the world,
not deserve a plan for ending the war? It is time for the President to
create a plan to end the war in Iraq to bring our troops home.
____________________
{time} 2000
WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I hadn't realized the juxtaposition that
the speakers would have this evening. But my remarks, I think, dovetail
somewhat with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) in regard
to addressing the issue of withdrawing from Iraq and exit strategy and
so on. We hear a lot of debate about that.
And I am not here to debate the merits of the war in the Middle East.
I am not here to talk about the intelligence leading up to the war, but
I would like to address the current reality of the situation, we are
there. We made sacrifices. We have lost roughly 1,700 soldiers. We have
spent billions of dollars.
And yet as I traveled to the Middle East, I have been to Iraq three
times, I have been to Afghanistan once, Kuwait once, I have been amazed
at our soldiers' morale. And they often tell me this, they say there
are two wars that we are fighting over here, there is the war that we
see on CNN, the bombings, the beheadings, and then there is the war
that we are actually experiencing.
And I wondered if you please go home and tell the American people
what we are seeing and what we feel about the situation. So as far as
Afghanistan is concerned, I met with a Colonel this morning who just
returned from Afghanistan. We realize we have disrupted the terrorist
training camps, their funding for terrorists have been disrupted, the
Taliban has been removed, they have a representative government,
constitution, and a great leader in Karzai. So we have made
considerable progress.
It is not perfect, but things have certainly gone well there. As far
as Iraq is concerned, Saddam Hussein has been deposed. And I am the
cochair of the Iraqi Womens Caucus. So I meet with Iraqi women in Iraq
and also here. And the one thing that they continually tell me is this:
They say, you know, Iraq is still a dangerous place. There is a lot of
bad things. But for the first time in 30 years, we now have hope. We
now see a future. And hope is a very powerful thing.
As far as education is concerned, the school attendance has increased
by 80 percent, most of those are young women for the first time going
to school. Health care, 97 percent of the young people have been
vaccinated for the first time. We all know about the elections and how
that empowered the Iraqi people. And one thing that we do not hear much
about is economic activity, Iraqi income has doubled in the last year.
So a great deal has been accomplished. So as far as the strategy is
concerned, or is there an exit strategy, what are we talking about
here?
It is very clear. If you talk to General Casey, you talk to General
Petraeus, they say here is the objective. We are going to train 270,000
Iraqis. And they will give you charts that show you explicitly that
they have trained more than 150,000, and they are armed and they are
proficient at this point. So we are training about 10,000 a month. So
the math indicates that about 1 year from now we will be at 270,000.
The other thing that has to happen, in addition to the 270,000
trained, is we have to make sure that Iraq can control its own destiny,
we have to have a stable government, and we have seen some improvement
in that direction as well.
We have seen the Iraqis now out in front in most military actions.
There are portions of the country where Iraqis are solely in control
militarily. So we see signs that are good. The big question, the wild
card at this point is Sunni involvement in the government. And Al
Jafari will tell you, General Casey will tell you, we do not know how
that is going to go, so we cannot give a precise timetable.
Declaring that we would pull out at a date certain, I think, would be
counterproductive. It would be a like giving a playbook to an opponent,
as a coach, something you would not do. You would not give insurgents a
date certain, where they can wait and say, well, this is the time when
a certain amount of troops will be gone and we can go therefore begin
to attack, and certainly encourage terrorists.
A young captain in Kuwait told me this. He said, if we pull out
prematurely, three things will happen. Number 1, the 1,700 soldiers
that we have had killed there will have died in vain, and we will have
to tell their families that. Number 2, tens of thousands of Iraqis will
be killed in the ensuing conflict, and we promised them, we gave them
our word that this would not happen, that we would not pull out
prematurely.
And, thirdly, we would have encouraged terrorists around the world.
And so it seems to me that the course that we are pursuing, while not
perfect, makes some sense, and we definitely do have an exit strategy.
____________________
CAFTA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, at the White House news conference
early this month, President Bush called on Congress to pass the Central
American Free Trade Agreement this summer. Earlier this month, the most
powerful Republican in Congress, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay),
promised a vote by July 4. Well, actually last year he promised a vote
during 2004. Then he promised by Memorial Day that we would vote on
CAFTA. Now, I think he means it this time, now he is saying we are
going to vote on CAFTA by July 4.
As Congress waits for the next CAFTA vote countdown to begin, while
we wait and wait and wait, many of us who have been speaking out, on
both sides of the aisle, dozens of Republicans and dozens of Democrats
have a message to the President and to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay), renegotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
President Bush signed CAFTA almost 13 months ago. Every trade
agreement negotiated by this administration, Morocco, Chile, Singapore,
Australia, has been voted on within 60 days of the President's signing
the agreement. But CAFTA has been 13 months. It has languished in
Congress for more than a year without a vote because this wrong-headed
trade agreement offends Republicans and Democrats.
It offends small business people and farmers and ranchers. It offends
Central American workers and American workers. It offends advocates for
food safety and the environment. Just look at what has happened with
our trade policy, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the
President want more of the same.
Look at what has happened to our trade policy in the last dozen
years. The year that I came to Congress, the same year that the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) came to Congress, we were
elected in 1992, that year the U.S. had a $38 billion trade deficit,
meaning we imported $38 billion more than we exported. 12 years later,
a dozen years later, last year, our trade deficit went from $38 billion
12 years later to $618 billion.
It is hard to argue that our trade policy is working when the deficit
goes from $38 billion and balloons to $618 billion in just a dozen
years.
[[Page 13259]]
But, it is more than just some numbers, Mr. Speaker, on a trade
deficit, it is also job loss. In the last 6 years, manufacturing jobs
alone, the States in red have lost 20 percent or more of their
manufacturing base. Michigan has lost 210,000 manufacturing jobs,
Illinois, 224, Ohio 216, Pennsylvania 199, New Jersey over 100,000
Alabama and Mississippi together, 130,000 jobs.
The States in blue have lost 15 to 20 percent of their manufacturing
jobs. Texas, 201,000. California 354,000. It is pretty clear our trade
policy is not working, Mr. Speaker. Opponents to CAFTA know that it is
an extension of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a
dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA, for all intents and purposes.
It did not work then, it is not working now. It is the same old
story. Every time there is a trade agreement in front of Congress, the
President says it will mean more jobs for Americans. The President
promises, we will manufacture more products and export them abroad. The
President promises it will raise the standard of living in the
countries of our trading partners, and the developing countries.
Yet, with every trade agreement their promises fall by the wayside in
favor of big business interests, not small business interests, big
business interests that sends U.S. jobs overseas and exploit cheap
labor abroad.
Ben Franklin said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing
over and over and over and expecting a different result. We hear the
same promises on the same kind of trade agreements, and we get the same
negative results. In the face of overwhelming bipartisan opposition,
Republican leadership and the administration have tried every trick in
the book to pass this CAFTA and they failed.
Now, they have opened the bank. Desperate after failing to gin up
support for the agreement based on its merits, CAFTA supporters are now
attempting to buy votes with their fantastic promises. If history is an
example, Members should beware of these promises. Fewer than 20
percent, 14 out of 92 trade promises from the administration in the
last dozens years, 14 out of 92 trade promises, less than 20 percent,
were ever realized.
The White House will make all kinds of promises to Members on both
sides of the aisle, but do not be suckers, it is going to happen again
and again and again. Instead of wasting with toothless side deals,
Ambassador Portman should renegotiate a trade deal, a CAFTA that will
pass Congress.
Republicans and Democrats, labor and business, farmers and ranchers,
religious leaders in Central America, religious leaders in the United
States, environmental and human rights organizations in all seven
countries are speaking with one voice: Defeat this CAFTA and
renegotiate a CAFTA that lifts up workers in both countries.
Mr. Speaker, a worker in the United States averages about $38,000 a
year in wages. The Dominican Republic about $6,000, Honduras about
$2,600, Nicaragua 2,300. A Nicaraguan worker who earns $2,300 a year
cannot buy cars made in Ohio, cannot buy prescription drugs
manufactured in New Jersey, cannot buy textiles and apparel from North
Carolina, cannot buy software from Seattle, cannot buy prime cut beef
from Nebraska.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement is about outsourcing jobs to El Salvador,
exploiting cheap labor in Guatemala. When the world's poorest people
can buy American products, not just make them, then you know our trade
policy will finally have succeeded.
____________________
IRAQ AND GUANTANAMO
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about two issues, Iraq
and Guantanamo, to talking about war and prisons. We have heard a lot
about both in the last few months. And I think it is incumbent upon us
to understand the situation.
We hear about Iraq and the situation in Iraq. And I was fortunate on
January 30 to be in Iraq, along with the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Shays), two Members of Congress on Election Day to see a nation
born, a new nation with a democracy. The cynics said it would never
happen. They said the Iraqi people were not smart enough to have a
democracy, they did not know what it was like.
Yet 60 percent of those people went out and voted, defiant of the
tyranny, of the terrorists. Almost 60 of them were murdered either
going to or from the polls, but yet they went and voted. Almost 300
others were injured going to and from the polls, but yet they voted.
The timetable for that country to have a democracy is a short one,
almost 2 years. But we forget that our own country took 13 years, from
the beginning of the war for independence and the setting of the
Constitution of the United States. It took us a long time.
Yet we expect more of the Iraqi people. And they are performing that.
And I was honored to be there to see those people, to tell me
personally that they appreciated American and America's youth
sacrificing so this nation could be a free nation.
I saw that they are concerned for American troops, the morale of the
American troops. The concern that the Iraqi people had was that we
would cut and run and leave before the job was done, before the Iraqi
people were able to control their own country. But we will not cut and
run, we will finish the job. It is not the way we do things in America,
to run from a fight, liberating a country that wishes to be free.
And now we hear talk about Guantanamo Bay, the situation. Let me tell
you something. Mr. Speaker, I have been to jails, I have been to
prisons. I was a judge for 22 years, I was a prosecutor for 8. I have
seen numerous jails, numerous prisons in the State of Texas and our
Federal prisons. I know what jails are like. I know what prisons are
like. And to compare Guantanamo Bay to a Nazi concentration camp, to
the Soviet gulags is outrageous, it is an affront to those millions of
people who died in those concentration camps.
My dad served in World War II. And as a teenager, he saw those
concentration camps. He helped liberate them with other Americans.
Recently I had the chance to see some of those concentration camps some
50 years later. And to say that Guantanamo Bay is like a concentration
camp minimizes the death that occurred in those concentration camps in
Germany. And it is an insult to these people that died there.
I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that those people who talk and
criticize our situation in Iraq, that they go to Iraq. I went there for
that very purpose, to see our troops. And I think it is important that
those people who criticize Guantanamo Bay, that they go to Guantanamo
Bay and see that jail there.
That is why I am recommending and offering that we go there as
Members of Congress, we go as soon as we can to see the situation
firsthand. We need to understand that the people in Guantanamo Bay are
terrorists. We talk about them being prisoners of war, but to be
protected under the Geneva Convention, Mr. Speaker, a person must have
a commander, they must wear a uniform, they must not take and have
concealed weapons. They must kill civilians or the innocent.
And the terrorists that are in that jail down in Guantanamo Bay are
not protected by the Geneva Convention because they violate these
rules, these rules. And yet we hear of all of the bad things that are
occurring.
{time} 2015
I think it is incumbent to see the situation firsthand and make our
own determination because it is important that we not cut and run from
this situation in Guantanamo Bay any more than we cut and run from
Iraq.
____________________
CAFTA HURTS WOMEN OF THE AMERICAS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, many people do not think of trade agreements
as an issue particular to women.
[[Page 13260]]
But a briefing I held last week along with the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) made clear how
disproportionately the proposed CAFTA agreement will negatively affect
women.
We tend to forget about women in forgotten places like the sweat shop
zones in Guatemala, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador,
Costa Rica. But let me tell some of their stories.
One worker, woman in Guatemala describes the way supervisors treat
workers in the maquiladora, the sweat shop where she works. She says,
``Sometimes the supervisor grabs a piece of cloth you're working on and
throws it in your face. Once when a supervisor did that to me, I
finally grabbed the piece from him and threw it back in his face. I did
not cry. If I had cried, I wouldn't have been able to answer him.
Instead, I told him that he needed to start respecting the women that
worked for him. I could have accepted it if he had just said the piece
was no good, but to throw it in my face, I won't stand for that.''
How about the thousands of women who work in the banana packing
plants? Who speaks for them?
For the treatment that the woman in the textile company received, she
earns $68 every 2 weeks including over time and bonuses, working many
more than 8 hours a day. She goes on to say, ``The trousers we make
cost about $39.50 each. In 2 weeks we earn enough to buy 2 pairs. But
do you know how many pants we have to produce every day? Our quota is
between 400 and 700 trousers per day.''
Another worker describes efforts to organize a union to represent
women. She says, ``The company used to fire workers without any cause.
They did not always pay the workers their full salaries and there were
lots of other problems, so the secretary-general said it would be a
good idea to place an injunction. That's when the company started to
intimidate the workers. The situation got really bad . . . when someone
shot at one girl while she was buying tortillas and hit her in the ear.
From then on everyone was afraid and did not want to continue
fighting'' for an organization to represent the women, an actual union.
Last year, a U.S. union official organizing in El Salvador was
killed. No independent trade unions have been registered there in 4
years. In Guatemala only two collective bargaining agreements exist
among more than 200 textile factories.
Now, U.S. Trade Ambassador Portman claims that poor enforcement is
the only problem with Central America's labor regimes, not inadequate
laws. Yet there are dozens of serious deficiencies in Central American
labor laws. CAFTA does not require compliance with international labor
standards like the freedom to associate and to bargain collectively,
nor does it protect women against outright discrimination. And CAFTA
offers no protection against weakening, gutting, or eliminating
existing laws in the future.
We need trade that serves women and workers in all of our countries,
not agreements that force women into these awful conditions and places
a downward pressure on the wages and working conditions that women in
America have fought so very hard for from the very beginning in the
mid-1930s, women like my own mother who was the first member of my
family ever to earn a living wage when she struggled for the formation
of the first union at an auto parts plant in our community.
We do not want CAFTA to roll back standards for women of this
hemisphere and this continent. Women of the Americas should not stand
for it. CAFTA would devastate family farmers just like it did in Mexico
under NAFTA when over a million and a half peasants were forced off
their land and forced to migrate somewhere just to try to find a better
way of life. And they end up working in these sweat shop zones or
fleeing across our border, working under the table, not having a decent
labor agreement under which their lives, and indeed their livelihoods,
can be guaranteed.
Already over 60 percent of the workers in Central America in their
factories, in the banana packing houses are women. They work in very
low-skill, low-wage jobs with absolutely few labor protections. CAFTA
would do very little to protect their labor rights in the sweat shops
in which they spend the majority of their young years.
Women have reported forced pregnancy testing, sexual harassment, and
even physical abuse in this sector where women assemble clothing, pack
bananas, and try to eke out a living for themselves and their families.
I want to thank STITCH, a small organization that supports the voices
of these women being heard here in the Congress of the United States.
____________________
EXAMINING BRAC CLOSURES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the subject of the
Base Realignment and Closure process that is currently ongoing. I speak
as a former Air Force pilot and a member of Congress from New Mexico.
Although the base that I would like to talk about does not lie in my
district, I think the overall concern that I have is that the process
of establishing military value has somehow been deeply flawed, at least
with respect to this one base. I would like to mention a couple of
things about it.
According to the criteria set up by the BRAC Commission, encroachment
was supposed to be one of the important issues that was discussed. In
other words, if a town grows around a military base, it somehow loses
its value because there are certain processes that are not as capable
of being performed. So encroachment, that is the growing of the
population around the base, is an extremely important measurement as we
determine military value.
But as we look at the population, the population is listed on this
chart in red. In the white areas are low population density areas.
Cannon Air Force base is right here about 4 or 5 miles from the Texas
border on the east side of New Mexico. As you can see, there are almost
no population centers anywhere around. What this means is that Air
Force fighters can take off from Cannon Air Force base without flying
over densely populated areas. They can carry live munitions, live
bombs, and live armament over this sparsely populated area without much
risk.
Now this last week we saw the Harrier jet that actually had problems
and fell into a housing area with those munitions on board, and that is
the problem with encroachment. And yet when the BRAC Commission says
that we should not have encroachment and that will be a high priority,
we see that no encroachment has occurred here. And as we look across
the rest of the country, we see deep encroachment occurring; and so one
criteria appears to be completely ignored with respect to Cannon Air
Force base in the eastern side of New Mexico.
Another one of the criteria that was mentioned is training space
unencumbered by the overflight of airlines and commercial traffic. Now,
again, if people are not aware of the White Sands Missile Range that
lies in the second district of New Mexico which I do respect, that is a
completely restricted air space. No airliner ever flies through that
air space. And so starting back across Dallas, one can see from this
chart that almost no white exists, white would be the commercial air
traffic. But those flights begin to divert north toward Albuquerque, or
they divert south to El Paso and fly completely around New Mexico.
Now, Cannon Air Force Base again lies about the midpoint in New
Mexico along the New Mexico-Texas border, and it benefits because those
airliners have already begun to divert far before they hit the New
Mexico border, and so the air space that is available for training lies
in this particular area. And, again, one of the extreme criteria of
[[Page 13261]]
the BRAC Commission appears to have been either ignored or just
disregarded.
The problem of training space becomes even more important when it is
considered with population density. Many times aircraft that take off
from densely populated areas have to fly to areas of sparse population,
and each flight in a military aircraft can run tens of thousands of
dollars. It might be as much as $50,000 an hour to operate. So each
hour to convey the aircraft simply to the training zone is extremely
expensive both in dollars and also in the use of the hours on the
military aircraft, each aircraft having a certain limited life in terms
of flight hours. So, again, one of the criteria seems to be omitted.
Another criterion that was judged to be important in evaluating which
bases to keep open or closed were weather on the training days. Again,
green indicates the days of cloudy weather. The white areas are
generally clear skies. I can tell you, having flown in New Mexico most
of my life, approximately 320 days a year are available for flight
training in New Mexico, and it is significantly less. The next chart I
show is simply a followup on that, and it shows precipitation. Again,
one can see that the area around Cannon Air Force Base simply does not
have the problem of precipitation.
Again, precipitation is two problems. It is a problem of flying in
bad and inclement weather, and it is also the problem of corrosion, and
we do not have the problem on or in New Mexico. Again, it is a very
significant thing.
The final chart, Mr. Speaker, wraps it all up. New Mexico has the
best, most accessible training space, the least encroachment, and the
least overflight of commercial traffic. We are not able to understand
exactly how the BRAC Commission came up with its report. And we would
urge the House to take a stand to see that military value is considered
as we approach the approval of the BRAC process.
____________________
OUT OF IRAQ CAUCUS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I come this evening to further announce to
the people of this Nation that we have formed an Out of Iraq Caucus
here in the Congress of the United States of America.
There has been quite a bit of debate this weekend about the
activities that took place here in Congress. There was a lot of
discussion this weekend about the hearing that was held right here in
the basement of the Capitol headed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) in conjunction with a group that is now known as
AfterDowningStreet.org. And that hearing helped to give exposure to the
famous, now famous, infamous memorandum that basically some see as a
smoking gun, discussing who knew what, when did they know it, and what
did they plan to do.
In essence, it is easy to conclude reading that memorandum that this
administration, the President of the United States of America and
others, had decided that they were going into Iraq, that they were
going to attack Saddam Hussein long before 9/11. So that hearing took
place, and it was a very interesting one.
It was a very revealing one and over 30 Members of Congress joined in
the basement in this crowded room. And I have had a lot of questions
this weekend about why were we jammed into such a small room, and I had
to answer truthfully and let the people who asked the question know
that the Republicans are in charge. They are able to determine where we
meet, if we can meet, what kind of space we will have. And they have
said to us, they are going to stop allowing us to use any committee
rooms. And so even though it was a very small room, it was all that we
could get. But, of course, those who have the power can choose to use
it responsibly or irresponsibly.
And I would say to the people of this country at this time that we
will be thwarted in our efforts to get the word out, to have this kind
of discussion; but we will persist, we will not give up.
Further, aside from that hearing, we did form the Out of Iraq Caucus.
Over 60 Members have now signed up. And I am being asked by journalists
and TV personalities, what happened? Why are you having this discussion
and this debate that is occurring at this time?
{time} 2030
I must answer those questions by saying, first of all, we have
Members of Congress who were elected by their constituents on peace,
justice and equality issue. We have Members of Congress who have long
histories fighting and agitating for peace. Whether you talk about the
Vietnam War or the work that many of us did to end apartheid in South
Africa or the work that we are doing now to try to bring attention to
genocide in Sudan, this is who we are. This is what we do.
Philosophically, we cannot sit here and allow this war to continue
with no exit strategy, no answers, no reports from the President of the
United States about how they are really going to get the training done,
what does that mean and basically when are we going to bring our troops
home.
So we have joined with the American public. The American public have
been waiting on us. They are against this war. The polls now are
showing us that the American public wants this war to end, and so we
have joined with them to provide some leadership.
Our caucus is made up of an array of Democrats, some who come from
the New Democrats, some from the Blue Dog Democrats, some from the
Progressive Democrats, but we have come together to talk about
coordinating activities, helping to give a platform to this discussion,
to work with the national peace organizations, to bring in people who
have been trying to get to Congress but since we have no hearings that
are going on, they have not been able to connect with anybody. We are
going to connect with them, whether they are veterans against this war
or mothers and fathers and family members who have had their children
and relatives killed in this war. They are now going to have Members to
talk to.
We are going to create this discussion and this debate, and some
people are saying out now. Some people are saying, Mr. President, give
us a strategy. Some people are trying to come up with a date certain.
We have a bipartisan effort that has been put together with a date
certain attached to it. As far as our caucus is concerned, people see
it a little bit differently, whether or not out now, whether or not we
just beg the President to give us a strategy or whether or not we
insist on a date certain. The most important thing is we are all
organized just to get the word out. We want out of Iraq.
This thing will evolve, and as it evolves, we will know what the
right timing is. The President will have an opportunity now, given that
he has seen the polls and he understands what is going on, he can
denounce it or reject it in any way that he wants, but the fact of the
matter is the people of this country want us out. The new caucus that I
am so proud of that we have formed will work to make sure that we have
the debate that we have not had.
____________________
CAFTA
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleagues
with great interest tonight.
Three issues seem to have been raised. One is on CAFTA, which I will
address tonight, and then we talked about Guantanamo, which I am going
to try to address later this week. Then we will talk about Iraq because
there are parallels between what we are seeing in Iraq right now and
what happened in World War I and World War II, but I cannot cover all
those tonight. So I will debate my colleagues on some of those other
issues later this week.
Let me talk about CAFTA right now because the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur), my good friend, for whom I have the highest regard, was
[[Page 13262]]
just talking about some of the problems that occur with women in
Central and South America and the living conditions and the working
conditions, and I agree with her.
Because of that, and a number of other reasons, I voted against NAFTA
and worked with my colleague on that, and I voted against the WTO and
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. So you probably ask, well,
why in the world, Danny, would you be in favor of CAFTA if you opposed
all those others? So I want to tell my colleagues tonight why I support
CAFTA.
First of all, we have what is known as the Caribbean Basin
Initiative, and the Caribbean Basin Initiative is kind of a one-way
street right now. We allow the Caribbean countries and Central American
countries to export into the United States without tariffs while at the
same time, when we send stuff into those countries, we do have to pay
tariffs in many cases. So the bottom line is it is a one-way street.
The Caribbean Basin Initiative will go by the wayside if we pass
CAFTA, and we will have a two-way street where there will be minimal
tariffs or no tariffs whatsoever, and so our producers will benefit the
same as the producers in Central America and the Caribbean. I think
that is one reason why I think CAFTA is a better deal than what we see
with the Caribbean Basin Initiative.
The second thing is that we need to see stability in Central and
South America. President Reagan, when he was President, worked very
hard to create democracy in our hemisphere, and as a result of the
Reagan doctrine, all of the countries in Central and South America
became fledgling democracies over the past few decades with the
exception of Cuba. We are starting to see cracks in those democracies
because of the poverty down there and because of some leftist leaders.
We see problems in four or five, six countries in Central and South
America right now, and one of the things that we need to do is to
address the issue of poverty down there.
One way to do that is to try to see some foreign investment going in
there from places besides China and Europe into Central and South
America so that we see a reduction in the poverty rate and a reduction
in the pressure that is being brought about on the existing democracies
down there to move toward leftist governments.
If we have a change, a sea change in those countries in Central and
South America, then what is going to happen is the illegal immigration
problems that we see right now will be magnified. They will grow
because people want to flee tyranny. They want to flee conflict, and if
you start seeing revolutionary activity take place, like that which we
saw in El Salvador in the 1980s, and in Nicaragua in the 1980s and
elsewhere, then you are going to see people saying, I am getting the
heck out of here; I am going north; I am going to the United States.
Our border is very porous. We have a terrible time controlling it right
now. We have millions of people that have come across that border that
are now in the United States that cost our taxpayers money and cause a
lot of hardship and problems.
So stabilizing those governments in Central and South America I think
is extremely important. I am now the chairman of the Subcommittee on
the Western Hemisphere on the Committee on International Relations, and
I have had a chance, along with my colleague the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) to start looking at this issue. We may not agree
on this, but I think it is important that we go down there and look at
these countries and find out how we can make sure there are stable
governments in place and that we do not see democracies start to
deteriorate and go by the wayside.
So I feel it is very important that we look at this from more than
just one point of view. Trade is important. Job loss by Americans is
very important. I am concerned about both of those things. A two-way
street in trade with no tariffs I think is also very important, but
also one of the major issues as far as I am concerned is the
stabilization of democracy in our hemisphere. If we do not, as a leader
of democratic institutions in this hemisphere and around the world,
take the initiative to stabilize those countries, who in the heck will?
So I still believe in free and fair trade. I would not vote for NAFTA
today. I would not vote for GATT today. I would not vote for the WTO
today, but I am going to vote for CAFTA, and the reason I am voting for
CAFTA is for the reason I just said. I think it is extremely important
to not only worry about trade and balance but also about national
security and immigration, and I hope my colleagues at least understand
where I stand on this issue because I love you guys.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO PETER RODINO
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, we are gathered here this evening to pay
tribute to one of the true heroes of our time, a man who earned a
stellar national reputation but who also holds a very special place in
the hearts of those of us from his home State of New Jersey and those
who had the privilege to serve with him, former Congressman and
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the Honorable Peter W.
Rodino. I feel privileged to hold the seat in Congress which Chairman
Rodino previously held from 1948 until his retirement 40 years later in
1989.
It is certainly a testament to his outstanding work here in the House
of Representatives and the high esteem in which he was held among his
constituents that he won reelection to Congress 19 consecutive times
over the course of his career. From my personal experience growing up
in Newark, New Jersey, I was inspired to enter public service after
reading stories in the newspaper I delivered as a youngster, the Star
Ledger, about the work of my local Congressman, Peter Rodino, and the
passion he brought to his job. We felt proud to have such a hardworking
and dedicated public servant representing our interests in Washington,
especially since I lived in the neighborhood in the old North Ward of
Newark where he served and lived.
Peter Rodino was a driving force behind all of the major civil rights
legislation and opened up doors of opportunity for an entire
generation. Throw his service on the House Judiciary Committee he
authored the majority reports on which the civil rights legislation of
1957, 1960, 1964 and 1968 were based. In addition, he played a key role
in the passage of the fair housing bill in 1966.
He was active in the movements to establish a national holiday in
honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior, and to provide the District of
Columbia with a voting delegate.
During the Watergate hearings, Chairman Rodino won praise from both
sides of the aisle for his fairness, even-handedness and sense of
decorum. He carried out his constitutional duty, but it was not a role
he chose or relished. In fact, he broke down in tears after the
Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment against a
President not of his own party. That kind of sensitivity and compassion
is indeed rare today in the political arena.
After his retirement from Congress, Congressman Rodino continued
working diligently, serving as a distinguished visiting professor of
constitutional law at Seton Hall University in Newark, New Jersey. I
was excited during my first term in Congress to be part of a successful
effort to secure over $5 million for the establishment of a model
center for social justice at
[[Page 13263]]
Seton Hall University School of Law, the Peter W. Rodino, Junior,
Institute of Social Justice.
Despite all of his achievements, Peter Rodino was most proud of being
the son of an Italian immigrant who achieved the American dream. In
fact, in a tribute to his Italian heritage, he sponsored the bill that
made Columbus Day a Monday national holiday. He never forgot where he
came from and he always had time to help other people who needed a
hand.
In fact, after his passing on May 7, the Star Ledger ran a story
about a sixth grade student, Christina Rodriguez, who had never met
former Congressman Rodino, but called seeking an interview for a school
paper she was writing. Although he was in the middle of celebrating his
95th birthday with friends and family, he generously spent 45 minutes
giving her a firsthand account of a chapter of history that took place
long before she was born.
Mr. Speaker, former Congressman Rodino was not only an admired leader
and a great champion for all of the right issues, he was also a
wonderful human being. Let us express our deep appreciation for his
service in Congress.
Our heartfelt condolences go out to his wife, Joy; his son, Peter W.
Rodino, III; his daughter, Margaret Stanziale and her husband Charles
Stanziale; his three grandchildren, Carla Prunty, Maria Stanziale and
Talia Rodino; and his twin great-grandchildren, Annabel and Charlotte
Prunty.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers), who served on the Judiciary Committee with Mr. Rodino,
the current ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary, who has
served in the Congress for close to 40 years.
{time} 2045
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me,
but would be pleased if the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi),
the minority leader, would precede me.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I know how close the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) was to our former colleague, Congressman Rodino, and I am
very honored he would yield to me to speak about him.
I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Payne) and say how impressive it is to see him; the Chair of our
caucus, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez); and all of the
members of the New Jersey delegation; along with the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Sherman) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) of the
Committee on the Judiciary, all who served with Mr. Rodino or served
under his legacy, or are just proud to speak out this evening. I thank
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for organizing this Special
Order.
First, I join the gentleman in expressing heartfelt condolences to
the entire Rodino family, to his wife, Joy, daughter Margaret, and of
course his son, Peter. I hope they find comfort in the proud legacy he
leaves. I hope it is a comfort to them that so many people mourn their
loss and are praying for them.
A man of integrity and humility, Peter Rodino was a great American
who served our Nation with great dignity and honor. He was truly a
historic figure and consequential leader who changed the course of
history for the better.
Many years ago, President John Kennedy spoke of ``the high court of
history'' by which public officials will be judged. History will treat
Peter Rodino very well.
By conducting the Watergate impeachment hearings with fairness, Peter
Rodino ensured that the rule of law prevailed during one of the
greatest constitutional crises in our country. He spoke before this
House when the Watergate impeachment hearings and said, ``Whatever the
result, whatever we learn or conclude, let us now proceed with such
care and decency and thoroughness and honor that the vast majority of
the American people, and their children after them, will say: `That was
the right course. There was no other way.'''
He did all that and more. His contribution was immeasurable.
Americans will be forever grateful for his courage and for his defense
of the Constitution.
Though most renowned for the service he rendered during the Watergate
impeachment hearings, Peter Rodino left a lasting imprint as a
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, an author of
significant legislation, ranging from civil rights to immigration to
protecting consumers. A Seton Hall law professor, Paula Franzese said
at his funeral, ``He was a champion for the underdog. He was a speaker
for those who had no voice.'' What a magnificent compliment, and still
understates the contribution he made.
Peter Rodino was a main sponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1966 and
authored the extension of the Voting Rights Act in 1982. He reformed
immigration quotas and promoted fair housing laws, and he was one of
the authors of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act that protects consumers by
preventing anti- competitive mergers. He was a legislative and legal
giant whose work continues to have a profound impact on the lives of
Americans.
Peter Rodino's passing is a personal loss to who all served with him.
It was an honor to call him colleague. Though a giant in Congress, he
was always kind to newer, more junior Members who looked to him for
guidance. He was of course a great source of pride and inspiration for
all of us in the Italian-American community. I had a special bond with
him in that regard. He was, as Father Nicholas Gengaro noted at the
funeral, ``a household God, patron of the good name and respect'' of
Italian Americans.
He was always proud of his heritage. As a Congressman, one of his
notable achievements was sponsoring the bill that made Columbus Day a
national holiday, a day that commemorates the contributions of Italian
Americans.
After serving in Congress for nearly 40 years, Mr. Rodino did not
retire, he returned to his beloved Newark and continued his public
service until his passing. He found a new and noble calling as an
educator and law professor at Seton Hall Law School, and he shared his
lessons with new generations of students so they could learn from his
example and so that the lessons of Watergate will never be forgotten.
As he said in an interview a year ago, ``People today just do not
know what happened, and they should.'' And they did learn more when he
passed away because so many compliments were extended to his family for
his incredible leadership. Because of Peter Rodino, the rule of law
prevailed. He stood for truth and accountability and fought against
abuses of power and corruption.
His legacy is a reminder it is our constant duty to protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States, the rule of law and our
civil liberties. That is the oath of office we take and we must never,
never let our guard down on it. Tonight as we recall the life of Peter
Rodino, we must honor his legacy by conducting ourselves and all of our
public duties with integrity and fairness, and we must honor his
courageous legacy by upholding the rule of law as he did so much to
advance, and defending the Constitution he did so much to protect.
Again, I offer my condolences to the family. It is a great loss for
so many reasons, but he had a wonderful smile and a twinkle in his eye
and he was just a great and wonderful person. You could see the spark
of divinity in him, and his generosity of spirit and kindness to so
many people, and the greatness of his intellect.
I offer my condolences to his family for their personal loss. As a
Nation, we give thanks for his life, a life that enriched and ennobled
all who knew him, and a life of dedicated and courageous service. We
shall miss him greatly.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for
calling this Special Order to commemorate a giant of the Congress.
[[Page 13264]]
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi) for those kind words. I know his wife, Joy, will appreciate
those words as she is watching this tonight in the comfort of her home
with other members of her family.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, when we think of Peter Rodino on the
Committee on the Judiciary, it conjures up the names of some of those
great men and women, Barbara Jordan, who walked the halls, who listened
in that 2141 Rayburn Room to the constitutional arguments that were
being presented day in and day out. And we thought what would happen
after Mannie Celler was the chairman. Here was little old Peter Rodino
and people said, Wow, where are we going to go from here? Mannie Celler
was a giant, an orator, a fighter, a great writer. And Peter Rodino
came to the chairmanship of the Committee on the Judiciary as a very
modest, humble member of that committee. He never sought the spotlight.
You would rarely see him on television before Watergate and
impeachment. It seemed like it was provident that for that impeachment,
we needed exactly the kind of persona that Peter Rodino brought because
without it, I can tell Members we do not know where that committee was
going. That committee was very passionately divided, and it was very
even numbers of Democrats and Republicans.
There was open writing about whether this Nation could stand an
impeachment of a President because there had not been one in over 100
years. They were saying how can Chairman Rodino contain this huge
division that is ripping not just Washington but the whole Nation,
indeed the world was focused on whether or not there were grounds to
remove under the second amendment to the Constitution under articles of
impeachment for treason, high crimes or misdemeanors.
Believe me, we were under a great deal of tension. Everybody was
getting angrier in their speeches and the pronouncements of the
Members, but Peter Rodino never lost his temper. He never raised his
voice. After we had the White House tapes come out, then the articles
of impeachment came forward. And out of five of them, three of them
received the votes of at least half a dozen Republicans and Democrats
as well. I might as well tell Members there were Democrats on the
committee that were not convinced that impeachment was the route to go.
So Peter Rodino, with people like Bob Kastenmeier of Wisconsin, Don
Edwards of California, Jerome Waldie of California, Barbara Jordan. And
there was a freshman member on the committee named the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel). And there were some interesting staff members.
One was named attorney Hillary Rodham and another was Attorney Zoe
Lofgren. There were all kinds of names coming in and out.
Every day brought new developments. President Nixon was resolute that
he would never give up his office to these kinds of scurrilous attacks,
and Peter Rodino persevered through this. Had there been a chairman
with a different personality or temperament, I am not sure how those
impeachment hearings would have gone forward.
When I visited Peter Rodino at Seton Hall Law School last spring, he
was still full of stories. He was still reminding me of incidents and
how we had to get the votes and master the subpoenas, the issuance of
the subpoenas and the order of witnesses and what we would do with John
Dean and Haldeman and Archibald Cox. Those names all figured into this
incredible situation that this very modest Member of Congress from
Newark who preceded the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) was able
to keep it together.
It transformed America. It forced the President to resign rather than
to have us have to bring those articles of impeachment forward.
Chairman Rodino worked behind the scenes to figure out who would
actually take the place of President Nixon.
I will never forget the discussions that went on in 2141 Rayburn
House Office Building in which finally the Speaker from Oklahoma and
the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary said there is only one
thing that we can do to keep this country on an even keel, and that is
there is one congressman in the House who can do this and he would be
accepted by the Ds and the Rs, and his name was the gentleman from
Michigan, Gerald Ford. They took that name down and moved it forward.
I want to tell Members, Peter Rodino, when he would see someone that
was there during those months from May 1974 to July 1974, he would
start off by saying, John, do you remember that day we had so and so
come by our office and we had to decide on whether we were going to
issue subpoenas or not, or whether we were going to let them bring
their testimony forward or whether we could get a bipartisan group of
Members to move these hearings forward.
{time} 2100
The pundits were all writing, This is ridiculous. This can't be done.
Peter Rodino has no experience to bring this kind of a matter to the
House of Representatives. It does the House and the Congress and the
country a huge disservice. But Peter Rodino, his excellent staff, the
Members of both parties gradually, one by one, realized that we had
more than enough grounds. As a matter of fact, we had more articles of
impeachment. After a while, we stopped raising new articles because
they were not necessary.
And so I want to tell everybody here that even though I have served
under Emanuel Celler and Jack Brooks and Henry Hyde and Jim
Sensenbrenner, Peter Rodino was the leader of this committee that I
have served on since I have been in the House of Representatives, the
committee that protects the Constitution, the committee that promotes
civil rights, the committee that has spent all of its time trying to
make the Federal criminal code, the laws of the land, the compacts
between the States, the Department of Justice oversight that has been
within our jurisdiction.
Peter Rodino served those noble ends in a way that none of the
previous chairmen of this great committee and the Congress have. I will
always remember with great pleasure and privilege in the fact that I
was able to serve on that committee with this wonderful man. We will
always remember the great service that he gave to this country.
Mr. PAYNE. Let me thank the gentleman from Michigan for his
institutional memory and to really bring alive those trying days when
this Nation was on the brink of which way to go. We really appreciate
his recounting history. He made it alive again.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez),
the caucus Chair of the Democratic Party.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished colleague
and friend from New Jersey, particularly as we coshare the great city
of Newark in representation in the Congress of the United States and
particularly the privilege I have had representing the people of the
North and East Ward at Newark North Ward where Peter Rodino lived most
of his life, throughout his life, and for organizing this special
opportunity. I want to thank the distinguished whip for yielding in the
process here because I have an event to go to.
Particularly, I want to join in paying honor to a great American and
a respected public servant, the late Congressman from New Jersey, Peter
Rodino. Though I never had the pleasure of serving with Congressman
Rodino in the House, I have tremendous admiration for his work. I have
heard from so many of his colleagues who did have the opportunity and
the privilege of serving with him as well as from my colleague Donald
Payne of his tremendous respect in the House; and certainly from his
work, one would understand that.
I join today in mourning the loss of a man of wisdom and integrity
who spent his long career fighting tough battles to improve the quality
of life for the people of his district and the Nation. Like many of his
generation, Congressman Rodino's loyal service to his country began in
the trenches of World War
[[Page 13265]]
II, where he fought valiantly and emerged as a decorated war veteran.
During his 40-year tenure in the House of Representatives, he served
with distinction and established himself as a champion in the fight for
social justice and equality for all Americans. Though some may not have
viewed him as the most outspoken Member of Congress, Congressman Rodino
worked diligently to bring about real social change and let his actions
speak instead. He chose his battles wisely and played a critical role
in developing historic pieces of legislation in the areas of civil
rights, immigration, and fair housing. His vision is imprinted in many
legacies that have shaped the future of our country, including the
monumental Civil Rights Act of 1964 in which he played a vital role
pushing it forward and seeing it become law.
In this way and many more, Congressman Rodino served our country far
beyond the borders of his constituency. His sense of duty to serve our
Nation saw no barriers and no obstacle too great. Just as remarkable as
his perseverance to improve civil rights was his fairness during a time
of constitutional crisis.
Congressman Rodino, as we just heard from our colleague, stepped into
the role as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee during a
precarious moment in our Nation's history. Today in a political
atmosphere sharply divided along party lines, we look with even greater
admiration at Congressman Rodino, a statesman who was able to use his
political acumen to work in a bipartisan fashion during the turbulent
era of the Watergate investigation. His calm, nonpartisan leadership
approach earned him the respect of people from all political
persuasions, and he proved himself to be a steady hand in a sea of
storms.
History will record that he defended and preserved the Constitution,
some may say an ordinary man who performed an extraordinary service for
the Nation. His life experiences and extensive career in this Chamber
helped him to become one of its great voices of reason.
I had the benefit of speaking with Congressman Rodino during the
Clinton impeachment trial. After hearing his wise counsel, I was
convinced based on that conversation and all of the facts, of course,
that there were no grounds for impeachment. I, like many, trusted his
insight, and the House was fortunate to have such a thoughtful,
perceptive Member.
But beyond the longevity of his public service, I was most impressed
by his sense of integrity and his commitment to upholding the
principles of the Constitution. He was known for carrying around a copy
of the document he so admired in his pocket. Not only did he know the
principles it embodied inside and out; he lived them. Few of us have
the opportunity to witness almost a century of history, but we should
all aspire to be so influential in shaping that history. Peter Rodino
was a man ahead of his time, who saw beyond the circumstances he came
from and beyond the barriers that surrounded him. His vision for this
country has made this Nation and the people it protects stronger, and
it is a lasting vision we still benefit from today.
I, too, would like to offer my sincere condolences to Congressman
Rodino's wife, Joy, his two children and extended family. May they find
comfort and peace in the memory of this accomplished man who leaves
behind a tremendous legacy of greatness.
Mr. PAYNE. Let me thank the Democratic Caucus Chair, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), for those kind words.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the minority whip, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Payne) for yielding, and I am pleased to join so many of my friends
from New Jersey who were and are from the State so ably represented for
40 years by Peter Rodino. I note that we are also joined by Charlie
Rangel who served side by side with Peter Rodino from an adjoining
State and my friends Barney Frank and Howard Berman who have served
with such distinction on the Judiciary Committee.
I did not know Peter Rodino well. I knew him. I had the privilege of
serving with him. I worked for a United States Senator, first a House
Member, in 1962. Of course, Mr. Rodino was here at that point in time.
But it was not until some 10, 12 years later that he became the famous
Peter Rodino. But he was not necessarily perceived to be famous at the
outset.
His father at the age of 16 came from Italy, had come to the United
States. Peter was born in a tenement in Newark. His mother died at age
4. I am sure that most Americans hearing that background would not have
said to themselves that this young man will grow up not only to be a
Representative in the Congress of the United States but also to
represent America's most valued principles, America's bedrock
commitment to democracy and its commitment to the fact that no
individual, no matter how powerful he or she might be, is above the
Constitution or the laws of the United States of America.
That in many ways makes us unique. Certainly it makes us different
from the autocracies that we see even today around the world. It was
Peter Rodino's lot to be called upon to meet the challenge of redeeming
once again that promise of American democracy; and short in stature
though he may have been, he was tall in stature to meet that challenge.
Last month, we lost him at age 95, having served 40 years in this body.
Peter Wallace Rodino ably represented the 10th District of New
Jersey, 40 years, 4 decades, a long period of time. He was first
elected to the 81st Congress in 1948 and reelected 19 times. I believe
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has been reelected at least 19
times.
Mr. RANGEL. Seventeen.
Mr. HOYER. Seventeen times. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell)
has been reelected 19-plus times. We all had the opportunity of serving
here with Mr. Whitten who was reelected, I believe, 25 or 26 times,
served a half a century. Clearly, Peter Rodino was one of the longest
serving. But serving a long time in and of itself simply means that you
were able to live and to be reelected. Serving well is the mark of one
who served our country, and that is Peter Rodino's legacy.
His lead role as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's
impeachment investigation has been spoken of here, and that is clearly
what he will be remembered for. However, he also doggedly, as has also
been said, fought for the rights of people, authoring multiple civil
rights reports which formed the basis of several landmark civil rights
bills.
That was in a time when we recall that the Senate was refusing to
pass legislation to outlaw lynching. The Senate just a few days ago
apologized for that. The House passed a number of bills, but the Senate
failed to pass them. Peter Rodino, even at that time, before it became
really popular and the thing to do, was standing tall for the rights of
individuals. John Conyers spoke eloquently to that just now.
The son of an Italian immigrant. How proud Nancy Pelosi, herself a
child of a famous Italian family, must have felt in rising to speak
about Peter Rodino, an Italian who brought luster to his Italian
heritage and to his American citizenship and country. He demonstrated
extraordinary determination that characterized so many of his
generation. Tom Brokaw called Peter Rodino's generation the greatest
generation. Peter Rodino demonstrated that both at war and at peace, on
the fields of battle in World War II and on the floor of this House,
particularly in the 1970s.
For 10 years, he worked days and attended law school at night,
graduating from what is now Rutgers law school.
{time} 2115
His personal courage, of course, was never in question. He
volunteered for service during World War II, as I have said, even
though he was too old and could have been exempted. Some lied, of
course, and said they were 18 when they were 16 to get in the service.
But Peter Rodino, who had served ably at
[[Page 13266]]
that point in time in his community said, ``send me,'' ``send me,'' to
his country.
He served in the army from 1941 to 1946, fighting with the First
Armored Division in North Africa and in the home of his father's birth,
Italy. He was awarded the Bronze Star, a War Cross, and Knight Order of
the Crown from Italy.
His defining moment, of course, as we have all said was 1974, when he
stood up for the Constitution, for the American people, for a way of
life, for a continuity of government. Judiciary Chairman Rodino
demonstrated wise judgment. ``Wise'' has been used a number of times in
referring to Peter Rodino. How appropriate.
At a moment of instability and uncertainty for our Nation, which
could have been dangerously exacerbated by excessive partisanship or
overzealous action, Chairman Rodino brought wise, measured, thoughtful,
and honest consideration to this awesome task.
This Nation was blessed by God with Peter Rodino, as God has blessed
this Nation with many others at times of crisis to stand and serve ably
and wisely.
I want to say to his family that we share their loss, we thank them
for his service, and we will remember our dear and faithful, wise and
kind, good colleague, Peter Wallace Rodino.
I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the minority whip for his
participation. I am sure those words are of comfort to the family.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means, a
person who served with Congressman Rodino on the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Payne) for giving us who knew and loved Peter an opportunity to share
our views. It has not gone unnoticed that the gentleman from New Jersey
has reminded me on a number of occasions that if I had endorsed him
earlier, he would have had as much seniority as I have today. But I do
recall that he never, ever, in the heat of campaigns, said anything to
take away from the integrity of this great American, Peter Rodino.
Ironically, even though the chairman of that committee when I first
got here was from Brooklyn, I did not know Mannie Celler, but the
gentleman from New Jersey knows him, the closeness of Newark and
Harlem.
I did know Peter Rodino, and during the time I was in the State
legislature, he was telling me what the Congress was doing or not doing
or should be doing about the international drug trafficking and about
the plight that our cities were having with addiction and crime.
So when I came here, I was so honored to be on that committee, never
knowing that my friend Peter Rodino would be the chairman of that
committee in such a short period of time. But Peter really loved this
country. He really loved the Judiciary Committee. And I never saw
anyone that felt so warmly about his home country. He really was proud
of being an Italian and wanted so much to make certain that he brought
honor to his people and his community, to his constituents and to the
Congress.
As I heard the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) say, assuming
the chairmanship of that committee in the shadows of Mannie Celler was
not an easy thing to do. We were constantly reminded, and I see the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) here, that impeachment did not
automatically go to the Judiciary Committee. And more than once the
Speaker would say if we did not move on to either impeach President
Nixon or get off his back that a special select committee would be
called.
Every time we came here on Monday, we were beseeched by Members
asking us, ``What are you going to do? Get on with it? We are facing an
election, and you guys are just on television.''
That was a lot of pressure on Peter Rodino, who had assumed these new
responsibilities. There was some testimony that was embargoed but
recently was released, which to me said a lot about Peter. It had to do
with the tapes that President Nixon had with conversations he had with
Haldeman, Erlichman, and Dean. And the President was very concerned
about the life expectancy of Thurgood Marshall and went on in his
rambling way of talking about people who would not be replacing him
based on their color and religion. So he went through blacks, and he
went through Jewish people, and then he went through Italians, in a
most derogatory way. The way the operation was on the committee was
that we would have a transcript, and we would listen to the tape. But
when it got to the Italian part of the tape, it was excised in the
written transcript and silenced on the tape. But any Member could go to
the Chief Counsel to see what was excised, and he had excised that part
that spoke against the Italian people and why they should not be
expected to get a judgeship because of their backgrounds.
I came out and I said, ``Peter, why the heck would you take this off
of the tape?'' And he said, ``Because it had nothing to do with the
relevancy of whether or not the President of the United States should
be impeached.'' And I smiled because that is the integrity of a person,
who could have received headlines throughout the country for exposing
the President, wanting so much to have due process overcome the
prejudices and the partisanship that certainly did not exist as it does
today but it was there. And Peter just felt that defaming people in the
privacy of the White House did not determine whether or not he had
violated the Constitution.
Peter Rodino was one heck of a courageous guy and, indeed, rose to
the occasion where those of us that were on the committee knew that the
wrongdoers in the White House were so afraid that the impeachment of
President Nixon will cause havoc not only in the government, but
throughout these United States. And when articles were voted, Peter
went to the rear of the Judiciary room to call his family and, with
tears in his eyes, announced that the President of the United States
had Articles of Impeachment voted against him.
A lot of people do not know, but Peter became the most popular person
not for the decision but because he kept this country together. He kept
this Congress together. And a lot of people do not know, but Mario
Biaggi knew that a committee was formed to have Peter Rodino as a
candidate for Vice President of the United States to run with Jimmy
Carter. And we discussed that he got his interview, and that was when
Mondale prevailed. But I would suspect that those people who came to
this great country forcefully, or because they wanted to get here would
have to show that if a guy like Peter Rodino from the streets of Newark
could face the international responsibility of stabilizing the world's
most powerful government and to come out with the scores that he did as
a great American, I know his wife, Joy, and his family would know that
this is a great country, Peter Rodino was a great person, and the
integrity of this Congress was raised to a level that I do not remember
ever reading about since.
I want to thank the gentleman (Mr. Payne) and our colleagues for
never allowing this world to forget what a person from Newark or Harlem
or anywhere in this country, when challenged, they could meet this
challenge.
I thank Mr. Payne for yielding to me.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) for bringing history alive. As we have indicated before, I
think this is a wonderful opportunity for America, and I hope that
these tapes will be shown in law schools and around the country so
students who will take the mantles of government and judiciary
positions will know what a wonderful person this was.
At this time I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank),
who also served on the Judiciary Committee with Chairman Rodino, who
actually was a resident of New Jersey before moving to Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
New Jersey for yielding to me.
[[Page 13267]]
And it is true. I grew up in Bayonne, New Jersey, in the gentleman
from New Jersey's (Mr. Menendez) district. And growing up, Peter Rodino
was someone for whom I had a great deal of respect, someone whom, as I
thought about a political career, I admired enormously, living not far
from his district. And then, of course, I watched, as did the whole
country, in the 1970s when the impeachment went forward. I was then in
the State legislature. I did not, as did the gentleman from Michigan
and the gentleman from New York, serve on the committee during
impeachment. So when I got here in 1981, having been elected in 1980,
and got assigned to the Judiciary Committee, it was really a
reinforcement to me of the kind of literally awe-inspiring role I had
been lucky enough to take, having known of Peter Rodino when I was in
high school.
Having watched him perform in that masterfully understated way at the
most critical period in the 1970s, and then to be accepted by him as a
colleague meant a great deal to me. And sometimes when we meet someone
of whom we have a very high opinion, anti-climax sets in. The object of
one's admiration does not always live up to it. That was not the case
with Peter. I served for 8 years as a member of the Judiciary Committee
under his leadership, and it was the legislative process at its best.
Peter Rodino had a gentle toughness. He was a man who was in person
pleasant, calm, thoughtful. But there was a toughness both in terms of
integrity and in terms of commitment to principle that informed that
gentleness. And as previous Members have said, he was a great defender
of the U.S. Constitution. He was a great believer that our job here was
in part to take that marvelous document, the U.S. Constitution, with
all of the wonderful principles it set forward, and to complete the job
that had only been begun when the Constitution was adopted of extending
the benefit of those principles to everybody in this society. Peter
understood that the Constitution was a set of aspirations only
imperfectly realized at first. And his job, more than anything else,
was to help America realize those aspirations and help everybody in
America realize those aspirations.
And one of the things that is always striking to me is when someone
shatters stereotypes. And let us be clear, Peter Rodino, when he got
here, faced a number of stereotypes. People make jokes about New
Jersey. People make ethnic allusions. There is no point in denying
this. Peter Rodino faced that. When Peter Rodino was slated to be the
chairman of the committee and impeachment was pending, the rumor mill
was very active: Oh, we cannot have Rodino do it. Who knows what there
will be? Who knows if he can live up to it? Hey, he is a guy from
Newark, New Jersey. What do you want to do here?
Well, this guy from Newark, New Jersey, who was the subject of a lot
of wholly unjustified innuendo, took that job and did it as well as
anybody could and did it, as the gentleman from New York, the previous
speaker, pointed out, superbly, gave America a lesson in how not to
pre-judge people, gave America a lesson in judging people by who they
are.
Peter also, of course, in addition to that, was a dedicated believer
in dealing with the racism that has sadly been the history of this
country and in doing with whatever we could do legally to diminish it.
{time} 2130
He was a great believer in civil liberties. I will tell my
colleagues, in 1981 when I got here and I was originally going to go on
the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, as it was then called,
because I wanted to deal with housing, Speaker O'Neill said to me,
listen, would you go on the Committee on the Judiciary as an additional
committee because Peter Rodino has a tough job. He is dealing with a
lot of efforts to undermine the Constitution. There are a lot of
proposals now to undo decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court protecting
civil liberties.
I remember at the time saying to the Speaker's emissary, well, you
know, I do not know if I want to do that. Those are a lot of tough
issues. There are a lot of groups that will be very angry. The answer
was, oh, of course, but they do not like you anyway, so you have
nothing to lose. I went on that committee, along with a lot of others,
including Pat Schroeder and Chuck Schumer, in a tough time under his
leadership. I take pride in having been a defender of the
constitutional principle and having been a defender of the rights of
minorities and of free speech and other things that were under attack.
So I am very, very grateful to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Payne) for giving us this opportunity and this chance to honor this
man. The thing I think best sums it up is he was a man who understood
democracy, intellectually and instinctively; and no one I have served
with in 25 years was better at making democracy work for the people of
this country.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. At
this time I yield to another person who had the privilege to serve with
Congressman Rodino on the Committee on the Judiciary, an outstanding
attorney, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Payne) for taking out this Special Order for those of us who wanted to,
but because of the craziness of our own lives, could not attend the
funeral; and this is the chance to testify for the record of my own
affection and love for our former chairman who so many of my colleagues
have already spoken of.
I do not want to dwell on Peter Rodino's incredible role as chairman
of the Committee on the Judiciary during the impeachment of Richard
Nixon. His modesty, his humility, combined with his wisdom and his
strength are known to anyone who is alive and aware at that particular
time.
I want to speak just a moment about the way he treated a new member
of the Committee on the Judiciary. When I came to Congress with my
colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), in 1982, I was
assigned to that Committee on the Judiciary; and I want to speak of
Peter Rodino as mentor and as an example.
In our first term in Congress, my passion at that particular point
was about the State of farm workers in this country. It had been for a
long time and, to a great extent, still is. At that time, a major
overhaul of our immigration laws known as, in that first Congress, the
98th, the Simpson-Mazzoli Law, was coming through our committee. There
was a great deal of controversy, and a particularly contentious part of
that bill that bothered me tremendously was the fact that it
resurrected the Bracero program, a massive exploitation of U.S. farm
workers, displacement of unprotected guest workers at the time who
would come in, much like a program that had been discontinued a number
of years before.
When the bill came to the floor, this, what we referred to as a
bracero program, passed as an amendment, and the bill went to
conference committee. I was a freshman Member of the House, a member of
the Committee on the Judiciary; but because of my concern about the way
farm workers were treated, Peter Rodino ensured that Speaker O'Neill
put me on the conference committee of that legislation, just for that
issue, just for the issue of farm workers and the guest workers program
to make my fight against that legislative amendment.
Two years later, when the chairman himself took over the legislation,
it had died in the conference committee, and I was not unhappy about
that. It was clear that the bill was moving, it had momentum, it did
some controversial things, but it also did some important things; and
it was on its way to passage. But Peter Rodino held up that bill for at
least 7 months against the pressures of the Reagan administration,
against the pressures of the Senators who had already dealt with the
legislation, against constant pressures from both the Republicans and
from the House leadership to get the bill moving.
[[Page 13268]]
He held it up until a few of us, Leon Panetta, Chuck Schumer, and I
had negotiated an alternative program to the Bracero program, an
adjustment program for farm workers which both protected U.S. workers,
protected immigrant farm workers, and gave them a chance to come out of
the shadows and into the mainstream of American society.
Withstanding that pressure, because of an issue he cared about, was
so emblematic of the kind of role that Chairman Rodino played in all
kinds of areas, in all kinds of legislation that came before the
Committee on the Judiciary. He was, for a mild-mannered and soft-spoken
person, he was a very, very strong person; and he could withstand the
pressures that come to that Committee on the Judiciary as well as
anyone I have ever met.
I had a chance to, one of those rare chances you get, people pass
away and you wish you had spoken to them and talked to them; I had a
chance to talk to him just after he came back from the hospital and
probably less than a month or 6 weeks before he passed away, and a
chance to tell him what he meant to me and what he had meant to so many
people around the country whose work he had benefited; and his record
and his performance, his stature will always be remembered by me; but I
think by millions of Americans as well.
So to his wonderful family I offer my condolences, as have my
colleagues; and they should know how well he served his country from
the soldier to his post-retirement teaching, and, of course, during his
many years in the Congress.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) who served with Congressman Rodino, and let me thank the
gentleman from California for his kind words.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Newark,
New Jersey (Mr. Payne), for allowing me to speak this evening, yielding
me time, and to thank my colleagues from New Jersey. I am respectful of
the hour and will be brief.
Let me say it is a great privilege this evening to rise to pay
tribute to a legend, and a great honor to help to give word to the
celebration of the life of Congressman Peter Rodino, a man whose
commitment to the law, as others have said, is legendary, to civil
rights, and to his deep-seated belief in the worthiness of every human
life. He remains a living testament as we speak this evening.
Many here in Washington, certainly the members of the Committee on
the Judiciary and others, remember Peter Rodino as a gifted and
effective lawmaker, an honorable, wise, and good man. Surely others
have talked about his role on the Committee on the Judiciary during the
impeachment proceedings when he approached that with utter fairness,
resolve, and determination that upheld our Constitution and gave
tribute to the American people that he was sent here to represent.
But Peter Rodino was also a veteran of World War II and a member of
America's Greatest Generation. He lived by the advice given to him by
his father, Pellegrino Rodino, grateful for the help he received as a
struggling immigrant, as all children of immigrants who serve in this
Congress bring the special gifts of life that he bore as a Member. It
made him strong. It gave him deep understanding. It equipped him, even
probably more than his legal education, for the role that he assumed as
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressman Rodino's father told his young son to always look out for
those around him who were less fortunate; and throughout his 40 years
in Congress, Peter Rodino did exactly that. He was a founding member of
the Italian-American Congressional Delegation, and as the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel) stated, people of ethnic heritage often face
discrimination, and that was surely part of his lot in life. But he,
along with many good friends, including Monsignor Gino Baroni, helped
to found the National Italian-American Foundation in 1975, a prominent
group of leaders from both the public and private sectors who formed
the organization in hopes of bringing public attention to the specific
Italian-American issues in the Nation's capital here and to provide an
umbrella group for the Nation's significant Italian-American
population, who wanted to share that immigrant experience and their
struggle to be accepted as full Americans.
I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for
creating this time for us this evening to pay tribute to Congressman
Rodino. He was a member of the National Italian-American Foundation
Board of Directors from 1975 to 1988, was active in their events, and
rightfully honored by them in 1988 with a Special Achievement Award in
government. This talented man of humble origins upheld our Constitution
during his tenure with honor, with kindness, and a sharp eye to the
law. He was a man, as I recall him, with no pomp, but a lot of grace as
he handled great circumstance.
Tonight, I wish to offer, on behalf of the people of Ohio, to his
wife, Joy, to their family, deepest sympathy and deepest gratitude for
allowing this towering figure to give us a legacy for the Nation that
lives.
I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and thank him so
very much for the opportunity to appear and for the courtesy of my
colleagues from the committee and from the State of New Jersey for
allowing me to speak this evening.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today the House is honoring the life of one
of it most distinguished Members, former Representative Peter Rodino of
New Jersey. Congressman Rodino died on May 7, 2005, and is survived by
his wife Joy Rodino, two children, three granddaughters and two great-
granddaughters.
By the time I entered Congress in 1977, Peter Rodino was a national
figure, a household name and someone to whom I looked for guidance as a
young Member. He had been one of the main sponsors and a driving force
behind Civil Rights legislation in the 1950s and 60s. He was Chairman
of the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings of
President Richard Nixon. And he participated in the Iran-Contra
hearings during the 1980s.
But his friends and colleagues remember more than the fact that he
was involved in many of the most important matters that faced the
United States in the second half of the 20th Century.
Born in 1909, he was a member of the Greatest Generation--serving in
the Army in North Africa and Italy during World War II. In war, he
received the Bronze Star and was one of the first enlisted men to
receive a battlefield commission as an officer. Prior to his service in
World War II, Mr. Rodino received his bachelor's degree from the
University of Newark and graduated in 1937 from what became Rutgers Law
School.
Following his 40 years of distinguished service in the House, Mr.
Rodino taught at Seton Hall University School of Law. And it was his
friends and colleagues at Seton Hall who so aptly eulogized him at his
funeral. As Paula Franzese, a law professor there put it: ``None of us
will ever forget Peter Rodino because of the way he made us feel. He
made us believe.''
So today the House remembers Congressman Peter Rodino, a lover of the
Constitution and the law, who meant so much to this body and the
Nation, particularly at a time of great turmoil.
Those of us who knew him lost a great friend, New Jersey lost a
favorite son and the Nation lost a tremendous but humble statesman.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life
and service to our country of former Congressman Peter Rodino, one of
the nation's finest public servants. I am honored to have served with
such a remarkable American, and am humbled to have called him my
colleague and friend.
From the streets of his beloved Newark, to North Africa and Italy
during World War II, to our Nation's capital, Peter Rodino spent his
life selflessly striving to help, protect, and serve others, all the
while doing so with the utmost dignity and humility.
During his twenty terms in the House of Representatives from 1949 to
1989, Peter Rodino championed his convictions on civil rights and equal
opportunity, no matter what the cost, and was a key sponsor of the
landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Mr. Speaker, it was his tenure as Chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee presiding over the Watergate Impeachment hearings that thrust
Peter Rodino into the limelight. During this contentious time in which
political tensions ran high, his restraint and sensibility
[[Page 13269]]
quelled unchecked passions on both sides as he served as model of
decorum for all. His profound words on the subject, uttered in 1974,
still ring true today, and contain the type of foresight that only true
leaders posses: ``Whatever the result, whatever we learn or conclude,
let us now proceed with such care and decency and thoroughness and
honor that the vast majority of American people, and their children
after them, will say: That was the right course. There was no other
way.''
One of my fondest memories of Peter, Mr. Speaker, was the evening my
wife Annette and I spent with him at one of the annual Gymnasium
Dinners during the time that he was still serving as a Member of
Congress. It was an evening that we will never forget as he reminisced
about his extraordinary political career and his personal recollections
of Watergate.
Mr. Speaker, as public servants let us always remember his words as
the highest example of leadership and integrity.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, this Nation and the great State of New
Jersey has lost one of its foremost public servants. Congressman Peter
Rodino was a man who truly honored the law, and when the country called
on him in time of crisis, Mr. Rodino rose to greatness. I will always
remember Peter Rodino for faithfully honoring the values that brought
him to prominence in our Nation's history: honesty, humility, patience,
and service.
Peter Rodino represented the district of New Jersey in which he lived
his whole life. Born in Newark, he worked his way through law school
and enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1941. He was awarded the Bronze Star
for valor during World War II. He continued to serve his country in the
House, elected to the 81st Congress in 1949. He served for 40 years,
retiring in 1989, and turning his seat over to my friend, the Honorable
Donald Payne.
Most of us will remember Peter Rodino for his superb leadership of
the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon Impeachment Hearings.
His patient and deliberative style gave the proceedings real
credibility, and helped to hold the country together at a time of great
upheaval. His reverence to the Constitution ensured that the painful
and difficult hearings proceeded as our forefathers had envisioned.
Peter Rodino was called upon by his country in time of crisis, and he
rose to the challenge.
Peter Rodino will be sorely missed. In an age of bitter partisanship,
Mr. Rodino was a calming voice. He guided the country through one of
its darkest periods in recent history, and did so with grace and
humility. Mr. Rodino's legacy of service to his country and his fellow
man will surely be remembered for years to come.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor to pay tribute to
former judiciary chairman Peter Rodino, he was a champion of civil
rights and a beacon of justice during his 40 year tenure in Congress
and his 16 years as a Seton Hall Professor of Law.
Mr. Rodino was most famous for his handling of the Watergate crisis.
All sides--including Democrats, Republicans, and even the national
press--hailed Rodino for the fair and just hand he used to guide the
impeachment hearings. During this period of crisis, his courage and
wisdom provided the foundation of strong leadership that gave Members
the confidence to do what was right, even if it meant crossing party
lines. The issue became one of preserving the sanctity of the system,
rather than preserving the reputation of an individual. Throughout the
process, Rodino's commitment to the system never wavered.
The son of Italian immigrants, Peter Rodino came of age in Newark,
New Jersey. After leaving high school, Congressman Rodino endured 10
years of menial jobs while studying late into the night for a law
degree at New Jersey Law School. In 1938 his patience and dedication
was rewarded when he joined a local law firm. He put his newly found
career on hiatus when he chose to defend his Nation against injustice
in World War II. Mr. Rodino's strong character and determination earned
him not only a Bronze star, but also a Knight of Order of Crown from
Italy--a token of national gratitude for a soldier's accomplishments.
Upon return he decided to run for Congress. Although his first attempt
failed, his perseverance and strong work ethic served him well, and he
was elected to Congress in 1948.
A strong advocate of racial equality, he was a driving force behind
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Another
accomplishment in the long list of Mr. Rodino's notable achievements
was sponsoring the bill that made Columbus Day a national holiday to
commemorate the contribution of Italian Americans in the founding of
our great Nation. Mr. Rodino also contributed to the legislation that
made Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday.
Though Mr. Rodino will be remembered for so much more than the
Watergate crisis, it was undoubtedly his greatest moment. Rodino
allowed a moderate central group of both Democrats and Republicans to
develop the case for impeachment, preventing it from turning it into
any type of political ploy. Just last year, Mr. Rodino gave an
interview stating that there are lessons to be learned from Watergate,
namely the extent of Government corruption. Mr. Rodino understood that
it was the duty of Congress to rein in any administration or individual
that was not adhering to the principles of justice.
It is with great respect and admiration that I offer my condolences
to Mr. Rodino's wife, Joy, and their family. Mr. Rodino is survived by
two children, Margaret Stanziale and Peter W. Rodino III, three
grandchildren, Carla Prunty, Maria Stanziale and Talia Rodino, and twin
great-grandchildren, Annabel and Charlotte Prunty. When asked about her
husband, Joy says, ``He was so ahead of his time. He lived civil
rights. He lived equality. In his life, he didn't see color, he didn't
see sex. He just went for the equality of the person.'' Former
Representative Rodino was a man that I was proud to have worked with
and honored to call friend.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my colleagues to join me in honoring
the late Peter Rodino. He was a pioneer for justice in our country and
he will be greatly missed by all who knew him.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in paying
tribute to a truly exceptional former member of this chamber.
Congressman Peter Rodino was an extraordinary man in extraordinary
times. The significance and importance of this great individual is
immediately evidenced by the words, praises, and acclamations from his
colleagues here today.
I had the privilege of serving as a member of the House Judiciary
Committee under his chairmanship for several years and then experienced
the defining moment for his career as he led us through the
consideration of articles of impeachment against President Richard
Nixon. His obvious integrity and steady leadership of the Committee
during this period were reassuring to a Nation recoiling from the
complicity of a President in the perpetration of criminal acts.
When the Nation needed a guiding hand in this national crisis, Peter
Rodino steered us with diligence, respect, and thoughtfulness. He is
best known for presiding over the impeachment trial of President Nixon.
This was not a task that he took lightly nor pursued with great venom.
He led the Judiciary Committee cautiously through its deliberation and
consideration of the issue. He knew that a partisan approach would be
divisive to the country and that Congress should act with all
seriousness when reversing the public will. As the chairman, Mr. Rodino
ensured that the Judiciary Committee behaved responsibly. He brought
his personal gravitas and respect to the hearings and guaranteed that
the proceedings were respected by all.
When the Congress needed a leader to meet the challenge posed by the
Civil Rights Movement, Peter Rodino in his classic style stood up and
fought for the civil rights of all Americans. In the 1960s, when the
country faced an energized black constituency determined to fulfill the
promises of the Constitution, Peter Rodino stood up to defend their
civil rights. He was one of the primary sponsors of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1964. From the Civil Rights
Act to the Equal Rights Amendment, he supported every significant piece
of civil rights legislation that emerged during his tenure in office.
He was a supporter of the equality of every citizen and fought to
ensure that justice was not denied to any group.
Peter Rodino's life was not confined to Congress. He was a proud
Italian-American and a dutiful public servant who repeatedly and
selflessly gave of his time, experience, and wisdom. Prior to entering
Congress, he fought in Italy and Africa during World War II, earning a
Bronze Star, and later served with the Italian military, receiving a
Knight of Order of Crown. After retiring from Congress, he taught and
inspired future lawyers at Seton Hall University Law School. At Seton
Hall, the Rodino Law Society continues his legacy of activism,
responsibility, and duty and stands as a sign of his commitment to
guiding future generations.
I am proud to have served with Peter Rodino for 20 years in this
chamber. He led by example and respected each member and person he met.
He was a member who regularly engaged in both political and personal
conversations with members on both sides of aisles. He was a product of
his time--a time where civility and respect formed the public character
and members regularly chatted with one another about the best interests
of this country and their personal lives. As a congressional leader,
Peter encouraged Republicans
[[Page 13270]]
and Democrats alike to interact more, debate the issues of the day, and
work towards solving the problems of this Nation.
I am glad that this chamber is taking the time to recognize the
importance of this wonderful man. I will miss Peter Rodino for all of
these reasons and many more. He was clearly an extraordinary man who
represented the very best of this Nation. Sometimes I wish there were
more Rodinos in this chamber and in our public life.
____________________
CONTINUING THE TRIBUTE TO PETER RODINO
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Payne), for making the arrangements for this evening and
for everyone who has joined in this testimonial to the work of Peter
Rodino.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), who has
served on the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding to me. I want to first thank my colleague, the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Payne), for leading this wonderful effort that serves a
lot of different purposes, not just to acknowledge the life and works
of Peter Rodino but, as I will mention in a few moments, really sets an
example, shows Peter Rodino as an example of the kind of heroic action
that any human being is capable of but, in particular, any new American
is capable of, or any American from humble circumstances.
After all, Peter Rodino was the child of immigrants, living and
growing up in poverty in New Jersey and, as was said before, his
ascension to chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary was not
something that people might have guessed would happen when he was born
in Newark.
But what did he do with that historic opportunity and what came
forth? What came forth from Peter Rodino was a gentleness, but
firmness, scholarship, great intelligence; I believe, having grown up
around many Italian-Americans in my life, a reflection of the Italian-
American culture and heritage for honoring one another, respecting one
another, living by a code of fairness and decency, and that is the way
he approached the great task that was set before him; whether or not
this sitting President of the United States was going to be impeached,
with a Committee on the Judiciary equally divided, with a country
uncertain as to what the consequences would be if the President was
impeached.
Yet, because of his extraordinary ability, his extraordinary dignity
and fairness, and capacity to bring people together and to touch
people, he achieved consensus.
{time} 2145
It was a unanimous decision ultimately to impeach Nixon. I had the
unique opportunity, well, when I first saw him was on television when I
was in college, and I watched the Watergate hearings, the impeachment
hearings. And I was so incredibly proud to be an American, to see how
this gentleman, a true gentleman was going to lead this committee step
by step in the most fair and judicious process to find the truth. And
that is what they did. And that is what he did.
Who would have thought that several decades later, the grandson of
immigrants would make it to Congress, and find myself on the House
Judiciary Committee faced with a sitting president being brought up on
charges that would have called for his impairment and removal?
But, that is what happened in the effort to remove President Clinton
from office. I called Congressman Rodino, asked if I could speak with
him. He was incredibly gracious, as you might imagine. And he said,
``Sure, come on over to my office.'' He had an office in the law school
in Newark.
And he showed me some of his memorabilia and we went over some of the
allegations. And we were in some agreement about what the Constitution
meant when it said that the only elected official elected by the people
of the United States, all of the people, the President, could only be
removed by an act of treason, bribery, or a high crime or misdemeanor.
And when we weighed the allegations against President Clinton, we
kept in mind all that we thought those words meant when they were
written by the founders of our country and the drafters of our
Constitution. But in the end he said, Steve, be fair, keep an open
mind, and do what you believe is right. And I did.
And it was a once in a lifetime experience to have been in his
company, because as I mentioned earlier, he was one of those people,
you know, they say one person can change the world, one person can make
a difference in the world. He really was that kind of a person. True of
humble origins, but with a dignity and intelligence and a wisdom and a
courtesy and kindness that had him rise above even in the difficult
circumstances to lead his colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do
what was right.
And I think it is an example for everyone in America, whether your
family has been here for a long time or your family just got here, that
there is a place for everyone in America. And there may come a time
when you will be called upon, maybe not in the impeachment hearings,
but in your own home, in your own neighborhood, in your own town, in
the States in this country to be ready to lead the way Peter Rodino
led, with courage and with wisdom, and that you too can make the world
better as one human being like Peter Rodino.
I want to extend my deepest sympathies and condolences to Chairman
Rodino's wife, Joy, and his children and grandchildren, his legacy will
live on. His example will live on. And I believe, thanks to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Congressman Payne) and the others who have
spoken, and I hope that his example will inspire every American to rise
to the highest levels of their own ethics and integrity, even when
faced with partisan issues of the most challenging sort, just like
Peter Rodino.
Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman for those good words. Peter Rodino
offered many of us kindness and generous, wise counsel, and that is why
we are here tonight, not just celebrating one aspect of his career, but
the totality of this career of this great public servant.
And I would now like to recognize my colleague from New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing us
together tonight. This is a deed worth repeating. And we honor a man
who honored everyone regardless of what they looked like, how they
cooked their food, or what ethnicity, what religion they professed. He
could be considered a rare person, but, a person for our time, a person
who we can look to throughout this great institution because he
believed in this institution, Peter Rodino.
So to his wife, Joy, to all America, in this time of reality TV, it
is time for us to deal with reality. Peter Rodino understood that we
are all born equal. And that governments exist to protect and defend
that equality. Governments do not give us our rights, governments do
not give us our freedoms. They basically guarantee those rights and
those freedoms. If we understand that, Alexander Hamilton said, we will
understand the very basis of this great, great Nation.
William Livingston, David Brearly, William Paterson, and Jonathan
Dayton were the ratifiers of the Constitution from the State of New
Jersey in 1787, September 17. They were the original ratifiers from the
State of New Jersey of the Constitution. I would add to that list, and
there are many people we would probably add to the list down through
the years of those who ratified and reratified the greatest document
that the world has ever known with regard to governments.
So in many ways, Peter Rodino was a ratifier of the Constitution. I
come here tonight not to speak of impeachments, Peter Rodino was more
than a figure in a snapshot of history during a period of time when we
impeached the President. No, he was bigger than that before he was on
the Judiciary Committee, and before those articles of
[[Page 13271]]
impeachmnet were examined. He believed in the equality of everybody in
this House. He respected people for who they were, their character, as
Martin Luther King said, their character, we are already joined
together by the character in each individual.
This common ground, we feel and we sense with each other. And when I
hear what goes on on the floor of this House since I have been here,
January of 1997, I said God, do we need a Peter Rodino. Do we need
somebody from Newark, New Jersey or Patterson, New Jersey, or Los
Angeles, California? Do we need someone to bring sensibility, to bring
us together even when we disagree.
The integrity of this institution was a goal while he served in this
House. Congressman Rodino was the son of an Italian immigrant, and I
often remember the words of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), our
good friend telling us when, as he grew up in Alabama, and he fed the
chickens, he remembered when he was 3 and 4 years old feeding the
chickens, if someone were to stop him at that moment and say some day
you will be in the United States Congress, he would have turned and
said, you are crazy, or when he was beaten on the bridge, if we froze
it in time, do you know some day you are going to be the Congressman
from the State of Georgia, he would have thought he was crazy.
This is the reality of America. And Peter Rodino is a reflection of
that and all of us should remember not that we say words tonight to
soothe the hearts of those who knew him closest, but that we remember
that in this House, this House that can become so cantankerous, this
House that can become so treacherous, that we remember a person who
rose above it all, who was a guidepost, who was a beacon, a lighthouse
for finite men and women.
He was a beacon. He never questioned anyone's patriotism. He was not
a man who while religious, was religiously self righteous. He never
played ethnic politics on this floor or any floor. His voice is needed
now more than ever. Many have gone back to what he wrote and what he
said. Many go back to his words, which are so soothing, sweet words of
charity from a person of immigrants who came to the floor of this
House.
So beyond any NAIF, beyond the Italian American Members in the
Congress of the United States, he is a man who we should continue to
honor, not by speaking his words or his name necessarily, by reflecting
his character and upholding the integrity of this institution.
He believed in the common man, and he believed in the integrity of
each person. And he believed in parity. He believed in the person who
was downtrodden. He provides a message for our own party. He does, Mr.
Speaker. He should be a model for own own party. We should be here to
do the work of the downtrodden, of the least of these, of the voices.
Then, then the meaning of Peter Rodino will be known throughout the
United States of America.
What a hero. Joy, we join you in saying farewell, farewell to our
station master, to our leader, God bless you all for coming here
tonight.
Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman for putting in context much of Peter
Rodino's life and interpreting the message for us even today.
You know, I am told that Chairman Rodino prayed that the Judiciary
Committee could exhonorate Nixon, but he discovered that the evidence
allowed nothing other than the articles of impeachment.
{time} 2200
He was not vindictive. He was dutiful. And it was important that he
did not go into this with a blood thirst, but with actually a deep love
for the country.
I now would like to recognize another of my colleagues from New
Jersey, from a neighboring district, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I also thank the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for allowing us all to be here
tonight to share some thoughts about Congressman Peter Rodino.
I listened to all the debate and all the comments by my colleagues
tonight, and basically everyone I think did a very good job in
explaining the significance of Peter Rodino's life. And as I sat here,
though, and I was going through some of the obituaries and comments
that were made after Congressman Rodino died, I saw a section of one
article that was in the Bergen Record which kind of summed up the way I
feel about Peter Rodino. And I just wanted to, if I could read, a
couple of paragraphs from this article in the Bergen Record on May 17
of this year and then maybe comment a little more on it. It was written
by Mike Kelly.
It starts out by saying: ``It was personal with Peter Rodino. Yes, he
was a Congressman for 40 years. Yes, he shepherded all the major civil
rights bills through Congress in the 1960s. Yes, he was responsible for
the `under God' line in the Pledge of Allegiance and championing
Columbus Day as a national holiday. And, yes, he brought a grandfather
steady calm to the Watergate crisis 31 years ago when he headed the
House Judiciary Committee that brought Articles of Impeachment against
President Richard Nixon.
``But there was more. Or as Paula Franzese, the Seton Hall law
professor who eulogized him, put it: `None of us will ever forget Peter
Rodino because of the way he made us feel. He made us believe.'''
And I just wanted to comment a little bit about that personal aspect
of Peter Rodino and what it meant to me. Because I think many of us
have, of course, talked about all of the great things he accomplished,
and they were great; but I really remembered him as someone who cared,
someone with a heart, someone who was willing to reach out to, in my
case back in 1988, someone who was running for Congress and running for
office as a Congressman for the first time.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) knows that the two of us
ran in 1988 at the same time, and we both came to Congress at the same
time as freshmen, and I knew Congressman Rodino because he was just
leaving then. It was his last year in Congress, and it was about to be
our first year after he left.
I remember, I guess it was about 6 months or so before the election,
I, of course, had known about Peter Rodino and watched the impeachment
trials at the time. But it was suggested by some of the Italian-
Americans who were friends of mine, who lived in the Long Branch area
where I grew up but who had previously lived in Newark or in the north
ward or in various parts of Essex County, that I give Congressman
Rodino a call because he could give me some advice about running for
election.
I know that Peter Rodino used to spend his summers down in Long
Branch. I think he actually lived in West Long Branch, if I am not
mistaken. I used to see him from time to time up at the shore at
various restaurants or different places around. So I called him up and
said, Congressman, I would like to run for Congress and it was a
contested race. I was running in a district that leaned Republican at
the time, and a lot of people thought I was not going to win. And he
gave me advice that first day, made me feel that it was possible to
win, gave me ideas about who to call to help me out for advice, for
fund-raising, to organize leading up to election day.
And for the next 6 months leading up to the campaign which I, of
course, won, he was constantly available. He would call me up from time
to time and say, well, I understand this is happening and I can give
you some advice about what to do. And then within a couple of days
after I won, he called me and congratulated me. And I had the chance to
come down, the gentleman knows, because I was actually elected in a
special election so I actually had a chance to come down and be a
Congressman the next day after I was elected. And I saw Congressman
Rodino and even in those couple months or so before I was finally sworn
in in January when I served a special term, he was constantly giving me
advice about how to set up the office, how to go about hiring people,
all these little things.
I mention that because when I read the Bergen Record today and it
said it
[[Page 13272]]
was personal with Peter Rodino, that was a side of him that I think was
so important, how he was willing to help people. He helped his
constituents. He helped a freshman Congressman. He helped someone like
me who was trying to run.
Whenever you talked to his constituents or people who knew Peter
Rodino, that is what they would always say. They would always say you
could call him up, he would be there for you, you could ask for his
advice, you could ask him to do a favor, and he would always be there.
I just admired him so much for that because although we all think of
ourselves as doing constituent service and helping people and that is
why we come down here, here was this very powerful chairman of the
committee who had served in Congress for 40 years, who had been
exalted, if you will, because of so many of his activities; and yet he
was willing to spend the time with me.
I cannot yield back without saying another thing. I know that he was
a person who cared about everyone regardless of what their racial or
ethnic background was. But I have to say that Italian-Americans in New
Jersey were very proud of Peter Rodino. He was always involved with all
the Italian organizations. And I guess it sort of went back to what
some of my colleagues said before which is that as Italian-Americans
growing up, people would make bad associations and think that if you
are an Italian-American you must be involved in something shady or
something of that nature. And because Peter Rodino was such an honest
person and was such a clean person and was so above corruption,
Italian-Americans really admired him even more so because he stood
really for what was best as Italian-Americans, family, service to the
community, and really looking to always look out for the little guy.
That was his M.O.
So I am very proud to be here tonight. I think that my colleagues
really summed up in many ways what his life was about and why he was
important to all of us on a personal level as well as a national icon.
Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman for those fine comments. There are
some words running through the discussion tonight that we hear over and
over again: fairness, dignity, patience, caution, incorruptibility,
judiciousness, courtesy, strength, a sense of duty. Those are some of
the words that I think can describe Peter Rodino who gave so much to
this country over the years and from whom we can draw so much even
today.
Now I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for helping to continue this
tribute, and I thank my colleague and friend, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Payne), for convening us at the very beginning.
I rise tonight as an admirer, someone who watched from afar as a law
student and did not for a moment think that ultimately I would wind up
as a Member of the United States Congress and then to serve on the
Committee on the Judiciary where Peter Rodino gave his all and gave his
service. So my words are to come and express my admiration, to thank
him for his life and his works.
For those of you who were in Congress, many of whom we have heard
from today, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman), that world was a separate world from those of us who looked
from afar at this thing called impeachment. We understood there was a
democracy and a Constitution, but we did not understand the intimate
parts of what might happen through the process of an impeachment. But
then this very calm and distinguished gentleman rose to the forefront
of the national landscape as the media focused intensely on the hearing
room.
There sitting was Chairman Rodino, someone who had a balanced
temperament and seemingly gave comfort not only to the Nation but to
the world. As law students, we remained glued to the whole series of
Watergate hearings, all the processes in the Committee on the
Judiciary.
I happen to represent the 18th Congressional District in Texas and
all eyes were on a young woman by the name of Barbara Jordan. It seemed
that the chairman and this young lawyer from Texas, now a Member of
Congress, worked hand in glove together. Congresswoman Jordan would
make mention, as I have heard the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)
say, that they were on the bottom tier, row. They were freshmen. They
were the new members of the committee. But my understanding was that
there was not one single member, Democratic or Republican, that the
chairman did not make feel part of this very serious and grave process.
We heard my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Holt), state that the chairman prayed that there might not be a
conviction or that there would be a vindication of the President. That
showed the temperament of this chairman. But he led the committee in
that way by allowing dissent on both sides of the aisle, by allowing a
full hearing, by making sure that all the witnesses were able to be
heard extensively and over an extended period of time.
And so although I know that there are many personal anecdotal stories
that have been told tonight, I want the Rodino family to know that for
this law student who looked in horror at this process, tried to make
sense of this constitutional proceeding, concerned about the survival
of this Nation, that there could not have been a better teacher, a
better leader than Chairman Rodino who guided us through a real
constitutional crisis.
I think even then studying law it became more real to me, and I
admired both the law and the process and the Constitution more as I
watched our government go through it and survive it and as I have
watched in admiration the Honorable Barbara Jordan and so many others
that worked so well by reaching out and working with the chairman in an
orderly fashion.
Who could have done it but this very well-tempered and kind gentleman
from New Jersey, a man who started serving in 1949, at a time that
America was heavily segregated, and he rose as an easterner to fight
for the civil rights of all people as a strong advocate for racial
justice in America, a man of many talents, and a man who might have
been considered ordinary coming from an immigrant's background. But yet
he rose for these extraordinary times. A man ordinary, but becoming
extraordinary in himself and leading his Nation in an extraordinary
way.
So I thank you for allowing me to share my admiration and
appreciation for Peter Rodino and as well his family, and to thank him
for the kindness that he showed a young Congresswoman from Texas, the
honorable Barbara Jordan, and the way he guided us through a
constitutional crisis. I also thank him for his early commitment for
racial justice, for his commitment to the 1965 Voter Rights Acts, the
1964 Civil Rights Acts, leveled to the creation of southern districts,
one of which was the 18th Congressional District in Texas. Many others
sprung up across the South because of his willingness and his passion
to lead.
Might I also thank him very much for his continuing abilities to
teach. For although he could have left Congress and done many other
things, I know that the students whom he taught law to over the years
are forever grateful that they were able to have this giant amongst
them. This giant, the calm and even-handed spirit was able to do so
much.
I also want to thank him and make note of the fact that as he stayed
in Congress, he never wavered from being out front on immigration
issues. It might have been very popular during those times, but he was
a person who believed in reforming immigration and understanding its
value to America and to Americans.
{time} 2215
So I say to the family, thank you for allowing him to serve, thank
you for
[[Page 13273]]
allowing those of us who were just students of the law to watch the law
operate and practice. Might I just say that in his loss may we all
commit ourselves to guiding ourselves and doing the business of this
House the way the chairman did it during the most troubling times.
Might I say to my Committee on the Judiciary colleagues chairman,
ranking members and all of us, could we do as well as this chairman of
that committee during those very tumultuous times?
To my friend that passed, as I call on my friend for his leadership,
might you rest in peace and might your family know that you are a great
patriot, a great American, and you have laid down a marker in the
United States Congress that all of us can be grateful for and grateful
to be able to implement and to follow. May God bless you as you rest in
peace. May God bless America and your family.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about former Chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee Peter Rodino. As a body, we have gathered to
commemorate his life and his works, but as an individual I personally
appreciate being able to share in the honor, because of his life and
his works. Although Chairman Rodino is well known for his seminal work
in the Nixon impeachment, he was also a primary advocate for the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act (1965). Given his work in
both racial equality in the United States, and the presidential
impeachment, it is clear to see that his heart was forever committed to
justice and truth.
During the most difficult times of the Civil Rights movement he was
one of the few leaders able to stand up and fight for a better
America--against a sea of bigotry and racial prejudices. As a
Congressional leader willing to look past racial politics he was at the
forefront of the struggle for civil rights. Wanting to fulfill this
country's standing as a democratic nation, he was also willing to bring
to justice those leading our country.
It is also important for me to mention that Chairman Rodino was a man
of integrity and humility who served our nation with great dignity and
honor. By conducting the Watergate impeachment hearings with fairness,
he ensured that the rule of law prevailed during one of the gravest
Constitutional crises in our history. All Americans will be forever
grateful for his courage and defense of the Constitution.
In closing, while Chairman Rodino is most renowned for the service he
rendered during the Watergate impeachment hearings, he also left a
lasting imprint as a distinguished Chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee and author of significant legislation, ranging from civil
rights to immigration reform to protecting consumers.
It gives me great pleasure to speak on the life of such a great
leader.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her words from the
perspective of the Committee on the Judiciary and joining us in paying
tribute to the Honorable Peter Rodino.
Representative Rodino served the United States and the people of New
Jersey faithfully, and that is a good word to use, for 40 years, and we
mourn his loss and celebrate his contributions, and try to extract
lessons for today for ourselves, for America, from his service.
He was relatively unknown to the public outside of New Jersey before
the Watergate hearings, which led to the resignation of the President.
His professionalism and fairness and dedication to the rule of law
characterized what he did, and he was able to demonstrate throughout
those hearings the characteristics that thrust him into the kind of
prominence that he neither sought nor coveted.
The genius of the American government, as created by our founders
over 200 years ago, is that our government is self-correcting. It is a
self-correcting system, and Peter Rodino, who carried a copy of the
Constitution with him every day of his professional life, understood
that. At a critical time, he helped that ingenious machine, that
ingenious mechanism work. It does not work by itself. It works if we
make it work. It works if we believe it works.
Peter Rodino served as the chair of the House Judiciary Committee
during one of the most disappointing and politically divisive times in
our history. As we have heard tonight, he was tasked with the
unenviable job of officiating the Nation's second impeachment hearings
of a sitting U.S. President. It was not obvious that he would get that
job.
Most observers expected these potentially vitriolic proceedings to be
characterized by partisanship and animosity and grandstanding. Peter
Rodino did none of that. He would have none of that. He brought an
honest and workmanlike demeanor to this difficult job. As the son of a
workman, maybe workmanlike is the right word here.
Peter Rodino led a bipartisan group of lawmakers to approve three
articles of impeachment in July of 1974, and the conduct of his
Judiciary Committee really was a silver lining in a dark cloud.
Tonight, we have heard words like ``unlikely'' or ``improbable'' and
``unexpected'' hero. Well, maybe a better word is ``untested'' in the
public forum, but we should not forget what sort of person this was. He
had enlisted in the Army, served in north Africa and received a rare
battlefield promotion to captain. He was no slouch. Earning the Bronze
Star, he came home and practiced law and then ran for Congress.
It is important to understand that he did not just suddenly rise to
the occasion. He had studied and he had thought, but even he recognized
that when he was given the gavel for the impeachment hearings, he was
not yet ready. He said he had not even questioned a witness in direct
examination in 30 years because he had been serving in the legislature,
but typical of his workmanlike manner, he studied. He read this
enormous Watergate record. It was already enormous by that time. Three
times over he read the history of the impeachment and the trial of
President Andrew Johnson. He studied the writings of the political
philosophers, all this in preparation for the impeachment hearings. In
fact, he worked himself to exhaustion.
He hired a staff of 105, including some bright young lawyers, and he
began to steel himself so that when the pressure came to modify the
hearings, to accelerate the pace, to show a little partisanship, he
never backed down. He knew where he was, and it is, I think rightly,
what he will be remembered for best.
His political legacy extends far beyond that tumultuous time. He
worked tirelessly and successfully to defeat ill-advised constitutional
amendments that would have criminalized abortions or disallowed
organized school prayer or prohibited school integration through
busing. He fought tirelessly for civil rights for all Americans. He was
one of the main congressional sponsors of civil rights legislation and
principal author of fair employment practices legislation. He was
instrumental in extending the Voting Rights Act. The impact of this
legislation that he participated in is enormous.
We should not forget his representation, the representation he
brought to the people of New Jersey's 10th District. Despite evolving
demographics and four decades of social change, it was a tough time in
Newark. Peter Rodino's dedication to his constituents never faltered.
It was not by accident that he was reelected through 40 years.
Since his death, Peter Rodino has received some of the attention he
deserves. We are tonight remembering the way he guided Congress and the
country through a tremendously difficult period in our political
history.
Even until recently, into his nineties, he remained active at Seton
Hall, looking after the interests of students and, yes, the citizens of
New Jersey. We all frequently got phone calls from him suggesting this
or that that would be beneficial to the people.
Tonight especially I think serves as a reminder that our self-
correcting system of government works because Americans believe it does
and because Americans rise to the occasion, each occasion.
We may think that Peter Rodino lived in a different era and his life
has little relevance, his service has little relevance for us today,
but perhaps the lesson is that we, that all Americans, are called or
will be called to do our civic duty.
Peter Rodino prepared himself for that, accepted the duty
unflinchingly, distinguished himself, distinguished this body,
distinguished America
[[Page 13274]]
through his service. It is right that we should recognize him tonight.
To close, I would like to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Payne), my colleague who put this together for this evening and to whom
we also owe gratitude.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New Jersey
for leading the second hour for the Special Order for Congressman Peter
Rodino. Congressman Rodino would have enjoyed talking to him. He was an
intellectual himself. He would have encouraged the gentleman to
continue to push for science and technology and to try to improve our
natural habitat and preserve it. So I thank the gentleman very much.
Let me thank the speaker who has conducted this Special Order in such
a dignified manner and the appreciation of us for having the second
hour because it is very rare in this place that people stay to express
themselves. Most Members are very busy, especially those in leadership,
but to have the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our minority
leader, take time and express her appreciation for having served with
Mr. Rodino; to see the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our
minority whip, come and spend time; to hear the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers), the dean of the Congressional Black Caucus and actually
second longest-serving Democrat in the House, who so eloquently
described those days on that committee; to hear the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel), ranking member for the Committee on Ways and Means;
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Berman) and on and on I think certainly says it all.
Mr. Rodino was the right man at the right place at the right time.
Let me, as we conclude, just say that he was just a gentle person,
running up Aqueduct Alley, living in the area near the old first ward.
I lived several blocks away from that while he served in World War II,
where I was a student at the school right near there, where he attended
St. Lucy's Church, with Father Grenada or Monsignor Grenada, who is
still there, and the McKinley School that he went to in elementary in
World War I still looks the same. Nothing has been done to the school.
I passed it recently.
Barringer High School, the same high school I attended a few years
after Congressman Rodino did, then he moved up to 205 Grafton Avenue.
It was an address we all remember, because when I got old enough to
carry petitions around, I remember that address being on the petitions
so we knew where to turn them in.
We knew Tony Serrantos who worked for him for decades. As a matter of
fact, when I came and replaced Mr. Rodino, I brought Mr. Serrantos into
my office to run my office for the first term that I served in
Congress. It was funny, because Mr. Serrantos kept Mr. Rodino's picture
up in his office, like he should have. It took him almost the end of
the second year before he found a little place in the corner in the
dark for a small picture of me.
So there was really the great love for Mr. Rodino and Joe Benuchi,
who became the postmaster, and when Mr. Rodino was brought down with
Colonel Kelly, who was then Democratic county chairman, preceding
Chairman Dennis Carey, these were days that the clubs on First Avenue,
the Capa Soleus and other clubs, that were political clubs that Mr.
Rodino felt as comfortable in those clubs, as he would in the basement
of a Baptist church where the NCAAP, Newark branch, would be meeting.
So the Rodino auxiliary group, women who were at the funeral, who
wanted the press to know that they were the Peter Rodino Ladies
Auxiliary, they were so proud. They served him so long.
{time} 2230
Mr. Speaker, as we conclude, it was really the right time. Elizabeth
Holtzman was important because in the redistricting in 1972, she
defeated Mannie Celler who was then chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary. She did not serve long in Congress. However, Mr. Rodino then
took the chairmanship of that committee and moved it through the
impeachment proceedings.
As it was said at the funeral that was attended by Monsignor Shering,
president of Seton Hall University, Monsignor Joseph Grenada, and the
great eulogy that was given by Ms. Paula Franzese who talked from her
heart, and the president, dean of the law school, Patrick Hobbs, all of
us were there. Even our law professor Mr. McQuade, Acting Governor
Richard Codey, Senator Sarbanes and Elizabeth Holtzman all came out to
show their respect.
There was legislation like the Simpson-Rodino Act, which paved the
way for immigrants to have a better future back in 1986, one of the
last important pieces of legislation that Mr. Rodino passed.
So as we conclude here, I mentioned the beautiful Cathedral of St.
Lucy where the funeral was held, to all of us who remember the
Congressman for so many years. He was proud of being a member of the
Columbian Society. He was inducted into the Knights of Malta, and he
wore on his lapel that symbol for decades. He was so proud of his
heritage.
Once again, let me say what an extraordinary night it has been to
have several hours expire even as I speak now. Let me once again thank
all of the Members who participated. It is a great day for the Rodino
family, but it is also a great day for America for us to remember one
of the true heroes of this land, the late Congressman, Peter W. Rodino,
Jr.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Ms. Herseth (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today and June 21 on
account of business in the district.
Ms. Granger (at the request of Mr. DeLay) for today on account of
attending a funeral.
Mr. Souder (at the request of Mr. DeLay) for today on account of
attending a Base Realignment and Closure Commission meeting in St.
Louis, Missouri.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Menendez) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Brown of Ohio, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Emanuel, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Strickland, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Waters, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Burton of Indiana) to
revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Gutknecht, for 5 minutes, June 27.
Mr. Pearce, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Burton of Indiana, for 5 minutes, today and June 21, 22, 23, and
24.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 32 minutes
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow,
Tuesday, June 21, 2005, at 9 a.m., for morning hour debates.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
2423. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulations, Department of Education, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- National Institute on Disability
and Rehabilitation Research -- Disability and Rehabilitation
Research Projects and Centers Program -- Rehabilitation
Engineering
[[Page 13275]]
Research Centers -- received June 1, 2005, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
2424. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulations, Department of Education, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- National Institute on Disability
and Rehabilitation Research (RIN: 1820-ZA36) received June 1,
2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
2425. A letter from the Deputy Executive Director, Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's
final rule -- Benefits Payable in Temrinated Single-Employer
Plans; Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans;
Interest Assumptions for Valuing and Paying Benefits --
received June 7, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
2426. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Alaksa Plaice in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Management Area [Docket No. 041126332-5039-02; I.D. 050605D]
received June 6, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Resources.
2427. A letter from the Assistant Administrator, NMFS,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting
the Administration's final rule -- Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species; Atlantic Commercial Shark Management Measures
[Docket No. 0503003056-5108-02; I.D. 020205F] (RIN: 0648-
AT07) received June 7, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. LEWIS of California: Committee on Appropriations. H.R.
2985. A bill making appropriations for the Legislative Branch
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other
purposes (Rept. 109-139).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union.
Mr. GINGREY: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 330.
Resolution providing for consideration of the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 10) proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United
States (Rept. 109-140).
Referred to the House Calendar.
Mr. PUTNAM: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 331.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
2475) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for
intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the
United States Government, the Community Management Account,
and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability
System, and for other purposes (Rept. 109-141).
Referred to the House Calendar.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2986. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
allow a participant in the military Survivor Benefit Plan who
has designated an insurable interest beneficiary under that
plan to designate a new beneficiary upon the death of the
previously designated beneficiary; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2987. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow the deduction for State and local income and
property taxes under the alternative minimum tax; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself, Mr. Buyer, and Mr.
Everett):
H.R. 2988. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to conduct a demonstration project for the
improvement of business practices of the Veterans Health
Administration; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. CAMP (for himself, Mr. Tanner, Ms. Pryce of
Ohio, Mr. Foley, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Tiberi, Mr.
Hayworth, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Kuhl of New York,
Mr. Sanders, Mr. Skelton, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Ramstad,
Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Ruppersberger, and
Mr. Renzi):
H.R. 2989. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to increase, extend, and make permanent the above-the-
line deduction for certain expenses of elementary and
secondary school teachers; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania:
H.R. 2990. A bill to improve ratings quality by fostering
competition, transparency, and accountability in the credit
rating agency industry; to the Committee on Financial
Services.
By Mr. McHENRY (for himself and Mr. Beauprez):
H.R. 2991. A bill to prohibit United States foreign
assistance from being provided to any country that refuses to
extradite to the United States individuals accused of killing
law enforcement officers; to the Committee on International
Relations.
By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. Nadler, and Ms.
Schwartz of Pennsylvania):
H.R. 2992. A bill to provide for the continued operation of
Amtrak, to establish a program for support of certain rail
infrastructure projects, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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. PORTER (for himself, Ms. Berkley, and Mr.
Gibbons):
H.R. 2993. A bill to provide for the sale of excess wild
free-roaming horses and burros; to the Committee on
Resources.
By Mr. ROGERS of Michigan:
H.R. 2994. A bill to make qualified tuition programs
permanent and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
allow a deduction for amounts contributed to qualified
tuition programs; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. UDALL of Colorado:
H.R. 2995. A bill to establish the Weather Modification
Operations and Research Board, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Science.
By Ms. LEE:
H.R. 3000. A bill to establish a United States Health
Service to provide high quality comprehensive health care for
all Americans and to overcome the deficiencies in the present
system of health care delivery; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Education
and the Workforce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. ROGERS of Michigan:
H. Con. Res. 182. Concurrent resolution calling upon all
United States citizens to support the efforts and activities
of the National SAFE KIDS Campaign to prevent unintentional
childhood injuries; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. ROGERS of Michigan:
H. Con. Res. 183. Concurrent resolution supporting the
goals and ideals of College Savings Month; to the Committee
on Government Reform.
By Mr. PALLONE (for himself and Mr. Shaw):
H. Res. 332. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals
of National Clean Beaches Week and recognizing the
considerable value of American beaches and the need to keep
them clean and safe for the public; to the Committee on
Resources.
By Mr. PAYNE (for himself, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Wexler,
Mr. Wolf, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr.
Rangel, Mr. Conyers, and Ms. Lee):
H. Res. 333. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals
of a National Weekend of Prayer and Reflection for Darfur,
Sudan; to the Committee on International Relations.
____________________
PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 3 of rule XII, private bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. BRADY of Texas:
H.R. 2996. A bill to provide for the liquidation or
reliquidation of certain drawback claims; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. BRADY of Texas:
H.R. 2997. A bill to provide for the liquidation or
reliquidation of certain drawback claims; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. BRADY of Texas:
H.R. 2998. A bill to provide for the liquidation or
reliquidation of certain drawback claims; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. BRADY of Texas:
H.R. 2999. A bill to provide for the liquidation or
reliquidation of certain drawback claims; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. BRADY of Texas:
H.R. 3001. A bill to provide for the liquidation or
reliquidation of certain drawback claims; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. BRADY of Texas:
H.R. 3002. A bill to provide for the liquidation or
reliquidation of certain drawback claims; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
[[Page 13276]]
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 65: Mr. Fortuno.
H.R. 213: Mr. Holt.
H.R. 303: Mr. Calvert, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Forbes,
Mr. Pickering, and Mr. Latham.
H.R. 373: Ms. Norton.
H.R. 500: Mr. Stearns.
H.R. 503: Mr. Moore of Kansas, and Mr. Porter.
H.R. 577: Mr. Ruppersberger.
H.R. 586: Mr. LaHood.
H.R. 602: Mr. Renzi and Mr. Etheridge.
H.R. 605: Mr. Duncan.
H.R. 698: Mr. Brady of Texas.
H.R. 786: Mr. Latham.
H.R. 793: Mr. Pickering.
H.R. 799: Mr. Evans.
H.R. 874: Mrs. Cubin.
H.R. 896: Mr. Larson of Connecticut.
H.R. 923: Mr. Shimkus.
H.R. 995: Mr. Reyes.
H.R. 1002: Mr. Cleaver.
H.R. 1079: Mr. McCaul of Texas.
H.R. 1155: Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 1156: Mr. Conyers and Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H.R. 1177: Mr. Moran of Kansas.
H.R. 1239: Mr. Pickering.
H.R. 1282: Mr. Moore of Kansas.
H.R. 1338: Mr. Reyes and Mr. Langevin.
H.R. 1355: Mr. Holden.
H.R. 1382: Mr. Cooper.
H.R. 1402: Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Menendez.
H.R. 1494: Mr. Dingell, Mr. Gordon, and Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 1498: Ms. Hart and Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 1505: Mr. Costello.
H.R. 1507: Mr. George Miller of California and Ms. Roybal-
Allard.
H.R. 1526: Mr. Honda.
H.R. 1588: Mr. Higgins.
H.R. 1630: Ms. Bean, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Brown of
Ohio, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Boucher, Mr.
Michaud, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr.
Schwarz of Michigan, Mr. Filner, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Wexler,
Mr. King of New York, Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Davis of
Florida, Mr. Larsen of Washington, and Ms. Linda T. Sanchez
of California.
H.R. 1631: Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. McIntyre,
Mr. Pallone, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Miller
of North Carolina, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Schwarz of Michigan,
Mr. Filner, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Larsen of
Washington, Mr. Cummings, and Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of
California.
H.R. 1639: Ms. Waters.
H.R. 1687: Ms. DeGette, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Waxman,
Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Ms. Waters.
H.R. 1689: Mr. Aderholt.
H.R. 1789: Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 1791: Mr. Bishop of New York.
H.R. 1794: Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 1850: Mr. Sherman, Mr. Moran of Virginia, and Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H.R. 1902: Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Honda, Mr. McDermott, and Ms.
Waters.
H.R. 1954: Mr. Souder.
H.R. 2012: Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
H.R. 2017: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 2037: Mr. Evans and Mr. Meek of Florida.
H.R. 2044: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts and Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 2131: Mr. Taylor of Mississippi.
H.R. 2207: Mr. Ruppersberger and Mr. Neal of Massachusetts.
H.R. 2238: Mr. LoBiondo.
H.R. 2317: Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Marchant, and Mr. Evans.
H.R. 2340: Mr. Michaud and Mr. Strickland.
H.R. 2358: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 2474: Mr. Kuhl of New York and Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas.
H.R. 2562: Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 2567: Mr. Cummings and Mr. Sessions.
H.R. 2637: Mr. Pickering.
H.R. 2649: Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 2794: Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, and Mr.
Hastings of Washington.
H.R. 2803: Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Ms.
Carson, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Renzi, Mr. Etheridge,
and Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.
H.R. 2891: Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Bishop of
Georgia, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr.
Ruppersberger, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Waxman,
Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Towns, Mrs. Christensen, Mr.
Conyers, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Ms. Carson, and Mr.
Neal of Massachusetts.
H.R. 2959: Mr. Filner, Mr. Michaud, and Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania.
H.R. 2968: Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Mr.
Delahunt.
H.J. Res. 12: Mr. Sabo and Mr. Pascrell.
H.J. Res. 52: Mr. Meehan, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Sanders, and Mr.
Capuano.
H.J. Res. 53: Mrs. Drake, Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, Mr. Rogers
of Alabama, and Mr. Sullivan.
H. Con. Res. 90: Mr. Davis of Illinois and Ms. Millender-
McDonald.
H. Con. Res. 140: Mr. Boozman.
H. Con. Res. 154: Mr. Evans.
H. Con. Res. 155: Mr. McIntyre, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Kirk, Mr.
Berman, Mr. Rothman, Mrs. Maloney, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and
Mr. Kingston.
H. Con. Res. 162: Mr. Evans.
H. Con. Res. 168: Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Chandler, Mr.
Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr.
Royce, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Issa, Mr.
Weller, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr.
McCaul of Texas, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Poe, Ms. Watson, Ms.
Harris, Mr. Fortenberry, and Mr. Honda.
H. Con. Res. 172: Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, and Mr. Clyburn.
H. Con. Res. 180: Mr. Gordon.
H. Con. Res. 181: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H. Res. 230: Mr. McNulty.
H. Res. 299: Mrs. Maloney.
H. Res. 312: Mr. Terry, Mr. Shays, Mr. Holden, Mr. Case,
Mr. Menendez, Mr. Hinojosa, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and Mr.
Bachus.
H. Res. 325: Mr. Levin.
H. Res. 326: Mr. Engel, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Tancredo, and Mr.
Crowley.
H. Res. 328: Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Crowley, Mr.
Higgins, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Wilson of South
Carolina, Mr. Leach, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Conyers,
and Mr. Pallone.
____________________
DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills
and resolutions as follows:
H.R. 2646: Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Camp, Mr.
Hefley, Mr. Keller, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Rehberg, Mr. Shuster, Mr.
Upton, and Mr. Thornberry.
____________________
DISCHARGE PETITIONS--ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS
The following Members added their names to the following discharge
petitions:
Petition 2 by Mr. MARSHALL on House Resolution 270: Chet
Edwards, Neil Abercrombie, Anthony D. Weiner, Lynn C.
Woolsey, Howard L. Berman, Chaka Fattah, Anna G. Eshoo,
Loretta Sanchez, Ike Skelton, Edward J. Markey, Richard E.
Neal, Ed Pastor, Ruben Hinojosa, and Robert E. (Bud) Cramer,
Jr.
[[Page 13277]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO RAQUEL SHIVDAT
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding leader,
Raquel Shivdat.
Ms. Shivdat may not have a very visible personality, but behind the
scenes she is one of the biggest influences in the explosion of
Caribbean music entertainment in New York City. As Promotion and
Marketing manager of the JMC Entertainment Inc. (which includes JMC
records, JMC Trevini band and Rum Jungle Bar and Restaurant), Ms.
Shivdat's responsibilities range from the promotion of shows to the
management of music recordings. After more than twelve years in the
entertainment industry, Ms. Shivdat has become a defining force.
Ms. Shivdat rose through the ranks in the family's business, starting
as flyer designer at JMC Records and later working at the family's Roti
Express diner. Additionally, Ms. Shivdat managed to pursue a degree in
Fashion Marketing at Berkeley College in New Jersey, while managing her
household as a wife and mother of two boys, Tyler and Shane.
At Rum Jungle, Ms. Shivdat produces at least one concert every month
involving artists from the West Indies. The biggest names in Soca and
Chutney music are regular performers at the club. Ms. Shivdat also
brought the legendary Indian performers Babla and Kanchan to New York.
Ms. Shivdat also makes regular contributions to charitable
organizations and committee projects in New York and has done fund
raisers at Rum Jungle for the Prime Ministers of Trinidad and Tobago
and Guyana.
At 32 years old, Ms. Shivdat has become a key member of the JMC
Company and she says that she always draws inspiration from her father
Mohan Jaikairan who owns the business.
Mr. Speaker, Ms. Shivdat, a wife, mother and entrepreneur, is both
passionate about her chosen field of music and her community. Thus, we
proudly recognize her today.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ARMY SPECIALIST LOUIS NIEDERMEIER
______
HON. C.W. BILL YOUNG
of florida
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Army
Specialist Louis E. Niedermeier of Largo, Florida, who gave the last
full measure of service to our nation while serving in Iraq.
Our nation buried Louis with full military honors this afternoon at
Arlington National Cemetery following his death by sniper fire in Ar
Ramadi, Iraq on June 1st while serving with his Headquarters Battery,
2nd Battalion, 17th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division. He
died just 2 weeks short of his 21st birthday.
Louis was a soldier's soldier. He wanted to enlist in the Army
immediately after the events of 9-11, but he was only 17. His day came
though as soon as he graduated from Pinellas Park High School in 2003.
He followed in his father's footsteps and enlisted in the Army and a
year later found himself serving in Iraq.
As a scout, Louis served on the front lines, providing critical
targeting information to our air and artillery forces. He served with
pride and with courage to bring about freedom in a land far from home.
The true testament of Louis' service as a soldier came from the
remembrances of three soldiers from his unit who served side-by-side
with him in Iraq. The three were wounded in combat and were stateside
at the time of Louis' death. They drove 36 hours nonstop from Fort
Carson, Colorado to be with Louis and his family this afternoon. They
said they did it because if the roles had been reversed Louis would
have been there for them.
Louis' parents Edward A. Niedermeier and Denise A. Hoy were proud of
their son. They were proud that he chose to serve his Nation in
uniform. They were proud that he served with distinction to defend the
principles of freedom and democracy. And they were proud that despite
the fact that he served halfway around the world, first in Korea and
then in Iraq, that he never forgot to remember his family and friends
back home.
Both Ed and Denise marveled this afternoon that before they knew it
Louis had grown from a boy into a man. They recounted Louis' love of
family and country. And they emphasized that if Louis had it to do over
again, they are convinced he would not have changed a thing.
Army Sergeant First Class Charles Welsh also attended today's
services. He not only had the honor of serving with Louis in Iraq, but
he was Louis' uncle. He recalled the day Louis came to him and told him
he had enlisted in the Army as one of the proudest moments in this
young man's life.
The price of freedom is great and in the case of Louis it was a life
cut way too short. It was also the tragic interruption of a life
together Louis had planned with his fiancee Sarah Hatley. Sarah and
Louis were high school sweethearts who both volunteered to serve their
Nation in uniform. Sarah is a Seaman serving aboard the U.S.S.
Fitzgerald, stationed in Yokosuka, Japan. Her ship was underway off the
coast of Australia when she learned of Louis' death.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation said goodbye to Specialist Louis E.
Niedermeier today at Arlington National Cemetery. We said goodbye to a
brave soldier who proudly wore the uniform in defense of freedom here
and throughout the world. We said goodbye to a good son, a good nephew,
and a good friend to so many people. And we said goodbye to the love of
a young girl's life.
As the day draws to an end, we can take solace in the fact that
America sleeps better tonight and every night because of heroes like
Louis Niedermeier who sacrificed all for the love of country and the
love of freedom.
Mr. Speaker, a grateful Nation said thank you today to a courageous
soldier and I join all my colleagues today in expressing our sorrow and
our thanks for the life and the service of Louis Niedermeier and to the
strong and loving family and friends he leaves behind. His was a life
that was all too short in time but full of love and grace.
____________________
JUNETEENTH AFRICAN-AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE DAY
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate an African-
American day of celebration of freedom and justice. Juneteenth marks
the end of slavery for African-American communities around the country.
It is a day to embrace our freedom and equality, to reflect on the
progress we have made as people, and to ponder our future role in this
country.
Despite the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation in January 1963,
it took two and a half years--June 1965--for the liberation of all
slaves in the United States to occur. For 140 years now, African-
Americans have celebrated the final attainment of their freedom on the
19th of June. Tradition has it that it is the date when news of
emancipation from slavery was finally delivered to slaves in Texas, the
furthest point from Washington where slavery existed. The most accepted
explanation is that the delay was caused by the primitive
communications of the day, but some historians believe that the news of
emancipation was deliberately denied to slaves.
On this Juneteenth, African-Americans across the country will
contemplate the importance of their freedom compared to their
ancestors. They will reflect on their ability and rights to hold a job,
to ride a bus, to own property, to live unencumbered by the government,
and to make decisions about their own lives. Some will think about the
obstacles that remain in their way of achieving the ``American dream.''
Others will ponder the future of their children and the opportunities
ahead of them.
I, for one, would think both about how far we have come as a country
and how much further we need to go to erase racism and discrimination
from our society. Once the slaves of plantation owners, African-
Americans now can freely move about the country, hold jobs
[[Page 13278]]
and careers of importance, marry their chosen partner, provide for
their families, raise their kids, and live in true freedom. African-
Americans are graduating from college at increasing rates; receiving
medical, professional, and doctoral degrees; working in major
corporations and businesses; and making decisions about the future of
this country. We have come a long way in our struggle for equality.
Nonetheless, we have far to go. Less than half of African-American
families own their own homes and they are twice as likely to be denied
mortgages as whites. While the unemployment rate for whites is 5
percent, the black unemployment rate is 10 percent. African-Americans
are three times more likely to be arrested as whites and on average
serve longer sentences than whites. Crime, drugs, and poverty are
rampant in many minority communities. Many young African-Americans are
disillusioned, frustrated, and feel powerless in their own country.
The challenges African-Americans are facing today are rooted in the
system of slavery. After emancipation, segregation, a system of
continued oppression, was imposed which maintained the disparities
between blacks and whites. It fueled the animosities, resentments, and
discrimination that would separate and divide this country. We are
still grappling with the effects of slavery, racism, and
discrimination. We must do more to undo the wrongs of that evil
institution.
On this Juneteenth, let this great country come together to reflect
on the role slavery has played in our system today.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO WINSTON P. THOMPSON
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a
distinguished and accomplished Brooklynite, Winston P. Thompson. It is
an honor to represent Mr. Thompson in the House of Representatives and
it behooves us to pay tribute to such an exemplary citizen.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Thompson worked diligently and attained his
undergraduate and graduate degrees from St. Francis College and Pace
University. His work experience is impressive--from being employed as
an auditing officer for Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, a Wall Street
Investment Banking firm, for two years, and a big five international
accounting and consulting firm, where he remained for five years.
Over the past 20 years, he has demonstrated deep devotion and civic
commitment as a CPA and Financial Planner by offering tax and financial
services to the Brooklyn community. In addition, he is the founder,
President, and Chief Executive Officer of Thompson & Company, a
Certified Public Accounting and Consulting firm based in Downtown
Brooklyn, which recently enjoyed its twentieth year in operation.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is incumbent on this body to recognize
the achievements and service of Mr. Thompson. He continues to offer his
talents and services for the betterment of the community through his
involvement in several community activities and organizations,
particularly as a Member of the Caribbean American Chamber of Commerce,
the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce and the Bedford Stuyvesant Real Estate
Board.
Mr. Speaker, may our country continue to benefit from the civic
actions of committed and talented individuals such as Winston P.
Thompson.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MR. ROBERT L. PANEK
______
HON. C.W. BILL YOUNG
of florida
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay
tribute to Mr. Robert L. Panek, who retired from the Senior Executive
Service, in the Department of the Navy, on June 3rd, 2005. Mr. Panek's
long and highly distinguished career spans nearly 34 years of Federal
Service and eclipses 27 years of dedicated service in the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller).
A native of Oceanside, New York, Mr. Panek received a Bachelor of
Science degree, a Naval Reserve commission, and a Merchant Marine Third
Officer's license from the Maritime College of the State University of
New York, before entering Federal Service in 1971.
Excelling as a management intern with the Naval Ordnance Systems
Command, budget analyst in the Anti-Submarine Warfare Systems Project
Office, financial management advisor to the Deputy Chief of Naval
Material, and budget analyst/branch head in the Department of the Navy
(DoN) Budget Policy and Procedures Directorate, Mr. Panek was appointed
to the Senior Executive Service (SES) in July 1986. As a SES officer,
his breadth of responsibilities grew to encompass nearly every facet of
the DoN budget to include setting policies and procedures for the
formulation and execution of the DoN budget; directing DoN budget
operations; and overseeing Investment, Research & Development,
Construction, and Acquisition accounts. In December 1994, Mr. Panek's
exemplary career culminated in his selection as the Associate Director,
Office of Budget with responsibility for the formulation, presentation
and execution of the DoN budget. In this position he achieved the grade
of Senior Executive Service, Level 6 and also served as Special
Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management
and Comptroller).
Mr. Panek's devotion to duty, financial acumen, and commitment to the
Navy-Marine Corps Team have made our Nation safer and our Navy and
Marine Corps Stronger. He has been awarded numerous performance awards
and citations throughout his career to include the Department of the
Navy Superior Civilian Service Award in December 1988, the Presidential
Meritorious Rank Award in 1993, and the Department of the Navy
Distinguished Civilian Service Award in 2001. His selflessness,
exemplary conduct, and commitment to a cause greater than himself is
memorialized in his parting email to his shipmates in the Department of
the Navy in which he reminded them--``Finally, please always, always
remember that we do this for our Sailors and Marines that go in harm's
way.''
It is fitting and altogether appropriate to recognize Mr. Panek's
contributions to the DoN at the same time that we consider the Fiscal
Year 2006 Defense Appropriations Act. Our Nation and the Department of
the Navy have been made better through the talent and dedication of Mr.
Robert L. Panek. I know all of my colleagues join me in congratulating
Bob, his wife Susan, and their two daughters, on the completion of an
outstanding career. While his service to our Nation will be missed, he
has left a legacy of high standards and superbly trained professionals
in his wake. We wish him fair winds and following seas!
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO DeCOSTA HEADLEY
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a Brooklynite
and distinguished entrepreneur, DeCosta Headley. It is an honor to
represent Mr. Headley in the House of Representatives and it behooves
us to pay tribute to such an outstanding leader.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Headley obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in
Behavioral Science from Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina. He
became a successful entrepreneur, serving as the president of
Diversified Inch By Inch, Inc., one of the city's leading African-
American general contracting firms. In this position, Mr. Headley
demonstrated deep commitment to the community through several
development projects that his company undertook, including the
construction of local medical and dental facilities for Oxford Health
Plans, Brookdale Hospital & Medical Center, and Interfaith Medical
Center, and new housing, including a multi-level senior citizens
apartment complex for Berean Missionary Baptist Church. Mr. Headley
launched efforts of urban renewal by assisting in the development of
senior citizen housing and youth centers for communities in need across
the five boroughs.
Mr. Headley has exhibited the qualities of an exemplary community
leader in his service as District Leader for the 40th Assembly District
in the East New York section of Kings County. During his term, he
remained dedicated to improving the quality of life for his
constituents by continuously engaging in initiatives aimed at expanding
college scholarships, employment opportunities, affordable housing,
public assistance services, and social services, including senior
citizen centers that offer hot meals, transportation, and access to
basic health care services. In addition, he remained actively involved
on various local community and planning boards, founded the community's
first Local Development Corporation along with the Federation of Block
Associations for East New York, and established the Federation of
Addiction Agencies that offers a drug-free treatment program in East
New York and
[[Page 13279]]
Brownsville. Currently, Mr. Headley enormously contributes to the
political sector of the community by successfully managing the
campaigns of candidates running for positions in the city, state, and
federal levels of government.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is incumbent on this body to recognize
the remarkable achievements and selfless service of Mr. Headley as he
continues to benevolently extend his talents and services for the
betterment of the community.
Mr. Speaker, may our country continue to benefit from the civic
actions of committed and laudable community leaders such as Mr. DeCosta
Headley.
____________________
COMMENDING JACK DILLENBURG FOR EXEMPLARY COMMUNITY SERVICE
______
HON. BRIAN HIGGINS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the exemplary
public service of Jack Dillenburg, a resident of the town of Arkwright
in Chautauqua County, upon the occasion of his recognition as the 2005
Chautauqua County Democrat of the Year.
Jack's dedication to public service has been manifest, and his
commitment to the residents of Chautauqua County has been outstanding.
Jack served as an appointed member of New York State Assemblyman
Rolland Kidder's staff from 1976 until 1982.
During that time Jack continued to work very hard for his
constituents back home. In 1975 Jack was elected to the Forestville
Village Board of Trustees where he served until 1977 when he was
elected mayor.
In 1980 Jack began a four-term streak as a member of the Chautauqua
County legislature. During his time as a legislator, Jack's leadership
and consensus building skills led him to be chosen by his colleagues to
be both the majority leader and the minority leader.
The year 1992 ushered in six terms as the Arkwright Town Supervisor
where there is no doubt that he did all he could to better the
community.
Over 20 years later Jack decided to hang up his hat as an elected
official and in 1998 he began a 5-year duty as the clerk of the
Chautauqua County legislature; a responsibility he was well suited to
fill following his years of experience in the legislature.
In addition to all of these outstanding achievements in public
service, Jack still gave his all and served as the town of Arkwright's
Democratic Chair for 27 years.
Mr. Dillenburg deserves recognition and congratulations for the vast
contributions he has made over the last three decades, not just to the
Democratic Party in general, but to the people of his community, his
county and to all of western New York. Chautauqua County is a better
place because of Jack Dillenburg's commitment to public service, and I
am proud, Mr. Speaker, to have an opportunity to honor him today.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO COLONEL JOHN PEABODY
______
HON. IKE SKELTON
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to recognize
Colonel John Peabody who has served our Nation's Army with distinction
for over 25 years. He will shortly be leaving his current post at the
Pentagon and transferring to the State of Hawaii.
Colonel Peabody is a graduate of the United States Military Academy
at West Point. John continued his education through the Command and
General Staff College and the Army War College, where he earned his
Master's Degree in Strategic Studies. He also has earned degrees from
EI Colegio de Mexico and Howard University.
Colonel Peabody has field proven leadership capabilities and an
exemplary warrior ethos. He was first assigned to the 193rd Infantry
Brigade in Panama where he served as a Sapper Platoon Leader, Company
Executive Officer, and Aide-de-Camp. Later, he served as the Logistics
Support Command Engineer, Somalia. He also was the Political-Military
Division Chief of the J5, US Southern Command in Panama. During
Operation Iraqi Freedom he commanded the 3rd Infantry Division's
Engineer Brigade totaling over 3,000 engineers with ten attached units.
Currently, he is assigned to the Army's Office of the Chief,
Legislative Liaison, where he is the Programs Division Chief.
Colonel Peabody is a model soldier and his many awards and
commendations stand as testimony to that. His awards and decorations
include the Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, Joint Meritorious Service
Medal, Army Meritorious Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary
Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service and Expeditionary Medals, the
Presidential Unit Citation, Master Parachutist Badge, and Ranger Tab.
I know that the members of Congress will join me in honoring Colonel
John Peabody and wishing his family and him all the best in the years
to come.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO VINCENT JOHNSON
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a Brooklynite
and distinguished lawyer, Vincent Johnson. It is an honor to represent
Mr. Johnson in the House of Representatives and it behooves us to pay
tribute to such an outstanding leader.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Johnson obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree from
Brooklyn College and a Juris Doctor degree at St. John's University
School of Law. Before completing his undergraduate studies, Mr. Johnson
dedicated four years of service to the United States Air Force, where
he rose to the rank of Airman first class and was assigned to the Scott
Air Force Base in Belleville, Illinois and Tachikawa Air Force Base in
Japan.
Mr. Johnson became an associate in the Admiralty Law firm of Fields &
Rosen upon graduating from St. John's University School of Law, and was
appointed an assistant District Attorney in the Kings County District
Attorney's office, where he generously devoted eight years serving the
community. Mr. Johnson is now dedicated to the general practice of law
and holds an office at 26 Court Street. He remains particularly active
in several organizations, including the Bedford Stuyvesant Lions Club,
Brooklyn Bar Association, Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity, 100 Black
Men of New York, and Comus Social Club.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is incumbent on this body to recognize
the achievements and selfless service of Mr. Johnson as he continues to
offer his talents and philanthropic services for the betterment of the
community.
Mr. Speaker, may our country continue to benefit from the civic
actions of altruistic community leaders such as Mr. Vincent Johnson.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWS
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I missed nine votes on June 17th, 2005
because I was attending my daughter's graduation from elementary
school. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall Nos.
274, 275, 276, 277, 278 and 281. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall
Nos. 279, 280 and 282.
____________________
RECOGNIZING ADMIRAL VERN CLARK, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, FOR HIS
SERVICE AND DEDICATION
______
HON. J. RANDY FORBES
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Admiral Vern
Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, for his loyal service to the United
States of America.
Admiral Clark's dedication and loyalty to the advancement of our
naval service and the Nation as a whole is to be highly commended.
Admiral Clark's devotion to duty has reflected the highest standards
of the military profession through a number of command and staff
positions. He served aboard the destroyers USS John W. Weeks and the
USS Gearing. As a Lieutenant, he commanded the USS Grand Rapids. He
also commanded the USS McCloy, USS Spruance, the Atlantic Fleet's Anti-
Submarine Warfare Training Center, Destroyer Squadron Seventeen, and
Destroyer Squadron Five. After being selected for flag rank, he
commanded the Carl Vinson Battle Group/Cruiser Destroyer Group Three,
the Second Fleet, and the United States Atlantic Fleet. Ashore, he
served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Systems Analysis
Division in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. He later
served as the Administrative
[[Page 13280]]
Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations and as the
Administrative Assistant to the Deputy Chief on Naval Operations. He
then served as the Administrative Aide to the Vice Chief of Naval
Operations. He also served as Head of the Cruiser-Destroyer Combat
Systems Requirements Section and Force Anti-Submarine Warfare Officer
for the Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, and he
directed the Joint Staff's Crisis Action Team for Desert Shield and
Desert Storm. Admiral Clark's first flag assignment was at the U.S.
Transportation Command where he was director of both Plans and Policy
and Financial Management and Analysis. While he was commanding the Carl
Vinson Battle Group, he deployed to the Arabian Gulf and served as
Deputy Commander, Joint Task Force Southwest Asia. He also served as
the Deputy Chief of Staff, United States Atlantic Fleet; the Director
of Operations and subsequently Director of the Joint Staff. He became
the 27th Chief of Naval Operations on July 21, 2000.
Admiral Clark's awards and decorations include the Defense
Distinguished Service Medal (three awards), the Distinguished Service
Medal (two awards), the Legion of Merit (three awards), the Defense
Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal (four awards),
the Navy Commendation Medal, and various service and campaign awards.
Admiral Vern Clark has shown the highest level of commitment and
devotion to his country. Today we recognize him for his unwavering
patriotism and dedication to both his profession and the American
people.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Admiral Vern Clark, the 27th
Chief of Naval Operations, on his retirement from the United States
Navy.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF CHIEF RON ACE FOR HIS 30 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE
CONCORD POLICE DEPARTMENT
______
HON. GEORGE MILLER
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mrs.
Tauscher and I, rise to pay tribute to Chief Ron Ace who is retiring
from the City of Concord Police Department after 30 years of serving
the residents of Concord and the entire region.
Ron Ace began his career in public service even before his work with
the Concord Police Department when he served in the U.S. Marine Corps
from 1967 to 1971. As a Marine, he served a tour of duty in Viet Nam in
1969, attached to a Huey Gunship helicopter squadron as a door-gunner.
Chief Ace began his distinguished career with the City of Concord
Police Department in 1975, having previously served as a Deputy Sheriff
with Alameda County. In 1985, Ron Ace was promoted to Police Sergeant.
Ten years later he became a Lieutenant, and in 1998, he was promoted to
Captain.
In 1999, Ron Ace was promoted to Police Chief for the City of
Concord. As Chief, he has been instrumental in helping the Police
Department become recognized throughout the country as a model law
enforcement agency.
During his tenure, Chief Ace helped to develop and advance the
Department's generalist model of community policing. This approach has
worked to support collaboration among police officers, residents, and
civic leaders to ensure the safety of residents and the individuals who
work to protect the City. Chief Ace's efforts have resulted in an
integrated philosophy of community policing that is visible throughout
the entire community.
Chief Ace maintains membership in several peace officer associations
and he is currently serving his second term as a Commissioner for the
Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies.
Chief Ace's work and commitment to Concord has been recognized by the
Association of California School Administrators and the Northern
California Juvenile Officer's Association. He also received the
Warrington Stokes Award for Child Abuse Prevention.
Ron Ace has lived in Concord with his wife Carol and daughter Susan
for more than 25 years. As a resident, he has gone far and beyond his
professional responsibilities and served as an outstanding member of
the Concord community. He has been active in school activities, youth
sports and community organizations.
For 30 years, Chief Ron Ace has served the Concord Police Department
and surrounding community. His hard work has improved the safety of the
City, the community as a whole, and ensured an enduring legacy of
public service in Concord. Today, we are proud to commend him for his
service to the community, his dedication to duty and his commitment to
the people of Concord.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF ANGELA WILZ OF BISMARCK, ND
______
HON. EARL POMEROY
of north dakota
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, a constituent of mine, Angela Wilz of
Bismarck, North Dakota, has shown tremendous courage during a very
challenging year for her family. When her husband--CPT Grant Wilz of
North Dakota's 141st Engineer Combat Battalion--was deployed to Iraq in
February of 2004, Angela was forced to face the challenges of parenting
and managing a household without her partner. Though this is always a
difficult task when a spouse is serving overseas, Angela's situation
was especially demanding.
Angela took over her husband's responsibilities as administrator of a
local retirement home, working overtime to help meet the needs of those
charged to her care. On top of these professional duties, Angela
continued to provide love and care to the couple's three children--
including their oldest child who has special needs.
To make matters more challenging, Angela was diagnosed with thyroid
cancer during her husband's tour of duty. After undergoing two
surgeries, Angela began to experience complications--including
temporary paralysis that resulted in hospitalization. Never one to feel
sorry for herself, Angela prayed for her health to return so that she
could continue to be there for her children.
Thankfully, Angela is on her way towards a full recovery and Captain
Wilz is now back home in North Dakota, safe and sound.
The courage showed by the Wilz family is indicative of the sacrifices
made by the husbands and wives of soldiers throughout our country's
history. Whether their loved ones manned a battleship in the South
Pacific, served in the sweltering jungle of Vietnam, or are currently
performing dangerous duties in the sands of Iraq, it has been service
members' spouses who provide love and care to anxious children and work
long hours to make ends meet. Our nation's deeply felt gratitude goes
out to all of our servicemen and women and their families who have
endured so much on our behalf.
____________________
PAYING TRIBUTE TO KEITH AND RUTH SMILEY AND MOHONK CONSULTATIONS
______
HON. MAURICE D. HINCHEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of my
departed friends Keith and Ruth Smiley, on the occasion of the 25th
Anniversary of Mohonk Consultations. It is with great pleasure that I
honor Keith and Ruth for their outstanding vision and their steadfast
dedication to a more equitable and sustainable global community.
Keith Smiley was a good friend, who shared my enthusiasm for
protecting and preserving the unique beauty of the Shawangunk
Mountains. Keith's life reflected his Quaker upbringing. He treasured
the world around him and sought to bring peace and social justice to
people by promoting self-determination. He truly believed that all
people had the innate right to be involved in the decisions that
affected their day-to-day lives. However, the quality that made him
special, and that I pay homage to today, was his ardent belief that
these decisions, decisions on governing and development, must take into
account their impact on the environment.
The idea of ``consultations'' had always been part of the Mohonk
Mountain tradition and under Keith Smiley's leadership they were very
successful. When the Mohonk Trust was formed in 1963, the Smileys were
able to further their stewardship of the land as well as their goals of
promoting international understanding and world peace through
conferences and the exchange of ideas. After successfully hosting a
gathering of environmental and international development groups for the
Agency for International Development, Keith moved forward with his own
dream for a unique environmental organization. Mohonk Consultations was
officially incorporated in 1980. Since that time, the group has brought
together the foremost leaders on the environment, the economy and other
individuals seeking new, environmentally sound methods of getting
things accomplished.
[[Page 13281]]
A tribute to Keith and his work would be incomplete without
mentioning his wife, Ruth. Trained as a naturalist and horticulturist,
she truly appreciated the sublime nature of her surroundings. What
Keith brought to the table in discussion, Ruth brought through her
photographs. She always had her camera ready to capture the beauty of
the Mountains and was an eager participant in the numerous programs and
nature walks sponsored at Mohonk. Together, Keith and Ruth had a
holistic approach to life, the environment and to the world around
them. Their vision lives on today through Mohonk Consultations.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to submit these remarks in honor of Keith
and Ruth Smiley and in recognition of the 25th anniversary of Mohonk
Consultations.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE GROWER-SHIPPER ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
______
HON. SAM FARR
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary
organization based in my Central California district, the Grower-
Shipper Association of Central California, on the occasion of its 75th
anniversary. Initially formed in 1930 by a handful of growers and
shippers to represent one commodity--iceberg lettuce, the GSA now
includes over 300 members, spanning four Central Coast counties and
representing dozens of commodities--virtually all vegetables, berries,
mushrooms, and wine grapes. Through its long record of achievement, the
Association has become the premier local representative of agriculture
on the Central Coast.
For most of its first 50 years, the Association's work focused on the
issue of labor. Today the GSA tackles an extensive workload including
food safety and security, pest and plant disease prevention, control
and eradication, land use in the agriculture/urban interface, water
supply and distribution, market access and trade, agricultural research
and education, government, legislative and regulatory affairs, worker
safety and training, and labor and employment law.
While managing these increased challenges, the Grower-Shipper
Association maintains a commitment to its members and community. Its
mission statement declares ``We are the local solution representing our
members' agricultural needs.'' The Grower-Shipper Association lives up
to this standard through education, representation, and advocacy. In
2003, GSA established the non-profit Grower-Shipper Association
Foundation to further its support of the Central Coast agricultural
community. Funds from the Foundation will allow the Association to
significantly expand its support of educational, training, and other
programs of service to the community.
The Grower-Shipper Association has made a substantial contribution to
both the agriculture industry and the broader community of the Central
Coast. The Association's achievements are a direct result of the
leadership of its members, boards, and presidents, past and present.
For 75 years the GSA organization has earned a reputation for integrity
that honors the culture, companies, and employees of Central Coast
agriculture that have made this region the most productive and
innovative in the world. Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honor to recognize
the Grower-Shipper Association of Central California.
____________________
NOAA VESSEL TIME CHARTER
______
HON. DON YOUNG
of alaska
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, beginning in Fiscal Year 2001
Congress began providing funds for a vessel time charter for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to use in
addressing the critical hydrographic survey backlog. The vessel time
charter added a third method of acquiring the data needed to update and
improve the hydrographic charts of our nation's waterways. These charts
are essential for our national security, defense and economy. NOAA now
uses (1) its own hydrographic survey vessels, (2) data--contracts under
the Brooks Act, and (3) a long-term, multi-year, vessel lease/charter
of a private sector vessel with contract hydrographers.
The long-term vessel lease/charter, is now completing its first year
of operation. I rise today to urge NOAA to reprogram funds to extend
the current charter through the end of this calendar year. This
extension will allow enough data to be gathered to determine whether
the continued use of the time charter is cost effective, and
competitive with other methods of acquiring hydrographic data. It will
also keep the contract going long enough to determine if fiscal year
2006 funds are available for continued long term vessel charters. To
emphasize the bipartisan importance of this issue, I ask that the May
31, 2005, letter to the NOAA Administrator that my good friend and
colleague, Norm Dicks signed with me, be entered into the Record.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 31, 2005.
Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.,
Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric, Administration, Herbert Clark Hoover
Building, Washington DC.
Dear Admiral Lautenbacher: As you are aware, the Nation
faces a huge backlog of critical hydrographic survey work. To
reduce this backlog, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) had developed a three-pronged approach.
NOAA is using 1) its own hydrographic survey vessels and
personnel; 2) data acquisition contracts; and 3) a leased
vessel staffed by contract hydrographers.
In fiscal years 2002 through 2005, Congress provided
funding and specific direction to NOAA to enter into a multi-
year vessel lease. After a lengthy bid process, the Military
Sealift Command entered into a lease on NOAA's behalf that
included a base year, and 4 one-year options. The first year
of that lease will soon end, and unless it is extended this
portion of the hydrographic surveying initiative will end.
The bidders, including the winning bidder, based their bids
on a 5-year lease period. Therefore, it was very
disappointing to learn that NOAA does not intend to exercise
even its first annual lease option, especially since NOAA
appears to be satisfied with the work that has been done by
the leased vessel.
We have requested that the Appropriations Committee include
funding to continue the vessel lease program in fiscal year
2006. This will allow NOAA time to acquire and examine cost
data on the lease to determine if vessel leasing is a cost
effective method of acquiring hydrographic data. While this
request is pending, we urge you to extend the vessel lease
with the roughly $1.6 million remaining of the amounts
already appropriated for that purpose. This will hold open
the door to allow NOAA to exercise the first annual contract
option if Congress appropriates vessel lease funds in Fiscal
Year 2006.
Both Congress and NOAA deliberated long and hard before
establishing the longterm vessel lease program as an
additional method to reduce the survey backlog. Given the
time and effort it has taken to get that program under way,
it would be very inefficient for NOAA to kill the program
this year, and then go through another multi-year contract
bidding process starting next year. Therefore, we urge you to
use the remaining funds to extend the vessel contract.
Thank you for your expeditious consideration of this
request. We look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Don Young,
Congressman for All Alaska.
Norman D. Dicks,
Member of Congress.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF GARY JOB CORPS IN SAN MARCOS, TEXAS
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Gary Job Corps for 40
years of successful service to the people of San Marcos, Texas.
Located on a campus of 1,000 acres at the former Gary Army Air Field,
Gary Job Corps is the largest of 118 Job Corps campuses nation wide,
enrolling nearly 2,000 young men and women. It represents the
fulfillment of President Johnson's 1964 promise to develop a national
job training program for youth, a promise he made while visiting the
former Southwest Texas State University.
For 40 years, Gary Job Corps has been helping young men and women
achieve their academic and professional dreams. In addition to
providing vocational training for careers in the health occupations,
business, computers, cooking, and numerous other industries, it has
sent on its alumni to the student bodies of Texas State University,
Alamo Community College, and other institutions of higher education.
Gary Job Corps has helped countless young Texans achieve their life
goals, and has helped bring economic growth, educational achievement,
and the promise of a better future to Central Texas. I am happy to have
this
[[Page 13282]]
opportunity to congratulate Gary Job Corps on the occasion of its 40th
anniversary, and I wish all of its staff and students many more years
of success.
____________________
WORLD REFUGEE DAY
______
HON. DONALD M. PAYNE
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on World Refugee Day, to pay
tribute to the indomitable spirit and courage of the world's refugees
and internally displaced persons (IDP's), as well as the brave people
who help them rebuild their lives. I recognize the generosity of the
United States and its assistance to refugees. However, the next year
promises to be a unique opportunity for the return of refugees, and in
order to seize this opportunity, we must increase our investment in
long-term development to make refugee returns durable. I also urge the
Bush Administration government to do more to protect current refugees,
resolve the conflicts that produce refugees, and prevent future refugee
crises.
Among the most vulnerable groups of people in the world are those who
are displaced, whether as a result of conflict, persecution or other
human rights violations. Often losing everything but hope, refugees and
IDP's are among the great survivors of our time. Initially, the fear
that refugees and IDP's must overcome may be the immediate one of
trying to escape the horrors of war and persecution, the pain of losing
homes and loved ones, and the ordeal of flight. Refugees and IDP's
deserve our respect--not just for enduring the dangers and violence of
the crises that made them refugees--but also for the courage they show
in rebuilding their lives and contributing to society in difficult or,
unfamiliar circumstances. Albert Einstein, Victor Hugo, Congressman Tom
Lantos, Thabo Mbeki, Marlene Dietrich, and Paul Rusesabagina (of Hotel
Rwanda fame) were all refugees whose phenomenal achievements earned the
world's respect. Today's refugees are also heroes and deserve no less
than our respect.
But giving our respect to refugees and IDP's--truly honoring their
courage--requires much more than flattering rhetoric and pledges of
solidarity. It requires us to look back at what the world has done well
to assist refugees and IDP's. It also requires us to deepen our
understanding of the perils and fears they continue to face. In
addition, if we truly want to celebrate their courage, it means we must
focus our attention on what still needs to be done to help them.
People have fled persecution from the moment in history when they
began forming communities. The tradition of offering asylum began at
almost the same time. And when nations began to develop an
international conscience in the early 20th century, efforts to help
refugees also spread across the globe. In 1921, Fridtjof Nansen was
appointed as the first refugee High Commissioner of the League of
Nations, the forerunner of the United Nations. The United Nations High
Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) began as a small organization, with a
three-year mandate to help resettle millions of European refugees who
were still homeless in the aftermath of the Second World War. Since
that time, the organization has continually expanded to meet the
growing needs of refugees and other displaced people. In more than five
decades, the agency has helped an estimated 50 million people restart
their lives. Today, a staff of more than 6,000 people in more than 100
countries continues to help some 17 million persons in every corner of
the world. Today I commend the outstanding, tireless work of the UNHCR.
However, as a former high commissioner said, the fact that the world
still finds a need for the UNHCR should serve as a sobering reminder of
the international community's continuing failure to prevent prejudice,
persecution, poverty and other root causes of conflict and
displacement.
In our tribute to the world's refugees, it is important not to forget
the internally displaced persons, or IDP's. Last week, during his first
few days as the 10th U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio
Guterres reminded the world that millions of internally displaced
people are not currently being cared for. The internal displacement
problem is one of the biggest neglected humanitarian problems that we
face. The abstract term ``internal displacement,'' created to
distinguish IDP's from refugees, fails to convey the immense human
suffering most internally displaced people are forced to undergo. The
act of displacement itself often is accompanied by violence and the
most serious human rights violations such as killings, torture,
kidnappings and rape. IDP's are a very vulnerable category and most of
them receive less assistance than refugees in camps. Whereas refugees
have managed to cross borders to escape persecution, the internally
displaced, for various reasons, are stuck within the same borders
between which forces of violence and persecution continue to hunt them.
The number of people ``of concern'' to UNHCR, including IDP's, grew
last year by over 2 million to 19.2 million. The increase was mainly
the result of a rise in the numbers of internally displaced people and
stateless persons to 7.6 million--up from 5.3 million at the end of
2003. Of the world's approximately 25 million IDP's, 13 million are in
Africa. Sudan has the largest IDP population in the word, with between
5 and 6 million displaced persons. Sudan also is the country with the
largest number of newly displaced persons in 2004 (about 1 million,
mostly in Darfur, where a total of 2 million IDP's survive on a day-to-
day basis). Sudan is followed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo
with 2.3 million IDP's. In Colombia, Afro-Colombians continue to be
caught in the crossfire between government troops and rebels. Afro-
Colombians represent a disproportionate level of the country's IDP
population of more than 2 million, which represents the world's third
largest IDP population. Iraq and northern Uganda each have around 2
million IDP's.
Despite the scale of the worldwide internal displacement crisis, its
destabilizing effects on regional security, and the vulnerabilities of
many internally displaced populations, the U.S. and other members of
the international community have been slow in addressing the issue.
Refugees, usually far more visible, continue to receive a great deal
more international attention, although their number is only about half
that of IDP's. The IDP problem is a humanitarian challenge, as well as
a challenge to peace-building and post-conflict recovery. For example,
it will be extremely difficult to rebuild Sudan with millions of
persons uprooted and on the move. As we see in the massive displacement
crises of Colombia and Somalia, the U.S. and the rest of the
international community are far from being capable of effectively
responding to or preventing such emergencies. Due to the chronic under-
funding of aid agencies by donor governments, the IDP problem will not
likely see progress towards a solution any time soon. Unless we change
this shameful status quo.
Today, I call on the Bush administration to take three specific steps
to help the internally displaced. First, I call on the Bush
administration to actively pressure countries that are using the global
``war on terror'' to justify brutal repression and the displacement of
millions. In 2004, several governments continued or intensified anti-
rebel military campaigns labeled ``counter-terrorist'' operations,
which resulted in new internal displacements and prevented return,
including in Chechnya (Russian Federation), Aceh (Indonesia), Colombia,
northern Uganda and Nepal. Second, I call on the Bush administration to
reexamine the effectiveness of U.S. bureaucratic structures that are
intended to assist IDP's. Currently, the responsibility for assisting
IDP's is shared between the State Department's Bureau of Population,
Refugees and Migration and the U.S. Agency for International
Development; however, this responsibility is poorly defined, suffers
from lack of coherence, and is vulnerable to bureaucratic turf battles.
Regarding IDP's, the relationship between PRM and USAID must be better
defined in order to facilitate the creation of a more effective system
to monitor and assist the internally displaced.
Finally, I call upon the Bush administration to set up a fund
specifically intended to assist IDP's. IDP's continue to fall through
the cracks in our handling of crises. Establishing such a fund--to be
administered by the appropriate government agency--would serve as a
first step toward not treating IDP's as an afterthought. It would also
serve as a model to the international community that would facilitate
an improvement in how we address the sad phenomenon of internal
displacement. In summary, let us not neglect IDP's, for their struggle
is often just as dangerous as that of refugees, and their courage also
merits a tribute today, a tribute that translates to humanitarian
action.
Today, the worldwide suffering of uprooted peoples continues. There
are currently nearly 20 million refugees and other persons of concern
to the UNHCR, the majority of whom are women and children. Afghans
remain by far the biggest refugee group in the world at 2.1 million. In
Sudan, the increase in refugees in 2004 accounted for the largest
increase in the world. Sudan produced 125,000 new refugees, mostly
people fleeing genocide in the Darfur region to neighboring Chad. The
total number of Sudanese refugees world-wide rose to 731,000 in 2004,
from 606,000 in 2003, an increase of 20 percent.
[[Page 13283]]
Recent trends give some room for guarded optimism. On June 17, the
UNHCR reported that the global number of refugees fell 4 percent in
2004 to 9.2 million, the lowest total in almost a quarter of a century.
Repatriations are also up. In 2004, a total of 1.5 million refugees
repatriated voluntarily, an increase of some 400,000 over the previous
year. The 2004 returns include 940,000 refugees who went back to
Afghanistan and 194,000 who returned to Iraq. In addition, over the
past few years, successful repatriation operations in Africa and the
countries of former Yugoslavia have reduced significantly the number of
people of concern to the UNHCR. In Burma, recent developments are
providing a basis on which to plan for the eventual return of refugees
in Thailand. Across the globe, resettlement continues expanding through
the practice of group resettlement. The UNHCR, with support from the
U.S., has succeeded in helping several million people begin new lives.
Despite the good news, though, numerous serious challenges remain. In
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the numbers of refugees increased
by 2.4 percent, pushing the total number of Congolese refugees up to
462,000. In Northern Uganda the murderous Lord's Resistance Army
continues to abduct thousands for use as soldiers and sex slaves. In
Burundi, under pressure from Rwanda, the Burundi government recently
announced that 10,000 Rwandan asylum seekers who had fled Rwanda since
the beginning of April in fear of persecution over the 1994 genocide
would not be granted asylum, despite not having been screened to see if
they met the definition of a refugee. Already, at least 5,000 of the
refugees have been returned to Rwanda, and because the UN was not
granted access to the refugees, many fear they were forced to return.
In Afghanistan, there is a need for more comprehensive solutions for
Afghans still outside their country, and dialogue between the UNHCR and
relevant governments and other stakeholders in the Afghanistan
situation must continue. In addition, although a peace deal in January
officially ended Sudan's north-south conflict, at least 7,500 people
had fled into Uganda this year, and refugees and IDP's say that food
distribution had stopped in camps inside Sudan.
Because of its long history of displacement, and since Africa Refugee
Day corresponds with World Refugee Day in many countries, Africa merits
special attention in this examination of refugees and IDP's. Africa
hosts approximately 3 million refugees, about 30 percent of the world's
total. Africa also hosts 13 million IDP's, or more than half of the
world's total IDP population. In Africa today, return and reintegration
opportunities abound if we can get the politics of peace right. There
are an unprecedented number of repatriation and reintegration
operations currently underway--particularly in Burundi, Liberia,
Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, and
Somalia. In 2004, refugees from Liberia (100,000), Burundi (90,000),
Angola (64,000), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (30,000)
returned to their countries in large numbers and the UNHCR started a
program intended to help an additional 340,000 Liberians repatriate. In
March 2004, the UNHCR took an important step to act on the improved
prospects for the return home of millions of long-time refugees in
Africa. The UNHCR launched its Dialogue on Voluntary Repatriation and
Substainable Reintegration in Africa. The Africa Dialogue calls on the
international community to seize this unique opportunity for the return
of up to 2 million refugees and several million displaced persons
across the continent, and it stresses the need to invest in long-term
development to make returns durable. Today, the Africa Dialogue
continues to make progress; however, considerable challenges still lie
ahead. Returns must be matched by post-conflict reconstruction and
reintegration in order to break the cycle of violence and make
repatriation sustainable. The populations of Burundi, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and Somalia all await the outcome of political
negotiations, and the U.S. and the UNHCR must lend their support to
these peace efforts while assisting the victims of conflict.
Of great concern, the genocide being perpetuated by the government of
Sudan in that country's Darfur region has forced approximately 2
million Darfurians to become internally displaced. In addition, more
than 200,000 Sudanese have fled Darfur and are now living in camps in
neighboring Chad. For the UNHCR mission in eastern Chad, where 300
UNHCR staff assist a total of 213,000 refugees in 12 camps, the U.S.
has given $18 million in 2005, or half of all donors' contributions.
However, the UNHCR still lacks about $40 million to cover the 2005
needs-based budget.
Across the border from the camps in eastern Chad, the situation in
Darfur is more dire. In Darfur, the mismatch between humanitarian
capacity and human need grows more deadly by the day. The UNHCR Darfur
mission has a total of 25 staff. The U.S. has provided no money for
UNHCR operations in Darfur in 2005, although half the year has already
passed. There is now a disgraceful $30 million shortfall from what the
UNHCR needs in Darfur for 2005. The lack of security is still a
tremendous problem, partly due to an increase in small arms
trafficking. Government-recruited and armed Arab militias, also known
as Janjaweed, continue to target civilians, and in April, rape,
kidnapping, and banditry increased. Aid workers are still at great risk
of being targeted. Due to the conflict and failed harvests, the food
situation is serious. More than 3.5 million IDP's are in critical need
of food and are running dangerously short of water. The World Food
Program does not have what it needs to feed persons of concern past
July. Local Sudanese officials are pressuring some IDP's to return to
their villages, despite the constant threat of government-supported
Janjaweed militias and other armed groups. Although the presence of the
AU force in Darfur promises some protection, it will never be
sufficient.
A country of concern that is often forgotten is Western Sahara, a
swath of land in West Africa that lies along the Atlantic Ocean. In
camps in Algeria, about 165,000 refugees from Western Sahara, a country
that has been occupied illegally by Morocco since 1975, continue to
live in ``deplorable conditions,'' according to a recent report from UN
Secretary General Kofi Annan. The government of Morocco has promised
the people of Western Sahara, the Sahrawi, a vote to determine their
own future. However, more than a decade later, that vote has yet to
occur, and Morocco continues to disregard international law. No
progress has been made in UN efforts to find a solution to the dispute
between Morocco and the Sahrawis. The U.S. must put pressure on
Morocco, not only to end the exile and suffering of Sahrawi refugees,
but also to allow a free, fair and transparent referendum to determine
the country's future and prevent the creation of more refugees.
Another source of concern is Tanzania. A generous host of refugees
over the last 30 years, Tanzania continues to host Africa's largest
number of refugees. However, recently, a troubling policy shift seems
to have emerged, reflecting an increasingly harsh stance towards
refugees. Local and national politicians are feeling increasing
pressure from their constituencies due to the perception that refugees
receive more attention and assistance than local communities and have
in some cases publicly blamed them for crime and the spread of disease.
In 2004, the government frequently did not provide protection against
refoulement, the return of persons to a country where they feared
persecution; on a number of occasions, the government refouled refugees
and refused persons seeking asylum or refugee status. In addition, the
government at times did not cooperate with the UNHCR during 2004.
Although repatriations of Burundian refugees living in Tanzania
continues, the U.S. and the international community must engage
Tanzania regularly to ensure that the country does not turn its back on
those in need, and on decades of humanitarian tradition. At the least,
we must listen to Tanzania's concerns and explore options to provide
more support to what has traditionally been the most hospitable country
in Africa for refugees.
The best solution for refugees is voluntary repatriation, or going
back to one's original homeland once all the key conditions are in
place. However, for some people who fled their homes amid conflict and
widespread human rights abuses, returning is still a distant prospect.
For this reason, finding creative solutions for meeting the needs of
refugees and the local populations that host them is critical. One
example is the Zambian Initiative, a government-led ``Development
through Local Integration Project'' established in 2002. The Zambian
Initiative has promoted a holistic approach in addressing the needs of
refugees and Zambians living in refugee hosting areas in the Western
Province of Zambia. By facilitating cooperation between the host
communities and the refugees, the UNHCR and the Zambian government have
enabled the production of food and housing, thus alleviating the
effects of a food deficit, poor infrastructure and limited access to
services and economic opportunities. The presence of refugees can
stretch local resources and infrastructure and exacerbate poverty.
However, in Zambia, local development committees involve the local
populations and refugees by identifying needs and projects in areas
such as health and education. While voluntary repatriation of Angolan
refugees continues, the Zambian Initiative has created a sense of
ownership while pursuing durable solutions for refugees through local
integration. We must commend and encourage
[[Page 13284]]
this type of innovative approach to refugees and the pressure their
presence can place on local populations. Let us use World Refugee Day
to call for more such innovation, so that refugees will not be trapped
in the same sad status quo.
The donor response to the Indian Ocean tsunami in December 2004 was
admirable and generated unprecedented world-record contributions,
thanks in part to the dramatic nature of the tsunami, its effects on
numerous countries, and its timing, the day after Christmas. However,
other humanitarian catastrophes, especially the needs of refugees and
IDP's in Africa, remain virtually ignored. As UN Humanitarian
Coordinator Jan Egeland has pointed out, in many ways, Africa has a
silent tsunami several times each year. If you look at the numbers in
Sudan or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, you see that the impact
of conflict on refugees and IDP's is equivalent to a tsunami every few
months. Today, we have an opportunity to honor the courage of refugees
and IDP's by recognizing the magnitude of their suffering, but to do
this we must act out of the same compassion that drove us to alleviate
the suffering of the tsunami victims.
The UNHCR is working hard to resolve many of the protracted
situations around the world. But it is a labor and resource-intensive
endeavor, requiring sustained international attention and continuing
donor support, including support from the United States. The same is
true of UNHCR's advocacy efforts and its work to ensure a smooth
transition from repatriation to reintegration, rehabilitation and
reconstruction so that refugees can go home and stay home. The results
show that an investment in solutions is a good investment indeed.
The U.S. has shown great hospitality and generosity in hosting and
assisting refugees and other displaced people. In 2004, the U.S.
welcomed 52,000 refugees from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin
America. In absolute terms, the U.S. continues to be the leading donor
to UNHCR and for humanitarian assistance to refugees world-wide.
However, as a proportion of national wealth, the U.S. contribution to
refugees and IDP's lags far behind most western countries. The
persistent failure of donor government, including the U.S., to provide
funding for relief efforts is the most critical flaw in the
humanitarian aid process today. The UN Consolidated Appeal (CAP) is a
collaborative assessment of the minimal financial commitment necessary
to provide essential emergency assistance in humanitarian crises.
Despite the CAP, all assistance programming is under-funded by almost
35 percent every year, leaving tens of millions of men, women, and
children around the world to suffer needlessly. The recurring shortfall
in financial assistance is not the only thing hindering our response to
the refugee and IDP crises of the world. In the last five years, global
food aid has dropped by nearly 50 percent, despite an 8 percent
increase in the number of chronically hungry people in the world. In
addition, funding delays continue to jeopardize the progress of
emergency relief for refugees and IDP's. In Somalia in recent years for
example, nearly 50 percent of all funds received for emergency
assistance arrived in the last quarter of the year. And currently,
reportedly due to bureaucratic delay, the U.S. has still not
contributed any funds to the UNHCR operation in Darfur, although we are
already in the second half of 2005.
The U.S. must act as a leader to address the persistent and damaging
delays in funding for refugees and IDP's. If the U.S. wants to reform
the UN and render the international donor community more effective,
this is a good place to start. Therefore, I call on the Bush
administration and other members of the international community to
increase financial commitments to humanitarian appeals for refugees and
IDP's. At the least, the international community should pledge to
provide 75 percent of the aid requested in the CAP pledge in order to
ensure that the most critical emergency relief programs remain funded.
Many prosperous countries with strong economies complain about the
large number of asylum seekers and refugees, but they offer little to
prevent refugee crises. Humanitarian action is of limited value if it
does not form part of a wider strategic and political framework aimed
at addressing the root causes of conflict. Experience has shown time
and time again that humanitarian action alone cannot solve problems
which are fundamentally political in nature. Yet all too often,
humanitarian organizations like the UNHCR have found themselves
isolated and alone in dangerous and difficult situations (such as
Darfur), where they have had to operate without adequate financial and
political support. Therefore, we must invest in lasting solutions:
conflict prevention, return, and reintegration. We must support the
UNHCR's efforts to ensure international protection and assistance to
refugees and IDP's through a range of solutions, including improved
management of operations. We must not demonstrate a lack of political
commitment to solving refugee problems during the post-conflict phase,
when the spotlight of the international media has moved away. We must
more fully recognize the link between human displacement and
international peace and security. History has shown that displacement
is not only a consequence of conflicts; it can also cause conflict.
Without human security, there can be no peace and stability. The U.S.
must recognize the link between refugees and IDP's, on the one hand,
and stability and the seeds of democracy on the other.
If we are to honor the courage of refugees and IDP's today, we must
come together with the UNHCR, nongovernmental organizations, and other
donor governments to actively pursue durable solutions. If we fail to
do so, refugees and IDP's will remain in their miserable conditions--
surviving on a handful of maize each day, living in immense boredom
under windblown tents, and clinging to their hope amid memories of
atrocities. On World Refugee Day and every other day, let us show the
refugees and IDP's that we are with them. Having endured conflict,
rape, abduction, trafficking, chronic hunger, squalor, and other
unspeakable suffering, the courage of refugees and IDP's has been
tested beyond what we can imagine. However, despite their courage, they
remain vulnerable to the loss of hope. If we will allow them to lose
hope, we allow them to lose courage. In our tribute to their
indomitable courage, we must pledge never to let that happen. We must
pledge to help them rebuild their lives today, to commit ourselves to
long-term solutions, and to prevent the nightmare from reoccurring
tomorrow.
____________________
AUTHORIZATION OF PARKINSON'S DISEASE RESEARCH EDUCATION AND CLINICAL
CENTERS
______
HON. LANE EVANS
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, Parkinson's disease is a serious health
problem in the United States. Up to 1.5 million Americans have the
disease and approximately 60,000 new cases are diagnosed each year
nationwide. By 2010, an estimated 39,000 veterans who are age 85 and
older will have this progressive neurological disorder. Treatments
exist for Parkinson's, but medical research continues to improve
treatments and to find a cure.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) took an important step in
2001 towards eradicating this disease by establishing Parkinson's
Disease Research Education and Clinical Centers (PADRECCs). In addition
to providing an unparalleled environment for researchers to see their
results rapidly and directly applied to better patient care and shared
with the medical and scientific community, these centers of excellence
are the backbone that now enables the VA to provide excellent care to
veterans with Parkinson's disease and to conduct research.
Through the PADRECCs and the National VA Parkinson's Disease
Consortium--a network of nationally dispersed VA clinicians with
expertise and/or interest in the fields of Parkinson's disease and
related movement disorders--the VA is able to treat 42,000 veterans
with Parkinson's disease.
Together the PADRECCs and the Consortium serve as a channel for
collaboration and development in the areas of clinical care, scientific
research and educational outreach. The collaborative efforts of the
PADRECCs and Consortium provide veterans nationwide with integrated,
expert medical care and access to the full spectrum of state-of-the-art
diagnostic and therapeutic services to meet and exceed the standard of
care.
In just a brief time since their inception, the six PADRECCs, which
are based at the VA medical centers in Houston, West Los Angeles,
Philadelphia, Portland-Seattle, Richmond and San Francisco, have made
enormous contribution to Parkinson's disease care and research and
training of health care professionals. The PADRECCs, including the VA
hospitals in Albuquerque, has Vegas, Lorna Linda and Long Beach,
Calif., Phoenix, San Diego and Tucson, which are affiliated with the
Southwestern PADREEC located at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center
put VA at the forefront of the landmark clinical study to assess the
effectiveness of surgical implantation of deep brain stimulators in
reducing the symptoms of the disease.
The efforts of the VA PADRECCs are the model of innovation in the
delivery of healthcare and research for chronic disease in the veteran
population. The efforts of the PADRECCs deserve continued support.
[[Page 13285]]
Today, I am proud to introduce H.R. 2959 along with Mr. Baker of
Louisiana, Mr. Boehlert of New York, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Ms. Maloney
of New York, Mr. Pickering of Mississippi, Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Mr.
King of New York, and Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon, which would permanently
authorize these six PADRECCs. The Disabled American Veterans and
Parkinson's Action Network support permanently authorizing the
PADRECCs.
I urge my colleagues to support this bi-partisan bill which will
benefit tens of thousands of veterans and provide additional hope for
all Americans who have Parkinson's disease.
Disabled American Veterans,
Washington, DC, June 17, 2005.
Hon. Lane Evans,
Ranking Member, House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Cannon
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Evans: The Disabled American Veterans
supports your draft bill that would authorize the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish six Parkinson's Disease
Research, Education and Clinical Centers. Currently, VA
medical centers treat over 40,000 Parkinson's disease
patients every year.
These centers would conduct research covering basic
biomedicine, rehabilitation, health services delivery, and
clinical trials to assess the effectiveness of treatments
such as surgical implantation of deep brain stimulators in
reducing the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. Furthermore,
the establishment of a consortium would allow VA to design a
national network of VA clinicians with expertise and interest
in the fields of Parkinson's disease and related movement
disorders. The collaboration and development in the areas of
clinical care, scientific research, and educational outreach
would ensure specialized care will be embedded throughout the
continuum of care provided by the VA health care system.
Thank you for your efforts to improve VA's specialized
medical programs for service connected disabled veterans, and
thank you for your continued support of disabled veterans.
Sincerely,
Joseph A. Violante,
National Legislative Director.
____
Parkinson's Action Network,
Washington, DC, June 16, 2005.
House of Representatives, Veterans' Affairs Committee, Cannon
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Members of the Committee: On behalf of the Parkinson's
Action Network (PAN), I would like to express support for
legislation that will be introduced by Rep. Lane Evans
shortly that provides for the establishment of the
Parkinson's Disease Research Education and Clinical Centers
(PADRECCs) in the Veterans Health Administration of the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
PAN is the unified education and advocacy voice of the
Parkinson's community--more than one million Americans and
their families. Through education and interaction with the
Parkinson's community, scientists, lawmakers, opinion
leaders, and the public, PAN leads the fight to ease the
burden and find a cure. PAN increases awareness about
Parkinson's disease and seeks federal support for Parkinson's
research.
More than one million Americans have Parkinson's disease,
with approximately 60,000 more diagnosed each year. As the
disease progresses, patients are ultimately robbed of their
ability to speak, walk, and perform many of the activities of
daily life such as rising from a chair or rolling over in
bed.
PADRECCs, as suggested by their name, are charged with
conducting clinical and basic science research, administering
national outreach and education programs, and providing
state-of-the-art clinical care. These services, provided by
the existing six PADRECCs, are vital not only to veterans,
but to the entire community.
We firmly believe that patients, family members, and the
general public should continue to have access to the
invaluable services provided by the Parkinson's Disease
Research, Education, and Clinical Centers. On this basis, PAN
respectfully requests your support of this important
legislation.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me or
Mary Richards, PAN Director of Government Relations at (202)
638-4101.
Sincerely,
Amy L. Comstock,
Executive Director.
____________________
CONGRATULATING COMMERCE BANK AND PRESIDENT IGNACIO URRABAZO ON THE
OPENING OF THEIR NEW HEADQUARTERS
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Commerce Bank and
President Ignacio Urrabazo on the opening of their new headquarters.
The headquarters will serve as the bank's primary location for the
Laredo market. Commerce Bank is dedicated to providing convenient and
superior services to its customers, even if that means traveling to a
customers' place of business, or working far beyond a banker's
traditional hours. Customers are known by their names, not by their
account numbers. This personal attention allows services to be tailored
to the specific needs of their clients.
Commerce Bank President and CEO Ignacio Urrabazo sees the expansion
as part of a larger commitment to help accommodate the outstanding
growth that Laredo is currently experiencing. Mr. Urrabazo supports a
community-oriented banking approach, and is active in minority causes.
In 1999, he co-founded Minbanc, a nonprofit organization which works to
support and promote the continued success of minority-owned banks
across America. Mr. Urrabazo also endeavors to encourage minority
businesses in the oil and gas industries.
I am honored to recognize the Commerce Bank and its President Ignacio
Urrabazo on the opening of their new headquarters in Laredo. The
outstanding work put forth by the Commerce Bank and President Urrabazo
helps foster Laredo's continued economic growth and success.
____________________
WORLD REFUGEE DAY
______
HON. BETTY McCOLLUM
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to represent
in the U.S. Congress thousands and thousands of refugees who live in
St. Paul and the East Metro area. Whether they are originally from East
Asia, East Africa, Eastern Europe or Central America, Minnesota is now
their home and we call them our neighbors, our co-workers and our
friends.
The resettlement of refugees in Minnesota is a success story. We
should all celebrate the economic, social and cultural contributions
made over the past generation who found peace, hope and opportunity in
Minnesota. For the refugees and the communities that welcomed them it
has not always been easy, but it has worked and worked to the benefit
of our state.
Let me acknowledge the state, county and local government officials
as well as the staff and educators from our school districts who work
so hard to get families settled and transitioned to life in Minnesota.
Let me also thank the resettlement agencies, community based non-
profits, the faith community and the many families and volunteers. This
collective effort has kept the refugee resettlement experience positive
for both new Minnesotans as well as long-time residents.
While today is a celebration of sorts, I do not want anyone here to
forget that suffering also continues for the more than 19 million
people around the world fleeing persecution. The fact that more than
nine million people are refugees and almost eight million more are
internally displaced inside their own country due to violence--while
millions more are stateless or seeking asylum.
Earlier this year I traveled to Eastern Chad to visit refugees in
camps along the border of Sudan's Darfur region. The men, women and
children I met had escaped the horrors of mass murder, mass rape, the
burning of their villages, the killing of their animals and the
poisoning of their wells. These exhausted souls were the survivors a
genocide that continues to go on today--at this very moment.
Just as Minnesota has been a refuge--a place of safe, I want to
publicly commend the people of Chad, a very, very poor nation with
difficult geography, little water and few resources, for providing
nearly a million Sudanese survivors of genocide a safe place. In normal
times the people of Chad have very little, now they are sharing what
they have with the Darfur refugees.
In Darfur, at least 180,000 people have been killed, starved to death
or died of disease because of the intentional campaign of cleansing by
the militias sponsored by the government of Sudan. Tens of thousand of
women and girls have been raped and tortured in this campaign of
terror.
Inside Sudan almost 2 million people are displaced--driven from their
homes. Let me praise the work that Hugh Parmer and his staff at the
American Refugee Committee are doing to keep people alive in Sudan--
they are true heroes.
[[Page 13286]]
In the camp I visited in Chad the women were exhausted, the children
were restless and the men were few--most had been killed. The struggles
of daily life were unimaginable--little water, little food, almost no
shelter and only very limited health services. The trauma of escaping
genocide, surviving rape, watching one's family be murdered is almost
too much to comprehend. Yet, these brave souls fight on to care for
their children, hope for the future and work together to make the most
of every day.
The people of the U.S. are helping--and helping a lot. More than $1
billion in aid and emergency humanitarian relief has been provided to
keep people alive. The courageous humanitarian workers who help deliver
this relief take big risks and work tirelessly and they deserve both
our praise and our prayers.
The crisis in Darfur is man-made, not some natural catastrophe. This
is genocide--mass, planned murder of thousands. This is a horror.
Ending the genocide in Darfur requires more than humanitarian aid--it
requires the political will of nations--especially the United States
willing to stand up and say these lives have value--this killing must
be stopped. Every diplomatic, political, and if necessary--military
tool--must be used to stop the killing.
This brings me to a disturbing and shameful recent episode. For all
the good the U.S. has done with humanitarian relief for the victims of
Darfur--our government also appears committed to working with the
perpetrators of the genocide.
It was recently reported that in April of this year, a U.S.
government jet owned by the CIA flew Major General Salah Abdullah
Gosh--the head of Sudan's intelligence agency--to Washington for
meetings with high level CIA officials. This was a reward for his
government's work with the U.S. on the war on terrorism.
The government of Sudan is officially designated a ``state sponsor of
terrorism.'' The government of Sudan has participated in the murder and
terrorizing of tens of thousands of their own citizens. The women and
children I met in the refugee camps were victims of the Sudanese
government's terror.
It is beyond my belief that a senior official complicit in this
terror, this genocide could be jetted to Washington with our tax
dollars to be commended for his ``counter-terrorism'' efforts. This
episode is offensive, a slap in the face to every survivor of this
horrible ethnic cleansing and is truly a betrayal of the value we share
as Americans. A likely perpetrator of genocide should never be the
dinner guest of our government.
As a superpower, as a free people, as a people who will generously
reach out anywhere in the world to help people in need, we cannot be on
the side of the victims and the murders at the same time. The terror
the people of Darfur are experiencing every day must be the same War on
Terror our Nation is fighting--those people's lives have value and it
is wrong for the CIA or anyone else in Washington to sell them out.
Let me say in conclusion, that I respect and admire the courage, the
determination and amazing spirit of the refugees I have had the
privilege to meet and know--both in Minnesota and in Chad.
The struggle and journey to find peace, security, hope and
opportunity is real for refugees and anyone forced to flee their home.
This is exactly what all human beings seek in life. It is my hope and
it will be my determined commitment to myself, the families I work for
in Washington, and the women and children I met from Darfur, that our
government work tirelessly to make sure there are fewer refugees, fewer
displaced persons and much, much more peace, security, hope and
opportunity over the next twenty-five years.
This is truly the world I hope we can build together.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE TRUE REINVESTMENT FOR AMTRAK INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE
21ST CENTURY ACT
______
HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to be joined by Mr.
Nadler and Ms. Schwartz to introduce the True Reinvestment for Amtrak
Infrastructure in the 21st Century Act, otherwise known as TRAIN-21,
which would provide the true federal commitment to Amtrak that has been
missing for too long.
Amtrak is currently under attack by people who don't recognize the
tremendous benefits generated by intercity rail in this country. Not
the billions of dollars generated in commerce, nor the thousands of
businesses along the Northeast Corridor whose employees are dependent
on Amtrak, nor the national security value of having an additional mode
of transportation, nor the benefits to our environment by taking cars
off the road. However, 25 million people did recognize those benefits
and rode Amtrak in 2004, which was the 2nd straight year of record
ridership.
Amtrak is crucial for more than just the businessmen who ride its
trains along the Northeast Corridor. It is just as crucial for
commuters who unknowingly are dependent on Amtrak's survival. Were
Amtrak to go bankrupt, nearly 100,000 New Jersey commuters would be
stranded, because over three-quarters of New Jersey Transit trains ride
on track owned and maintained by Amtrak. And Amtrak is just as crucial
for the people in rural Montana or Colorado, who depend on the train as
their link to the national transportation system.
There is no question that Amtrak has its share of problems. But there
are two ways to address Amtrak's problems. The first is what we've been
doing: blame Amtrak, blame labor, and keep cutting until the system
becomes profitable. This method has been a failure. Keeping Amtrak on a
starvation budget means maintenance can't be performed, the system
can't be improved, and service deteriorates. This path leads to certain
bankruptcy and the elimination of intercity passenger rail service in
this country.
The people who prefer this method of cutting funding and raising
expectations seem to forget a few simple truths: First, the reason
Amtrak was created in the first place was because the railroads were
hemorrhaging money on passenger service and begged the government to
take it off their hands. Second, public transportation is not
profitable. No public transit system in the country covers its
operating expenses with passenger fares, and virtually no intercity
passenger rail systems in the world turn a profit, either. The trains
that we admire in Europe are supported yearly by large government
subsidies. Third, no form of transportation pays for itself, including
highways. But we subsidize them because they improve the quality of our
lives. And that's what transportation is about. It's not just getting
from one place to another. It's about creating jobs, revitalizing
neighborhoods, stimulating commerce, redeveloping underutilized land,
and making us more secure.
That's why I'm introducing this legislation today that will put us on
the other path towards solving Amtrak's problems: Actually giving it
the funding it needs to be successful. That means addressing the huge
backlog of deferred maintenance on the Northeast Corridor, and
establishing new funding mechanisms to improve rail service throughout
the country. This idea has been tried recently, with tremendous
success. In California, for example, a serious investment into train
service by the State since 1998 has resulted in a near tripling of
ridership and a doubling of revenues. They accomplished this with a
simple formula: run more trains, run them faster, and run them on time.
This legislation would take that model and build on it. It
establishes a Federal/State matching program for passenger rail,
similar to what we do for highways and transit, and it provides a
stable funding source that's not dependent on annual appropriations. It
does this by establishing an independent corporation, the Rail
Infrastructure Finance Corporation, which will sell bonds and invest
the proceeds in a way to provide for a steady stream of income. The
Corporation will select rail projects approved for funding by the
Secretary of Transportation, and provide 80 percent of the necessary
money, with the State, or consortium of States, providing the other 20
percent. And the money will be distributed in the form of contract
authority good for 6 years, so States will be able to make firm long-
term plans.
The Corporation will be authorized to distribute $500 million in
contract authority each year, with the bulk of that going to four
corridors that have been identified by Amtrak as being ``ready to go''
for investment: A Southeast Corridor from Washington to Jacksonville; a
Midwest Corridor radiating outwards from Chicago to Minneapolis,
Detroit, and St. Louis; a Pacific Northwest Corridor from Eugene to
Vancouver; and a California Corridor running along the Pacific coast
and through the central valley. Contract authority will also be
distributed to states with other federally-designated high-speed
corridors, states with long-distance Amtrak trains only, and states not
served by Amtrak at all.
The goals of this program are simple: run more trains, faster, and
on-time. This does not require using exotic technologies, and it does
not require massive new investments. This is just a simple shift of
philosophy. Instead of trying to pare Amtrak down until it becomes
profitable, which would have the inevitable result
[[Page 13287]]
of leaving us with no trains at all, we will expand it and improve it
so that people begin to ride Amtrak in ever increasing numbers.
In addition, the bill reauthorizes Amtrak at a level of $2 billion
per year, the same level recently passed by the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, which will go a long way towards addressing
the $5 billion in backlogged maintenance on the Northeast Corridor.
Just as important is what this bill does not do. It does not put the
burden of paying for trains onto the already over-burdened States. It
does not cannibalize Amtrak into different companies. It does not
mandate the elimination of long-distance routes. And it does not harm
the essential labor protections that cover rail workers.
I have heard some people say that rail is the past. An obsolete mode
of transportation for a bygone time. I strongly disagree. In fact, I
believe that rail could be the mode of the future. With rising gas
prices and overcrowded highways and airports, we need alternative ways
to get around. This legislation firmly establishes a true national
commitment to intercity rail, and put Amtrak on a path towards lasting
success.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE AND SERVICE OF SERGEANT ROBERTO ARIZOLA, JR.
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the life and service of
Sergeant Roberto Arizola, Jr., who died serving his country as part of
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Sgt. Arizola died on June 8th, 2005 in Baghdad when an improvised
explosive device detonated near his vehicle. He was assigned to the
Army's 297th Military Intelligence Battalion, 513th Military
Intelligence Brigade, of Fort Gordon, Georgia. Roberto was awarded the
Army Achievement Medal in 2000 for his extraordinary performance in
operations ``Joint Endeavor'' and ``Joint Guard'' in Bosnia-
Herzegovina.
A superb soldier, Sgt. Arizola was an even better friend, husband,
and father. Roberto was kind and loving, possessing a charismatic
personality that brought joy to those lucky enough to share in his
company.
Sgt. Arizola died a soldier, defending the lives of those unable to
defend themselves. The father of a seven-year-old son, he died so that
other families and other children might live. He gave up a safe life in
a free country so that others might grow up in safety and freedom.
Sergeant Roberto Arizola gave his life to protect ordinary people
from those who would do them harm. He leaves behind him an example of
extraordinary service and courage. He died a hero, and he deserves the
thanks of a grateful nation.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF IRRELEVANT WEEK
______
HON. CHRISTOPHER COX
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Andy Stokes,
this year's 255th National Football League draft pick. The final pick
of the NFL draft is a position of tremendous honor in my hometown of
Newport Beach, California. For the past 30 years, the NFL Underdog has
been treated to a week-long celebration in his honor. This annual
tradition of Irrelevant Week was founded by my friend Paul Salata as an
occasion for ``Doing Something Nice For No Reason.'' Irrelevant Week
XXX, which commences today, will celebrate ``Mr. Irrelevant'' Andy
Stokes, a tight end from William Penn University in Iowa, who was
chosen by the New England Patriots as the final pick in the 2005 NFL
draft.
Though Andy Stokes may have been the final pick for the Patriots, the
St. George, Utah native will be number one in Newport Beach as we use
this occasion to celebrate the NFL Underdog and to recognize all former
``Mr. Irrelevants'' from the past three decades. Among the highlighted
events for Irrelevant Week XXX are a welcoming party, grand banquet,
and activities at various Southern California resorts. The fun and
games will include a football game with Mickey and Goofy at Disneyland,
a tailgate party at Angel Stadium before the Angels vs. Dodgers
baseball game, and a visit to Hollywood Park with other NFL alumni for
a day of horse racing action.
This special anniversary Irrelevant Week also serves as an
opportunity to pay tribute to its 30 years of service to our community.
Though Irrelevant Week is a lighthearted affair, over the years it has
helped to raise over one million dollars for charities that help youth
in both the academic and athletic arenas. This year, at the behest of
Newport Beach Fire Chief Tim Riley, who serves on the Irrelevant Week
steering committee, Irrelevant Week will be sending 15 to 20 children
to special camps designed to lend emotional support and friendship to
child burn survivors. Other beneficiaries of Irrelevant Week XXX
include Costa Mesa United and Orangewood Children's Home.
Irrelevant Week has long been recognized by the NFL, ESPN and others
in the sports world because it is a celebration of the underdog.
Moreover, Irrelevant Week provides an opportunity for sharing community
spirit and providing support for children in need. On behalf of the
United States House of Representatives, I would like to commend Paul
Salata and his family for founding and carrying on the tradition of
Irrelevant Week for the past 30 years. I also ask my colleagues to join
me today in congratulating Andy Stokes on his selection as ``Mr.
Irrelevant'' and wishing him the very best for a long and successful
career in the National Football League.
____________________
THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF ISRAELI DISENGAGEMENT ON U.S. INTERESTS
______
HON. DAN BURTON
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the death of PLO Chairman Yasser
Arafat, the emergence of a new Palestinian leadership, and the
government of Israel's proposed disengagement from Gaza and parts of
the West Bank have created a high degree of optimism in the
International Community that we are on the cusp of dramatic new
openings in the Middle East peace process.
As a senior Member of the House International Relations Committee, I
have watched the often turbulent goings on in the Middle East for a few
years to say the least, and my experience tells me that our optimism
should be tempered by the lessons of the past. In fact, I believe we
should take a very cautious view of the current round of Israeli
Palestinian peacemaking, particularly with regard to Israel's
withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank.
I have met Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and I know that he is
a fine man. I am sure he firmly believes that this ``strategic
retreat'' from the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the West Bank is
the best way to guarantee Israel's long-term security by allowing
Israel to conserve and consolidate military and security resources,
reducing opportunities for further friction with the Palestinians, and
potentially reducing pressure on Israel to negotiate a final peace
settlement on unfavorable terms. Personally, I will not second guess
the Prime Minister's wisdom; I very much hope that he is right. But
again, my experience tells me that if you take steps to appease an
enemy you only give him a green light to put more pressure on you. In
my opinion, it is imperative and critical to U.S. National Security
that we as policymakers understand the consequences should the Israeli
disengagement plan fail to live up to expectations.
I was recently presented a copy of an interesting opinion piece by
Ambassador Yoram Ettinger--former Minister for Congressional Affairs at
Israel's Embassy in Washington, Israeli Consul General in Houston, and
Director of Israel's Government Press Office; and currently editor of
``Straight from the Jerusalem Cloakroom and Boardroom'' newsletters--
regarding the potential consequences of ceding Israeli territory to
terrorists. I would like to have the text of this Op-Ed placed into the
Congressional Record following my statement.
[May 26, 2005]
Jerusalem Cloakroom #178: The Impact of Disengagement on U.S. Interests
(By Yoram Ettinger)
1. Escalated Terrorism. The morally/strategically
justifiable demolition of terror regimes in Iraq and
Afghanistan is inconsistent with the creation/bolstering of a
terror regime in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. The 1994-6 series
of disengagement from 85 percent and 40 percent of the
territory (and 100 percent and 95 percent of the population)
of
[[Page 13288]]
Gaza and Judea and Samaria have established the largest
terrorist base in the world, led/harbored by PLO/PA graduates
of terrorist camps in Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria,
Libya and Tunisia. Since 1993 the PA has harbored anti-U.S.
terrorists. U.S. GIs in Afghanistan and Iraq were encountered
by Palestinian terrorists.
2. Higher U.S. Terror Casualties. The July 2000
disengagement from Southern Lebanon propelled Hizbullah from
a local, to a regional, profile, haunting U.S. GIs in Iraq
and Afghanistan and threatening U.S. homeland security.
3. Contradicting U.S. War on Terrorism. Disengagement is
perceived, by the Mideast, as cut and run, appeasement and
cave-in, in sharp contrast to U.S. war on terrorism: No
negotiation with--and no concession to--terrorists; no
ceasefire with--but destruction of--terrorist regimes; no
political--but military--solution to terrorism.
4. Setback to Peace. The only peace attainable in the
(inter-Arab) Mideast is deterrence-driven peace.
Disengagement undermines deterrence; hence it sets the area
farther from peace and closer to exacerbated terrorism and an
all out war. Every square inch ceded by Israel to the PA,
since the 1994 disengagement, has been transformed into a
platform of hate-education and homicide bombing.
5. Tailwind to Anti-U.S. Terrorists. While the 1976 Israeli
Entebbe Operation constituted a tailwind to the U.S. war on
terrorism, the 1993-2005 retreat by the role-model of
countering terrorism (Israel) in face of the role-model of
terrorism (PLO/PA) has added more fuel to the fire of
terrorism. Disengagement has been heralded by the PLO/PA and
other Arabs as a crucial victory, frequently compared to the
U.S. flight from Beirut (1983) and Somalia (1993). It would
nurture Arab hope that neither the U.S. nor Israel possess a
marathon-like steadfastness, required for a long-term
victory.
6. PA Feeds Anti-U.S. Terrorism. A correlation has existed
between the bolstering of PLO stock since Oslo 1993 on one
hand, and the exacerbation of anti-U.S. terrorism on the
other hand (since the 1993 Twin Towers I, through the 1995
Khobar Towers, the 1998 Kenya and Tanzania U.S. embassies,
the 2000 USS Cole and 2001 Twin Towers II); the wider the
maneuverability of the PLO/PA, the deeper the inspiration to
regional anti-U.S. terrorism, irrespective of (and probably
due to) U.S. and Israeli appeasement of--and unprecedented
concessions to--the PLO/PA.
7. Undermining the Stability of Pro-U.S. Regimes (e.g.
Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, etc.). Disengagement would
enhance the profile of the PLO/PA, a lethal threat to the
Hashemite regime and a chief ally of radical regimes in the
Mideast and beyond. PLO-Hashemite relations have been a
classic case of zero-sumgame: The stronger the PLO the weaker
the Hashemites. The rise of the PLO/PA has emboldened
subversive anti-U.S. terrorists in Jordan and in the Gulf
area.
8. Strengthening Anti-U.S. Mideast Regimes. Disengagement
would buttress the PLO/PA, which has been a sustained ally of
the Saddam and bin Laden forces, of Khomeini and his
successors in Iran, of the terror regime in Sudan and other
anti-U.S. Mideast regimes. A stronger PA would be a
liability--to the U.S.--in the U.N. and in the context of
Clash of Civilizations.
9. Invigorating Mideast Profile of U.S. Global Rivals. The
strengthening of the PLO/PA would facilitate the road to a
re-assertive Russia in the Mideast. It would improve the
strategic posture of China and North Korea in the region, at
the expense of vital U.S. concerns, including U.S. standard
of living.
10. Ignoring Plight of Christians. The 1995 disengagement
from Bethlehem and Beit Jallah has accelerated the flight of
Christians, caused by PLO/PA oppression and desecration of
churches.
11. Setback to Mideast Democratization. Disengagement would
promote the most corrupt and repressive Arab regime in the
Mideast, rewarding a terrorist regime, thus dealing a blow to
moderate Palestinians.
12. Undermining Israel-Egypt Peace. The 1979 peace treaty
disengaged Israeli and Egyptian military forces from one
another. The Plan of Disengagement would reengage them in a
terror-ridden area, thus fueling unintentional and
intentional confrontations. It could drag the U.S.
unnecessarily into such conflict. Egypt has facilitated/
tolerated the smuggling of terror hardware, missiles and
mortars into Gaza. It has undermined U.S. interests in
Africa, in the Red Sea and in the U.N., and it has
spearheaded anti-Jewish Arab/Palestinian hate education (PA
hate education employs Egyptian school text books).
13. PLO's Track Record of Inter-Arab Treachery. Abu Mazen
Abu Ala', Inc. fled Egypt (late 1950s) for subversive
activities. They escaped Syria (1966) for betraying their
hosts. They were expelled from Jordan for attempting to
topple the Hashemite regimes via terrorism. They exacerbated
a series of civil wars in Lebanon since 1975. They
spearheaded Saddam's invasion of Kuwait (1990), which hosted
them since the 1950s. Their systematic violent violation of
the 1993 Oslo Accords have been consistent with their inter-
Arab back-stabbing. Disengagement would be viewed--by the
PLO/PA as a reward to treachery, which would vindicate the
aforementioned track record.
____________________
HONORING ARMY PRIVATE FIRST CLASS JOHN HAROLD BERG
______
HON. DONALD A. MANZULLO
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, last month, I had the honor and privilege
of attending the annual Memorial Day Vietnam Wall observance, in which
one of my constituents and friends, the late Army PFC John Harold Berg
of Rockford, Illinois, was honored for his service to our country. John
was gravely injured in Vietnam, but he passed up his 100 percent
disability status when he returned because he wanted to help others.
Despite a host of serious medical issues, John served as a veterans
representative for 25 years at the Illinois Department of Employment
Security before he died in 2003 from cancer caused by shrapnel lodged
in his brain from his Vietnam injury. On Memorial Day, I sat with
John's widow, Lynn, and several of John's friends as his name was one
of just four this year officially added to the Vietnam Wall. It was a
remarkable day for a remarkable man. I have attached a newspaper
article written by Judy Emerson of the Rockford Register Star that
describes John's contributions and his character perfectly:
Adding Soldiers to the Wall
One hundred years from now, someone will read the name
``John H. Berg'' cut into black granite on The Wall in
Washington, D.C., and they will assume he died in Vietnam in
the spring of 1968. Berg was fatally wounded April 7, 1968,
in combat near Khe Sahn, but it took him 37\1/2\ years to
die. When he did, on Oct. 10, 2003, it was in his rural
Rockford home surrounded by family. But the Vietnam War took
his life, just as surely as if he had died that spring day
long ago as he lay in the dirt with blood streaming from the
hole in his skull. Medics postponed his death that day.
Military doctors patched him up as well as they could and
sent him home to Rockford with a plate covering the hole in
his skull and shrapnel still embedded in his brain.
He dragged his left leg, and his left hand was useless. He
slurred his words. Back in Rockford, he couldn't find a job.
A talented musician, he was bitterly disappointed that he
couldn't play piano, organ, violin and guitar, as he once
did. But he went to college. He re-learned how to play his
instruments with only his right hand and arm. He sought the
company of other Vietnam veterans who understood the
struggle. He found a job that gave him purpose. For 25 years,
he was a veterans representative at the Illinois Department
of Employment Security. Over the years, he helped thousands
of veterans find jobs and get benefits to which they were
entitled. Many were disabled, as he was.
In 2002, doctors found the tumor growing under the plate in
Berg's head. His widow, Lynn Berg, said doctors found
shrapnel when they tried to carve away the tumor and buy her
husband a little more time. Even fighting the relentless
growth of a malignant tumor, Berg continued to work. He lived
longer than anybody expected.
When he died, his buddies at VietNow, which he'd helped to
start, began the process to have his name added to The Wall,
the Vietnam Memorial in Washington. The Department of Defense
concluded that Berg's fatal wound was incurred in Vietnam in
1968 and that he qualified to have his name listed on the
memorial. And so, Berg's name was carved on The Wall earlier
this month. A small diamond after the name signifies a
confirmed combat death. His name was placed as close as
possible to those of other soldiers who suffered their fatal
injuries on the same day. The thinking is that they should be
together. His father, 86-year-old Harold John Berg, said that
the memorial was waiting for his son, despite the 37\1/2\-
year reprieve from death. ``We saw the wall once,'' the elder
Berg said. ``And now we go the rest of the way. He's on it.''
John H. Berg of Rockford was fatally wounded in Vietnam April
7, 1968. He died Oct. 10, 2003. What he did in between is the
story.
Talented boy
Harold Berg was a machinist and inspector who retired from
Camcar years ago. His health is poor but his memory and
spirits are good. His wife, 80-year-old Vergene, has
Alzheimer's disease. They spend their days in side-by-side
hospital beds in the Cherry Valley home of their daughter
Hilary Belcher, who cares for them. Her husband, Nick, and 9-
year-old daughter, Chenoa, help.
Young John Berg wanted to be a musician. His mother was a
long-time organist for their church, and her firstborn son
also played the organ, as well as piano, violin and guitar. A
1965 graduate of East High School, John took some classes at
Rock Valley College until he was drafted in the summer of
1967. ``We tried to talk him into going into the Air Force,
but he thought he'd get this over with in two years,'' his
dad said. By January 1968, 20-year-old John was in Vietnam.
His early letters home to his parents,
[[Page 13289]]
three younger sisters and a brother revealed a diminishing
innocence as reality and the futility of the mission sank in.
``I only hope this year goes fast and I come back in one
piece,'' he wrote two weeks before his injury.
His wife, Lynn, said John could remember what happened
during the firefight on April 7, 1968, up until he was
wounded. He was feeding an ammunition belt into a machine gun
being fired by another soldier when he turned to dive for
cover from incoming mortar. It's still unclear whether he was
shot in the head or hit by shrapnel or both. He was
unconscious or semiconscious for weeks. The Western Union
telegram arrived early one weekday morning as Harold Berg was
getting ready for work. ``Deep regret . . . very seriously
ill list . . . penetrating fragment wound to the head.''
Vergene couldn't stop crying. Hilary Belcher, who's 15 years
younger than John, doesn't remember too much about the time,
except that her parents were distraught.
The telegrams kept coming with updates on her brother's
condition, and after John was transferred to a hospital in
Denver, Colo., the family drove out there to see him. ``I
remember walking down a long hallway and doorway after
doorway, there were all these men with holes in their heads,
just like John,'' Belcher said. ``We took him out for a
while. You could hardly understand him when he talked.''
Months later, when he came home, she said, ``I ran out to him
saying `John's home! John's home!' He screamed. He thought I
was going to knock him down. ``I used to run to him and he'd
throw me up in the air.'' There was plenty of trauma to go
around.
``Those first eight years, he was very angry,'' Belcher
said. ``When you get a head injury, it changes your whole
personality.'' John was bitter that he couldn't play his
instruments. His disability was obvious, and nobody would
hire him. ``It took him years to find a job. He even applied
to a gas station to pump gas, but they told him, `You only
have one hand, ''' Belcher said. He decided to go back to
Rock Valley College. There, he met Reuben Johnson, dean of
community services and the producer and founder of Starlight
Theatre. Johnson helped Berg learn to play the piano, organ,
guitar and violin with one hand.
It was a turning point, as was the job Berg landed in July
1977 as a veterans representative at the Illinois Department
of Employment Security. He was good at it, said Jack Snyder,
who also is a disabled Vietnam veteran. The two men worked
together at the department for close to 25 years. ``I've
never seen a person give so much heart and caring to his job
as John did,'' Snyder said. ``We had guys coming in who were
basically homeless. He would take them home until they got on
their feet. ``I've seen him cry at his desk over some of
these situations, over the misuse and abuse the military has
given some of these people.''
Berg often referred clients to the Winnebago County
Veterans Assistance office in Memorial Hall. Herbert L.
Crenshaw, also a Vietnam veteran, works there. He and Berg
worked together to get help for thousands of vets over the
years, he said. ``He worked with this office to get veterans
back on their feet, to get jobs, get assistance,'' Crenshaw
said. ``He had walked in their shoes. He had the same
difficulties and disabilities they had.''
Berg, like many of his clients, had a full disability
designation from the Department of Veterans Affairs. ``He
could have sat home and drawn a disability,'' Crenshaw said.
``He chose to work.'' Berg had a network that he could use to
get practical assistance for veterans and offer them moral
support. He helped found VietNow, a support group for Vietnam
veterans that started in Rockford and then became a national
organization. It still thrives.
Nick Parnello, one of the original VietNow members and now
president of the Vietnam Veterans Honor Society, said John
was ``the only guy that always showed up'' at the early
meetings. ``Some of the guys felt that we should give up
because there were so few of us back then,'' Parnello said.
``But if John could show up in his disabled condition, it was
an inspiration to all of us. ``Everybody he came in contact
with was changed because of his commitment to them.''
Marriage and family
In November 1991, Berg met Lynn Walquist of Rockford. Her
daughter and son-in-law, who knew Berg through mutual
acquaintances in the veterans circle, fixed them up. ``I've
got four kids--two in college--and all these animals,''
recalled Lynn, who's always had a cat and at least one dog.
``What's wrong with him?''
The kids always had rock music blaring when Berg came to
pick her up for a date. ``He said, `Do you ever listen to
classical music?''' she said, she didn't. He taught her to
love it as he did. Lynn's scrapbook holds tickets from
concerts they attended at the Lyric Opera in Chicago and
elsewhere. By then, Berg could make music on the piano and
other instruments with one hand. He sang with the Rock Valley
Chorale and with a Mendelssohn Club group. They fell in love
and were married April 25, 1992. ``It was the best day of our
lives,'' Lynn Berg said. ``He told me: `I'll never say no to
you,' and he kept his promise.''
Over the years they attended VietNow conventions and
events. She became active as an ``associate,'' which is what
veterans' spouses are called in the group. ``He always said
that he felt very fortunate. He was only in Vietnam for three
months,'' Lynn Berg said. ``The others who had been there
longer were the ones who came back with so many problems.''
His friends became her friends. Her children and
grandchildren were his.
He's smiling in every picture his wife has in her numerous
photo albums. But it would be a mistake to say Berg's
transformation from an angry young man to a person with
purpose and a zest for living was easy, said his sister,
Hilary Belcher. ``He had to grow into a new personality and
lifestyle and everything,'' Belcher said. ``He was gung-ho
when he went into the service, and then he lost it and he got
angry. ``But he got through it, and his gung ho came back.''
Retired U.S. Army Col. Fremont Piercefield knew Berg well
from their mutual work in various organizations, including
the VFW, Disabled American Veterans and the Winnebago County
Veterans Association. ``He was the gentlest, kindest man,''
the colonel said. ``He was there when you expected him and
when you needed him.'' He was the same way on the home front,
his wife said. He took care of the house and the cars and the
lawn, but he also taught her how to do those things. She
needs to know them now that he's gone.
He would see a need and answer it before other people
noticed, she said. For instance, he was concerned that one of
her daughters was in danger walking from the library back to
her dorm at Northern Illinois University after using a
computer late at night. He bought her a computer for her
room.
There were health issues over the years. Berg took
medication to deal with headaches and seizures that came with
the head injury. He learned to compensate for the partial
paralysis of his left side and minimized the limp. He never
regained use of his left hand. It looked just as it did when
he was 20 years old, his wife and sister said, as if it had
been frozen in time the day he was injured.
The end of something
In May of 2002, Berg began having excruciating,
debilitating headaches and more frequent seizures, his wife
said. Brain scans showed bright spots of shrapnel but the
brain tumor was not detected for a couple of months. He had
surgery, but the tumor was malignant, and doctors indicated
it was just a matter of time. Lynn Berg remembers one doctor
predicting John had about nine months. He exceeded that by
about seven months. VietNow treasurer and good friend Darrell
Gilgan visited Berg as he was recuperating from the surgery
in a Beloit nursing home.
Berg's radio was missing one day and Gilgan asked him about
it. ``He gave it to the guy in the next bed, a B-17 pilot
during World War II,'' Gilgan said. ``He was like that.''
Berg continued to work as much as he could, but the tumor was
growing again and the pain was awful, his wife said. During
his last months, she cared for him at their home, with help
from the Northern Illinois Hospice Association. He died Oct.
10, 2003. A few months later, Gilgan began the paperwork
necessary to have Berg considered for addition to the Vietnam
Memorial. The key element in Berg's favor was that the
Department of Veterans Affairs had determined that his death
was a result of the combat injury in 1968.
Gilgan sent a letter to U.S. Rep. Don Manzullo, R-Egan, who
sent it through the proper military channels. ``I had known
John for years,'' said Manzullo, who will sit with Berg's
family at a Memorial Day ceremony Monday at The Wall. ``Here
is a guy who could have given up, but he refused to accept
the fact that people told him he was 100 percent disabled.
``He went to work to serve as a witness and an example to
people who are severely disabled.''
Some friends and family have traveled from the Rockford
area to join Lynn Berg at the ceremony, which will include a
special remembrance for her husband and three other veterans
whose names have been added on The Wall. John Berg's parents
are not well enough to go. His dad wishes he could, though.
``It's an end to something, I guess,'' Harold Berg said. ``He
just got an extension on his death.'' That sad morning when
the telegram came so many years ago and the day his son died
all those years later occupy the same place of grief in his
heart. ``We hoped the day would never come,'' his dad said,
``but then we found out he wasn't going to make it, after
all.''
____________________
HUMAN RIGHTS IN VIETNAM
______
HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today in the Subcommittee on
Africa, Global Human Rights and Africa, I chaired a timely and critical
hearing that examined the government of Vietnam's respect for human
rights and religious freedom.
[[Page 13290]]
Our witnesses included Ms. Nina Shea, Vice Chair, U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom; Ms. Minky Worden, Media Director,
Human Rights Watch; Ms. Helen Ngo, Chairwoman Committee for Religious
Freedom in Vietnam; Dr. Nguyen Than, Executive Director, Boat People
S.O.S.; Mr. Vo Van Ai, President, Vietnam Committee on Human Rights;
Mr. Y Khim Nie, Executive Director, Montagnard Human Rights
Organization. The excellent testimony these witnesses provided can be
found online (http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/)
Before I report on the human rights crisis in Vietnam, let me say at
the outset, Mr. Speaker, that I remain deeply concerned about obtaining
a full, thorough and responsible accounting of the remaining American
MIAs from the Vietnam conflict. As my colleagues know well, of the
2,583 POW/MIAs who were unaccounted for--Vietnam, 1,921; Laos, 569;
Cambodia, 83; and China, 10--just under 1,400 remain unaccounted for in
Vietnam. While the joint POW/MIA accounting command normally conducts
four joint field activities per year in Vietnam, I remain deeply
concerned that the government of Vietnam could be more forthcoming and
transparent in providing the fullest accounting. It is our sacred duty
to the families of the missing that we never forget and never cease our
pursuit until we achieve the fullest possible accounting of our MIAs.
Today's hearing on human rights abuses in Vietnam must be reviewed in
the context of the official visit this week to Washington by Vietnamese
Prime Minister Phan Van Khai. Designed to mark 10 years of diplomatic
relations between the United States and Vietnam, the visit is the
highest-level since the end of the Vietnam War. Khai will meet with
President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, conclude intelligence
agreements on terrorism and transnational crime, as well as begin IMET
military cooperation, meet with Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, and ring
the bell on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.
Vietnam hopes to gain U.S. support to join the World Trade
Organization this year. Trade with the United States has exploded in
the past decade, from $1.5 billion to $6.4 billion in 2004. Vietnamese
exports to the United States have also jumped from $800 million in 2001
to $5 billion last year.
An outside observer looking at all of this activity would in all
likelihood conclude that Vietnam is a close business and political
partner of the United States in Asia. And that observer, if asked,
would also likely deduce that in order to cooperate so closely, Vietnam
must also share the core values of the United States that make our
country great. Values such as the promotion of democracy, respect for
human rights, and the protection of religious freedom, free speech, and
the rights of minorities.
A quick look at the State Department's annual Human Rights report on
Vietnam, however, reveals the opposite. According to the 2004 report
released just three months ago:
``Vietnam is a one-party state, ruled and controlled by the
Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV). . . . The Government's
human rights record remained poor, and it continued to commit
serious abuses. The Government continued to deny citizens the
right to change their government. Several sources reported
that security forces shot, detained, beat, and were
responsible for the disappearances of persons during the
year. Police also reportedly sometimes beat suspects during
arrests, detention, and interrogation. . . . The Government
continued to hold political and religious prisoners. . . .
The Government significantly restricted freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of
association. . . . Security forces continued to enforce
restrictions on public gatherings and travel in some parts of
the country, particularly in the Central Highlands and the
Northwest Highlands. The Government prohibited independent
political, labor, and social organizations. . . . The
Government restricted freedom of religion and prohibited the
operation of unregistered religious organizations.
Participants in unregistered organizations faced harassment
as well as possible detention and imprisonment. The
Government imposed limits on freedom of movement of some
individuals whom it deemed a threat. The Government did not
permit human rights organizations to form or operate.
Moreover, in September 2004, the State Department designated Vietnam
as a ``Country of Particular Concern'' or ``CPC'' for its systematic,
ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom.
Congress has also expressed its grave concern about the state of
human rights in Vietnam. The House of Representatives has twice passed
legislation authored by me on human rights in Vietnam. H.R. 1587, The
Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2004, passed the House by a 323-45 vote in
July of 2004. A similar measure passed by a 410-1 landslide in the
House in 2001. The measures called for limiting further increases of
non-humanitarian U.S. aid from being provided to Vietnam if certain
human rights provisions were not met, and authorized funding to
overcome the jamming of Radio Free Asia and funding to support non-
governmental organizations which promote human rights and democratic
change in Vietnam. Regrettably, both bills stalled in Senate committees
and have not been enacted into law.
I regret that no one from the State Department was available to
participate in today's hearing to explain the incongruity of United
States support for the government of Vietnam, as expressed in our close
and growing-ever-closer trade and military relations, and U.S. concern
for the appalling lack of respect for the basic human rights of its
citizens that the Vietnamese government has consistently demonstrated.
The Human Rights Reports, the Report on International Religious
Freedom, the Trafficking in Persons Report, the reports of leading
international human rights organizations, and countless witnesses, some
of whose testimonies were provided today, give evidence to the fact
that the government of Vietnam has inflicted and continues to inflict
terrible suffering on countless people.
It is a regime that arrests and imprisons writers, scientists,
academics, religious leaders and even veteran communists in their own
homes, and lately in Internet cafes, for speaking out for freedom and
against corruption. In fact, the comments I am making right now would
easily fetch me a 15-year prison sentence replete with torture if I
were a Vietnamese national or Member of Parliament making these
comments in Vietnam.
It is a government that crushes thousands of Montagnard protestors,
as they did in the Central Highlands during Easter weekend in 2004,
killing and beating many peaceful protestors.
The government has forcibly closed over 400 Christian churches in the
Central Highlands, and the government continues to force tens of
thousands of Christians to renounce their faith. I would note here that
it is inspiring but not unexpected that many of these Christians have
steadfastly resisted those pressures and refused to renounce Christ.
One pastor estimated that 90 percent have refused to renounce their
Christian faith, despite government efforts to compel them to do so.
This is a government that has detained the leadership of the Unified
Buddhist Church of Vietnam and continues to attempt to control the
leadership of the Catholic Church.
This is a government that imprisoned a Catholic priest by the name of
Father Ly and meted out a 10-year prison sentence. Father Ly was
imprisoned in 2001 when he was arrested after submitting testimony to a
hearing of the United States Commission on International Religious
Freedom. In his testimony, he criticized the communist government of
Vietnam for its policies of repressing religious freedom. In fact, I
was the author of H. Con. Res. 378, which called for the immediate
release of Father Ly and cleared Congress 424-1 on May 12, 2004.
Thankfully Father Ly, along with Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, were released
from prison earlier this year, in all likelihood due to the pressure
from the United States with its CPC designation.
Their release was part of a process called for in the 1998
International Religious Freedom Act, which I cosponsored, which
mandates that the U.S. government engage in dialogue with severe
violators of religious freedom to improve conditions or face
``Presidential actions,'' which could include sanctions or withdrawal
of non-humanitarian assistance.
The Vietnamese government also took some other positive steps in
response to the CPC designation, including a new law streamlining the
application process for religious groups registering with the
government and prime ministerial directives which prohibit forced
renunciations of faith and allow Protestant ``house churches'' in
ethnic minority provinces to operate if they renounce connections to
certain expatriate groups, particularly the Montagnard Foundation,
which is based in the United States.
And in May, the State Department announced it had reached an
agreement on religious freedom with Vietnam. Under the agreement, the
Vietnamese government committed to:
Fully implement the new legislation on religious freedom
and to render previous contradictory regulations obsolete;
Instruct local authorities to strictly and completely
adhere to the new legislation and ensure their compliance;
Facilitate the process by which religious congregations are
able to open houses of worship; and
Give special consideration to prisoners and cases of
concern raised by the United States during the granting of
prisoner amnesties.
Time will tell whether the government will respect this agreement and
comply with its
[[Page 13291]]
provisions, or whether there will be a return to business as usual once
the spotlight is removed. But the agreement does shows that the
provisions of the International Religious Freedom Act seem to be
helping to improve the respect for religious freedom in some of the
worst violator countries.
The more important point is that religious freedom is not a matter of
compliance with an agreement, but an attitude of respect for citizens
who choose to worship and peacefully practice their religious beliefs
that extends from the highest government leaders down to local
authorities and the village police.
In a recent interview given prior to his visit to the United States,
Prime Minister Khai stated, ``we have no prisoners of conscience in
Vietnam,'' and declared that ``political reforms and economic reforms
should be closely harmonized.''
His statement is typical of the attitude of the government of
Vietnam, which has scoffed at the Vietnam Human Rights Act and
dismissed charges of human rights abuses, pleading the tired mantra of
interference in the internal affairs of their government and that our
struggle is some way related to the war in Vietnam. They say, Vietnam
is a country, not a war. That is their protest, and I would say that is
precisely the issue.
The hearing we held today was about the shameful human rights record
of a country, more accurately, of a government that abuses the rights
of its own people. And, of course, Vietnam is a country with millions
of wonderful people who yearn to breathe free and to enjoy the
blessings of liberty. We say, behave like an honorable government, stop
bringing dishonor and shame to your government by abusing your own
people and start abiding by internationally recognized U.N. covenants
that you have signed.
When is enough, enough? Vietnam needs to come out of the dark ages of
repression, brutality and abuse and embrace freedom, the rule of law,
and respect for fundamental human rights. Vietnam needs to act like the
strategic partner of the United States we would like it to be, treating
its citizens, even those who disagree with government policies, with
respect and dignity.
Human rights are central, are at the core of our relationship with
governments and the people they purport to represent. The United States
of America will not turn a blind eye to the oppression of a people, any
people in any region of the world.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005
______
HON. MARK UDALL
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the
Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization
Act. This bill will increase and enhance research and development in
weather modification to better understand its effectiveness in
addressing drought in our country.
The western part of our country, including my own state of Colorado,
has experienced drought conditions in recent years. Efforts have been
made to address drought recovery, preparedness and mitigation. However,
little fundamental research has been done to better understand weather
modification, which some believe can increase the snowpacks that
provide water resources for several western states.
The National Academies of Science report Critical Issues in Weather
Modification Research, released in 2003, noted that there is no
scientific proof that weather modification is effective, however
attributes this to a lack of understanding of ``critical atmospheric
processes'' that has caused unpredictable results with weather
modification, not a lack of success with such efforts. The report
called for a national program for a sustained research effort in
weather modification research to enhance the effectiveness and
predictability of weather modification.
There is currently no federal investment in weather modification,
though there are private funds that are largely going toward unproven
techniques. My bill, similar to a bill introduced in the Senate by
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, establishes a federal research and
development effort to improve our understanding of the atmosphere and
develop more effective weather modification technologies and
techniques.
Specifically, the bill creates a Weather Modification Advisory and
Research Board in the Department of Commerce to promote the
``theoretical and practical knowledge of weather modification'' through
the funding of research and development projects. The board will be
made up of representatives from the American Meteorological Society,
the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a higher education institution
and a state which is currently supporting operational weather
modification projects.
In Colorado, a large portion of our water source comes from the
snowpack run off each year. A better understanding of weather
modifications has the potential to enhance our snowpacks, and thus
assist in addressing drought concerns.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the expansion of the
research and development of weather modification and urge a swift
passage of this bill.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. GENE GREEN
of texas
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
include this personal explanation in the Record.
On June 17, 2005, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote #265
to the Fiscal Year 2006 Science, State, Justice, and Commerce
Appropriations Act. I was unavoidably detained by other Congressional
duties related to the 29th District of Texas.
I would have voted ``no'' on the Moran amendment to prohibit Federal
funds from being used to license the export of .50 caliber firearms.
Federal agencies already have the ability to prohibit exports of
certain firearms to certain countries or groups when that is in the
national interest. In addition, there are countless sources of firearms
in the global marketplace. Unfortunately, this amendment would not have
provided any benefits in terms of reducing terrorists' access to
firearms.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO DR. RICHARD WALLINGFORD, JR.
______
HON. MICHAEL H. MICHAUD
of maine
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, doctors of optometry from around the nation
will convene in Dallas, Texas, from June 22-26 for Optometry's Meeting,
the American Optometric Association's 108th annual convention. On
Saturday, June 25, they will elect Dr. Richard Wallingford, Jr. as the
association's 84th president.
Dr. Wallingford is a resident of Rockwood, Maine, on Moosehead Lake.
He is a native son who has practiced optometry in our state for 30
years. He is a graduate of the University of Maine at Orono and the
College of Optometry at the State University of New York. He currently
serves as Director of Clinical Services at Vision Care of Maine in
Bangor.
Dr. Wallingford has been a leader in his profession at the state,
regional and national levels. He has been a member of the Maine
Optometric Association since 1975, and served as president in 1982. He
was appointed to the Maine Board of Optometry in 1989, and he served
until 1999. He was also a member of the New England Council of
Optometrists, and he currently serves on the Board of Trustees of the
New England College of Optometry.
At the national level, Dr. Wallingford has been a member of American
Optometric Association (AOA) since 1971, and has served in the
association's volunteer structure since 1983. He was elected to the AOA
Board of Trustees in 1998 and was re-elected in 2001.
Remarkably, Dr. Wallingford has maintained his hectic schedule while
battling multiple myeloma, a form of blood cancer. Diagnosed with the
disease in 2000, he began an aggressive treatment plan last year which
included six rounds of chemotherapy and two stem cell transplants. In
January, Dr. Wallingford received good news that the myeloma was in
remission.
In his community, Dr. Wallingford was elected to the board of Maine
School Administrative District (MSAD) #67, where he served as chairman
for two years. He was president of the Lincoln Rotary Club and chairman
of the Lincoln Recreation Committee. He also coached youth baseball and
basketball.
In addition to his professional responsibilities, Dr. Wallingford is
a devoted outdoorsman. He has been a member of the National Ski Patrol
since 1989 and serves on the Squaw Mountain Ski Patrol. He is a
licensed whitewater guide and has a land and sea rating as a licensed
private pilot. Dr. Wallingford
[[Page 13292]]
also owns and manages the Moosehead Lake Sporting Camps and Mt. Kineo
Cabins.
Dr. Wallingford and his wife Elaine have been married for 35 years
and they have three children. Richard III is a physician and is
completing his residency in psychiatry at Harvard University. Denise
holds a Master's Degree from Boston College and is an elementary school
teacher. Tiffany is a graduate student at Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo,
California.
The American Optometric Association is the professional society for
optometrists nationwide and has more than 34,000 members. Dr.
Wallingford will lead the association on its mission to improve eye and
vision care in the United States.
Dr. Richard Wallingford has built a distinguished record of service
and leadership in his profession and in his community. I am confident
that he will have a very successful term as president of the American
Optometric Association. I join his family, friends and colleagues in
congratulating him on this achievement and wishing him good luck and
good health.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JIM McDERMOTT
of washington
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 20, 2005
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I missed votes on Friday, June 17, 2005
due to a previously scheduled event in my district. Had I been able to,
I would have voted:
Against the Royce amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 274).
Against the Fortenberry amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No.
275).
Against the Flake amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 276).
For the Chabot amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 277).
Against the Pence amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 278).
Against the Gohmert amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 279).
Against the Stearns amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 280).
For the Lantos amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 281).
Against Final passage of H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 282).
____________________
SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate on February
4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized
schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees,
subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This
title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate
Daily Digest--designated by the Rules Committee--of the time, place,
and purpose of the meetings, when scheduled, and any cancellations or
changes in the meetings as they occur.
As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this
information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this
information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the
Congressional Record on Monday and Wednesday of each week.
Meetings scheduled for Tuesday, June 21, 2005 may be found in the
Daily Digest of today's Record.
MEETINGS SCHEDULED
JUNE 22
Time to be announced
Foreign Relations
Business meeting to consider the nominations of Ronald E.
Neumann, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan, Gregory L. Schulte, of
Virginia, to be U.S. Representative to the Vienna
Office of the United Nations, with the rank of
Ambassador, and to be U.S. Representative to the
International Atomic Energy Agency, with the rank of
Ambassador, Michael E. Hess, of New York, to be an
Assistant Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development in the Bureau of Democracy,
Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, and Dina Habib
Powell, of Texas, to be Assistant Secretary of State
for Educational and Cultural Affairs.
S-116, Capitol
9:30 a.m.
Indian Affairs
To hold an oversight hearing to examine the In Re Tribal
Lobbying Matters, Et Al.
SH-216
10 a.m.
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
To hold hearings to examine the nomination of Richard A.
Raymond, of Nebraska, to be Under Secretary of
Agriculture for Food Safety.
SR-328A
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
To hold hearings to examine telecom mergers.
SR-253
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Business meeting to consider S. 662, to reform the postal
laws of the United States, S. 457, to require the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget to
issue guidance for, and provide oversight of, the
management of micropurchases made with Governmentwide
commercial purchase cards, S. 611, to establish a
Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical
Services and a Federal Interagency Committee on
emergency Medical Services Advisory Council, S. 37, to
extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer
research for 2 years, and the nominations of Linda
Morrison Combs, of North Carolina, to be Controller,
Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of
Management and Budget, Linda M. Springer, of
Pennsylvania, to be Director of the Office of Personnel
Management, Laura A. Cordero, of the District of
Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia, and A. Noel Anketell
Kramer, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate
Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and
several post office naming bills.
SD-562
10:30 a.m.
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
To hold hearings to examine the Livestock Mandatory
Reporting Act of 1999.
SR-328A
2:30 p.m.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Aviation Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine financial stability of
airlines.
SR-253
Intelligence
To hold a closed briefing on certain intelligence
matters.
SH-219
JUNE 23
9:30 a.m.
Armed Services
To hold hearings to examine United States military
strategy and operations in Iraq.
SR-325
Judiciary
Business meeting to consider pending calendar business.
SD-226
10 a.m.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Business meeting to consider pending calendar business.
SR-253
Finance
To hold hearings to examine United States-China economic
relations.
SD-215
Foreign Relations
To hold hearings to examine issues relative to developing
an HIV/AIDS vaccine.
SD-419
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
To meet to discuss the Family Medical Leave Act.
SD-430
Veterans' Affairs
To hold hearings to examine pending veterans benefits
related legislation.
SR-418
2 p.m.
Appropriations
Business meeting to mark up H.R. 2744, making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, H.R. 2862,
making appropriations for Science, the Departments of
State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and proposed
legislation making appropriations for fiscal year 2006
for the Legislative Branch.
SD-106
Judiciary
Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the consequences of Roe V.
Wade and Doe V. Bolton.
SD-226
2:30 p.m.
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and
International Security Subcommittee
To hold oversight hearings to examine disparities in
federal HIV/AIDS CARE programs, focusing on the
effectiveness of CARE Act funding allocations in
ensuring that all Americans living with
[[Page 13293]]
HIV are provided access to core medical services and
life-saving AIDS medications.
SD-562
Intelligence
To hold closed hearings to examine certain intelligence
matters.
SH-219
4:15 p.m.
Armed Services
Strategic Forces Subcommittee
To hold a closed briefing on the Ballistic Missile
Defense Test Program.
SR-222
JUNE 28
10 a.m.
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
To hold hearings to examine the Agricultural Risk
Protection Act of 2000 and related crop insurance
issues.
SR-328A
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Global Climate Change and Impacts Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine coastal impacts.
SR-253
Indian Affairs
To hold an oversight hearing to examine regulation of
Indian gaming.
Room to be announced
Energy and Natural Resources
National Parks Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine S. 206, to designate the Ice
Age Floods National Geologic Trail, S. 556, to direct
the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture to jointly conduct a study of certain land
adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument in the
State of Arizona, S. 588, to amend the National Trails
System Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior and
the Secretary of Agriculture to jointly conduct a study
on the feasibility of designating the Arizona Trail as
a national scenic trail or a national historic trail,
and S. 955, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a special resource study to determine the
suitability and feasibility of including in the
National Park System certain sites in Williamson
County, Tennessee, relating to the Battle of Franklin.
SD-366
3 p.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
Water and Power Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the water supply status in
the Pacific Northwest and its impact on power
production, and S. 648, to amend the Reclamation States
Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 to extend the
authority for drought assistance.
SD-366
JUNE 29
9:30 a.m.
Indian Affairs
Business meeting to consider pending committee issues.
SR-485
10 a.m.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
To hold hearings to examine Spectrum-DTV.
SR-253
2:30 p.m.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Disaster Prevention and Prediction Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine national weather service-
severe weather.
SR-253
JUNE 30
10 a.m.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine how information technology
can reduce medical errors, lower healthcare costs, and
improve the quality of patient care, including the
importance of developing interoperable electronic
medical records and highlight new technologies that
will impact how health services are provided in the
future.
SR-253
2 p.m.
Appropriations
Business meeting to mark up H.R. 2528, making
appropriations for military quality of life functions
of the Department of Defense, military construction,
the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006,
proposed legislation making appropriations for fiscal
year 2006 for the Department of State and foreign
operations.
SD-106
3 p.m.
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Education and Early Childhood Development Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine issues relating to American
history.
SD-430
SEPTEMBER 20
10 a.m.
Veterans' Affairs
To hold joint hearings with the House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs to examine the legislative
presentation of the American Legion.
345 CHOB
CANCELLATIONS
JUNE 22
10 a.m.
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Business meeting to consider pending calendar business.
SD-430
POSTPONEMENTS
9:30 a.m.
Environment and Public Works
To hold an oversight hearing to examine grants management
within the Environmental Protection Agency.
SD-406