[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 5]
[Issue]
[Pages 6042-6177]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 6042]]
SENATE--Tuesday, April 12, 2005
The Senate met at 9:45 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
David Vitter, a Senator from the State of Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Today, we will be led in a prayer by our guest
Chaplain, Rabbi Jehiel Orenstein, of Congregation Beth El, South
Orange, NJ.
______
prayer
The guest Chaplain offered the following prayer:
Our God and God of our ancestors, who shall stand in God's holy
place? The Psalmist answers, ``One who has clean hands and a pure heart
who has not used God's name in false oaths.'' Almighty Legislator of
our lives, our hopes, our dreams, as legislators, one may sometimes
despair and say, ``Who can stand in God's place?'' After all, we are
human, limited. What a vast distance between us and the Creator of the
laws of the universe.
And yet, the Psalmist gives us hope. If you want our law to reflect
ultimate law, ``Start,'' says the Psalmist, ``with clean hands and a
pure heart.'' No worthy law has ever emanated from this place that was
not first and foremost ethical.
And then the Psalmist asks us to remember our vow, a vow given to the
Ultimate Legislator and to the American people, to hold fast to our vow
no matter how great the pressure.
On this Tuesday in April 2005, may there be a sense of spring and
renewal. Let us bridge the distance between the law of the human beings
and the law of the Creator of the universe.
Rabbi Akivah taught, ``The greatest of God's law is, `Love thy
neighbor as thyself.' (Leviticus 19:18).'' May this Senate, may this
Congress, may this people come ever closer through our laws to the
ultimate law of love. May you be blessed in your work, and may that
work make you, and through you, all of America, a home that reflects
God's love on this Earth, and let us all say, Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable David Vitter 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 legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, April 12, 2005.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
David Vitter, a Senator from the State of Louisiana, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Ted Stevens,
President pro tempore.
Mr. VITTER thereupon assumed the Chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning, following the 1 hour which is
designated for morning business, the Senate will resume consideration
of H.R. 1268, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. I
anticipate amendments being offered over the course of the day.
Therefore, Senators can expect rollcall votes throughout the day.
I again ask Members to contact their respective cloakrooms if they
intend to offer an amendment or amendments to the supplemental. This
will allow Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd to facilitate the
amendment process.
Yesterday, I mentioned the importance and the timeliness of this
legislation, and I hope Members will take that into consideration as
they contemplate amendments. We would like to finish this bill which
provides funding for our troops as quickly as we can.
Also, today we will have our respective policy luncheons and will
recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. to accommodate those meetings.
Mr. President, at this juncture I will yield to my colleagues for
their brief statements and recognition of our guest Chaplain today, and
then I will have a brief opening statement.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey, Mr.
Lautenberg, is recognized.
____________________
THE GUEST CHAPLAIN
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is a very welcome moment for me
because I have known Rabbi Orenstein personally for many years. Members
of my family have worshiped at his synagogue, the Congregation Beth El
in South Orange. I have worshiped with him for 35 years.
Rabbi Orenstein is going to be retiring from Congregation Beth El
very shortly. He and his lovely wife Sylvia are going to be honored for
their many years of service, and it is going to be done next month.
Rabbi Orenstein is a distinguished scholar. He has a master's degree
in Judaica and was ordained as rabbi at the Jewish Theological Seminary
of America where he also received a doctorate of divinity.
He has completed course work for a Ph.D. in linguistics at New York
University. The rabbi has always inspired education and learning in his
congregation and has held interesting meetings for the congregation
over the years. He traveled to Russia on four separate occasions to
meet and teach refuseniks.
Also, during his career, he served as a chaplain at Lackland Air
Force Base in Texas and St. Alban's Naval Hospital, and he is now a
chaplain for the New Jersey State police.
I have a personal message for Rabbi Orenstein, and that is, as he
contemplates retirement--I speak as one who knows; I tried retirement,
and I did not like it. I am not recommending anything differently for
you, but I know with your active mind and your social conscience you
are going to be doing lots of things that continue to benefit the
community, and I expect you will be spending a lot of time with your
six grandchildren. We wish all of you well.
The rabbi's daughter Debra is also a rabbi, and she serves at a
synagogue in Los Angeles. She has authored a book on Jewish rituals for
women. Rabbi Orenstein is justifiably proud of his family, his
daughter, and his other two children, one of whom is a professor at the
Law School of Indiana, and his son Raphael, who is soon to be a doctor.
I know the 575 families at Congregation Beth El will miss Rabbi
Orenstein. I make the plea here: Do not take this retirement too
seriously. Stay active; be available to the community. We wish you
well. It has been my honor and pleasure to know you well for so many
years. I look forward to our contact continuing.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey, Mr.
Corzine, is recognized.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, it is also my honor to bestow my
congratulations on Rabbi Orenstein for his 35 years of service to
Congregation Beth
[[Page 6043]]
El and a lifetime of service to community and mankind.
His words this morning about love and our responsibility to our
communities and attention, which is demonstrated both by his family and
the Congregation Beth El, are testimony to a human being who has a
heart that reflects that love in his everyday life.
Senator Lautenberg has gone through his resume, but the real issue of
a man's life is what he has done for others, and no one has contributed
more to his community or reached out to lift up his fellow man than
Rabbi Orenstein.
I am honored that he was able to open this morning's session, but I
am also honored to have him as a friend. Thank you very much for being
here.
I yield the floor.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be a period for the transaction of morning business for up to
60 minutes, with the first half of the time under the control of the
Democratic leader or his designee, and the second half of the time
under the control of the majority leader or his designee.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will speak on leader time.
____________________
50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE POLIO VACCINE
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today marks the 50th anniversary of the
introduction of the polio vaccine. On April 12, 1955, Americans across
the country cheered the news that Dr. Jonas Salk and his team of
researchers had developed a vaccine that was ``safe, effective, and
potent.'' One of mankind's most ancient enemies going as far back as
ancient Egypt would finally be vanquished. It was truly a watershed in
American history, launching an era of unprecedented vaccine
development.
Today, vaccines protect children from more than 12 vaccine-
preventable diseases, reducing disease rates by as much as 99 percent
in the United States.
It is hard for today's generation to imagine the fear and the panic
that gripped the Nation every summer in the first decades of the 20th
century. Everyone was at risk--young and old, rich and poor. At the
first signs of illness, swimming pools were closed and drained, movie
theaters were padlocked shut, mothers cloistered their children for the
duration, as everyone waited for that anxious cloud to pass.
Some polio victims died. Others were debilitated for life. The 1916
polio epidemic alone killed 6,000 Americans and paralyzed another
27,000.
Polio's most famous victim was, of course, Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
who contracted the virus at the age of 39 while on vacation. As America
would later learn, the disease permanently paralyzed the future
President.
Even now, half of the 1 million polio survivors today suffer residual
bouts of illness. Deborah Cunningham of Nashville, TN, recalls her
childhood struggle with the vicious disease. It was 1951. She was only
6 years old. She had just begun the first grade when one morning she
woke up with a severe headache. As she tried to walk across her bedroom
to get dressed for school, she collapsed on the floor.
Her parents rushed her to the local hospital where doctors examined
her. They asked her to try to lift her legs. As she told a newspaper,
the Commercial Appeal: ``I didn't know why they gave me such funny
looks.''
She thought she had done as they said but, in fact, neither of her
legs moved an inch. Deborah spent the next month in isolation, unable
to speak or to eat solid foods. She was then moved to a ward for
children with polio for 8 months where she spent the first 3 months
encased in an iron lung.
In 1946, there were 25,000 cases of polio across the country. By
1952, the annual tally had more than doubled to 58,000 new cases. Until
Jonas Salk's historic breakthrough, polio was one of the most dread
diseases in the world. Indeed, the development of the polio vaccine has
been compared to the Moon landing.
Today, polio has been nearly eradicated from the globe. Worldwide,
only six countries are still significantly afflicted. In 1988, there
were 350,000 cases worldwide. In 2003, that number was down to only 784
new cases. The World Health Organization is confident they will
eradicate polio from the face of the globe by the end of the year.
One gentleman who has been instrumental in the drive to eliminate
polio is Tennessee's own William Sergeant, chairman of the
International PolioPlus Committee. The 86-year-old has dedicated over
40 years fighting the spread of the disease. In 1998, he was the first
recipient of the Hannah Neil World of Children Award.
Today, the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History will
celebrate the vaccine's 50th anniversary. Dr. Salk's youngest son and
FDR's granddaughter will be in attendance.
Together they will help launch the Smithsonian's monthlong exhibition
on the rise and fall of polio and the heroic efforts of Dr. Salk, and
people such as Mr. Sergeant who worked tirelessly to defeat the
disease.
As we celebrate polio's final retreat from human history, we must be
ever vigilant and aware of the new threats that are taking place today.
HIV/AIDS, SARS, West Nile virus, avian flu, and most recently the
Marburg virus are among the emerging dangers in the 21st century.
Currently, Angola is suffering the most severe Marburg outbreak in
recorded history. As of yesterday, the virus has killed 193 victims in
1 month.
Marburg, which is a variant, a cousin, of the Ebola virus, is spread
by bodily fluids, by things as small as little beads of sweat. Nine out
of 10 people who contract the disease die typically within a week. The
virus has an incubation of 5 to 10 days. The victim then suffers a
sudden onset of fever, chills, and muscle aches. These symptoms quickly
escalate to nausea, vomiting, chest tightness, and abdominal pain,
ultimately leading to organ failure and death. There is no cure and
there is no effective vaccine.
Scientists do not know the source of the virus or how it is initially
transmitted into the human population. It is one plane ride away from
the United States of America. There is no cure and there is no vaccine.
At this very moment, international health workers in Angola are working
feverishly to contain its spread. The epidemic is expected to last up
to 3 months.
Meanwhile, there is avian flu. We continue to receive disturbing
reports on the avian flu outbreaks in Asia. Already 50 people have
died. Experts warn that the virus may mutate into a more lethal and
more transmissible form, potentially unleashing a worldwide flu
epidemic. If we do not address this threat now, tens of millions of
people could die as a result, and we are dangerously behind.
The flu vaccine shortage last winter underscores the fragility of our
vaccine supply in this country and indeed around the world. It
underscores our need to bolster Federal and State preparedness whether
in the event of a bioterror attack or emerging infectious disease. We
have had this discussion before. We need to take action.
There are now only five major vaccine manufacturers worldwide that
have production facilities in the United States. That is for all
vaccines. Only two are U.S. companies. Over the past 2 decades, the
number of manufacturers that made vaccines for children has dwindled
from 12 now down to 4. Only two of the four manufacturers that make
lifesaving vaccines for children are in the United States of America.
Early this year, Republican leadership unveiled the Protecting
America in the War on Terror Act of 2005. This legislation contains
critical new provisions to strengthen our public health infrastructure,
stabilize the vaccine industry, and encourage advanced research and
development. It encourages
[[Page 6044]]
the development of countermeasures against a biological, radiological,
or nuclear attack as well as emerging infectious diseases. It does not
address routine childhood immunizations.
This legislation incorporates recommendations from top health
officials, industry experts, and infectious disease specialists. I urge
my colleagues to support these long overdue measures to keep America
safe.
I am gratified by my colleagues' efforts in the House to press this
public safety issue. Indeed, in a few minutes the House Subcommittee on
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies is
holding a hearing on pandemic preparedness and influenza vaccine
supply. Officials from the CDC, NAID, and the Office of the Secretary
of Health and Human Services will offer testimony this morning on the
status of our public health security.
We cannot afford to be complacent. Experts tell us that the emergence
of the worldwide flu pandemic is not a mere possibility but an all too
frightening probability. Millions of lives could be lost if we fail to
act. We must continue to search for preventions and cures to the new
diseases on the horizon.
Most recently, thanks to the success of U.S. immunization efforts,
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that rubella
is no longer a major health threat in the United States. However, Dr.
Julie Gerberding, director of the CDC, stresses:
We have to remain vigilant because, as we say in public
health, our network is only as strong as the weakest link . .
. [We] have to sustain our commitment to immunization. We
have to strengthen all of the links in the network, and we
have to do everything possible to protect the health of
children here within our country, as well as beyond.
We have come a long way since the famed Ernest William Goodpasture
helped pioneer the development of vaccines. His work at Vanderbilt
University helped create the vaccines that protect us from chickenpox,
smallpox, yellow fever, typhus, Rocky Mountain fever, and many other
viral diseases. I am confident that we possess the ingenuity. America
has been the engine of countless lifesaving discoveries and global
health efforts. Now it is time for us to demonstrate our resolve once
again for the safety of our fellow citizens and millions of people
around the globe.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware is
recognized.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, we have been joined this morning by the
Senator from Colorado, and I yield to him such time as he may consume.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado is
recognized.
____________________
JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION PROCESS
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank the great and wonderful Senator
from Delaware for yielding me the time.
I rise to speak briefly about the bipartisan action taken by the
Senate yesterday when it confirmed the nomination of Paul Crotty to be
U.S. district judge for the southern district of New York.
I commend my colleagues for their willingness to put aside their
partisan differences and to make sure that the judicial confirmation
process worked in the case of Judge Crotty. I commend them for acting
so obviously for the good of the American people.
Even more importantly, it is my hope that this example will prove to
be an enduring one for all of us as we move forward with the subject of
judicial nominations in the future. Our duty to evaluate Presidential
judicial nominations and to confirm or reject nominees is a
particularly solemn obligation under our Constitution. Our 871 article
III Federal judges hold positions of great respect and great power.
They put criminals in jail. They decide our most important private
disputes and they explain what our laws mean. Our constitutional duty
to evaluate judicial nominees is doubly important because judges are
appointed for life. If we make a mistake, our country is stuck with a
bad judge for years and sometimes decades.
On March 1, 2005, I sent a letter to President George Bush concerning
judicial nominations. I respectfully suggested to the President that
there are many well-qualified candidates to serve on the Federal bench,
men and women who unquestionably would gain the consensus and approval
of this body. The fact that the Senate reached consensus on 205 of the
President's 215 judicial nominations over the past 4 years demonstrates
the willingness, indeed the strong desire, of the majority and minority
in the Senate to achieve this consensus.
Let me repeat that statistic one more time: 205 of the 215
nominations of President Bush have been confirmed by this body. That is
a 95-percent confirmation approval rating. When there is that kind of
approval of the President's nominees, this body is doing its job and
not being, as some people have suggested, an obstructionist body.
Judge Crotty is an example of the way judicial nominations should be
pursued in order to be successful under our Constitution. His
nomination resulted first from consultations and then from an agreement
among Senator Schumer, Governor Pataki of New York, and the White
House. That kind of collaborative consensus approach to making sure
there are no problems with the confirmation of judges who are nominated
by the White House is exactly what ought to be pursued in other
judicial vacancies that occur in our country.
Partisanship in this particular appointment played no role
whatsoever, and it should play no role. Judge Crotty was a consensus
choice, a nominee without extreme ideologies or any troubling factors
in his background. Judge Crotty's qualifications to sit in judgment of
others were apparent to all Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike.
Our duty runs to all the people of our Nation, whether they are
Republicans, Democrats, Independents, or something else. At the end of
the day, I plead with my colleagues in this Chamber, which has been so
much a part of our constitutional history, to avoid moving forward with
the so-called nuclear option that has the potential of shutting down
the work of this body on behalf of the people of the United States.
At the end of the day, I suggest to the President of the United
States and to our leadership in this body that there are issues which
are of much greater importance for all of us to work on on behalf of
the people. The people's work should be about having a national and
homeland security program that works to protect our homeland and
protect our Nation. The people's business should be about making sure
that we pass energy legislation that addresses our overdependence on
foreign oil today. The people's business should be about how we deal
with the problem of health care which is strangling so many Americans
and so many businesses across our country.
There are so many issues that are important to take care of the
people's business that we ought not allow ourselves to get into the
distractive avenue of dealing with the controversial issue of the few
judges who historically have been rejected by the Senate. I suggest to
all of my colleagues that it is important we move forward in the
collaborative, cooperative approach that was taken in the nomination
and in the confirmation of Judge Crotty to be a Federal district judge
for the State of New York.
I yield the floor and 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, would you inform me how much time is
remaining in morning business on the Democratic side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There remains 17 minutes 24
seconds.
[[Page 6045]]
____________________
CONSIDERATION OF TIMELY ISSUES
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in morning business to speak to
several issues which I believe are timely in the consideration of the
business of the Senate.
We are still in this national debate relative to Social Security.
President Bush has proposed a plan to privatize and change Social
Security, creating the possibility of so-called personal accounts. The
President has taken this message on the road, saying that he would
visit 60 cities in 60 days to talk about this issue. What we found is a
reaction across America opposed to the President's proposal.
What we find is when the people of this country hear the details of
President Bush's privatization plan, they are very skeptical. The
reason is obvious. Even the President concedes that his privatization
plan for Social Security will not strengthen Social Security. Today,
left untouched, the Social Security Program would, for the next 36 or
37 years at a minimum, make every payment to every retiree every year
with a cost-of-living increase.
If the President had his way and privatized Social Security, we have
asked how much longer would the Social Security plan last. The answer
is it would not only not extend the life of Social Security, it would
shorten the life of Social Security because the President's plan is to
reach into the Social Security trust fund to take out money that could
be invested in the stock market. As you take money out of the trust
fund, there is less money, obviously, to pay retirees. So the
President's approach is going to weaken Social Security, not strengthen
it.
Second, the President's approach involves dramatic cuts in benefits
for senior citizens. If you take the money out of the Social Security
trust fund, there is less to pay. The President's White House memo that
was leaked a few weeks ago discloses that they would change the index
by which people are paid Social Security benefits. That index decides
what increase will come each year in Social Security. The President
would reduce that index, so you would find in 10 or 20 years that
retirees in America would get 40 percent less when it comes to their
Social Security benefits. That would drive many seniors, who have paid
into Social Security for a lifetime, into a position where they would
be below the poverty line. So the second aspect of President Bush's
privatization plan is not only that it does not strengthen Social
Security, but there are dramatic benefit cuts to those who have paid a
lifetime into Social Security, driving more seniors into poverty,
making them vulnerable to a life that is much different than they had
anticipated as they went to work every day and paid into Social
Security.
The final point is one of the more important ones as well. President
Bush's privatization of Social Security is going to add dramatically to
America's national debt. In fact, the estimates from the President's
own agencies say that this plan of his to privatize will add $2
trillion to $5 trillion to the national debt. That is a dramatic
increase in the mortgage of America that our children will have to pay
off. Who will hold the mortgage of America? Right now, the people
holding the mortgage happen to be Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea, OPEC. So
we will find ourselves more in debt to those who are financing
America's national deficit, and our children will have to pay them off.
We will have to dance to their tune. If they lose confidence in the
American dollar, we will have to raise interest rates in order to
entice them to buy our debt. Raising interest rates to lure China and
Japan onto our side means raising interest rates at home.
So President Bush's privatization plan on Social Security has run
into a firestorm of criticism. It is a plan which does not strengthen
Social Security; it threatens massive benefit cuts and adds
dramatically to our national debt.
I see my colleague from Delaware is on the floor, so I will speak
very briefly.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from
the Washington Post of April 9.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Apr. 9, 2005]
And the Verdict on Justice Kennedy Is: Guilty
(By Dana Milbank)
Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is a fairly
accomplished jurist, but he might want to get himself a good
lawyer--and perhaps a few more bodyguards.
Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a
discussion of ``Remedies to Judicial Tyranny'' decided that
Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or
worse.
Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said
Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles
``is a good ground of impeachment.'' To cheers and applause
from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference
on ``Confronting the Judicial War on Faith,'' Schlafly said
that Kennedy had not met the ``good behavior'' requirement
for office and that ``Congress ought to talk about
impeachment.''
Next, Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal
Defense Association, said Kennedy ``should be the poster boy
for impeachment'' for citing international norms in his
opinions. ``If our congressmen and senators do not have the
courage to impeach and remove from office Justice Kennedy,
they ought to be impeached as well.''
Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the
gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his
philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-
sodomy statute, ``upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic
principles drawn from foreign law.''
Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his ``bottom line''
for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin.
``He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever
he ran into difficulty: `no man, no problem,''' Vieira said.
The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is
``Death solves all problems: no man, no problem.''
Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than
Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But
then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge
furor may help confirm President Bush's judicial nominees,
but it also has the potential to turn ugly.
A judge in Atlanta and the husband and mother of a judge in
Chicago were murdered in recent weeks. After federal courts
spurned a request from Congress to revisit the Terri Schiavo
case, House Majority leader Tom Delay (R-Tex.) said that
``the time will come for the men responsible for this to
answer for their behavior.'' Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused
about how a perception that judges are making political
decisions could lead people to ``engage in violence.''
``The people who have been speaking out on this, like Tom
DeLay and Senator Cornyn, need to be backed up,'' Schlafly
said to applause yesterday. One worker at the event wore a
sticker declaring ``Hooray for DeLay.''
The conference was organized during the height of the
Schiavo controversy by a new group, the Judeo-Christian
Council for Constitutional Restoration. This was no
collection of fringe characters. The two-day program listed
two House members; aides to two senators; representatives
from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for
America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C.
Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's parents; Alabama's
``Ten Commandments'' judge, Roy Moore; and DeLay, who
canceled to attend the pope's funeral.
The Schlafly session's moderator, Richard Lessner of the
American Conservative Union, opened the discussion by
decrying a ``radical secularist relativist judiciary.'' It
turned more harsh from there.
Schlafly called for passage of a quartet of bills in
Congress that would remove courts' power to review religious
displays, the Pledge of Allegiance, same-sex marriage and the
Boy Scouts. Her speech brought a subtle change in the
argument against the courts from emphasizing ``activist''
judges--it was, after all, inaction by federal judges that
doomed Schiavo--to ``supremacist'' judges. ``The Constitution
is not what the Supreme Court says it is,'' Schlafly
asserted.
Former representative William Dannemeyer (R-Calif.)
followed Schlafly, saying the country's ``principal problem''
is not Iraq or the federal budget but whether ``we as a
people acknowledge that God exists.''
Farris then told the crowd he is ``sick and tired of having
to lobby people I helped get elected.'' A better-educated
citizenry, he said, would know that ``Medicare is a bad
idea'' and that ``Social Security is a horrible idea when run
by the government.'' Farris said he would block judicial
power by abolishing the concept of binding judicial
precedents, by allowing Congress to vacate court decisions,
and by impeaching judges such as Kennedy, who seems to have
replaced Justice David H. Souter as the target of
conservative ire. ``If about 40 of them get impeached,
suddenly a lot of these guys would be retiring,'' he said.
[[Page 6046]]
Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who wrote ``How to Dethrone
the Imperial Judiciary,'' escalated the charges, saying a
Politburo of ``five people on the Supreme Court'' has a
``revolutionary agenda'' rooted in foreign law and
situational ethics. Vieira, his eyeglasses strapped to his
head with black elastic, decried the ``primordial illogic''
of the courts. '
Invoking Stalin, Vieira delivered the ``no man, no
problem'' line twice for emphasis. ``This is not a structural
problem we have; this is a problem of personnel,'' he said.
``We are in this mess because we have the wrong people as
judges.''
A court spokeswoman declined to comment.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if you want to know the extremes which are
being reached in the debate on the role of judges in America, read this
article. There was a meeting in Washington, DC, of some of the more
conservative groups on the Republican side. These conservative leaders
met to discuss ``Remedies to Judicial Tyranny.''
They decided that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy--a Ronald
Reagan appointee, I might add--should be impeached.
Phyllis Schlafly [originally from my home State of
Illinois] said [that Justice] Kennedy's opinion forbidding
capital punishment for juveniles ``is a good ground of
impeachment.'' To cheers and applause from those gathered at
a downtown Marriott for a conference on ``Confronting the
Judicial War on Faith,'' Schlafly said that Kennedy had not
met the ``good behavior'' requirement for office and that
``Congress ought to talk about impeachment.''
Unfortunately, hers was not the most incendiary quote. A gentleman by
the name of Edwin Vieira, a lawyer-author, the article goes on to say:
. . . not to be outdone . . . told the gathering that Justice
Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced
in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute,
``upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from
foreign law.''
Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his ``bottom line''
for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin.
I am quoting Mr. Vieira:
He [Stalin] had a slogan, and it worked very well for him,
whenever he ran into difficulty: ``no man, no problem,''
Vieira said.
The Washington Post goes on to say:
The full Stalin quote [this is what Stalin really said] . .
. is ``Death solves all problems: no man, no problem.''
This type of outrageous statement from the so-called conservative
Republican right is clear evidence that what we have heard from
Congressman Tom DeLay in the House of Representatives, and from even
Members in our own Chamber, represents a departure from the line of
civility which we have refused to assault or cross when it comes to
dealing with the separate branches of Government.
There is no doubt that decisions are handed down by Federal courts
across America on a daily basis with which I personally disagree and
find abhorrent. But to suggest retribution against judges--first from
Schlafly that it should involve impeachment and then from Mr. Vieira
that it should go further--suggests an assault on the independence of
the judiciary about which every American should be concerned. When the
men and women who don these robes for lifetime appointments have the
courage to rule in cases, even in controversial cases, they should not
feel they are going to be threatened on a regular basis by Members of
Congress or by those in political parties who happen to see things
differently.
We know how this can reach an extreme. We have seen it happen. In my
home State of Illinois, the family of one of our outstanding Federal
jurists was assaulted, and two of them were murdered. This type of
reaction shows that when you give comfort to this crazed mindset, it
can have disastrous results. The people who sponsored this conference
should be embarrassed that they came together and suggested this kind
of action against Federal judges.
It is time to put an end to this. We need to have an independent
judiciary in touch with the ordinary lives of American citizens, in
touch with the value of our families. But we always should stand and
defend the independence of our judiciary and the integrity of the men
and women who serve in that branch.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware is
recognized.
____________________
THE JUDICIARY
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, yesterday I was in my State capital,
Dover, DE, before I came down here. I was a short distance from a place
called the Golden Fleece Tavern. It no longer exists, but it was the
site of the place where Delaware became the first State to ratify the
Constitution. They did that on December 7, 1787. That action took place
a couple of months after a Constitutional Convention about 75 miles up
the road in Philadelphia.
Some of my colleagues may recall that one of the last issues resolved
at the time of the Constitutional Convention was the question of how
they were going to select these judges, the third branch of our
Government. How do we select these judges? There were some at that time
who were fearful of creating a Presidency that would be too strong,
having had a bite of the apple of putting up with a king of England for
a number of years. They did not want to create a king or someone of
royalty in this country to be our leader. Our Founding Fathers worked
diligently in any number of ways to create checks and balances to
ensure that we didn't end up with a king but ended up with a President.
Among the checks and balances they incorporated into our Constitution
is one that deals with the selection of our judges. We all know how
Presidents nominate and the Senate confirms or does not confirm
nominees to lifetime appointments to the Federal bench.
Twice in our Nation's history we have seen instances where a
President sought to stack the courts. Both were Democrats. One was
Thomas Jefferson at the beginning of his second term as President, and
a second was FDR at the beginning of his second term as President. Both
times, both Presidents, both Democrats, were rebuffed. Today, Democrats
no longer reside in the White House. Today, the Republicans are in the
majority here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives.
With the election of last November, President Bush is in a position
to see much--not all, but a good deal--of his legislative agenda
approved; perhaps modified but ultimately approved. He is also in a
position to leave an even more enduring legacy through his nomination
of hundreds of judges in the Federal courts of almost every State. In
President Bush's first term, he nominated over 200 men and women to the
Federal bench, and 215 nominees were actually debated here on the
Senate floor, and 205 were approved. That is an approval rate of about
95 percent. Of the 10 who were not approved, our side would say they
were simply out of the mainstream.
As the 108th Congress concluded last year, the vacancy rate stood at
the lowest, I believe, since the Reagan era. How did that compare with
the Clinton era? In President Clinton's time as President for 8 years,
81 percent of his Federal nominees were approved, as compared to 95
percent of President Bush's in the last 4 years. It is kind of an
irony, at least to me, that 81 percent for President Clinton was
enough, it was OK, but 95 percent for President Bush is unacceptable.
While our Republican friends are prepared to change the rules of the
Senate in an effort to make it a lot easier to confirm Federal judges,
and are poised, I am told, to turn some 200 years of precedent on its
head because 95 percent may not be enough, I think to do so would be a
mistake.
We have a chance to pass not only class action legislation, but we
have a chance to pass bankruptcy legislation, asbestos litigation
reform, a comprehensive energy policy, restructuring of the postal
system for the 21st century, and on and on. This could be the most
fruitful legislative session in recent memory. I would hate to see us
destroy that potential.
I say also that the slope we get on with respect to changing the way
we close off debate on judicial nominations is a slippery one. Today,
we may want to apply it to judicial nominations; later on we may want
to apply it to nominees for Cabinet positions or nominations for other
positions. It is a slippery slope.
[[Page 6047]]
My Republican friends would be wise to listen to former Republican
Senators who served on that side of the aisle, people such as Senators
Wallop, McClure, Danforth, and today Senator Dole, Robert Dole. They
reminded today's Republican Senators, the majority in the Senate, that
the bed we make today is one we may have to sleep in. There won't
always be a Republican President. Some day there will be a Democrat
President. It could be 4 years from now. There will not always be a
Republican majority in the Senate. It goes back and forth.
I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, before we go down
this road, keep in mind a couple of things. No. 1, we have the
potential to get so much done this year. I would hate to see us blow
that opportunity.
No. 2, this is a slippery slope--a policy change that may be designed
initially to make it easier to confirm judicial appointments but could
easily be applied to other appointments to other positions.
No. 3, some Democrats would take some consolation in the thought that
we are not going to always be in the minority, and as there was a
Democrat President for the last 8 years for the last century, there
will be another one in the future.
My Republican friends, be careful of the bed you make because someday
you will have to chance to sleep in it.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado is
recognized.
____________________
JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise this morning to address one of the
most important obligations that we, as Members of the Senate, are bound
to fulfill--the approval or disapproval of the President's judicial
nominations.
Perhaps no other constitutional duty vests as much responsibility in
the executive, or this body, than article II, articulating the
President's power of appointment, a power that is only realized when
the Constitution works as it was intended to, when we fulfill our
obligation as laid out in the clause requiring this body's advice and
consent.
This fundamental duty carries with it the weight and responsibility
of generations, a lifetime appointment to a position that requires a
deep and mature understanding of legal thought, and a solemn oath to
uphold the law.
This debate is not about numbers. It is not about percentages, how
many judges that Republicans confirmed or how many judges Democrats
confirmed. To frame the debate as nothing but a statistical argument is
to betray the American people.
We were not sent to Congress to focus on a numerical count but
instead to make sure that limited government allows for opportunity and
promise without stifling individual freedom and liberty.
We were sent here to build a stronger Union and to uphold our
obligations under the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers referred to judges as ``the guardians'' of the
Constitution and gave to the President the responsibility to appoint
them.
Alexander Hamilton once wrote that, in order to maintain the health
of the three branches of government, all possible care is requisite to
enable the judiciary to defend itself.
It is frightening to think that a minority in the Senate is eroding
the foundation of the third branch by perpetuating obstruction and
endangering the citadels of justice.
No where does the Constitution give Congress the ability to ignore
the appointment process.
By refusing to give judicial nominations an up or down vote, it is
nothing more than a Congressional veto with a fancy name.
James Madison characterized the appointment of judges as the remote
choice of the people.
Failure to provide an up or down vote deprives the people of the
United States the choice selected by their representatives, denying
choice to the very same people who elected us to office and the same
people who live under the Constitution that we have sworn to protect.
The legal prowess of a nominee is obviously an important factor to
consider when confirming a judge.
The Constitution calls upon the Senate collectively to determine
whether or not a particular nominee is qualified to serve. This
determination is made in one gesture, the approval or disapproval of
the nomination itself.
In 2003 and 2004, a series of votes were held on various nominees.
Some were approved, while others were denied a vote altogether, even
though they were clearly supported by a majority of Senators.
Procedural processes do not fulfill the advice and consent
requirement. Advice and consent does not mean avoiding the question on
a judicial nominee entirely by employing a filibuster.
If a Member of the Senate disapproves of a judge, then let them vote
against the nominee. But do not deprive the people of the right to
support a nominee through their elected representative.
It is our vote, the right of each Member to collectively participate
in a show of ``advice and consent'' to the President, that exercises
the remote choice of the people.
The burden of obstruction is borne by the American people. Empty
seats on our highest courts delays the recourse and justice guaranteed
by the Constitution.
As so many of my colleagues have stated before me, such justice
delayed is justice denied.
In the shadow of September 11, 2001, we now recognize the efforts
being made by the enemies of the United States to destroy the liberties
and freedom of our great Nation. The most basic of our country's values
and traditions are under attack.
Congress responded by enacting new laws and by providing financial
assistance to businesses, families and defense; we acted swiftly to
suffocate terrorists and destroy the hateful organizations that work to
undermine our society.
Through strong and courageous leadership, the President has stood
firm against terrorist and terrorist regimes.
But our government cannot function without an equally strong
judiciary, the third branch of government. It is through the judiciary
that justice is served, rights protected, and that law breakers are
sentenced for their crimes.
The Senate cannot willingly refuse to provide an up or down vote on
judicial nominees without acknowledging that irreparable harm may be
done to an equal branch of government.
Judges must take an oath to uphold the law, regardless of their
personal views.
Time after time, a nomination has been blocked by a minority of
Senators because they feel that they are better judges of a nominee's
ability to fulfill that oath than a majority of the Senate.
The result of this obstruction is a broken nomination process.
I sincerely hope we can work through the impasse on the judicial
nomination process.
I hope those opposed to the President's nominees will vote against
them and speak their mind about it. But I also hope that we will be
allowed to provide the guidance we are required to provide under the
Constitution.
As I have said so many times before, ``vote them up or vote them
down, but just vote.''
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee is
recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am the Senator from Tennessee, and we
know something about country music in our State. There is an old
country music song with the line that goes something like this: There
is light at the end of the tunnel and I hope it ain't no train.
I am beginning to think it is a train and that there is not much way
to avoid a train wreck. The train wreck I am talking about is a threat
by the minority to ``shut the Senate down in every way'' if the
majority adopts rules that will do what the Senate has done for 200
years, which is to vote up or down the President's appellate judicial
nominees.
[[Page 6048]]
Until recently, not to vote at all on a President's judicial nominee
was unimaginable. Take the case of Clarence Thomas in 1991: The first
President Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court of the United States.
I haven't seen any debate in this body with as much passion in it as
the Thomas nomination. But he was nominated in July, the Senate voted
in October 52 to 48, and it was done. Yet, in the last session of
Congress, for some reason that escapes me, the minority felt it had to
use the filibuster to deny an up-and-down vote 10 times on 52 of the
President's appellate judicial nominees. That has never happened
before. There are a lot of ingenious arguments being made on the other
side, but that has never happened.
Some people mention Abe Fortas in 1968--I was here then; I was
working for Howard Baker in the Senate. The votes against Fortas were
in the majority. But even if you give that to the other side, neither
party has ever used the tactic of denying an up-or-down vote on
judicial nominees in 200 years.
The argument that the Senate doesn't have the power to change this
procedure would get thrown out of court in a summary judgment. From
1789 when the Senate first met and adopted its rules by majority vote,
it has adopted its rules by majority vote as the Constitution provides.
The nominees who the President put up who were rejected were badly
abused. Charles Pickering, from Mississippi, was accused of not being
sensitive to civil rights. In 1967, he put his children into
desegregated schools in the middle of Mississippi. He testified in
court against the grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, who was described
by Time Magazine as the most evil terrorist in America.
Bill Pryor, not sensitive on civil rights? Too conservative? Bill
Pryor was law clerk to John Minor Wisdom in New Orleans, as the
Presiding Officer knows, perhaps the leading civil rights judge in the
South during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, and Bill Pryor has repeatedly
demonstrated he can separate his views from his judicial judgments.
Most recently he was part of the court--by his recess appointment--that
rejected an appeal on the Terri Schiavo case. I don't know how he felt
personally about it, but he felt under the law there was no recourse in
Federal courts. Chairman Arlen Specter has sent a certain memorandum
around to Members asking us to look at Priscilla Owen's real views on
Roe v. Wade. She hasn't said she wants to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The question is not whether the Senate has the power to adopt the
rules by majority vote--it unquestionably does; that is common sense--
but whether we should.
I am one of the Republicans who believe such a rules change is not a
good idea--not good for the Senate, not for the country, not for
Republicans, and not for Democrats. The Senate needs a body that by its
procedures gives unusual protection to minority rights.
Tocqueville, in the early 19th century, warned of the tyranny of the
majority. In South Africa we saw a political miracle when the new Black
majority respected the property rights of the White minority. In 1967,
when I came here--and I see the Republican whip here; he came about a
year or two later--the Republicans were the ones worrying about
protecting minority rights. There were 64 Democrats and 36 Republicans
then. There were 38 Republicans in 1977 when I came back working with
Howard Baker, and in 1979, when Senator Byrd eloquently argued the
majority could make Senate rules, there were only 41 Republicans, so
the Republicans were worrying about minority rights.
But minority rights can also be abused. Remember what the filibuster
was used for in the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s, and the 1960s. The
filibuster was used to deny Black Americans the right to vote. It was
used to keep the poll tax. It was used to stop a Federal anti-lynching
law. It was used to keep African Americans from sitting down and having
lunch in Nashville. So the filibuster can also be an abuse of minority
rights.
It is not my job to advise the Democrats, and I wouldn't presume to
do it, but I believe it is a mistake for the Democrats to provoke a
rules change, and I believe it is a bigger mistake, as they have
threatened, to ``shut down the Senate,'' when it happens. Last month,
three dozen Democrats stood on the steps of the Capitol and basically
threatened to do that. On December 13, in the Washington Post, the
Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, said that the use of the nuclear
option would ``make the Senate look like a banana republic . . . and
cause us to try to shut it down in every way.''
Consider what the Senator from New York is saying. Not only will the
minority not allow a vote on judges up or down in a country where the
rule of law is of paramount concern, but they will shut the Senate down
in every way at a time when natural gas prices are at $7, shut the
Senate down in every way at a time when oil prices and prices at the
pump are at record levels, shut the Senate down in every way when there
is a Federal deficit that needs to be brought under control, shut the
Senate down in every way when the immigration laws need fixing, and
shut the Senate down in every way while we are at war.
I don't believe the American people like the idea of Washington
politicians threatening to shut the Senate down in every way. As I
remember, the last prominent political leader who said something like
that was my friend, Newt Gingrich, 10 years ago. It backfired, and he
was out of office in about a year.
The people expect us to go do work, to do our jobs. They expect us to
vote on judges, to lower natural gas prices, to reduce the deficit, to
fix the immigration laws, and to win the war on terror. We cannot do it
if part of the Senate wants to shut the Senate down in every way.
Our Senate leader, Bill Frist, has been working hard to avoid this
train wreck. I still hope we can avoid it. I believe my colleagues in
this body know the enormous respect I have for the new Democratic
leader, Harry Reid. He and I worked together on American history. I had
the privilege of being with him in a delegation for 8 days in
Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Kuwait, Georgia, Ukraine, and France, and not
once in those 8 days did the Democratic leader undercut the policies of
the President of the United States. He conveyed the U.S. position. I am
not surprised by that. That is the way it should be. But I am impressed
by that. I am impressed by the Democratic leader. I am convinced he and
the majority leader can make this Senate do its job if given the
chance.
We need to avoid this train wreck if there is a way to do it. Twice I
have offered in the Senate my suggestion about how I as one Senator
could do it. I said 2 years ago that I would give up my right to
filibuster a President's nominee for an appellate judgeship even if it
were President Kerry or President Clinton or President Reid or any
other Democrat. I might vote against that nominee, but I would never
filibuster as long as I were a Senator.
Now, if six Democrat Senators and six Republican Senators would say
the same thing, then there would be no need for a rules change, and
there would be no need for a train wreck. All we need are six Democrat
Senators and six Republican Senators who believe there ought to be up-
or-down votes regardless of the President's party and who believe it
would be wrong to shut the Senate down. The right thing to do is to
have an up-or-down vote on any of the President's Federal appellate
judicial nominees. That has been the way we have done it for 200 years.
The wrong thing to do is to shut the Senate down in every way.
I yield the floor, and 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. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to address the current
institutional crisis in the Senate brought on
[[Page 6049]]
by the insistence of a few on defeating the will of the American people
in preventing the Senate from doing its job of voting on the
President's nominees to the Federal bench.
We all know that the Constitution is very clear on this front. The
judicial nominees are chosen solely by the President with the advice
and consent of the Senate. Until President Bush was elected, no one has
ever interpreted this requirement to mean anything other than a simple
majority vote. The Senate has never denied an up-or-down vote to any
appellate court nominee who had majority support. But the Democrats
have rejected this 200-year-old Senate tradition and, with it, the very
will of the American people.
The Democrats lost the election, and they seem unwilling to accept
the fact. Instead, they unilaterally change the rules and politicize
the judicial confirmation process. This is extreme behavior and extreme
tactics--threatening to shut down the Senate if we should dare to
confirm a well-qualified nominee with bipartisan majority support. This
is an epitome of arrogance--assuming they know better than the majority
of their colleagues and the President. The people back home want to see
these nominees treated fairly and given an up-or-down vote.
Is it fair to say to nominees that they are out of the mainstream
when they have the support of the Democrats and the Republicans making
up the majority of the Senate? I submit it is the obstructionists who
are out of the mainstream when they block an up-or-down vote on
nominations of justices such as Janice Rogers Brown for years.
Extreme, arrogant, out of the mainstream--this is the anything-goes
Senate Democrats who are willing to go to any length to deny exemplary
judges the opportunity to dedicate their lives to service to the
American people.
By trying to shred the reputation of some of the most respected and
admired judges in public service in this country, a few Senators are
sending a very powerful message to any others who may aspire to the
bench. They are telling us, don't bother. It appears to be increasingly
likely that such talent, dedication, and personal sacrifice will be
rewarded with attacks on the floor of the Senate and years of
uncertainty while a bipartisan majority waits powerless to confirm
these nominees.
I call for a return to tradition. The American people have done their
jobs and expect us to do the same. We in the Senate need to do our jobs
and confirm fair judges through a fair process.
I yield the floor and 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
50TH ANNIVERSARY OF POLIO VACCINE
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today we celebrate the 50th anniversary
of the polio vaccine. The people of my generation, who were youngsters
at that time, remember full well the exciting development. Now polio is
virtually eradicated.
The Committee on Foreign Operations, which I have had the privilege
to either chair or be ranking member for the last decade or so, has
appropriated about $160 million toward that fight over the last 6
years.
Of course, the Rotary International, a private organization, deserves
the lion's share of the credit for almost total eradication of polio.
This private civic group with international chapters made this a
project some 20 years ago and have collected and spent about $600
million and delivered the vaccine in all parts of the world. So because
of this, today we can celebrate, essentially, the complete eradication
of this disease from the Earth. Rotary deserves a big part of the
credit for that.
I rise to talk about this for another reason. It had an enormous
impact on me personally. I was struck with polio when I was 2 years
old. My dad was overseas fighting in World War II. Polio was similar to
having the flu--you felt sick all over. Except when polio went away
there were residual effects. In my case, when my flu-like symptoms went
away, I had a quadricep in my left leg that was dramatically affected.
My mother was, of course, like many mothers of young polio victims,
perplexed about what to do, anxious about whether I would be disabled
for the rest of my life. But we were fortunate. While my dad was
overseas my mother was living with her sister in east central Alabama,
only about 40 or 50 miles from Warm Springs. As everyone knows,
President Roosevelt established Warm Springs, where he went to engage
in his own physical therapy, as a center to treat other polio victims.
So my mother was able to put me in the car, go over to Warm Springs,
and actually learn, from those marvelous physical therapists who were
there, what to do.
They told my mother she needed to keep me from walking. Now, imagine
this. You are the mother of a 2-year-old boy. And we all know how
anxious little boys are to get up and get around and get into trouble.
So my mother convinced me that I could walk, but I couldn't walk--a
pretty subtle concept to try to convey to a 2-year-old. In other words,
she wanted me to think I could walk, but she wanted me to also
understand I should not walk.
Now, obviously, the only way to enforce that with a 2-year-old is to
watch them like a hawk all the time. So I was under intense observation
by my mother for 2 years. She administered this physical therapy
regiment at least three times a day--all of this really before my
recollection. But we now know the things that happened to us in the
first 5 years of our lives have an enormous impact on us for the rest
of our lives.
So this example of incredible discipline that she was teaching me
during this period I always felt had an impact on the rest of my life
in terms of whatever discipline I may have been able to bring to bear
on things I have been involved in. I really have felt my mother taught
me that before I was even old enough to remember.
So this went on for 2 years. My first memory in life was stopping at
a shoe store in LaGrange, GA. We had left Warm Springs for the last
time, and the physical therapist there had told my mother: Your son can
walk now. We think he is going to have a normal childhood and a normal
life. We stopped at a shoe store in LaGrange, GA, and bought a pair of
saddle oxfords, which are low-top shoes--my first recollection in life.
Thanks to my mother, I had a normal childhood. I was not able to run
all that well, but I played baseball and have had a normal life. The
only impact of that early childhood experience with polio is that I
have a little difficulty going down stairs. Most people do not want to
go up stairs and do not mind walking down stairs. I like to walk up
stairs and take an elevator down because an effected quadricep impacts
your ability to descend stairs.
So I am particularly moved by the fact that we can stand here today
and say that polio is essentially eradicated from the face of the
Earth. When I was a youngster, the fear of polio was enormous. Mothers,
every summer, lived in fear that their children would come down with
polio, and many did, many died. Many had much more serious aftereffects
than I did, certainly.
But it is with great gratitude that I commend Rotary International
today for this extraordinary accomplishment of getting this vaccine out
all over the world so that we can essentially say, in 2005, that polio
has been eradicated from the face of the Earth.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Wall
Street Journal entitled ``Polio and Rotary'' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 12, 2005]
Polio and Rotary
Today marks the 50th anniversary of the Salk polio vaccine.
Poliomyelitis, also
[[Page 6050]]
known as infantile paralysis, used to be one of childhood's
most feared diseases. A few years after Dr. Jonas Salk
announced his vaccine on April 12, 1955, nearly every child
in the U.S. was protected. Today polio has disappeared from
the Americas, Europe and the Western Pacific and is nearly
gone from the rest of the world.
A too-little known part of this feat is the role played by
Rotary, the international businessman's club, which 20 years
ago adopted the goal of wiping out the disease. Rotary
understood that medical breakthroughs are worthless unless
people aren't afraid to immunize their children and efficient
delivery systems exist to get the vaccine to them. And so it
mobilized its members in 30,100 clubs in 166 countries to
make it happen.
In 1985, when Rotary launched its eradication program,
there were an estimated 350,000 new cases of polio in 125
countries. Last year, 1,263 cases were reported. More than
one million Rotary members have volunteered their time or
donated money to immunize two billion children in 122
countries. In 1988, Rotary money and its example were the
catalyst for a global eradication drive joined by the World
Health Organization, Unicef and the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control. In 2000 Rotary teamed up with the United Nations
Foundation to raise $100 million in private money for the
program. By the time the world is certified as polio-free--
probably in 2008--Rotary will have contributed $600 million
to its eradication effort.
An economist of our acquaintance calls Rotary's effort the
most successful private health-care initiative ever. A
vaccine-company CEO recently volunteered to us that the work
of Rotary and the Gates Foundation, both private groups, has
been more effective than any government in promoting vaccines
to save lives. It's become fashionable in some quarters to
deride civic volunteerism, but Rotary's unsung polio effort
deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, morning
business is closed.
____________________
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1268, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 1268) making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005,
to establish and rapidly implement regulations for State
driver's license and identification document security
standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws
of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for
inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious
construction of the San Diego border fence, and for other
purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, as was just indicated, we are now back on the
supplemental appropriations bill, which is critical to the funding of
our effort to continue our activities in Iraq and Afghanistan and
elsewhere around the world.
One of the reasons Senator Cornyn and I want to speak for a few
minutes this morning is to make the point that we very much hope our
colleagues will join with us in ensuring the quick passage of this bill
so we can get on with that effort and then move to other business.
There has been a suggestion that amendments might be offered to the
bill that do not relate to the funding of the war effort. For example,
some of our colleagues have talked about offering amendments that
relate to the subject of immigration. Now, that subject is one we are
going to have to debate this year, and we are going to have to consider
legislation very seriously later on this year, but our view is that it
would be inappropriate to consider that legislation in the context of
this supplemental appropriations bill.
We are aware of the fact there was a provision in the House bill that
related to driver's license standards and asylum, but those are matters
that relate more to terrorist activities than our immigration laws, as
they pertain to illegal immigration. Therefore, our view is that we
would refrain from offering amendments of that kind and would hope our
colleagues would as well.
We would hope, by indicating what we plan to do, that our colleagues
would appreciate our commitment--that is to say, Senator Cornyn and
myself--to seeing that the issue of illegal immigration generally and
immigration reform specifically will, in fact, be considered by the
Senate a little bit later on this year.
It is our intention to introduce legislation and to work through the
amendment process, perhaps before that, to ensure that we are doing
everything we can in the Congress to ensure our borders are secure,
that we have adequate law enforcement both at the borders and in the
interior of the country, and that we, therefore, create the
precondition for the consideration of immigration reform, which is that
we do have a commitment to enforce the law and abide by the rule of law
in this country.
There is one thing I think almost everybody interested in the
immigration debate will agree on, and that is that we have a broken
legal system right now. Employers pretend they are not employing
illegal immigrants, but they know they are, and they have documents the
Government has called for. The Government pretends to enforce the law,
but it knows the documents, in many cases, are counterfeit.
The industry will very candidly tell you they do not know what they
would do without the illegal employment they have today. So they are
putting pressure on some of our Members to come forward with
legislation to create a legal regime for these employees and, indeed,
there should be.
We should get to the point where nobody in this country hires illegal
immigrants anymore. To do that, we are going to have to demonstrate a
couple things. The first is that we are committed to enforcing such a
law, because our constituents rightly tell us: Why should we consider
immigration reform--temporary worker reform, for example--if we don't
think it is going to be enforced? You are not enforcing the law today.
What makes us think you are going to enforce the law in the future?
It is a good question. We have to be able to answer that question in
the affirmative and say we are committed to enforcing the law. It
begins with enforcement at the border, and it goes right on through
with the rest of the law that makes it illegal to hire illegal
immigrants. Those laws do need to be adequately enforced.
If we could commit ourselves to do that, then I believe we could lay
the foundation for successfully getting legislation to provide some
kind of guest worker or temporary worker program that will both
liberalize the ability of employers to bring legal immigrants into this
country to work for them on a temporary basis and also deal with the 10
to 15 million--nobody knows exactly how many for sure--illegal
immigrants who exist in the country today. Many of those people work
hard. They come to work here. They intend only to send money back to
their relatives in Central America or Mexico or wherever they came
from. Many of them are, indeed, needed in our workforce. But we cannot
condone a situation in which they are working illegally. So we have to
come up with a structure that would permit us to take advantage of
their desire to work here, but to do so in a legal construct and not to
reward them with any kind of amnesty.
The specifics of doing that have been discussed a little bit by the
President of the United States, who laid out some principles for a
guest worker program, as he calls it. What Senator Cornyn and I are
here to talk about today is the fact that we are working on legislation
to try to embody many of the principles the President has laid out to
create a legal mechanism by which we can meet our workforce needs in
this country but to do so all within the rule of law, where the law
will be strictly enforced, there will be no more hiring of illegal
immigrants, and therefore we remove the magnet which currently exists
which draws illegal immigrants into our country because they can be
employed easily.
So we remove that magnet, but we do so in a way that does not reward
the lawbreakers, the people who come here
[[Page 6051]]
illegally and use illegal documentation to obtain employment and, in
many cases, are creating a drain on society, and ensure they are not
rewarded for their illegal behavior by amnesty, which I think most
people would agree, at a minimum, means they would not be granted a
path to citizenship or be able to chain migrate their family into the
country ahead of those who want to do so legally; meaning,
specifically, that, of course, anyone who wanted to do that could get
in line in their country of origin with a worker sponsor for legal,
permanent residency or green card status. If they acquired that status,
then there are other things that flow from that, such as the ability to
apply for citizenship. But that should only come as a result of going
home, being there, and getting in line with everybody else. It
certainly should not be granted to people who came here illegally and
would be permitted to stay here while that status was pending. That is
the kind of thing we mean by saying no amnesty.
But at the end of the day, I think President Bush is right, that we
have to come to grips with this problem. We have to find a way, as he
said, to match willing workers with willing employers but to do so
strictly in the confines of a legal regime. What Senator Cornyn and I
have been working on for several weeks now is a bill we hope would
embody many of those principles. It is not going to track exactly what
the President has proposed. I would also say the President has not
gotten real specific about several areas, and we are going to have to
fill in a lot of those blanks.
We will talk to our colleagues, and we will talk to the various
groups that are involved in this issue to see what their ideas are
about how best to make this work. But the bottom line so far as we are
concerned is, if we do this, we have to be able to commit to the
American people that since we now have a legal and relatively easy
mechanism for filling the workforce needs here in our country, we are
not going to condone any illegal employment in this country. If we
establish that principle, we then help to remove that magnet which is
drawing so many illegal immigrants to the United States.
Just to conclude with this point. I mentioned the fact we would be
introducing legislation, which we intend to do. But there are also
opportunities for us to demonstrate this commitment to enforcing the
law. Let me mention a few of those. In whatever way we can accomplish
this, whether it be before the introduction of such legislation or in
conjunction therewith, we intend to move forward.
The intelligence reform bill of last year authorized 2,000 new Border
Patrol agents each year for 5 years, but we do not have enough money in
the budget for any more than about a tenth of that number.
Currently, there are about 11,000 Border Patrol agents. A pre-9/11
study conducted by the University of Texas said we needed at least
16,000 Border Patrol agents on our southern border alone in order to
secure the border. So we clearly have to fund the addition of more
Border Patrol agents. Authorized in the intelligence bill as well were
800 additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigators, again
for a 5-year period, an additional 800 Customs/Border Protection
inspectors at our Nation's ports, 8,000 new detention bed spaces, and
some other requirements that all follow if we are going to enforce the
law.
We need to fund these programs to demonstrate our commitment to the
law. We also need to reimburse the States for their incarceration of
illegal immigrants in prisons. The so-called SCAAP funding accomplishes
that. It is the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. But there was
not any money in the budget this year, and it needs to be at least $750
million. We need to do some other work to ensure that States do not
bear the costs of the Federal Government's failure to enforce the
Federal law.
There are a lot of things that have to be done. The point we are
making is, one, this is complicated. It is big. It has to be done. It
should not be attempted on a bill which we have to get passed quickly
to ensure funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.
This is a debate we can have in the future, and I am assuring our
colleagues we are moving the process forward. I chair the Terrorism and
Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. My
colleague, John Cornyn, chairs the Immigration Subcommittee. We intend
to try to move this legislation through the Judiciary Committee as a
matter of regular order as soon as we can get our legislation complete.
My colleague from Texas wants to make a presentation regarding this
same subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to follow on the comments of
Senator Kyl because we are working together on this important
legislation, what we hope and expect will be comprehensive immigration
reform. The message both of us would like to convey is that this is a
complex topic. It can't be accomplished this week, especially not on
supplemental appropriations designed to make sure our troops have the
equipment and resources they need to fight the global war on terrorism.
Let me give a little background to explain my perspective. It tracks
closely with what Senator Kyl has already said.
Our Nation's immigration system is badly broken. It leaves our
borders unprotected, threatens our national security, and makes a
mockery of the rule of law. We have failed to enforce our laws and to
protect our borders for far too long through years of neglect. In a
post-9/11 world, we simply cannot tolerate this situation any longer.
National security demands a comprehensive solution to our immigration
problem.
Senator Kyl and I have determined that we would work together. We
have a particular interest, being Senators from two border States along
the southern border where the illegal immigration is perhaps the most
rampant. We also want to come up with a plan that addresses not only
our national security but deals with the economic issues that are
integrally intertwined with this complex issue in a way that is
compassionate and deals with the very real human consequences and
causes for illegal immigration.
We are undertaking a thorough review of our immigration laws as we
speak. At the conclusion of our discussions, Senator Kyl and I plan to
introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill that will
dramatically strengthen enforcement, bolster border security, and
comprehensively reform our laws. I particularly am glad to be working
with Senator Kyl. He chairs the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology,
and Homeland Security, and I chair the Judiciary Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship. We have already had our
first hearing, a joint hearing, on border security. The second one,
this Thursday, will focus on interior enforcement, or maybe I should
say interior nonenforcement, when it comes to our immigration laws.
In the past, we have simply not devoted the funds, the resources, or
the manpower to properly enforce our immigration laws and protect our
borders. That must change. If we have anything to do with it, it will
change.
Let me put the matter as clearly and explicitly as I possibly can. No
discussion of comprehensive immigration reform is possible without a
clear commitment to, and a dramatic elevation in, our efforts to
enforce the law. That includes enforcement both at the border and
within the interior. We must have strong border protection between
ports of entry and a strong employee verification system to put an end
to the jobs magnet for illegal entry.
Our immigration laws also present substantial difficulties to our
already overburdened law enforcement and border security officials,
separate and apart from inadequate funding and resources. It is my
belief these difficulties simply cannot be solved by additional funding
and additional resources alone, as important as they are. After all,
under our current immigration laws, literally millions of people enter
this country outside of legal channels
[[Page 6052]]
to hold jobs that are offered by American businesses and are needed to
ensure American economic growth. There is a serious concern that some
fraction of this population may harbor evil impulses toward our
country. Yet it is a practical impossibility to separate the well
meaning from the ill-intentioned.
Put simply, we must focus our scarce resources on the highest risks
to our country and our national security. We need our law enforcement
and border security officials to spend their highest energies on people
who wish to do us harm rather than those who wish only to help
themselves and their families through work. Our comprehensive
immigration proposal will strengthen enforcement of the law, but it
will also provide laws that are capable of strong enforcement.
We agree with the President's stated principles. They are, however,
just principles, and certainly he understands and looks to the Congress
to come up with the specifics in the form of legislation. Such laws can
be designed in a way to be compassionate and humane. Above all, they
must be designed to protect U.S. sovereignty and to further U.S.
interests. They must be reformed to better serve our national security
and our national economy. They must ensure respect for the rule of law
and not permit undocumented workers to gain an advantage over those who
have followed the rules.
In the coming months we will craft a proposal that implements all
those objectives, and we welcome the coming debate as well as the input
and the opportunity to work with our colleagues in the Senate.
Finally, we speak today as the Senate is about to begin debate on a
supplemental appropriations bill. Congress should not delay enactment
of critical appropriations necessary to ensure the well-being of our
men and women in uniform fighting in Iraq and elsewhere around the
world. Attempting to conduct a debate about immigration reform while
the supplemental appropriations bill is pending in the Senate would do
just that--it would unnecessarily and inappropriately delay getting
those funds to our troops who need them. Our immigration system is
badly broken and fails to serve the interests of our national security
and our national economy and undermines respect for the rule of law.
To solve that problem, Congress must engage in a careful and
deliberate discussion about the need to bolster enforcement of and to
comprehensively reform our immigration laws. We should not short-
circuit that discussion by enacting legislation outside of the regular
order of business in the House and the Senate. I hope we will enact
this supplemental appropriations bill soon. Once that process is
completed, I will continue to work closely with Senator Kyl and any
other Member of this body who has a good idea to contribute to enact
comprehensive immigration reform that is in the best interests of our
Nation.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 344
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself, Mr.
Akaka, Mr. Byrd, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Rockefeller,
Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Dayton,
proposes an amendment numbered 344.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide $1,975,183,000 for medical care for veterans)
On page 188, after line 20, add the following:
CHAPTER 5
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Health Administration
Medical Services
For necessary expenses for furnishing, as authorized by
law, outpatient and inpatient care and treatment to
beneficiaries of the Department of Veterans Affairs and
veterans as described in paragraphs (1) through (8) of
section 1705(a) of title 38, United States Code, including
care and treatment in facilities not under the jurisdiction
of the department and including medical supplies and
equipment and salaries and expenses of health-care employees
hired under title 38, United States Code, and to aid State
homes as authorized under section 1741 of title 38, United
States Code; $1,975,183,000 plus reimbursements: Provided,
That of the amount under this heading, $610,183,000 shall be
available to address the needs of servicemembers deployed for
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom;
Provided further, That of the amount under this heading,
$840,000,000 shall be available, in equal amounts of
$40,000,000, for each Veterans Integrated Service Network
(VISN) to meet current and pending care and treatment
requirements: Provided further, That of the amount under this
heading, $525,000,000 shall be available for mental health
care and treatment, including increased funding for centers
for the provision of readjustment counseling and related
mental health services under section 1712A of title 38,
United States Code (commonly referred to as ``Vet Centers''),
increased funding for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
programs, funding for the provision of primary care
consultations for mental health, funding for the provision of
mental health counseling in Community Based Outreach Centers
(CBOCs), and funding to facilitate the provision of mental
health services by Department of Veterans Affairs facilities
that do not currently provide such services: Provided
further, That the amount under this heading shall remain
available until expended.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as
cosponsors Senators Akaka, Byrd, Boxer, Bingaman, Rockefeller,
Mikulski, Jeffords, Salazar, and Dayton.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today in Iraq and in Afghanistan, our men
and women in uniform are making great sacrifices to serve our country.
Last month I had the opportunity to meet with some of them in Baghdad
and in Kuwait and all of us can be very proud of their service. Every
person I met with was a dedicated professional who was putting their
duty above their personal well-being.
Today, I am very concerned that when all of these new veterans come
home and need medical care, they are going to be pushed into a veterans
health care system that does not have the medical staff, the
facilities, or the funding to take care of them.
There is a train wreck coming in veterans health care. I am offering
an amendment to deal with this emergency now before it turns into a
crisis. The VA health care system is overcrowded. It is underfunded. It
is understaffed. It is struggling to deal with existing veterans. I
fear what will happen when tens of thousands of our new veterans are
added to this already strained system.
As Americans, we make a promise to those who join our military that
we will take care of them when they come home. It is a promise all of
us have to work together to keep, and that is why I am on the Senate
floor today. This is not a Democratic issue. It is not a Republican
issue. This is an American issue. I am willing to work with anyone to
make sure all of our veterans get the health care they are promised.
I appreciate the leadership of many Senators, especially Senator
Craig who chairs the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee on which I
serve. I thank Senator Hutchison of Texas who chairs the committee that
funds veterans health care. I truly appreciate their commitment to our
veterans. I look forward to working with them, and I will work with
many others to make sure we are doing everything we need to do to
prepare for the influx of many new veterans.
With Senator Akaka and others, I am offering a veterans health care
amendment to this emergency supplemental. Our amendment recognizes that
caring for our veterans is part of the cost of war. This is being
offered on the emergency supplemental because our amendment recognizes
that caring for our veterans is a part of the cost of war.
Our amendment does three things: First, it makes sure all soldiers
who need health care when they return home from Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom can get that health care. To do
that, this amendment provides $610 million. Second, it provides funding
for mental
[[Page 6053]]
health care for our newest veterans. Specifically, it provides $525
million for expanded mental health services, including $150 million to
treat post-traumatic stress disorder for counseling, as well as family
therapy. Third, the amendment helps address the shortfalls that are
crippling our regional VA networks. It provides $40 million to each and
every VISN, Veterans' Integrated Service Network.
This chart shows the 21 regional health networks. For each region,
our amendment provides $40 million to spend on their priorities. For
some areas it is going to mean erasing big deficits. For others it will
help them hire more medical staff. In other parts of the country they
will use it to buy medical equipment. That flexible funding that each
VISN gets will allow each region to prepare their staff and facilities
for our newest veterans. It will put a total of $840 million where
these local communities need it the most.
In short, this amendment will ensure that we can handle the health
care needs of all the veterans who will seek care after serving our
country in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
The total cost of the amendment is $1.98 billion. Let me explain how
we arrived at that figure. First, we looked at the number of new
veterans who will return to the VA for care. We multiplied that by the
average cost per patient and added the cost of reversing the deficits
that are today facing our VA hospitals and the cost of meeting
increased mental health care needs that everyone assures us we are
facing.
Some Senators may wonder if this is the appropriate vehicle to fund
veterans health care, so let me talk about that for a minute.
I would have preferred to fund this critical need in the regular
budget process. I tried to do it several times last month in the Budget
Committee and on the floor with Senator Akaka. Unfortunately, our
amendments were voted down. But the need is not going away. The
shortfalls are only going to get worse. So if we are not going to take
care of our veterans from Iraq in the regular budget, then we have to
take care of them in the bill that funds our war efforts. This is the
appropriate bill because the veterans health care train wreck is an
emergency, and because caring for our veterans is part of the cost of
war.
As I have been talking about this amendment and discussing it with
our veterans, I have been pleased by the support it has received. This
amendment is supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS,
Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and it is
supported by the VA workers who care for our veterans, represented by
the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO. I thank all
of these organizations and their members for supporting my amendment
and reaching out to their Senators to call for its passage.
Before I go any further, I want to note that veterans health care is
a very personal issue for me. My father was a disabled World War II
veteran. I grew up knowing the sacrifices that our veterans make. When
I was in college, I interned in our VA hospital in Seattle during the
Vietnam war, and I saw how important the services were to our soldiers
who were returning. I became the first woman to serve on the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee. I know what the costs are and I know what
the challenges are.
The VA provides some of the best care, research, and treatment
anywhere. Our VA employees have a unique understanding of the
challenges that our veterans face when they return, and their
dedication is unmatched. Like them, I want to make sure this system
works for every veteran of every war and every generation.
I will share some specific examples from throughout our country that
illustrate the emergency in veterans health care today. These examples
didn't come from me. They came from people who know our VA facilities
firsthand. A couple days ago, I posted a form on my Web site,
murray.senate.gov, where veterans and their advocates can share their
stories and examples with me. I have been heartened with the things
people have shared. I invite other veterans to share their stories with
me and with their own Senators.
For anyone who thinks this is not an emergency or it doesn't merit
emergency funding, I invite you to listen very closely. I am going to
talk about different places, but the overall problem is the same
everywhere.
For years, VA funding has not kept up with the growing demand for
care and with the rising costs of health care. So VA networks around
our country have held off making improvements. When a doctor or nurse
left, they were not replaced. When equipment needed to be purchased, it
was put on hold. When a clinic needed to be opened, it was held in
limbo. When there wasn't enough money in the operating budget, they
started taking money from their capital budget.
Now all those years of chronic underfunding are coming back to roost
at the worst possible time, as we are about to have a major influx of
new veterans, men and women serving honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan
today, when they are returning, our VA facilities across the country
are facing deficits, staff shortages, and inadequate facilities.
Let me give a couple of examples that have been shared with me.
In Alaska, as of yesterday, they are starting a waiting list for
nonemergency care for all new priority 7 veterans who are not enrolled
in VA primary care. That means those people cannot get an appointment
to even see a doctor.
In Colorado, the Eastern Colorado Health Care System is $7.25 million
short this year.
In California, last year, the VA hospital there in Los Angeles closed
its psychiatric emergency room.
In Florida, the VISN 8 facilities were facing a $150 million deficit
earlier this year. West Palm Beach Medical Center has a deficit alone
of $6 million.
In Idaho, at the VA in Boise, they are resorting to hiring freezes
when we have soldiers coming home.
In Kentucky, veterans at the Louisville hospital, who are having a
type of bladder examination, have to lie on a broken table because
there is no money to replace that broken equipment.
In Maine, the Togus VA has a $12 million deficit.
In Minnesota, at the Minneapolis VA, they have a $7 million
shortfall. They have one of the VA's four sites for dealing with
veterans with complex, multiple injuries but they are not hiring
anymore staff for that specialized center because of the deficit.
All of us who have visited our returning soldiers at Walter Reed or
Bethesda know many of them are returning with these kinds of injuries
that need to be treated at hospitals such as the one in Minneapolis.
In Missouri, at the Kansas City VA Medical Center, they have a $10
million operating deficit. I am also told that in Missouri there are
not enough doctors and providers to see all the veterans. If a veteran
is less than 50-percent service-connected disabled, he or she is put on
a waiting list.
In South Dakota, they are expecting to be $7 million in the red by
the end of this fiscal year. The VA is proposing to save $2 million by
not filling staff vacancies. I am told, in fact, they need 58 new beds,
and that some of the bedframes in that facility are held together with
duct tape and wire. So because of the deficits they cannot even buy new
beds. That is unacceptable for our veterans who have served this
country.
I am also told that the Black Hills Health Care System is $3 million
in the hole. They have had to use the capital budget to pay staff and
other expenses.
In Texas, at the Temple, Texas, VA, nurses in inpatient care are
working 16-hour days several times a week because there is not enough
staff. We know that nurses providing direct care should only be working
12-hour days, because longer shifts lead to medical errors and unsafe
care. This is not a way to treat our veterans who are returning.
In Virginia, as of January 1, I understand that Virginia had a budget
shortfall of $14.5 million.
[[Page 6054]]
In my home State of Washington, we have problems, too. In Tacoma, at
the American Lake VA, you can only get an appointment if you are 50-
percent or more service-connected disabled. That is not the promise we
made to the men and women who serve our country.
In Puget Sound, as of January, there was an $11 million deficit. At
the Seattle and American Lake VA they are leaving vacant positions
unfilled. There are about 16 new vacancies every month and those
positions are remaining empty. They hope to reduce the workforce by 160
full-time equivalents by the end of this fiscal year.
This is having a huge impact on our patients. As of this month, the
next appointment at the Seattle VA urology clinic is not available
until August. I can tell you that conditions like these are breaking
the hearts of our VA personnel who work day in and day out with the men
and women who have served this country. They are frustrated at seeing
so many veterans not get the care they have earned. Why? Because
Congress is not providing the money.
I share these examples not to criticize or cast blame. We have
problems such as this in my State as well, as I have talked about. I
share these examples because we have to look at what is happening and
realize that our VA system is not prepared to handle a new generation
of veterans. All of these examples, from more than a dozen States,
point to one conclusion: The VA is having trouble taking care of the
patients it has today. It is certainly not prepared to handle a new
influx of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Many of these VA centers are in the hole for millions of dollars.
They are not in a position today to begin expanding care to meet the
growing need. They cannot do it alone. We have to step in and help
them.
Before I close, I want to talk about one claim we made here during
this debate. Some Senators have suggested that the VA doesn't need any
additional funding because it has some kind of reserve for $500
million. I was troubled by the idea that the VA has extra money it is
not using while so many communities are struggling, so at a hearing
last week of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee I got to the bottom
of it. I wanted to share this chart with colleagues.
At our hearing on April 7, I asked Acting Under Secretary for
Veterans Health Care Dr. Jonathan Perlin:
Is there a $500 million reserve?
Dr. Perlin's reply was:
No . . . I don't know where that might have been suggested,
but there is no $500 million reserve that is sitting there
for future projects.
I share that with my colleagues to set the record straight. The VA is
not sitting on any type of reserve it can use for medical care. That
comes straight from the man who runs the program nationwide. We have VA
centers that are struggling in every part of our country. They cannot
deal with the caseload they have today. How in the world are they going
to deal with all of the new veterans who are coming home from Iraq and
Afghanistan?
We cannot kick this down the road any longer. It is an emergency
today and if we do not deal with it now, it is going to be a crisis
tomorrow. This is not a partisan issue; it is an American issue. It is
about whether we keep the promise to the men and women we send to serve
us overseas.
I am willing to work with anyone who wants to make sure our country
is prepared to care for all of the veterans who will be coming home
soon. They were there for us. We need to be there for them now. I urge
my colleagues to support this veterans health amendment. If you are
concerned about this--perhaps I mentioned your State or you have heard
from your own veterans--let's talk about it and find a way to make it
work.
No matter what party you are in, we are all Americans first. We all
have an obligation, as President Lincoln said, ``to care for him who
shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and for his orphan.''
We need to pass a veterans health amendment and keep this promise to
America's veterans. This amendment is the last opportunity we will have
to make sure our veterans--the men and women serving us--are taken care
of when they return home.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend Senator Murray
to offer an amendment to address the cost of providing health care to
troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. She has made an excellent
statement about what we are facing in the country and the shortfalls we
have. She has taken the leadership on this and I am supporting her. We
hope we will be able to continue to help our veterans with their health
care.
Following the 1991 Gulf war, returning servicemembers began to report
unexplained illnesses and ailments that many linked to their service.
Only those who had been granted a claim for a service-connected
disability or demonstrated a financial need could turn to VA for health
care services at that time. Reservists and Guard members were
particularly vulnerable as military health care is lost after
separation from service.
Back in 1998, this very body voted unanimously to ensure that no
combat veteran would be caught up in stringent eligibility rules and be
denied treatment. Today, any servicemember who participates in the
theater of combat is eligible for free VA health care for 2 full years
after separation or release from active duty, without regard for strict
eligibility rules.
This benefit is more important than ever, especially to Reservists
and Guard members. Experts calculate that about 40 percent of the lower
enlisted grades in these services do not have any kind of health
insurance. Because TRICARE eligibility is lost after separation or
deactivation, VA is the only place many of these service members can
turn.
My colleagues in the Senate have already recognized the need to
provide funds that would allow VA to absorb an influx of new patients
from Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. In 2003, $175 million was
added for VA to the supplemental appropriations bill. I point out that
this amount was provided only 1 month after the war in Iraq began and
before we knew about the level of troop commitment.
This amendment we offer today allows VA to provide care for returning
troops, without displacing those veterans currently using the system.
We are now 2 years into this conflict, and VA has already begun to see
real impact. Last year, VA spent $63 million on returning veterans.
Using data from the first quarter, VA will spend an unbudgeted $120
million this year. Yet, the lion's share of our troops have not yet
returned home, are rehabilitating in the DoD health care system, or are
pending separation.
The amount of this amendment, $1.9 billion, is drawn from what we
know about past use of the VA health care system, coupled with what we
know to be the cost associated with shoring up the system for all
veterans.
This is what we know: VA tells us that 20 percent of returning
service members are now turning to VA for care. Using this figure and
VA's costs, we know that $600 million in additional funding will be
needed for returning service members alone.
We also know that right now VA hospitals are running deficits of
about $40 million per each health care network. Let me share some
specifics:
Outpatient clinics have stopped seeing even the poorest of patients,
sending them hundreds of miles away to other facilities. The Townsend,
MA, clinic is only seeing a tiny percent of those who need care.
In Network 20, which serves the Northwest and Alaska, we have now
seen the beginnings of what could very well become a nationwide trend.
Priority 7 veterans, who often make as little as $26,000 a year, are
being denied care, as the Network is running about a $40 million
deficit.
Veterans in need of treatment for PTSD or addiction treatment will
have one less place to go due to the VA budget. The Psychiatric
rehabilitation program at the Chillicothe VA hospital is being shut
down.
Thirty nursing home beds at the VA hospital in Manchester, NH, will
not be
[[Page 6055]]
opening. VA officials expect to save $1.3 million by not opening these
beds.
As my good friend Senator Collins has pointed out, the hospital in
Togus, ME, is operating under a $14.2 million deficit. This Maine
facility has a hiring freeze and cannot replace equipment.
The Kansas City VA Hospital is short-staffed because they are already
$10 million in the hole. The Denver VA Hospital and its affiliated
clinics are $7.25 million short. The Maryland Health Care System is
$14.5 million in the red already this year. The list goes on and on.
The network that serves Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, and
South Dakota is facing an overall shortfall of $61 million. South
Dakota's facilities are $2.4 million short right now; Minnesota's are
$25 million short; and Iowa's hospitals are at least $14 million short
of what is currently needed. Bed frames are being held together by duct
tape in some facilities, and cleaning staff cannot be hired to keep the
facilities sanitary for patients. Health care provider positions also
remain open, resulting in shortages of doctors, nurses and medical
technicians, to name a few.
Furthermore, Florida's facilities are $150 million in the red. And
again, this has resulted in key health care specialist positions going
unfilled. In a region where so many veterans and active duty service
members reside, a shortfall of this magnitude is shameful.
This trend towards hiring freezes and under-staffing of vital health
care programs and services is one that is of great concern to me. I
know that the American Federation of Government Employees is also very
concerned about the measures being taken by many facilities to
compensate for the numerous shortfalls around the country, and I
commend AFGE for its support of this amendment.
It will be impossible for VA to care for returning veterans in the
midst of this kind of situation. As my colleagues can see, the amount
we are asking for today is actually modest when compared to the very
real deficits some parts of the country are being forced to deal with.
While we know that many Members of this body have worked to see that
their VA facilities remain in good condition, we must do more to ensure
quality of care throughout the entire VA system.
We also know that VA mental health must be improved if we are to meet
the needs of returning service members. Experts predict that as many as
30 percent may need psychiatric care when they come home. Yet, we are
told that the system is nowhere near ready to handle this type of
workload. Steady budget cuts over the years have diminished VA mental
health care capacity.
GAO recently found that VA has lagged in the implementation of
recommendations made by its own advisory committee on post-traumatic
stress disorder to improve treatment of veterans who suffer from this
very serious mental illness. Furthermore, GAO concluded that it is
questionable as to whether or not VA can keep pace with the demand for
mental health treatment from veterans of Operations Iraqi and Enduring
Freedom.
While veterans' clinics now dot the landscape, they do not have the
ability to meet mental health needs. Vet Centers, which provide vital
outreach and readjustment counseling to veterans of yesterday and
today, have seen their workload double, but not one additional nickel
has been sent their way. There are large pockets of this country
without any access to VA mental health care whatsoever.
Fixing these problems requires resources of at least $525 million. We
know this is a conservative estimate. Advocates believe that it would
take more than three times this amount to bring VA mental health care
up to what it should be, but this amendment gets us going down the
right track. The National Mental Health Association's letter of support
for this amendment states that ``. . . the nation has no higher
obligation than to heal its combatants' wounds, whether physical or
mental, and it has long looked to the VA health care system to carry
out that obligation. To date, however, planning and budgeting for the
VA health care system has been badly flawed and is failing America's
veterans, and particularly the growing numbers from war.'' I ask for
unanimous consent that the association's letter, as well as one from
the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Alliance for the
Mentally Ill (NAMI),
Arlington, VA, April 11, 2005.
Hon. Daniel Akaka,
Hon. Patty Murray,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Akaka and Murray: On behalf of the NAMI
Veteran's Council, I am writing to thank you for your support
of an amendment to increase the veteran's health care budget
by $1.98 billion, with $525 million earmarked for mental
health enhancements.
Like all Americans, we feel that caring for the men and
women who serve our country is the commitment we make in
return for their sacrifices. It is critical that they know we
will not abandon that commitment upon their return from the
battlefield. Treatment for mental illness is as important to
their future, if not more important, than treatment for
physical illness.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA's) current working
statistics reflect a crisis in the making that Congress has
the power to avoid. While it is estimated that at least 30%
of veterans returning from Iraq will have mental health
treatment needs, this is likely a conservative number. We are
very encouraged that this amendment includes an extension of
time for these needs to be assessed and treated, since we at
NAMI know that often the symptoms of mental illnesses arc not
apparent immediately following trauma. People who have the
personal experience report that months or even years may pass
before veterans and their families are finally able to
determine that treatment is needed, and to seek help.
It is especially important to support the Veteran's
Centers, where it is very likely a veteran or family member
would initially seek information and assistance. Expansion of
mental health care in VA community-based outpatient clinics
(CEDCs) is already a VA priority, and an excellent plan, but
current limited resources will not support the Operation
Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom expected caseload.
We also know that many VA hospitals and clinics are
experiencing major funding crises (small increases in their
budgets simply do not match spiraling costs of service). As a
result, there are site closings, unaddressed maintenance and
equipment needs, personnel freezes, and stoppages on needed
expansions. This amendment would help alleviate those
shortfalls.
We strongly urge the Senate to adopt the provisions in this
important amendment. Let us keep our part of the bargain.
Sincerely,
Jane E. Fyer,
Chair, Veterans' Council.
____
National Mental
Health Association,
Alexandria, VA, April 11, 2005.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Veterans Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: On behalf of the National Mental Health
Association and our 340 affiliates across the country, we are
writing to offer our strong support for the Murray-Akaka VA
health care amendment to the FY 2005 Emergency Supplemental.
We applaud the leadership you and Senator Murray are
providing in advancing this important initiative to enable
the Department of Veterans Affairs to meet veterans' urgent
health needs, and particularly those of veterans from
Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom.
With a grueling war taking a frightening toll on our men
and women in uniform, this nation faces a stern test: will it
meet its obligations to its warriors? Surely the nation has
no higher obligation than to heal its combatants' wounds,
whether physical or mental, and it has long looked to the VA
health care system to carry out that obligation. To date,
however, planning and budgeting for the VA health care system
has been badly flawed and is failing America's veterans, and
particularly the growing numbers returning from war.
This important amendment squarely tackles the major funding
gaps facing VA at this critical time. Among those gaps, it
has long been clear that VA lacks sufficient capacity to meet
veterans' mental health needs. With carefully-researched
studies documenting the growing mental health needs triggered
by a grueling war, Congress must make VA mental health care a
major funding priority. This amendment would do so, and would
close the critical gap that stands in the way of meeting a
fundamental VA obligation.
VA has long had a special obligation to veterans with
mental illness, given both the prevalence of mental health
and substance
[[Page 6056]]
use problems among veterans and the large number of those
whose illness is of service origin. In furtherance of that
obligation, Congress, to its credit, codified in law special
safeguards to assure that VA gives priority to the needs of
veterans with mental illness. Notwithstanding that step,
however, the VA health care system has had an uneven record
of service to veterans with mental health needs. Years of
oversight by the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs and
other bodies have documented the enormous variability across
the country in the availability of VA mental health care, and
the relatively limited capacity devoted to rehabilitative
help. With the nation at war--and studies finding an already
high percentage of returning veterans showing evidence of
post-traumatic stress disorder and other war-related mental
health problems--VA's special obligation to veterans with
mental disorders has special poignancy. VA has taken
important steps to make mental health a greater health-care
priority, but given the wide gap between VA's mental health
capacity and veterans' needs for treatment and support
services, real change will require major new funding,
particularly to meet war-related needs. Veterans and their
families cannot wait. The failure to intervene early
increases dramatically the risk that war-related mental
health problems will become more severe and chronic in
nature. As your amendment highlights, the time to act is now.
Established in 1909, the National Mental Health Association
is the nation's oldest and largest advocacy organization
dedicated to all aspects of mental health and mental illness.
In partnership with our 340 state and local Mental Health
Association affiliates nationwide, NMHA works to improve
policies, understanding, and services for individuals with
mental illness and substance abuse disorders.
Sincerely,
Michael M. Faenza, M.S.S.W.,
President and CEO.
Mr. AKAKA. The costs of the war we are fighting today will continue
to add up long after the final shot is fired, mainly in the form of
veterans' health care and benefits.
I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort to see that they are
provided the care they are currently earning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we appreciate the comments of the
Senators from Hawaii and Washington concerning the situation in our
Veterans Affairs Department and the concerns that they expressed about
returning veterans who are now moving into the VA system and
questioning whether there are sufficient funds available to take care
of the needs in Veterans' Administration hospitals and other different
health care facilities throughout the country.
The subcommittee that has jurisdiction over veterans affairs held a
hearing recently during which they questioned the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs on this subject. They were assured that the Department is not
in a crisis requiring emergency appropriations. The fact is, less than
1 percent of the veterans population is made up of new eligibles who
are entering into the Veterans' Administration system, and most of
those who are requiring health care assistance and hospital care are
older veterans who have already been in the system for a number of
years.
Because of that, the Department has not asked for any emergency
appropriations to be included in this bill. The administration says
that sufficient funds exist now in the Department of Veterans Affairs
budget to take care of this fiscal year's needs.
We are now in April and a new fiscal year will begin in October and
we are already considering the request for the administration for next
year's funding. We have had a budget resolution adopted. Some of these
issues were raised during the consideration of this issue by the Budget
Committee. I think the Senator from Washington offered an amendment to
the budget resolution along the lines that she is urging the Senate to
consider today, and the committee rejected the amendment.
That committee reviewed the issue closely and they have included in
the budget resolution authority for funding for the fiscal year
beginning next October. This Senator's amendment suggests the funds
appropriated in this amendment, $1.9 billion, should be made available
until expended, which means not only is this a suggestion that an
emergency appropriation is needed--although the amendment does not say
on its face it is an emergency appropriation--it sounds as if this is
in addition to this fiscal year's budget that will go on into next
fiscal year. So it is an amendment to this fiscal year's funding
authority as well as to the next fiscal year and the next. ``Until
expended'' is the way the amendment reads.
I am suggesting that the Senate should look at the information we
have before us from the administration: The Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, the Department of Defense, which is caring for injured
veterans now in the military hospital system. These are not veterans
hospitals, where those who have been injured in Iraq or Afghanistan are
being cared for. Some may later be cared for there, and may be later
cared for as part of the veterans system. But those who are returning
now are at Walter Reed Hospital or other hospitals in the Department of
Defense system.
I am not the person in charge of the Veterans' Affairs Committee who
monitors veterans' needs on a regular basis. The Senator from Idaho,
Mr. Craig, is chairman of that committee. I have discussed the
amendment with him. I expect he wants to be heard on the amendment. The
Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, is chair of the appropriations
subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the Veterans Affairs funding,
and she is available to discuss the merits of the amendment. We have
talked informally with her.
At this time I hope the Senate will certainly consider the arguments
that have been made by the Senators from Hawaii and Washington. I
respect their concerns. I know their concerns are shared by other
Senators. I share them. I don't know of any Senator who wants to come
into the Chamber and vote against an amendment to fund veterans
programs. It is hard to go home and explain to veterans why you voted
against an appropriation for veterans health care.
What we are being told by the administration is the funds are not
needed, we have the funds available to care for the veterans
population. There may be problems in the system that need the attention
of the administration and administrators of individual health care
centers and hospitals, and certainly they ought to be addressed and we
urge that they are. But it is not a matter of not having the money. If
there are problems that need to be addressed we can do that, but we are
assured that none of the funds being asked for in this amendment are
needed for that purpose.
Mr. President, awaiting the arrival of other Senators, 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. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the current
amendment be temporarily set aside so we can take up two amendments
quickly.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I
inquire of the Senator? We were in the process of considering the
amendment of the Senators from Washington and Hawaii on Veterans
Affairs and funding for that Department. The chairman of the committee
has arrived on the floor to speak to that amendment. I had told the
Senator from Massachusetts I would have no objection to offering his
amendment and then setting it aside.
I inquire: How much time will Senator Kerry require?
Mr. KERRY. Seven minutes very quickly, and then I am happy to set
those aside.
Mr. COCHRAN. Is there a problem with the Senator from Idaho?
Mr. CRAIG. How long does the Senator plan to speak?
Mr. KERRY. Seven minutes.
Mr. CRAIG. I would like to make my comments. I think we are under
unanimous consent to close down at 12:30.
Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted
[[Page 6057]]
to proceed, and after I have completed the Senator from Idaho be
permitted to make his statement before we recess.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. COCHRAN. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi.
Amendments Nos. 333 and 334, En Bloc
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendments numbered 333 and 334.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] proposes
amendments numbered 333 and 334, en bloc.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 333
(Purpose: To extend the period of temporary continuation of basic
allowance for housing for dependents of members of the Armed Forces who
die on active duty)
On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
extension of period of temporary continuation of basic allowance for
housing for dependents of members of the armed forces who die on active
duty
Sec. 1122. Section 403(l) of title 37, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``180 days'' each place it appears and
inserting ``365 days''.
AMENDMENT NO. 334
(Purpose: To increase the military death gratuity to $100,000,
effective with respect to any deaths of members of the Armed Forces on
active duty after October 7, 2001)
On page 159, strike line 6 and all that follows through
page 160, line 22, and insert the following:
Sec. 1112. (a) Increase in Death Gratuity.--
(1) Amount.--Section 1478(a) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``$12,000'' and inserting
``$100,000''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on October 7, 2001, and shall apply with
respect to deaths occurring on or after that date.
(3) No adjustment for increases in basic pay before date of
enactment.--No adjustment shall be made under subsection (c)
of section 1478 of title 10, United States Code, with respect
to the amount in force under subsection (a) of that section,
as amended by paragraph (1), for any period before the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(4) Payment for deaths before date of enactment.--Any
additional amount payable as a death gratuity under this
subsection for the death of a member of the Armed Forces
before the date of the enactment of this Act shall be paid to
the eligible survivor of the member previously paid a death
gratuity under section 1478 of title 10, United States Code,
for the death of the member. If payment cannot be made to
such survivor, payment of such amount shall be made to living
survivor of the member otherwise highest on the list under
1477(a) of title 10, United States Code.
On page 161, line 23, strike ``$238,000'' and insert
``$150,000''.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, many of us in the Senate have had the
privilege of traveling to Iraq where we have visited some of the most
remarkable young men and women our country has produced. We have met
with hundreds of American soldiers, airmen, Marines and naval
personnel, all of whom are doing a magnificent job under, obviously,
very difficult conditions. I support this supplemental bill and for the
obvious reasons.
The election and increased training and the clarity of a plan that
has been put forth and the increased effort of the Iraqis themselves
combined provide an important opportunity for the transformation of
Iraq. It is obviously vital in these circumstances to make sure our
troops have the ability to be safe but to also be able to get the job
done. We have always said that. But also I believe we need to do more.
Supporting the troops means not just supporting them in the field and
in the theaters, but it also means supporting them here at home. It
means understanding that their lives, both as warriors fighting for
their Nation and as spouses, parents, brothers, sisters, sons and
daughters struggling to see that the needs of their families are met--
the fact is that too many military families suffer when duty calls.
Thousands of reservists take a very significant pay cut when they are
called up. Suddenly, single parents are left to struggle with the
bills. One in five members of the National Guard don't have any health
insurance at all. That is devastating to their families. It is damaging
to troop readiness.
I believe that everyone here understands the simple tenet that the
Government has to keep faith with our troops. To do that we need to put
in place a comprehensive military family bill of rights that puts
action behind the promise to support our troops. I understand that the
supplemental bill is not the place to ask for the full consideration of
that military family bill of rights, so I am not going to propose the
entire bill as an amendment here. But I am bringing two amendments to
the floor that are broken out of this bill of rights that I believe we
could all agree on and which would make an enormous difference in the
lives of our soldiers. In agreeing to these, we can take an important
step in demonstrating our support for a military family bill of rights
which is long overdue.
More than a year ago, I proposed increasing the benefits paid to
surviving military families to $500,000 through existing insurance
benefits and an increase in the death gratuity. I am not alone in this
effort. Members on both sides of the aisle have introduced legislation
to improve these benefits, and with very good reason.
Today, families receive only $12,420 to supplement whatever insurance
a loved one may have purchased. That $12,420 is completely inadequate.
In fact, it is a disgrace. We do right by our fallen police officers
and firefighters in America. Their families receive $275,000, and it is
time that we did the same for our soldiers. Their survivors' lives
remain to be lived, and though no one can ever put a price on the loss
of a loved one, it is important for us to be as generous as we can and
as realistic as we can as we help people to be able to put their lives
back together. I was heartened when the administration embraced a
formula to reach the $500,000 threshold, and I am glad the
Appropriations Committee has included a benefit increase in this
particular bill, but the bill needs to go further and eliminate any
distinction between combat and noncombat deaths.
This is important for a number of different reasons.
First of all, the benefit, as matter of principle, ought to go to any
American who loses their life while serving our country, and we
shouldn't draw a distinction between that kind of service. The fact is
that the uniformed leadership of our military doesn't believe we
should, either.
GEN Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified
on this matter before the Armed Services Committee, and a number of
other leaders. Let me share with colleagues.
GEN Richard Cody said:
It is about service to this country, and I think we need to
be very careful about making decisions based upon what type
of action. I would rather err on the side of covering all
deaths rather than trying to make a distinction.
Admiral Nathman said:
This has been about how do we take care of the survivors,
the families and the children? They can't make a distinction,
and I don't think that we should either.
GEN Michael Moseley of the Air Force said:
I believe a death is a death and our service men and women
should not be represented that way.
--i.e, they shouldn't be distinguished as to where it took place.
If you are a pilot flying in the Navy off an aircraft carrier and you
are not in combat and you have a catapult failure and die, that family
faces the same crisis as a family of somebody who is shot down. We need
to understand that. I'm glad the bill addresses that situation, but
there are other circumstances it does not.
GEN William Nyland of the Marine Corps said:
I think we need to understand that before we put any
distinctions on the great services of these wonderful men and
women, they are all performing magnificently. I think we have
to be careful about drawing any distinctions.
The amendment I offer today with Senators Pryor and Obama expands
[[Page 6058]]
this benefit to every member of the Armed Forces who dies on active
duty.
I have a second amendment at the desk to help military families
lessen the disruption that a death brings to the family.
At the present time, the survivors of those killed in action have to
move out of military housing in 180 days. But for those with young
children in school, that becomes entirely disruptive often with respect
to the school district kids are able to go to, and it is a very
difficult burden in many cases for widows and widowers to have to try
to confront all of the difficulties of that transition, including the
efforts of finding housing. The 180 days may mean starting a school
year in one State and finishing it in another. I don't believe that is
a message we ought to be extending to the families of those who give
their lives in service to our country.
Given all of the disruption the loss of a parent brings to their
lives, I propose allowing survivors the option to keep their housing
for a whole year as they deal with the countless other challenges. It
may seem like a small change, but I have heard from enough different
folks on active duty in the military about the significance of this
particular need, and it can make a huge difference for a family who is
struggling with the loss of a father or a mother.
Investing in our military families is not just appropriating the
money for the equipment or the latest technology for the deployment
itself, it is investing in the families themselves. And it is not as an
act of compassion, it is a smart investment in America's military. Good
commanders know that while you may recruit an individual soldier or
marine, you retain a whole family. That is the way we ought to look at
our policies.
Nearly 50 percent of America's service members are married today. If
we want to retain our most experienced service members, particularly
after we have invested millions of dollars in their training, then it
is important--especially for the noncommissioned officers who are the
backbone of the military--that we keep faith with their families. If we
don't, and those experienced enlisted leaders begin to leave, we as a
nation are weakened.
The two amendments I have proposed today are the beginning of a
larger effort to do right by our military families. I believe it is a
strong beginning. By joining measures to take care of military families
at home with legislation to take care of those remarkable young men and
women serving abroad, we are going to take a firm step toward putting
meaning behind the promise to support our troops. I hope these
amendments are agreed to.
I yield to the Senator from Idaho.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Amendment No. 344
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for
his cooperation in the unanimous consent propounded that allows me the
flexibility to speak. I will be brief. We are at the lunch hour.
The chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on MILCON and
Veterans Affairs is also on the floor with me. Let me speak for a
moment about the concerns we have in relation to the Murray amendment.
First and foremost, let me say for the record that in no way do I
question the integrity of the Senator from Washington. She and I have
worked very closely together on veterans issues. She is a valuable
member of the Veterans Committee, as is the Presiding Officer.
Without question, our dedication to veterans I hope is unquestioned.
The reality is are we dealing with an emergency in an emergency
supplemental, or is there a very real need out in veterans land and
with the Veterans Administration and the systems that it funds and
operates to meet current veterans' and incoming veterans' needs? I say
certainly without question that there is always a need. We could expand
budgets well beyond where they are today to meet needs, but by what
definition? Critical, necessary, important for the moment, dealing with
the most needy veterans, the most handicapped, or simply spreading it
out and making it more available?
Those are some of the tough choices you and I and members of that
subcommittee and certainly members of the subcommittee on
appropriations have to make. The Senator from Washington has
appropriately challenged us to look at a variety of other aspects that
have value. The question is, Are they an emergency at the moment? Do
they serve veterans who are not being served? In some instances, that
would be arguably yes. But are those veterans of critical service in
the sense they can find health care elsewhere in the sense of priority?
Let me talk briefly about what we are doing. We have just finished
trying to shape through a budget resolution the 2006 budget. We
included $450 million more than the President's request, and we have
increased the 2006 budget over the 2005 budget by about $1.2 billion--a
substantial increase by anybody's observation. We have also done that
without turning to veterans in the less needy categories and saying
they will have to pay more for their services. We have been able to
assume and bring into the system a good deal of that, which is
important.
I find the number of $1.98 billion additional, not spread out over
fiscal year 2006 but spent now in 2005 and the balance of 2005 in this
emergency, a dramatic increase. Can the Veterans' Administration
effectively and responsibly spend that kind of a bump up in money? I
question that.
It is important to look at what is necessary. According to VA, they
have seen approximately 48,000 OIF and OEF veterans since the war
began. With Senator Murray's $2 billion, it would be $41,000 per
patient, an extraordinary amount by any measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator suspend? Would the Senator
request unanimous consent to extend past 12:30?
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to
continue. There are three Members in the Senate. I ask unanimous
consent we extend to no later than 12:45.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have given a figure of $41,000 per
patient. That is an extraordinary amount by any measure. The VA's
average cost per patient is about $5,000.
My point in making this an issue is I want to work with the Senator
from Washington. I am never going to argue that there aren't real needs
in the Veterans' Administration. I am not going to argue that there
ought to be some priorities--mental health and those things that the
Senator from Washington and I have shared as a common interest and a
common concern.
Let me yield time to the Senator from Texas. She will take a few
moments and give the Senator from Washington adequate time to respond
before the 12:45 time.
I am willing to work with the Senator from Washington, to examine her
numbers, but a $1.98 billion or $2 billion bump-up to be spent before
close of business in September--I am getting signals from the Senator
we are dealing with a 2-year appropriation. Let's look at those
numbers.
I close by saying, in my opinion, there is not an emergency in the
VA. This is an emergency supplemental. I will work with the Senator to
see where we might go. It is wrong in an emergency to talk about things
that are long term in character and necessary to finance.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Veterans'
Administration appropriations committee, I certainly want to look
further at Senator Murray's numbers, but adding almost $2 billion to
the Department of Veterans Affairs for the next 6 months, we have to
look very carefully where we would spend that money and what the
emergency nature of the request is.
In fact, we had our appropriations hearing with the Veterans'
Administration Secretary. I asked the Secretary specifically--we would
certainly be looking at supplemental appropriations in the near future;
then we would
[[Page 6059]]
be looking at our full budget for next year--I asked if there were
enough resources to meet the needs of all returning veterans from Iraq
and Afghanistan for the current year, 2005. The Secretary said, yes,
the VA does have the necessary resources in 2005 to continue meeting
the needs of all returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The key is when people return from Iraq and Afghanistan, we want to
make sure their medical needs are met. That is something we all share.
Most of the people returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are still in the
Department of Defense. They are either on active duty or they are
activated as Guard and Reserve. The bulk of them are still treated for
their medical needs in the Department of Defense, not in Veterans
Affairs. We have to look at how many people are returning and how many
people actually go into the VA system, how many people actually are
leaving the military service. The number comes down significantly. We
have to look at this number.
All Members have the same goal, that we are going to ask for the
amount of money we need to give the medical care to our returning
service men and women and to people leaving the military. That is why I
asked the question of our Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Do you have
enough? Then I further asked if the 2006 budget was adequate for the
returning veterans. The response was, yes.
I certainly want to do everything we need to do for the purpose of
providing the care these veterans who have served our country, who are
protecting freedom, deserve from our Government. But we have to look at
the fact that is an emergency not in the 2006 budget. That would start
October 1 of this year. Then we need to look further down the road at
that budget, which our committee certainly intends to do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment is now pending.
Amendment No. 344, As Modified
Mrs. MURRAY. I send a modification to the desk on our amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 344), as modified, is as follows:
On page 188, after line 20, add the following:
CHAPTER 5
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Health Administration
Medical Services
For necessary expenses for furnishing, as authorized by
law, outpatient and inpatient care and treatment to
beneficiaries of the Department of Veterans Affairs and
veterans as described in paragraphs (1) through (8) of
section 1705(a) of title 38, United States Code, including
care and treatment in facilities not under the jurisdiction
of the department and including medical supplies and
equipment and salaries and expenses of health-care employees
hired under title 38, United States Code, and to aid State
homes as authorized under section 1741 of title 38, United
States Code; $1,975,183,000 plus reimbursements: Provided,
That of the amount under this heading, $610,183,000 shall be
available to address the needs of servicemembers deployed for
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom;
Provided further, That of the amount under this heading,
$840,000,000 shall be available, in equal amounts of
$40,000,000, for each Veterans Integrated Service Network
(VISN) to meet current and pending care and treatment
requirements: Provided further, That of the amount under this
heading, $525,000,000 shall be available for mental health
care and treatment, including increased funding for centers
for the provision of readjustment counseling and related
mental health services under section 1712A of title 38,
United States Code (commonly referred to as ``Vet Centers''),
including the staffing of certified family therapists at each
center, increased funding for post traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) programs, including funding to fully staff PTSD
clinical teams at each Veterans Affairs Medical Center and to
provide a regional PTSD coordinator in each VISN and in each
Readjustment Counseling Service region, funding for the
provision of primary care consultations for mental health,
funding for the provision of mental health counseling in
Community Based Outreach Centers (CBOCs), and funding to
facilitate the provision of mental health services by
Department of Veterans Affairs facilities that do not
currently provide such services: Provided further, That the
amount under this heading shall remain available until
expended: Provided further, That the amount provided under
this heading is designated as an emergency requirement
pursuant to Section 402 of the conference report to accompany
S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me make a couple of comments. I thank
the Senators from Idaho and Texas for working with us on this critical
issue. I know both of them have worked very long and hard on veterans
issues and care deeply about making sure the men and women who serve
are taken care of when they return home, as we promised.
Let me remind everyone, of the 240,000 men and women separated from
our services since the beginning of the war in Iraq, 50,000 have
already asked the VA for services. Many more of them will continue to
do that as they come home and as they get back into their homes and
look for services, especially mental health services, as all know who
have worked with veterans for a long time.
This is an emergency. If any Members work with veterans in our
States, talk to our directors at home, and talk with soldiers who have
returned home, we will realize the long lines they are waiting in, the
clinics that were promised that have not been opened, the tremendous
services that are not being provided.
As I discussed in my opening statement, beds are held together by
duct tape in our facilities. This is not how we should be treating our
veterans. It is an emergency because more veterans return in higher
numbers with the care not available for them.
I am willing to work with the Senators from Idaho and the Senators
from Texas over the next several hours, or whatever it takes to come up
with a number. If they believe $1.98 billion is too high, I would like
to talk to them about that. We can work together. I know both care
about this issue, and we want to find a way to make sure our veterans
are taken care of.
I remind everyone when we send our men and women overseas, one of the
promises we make to them is we will have the care available when they
return. When we have veterans who are in beds that are held together by
duct tape, when we have veterans who have to endure long waiting lines
for simple services, that is an emergency.
I clarify, the money in this bill will be used until it is expended.
It does not have to be expended this year. It will be used until
expended, allowing our veterans and our veteran services to put in
place facilities they need for our men and women coming home.
I close at this time, and I will work with Senators from Idaho and
Texas and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee because I
believe this is an emergency. I believe we have a responsibility. I
will make sure our veterans get the care they need.
I yield the floor.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been
a recognized leader in the treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder,
PTSD. With its outreach efforts and expert mental health staff, VA has
made great strides in its treatment of those suffering from the
psychological wounds of war. Unfortunately, VA still has a long way to
go before it will achieve the level of PTSD treatment our veterans
deserve. Demonstrating this fact is a February 2005 GAO report, which
found that VA has not fully met any of the 24 clinical care and
education recommendations made in 2004 by VA's Special Committee on
PTSD.
Titled ``VA Should Expedite the Implementation of Recommendations
Needed to Improve Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Services,'' this
report raises serious concerns about VA's ability to treat our
veterans' mental health. In fact, I would like to quote one of the
report's most disturbing points: ``VA's delay in fully implementing the
recommendations raises questions about VA's capacity to identify and
treat veterans returning from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts who
may be at risk for developing PTSD, while maintaining PTSD services for
veterans currently receiving them.'' Further adding to the seriousness
of this statement is that GAO reported in September 2004 that officials
at six of
[[Page 6060]]
seven VA medical facilities said they may not be able to meet an
increased demand for PTSD services. Moreover, the Special Committee
reported in 2004 that ``VA does not have sufficient capacity to meet
the needs of new combat veterans while still providing for veterans of
past wars.
This is further proof of the need for increased funding for VA health
care. If we do not give VA the necessary funds, how can we expect it to
properly care for the flux of new veterans when it cannot even care for
those it currently treats? In fact, VA officials have cited resource
constraints as the primary reason for not implementing many of the
Special Committee's recommendations.
In all, GAO found that based on the time frames in VA's draft mental
health strategic plan, 23 of the 24 recommendations may not be fully
implemented until fiscal year 2007 or later. The remaining
recommendation is targeted for full implementation by fiscal year 2005,
4 years after the Special Committee first recommended it.
Additionally, the GAO report found that ten of the recommendations
are longstanding, as they are consistent with those made in the Special
Committee's first report in 1985. VA agreed then that these
recommendations would improve the provision of PTSD services to
veterans, yet the changes still are not scheduled for full
implementation for another two years at the earliest. These delayed
initiatives include developing a national PTSD education plan for VA,
improving VA collaboration with DoD on PTSD education, and providing
increased access to PTSD services.
PTSD is caused by an extremely stressful event and can develop years
after military service. Mental health experts estimate that the
intensity of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan could cause more than 15
percent of servicemembers returning from these conflicts to develop
PTSD, with a total of nearly 30 percent needing some kind of mental
health treatment. While there is no cure for PTSD, these experts
believe early identification and treatment of PTSD symptoms may lessen
their severity and improve the overall quality of life for individuals
with this disorder.
Congress required the establishment of VA's Special Committee on PTSD
in 1984, with the original purpose primarily to aid Vietnam-era
veterans diagnosed with PTSD. One of the Special Committee's main
charges is to carry out an ongoing assessment of VA's capacity to
diagnose and treat PTSD and to make recommendations for improving VA's
PTSD services.
In addition, a March 20, 2005, article in the Los Angeles Times
pointed out how concerned veterans' advocates and even some VA
psychiatrists are with VA's handling of PTSD services, saying VA
hospitals are ``flirting with disaster.'' The article highlighted the
situation at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, specifically
the Los Angeles VA hospital, which last year closed its psychiatric
emergency room. A decade ago, VA hospitals in Los Angeles had rooms to
treat 450 mentally ill patients each day. After a series of cutbacks
and consolidations, however, the main hospital can now accommodate only
90 veterans overnight in its psychiatric wards. During the same 10-year
period, the overall number of mental health patients treated by the VA
Greater Los Angeles increased by about 28 percent, to 19,734 veterans
in 2004. If this is how VA handles PTSD care for our veterans at the
Nation's largest VA hospital, how does that bode for the rest of the
nation?
VA must make strides in its provision of mental health services and
outreach efforts to servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
If we are not careful and do not give VA proper resources, progress
will be impossible. As Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, I will work to ensure that does not happen. As such, I am
pleased to tell you that today I am offering an amendment to the
Supplemental to partially fix this problem. Our Nation's veterans
deserve the best care possible, for both their physical wounds and
mental.
I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Los Angeles Times
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Los Angeles Times, Mar. 20, 2005]
Mental Health Care for Veterans Disputed; While Need Has Grown,
Inpatient Services Have Been Drastically Cut in the Last Decade.
Critics say outpatient programs can't do the job.
(By Charles Ornstein)
As troops return from Iraq and Afghanistan--including
thousands with combat-related mental disorders--they enter a
Veterans Affairs healthcare system sharply divided about how
to care for them.
In the last decade, veterans hospitals across the country
have sharply reduced the number of inpatient psychiatric
beds, replacing them with outpatient programs and homeless
services.
The new offerings, officials say, cost less and are just as
effective.
``It used to be with mental illness that once you got it,
you never got rid of it,'' said Dr. Mark Shelhorse, a
national VA mental health official. But ``mental illness is
perceived as a disease now just like hypertension and
diabetes. We have medicines to treat it. We know that people
recover and lead fully normal lives.''
But veterans' advocates and even some VA psychiatrists say
the hospitals, including the massive Veterans Affairs Greater
Los Angeles Healthcare System, are flirting with disaster.
They say the facilities are ill-equipped to deal with
veterans who need the most extensive help for psychosis,
substance abuse, suicidal impulses and post-traumatic stress
disorder.
Last year, the Los Angeles hospital closed its psychiatric
emergency room, a move that heightened the anger of the VA's
critics.
``We were too easily swayed in the past by the argument
that after a while, it [PTSD] will go away,'' said Jay
Morales, a Vietnam veteran who chairs the mental health
consumer advisory council at the Los Angeles hospital. ``But
there are Vietnam vets walking around today, 30 years after
the war ended, having these problems.''
Dr. William Wirshing, a psychiatrist for 23 years at the
Greater Los Angeles VA, agreed. ``It's absurd how much
they've cut--and it's absurd how much they continue to cut,''
he said.
A decade ago, VA hospitals in Los Angeles had rooms to
treat 450 mentally ill patients each day. After a series of
cutbacks and consolidations, the main Wadsworth hospital on
Wilshire Boulevard can now accommodate only 90 veterans
overnight in its psychiatric wards.
During the same 10-year period, the overall number of
mental health patients treated by the VA Greater Los Angeles
increased by about 28 percent, to 19,734 veterans in 2004.
The VA hospital in Los Angeles, the largest veterans
hospital in the nation, treats 80,000 veterans annually with
a budget of more than $450 million. It includes the hospital,
nursing homes, a domiciliary, three main outpatient care
sites and 10 community clinics. There are an estimated
510,000 veterans in Los Angeles County alone.
VA officials say that despite the cutbacks, the Los Angeles
VA hospital offers more mental health services today than
ever. Instead of keeping patients in locked wards overnight,
the VA offers them outpatient programs and temporary
accommodations in partnership with nonprofit groups,
officials say.
``It's not like we went into a hospital that was fully
occupied and we said, `We don't need this unit anymore,'''
said Dr. Andrew Shaner, the hospital's acting director of
mental health. ``We built programs that kept people
relatively well and therefore out of the hospital, and that's
why we were able to do it.''
The question remains: Are the current offerings enough?
A report last fall by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office cited estimates that 15% of service members stationed
in Iraq and Afghanistan would develop post-traumatic stress
disorder. As of December, about 1 million troops had spent
time in one of the two war zones (about one-third have done
more than one tour).
The GAO determined that the VA did not have enough
information to know if it could meet the increased demand.
Shelhorse, the VA's acting deputy consultant for patient
care services for mental health, said the agency is
monitoring the situation carefully and is pumping millions of
dollars into mental health programs.
The shift from inpatient to outpatient mental health
services has become a controversial issue throughout the VA
system. A 1996 federal law prohibits the VA from reducing
specialized treatment and rehabilitation for disabled
veterans, including mental health services.
A VA committee has found that the agency hasn't abided by
that law. While VA hospitals may be treating more mentally
ill patients, they aren't spending as much money doing so. At
the West Los Angeles VA, the amount spent on mental health
has decreased from $74 million in fiscal 1997 to $64.4
million in fiscal 2003, according to a national monitoring
system.
[[Page 6061]]
Experts disagree on whether outpatient care can replace
inpatient treatment.
``I don't think that intensive community treatment can take
care of all the people that no longer have the availability
of inpatient beds,'' said Dr. H. Richard Lamb, a psychiatry
professor at USC.
Lamb said the trend has led to an increase in homeless
mentally ill and those in jails.
But Dr. Robert Rosenheck, director of the VA's Northeast
Program Evaluation Center, said changes in the VA system have
not produced those results.
Studies, he said, have not shown an increase in jailed
veterans after inpatient psychiatric beds have been cut. Nor,
he said, have there been significant increases in suicides or
veterans showing up at non-VA hospitals for care.
``Veterans very much preferred coming in and being in a
supportive environment for an extended period of time,''
Rosenheck said. But ``when you look at objective outcomes, we
don't see scientific evidence of adverse effects'' because of
the cutbacks.
Even so, veterans' advocates and psychiatrists have been
complaining for years about cutbacks at the Greater Los
Angeles VA.
For many, the final straw came in May when the hospital
closed the psychiatric emergency room and shifted mental
health emergencies to the main ER. Troubled patients are now
cared for by nurses and other staff who, according to the
critics, are not adequately trained to handle psychiatric
emergencies.
Critics point to several instances since the transition in
which psychiatric patients were admitted to inpatient wards
without any written orders or treated with disrespect by ER
nurses who didn't understand their disorders. At least one
female patient with PTSD attempted suicide.
``This is a dangerous situation,'' said Guy Mazzeo, a
veteran and member of the L.A. mental health consumer
advisory council. ``None of us'' was consulted before the
change, he said, referring to advocates for veterans and the
VA's outside advisory groups. And none agree with it, he
said.
The veterans and their doctors have been joined in their
criticism by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), whose
district includes the VA health center.
He asked the VA in January to hire a full-time psychiatrist
for the emergency room and arrange for specially trained
psychiatric nurses to work there, among other things. The VA
declined his requests.
``I'm disappointed that the VA has not responded more
aggressively,'' Waxman said in an interview. ``With Iraq and
Afghanistan war veterans returning, these demands are only
going to increase.''
VA officials say the criticism is unfair. Care in the main
ER is more coordinated than the care given in the stand-alone
psychiatric emergency room, they say. Patients can get their
medical and mental problems treated in one place, instead of
having to be shuttled between two.
Administrators say ER staff members have received extensive
training. And they say that there's no evidence that patients
are receiving inferior care.
Dr. Dean Norman, the hospital's chief of staff, said the
closure of the psychiatric ER made sense because the number
of patients using it had been decreasing for years, and the
hospital did not have enough staff.
``One of our goals is to be good stewards of taxpayer
dollars,'' Norman said. ``We didn't make this in a
precipitous or reckless fashion. This was well thought out,
and we had good reasons for doing this.''
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Murray in
cosponsoring this important amendment to increase veterans health care
funding. We owe it to our veterans, who have so bravely served our
country, to give them the best medical care possible. It is
disappointing that funding for veterans programs, especially veterans
health care, has not kept pace with either the increased number of
veterans in the system or medical inflation. This amendment is crucial
to providing veterans with the services they have earned.
As I have talked to veterans in California--and as I have met with
returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan--I have come to one
disturbing conclusion: we are not serving all of the needs of our
veterans now and we are not prepared to serve the tens of thousands of
veterans who will be returning over the next couple of years.
Senator Murray's amendment begins to address this situation. It will
increase veterans health care funding by almost $2 billion. This
includes $610 million for new veterans returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan. Funding for these veterans is not included in the current
VA budget. In addition, each of the 21 veterans regions will receive
$40 million to address their budget shortfalls. This will allow each
region to determine how the funds can best be used to benefit their
veteran population.
I am especially pleased that this amendment includes funding
designated for veterans mental health care. Specifically, $525 million
is designated to expand mental health services, with $150 million
targeted for the treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder--PTSD. The
VA has estimated that 30 percent of men and women currently serving in
the Armed Forces will need treatment for mental illness or readjustment
issues. That is why this funding is so critical.
This amendment has the support of many veterans organizations,
including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, Disabled American
Veterans, and Paralyzed Veterans of America. They realize, as I do, how
crucial it is that this funding be made available. Without it, the VA
will not be able to meet the needs of the men and women who have so
bravely served our country. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today, I rise in support of an amendment
to the emergency supplemental to provide an additional $1.98 billion
for veterans health care. I am a cosponsor of this amendment because I
believe that when we talk about the costs of war, we cannot forget the
brave men and women who are returning from war every single day.
In the past couple months, my home State of Arkansas has seen the
return of over 3,000 brave men and women from the Army National Guard,
who answered their Nation's call to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Many of them will need ready access to health care as they attempt to
transition back to the civilian lives they knew before the war.
I am troubled because they are returning to a veterans health care
system that is underfunded and overburdened. Increasing health care
costs and an influx of thousands of new veterans each month makes it
essential that we do what we can to provide for veterans health care,
and we do it now.
This amendment would enable the VA to absorb the new veterans being
added to the system and would reverse many of the critical budget
shortfalls that have left many VA facilities without the medical staff
or equipment they desperately need. It would also provide $40 million
for every veterans regional network so they can better meet their local
needs.
My father fought in Korea and I was raised from an early age to have
tremendous respect for the unselfish service of the men and women of
the Armed Services. As a United States Senator, I believe we have an
obligation to provide them with the health care they were promised and
to honor the benefits they have earned. I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment because it is the right thing to do, it is our moral
responsibility, and it should be a priority for each and every one of
us.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the Bush administration has decided that
all funding for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan be requested as
supplemental emergency funding. I believe, therefore, that we must
include in this supplemental funding legislation, additional monies to
cover the cost of the war incurred by the Veterans Administration.
The President's budget did not request sufficient funding to cover
the significant increases in medical costs of veterans wounded in Iraq
and Afghanistan. While severely wounded service members are remaining
longer in the Department of Defense health care system than in past
conflicts, the VA provides all care for these men and women after they
are released from the military, and provides care to Guard members and
Reservists beginning immediately after they return home from a
deployment.
We must cover these expenses. We cannot turn away these veterans. We
also cannot turn away other veterans and deny them care in deference to
the newest veterans. That would not be right either.
I am pleased to join Senators Murray and Akaka in offering this
amendment to provide $1.9 billion in additional funding to the Veterans
Administration. Passage of this amendment would go a long way to
covering existing shortfalls and allowing the VA to
[[Page 6062]]
ramp up to meet the current and expected needs for the coming year. I
am pleased that this amendment addresses the critical issue of mental
health by providing $525 million specifically for mental health care
and treatment.
Unlike prior wars, where soldiers were expected to lay down their
guns upon returning home and forget about the war, service members
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan understand that it is very
important for their mental health and the well-being of their family,
that they deal with both the mental effects of the war and the
emotional effects on their families of a long and stressful separation.
Vet centers exist all across the country to help veterans and their
families deal with the ghosts of war and manage the transition back
home. These centers do a phenomenal job, but they are generally very
small and have been handling a limited case load. With veterans
returning from Iraq in huge numbers, particularly members of the
National Guard and Reserve who do not live on or near military bases
the job of the Vet centers has increased more than a hundred-fold. The
Vet centers need an increase in both staff and resources commensurate
with the demands now placed upon them.
We have learned from prior wars that much can be done to ease the
transition back to civilian life if it is done immediately. Immediate
mental health care can prevent the onset of more difficult diagnoses,
such as post traumatic stress disorder. The VA has developed expertise
in the diagnosis and treatment of PTSD, well beyond that of the private
sector. The challenge now is to spread this expertise throughout the VA
system. This takes resources. We also have learned that those soldiers
who have suffered physical wounds will often need ongoing mental health
assistance to face the challenges of life with a disability. We must
not turn our backs on them.
The bill before the Senate is designed to cover the costs of these
two conflicts. We cannot say we have done so if we do not cover the
costs of the physical and emotional wounds from these conflicts. The
only way that this can be done with the funding provided by the
President's budget is if our obligations to other veterans are set
aside. This would be wrong. The only way we can truly honor our
obligations to all of our veterans is to support the amendment by the
Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray.
I urge my colleagues to support the Murray amendment.
____________________
RECESS
Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent we stand in recess under the
previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12:30
having arrived, the Senate will stand in recess until 2:15 p.m.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:39 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr.
Voinovich).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
____________________
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005--Continued
Amendment No. 344, As Modified
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is my intention to make a point of
order in connection with the amendment that has been offered by
Senators Murray and Akaka. But I do not want to do that if they are not
here on the floor. I will wait to give them an opportunity to make any
statements or motions they may deem appropriate. So I do not want to
foreclose anyone from having an opportunity to express themselves on
that issue. But I do make that announcement just for the information of
all Senators, that we have pending before us an amendment that purports
to add as a matter of emergency appropriations $1.9 billion to the
Veterans' Administration accounts.
The administration has not asked for these funds. Testimony before
the relevant committees of jurisdiction, the Veterans Affairs'
Committee and the Appropriations subcommittee that funds or recommends
funding for veterans programs, has not led Senators to request funds
for inclusion in the committee mark. So there is a disparity between
the proponents of the amendment and what they are urging the Senate to
approve and what is being requested as a matter of emergency
appropriations.
In addition, the language of the amendment actually has a provision
that the moneys appropriated under the amendment would be available
until expended, which means the funding would carry over into the next
fiscal year. We are, right now, having committees consider the funding
levels that are needed in the next fiscal year, beginning October 1.
So with no requests for funds, with the administration saying they
have enough funds to run the VA health programs and hospital programs
between now and the end of this fiscal year, we are going to suggest
that this is subject to a point of order. It is my intention to make
that point of order.
Seeing that the Senators are on the floor now, Mr. President,
pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 95 of the 108th Congress, I
make a point of order that the amendment contains an emergency
designation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order and
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, a vote now occurs on the motion to waive,
right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is right.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there is a question about how much time
is going to be----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to waive is debatable.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there is some confusion on my part. I
thought the Senators were going to debate this, but there was a
suggestion that we could agree on a time for a vote on the motion to
waive the Budget Act. So I inquire of Senators whether that is the
feeling on the other side. We would be willing to enter into an
agreement for a vote to occur at a time certain that might suit the
convenience of all Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am happy to talk to the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee in order to work out a time agreement. I do
have more I would like to say. This amendment is extremely serious. It
is an emergency. We would like some more time, so I am happy to talk to
the chairman about having an agreement on time, if he would like to do
that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator.
Let me suggest, then, if there is no objection, that we enter into an
agreement that we have a vote that will occur at 3:30 this afternoon.
Would that be satisfactory with the Senator?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I assume the time will be equally divided
between now and 3:30 on this amendment. That would be satisfactory.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
vote on the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Murray
amendment at 3:30 p.m. today, with debate until the vote equally
divided in the usual form and no amendments in order to the amendment
prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair and thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
[[Page 6063]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by my colleague, Senator Murray. Senator Murray, I believe, offered
this identical amendment in the Appropriations Committee when it marked
up the appropriations supplemental bill. I was very pleased to support
her then.
I want to refer back to a time when we held a hearing with the
Secretary of Defense. My colleague, Senator Murray, was at that
hearing. She asked some questions, and other colleagues did, and I did,
about this issue of health care, health care for soldiers and health
care for veterans. One of the questions we asked was, What is the
continuum here between a soldier and a veteran?
I would guess all of us in this Chamber have driven to Bethesda Naval
Hospital and Walter Reed Medical Center to visit young men and women
who have been wounded with respect to hostilities in Iraq. I have made
many such visits. I have seen these brave soldiers lying in their
hospital bed, often with an arm missing or a leg missing or other
serious wounds, convalescing and recovering. In most cases, God
willing, when they recover, they will get rehabilitation, and then they
will, in most cases, be discharged from the service.
We asked the Secretary of Defense, at that point, What is the
difference between a soldier on active duty and a young soldier who has
just been released from Walter Reed Medical Center who is then
discharged but continues to need medical help for the wounds they
suffered in the war? Is there really any difference? And should there
really be a difference in the health care that is delivered?
I am enormously proud of the men and women who work at hospitals such
as Walter Reed Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Hospital, those we see
most often when we visit. That health care could not be better. They do
an extraordinary job.
There was recently an article about the job they do in a publication
called the Washington Monthly. I discussed that article with Mr.
Principi, then the head of the VA. I said, you ought to send this
article out to every single employee of the VA because without
sufficient money--and they have not had sufficient money--they have
done an extraordinary job.
But the question is, When someone becomes a veteran, having come off
active duty with a war wound, what happens? Is there full funding in
that case for the kind of health care they need? The answer is no.
My colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Murray,
understands that. She has led the fight on this issue for a long while,
to say: Can't we have full funding for health care for veterans?
You can go any place in this country these days and talk about
America's service men and women, and people respond to it. They care
about the people who wear this country's uniform, and they want to
support them. But that support does not just occur with respect to when
they are in a hospital such as Walter Reed or Bethesda. That support
must occur with respect to VA hospitals and community-based veterans
clinics.
As you know, the President's budget does not provide funding for the
clinics that were promised, the clinics that would allow a veteran who
has health care issues to show up at a local storefront VA clinic
instead of having to drive, particularly in rural States, hundreds and
hundreds and hundreds of miles. Well, that is not funded by the
President's budget. Even though they had decided they were going to do
that, the President says, no, we do not have the money.
My colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Murray, asks the
question: What is more important in this country? I am not asking you
for 10 things, but just give us a couple. What is more important than
keeping our promise of health care to veterans? Just give me a couple
of things that are more important. These are the people to whom we
offered a promise, who answered the call: Uncle Sam wants you. Wear the
uniform of this country. Put yourself in harm's way, perhaps lose an
arm, perhaps lose a leg, maybe lose your life.
What is more important than saying to those people who answered that
call that when you need medical help in our veterans medical system, we
will have adequate funding to make sure you get that help?
I recall one day a father calling me and saying: I have a son who
fought in the Vietnam war, and he suffered a head wound, a bullet to
the brain. It was a very serious head wound that left him in
devastating condition, and because of that brain wound and his
incapacity, he was suffering muscle atrophy, and at some point he had
to have a toe removed. They said, well, to have that toe removed, you
have to take this young veteran to Fargo, ND, which was about 250 miles
away--500 miles round trip.
So for this young man, who suffered a wound to the head in a war and
was incapacitated as a result of it, put him in a car and drive him 500
miles round trip to have a toe removed. I said: Isn't there some common
sense here? Couldn't this be done somewhere closer? We finally resolved
that.
But the fact is, the money that was left out of the President's
budget for the storefront community clinics for veterans, that is
exactly the kind of thing they can do in many cases. Yet somehow this
is not an urgent priority, with all of the young veterans coming back
with wounds from this war, the Iraqi war, and with all of the World War
II veterans now reaching that age where they need maximum care, the
maximum claim on health care they were promised.
If ever we need to decide as a priority in this Congress that we need
to keep our promise to veterans, it is now. That is all the Senator
from the State of Washington is saying: Let's keep this promise. There
seems to be money for a lot of other priorities around here that rank
far lower than health care for America's veterans.
All of us have stories about these veterans, about those we have
visited who were involved in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and now the
gulf war. Those stories, individually and collectively, talk about
heroism and commitment and service, duty, honor, country. Duty and
honor, it seems to me, for us is to make the right choice.
It is always about choices in Congress. Who among us will decide
today that it is the wrong choice to fully fund veterans health care in
this country? Who among us will decide that is the wrong choice? For
me, it is the right choice to decide veterans deserve to know we keep
our promise. That is the import of the amendment from Senator Murray. I
am proud to stand here and speak for it and support it and vote for it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Murray
amendment. This is an emergency supplemental bill. We are considering
funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I voted against this
war. I didn't think we were prepared. I didn't think we had a coalition
to stand behind us that would send in the soldiers and bring the
resources to the battle. Our military went into this war and performed
admirably. We were well prepared for the military invasion. Clearly we
were not prepared for what happened afterward.
For 2 years now we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. For 2 years we
have seen the casualties come home and we have seen the body bags and
caskets come home as well. We have lost over 16,000 of our best and
bravest in Iraq to this day. Among our allies, thank goodness there
have been fewer losses. But in comparison it shows we are carrying the
burden of battle. Our sons and daughters are carrying the burden of
battle. The taxpayers, with this bill, will put the resources into
material and equipment so these soldiers can do their job and come home
safely.
How many of us have stood up on the floor of the Senate on both sides
of the
[[Page 6064]]
aisle praising these men and women in uniform, saying we have to stand
behind them, keep them in your thoughts and prayers, don't be ashamed
to wave that flag? We are all proud Americans.
Senator Murray comes to us today and asks whether our pride in our
fighting men and women is enough for us to declare it an emergency to
make sure our veterans hospitals and clinics are up to the task of
serving these men and women. For us to give all the great speeches
about how much we admire the soldiers and then, when they are hurt and
come home, to throw them into a VA system unprepared to take care of
them is a mockery. If we truly believe in the goodness of the men and
women who risk their lives for America, why wouldn't we vote for the
Murray amendment to put the money in the veterans hospitals so the very
best doctors and nurses and equipment is there for our sons, our
daughters, the husband, and wives of people we love.
Let me tell you about one element of this which I am particularly
proud that Senator Murray has added at my request. It is estimated that
at least one out of every five soldiers who serves will come home and
face a condition known as posttraumatic stress disorder. What is it? If
you saw the movie ``Patton,'' you can recall that scene where George C.
Scott, playing Patton, went in the military hospital, saw a soldier on
a cot and asked: Where were you hit, soldier? The soldier responded: I
wasn't hit. I just can't do it anymore. And Patton reached down and
slapped him. He slapped that soldier and that slap reverberated across
America, a scandalous headline that this general would slap a soldier
because he couldn't face battle.
In all honesty, it is that attitude and denial which have led the
United States to ignore this very real problem. It wasn't until 1980,
25 years ago, that the Veterans' Administration acknowledged the fact
that when you take men and women in America, train them to be soldiers
and sailors, marines and airmen, serve in the Coast Guard, put them
into battle, they can have life experiences and witness events which
will have a dramatic impact on them personally. They may need help and
counseling to come home and set their lives on the right path. The
first time we acknowledged posttraumatic stress disorder was 1980. They
used to call it shell shock and battle fatigue. But it was never
acknowledged as a medical problem that needed attention until 1980.
A few weeks ago I went across my State of Illinois. I went to five
different locations for roundtables. I invited medical counselors from
the Veterans' Administration to tell me about the soldiers who were
trying to come to grips with this torment in their minds over what they
had done and what they had seen. I was nothing short of amazed at what
happened. In every single stop, these men and women came forward and
sat at tables before groups in their communities, before the media, and
told their sad stories of being trained to serve this country, being
proud to serve, and going into battle situations which caused an impact
on their mind they never could have imagined, and coming home with
their minds in this turmoil over what they had done and seen, and many
times having to wait months and, in one case, a year before they could
see a doctor at a VA hospital.
I couldn't believe the stories of World War II veterans. A veteran in
southern Illinois who was in the Philippines couldn't come to my
meeting because ``I just can't face talking about it,'' 60 years after
his experience. Veterans from Korea where my two brothers served,
veterans from Vietnam who came home rejected by many, who couldn't
resolve their difficulties because they were afraid to even acknowledge
they were veterans, tormented by this for decades.
The ones that gripped my heart the most were the Iraqi veterans. I
will never forget these men and women. The one I sat next to at
Collinsville, a bright, handsome, good looking young marine, talked
about going into Fallujah with his unit and how his point man was
riddled with bullets, and he had to carry the parts of his body out of
that street into some side corner where he could be evacuated, at least
the remains could be evacuated. Then he served as point man and went
forward. A rocket-propelled grenade was shot at him, and it bounced off
his helmet. One of the insurgents came up and shot him twice in the
chest. This happened in November. He was there. He survived.
When he came home, he couldn't understand who he was because of what
he had seen and been involved in. He had problems with his wife,
difficult, violent problems, and he turned to the VA for help.
I said to this young marine: I am almost afraid to ask you this, but
how old are you?
He said: I am 19.
Think of what he has been through. Thank goodness he is in the hands
of counselors. Thank goodness he is getting some help, moving in the
right direction.
But in another meeting in southern Illinois, another soldier said, in
front of the group: As part of this battle, I killed children, women. I
killed old people. I am trying to come to grips with this in my mind as
I try to come back into civilian life.
A young woman, an activated guardswoman from Illinois, said when she
came out, still in distress over what she had seen and done, they
stopped her at Camp McCoy in Wisconsin and sat her down and asked: Any
problems? Of course, that should have been the time for her to come
forward and say: I have serious problems. She didn't. Because if you
said you had a problem, you had to stay at Camp McCoy for 3 more
months. She was so desperate to get home she said: No problems.
She came home and finally realized that was not true. She had serious
psychological problems over what she had been through. When she turned
to the VA and asked for help, they said: You can come in and see a
counselor at the VA in 1 year.
What happens to these veterans, victims of posttraumatic stress
disorder, without counseling at an early stage? Sadly, many of them see
their marriages destroyed. One I met was on his fourth marriage. Many
of them self-medicate with alcohol, sometimes with drugs, desperate to
find some relief from the nightmares they face every night. These are
the real stories of real people, our sons and daughters, our brothers
and sisters, our husbands and wives who go to battle to defend this
country and come home with the promise that we will stand behind them.
If we stand behind them, we need to stand by the Murray amendment--$2
billion to make sure these hospitals and clinics have the very best
people to treat our soldiers coming home; money as well to make certain
that there is family therapy, something that is often overlooked. How
many times do you hear the story of the wife who says: Who is this man
who came back from battle? He is not the soldier I sent away. He is so
distant. He doesn't talk to me. He gets angry in a hurry. He wants to
be away from us. That is not the man I sent to battle. The spouses and
their children need help, too.
I implore my colleagues. I know it is considered unusual to come in
on a President's request and add money for the Veterans'
Administration. But we are not doing our duty as Senators to only
provide the money for the troops for the battle. We have to do more. We
must do that. But we need to provide the physical and mental medical
help these same soldiers need when they come home.
I thank Senator Murray for her leadership on this amendment. I wish
it were a bipartisan amendment. There is certainly bipartisan support
for our troops. But maybe when the vote comes, we will find if the same
Senators who have said such glowing things about the men and women in
uniform will stand by them when they come home and need a helping hand.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for
his heartfelt statement. I know he has worked in his State, talking to
young men and women who are coming home.
[[Page 6065]]
He has looked them in the eyes as I have. I was with him in Kuwait and
Iraq a few weeks ago talking to soldiers who are coming home.
The No. 1 question was: We are hearing that services are not going to
be available for us when we get home. We are hearing that the veterans
from Vietnam and World War II are waiting in line. We have been over
here for a year.
They fear this country has forgotten them despite all the rhetoric on
this floor. The Senator from Illinois is right. This is not a
Republican issue. It is not a Democratic issue. This is an American
issue. This is about our American men and women serving us honorably
and who deserve to have the services when they come home.
The Senator from Illinois is right. To look into the eyes of a young
family where one of them is suffering from posttraumatic stress
syndrome affecting their marriage, job, their entire community, and
what are we saying? Wait in lines. You don't get in to be served? That
is not an emergency?
What we have now in front of us is a point of order saying this is
not an emergency. If it is not an emergency to take care of our men and
women who are now serving us overseas, who have come home, then I don't
know what is. When I am going out and talking to service organizations
and every single VISN in this country is telling us they are working
under debts, they are not hiring doctors and nurses to replace those
who are leaving, they have beds that are being held together by duct
tape--if that is not an emergency, then I can't think of one that is.
We have talked to veterans in every single VISN. Every single one of
them has given us dramatic stories of the wait lines, of clinics that
have been promised and not opened, of service men and women from
previous wars who are not getting served. This is not an emergency? I
disagree.
I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Schumer, Johnson, Corzine,
Lincoln, Landrieu, and Dorgan as cosponsors of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent to print two letters of support
in the Record. They are from the national veterans service
organizations: The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
Amvets, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Disabled American Veterans.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The American Legion,
Washington, DC, April 11, 2005.
Hon. Patty Murray,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murray: Thank you for offering an amendment to
the H.R. 1268, FY 2005 emergency supplemental appropriations,
to add $2 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
medical care. VA medical care is truly the ongoing cost of
war. You have The American Legion's full support.
VA is not meeting the health care needs of America's
veterans. Currently, certain veterans are actually denied
access to the VA health care system even though they are
willing to make co-payments and have third-party health care
insurance, while other face lengthy delays in accessing care.
Although providing quality health care, VA cannot meet its
own timely access standards simply because it lacks the
health care professionals to meet the demand for services.
In 2003, the President's Task Force to Improve Health Care
Delivery For Our Nation's Veterans cited ``eliminating the
mismatch between demand and funding'' as a major obstacle.
Last year, VA officials claimed to need between 10 and 14
percent annual increases just to maintain current services
because of Federal payraises and medical inflation. VA health
care is still the best value for the taxpayer's dollar.
As former active-duty service members, especially National
Guard and Reservists, transition to their civilian
lifestyles, many new veterans will turn to VA to address
their health care concerns, especially those with mental
health problems associated with combat. VA is a world leader
in effective treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) and other readjustments problems. VA must be funded to
make sure this newest generation of wartime veterans are
properly cared for in a timely manner and not displace other
veterans seeking care due simply to limited resources.
Once again, thank you for offering an amendment to add $2
billion for VA medical care. Timely access to VA medical care
is an earned benefit from a grateful nation.
Sincerely,
Steve Robertson,
Director,
National Legislative Commission.
____
The Independent Budget,
Washington, DC, April 6, 2005.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the co-authors of The
Independent Budget, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans,
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign
Wars, we are writing to express our support for the proposed
Murray-Akaka amendment to the FY 2005 Emergency Supplemental
that would provide $1.9 billion in much needed funding for
veterans' health care.
Providing health care to returning service-
members is an ongoing cost of our national defense.
Servicemembers who participate in a theater of combat are
eligible for health care from the Department of Veterans
Affairs for two years after separation or release from active
duty, without regard for strict eligibility rules. VA
hospitals are facing budget deficits and moving to reduce
services. Neither the Administration's FY 2006 budget request
nor the recently passed budget resolution, addressed the
costs of providing needed health care. The Independent Budget
has recommended an increase for VA health care of $3.5
billion for FY 2006. This amendment would provide the funding
needed to care for these returning veterans, as well as
provide the resources the VA needs to meet shortfalls that
are affecting veterans today.
We ask you to support this amendment and to provide the
dollars needed to care for servicemembers returning from Iraq
and Afghanistan, as well as all veterans who rely upon the VA
to provide their health care.
Sincerely,
Rick Jones,
National Legislative Director, AMVETS.
Richard B. Fuller,
National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of
America.
Joseph A. Violante,
National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans.
Dennis Cullinan,
National Legislative Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars of
the United States.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the VA is not prepared to deal with the
soldiers who are coming home. So far 240,000 soldiers have come out of
our service and are now available or have available to them veterans
services; 50,000 already have asked the VA for care. This is an
emergency.
As I talked about this morning, in State after State, in Alaska,
where priority 7 veterans who are not enrolled in VA primary care are
not getting appointments to date; in Colorado, where they have a $7.25
million shortage this year; in California where the VA hospital in Los
Angeles has closed its psychiatric ward at the exact time we have
generals telling us that at least 30 percent of our soldiers who are
coming home from Iraq will need mental health care capacity and we have
psychiatric emergency rooms being closed; in Florida, where there is
$150 million deficit; in Idaho, where we have the Boise Idaho VA
facility with a hiring freeze; in Kentucky, where we are having
soldiers lie on broken tables because there is simply no money to
replace any equipment there. In Maine, we have a $12 million deficit;
in Minneapolis, $7 million shortfall--I remind the Senate, there are
four facilities that see the most difficult, complex injuries once they
have been discharged. Minnesota is one of them, and they have a $7
million shortfall.
The list goes on and on. This is an emergency. I cannot think of a
more important issue facing our country today. I can't go home and look
at my veterans in north central Washington who have to drive over a
mountain pass 150 miles to get care today, who have been promised the
health care clinic, and say: Sorry, my colleagues don't see this as an
emergency.
Any one of us who has taken the time to sit down with our soldiers
when they are discharged from the service and out in their
communities--they tell us the stories such as the Senator from Illinois
talked about, about the help they need getting through the nightmares,
the posttraumatic stress syndrome, getting help with serious injuries
where they have lost arms and legs.
We should not say on this Senate floor this is not an emergency. I am
appalled that that is what the argument
[[Page 6066]]
has come down to. I believe this vote is about whether we stand with
our men and women. It is about whether you are going to vote with our
veterans. I am stunned that there are those who say this one issue is
not something that is an emergency.
Any one of us who has been out there working with our veterans--I
come to this floor as a daughter of a disabled veteran. I lived with my
father who was in a wheelchair most of his lifetime. I worked at a VA
hospital long before I even thought about being in the Senate. I worked
at the Seattle VA hospital during the Vietnam war. Any one of us who
has taken the time to talk to people who served in wars and have come
home know that if we don't have the care for them, we are doing a
disservice not only to the men and women who serve today, but to the
men and women whom we are going to ask to serve us in the wars to come.
This is an emergency. I don't care if the administration is saying
the VA hospitals have the money they need. When we talk to them, they
are all telling us they have a budget deficit, a hiring freeze; they
are not replacing the doctors and nurses who are leaving, and they have
equipment that is old, decrepit, falling apart, and dangerous. That is
an emergency. It is one we have to deal with.
Mr. President, I see my colleague from Minnesota on the floor. I
yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington for
her leadership on this very important amendment. I share her dismay and
astonishment that the other side doesn't recognize this is an
emergency. It is an emergency in Minnesota and to the Minneapolis
veterans hospital, which has been designated as one of the primary
recipients of those returning home injured in the war in Iraq, and
which does not have the money even to meet the needs of veterans
already in Minnesota, much less the additional demand.
It seems to me incredible that anybody can say they support our
troops, as we all do, but then when they come home injured, wounded,
even maimed, we are not going to provide them with the resources
necessary and everything they need to resume healthy and normal lives.
This is a fundamental question of priorities for this body and for
the administration. If we don't believe that sending soldiers to Iraq
constitutes an emergency, if we don't believe that supplying them and
equipping them, as we will vote to do--as I have supported every time
and will again here--constitutes an emergency outside of the normal
budget processes, but this instance now where we talk about providing
health care to those most in need, in the most emergency-type
situations of their lives imaginable, that this is not an emergency
expenditure that should be approved unanimously by this body, then I
frankly don't see how we can say with any integrity that we support our
troops.
We support our troops in Iraq and now we need to support them when
they return home. This amendment of the Senator from Washington will
accomplish that. I would be astonished if anyone in this body would
oppose it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time do we have on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 16 seconds.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I note that there is nobody from the
other side on the floor. I am frankly not surprised, because I don't
see how anyone can argue against making sure that our service men and
women get the health care they need, whether it is for a mental or a
physical need. We sent them to war. We should be there for them when
they come home. Regarding this amendment, I have been trying to do this
since the beginning of the year and I have been told this is not the
time or the place.
I let my colleagues know this is our last chance this year to make
sure our veterans have the care they need. There is no other
opportunity. We are going to get to the budget at some point and to the
appropriations cycle, and we are going to get to the point where we
have an appropriations bill on the floor, and the budget already says
there is no more money. We hear the administration say--when we talk
about the VISNs, everyone tells us they don't have the resources. If
you look at it, you will see these men and women don't have the care
they need.
Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.
Mr. DAYTON. The Senator knows this is an emergency supplemental, so
it is not subject to the normal budget process. In my 4-plus years
here, I have not witnessed another occasion where a budget point of
order has been raised against any part of the emergency supplemental
appropriations. Is the Senator aware of this happening before, or are
veterans being singled out in this instance?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have to agree with my colleague from
Minnesota. I have not seen that done before. What we are going to vote
on is whether our veterans are an emergency so they can be included in
the supplemental.
Mr. DAYTON. We are talking about an $82 billion supplemental here
that the Senator has amended, which fits within the President's
request--or most of it does. It is a small part of this, and it is the
least we should be doing on behalf of veterans.
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct. Actually, the President sent us
an $82 billion supplemental. The Senate is considering $80.1 billion.
We have the means to still be less than what the President has sent us
by adding this amendment. I sincerely cannot think of any other issue
more important than to make sure that those men and women who served
us, when they come home, have the services they need.
Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.
Ms. STABENOW. I first thank the Senator from Washington State. She is
exactly on the mark. I have joined with her on a number of occasions
and appreciate her leadership on this issue of veterans health care.
Would she not agree that veterans should not have to go through the
process every year, fighting every year to try to get what they need
and, at the same time, knowing that they give us everything they are
asked to do in terms of putting their lives on the line, keeping us
safe? Our men and women in Iraq right now are doing that and we have
made a promise to them. Would she not agree that as a country, every
year it seems as though we are back here trying to keep the promise.
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Michigan is correct. Frankly, I have
joined her in trying to make veteran services mandatory so we are not
here. It is disturbing to me that we are desperately pleading to our
colleagues to call this an emergency. What are we doing to our soldiers
when we tell them we are in a desperate fight on the floor of the
Senate that we are going to lose on a partisan vote over our veterans?
That is the wrong message to send to the men and women in the services.
It should be part of our budget, part of the appropriations every year,
that if you serve your country, you get your care. We don't have that
now, so we are here in our last-ditch effort, last attempt, last
ability to try to provide these services for the men and women in the
services.
I find that appalling, but I will fight hard because I believe more
than anything that we should be making sure if a young man or woman
comes home from Iraq or Afghanistan, they are not turned away at their
VA hospital. We need to make sure that anybody who serves in any war--
Vietnam, Korea, or anywhere--is not turned away at a VA hospital. They
should not be put in a bed held together by duct tape. That is wrong.
That is why we are here arguing now that this is an emergency, because
we have not dealt with it in the past. We now have to deal with it, and
I urge my colleagues to join with us on the last chance we have this
year to keep our word to the men and women who have served this country
honorably.
[[Page 6067]]
Ms. STABENOW. Will my colleague yield?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 15 seconds.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield for a question.
Ms. STABENOW. I wanted to share with my colleague--and then ask a
question--the fact that this is an emergency in Michigan. We have a big
State, 10 million people, a very large State geographically, where
folks often have to drive a long way in order to get to VA assistance.
They are now in a situation of having to wait up to 6 months oftentimes
to see a doctor and to get the services they need.
I ask my colleague if she is hearing those similar stories around the
country--that we wait 6 months, we drive hours and hours to get to a
facility right now? Without the additional dollars, that is only going
to continue and get worse. I wonder if that is what she is hearing as
well.
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is exactly right. We are hearing that from
every region, including yours. That is why this amendment is before us.
I have little time left. I see some colleagues on the other side are
on the floor. They are going to make their arguments. Again, this is an
emergency; this is part of the supplemental. We should not tell our
soldiers that they are not an emergency when they come home.
I yield to my colleagues on the other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as she may consume to
the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to answer some of the concerns
raised by the Senator from the State of Washington.
First, there is not a Senator in the entire Senate who doesn't want
to make sure that the veterans are taken care of, whether they served
in World War I, II, Korea, or any other war. I have to say I am
mentioning World War I because I was at a veterans event about 6 months
ago, and I asked people to stand by the wars in which they served and I
didn't mention World War I. This very irate veteran in a wheelchair in
front of me suggested that I left out World War I. So I want to say
that I am most appreciative of the veterans who are here having served
in World War I and every other war.
We want to take care of our veterans. We want to make sure that we
have the money to do it. We do not have a supplemental request from the
administration for the Veterans' Administration. This doesn't mean that
some veterans hospitals out in our country are not saying they would
like to have more money; it doesn't mean that a clinic hasn't been
built yet that is on the drawing boards to be built. Most certainly, we
have areas that we need to address in veterans care, and I want to make
sure we have the money to do it.
But I have to say that the Veterans' Administration is telling us
they have the money they need to fulfill this year's budget and,
specifically, to fulfill their needs.
We asked the Secretary of Veterans Affairs if he needed more money in
the 2005 year--the year we are in budgetwise--for returning veterans
from the Iraqi war and from the Afghanistan area. The answer was: No,
we have everything we need to cover those veterans. We asked him if he
needed more money than was in the current Presidential budget for 2006,
which we will be considering in my subcommittee for those same
returning veterans. The answer was: No, we have enough in that budget.
Now, I have to say that, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee in Appropriations, I am going to look at that and I am
going to try to determine for myself if there is enough for 2006. But I
have to say in this budget year, 2005, which has about 6 more months to
run, the Veterans Affairs Department says they have enough to cover
Iraq and Afghanistan.
This does not mean everything is going exactly the way I would want
it in the Veterans' Administration. There is a hospital in Dallas that
is particularly being noted by the GAO investigators as not performing
up to the standards we would expect, and I am asking our Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to address that particular hospital. I am sure there
are other specific instances.
It is not that we do not have the money put in there. It is that we
have had a management problem there, and we are seeking to address that
situation immediately.
I asked the Secretary to put in writing what the situation is, and I
ask unanimous consent that the April 5, 2005, letter be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Secretary
of Veterans Affairs,
Washington, DC, April 5, 2005.
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Chairman: Before I begin the main purpose of
this letter, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for
the consideration and interest you have shown VA through your
leadership in this year's appropriation hearing and many
other endeavors on behalf of our veterans. I very much
appreciate your proactive involvement and commitment to
providing for those who have served this country with such
dedication.
I write to you today to address certain issues regarding
VA's FY 2005 fiscal situation. I know some have said that VA
must have emergency supplemental funds to continue providing
the services for which veterans depend on us--timely health
care and delivery of benefits. Whenever trends indicate the
need for refocusing priorities, VA's leaders ensure prudent
use of reserve funding for these purposes. That is just
simply part of good management. It does not, however,
indicate a ``dire emergency''. I can assure you that VA does
not need emergency supplemental funds in FY 2005 to continue
to provide the timely, quality service that is always our
goal. We will, as always, continue to monitor workload and
resources to be sure we have a sustainable balance. But
certainly for the remainder of this year, I do not foresee
any challenges that are not solvable within our own
management decision capability.
I look forward to continuing to work with you as we strive
to provide the very best service possible for those veterans
who depend on us the most. Thank you again for your
leadership in this important area.
Sincerely yours,
R. James Nicholson.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Now, that is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs who
says there is reserve funding available if an emergency arises, and the
Veterans Affairs Department does not need extra funding.
One thing has to be determined, and that is the difference between
people who are returning who are on active duty, who are at our
military hospitals, who are being treated in the Department of Defense
because they are active duty. The Veterans Affairs Department is where
the people who are going out of our military service go for their
health care. There are fewer coming home in the Veterans Affairs'
influence where they would be giving the service, as opposed to active
duty where they are going to Bethesda, Walter Reed, and other hospitals
that are treating our Active-Duty military.
So I think we have to look at where the Veterans Affairs part of this
budget is, and do they need more. In fact, of the 240,000 who have gone
out of our service in the last 3 years, only 48,000 have even come in
to the Veterans Affairs service capability. Some already have
insurance. Some might come later but that is something that we can
monitor. Right now, we are told we have the reserve funding to be able
to handle anyone who is going out of Active-Duty service, out of
Active-Duty military health care and into the Veterans' Administration,
and that we have the money to cover it.
So I do not want to take the $2 billion that is in this amendment out
of other areas such as our armed services, our Active-Duty military who
are on the ground, the equipment we are giving them in this
supplemental. That is why I must oppose Senator Murray's amendment,
although I do agree with her overall goal and will continue to work
with her as chairman of the subcommittee to monitor the situation.
[[Page 6068]]
Let us get our numbers right. Let us act when it is on the budget with
the hearings and the anticipation of the needs, rather than adding $2
billion to the emergency appropriations that is before us today and
taking it from something else, such as Active-Duty military equipment
and preventive measures that we must cover for those who are on the
ground today.
With all of this said, we will reach our goal of assuring the very
best military veterans' care not by adding $2 billion to the funding
for the next 6 months but, instead, planning for it since we are told
by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs we have the money we need for this
year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Who yields time? The Senator
from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia was not
able to be on the Senate floor when this was initially discussed, and
in deference to his right to speak on this amendment, I yield 10
minutes from our side to the Senator from West Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran of Mississippi, for his
generosity and for his very gracious and courteous action in this
regard. I thank him for the time. I will not use the entire 10 minutes.
I take it I may yield some of that time, if I wish, to other Senators.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have strained America. The cost of
these wars has strained the Federal budget. The deployments of the
National Guard and the Reserves have strained American families. The
toll of the wars on our troops and their equipment has strained the
readiness of our Armed Forces. But there is no one who bears more of
the strains of these wars than the veterans who have served our country
in combat.
According to the Department of Defense, nearly 12,000 troops have
been wounded in Iraq and another 442 have been wounded in Afghanistan.
These troops have received the finest medical care our military can
offer, but untold numbers of service men and women will require long-
term care from the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, the VA is
also feeling the strains of war. VA hospitals are seeing more and more
veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time the
aging veterans from World War II, Korea, and Vietnam are most in need
of the VA's health care services, to which they are entitled. However,
the administration has not met this growing demand for VA health care
services with budget increases.
Fortunately, Congress has stepped in and added billions in needed
funds in recent years. Last year, Congress added $1.2 billion to the
President's request for veterans health care. Two years ago, Congress
added $1.57 billion to the President's budget for VA health care. But
the shortfalls in the veterans budget continue. The Disabled American
Veterans, in its independent budget for fiscal year 2006, estimated
that the White House budget for VA health care is $3.4 billion less
than what is required to care for all veterans who are entitled to
care. Clearly, more needs to be done to care for veterans.
The Murray-Akaka-Byrd, and others, amendment would increase veterans
health care by $1.98 billion. These funds are targeted to provide care
for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to increase mental
health services and to support local VA hospitals and clinics. This is
a commonsense amendment to support the men and the women who have borne
the wounds of battle. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair and again thank my chairman, Mr. Cochran.
May I yield the remaining time to Senator Murray and Senator Akaka?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield some of that time to the Senator
from Hawaii, as much time as he will choose to use.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee,
Senator Cochran, and also Senator Byrd and Senator Murray for the time.
Mr. President, the amendment before us addresses the costs of
providing health care to troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
My colleagues in the Senate have already recognized the need to
provide funds that would allow VA to absorb an influx of new patients
from Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. We recognized that need in
2003, when Congress added $175 million for VA to the Supplemental
Appropriations bill. I again point out that this amount was provided
only one month after the war in Iraq began and before we knew about the
level of troop commitment.
Does this body believe that things are better in VA today or that
massive amounts of troops will not actually come for care? I don't
think so.
Our amendment allows VA to provide care for returning troops--without
displacing those veterans currently using the system.
The amount of this amendment--$1.9 billion--is drawn from what we
know about past use of the VA health care system coupled with what we
know to be the costs associated with preparing VA for veterans from the
global war on terror.
Earlier we shared data and stories from VA hospitals and clinics
across the country. My colleagues on the other side refute the fact
that facilities are in crisis situation. I urge my colleagues to talk
to VA personnel in their home States.
Perhaps the administration is reluctant to share details of budget
shortfalls. Or perhaps network directors have not been allowed to
request additional money. But these deficits are real, and they are
deficits which will hurt veterans. In my mind that is an emergency.
To reiterate: we know of shortfalls in each and every State. The
worst deficits are occurring in Florida, South Dakota, New Hampshire,
Washington State, Iowa, and Ohio. These are not fiction.
I urge my colleagues to do what is right for VA hospitals and the
veterans served by them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time is left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. How much time is left on the other side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 14\1/2\ minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I do not see anybody on the other side
who is going to speak. Let me just reiterate for everyone here. What we
are talking about is an amendment for veterans, to make sure they have
the health care and support they need when they come home from the war
in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.
What we have been very clear about is in every region across this
country there is a debt and a shortfall. We have facilities that are
decaying, and no money is being put in to fix them. We have long
waiting lines. We have veterans in rural areas who are being told they
cannot have health clinics. We are being told that veterans, the men
and women who served us, have to travel over mountain passes and travel
long distances to get the care they need. Most of it is inaccessible.
We are telling veterans who live in urban areas that the long lines
in which they are waiting have to be there. We are telling suburban
parents if they send their young son or daughter off to war, we are not
going to be there for them when they come home.
I believe this is a emergency. I have outlined it this morning. I
have outlined it again this afternoon. I heard from our colleagues on
the other side that the Veterans Affairs Secretary, Secretary
Nicholson, is saying he has the money he needs. He was on the job for 2
weeks when he said that. I invite the Secretary and any one of us to go
out on the ground, go out to Michigan
[[Page 6069]]
and Minnesota, go to Kentucky, go to Illinois, go to California, go to
Texas, go to Idaho, go to any veterans facility and look and tell me
there is not an emergency. Look in the eye of any VA doctor or nurse
and tell them there is not an emergency. But more importantly, look in
the eyes of the young men and women who served us.
I was in Iraq and Kuwait several weeks ago. I had to look in the eyes
of 150 Guard and Reserve members who had just finished in Iraq for a
year. Their No. 1 concern is they are hearing the facilities will not
be available for them when they get home. Their No. 1 concern? Stress.
A year on the ground in Iraq. They had heard from soldiers who had
already gone home about the troubles they had with migraines, post-
traumatic stress syndrome, reintegrating in the community. They want to
come home, and we know the support is not there, and we tell them that
is not an emergency.
I find it outrageous that this body can send to war our sons and
daughters, husbands and wives, and say we will not be there for you
when you come home; that we will tell them you will have to wait, your
budgets are not a priority, your issues are not a concern to this body.
I cannot think of a more important issue, I cannot think of a more
important emergency, and I cannot think of anywhere else we are going
to be able to deal with this this year.
If we do not provide the funds on the emergency supplemental before
us, we will be here a year from now with story after story of young men
and women who served us and then came home and were told no. That is an
emergency.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we had a full debate of this issue. This
is not the first time this issue has been presented to the Senate. As a
matter of fact, before this fiscal year began, 2005, there was a
question about how much money would be needed by the Veterans'
Administration to provide health care benefits and other services to
veterans.
The President had submitted a budget request for this year, but after
hearings in our Appropriations Committee, the subcommittee recommended
an increase over and above what the President had requested.
As we all know, there is a considerable time gap after the
President's completion of his budget submission. The hearing process
takes place in Congress, a budget resolution is developed, and then the
Appropriations Committee conducts hearings and reviews what the facts
are and if there have been any changes in the situation that can be
reflected in the recommendations made in the Appropriations Committee.
Last year, the Appropriations subcommittee recommended to the full
committee an increase in funding over and above the request of the
President by $1.2 billion--a substantial increase. That was approved.
In this fiscal year's budget which we are now talking about, the
President has already received $1.2 billion that he did not request. As
we moved into the year, there have been suggestions that additional
funds might be needed. We are already, though, preparing for the next
fiscal year, 2006. The other day when we had a budget resolution before
the Senate, this was again presented as an issue to the Senate.
Senators offered an amendment and debated it, and we had a vote on that
resolution. By a vote of 53 to 47, an amendment by the Senator from
Hawaii to add about $3 billion to the budget resolution was defeated by
the Senate. It was well debated. It was considered carefully. And here
we are again.
We have an emergency supplemental now on the floor of the Senate
dealing with funds needed to successfully complete, we hope, operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan at the soonest possible date so we can have a
more stable and peaceful situation, not only in that part of the world
but in the war against terror generally, to protect the security of
American citizens.
This supplemental is directed, in large part, to that concern and to
those needs--the needs of the Department of Defense and the Department
of State for depleted accounts in programs under the jurisdiction of
that department.
There are some other accounts that are funded in this urgent
supplemental, but there are no funds requested by the administration
for the Veterans' Administration programs.
The other day there was a hearing on this subject. The Secretary, as
the distinguished Senator from Texas pointed out, was questioned about
the need for additional funds by the Veterans' Administration. The
answer was unequivocal. It was clear. It was precise. Then, to clarify
that, the Senator from Washington said that was weeks ago, that was
early, and all the needs weren't known then. Here is the letter, dated
April 5, 2005. This is what the Secretary of the Veterans'
Administration said in response to the suggestions being made by the
proponent of this amendment:
I can assure you that VA does not need emergency
supplemental funds in FY 2005 to continue to provide the
timely quality service that is always our goal. We will, as
always continue to monitor workload and resources to be sure
we have a sustainable balance, but certainly for the
remainder of this year I do not foresee any challenges that
are not solvable within our own management decision
capability.
That is about as clear and persuasive a statement about the need for
the funds at this time, for the remainder of this fiscal year, as you
could possibly ask for by the person who has the responsibility for
carrying out these programs and administering these programs for the
benefit of our Nation's veterans.
There is another point I am going to make before my time expires.
The Secretary testified not only were the funds sufficient for fiscal
year 2005 but that the financial plan is manageable. He said the
Department is not in a crisis requiring emergency appropriations.
Then, on the point of the number of servicemen coming back to the
States from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the highest projection
that has been made, if one looks at the numbers of persons entering the
VA system in any given 1 year, the highest projection might be 48,000.
To put that in perspective with respect to the entire system and the
entire workload of the Veterans' Administration, returning service
members from the Iraqi war entering the VA system will be less than 1
percent of the total VA population.
The Senator from Texas made a point that was very persuasive. I think
it should be repeated; that is, most veterans who are coming back to
the States at this point and need medical care are still in the
Department of Defense. They are at Walter Reed. They are at other
hospitals that are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense.
They are not going to the veterans hospitals. People who are coming
back from Iraq are a small percentage of the population, and they are
not as likely as older veterans to need services from the Veterans'
Administration. The older veterans in the system are a much larger
group and require more appointments, medical care, and assistance
medications than the younger population coming into the system now.
For these reasons, I urge the Senate to reject the request of the
Senators to open this emergency supplemental bill and add the
additional $1.9 billion that has been requested.
I am prepared to yield the remainder of our time. I think we talked
about the vote being scheduled for 3:30. As I understand, there is
before the Chair a motion on the part of the Senator from Washington to
waive the Budget Act. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has moved to waive the point of
order that was raised against her amendment.
Mr. COCHRAN. I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have been ordered on that motion.
Mr. COCHRAN. I yield the floor and I yield our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I understand the other side yielded this
[[Page 6070]]
time. Let me simply respond by saying we are talking about a
supplemental bill that talks about the cost of the war. Part of the
cost of war is caring for the men and women when they return home. As
President Lincoln said:
We all have an obligation to care for him who shall have
borne the battle and for his widow and for his orphan.
That is what this vote is about, whether we carry forward our
obligations to care for those we sent to war.
I ask my colleagues to vote with us to override this motion that says
this is not an emergency so our veterans can receive the care they
deserve.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 89 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Wyden
NAYS--54
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). On this vote the yeas are 46,
the nays are 54. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained and the emergency designation is
removed.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I make the point of order that the
amendment violates section 302 of the Budget Act.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable sections
of the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what we voted on was whether to make the
VA funding emergency funding. This vote is to say that the veterans
funding is a priority for this Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 90 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Wyden
NAYS--54
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are
54. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I request 15 minutes to speak on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the fiscal year
2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. I commend Senator
Cochran, the manager of this bill and the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, for the way he has put together this bill.
His leadership was critical in ensuring that provisions in this bill
are truly emergencies and are vital to our troops in the field.
I also acknowledge the work done by Senator Stevens, the chairman of
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. Most of the funding in this
bill comes from his subcommittee, and I know he has worked hard to
ensure every penny will be wisely spent.
Both Senator Cochran and Senator Stevens have also gone out of their
way to assist me and Senator McConnell in tackling an important issue
related to our nation's chemical weapons stockpile. I will discuss this
issue in greater detail in a moment.
The bill before us includes critically-needed funding for our men and
women in uniform. It also ensures that the operations against the
global war on terror is not interrupted. It provides certain benefits
for our troops, including an increased death gratuity, life insurance
extensions, and hazardous pay. I strongly support these provisions and
believe they will greatly enhance the effectiveness of our military
forces.
The bill also includes several provisions related to the Department
of Defense chemical demilitarization program. These provisions seek to
force the Department of Defense to move forward with the design and
construction of two chemical weapons destruction facilities at Pueblo,
CO and Blue Grass, KY.
Since the program's inception, the Department of Defense management
has been dismal and ineffective. The program is behind schedule and
over-budget. In 1986, Congress was told that the program was going to
be completed before 2007 at a cost of approximately $2.1 billion. And
now, we are told the program could possibly cost as much as $37 billion
and be completed as late as 2030.
The Department of Defense has consistently failed to provide
sufficient funding for this program, forcing those who run it to make
programmatic decisions that pit demilitarization sites against each
other.
The Department of Defense has failed to provide adequate program
management. It has repeatedly stopped and restarted design work and
operations, adding huge start-up costs and considerable schedule
delays.
The department has failed effectively to communicate its intentions
and plans to the States in which permitting is necessary, nor to local
communities whose support is essential.
An example of these failures is the department's handling of the
destruction of the chemical weapons stockpile at the Pueblo Depot in
Colorado. In 2002, the department accelerated the destruction of the
weapons at Pueblo
[[Page 6071]]
with the goal of completing its work by the 2012 Chemical Weapons
Convention deadline.
However, in 2004, the department changed its mind. Without telling
Congress, the State of Colorado, or the people in Pueblo, the
department unilaterally decided to cease all design work and assign the
project in Pueblo to in care-taker status for the next 6 years.
After six months of no activity, the Department of Defense changed
its mind again. It ordered a study on whether the stockpile in Pueblo
should be relocated to an operational incineration site, even though
such an option is illegal under current law and has already been
studied at least three times in the past.
A month after that, the department changed its mind again by ordering
the start of preparatory construction and the redesign of the facility.
Today, the future of the project still remains uncertain and judging
by the department's past performance, it seems likely that the project
will be changed many more times.
I am frustrated, and the people of Colorado are frustrated. Try as we
might, we cannot seem to get straight answers from the department. One
day I was told by department officials that the stockpile would not be
relocated outside of Colorado. The very next day, the department
ordered the study of transportation options.
In an Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday, the only answer we
could get out of department officials was that they needed to conduct
more studies on the technology and more studies on transportation
options. From my perspective, we can study this issue into eternity and
never get anything done. It is time to move forward with destroying
these weapons. It is time to eliminate the danger these weapons pose to
the local communities. And, it is time for the department to recognize
the necessity of complying with our international obligations.
I am very troubled by the Department of Defense's apparent
willingness to violate the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty this
body ratified. I believe the United States has a moral obligation to
comply with it. Our Nation's reputation and moral standing are at
stake.
If we are not careful, we will find it impossible to hold others to
this treaty and to other treaties as well.
The department seems to be on a path towards blaming Congress for its
future non-compliance. Yesterday, a DoD official actually told the
Armed Services Committee that it would be the fault of Congress if the
department could not meet the treaty deadline. This official seems to
believe that relocating the stockpiles in Pueblo and Kentucky to
operational sites would solve the problem.
I strongly reject that line of thinking. Congress is not to blame for
the department's bungling of this program. The fact is that the
Congress has been more than willing to provide the funds and political
support to get this program done. Last year alone, the Congress added
$50 million for the project at Pueblo. I am certain that if the
Department of Defense requested additional funding for the overall
program, Congress would be more than willing to support its request.
The fact of the matter is that the department has been trying to
destroy these weapons since 1986, nearly 20 years, and has spent
billions upon billion of taxpayer's hard-earned dollars. And yet we
have destroyed less than 40 percent of our Nation's stockpile, which is
no where near the 100 percent requirement of the Chemical Weapons
Convention.
Let us also be clear that Congress has been very up front about the
transport of chemical munitions across State lines. The law that
prohibits this activity has been on the books since 1994. Nothing has
changed since then. In fact, such a proposal would be dead on arrival
if the department ever offered it in this Congress.
Let there be no mistake about it: I will fight this proposal.
The department should heed the words of Congress and get on with the
business of destroying these weapons. Conducting more studies is a
waste of time and money. We need to move forward, and we need to move
forward now.
I believe it is important at this point to mention I am not alone in
this fight. The senior Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell has been
pushing the department to destroy our chemical weapons stockpile for
nearly two decades. Over this time, he has led the fight in forcing the
department to work with State and local communities to get this program
off the ground.
There is no doubt in Senator McConnell's mind or in my mind that the
department has been inconsistent and unreliable regarding this program.
We both strongly believe that it is past time for Congress to
intervene.
That is why we worked with Senator Cochran and Senator Stevens to
include four provisions related to the Chemical Demilitarization
program in this bill. These provisions will require the department to
stop dragging its feet and move forward with the design and
construction of the chemical demilitarization facilities in Pueblo, CO,
and Blue Grass, KY.
Specifically, the provisions in this bill will require the Department
to do the following:
transfer within 30 days all previous funding appropriated for the
Pueblo and Blue Grass facilities to the program manager of the ACWA
program;
require the Program Manager to spend at least $100 million within 120
days;
prevent the department from using the funding appropriated for the
Pueblo and Blue Grass for any other purpose; and
prohibit the use of appropriated funding from any study pertaining to
the transportation of chemical weapons across state lines.
These provisions prevent the department from dragging its feet and
requiring more studies. The treaty deadline is fast approaching and
cannot be ignored. The department must move quickly if we are to comply
with the treaty, and I assure you today that we intend to hold them to
it.
I thank the chair for the opportunity to speak on the supplemental
appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and get
this funding to our troops as quickly as possible.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, there
are no other amendments that I know of that will be offered this
afternoon or this evening. There were two amendments that were offered
earlier in the day which we set aside to dispose of the amendment of
the Senator from Washington. These are offered by the Senator from
Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, amendments numbered 333 and 334. It will
be the intention of the manager of the bill to move to table these
amendments when we convene tomorrow. We will be pleased to continue to
set them aside and have them available for debate during the remainder
of today's session. So if Senators want to speak on these amendments,
this is the time to do it. Tomorrow when we convene and go to the bill,
it will be the intention to move to table these amendments if there is
no further debate.
In the meantime, we encourage Senators to let the managers know of
their amendments that need to be considered to the bill. We are
prepared to move forward. We remind Senators that this is an emergency
appropriations bill. These funds are needed so that the Departments of
Defense and State can proceed with other agencies that are funded in
this bill to carry out their responsibilities.
We know that after we complete action on the bill here in the Senate,
we will have to confer with the House to work out differences between
the House-passed and Senate-passed bills. That will require some time
as well.
This is a matter of some urgency. We encourage the Senate to continue
to consider the bill and act expeditiously on amendments that may be
offered so we can complete action on the bill and work with our
colleagues in the House to have a final bill presented to the President
as soon as possible. We appreciate very much having the cooperation of
all Senators in that regard.
[[Page 6072]]
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
business be set aside and I be allowed to file an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 356
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Ms.
Mikulski, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment
numbered 356.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To ensure that a Federal employee who takes leave without pay
in order to perform service as a member of the uniformed services or
member of the National Guard shall continue to receive pay in an amount
which, when taken together with the pay and allowances such individual
is receiving for such service, will be no less than the basic pay such
individual would then be receiving if no interruption in employment had
occurred)
On page 153, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
SEC. 1110. NONREDUCTION IN PAY WHILE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE IS
PERFORMING ACTIVE SERVICE IN THE UNIFORMED
SERVICES OR NATIONAL GUARD.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Reservists Pay Security Act of 2005''.
(b) In General.--Subchapter IV of chapter 55 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 5538. Nonreduction in pay while serving in the
uniformed services or National Guard
``(a) An employee who is absent from a position of
employment with the Federal Government in order to perform
active duty in the uniformed services pursuant to a call or
order to active duty under a provision of law referred to in
section 101(a)(13)(B) of title 10 shall be entitled, while
serving on active duty, to receive, for each pay period
described in subsection (b), an amount equal to the amount by
which--
``(1) the amount of basic pay which would otherwise have
been payable to such employee for such pay period if such
employee's civilian employment with the Government had not
been interrupted by that service, exceeds (if at all);
``(2) the amount of pay and allowances which (as determined
under subsection (d))--
``(A) is payable to such employee for that service; and
``(B) is allocable to such pay period.
``(b)(1) Amounts under this section shall be payable with
respect to each pay period (which would otherwise apply if
the employee's civilian employment had not been
interrupted)--
``(A) during which such employee is entitled to
reemployment rights under chapter 43 of title 38 with respect
to the position from which such employee is absent (as
referred to in subsection (a)); and
``(B) for which such employee does not otherwise receive
basic pay (including by taking any annual, military, or other
paid leave) to which such employee is entitled by virtue of
such employee's civilian employment with the Government.
``(2) For purposes of this section, the period during which
an employee is entitled to reemployment rights under chapter
43 of title 38--
``(A) shall be determined disregarding the provisions of
section 4312(d) of title 38; and
``(B) shall include any period of time specified in section
4312(e) of title 38 within which an employee may report or
apply for employment or reemployment following completion of
service on active duty to which called or ordered as
described in subsection (a).
``(c) Any amount payable under this section to an employee
shall be paid--
``(1) by such employee's employing agency;
``(2) from the appropriation or fund which would be used to
pay the employee if such employee were in a pay status; and
``(3) to the extent practicable, at the same time and in
the same manner as would basic pay if such employee's
civilian employment had not been interrupted.
``(d) The Office of Personnel Management shall, in
consultation with Secretary of Defense, prescribe any
regulations necessary to carry out the preceding provisions
of this section.
``(e)(1) The head of each agency referred to in section
2302(a)(2)(C)(ii) shall, in consultation with the Office,
prescribe procedures to ensure that the rights under this
section apply to the employees of such agency.
``(2) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall, in consultation with the Office,
prescribe procedures to ensure that the rights under this
section apply to the employees of that agency.
``(f) For purposes of this section--
``(1) the terms `employee', `Federal Government', and
`uniformed services' have the same respective meanings as
given them in section 4303 of title 38;
``(2) the term `employing agency', as used with respect to
an employee entitled to any payments under this section,
means the agency or other entity of the Government (including
an agency referred to in section 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii)) with
respect to which such employee has reemployment rights under
chapter 43 of title 38; and
``(3) the term `basic pay' includes any amount payable
under section 5304.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
55 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 5537 the following:
``5538. Nonreduction in pay while serving in the uniformed services or
National Guard.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to pay periods (as described in
section 5538(b) of title 5, United States Code, as amended by
this section) beginning on or after the date of enactment of
this Act.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have offered this amendment before. It
has passed the Senate twice. For some reason, as soon as it passes the
Senate and goes to a conference committee, it disappears, it dies. I
don't understand it. It seems that the Senate by overwhelming numbers
supports the concept of this amendment, but somewhere, either in the
executive branch of this Government or in the House of Representatives,
there is opposition to this amendment.
When I explain the amendment and what it does, you may be as puzzled
as I am. Here is what the amendment says in a few words: If you are a
Federal employee who is activated to serve in either a Guard or Reserve
unit, the Federal Government will make up the difference in pay while
you serve.
That is it. You understand, I am sure, as we all do, that we have
thousands of men and women across America who are members of Guard and
Reserve units who are now being activated and deployed overseas for
extended periods of time, interrupting their daily lives and putting
some hardship on their families and their businesses, but they serve
their country. We find that many employers have decided to do not only
the right thing but the patriotic thing and have said: We will stand
behind our employees. If they are going to serve America, we will make
up any loss of pay which they experience during the period of their
service activation.
It is something we all applaud. In fact, the President has given
speeches about it. There are not too many Senators who have not given
speeches applauding those employers who stand behind these Guard
families and Reserve families.
It turns out, when we look at all the employers across America, there
is one notable omission. The U.S. Government does not make up the
difference in pay between the guardsmen and reservists who are
activated. So you find many Federal employees going off to serve our
country are serving next to someone from the private sector who has the
helping hand of their employer while those employees of our Federal
Government are being disadvantaged.
America's Federal employees are a valuable asset to our Nation, not
just in the public service they perform every day to keep America's
Government going but today about 120,000 Federal employees serve
America as well in the National Guard or Reserve--120,000. Indeed,
about 17,000 have been mobilized and deployed overseas as I speak--
17,000 Federal employees. Unfortunately, their employer, the U.S.
Federal Government, lags behind leading businesses and States and local
governments, which provide support to their workers who are activated.
The Federal Government does not.
The amendment I propose is an opportunity to correct this
shortcoming, update the Federal Government's support for these workers,
and keep pace
[[Page 6073]]
with the high standards set by other employers. For many years now
every employer in America has had to consider how to respond to having
workers activated in the Guard and Reserve. In times of peace,
companies must accommodate staffing, schedule duties for the
requirement for workers to be sent for training or drills. The law
requires that they do this, and they follow the law.
In wartime, however, workers can be called away for duty for months,
sometimes even years. It is a big challenge for employers.
How are they responding? What we have seen since 9/11 is that
America's business communities and State and local governments not only
provide the employment and reemployment protections required by law,
but many of them go above and beyond requirement and patriotically
provide even greater benefits and protections for their workers
mobilized for duty in the Guard and Reserve. Many of these same
businesses and State and local governments continue health insurance
and fringe benefits for the families of those Guard and Reserve
soldiers who are overseas. Some provide continued full salary for a few
months, and more and more employers make up the difference in lost pay
that the workers suffered during mobilization.
Covering the pay gap is an important benefit because some Reserve
component members suffer a loss of income during mobilization. A
recently released Department of Defense study in May of 2004 reveals
that 51 percent of the members of our National Guard and Reserve suffer
a loss of income when mobilized for long periods of active duty because
military pay is less than pay in their civilian jobs. The average
reservist loses $368 a month. That calculates out to about $4,300 a
year in income. For many families, that $368 a month has a significant
impact. Not only must they deal with the absence of someone they love
but now on top of it must also tighten the family financial belt a
notch or two and endure a decline in perhaps their standard of living,
pressure on the family back home, and certainly more pressure on the
soldier who worries about them as they serve our country overseas.
While the average monthly income loss was $368, the DOD Status of
Forces Survey found that some reservists were losing a lot more. Eleven
percent of all reservists report losing income of more than $2,500 a
month, $30,000 a year for the year that they are activated and
deployed. That is a huge sacrifice to make in the service of your
country on top of risking your life every single day.
The Department of Defense operates a program called Employer Support
of the Guard and Reserve--ESGR for short. Its purpose is to help
employers understand and comply with the new law regarding protections
for members of the Reserve. The program highlights and recognizes those
employers who do more than the law requires, particularly those who are
supportive of the Guard and Reserve.
To publicize these outstanding employers, ESGR lists them on their
Web site. If you scroll down the Web site, you will see listed more
than 1,000 companies across America, nonprofit organizations, State and
local governments, all of which stand behind their Guard and Reserve
while the Federal Government does not. Of those that are listed, more
than 900 are saluted for providing pay differential. Think of it: 900
companies, 900 units of government that say, We will stand behind that
soldier, we will make up the difference in pay.
On the first page, you will see 3M, A.G. Edwards, Abbot Laboratories,
ADT Security Service, and Aetna. That is just the beginning. If you
scroll down, you will see ICBM. I am proud to say you will see Sears &
Roebuck from my State of Illinois, General Motors, United Parcel
Service, and Ford Motor Company. In my State of Illinois, not only
Sears but Boeing, State Farm Insurance, the State of Illinois, the city
of Chicago, and many other Illinois companies, local governments, and
institutions cover the pay differential for Reserve and Guard members
called to active duty.
More and more American employers are providing a pay differential
benefit to their workers who are mobilized for active duty. The number
of ``outstanding employers'' recognized on the ESGR Web site for
providing pay differential has been steadily growing. Even as the war
goes on, more and more companies are stepping up for their people. They
are stepping up in the private sector for their employees. How can we
in the Federal Government do anything less? While the major employers
in America are rushing to support the guardsmen and reservists, our
Federal Government has not done so.
In a recently released DOD survey, they asked Reserve component
members what factors they took into consideration before they decided
to leave the National Guard and Reserve.
Let me show you that list. First, as I mentioned earlier, 51 percent
of those in the Reserve who are activated lose income when they are
mobilized, and 11 percent lose more than $2,500 per month.
I also mentioned this Web site. The employer-supported Guard and
Reserve Web site based out of Arlington, VA, has a long list of over
1,000 employers who helped their activated Guard and soldiers, and 900
of them have provided pay differential for indefinite periods of time,
some for 12 months and some for 6 months. But they are standing behind
their Guard and Reserve units.
When you take a look at the number of outstanding employers who are
making a greater sacrifice for their members of Guard and Reserve
units, look at what happened since October of 2003. The number of
employers making the pay differential for their employees called to
Reserve duty has been increasing. But the U.S. Government is still not
one of them. They ask the members of the Reserve and Guard: Why didn't
you re-up, why didn't you reenlist? Here are the reasons they gave in a
survey: 95 percent said it was too great a family burden, 91 percent
said too many activations and deployments, 90 percent said activations-
deployments are too long, and 78 percent said income lost.
This is a factor in retention and recruitment. It is a factor in the
lifestyles of these families of Guard and Reserve unit members.
How can we come before this Congress asking for additional funds for
the soldiers overseas and overlook the obvious? The Federal Government
is not providing its share of helping these same soldiers. How can we
throw bouquets, as we should, to all of these other employers who meet
their responsibility and fail to meet our own?
With recruiting numbers falling short in virtually every branch of
service, we need to do everything we can to lessen the burden. By
ensuring Federal employees, if they are mobilized, that their families
will not have to endure loss of income, we can help reduce one of the
major factors that drive people away from the Guard and Reserve.
This measure is not only good employee support, it is not only in
keeping with the standards established by other leading employers, it
is not only the patriotic thing to do, it is prudent management of our
Reserve component forces. Reserve component soldiers face different
family and professional situations than Active-Duty soldiers. They must
not only perform military duties in addition to their civilian career,
they have to shift back and forth between these two responsibilities.
Additionally, these Reserve component soldiers bring to their
military service something special: all of their accumulated civilian
time and civilian career experience.
In Iraq, thanks to Guard and Reserve forces, we have experienced
teachers, construction supervisors, civil administrators, engineers,
professionals over a wide range of skills, skills particularly helpful
in rebuilding that ravaged nation. This derives from the unique nature
of the Reserve component service and its value to the nation we must
protect.
This provision has already passed the Senate twice. In October 2003,
it was agreed to by vote of 96 to 3 as an amendment to the supplemental
for fiscal year 2004. In June of 2004, it was
[[Page 6074]]
agreed to by a voice vote as an amendment to the national defense
authorization bill. On both occasions, I watched as this measure went
into the bipartisan conference committee and disappeared. Apparently
someone is opposed to the Federal Government making up the difference
in pay for activated Guard and Reserve soldiers. The same Government
that is praising businesses for doing this is deep-sixing this
provision when it comes time to consider it in the conference
committees.
I have just been handed a letter from the Reserve Officers
Association of the United States. I am happy to report it to my
colleagues in the Senate.
The Reserve Officers Association, representing 75,000
Reserve component members, supports your amendment to the
emergency supplemental appropriation to provide an income
offset for mobilized Federal employees.
I might add that it goes on to quote an Army Times article dated
March 7, 2005, entitled ``Compensating for lost pay a bad idea, reserve
head says.'' It inferred in this article that a Reserve pay
differential would be unfair to Active-Duty troops.
This retired Major General McIntosh goes on to say:
It is a shame that it is considered OK for Reservists to
accept year-after-year pay losses during mobilization on top
of the losses from missed promotions, missed contributions to
a retirement account, missed incremental pay increases with
their civilian job.
Helping to maintain the financial health of our military
positively affects everyone by ensuring a strong economic
position for the country.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Reserve Officers Association
of the United States,
Washington, DC, April 12, 2005.
Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
U.S. Senate,
Washington DC.
Dear Senator Durbin: The Reserve Officers Association,
representing 75,000 Reserve Component members, supports your
amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriation, SR
109-052, to provide an income offset for mobilized federal
employees.
The Guard and Reserve face financial challenges whenever
they are mobilized and ROA continues to hear stories of lost
businesses, increasing credit card debt, and families forced
to sell their homes. Many employees pay the difference
between the civilian and military salary for mobilized
Reservists; yet one of the largest employers, the federal
government, does not.
In the Army Times Article, ``Compensating for lost pay a
bad idea, reserve head says'', dated March 7, 2005, it was
inferred a reserve pay differential would be unfair to
active-duty troops. It is a shame that it is considered okay
for Reservists to accept year-after-year of pay losses during
mobilization on top of the losses from missed promotions,
missed contributions to a retirement account, missed
incremental pay increases with their civilian job.
Helping to maintain the financial health of our military,
positively affects everyone by ensuring a strong economic
position for the country. Congressional support for our
nation's military men and women in the Guard and Reserve is
and always will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Robert A. McIntosh,
Major General (Ret), USAFR,
Executive Director.
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. These folks who
passed this amendment twice recognized reality.
Since the end of the Cold War, employment of our Reserve Forces has
shifted profoundly from being primarily an expansion force to augment
Active Forces during major war to the situation we face today where the
Department of Defense acknowledges that no significant operation can be
undertaken without the Guard and Reserve. Today, more than 40 percent
of the forces fighting the global war on terrorism are members of our
Guard and Reserve. Our part-time warriors have become full-time
protectors of freedom.
The Federal Government is the Nation's largest employer. We must set
an example. We must show the initiative. We must stand behind the men
and women of the Federal workforce who are risking their lives for us
overseas. Similar legislation has been enacted in at least 23 other
States.
The Presiding Officer and I had a rare opportunity not long ago. We
flew into Baghdad 2 or 3 weeks ago. It was a harrowing trip in the back
of a C-130. We were strapped into our combat armor, body armor, with
helmets on our head, in the C-130 as it made a corkscrew landing into
Baghdad. We shared a wonderful, unforgettable opportunity to meet not
only the leadership in the Green Zone but to meet with the marines and
soldiers who are there risking their lives.
I sat down across the table from those three marines, recalled the
guard unit I met the night before, and I thought to myself, we owe them
something, not simply thanks but something significant and something
tangible.
For those who work in the Federal workforce, this is something
tangible we can do. We can make up the difference in lost pay. We can
say to them, worry about coming home safely, but don't worry about
whether your family is going to make the mortgage payment and pay the
utility bills and keep things together while you are overseas.
That is what this amendment is all about. We express our gratitude in
many different ways for the men and women in uniform, but this
amendment which I have offered with Senator Mikulski, Senator Allen,
and Senator Corzine, says to my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, let
us offer to these men and women in uniform not only our thanks and our
praise but the financial support they need to give them peace of mind.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the pending Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami
Relief for 2005, H.R. 1268, as reported by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, provides a net $80.582 billion in budget authority and
$32.790 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2005. Of this amount, $74.763
billion is for defense activities, and the balance of $5.819 billion is
for nondefense activities.
This bill is $1.299 billion less than the President's request in
budget authority, but is $0.699 billion more in outlays. Compared to
the House-passed bill, the Senate-reported version is $0.759 billion
less in budget authority, but is $0.608 billion more in outlays.
Nearly every individual appropriation item in the bill is designated
as an emergency. In total, the bill designates $81.592 billion in
budget authority as an emergency, the outlays flowing from that budget
authority also have the emergency designation; in fiscal year 2005, the
associated outlays are estimated to be $32.790 billion. The bill
includes rescission totaling $1.010 billion in budget authority only.
For the information of my colleagues, I would like to briefly
summarize where the Senate stands in relation to budgetary enforcement
of appropriation bills in 2005. Although the conference report on the
2005 budget resolution was not adopted by both the House and Senate,
enactment of the 2005 Defense Appropriations bill, P.L. 108-287,
section 14007, did give effect to some of the provisions in that
resolution, including a 302(a) allocation to the Appropriations
Committee and sections 402 and 403 of the 2005 budget resolution
relating to emergency legislation and overseas contingency operations.
First, any appropriation for 2005 that is not designated as an
emergency or as an overseas contingency would be subject to a 302(f)
point of order because appropriations enacted to date have already
exceeded the allocation provided for 2005.
Second, of the total amount designated as an emergency in H.R. 1268,
$74.763 billion in budget authority is designated as an emergency for
defense activities, which is exempt from the emergency designation
point of order. Section 403 of the 2005 budget resolution provided that
$50 billion was assumed in the resolution for 2005 appropriations for
overseas contingency operations, which would not even require an
emergency designation. The same law that gave effect to sections 402
and 403 of the 2005 budget resolution also provided $25 billion for
overseas contingency operations that were designated an emergency, but
the funds were provided in 2004. One way to think about
[[Page 6075]]
the $74.763 billion in emergency defense funds provided in this bill is
that it exceeds by almost $25 billion in the amount contemplated for
overseas contingency operations for fiscal year 2005 in the 2005 budget
resolution.
Third, the remaining amount that is designated as an emergency in
H.R. 1268--$6.829 billion--is all for nondefense activities. As a
result, any member of the Senate may use the emergency designation
point of order under section 402 of the 2005 budget resolution to
question, or strike, the emergency designation attached to each
individual nondefense appropriation item in the bill or an amendment
thereto. Such a point of order can be waived with 60 votes. If the
point of order is not waived, the designation would be struck from the
bill or amendment, leaving only the appropriation, which, absent its
emergency designation, which would have prevented the item from
``counting'' for budget enforcement purposes, would then count against
the committee's allocation, meaning a 302(f) point of order would lie
against the bill or amendment.
May I also point out to my colleagues that the emergency designation
point of order requires that if ``a provision of legislation is
designated as an emergency requirement . . . the committee report and
any joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying that
legislation shall include an explanation of the manner in which the
provision meets the criteria,'' which are defined as follows: ``Any
such provision is an emergency requirement if the underlying situation
poses a threat to life, property, or national security and is--(I)
sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time; (II)
an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action;
(III) . . . unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and (IV) not
permanent, temporary in nature'' with the proviso that an ``emergency
that is part of an aggregate level of anticipated emergencies,
particularly when normally estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.'' I
note that the committee report does not include any discussion of how
each individual item in this bill that is designated as an emergency
meets all of these criteria.
This supplemental appropriations bill has been requested by the
President, and the Congress has responded. It will be conferenced
quickly and signed by the President. I know the temptation is strong,
almost irresistible, for my colleagues to attempt to amend the bill
with extraneous items that may be quite important--but this is not the
place for them. I will strongly object to making this supplemental
appropriations bill ``Christmas in April'' for various nondefense
discretionary items and for new or expanded mandatory spending.
I commend the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee
for bringing this legislation before the Senate, and I ask unanimous
consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the
bill with comparisons to the House-passed bill and the President's
request be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
H.R. 1268, 2005 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL--SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-
REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal year 2005, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense
(050) Non-Defense Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority............. 74,763 5,819 80,582
Outlays...................... 31,605 1,185 32,790
House-passed:
Budget authority............. 77,175 4,166 81,341
Outlays...................... 31,497 685 32,182
President's request:
Budget authority............. 75,315 6,566 81,881
Outlays...................... 31,219 902 32,121
Senate-reported bill compared to:
House-passed:
Budget authority......... -2,412 1,654 -759
Outlays.................. 108 500 608
President's request:
Budget authority......... -552 -747 -1,299
Outlays.................. 386 283 669
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
consistency with scorekeeping conventions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
EXCHANGE RATE OF CHINESE CURRENCY
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss last
Wednesday's vote against tabling the Schumer amendment. The Schumer
amendment would call on China to move toward a flexible exchange rate
or face corrective tariffs on their exports to the United States.
Passing the amendment would be a responsible way for the Senate to
address the significant problems caused by China's fixing the exchange
rate of its currency, known as the renminbi or yuan, to the United
States dollar.
I have been concerned about China's trade policies for some time. I
am particularly concerned about the undervaluation of the Chinese
currency caused by China's currency peg. Presently, the yuan is
undervalued by between 15 and 40 percent. This systematic
undervaluation of China's currency makes China's exports less expensive
and puts U.S. workers at a severe disadvantage. As a result, the United
States has lost thousands of manufacturing jobs due to unfair
competition with China's exports whose prices are artificially low on
account of the undervaluation of the yuan. This is both unfair and it
is unacceptable.
China's undervalued currency also harms China's economy. The Chinese
people pay much higher prices for their imports and China is presently
forced to keep its interest rates artificially low to support the
currency peg, which is causing inefficient investment and excessive
bank lending in China. Moreover, this undervaluation of the Chinese
currency is fueling the dramatic rise of the United States' trade
deficit with China and distorting trade relationships around the globe.
Currently, we have a $162 billion trade deficit with China, the largest
that we have with any country in the world.
Accordingly, supporting efforts to get China to move forward toward a
flexible exchange rate is consistent with supporting a more open and
efficient global marketplace.
I was recently in China and had the opportunity to meet with Premier
Wen Jiabao, who is a member of the Politburo Standing Committee of the
Chinese Communist Party's Central Committee. I made precisely these
points to him: That it is in China's best interest to move toward a
flexible exchange rate, and that the Chinese currency peg benefits
neither China nor the United States. I urged him to support moving
China toward a flexible exchange rate.
One of the primary arguments Chinese officials have made to defend
China's currency peg is that its banking system is not sufficiently
developed for China to have a flexible exchange rate, an argument that
Secretary of the Treasury John Snow also makes on occasion when he
gives reasons why he is not pushing them harder for them to stop fixing
their currency.
I have an article from The Economist that explains in detail why
exchange rate flexibility is in China's best interest, along with the
best interest of the United States. The title of the article from March
19, 2005 is: ``China Ought to Allow More Flexibility in Exchange Rate,
Sooner Rather Than Later.''
I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Economist, Mar. 19, 2005]
Economics Focus--Putting Things in Order
china ought to allow more flexibility in its exchange rate, sooner
rather than later
The Chinese government says that it intends, eventually, to
make its exchange rate more flexible and to liberalise
capital controls. In the past year or so, it has already
eased some controls on capital outflows and officials have
said recently that they will open the capital account further
this year. On the exchange rate, much less has been done. The
yuan has been pegged to the dollar for a decade; and the
government is loath to change much until the country's
banking system is in healthier shape: this week the prime
minister, Wen Jiabao, said that a shift would be risky. But
is China putting the cart before the horse? Other countries'
experience
[[Page 6076]]
suggests that it is, and that it is better to loosen the
exchange rate before, not after, freeing capital flows.
Most commentary on the Chinese yuan tends to focus on the
extent to which it is undervalued. It has been pegged to the
dollar for a decade, and there is a widespread belief that it
is unfairly cheap. In fact, this is not clear-cut. For
instance, the increase in China's official reserves is often
held up as evidence that the yuan is undervalued. Yet this
largely reflects speculative capital inflows lured by the
expectation of a currency revaluation. Such inflows could
easily be reversed. Given the huge uncertainty about the
yuan's correct level, it makes more sense for China to make
its currency more flexible than to repeg it at a higher rate.
Greater flexibility would be in China's interest: it would
afford the country more independence in monetary policy and a
buffer against external shocks. By fixing the yuan to the
dollar, China has been forced to hold interest rates lower
than is prudent, leading to inefficient investment and
excessive bank lending.
The problem is that Chinese officials, along with many
foreign commentators, tend to confuse exchange-rate
flexibility and capital-account liberalisation. A commonly
heard argument is that China cannot let its exchange rate
move more freely before it has fixed its dodgy banking
system, because that could encourage a large outflow of
capital. A recent paper* by Eswar Prasad, Thomas Rumbaugh and
Qing Wang, all of the International Monetary Fund, argues
that, on the contrary, greater exchange-rate flexibility is a
prerequisite for capital-account liberal-
isation.
Flexibility does not necessarily mean a free float.
Initially, China could allow the yuan to move within a wider
band, or peg it to a basket of currencies rather than the
dollar alone. The authors first knock on the head the notion
that the banking system must be cleaned up before allowing
the exchange rate to move. Although financial reform is
certainly essential before scrapping capital controls, the
authors argue that with existing controls in place the
banking system is unlikely to come under much pressure simply
as a result of exchange-rate flexibility. Banks' exposure to
currency risks is currently low and flexibility alone is
unlikely to cause Chinese residents to withdraw their
deposits or provide channels for them to send their money
abroad.
The authors argue that it is also not necessary to open the
capital account to create a proper foreign-exchange market.
Because China exports and imports a lot, with few
restrictions on currency convertibility for such
transactions, it can still develop a deep, well-functioning
market without a fully open capital account. A more flexible
currency would itself assist the development of such a
market. For example, firms would have more incentive to hedge
foreign-exchange risks, encouraging the development of
suitable instruments. The experience of greater exchange-rate
flexibility would also help the economy to prepare for a full
opening of the capital account. While capital controls
shielded the economy from volatile flows, China would have
time for reforms to strengthen the banking system.
China instead seems intent on relaxing capital controls
before setting its exchange rate free. This ignores the
history of the past decade or so: the combination of fixed
exchange rates and open capital accounts has caused financial
crises in many emerging economies, especially when financial
systems are fragile. China would therefore be wise to move
cautiously in liberalising its capital account, but should
move more rapidly towards greater exchange-rate flexibility.
yuan at a time
The Chinese have tried to offset the recent upward pressure
on the yuan by easing controls on capital outflows, for
instance by allowing firms to invest abroad. While this is in
line with the eventual objective of full capital-account
liberalisation, it runs the risk of getting reforms in the
wrong order. An easing of controls on outflows may even be
counterproductive if it stimulates larger inflows. By making
it easier to take money out of the country, investors may be
enticed to bring more in.
Capital controls are not watertight. So although China will
continue to be protected from international flows, its
controls can be evaded through the under- or over-invoicing
of trade. Multinationals can also use transfer prices (the
prices at which internal transactions are accounted for) to
dodge the rules. Despite extensive controls, a lot of capital
left China during the Asian crisis in the late 1990s;
recently, lots of short-term money has flowed in. Controls
are likely to become even more porous as China becomes more
integrated into the global economy. Thus, waiting for
speculative and other inflows to ease before changing the
exchange-rate regime might not be a fruitful strategy.
China ought to move to a flexible exchange rate soon, while
its capital controls still work. Experience also suggests
that it is best to loosen the reins on a currency when growth
is strong and the external account is in surplus. China
should take advantage of today's opportunity rather than
being forced into change at a much less convenient time.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I also urge my colleagues to read a paper by the staff
of the International Monetary Fund entitled ``Putting the Cart Before
the Horse: Capital Account Liberalization and Exchange Rate Flexibility
in China.'' That is a January publication by the IMF. I would have
asked it be printed in the Record, but it is 30 pages long and I do not
want to burden the Congressional Record with 30 pages. If my colleagues
are interested in getting a copy of that article, I would be more than
happy to supply it.
These papers show how exchange rate flexibility will facilitate
economic development in China and why China does not have to wait until
its banking system is more fully developed to move toward a flexible
exchange rate.
Moreover, they note that China does not need to immediately float its
currency to remedy the problems caused by an undervalued currency. All
China needs to do is take steps in that direction, such as adopting a
wider exchange rate ban or pegging the exchange rate to a basket of
currencies instead of the dollar alone, for example, a basket of
currencies of the ASEAN countries, including Japan. Either of these
policies would likely cause an upward revaluation of the yuan.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration has refused to take meaningful
action to get China to move toward a flexible exchange rate.
Last year--I remember it well--on September 8--that happens to be my
wedding anniversary--four of our leaders in this country summarily said
there is no problem in terms of the exchange rate and they refused to
go forward with something called a 301 investigation. The 301
investigation is allowable under the WTO. That is the way you bring
into question whether somebody is following the rules. They said, no,
we are not going to do it. Imagine what kind of a message that sent to
the leaders of the Chinese Government, that we were not even willing to
look at a 301 investigation. That was a mistake.
The United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a
bipartisan commission established by Congress to examine China's trade
policies, has concluded that China's exchange rate policy violates both
its International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization
obligations. The Commission said China is intentionally manipulating
its currency for trade advantage in violation of its trading
agreements. Yet the administration refuses to act. Unless the United
States exerts direct pressure on China, however, it is unlikely that
China will address the undervaluation of its currency. During my
meeting with Premier Wen, he said, We know there is a problem, but we
are not sure when we will do it.
I can say they will not do it unless we continue to put pressure on
them to do it and convince them that, again, it is not only in our best
interest but their best interest if they want to be a player in the
global marketplace.
That is why Wednesday's vote was important. It showed the Senate is
willing to take matters into its own hands and take effective steps to
address this serious problem if the administration continues to refuse
to do so. No one wants to see tariffs imposed on Chinese exports, but
the United States needs to take action to address China's unfair
exchange rate policy. I hope Wednesday's vote will motivate the
administration to do more to get China to address the serious market
distortions caused by the undervaluation of China's currency.
I believe in fair trade and improving our trading relationship with
China. I was one of the leaders in the Senate to approve normal trade
relations with China. I wrote articles in Ohio magazines in support of
trade with China. In fact, I gave a copy of an article to Premier Wen
to prove to him I am not a protectionist, I am a free trader.
But I also believe in fair trade. It represents a huge potential
market for our exports. If we want to have trade with China, though,
China must be a better trading partner, starting with its exchange rate
policies. Furthermore, if we want to have a free and fair global
trading system, China must take actions to move toward a flexible
exchange rate. I, therefore, believe
[[Page 6077]]
Wednesday's vote was a responsible step aimed at advancing global trade
and, in particular, America's long-term trading relationship with
China.
I say to the Presiding Officer, as you know, there was an agreement
made that the Schumer amendment would be pulled from the foreign
relations authorization bill, but that it would be considered again.
There is an agreement, in the form of a UC, that we will be bringing it
up again. I hope before the Senate considers voting on that amendment
with an up-or-down vote the administration will get the message that
they have to do something to show a little bit of spirit and indicate
to us that they understand and know that the Senate and the House of
Representatives are serious about moving forward to deal with this
problem.
I also think the vote on this particular amendment sends a strong
signal, a signal to Premier Wen and to President Hu, that we are
concerned about this issue. I know they are concerned about jobs. We
are concerned about jobs. They have to understand that. I am hoping
instead of the administration looking at this as some kind of a
negative action on the part of the Senate, that they will see that we
are helping them communicate the message to Chinese officials that we
are serious about this problem.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized for up to 30 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I continue my series of talks on the
four pillars of climate alarmism. Last week I showed the first pillar,
the 2001 climate change report by the National Academy of Sciences. It
was really a farce, and we documented it very well. The same is true of
the 2001 report of the IPCC. That is the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. It supposedly provides irrefutable evidence of the
global warming consensus. Simply put, it does not, as my speech today
will demonstrate.
The media greeted the release of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report
with the predictable hysteria with which they normally respond to
things such as this. From the Independent newspaper of London:
In a report published today by the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), hundreds of
the world's leading scientists give their unqualified support
to the view that global warming is real and that the release
of manmade greenhouse gases is largely responsible.
It continues:
The latest three-volume report, amounting to 2,600 pages of
detailed analysis, leaves the reader in little doubt that the
scientific uncertainties of the previous decade are being
resolved in favor of an emerging, and increasingly
pessimistic consensus.
The preceding quotes, and many that followed in the Independent's
report, came from the Third Assessment's ``Summary for Policymakers.''
In fact, the media based much, if not all, of its reporting on the
summary itself. It did this even though in some respects the summary
distorted the actual context of the full report.
The National Academy of Sciences, in its 2001 report, criticized both
how the summary was written and how the media portrayed it, as in this
chart No. 1:
The IPCC Summary for Policymakers could give an impression
that the science of global warming is settled, even though
many uncertainties still remain.
This clearly contradicts the claim of the Independent that there is
little doubt that the scientific uncertainties in the previous decade
are settled.
Another claim the media featured prominently was that temperature
increases over the last century are unprecedented, at least when
considered on a time scale of the last 1,000 years. According to the
IPCC, the 1990s were the warmest decade on record, and 1998 was the
warmest year since temperature records began in 1861. The basis for
this claim is a so-called hockey stick graph, shown in chart No. 2.
This is an interesting one because this plots out the temperatures over
a period of time and then shows the blade, when it gets to be the 19th
century, coming up.
The graph was constructed by Dr. Michael Mann of the University of
Virginia and his colleagues using a combination of proxy data and
modern temperature records. The hockey stick curve showed a gradual
cooling period around 1400 A.D., which is the hockey stick handle--that
is the horizontal line--then a sharp warming starting about 1900, the
hockey stick blade. Its release was revolutionary, overturning
widespread evidence adduced over many years confirming significant
national variability long before the advent of SUVs. The IPCC was so
impressed that the hockey stick was featured prominently in its Third
Assessment Report of 2001.
As Dr. Roy Spencer, the principal research scientist at the
University of Alabama, noted:
This was taken as proof that the major climate event of the
last 1,000 years was the influence of humans in the 20th
century. One of its authors, Dr. Michael Mann, confidently
declared in 2003 that the hockey stick ``is the indisputable
consensus of the community of scientists actively involved in
the research of climate variability and its causes.''
The hockey stick caused quite a stir, not just in the scientific
community but also in the world of politics. It galvanized alarmists in
their push for Kyoto. It is supposedly ironclad proof that manmade
greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet at an unsustainable
degree. But here again, one of the essential pillars of the alarmists
appears to be crumbling.
Two Canadian researchers have produced the most devastating evidence
to date that the hockey stick is bad science. Before I describe their
work, I want to make a prediction. The alarmists will cry foul, saying
this critique is part of an industry conspiracy. And true to form, they
will avoid discussion of the substance and engage in personal attacks.
That is because one of the researchers, Stephen McIntyre, is a mineral
exploration consultant. Dr. Mann already has accused them of having a
conflict of interest. This is nonsense.
First, Stephen McIntyre and his colleague, Ross McKitrick, an
economist with Canada's University of Guelph, received no outside
funding for their work. They are both very well recognized professional
people. Second, they published their peer-reviewed critique in
geophysical research letters. This is no organ of big oil, but an
eminent scientific journal, the same journal, in fact, which published
the version of Dr. Mann's hockey stick that appeared in the IPCC's
Third Assessment Report. Apparently the journal's editor didn't see
much evidence of bias. The remarks of one editor are worth quoting in
full:
S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick have written a remarkable
paper on a subject of great importance. What makes the paper
significant is that they show that one of the most widely
known results of climate analysis, the ``hockey stick''
diagram of Mann [and company], was based on a mistake in the
application of a mathematical technique known as principle
component analysis.
Further, he said:
I have looked carefully at the McIntyre and McKitrick
analysis, and I am convinced that their work is correct.
What did McKitrick and McIntyre find? In essence, they discovered
that Dr. Mann misused an established statistical method called
principal components analysis, PCA. As they explained, Mann created a
program that ``effectively mines a data set for hockey stick
patterns.'' In other words, no matter what kind of data one uses, even
if it is random and totally meaningless, the Mann method always
produces a hockey stick. After conducting some 10,000 data simulations,
the result was nearly always the same. ``In over 99 percent of cases,''
McIntyre and McKitrick wrote, ``it produced a hockey stick shaped PCI
series.'' Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada, a
government agency, says he
[[Page 6078]]
agrees that Dr. Mann's statistical method ``preferentially produces
hockey sticks when there are none in the data.'' Even to a non-
statistician, this looks extremely troubling.
But that statistical error is just the beginning. On a public web
site where Dr. Mann filed data, McIntyre and McKitrick discovered an
intriguing folder titled ``BACKTO_1400-CENSORED.'' What McIntyre and
McKitrick found in the folder was disturbing: Mann's hockey stick blade
was based on a certain type of tree--a bristlecone pine--that, in
effect, helped to manufacture the hockey stick.
Remember, the hockey stick shows a relatively stable climate over 900
years, and then a dramatic spike in temperature about 1900, the
inference being that man-made emissions are the cause of rising
temperatures. So why is the bristlecone pine important? That
bristlecone experienced a growth pulse in the Western United States in
the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, this growth pulse, as
the specialist literature has confirmed, was not attributed to
temperature. So using those pines, and only those pines, as a proxy for
temperature during this period is questionable at best. Even Mann's co-
author has stated that the bristlecone growth pulse is a ``mystery.''
Because of these obvious problems, McIntyre and McKitrick
appropriately excluded the bristlecone data from their calculations.
What did they find? Not the Mann hockey stick, to be sure, but a
confirmation of the Medieval Warm Period, which Mann's work had erased.
This is very interesting because the chart will show, if you would
include the calculation--what we refer to as the Medieval Warm Period
which, as everybody now understands, is a reality--then temperatures at
that time exceeded the temperatures in the blade of the hockey stick.
In fact, when I was over in Milan, Italy, at one of the big meetings, I
pointed this out as evidence it was done, and done intentionally. Why
would he start with the year when you have a level line going for 900
years and totally ignore the Medieval Warming Period, at which time the
temperatures of the Earth exceeded the temperatures in this century?
As the CENSORED folder revealed, Mann and his colleagues never
reported results obtained from calculations that excluded the
bristlecone data. This appears to be a case of selectively using data--
that is, if you don't like the result, remove the offending data until
you get the answer you want. As McIntyre and McKitrick explained,
``Imagine the irony of this discovery . . . Mann accused us of
selectively deleting North American proxy series. Now it appeared that
he had results that were exactly the same as ours, stuffed away in a
folder labeled CENSORED.''
McIntyre and McKitrick believe there are additional errors in the
Mann hockey stick. To confirm their suspicion, they need additional
data from Dr. Mann, including the computer code he used to generate the
graph. But Dr. Mann refuses to supply it. As he told the Wall Street
Journal, ``Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the
intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in.''
What we are talking about is he refused to give him the necessary
computerized data to come to the conclusion. There is no way of
analyzing it.
Who are ``these people''? And what ``intimidation tactics''? Mr.
McIntyre and Mr. McKitrick are trying to find the truth. What is Dr.
Mann trying to hide?
For many scientists, McIntyre and McKitrick's work is earth-
shattering. For example, Professor Richard Muller of the University of
California at Berkeley recently wrote in the MIT Technology Review that
McIntyre and McKitrick's findings ``hit me like a bombshell, and I
suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the
hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns
out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.'' Dr. Rob van Dorland, of
the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, and an IPCC lead
author, said, ``The IPCC made a mistake by only including Mann's
reconstruction and not those of other researchers.'' He concluded that
unless the error is corrected, it will ``seriously damage the work of
the IPCC.''
Or consider Dr. Hans von Storch, an IPCC contributing author and
internationally renowned expert in climate statistics at Germany's
Center for Coastal Research, who said McIntyre and McKitrick's work is
``entirely valid.'' In an interview last October with the German
Newspaper Der Spiegel, Dr. von Storch said the Mann hockey stick
``contains assumptions that are not permissible. Methodologically it is
wrong: rubbish.'' He stressed that, ``it remains important for science
to point out the erroneous nature of the Mann curve. In recent years it
has been elevated to the status of truth by the U.N. appointed science
body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. This
handicapped all that research which strives to make a realistic
distinction between human influences and climate and natural
variability.''
If McIntyre and McKitrick's work isn't convincing enough, consider
the recent paper published in the February 10 issue of Nature. The
paper, authored by a group of Swedish climate researchers, once again
undercuts the scientific credibility of the Mann hockey stick. The
press release for the study by the Swedish Research Council says, ``A
new study of climate in the Northern Hemisphere for the past 2000 years
shows that natural climate change may be larger than generally
thought.''
According to the paper's authors, the Mann hockey stick does not
provide an accurate picture of the last 1,000 years. ``The new
results,'' they wrote, ``show an appreciable temperature swing between
the 12th and 20th centuries, with a notable cold period around AD 1600.
A large part of the 20th century had approximately the same temperature
as the 11th and 12th centuries.''
In other words, here's evidence of the Medieval Warm Period and the
Little Ice Age, demonstrating that climate, long before the burning of
fossil fuels, varied considerably over the last 2,000 years. The
researchers note that changes in the sun's output and volcanic
eruptions appear to have caused considerable natural variations in the
climate system. ``The fact that these two climate evolutions,'' they
contend, ``which have been obtained completely independently of each
other, are very similar supports the case that climate shows an
appreciable natural variability--and that changes in the sun's output
and volcanic eruptions on the earth may be the cause.''
Another important development chipping away at the so-called
scientific consensus has to do with economics and statistics, and how
both are used by the IPCC.
To determine how man-made greenhouse gases might affect the climate
over the next century, the IPCC had to predict 100 years' worth of
greenhouse gas emissions. Predicting emissions rates depends on several
factors, including population growth, technological advances, and
future economic growth rates in developed and developing countries.
Based on these and other factors, the IPCC's Third Assessment Report
projected an average global temperature increase by 2100 ranging
between 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius, which is about 2.7 to 10.4 degrees
Fahrenheit. This temperature range was determined from several
different emission scenarios. In each of those scenarios, the IPCC
arbitrarily assumed that incomes in poor countries and rich countries
would converge by the year 2100. According to Warren McKibbin of
Australia National University's Center for Applied Macroeconomics and
the Brookings Institution, this assumption is unwarranted. Even if it
were to happen, McKibbin and his colleagues write:
The empirical literature suggests that the rate of
convergence in income per capita would be very slow.
Even the IPCC agrees, stating:
It may well take a century (given all the other factors set
favorably) for a poor country to catch up to [income] levels
that prevail in the industrial countries today, never mind
the levels that might prevail in affluent countries 100 years
in the future.
[[Page 6079]]
Nevertheless, the IPCC assumed poor and rich countries would achieve
parity by the end of the century. To measure that growth over time, the
IPCC had to compare what income levels look like today. It did that by
using market exchange rates, but this raises a major problem. Relying
on exchange rates fails to account for price differences between
countries. This has the effect of vastly overstating differences in
wealth. ``This comparison is valid,'' says Ian Castles, formerly head
of Australia's National Office of Statistics, now with the National
Center of Development Studies at Australian National University.
Castles and his colleague David Henderson, former chief economist for
the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, now of the
Westminster Business School, discovered the IPCC's error last year and
have published their findings in the distinguished scientific journal
Energy and Environment.
Castles and Henderson note that using exchange rates is invalid
because it is based on the assumption that ``[a] poor Bangladeshi
family has converted the whole of its income into foreign currency, and
spent it on goods and services at average world prices rather than [at
much lower] Bangladeshi prices.''
Through the use of exchange rates, the IPCC concluded the average
income of rich countries right now is 40 times higher than the average
income in developing countries in Asia and 12 times higher than the
average income in other non-Asian developing countries.
As my colleagues can see, there is a huge gap, which raises a
significant point. If the initial income gap is large, then poor
countries will have to grow incredibly fast to catch up. According to
the IPCC, the greater the economic growth, the greater the emissions
released into the atmosphere, and hence higher temperatures.
The IPCC, as the Economist Magazine wrote, is simply wrong. They
said:
The developing-country growth rates yielded by this method
[market exchange rates] are historically implausible, to put
it mildly. The emissions forecasts based on those implausibly
high growth rates are accordingly unsound.
Castles and Henderson have shown convincingly that the IPCC's
temperature range rests on a majority of major economic error and,
therefore, is wildly off the mark. Because of this error, even the
IPCC's low end emission scenario is implausible. As the Economist
Magazine wrote:
But, as we pointed out before, even the scenarios that give
the lowest cumulative emissions assume that incomes in the
developing countries will increase at a much faster rate over
the course of the century than they have ever done before.
The Economist continued:
Disaggregated projections published by the IPCC say that--
even in the lowest-emission scenarios--growth in poor
countries will be so fast that by the end of the century
Americans will be poorer on average than South Africans,
Algerians, Argentines, Libyans, Turks and North Koreans.
And I do not think any of us are ready to accept that.
Let us get a better sense of why that is odd. Under the IPCC's low-
end scenario, the amount of goods and services produced per person in
developing countries in Asia would increase 70-fold by 2100, and
increase nearly 30-fold for other developing countries. To put that in
perspective, the United States only achieved a 5-fold increase in per
capita income growth in the 19th century, and Japan achieved a nearly
20-fold increase in the 20th Century.
The IPCC's mistakes are fatal. Jacob Ryten, a leading figure in the
development, evaluation, and implementation of the United Nations
International Comparisons Programme, said the IPCC suffers from
``manifest ignorance of the conceptual and practical issues involved in
developing and using intercountry measures of economic product.''
The Economist said that the IPCC's method proved it was guilty of
dangerous economic incompetence.
Castles and Henderson, along with the Economist and other scientists,
have pressed the IPCC to abandon its use of market exchange rates in
its upcoming Fourth Assessment Report. They say this is essential to
provide a more accurate projection of future emissions. Thus far, the
IPCC has ignored their request, but this is no surprise. The IPCC has
become politicized and appears more intent on pursuing propaganda over
science.
Consider the case of Dr. Christopher Landsea, the world's foremost
expert on hurricanes. Dr. Landsea accepted an invitation to provide
input on Atlantic hurricanes for the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report
due out in 2007. But over time, Dr. Landsea realized that certain key
members of the IPCC were bent on advancing a political agenda rather
than providing an objective, fact-based understanding of climate
change. As a result, he resigned from the IPCC process.
Dr. Landsea was outraged that Dr. Kevin Trenberth, the lead author of
observations for the upcoming Fourth Assessment, and other scientists
participated in a politically charged press conference at Harvard
University on the supposed causal link between global warming and
extreme weather events. The press conference was promoted this way:
Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring
more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity.
In other words, they were trying to blame these catastrophes that
come up on what they consider to be global warming.
As Dr. Landsea explained, the topic was bogus. It has no scientific
basis, and none of the scientists who participated had any expertise in
the matter.
In his resignation letter, Dr. Landsea wrote:
To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press
conference had performed any research on hurricane
variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the
field . . . It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize
the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane
activity has been due to global warming.
What is the real state of the science on this topic?
All previous and current research in the area of hurricane
variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend in the
frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either the
Atlantic or any other basin.
Dr. Landsea wrote, and this is in the chart:
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by
most recent credible studies that any impact in the future
from global warming upon hurricanes will likely be quite
small.
Dr. Landsea noted that the most recent science shows that ``by around
2080 hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5 percent more
intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may
be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st
Century.''
Dr. Landsea concluded that because the IPCC process has been
compromised, resigning was his only option. He said:
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to
a process that I view as both being motivated by preconceived
agendas and being scientifically unsound.
As with Castles and Henderson, the IPCC leadership has brushed off
Dr. Landsea's concerns. This is outrageous. In doing so, the IPCC is
seriously undermining its credibility.
One can only hope that the IPCC will change its ways. Otherwise, we
can expect yet another assessment report that is unsupported by facts
and science.
It is no surprising that alarmists want to fabricate the perception
that there is consensus about climate change. We know the costs of this
would be enormous. Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates
estimates that implementing Kyoto would coast an American family of
four $2,700 annually. Acknowledging a full-fledged debate over global
warming would undermine their agenda. And what is that agenda? Two
international leaders have said it best. Margot Wallstrom, the EU's
Environment Commissioner, states that Kyoto is ``about leveling the
playing field for big businesses worldwide.'' French President Jacques
Chirac said during a speech at the Hague in November 2000 that Kyoto
represents ``the first component of an authentic global governance.''
Look at this and you realize what is motivating these people. People
ask me if science is not behind this and
[[Page 6080]]
there is that much damage that can be effected, what is the motive?
That is what the motive is.
Facts and science are showing that the catastrophic global warming
consensus does not exist. The IPCC has been exposed as a political arm
of U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, with a mission to prop up its flawed
scientific conclusions.
The Mann hockey stick, the flagship of the IPCC's claims that global
warming is real, has now been thoroughly discredited in scientific
circles. Projections of future carbon emissions--which drive
temperature model conclusions--have been proven to be based on
political decisions that, by the end of the century, countries like
Bangladesh will be as wealthy, or wealthier, than the United States.
A world renowned scientist has just resigned from the IPCC because it
is too politicized, saying that the IPCC plans to make claims that
contradict scientific understanding. Increasingly, it appears that the
scientific case for catastrophic global warming is a house of cards
that will soon come tumbling down.
Despite this, there are still some who choose to ignore science.
After I spoke about this last week, Duke Energy CEO Paul Anderson
advocated a tax on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. In doing
so, the company has seemingly bought into the spurious notion that the
science is settled. But perhaps it is not. Unfortunately, to some
global warming advocates, the science is irrelevant.
As Myron Ebell of the competitive Enterprise Institute says:
Duke Energy has now admitted that the costs will be
significant. But the fact is it will only be expensive for
their competitors. Nuclear plants don't emit carbon dioxide
and Duke is already one-third nuclear generation. Moreover,
the company has announced plans to build even more nuclear
plants, giving it an even bigger competitive edge.
This is a lot of scientific stuff. I have said several times since I
became chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee that the
first thing we did was study this because it was assumed that global
warming is taking place and anthropogenic gases are causing it, methane
and CO2, only to find out that is not the case. Virtually
all the science since 1999 has refuted these assertions. I think we
have an obligation to recognize these far-left environmentalist
extremist groups are huge contributors to campaigns and they have a lot
of political power, but in the long run we have to be more concerned
about America than we are about political campaigns.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a
period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to
10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DOUG FERTIG
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated
member of the Senate family, Doug Fertig, Human Resources Director of
the Senate Sergeant at Arms office, who passed away on April 2, 2005,
at the age of 54.
Doug Fertig came to the Sergeant at Arms in 1996 facing a formidable
challenge to standardize processes, establish pay bands and job
classifications and a leave accountability system to comply with the
Congressional Accountability Act. Doug Fertig's dedication, knowledge
and compassion to the Senate Sergeant at Arms organization turned the
Human Resources Department into the professional organization it is
today.
Doug Fertig was born in Columbus, OH, received his B.A. from Oberlin
College in 1972, and held Masters Degrees from Stanford University and
Ohio State University. Doug Fertig was a dedicated family man who was
very proud of his wife Susan, daughter Emily, and son Andrew. He was
passionate about education and any sport involving Ohio State
University.
During his tenure with the Senate Sergeant at Arms, Doug Fertig was
faced with many challenges, including anthrax in October 2001 and ricin
in February 2004.
Because of Doug's experience and calm demeanor, the challenges of
relocating the Human Resources operation and continuing to serve the
Senate community were met with calm leadership and competent direction
and stability.
Today we honor Doug for his dedication to the Senate, his love for
his family, his compassion for the staff in the Human Resources
department and the Senate Sergeant at Arms organization. His passing
leaves the Senate community with a profound sense of loss. I hope it is
of comfort to his family that so many people share their loss at this
sad time.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO TOM STONEBURNER
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the life and work
of Tom Stoneburner, a Nevada labor leader who passed away on February
21, 2005.
A veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, Tom served as a deputy sheriff in
Mono County, CA, before moving to Nevada in 1969. During his 36 years
in Nevada, he became one of the most effective labor leaders in the
State, fighting tirelessly on behalf of the working people of Nevada.
As a casino security guard, he successfully organized union elections
for guards at two Reno hotel casinos and later went on to serve as
president of the United Plant Guard Workers.
Tom was dedicated to helping all of Nevada's workers. That is why in
1997 he formed the Alliance for Workers Rights, an organization
expressly committed to advocating on behalf of workers in Nevada who
had no union representation. Through his leadership of this
organization, Tom successfully lobbied for strengthened State safety
protections after several workers died in industrial accidents in 1998
and 2001.
His passion and determination in protecting the rights of Nevada's
workers belied the soft-spoken and mild-mannered nature that many close
to him have recalled since his passing. Tom's example has undoubtedly
inspired many others who will carry on his work, including his wife
Kathy who will continue his important work at the Alliance for Worker's
Rights.
Mr. President, please join me in recognizing Tom Stoneburner's
contributions to Nevada workers and in sending condolences to Tom's
family for their loss.
____________________
THE DEATH OF POPE JOHN
PAUL II
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, with the passing of Pope John Paul II, I
take this opportunity to pay homage to one of the great spiritual
leaders of our time. He was a truly gifted religious leader who touched
people all over the world: young and old, rich and poor, the powerful
and the underprivileged, Catholics and non-Catholics.
Pope John Paul II defied political labels and was constant in his
beliefs. For him, defending life included opposing capital punishment
and recourse to war as well as opposing abortion. Defending families
meant a commitment to faith and moral uprightness, but it also meant
standing up for just wages and a social safety net. These beliefs and
convictions made him a respected leader all over the world.
One of John Paul's strengths was reaching out to young adults. World
Youth Day was established by the Pope on Palm Sunday, 1984. He invited
the Youth of Rome to celebrate the Holy Year of Redemption with him at
Saint Peter's Square. It was a great success. Building upon this
success and its popularity, the Pope held this worldwide event every 3
years.
[[Page 6081]]
Over the last 20 years, millions of young people from hundreds of
countries have participated in World Youth Day. One young woman who
attended said that young people loved the Pope because the Pope loved
them: ``People think that teenagers and young people are just out there
and reckless, but he didn't see it that way. He said, `You are the
future and I love you for that.'''
The world is now mourning the death of Pope John Paul II. In parishes
from the Americas to Europe to Africa to Asia, millions are paying
tribute to a leader whose central message was love, respect, faith and
responsibility to our fellow man. That example is his legacy, and
regardless of our individual faiths, it is an example for all of us of
how to live and relate to our neighbors. May God grant Pope John Paul
II eternal rest and peace, and we thank him for a life lived in the
service of people everywhere.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SUCCESSFUL SALK POLIO VACCINE
TRIALS
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
commemorate an historic event that changed the world. Fifty years ago
today, Dr. Thomas Francis, Jr., director of the Poliomyelitis Vaccine
Evaluation Center and founding chair of the Department of Epidemiology
at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, announced that
the Salk polio vaccine was ``safe, effective, and potent.''
That announcement marked the culmination of the most comprehensive
field trials ever conducted, unprecedented in scope and magnitude. In
the early 1950s, Dr. Jonas Salk, a postdoctoral student of Dr. Francis
at the University of Michigan, developed a promising vaccine against
poliomyelitis in his laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh. Dr.
Salk returned to the University of Michigan to work with his longtime
mentor, Dr. Francis, who led the year-long field trials demonstrating
that ``the vaccine works.'' More than 300,000 individuals participated
in the work of the trials, including 20,000 physicians and public
health officers, 40,000 registered nurses, 14,000 school principals,
and 200,000 volunteers. More than 100 statisticians and epidemiologists
tabulated data from the approximately 1.8 million children across the
United States, Canada, and Finland who were involved in the trial.
These brave children, who stepped forward to receive a shot not knowing
if it would be the real vaccine or a placebo or whether it would be
safe or harmful, are now affectionately known as polio pioneers.
While we rarely consider the possibility of contracting polio today,
let me remind you that for generations polio was one of the most feared
childhood diseases. Poliomyelitis, a neuromuscular disease also known
as infantile paralysis, is caused by the polio virus. The virus invades
nerve cells in the spinal cord, resulting in weakness or paralysis of
the limbs and muscles. Prior to the successful work of Drs. Salk and
Thomas, no one knew how to prevent polio, and there was no cure for the
disease. Hot weather in late summer was ``polio season,'' bringing on a
rash of new cases of paralytic polio each year. In 1916, a devastating
epidemic struck New York, killing 9,000 people and leaving 27,000
disabled. For the next 40 years, not a summer passed without an
epidemic occurring somewhere in the U.S. In the 1940s and 1950s, the
number of cases reported in the U.S. ranged from 40,000 to 60,000 each
year. The warmer months of the year were termed ``nightmare summers of
quarantine and contagion.'' President Roosevelt, who suffered
personally from the effects of polio, founded the National Foundation
for Infantile Paralysis, now called the March of Dimes, and called upon
millions of private citizens to donate dimes to fund the foundation's
work to fight polio. Today, polio has been nearly eradicated.
Fifty years ago this morning, before more than 500 scientists,
physicians, and reporters at Rackham Auditorium in Ann Arbor, Dr.
Francis told an anxious world of parents that the Salk vaccine had been
proven to be effective in preventing polio. Please join me in honoring
the success of Drs. Francis and Salk in combating this devastating
disease.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
COMMENDING THE EFFORTS OF BASKETBALL WITHOUT BORDERS
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend the efforts of Basketball
without Borders, an initiative that promotes friendship, understanding,
and healthy living for young people around the world.
Today, the National Basketball Association, NBA, and the
International Basketball Federation, FIBA, announced that Basketball
without Borders will hold four instructional camps in the coming year.
For the first time, Basketball without Borders will be staged on four
continents: North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. It will feature
professional basketball players from diverse backgrounds, including
China's Yao Ming, Argentina's Manu Ginobili, Germany's Dirk Nowitzki,
and Congo's Dikembe Mutombo.
The Basketball without Borders initiative is more than an opportunity
for children to meet their favorite players and learn basketball
skills. It is also a chance for them to learn important lessons about
the world in which they live.
In addition to basketball instruction, the children who participate
in Basketball without Borders will learn about HIV/AIDS prevention, the
importance of education, and ways to lead a healthier life. They will
also have the opportunity to meet children whose ethnicities,
backgrounds, and cultures are different from their own.
I also applaud the NBA and FIBA for the charitable efforts that are
part of the Basketball without Borders initiative. As part of this
year's program, the NBA will be conducting several auctions on its
website, with the proceeds funding community improvement efforts
worldwide, particularly in disadvantaged areas.
As public figures, professional athletes can send a strong message by
serving as role models both on and off the playing field. It is my hope
that the players who are taking part in Basketball without Borders will
inspire basketball fans around the world to take a closer look at ways
they can extend a hand of friendship to diverse communities around the
globe. I salute the athletes who are participating in this worthy
venture, as well as all those whose hard work has made this initiative
possible.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO RALPH STURGES, CHIEF OF THE MOHEGAN TRIBE
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I honor Ralph Sturges, Chief of the
Mohegan Tribe. On April 13, Chief Sturges will receive the Citizen of
the Year award from the Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut.
Chief Sturges is known throughout southeastern Connecticut for his
leadership, his community involvement, and his humility. Even as he has
risen in the ranks of the Mohegan Tribe, from serving as a member of
the Tribal Council in the 1980s to becoming lifetime chief in 1991, he
has never lost a sense of who he is or what he stands for.
Born in 1918, Ralph Sturges served in our armed forces during the
World War II as a security and intelligence officer. He went on to work
for the Philadelphia Legal Aid Society and the Salvation Army, as well
as the Legnos Boat Company.
Chief Sturges was renowned for his skills as a craftsman,
particularly as a sculptor of traditional Mohegan cultural symbols.
Among his many works were a whale sculpture donated to Governor Ella
Grasso and the carving of a base for the headstone of the Mohegan chief
Samuel Uncas.
When Ralph Sturges was elected lifetime chief of the Mohegan Tribe,
as he puts it, he ``didn't have a telephone and didn't have an
office.'' He devoted a great deal of time and energy over the coming
decade to the cause of securing federal recognition for the Mohegans--a
goal that was realized on March 7, 1994.
[[Page 6082]]
Today, the Mohegan Tribe stands as a remarkable success story. So
much of this success is due to the efforts and dedication of Ralph
Sturges, as well as countless others who worked with him over the
years.
Chief Sturges is an outstanding citizen, a respected leader, and a
devoted member of the Mohegan tribe. He has forged strong bonds between
his tribe and the State of Connecticut, as well as the Federal
Government. These bonds have reaped tremendous benefits, not only for
the Mohegan Tribe, but all of Southeastern Connecticut. The
relationship between Connecticut and the Mohegan Tribe serves as a
model that other states and tribal nations would do well to emulate.
The honor Chief Sturges will receive this Wednesday is well-deserved.
I applaud Ralph Sturges for all of his accomplishments, I congratulate
him on this distinguished award, and I wish him continued health and
happiness.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MARTIN MACKEY
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to share with my colleagues
the memory of a very special man, Martin Mackey of Marin County, CA,
who died on March 25, 2005. He was 87 years old. Martin Mackey was born
in San Francisco. He earned his engineering degree from Stanford and
entered the Navy Midshipman Reserve Training Program. He served in the
Navy during World War II and was trained in antisubmarine warfare.
Martin met his wife Mary while on leave in Seattle during World War
II. They were engaged 5 days later. Martin and Mary just celebrated
their 61st wedding anniversary last December.
After the war and after 22 years of steel and concrete sales with a
multinational company, Martin retired with a desire to change the
world. The year was 1968, and he was deeply disturbed by social
injustice and the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert
Kennedy. He went on a weekend retreat with his wife Mary to figure out
what he should contribute to make our world a better place.
Martin played a key role in bringing affordable housing to Marin
County. President Lyndon Johnson had just signed the Housing Act into
law. Martin's good friend, Larry Livingston, who was a city and
regional planner, told Martin that Marin County badly needed low and
moderate-income housing. Martin was convinced. As chairman of the
Social Concerns Committee at Marin County Unitarian Church, he called
upon ministers throughout the county to form a social action group to
respond to the community's housing needs. They met in a rent-free
office in the attic of a convent. Then he called upon other leaders and
friends in the community to join their efforts. This social action
group of faith and community leaders began to raise money and became
the Ecumenical Association for Housing, EAH, still in existence today.
EAH began with 24 organizations, each pledging $200. Martin
selflessly accepted a salary of $1 to serve as executive director. EAH
quickly took off and began lending money to architects and regional
groups to build affordable housing projects throughout Marin. Their
first project was Pilgrim Park, a 61 unit, low-income housing
development in San Rafael.
For more than 22 years, Martin devoted himself to EAH and affordable
housing. Martin worked to persuade citizens and elected officials to
accept low and moderate-income housing in their wealthy communities. To
develop his knowledge and save EAH outside consultant fees, Martin went
to Catholic University in Washington, DC, to take a 2-month course in
how to be a housing consultant. He eventually expanded his services and
consulted for affordable housing projects in other parts of the Bay
Area as well as Arizona.
From its origins as the fledgling group Martin founded in 1968 to a
325-person staff and $6 million budget, EAH has completed 62 projects
and 4,556 housing units in the Bay area and beyond.
Martin was a dynamic figure in Marin County. My staff and I always
knew we could call on him for invaluable information and sound advice.
He was a passionate and effective advocate for affordable housing. He
led EAH with a sense of humor and a deep appreciation for the dedicated
individuals who worked with him. His accomplishments in creating
affordable housing for Marin residents is legendary. He was also a
respected member of the Marin community and a wonderful, inspiring man
who will be deeply missed. We take comfort in knowing that countless
future generations will benefit from his courage, his vision and his
leadership.
____________________
EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as
indicated:
EC-1596. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Quality
Designations for the Fine Particles (PM2.5) National Ambient
Air Quality Standards--Supplemental Notice'' (FRL No. 7896-8)
received on April 7, 2005; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
EC-1597. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Low-
Emission Diesel Fuel Compliance Date'' (FRL No. 7895-9)
received on April 7, 2005; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
EC-1598. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Locally Enforced
Idling Prohibition Rule'' (FRL No. 7896-7) received on April
7, 2005; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-1599. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``National
Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries'' (FRL No. 7895-8)
received on April 7, 2005; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
EC-1600. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for
Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the
Astragalus jaegerainus (Lane Mountain milk-vetch)'' (RIN1018-
AI78) received on April 7, 2005; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-1601. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for
Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of a Nonessential
Experimental Population for Two Fishes (Boulder Darter and
Spotfin Chub) in Shoal Creek, Tennessee and Alabama ``
(RIN1018-AH44) received on April 7, 2005; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-1602. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for
Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Division of Management Authority,
Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Revisions to General Permit
Procedures'' (RIN1018-AC57) received on April 7, 2005; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-1603. A communication from the Acting Administrator,
Rural Utilities Service, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``7 CFR Part 1728, Specifications and Drawings for 12.47/7.2
kV Line Construction'' received on April 7, 2005; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1604. A communication from the Acting Administrator,
Rural Utilities Service, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``7 CFR Part 1738, Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan
Guarantee'' (RIN0572-AB81) received on April 7, 2005; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1605. A communication from the Chairman and CEO, Farm
Credit Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Rules of Practice and Procedure;
Adjusting Civil Money Penalties for Inflation'' (RIN3052-
AC28) received on April 7, 2005; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1606. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
[[Page 6083]]
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Triflumizole; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency
Exemptions'' (FRL No. 7701-6) received on April 7, 2005; to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1607. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Paecilomyces
lilacinus strain 251; Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance'' (FRL No. 7708-4) received on April 7, 2005; to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1608. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Buprofezin;
Pesticide Tolerance'' (FRL No. 7691-8) received on April 7,
2005; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-1609. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Acetamiprid;
Pesticide Tolerance'' (FRL No. 7705-7) received on April 7,
2005; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-1610. A communication from the Vice President,
Government Affairs, National Railroad Passenger Corporation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the Corporation's
intent to submit its annual Legislative and Grant Request for
fiscal year 2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1611. A communication from the Secretary of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the 2004 Annual Report of the
Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1612. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: Saab Model SAAB SF340A and 340B
Series Airplanes;'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0126)) received on
April 4, 2005; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1613. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Model A330, A340-200, and
A340-300 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0131))
received on April 4, 2004; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1614. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: Hartzell Propeller, Inc. Model HC
B3TN 5 T10282 Propellers'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0125))
received on April 4, 2004; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1615. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 747-400, 400D, and
400F Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0118)) received
on April 4, 2004; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1616. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: Saab Model SAAB SF340A and SAAB
340B Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0117)) received
on April 4, 2004; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1617. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: Dassault Model Falcon 10 Series
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0116)) received on April 4,
2004; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1618. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada
Model 222, 222B, 222U, 230, and 430 Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-
AA64) (2005-0115)) received on April 4, 2004; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1619. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica
SA Model EMB 135 and 145 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)
(2005-0122)) received on April 4, 2004; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1620. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 707-100, 100B, 300B,
and E3A Series Airplanes; Model 720 and 720B Series
Airplanes; Model 737-100, 200, 200C, 300, 400, and 500 Series
Airplanes; and Model 747 Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-
0121)) received on April 4, 2004; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORT OF COMMITTEE
The following executive report of committee was submitted:
By Mr. CHAMBILSS for the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry. Charles F. Conner, of Indiana, to be
Deputy Secretary of Agriculture.
(Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the
recommendation that they be confirmed.)
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Crapo):
S. 761. A bill to rename the Snake River Birds of Prey
National Conservation Area in the State of Idaho as the
Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation
Area in honor of the late Morley Nelson, an international
authority on birds of prey, who was instrumental in the
establishment of this National Conservation Area, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. DeWine,
Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Alexander, Mr. DeMint,
Mrs. Dole, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Isakson, Mr.
Nelson of Florida, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Burr, Mr. Cochran,
Mr. Lott, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Bayh,
Mr. Allen, and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 762. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to
increase the minimum allocation provided to states for use in
carrying out certain highway programs; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 763. A bill to direct the Federal Railroad
Administration to make welded rail and tank car improvements;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 764. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to improve the coordination of prescription drug coverage
provided under State pharmaceutical assistance programs with
the prescription drug benefit provided under the medicare
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
S. 765. A bill to preserve mathe
matics- and science-based industries in the United States; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. SANTORUM:
S. 766. A bill to remove civil liability barriers that
discourage the donation of fire equipment to volunteer fire
companies; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BOND (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Talent, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Coleman):
S. 767. A bill to establish a Division of Food and
Agricultural Science within the National Science Foundation
and to authorize funding for the support of fundamental
agricultural research of the highest quality, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. Nelson of Florida):
S. 768. A bill to provide for comprehensive identity theft
prevention; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
S. Res. 104. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate encouraging the active engagement of Americans in
world affairs and urging the Secretary of State to take the
lead and coordinate with other governmental agencies and non-
governmental organizations in creating an online database of
international exchange programs and related opportunities; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Allen,
Mr. Bayh, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Coleman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Conrad, Mr.
Cornyn, Mr. Craig, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
[[Page 6084]]
Domenici, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Feingold, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Isakson, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Lott, Mr. Martinez, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Salazar, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Sessions, Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Specter, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Stevens, Mr.
Thune, and Mr. Bunning):
S. Res. 105. A resolution designating April 15, 2005, as
National Youth Service Day, and for other purposes;
considered and agreed to.
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Allard,
Mr. Bayh, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Carper, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Corzine, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Ensign, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Isakson, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Leahy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Salazar,
Mr. Schumer, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Stevens):
S. Con. Res. 26. A concurrent resolution honoring and
memorializing the passengers and crew of United Airlines
Flight 93; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 21
At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Chafee) was added as a cosponsor of S. 21, a bill to
provide for homeland security grant coordination and simplification,
and for other purposes.
S. 35
At the request of Mr. Conrad, the name of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 35, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the credit for production of
electricity from wind.
S. 77
At the request of Mr. Sessions, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Thune) was added as a cosponsor of S. 77, a bill to amend
titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve death benefits for the
families of deceased members of the Armed Forces, and for other
purposes.
S. 103
At the request of Mr. Talent, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Byrd) was added as a cosponsor of S. 103, a bill to
respond to the illegal production, distribution, and use of
methamphetamine in the United States, and for other purposes.
S. 241
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the names of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Crapo) and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) were added as
cosponsors of S. 241, a bill to amend section 254 of the Communications
Act of 1934 to provide that funds received as universal service
contributions and the universal service support programs established
pursuant to that section are not subject to certain provisions of title
31, United States Code, commonly known as the Antideficiency Act.
S. 331
At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) was added as a cosponsor of S. 331, a bill
to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for an assured
adequate level of funding for veterans health care.
S. 333
At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Burns) was added as a cosponsor of S. 333, a bill to hold the
current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to
support a transition to democracy in Iran.
S. 352
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the names of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) were
added as cosponsors of S. 352, a bill to revise certain requirements
for H-2B employers and require submission of information regarding H-2B
non-immigrants, and for other purposes.
S. 359
At the request of Mr. Craig, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Obama) was added as a cosponsor of S. 359, a bill to provide for
the adjustment of status of certain foreign agricultural workers, to
amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to reform the H-2A worker
program under that Act, to provide a stable, legal agricultural
workforce, to extend basic legal protections and better working
conditions to more workers, and for other purposes.
S. 370
At the request of Mr. Lott, the name of the Senator from Wyoming (Mr.
Thomas) was added as a cosponsor of S. 370, a bill to preserve and
protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or
assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities.
S. 397
At the request of Mr. Craig, the names of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Voinovich) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) were added as
cosponsors of S. 397, a bill to prohibit civil liability actions from
being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors,
dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive
or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
S. 398
At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) was added as a cosponsor of S. 398, a bill
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the expensing of
environmental remediation costs.
S. 432
At the request of Mr. Allen, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum) was added as a cosponsor of S. 432, a bill
to establish a digital and wireless network technology program, and for
other purposes.
S. 438
At the request of Mr. Ensign, the names of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) were
added as cosponsors of S. 438, a bill to amend title XVIII of the
Social Security Act to repeal the medicare outpatient rehabilitation
therapy caps.
S. 477
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Akaka) was added as a cosponsor of S. 477, a bill to amend the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 to include Indian tribes among the
entities consulted with respect to activities carried out by the
Secretary of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.
S. 484
At the request of Mr. Warner, the names of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. Pryor), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and the Senator from
North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) were added as cosponsors of S. 484, a bill
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Federal civilian
and military retirees to pay health insurance premiums on a pretax
basis and to allow a deduction for TRICARE supplemental premiums.
S. 487
At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Coleman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 487, a bill to amend title
10, United States Code, to provide leave for members of the Armed
Forces in connection with adoptions of children, and for other
purposes.
S. 494
At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Chafee) was added as a cosponsor of S. 494, a bill to amend
chapter 23 of title 5, United States Code, to clarify the disclosures
of information protected from prohibited personnel practices, require a
statement in nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements that such
policies, forms, and agreements conform with certain disclosure
protections, provide certain authority for the Special Counsel, and for
other purposes.
S. 495
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, his name was added as a
cosponsor of S. 495, a bill to impose sanctions against perpetrators of
crimes against humanity in Darfur, Sudan, and for other purposes.
S. 506
At the request of Mr. Hagel, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Biden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 506, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to establish a scholarship and loan repayment
program for public health preparedness workforce development to
eliminate critical public health preparedness workforce
[[Page 6085]]
shortages in Federal, State, local, and tribal public health agencies.
S. 512
At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 512, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to classify automatic fire
sprinkler systems as 5-year property for purposes of depreciation.
S. 555
At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 555, a bill
to amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels
illegal.
S. 582
At the request of Mr. Pryor, the names of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Burns), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Oregon (Mr.
Wyden), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from
Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley), the Senator
from New York (Mr. Schumer), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the
Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Nevada (Mr.
Reid), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and the Senator from
Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) were added as cosponsors of S. 582, a bill to
require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of
the 50th anniversary of the desegregation of the Little Rock Central
High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, and for other purposes.
S. 586
At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Boxer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 586, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the proper tax treatment
of certain disaster mitigation payments.
S. 595
At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning) was added as a cosponsor of S. 595, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the work opportunity credit and
the welfare-to-work credit.
S. 611
At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Dayton) 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
California (Mrs. Boxer) 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. 626
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, the name of the Senator
from Indiana (Mr. Bayh) was added as a cosponsor of S. 626, a bill to
amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve access to
diabetes self management training by designating certified diabetes
educators who are recognized by a nationally recognized certifying body
and who meet the same quality standards set forth for other providers
of diabetes self management training, as certified providers for
purposes of outpatient diabetes self-management training services under
part B of the medicare program.
S. 627
At the request of Ms. Cantwell, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 627, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
permanently extend the research credit, to increase the rates of the
alternative incremental credit, and to provide an alternative
simplified credit for qualified research expenses.
S. 633
At the request of Mr. Johnson, the names of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) 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 South
Dakota (Mr. Thune) 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. 656
At the request of Mr. Reed, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 656, a bill to provide for
the adjustment of status of certain nationals of Liberia to that of
lawful permanent residence.
S. 658
At the request of Mr. Brownback, the name of the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Enzi) was added as a cosponsor of S. 658, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to prohibit human cloning.
S. 662
At the request of Ms. Collins, the names of the Senator from
Washington (Mrs. Murray) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) were
added as cosponsors of S. 662, a bill to reform the postal laws of the
United States.
S. 675
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Coleman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 675, a bill to reward the
hard work and risk of individuals who choose to live in and help
preserve America's small, rural towns, and for other purposes.
S. 722
At the request of Mr. Santorum, the names of the Senator from
Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad) and
the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) were added as cosponsors of S.
722, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the
tax on beer to its pre-1991 level.
S. 725
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Boxer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 725, a bill to improve the
Child Care Access Means Parents in School Program.
S. 756
At the request of Mr. Bennett, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Ms. Landrieu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 756, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to enhance public and health professional
awareness and understanding of lupus and to strengthen the Nation's
research efforts to identify the causes and cure of lupus.
S. 758
At the request of Mr. Allen, the name of the Senator from Nevada (Mr.
Ensign) was added as a cosponsor of S. 758, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that the federal excise tax on
communication services does not apply to internet access service.
S. RES. 40
At the request of Ms. Landrieu, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 40, a resolution
supporting the goals and ideas of National Time Out Day to promote the
adoption of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare
Organizations' universal protocol for preventing errors in the
operating room.
S. RES. 82
At the request of Mr. Allen, the names of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
DeWine) and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Talent) were added as
cosponsors of S. Res. 82, a resolution urging the European Union to add
Hezbollah to the Eurpoean Union's wide-ranging list of terrorist
organizations.
S. RES. 85
At the request of Mr. Thomas, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Allen) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 85, a resolution
designating July 23, 2005, and July 22, 2006, as ``National Day of the
American Cowboy.''
AMENDMENT NO. 204
At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr.
[[Page 6086]]
Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 204 proposed to S.
Con. Res. 18, an original concurrent resolution setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2006 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2005 and 2007 through 2010.
AMENDMENT NO. 316
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the names of the Senator
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs.
Lincoln) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman) were added as
cosponsors of amendment No. 316 intended to be proposed to H.R. 1268,
making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly implement regulations for
State driver's license and identification document security standards,
to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United
States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and
removal, to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border
fence, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 333
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 333 proposed to
H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly implement
regulations for State driver's license and identification document
security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws
of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for
inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious construction of the
San Diego border fence, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 334
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the names of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Obama), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) and the Senator
from Michigan (Mr. Levin) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 334
proposed to H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly
implement regulations for State driver's license and identification
document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the
asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds
for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious construction of
the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Crapo):
S. 761. A bill to rename the Snake River Birds of Prey National
Conservation Area in the State of Idaho as the Morley Nelson Snake
River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area in honor of the late
Morley Nelson, an international authority on birds of prey, who was
instrumental in the establishment of this National Conservation Area,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my
colleague, Mr. Crapo, a bill to rename a National Conservation Area in
the State of Idaho after the late Morley Nelson. This bill renames it
the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area.
After returning home as a decorated veteran of World War II, having
served with the famed 10th Mountain Division in Italy, Morley Nelson
recognized the unique importance of the Snake River area for birds of
prey. He worked for its protection and various designations,
culminating in its establishment by Congress as a National Conservation
Area.
Starting in the 1950s, Morley Nelson spent decades convincing
ranchers and farmers not to shoot raptors, but rather to accept them as
an integral part of the ecosystem.
Morley Nelson raised public awareness about birds of prey through
scores of speeches with an eagle on his fist, and through dozens of
movies and TV specials starring his eagle or hawks, including seven
films for Disney.
Morley Nelson recognized the long-standing problem with raptor
electrocution from power lines and the associated power outages and
even resulting wildfires. In cooperation with Idaho Power, and later
with other utilities, he helped develop guards and redesigned power
transmission lines to reduce raptor electrocution. This technology has
since spread throughout the world.
Morley Nelson once said, ``This is where the wind and the cliffs and
the birds are. This is where I'll always be.'' It seems only fitting
that the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area should
bear his name.
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. 761
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 ``Morley Nelson Snake River
Birds of Prey National Conservation Area Act''.
SEC. 2. RENAMING OF SNAKE RIVER BIRDS OF PREY NATIONAL
CONSERVATION AREA.
(a) Renaming.--Public Law 103-64 is amended--
(1) in section 2(2) (16 U.S.C. 460iii-1(2)), by inserting
``Morley Nelson'' before ``Snake River Birds of Prey National
Conservation Area''; and
(2) in section 3(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 460iii-2(a)(1)), by
inserting ``Morley Nelson'' before ``Snake River Birds of
Prey National Conservation Area''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area shall be
deemed to be a reference to the Morley Nelson Snake River
Birds of Prey National Conservation Area.
(c) Technical Corrections.--Public Law 103-64 is further
amended--
(1) in section 3(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 460iii-2(a)(1)), by
striking ``(hereafter referred to as the `conservation
area')''; and
(2) in section 4 (16 U.S.C. 460iii-3)--
(A) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``Conservation Area''
and inserting ``conservation area''; and
(B) in subsection (d), by striking ``Visitors Center'' and
inserting ``visitors center''.
______
By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. DeWine, Ms.
Stabenow, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Alexander, Mr. DeMint, Mrs. Dole, Mr.
Vitter, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr.
Lugar, Mr. Burr, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Lott, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Allen, and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 762. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to increase the
minimum allocation provided to states for use in carrying out certain
highway programs; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Highway
Funding Equity Act of 2005. I am joined on a bipartisan basis by
Senators Levin, DeWine, Stabenow, Cornyn, Alexander, DeMint, Dole,
Vitter, Martinez, Isakson, Nelson of Florida, Lugar, Burr, Cochran,
Lott, Hutchison, Chambliss, Bayh, Allen, and Landrieu.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21 authorized
more than $218 billion for transportation programs and expired in
September 2003, but has been extended through May 2005. TEA-21 requires
certain States, known as donor States, to transfer to other States a
percentage of the revenue from federal highway user fees. Several of
these donor States transfer more than 10 percent of every federal
highway user fee dollar to other States. As a result, donor States
receive a significantly lower rate-of-return on their transportation
tax dollars being sent to Washington. Currently, over 25 States,
including my State of Ohio, contribute more money to the Highway Trust
Fund than they receive back.
My State of Ohio has the Nation's 10th largest highway network, the
5th highest volume of traffic, the 4th largest interstate highway
network, and the 2nd largest inventory of bridges in the country. Ohio
is a major manufacturing State and is within 600 miles of
[[Page 6087]]
50 percent of the population of North America. The interstate highways
throughout Ohio and all the donor States provide a vital link to
suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and--consumers.
Maintaining our Nation's highway infrastructure is essential to a
robust economy and increasing Ohio's share of federal highway dollars
has been a longtime battle of mine. One of my goals when I became
Governor 14 years ago was to increase our rate-of-return from 79
percent to 87 percent in the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991, ISTEA. Then, in 1998, as chairman of the
National Governors Association, I lobbied Congress to increase the
minimum rate-of-return to 90.5 percent. The goal of the Highway Funding
Equity Act of 2005 is to increase the minimum guaranteed rate-of-return
to 95 percent.
The Highway Funding Equity Act of 2005 has two components. First, the
bill would increase the minimum guaranteed rate-of-return in TEA-21
from 90.5 percent of a State's share of contributions to the Highway
Trust Fund to 95 percent. The Minimum Guarantee under TEA-21 includes
all major Core highway programs: Interstate Maintenance, National
Highway System, Bridge, Surface Transportation Program, Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality, Metropolitan Planning, Recreational Trails,
and any funds provided by the Minimum Guarantee itself.
Second, the bill uses the table of percentages now in Section 105 of
Title 23 to guarantee States with a population density of less the 50
people per square mile a minimum rate-of-return that may exceed 95
percent of that State's share of Highway Account contributions. This
provision is intended to ensure that every State is able to provide the
quality of road systems needed for national mobility, economic
prosperity, and national defense. Under the 2000 Census, this provision
would benefit 15 States: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas,
Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
Increasing donor States' rate of return to 95 percent will send more
than $60 million back to Ohio for road improvements we sorely need. The
interstate system was built in the 1950s to serve the demands and
traffic of the 1980s. Today, Ohio's infrastructure is functionally
obsolete. Nearly every central urban interstate in Ohio is over
capacity and plagued with accidents and congestion. Ohio's critical
roadways are unable to meet today's traffic demands, much less future
traffic which is expected to grow nearly 70 percent in the next 20
years. Like all the donor states, we need these funds in Ohio.
States can no longer afford to support others that are already self-
sufficient. Each State has its own needs that far outweigh total
available funding, especially in light of the so called ``mega
projects'' coming due in the next decade. For example, the Brent Spence
Bridge that carries Interstates 71 and 75 across the Ohio River into
Kentucky is in need of replacement within the next 10 years at a cost
of about $500 million. With the inclusion of the approach work, the
total project could cost close to $1 billion.
The goal of this legislation is to improve the rate-of-return on
donor States' dollars to guarantee that Federal highway program funding
is more equitable for all States. Donor States seek only their fair
share, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve
highway funding equity during the upcoming surface transportation
reauthorization process. I am pleased with the strong bipartisan
support this legislation has received. In addition, I am hopeful that
the highway bill will be brought to the Senate floor quickly, so that
we can move to a conference. It is vital that our Nation's highway
infrastructure needs be properly addressed to ensure continued economic
growth.
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. 762
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 ``Highway Funding Equity Act
of 2005''.
SEC. 2. MINIMUM GUARANTEE.
Section 105 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and subsections (c) through
(f);
(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (e);
(3) by inserting after the section heading the following:
``(a) Guarantee.--
``(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2005 through
2009, the Secretary shall allocate among the States amounts
sufficient to ensure that the percentage for each State of
the total apportionments for the fiscal year for the National
Highway System under section 103(b), the high priority
projects program under section 117, the Interstate
maintenance program under section 119, the surface
transportation program under section 133, metropolitan
planning under section 134, the highway bridge replacement
and rehabilitation program under section 144, the congestion
mitigation and air quality improvement program under section
149, the recreational trails program under section 206, the
Appalachian development highway system under subtitle IV of
title 40, and the minimum guarantee under this paragraph,
equals or exceeds the percentage determined for the State
under paragraph (2).
``(2) State percentages.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the percentage for each State referred to in paragraph (1) is
the percentage that is equal to 95 percent of the ratio
that--
``(i) the estimated tax payments attributable to highway
users in the State paid into the Highway Trust Fund (other
than the Mass Transit Account) in the most recent fiscal year
for which data are available; bears to
``(ii) the estimated tax payments attributable to highway
users in all States paid into the Highway Trust Fund (other
than the Mass Transit Account) in the most recent fiscal year
for which data are available.
``(B) Exception.--In the case of a State having a
population density of less than 50 individuals per square
mile according to the 2000 decennial census, the percentage
referred to in paragraph (1) shall be the greater of--
``(i) the percentage determined under subparagraph (A); or
``(ii) the percentage specified in subsection (e).
``(b) Treatment of Funds.--
``(1) Programmatic distribution.--The Secretary shall
apportion the amounts made available under this section that
exceed $2,800,000,000 so that the amount apportioned to each
State under this paragraph for each program referred to in
subsection (a)(1) (other than the high priority projects
program, metropolitan planning, the recreational trails
program, the Appalachian development highway system, and the
minimum guarantee under subsection (a)) is equal to the
product obtained by multiplying--
``(A) the amount to be apportioned under this paragraph;
and
``(B) the ratio that--
``(i) the amount of funds apportioned to the State for each
program referred to in subsection (a)(1) (other than the high
priority projects program, metropolitan planning, the
recreational trails program, the Appalachian development
highway system, and the minimum guarantee under subsection
(a)) for a fiscal year; bears to
``(ii) the total amount of funds apportioned to the State
for that program for the fiscal year.
``(2) Remaining distribution.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
Secretary shall apportion the remainder of funds made
available under this section to the States, and administer
those funds, in accordance with section 104(b)(3).
``(B) Inapplicable requirements.--Paragraphs (1), (2), and
(3) of section 133(d) shall not apply to amounts apportioned
in accordance with this paragraph.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund
(other than the Mass Transit Account) such sums as are
necessary to carry out this section for each of fiscal years
2005 through 2009.
``(d) Guarantee of 95 Percent Return.--
``(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2005 through
2009, before making any apportionment under this title, the
Secretary shall--
``(A) determine whether the sum of the percentages
determined under subsection (a)(2) for the fiscal year
exceeds 100 percent; and
``(B) if the sum of the percentages exceeds 100 percent,
proportionately adjust the percentages specified in the table
contained in subsection (e) to ensure that the sum of the
percentages determined under subsection (a)(1)(B) for the
fiscal year equals 100 percent.
``(2) Eligibility threshold for adjustment.--The Secretary
may make an adjustment under paragraph (1) for a State for a
[[Page 6088]]
fiscal year only if the percentage for the State in the table
contained in subsection (e) is equal to or exceeds 95 percent
of the ratio determined for the State under subsection
(a)(1)(B)(i) for the fiscal year.
``(3) Limitation on adjustments.--Adjustments of the
percentages in the table contained in subsection (e) in
accordance with this subsection shall not result in a total
of the percentages determined under subsection (a)(2) that
exceeds 100 percent.''; and
(4) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)),
by striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting ``subsections
(a)(2)(B)(ii) and (d)''.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I join Senator Voinovich in
introducing the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2005.
Our bill will allow States to get back a fairer share of what they
contribute in gas taxes to the highway trust fund. We do this by
increasing the Federal minimum guaranteed funding level for highways to
95 percent from the current 90.5 percent of a State's share of
contributions made to the Federal Highway Trust Fund in gas tax
payments.
Increasing this minimum guarantee to 95 percent will bring us one
step closer to achieving fairness in the distribution of Federal
highway funds to States.
Historically about 20 States, including Michigan, known as ``donor''
States, have sent more gas tax dollars to the Highway Trust Fund in
Washington than were returned in transportation infrastructure
spending. The remaining 30 States, known as ``donee'' States, have
received more transportation funding than they paid into the Highway
Trust Fund.
This came about in 1956 when a number of small States and large
Western States banded together to develop a formula to distribute
Federal highway dollars that advantaged themselves over the remaining
States. They formed a coalition of about 30 States that would benefit
from the formula and, once that formula was in place, have tenaciously
defended it.
At the beginning there was some legitimacy to the large low-
population predominately Western States getting more funds than they
contributed to the system in order to build a national interstate
highway system. Some arguments remain for providing additional funds to
those States to maintain the national system and our bill will do that.
However, there is no justification for any State getting more than its
fair share.
Each time the highway bill is reauthorized the donor States that have
traditionally subsidized other States' road and bridge projects have
fought to correct this inequity in highway funding. It has been a long
struggle to change these outdated formulas. Through these battles, some
progress has been made. For instance, in 1978, Michigan was getting
around 75 cents on our gas tax dollar. The 1991 bill brought us up to
approximately 80 cents per dollar and the 1998 bill guaranteed a 90.5
cent minimum return for each State.
We still have a long way to go to achieve fairness for Michigan and
other States on the return on our Highway Trust Fund contributions. At
stake are tens of millions of dollars a year in additional funding to
pay for badly needed transportation improvements in Michigan alone and
the jobs that go with it. Based on FHWA data, we calculate that
Michigan would have received over $55 million in additional funds in FY
2004 under the Voinovich-Levin 95 percent minimum guarantee bill.
That's a critically important difference for Michigan each year. The
same is true for other donor States that stand to get back millions
more of their gas tax dollars currently being sent to other States.
There's no logical reason for some States to be forced to continue to
send that money to other states to subsidize their road and bridge
projects and to perpetuate this imbalance is simply unfair and
unjustifiable.
With the national interstate system completed, the formulas used to
determine how much a State will receive from the Highway Trust Fund are
antiquated and do not relate to what a State's real needs or
contributions are.
The Voinovich-Levin bill is a consensus bill developed with the help
of donor State Department of Transportation agencies and their
coalition working group. This legislation would increase the minimum
guarantee from 90.5 percent to 95 percent for all States. With this
legislation, we intend to send a strong message to our colleagues and
the authorizing Committee about the need to address the equity issue in
the highway reauthorization bill. We are determined to make progress in
this bill to distribute the highway funds in a more equitable manner so
that every State gets its fair share.
This is simply an issue of fairness and we will not be satisfied
until we achieve it.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 763. A bill to direct the Federal Railroad Administration to make
welded rail and tank car improvements; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing bipartisan
legislation to address improvements that need to be made to the
Nation's rail tracks and tank cars. I am very pleased to be joined on
this bill by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.
It is vital that we address this issue of track and tank car safety.
Rail accidents occur in our Nation too frequently, and can cause
devastating harm, ranging from economic loss, environmental or health
hazards, or the worst tragedy, the loss of human life.
In my own State of North Dakota a terrible derailment took place in
Minot, ND in January of 2002. At approximately 1:37 a.m. on January 18,
2002, an eastbound Canadian Pacific Railway freight train, derailed 31
of its 112 cars about \1/2\ mile west of the city limits of Minot, ND.
Five tank cars carrying anhydrous ammonia, a liquefied compressed
gas, catastrophically ruptured, and a vapor plume covered the
derailment site and surrounding area. About 146,700 gallons of
anhydrous ammonia were released from the five cars, and a cloud of
hydrolyzed ammonia formed almost immediately. This plume rose an
estimated 300 feet and gradually expanded 5 miles downwind of the
accident site and over a population of about 11,600 people. One
resident was fatally injured, and 60 to 65 residents of the
neighborhood nearest the derailment site had to be rescued. Over the
next 5 days, another 74,000 gallons of anhydrous ammonia were released
from six other anhydrous ammonia tank cars.
As a result of the accident, 11 people sustained serious injuries,
and 322 people, including the 2 train crewmembers, sustained minor
injuries. Damages exceeded $2 million, and more than $8 million was
been spent for environmental remediation. Imagine the devastation that
could have occurred if this accident had happened in a more populated
area.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigated this
terrible derailment, and in its report issued important safety
recommendations on track inspections and tank car crashworthiness. The
findings by the NTSB raised great concern. NTSB estimated that the pre-
1989 tank cars were insufficiently crashworthy. The cars were estimated
to make up approximately 60 percent of the pressure tank cars in the
rail system, and with a 50-year lifespan, could continue operating
until 2039. The risks posed by these cars are significant, and the NTSB
set forth recommendations on addressing these safety issues.
Of further concern is the fact that statistics show that there were
more than 1.23 million tank car shipments of hazardous materials in
2000, the last year for which the study had data available, in the
United States and Canada. Of the top 10 hazardous materials transported
by tank car, 5 were class 2 liquefied compressed gases, LPG, anhydrous
ammonia, chlorine, propane, and vinyl chloride, that together accounted
for more than 246,600 tank car shipments, or about 20 percent of all
hazardous materials shipments by tank car.
Consequently, the NTSB specifically stated concerns about continued
transportation of class 2 hazardous materials in pre-1989 tank cars.
Because of the high volume of liquefied gases transported in these tank
cars and the
[[Page 6089]]
cars' lengthy service lives, the NTSB concluded that using these cars
to transport DOT class 2 hazardous materials under current operating
practices poses an unquantified but real risk to the public. The NTSB
also concluded that research was needed on improving the
crashworthiness of all tank cars.
With regards to track safety, the NTSB also found that improved track
inspection, such as visual inspections, and additional oversight by the
FRA was necessary. The accident was caused in part because of
undetected cracks in the rail tracks, and NTSB concluded that track
inspections to identify and remove cracked rail components before the
cracks grow to critical size are the primary preventive measure to
ensure safety.
The findings from the NTSB's report are extremely troubling, and
require immediate action by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
to implement the safety recommendations. Our legislation incorporates
these recommendations and others on track safety, and sets forth time
frames for the FRA to act so that we ensure that these critical and
potentially life-saving recommendations will move forward.
It is important to note that the terrible tragedy that took place in
Madrid last year demonstrates that tank and track safety are vital to
prevent not only against rail accidents, but also against terrorist
attacks against our rail system. We cannot delay on investigating
improvements to tank cars that travel every day across this country,
often carrying dangerous loads of hazardous material. This is a
necessary step in improving rail security.
We will now work with the Senate Commerce Committee and the Senate
leadership to speed enactment of this important legislation. Last year
similar provisions were included in a larger rail security bill that
passed the Senate, and I am hopeful that we can proceed along the same
route this year, as both measures are vital to protect our rail system.
I invite my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 763
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 ``Welded Rail and Tank Car
Safety Improvement Act''.
SEC. 2. WELDED RAIL AND TANK CAR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS.
(a) Track Standards.--
(1) In general.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Federal Railroad Administration shall--
(A) require each track owner using continuous welded rail
track to include procedures (in its procedures filed with the
Administration pursuant to section 213.119 of title 49, Code
of Federal Regulations) to improve the identification of
cracks in rail joint bars;
(B) instruct Administration track inspectors to obtain
copies of the most recent continuous welded rail programs of
each railroad within the inspectors' areas of responsibility
and require that inspectors use those programs when
conducting track inspections; and
(C) establish a program to review continuous welded rail
joint bar inspection data from railroads and Administration
track inspectors periodically.
(2) Whenever the Administration determines that it is
necessary or appropriate the Administration may require
railroads to increase the frequency of inspection, or improve
the methods of inspection, of joint bars in continuous welded
rail.
(b) Tank Car Standards.--The Federal Railroad
Administration shall--
(1) validate a predictive model to quantify the relevant
dynamic forces acting on railroad tank cars under accident
conditions within 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act; and
(2) initiate a rulemaking to develop and implement
appropriate design standards for pressurized tank cars within
18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Older Tank Car Impact Resistance Analysis and Report.--
Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act the
Federal Railroad Administration shall conduct a comprehensive
analysis to determine the impact resistance of the steels in
the shells of pressure tank cars constructed before 1989.
Within 6 months after completing that analysis the
Administration shall--
(1) establish a program to rank those cars according to
their risk of catastrophic fracture and separation;
(2) implement measures to eliminate or mitigate this risk;
and
(3) transmit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure setting forth
the measures implemented.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Federal
Railroad Administration $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 to
carry out this section, such sums to remain available until
expended.
______
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 764. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
improve the coordination of prescription drug coverage provided under
State pharmaceutical assistance programs with the prescription drug
benefit provided under the medicare program, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague,
Senator Lautenberg, to introduce legislation, the Preserving Access to
Affordable Drugs (PAAD) Act. This legislation is essential to ensuring
that our most vulnerable seniors who have existing prescription drug
coverage do not see a reduction or disruption in their coverage once
the Medicare prescription drug program goes into effect.
Hundreds of thousands of seniors, including 190,000 in my State,
currently enrolled in state pharmacy assistance programs (SPAPs) will
be forced out of those programs and into a private drug plan under the
Medicare prescription drug benefit. Additionally, approximately six
million seniors, including 140,000 in New Jersey, who are dually
eligible for Medicare and Medicaid will lose access to their Medicaid
prescription drug benefits, which are more generous and provide greater
access to a variety of drugs than the Medicare benefit will.
No senior should be made worse off by the new Medicare law. The law
should expand benefits--not reduce them. The PAAD Act will make
critical changes to the Medicare law to ensure that the above-mentioned
benefits are safeguarded.
The PAAD Act will allow States to automatically enroll SPAP and
dually eligible Medicaid beneficiaries into one or more preferred
prescription drug plans to ensure that these beneficiaries are enrolled
in a Medicare drug plan that maximizes both their Federal and State
prescription drug coverage and ensures for a seamless transition to the
new Medicare Part D drug benefit.
The PAAD Act will ensure that New Jersey seniors who currently
receive prescription drug benefits under PAAD or through the State's
Medicaid program are not made worse off by the new Medicare law.
The PAAD Act will allow New Jersey to provide supplemental Medicaid
prescription drug benefits to low-income seniors and disabled who
currently receive generous prescription drug benefits under the
Medicaid program and who will now receive their prescription drug
benefits through Medicare.
One of the goals of medicine is to do no harm. The manner in which
the Bush Administration has chosen to implement the Medicare law
violates that tenet. The Medicare legislation signed by the President
created the State Pharmaceutical Assistance Transition Commission
specifically to address the coordination of benefits between SPAPS,
State Medicaid drug programs, and the new Medicare drug plan. The
Commission was explicit in its recommendation to CMS that states be
permitted to automatically enroll these beneficiaries in preferred
prescription drug plans to ``enhance benefits to enrollees, encourage
enrollment, and promote coordination between Medicare Part D and
[states].'' Members of the Commission recognized that many blind,
disabled, and aged beneficiaries, those who most need coverage, would
not be able to navigate the plan selection process and could face gaps
in coverage. Yet, CMS recently denied New Jersey's request to
automatically enroll those Medicare beneficiaries currently enrolled in
New Jersey's PAAD and Medicaid programs
[[Page 6090]]
into a preferred Medicare prescription drug plan. This ruling
effectively blocks New Jersey's efforts to preserve the generous
prescription drug coverage the state currently provides to the 190,000
seniors enrolled in New Jersey's PAAD program and the 140,000 seniors
and disabled enrolled in the state's Medicaid program when the new
Medicare prescription drug benefit goes into effect on January 1, 2006.
Yesterday, I was joined by Senator Lautenberg in writing to the
President to express our sincere dismay over the recent CMS ruling. It
is clear that permitting states to automatically enroll these
beneficiaries would guarantee that these seniors continue to receive
the same level of prescription drug coverage, which is more generous
than the coverage that will be available under the new Medicare
benefit. Furthermore, auto enrollment would relieve beneficiaries from
the anxiety of selecting the appropriate plan to ensure that their drug
coverage is maximized. Certainly, beneficiaries who prefer to select
their own prescription drug plan should have that choice, but those who
want the state to act on their behalf to ensure that they receive the
most comprehensive and seamless coverage should be afforded that
option.
This legislation is critical to preserving and protecting existing
prescription drug coverage while expanding it to those who currently
lack such coverage. States like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York,
States that have well-established, generous prescription drug plans for
seniors and the disabled, should not be prevented from continuing to
provide the same level of coverage under the new Medicare law. I look
forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation and
preserve prescription drug benefits for all seniors.
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. 764
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 ``Preserving Access to
Affordable Drugs Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. STATE AS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
(a) In General.--Section 1860D-1(b)(1) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-101(b)(1)) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) State as authorized representative.--A State
Pharmaceutical Assistance Program (as defined in section
1860D-23(b)) may, at the option of the State operating the
Program, act as the authorized representative for any part D
eligible individual residing in the State who is enrolled in
the Program or described in section 1935(c)(6)(A)(ii) in
order to select one or more preferred prescription drug plans
to enroll such an individual, so long as the individual is
afforded the authority to decline such enrollment. A Program
that acts as an authorized representative for an individual
pursuant to the preceding sentence shall not be considered to
have violated section 1860D-23(b)(2) solely because of the
enrollment of such individual in a preferred prescription
drug plan.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment to Anti-discrimination
Provision.--Section 1860D-23(b)(2) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395w-133(b)(2)) is amended by inserting ``subject
to 1860D-1(b)(1)(D),'' after ``which,''.
SEC. 3. FACILITATION OF COORDINATION.
Section 1860D-24(c)(1) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-134(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``all methods
of operation'' and inserting ``its own methods of operation,
except that a PDP sponsor or MA organization may not require
a State Pharmaceutical Assistance Program or an RX plan
described in subsection (b) to apply such tools when
coordinating benefits''.
SEC. 4. ALLOWING MEDICAID WRAP.
Section 1935 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-5)
is amended by striking subsection (d).
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall take effect as if
included in the enactment of the Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-
173; 117 Stat. 2066).
______
By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
S. 765. A bill to preserve mathematics- and science-based industries
in the United States; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with
Senator Durbin, an important bipartisan bill related to education and
our national, homeland, and economic security. My good friend and
colleague in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Frank Wolf,
is introducing the same legislation today in the House.
Without a doubt, our ability to remain ahead of the curve in
scientific and technological advancements is a key component to
ensuring America's national, homeland and economic security in the post
9/11 world of global terrorism.
Yet alarmingly, the bottom line is that America faces a huge shortage
of home-grown, highly trained scientific minds.
The situation America faces today is not unlike almost 50 years ago.
On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the first
man-made satellite into space, Sputnik. The launch shocked America, as
many of us had assumed that we were preeminent in the scientific
fields. While prior to that unforgettable day America enjoyed an air of
post World War II invincibility; afterwards our Nation recognized that
there was a cost to its complacency. We had fallen behind.
In the months and years to follow, we would respond with massive
investments in science, technology and engineering. In 1958, Congress
passed legislation creating the National Defense Education Act, which
was designed to stimulate advancement in science and mathematics. In
addition, President Eisenhower signed into law legislation that
established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
And a few years later, in 1961, President Kennedy set the Nation's goal
of landing a man on the moon within the decade.
These investments paid off. In the years following the Sputnik
launch, America not only closed the scientific and technological gap
with the Soviet Union, we surpassed them. Our renewed commitment to
science and technology not only enabled us to safely land a man on the
moon in 1969, it spurred research and development which helped ensure
that our modern military has always had the best equipment and
technology in the world. These post-Sputnik investments also laid the
foundation for the creation of some of the most significant
technologies of modern life, including personal computers and the
Internet.
Why is any of this important to us today? Because, as the old saying
goes--he or she who fails to remember history is bound to repeat it.
The truth of the matter is that today America's education system is
coming up short in training the highly technical American minds that we
now need and will continue to need far into the future.
The 2003 Program for International Student Assessment found that the
math, problem solving, and science skills of fifteen year old students
in the United States were below average when compared to their
international counterparts in industrialized countries. While a little
bit better news was presented by the recently released 2003 Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), it is still
nothing we should cheer about. TIMSS showed that eighth grade students
in the U.S. had lower average math scores than fifteen other
participating countries. U.S. science scores weren't much better.
Our colleges and universities are not immune to the waning
achievement in math and science education. The National Science
Foundation reports the percentage of bachelor degrees in science and
engineering have been declining in the U.S. for nearly two decades. In
fact, the proportion of college-age students earning degrees in math,
science, and engineering was substantially higher in 16 countries in
Asia and Europe than it was in the United States.
In the past, this country has been able to compensate for its
shortfall in homegrown, highly trained, technical and scientific talent
by importing the necessary brain power from foreign countries. However,
with increased
[[Page 6091]]
global competition, this is becoming harder and harder. More and more
of our imported brain power is returning home to their native
countries. And regrettably, as they return home, many American high
tech jobs are being outsourced with them.
Moreover, in the post 9/11 era, it is more important than ever from a
security perspective to have American citizens performing certain
tasks. We cannot run the risk of having to out-source the security of
this country simply because we don't have enough highly trained U.S.
citizens to meet our America's needs.
The legislation we are introducing today is a targeted measure that
will help America meet its needs by providing strong incentives to
students and graduates to pursue studies and careers in these important
scientific and technical fields.
Our bill simply allows the Federal Government to pay the interest on
undergraduate student loans for certain graduates of math, science, or
engineering programs who agree to work in the United States in these
fields for 5 consecutive years. Priority will be given to those
students with degrees in majors that are key to protecting our
national, homeland and economic security as a nation.
Almost 50 years ago our Nation learned a lesson about the cost of
complacency in science and technology. While we responded with
immediate vigor and ultimately prevailed, today, new dangers are upon
us.
Once again, America must rise to meet a new challenge. In my view,
this initiative is an important step forward that will encourage
Americans to enter important fields of study that are crucial to the
national, homeland, and economic security of this country.
______
By Mr. SANTORUM:
S. 766. A bill to remove civil liability barriers that discourage the
donation of fire equipment to volunteer fire companies; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am introducing the ``Good Samaritan
Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2005.'' Amazingly, every year
quality firefighting equipment worth millions of dollars is wasted. In
order to avoid civil liability lawsuits, heavy industry and wealthier
fire departments destroy surplus equipment, including hoses, fire
trucks, protective gear and breathing apparatus, instead of donating it
to volunteer fire departments.
The basic purpose of this legislation is to induce donations of
surplus firefighting equipment by reducing the threat of civil
liability for organizations, most commonly heavy industry, and
individuals who wish to make these donations. The bill eliminates civil
liability barriers to donations of surplus firefighting equipment by
raising the liability standard for donors from ``negligence'' to
``gross negligence.'' By doing this, the legislation saves taxpayer
dollars by encouraging donations, thereby reducing the taxpayers'
burden of purchasing expensive equipment for volunteer fire
departments.
The Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2005 is
modeled after a bill passed by the Texas state legislature in 1997 and
signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush which has resulted in
more than $10 million in additional equipment donations from companies
and other fire departments for volunteer departments which may not be
as well equipped. Now companies in Texas can donate surplus equipment
to the Texas Forest Service, which then certifies the equipment and
passes it on to volunteer fire departments that are in need. The
donated equipment must meet all original specifications before it can
be sent to volunteer departments. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, South
Carolina, and Pennsylvania have passed similar legislation at the State
level.
In the 108th Congress, Representative Castle introduced the Good
Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act, which had 64 bipartisan
cosponsors in the House of Representatives. It is also supported by the
National Volunteer Fire Council, the Firemen's Association of the State
of New York, and a former director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, FEMA, James Lee Witt. The legislation passed overwhelmingly in
the House by a vote of 397-3. The bill has been reintroduced as H.R.
1088 in the 109th Congress and already has garnered 64 cosponsors. I
introduced the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of
2004 in the 108th Congress that also enjoyed support from the National
Volunteer Fire Council.
Federally, precedent for similar measures includes the Bill Emerson
Good Samaritan Food Act, Public Law 104-210, named for the late
Representative Bill Emerson, which encourages restaurants, hotels and
businesses to donate millions of dollars worth of food. The Volunteer
Protection Act of 1997, Public Law 105-101, also immunizes individuals
who do volunteer work for non-profit organizations or governmental
entities from liability for ordinary negligence in the course of their
volunteer work. I have also previously introduced three Good Samaritan
measures in the 106th Congress, S. 843, S. 844 and S. 845. These
provisions were also included in a broader charitable package in S.
997, the Charity Empowerment Act, to provide additional incentives for
corporate in-kind charitable contributions for motor vehicle, aircraft,
and facility use. The same provision passed the House of
Representatives in the 107th Congress as part of H.R. 7, the Community
Solutions Act, in July of 2001, but was not signed into law.
Volunteers comprise approximately 73 percent of firefighters in the
United States. Of the total estimated 1,078,300 firefighters across the
country, 784,700 are volunteers. Of the more than 30,000 fire
departments in the country, approximately 22,600 are all volunteer;
4,800 are mostly volunteer; 1,600 are mostly career; and 2,000 are all
career. In 2000, 58 of the 103 firefighters who died in the line of
duty were volunteers.
This legislation provides a commonsense incentive for additional
contributions to volunteer fire departments around the country and
would make it more attractive for corporations to give equipment to
fire departments in other States. All of America has witnessed the
heroic acts of selflessness and sacrifice of firefighters in New York
City, Northern Virginia, and Pennsylvania. I urge my colleagues to join
me in supporting this incentive for the provision of additional safety
equipment for volunteer firefighters who put their lives on the line
every day throughout this great Nation.
______
By Mr. BOND (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Talent, Mr. Harkin,
Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Coleman):
S. 767. A bill to establish a Division of Food and Agricultural
Science within the National Science Foundation and to authorize funding
for the support of fundamental agricultural research of the highest
quality, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. BOND. I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators
Mikulski, Talent, Harkin, Roberts and Coleman to establish a division
of food and agricultural science within the National Science Foundation
to support fundamental agricultural research of the highest quality. I
present this to begin a critical discussion that I believe we must have
over the next several months about how we are going to ensure we
capitalize on the technology to maximize the benefits and minimize the
costs of our agricultural production.
We remain the world leader in food and fiber production. We do it
safely and through technology and the hard work of the American farmer.
In the past half century, the number of people fed by a single U.S.
farm has grown from 19 to 129. We have a tremendously innovative
agricultural research program. Our farmers, our farm leaders are on the
cutting edge of developing new technology. And we have seen the
innovations continue to come down the pike. This has made it possible
for one farmer to feed 129 people.
In addition, we export $60 billion worth of agricultural products,
and we
[[Page 6092]]
do so at less cost and at less harm to the environment than any of our
competitors around the world, again, because of new practices,
diligence on the part of farmers, and new technology.
In a world that has a decreasing amount of soil available for
cultivation, we have a growing population and we still have 800 million
children who are hungry or malnourished throughout the world. As some
have said: A person who is well fed can have many problems. A person
who is hungry has but one problem. Unless we maximize technology and
new practices, production will continue to overtax the world's natural
resources.
Many people legitimately have raised concerns regarding new diseases
and pests and related food safety issues. And they are growing. The
leading competitiveness of our U.S. producers is only as solid as our
willingness to invest in forward-looking investments and build upon our
historic successes.
Now, we also know from past experience that with new technology the
doors are being opened to novel new uses of renewable agricultural
products in the fields of energy, medicine, and industrial products. In
the future, we can make our farm fields and farm animals factories for
everyday products, fuels, and medicines in a way that is efficient and
better preserves our natural resources. Advances in the life sciences
have come about, such as genetics, proteomics, and cell and molecular
biology. They are providing the base for new and continuing
agricultural innovations.
It was only about a dozen years ago that farmers in Missouri came to
me to tell me about the potential that genetic engineering and plant
biotechnology had for improving the production of food, and doing so
with less impact on the environment, providing more nutritious food.
Since that time, I have had a wonderful, continuing education, not in
how it works but what it can do.
We know now, for example, that in hungry areas of the world as many
as half a million children go blind from vitamin A deficiency, and
maybe a million die from vitamin A deficiency. Well, through plant
biotechnology, the International Rice Research Institute in the
Philippines and others have developed Golden Rice, taking a gene from
the sunflower, a beta-carotene gene, and they enrich the rice. The
Golden Rice now has that vitamin A, and that is going to make a
significant difference in dealing with malnutrition.
We also know that in many areas of the world, where agricultural
production has overtaxed the land, where drought has cut the
production, where virus has plagued production, the way we can make
farmers self-sufficient, where we can restore the farm economy in many
of these countries, is through plant biotechnology.
But this is just the beginning. This legislation I am introducing
today seeks to lay the foundation for tremendous advances in the
future.
This legislation stems from findings and recommendations produced by
a distinguished group of scientists working on the Agricultural
Research, Economics and Education Task Force, which I was honored to be
able to include in the 2002 farm bill. The distinguished task force was
led by Dr. William H. Danforth, of St. Louis, the brother of our former
distinguished colleague, Senator Jack Danforth. Dr. Bill Danforth has a
tremendous reputation in science and in education, with a commitment to
human welfare and is known worldwide. He was joined by Dr. Nancy Betts,
the University of Nebraska; Mr. Michael Bryan, president of BBI
International; Dr. Richard Coombe, the Watershed Agricultural Council;
Dr. Victor Lechtenbert, Purdue University; Dr. Luis Sequeira, the
University of Wisconsin; Dr. Robert Wideman, the University of
Arkansas; and Dr. H. Alan Wood, Mississippi State University.
I extend my congratulations and my sincere gratitude to Dr. Danforth
and his team for providing the basis and the roadmap to ensure we have
the mechanisms in place to solve the problems and capitalize on the
opportunities in agricultural research. The full report of the task
force can be found at www.ars.usda.gov/research.htm.
In summary, that study concludes that it is absolutely necessary we
reinvigorate and forward focus our technology to meet the
responsibilities of our time. New investment is critical for the
world's consumers, the protection of our natural resources, the
standard of living for Americans who labor in rural America, and for
the well-being of the hungry people and the needy people throughout the
world.
This legislation is supported by the some 22 Member and Associate
Member Societies of the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology, as well as the Institute of Food Technologists,
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil
Science Society of America, the Council for Agricultural Research, the
National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research, the American
Soybean Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National
Chicken Council, National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers
Union, National Milk Producers Federation, National Pork Producers
Council, National Turkey Federation, Association of American Veterinary
Medical Colleges and the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association.
I look forward to pursuing this vision in the 109th Congress. I
invite my colleagues who are interested in science and research to
review this report, to look at this measure, to join with me and my
cosponsors in the next session of Congress to talk about moving forward
on what I think will be a tremendous opportunity to improve agriculture
and its benefits to all our populations.
Madam President, this, I hope, will be the start of something really
big. Today, Congressman Gutknecht is offering companion legislation in
the House. I congratulate him on his leadership in promoting science
and I am pleased to be working on this with him.
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. 767
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 ``National Food and
Agricultural Science Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Standing
Council of Advisors established under section 4(c).
(2) Director.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
the term ``Director'' means the Director of Food and
Agricultural Science.
(3) Division.--The term ``Division'' means the Division of
Food and Agricultural Science established under section 4(a).
(4) Foundation.--The term ``Foundation'' means the National
Science Foundation.
(5) Fundamental agricultural research; fundamental
science.--The terms ``fundamental agricultural research'' and
``fundamental science'' mean fundamental research or science
that--
(A) advances the frontiers of knowledge so as to lead to
practical results or to further scientific discovery; and
(B) has an effect on agriculture, food, nutrition, human
health, or another purpose of this Act, as described in
section 3(b).
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(7) United states.--The term ``United States'' when used in
a geographical sense means the States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and all
territories and possessions of the United States.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--The Agricultural Research, Economics, and
Education Task Force established under section 7404 of the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 3101
note) conducted an exhaustive review of agricultural research
in the United States and evaluated the merits of establishing
1 or more national institutes focused on disciplines
important to the progress of food and agricultural science.
Consistent with the findings and recommendations of the
Agricultural Research, Economics, and Education Task Force,
Congress finds the following:
(1) Agriculture in the United States faces critical
challenges, including an impending crisis in the food,
agricultural, and natural resource systems of the United
States. Exotic diseases and pests threaten crops and
livestock, obesity has reached epidemic proportions,
agriculturally-related environmental degradation is a serious
problem for
[[Page 6093]]
the United States and other parts of the world, certain
animal diseases threaten human health, and United States
producers of some major crops are no longer the world's
lowest cost producers.
(2) In order to meet these critical challenges, it is
essential that the Nation ensure that the agricultural
innovation that has been so successful in the past continues
in the future. Agricultural innovation has resulted in hybrid
and higher yielding varieties of basic crops and enhanced the
world's food supply by increasing yields on existing acres.
Since 1960, the world's population has tripled with no net
increase in the amount of land under cultivation. Currently,
only 1.5 percent of the population of the United States
provides the food and fiber to supply the Nation's needs.
Agriculture and agriculture sciences play a major role in
maintaining the health and welfare of all people of the
United States and in husbanding our land and water, and that
role must be expanded.
(3) Fundamental scientific research that leads to
understandings of how cells and organisms work is critical to
continued innovation in agriculture in the United States.
Such future innovations are dependent on fundamental
scientific research, and will be enhanced by ideas and
technologies from other fields of science and research.
(4) Opportunities to advance fundamental knowledge of
benefit to agriculture in the United States have never been
greater. Many of these new opportunities are the result of
amazing progress in the life sciences over recent decades,
attributable in large part to the provision made by the
Federal Government through the National Institutes of Health
and the National Science Foundation. New technologies and new
concepts have speeded advances in the fields of genetics,
cell and molecular biology, and proteomics. Much of this
scientific knowledge is ready to be mined for agriculture and
food sciences, through a sustained, disciplined research
effort at an institute dedicated to this research.
(5) Publicly sponsored research is essential to continued
agricultural innovation to mitigate or harmonize the long-
term effects of agriculture on the environment, to enhance
the long-term sustainability of agriculture, and to improve
the public health and welfare.
(6) Competitive, peer-reviewed fundamental agricultural
research is best suited to promoting the fundamental research
from which breakthrough innovations that agriculture and
society require will come.
(7) It is in the national interest to dedicate additional
funds on a long-term, ongoing basis to an institute dedicated
to funding competitive peer-reviewed grant programs that
support and promote the highest caliber of fundamental
agricultural research.
(8) The Nation's capacity to be competitive internationally
in agriculture is threatened by inadequate investment in
research.
(9) To be successful over the long term, grant-receiving
institutions must be adequately reimbursed for their costs if
they are to pursue the necessary agricultural research.
(10) To meet these challenges, address these needs, and
provide for vitally needed agricultural innovation, it is in
the national interest to provide sufficient Federal funds
over the long term to fund a significant program of
fundamental agricultural research through an independent
institute.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Division established
under section 4(a) shall be to ensure that the technological
superiority of agriculture in the United States effectively
serve the people of the United States in the coming decades,
and to support and promote fundamental agricultural research
of the highest caliber in order to achieve goals, including
the following goals:
(1) Increase the international competitiveness of United
States agriculture.
(2) Develop knowledge leading to new foods and practices
that improve nutrition and health and reduce obesity.
(3) Create new and more useful food, fiber, health,
medicinal, energy, environmental, and industrial products
from plants and animals.
(4) Improve food safety and food security by protecting
plants and animals in the United States from insects,
diseases, and the threat of bioterrorism.
(5) Enhance agricultural sustainability and improve the
environment.
(6) Strengthen the economies of the Nation's rural
communities.
(7) Decrease United States dependence on foreign sources of
petroleum by developing bio-based fuels and materials from
plants.
(8) Strengthen national security by improving the
agricultural productivity of subsistence farmers in
developing countries to combat hunger and the political
instability that it produces.
(9) Assist in modernizing and revitalizing the Nation's
agricultural research facilities at institutions of higher
education, independent non-profit research institutions, and
consortia of such institutions, through capital investment.
(10) Achieve such other goals and meet such other needs as
determined appropriate by the Foundation, the Director, or
the Secretary.
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF DIVISION.
(a) Establishment.--There is established within the
National Science Foundation a Division of Food and
Agricultural Science. The Division shall consist of the
Council and be administered by a Director of Food and
Agricultural Science.
(b) Reporting and Consultation.--The Director shall
coordinate the research agenda of the Division after
consultation with the Secretary.
(c) Standing Council of Advisors.--
(1) Establishment.--
(A) In general.--There is established in the Division a
Standing Council of Advisors composed of 12 highly qualified
scientists who are not employed by the Federal Government and
12 stakeholders.
(B) Scientists.--
(i) Appointment.--The 12 scientist members of the Council
shall be appointed to 4-year staggered terms by the Director
of the National Science Foundation, with the consent of the
Director of Food and Agricultural Science.
(ii) Qualifications.--The persons nominated for appointment
as scientist members of the Council shall be--
(I) eminent in the fields of agricultural research,
nutrition, science, or related appropriate fields; and
(II) selected for appointment solely on the basis of
established records of distinguished service and to provide
representation of the views of agricultural research and
scientific leaders in all areas of the Nation.
(C) Stakeholders.--
(i) Appointment.--The 12 stakeholder members of the Council
shall be appointed to 4-year staggered terms by the
Secretary, with the consent of the Director.
(ii) Qualifications.--The persons nominated for appointment
as stakeholder members of the Council shall--
(I) include distinguished members of the public of the
United States, including representatives of farm
organizations and industry, and persons knowledgeable about
the environment, subsistence agriculture, energy, and human
health and disease; and
(II) be selected for appointment so as to provide
representation of the views of stakeholder leaders in all
areas of the Nation.
(2) Duties.--The Council shall assist the Director in
establishing the Division's research priorities, and in
reviewing, judging, and maintaining the relevance of the
programs funded by the Division. The Council shall review all
proposals approved by the scientific committees of the
Division to ensure that the purposes of this Act and the
needs of the Nation are being met.
(3) Meetings.--
(A) In general.--The Council shall hold periodic meetings
in order to--
(i) provide an interface between scientists and
stakeholders; and
(ii) ensure that the Division is linking national goals
with realistic scientific opportunities.
(B) Timing.--The meetings shall be held at the call of the
Director, or at the call of the Secretary, but not less
frequently than annually.
SEC. 5. FUNCTIONS OF DIVISION.
(a) Competitive Research.--
(1) In general.--The Director shall carry out the purposes
of this Act by awarding competitive peer-reviewed grants to
support and promote the very highest quality of fundamental
agricultural research.
(2) Grant recipients.--The Director shall make grants to
fund research proposals submitted by--
(A) individual scientists;
(B) single and multi-institutional research centers; and
(C) entities from the private and public sectors, including
researchers in the Department of Agriculture, the Foundation,
or other Federal agencies.
(b) Complementary Research.--The research funded by the
Division shall--
(1) supplement and enhance, not supplant, the existing
research programs of, or funded by, the Department of
Agriculture, the Foundation, and the National Institutes of
Health; and
(2) seek to make existing research programs more relevant
to the United States food and agriculture system, consistent
with the purposes of this Act.
(c) Grant-Awarding Only.--The Division's sole duty shall be
to award grants. The Division may not conduct fundamental
agricultural research or fundamental science, or operate any
laboratories or pilot plants.
(d) Procedures.--The Director shall establish procedures
for the peer review, awarding, and administration of grants
under this Act, consistent with sound management and the
findings and purposes described in section 3.
[[Page 6094]]
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 104--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE ENCOURAGING
THE ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT OF AMERICANS IN WORLD AFFAIRS AND URGING THE
SECRETARY OF STATE TO TAKE THE LEAD AND COORDINATE WITH OTHER
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS IN CREATING AN
ONLINE DATABASE OF INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND RELATED
OPPORTUNITIES
Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Hagel) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:
S. Res. 104
Whereas the United States needs to do a better job of
building personal and institutional relationships with
peoples and Nations around the world in order to combat the
rise in anti-American sentiment that many polls and studies
have reported;
Whereas a broad bipartisan consensus in favor of
strengthening United States public diplomacy emerged during
2003 in Congress and was expressed in various reports,
including reports of the Council on Foreign Relations, the
General Accounting Office, the Advisory Commission on Public
Diplomacy, the Heritage Foundation, and the Advisory Group on
Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World;
Whereas, in July 2004, the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States released its final report on
United States intelligence, which determined that ``[j]ust as
we did in the Cold War, we need to defend our ideals abroad
vigorously. America does stand up for its values
. . . If the United States does not act aggressively to
define itself in the Islamic World, the extremists will
gladly do the job for us.'';
Whereas the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004
declares the sense of Congress that the United States should
commit to a long-term and significant investment in promoting
people-to-people engagement with all levels of society in
other countries;
Whereas international exchange programs, which have
assisted in extending American influence around the world by
educating the world's leaders, have suffered from a decline
in funding and policy priority;
Whereas, when students are instructed in their civic and
community responsibilities during secondary education, the
importance of their participation in global affairs should be
underscored as well;
Whereas the number of United States university-level
students studying abroad in 2002-2003 was 174,629,
representing just over 1 percent of United States students;
Whereas \2/3\ of United States students studying abroad
study in Western Europe (18.2 percent in the United Kingdom
alone), although 95 percent of the world population growth in
the next 50 years is expected to occur outside of Western
Europe;
Whereas there are 29,953,000 retired workers in the United
States as of December 2004, meaning that there are many older
Americans who have the talent, maturity, and time to
volunteer their services abroad;
Whereas the average United States college graduate who has
studied 1 of the less commonly taught languages reaches no
more than an intermediate level of proficiency in the
language, which is insufficient to meet national security
requirements; and
Whereas there are hundreds of well-established
organizations in the United States that implement educational
and professional exchanges, international volunteering, and
related programs, and the efforts of those organizations
could readily be expanded to reach out to more Americans:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This resolution may be cited as the ``People-to-People
Engagement in World Affairs Resolution''.
SEC. 2. SENSE OF SENATE.
It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the Secretary of State should coordinate with
implementing partners in creating an online database that
provides information on how Americans can take advantage of--
(A) international exchange programs of the Department of
State, the Department of Education, and other Federal
Government and non-government entities;
(B) volunteer opportunities with organizations that assist
refugees and immigrants in the United States;
(C) opportunities to host international students and
professionals in the United States;
(D) sister-city organizations in the United States;
(E) international fairs and cultural events in the United
States; and
(F) foreign language learning opportunities;
(2) Americans should strive to become more engaged in
international affairs and more aware of peoples and
developments outside the United States;
(3) Americans should seize 1 or more opportunities toward
this end, by such means as--
(A) participating in a professional or cultural exchange;
(B) studying abroad;
(C) volunteering abroad;
(D) working with an immigrant or refugee group;
(E) hosting a foreign student or professional;
(F) participating in a sister-city program; and
(G) learning a foreign language; and
(4) Members of Congress should raise the importance of
international engagement in the districts and States the
Members represent.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit the People-to-
People Engagement in World Affairs resolution with my colleague from
Nebraska, Senator HAGEL.
In July 2004, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the
United States released its final report, which determined that ``just
as we did in the Cold War, we need to defend our ideals abroad
vigorously. . . . If the United States does not act aggressively to
define itself in the Islamic world, the extremists will gladly do the
job for us.'' The 9/11 Commission report clearly states that in the
interests of national security, the U.S. must commit to a long-term,
global strategy, which includes, among other things, effective public
diplomacy.
Public diplomacy is an essential component of our efforts to define
and defend America's interests and ideals abroad. But a successful,
long-term approach to building solid relationships with the rest of the
world is not just the mission of the State Department. It also requires
the engagement of the American people.
This People-to-People Engagement in World Affairs resolution is a
call to Americans to reach beyond our borders to engage with the world
at an individual level. It encourages Americans to seize opportunities
to engage in the global arena--through participating in a professional
or cultural exchange; studying or volunteering abroad; working with an
immigrant or refugee group in the United States; hosting a foreign
student or professional; participating in a sister-city program; or
learning a foreign language. This resolution also urges the State
Department to coordinate between government agencies and non-
governmental organizations to create a database where Americans can
learn of opportunities to become involved in world affairs.
Furthermore, it encourages all Members of Congress to work to raise the
importance of citizen diplomacy in their states and districts.
Americans must make a serious investment in reaching across borders
and reversing the tide of increasing anti-American sentiments abroad.
According to a 2003 Pew Research Center survey, during 1999-2000, more
than 50 percent of the people in surveyed countries held a favorable
view of the U.S., and in at least one country, favorable views of the
U.S. were held by over 80 percent of those surveyed. More recent
surveys reveal a stark contrast with those figures and growing anti-
American sentiment. Pew found that, by 2003, favorable views of the
United States in these countries plummeted. Additionally, whereas
negative public opinion of the U.S. among Muslims was once limited to
the Middle East, now it has spread to populations in places like
Nigeria and Indonesia. Pew found that ``the bottom has fallen out of
Arab and Muslim support for the United States.''
While these sentiments are most notable in the Muslim world, they
extend even farther, coloring the views of many others.
Growing anti-American sentiment abroad is dangerous and breeds
misperceptions in future generations. Our ability to work with allies
to foster democratic societies and tackle global problems relates
directly to our image abroad. Building an international coalition with
our allies requires their trust that our efforts are genuine. Success
in combating terrorism, the greatest global threat, is contingent upon
a unified, global participation. Members of the international community
must collaborate to eliminate loopholes that terrorist networks
manipulate when intelligence and communication break down between
borders.
[[Page 6095]]
Anti-Americanism can feed a steady supply of recruits and supporters
for terrorist networks, intent on our destruction. Terrorist networks
capitalize on misperceptions about the U.S. to advance their own agenda
and scapegoat the U.S. as the reason for the poverty, weak and corrupt
states, and powerlessness that many experience on a daily basis.
International cooperation is also essential for effective progress in
other important, trans-border issues, such as the proliferation of WMD,
human trafficking, poverty, environmental degradation, and diseases
from HIV/AIDS to polio. We cannot solve these problems alone--we need
allies to help find and achieve meaningful solutions.
Combating anti-American sentiments requires that we engage in a
conversation with people in all levels of society beyond our borders.
And as Secretary Rice has noted, our dialogue cannot be a monologue.
Talking at people about what the U.S. image abroad should be is not
sustainable or effective. Talking with people, and listening to them,
however, can be the start of real understanding and even trust. That
conversation needs to happen at a governmental level, through public
and private diplomacy, but it also needs to happen at an individual
person-to-person level, through citizen diplomacy.
I have met with a number of groups from my State of Wisconsin that
tell me they are concerned about misperceptions of America abroad,
which they believe discourage people from coming to the U.S. to visit,
study, learn about our wonderful country, and share their knowledge. I
am so proud of the work people back in Wisconsin have done to overcome
barriers to engaging outside our borders, whether by continuing
Wisconsin's strong history of support for the Peace Corps, or by taking
part in farmer to farmer initiatives and education exchange programs,
building sister communities, or tirelessly working to ensure that
Wisconsin maintains its success in attracting foreign visitors to our
remarkable state. In 2004, Wisconsin was awarded the Goldman Sachs
Foundation Prizes for Excellence in International Education in honor of
its work to bring international education and skills into its
curriculum. In fact, earlier this year, Wisconsin welcomed a group of
teachers from Azerbaijan to study the workings of our education system
to create a model for a new curriculum in their country.
Wisconsin also works to improve communities abroad. A non-profit
organization based in Wisconsin helps abused children in Latvia and is
working to create the first family shelter there for these children and
their mothers. Another Wisconsinite who is an expert in dairy prices
participated in a farmer to farmer program to assist in building a
pricing system in Armenia's dairy industry. He was able to share his
experiences from this program with myself and people back in the state.
Citizen diplomacy not only helps the rest of the world to understand
us, it strengthens this country internally as well. Americans with
insight into and understanding of the world beyond our borders become
energized constituents who demand wise foreign policy and help all of
us to understand global events.
President Kennedy acknowledged the importance of public diplomacy in
1960 and challenged Americans to serve their country through building
stronger communities abroad. His vision is even more relevant today. It
is our responsibility to connect with people outside our borders. This
duty can be fulfilled by teachers, students, retirees, and anyone who
can share the best of the American people. We are a generous nation.
Many of our fellow Americans have dedicated their lives to bringing
about change for a better world. It is in our hands to carry this
mission forward.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 105--DESIGNATING APRIL 15, 2005, AS NATIONAL YOUTH
SERVICE DAY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Allen, Mr. Bayh, Mr.
Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Coleman, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Craig, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
Domenici, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Gregg, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Landrieu,
Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lott, Mr. Martinez, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Reed, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Santorum,
Mr. Schumer, Mr. Sessions, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Specter, Ms. Stabenow, Mr.
Stevens, Mr. Thune, and Mr. Bunning) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 105
Whereas National Youth Service Day is an annual public
awareness and education campaign that highlights the valuable
contributions that young people make to their communities
throughout the year;
Whereas the goals of National Youth Service Day are to
mobilize youth as leaders in identifying and addressing the
needs of their communities through service and service-
learning, to support youth on a lifelong path of service and
civic engagement, and to educate the public, the media, and
policymakers about the year-round contributions of young
people as community leaders;
Whereas young people in the United States, and in many
other countries, are volunteering more than in any generation
in history;
Whereas young people should be viewed as the hope not only
of the future, but also of today, and should be valued for
the idealism, energy, creativity, and commitment they bring
to the challenges found in their communities;
Whereas there is a fundamental and conclusive correlation
between youth service and lifelong adult volunteering and
philanthropy;
Whereas through community service, young people build
character and learn valuable skills, including time
management, teamwork, needs-assessment, and leadership, that
are sought by employers;
Whereas service-learning, an innovative teaching method
combining service to the community with curriculum-based
learning, is a proven strategy to increase academic
achievement and strengthens civic engagement and civic
responsibility;
Whereas several private foundations and corporations in the
United States support service-learning because they
understand that strong communities begin with strong schools
and a community investment in the lives and futures of youth;
Whereas a sustained investment by the Federal Government,
business partners, schools, and communities fuels the
positive, long-term cultural change that will make service
and service-learning the common expectation and the common
experience of all young people;
Whereas National Youth Service Day, a program of Youth
Service America, is the largest service event in the world
and is being observed for the 17th consecutive year in 2005;
Whereas National Youth Service Day, with the support of 50
lead agencies, hundreds of grant winners, and thousands of
local partners, engages millions of young people nationwide;
Whereas National Youth Service Day will involve 114
national partners, including 8 Federal agencies and 10
organizations that are offering grants to support National
Youth Service Day;
Whereas National Youth Service Day has inspired Global
Youth Service Day, which occurs concurrently in over 120
countries and is now in its sixth year; and
Whereas young people will benefit greatly from expanded
opportunities to engage in meaningful volunteer service and
service-learning: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved,
SECTION 1. RECOGNITION AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF YOUTH COMMUNITY
SERVICE.
The Senate recognizes and commends the significant
contributions of American youth and encourages the
cultivation of a common civic bond among young people
dedicated to serving their neighbors, their communities, and
the Nation.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL YOUTH SERVICE DAY.
The Senate--
(1) designates April 15, 2005, as ``National Youth Service
Day''; and
(2) calls on the people of the United States to--
(A) observe the day by encouraging and engaging youth to
participate in civic and community service projects;
(B) recognize the volunteer efforts of our Nation's young
people throughout the year; and
(C) support these efforts and engage youth in meaningful
decision making opportunities today as an investment in the
future of our Nation.
[[Page 6096]]
____________________
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 26--HONORING AND MEMORIALIZING THE
PASSENGERS AND CREW OF UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 93
Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Allard, Mr. Bayh, Mr.
Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Carper, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Coburn, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Ensign, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Leahy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Specter, and Mr. Stevens) submitted the following concurrent
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and
Administration:
S. Con. Res. 26
Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of war involving the
hijacking of commercial airplanes were committed against the
United States, killing and injuring thousands of innocent
people;
Whereas 1 of the hijacked planes, United Airlines Flight
93, crashed in a field in Pennsylvania;
Whereas while Flight 93 was still in the air, the
passengers and crew, through cellular phone conversations
with loved ones on the ground, learned that other hijacked
airplanes had been used to attack the United States;
Whereas during those phone conversations, several of the
passengers indicated that there was an agreement among the
passengers and crew to try to overpower the hijackers who had
taken over Flight 93;
Whereas Congress established the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (commonly referred
to as ``the 9-11 Commission'') to study the September 11,
2001, attacks and how they occurred;
Whereas the 9-11 Commission concluded that ``the nation
owes a debt to the passengers of Flight 93. Their actions
saved the lives of countless others, and may have saved
either the U.S. Capitol or the White House from
destruction.''; and
Whereas the crash of Flight 93 resulted in the death of
everyone on board: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That--
(1) the United States owes the passengers and crew of
United Airlines Flight 93 deep respect and gratitude for
their decisive actions and efforts of bravery;
(2) the United States extends its condolences to the
families and friends of the passengers and crew of Flight 93;
(3) not later than October 1, 2006, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, the minority leader of the House of
Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, and the
minority leader of the Senate shall select an appropriate
memorial that shall be located in the United States Capitol
and that shall honor the passengers and crew of Flight 93,
who saved the United States Capitol from destruction; and
(4) the memorial shall state the purpose of the honor and
the names of the passengers and crew of Flight 93 on whom the
honor is bestowed.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a concurrent
resolution to honor the memory of the passengers on flight 93. As we
reflect on the events of 9/11 and mourn the great loss we suffered, we
remember the innocent who perished and we are reminded of the valiant
efforts of those who saved lives, including the passengers and crew of
United Airlines flight 93. Those brave people gave up their lives in
order to save others that fateful day.
Last fall, the 9/11 Commission released its report about the series
of events that took place on September 11, 2001. The Senate has
subsequently undertaken an evaluation of the Commission's findings
through a series of hearings. As the story continues to unfold, it
becomes clearer how important the actions of the passengers and crew of
flight 93 were. We now know that flight 93 was almost certainly headed
to the U.S. Capitol or the White House. We also know the passengers of
flight 93 learned through a series of phone calls to loved ones that
hijackers on three other flights had turned airplanes into flying bombs
that morning, crashing them into the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon.
Armed only with that knowledge and their own courage and resolve,
those brave passengers attacked the hijackers and forced them to crash
flight 93 into rural Pennsylvania far short of its intended target. The
9/11 Commission concluded that the Nation owes a debt to the passengers
of flight 93. Their actions saved the lives of countless others and may
have saved either the U.S. Capitol or the White House from destruction.
Those of us who work here in the Capitol owe a special debt of
gratitude to those heroes. Their actions saved one of the greatest
symbols of our democracy.
Today I am resubmitting a resolution honoring and memorializing the
passengers and crew of United Airlines flight 93. This legislation
expresses our deepest respect and gratitude to them, as well as
condolences to their families and friends. This bill also calls for an
appropriate memorial to be placed in the Capitol by the bicameral,
bipartisan leaders of Congress.
Today I bow my head in memory of those who died at the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon. I also pay respect to our first responders,
volunteers, and average citizens who risked their lives to save others
on that day.
Finally, I pay homage to the passengers and crew of flight 93 for
taking on those who wished to harm our country and Nation's Capitol. I
believe it is appropriate at this time to acknowledge the actions of
the passengers of flight 93 for showing such remarkable heroism and to
commemorate them in the very walls that might have crumbled had they
not made that ultimate sacrifice. We are forever indebted to them and
should never forget their bravery or sacrifice or that of their loved
ones.
The Senate unanimously passed an identical resolution last October
11, within a month of its introduction, but it did not pass the House
of Representatives before the adjournment of the 108th Congress. The
bipartisan legislation I am reintroducing today has the support of 25
of my colleagues, including Senator Santorum from Pennsylvania, who has
joined me in leading this effort. I am also happy to report that
Congressman Shuster of Pennsylvania will also be introducing companion
legislation today.
I hope all my colleagues will join me in sponsoring this resolution.
I hope on a broad bipartisan basis we are able to recognize those brave
passengers and crew of flight 93 for what they did on that remarkable
day.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Conrad as a
proud cosponsor of a resolution which recognizes the immense bravery of
the crew and passengers on flight 93. Over 3\1/2\ years have passed
since September 11, 2001, but we, the American people, have not
forgotten the bravery and selflessness that was shown by our fellow
citizens on that day.
During the 108th Congress, the 9/11 Commission investigated the
events that took place on September 11, 2001, including flight 93's
crash in Somerset County, PA. As a result of a series of Senate
hearings held to evaluate and gain a clearer understanding of the 9/11
Commission's findings, the actions of flight 93's passengers and crew
have become increasingly evident. We know with near certainty now that
the terrorists had plans of causing severe destruction to either the
White House or the Capitol Building.
Having realized through phone calls to loved ones that three other
planes had already been crashed that morning by terrorists, the
passengers on flight 93 acted quickly and collaboratively to overtake
the hijackers and force them to crash the plane into a rural part of
Pennsylvania, keeping the plane's intended target safe from harm.
As a result of the 9/11 Commission's findings, we conclude that
America is indebted to the heroic actions of those on flight 93, who
showed great bravery so that many other lives could be spared from
ruin.
We who work here in the Capitol are particularly indebted to those on
board flight 93. In addition to saving the lives of thousands, the
passengers on flight 93 ensured the preservation of one of the greatest
symbols of America's freedom and democracy.
In an effort to recognize and honor the heroes on flight 93, I am
proud to submit this resolution with Senator Conrad. This resolution is
an expression of our deep gratitude for what those on flight 93 did for
each of us here in our Nation's Capital, as well as an expression of
sorrow and condolence to their families and friends. Additionally, this
resolution provides for a place in the Capitol Building to be
memorialized in the name of the crew and
[[Page 6097]]
passengers of flight 93, with a remembrance plaque placed at the
location.
This day presents an opportunity to remember all of those who died on
September 11, 2001. Additionally, our volunteers, first responders, and
the American people deserve a heartfelt ``thank you'' for the strength
and strong resolve they showed in the face of destructive, cowardly
acts.
I hope that all of my colleagues will join with Senator Conrad and me
in this bipartisan effort to honor the crew and passengers on flight 93
for what they did on that infamous day in America's history. May their
selfless actions, taken for us and the American people, never be
forgotten.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 338. Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lieberman,
Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Bayh, and Mr. Pryor) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by her to the bill H.R. 1268, Making
emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly implement
regulations for State driver's license and identification
document security standards, to prevent terrorists from
abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify
terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, to
ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border
fence, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 339. Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Allen, and
Mr. Coleman) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill H.R. 1268, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 340. Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Durbin, and Mr.
Coleman) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 1268, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 341. Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Durbin, and Mr.
Coleman) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 1268, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 342. Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Coleman,
Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Dole,
Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Chafee) submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1268, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 343. Mr. PRYOR submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1268, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 344. Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Byrd, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Johnson,
Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr.
Biden) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 1268, supra.
SA 345. Mr. LEVIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1268, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 346. Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Brownback)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill H.R. 1268, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 347. Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Leahy) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1268, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 348. Mr. TALENT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1268, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 349. Mr. NELSON, of Nebraska submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1268, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 350. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1268, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 351. Mr. SALAZAR submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1268, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 352. Mr. SALAZAR (for himself and Mr. Allard) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R.
1268, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 353. Mr. LEVIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1268, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 354. Mr. GRAHAM submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1268, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 355. Mr. MARTINEZ submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1268, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 356. Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Allen,
and Mr. Corzine) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 1268,
supra.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 338. Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lieberman, Ms.
Cantwell, Mr. Bayh, and Mr. Pryor) submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by her to the bill H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to
establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license
and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists
from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-
related grounds for inadmissibility and removal to ensure expeditious
construction of the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 214, strike lines 5 through 19.
______
SA 339. Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Allen, and Mr.
Coleman) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly
implement regulations for State driver's license and identification
document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the
asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds
for inadmissibility and removal to ensure expeditious construction of
the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes; which was ordered
to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 159, strike line 6 and all that follows through
page 160, line 22, and insert the following:
Sec. 1112. (a) Increase in Death Gratuity.--
(1) Amount.--Section 1478(a) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``$12,000'' and inserting
``$100,000''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on October 7, 2001, and shall apply with
respect to deaths occurring on or after that date.
(3) No adjustment for increases in basic pay before date of
enactment.--No adjustment shall be made under subsection (c)
of section 1478 of title 10, United States Code, with respect
to the amount in force under subsection (a) of that section,
as amended by paragraph (1), for any period before the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(4) Payment for deaths before date of enactment.--Any
additional amount payable as a death gratuity under this
subsection for the death of a member of the Armed Forces
before the date of the enactment of this Act shall be paid to
the eligible survivor of the member previously paid a death
gratuity under section 1478 of title 10, United States Code,
for the death of the member. If payment cannot be made to
such survivor, payment of such amount shall be made to living
survivor of the member otherwise highest on the list under
1477(a) of title 10, United States Code.
On page 161, line 23, strike ``$238,000'' and insert
``$150,000''.
______
SA 340. Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Coleman)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R.
1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly implement
regulations for State driver's license and identification document
security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws
of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for
inadmissibility and removal to ensure expeditious construction of the
San Diego border fence, and for other purposes; which was ordered to
lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. INCREASED PERIOD OF CONTINUED TRICARE COVERAGE OF
CHILDREN OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES
WHO DIE WHILE SERVING ON ACTIVE DUTY FOR A
PERIOD OF MORE THAN 30 DAYS.
(a) Period of Eligibility.--Section 1079(g) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(g)''; and
(2) by striking the second sentence and inserting the
following:
``(2) In addition to any continuation of eligibility for
benefits under paragraph (1), when a member dies while on
active duty for a period of more than 30 days, the member's
dependents who are receiving benefits under a plan covered by
subsection (a) shall continue to be eligible for such
benefits during the three-year period beginning on the date
of the member's death, except that, in the case of such a
dependent who is a child of the
[[Page 6098]]
deceased, the period of continued eligibility shall be the
longer of the following periods beginning on such date:
``(A) Three years.
``(B) The period ending on the date on which the child
attains 21 years of age.
``(C) In the case of a child of the deceased who, at 21
years of age, is enrolled in a full-time course of study in a
secondary school or in a full-time course of study in an
institution of higher education approved by the administering
Secretary and was, at the time of the member's death, in fact
dependent on the member for over one-half of the child's
support, the period ending on the earlier of the following
dates:
``(i) The date on which the child ceases to pursue such a
course of study, as determined by the administering
Secretary.
``(ii) The date on which the child attains 23 years of age.
``(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(C), a child shall
be treated as being enrolled in a full-time course of study
in an institution of higher education during any reasonable
period of transition between the child's completion of a
full-time course of study in a secondary school and the
commencement of an enrollment in a full-time course of study
in an institution of higher education, as determined by the
administering Secretary.
``(4) No charge may be imposed for any benefits coverage
under this chapter that is provided for a child for a period
of continued eligibility under paragraph (2), or for any
benefits provided to such child during such period under that
coverage.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as of October 1, 2001, and shall apply with
respect to deaths occurring on or after such date.
______
SA 341. Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Coleman)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R.
1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly implement
regulations for State driver's license and identification document
security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws
of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for
inadmissibility and removal to ensure expeditious construction of the
San Diego border fence, and for other purposes; which was ordered to
lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. EXPANSION OF AUTHORIZED USES OF EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE UNDER THE SURVIVORS' AND DEPENDENTS'
EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Section 3531(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended
by inserting ``room, board,'' after ``equipment,''.
F_____
SA 342. Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Coleman, Mr.
Nelson of Florida, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Dodd, and
Mr. Chafee) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to
the bill H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly
implement regulations for State driver's license and identification
document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the
asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds
for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious construction of
the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes; which was ordered
to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 183, after line 23, add the following:
Funds Appropriated to the President
united states agency for international development
child survival and health programs fund
For necessary expenses to provide assistance to Haiti under
chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
for child survival, health, and family planning/reproductive
health activities, in addition to funds otherwise available
for such purposes, $10,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That the amount provided under this
heading is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to
section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con.
Res. 95 (108th Congress).
Assistance to Haiti
Sec. 2105. (a)(1) The total amount appropriated by this
chapter under the heading ``Economic Support Fund'' is
increased by $21,000,000. Of the total amount appropriated
under that heading, $21,000,000 shall be available for
necessary expenses to provide assistance to Haiti.
(2) Of the funds made available under paragraph (1), up to
$10,000,000 may be made available for election assistance in
Haiti.
(3) Of the funds made available under paragraph (1), up to
$10,000,000 may be made available for public works programs
in Haiti.
(4) Of the funds made available under paragraph (1), up to
$1,000,000 may be made available for administration of
justice programs in Haiti.
(5) The amount made available under paragraph (1) is
designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95
(108th Congress).
(b)(1) The total amount appropriated by this chapter under
the heading ``International Narcotics Control and Law
Enforcement'' is increased by $10,000,000. Of the total
amount appropriated under that heading, $10,000,000 shall be
available for necessary expenses to provide assistance to
Haiti.
(2) Of the funds made available under paragraph (1), up to
$5,000,000 may be made available for training and equipping
the Haitian National Police.
(3) Of the funds made available under paragraph (1), up to
$5,000,000 may be made available to provide additional United
States civilian police in support of the United Nations
Stabilization Mission in Haiti.
(4) The amount made available under paragraph (1) is
designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95
(108th Congress).
F_____
SA 343. Mr. PRYOR submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly
implement regulations for State driver's license and identification
document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the
asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds
for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious construction of
the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes; which was ordered
to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 231, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
Sec. 6047. The United States releases to the State of
Arkansas the reversionary interest described in sections 2
and 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the transfer
of part of Camp Joseph T. Robinson to the State of
Arkansas'', approved June 30, 1950 (64 Stat. 311, chapter
429), in and to the surface estate of the land constituting
Camp Joseph T. Robinson, Arkansas, which lies east of the
Batesville Pike county road, in sections 24, 25, and 36,
township 3 north, range 12 west, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
F_____
SA 344. Mrs MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Byrd, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Salazar, Mr.
Dayton, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Biden) proposed an amendment to the bill
H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly implement
regulations for State driver's license and identification document
security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws
of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for
inadmissibility and removal to ensure expeditious construction of the
San Diego border fence, and for other purposes; as follows:
On page 188, after line 20, add the following:
CHAPTER 5
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Health Administration
Medical Services
For necessary expenses for furnishing, as authorized by
law, outpatient and inpatient care and treatment to
beneficiaries of the Department of Veterans Affairs and
veterans as described in paragraphs (1) through (8) of
section 1705(a) of title 38, United States Code, including
care and treatment in facilities not under the jurisdiction
of the department and including medical supplies and
equipment and salaries and expenses of health-care employees
hired under title 38, United States Code, and to aid State
homes as authorized under section 1741 of title 38, United
States Code; $1,975,183,000 plus reimbursements: Provided,
That of the amount under this heading, $610,183,000 shall be
available to address the needs of servicemembers deployed for
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom;
Provided further, That of the amount under this heading,
$840,000,000 shall be available, in equal amounts of
$40,000,000, for each Veterans Integrated Service Network
(VISN) to meet current and pending care and treatment
requirements: Provided further, That of the amount under this
heading, $525,000,000 shall be available for mental health
care and
[[Page 6099]]
treatment, including increased funding for centers for the
provision of readjustment counseling and related mental
health services under section 1712A of title 38, United
States Code (commonly referred to as ``Vet Centers''),
increased funding for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
programs, funding for the provision of primary care
consultations for mental health, funding for the provision of
mental health counseling in Community Based Outreach Centers
(CBOCs), and funding to facilitate the provision of mental
health services by Department of Veterans Affairs facilities
that do not currently provide such services: Provided
further, That the amount under this heading shall remain
available until expended.
F_____
SA 345. Mr. LEVIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly
implement regulations for State driver's license and identification
document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the
asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds
for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious construction of
the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes; which was ordered
to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. The Secretary of Labor shall convey to the State
of Michigan, for no consideration, all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the real property
known as the ``Detroit Labor Building'' and located at 7310
Woodward Avenue, Detroit, Michigan, to the extent the right,
title, or interest was acquired through a grant to the State
of Michigan under title III of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 501 et seq.) or the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et
seq.) or using funds distributed to the State of Michigan
under section 903 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1103).
F_____
SA 346. Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Brownback) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1268, making
emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly implement regulations for
State driver's license and identification document security standards,
to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United
States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and
removal, to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border
fence, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table;
as follows:
On page 231, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
TITLE VII--ACCOUNTABILITY IN DARFUR
SECTION 7001. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Darfur Accountability Act
of 2005''.
SEC. 7002. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
`appropriate congressional committees' means the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives.
(2) Government of sudan.--The term ``Government of Sudan''
means the National Congress Party-led government in Khartoum,
Sudan, or any successor government formed on or after the
date of the enactment of this title.
(3) Member states.--The term ``member states'' means the
member states of the United Nations.
(4) Sudan north-south peace agreement.--The term ``Sudan
North-South Peace Agreement'' means the comprehensive peace
agreement signed by the Government of Sudan and the Sudan
People's Liberation Army/Movement on January 9, 2005.
(5) Those named by the un commission of inquiry.--The term
``those named by the UN Commission of Inquiry'' means those
individuals whose names appear in the sealed file delivered
to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by the
International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United
Nations Security Council.
(6) UN committee.--The term ``UN Committee'' means the
Committee of the Security Council established in United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1591 (29 March 2005);
paragraph 3.
SEC. 7003. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On July 22, 2004, the House of Representatives and the
Senate declared that the atrocities occurring in Darfur,
Sudan are genocide.
(2) On September 9, 2004, Secretary of State Colin L.
Powell stated before the Committee on Foreign Relations of
the Senate, ``[w]hen we reviewed the evidence compiled by our
team, along with other information available to the State
Department, we concluded that genocide has been committed in
Darfur and that the Government of Sudan and the [Janjaweed]
bear responsibility--and genocide may still be occurring''.
(3) President George W. Bush, in an address before the
United Nations General Assembly on September 21, 2004,
stated, ``[a]t this hour, the world is witnessing terrible
suffering and horrible crimes in the Darfur region of Sudan,
crimes my government has concluded are genocide''.
(4) On July 30, 2004, the United Nations Security Council
passed Security Council Resolution 1556, calling upon the
Government of Sudan to disarm the Janjaweed militias and to
apprehend and bring to justice Janjaweed leaders and their
associates who have incited and carried out violations of
human rights and international humanitarian law and carried
out other atrocities in the Darfur region.
(5) On September 18, 2004, the United Nations Security
Council passed Security Council Resolution 1564, determining
that the Government of Sudan had failed to meet its
obligations under Security Council Resolution 1556, calling
for a military flight ban in and over the Darfur region,
demanding the names of Janjaweed militiamen disarmed and
arrested for verification, establishing an International
Commission of Inquiry into violations of international
humanitarian and human rights laws, and threatening sanctions
should the Government of Sudan fail to fully comply with
Security Council Resolutions 1556 and 1564.
(6) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1564
declares that if the Government of Sudan ``fails to comply
fully'' with Security Council Resolutions 1556 and 1564, the
Security Council shall consider taking ``additional
measures'' against the Government of Sudan ``as contemplated
in Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, such as
actions to affect Sudan's petroleum sector or individual
members of the Government of Sudan, in order to take
effective action to obtain such full compliance and
cooperation''.
(7) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1564 also
``welcomes and supports the intention of the African Union to
enhance and augment its monitoring mission in Darfur'' and
``urges member states to support the African Union in these
efforts, including by providing all equipment, logistical,
financial, material, and other resources necessary to support
the rapid expansion of the African Union Mission''.
(8) On February 1, 2005, the United Nations released the
Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur
to the United Nations Secretary-General, dated January 25,
2005, which stated that, ``[g]overnment forces and militias
conducted indiscriminate attacks, including killing of
civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of
villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging
and forced displacement throughout Darfur'', that such ``acts
were conducted on a widespread and systematic basis, and
therefore may amount to crimes against humanity'', and that
the ``magnitude and large-scale nature of some crimes against
humanity as well as their consistency over a long period of
time, necessarily imply that these crimes result from a
central planning operation''.
(9) The Report of the International Commission of Inquiry
on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General notes that,
pursuant to its mandate and in the course of its work, the UN
Commission collected information relating to individual
perpetrators of acts constituting ``violations of
international human rights law and international humanitarian
law, including crimes against humanity and war crimes'' and
that the UN Commission has delivered to the Secretary-General
of the United Nations a sealed file of those named by the UN
Commission with the recommendation that the ``file be handed
over to a competent Prosecutor''.
(10) On March 24, 2005, the United Nations Security Council
passed Security Council Resolution 1590, establishing the
United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) consisting of 10,000
military personnel and 715 civilian police personnel. The
mandate of UNMIS includes to ``closely and continuously
liaise and coordinate at all levels with the African Union
Mission in Sudan (AMIS) with a view towards expeditiously
reinforcing the effort to foster peace in Darfur, especially
with regard to the Abuja peace process and the African Union
Mission in Sudan''. Security Council Resolution 1590 also
urged the Secretary-General and United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights to increase the number and
deployment rate of human rights monitors to Darfur.
(11) On March 29, 2005, the United Security Council passed
Security Council Resolution 1591, establishing a Committee of
the Security Council and a Panel of Experts to identify
individuals who have impeded the peace process, constitute a
threat to stability in Darfur and the region, commit
violations of international humanitarian or human rights law
or other atrocities, or who are responsible for offensive
overflights, and calling on member states to prevent those
individuals identified from entry into or transit of their
territories and to freeze those individuals non-exempted
assets.
[[Page 6100]]
(12) On March 31, 2005, the United Nations Security Council
passed Security Council Resolution 1593, referring the
situation in Darfur since July 1, 2002, to the Prosecutor of
the International Criminal Court (ICC) with the proviso that
personnel from a state outside Sudan not a party to the Rome
Statute of the ICC shall not be subject to the ICC in this
instance.
SEC. 7004. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the atrocities unfolding in Darfur, Sudan, have been
and continue to be genocide;
(2) the United States should immediately seek passage at
the United Nations Security Council of a resolution that--
(A) extends the freezing of property and assets and denial
of visas and entry, pursuant to United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1591, to include--
(i) those named by the UN Commission of Inquiry;
(ii) family members of those named by the UN Commission of
Inquiry and those designated by the UN Committee; and
(iii) any associates of those named by the UN Commission of
Inquiry and those designated by the UN Committee to whom
assets or property of those named by the UN Commission of
Inquiry or those designated by the UN Committee were
transferred on or after July 1, 2002;
(B) urges member states to submit to the Security Council
the name of any individual that the government of any such
member state believes is or has been planning, carrying out,
responsible for, or otherwise involved in genocide, war
crimes, or crimes against humanity in Darfur, along with
evidence supporting such belief so that the Security Council
may consider imposing sanctions pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1591;
(C) imposes additional sanctions or additional measures
against the Government of Sudan, including sanctions that
will affect the petroleum sector in Sudan, individual members
of the Government of Sudan, and entities controlled or owned
by officials of the government of Sudan or the National
Congress Party in Sudan, that will remain in effect until
such time as--
(i) humanitarian organizations are granted full, unimpeded
access to Darfur;
(ii) the Government of Sudan cooperates with humanitarian
relief efforts, carries out activities to demobilize and
disarm Janjaweed militias and any other militias supported or
created by the Government of Sudan, and cooperates fully with
efforts to bring to justice the individuals responsible for
genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity in Darfur;
(iii) the Government of Sudan cooperates fully with the
African Union, the United Nations, and all other observer,
monitoring, and protection missions mandated to operate in
Sudan;
(iv) the Government of Sudan permits the safe and voluntary
return of displaced persons and refugees to their homes and
rebuilds the communities destroyed in the violence in Darfur;
and
(v) the Sudan North-South Peace Agreement is fully
implemented and a new coalition government is created under
such Agreement;
(D) establishes a military no-fly zone in Darfur;
(E) supports the expansion of the African Union force in
Darfur so that such force achieves the size and strength
needed to prevent ongoing fighting and violence in Darfur;
(F) urges member states to accelerate assistance to the
African Union force in Darfur;
(G) calls on the Government of Sudan to cooperate with, and
allow unrestricted movement in Darfur by, the African Union
force in the region, UNMIS, international humanitarian
organizations, and United Nations monitors;
(H) extends the embargo of military equipment established
by paragraphs 7 through 9 of Security Council Resolution 1556
and expanded by Security Council Resolution 1591 to include a
total prohibition of sale or supply to the Government of
Sudan;
(I) supports African Union and other international efforts
to negotiate peace talks between the Government of Sudan and
rebels in Darfur, calls on the Government of Sudan and rebels
in Darfur to abide by their obligations under the N'Djamena
Ceasefire Agreement of April 8, 2004, and subsequent
agreements, and urges parties to engage in peace talks
without preconditions and seek to resolve the conflict; and
(J) expands the mandate of UNMIS to include the protection
of civilians throughout Sudan, including Dafur;
(3) the United States should work with other nations to
ensure effective efforts to freeze the property and assets of
and deny visas and entry to--
(A) those named by the UN Commission of Inquiry and those
designated by the UN Committee;
(B) any individuals the United States believes is or has
been planning, carrying out, responsible for, or otherwise
involved in genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity
in Darfur;
(C) family members of any person described in subparagraphs
(A) or (B); and
(D) any associates of any such person to whom assets or
property of such person were transferred on or after July 1,
2002;
(4) the United States should not provide assistance to the
Government of Sudan, other than assistance necessary for the
implementation of the Sudan North-South Peace Agreement, the
support of the southern regional government in Sudan, or for
humanitarian purposes in Sudan, unless the President
certifies and reports to Congress that--
(A) humanitarian organizations are being granted full,
unimpeded access to Darfur and the Government of Sudan is
providing full cooperation with humanitarian efforts;
(B) concrete, sustained steps are being taken toward
demobilizing and disarming Janjaweed militias and any other
militias supported or created by the Government of Sudan;
(C) the Government of Sudan is cooperating fully with
international efforts to bring to justice those responsible
for genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity in
Darfur;
(D) the Government of Sudan cooperates fully with the
African Union, the United Nations, and all other observer,
monitoring, and protection missions mandated to operate in
Sudan;
(E) the Government of Sudan permits the safe and voluntary
return of displaced persons and refugees to their homes and
rebuilds the communities destroyed in the violence in Darfur;
and
(F) the Sudan North-South Peace Agreement is fully
implemented and a new coalition government is created under
such Agreement;
(5) the President should work with international
organizations, including the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO), the United Nations, and the African
Union to establish mechanisms for the enforcement of a no-fly
zone in Darfur;
(6) the African Union should extend its mandate in Darfur
to include the protection of civilians and proactive efforts
to prevent violence, and member states should support fully
this extension;
(7) the President should accelerate assistance to the
African Union force in Darfur and discussions with the
African Union and the European Union and other supporters of
the African Union force on the needs of such force, including
assistance for housing, transportation, communications,
equipment, technical assistance such as training and command
and control assistance, and intelligence;
(8) the President should appoint a Presidential Envoy for
Sudan--
(A) to support the implementation of the Sudan North-South
Peace Agreement;
(B) to seek ways to bring stability and peace to Darfur;
(C) to address instability elsewhere in Sudan; and
(D) to seek a comprehensive peace throughout Sudan;
(9) United States officials, including the President, the
Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense, should
raise the issue of Darfur in bilateral meetings with
officials from other members of the United Nations Security
Council and relevant countries, with the aim of passing a
United Nations Security Council resolution described in
paragraph (2) and mobilizing maximum support for political,
financial, and military efforts to stop the genocide in
Darfur;
(10) the Secretary of State should immediately engage in a
concerted, sustained campaign with other members of the
United Nations Security Council and relevant countries with
the aim of achieving the goals described in paragraph (9);
(11) the United States fully supports the Sudan North-South
Peace Agreement and urges the rapid implementation of its
terms;
(12) the United States condemns attacks on humanitarian
workers and calls on all forces in Darfur, including forces
of the Government of Sudan, all militia, and forces of the
Sudan Liberation Army/Movement and the Justice and Equality
Movement, to refrain from such attacks; and
(13) The United States should actively participate in the
UN Committee and the Panel of Experts established pursuant to
Security Council Resolution 1591, and work to support the
Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights in their efforts to increase the number and
deployment rate of human rights monitors to Darfur.
SEC. 7005. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.
(a) Freezing Assets.--At such time as the United States has
access to the names of those named by the UN Commission of
Inquiry and those designated by the UN Committee, the
President shall, except as described under subsection (c),
take such action as may be necessary to immediately freeze
the funds and other assets belonging to anyone so named,
their family members, and any associates of those so named to
whom assets or property of those so named were transferred on
or after July 1, 2002, including requiring that any United
States financial institution holding such funds and assets
promptly report those funds and assets to the Office of
Foreign Assets Control.
(b) Visa Ban.--Beginning at such times as the United States
has access to the names of
[[Page 6101]]
those named by the UN Commission of Inquiry and those
designated by the UN Committee, the President shall, except
as described under subsection (c), deny visas and entry to--
(1) those named by the UN Commission of Inquiry and those
designated by the UN Committee;
(2) the family members of those named by the UN Commission
of Inquiry and those designated by the UN Committee; and
(3) anyone the President determines has been, is, or may be
planning, carrying out, responsible for, or otherwise
involved in crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide
in Darfur, Sudan.
(c) Waiver Authority.--The President may elect not to take
an action otherwise required to be taken with respect to an
individual under subsection (a) or (b) after submitting to
Congress a report--
(1) naming the individual with respect to whom the
President has made such election;
(2) describing the reasons for such election; and
(3) including the determination of the President as to
whether such individual has been, is, or may be planning,
carrying out, responsible for, or otherwise involved in
crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide in Darfur,
Sudan.
(d) Asset Reporting Requirement.--Not later than 14 days
after a decision to freeze the property or assets of, or deny
a visa or entry to, any person under this section, the
President shall report the name of such person to the
appropriate congressional committees.
(e) Notification of Waivers of Sanctions.--Not later than
30 days before waiving the provisions of any sanctions
currently in force with regard to Sudan, the President shall
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report
describing the waiver and the reasons therefor.
SEC. 7006. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) Reports on Stabilization in Sudan.--
(1) Initial report.--Not later than 30 days after the date
of enactment of this title, the Secretary of State, in
conjunction with the Secretary of Defense, shall report to
the appropriate congressional committees on efforts to deploy
an African Union force in Darfur, the capacity of such force
to stabilize Darfur and protect civilians, the needs of such
force to succeed at such mission including housing,
transportation, communications, equipment, technical
assistance, including training and command and control, and
intelligence, current status of United States and other
assistance to the African Union force, and additional United
States assistance needed.
(2) Subsequent reports.--
(A) Updates required.--The Secretary of State, in
conjunction with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit an
update of the report submitted under paragraph (1) until such
time as the President certifies that the situation in Darfur
is stable and that civilians are no longer in danger and that
the African Union is no longer needed to prevent a resumption
of violence and attacks against civilians.
(B) Duration of reporting requirement.--The Secretary of
State shall submit any updated reports required under
subparagraph (A)--
(i) every 60 days during the 2-year period following the
date of the enactment of this Act; and
(ii) after such 2-year period, as part of the report
required under section 8(b) of the Sudan Peace Act (50 U.S.C.
1701 note), as amended by section 5(b) of the Comprehensive
Peace in Sudan Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-497; 118 Stat.
4018).
(b) Report on Those Named by the UN Commission of
Inquiry.--At such time as the United States has access to the
names of those named by the UN Commission of Inquiry, the
President shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report listing such names.
F_____
SA 347. Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Brownback, Mr.
Durbin, and Mr. Leahy) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to
establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license
and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists
from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-
related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious
construction of the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 183, after line 23, add the following:
requirement for transfer of funds
Sec. 2105. Not later than 15 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the authority contained under the
heading ``International Disaster and Famine Assistance'' in
chapter 2 of title II of Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of
Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 (Public Law 108-106; 117 Stat.
1227) to transfer funds made available under such chapter,
shall be fully exercised and the funds transferred as
follows:
(1) $53,000,000 shall be transferred to and consolidated
with funds appropriated under the heading ``peacekeeping
operations'' in title III of the Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2005 (as
enacted in division D of Public Law 108-447; 118 Stat. 2988)
and used for the support of the efforts of the African Union
to halt genocide and other atrocities in Darfur, Sudan; and
(2) $40,500,000 shall be transferred to and consolidated
with funds appropriated under the heading ``international
disaster and famine assistance'' in such Act and used for
assistance for Darfur, Sudan.
F_____
SA 348. Mr. TALENT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly
implement regulations for State driver's license and identification
document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the
asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds
for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious construction of
the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes; which was ordered
to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
procurement of commercial satellite bandwidth services
Sec.1122. The Secretary of Defense may not implement the
action plan for the procurement of commercial satellite
bandwidth services proposed by the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Networks and Information Integration on December
14, 2004, or enter into any new contract for commercial
satellite communications services (other than through
existing contract vehicles), until 30 days after the date on
which the Comptroller General of the United States submits to
the congressional defense committees a report setting forth
the comprehensive assessment and recommendations of the
Comptroller General regarding the Defense Information Systems
Network Satellite Transmission Services-Global (DSTS-G)
program, as previously requested by Congress.
______
SA 349. Mr. NELSON of Nebraska submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to
establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license
and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists
from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-
related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious
construction of the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
acquisition of vital learning recruitment/retention screening test
program
Sec. 1122. (a) In General.--In determining the person or
entity to supply the Vital Learning Recruitment/Retention
Screening Test Program to the Navy for purposes of the
acquisition of that program, the Secretary of the Navy shall
utilize a strategy that emphasizes past performance on
technical capabilities (commonly referred to as a ``best
value'' strategy) applicable to that program.
(b) Vital Learning Recruitment/Retention Screening Test
Program Defined.--In this section, the term ``Vital Learning
Recruitment/Retention Screening Test Program'' means the
recruitment and retention screening test program of the Navy
for which $1,000,000 is available under the heading
``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'' in each of the Department
of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-87; 117
Stat. 1057) and the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2005 (Public Law 108-287; 118 Stat. 954).
______
SA 350. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly
implement regulations for State driver's license and identification
document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the
asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds
for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious construction of
the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes; which
[[Page 6102]]
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. IMPLEMENTATION OF MISSION CHANGES AT SPECIFIC
VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES.
Section 414(c)(1) of the Veterans Health Programs
Improvement Act of 2004, is amended by inserting ``, and all
outpatient clinics in the VA Boston Healthcare System''
before the period at the end.
______
SA 351. Mr. SALAZAR submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly
implement regulations for State driver's license and identification
document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the
asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds
for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious construction of
the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes; which was ordered
to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. _. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.
(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) In an effort to provide support to military families,
this Act includes an important increase in the maximum
payable benefit under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
from $150,000 to $400,000.
(2) In an effort to provide support to military families,
this Act includes an important increase in the death gratuity
from $12,000 to $100,000.
(3) In an effort to provide support to military families,
this Act includes an important increase in the maximum
Reserve Affiliation bonus to $10,000.
(4) The Federal earned income tax credit (EITC) under
section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 provides
critical tax relief and support to military as well as
civilian families. In 2003, approximately 21,000,000 families
benefitted from the EITC.
(5) Nearly 160,000 active duty members of the armed forces,
11 percent of all active duty members, currently are eligible
for the EITC, based on analyses of data from the Department
of Defense and the Government Accountability Office.
(6) Congress acted in 2001 and 2004 to expand EITC
eligibility to more military personnel, recognizing that
military families and their finances are intensely affected
by war.
(7) With over 300,000 National Guard and reservists called
to active duty since September 11, 2001, the need for tax
assistance is greater than ever.
(8) Census data shows that the EITC lifted 4,900,000 people
out of poverty in 2002, including 2,700,000 children. The
EITC lifts more children out of poverty than any other single
program or category of programs.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) Congress should take steps necessary to support our
troops and their families;
(2) it is not in the interests of our troops and their
families to reduce the earned income tax credit under section
32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
(3) the conference committee for H. Con. Res. 96, the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006,
should not assume any reduction in the earned income tax
credit in the budget process this year, as provided in such
resolution as passed by the House of Representatives.
______
SA 352. Mr. SALAZAR (for himself and Mr. Allard) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1268, making
emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly implement regulations for
State driver's license and identification document security standards,
to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United
States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and
removal, to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border
fence, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table;
as follows:
On page 162, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
SEC. 1113. RENAMING OF DEATH GRATUITY PAYABLE FOR DEATHS OF
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AS FALLEN HERO
COMPENSATION.
(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 75 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended as follows:
(1) In section 1475(a), by striking ``have a death gratuity
paid'' and inserting ``have fallen hero compensation paid''.
(2) In section 1476(a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a death gratuity'' and
inserting ``fallen hero compensation''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``A death gratuity'' and
inserting ``Fallen hero compensation''.
(3) In section 1477(a), by striking ``A death gratuity''
and inserting ``Fallen hero compensation''.
(4) In section 1478(a), by striking ``The death gratuity''
and inserting ``The amount of fallen hero compensation''.
(5) In section 1479(1), by striking ``the death gratuity''
and inserting ``fallen hero compensation''.
(6) In section 1489--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``a gratuity'' in the
matter preceding paragraph (1) and inserting ``fallen hero
compensation''; and
(B) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting ``or other
assistance'' after ``lesser death gratuity''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) Such subchapter is further
amended by striking ``Death gratuity:'' each place it appears
in the heading of sections 1475 through 1480 and 1489 and
inserting ``Fallen hero compensation:''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such
subchapter is amended by striking ``Death gratuity:'' in the
items relating to sections 1474 through 1480 and 1489 and
inserting ``Fallen hero compensation:''.
(c) General References.--Any reference to a death gratuity
payable under subchapter II of chapter 75 of title 10, United
States Code, in any law, regulation, document, paper, or
other record of the United States shall be deemed to be a
reference to fallen hero compensation payable under such
subchapter, as amended by this section.
______
SA 353. Mr. LEVIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly
implement regulations for State driver's license and identification
document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the
asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds
for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious construction of
the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes; which was ordered
to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL
The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, shall use any funds appropriated to the Secretary
pursuant to this Act to repair, restore, and maintain
projects and facilities of the Corps of Engineers, including
by dredging navigation channels, cleaning area streams,
providing emergency streambank protection, restoring such
public infrastructure as the Secretary determines to be
necessary (including sewer and water facilities), conducting
studies of the impacts of floods, and providing such flood
relief as the Secretary determines to be appropriate:
Provided, That of those funds, $32,000,000 shall be used by
the Secretary for the Upper Peninsula, Michigan.
______
SA 354. Mr. GRAHAM submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly
implement regulations for State driver's license and identification
document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the
asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds
for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious construction of
the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes; which was ordered
to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
prohibition on implementation of certain orders and guidance on
functions and duties of general counsel and judge advocate general of
the air force
Sec. 1122. No funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act, or any other Act, may be obligated or
expended to implement or enforce either of the following:
(1) The order of the Secretary of the Air Force dated May
15, 2003, and entitled ``Functions and Duties of the General
Counsel and the Judge Advocate General''.
(2) Any internal operating instruction or memorandum issued
by the General Counsel of the Air Force in reliance upon the
order referred to in paragraph (1).
______
SA 355. Mr. MARTINEZ submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental
appropriations for
[[Page 6103]]
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly
implement regulations for State driver's license and identification
document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the
asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds
for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious construction of
the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes; which was ordered
to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, shall carry out construction at the Jacksonville
Harbor, Florida, in accordance with the report of the Chief
of Engineers dated July 22, 2003, using the funds
appropriated for that purpose under title I of division C of
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005
(Public Law 108-447; 118 Stat. 2935).
______
SA 356. Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Allen, and Mr.
Corzine) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 1268, making emergency
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2005, to establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's
license and identification document security standards, to prevent
terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify
terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure
expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence, and for other
purposes; as follows:
On page 153, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
SEC. 1110. NONREDUCTION IN PAY WHILE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE IS
PERFORMING ACTIVE SERVICE IN THE UNIFORMED
SERVICES OR NATIONAL GUARD.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Reservists Pay Security Act of 2005''.
(b) In General.--Subchapter IV of chapter 55 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 5538. Nonreduction in pay while serving in the
uniformed services or National Guard
``(a) An employee who is absent from a position of
employment with the Federal Government in order to perform
active duty in the uniformed services pursuant to a call or
order to active duty under a provision of law referred to in
section 101(a)(13)(B) of title 10 shall be entitled, while
serving on active duty, to receive, for each pay period
described in subsection (b), an amount equal to the amount by
which--
``(1) the amount of basic pay which would otherwise have
been payable to such employee for such pay period if such
employee's civilian employment with the Government had not
been interrupted by that service, exceeds (if at all)
``(2) the amount of pay and allowances which (as determined
under subsection (d))--
``(A) is payable to such employee for that service; and
``(B) is allocable to such pay period.
``(b)(1) Amounts under this section shall be payable with
respect to each pay period (which would otherwise apply if
the employee's civilian employment had not been
interrupted)--
``(A) during which such employee is entitled to
reemployment rights under chapter 43 of title 38 with respect
to the position from which such employee is absent (as
referred to in subsection (a)); and
``(B) for which such employee does not otherwise receive
basic pay (including by taking any annual, military, or other
paid leave) to which such employee is entitled by virtue of
such employee's civilian employment with the Government.
``(2) For purposes of this section, the period during which
an employee is entitled to reemployment rights under chapter
43 of title 38--
``(A) shall be determined disregarding the provisions of
section 4312(d) of title 38; and
``(B) shall include any period of time specified in section
4312(e) of title 38 within which an employee may report or
apply for employment or reemployment following completion of
service on active duty to which called or ordered as
described in subsection (a).
``(c) Any amount payable under this section to an employee
shall be paid--
``(1) by such employee's employing agency;
``(2) from the appropriation or fund which would be used to
pay the employee if such employee were in a pay status; and
``(3) to the extent practicable, at the same time and in
the same manner as would basic pay if such employee's
civilian employment had not been interrupted.
``(d) The Office of Personnel Management shall, in
consultation with Secretary of Defense, prescribe any
regulations necessary to carry out the preceding provisions
of this section.
``(e)(1) The head of each agency referred to in section
2302(a)(2)(C)(ii) shall, in consultation with the Office,
prescribe procedures to ensure that the rights under this
section apply to the employees of such agency.
``(2) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall, in consultation with the Office,
prescribe procedures to ensure that the rights under this
section apply to the employees of that agency.
``(f) For purposes of this section--
``(1) the terms `employee', `Federal Government', and
`uniformed services' have the same respective meanings as
given them in section 4303 of title 38;
``(2) the term `employing agency', as used with respect to
an employee entitled to any payments under this section,
means the agency or other entity of the Government (including
an agency referred to in section 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii)) with
respect to which such employee has reemployment rights under
chapter 43 of title 38; and
``(3) the term `basic pay' includes any amount payable
under section 5304.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
55 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 5537 the following:
``5538. Nonreduction in pay while serving in the uniformed services or
National Guard.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to pay periods (as described in
section 5538(b) of title 5, United States Code, as amended by
this section) beginning on or after the date of enactment of
this Act.
____________________
NOTICES OF HEARINGS/MEETINGS
committee on energy and natural resources
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has
been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 19, at 10 a.m. in room 366
of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.
The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony concerning
offshore hydrocarbon production and the future of alternate energy
resources on the outer Continental Shelf. Issues to be discussed
include: recent technological advancements made in the offshore
exploration and production of traditional forms of energy, and the
future of deep shelf and deepwater production; enhancements in worker
safety, and steps taken by the offshore oil and gas industry to meet
environmental challenges. Participants in the hearing will also address
ways that the Federal Government can facilitate increased exploration
and production offshore while protecting the environment. New
approaches to help diversify the offshore energy mix will also be
discussed.
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, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
20510-6150.
For further information, please contact: Shane Perkins at 202-224-
7555.
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, April 19, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. in
room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 166, to
amend the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 to reauthorize the
participation of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Deschutes River
Conservancy, and for other purposes; S. 251, to authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to conduct a water resource feasibility study for the
Little Butte/Bear Creek Subbasins in Oregon; S. 310, to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to convey the Newlands Project Headquarters
and Maintenance Yard Facility to the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District
in the State of Nevada; S. 519, to amend the Lower Rio Grande Valley
Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000
[[Page 6104]]
to authorize additional projects and activities under that Act, and for
other purposes; and S. 592, to extend the contract for the Glendo Unit
of the Missouri Basin Project in the State of Wyoming.
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.
For further information, please contact Kellie Donnelly 202-224-9360
or Shane Perkins at 202-224-7555.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on armed services
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on April 12, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in closed session to
receive testimony on the assessment of Iraqi security forces.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on commerce, science, and transportation.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to
meet on the nominations of Dr. Michael Griffin to be Administrator of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Mr. Joseph Boardman
to be Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, Ms. Nancy
Nord to be Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and
The Honorable William W. Cobey, Jr. to be a Member of the Board of
Directors of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, on
Tuesday, April 12, 2005, at 10:15 a.m., in SR-253.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on energy and natural resources
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 12, at 10 a.m. in room SD-
366.
The purpose of the hearing is to discuss opportunities to advance
technology that will facilitate environmentally friendly development of
oil shale and oil sands resources. The hearing will address legislative
and administrative actions necessary to provide incentives for industry
investment, as well as explore concerns and experiences of other
governments and organizations and the interests of industry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on foreign relations
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session
of the Senate on Tuesday, April 12, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a
nomination hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on the judiciary
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet in a closed briefing
on Tuesday, April 12, 2005, at 11:30 a.m., in S-407, the Capitol.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
select committee on intelligence
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on April 12, 2005, at 10 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., to hold
hearings.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
special committee on aging
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special
Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Tuesday, April 12, 2005, from
2:30 p.m. to 5 p.m., in Dirksen 106, for the purpose of conducting a
hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on national parks
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session
of the Senate on Tuesday, April 12 at 2:30 p.m. to review management
and planning issues for the National Mall, including the history of
development, security projects and other planned constructions, and
future development plans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on seapower
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Seapower be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on April 12 at 2:30 p.m. to receive testimony on Navy
shipbuilding and industrial base status in review of the defense
authorization request for fiscal year 2006.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Richard
Litsey, a fellow on the Finance Committee staff of Senator Baucus, be
granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of H.R. 1268,
the emergency Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental appropriations, and all
rollcall votes thereon.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
John McCain's legislative fellow, Navy CDR Shawn Grenier, be granted
floor privileges during the consideration of H.R. 1268, the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Baucus, I ask unanimous
consent that Cuong Huynh, a fellow on his staff at the Finance
Committee, be accorded floor privileges during the consideration of
H.R. 1268, the emergency Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental appropriation
bill, and any votes thereon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
NATIONAL YOUTH SERVICE DAY
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now
proceed to consideration of S. Res. 105, which was submitted earlier
today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 105) designating April 15, 2005, as
National Youth Service Day, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. Res. 105, a
resolution designating April 15, 2005, as National Youth Service Day.
S. Res. 105 acknowledges the remarkable community service efforts that
our Nation's youth are making in communities across the country on
April 15 and every day, and encourages all people to recognize and
support the significance of these contributions.
National Youth Service Day is a public awareness and education
campaign that highlights the extraordinary contributions that young
people make to their communities throughout the year. On this day,
youth from across the United states and the world will carry out
community service projects in areas ranging from hunger to literacy to
the environment. National Youth Service Day is the largest service
event in the world that brings millions of youth and over 50 local,
regional, and national partners together to support and promote youth
service.
In Alaska, the following groups will engage youth in community
service activities on April 15:
(1) Anchorage's Promise, along with 70 other youth/family
organizations from Anchorage and the Mat-Su Valley, will mobilize all
sectors of the community to build the character and competence of
Anchorage's children
[[Page 6105]]
and youth by fulfilling the Five Promises: caring adults, safe places,
a healthy start, marketable skills, and opportunities to serve. This
year's National Youth Service Day celebration in anchorage hopes to
engage at least 7,000 youth in service-learning projects throughout the
city.
(2) Cook Inlet Tribal Council Youth Center will prepare and serve
traditional Alaska Native dishes to 75-100 homeless people in downtown
Anchorage.
(3) As part of the Anchorage Youth Make It Better Project, the
mountain View Boys and Girls Club, Alaska Division of Juvenile Justice,
members of the Boy Scouts of America Venturing Program, interested
AmeriCorps/VISTA volunteers, and the Alaska Points of Light Youth
Leadership Institute Student Alumni association will organize and
conduct a Youth Make A Better Community essay contest involving 50
Anchorage fifth and sixth grade students. The students will write about
how they would improve the community. In addition, 25 middle and high
school students will design and paint an outdoor mural in Mountain View
highlighting important social issues and traits of good character.
(4) In Koyukuk, young people will be helping elders with household
chores they cannot do for themselves.
(5) In the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, Communities In Schools Mat-Su
has organized 25 students from the Mat-Su Youth Facility School and
students from the Chickaloon Tribal School to work on building a
Chicken Coop for the tribal sustainability project.
Many similar and wonderful activities will be taking place all across
the Nation.
I thank my colleagues--Senators Akaka, Allen, Bayh, Bingaman, Boxer,
Bunning, Clinton, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Conrad, Cornyn, Craig,
DeWine, Dodd, Domenici, Dorgan, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Gregg,
Hagel, Isakson, Johnson, Kerry, Landrieu, Lieberman, Levin, Lott,
Martinez, Mikulski, Murray, Nelson, Reed, Salazar, Santorum, Schumer,
Sessions, Snowe, Specter, Stabenow, Stevens, Bunning and Thune--for co-
sponsoring this worthwhile legislation, which will ensure that youth
across the country and the world know that all of their hard work is
greatly appreciated.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to,
the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 105) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 105
Whereas National Youth Service Day is an annual public
awareness and education campaign that highlights the valuable
contributions that young people make to their communities
throughout the year;
Whereas the goals of National Youth Service Day are to
mobilize youth as leaders in identifying and addressing the
needs of their communities through service and service-
learning, to support youth on a lifelong path of service and
civic engagement, and to educate the public, the media, and
policymakers about the year-round contributions of young
people as community leaders;
Whereas young people in the United States, and in many
other countries, are volunteering more than in any generation
in history;
Whereas young people should be viewed as the hope not only
of the future, but also of today, and should be valued for
the idealism, energy, creativity, and commitment they bring
to the challenges found in their communities;
Whereas there is a fundamental and conclusive correlation
between youth service and lifelong adult volunteering and
philanthropy;
Whereas through community service, young people build
character and learn valuable skills, including time
management, teamwork, needs-assessment, and leadership, that
are sought by employers;
Whereas service-learning, an innovative teaching method
combining service to the community with curriculum-based
learning, is a proven strategy to increase academic
achievement and strengthens civic engagement and civic
responsibility;
Whereas several private foundations and corporations in the
United States support service-learning because they
understand that strong communities begin with strong schools
and a community investment in the lives and futures of youth;
Whereas a sustained investment by the Federal Government,
business partners, schools, and communities fuels the
positive, long-term cultural change that will make service
and service-learning the common expectation and the common
experience of all young people;
Whereas National Youth Service Day, a program of Youth
Service America, is the largest service event in the world
and is being observed for the 17th consecutive year in 2005;
Whereas National Youth Service Day, with the support of 50
lead agencies, hundreds of grant winners, and thousands of
local partners, engages millions of young people nationwide;
Whereas National Youth Service Day will involve 114
national partners, including 8 Federal agencies and 10
organizations that are offering grants to support National
Youth Service Day;
Whereas National Youth Service Day has inspired Global
Youth Service Day, which occurs concurrently in over 120
countries and is now in its sixth year; and
Whereas young people will benefit greatly from expanded
opportunities to engage in meaningful volunteer service and
service-learning: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved,
SECTION 1. RECOGNITION AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF YOUTH COMMUNITY
SERVICE.
The Senate recognizes and commends the significant
contributions of American youth and encourages the
cultivation of a common civic bond among young people
dedicated to serving their neighbors, their communities, and
the Nation.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL YOUTH SERVICE DAY.
The Senate--
(1) designates April 15, 2005, as ``National Youth Service
Day''; and
(2) calls on the people of the United States to--
(A) observe the day by encouraging and engaging youth to
participate in civic and community service projects;
(B) recognize the volunteer efforts of our Nation's young
people throughout the year; and
(C) support these efforts and engage youth in meaningful
decision making opportunities today as an investment in the
future of our Nation.
____________________
APPOINTMENT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair announces, on behalf of the
Democratic Leader, pursuant to Public Law 101-509, the appointment of
Guy Rocha, of Nevada, to the Advisory Committee on the Records of
Congress, vice Stephen Van Buren of South Dakota.
____________________
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2005
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30
a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, April 13. I further ask unanimous consent
that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed
expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for
the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then begin a period of
morning business for up to 60 minutes, with the first 30 minutes under
the control of the majority leader or his designee and the second 30
minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee;
provided that following morning business the Senate resume
consideration of H.R. 1268, the Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental
appropriations bill; provided further that there be 40 minutes equally
divided in relation to Durbin amendment No. 356 prior to the vote in
relation to the amendment, with no second degrees in order to the
amendment prior to that vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will not
object, I say to my friend, the Republican whip, it is my intention to
try to reduce the length of that debate depending on morning business.
I understand many of our colleagues have a meeting at the White House.
If we can expedite this debate time and bring the vote up before the
Senator leaves, that is my intention.
Mr. McCONNELL. That would be very good. We would either finish it
before that meeting or do it after. I think we can get the vote in
before that meeting. It would be very good.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 6106]]
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, tomorrow, following morning business,
the Senate will resume consideration of the Iraq-Afghanistan
supplemental. We had a good start today and will continue to make
progress tomorrow. Currently there are three amendments pending to the
bill. We will try to have, as Senator Durbin and I were discussing, the
first vote at 10:50, or before if all debate is used on the Durbin
amendment. As I indicated, if we are unable to vote by that point we
will have to delay the vote until sometime shortly after noon. For the
remainder of the day we will continue working through amendments to the
bill. The chairman and ranking member will be here to receive any
amendments. I certainly encourage our colleagues who wish to offer
amendments to contact them as soon as possible.
Obviously rollcall votes are expected throughout the day tomorrow as
the Senate continues consideration of this important appropriations
bill.
Again, we are going to have a busy week as we work toward completion
of the Iraq-Afghanistan appropriations measure.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 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 6:53 p.m., adjourned until
Wednesday, April 13, 2005, at 9:30 a.m.
[[Page 6107]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, April 12, 2005
The House met at 12:30 p.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of South Carolina).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
The Speaker's Rooms,
House of Representatives
Washington, DC, April 12, 2005.
I hereby appoint the Honorable J. Gresham Barrett 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 Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern)
for 5 minutes.
____________________
EXPRESSING DEEP SADNESS AT THE TRAGIC DEATH OF MEGHAN AGNES BECK AND
THANKING THE BECK FAMILY FOR THEIR EFFORTS ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN'S
SAFETY
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with deep sadness at the
tragic death of Meghan Agnes Beck of Sterling, Massachusetts. Meghan
died on December 18, 2004, at the young age of 3 years old. She died
from injuries sustained as a result of her dresser falling on top of
her in the early morning while the rest of her family was sleeping.
Meghan was a beautiful young girl full of confidence and life. She
leaves behind her twin brother Ryan, older brother Kyle, and her
parents Ralph and Kimberly. Despite their sadness and pain, Meghan's
parents are moving forward, spreading a message to other parents around
the country. They are raising awareness about the importance of
preventing furniture tip-overs that can result in injury or death to
children.
Sadly, Meghan is not the first child to die from falling furniture,
but the Becks hope that they can help prevent this tragedy from
happening to another child. The Consumer Product Safety Commission
estimates that 8,000 to 10,000 children are injured each year from
furniture that falls or tips or from items on top of furniture or
shelves that fall off onto the child. An average of six children
tragically die each year, as Meghan did.
Through a Web site titled Meghan's Hope, her parents are bringing
together fellow American families who have suffered pain from the loss
or injury of a child to spread the word about furniture safety. The
mission of Meghan's Hope is to make available resources and information
regarding furniture safety.
Via the Web site, parents from around the country have a place to
share stories, thoughts and ideas with one another. Thanks to Ralph and
Kimberly Beck's efforts, awareness is rising; and more parents are
taking note of the importance of securing furniture around the house.
The Web site offers several helpful suggestions for families. These
include:
Securing furniture to the walls to prevent tip-overs. This includes
dressers, bookcases, entertainment cabinets, TVs, toy boxes, large
appliances, or any piece of furniture with shelves or drawers that can
be climbed on;
Purchasing furniture ties or brackets. These should be screwed into
both the wall, into a beam, and the furniture itself. If a wood beam is
not accessible, use mollies or toggle bolts to give added strength;
Placing TVs on low, stable units with large bases and as far back as
possible in the shelf. Secure all TV sets to the wall. Devices are sold
for this purpose;
Anchoring freestanding bookcases, no matter how large or small, to
the walls;
Not placing heavy or other items of interest to a child on top of the
furniture or higher than a comfortable reach for the smallest child so
as not to entice them to climb for it;
Putting heavy items on the lowest shelf or drawer;
And sharing this information with everyone you know.
In addition, there are things the furniture and retail industries can
do, and the Becks have developed some excellent ideas. They include:
Encouraging all stores that sell furniture to also provide literature
on furniture safety and to sell the safety straps;
Encouraging all furniture manufacturers to voluntarily include
warning labels on furniture and information on the dangers of furniture
tip-overs, recommending that the buyer secure the piece to the wall
with the proper restraining devices. Ideally, the manufacturer would
provide this information with the furniture until safety standard
legislation is developed;
Encouraging stores that sell child safety products to also sell
furniture safety straps. Many do not carry them, including large
department stores and home improvement stores;
And encouraging physicians and child safety instructors to discuss
furniture safety with parents.
Mr. Speaker, through this terrible loss, the Beck family has shown
great strength and determination to spread their message. As parents we
have an awesome responsibility to protect our children, and we must not
take this responsibility lightly. While I am deeply saddened by the
loss of Meghan Beck, I commend the entire family for their efforts in
spreading their message.
I urge my colleagues to visit the Becks' Web site at
www.meghanshope.org. There they can learn more about the important
issue of furniture safety and what can be done to prevent more
tragedies from occurring.
I know that our colleague, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms.
Schwartz), is also concerned about this issue; and I look forward to
working with her closely to see what Congress can do to help.
I am certain that the entire House of Representatives joins me in
sending their deepest condolences to the Beck family and in thanking
them for their effort on behalf of our children's safety.
____________________
FIGHTING CARGO THEFT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell my colleagues and the
country about a problem that has plagued our country for some 30 years,
but continues unabated today. It is a problem that travels our highways
and threatens our interstate commerce. It is a problem that affects our
entire country and demands a Federal response. The problem is the crime
of cargo theft.
[[Page 6108]]
Every year, tens of billions of dollars are lost due to cargo theft,
by one estimate, up to $60 billion a year in losses. But there are
indirect costs as well. This huge amount of business and profit
translates into the loss of at least 300,000 mid-level manufacturing
jobs. Prices are increasing due to higher insurance premiums. People
are losing their jobs and consumers are paying higher prices because of
cargo theft. Making matters worse, law enforcement officials estimate
60 percent of cargo theft incidents go unreported, so these costs could
be even greater.
Typical targets for cargo theft often include shipments of clothing,
prescription drugs, computers, and jewelry. A truckload of computer
microprocessors can be worth millions of dollars. A truckload of
cigarettes, just another common target, can be worth up to $2 million.
Cargo thieves employ creative and highly efficient means to prey on
cargo carriers and have managed to stay one step ahead of our
authorities. Thieves know what they want, where they can find it, and
how they can get it.
And let us not forget that cargo theft is a national security issue.
We know that terrorists can make a lot of money stealing and selling
cargo, not to mention the fact that terrorists have a proven record of
using trucks to either smuggle weapons of mass destruction or as an
instrument of delivery.
Make no mistake about it, cargo theft is a big business, and business
is booming.
But despite the incredible costs and high stakes involved, we still
have not been able to come up with an effective way to fight cargo
theft. The trouble is, cargo theft is not well-known or a high-profile
issue. And one of the reasons that cargo theft does not receive the
attention it deserves is because very little information exists
concerning the problem. For example, there currently is no all-
inclusive database that collects, contains, or processes distinct
information and data regarding cargo theft.
In order to combat the growing problem of cargo theft, I have
introduced legislation, the Cargo Theft Prevention Act, which proposes
commonsense solutions to this widespread crime. My legislation would
require the creation of just such a database, providing a valuable
source of information that would allow State and local law enforcement
officials to coordinate reports of cargo theft. This information could
then be used to help fight this theft in everyday law enforcement and
estimating, and very importantly, estimating the exact cost of this
crime.
My act, the Cargo Theft Prevention Act, proposes that cargo theft
reports be reflected as a separate category in the Uniform Crime
Reporting System, or the UCR, the data collection system that is used
by the FBI today. Currently, no such category exists in the UCR,
resulting in ambiguous data and the inability to track and monitor
trends.
The last thing my bill does is have the United States Sentencing
Commission take a look at whether criminals who commit cargo theft
deserve stiffer penalties. This needs to be done because the high
value-to-volume ratio of hi-tech and high-profit goods cargo theft has
encouraged criminals previously involved in drug dealing to move into
this area of activity, where they run less risk of detection and suffer
less penalties if they are caught.
As it now stands, Mr. Speaker, punishment for cargo theft is a
relative slap on the wrist. Throw in the fact that cargo thieves are
tough to catch, and what we have here is a low-risk, high-reward crime
that easily entices potential criminals. We need to determine what
sentencing enhancements and increases must be made, if at all.
Members in this Chamber need to be made aware of this problem, a
problem not only specific to the large port cities of this country, but
a problem specific to all of our congressional districts. Billions of
dollars are being sapped from our economy and this body is doing little
to stop it. It is time that we get aggressive and make our highways
again safe for commerce.
The Cargo Theft Prevention Act proposes to finally give law
enforcement officials and lawmakers the commonsense tools they need to
combat the costly and growing crime of cargo theft. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
____________________
THE WASHINGTON LOBBYISTS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it is springtime, and Major League
Baseball is coming to Washington. The thing is, though, I am not sure
they got the name right. They are calling the team the Washington
Nationals. Not a bad name, but I always thought the name should reflect
the true character of a city. The right choice is obvious: the new
team's name should be the Washington Lobbyists.
The Washington Lobbyists and their Republican allies would play under
new rules of the game.
Rule number one: pay to play. You cannot step on the field unless you
ante up. But in the land where cash is king, that is just the start.
For a modest added contribution, a batter can shrink the strike zone,
replace the traditional hardball with a more responsive tennis ball, or
move the pitcher back 10 feet.
Rule number two: no errors. Missed the ball, say, by $800 billion on
your Medicare cost estimate? No worries. With enough money, enough spin
and enough citizen education, the Lobbyists can make those errors
vanish overnight, or at least until election day.
Rule number three: it ain't over until it's over, unless we are
losing. Soccer ends after a set period of time. But do you know who
plays soccer? Old Europe, that is who. Well, none of that in
``reformed'' baseball. At home games, the Lobbyists can hold the game
open, adding extra innings if they are losing at the end of an
arbitrary nine innings.
And the Washington Lobbyists would create a whole new fan experience
too. Instead of the oh-so-boring Ball Day Or Bat Day, the Lobbyists and
their corporate partners could offer U.S. Chamber of Commerce Blanket
Day: Fans get blanket product-liability waivers.
Or the Washington Lobbyists baseball team could offer Golf Junket
Getaway Giveaways: one lucky fan gets an all-expense sweet golf trip to
Scotland, all expenses paid by the Indian gaming industry.
Or the Washington Lobbyists could give away at the ball park Timber
Industry Bat Night: every bat is made from 100 percent old-growth
forest.
Or Pressroom Sweepstakes: the winning fan gets White House press
credentials for a day, but only if he is affiliated with an on-line
escort service.
Or maybe Burger Night: free burgers for the first 5,000 fans, made
with 100 percent caribou from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Maybe they could have Wal-Mart Kids Day, where kids would not get to
actually watch the game, because somebody has got to work the
concessions.
Or Mug Night: the lucky fan gets to keep his swank Republican
leadership job, even if his mugshot is taped to his grand jury's dart
board.
Or we could even have at the Washington Nationals baseball game
starting Thursday night, we could have Halliburton Gasoline Night: a
tank of gas for the first 1,000 fans at the patriotic Halliburton price
of $8.95 a gallon.
Or the Enron Doubleheader: Fans get in early with promises of a big
win, but then the team kicks you out and takes your pension away.
In the spirit of Republican Washington, the Washington Lobbyists will
not care much about public opinion, making decisions in secret and
ignoring criticism from the fans. And to avoid unpatriotic dissent,
games will be played in the middle of the night, after sports writers
have gone to bed.
{time} 1245
If we want to change things and change how things really work in
Washington, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to change pitchers. Until
we do, the Washington lobbyists and their friends here in Congress will
always win.
[[Page 6109]]
____________________
MILITARY READINESS NEEDS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of South Carolina). Pursuant to
the order of the House of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Langevin) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5
minutes.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I join my friend and colleague, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), this afternoon to
address matters of importance to Democrats on the House Committee on
Armed Services.
I was fortunate enough to visit our men and women overseas in Iraq
about a year-and-a-half ago, and I appreciate the amazing job that they
are doing. Despite the complexity of their mission, our troops have
performed ably and professionally; and they are, without doubt, the
strongest and best-trained fighting force in the world.
However, we must ensure that they have the appropriate equipment to
continue their record of success. We often overlook the impact that the
high operations tempo in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on our
equipment. Though the military has accomplished a great deal with what
they have, we have clear indications that we are wearing down our
equipment perhaps faster than we can replace it. The frequent use of
Humvees, trucks, and aircraft, coupled with the harsh climate
conditions, has caused them to wear down faster than expected.
The Army estimates that trucks are being degraded at three to five
times the normal peacetime rate, with the Congressional Budget Office
suggesting that it could be as much as 10 times the recent average. We
see similar trends in our aircraft and tanks, with wear rates ranging
from two to five times the normal. Meanwhile, National Guard and
Reserve units that deploy with their own equipment have left it in
theater when they return, creating shortages in the United States for
training and other purposes.
Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot ignore the potential impact of this
trend on the long-term readiness of our military. Our worldwide
prepositioned stocks, which are intended to give our troops rapid
access to equipment when needed, are severely depleted, with the Army
estimating that we would need 3 years to fully restore them. Also, the
Department of Defense estimates that it has $12.8 billion in unfunded
maintenance costs, with the CBO projecting the numbers could be as high
as $13 billion to $18 billion. At the current rate of operations, it
will take years to reset the force to where it needs to be.
Now, we make these points, Mr. Speaker, not to be alarmists but to
raise awareness of the state of our military and to emphasize that
Congress must remain committed to our troops, both in theater now and
in the future. We must pledge not to send our men and women into harm's
way with substandard equipment, while actively seeking to rebuild our
forces to meet future needs.
Mr. Speaker, furthermore, our commitment to our troops does not end
when they return home. There is growing evidence that the combat
stresses on our troops may contribute to higher rates of post-traumatic
stress disorder. We must improve our PTSD counseling programs as well
as our veterans' health care system.
I was disappointed that, during consideration of the emergency
supplemental appropriations bill, the House voted down the Democratic
motion to recommit, which would have provided more funding for
veterans' health programs. Mr. Speaker, our veterans' health system is
strained as it is, and I can think of no greater disservice to those
men and women serving now than having them return to a nation that
refuses to provide appropriate support for their needs.
I know many members of our committee have fought to meet our
obligations to our service members and our veterans, and I would
particularly like to thank and recognize the efforts of our Ranking
Member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), as well as the
leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans). Again, Mr.
Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield)
for his dedication, and I urge all of my colleagues to remain committed
to guaranteeing sufficient military readiness and veterans' services.
____________________
SOLEMN DUTY OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR MILITARY NEEDS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague, the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), to talk about the position
of House Democrats, particularly those of us on the Committee on Armed
Services, regarding an issue of importance to our national defense.
As a new member of the Subcommittee on Readiness, I have been privy
to briefings from our combatant commanders and from the Department of
Defense. The testimonies provided by these great Americans have led me
to the conclusion that our military equipment located in Iraq and
Afghanistan has become severely worn and damaged.
The Congress of the United States has a solemn constitutional duty to
provide for our military, and the Democratic Members of the Congress
take this responsibility very seriously. A sufficient part of our duty
is to make sure that our troops have the equipment they need to be
successful when they are engaged in war. Whether it is MREs or canteens
or desert uniforms or personal protective vests or up-armored Humvees,
our troops deserve to have enough equipment in good working condition
to get the job done. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that our troops are on
the verge of not having the equipment they need to win these wars, and
that is not good.
Many of our briefings, Mr. Speaker, are top secret, and I would not
dare to breach that confidence. But, Mr. Speaker, it is not classified
that the pace of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is taking
its toll on our equipment. We are simply wearing out the equipment at a
fast pace.
By the Army's own estimates, trucks are wearing out at three to five
times the rate as they would during peacetime operations. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the truck usage is as much
as 10 times higher than average during the last 7 years. Our aircraft
are aging and wearing out at twice the rate as in peacetime. The Marine
Corps reports its CH-46 helicopters are being used at 230 percent of
the peacetime rate.
It is not just that our equipment is wearing out, Mr. Speaker; it is
that so much of our equipment is wearing out.
Forty percent of the Army's equipment has been deployed since the
start of Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Thirty percent of the
Marine Corps' equipment is deployed, and 2,300 items require depot
maintenance. Twelve percent of the wheeled vehicles in Iraq are so
broken down that they will have to be replaced.
We have also depleted a high percentage of our prepositioned
equipment. The Army says that our stocks will not be reset for at least
3 years after the end of the conflicts.
Equipment casualties are significant. During the war in Iraq, the
Army has lost 503 pieces of major equipment, including 51 helicopters,
76 heavy trucks, 217 Humvees, and 97 combat vehicle-like tanks, Bradley
fighting vehicles and Strykers.
The Marine Corps reports that 1,800 pieces of equipment valued at
over $94 million have been destroyed.
Why do I mention all of these statistics? I want my colleagues and
the American people to understand that we are coming dangerously close
to weakening our military, and we must understand the enormity of the
problem. And it must be known that it is going to take a lot of money
to fix the problem.
The 2005 supplemental appropriation passed by the House earlier this
year includes $554 million to replace 800 worn out or damaged pieces of
equipment. The CBO estimates that the Department of Defense already
needs between $13 billion and $18 billion to fund
[[Page 6110]]
maintenance costs not covered in the budget. And the Army will require
at least 2 years of supplemental appropriations after the end of the
conflict in order to reset the force. I regret that the President's
2006 budget request does not include the money we need to replace and
modernize our worn and lost equipment.
Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Members of the Committee on Armed
Services deeply care about our troops and about our military. We must
fulfill our constitutional duty to ensure that our troops have what
they need to succeed wherever they are deployed. They can only succeed
and we can only carry out our duty if we provide them sufficient
equipment to complete their mission. That is going to be a long and
expensive process.
Congress, therefore, needs to take prompt action, and I call on all
of my colleagues to provide the needed support to make that happen.
____________________
REPUBLICAN BANKRUPTCY BILL MEANS FALSE HOPE AND ENDLESS DEBT BURDEN FOR
AMERICANS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority today or tomorrow
will put before this House and the American people a WMD, a Weapon of
Mass Debt. They call it the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Prevention
Act of 2005. This legislation is as far away from protecting consumers
as a snake oil salesman pitching an elixir to cure all of your ills.
This legislation should be called the Credit Card Company Enslavement
Act of 2005. It does not help the American people. It was conceived by
the credit card people for the credit card people and packaged by their
Republican surrogates for one reason and one reason only: to entrap
low- and middle-income Americans.
As always with this Republican majority, if you are rich, do not
worry, they have your back covered. But for every other American, you
are the payoff for special interests and corporate greed. Disguise
legislation with a phony name and let them clean your clock over and
over and over again.
Debt, and pain and suffering associated with economic enslavement,
has been a major concern throughout recorded history. The Bible speaks
about debt in the books of Exodus, Micah, Amos, Nehemiah, Romans,
Kings, and Deuteronomy, among others. I could go on all day long with
that. That is a lot of spiritual guidance.
So what is this all about? Economic justice is what the Bible
preached, knowing full well that debt bound a person tighter than any
chain, enslaving hope as it extracted money. For thousands of years,
spiritual leaders, including John Paul, have preached a gospel of
economic justice for people throughout the world. Instead, today we are
expected to pander to corporate greed while we deny social
responsibility.
I personally am not going to go for it. The legislation before us is
about grinding people into the dirt. It is not a fresh start, but false
hope and an endless debt burden.
The Republican majority today would like us to condone stripping
people of all of their worldly possessions and then denying them the
right to hope to make a new life for themselves and their loved ones.
Here are some facts behind the fraud the Republican majority has in
front of us: Ninety percent of those filing for bankruptcy protection
are doing so because of losing a job, a medical emergency, or the
breakup of a family. Half the personal bankruptcies in America today
are because of illness or unpaid medical bills.
What are the President and Republican majority doing about health
care? Nothing, nada, zippo. They have not touched it for the last 4
years, and they will pander to the special interests over the next 4
years. After all, people without health care do not go to those fancy
Republican fund-raisers. They go to the emergency room when they cannot
avoid illness any longer.
Mr. Speaker, 45 million Americans have no health care and no hope
from this administration, and 1.6 million American households filed for
bankruptcy last year. That is one measure of the President's economic
program he is not talking much about. The rich get richer and the poor
get outed.
Divorced women are 300 percent more likely than a single or married
woman to file for bankruptcy because of the consequences of divorce,
from lower wages to the financial strain of raising children alone. So
much for Republican family values.
African American and Hispanics are 500 percent more likely than white
homeowners to end up in bankruptcy court because of discrimination in
everything from mortgage costs, to hiring, to wages. It is real, and
the Republican majority would like us to look the other way.
More older Americans are filing for bankruptcy because they are being
forced out of their jobs, cannot find new ones that pay when they were
earning, and they are victims of runaway health costs.
{time} 1300
But wait, there is even more. Credit card companies are an equal-
opportunity scourge. This environment inundates students, the working
poor and middle America with dozen of offers for more credit cards and
more debt every week. How many offers have you received in the mail or
on the phone this week, 3, 4, 5? The marketing is not aggressive. It is
predatory. They tempt you with offers that promise anything and
everything. Pre-approved, pre-authorized, platinum, gold, silver. The
truth is, the credit cards are not made of plastic. They are made out
of lead, and they are hung around your neck like a yoke.
Does this so-called consumer protection action do anything to address
predatory credit card marketing? Nothing, nada, zippo.
So what exactly are the Republicans proposing? This bill allows
millionaires to shelter their assets in bankruptcy by protecting an
unlimited amount of value in their residences.
What about child support?
Well, the Republicans have a real deal for you. This bill, their
bill, would force women and children who are owed child support to
fight with the credit card companies in court for the money. Given the
Republican knack for words, they will probably call this a social
safety net. And on and on it goes. Vote ``no'' on this bankruptcy bill.
It is bankrupt.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of South Carolina). Pursuant to
clause 12(a) of rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess until 2
p.m.
Accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 1 minute 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 at 2 p.m.
____________________
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
Lord God, author of truth and creator of beauty, cherry blossoms in
Washington usher in spring to the Nation.
May new life be made manifest in Congress this term, bringing glory
to Your holy name and peace and prosperity to the cities and fields of
the land.
Lord, as You inspire creativity in artists, engineers and scientists,
also stir aspirations of hopeful negotiations in troublesome areas of
the world and in the corridors of government.
May the seeds of peace and the beginnings of deeper understanding
grow in the hearts and minds of Your people.
This we ask, now and forever. Amen.
[[Page 6111]]
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER. 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. Will the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) come
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. McNULTY led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Monahan, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate has passed a concurrent resolution of the
following title in which the concurrence of the House is requested:
S. Con. Res. 25. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress regarding the application of Airbus for launch
aid.
____________________
RIDICULOUS, WASTEFUL SPENDING AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
(Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the Scripps-Howard News Service recently ran
a story about what it describes as ``Capitol Hill's extravagant new
visitors center.''
The story said: ``Another year and another $37 million in unforeseen
cost increases'' in what is becoming an annual sad joke.
There have been so many examples of ridiculous, wasteful spending at
the Federal level over the last 30 or 40 years that it seems the
Federal Government cannot do anything in an economical, efficient
manner.
The Scripps-Howard story said: ``Originally estimated to cost $40
million, the project has grown into a 5-story Taj Mahal that so far has
cost taxpayers $454 million.''
The current final cost is estimated to be $559 million, and Citizens
Against Government Waste describes it as ``monumental waste.''
Apparently, if we want something to cost about 10 times more than it
should, just let the Federal Government do it.
Those who are in charge of managing this project should be ashamed
and embarrassed, but all they will probably do is laugh at these
comments, since the money is not coming out of their pockets.
____________________
LATINOS AND SOCIAL SECURITY
(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to voice my concerns regarding
Social Security privatization and how it is going to affect hardworking
Hispanics and Latino families and especially the women Latinas.
About 46 percent of older Latinas depend entirely on Social Security
in retirement. In fact, 60 percent of Latinas over the age of 65 would
live in poverty if they did not receive Social Security.
If President Bush privatizes Social Security, young Latinas in their
20s and 30s will see their benefits cut by at least 30 percent.
Latina moms rely on Social Security also if their husbands become
injured or die. The work injury rate for Hispanics in the year 2000 was
16 percent compared to 11 percent of the overall population. Therefore,
Social Security disability benefits are particularly important for
Latinas and their families.
The President's plan will not help Latinos or our families. Let us
start talking about real solutions, helping our families that work very
hard day in and day out.
____________________
SOCIAL SECURITY
(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, we have heard all about the
problems with Social Security many times here on the House floor:
looming deficits, benefit cuts, payroll tax hikes. These problems are
very real, and they are just around the corner if we do not act.
With that being said, my colleagues across the aisle continue to
criticize, continue to say to the American people that there is no
problem when, in fact, the 2005 Trustees Report showed the problem to
be crystal clear. Social Security will begin paying out more than it
collects in 2017. By 2041, the Social Security system as we know it
will be insolvent with not enough money to pay 100 percent of the
promised benefits.
Raising payroll taxes is not a solution. Just look at our history.
Payroll taxes have been increased over 20 times since Social Security
began.
Madam Speaker, across the aisle we hear the same old rhetoric of why
things will not work. The question I have for them is what are their
proposals to fix Social Security?
The challenges with Social Security are not Republican, and they are
not Democrat. This is a challenge for all Americans, and I call upon
those across the aisle to help us find a solution. Let us put people
above politics.
____________________
IT IS TIME TO END THE DEATH TAX NOW
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, the gibberish my colleagues
just heard about is the President says everything's on the table. We
can reform Social Security.
Madam Speaker, this week the United States House will vote to
eliminate the unfair death tax.
Believe it or not, the government gives you a certificate at birth, a
license when you marry and a tax bill when you die. Is that not a
shame?
Taxing people when they die smacks of all the things that are wrong
with the government and Washington.
The death tax was created to target people like the Vanderbilts and
the Rockefellers, with the original intent of paying and winning World
War I. This bill hits hardworking Americans. The death tax hurts the
mom-and-pop shops on Main Street, and that is just not fair.
Sadly, now if a person saved for the future, put some money away,
built a business, ran a farm or achieved the American Dream in other
ways, the death tax punishes them.
That is just wrong, and it is time to end the death tax now.
____________________
ANNOUNCING 527 FAIRNESS ACT
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, the summer of 2004 will be remembered for
many years in American politics.
Groups organized on the left and the right under what was known as
section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code and spent more than $300
million to support candidates, while the two major political parties
and the Nation's most respected labor unions, associations, businesses,
and constitutional groups watched in silence from the sidelines.
In response to this summer of 527s, some in Washington will bring
measures to rein in the 527 groups with greater government control and
regulation, and that is certainly their right.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), a Democratic Congressman, and
I have taken a different approach in introducing the 527 Fairness Act
in the 109th Congress.
The 527 Fairness Act seeks to restore basic fairness to the political
process for political parties and 501(c) organizations instead of
attempting further regulation on political speech. More freedom is
always the answer of the difficulties and challenges and the politics
of a free society.
While this liberty may be a bit more chaotic and inconvenient for
some in
[[Page 6112]]
the political class, as Thomas Jefferson said, ``I would rather be
exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those
attending too small a degree of it.''
I join the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), my colleague, in
urging cosponsorship and swift passage of the 527 Fairness Act.
____________________
WINE INDUSTRY IN NORTH CAROLINA
(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the flourishing
viticulture industry located in North Carolina's 5th District.
The Yadkin Valley is North Carolina's first federally recognized
American viticultural area. Located in northwestern North Carolina, it
includes all of Surry, Wilkes and Yadkin counties, as well as portions
of Stokes, Davie, and Forsyth counties. There are currently 14 wineries
and more than 400 acres devoted to vineyards in the Yadkin Valley.
These vineyards and wineries create jobs and attract tourist dollars
to rural communities, while generating revenue for the State. They also
offer an opportunity for farm diversification and farmland
preservation.
Vineyards in North Carolina produce an average of nearly 3 tons per
acre, valued at $1,180 per ton. That is an average gross income of
$3,481 per acre. The average price per ton is among the highest in
America.
The North Carolina Grape Council estimates that North Carolina
vineyards and wineries bring in $100 million in revenue per year.
Congratulations to the Yadkin Valley vineyards and wineries, and I
thank them for everything they contribute to our State and region.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). Pursuant to clause
8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on
motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and
nays are ordered, or on which the vote is objected to under clause 6 of
rule XX.
Record votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m.
today.
____________________
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY WATER COMMISSION ACT OF 2005
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 135) to establish the ``Twenty-First Century Water
Commission'' to study and develop recommendations for a comprehensive
water strategy to address future water needs.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 135
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 ``Twenty-First Century Water
Commission Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the Nation's water resources will be under increasing
stress and pressure in the coming decades;
(2) a thorough assessment of technological and economic
advances that can be employed to increase water supplies or
otherwise meet water needs in every region of the country is
important and long overdue; and
(3) a comprehensive strategy to increase water availability
and ensure safe, adequate, reliable, and sustainable water
supplies is vital to the economic and environmental future of
the Nation.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT.
There is established a commission to be known as the
``Twenty-First Century Water Commission'' (in this Act
referred to as the ``Commission'').
SEC. 4. DUTIES.
The duties of the Commission shall be to--
(1) use existing water assessments and conduct such
additional assessments as may be necessary to project future
water supply and demand;
(2) study current water management programs of Federal,
Interstate, State, and local agencies, and private sector
entities directed at increasing water supplies and improving
the availability, reliability, and quality of freshwater
resources; and
(3) consult with representatives of such agencies and
entities to develop recommendations consistent with laws,
treaties, decrees, and interstate compacts for a
comprehensive water strategy which--
(A) respects the primary role of States in adjudicating,
administering, and regulating water rights and water uses;
(B) identifies incentives intended to ensure an adequate
and dependable supply of water to meet the needs of the
United States for the next 50 years;
(C) suggests strategies that avoid increased mandates on
State and local governments;
(D) eliminates duplication and conflict among Federal
governmental programs;
(E) considers all available technologies and other methods
to optimize water supply reliability, availability, and
quality, while safeguarding the environment;
(F) recommends means of capturing excess water and flood
water for conservation and use in the event of a drought;
(G) suggests financing options for comprehensive water
management projects and for appropriate public works
projects;
(H) suggests strategies to conserve existing water
supplies, including recommendations for repairing aging
infrastructure; and
(I) includes other objectives related to the effective
management of the water supply to ensure reliability,
availability, and quality, which the Commission shall
consider appropriate.
SEC. 5. MEMBERSHIP.
(a) Number and Appointment.--The Commission shall be
composed of 9 members who shall be appointed not later than
90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. Member shall
be appointed as follows:
(1) 5 members appointed by the President;
(2) 2 members appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, in consultation with the Minority Leader of
the House of Representatives; and
(3) 2 members appointed by the Majority Leader of the
Senate, in consultation with the Minority Leader of the
Senate.
(b) Qualifications.--Members shall be appointed to the
Commission from among individuals who--
(1) are of recognized standing and distinction in water
policy issues; and
(2) while serving on the Commission, do not hold any other
position as an officer or employee of the United States,
except as a retired officer or retired civilian employee of
the United States.
(c) Other Considerations.--In appointing members of the
Commission, every effort shall be made to ensure that the
members represent a broad cross section of regional and
geographical perspectives in the United States.
(d) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Commission shall
be designated by the President.
(e) Terms.--Members of the Commission shall be appointed
not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act and shall serve for the life of the Commission.
(f) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission shall not
affect its operation, and shall be filled in the same manner
as the original appointment provided under subsection (a).
(g) Compensation and Travel Expenses.--Members of the
Commission shall serve without compensation, except members
shall receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, in accordance with applicable provisions under
subchapter I of chapter 57, United States Code.
SEC. 6. MEETINGS AND QUORUM.
(a) Meetings.--The Commission shall hold its first meeting
not later than 60 days after the date on which all members
have been appointed under section 5, and shall hold
additional meetings at the call of the Chairperson or a
majority of its members.
(b) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
SEC. 7. DIRECTOR AND STAFF.
A Director shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House
of Representatives and the Majority Leader of the Senate, in
consultation with the Minority Leader and chairmen of the
Resources and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees of
the House of Representatives, and the Minority Leader and
chairmen of the Energy and Natural Resources and Environment
and Public Works Committees of the Senate. The Director and
any staff reporting to the Director shall be paid a rate of
pay not to exceed the maximum rate of basic pay for GS-15 of
the General Schedule.
SEC. 8. POWERS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) Hearings.--The Commission shall hold no fewer than 10
hearings during the life of the Commission. Hearings may be
held in conjunction with meetings of the Commission. The
Commission may take such testimony and receive such evidence
as the Commission considers appropriate to carry out this
Act. At least 1 hearing shall be held in Washington, D.C.,
for the purpose of taking testimony of representatives of
Federal agencies, national organizations, and Members of
Congress. Other hearings shall be scheduled in distinct
geographical regions of the United States and should seek to
ensure testimony from individuals with a diversity
[[Page 6113]]
of experiences, including those who work on water issues at
all levels of government and in the private sector.
(b) Information and Support From Federal Agencies.--Upon
request of the Commission, any Federal agency shall--
(1) provide to the Commission, within 30 days of its
request, such information as the Commission considers
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act; and
(2) detail to temporary duty with the Commission on a
reimbursable basis such personnel as the Commission considers
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, in
accordance with section 5(b)(5), Appendix, title 5, United
States Code.
SEC. 9. REPORTS.
(a) Interim Reports.--Not later than 6 months after the
date of the first meeting of the Commission, and every 6
months thereafter, the Commission shall transmit an interim
report containing a detailed summary of its progress,
including meetings and hearings conducted in the interim
period, to--
(1) the President;
(2) the Committee on Resources and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives; and
(3) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the
Committee on the Environment and Public Works of the Senate.
(b) Final Report.--As soon as practicable, but not later
than 3 years after the date of the first meeting of the
Commission, the Commission shall transmit a final report
containing a detailed statement of the findings and
conclusions of the Commission, and recommendations for
legislation and other policies to implement such findings and
conclusions, to--
(1) the President;
(2) the Committee on Resources and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives; and
(3) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the
Committee on the Environment and Public Works of the Senate.
SEC. 10. TERMINATION.
The Commission shall terminate not later than 30 days
after the date on which the Commission transmits a final
report under section 9(b).
SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated $9,000,000 to
carry out this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Napolitano) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
General Leave
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam 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 H.R. 135, the bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 135, introduced be my good friend, the distinguished gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Linder), and cosponsored by a wide range of Members
from both parties, creates the 21st Century Water Commission to find
ways to increase and conserve water supplies. The gentleman from
Georgia and his colleagues have properly recognized that water
shortages are a common problem throughout the United States.
The goal of this legislation is for a broad-based commission to
recommend a comprehensive water strategy that recognizes and upholds
the primary role of the States in administering our water laws. The
commissioners, appointed by the President and the Congress, would look
at ways to improve interagency coordination, eliminate government
duplication, create new financing opportunities and improve our
Nation's water infrastructure, among other things, all very important
goals.
The commission is directed to hold no less than 10 public hearings
around the Nation and submit a final report no later than 3 years after
its first meeting so that this commission will not drag on forever. The
legislation sunsets the commission within 30 days of the final report's
submission.
Madam Speaker, there is, and should be, a limited Federal role in
these matters since States and localities primarily administer water
rights and know the most about them. This bill does not add Federal
regulation to the books. It simply creates a mechanism for further
dialogue and potential solutions for all levels of government.
This idea has come a long way since it was originally introduced over
two Congresses ago. It has been subject to hearings and comprehensively
vetted through both the Committee on Resources and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, both of which I have the privilege
to serve on.
In fact, last Congress I held a series of hearings on water supply
issues, including a hearing on this legislation. The witnesses who
testified before my Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
strongly supported greater planning to meet future water needs,
involving all levels of government, and supported the 21st Century
Water Commission Act as a means to help start that process.
It, like the identical bill passed by the House in the 108th
Congress, is the right solution for the right time. It respects the
primary role that States play in addressing water resources issues.
{time} 1415
I urge my colleagues to adopt this bipartisan bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 135. This legislation, as
explained by my colleague, would establish the 21st Century Water
Policy Commission to study Federal, State, local and private water
management programs in order to develop recommendations for a
comprehensive national water strategy.
The objectives of H.R. 135 are not only worthwhile but a necessity
for the country, and we appreciation the cooperation we have received
from the sponsor of the bill. I urge my colleagues to support the
legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), probably the Member of this body
who was the first to recognize the grave importance of water issues in
this Nation, the distinguished primary sponsor of this bill. I commend
the gentleman for his steadfast and yeoman's work on this legislation,
and it should be noted that one of our leading national newspapers just
a few years ago wrote a series of articles saying that water would be
the oil of the 21st century.
Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, as the bill's sponsor, I rise to support
H.R. 135, the 21st Century Water Commission Act. H.R. 135 will bring
together our Nation's premier water experts to recommend strategies for
meeting our water challenges in the 21st century.
I would like to thank several Members who have worked with me to
bring this proposal to the floor today. First, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the Committee on Resources; the
gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), chairman of the
Subcommittee on Water and Power; the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young),
chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), chairman of the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment.
I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the former chairman
of the subcommittee and the ranking member, and the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano), who worked so hard in getting this bill
to the floor in the past Congress.
H.R. 135 was approved in the 108th Congress by a voice vote on
November 21, 2003. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to act on the
legislation before the Congress adjourned. Creating a comprehensive
water policy to meet the needs of the 21st century is a matter of human
survival and quality of life for the United States. I am excited about
continuing to move this bill through the legislative process early in
this Congress.
Water-related issues have been of interest to me for many years. I
wrote an
[[Page 6114]]
article in 1978 that predicted that one of the two major challenges for
our country during the next century would be providing enough fresh
water for a growing population.
Since that time, about 25 years ago, America still does not have an
integrated or comprehensive water policy, even with the hundreds of
thousands of Federal, State, local and private sector employees working
to solve water problems. The difficulty is that there is little
communication and coordination among these experts. If we wait another
10 or 20 years to get serious about meeting the demand for clean water,
it will be too late. We must act now to meet these challenges.
As my colleagues are aware, many States across the Nation are
currently facing a water crisis or have in the last few years. Once
thought to be a problem only in the arid West, severe droughts a few
years ago caused water shortages up and down the East Coast. States
once accustomed to unlimited access to water realized they were not
immune to the problems that the West has experienced for decades.
In addition to drought, aquifers are being challenged by salt water
intrusion, crops are being threatened, and our aging water pipes leak
billions of gallons of freshwater in cities all over the Nation. For
example, New York City loses 36 million gallons per day, Philadelphia
loses 85 million gallons per day through leaky pipes.
Let me be clear about one thing. My bill does not give the Federal
Government more direct authority or control over water. Rather, this
Commission will make recommendations about how we can both coordinate
water management issues on all levels so that localities, States, and
the Federal Government can work together to enact a comprehensive water
policy to avoid future shortages.
The 21st Century Water Commission would be an advisory body, and its
recommendations would be nonbinding.
Some of the highlights are these: The Commission will look for ways
to ensure fresh water for the next 50 years. The Commission will be
composed of nine members appointed by the President and key leaders in
the House and Senate. The Commission will look for ways to eliminate
duplication and conflict among Federal agencies and will consider new
and all available technologies to optimize water supply reliability.
The Commission will hold hearings in distinct geographical regions of
the United States and in Washington, DC, to seek a diversity of views,
comments and inputs. Not later than 6 months after the first meeting
and every 6 months thereafter, the Commission will transmit an interim
report to the Congress and to the President.
A final report will be due within 3 years of the Commission's
inception. The report will include a detailed statement of findings and
conclusions of the Commission, as well as recommendations for
legislation and other policies.
The United States cannot afford to reevaluate its water policies
every time a crisis hits. Now is the time to get ahead of the issue,
and I believe the Commission can serve as a channel for sharing the
successful strategies and ideas that will allow us to do so. I ask my
colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 135.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DUNCAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with the
intent of the bill. I certainly hope it takes less than the 12 years it
took to do the Southern California Water Study. We do have a time frame
for this to happen. It is critical for us to recognize that all areas
of our country have water needs, and we need to consolidate how we
address them and be together with the suppliers so we can move ahead
with a comprehensive plan.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, let me just close by saying that although
this bill is not controversial and has not received a lot of publicity,
that should not denigrate its significance. Because of our aging clean
water infrastructure, because of water supply problems in many parts of
this Nation, and for all of the other reasons that our colleague, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), just mentioned, this is a very
important bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
Madam Speaker, I submit the following exchange of letters on H.R. 135
for the Record.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC, April 5, 2005.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I request your assistance in scheduling
H.R. 135, the Twenty-First Century Water Commission Act of
2005, for consideration by the House of Representatives. This
bill was referred primarily to the Committee on resources and
additionally to your committee.
As the text of this bill is identical to what passed the
House of Representatives under suspension of the rules last
Congress, I ask that you allow your committee to be
discharged from further consideration of the bill to allow us
to pass it again. Perhaps with more time, the Senate will be
able to give it due consideration.
By allowing the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
to be discharged, you are not waiving any jurisdiction you
may have over the bill. I also agree that in the unlikely
event that this bill becomes the focus of a conference
committee that I will support your request to be represented
on that conference. Finally, I agree that this discharge will
not serve as precedent for future referrals.
Thank you for your consideration of my request. I look
forward to another Congress of extraordinary cooperation
between our committees on matters of mutual interest.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, April 5, 2005.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R.
135, the Twenty-First Century Water Commission Act of 2005.
As you know, this legislation was also referred to the
Transportation Committee.
Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 135 and the
need for the legislation to move expeditiously to the House
floor. Therefore, I am willing to have the Transportation
Committee discharged from consideration of the bill. I would
appreciate it if you would include a copy of this letter and
your response in the Congressional Record.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also
asks that you support our request to be conferees on the
provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-
Senate conference.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Don Young,
Chairman.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 135, a
bill to establish a commission to examine the issue of clean, safe, and
reliable water supplies for this generation and for generations to
come.
Madam Speaker, water may well be the most precious resource on Earth.
The existence of water set the stage for the evolution of life and is
an essential ingredient of all life today.
Recognizing the importance of this vital resource, the United Nations
designated 2003 as the ``International Year of Freshwater.'' According
to the U.N., throughout the world roughly one person in six lives
without regular access to safe drinking water, and over twice that
number--or 2.4 billion--lack access to adequate sanitation. In
addition, water-related diseases kill a child every eight seconds.
In the United States, we have avoided many of these concerns through
careful planning and decades of investment in our water infrastructure.
Nationally, a combination of Federal, state, and local funds have built
16,024 wastewater treatment facilities that provide service to 190
million people, or 73 percent of the total population.
In addition, 268 million people in the United States--or 92 percent
of the total population--are currently served by public drinking water
systems, which provide a safe and reliable source of drinking water for
much of the nation.
As I noted earlier, clean, safe, and reliable sources of water are
critical to this nation's health and livelihood. However, in the past
few decades, a series of natural events, as well
[[Page 6115]]
as, human-induced events have demonstrated that our nation remains
vulnerable to shortages of water.
In my own State, we have experienced shortages of snowfall and rain
which have had an adverse impact on local water supplies, agriculture,
and recreation and tourism, and have contributed to historically low
water levels in the Great Lakes. One thing is certain: no area of this
country is immune to the threat of diminished water supplies. We must
be vigilant in preparing for such occurrences.
This bill is a part of the debate on the very important issue of
water resource planning in this country. The gentleman from Georgia,
Mr. Linder, has taken an important step in encouraging this debate,
calling for the creation of a Federal commission to examine issues
related to national water resource planning, and to report its findings
on potential ways to insure against large-scale water shortages in the
future.
While I believe that the legislation introduced by our colleague is a
good starting point, we must be sure to examine fully all of the
relevant issues for ensuring adequate supplies of clean and safe water
to meet current and future needs.
For example, water resource planning should work toward increasing
the efficiency of water consumption as well as increasing the supply of
water. Simply increasing the supply of water can be a more costly
approach to meeting future water needs, and in any case, merely
postpones any potential water resource crisis.
In addition, it is important to remember that issues of water supply
are closely related to water quality. Contaminated sources of
freshwater are of little use to the Nation's health or livelihood;
removing contaminants drives up the overall cost of providing safe and
reliable water resources to our people.
In addition, human activities, whether through the pollution of
waterbodies from point or non-point sources, the elimination of natural
filtration abilities of wetlands, or through the destruction and
elimination of aquifer recharge points, can have a significant impact
on available supplies of usable water.
We cannot base our future water resource planning needs on the
possibility of finding ``new'' sources of freshwater while, at the same
time, tolerating practices that destroy or contaminate existing
sources. All the water there ever was or ever will be on this planet is
with us now; we must spare no effort to be vigilant and careful
stewards of that water.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) that
the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 135.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
PINE SPRINGS LAND EXCHANGE ACT
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 482) to provide for a land exchange involving Federal lands
in the Lincoln National Forest in the State of New Mexico, and for
other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 482
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 ``Pine Springs Land Exchange
Act''.
SEC. 2. LAND EXCHANGE, LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST, NEW MEXICO.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the
three parcels of land, and any improvements thereon,
comprising approximately 80 acres in the Lincoln National
Forest, New Mexico, as depicted on the map entitled ``Pine
Springs Land Exchange'' and dated May 25, 2004, and more
particularly described as S1/2SE1/4NW1/4, SW1/4SW1/4, W1/2E1/
2NW1/4SW1/4, and E1/2W1/2NW1/4SW1/4 of section 32 of township
17 south, range 13 east, New Mexico Principal Meridian.
(2) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means
the parcel of land owned by Lubbock Christian University
comprising approximately 80 acres, as depicted on the map
referred to in paragraph (1) and more particularly described
as N1/2NW1/4 of section 24 of township 17 south, range 12
east, New Mexico Principal Meridian.
(b) Land Exchange Required.--
(1) Exchange.--In exchange for the conveyance of the non-
Federal land by Lubbock Christian University, the Secretary
of Agriculture shall convey to Lubbock Christian University,
by quit-claim deed, all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the Federal land. The conveyance of
the Federal land shall be subject to valid existing rights
and such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
(2) Acceptable title.--Title to the non-Federal land shall
conform with the title approval standards of the Attorney
General applicable to Federal land acquisitions and shall
otherwise be acceptable to the Secretary.
(3) Costs of implementing the exchange.--The costs of
implementing the land exchange shall be shared equally by the
Secretary and Lubbock Christian University.
(4) Completion.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall complete, to the extent practicable, the land exchange
not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(c) Treatment of Map and Legal Descriptions.--The Secretary
and Lubbock Christian University may correct any minor error
in the map referred to in subsection (a)(1) or the legal
descriptions of the Federal land and non-Federal land. In the
event of a discrepancy between the map and legal
descriptions, the map shall prevail unless the Secretary and
Lubbock Christian University otherwise agree. The map shall
be on file and available for inspection in the Office of the
Chief of the Forest Service and the Office of the Supervisor
of Lincoln National Forest.
(d) Equal Value Exchanges.--The fair market values of the
Federal land and non-Federal land exchanged under subsection
(b) shall be equal or, if they are not equal, shall be
equalized in the manner provided in section 206 of the
Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716).
The fair market value of the land shall be determined by
appraisals acceptable to the Secretary and Lubbock Christian
University. The appraisals shall be performed in conformance
with subsection (d) of such section and the Uniform Appraisal
Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions.
(e) Revocation and Withdrawal.--
(1) Revocation of orders.--Any public orders withdrawing
any of the Federal land from appropriation or disposal under
the public land laws are revoked to the extent necessary to
permit disposal of the Federal land.
(2) Withdrawal of federal land.--Subject to valid existing
rights, pending the completion of the land exchange, the
Federal land is withdrawn from all forms of location, entry
and patent under the public land laws, including the mining
and mineral leasing laws and the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970
(30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
(f) Administration of Land Acquired by United States.--
(1) Boundary adjustment.--Upon acceptance of title by the
Secretary of the non-Federal land, the acquired land shall
become part of the Lincoln National Forest, and the
boundaries of the Lincoln National Forest shall be adjusted
to include the land. For purposes of section 7 of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-9),
the boundaries of the Lincoln National Forest, as adjusted
pursuant to this paragraph, shall be considered to be
boundaries of the Lincoln National Forest as of January 1,
1965.
(2) Management.--The Secretary shall manage the acquired
land in accordance with the Act of March 1, 1911 (commonly
known as the Weeks Act; 16 U.S.C. 480, 500, 513-519, 521,
552, 563), and in accordance with the other laws and
regulations applicable to National Forest System lands.
(g) Relation to Other Laws.--Subchapters II and III of
chapter 5 of title 40, United States Code, and the
Agriculture Property Management Regulations shall not apply
to any action taken pursuant to this section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Napolitano) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
General Leave
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam 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 bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
[[Page 6116]]
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 482 would authorize a land exchange involving Federal lands in
the Lincoln National Forest in the State of New Mexico. This
legislation would exchange 80 acres between the Lincoln National Forest
and Lubbock Christian University for a much-needed expansion of the
University's Pine Springs Camp. The camp is used in the summer for
week-long camp sessions and utilized in the winter by college groups,
youth groups, and churches for retreats.
In recent years, the camp has seen an increase in visitors and will
soon run out of room, forcing the camp to turn visitors away. Both the
camp and Lubbock Christian University are nonprofit. I urge all of my
colleagues to support this important measure.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the Lincoln National Forest land exchanges takes
approximately 80 acres of forest land in the Lincoln National Forest
and exchanges that for private land currently owned by Lubbock
Christian University. I would hope that this is in perpetuity rather
than to be put up for sale at some time in the future. This has been a
very grave area for me.
Our committee worked hard in the 108th Congress to refine the
language that would make this exchange fair to the American taxpayer.
The bill we are considering today requires that the exchange be of
equal value. If the land appraisers determine the parcels are not of
equal value, the bill provides for equalization of values through cash
payment.
We are aware that land exchanges can often be controversial and
contrary to the public interest. However, in this case we have worked
to ensure a fair deal which both improves the National Forest by
consolidating land ownership and enables Lubbock Christian University
to extend its summer camp.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), the author of this legislation.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, H.R. 482 provides for a small land
exchange between Lincoln National Forest in New Mexico and Lubbock
Christian University in my district. This land exchange is a fair
exchange and provides benefits for both parties.
One of the good things about this exchange is that we are exchanging
80 acres of pristine land that LCU currently controls that has National
Forest all of the way around it, giving that 80 acres back so we do not
have a doughnut in the middle of a National Forest, in consideration
for 80 acres adjacent to a camp that is already up and going and has
many facilities already on it and is serving many young people in the
summertime. And in the fall and the winter, adult groups are able to
utilize this facility.
I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce). This land is in
his district. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) has been very
cooperative, and we appreciate that. I also thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo) and the Committee on Resources for their work
and thank them for getting this to the floor for a vote so that LCU can
begin putting improvements on this land, and hopefully some of those
improvements may be available for this summer.
This is a like-kind exchange between two pieces of property. This
bill provides for if there is perceived to be some difference in
compensation. This bill gets this off center. This request has been
pending for a couple of years, and we are able to expedite this issue
and get it in place. I think that is good public policy. I urge my
colleagues to support and pass H.R. 482.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I simply want to close by commending the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) for his very fine work on this legislation.
This is a very worthwhile land exchange. I urge all of my colleagues to
support it.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 482.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
DIRECTING CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN LAND TO LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA, AND TO
EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA, FOR CONTINUED USE AS CEMETERIES
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 541) to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey
certain land to Lander County, Nevada, and the Secretary of the
Interior to convey certain land to Eureka County, Nevada, for continued
use as cemeteries.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 541
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE TO LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that the following:
(1) The historical use by settlers and travelers since the
late 1800's of the cemetery known as ``Kingston Cemetery'' in
Kingston, Nevada, predates incorporation of the land within
the jurisdiction of the Forest Service on which the cemetery
is situated.
(2) It is appropriate that that use be continued through
local public ownership of the parcel rather than through the
permitting process of the Federal agency.
(3) In accordance with Public Law 85-569 (commonly known as
the ``Townsite Act''; 16 U.S.C. 478a), the Forest Service has
conveyed to the Town of Kingston 1.25 acres of the land on
which historic gravesites have been identified.
(4) To ensure that all areas that may have unmarked
gravesites are included, and to ensure the availability of
adequate gravesite space in future years, an additional
parcel consisting of approximately 8.75 acres should be
conveyed to the county so as to include the total amount of
the acreage included in the original permit issued by the
Forest Service for the cemetery.
(b) Conveyance on Condition Subsequent.--Subject to valid
existing rights and the condition stated in subsection (e),
the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the
Forest Service (referred to in this section as the
``Secretary''), not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, shall convey to Lander County, Nevada
(referred to in this section as the ``county''), for no
consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the parcel of land described in subsection
(c).
(c) Description of Land.--The parcel of land referred to in
subsection (b) is the parcel of National Forest System land
(including any improvements on the land) known as ``Kingston
Cemetery'', consisting of approximately 10 acres and more
particularly described as SW1/4SE1/4SE1/4 of section 36, T.
16N., R. 43E., Mount Diablo Meridian.
(d) Easement.--At the time of the conveyance under
subsection (b), subject to subsection (e)(2), the Secretary
shall grant the county an easement allowing access for
persons desiring to visit the cemetery and other cemetery
purposes over Forest Development Road #20307B,
notwithstanding any future closing of the road for other use.
(e) Condition on Use of Land.--
(1) In general.--The county (including its successors)
shall continue the use of the parcel conveyed under
subsection (b) as a cemetery.
(2) Reversion.--If the Secretary, after notice to the
county and an opportunity for a hearing, makes a finding that
the county has used or permitted the use of the parcel for
any purpose other than the purpose specified in paragraph
(1), and the county fails to discontinue that use--
(A) title to the parcel shall revert to the United States
to be administered by the Secretary; and
(B) the easement granted to the county under subsection (d)
shall be revoked.
(3) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the application of
paragraph (2)(A) or (2)(B) if the Secretary determines that
such a waiver would be in the best interests of the United
States.
SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE TO EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
[[Page 6117]]
(1) The historical use by settlers and travelers since the
late 1800s of the cemetery known as ``Maiden's Grave
Cemetery'' in Beowawe, Nevada, predates incorporation of the
land within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management
on which the cemetery is situated.
(2) It is appropriate that such use be continued through
local public ownership of the parcel rather than through the
permitting process of the Federal agency.
(b) Conveyance on Condition Subsequent.--Subject to valid
existing rights and the condition stated in subsection (e),
the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of
the Bureau of Land Management (referred to in this section as
the ``Secretary''), not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, shall convey to Eureka County, Nevada
(referred to in this section as the ``county''), for no
consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the parcel of land described in subsection
(c).
(c) Description of Land.--The parcel of land referred to in
subsection (b) is the parcel of public land (including any
improvements on the land) known as ``Maiden's Grave
Cemetery'', consisting of approximately 10 acres and more
particularly described as S1/2NE1/4SW1/4SW1/4, N1/2SE1/4SW1/
4SW1/4 of section 10, T.31N., R.49E., Mount Diablo Meridian.
(d) Easement.--At the time of the conveyance under
subsection (b), subject to subsection (e)(2), the Secretary
shall grant the county an easement allowing access for
persons desiring to visit the cemetery and other cemetery
purposes over an appropriate access route consistent with
current access.
(e) Condition on Use of Land.--
(1) In general.--The county (including its successors)
shall continue the use of the parcel conveyed under
subsection (b) as a cemetery.
(2) Reversion.--If the Secretary, after notice to the
county and an opportunity for a hearing, makes a finding that
the county has used or permitted the use of the parcel for
any purpose other than the purpose specified in paragraph
(1), and the county fails to discontinue that use--
(A) title to the parcel shall revert to the United States
to be administered by the Secretary; and
(B) the easement granted to the county under subsection (d)
shall be revoked.
(3) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the application of
paragraph (2)(A) or (2)(B) if the Secretary determines that
such a waiver would be in the best interests of the United
States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Napolitano) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
General Leave
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam 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 bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
{time} 1430
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 541 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain land
to Lander County, Nevada, and the Secretary of the Interior to convey
certain land to Eureka County, Nevada, for continued use as public
cemeteries. Specifically, the town of Kingston, Nevada, requires an
additional 8.75 acres of Forest Service land to supplement the 1.25
acres of Forest Service land conveyed to it in 2000 for the town's
cemetery. The additional acreage would ensure that areas of unmarked
graves are included in the town's cemetery and that space is available
for future graves in Kingston Cemetery. In addition, H.R. 541 would
authorize the Bureau of Land Management to convey 10 acres of
disposable land to Eureka County, Nevada, for continued use at Maiden's
Grave Cemetery.
H.R. 541 is supported by the majority and the minority of the
Committee on Resources and is identical to legislation that passed the
House of Representatives by voice vote during the 108th Congress. I
urge adoption of the bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, as a general rule, when Congress transfers Federal
lands into other hands, the United States taxpayers should be
compensated for the fair market value of the lands being transferred.
In this instance, however, the locations of these parcels as well as
the fact that they are currently in use as local cemeteries, and I have
no idea how long it has been used as cemeteries but I am assuming it
has been a while, justify the making of these transfers free of charge.
As a result, we will not oppose H.R. 541.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
very distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for allowing me time to speak on this bill, and
I would also like to thank my good friend from California (Mrs.
Napolitano) for her support of this bill as well.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 541, a bill I
introduced in the 108th Congress. The purpose of H.R. 541 is to direct
the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain land to Lander County,
Nevada, and the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to
Eureka County, Nevada, for continued use, as was said by my friend, for
public cemeteries. This same legislation passed under suspension of the
rules in the House in the 108th Congress. Unfortunately, the
legislation was not acted upon in a timely manner by the other body;
and I am pleased, Madam Speaker, to have the opportunity to revisit
this issue now in the 109th Congress.
With over 90 percent of our State's land being owned by the Federal
Government, Nevada has the highest percentage of public-land ownership
of all the States in the Union. There are many challenges that come
with such a high share of public lands. One that may surprise my
colleagues is that even the burial of our loved ones and the
preservation of the grave sites of our ancestors are impacted by
Federal land ownership.
H.R. 541 authorizes the conveyance of public land to the respective
control of Lander and Eureka counties for continued use as public
cemeteries. My bill is designed to return these cemeteries to the local
communities and eliminate the red tape and uncertainty associated with
the Federal permitting process the cemeteries are currently required to
go through in order to operate today.
Specifically, the town of Kingston, Nevada, needs an additional 8.75
acres to be added to the town's cemetery in order to protect unmarked
graves and make space available for future grave sites. The bill also
authorizes the conveyance of 10 acres of disposable land to Eureka
County, Nevada, for continued use as the Maiden's Grave Cemetery.
Both of these parcels, Madam Speaker, have been historically used as
cemeteries since the 1800s, well before either the Forest Service or
the BLM was ever created. However, the land the cemeteries reside on is
owned by the Federal Government today. Ninety percent of the land mass
in both Eureka and Lander counties is owned by the Federal Government;
90 percent. To give my colleagues an idea of the scale of this
conveyance, the acres requested by Lander County represent a mere two-
thousandths of a percent of the total land owned by the Federal
Government in just that county. In Eureka County, the size of the
conveyance is four-thousandths of a percent of the Federal Government's
holdings in that county.
As my colleagues can see, the size of the conveyance is minuscule,
but the impact on the communities and those who have loved ones buried
in these cemeteries is large. Relying on the Federal permitting process
to ensure that these cemeteries remain used as cemeteries has been a
source of uncertainty to the residents of these communities for many
years. It is our intention through this bill to convey a small amount
of Federal land to provide for the preservation and access to the
residents of these communities
[[Page 6118]]
with respect to the graves of their ancestors. These land conveyances
to the local governments will preserve these historic sites that are
not only a part of America's and Nevada's history but part of Nevada's
families.
I urge my colleagues to unanimously support this legislation that
means so much to these two communities. I want to again thank you,
Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in support of this
important legislation, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on it.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I certainly want to add my support of the bill. My understanding is
there were 1.2 acres allocated to the same group back in 2000 and now
this additional land. I realize it is minuscule, but certainly be it
far from us to be in denial of a proper respect of those who are buried
there in the unmarked graves. I concur and urge support.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The land involved here is approximately 20 acres. Many of us believe
that the Federal Government owns far too much land in the State of
Nevada already. Frankly, as our colleague from Nevada pointed out, this
makes two one-thousandths of 1 percent, which is a minuscule part of
the State of Nevada, and so I think this is very worthwhile
legislation. I commend the gentleman from Nevada for bringing this to
the attention of the House, and I urge the passage of this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) that
the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 541.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ACT
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 18) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Bureau of Reclamation and in coordination with other
Federal, State, and local government agencies, to participate in the
funding and implementation of a balanced, long-term groundwater
remediation program in California, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 18
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 ``Southern California
Groundwater Remediation Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Act:
(1) Groundwater remediation.--The term ``groundwater
remediation'' means actions that are necessary to prevent,
minimize, clean up, or mitigate damage to groundwater.
(2) Local water authority.--The term ``local water
authority'' means a currently existing (on the date of the
enactment of this Act) public water district, public water
utility, public water planning agency, municipality, or
Indian Tribe located within the natural watershed of the
Santa Ana River in the State of California.
(3) Remediation fund.--The term ``Remediation Fund'' means
the Southern California Groundwater Remediation Fund
established pursuant to section 3(a).
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 3. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION.
(a) Southern California Groundwater Remediation.--
(1) Establishment of remediation fund.--There shall be
established within the Treasury of the United States an
interest bearing account to be known as the ``Southern
California Groundwater Remediation Fund''.
(2) Administration of remediation fund.--The Remediation
Fund shall be administered by the Secretary, acting through
the Bureau of Reclamation. The Secretary shall administer the
Remediation Fund in cooperation with the local water
authority.
(3) Purposes of remediation fund.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the amounts
in the Remediation Fund, including interest accrued, shall be
used by the Secretary to provide grants to the local water
authority to reimburse the local water authority for the
Federal share of the costs associated with designing and
constructing groundwater remediation projects to be
administered by the local water authority.
(B) Cost-sharing limitation.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary may not obligate any funds
appropriated to the Remediation Fund in a fiscal year until
the Secretary has deposited into the Remediation Fund an
amount provided by non-Federal interests sufficient to ensure
that at least 35 percent of any funds obligated by the
Secretary for a groundwater remediation project are from
funds provided to the Secretary for that project by the non-
Federal interests.
(ii) Non-federal responsibility.--Each local water
authority shall be responsible for providing the non-Federal
amount required by clause (i) for projects under that local
water authority. The State of California, local government
agencies, and private entities may provide all or any portion
of the non-Federal amount.
(iii) Credits toward non-federal share.--For purposes of
clause (ii), the Secretary shall credit the appropriate local
water authority with the value of all prior expenditures by
non-Federal interests made after January 1, 2000, that are
compatible with the purposes of this section, including--
(I) all expenditures made by non-Federal interests to
design and construct groundwater remediation projects,
including expenditures associated with environmental
analyses, and public involvement activities that were
required to implement the groundwater remediation projects in
compliance with applicable Federal and State laws; and
(II) all expenditures made by non-Federal interests to
acquire lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations,
disposal areas, and water rights that were required to
implement a groundwater remediation project.
(b) Compliance With Applicable Law.--In carrying out the
activities described in this section, the Secretary shall
comply with any applicable Federal and State laws.
(c) Relationship to Other Activities.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to affect other Federal or State
authorities that are being used or may be used to facilitate
remediation and protection of the groundwater the natural
watershed of the Santa Ana River in the State of California.
In carrying out the activities described in this section, the
Secretary shall integrate such activities with ongoing
Federal and State projects and activities. None of the funds
made available for such activities pursuant to this section
shall be counted against any Federal authorization ceiling
established for any previously authorized Federal projects or
activities.
(d) Financial Statements and Audits.--The Secretary shall
ensure that all funds obligated and disbursed under this Act
and expended by a local water authority, are accounted for in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and
are subjected to regular audits in accordance with applicable
procedures, manuals, and circulars of the Department of the
Interior and the Office of Management and Budget.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.-- There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Remediation Fund $50,000,000. Such
funds shall remain available until expended. Subject to the
limitations in section 4, such funds shall remain available
until expended.
SEC. 4. SUNSET OF AUTHORITY.
This Act--
(1) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this
Act; and
(2) is repealed effective as of the date that is 10 years
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Napolitano) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
General Leave
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page 6119]]
Madam Speaker, H.R. 18, authored by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Baca), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to participate in
the funding and implementation of a balanced, long-term groundwater
remediation program. This bill establishes a limited Federal fund to
resolve groundwater problems in the Santa Ana, California, watershed.
This area has approximately 30 major water wells that are currently
shut down or are out of production due to groundwater contamination
from man-made and naturally-occurring chemicals. For example, a local
perchlorate plume has impacted 250,000 residents in Rialto, California.
This bill is just one small, but very important, part of a
comprehensive solution to resolve a water emergency. The House passed
identical legislation in the 108th Congress. I urge my colleagues to
once again adopt this measure.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, we strongly support passage of H.R. 18 which will
provide financial assistance for cleaning up contaminated drinking
water supplies in the Santa Ana River watershed in Southern California.
There have been many problems in Southern California as well as in
other parts of the Nation that deal with perchlorate, and this is just
but one of them. We hope that we will be able to shed some light on how
we can do a better job of assisting our communities in being able to
put that water back to good use, and that is by working with the
municipalities.
I commend the principal sponsor of H.R. 18, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca), for his determination and hard work to get this
legislation enacted. I also greatly appreciate the support and
leadership demonstrated by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) on
this very critical and important matter.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from
Southern California (Mr. Baca) who has been very, very adamant about
getting this addressed.
Mr. BACA. First of all, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for his support and his eloquent
presentation of the legislation before us and as well the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Napolitano) in support of this legislation that
impacts the State of California, especially Southern California, as it
pertains to perchlorate.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 18, the Southern California
Groundwater Remediation Act. This legislation passed the House in
September 2004, and it was H.R. 4606. Today, I fight to protect
Southern Californians from the growing crisis of perchlorate
groundwater contamination. I reintroduced this legislation as a long-
term solution to help cities in Southern California remove perchlorate
from their drinking water and create safe drinking water.
This bill will authorize $50 million for groundwater remediation,
including perchlorate cleanup, for most of San Bernardino, Riverside,
and Orange counties in Southern California. The funds will be managed
by the Department of the Interior through the Bureau of Reclamation.
Perchlorate is a main ingredient in rocket fuel that has been found in
drinking water supplies, lettuce, and even in the milk we drink.
Perchlorate in water supplies is left over from former military
sites, defense contractors, and other industries. It has been found in
43 States, including California. Perchlorate has been linked to thyroid
damage and may be harmful to infants, developing fetuses, and the
elderly. There are 1.2 million women of childbearing age in San
Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties who could be at risk from
perchlorate, and we do not want them to be at risk. We want to make
sure that there is good-quality drinking water. Perchlorate has been
detected in 186 sources in the counties served by the Santa Ana River
watershed and has jeopardized the water supplies of over 500,000
residents.
As indicated before, there are 30 wells that have been contaminated
in the area. There is a perchlorate plume in the Inland Empire in
California that is 10 miles long and is growing every day, and that
includes my hometown, which I am a resident of, in Rialto. Perchlorate
has impacted the daily lives of all of us, and we want to make sure
that there is safe drinking water in the area. We have a legal and
moral obligation to provide safe and healthy water to the families and
children who drink this water every day.
But perchlorate contamination is more than just a health concern. The
economic cost in providing safe drinking water is becoming more and
more of a burden on our communities. Ninety percent of perchlorate in
water comes from a Federal source. This includes DOD, NASA, and other
Federal agencies. Innocent, hardworking families should not have to pay
for federally created problems or problems for which no one will take
the responsibility.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 18, which is a small price to
pay for the crisis that has been forced on Southern Californians. I
would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for his
leadership and carrying legislation in the northern portion of
California to deal with the problems that we have. I would like to
thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the gentleman
from California (Mr. Calvert), the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary
G. Miller), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for
their support of this critical bill for the health of Southern
California.
{time} 1445
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We have heard my colleague indicate how important the cleanup of
water is, and I would urge my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Linder),
sponsor of H.R. 135, the Twenty-First Century Water Commission Act of
2005, to consider that as an issue because that is something that
affects, like the gentleman stated, 40-some odd States that are
beginning to understand the harshness of reality and that is that we
have contaminated aquifers and water resources.
So, with that, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) for
bringing that to our attention. I do support the bill and hope my
colleagues will do likewise.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) that
the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 18, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
COLORADO RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION BOUNDARY CORRECTION ACT
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 794) to correct the south boundary of the Colorado River
Indian Reservation in Arizona, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 794
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, FINDINGS, PURPOSES.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Colorado
River Indian Reservation Boundary Correction Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Act of March 3, 1865, created the Colorado River
Indian Reservation (hereinafter ``Reservation'') along the
Colorado River in Arizona and California for the ``Indians of
said river and its tributaries''.
(2) In 1873 and 1874, President Grant issued Executive
Orders to expand the Reservation
[[Page 6120]]
southward and to secure its southern boundary at a clearly
recognizable geographic location in order to forestall non-
Indian encroachment and conflicts with the Indians of the
Reservation.
(3) In 1875, Mr. Chandler Robbins surveyed the Reservation
(hereinafter ``the Robbins Survey'') and delineated its new
southern boundary, which included approximately 16,000
additional acres (hereinafter ``the La Paz lands''), as part
of the Reservation.
(4) On May 15, 1876, President Grant issued an Executive
Order that established the Reservation's boundaries as those
delineated by the Robbins Survey.
(5) In 1907, as a result of increasingly frequent
trespasses by miners and cattle and at the request of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, the General Land Office of the
United States provided for a resurvey of the southern and
southeastern areas of the Reservation.
(6) In 1914, the General Land Office accepted and approved
a resurvey of the Reservation conducted by Mr. Guy Harrington
in 1912 (hereinafter the ``Harrington Resurvey'') which
confirmed the boundaries that were delineated by the Robbins
Survey and established by Executive Order in 1876.
(7) On November 19, 1915, the Secretary of the Interior
reversed the decision of the General Land Office to accept
the Harrington Resurvey, and upon his recommendation on
November 22, 1915, President Wilson issued Executive Order
No. 2273 ``. . . to correct the error in location said
southern boundary line . . .''--and thus effectively excluded
the La Paz lands from the Reservation.
(8) Historical evidence compiled by the Department of the
Interior supports the conclusion that the reason given by the
Secretary in recommending that the President issue the 1915
Executive Order--``to correct an error in locating the
southern boundary''--was itself in error and that the La Paz
lands should not have been excluded from the Reservation.
(9) The La Paz lands continue to hold cultural and
historical significance, as well as economic development
potential, for the Colorado River Indian tribes, who have
consistently sought to have such lands restored to their
Reservation.
(c) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are:
(1) To correct the south boundary of the Reservation by
reestablishing such boundary as it was delineated by the
Robbins Survey and affirmed by the Harrington Resurvey.
(2) To restore the La Paz lands to the Reservation, subject
to valid existing rights under Federal law and to provide for
continued reasonable public access for recreational purposes.
(3) To provide for the Secretary of the Interior to review
and ensure that the corrected Reservation boundary is
resurveyed and marked in conformance with the public system
of surveys extended over such lands.
SEC. 2. BOUNDARY CORRECTION, RESTORATION, DESCRIPTION.
(a) Boundary.--The boundaries of the Colorado River Indian
Reservation are hereby declared to include those boundaries
as were delineated by the Robbins Survey, affirmed by the
Harrington Survey, and described as follows: The
approximately 15,375 acres of Federal land described as
``Lands Identified for Transfer to Colorado River Indian
Tribes'' on the map prepared by the Bureau of Land Management
entitled ``Colorado River Indian Reservation Boundary
Correction Act, and dated January 4, 2005'', (hereinafter
referred to as the ``Map'').
(b) Map.--The Map shall be available for review at the
Bureau of Land Management.
(c) Restoration.--Subject to valid existing rights under
Federal law, all right, title, and interest of the United
States to those lands within the boundaries declared in
subsection (a) that were excluded from the Colorado River
Indian Reservation pursuant to Executive Order No. 2273
(November 22, 1915) are hereby restored to the Reservation
and shall be held in trust by the United States on behalf of
the Colorado River Indian Tribes.
(d) Exclusion.--Excluded from the lands restored to trust
status on behalf of the Colorado River Indian Tribes that are
described in subsection (a) are 2 parcels of Arizona State
Lands identified on the Map as ``State Lands'' and totaling
320 acres and 520 acres.
SEC. 3. RESURVEY AND MARKING.
The Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that the
boundary for the restored lands described in section 2(a) is
surveyed and clearly marked in conformance with the public
system of surveys extended over such lands.
SEC. 4. WATER RIGHTS.
The restored lands described in section 2(a) and shown on
the Map shall have no Federal reserve water rights to surface
water or ground water from any source.
SEC. 5. PUBLIC ACCESS.
Continued access to the restored lands described in section
(2)(a) for hunting and other existing recreational purposes
shall remain available to the public under reasonable rules
and regulations promulgated by the Colorado River Indian
Tribes.
SEC. 6. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.
(a) In General.--The restored lands described in section
(2)(a) shall be subject to all rights-of-way, easements,
leases, and mining claims existing on the date of the
enactment of this Act. The United States reserves the right
to continue all Reclamation projects, including the right to
access and remove mineral materials for Colorado River
maintenance on the restored lands described in section
(2)(a).
(b) Additional Rights-of-Way.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary, in consultation with the
Tribe, shall grant additional rights-of-way, expansions, or
renewals of existing rights-of-way for roads, utilities, and
other accommodations to adjoining landowners or existing
right-of-way holders, or their successors and assigns, if--
(1) the proposed right-of-way is necessary to the needs of
the applicant;
(2) the proposed right-of-way acquisition will not cause
significant and substantial harm to the Colorado River Indian
Tribes; and
(3) the proposed right-of-way complies with the procedures
in part 169 of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations
consistent with this subsection and other generally
applicable Federal laws unrelated to the acquisition of
interests on trust lands, except that section 169.3 of those
regulations shall not be applicable to expansions or renewals
of existing rights-of-way for roads and utilities.
(c) Fees.--The fees charged for the renewal of any valid
lease, easement, or right-of-way subject to this section
shall not be greater than the current Federal rate for such a
lease, easement, or right-of-way at the time of renewal if
the holder has been in substantial compliance with all terms
of the lease, easement, or right-of-way.
SEC. 7. GAMING.
Land taken into trust under this Act shall neither be
considered to have been taken into trust for gaming nor be
used for gaming (as that term is used in the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.)).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
General Leave
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam 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 bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 794, which is sponsored by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Grijalva), corrects an historic injustice to the Colorado River Indian
Tribes. It is substantially identical to H.R. 2941, legislation that
was passed in the House last year but was not considered in the Senate.
Passage of this measure is long overdue. It restores 16,000 acres of
public lands in Arizona to the Colorado River Indian Reservation
wrongfully excluded from the reservation over 90 years ago.
Created by an Act of Congress in 1865, the reservation was expanded
by President Grant in order to prevent encroachment by non-Indians. The
expansion included a 16,000-acre area called the La Paz lands.
The La Paz expansion did not hold up for very long. The original
surveys to affix the boundary of the La Paz addition were rescinded by
President Wilson. A survey of dubious merit, apparently at the behest
of people who coveted the Tribes' lands, was substituted for the valid
surveys. As a result, the La Paz lands were excluded from the
reservation.
All credible evidence indicates that the La Paz lands were wrongly
deleted from the Tribes' reservation. Subsequent attempts to restore
them a few times during the 1900s did not meet with success.
H.R. 794 finally restores the La Paz lands to its rightful owner,
subject to valid, existing rights and interests and excluding certain
parcels owned by the State of Arizona. The bill requires the boundary
line of the reservation to reflect the addition of these lands.
As I explained, with one minor exception, this bill is exactly the
same as H.R. 2941 that was passed by the House last year but went no
further. The only difference is the title of the map has been changed
to correct a typographical error.
Because this measure is unchanged from what the House approved last
year, I urge my colleagues today to pass H.R. 794. With Congress' help,
the
[[Page 6121]]
Colorado River Indian Tribes can finally put this justice behind them.
I urge adoption of the bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for his
comments and his leadership on this very important issue to native
peoples in my district.
The Colorado River Indian Reservation Boundary Correction Act, H.R.
794, will correct a long-standing injustice. In the early part of the
20th century, nearly 16,000 acres of land known as the La Paz lands
were stripped from the Colorado River Indian Tribes' reservation by
executive order in response to heavy lobbying from a private mining
company that wanted to mine for silver on the land. The Tribes were
never provided with an opportunity to challenge the decision, nor were
they ever compensated for the loss of their land.
Subsequent reviews by the Department of Interior concluded the lands
were inappropriately removed from the reservation and should be
returned to the Tribes. Senator Barry Goldwater recognized this fact
when he introduced similar legislation to restore those lands years
ago. He stated during the hearing before the Senate Indian Affairs
Committee that his grandfather, who had settled in the Ehrenberg area,
had long recognized that the La Paz lands were Indian lands.
Madam Speaker, the lands that will be returned to the Tribes under
this legislation were part of their reservation for almost 40 years
prior to the 1915 executive order. This is not an expansion of the
Tribes' reservation. It is a restoration of the original reservation
based on accepted Department of Interior surveys.
H.R. 794 will return 15,375 acres of land to the Tribes. These lands
hold cultural and spiritual value for the Tribes, as well as potential
for economic development.
During the almost 90 years that the land has been under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, certain activities have
taken place there. The legislation ensures that existing uses may
continue. The Tribes have agreed to honor existing mining claims, right
of way, utility corridors, hunting, and public access.
In addition, several provisions have been added related to water
rights and prohibition of gaming on the lands. While I feel that these
restrictions may impose upon tribal sovereignty, the Tribe itself has
indicated its willingness to accept these provisions in order to
achieve passage of the legislation, and I defer to them on that matter.
Madam Speaker, this bill honors our agreements and our commitments to
the Native peoples of my district by returning what rightfully belongs
to them. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues from Arizona and
California on both sides of the aisle in promoting this long-overdue
legislation, and I particularly want to thank the leadership within the
Committee on Resources for making this bill a priority for passage
again in this Congress. It is my joy to see this important piece of
legislation move to the House floor and come one step closer to
resolution. The Colorado River Indian people have been waiting 90 years
for return of their lands, and it is my hope that they will not wait
much longer.
Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I urge passage of this bill. I have no
further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 794.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until approximately 6:30 p.m. today.
Accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 53 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess until approximately 6:30 p.m.
____________________
{time} 1831
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Kline) at 6 o'clock and 31 minutes p.m.
____________________
PRIVILEGED REPORT ON HOUSE RESOLUTION 134, REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT TO
TRANSMIT CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATING TO PLAN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF
SINGLE-EMPLOYER PENSION PLANS
Mr. BOEHNER, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce,
submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 109-34) on the resolution (H.
Res. 134) requesting the President to transmit to the House of
Representatives certain information relating to plan assets and
liabilities of single-employer pension plans, which was referred to the
House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order:
H.R. 135, by the yeas and nays.
H.R. 541, by the yeas and nays.
These will both be 15-minute votes.
____________________
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY WATER COMMISSION ACT OF 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 135.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 135, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 402,
nays 22, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 96]
YEAS--402
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
[[Page 6122]]
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
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
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--22
Blackburn
Coble
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Emerson
Flake
Foxx
Goode
Gutknecht
Hensarling
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
LaHood
Manzullo
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Myrick
Otter
Paul
Pence
NOT VOTING--10
Carter
Edwards
Fattah
Ford
Gillmor
Inglis (SC)
Jenkins
Lewis (KY)
Smith (WA)
Stark
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan) (during the vote).
Members are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1900
Messrs. MANZULLO, PENCE, LaHOOD, ISTOOK, and Mrs. EMERSON changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. LATHAM changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
LANDER COUNTY AND EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA, LAND CONVEYANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 541.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 541, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 423,
nays 0, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 97]
YEAS--423
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
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
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
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
Duncan
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
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
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
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
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
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
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
[[Page 6123]]
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Carter
Edwards
Ford
Gillmor
Inglis (SC)
Jenkins
Lewis (KY)
Miller, George
Smith (WA)
Stark
Thornberry
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1917
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, on April 12, 2005, during voting on H.R.
135, the Twenty-First Century Water Commission Act and H.R. 541, the
Lander County and Eureka County, Nevada land conveyance, I was
unavoidably detained due to matters in my Congressional District. If I
had been present, I would have voted yea on both votes.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8, DEATH TAX
REPEAL PERMANENCY ACT OF 2005
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a
privileged report (Rept. No. 109-35) on the resolution (H. Res. 202)
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8) to make the repeal of
the estate tax permanent, which was referred to the House Calendar and
ordered to be printed.
____________________
PAYING TRIBUTE AND HONORING THE MEMORY OF TRAVIS BRUCE
(Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute and to honor the
memory of Travis Bruce.
Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps ironic that, as the family of Specialist
Travis Bruce was learning the tragic news, I was at the military
hospital in Landstuhl, Germany.
We all ask ourselves the questions that have haunted leaders from
Washington to Grant to this very day: Are we doing the right thing? Is
it worth the sacrifice?
I can think of no better place to ask those questions than at that
hospital. So I asked those young heroes, and I can honestly report that
they answered ``yes.'' A few said ``absolutely.''
For Specialist Bruce, the battle is now over. He now rests in the
loving arms of the God of our fathers. He takes his place in that long
line of patriots who have made the ultimate sacrifice, that long line
that has never failed us. It is now left for us to carry on.
There are no words adequate to express our condolences. It is enough
for us to say that on behalf of a grateful Nation, we will never
forget. We will always be proud, so that we will always be free.
____________________
RESTORING DEDUCTIBILITY OF SALES TAX FOR TENNESSEE PROVES WORTHWHILE
(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, today I was coming back to D.C. reading
the Nashville Tennessean, the local news section, and my attention was
drawn to a headline here: ``State's March Sales Tax Revenue up $14.8
Million Over Estimates.''
Mr. Speaker, there is a reason that the State sales tax revenues are
up so much in the State of Tennessee, and it has to do with actions
that this body took last year. Last year, we voted to restore the
deductibility of sales tax to those of us from nonState income tax
States. Tennessee, Texas, Washington State, several States are affected
by this provision. It proves the point, you want more of something, you
lower the taxes. Things that are taxed less are going to flourish.
I would like to say thank you to our Speaker, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hastert); to our leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay); and to our whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), for
their leadership and their support in restoring the deductibility of
sales tax for my State, Tennessee, and the other States that fund their
State governments by State sales tax.
____________________
VOTE TO REPEAL DEATH TAX ONCE AND FOR ALL
(Mr. KELLER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, the death tax kills small family-owned
businesses, it makes financial planning nearly impossible, and it is an
unfair form of double taxation.
The death tax is itself the leading cause of death for over one-third
of all small, family-owned businesses who cannot afford to pay a death
tax rate of up to 55 percent in order to keep the family business
alive. Under current law, there will be no death tax owed in the year
2010, but, in 2011, death taxes go up to 55 percent. Unfortunately, the
only family-owned business in America who knows whether someone will
die in the year 2010 is the Sopranos. The rest of us have to spend
thousands of dollars each year on accountants, lawyers, and financial
planners to make sure our family-owned business survives.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes to completely repeal
the death tax once and for all.
____________________
PROMOTING GOOD LEADERSHIP
(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the House has provided tax
relief, creating 3 million jobs, prescription drug coverage for needy
citizens, and welfare reform, promoting independence, along with a
strengthened military to protect American families.
Additionally, Majority Leader DeLay and his wife Christine play a
valuable role in their home community. As foster parents, they have
devoted themselves to improving the lives of abused and neglected
children and are now focusing their efforts on creating homes for
foster children who need them. Their work is a true sign of compassion
that is rarely recognized.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has been called one of the most
effective leaders in the history of the House of Representatives, and
it is his effectiveness that motivates his critics. Radical liberals,
financed by a billionaire, are leading a desperate smear campaign
against a decent man who has delivered remarkable results. His critics
are inspired by bitterness, hatred, and partisanship, and their smears
will fail as they failed against Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld,
Condoleezza Rice, and John Ashcroft.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) will continue his success of
effectiveness for the American people.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September 11.
____________________
HOLDING FEMA TO HIGH STANDARDS
(Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share
my concern regarding continued abuses by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, or FEMA as we know it. As my colleagues know,
Florida suffered devastating blows when an unprecedented four
hurricanes struck down in our State last year.
[[Page 6124]]
My colleagues and I in the Florida delegation have been fighting with
FEMA on its hurricane policies for the past few months. We have battled
them about paying for debris removal in front of properties on a
private road. These people pay taxes, too.
Now a new abuse has come to light. FEMA apparently paid funeral
expenses for an estimated 315 deaths in Florida, although only 123
fatalities were actually recorded. Once again, it has a disregard for
accuracy, efficiency, and its responsibility, I believe, to the
citizens of Florida and the United States' taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in holding FEMA to
the high standards that our citizens require.
____________________
THE PRESIDENT'S SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the President says he is going to change
his tack; he is no longer going to scare the people. He is going to
give them a solution.
This weekend, Gary Trudeau's renowned ``Doonesbury'' performed an
important public service. It codified the recent words of the President
describing his Social Security plan. Here it is. To ensure that every
American has equal access to his remarks, let me enter ``Doonesbury''
into the Record and read some of the President's remarks.
This is a direct quote from the President of the United States. He is
explaining the plan he has: ``There's a series of parts of the formula
that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different
cost drivers, affecting those, changing those with personal accounts,
the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be or closer
delivered to what has been promised.''
Does anybody know what he is talking about? This President is halfway
through his 60-day barnstorming tour to gain support for his Social
Security plan. I personally hope he stays out for another 90 days.
I think when the American people get through with listening to this
gibberish, they will recognize that it has all been a way to deflect
our eyes from all the problems of this society. We are to get a
bankruptcy bill out here tomorrow. We have done nothing about Social
Security. We have done nothing about Medicare. Come on, Mr. President.
SEE . . . LOOK . . . COST DRIVERS! HELPS ON THE RED!
MAKE ANY SENSE?
THIS MUST BE SHARED!
HEY, FOLKS--CONFUSED ABOUT THE BUSH PLAN FOR SOCIAL
SECURITY?
WELL, HELP IS ON THE WAY! HERE--IN HIS OWN WORDS*--THE
PRESIDENT EXPLAINS!
*TAMPA, FL 2/04/05.
BECAUSE THE--ALL WHICH IS ON THE TABLE BEGINS TO ADDRESS
THE BIG COST DRIVERS. FOR EXAMPLE, HOW BENEFITS ARE
CALCULATE, FOR EXAMPLE, IS ON THE TABLE; WHETHER OR NOT
BENEFITS RISE BASED UPON WAGE INCREASES OR PRICE INCREASES .
. .
THERE'S A SERIES OF PARTS OF THE FORMULA THAT ARE BEING
CONSIDERED. AND WHEN YOU COUPLE THAT, THOSE DIFFERENT COST
DRIVERS, AFFECTING THOSE--CHANGING THOSE WITH PERSONAL
ACCOUNTS, THE IDEA IS TO GET WHAT HAS BEEN PROMISED MORE
LIKELY TO BE--OR CLOSER DELIVERED TO WHAT HAS BEEN PROMISED.
DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE TO YOU? IT'S KIND OF MUDDLED.
LOOK, THERE'S A SERIES OF THINGS THAT CAUSE THE--LIKE, FOR
EXAMPLE, BENEFITS ARE CALCULATED BASED UPON THE INCREASE OF
WAGES, AS OPPOSED TO THE INCREASE OF PRICES. SOME HAVE
SUGGESTED THAT WE CALCULATE--THE BENEFITS WILL RISE BASED
UPON INFLATION, AS OPPOSED TO WAGE INCREASES . . .
THERE IS A REFORM THAT WOULD HELP SOLVE THE RED IF THAT
WERE PUT INTO EFFECT. IN OTHER WORDS, HOW FAST BENEFITS GROW,
HOW FAST THE PROMISED BENEFITS GROW, IF THOSE--IF THAT GROWTH
IS AFFECTED . . .
. . . IT WILL HELP ON THE RED.
'NUFF SAID!
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York). 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 NO FLY NO BUY ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, last month, the front pages of our
Nation's newspapers contained chilling headlines: ``Terror Suspects
Buying Firearms.''
At least 44 times in a 4-month period, people whom the FBI suspected
of being members of terrorist groups tried to buy guns. In all but nine
instances, the purchases were allowed to go through.
A background check of the would-be buyer found no automatic
disqualification such as being a felon, an illegal immigrant, or deemed
mentally defective. There certainly have been many more instances of
suspected members of terrorist groups trying to buy these guns, but
since the Justice Department destroys background check records after
only 24 hours, we will never know.
So not only are we allowing suspected terrorists to arm themselves,
we are destroying the records indicating how many guns they actually
have bought. We are destroying critical intelligence in the war on
terror, and suspected terrorists are exploiting our pre-9/11 gun laws.
The question many of my constituents ask me is, ``Why are these
people allowed to be able to buy guns in the first place?''
It defies common sense. We are at war. We saw what these terrorists
are capable of armed with only box cutters purchased at a hardware
store. Then why do we make it so easy for our enemies to buy firearms
and ammunition within our own borders?
Since 9/11, we have adopted a multitude of new laws in the wake of
the war on terror. Just try to fly out of Reagan National Airport. No
one is spared from the reach of these new laws. Senior citizens,
children, and Members of the House have been subjected to routine
inspection before boarding a commercial flight. It is an inconvenience
perhaps for some, but if it prevents one terrorist from boarding a
plane, it is a good law.
But our gun laws are dangerously out of step with the war on terror.
The same people who are prevented from boarding a flight can walk into
a gun store and purchase a hand-held weapon of mass destruction. This
is absolutely ridiculous.
Let me set the record straight. I am not out to take away the right
of any law-abiding citizen from being able to buy a gun.
We need common-sense gun safety regulations that protect law-abiding
gun owners, while making it tougher for criminals and terrorists to
obtain guns. That is why I have introduced a bill that would deny those
on the Transportation Security Administration's No Fly List from
purchasing firearms.
Why the No Fly List? Granted, the No Fly List includes some law-
abiding citizens who are on the list in error. But it is the only
Federal terrorist watch list with a procedure to get innocent people
off the list, and the No Fly List is the only watch list to have public
scrutiny. Other lists without practical application may be just as
inaccurate but afford no due process to those wrongly listed.
My bill will ensure that these people incorrectly listed on the No
Fly will be able to get their names off the list as quickly as
possible. They would then be able to complete their gun purchase, no
questions asked. Again, an inconvenience for some but necessary steps
to ensure terrorists are not buying guns in our country.
The Federal Government charged with protecting us from terrorists
should put at least as much effort into making sure terrorists and
criminals are buying guns as what senior citizens and children might
bring aboard a
[[Page 6125]]
plane. We are at war, and the Federal Government has made it easier for
our enemies to arm themselves.
I have written Attorney General Gonzales and asked him to endorse my
bill. And if he cannot endorse it, I want to know why. I understand the
Second Amendment concerns of law-abiding citizens and gun owners. But
these laws can coexist with responsible people's rights to hunt and
protect their families.
Responsible gun ownership is a right of all law-abiding Americans,
but we also have to take the responsibility to protect law-abiding
Americans from acts of terror and crime.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen, unfortunately, many, many acts of crime
and gun violence in the last few weeks. Each week for the next several
weeks now, I am going to bring this subject up. I know a lot of the
American people think Democrats have given up on this issue. I promise
the American people, I will continue with this issue. I will fight for
good gun safety laws to make this country safer.
____________________
{time} 1930
IN SUPPORT OF LIEUTENANT PANTANO
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York). Under a previous
order of the House, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I spoke
about Marine 2nd Lieutenant Ilario Pantano and his struggle to defend
his actions in battle.
April of 2004 was a time of widespread violence from Iraqi
insurgents. It was the deadliest month of the war.
On April 15, 2004, Lieutenant Pantano was faced with a very difficult
decision. Just 3 days after he had witnessed a deadly ambush, his unit
received a tip about a weapons stockpile. Leery of the tip, he led a
unit of 40 men to the area and immediately noticed two Iraqis in a
vehicle who appeared to be escaping the area.
After stopping the vehicle, he ordered the two Iraqis to search the
vehicle themselves so as to avoid a booby trap for himself or the
others under his command. Suddenly, he said, the two insurgents pivoted
towards him after disobeying his command to stop, and in a split-second
decision Lieutenant Pantano decided he had to fire his weapon to
protect himself and his men.
It was not until 2\1/2\ months later that his radio operator
mentioned the incident to another Marine, who then accused Lieutenant
Pantano of murder. He now is facing charges of two counts of murder.
Mr. Speaker, I have met Lieutenant Pantano and his family. I have
watched again and again the ``Dateline'' interview Stone Phillips
conducted with Lieutenant Pantano, and I have researched this situation
at length. I believe Lieutenant Pantano is truthful in his recounts of
the events of April of 2004 and he was justified in his action while
having to make a split-second battlefield decision.
I question why the radio operator would wait 2\1/2\ months to tell
his report of the events if he really believed murder had taken place.
Furthermore, as is noted in the ``Dateline'' video, the sergeant was
never even present for the actual shooting. How can he make a judgment
call on something he did not see?
Mr. Speaker, I have put in a resolution, H. Res. 167, to support
Lieutenant Pantano as he faces yet another difficult fight for his
life. I hope that my colleagues in the House will take some time to
read my resolution and look into this situation for themselves. I
believe a great unfairness has occurred here; and as the United States
House of Representatives, we stand by our brave men and women in
uniform as they protect and serve our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, before closing, I would like to say that there is a Web
site that his mother has established. It is called
defendthedefenders.org, and may God continue to bless our men and women
in uniform and bless America.
____________________
EXCHANGE OF SPECIAL ORDER TIME
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the
time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
____________________
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, a bowling ball weighs about 170 times
the weight of a slice of sandwich bread. It does not take a physicist
to see the mismatch between a bowling ball and a slice of bread. And it
does not take a trade expert to see the economic mismatch between the
United States and the nations that make up the Central American Free
Trade Agreement: Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El
Salvador.
The way that CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement,
proponents talk, you would think Central America was one of the biggest
economies in the Western Hemisphere. CAFTA nations are not only among
the world's poorest countries, they are among its smallest economies.
Think about this: this big trade agreement that President Bush wants,
CAFTA, the combined purchasing power of the CAFTA nations is almost
identical to the purchasing power of Columbus, Ohio.
Tomorrow, the Senate will hold the first congressional hearing on
CAFTA. Congress typically has voted within 55 days of President Bush
signing a trade agreement. May 28 will mark the 1-year anniversary of
when the President signed CAFTA.
The other trade agreements were all done within only about 2 months.
Because CAFTA is so unpopular and trade policy in this country is so
wrong-headed, the President still has not sent CAFTA here for a vote.
Clearly, there is dissension in the ranks, and for good reason.
CAFTA is the dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA, the North American Free
Trade Agreement, continuing a legacy of failed trade policies.
Look at NAFTA's record: one million United States manufacturing jobs
lost to the North American Free Trade Agreement. One million. NAFTA did
nothing. NAFTA: Mexico, Canada, the U.S. NAFTA did nothing for Mexican
workers as promised. They continue to earn just about a dollar a day,
while living in abject poverty. Not exactly a great market for U.S.
products.
And yet the U.S. continues to push for more of the same, more of the
same job hemorrhaging, income-lowering trade agreements, more trade
agreements that ship U.S. jobs overseas, more trade agreements that
neglect essential environmental standards, more trade agreements that
keep foreign workers in poverty.
The only difference between CAFTA and NAFTA is the first letter.
Madness is repeating the same action over and over and over and
expecting a different result. We hear the same promises on every trade
agreement. This Congress, somehow barely, in the middle of the night,
passes them. We see the same bad results.
But do not just take my word for it. Look at the numbers. Numbers do
not lie. The U.S. economy, with a $10 trillion GDP in 2002, is 170
times bigger than the economies of the CAFTA nations, at about $62
billion combined. It is like pairing a bowling ball with a slice of
bread.
CAFTA is not about robust markets for the export of American goods.
It is about outsourcing. It is about access to cheap labor. We send our
jobs overseas. The workers overseas get paid almost nothing, not able
to raise their living standard. U.S. corporations make more money,
American workers lose their jobs. It is the same old story.
Again, the combined purchasing power of the CAFTA nations is about
that of Orlando, Florida. Trade pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA enable
companies to exploit cheap labor in other countries, then import their
products back to the U.S. under favorable terms.
[[Page 6126]]
American companies outsource their jobs to Guatemala, outsource their
jobs to China, outsource their jobs to Mexico. It costs American
workers their jobs. It does almost nothing for the workers in those
countries, yet profits at Wal-Mart and GM and those companies continue
to rise.
CAFTA will do nothing to stop the bleeding of manufacturing jobs,
except make it worse, will do nothing to stop the bleeding of
manufacturing jobs in the U.S., and will do even less to create a
strong Central American consumer market for American goods.
Throughout the developing world, workers do not share in the wealth
they create. If you work at GM in the United States, if you work at a
hardware store in the United States, you create wealth for your
employer and you share some of that wealth. That is how you get a
middle-class existence.
But in the developing world, workers do not share in the wealth they
create. Nike workers in Vietnam cannot afford to buy the shoes they
make. Disney workers in Costa Rica cannot afford to buy the toys for
their children. Ford workers in Mexico cannot afford to buy the cars
that they make. Motorola workers in Malaysia cannot afford to buy the
cell phones they make.
The United States, with its unrivaled purchasing power and its
enormous economic clout, we, in our country, are in a unique position
to empower workers in the developing world while promoting prosperity
at home.
When the world's poorest people can buy American products, rather
than just make them, then we will know our trade policies finally are
working. Vote ``no'' on the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
____________________
SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF FINANCIAL LITERACY MONTH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to talk
about an issue that is very important to me as a Member of Congress and
as a consumer: financial literacy.
Last week we passed a resolution I cosponsored with overwhelming
bipartisan support, H. Res. 148. This resolution supports the goals and
ideals of Financial Literacy Month.
Tonight, on the eve of the debate of our Nation's bankruptcy laws, I
believe it is only fitting to support Financial Literacy Month and
speak on the benefits of personal financial literacy.
In our Nation today, half of all Americans are living from paycheck
to paycheck. The average college senior has approximately $7,000 in
consumer debt, and only four out of every 10 workers is saving for
retirement.
As individuals incur debt, they are less likely to be prepared for
retirement and more likely to become dependent solely on the Social
Security system to support them into retirement.
By encouraging informed choices and wise financial decisions, our
Nation's consumers will have positive credit ratings, money management
skills, and be on the road to a stable and prosperous life. They will
be able to build homes, buy cars, finance educations, and start
businesses. It is our goal to educate the public about financial
literacy.
In today's world, we must continue to expand access to financial
institutions and provide all Americans with the tools they need to
become productive members of society. These principles and goals are
important to all of us.
The programs and seminars supported by the resolution will provide
the guidance that is needed for so many Americans. I encourage those
who supported this amendment and agree with these goals to work
alongside us to educate Americans about finance and economics.
____________________
EXCHANGE OF SPECIAL ORDER TIME
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to assume the time
of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
____________________
THE UNITED STATES TRADE DEFICIT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Brown). The Commerce Department just announced another
record trade deficit for our country. As an avalanche of imports comes
in here and a whimper of our exports go out, we do not have free trade.
We have a free fall in trade.
This month the Commerce Department sent out a press release saying
this past month had a record-breaking trade deficit. The U.S. trade
deficit soared to an all time monthly high of $61 billion negative. The
Commerce Department said that, in fact, the February imbalance was up
4.3 percent from the record gap in January of $58.5 billion.
It looks like the executive branch's promises are faltering again.
When it was proposed, free trade for China was promoted as a boon to
America's exporters. But if we look at what is happening here, every
single year the trade deficit gets deeper and deeper and deeper. And
this year it is going through the bottom of the chart.
Once again, month after month, we see our manufacturers taking a hit.
America truly is losing its economic prowess and our economic
independence. In fact, under President Bush's watch, America has lost
another three million manufacturing jobs.
One of the hardest hit sectors is textiles. For February, imports of
textiles and clothing from China rose by nearly 10 percent. One can
honestly ask, Is anything made in America anymore, other than debt?
The Bush administration's so-called free trade agenda is on course to
bankrupt our economy. For the first 2 months of this year, just the
first 2 months, the annualized trade deficit is 3 quarters of a
trillion dollars, a full 100 billion more than last year. And we are
watching oil prices going up over $50 a barrel, and that is adding to
this growing deficit.
Combined with our faltering dollar, soaring fuel costs and an
expanding Federal deficit, America is anything but independent. We are
in hock to foreign countries that hold nearly half of our public debt,
and we are paying them hundreds of billions of dollars annually now in
interest.
The President talks about his risky plans to try to overhaul Social
Security by borrowing trillions more dollars. Have they got a printing
machine for money over there at the back room of the White House?
This is not the American Dream. It is the American Nightmare. Tonight
Congress should be taking a stand against this irresponsible fiscal
policy. The golden rule of trade should be trade balances, not trade
deficits; and we should operate by the golden rule, free trade among
free people.
We should reject CAFTA and any other trade bills that keep pushing
American jobs offshore and pushing the trade deficit further into red
ink. We should only support trade that is responsible and creates a
level playing field and, at a minimum, trade balances and hopefully
trade surpluses like we used to have.
Until this President can give us a plan for a healthy economy based
on security and economic independence, we should say no thank you. No
more NAFTAs, no CAFTAs, no more trade agreements that do not produce a
balance and a surplus.
In fact, for every agreement that is currently on the books that is
in the red, we ought to go back and require renegotiation if it has
been in the red for 3 years or more, because it is not operating in
America's interest. It might be operating in some global corporation's
interest; but we should be worried about the American people and jobs
here at home, both in manufacturing and agriculture, in resource and
[[Page 6127]]
mining, in the real muscle of this country.
We should be here to fight for America's future. It is time the
President and the entire Congress did the same.
____________________
HONORING POPE JOHN PAUL II
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, last week I was blessed to travel with
a group of my colleagues to Rome to attend the funeral mass of his
Holiness, Pope John Paul II, one of the greatest defenders of human
life the world has ever known.
{time} 1945
Pope John Paul II was a man of profound holiness, profound peace, and
profound love. He not only served the Catholic Church as the Vicar of
Christ on Earth, but also reached out and touched people of all faiths
as he fought valiantly to liberate the oppressed, especially in his
native Eastern Europe where he contributed significantly to the fall of
communism.
Of all of his accomplishments, I am most appreciative of his
unwavering commitments to the defense and protection of all human life,
especially the most defenseless, the unborn.
The Pope came to Miami in September of 1987. I had just given birth
to my youngest daughter, Patricia Marie, and so I wanted to be present
to hear and see him at Tropical Park, which is located in my old State
senate district, but the doctors told me I could not attend. However,
as I watched on TV, I remember thinking how fitting it was that I would
be holding my newborn baby in my arms while watching the staunchest
defender of human life praying and saying mass in my hometown. It was a
feeling I have never and I shall never forget.
The Holy Father can never imagine how he touched, in a most profound
way, all those who heard and saw him wherever he traveled with his
goodness and fierce protection for the sanctity of life.
In his letter, The Gospel of Life, John Paul II vigorously reaffirmed
the value of human life and at the same time presents a pressing appeal
addressed to each and every person to respect, protect, love and serve
life, every human life.
He writes, ``Even in the midst of difficulties and uncertainties,
every person sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of
reason and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the natural
law the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its
end and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary
good respected to the highest degree.
``Upon the recognition of this right,'' he continued, ``every human
community and the political community itself are founded.''
And as a wife and as a mother of two teenage daughters, I also seek
to defend and protect the sanctity of an innocent human life; and to
that end I have introduced the bill, House Resolution 748, the Child
Interstate Abortion Notification Act, CIANA, which currently has 127
cosponsors and which will be marked up in the House Committee on the
Judiciary tomorrow.
This legislation makes it a Federal offense to knowingly transport a
minor across a State line with the intent that she obtain an abortion
in circumvention of a State's parental consent or parental notification
law. CIANA also requires that a parent or, if necessary, a legal
guardian be notified pursuant to a default Federal parental
notification rule when a minor crosses State lines to obtain an
abortion unless one of several carefully drawn exceptions are met.
A minor who is forbidden to drink alcohol, to stay out past a certain
hour or to get her ears pierced without a parental consent is certainly
not prepared to make a life-altering, hazardous and potentially fatal
decision such as an abortion without the consultation or consent of at
least one parent.
My legislation will close a loophole that allows adults not only help
minors break States' laws by obtaining an abortion without parental
consent but also contributes to ending the life of an innocent child.
I am hopeful that in this 109th session of Congress we will be
successful in securing the rights of parents. As an ardent advocate for
human rights for all, especially those suffering political and
religious persecution, I join our Holy Father in his desire to see a
world where all may live and work together in a spirit of peace, mutual
respect and solidarity and where the sanctity of human life is
preserved at each and every level.
____________________
EXCHANGE OF SPECIAL ORDER TIME
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the
time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
____________________
IMMIGRATION REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black-
burn) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, you know it should be no secret to
anyone in this body that immigration reform is a top priority for
millions of Americans, and I doubt that most of us have had a single
town hall meeting during this past recess when we have not been asked
by our constituents to address the concerns of illegal immigration. I
can tell you, I have heard time and again from my constituents who want
to know why it is so incredibly difficult and it seems so difficult for
the Federal Government to enforce these immigration laws that are
currently on the books. They absolutely cannot understand why some
politicians in Washington seem to fail to understand that illegal
immigrants are in fact breaking our laws and if they do indeed actually
cause a security risk.
As our constituents are preparing to pay Federal income tax, as
millions of Americans are preparing to pay their Federal income tax
this week, I was asked time and again in town hall meetings this
weekend if we did not consider the costs, the extra cost to the
American taxpayer of illegal immigration. And I can tell you, Mr.
Speaker, I certainly sympathize with my constituents and I empathize
with their concerns and their consternation, and I truly share their
frustration when I read some of the things I read about illegal
immigration.
We have an obvious flouting of the laws, and yet there are some who
think that we should actually ignore this problem. Thankfully, we have
made some progress this year, and we should credit the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for much of his hard work and the
Committee on the Judiciary for much of their hard work when they worked
on the Real ID Act. This body passed that, and certainly it will beef
up the identification security measures, many dealing with our driver's
license provisions. It will speed up the construction of border
barriers, and it will make it tough for those with terrorist ties to
gain asylum in the United States. But, Mr. Speaker, I think we all know
that that is absolutely not enough.
Just yesterday morning, the Washington Post ran a story with the
headline ``Probe Faults System For Monitoring U.S. Border.''
Now I have been working with my colleagues here in the House to
target waste, fraud and abuse in government spending; and I have also
been a proponent of tackling our enormous illegal immigration problem.
The Washington Post story contains just an astounding level of waste,
fraud, and abuse in spending; and it should be a wake-up call for those
who do not think immigration reform is a priority. Clearly, the system
we have got is not working.
According to a General Service Administration investigation, American
taxpayers footed the bill for $239 million surveillance system across
our
[[Page 6128]]
borders. And what do we have to show for that, sir? A lot of broken
equipment and lax border security. This is absolutely incredible.
You have got a bunch of concerned citizens who got tired of all the
excuses so they have gone down to the Arizona border to observe illegal
immigration and report to the border agents, and apparently they have
been pretty effective. Meanwhile, the Federal government has a $239
million pile of useless equipment.
This is waste, fraud, and abuse; and this is lack of attention to
border security. This is an issue that has my constituents talking at
length in town halls, talking about how we are spending the tax money
that they are writing the check for this very week.
This article is further confirmation of our belief that the borders
are too open, our system is too easily abused and our government is not
doing enough. I hope that my colleagues will join me in my effort to
eliminate the seemingly endless examples of waste, fraud, and abuse of
taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Speaker, to those who have been opposing immigration reform for
years now, the time has come for America to address the growing problem
of illegal immigration. Our constituents and our national security
demand it.
____________________
SMART SECURITY AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS
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, last year the Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations bravely stood up
to the White House by rejecting the administration's request for new
nuclear weapons funding.
The White House had requested over $70 million for research on the
robust nuclear earth penetrator, also known as the ``bunker buster''
and other nuclear weapons initiatives.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on
Appropriations zeroed out the President's nuclear weapons initiative;
and, just as importantly, they have boldly rejected all funding for the
supremely misguided bunker buster nuclear bomb, labelling it
provocative and unnecessary.
I credit the subcommittee's chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hobson). He courageously stood up to the White House on this issue. But
President Bush did not let that stop him from once again requesting
funding for the bunker buster bomb in this year's 2006 budget proposal.
This year the President has requested $4 million to study the
feasibility of constructing the bunker buster and another $4.5 billion
for bunker buster testing in the Air Force budget. The President's
budget also notes that he may request another $14 million for the
bunker buster in fiscal year 2007.
What could the Bush administration possibly be thinking? The United
States already possesses the most sophisticated and modern military
ever created, yet sometimes it seems like President Bush and his allies
still think we are fighting the Cold War. Fortunately, there are still
many, many in Congress who live with the rest of us in the 21st
century.
The bunker buster's proponents claim that it is an important device
needed in the post-9/11 world to enable our military to attack cave and
hideouts with supreme precision, but we do not need a nuclear weapon to
accomplish this. The U.S. already possesses the capability to target
terrorists wherever they are hiding.
The Bush administration's repeated attempts to develop new nuclear
weapons like the bunker buster epitomizes the hypocrisy that
underscores President Bush's foreign policy. At the same time that he
seeks to prevent countries like Iran and North Korea from developing
nuclear weapons, the White House has demonstrated its own nuclear
weapons ambitions with a vigorous intensity.
We must remember that the creation of the bunker buster would violate
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which the United States ratified
in 1972. That is why later this week I will introduce a resolution
calling on the United States to uphold its binding commitment to this
vital international treaty.
But these nuclear ambitions should not come as a surprise. In fact,
it is just the latest in a long line of instances that demonstrate the
Bush administration's petulant double standard when it comes to
interacting with the rest of the world.
Before the bunker buster came along, they rejected the Kyoto Protocol
on global warming, claiming that it would hurt the United States
economy. Before that, it was the rejection of the International
Criminal Court which President Bush opposed because it would allow
Americans who violated international laws to be tried for war crimes
just like war criminals from other countries.
The policy of rejecting international treaties is bad for the United
States. Instead of thumbing our nose in the face of international law,
America, the world's largest democracy, needs to serve as the gold
standard for global consensus and agreement. That is why I have worked
to develop a SMART Security platform for the 21st century.
SMART Security is a Sensible Multi-lateral American Response to
Terrorism. Instead of creating new nuclear weapons, SMART Security
would work to control the spread of such weapons through aggressive
diplomacy, global weapons inspections, and comprehensive non-
proliferation efforts.
We need to lead the world's nations to end the era of nuclear
weapons. We need to demonstrate that nuclear weapons will not protect
the people of the world because if these weapons are actually used
there will be nothing left to protect.
Think about the price we have paid to eliminate weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq, weapons that actually do not exist. Over 1,500
American lives lost, more than 12,000 severely wounded American
soldiers, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed, and more than
$200 billion spent.
Should we not invest our resources in addressing genuine nuclear
threats?
Mr. Speaker, if we do not start working with the other nations in the
world, there may come a time when other nations no longer want to work
with us.
____________________
{time} 2000
INTERNATIONAL VILLAINS AND INTERNATIONAL OUTLAWS
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, tonight I rise to speak about international
villains, international outlaws. We need to know who they are and who
they are not because these terrorists are not ministers of good, but
they are ministers of evil.
The terrorists are not freedom fighters as some say, for they oppose
all freedoms. Terrorists are not moral because they preach, praise, and
practice immoral acts. Terrorists are not for children because they
murder children. They murder their neighbor's children, and they murder
their own. Terrorists are not for any peace, but are for any chaos.
Terrorists are not for democracies, but proclaim the value of
totalitarian dictatorships.
Terrorists are not for justice so we must bring them to justice. As
related in Proverbs, when justice is done, it brings joy to the
righteous and it brings terror to the evil doers. So I say let us bring
terror to these evil doers.
I have dealt with local terrorists, street terrorists, all my life,
first as a prosecutor and a judge in a criminal court in Texas for 22
years. These people are mean, they are violent, and you can deal with
them one way. You do not ask them to try to do better. You do not blame
their culture or their lack of culture for their conduct. You do not
reason with them. You do not negotiate. You hold them accountable for
their choices.
They live for crimes of violence, so you punish them. You make the
price high, too high for them to pay so they stop it, so they leave us
alone, for it is a right of all of us to be left alone. If
[[Page 6129]]
they choose not to leave us alone, they must face quick, sudden, and
decisive action.
We must continue to deal with international terrorists the same way
we deal with local street terrorists. We seek them out and we hold them
accountable for their choices. It is not rational to stop once we have
them on the run.
In Iraq, for example, we must finish the job. The phrase ``cut and
run'' may be in the vocabulary of the French Government, but it is not
in our vocabulary.
I have been to Iraq. I was there on election day January 30; and the
people I talked to, those Iraqis were afraid that we would leave before
the job was done. The terrorists want to wait us out because of the
comments that they hear on this very House floor, that we should leave
the job before it is through. Well, they will not wait us out because
we will finish the job. So we will stay the course. We will finish the
job before us. For it is far better to fight terrorists on their soil
than on American soil, and we will know of no retreat or defeat.
We must train the Iraqi security forces so that they can protect
their own borders against the insurgents. We must continue to seek out
the terrorists in Afghanistan as well, but we must also deal with the
cocaine and heroin traffic that is there because it funds those
terrorists.
We must also allow our local law enforcement to fight that same
secondary terror, that is, the terror of drugs, that is here in the
United States that affects many American families, because those drugs
that the terrorist cartels market in our land, they fund their evil
ways. We must protect our homeland and support our first responders.
For as our troops in lands across the seas battle these evil villains,
our first responders are the ones who battle them here on the homeland,
and they are always counted faithful.
On September 11, we all remember what we were doing. I was driving my
Jeep to the courthouse, and I heard on the radio about the first plane
that hit the World Trade Center; second plane, World Trade Center;
third plane, crashes in Pennsylvania because of some heroes; fourth
plane, hits the Pentagon.
Later that day, as many Americans like myself were watching
television, I noticed the phenomena. I noticed thousands and thousands
of Americans in New York City when those terrorists hit those
buildings. They were running as hard as they could to get away from
that terror. But there was another group of people, not very many, but
they were there. When that terror hit the World Trade Center, they were
running as hard as they could to get to that terror. Who were they?
They were emergency medical technicians, they were firefighters, and
they were cops. Because these people responded, and these are the
people who we count on first, the people responsible for the deaths of
the 3,000 on that day will be held accountable.
So we will not waiver in our battle against these international
villains. There is no substitute for victory. For we are a people
committed to remaining and continuing for centuries to be the land of
the free and the home of the brave.
____________________
THE RULES THAT GOVERN THE ETHICS PROCESS IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am joined here tonight by three
distinguished colleagues.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) was a member of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the 101st, 103rd, and
104th Congresses. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) cochaired
with Congressman Bob Livingston at the time the 1997 ethics bipartisan
task force created to review and propose changes to the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct rules and procedures and was the ranking
minority member of the subcommittee that investigated the complaint
against then-Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Second, I am joined by the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman),
who was ranking minority member on the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct in the 105th, the 106th, and the 107th Congresses and
for the first 2 months of the 108th Congress until my appointment as
ranking member. Additionally, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman) was the ex officio member of the 1997 bipartisan task force
created to review and propose changes to the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct's rules and procedures.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am joined by the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Delahunt), who prior to coming to Congress served as the Norfolk
County District Attorney for a considerable period of time, from 1975
to 1996. In the 108th Congress, he was a member of the ethics pool
appointed by the minority leader and was a member of the investigative
subcommittee formed to look into the allegations made by then-
Representative Nick Smith arising out of the events occurring during
the Medicare vote taken on November 2, 2003.
Collectively, these gentlemen have a tremendous amount of experience
serving the House of Representatives on the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct over a long period of time. Not surprisingly, Mr.
Speaker, that is the topic of our Special Order tonight.
The subject that we will be discussing this evening under the Special
Order concerns the rules that govern the ethics process in the House of
Representatives. This discussion, I think, will highlight the clear
need to repeal the changes in those rules that were included in the
rules package that was adopted when the House convened in January of
this year, a rules package that was adopted on a strict party line vote
with all Republicans voting for and all Democrats voting against.
While a discussion of the rules of this nature necessarily involves a
number of technical points, Mr. Speaker, there should be no mistaking
the overriding importance of what we are talking about. Because of the
ethics rules changes that were included in the rules package I
mentioned, the House of Representatives is now at a crossroads in its
ethics process.
The issue now before the House is, in fact, whether the House will
continue to have a credible ethics process that can be effective in
protecting the reputation and the integrity of this institution.
Mr. Speaker, this is my 9th year as a member of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct and my third year as ranking minority
member of that committee, and I have studied the ethics process
carefully during that time. My firm conclusion is that the House will
not and cannot have a credible ethics process unless the rules changes
that were made earlier this year are repealed.
There are at least two reasons why this is so, Mr. Speaker. First,
there cannot be a credible ethics process in the House of
Representatives unless changes in the ethics rules are made, as they
have always been made in the House, Mr. Speaker, in the past years, in
an open, thoughtful and, most importantly, in a genuinely bipartisan
manner. But these rules changes were the result of a closed, secret
process in which no one from this side of the aisle was ever consulted;
and the votes of the rules package were, as always, strictly party line
votes.
Second, the fact is that, at a minimum, these rules changes, the
specific changes that are attempting to be imposed by the Committee on
Rules, will seriously undermine the ability of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct to perform its key responsibilities of
investigating and making decisions on allegations of wrongdoing.
It is for these reasons that I have introduced House Resolution 131,
which would entirely repeal two of the three rules changes made earlier
this year and would repeal as well the objectionable provisions of the
third rules change.
Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to elaborate on each of the reasons
for
[[Page 6130]]
the resolution that I have introduced, turning first to the closed,
partisan manner in which these rules changes were adopted this past
January.
Mr. Speaker, the ethics process in the House of Representatives dates
back to the late 1960s, nearly 40 years ago. It was recognized at the
very outset that there could not be a meaningful ethics process in this
body unless it is a genuinely bipartisan one. This makes perfect sense
because an ethics process that is dominated by the majority party in
the House will become simply another tool of partisan warfare and will
have no credibility whatsoever.
So both when the committee was created and the ethics rules were
established in 1968, as well as when the rules changes were made in the
rules in 1989 and again in 1997, those actions, those creation of the
rules, fashioning of the rules, recommending the rules to the House,
that whole process was the result of a thoughtful, deliberative process
that was, in fact, genuinely bipartisan in nature.
The task force, created with an equal number of Democrats, an equal
number of Republicans, whether the Republicans were in control of the
House at the time or whether the Democrats were in control of the House
at the time, all of the rules changes and their adoption and their
recommendation to the House of Representatives came out of a genuinely
bipartisan process.
The process that was used earlier this year stands in stark contrast
to those earlier efforts. Those rules changes were drafted in secret,
and their text was publicly released literally only hours before they
were to be voted on on the House floor. At no time was anyone on this
side, on the minority side, of the aisle ever consulted about those
changes. Likewise, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
itself was not consulted about those rules changes; and, indeed, it is
not at all clear who was consulted about them or whether their
proponents really fully understood the meaning and the implications of
the changes which they wrought.
It will come as no surprise to anyone that the rules changes
resulting from such a closed, summary process, it will come as no
surprise that they are seriously flawed; and that leads me, Mr.
Speaker, to the second reason why these changes must be repealed.
As I have mentioned, the rules changes were passed by the majority
earlier this year. They fall into three categories. The first rules
change relates to the automatic dismissal of complaints that are filed
with the committee, automatic dismissal of complaints the first rule
allows; the second rule granting certain so-called due process rights
to Members, a cynical characterization of due process I might add; and
the third so-called right to counsel provisions are contained in the
last rules change.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin with the automatic dismissal rule. The
automatic dismissal rule of the complaint, it constitutes a radical and
particularly destructive change in the rules. Up until now, a complaint
filed with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and keep in
mind that under the rules no one other than a Member of the House may
file a complaint before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
but under the old rules a complaint could be dismissed only by a
majority vote of the committee.
{time} 2015
Under the automatic dismissal rule which the majority is trying to
impose upon the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in its rules
passed earlier this year, a complaint can be dismissed just by the
passage of time. A period as brief as 45 days from the date of the
complaint is deemed to satisfy the procedural requirements of the rule;
and if it is not disposed of any other way, the passage of that 45 days
will result in automatic dismissal of the complaint. Members of the
committee could have during that period sat on their hands, or they may
have been engaged in the August recess because it is not legislative
days, it is calendar days.
One wonders if the drafters of this rule were even aware that in
1997, the House strongly rejected an automatic dismissal rule that was
far less restrictive than this one. The proposal considered at that
time applied where a motion before the committee to refer a complaint
to an investigative committee did not pass, and it provided in that
instance for automatic dismissal of the complaint after 180 days from
the date of the vote, a lot longer than 45 days under this automatic
dismissal rule. But even with the 180-day automatic dismissal, this
House of Representatives in the only recorded vote in the full House on
a bipartisan basis rejected the idea of a complaint being automatically
dismissed that is pending before the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct simply by the passage of time.
Even that proposal was defeated on a bipartisan vote because it was
recognized that any automatic dismissal rule simply promotes deadlock
and partisanship on the committee. It promotes inaction. It encourages
members not to fulfill their responsibility. This is especially so in
those controversial, high-profile complaints that come before the
committee, and it is in the handling of complaints of that kind that
the committee's credibility is most at stake.
Mr. Speaker, if the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is to
be worthy of its name, its members must give thoughtful, reasoned
consideration to every complaint that comes before it; and any rule
that would truncate that responsibility, that would provide for an
automatic dismissal of the complaint based on the inaction of the
members cannot be allowed to stand if our credibility is going to
remain intact.
The rules changes that grant certain so-called due process rights to
Members apply whether the committee or an investigative subcommittee
proposes to conclude a matter by issuing a letter or other statement
that references the conduct of a particular Member. While statements of
that kind do not constitute and are not characterized as a sanction,
the committee has been very cautious about issuing them; and, of
course, like any other committee action, such a statement cannot be
issued without the bipartisan support of committee members.
It is also important that statements of this kind are issued only
where the conduct involved has not been the subject of a formal
investigation, and a determination has been made that the issuance of
such a statement in an appropriate way to resolve a complaint or other
allegation of misconduct is an appropriate disposition.
Where a Member is going to be the subject of such a letter or similar
statement, it is not, I agree, unreasonable to grant that Member
certain rights, such as prior notice and a meaningful opportunity to
respond, but the rules changes go well beyond this for they also grant
such a Member the right to demand that the committee create an
adjudicatory, a trial, if you will, subcommittee that is to conduct an
immediate hearing, an immediate trial, on the conduct in question.
Where the committee proposes to resolve the complaint by issuance of a
letter, this trial would take place without any formal investigation of
the matter ever having been conducted, without a single subpoena ever
having been issued or a single deposition ever been taken. It gives the
Member the right to jump immediately to the trial stage.
No committee that is at all serious about conducting its business
would allow itself to be put in such a situation. It emasculates that
part of the committee's power and ability to, in proper due process
order, develop the factual basis for a disposition perhaps involving a
trial.
It may well be that this immediate trial provision was included in
the rules in order to force the committee, whenever a complaint is
filed, to decide between two alternatives: either dismiss the complaint
without having any comment whatsoever on the conduct of the respondent,
or refer the complaint to an investigative subcommittee for formal
investigation. But there is no valid reason to hamstring the committee
in this manner.
[[Page 6131]]
The resolution I have proposed would repeal the right to demand an
immediate trial but would substitute instead the far more reasonable
right to demand that the committee commission a formal investigation of
the conduct in question.
Mr. Speaker, the third rules change, the so-called right to counsel
provision, is particularly mischievous, and it might be better
characterized as the ``right to orchestrate testimony provision.''
This rules change prohibits the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct from requiring in any circumstances that a respondent or
witness in a case retain an attorney who does not represent someone
else in the case. This change is particularly egregious in that two
separate investigative subcommittees of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct had raised the concern that an attorney's
representation of multiple clients in a case may impair the fact-
finding process, and those investigative subcommittees recommended to
the full committee the adoption of a rule or policy under which
multiple representation could be barred. In short, the ethics process
in the House has been seriously damaged by both the substance of these
rules changes and the summary partisan manner in which these changes
were adopted.
In the case of the latter rule, imagine the lawyer that is
representing the accused having the absolute right to represent all of
the witnesses that are going to be interviewed in the case, certainly
undermining the ability of the committee to do its job.
But we are still in the early months of this Congress, and it is not
too late to undo the damage that has been done. We can once again have
an ethics process in the House that commands the confidence and respect
of both the Members of this body and the public.
The first step, Mr. Speaker, is to repeal those rules changes and to
affirm that any changes in either the substantive ethics rules or the
rules governing committee procedure will be made as they have always
been made in the past, only in a deliberative, open and genuinely
bipartisan manner.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Mollohan) for yielding me this time.
I had the opportunity to serve on the House Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct for a little over 6 years during some very difficult
times for this institution. I remember Speaker Foley calling me and
asking me to serve on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
It was not a request. I was being drafted to carry out a very important
responsibility that we all have. Under the Constitution, we must judge
the conduct of our own Members. It is a solemn responsibility. How we
go about doing that will reflect on the integrity of this institution,
and that is why it is so important that we do it in the right manner
and in a bipartisan manner.
Mr. Speaker, we are all human and we do make mistakes, and that is
why we need a Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, to give
guidance to Members as well as monitor the conduct so the public has
confidence that in fact we are carrying out our Constitutional
responsibility to judge the conduct of our Members.
For that reason, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan) for his service on the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, very distinguished service on behalf of this institution. And
I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), who has
devoted much of his time to the ethics work, as has the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt). I thank him for his work on ethics
issues. We do not issue many press releases for this work. This is not
something Members do because they want to do, it is something Members
do because they have to.
Mr. Speaker, I was on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
when we had the charges brought against Speaker Gingrich and the so-
called banking scandal. Both of those issues were highly publicized,
received a lot of attention and were extremely difficult matters. I was
one of the four members of this body that served on the investigative
subcommittee on Speaker Gingrich. We spent hundreds of hours in
deliberations and in preparations. We spent months in work, but we
reached a conclusion. We reached a conclusion not because it was easy.
We reached a conclusion because we were able to listen to each other.
We worked not as Democrats or Republicans. We worked as Members of this
body to do what we are required to do, and that is to judge the conduct
of one of our own Members, and we reached a unanimous conclusion.
As a result of that particular case, this body thought that we should
review the rules under which the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct operates. We thought it was appropriate to review the process
that we use. So what did we do after the Gingrich investigation? The
majority leader and the minority leader sat down and worked out a
process that would maintain the bipartisan reputation of the ethics
process and allow a fair, transparent, open process for looking at
changes in our ethics rules.
I was named the co-chair of that task force along with Bob
Livingston, a Republican, who was named the other co-chair, and we had
an equal number of Democrats and Republicans on that task force. We
held hearings, and we had witnesses who came before us. Members came
before us, and we looked at the concerns that were expressed during the
Gingrich investigation about trying to move in a more timely manner to
give due process to each Member and looked at ways to streamline the
process but still maintain the integrity of the ethics process. That
was our charge. We came up with changes, and we did that in a
bipartisan vote of our commission.
The only way the ethics process works is if it is bipartisan. We
cannot do it just because one side has the votes in the majority. We
must maintain the bipartisan manner of the ethics process, including
the way we change the rules, if we are going to be able to maintain the
integrity of the process and be able to look the public in the eye and
say, yes, we are carrying out our constitutional responsibilities to
judge conduct of our own Members.
The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has gone through the
three rules changes passed at the beginning of this Congress on a
partisan vote. I want to talk about one, the automatic dismissal.
It was interesting, in 1997, a Member of this body offered an
amendment to our rules package and suggested after 180 days there be an
automatic dismissal of a complaint, a much more modest proposal than
the one ultimately brought forward by the Republican leadership and
passed by the membership on the first day of this session by this
Congress. That 180-day automatic dismissal was rejected by a bipartisan
vote in this body in 1997. The reason was quite simple: We thought it
would just add or just bring us to partisan gridlock.
Unfortunately, I think that is exactly what is happening. The first
day of this session we passed a rules change that says after 45 days
there is an automatic dismissal of a complaint that is brought. So
inaction becomes action. There have been many serious issues that have
confronted this Nation that have taken us terms of Congress to deal
with. For instance, in working on the welfare reauthorization bill, we
have been working on that for three Congresses, and we have not been
able to pass it. It has taken time. Inaction here becomes action. That
is not what it should be and obviously will not have credibility with
the public.
{time} 2030
Partisanship is rewarded with a deadlock being dismissal. Each of us
belongs to a political party. The pressure on us would be immense just
to do nothing for 45 days. I think that is quite obvious. And that gets
rewarded.
The ethics process must be bipartisan. We should not have a basic
rule that rewards partisanship. And then delay is rewarded. Inaction is
rewarded, as I indicated. And the complexity of the issues that you
have to
[[Page 6132]]
deal with on the Ethics Committee would give you a practical reason to
say, Well, I'm sorry, we couldn't complete it in time and now there's
an automatic dismissal.
I think about the Gingrich case that I had to investigate, and I
think about the complexities and the documents and the depositions and
all the work that we did in that case. You could not possibly have done
that in 45 days and do justice to the Member who is accused or the
institution that is being challenged as to whether we can, in fact,
investigate a case fairly. Yet this rule change will say, if you cannot
complete it in 45 days, there can be an automatic dismissal.
So, Mr. Speaker, for all the reasons that the gentleman from West
Virginia has pointed out on substance, these rules changes were wrong;
but I think the underlining point, the most important point here is the
process must be bipartisan. It was violated in these rules changes that
were passed at the beginning of this Congress. I urge my colleagues to
listen to the gentleman from West Virginia. Let us repeal those three
rules changes and go back to a process that has served this institution
well over many, many Congresses, a bipartisan process, a true
bipartisan process to look at rules of the committee and, if changes
are needed, to do that in a bipartisan manner rather than by the strict
votes of the majority. I would urge us to do that for the sake of the
integrity of this institution.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank my friend from Maryland.
I would like to invite our colleague from California (Mr. Berman) to
join this discussion.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding and to
the ranking member of the committee, I thank him for involving me in
what I think is a very important effort. I think both he and I are not
prone to come to the floor on Special Orders, and I think our presence
here tonight indicates just how strongly we feel about what is being
done to a process that everyone participating in this Special Order has
spent a great deal of time on.
If there is a member of the majority or a staff member of the
majority watching this, I would hope they might sit back, get past the
irritation over any particular action the committee has taken that they
may not have liked and think what they have done and realize that what
they have done in making these rules changes unilaterally and breaching
the fundamental commitment to a bipartisan process, what that
ultimately will do and how that will play out in terms of destroying
the concept of an effective and meaningful bipartisan Ethics Committee
process.
And that notwithstanding the constitutional mandate, we will be left
with a situation where the rules of the House and the standards of
conduct that we have promulgated and expect Members to adhere to will
become essentially unenforceable because of the breach in the
commitment to a bipartisan approach to these issues.
For me, that approach means the members of the committee throw aside
the question of how the partisan implications of a particular action
play out and search for the facts and apply the rules of official
conduct and the appropriate standards that have been adopted by this
body and apply those to those facts in a fair, objective, and
independent way without focusing primarily on the political or partisan
ramifications of that.
Both of the previous speakers have spent a great deal of time both
talking about the process and developing the rule. When I was asked to
become the ranking member of the Ethics Committee, Minority Leader
Gephardt told me about this and after a little bit of depression at the
thought that I would have to spend a serious amount of time doing this
because, as the gentleman from Maryland mentioned, none of us relish
this particular job, it is a great deal of time, its direct impact on
our own constituents or on the substantive issues we care about is
relatively minor. We are here and we have taken this position in the
past because of our own commitment to the institution, a very important
institution, the House of Representatives, and how the work of that
House is going to be conducted.
But when Mr. Gephardt asked me to do it, I said, Dick, I don't want
to fight the political battles and the partisan battles in the Ethics
Committee. He says, The reason I am asking you to take this position is
because I want to end the Ethics Committee as a place where partisan
battles will be carried out. It is my commitment to that process that
causes me to ask you to take this position.
With that understanding, I did. And I had the great pleasure of
working with three separate Republican chairmen, members of the
majority, our former colleague Jim Hansen for the first 2 years, my
friend and colleague Lamar Smith for the next 2 years, and in the last
2 years of the Congress for the recent chairman of the committee, Joel
Hefley. In those 6 years with three different chairmen and a number of
different members of the committee, particularly on the majority side,
if I can think of two votes, two times where in a disciplinary matter
there was a division of the vote, that we did not reach a consensus
that was accepted initially by the chair and the ranking member and
then by the entire committee, I cannot think of more than two votes.
And on the two times when I remember there being some divided votes,
they were not done on partisan grounds; they were done on individual
members' interpretations of the facts applying the rules of conduct to
those facts.
What has happened here would have been unthinkable during those 6
years, that the majority party would decide to embed fundamental
changes in the rules inside the larger House rules package, thereby
forcing those rules to be addressed in a partisan fashion and then,
without consultation with the minority, without showing the minority
what those rules changes were for there to be any possible give-and-
take or effort to achieve a consensus, ramming through those changes in
the Ethics Committee rules in a way that I will try to establish, as I
think both of the colleagues preceding me have, hurt the process and
hurt it very fundamentally.
So apart from anything else and even the substantive provisions of
these rules changes, the fact that it would be done on a partisan
basis, without consultation, without an effort to reach a consensus,
without coming from the bipartisan Ethics Committee was a terrible,
terrible mistake and shakes all of our confidence in whether this
process is even a process we want to participate in.
I say all of that preliminarily just to say that I hope calmer minds
and people who put their concern for the institution above their
irritation with a particular case will think again about what they have
done and convene some process by which we can bring back the comity
that has existed, I think, during the gentleman from West Virginia's
tenure as ranking member and certainly for the 6 years preceding that
when I was ranking member, because I think we will all be better served
by that.
I do want to make one other point. This is the only committee in the
House that is equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. It was
the intention of this committee at the creation of this committee and
the formation of this committee that things be done on a bipartisan
basis, staff hired on a bipartisan basis, disciplinary matters dealt
with on a bipartisan basis, advise and consent. When people want to
know interpretations, we approach it without regard to the political
and partisan implications of the Member who is requesting or the
individual who is the object of the disciplinary investigation.
Going to the rules changes, when former Congressman Tauzin offered an
amendment to the ethics task force report which provided automatic
dismissal for 180 days, as both my colleagues who preceded me have
mentioned, a far more lenient provision than the one adopted at this
particular time, our friend and colleague Henry Hyde said, Why not
adopt it? When juries deadlock, the case is dismissed.
But in saying so, he made our point. The judge does not tell the
jury, if you
[[Page 6133]]
don't decide in 2 days or 3 days or any number of days, if you are
deadlocked at that point, the case is dismissed. You do not create
incentives for people not to decide. With a rule like this in place,
the respondent, the object of the complaint, knows that stonewalling
ultimately leads to dismissal, that Members of the respondent's
political party, be they Democrat or Republican, are now incentivized
not to move ahead with the investigation because a certain result is
predetermined after a certain number of days, and the kind of
collaboration and coordination that takes place between the chair and
the ranking member as they come to a determination of whether or not
they should seek to create an investigative subcommittee or to ask the
full committee to create an investigative subcommittee is over.
There can be many issues in these complaints. Some of them maybe
should go forward. Some of them should not. There is a whole process by
which staff and the Chair and the ranking member work together to
investigate and try to come to a collaborative determination. Either
one of them under the rules that have existed have a right to put the
item on the agenda if they think there is no further chance at
consensus. But the one thing I know is that when you set a time limit,
especially a time limit as short as this one, for the automatic
dismissal, you are incentivizing those who do not want the process to
go forward without regard to what the facts are.
You are incentivizing them to make sure that nothing happens, because
the result, the conclusion of dismissal is preordained. It is a
terrible mistake. It is an assault on the collaborative process that
this committee should operate under and just has to be changed if we
are going to really move forward in a positive way.
The second rule that allows the demand of an immediate adjudication
is also defective, because by doing so, the respondent can obviate the
investigative process and it can be motivated by the same intent, to
cut short the investigation, to take away the give-and-take between the
parties so that they can come to an agreed-upon statement which should
be sent by the full committee to the investigative subcommittee to
pursue, weeding out the false complaints or the minor issues, the ones
that do not raise substantial questions that the rules were violated,
including the ones that do. It is just another way of undermining that
process, because you cut short the whole investigation. That
preliminary investigation is very important in making this whole
process work.
Finally, my last comment is on the collusion rule, where you
explicitly allow attorneys to represent more than one party in a
matter. Not leaving it to the discretion of the committee, but saying
that an attorney has a right to represent a number of the different
people being investigated, you are essentially telling the Member of
Congress who is the object of a complaint, Go out, hire the lawyer, pay
for him to represent anybody on your staff or any of your friends who
might be the subject of this investigation as well and approach a
common defense which precludes the ability to really effectively
ascertain the facts. It is truly a collusion rule. There may be times
when it is appropriate for the attorney to represent more than one
person involved in the matter, but to give it as a matter of right to
the respondent in this kind of a case sets up a dynamic, again, that
destroys the ability of the Ethics Committee to function effectively
and efficiently.
With all of those comments, they all go to the overarching point:
substantively, these rules are a mistake. The way they were done is
intolerable. I do not know how one could continue to be part of a
process when we have abandoned that kind of comity and bipartisanship
that has been a hallmark of this process. The same leadership that
decided to do this, I think, in a fit of anger and perhaps in a moment
of unbridled passion has over and over again prior to this time
reaffirmed their desire to have a bipartisan process as evidenced by
the people they appointed and by the way those people proceeded and by
the efforts to do everything on a collaborative basis.
And it worked. And it worked well. We did not go crazy going after
Members on pointless grounds. We were not a runaway committee. We also,
conversely, did not throw evidence of real violations into the trash
can and ignore them. Why we would want to alter that fundamental
process at this particular point to the damage of this institution, I
do not know.
{time} 2045
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
California and the gentleman from Maryland alike, who, based upon years
of commitment to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct process
in the House and lots of experience with different cases and the
fashioning of different rules, for their very insightful comments.
I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a
Member who has a very long history, a distinguished career in law
enforcement as a District Attorney in his home State of Massachusetts,
who in the last Congress served extremely admirably the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct as he was called off the investigative
subcommittee pool to review one of the most unusual cases that the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has looked at. I thank the
gentleman for joining us tonight.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding to
me.
I have to say they have all served this institution well. They
provided me with a real history lesson here this evening. I am
probably, maybe with one exception, their senior in terms of age, but
they carry a wealth of insight and experience in this issue.
What I found particularly interesting was that single experience I
had serving on that subpanel in many ways reflected what they each
individually came to a conclusion. What I discovered was that it
worked. We worked hard, much harder than I anticipated. It was long
hours. We brought before that subcommittee a significant number of
Members of this House. They fully cooperated, each and every single one
of them; and we worked in a bipartisan fashion.
The two Republicans that served on that particular panel, I knew one
before and I happened to be a classmate, and the other one I never
really had any contact or communication with. And I have to tell my
colleagues I was extremely impressed with their concern about this
institution, with their professionalism, with their standards and their
willingness to work in an extremely collaborative way. It truly was a
lesson that bipartisanship exists in this institution, and particularly
in the rubric in the format of an ethics investigation is absolutely
essential.
We talked about the House today, and we all obviously go back to our
home districts, and we hear our own constituents decry what they
perceive to be the strident level of partisanship that, unfortunately,
does exist today within this institution. But my experience on that
subpanel was really informative, that those who love the institution,
those who understand that if there is a lack of confidence in the
integrity of this institution by the American people that we erode the
health, if you will, the viability of our democracy.
It really is a sad comment that, without consultation, in a
unilateral move, these rules changes came to the floor and were
adopted. Because I think the real issue here will be not just the
erosion of the respect of the institution over time, but there will be
demands from the outside. There will be a legitimate question posed by
the American people as to whether this House can, in fact, police
itself, whether we have the capacity to maintain high standards.
If we abrogate that responsibility, not only do we do damage, in my
opinion, to this institution, but we chip away at the health of
American democracy. People will begin to believe the worst. What is
happening in that institution? Are there backroom deals going on? Or is
the partisanship so absolutely venomous at this point in time that they
cannot work together
[[Page 6134]]
and there should be some sort of independent group or independent
commission that polices those Members of Congress? That would indeed be
unfortunate, in my judgment.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from
Massachusetts' comments, and I agree completely with his point. The
point that all of us who have served on the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct and have gone through investigations understand that
when we meet in that investigative setting when we have a specific
matter before us and when we start looking at the rules of the House
and the precedence of the House, we do not get into a disagreement
along party lines as to what the rules are and what the expected
conduct is. We then look at the facts, and once again the facts become
the facts, and we do not divide along party lines as to what the facts
are and how we apply them to the rules, and generally, as the gentleman
from California (Mr. Berman) pointed out, in an overwhelming number of
cases we reach consensus, unanimous judgment, as to what the rules of
the House applied to the facts require us to do.
And even when we reach disagreement, it is not along party lines.
Sometimes there is disagreement on the interpretation of the rules or
the facts, but they are not along party lines.
In every case that I can ever recall in the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct, that is exactly how we proceeded and reached
judgment, because of the point that the gentleman said, the seriousness
of our work and the credibility of this institution and the confidence
of this institution is very much affected by it.
I think what is extremely disappointing is that we now have rules
changes that were dictated in a very partisan manner that make it
impossible for the committee to function. This is one of the few
bastions of nonpartisan activity within the Congress. Now that is
unable to operate because of the way the rules changes were made, and I
just thank the gentleman for underscoring how important this matter is.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
if I may just pose a question, again there is a wealth of history that
I am looking at right here in terms of the issue of ethical standards
in this particular institution. Has there ever been before a moment in
terms of ethical standards where a unilateral initiative has been
imposed on the body without a collaborative effort, without
consultation?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think that is
exactly where we are today. There, in fact, has not been such a moment,
and we have this process that is offensive in and of itself, that is a
serious break with all tradition with the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct when its formation was conducted in a bipartisan
manner. The subsequent rules changes, as both the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman)
have described in considerable detail because they were involved, all
those processes were bipartisan. They brought us bipartisan rules, and
they brought us rules that were voted on by the full House of
Representatives as a bipartisan package. The process was not offensive.
Neither were the rules offensive.
In this case, the process breaks with that tradition. It is patently
partisan. The most partisan vote we have in the House of Representative
is a party-line vote, and that is a vote that attempts to impose these
rules upon the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, a party-line
vote. All the Republicans voting for them; all the Democrats voting
against them. So the process is tainted.
So it is no surprise that these three rules are extremely offensive.
If they had been fashioned in a bipartisan process, they would have
been vetted. They would have been challenged. They have would have been
compromised in that task force format, and they would not have come to
the body flawed as they were.
When we undertake a partisan process, we cannot create a bipartisan
entity. It is definitionally impossible to do.
So now we have three rules. We have had to suffer under a partisan
process established to affect a bipartisan committee. But we also have
three rules that are terribly flawed.
And the bottom line here is tonight and the message that we want to
get across to our colleagues and to the whole Nation is that if we are
going to have a bipartisan Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
we have to have a bipartisan process to fashion the rules and to
constitute the committee, and we also have to challenge these three
rules that are brought to us in a partisan process.
Automatic dismissal of a complaint after 45 days is extremely
mischievous to the process. As all of my colleagues have pointed out,
rules should exist to help people do the right thing. An automatic
dismissal rule in 45 days incentivizes Members in a highly charged
partisan institution to sit on their hands for 45 days and let this
responsibility pass to have an automatic. The same sort of undermining
is taking place with regard to a rule that will automatically allow an
accused to get their lawyer to represent all of the witnesses that the
committee is trying to investigate.
The gentleman from Massachusetts was a prosecutor for 25 years or
however long it was, and the gentleman, I know, understands how
mischievous that would be to an investigative process.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
to be perfectly candid, I think a lawyer who would take on the
assignment of multiple representation could very well find him or
herself in an ethical dilemma. Because, clearly, not all witnesses have
the same interests. So for an attorney to do that really has ethical
overtones as well. It just does not make any sense.
In fact, one of the recommendations that came out of the subpanel
that I served on was for the House to consider the sequestration of
witnesses so that the fact-finding process itself would not be colored
by conversations among staff and Members. And, as the gentleman knows,
it was a unanimous report, and it was adopted unanimously by the House.
I hear sometimes comments about lack of due process. That is a whole
other issue, but I am very proud of that product, as I know my three
colleagues were on the subpanel, and not once did an individual's name
ever appear in print. Not once. There was not a leak because each of us
understood the significance and the importance of taking this
unpleasant task on in a role that reflected well on the House and
reflected the integrity of this institution.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes the point that in the
case that he worked on, and it is unnecessary to mention it by name,
but that his investigative subcommittee, he and his colleagues, did an
excellent job. And one of the reasons they did is because they were
able to keep that information between the witnesses apart. They were
not able to have coordination. Their testimony was not contaminated in
that way. And that is why they came up with such a clean, hard
decision, which was adopted unanimously by the investigative
subcommittee and was adopted unanimously by the full committee.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And we never could have done it, Mr. Speaker, in 45
days. Never.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman, how long did it take
them to come with that investigation?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it was in the neighborhood of 6 months, and
there were multiple, multiple meetings.
{time} 2100
Mr. CARDIN. I cannot think of any case that we ever had that could
have been handled in 45 days. I am just trying to think about the time
period for answer, the time period for staff review, the time period
just to verify basic simple facts. Even in the simplest case, I do not
know of any case that we could have handled in a professional manner
within a 45-day period.
[[Page 6135]]
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, exactly. Under the new
rules, to be perfectly clear about it, the 45-day period would toll
once an investigative subcommittee were appointed. But the point here
is that the effort of any of those who did not want to have to fulfill
their responsibilities and actually consider the merits of the case,
anyone, any party, any five members who had that attitude could simply
avoid the question of creating an investigative subcommittee and easily
do it. There are two clocks that run when a complaint is filed, a 45-
day clock and a 30-day clock to answer it; and then you would have 15
days to actually dispose of the matter
Mr. BERMAN. If the gentleman would yield further, a tremendous amount
goes on before it ever gets to a recommendation by the Chair and the
ranking member to the full committee to create the investigative
subcommittee.
I think of cases where staff had to go to county courthouses to
review deeds and a whole series of public records to decide if there
was any basis for moving forward. It is true that the staff at that
point does not have the power of subpoena and does not have the power
to get records that are not in the public domain, but they do have the
power to informally talk to people who would have information about
this, to look at public records.
You cannot do this in 45 days. You cannot come to a serious
recommendation that you are going to make to the full committee, that
both the Chair and the ranking member can feel comfortable that they
can go to the full committee and say we think now is the time to create
the investigative subcommittee, unless you have that preliminary work.
Otherwise, you just might as well send everything to an investigative
subcommittee.
The flip side of an automatic dismissal is every charge gets
investigated, with subpoenas and depositions and seizing of records
through warrants, which would be a terrible thing for the due process
rights of Members. So we are messing with something we should not be
messing with here, and it is going to hurt the institution.
By the way, if this were not part of the larger rules package on an
opening day, a very small part in terms of the substantive works, I
believe there are Members on the other side of the aisle who would have
supported the position we are now taking on the substance of these
rules; and I know there were members of the committee that would have
fully, both present and former, understood how dangerous these rule
changes were.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that opportunity
exists with H. Res. 131, the resolution that I introduced on March 1,
that is now pending before the Committee on Rules. Last week I wrote
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules and respectfully
requested an opportunity to testify before the Committee on Rules in
support of H. Res. 131, to raise some of the questions that have been
so eloquently and capably discussed here tonight.
I think the gentleman's point is very well taken: the rules package
was an omnibus rules package. These are three ethics rules embedded in
the rules package, so it did not get the kind of visibility, the kind
of attention that it would get if H. Res. 131 were brought to the floor
of the House. Then we would have an opportunity to fully debate all of
these issues and, more importantly, our colleagues, both Democrat and
Republican, would have a chance to vote on these discrete rules,
understanding how important they are to ensuring a credible ethics
process and restoring it to a bipartisan basis.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, just as
a final comment in answer to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Delahunt), I do not know of it ever being done the way these rules
changes were made. We have always had a deliberative process for the
reasons the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) pointed out, so we have a chance to
understand the ramifications of these changes. We have never had
significant changes to the ethics rules done on the opening day by the
majority without working with the minority.
Mr. BERMAN. If the gentleman would yield on that, the irony was at
the time of the greatest anger about committee action, which was the
case the gentleman participated in dealing with a sitting Speaker of
the House, the response was not then to change every rule that bothered
him. It was to create a bipartisan task force to look at the rules, to
look at it in the context of that case, to see if anything should be
changed. That is the appropriate response if you are upset with the way
some particular rule seems to be working at the present time.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would say to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), maybe it is time
for you again and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) to serve on a bipartisan
task force with that in mind.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me thank you
tonight for overseeing our Special Order. I express special
appreciation to these three distinguished Members of the House, my
colleagues, for their participation.
I think this has been an extremely reasoned, hopefully informative
and persuasive prayer to the Republican leadership to look at this
issue, to take a second look at it, be impressed by the fact that we
are not operating in a bipartisan process, and we must if we are going
to have a credible Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and then
to look substantively at these three rules, how they undermine, create
mischief, make it impossible, really, to conduct the oversight, the
ethical oversight of the House of Representatives in a way that will
make the institution proud and make us credible to the American people.
____________________
SOLVING THE CHALLENGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Davis of Kentucky). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Price) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority
leader.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
address the House this evening on an issue that is really of utmost
importance and urgency. It is something that has been in the news an
awful lot over the past number of weeks and months; and hopefully
tonight we will be able, along with some of my colleagues, to bring
some greater clarity to the importance of this issue, as well as the
importance of solving the challenge of this issue, and that issue is
Social Security.
As a freshman here in Congress, when I go home I get asked, What are
your impressions of Congress? What is going on up there?
I am struck by two things. The first is that we live in challenging
times, incredibly challenging times, and there are issues that demand
attention and that demand the honest, hard work of the people in
Congress on behalf of the citizens of our Nation, and it is imperative
that we act. Our constituents demand that we act, and it is appropriate
that they should do so.
The second impression that I have is that I could not be more proud
to serve with a President who is not afraid to tackle big issues. We
have got some incredible issues before us, Social Security being one of
them, and this President has put it on the table and said, Ladies and
gentlemen, let's work together honestly and sincerely and let's solve
this problem.
We had a break at home recently; we were all home for 2 weeks talking
to our constituents and our neighbors and friends, and I had the
privilege of being with Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike
Levitt, who was speaking to a group about Social Security, and he kind
of crystallized it, I thought, really very, very well.
He said, There comes a time in history when a problem is large enough
to see, yet still small enough to fix.
There comes a time in history when a problem is large enough to see,
yet
[[Page 6136]]
still small enough to fix, and I believe that Social Security is
exactly at that stage. The problem is large enough to see, but still
small enough to fix.
Let me begin very briefly, and then have some of my colleagues join
me. I would like to talk about some principles. I think it is important
when we have discussions about public policy, especially on something
as important as Social Security, that we stick to principles. I can
outline four or five principles that I find to be incredibly important
in this discussion about Social Security.
The first one is that it is a promise. I believe and I suspect that
the majority of Americans believe that Social Security is not just a
government program; it is not just a program that was instituted 70
years ago willy-nilly. It is more than a safety net. It is a promise.
It is a covenant with the American people by all of us to the
generations of hard-working Americans, and it says that Washington took
money from your paycheck, your paycheck, your entire life, and they
made a promise to you to return that money upon your retirement. So it
is a promise.
The second principle that I think is important to keep in mind is
that of generational fairness. It is imperative that we save and that
we secure Social Security so that our children and our grandchildren
will receive the same benefits that we when we retire will have
enjoyed. So generational fairness. It only works when it is fair for
all Americans.
The third principle, and this is a tough one in this institution, and
I was listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle a
little bit earlier and sometimes with amusement, but the third, which I
am serious about and I believe that all of us should be, is that this
issue should not be partisan. It ought not be partisan.
When it comes to the retirement of tens of millions of Americans,
there are not Democrats or Republicans. We are all Americans, and those
Americans are counting on us to work together and to do what is right
for the current generation and for future generations and those just
entering the workforce. So it ought not be partisan.
Fourth is that concept of a nest egg. All working Americans deserve
the peace of mind that if they live by the rules and they work hard and
they live up to their responsibilities, that there ought to be a nest
egg available to them, taken from that money that they have so
generously put into the Social Security system.
Finally, and we oftentimes find that Washington forgets this, but to
all Americans, this is your money. This is your money. It is not the
government's money; it is your money. It is your future, and it is your
life.
I think if we keep in mind those principles, that it is a promise,
that there ought to be generational fairness, that it ought not be
partisan, that we ought to concentrate on preserving that nest egg,
and, finally, it is your money, that it is Americans' money, we will go
a long way towards ending up with the right solution.
I am privileged to be joined tonight by a number of my colleagues who
will touch on some issues as they relate to Social Security and their
perspective. First is the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) recently returned from
that 2-week period conducting over 20 town meetings with constituents
regarding Social Security.
When I think of those Members of the House who have the highest level
of honor and integrity, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson)
is right at the top of that list. In my very short period of time here
in Congress, I have come to appreciate him greatly. He is the
grandfather of two young boys, and he clearly understands the
demographic challenges that are facing Social Security and the need to
strengthen the system now.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Price) for his leadership tonight. It is just a great
honor to be here on this very important issue of Social Security and
strengthening Social Security, and I appreciate again what the
gentleman is doing to bring to the attention, Mr. Speaker, of our
colleagues, additionally to the American people, the importance of how
we can and why we need to strengthen Social Security.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) himself is an indication of
the leadership in our Congress, and I am so proud. Even though he is
just a freshman, he is making such a difference.
I had the extraordinary opportunity in 2001 to be part of the first
Republican majority in the State Senate of South Carolina in 124 years,
but the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) had in 2002 the opportunity
to be the first participant in the Republican majority in the State
Senate of Georgia in 125 years. Then, as an indication of his
leadership, he was elected leader of the State Senate of Georgia, again
the first Republican in 125 years. Then he, of course, ran for Congress
last year, and is making such a difference.
The reason that we are here indeed to discuss the issue of why we
need to strengthen Social Security I believe is very simple: it is
demographics. This is not criticism of a political party; it is not
criticism of individuals. What we are doing is recognizing something
actually very good, and that is that the American people are living
longer.
In 1935, when the Social Security system was implemented, the average
longevity, the age of what a person in the United States would live,
was 59 years old. Today, it is 77.3. I think that is great. It is a
testimonial to our health care, to the health care delivery system, to
the physicians of our country, to the living standards of the American
people.
{time} 2115
I had the opportunity to bring this to the attention, as the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) has indicated, to 20 town hall
meetings recently: the Residence Hall Association of the University of
South Carolina, to the Latin American Council of Beaufort County, to
the Aiken County Chamber of Commerce, to the employees of Palmetto
Electric Coop. Everywhere I went, and I spoke at Estill High School,
Hampton High School, everywhere I went I was able to bring to the
attention of people of all ages that, due to demographics, we need to
make changes and address the concerns that we have with people living
longer.
Then, of course, we had the circumstance back in 1935, there were 40
workers who paid into the system, and then there was one beneficiary.
Back in 1950, that changed, of course, and there were 16 workers to a
beneficiary. Currently, there are 3.3 workers to a beneficiary; and
soon there will be just 2 workers to a beneficiary. That clearly
indicates we need to strengthen and reform the system.
As I look at what we are doing, it is very frustrating to me that
many people seem to indicate that, because the crisis is not going to
come about until the year 2041, that it really does not impact people
and maybe we do not need to address and make the changes that are
necessary. But I need to tell my colleagues, I understand perfectly
that in fact it affects everyone in this room, it affects our families.
I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) pointing out my
grandchildren, but even before the grandchildren are impacted, it
really affects persons such as me, the baby boomers of America.
Beginning in 2008, there will be 78 million people retiring; and what
is going to occur is that, beginning in 2008, the number of retirees is
going to dramatically impact and affect the Social Security system. In
fact, it will go bankrupt in the year 2041.
The year 2041, that seems so far away. I am very hopeful. I would be
93 years old. So I have to tell my colleagues that that is maybe highly
unlikely that I could be around. But a dear friend of mine, Austin
Cunningham, who introduced me as I made a presentation like this one to
the Orangeburg County Rotary Club, is 92 years old. So I really hope
that I am there.
But that would be catastrophic for those of us as baby boomers if
Social
[[Page 6137]]
Security goes bankrupt. At the age of 93, we cannot begin second
careers. There will not be other jobs. We need to address it.
Then I need to tell my colleagues that I am really proud that our
oldest son, Alan, just returned from Iraq. He is 31 years old. That is
significant, 31 years old, because 36 years from today, he will be 67.
He would be retiring. The moment he begins to retire, July 16, 2041,
the Social Security system would go bankrupt. That is outrageous.
I am very proud of Alan. This is a picture of where he returned to
Fort Stewart from a year serving in Iraq.
So our veterans of Iraq in the war on terrorism, protecting the
American people, they are working to protect our country. We need to
look out for young people like Alan, 31 years old, who would be
catastrophically affected.
Then, of course, my grandchildren. I am very proud, because this week
I was with my 2-year-old at the South Congaree Rodeo Festival, and here
he is in his little cowboy hat. Little Addison would be 37, 38 years
old when our system will go bankrupt. Our newest born grandchild, born
just this January, will be 35 years old when the system goes bankrupt.
That would be catastrophic.
My grandchildren, our grandchildren, these young people would be
affected with an enormous tax increase that would be totally
debilitating to their best years of earning, so debilitating to their
ability to truly fulfill what we want as part of the American dream.
So I want to thank my colleagues who are here tonight. I want to
thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) for his leadership, and I
want to thank President Bush for his courage to point out that this is
an issue that needs to be addressed now. It needs to be addressed for
the baby boomers, it needs to be addressed for the young people who are
in their 30s, high school students, college students, infants who were
just born. We need to address this, and I know my colleagues tonight
will be presenting to the American people how important this is.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Wilson). He is absolutely right about the President, with
his courage and leadership. The easy thing in this issue is to do
nothing.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. That is right.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. That is the easy thing to do. Because there are
a few years where people are not going to feel it, they are not going
to feel that pain, but the gentleman from South Carolina so vividly
brings a face to that by presenting his son and his grandchildren, and
I appreciate that very, very much.
I would like now to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway),
another fellow freshman who is the father of four grown children and a
grandfather to six. He has demonstrated remarkable leadership in his 3
short months in Congress with me, and over the break he conducted 15
Social Security town hall meetings in his district. He brings excellent
expertise to this issue, because he is a CPA and a small business owner
and former chief financial officer. He truly understands the financial
impact that a failing Social Security system will have on his children
and his grandchildren and all of us.
So I thank the gentleman, and I yield to him to discuss this issue.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.
I, too, want to add my thanks to the gentleman from Georgia for
hosting this hour tonight and for going to the lengths that he has gone
to gather us together to talk about this very important issue. Had I
realized that we could use grandchildren as props as the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) did, I would have brought pictures of mine,
because I want to make reference to my six wonderful grandchildren in a
few minutes. So the gentleman from South Carolina, as always, has set a
very high standard for discussion in this Chamber.
Over the last several weeks at least, I have on occasion caught
glimpses of a television commercial that I have found very troubling as
we try to discuss and talk about this very important issue of Social
Security reform. There is an organization out there that has a
commercial running that talks about a clogged drain, a household drain,
and they use that as a comparison to the problems and challenges that
we face with Social Security.
On its face, it is ludicrous to compare a normal, everyday occurrence
of a clogged drain, one that you fix out of your normal operating
budget and one that just happens all the time, to the very difficult-
to-solve problems that we face with Social Security. We cannot fix
those out of our normal operating budget, the normal budgetary process,
the problems that we have where in 2017 we will begin to run a cash
flow deficit. That means that the payroll taxes that we collect each
year will be less than the benefits that we pay out. So at that point
in time, we will begin to have to use the surpluses that have
accumulated in Social Security. That means that we have to borrow the
money in the open market to redeem those IOUs, or we have to cut
spending, Federal spending in other areas to make up for that cash
flow.
So a very significant problem is coming in 2017.
Then, in 2041, we will have paid back, paid out in benefits all of
the accumulated surpluses that are in the Social Security trust; and,
at that point in time, current law, as it currently exists, says that
the beneficiaries in that date, in 2041, will experience an immediate
27 percent haircut in their benefits. So a clogged drain and a cash
flow deficit in 2017, a system that is bankrupt in 2041, a 27 percent
haircut in benefits, that is a misplaced analogy if I have ever heard
one.
Then this commercial goes on to say that the solutions are like
tearing down the house, and they have a bulldozer that runs through
this house and destroys it totally. Well, as I look at the reforms that
are being talked about, every time any of us talk about it, whether it
is the President in his crossing this country back and forth, trying to
convince the American people that Social Security reform is something
that we ought to be about today, the first thing out of his mouth, the
first thing out of yours I suspect at our town hall meetings, the first
out of mine, is that current beneficiaries, my mom and dad, this is not
about you. We have made you promises. You are getting your Social
Security benefits. You will continue to get your benefits no matter
what happens. No matter what we do, we have made those promises and we
are going to keep those.
Near-term beneficiaries, folks in the 55 and up bracket, if that is
where we decide to draw the line, it is not about you either. Your
benefits will not be affected.
And reforms that affect our grandchildren, my six and the
grandchildren of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), to
say, look, if we think Social Security is good for my mom and dad, it
is good for me, then we believe it is good for you as well. So we are
going to put reforms in place for our grandchildren.
So those are the reforms that this organization equates with tearing
down the house and, in effect, destroying Social Security. Again, a
misplaced analogy. I do not think it is helpful to the discussion. I do
not think it is helpful or adds to the effort that the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Price) talked about. The gentleman is right. This is not a
partisan issue.
The solutions that fit Social Security do not wear jerseys. They do
not wear a Democrat jersey. They do not wear a Republican jersey. So to
simply fill up the airwaves with conversations and discussions that are
not productive, that are not about fixing the system; I am from west
Texas. We leave off the ``G'' on the word ``fixing'' often. So, to the
stenographer, there is no ``G'' in the word ``fixin','' is
counterproductive to this entire process.
So I want to add my voice to trying to bring this organization to the
table.
Part of our frustration is that we cannot get folks who are opposing
Social Security reform to actually begin to sit down and have
conversations with us in our inside voices to talk about what these
solutions ought to be.
So I am going to send a letter out tomorrow to the leadership of
AARP, the
[[Page 6138]]
American Association of Retired Persons, and it reads like this:
``Dear leadership: I write today not only as a Member of Congress,
but also as a member of your organization and a grandfather. We all
know that the debate over Social Security has become very political.
However, I strongly believe that this program deserves to be considered
above the fray of partisan politics. I am calling on you today to help
craft a solution to the problem we are facing.
``I am a CPA with experience in banking, health care, and the oil and
gas industry. I was a small business owner and have lived in west Texas
nearly all my life. Since arriving in Washington, I have been
disappointed by the political partisanship that has inhibited a
substantive and honest debate on Social Security reform.
``It is time to set aside partisan differences and come to the table
to seriously address Social Security reform. We must have an open
debate that is free of political rhetoric and emotion and, with your
cooperation, we can at least begin that discussion.
``The best way to address this problem is first to agree about the
facts:
``Social Security is safe for today's seniors, but is in serious
danger for our children and grandchildren.
``Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system with today's workers
paying to support today's retirees. In just over a decade, the
government will begin to pay out more in Social Security benefits than
it collects in payroll taxes, and shortfalls then grow larger with each
passing year.
``Without changes, Social Security will be able to pay 100 percent of
its current benefits until 2041 when Social Security will be forced to
cut benefits by at least 27 percent.
``This is an issue of generational fairness and the preservation of a
promise made in 1935 to future generations of retirees. This vital
program shouldn't just be safe for those who are over the age of 55, it
should be an equitable and viable program for our children and our
grandchildren.
``After reviewing the facts, it is clear that the current system
cannot be sustained. When looking towards a solution, we all agree on
two major points: benefits for individuals ages 55 and older should not
change, and that Social Security needs to remain solvent for all future
generations. Let's use this as a starting point for discussion that
moves us closer to crafting a common sense solution that fixes the
problem and does not simply place another Band-Aid over it.
``The Federal Government has collected hard-earned tax dollars from
American workers and used them in a system that is on the path to
bankruptcy and yields little return. We cannot idly stand by and allow
such a looming financial problem to become a crisis. Every year that we
wait and do nothing, it will cost the American taxpayer approximately
$600 billion.
``I have six wonderful grandchildren. What kind of a grandfather
would I be if I asked them to mortgage their future retirement security
on a system that cannot sustain itself? I think the millions of
grandparents who make up the membership of AARP would agree with me on
this. We must act now.
{time} 2130
``Social Security is a contract with ourselves. And that is a
contract that we cannot and will not breach. Please, let us not make a
partisan issue out of retirement security for our seniors and future
generations of retirees.
``I would like to extend an invitation to the four of you that are
addressed to discuss all of our options, including permanent solvency
and some form of personal retirement accounts in dealing with the
future of Social Security. I call on you today to set up a meeting with
several of my colleagues to begin discussing these issues. I look
forward to working with you.''
I would say to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Price), this letter
will go out tomorrow to the leadership of AARP. I suspect there are
other letters similar to this that have gone to this very influential
organization that has millions of members, most of whom we look
straight in the eye when we talk about Social Security reform and we
tell them in as clear and convincing a voice as we can, fixing Social
Security is not about your benefits.
Those promises have been made. We are collectively going to keep
those promises. The solutions that we are talking about are about my
grandchildren and your grandchildren and making sure that Social
Security is in place, that lifetime benefit, that lifetime annuity that
protects all of us in our retirement years.
So I thank the gentleman for his leadership tonight and bringing this
issue to the table.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway)
for his comments. I appreciate that. And that letter really just gets
to the heart of the matter. I hope to see that letter in their
newsletter. They ought to be sending that kind of information out to
their members because, as he said, it really is a disservice when the
level of discussion about something so incredibly important sinks to
these little games that are played that are not productive and that
frankly do a disservice to our Nation and to its citizens. So I thank
the gentleman for his participation this evening.
Now I would like to ask the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake),
another stellar member of the freshman class who is going to join us.
She is a Realtor and former State delegate from Virginia. As a former
small business owner herself, she is extremely familiar with the
positive impact protecting Social Security will have on millions of
American families and small businesses. And I yield time to the
gentlewoman from Virginia as she consumes.
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here this
evening and to speak to Americans about such an important issue as
Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, protecting Social Security for future generations is an
investment today's generation can no longer wait to make. My colleagues
who I have joined here tonight to speak with on this important issue
have very effectively made the case for protecting Social Security.
Rather than to repeat their arguments in favor of reform, I would like
to address a common argument against what we propose.
One argument about taking on the huge task of saving the Social
Security system is what opponents to reform call the ``transition
cost'' associated with the undertaking. They say our program will not
make Social Security more solvent. They say it will cost more to reform
Social Security than to just leave it alone.
Opponents of reform are right to be concerned about the cost of
action. As stewards of the tax dollar, Congress must be fiscally
responsible and spend wisely on programs that work. But that is exactly
why we need to act now, because the cost of inaction is even greater.
Think about it this way: more Americans own their homes today than
ever before in our history. We have all heard this a number of times,
and many economists like to use homeownership as a gauge of our
society's well-being.
But why? Why is homeownership such a badge of honor? What does it
symbolize? Why is such a huge investment and financial liability as a
mortgage considered a hallmark of success in this Nation?
It is because ownership brings a sense of fulfillment, a sense of
identity and accomplishment. Providing for and protecting your family
under a roof you call your own is part of the American Dream because
family is at the very heart of our culture.
But buying a home requires an initial, even painful, investment, down
payments, closing costs, loans, research, contracts signed, contracts
lost, and even more. It requires sacrifice to buy a home. But it is
universally recognized as a wise, sound decision to make because of
what it yields over time.
As a former Realtor, I know firsthand the benefits and joy of
homeownership. And I know what it takes to achieve it, because I have
helped thousands of people to do it. I am aware of the cost of buying a
home, but the long-run advantages of paying such a
[[Page 6139]]
high price at the beginning far outweigh the disadvantages.
And, Mr. Speaker, not once in my entire real estate career, which
spanned 2 decades, did I ever hear it advised that the transition costs
of homeownership outweigh the benefits of buying. And that is how we
should think of the transition costs of protecting Social Security,
just as we do the down payment on a new home. While the down payment
may be high and more expensive than continuing to rent an apartment,
the long-term pay-off of owning your own home is monumental.
Mr. Speaker, we can no longer afford to rent the Social Security
program from future generations of workers who will either lose
massively in benefit cuts or pay dearly through tax hikes if we do
nothing. We must make the down payment now or face the consequences of
our inaction.
The Social Security trustees, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Conaway) has pointed out, estimated each year that we do nothing we add
$600 billion to the cost of reform, reform that everyone agrees is
inevitable. Call it what you want. Call it a crisis, a problem, an
issue, a concern. Whatever language you use to describe the Social
Security situation that America faces, we cannot afford in this time of
war and budgetary constraint to add $600 billion each year. Something
must be done, and it must be done today.
But if we do not act, the current Social Security payroll tax of 12.4
percent will have to skyrocket to 18 percent in order to meet the needs
of the baby boomer retirees.
As a former small business owner, I can tell you, based on my
experience, and at times it was tough, that paying 12.4 percent into a
system that will return me 1.6 percent on the dollar was very, very
difficult. I cannot imagine trying to own a small business in the
future and having to pay an even higher payroll tax. Yet this is what
will happen if we do nothing.
If we leave the system alone, small businesses, the Nation's number
one job creator, will pay the price. If we do not act, today's average
30-year-old will see a 27 percent decrease in Social Security benefits
by the time that she retires.
Can your children get by on almost a third less of what retirees are
receiving today?
Do they think it is fair to them to fund the retirement of today's
retirees through their payroll taxes, only to be left high and dry when
their golden years approach because their leaders did not act?
Would they not prefer to build their own nest egg and pay into a
system that gives them real returns on the money for which they work so
hard?
And finally, for the very first time, there will be such a thing as a
Social Security trust fund. As of now, it does not exist. It never did.
Every cent that is paid into Social Security goes straight to
Washington, and what is not paid to the current retirees gets spent by
Washington. That is the end of the story.
Make no mistake. Today there is no such thing as a Social Security
trust fund. But now, for the first time ever, this Republican Congress
wants to create one. We seek to implement a savings program that
finally ties the taxes paid by an individual to that individual's
future benefits.
For the first time, money that you pay into Social Security will
belong to you and not to the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington.
This is truly an American program. It promises real returns on the
money hard-working Americans pay into the system; and it says, the
money you have paid is yours to keep and yours to spend on your family.
For the first time, Americans will have some control over their own
Social Security. And if today's workers who choose to sign up for
personal accounts die prematurely, the money they divert into their
personal accounts does not go away like it does today. It will remain
with their family. It will be a true nest egg, an asset that is owned
by that worker.
We must add to the retirement security of future generations by
allowing them control over their own investment. By permitting people
to voluntarily establish personal accounts, we strengthen the control
they have over their own financial future.
By reforming Social Security now, we stop the $600 billion yearly
cost of inaction and allow current workers to own their own nest egg.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to act. It is time to put aside partisanship.
It is time to work together to solve the problem that Social Security
soon will be if we do not act. Let us put aside our differences and
vote on a plan that will save Social Security for future generations.
Mr. Speaker and my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Price), I think it is
very exciting for Americans to have a choice to have an option to have
a voluntary personal account, and I am only sorry that I do not
personally qualify for that.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my colleague from Virginia (Mrs.
Drake). My goodness, she brought such clarity to this issue in her
explanation there, and I really appreciate that. I also have used the
analogy of refinancing a home, a home mortgage to kind of bring clarity
and focus on what it is that we must do, we must do as a Nation. And so
I appreciate her bringing that perspective to us.
I also just was struck as she was talking. You know, the other side
seems to think that if we do not do anything, it costs nothing. Well,
that could not be further from the truth. So I really appreciate her
participation, and I thank her ever so much.
Mr. Speaker, I think what you have seen this evening initially with
the discussions of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) and
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Mrs. Drake) on the issue of demographics and on the demand or
the need for honesty in this discussion and the concern and the clarity
with which the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) talked about
these transition costs as they are described, that they are bringing
about those principles that I talked about: that it is a promise; that
it is important that we make certain that generations are treated
fairly; that this ought not be partisan; that there is a nest egg
there; and that it is your money. It is America's money. It is not the
government's money.
As I was, over the past couple of months, looking into this issue
regarding Social Security, I always try to figure out where it all
began, where is the fundamental problem, but also what are other folks
saying on this. And I came across some interesting quotes I would like
to share with you. The first one, I think, gives a great perspective on
the issue of Social Security. I am a child of the 60s; and so when I
grew up, President John F. Kennedy, I remember clearly the manner in
which he was able to convey his passion to our Nation and to focus our
energy. And he recognized back in June 1961, regarding the issue of
Social Security, he said, a Nation's strength lies in the well-being of
its people. And the Social Security program, remember, this is 1961.
The Social Security program plays an important part in providing for
families, children, and older persons in time of stress. But it cannot
remain static. It cannot remain static. Changes in our population, in
our working habits, and in our standard of living require constant
revision. Constant revision. It cannot remain static.
Well, what has happened to our program? It has remained static. There
have been no fundamental changes to our situation as it relates to
Social Security. So I am fond of telling folks that our current
situation is a result of demographics, the aging of our society, but
also to inertia. There is an inherent inertia in government at all
levels to do nothing, that it is easier to ignore a problem than it is
to fix a problem. That is not only true at the city council level,
where it is easier to keep the collection for garbage on the same days,
even though it might work better to do it in a different manner.
But it certainly is true here in Washington where we have big issues
like Social Security. It is easier to do nothing. And that is why I am
so proud again to serve with a President who understands the importance
of tackling this issue head on.
[[Page 6140]]
{time} 2145
When we think about Social Security, remember the program that
President Kennedy said cannot remain static. I had my staff look up
what kind of things were going on 70 years ago when the program began.
Social Security is 70 years old, 70 years old. There has been a little
tinkering but no fundamental changes, and the world has changed
significantly.
Seventy years ago we were in the midst of the Great Depression.
Seventy years ago FDR was our President. Babe Ruth hit his last three
home runs in one game, setting the record at 714 career home runs.
Seventy years ago, Elvis Presley was born. A 1935 sedan cost $495 brand
spanking new, and a modern six-room house sold for $2,800. Seventy
years ago, Parker Brothers released the board game Monopoly, nylon was
discovered, and the construction of the Hoover Dam was completed.
Seventy years ago was a long time ago, and the world has changed, and
our population has changed.
I think it is clear that when Social Security began it was a
wonderful program. It was first designed for a different generation and
for a different America. There are really at least four specific facts
that convinced me when I began looking at this issue that the old
system, the current system, is no longer workable for our society and
it is no longer secure.
The first is, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson)
mentioned, is that our Nation has matured from the time that men were
the majority of the workforce and the life expectancy was about 60
years old. Today, in the majority of households, both men and women are
working; and our life expectancy is significantly over 70 years of age.
We are living longer and healthier lives, and that trend is only going
to increase, and that is very good for all of us. But it is not good
for our Social Security system.
We have seen this demographic before. This gets to the issue of the
second thing that convinced me that we have got to modify and reform
the system, and that is the issue of the workers. We are in a pay-as-
you-go system, which means that today's workers pay for today's
retirees. And when the system began in 1935 or 1937, there were 41
workers for every retiree. In 1950, there were 16 workers paying in for
every beneficiary, every retiree. Today, there are 3.3 workers for
every beneficiary or retiree; and in a very short period of time there
will be two workers for every retiree. That is the system that cannot
sustain itself. We are on an unsustainable course.
The third issue that led me to believe and understand and appreciate
that we have got to reform the system is what I call the 2008
phenomenon. 2008, what happens in 2008? Well, this graph you may have
seen. In the year 2008, these are the surpluses. This is the amount of
money coming into the Social Security system. In 2008, the surpluses
peak, the surpluses peak and begin to decrease. And at the same time
the baby boomers begin to retire. That large group of individuals in
our population, me being one of them, in 2008 they begin to retire.
The baby boomers started in 1946. The average age of retirement is
62. You take 1946, you add 62 to it, 2008 and they begin to retire.
2008 is not a long way off. It is right around the corner.
Finally, fourth, if you think about the system that we have had in
place for Social Security, again it is a pay-as-you-go system, so the
current workers pay for the current retirees. When there were lots of
workers, there was more money in the pool for retirees. But what has
happened? What has happened when we get down to that area where we have
got 3.3 workers and then soon 2 workers for every retiree, the amount
of money that is being returned is, frankly, an embarrassment.
When the system started, people got much more money than they put
into the system. Now it takes years and years for individuals to get
the amount of money back that they just put into the system. In fact,
most individuals are getting less than 2 percent return on the money
that they put into Social Security. Less than 2 percent. That is not a
nest egg. That is not secure. That is not enough to retire with
security.
There was an article that came out today that I think brings clarity
to that, and it is by Stuart Butler, who is a renowned and noted
economist, Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policies at the
Heritage Foundation. And let me just share with you a couple of
paragraphs from this article. It was entitled, ``The Social Security
Crisis Gets Personal.''
In this article dated today, April 12, 2005, he stated that, ``As the
Social Security system itself has aged, payroll taxes have grown
relentlessly and the return on those taxes has fallen dramatically.
When Social Security began the payroll tax was just 2 percent of
income. Now it is 12.4 percent. Today, the average male worker about to
retire will typically get just 1.27 percent return on his lifetime of
taxes, less than he would get from a savings account. That is bad
enough, but the younger you are the worse it will get. A 25-year-old
worker can expect a return of minus .647 percent.'' He loses money.
Here is the kicker right here. ``Imagine what Congress would say if a
private company was taking in billions of dollars from millions of hard
working Americans and then giving them back less money in retirement.''
Well, you can imagine what Congress would say.
So we have got more retirees, fewer workers, and less money. All of
these facts, and facts are the same regardless of whether you are a
Republican or a Democrat, all of these facts do not paint a pretty
picture.
It is incumbent upon us here in Congress to put the security back in
Social Security. There was a time when our friends on the other side of
the aisle agreed, and we did a little work and came up with some quotes
from individuals. These are actual quotes, actual statements from some
very prominent individuals on the other side of the aisle when they
appreciated or they admitted that they have appreciated that there was
indeed a problem in Social Security.
This is a quote from President Clinton in February of 1997, 8 years
ago, February of 1997. ``For the long-term health of our society, we
must agree to a bipartisan process to preserve Social Security and
reform Medicare for the long run so that these fundamental programs
will be as strong for our children as they are for our parents.''
Clearly identifying one of the principles I spoke about.
Here is a quote from President Clinton in February of 1998. ``So that
all of these achievements, the economic achievements, our increasing
social coherence and cohesion, our increasing efforts to reduce poverty
among our youngest children, all of them, all of them are threatened by
the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.''
Now there has been some discussion about whether or not we have a
crisis or a problem or it is a challenge. This is 1998, 1998, President
Clinton saying, ``threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social
Security.'' Clearly, President Clinton understood the issue at that
time.
Here is a quote from the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in
March of 1998, talking about the issue of Social Security and
investment, these personal retirement accounts, voluntary personal
retirement accounts. ``Young people, especially, have lost faith.'' He
is talking about the Social Security system. ``They wonder why they
cannot take care of their own retirements with stock and bond
investments, rather than trusting a system that either is headed for
bankruptcy or will provide paltry or negative returns on their
contributions.'' Another august individual from the other side of the
aisle who certainly appreciated the problem.
And then Senator Harry Reid. He is now the Minority Leader in the
United States Senate. In February of 1999, he said, ``Most of us have
no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds
and putting it into the private sector,'' these voluntary personal
retirement accounts that we have been talking about.
They recognized the issue. If they recognized the issue in 1997 and
1998 and 1999, what is the solution? What is the solution that they
have put on the table? What are they offering to this
[[Page 6141]]
remarkable challenge that we have as a Nation?
Well, a little earlier I talked about the initial impressions that I
have had in my freshman term here in Congress, and one of the things
that may not surprise anyone is the remarkable level of partisanship.
Remember I talked about the need for this to be a nonpartisan issue,
but the incredible level of partisanship and nowhere is it more clear
than on the issue of Social Security. The Social Security problem is
clearly defined, and there is a clear recognition by both Democrats and
Republicans as demonstrated here that we need to fix the system. Yet
where is the plan from the other side of the aisle? What is the plan
that they have on the table?
Well, we searched and we searched and we searched and we searched.
And this is the plan that we have come up with. This is the plan that
the other side of the aisle in this incredibly important issue, in an
issue that will impact every single American, this is the plan that
they have on the table.
Just say no. Just criticize. It is politics as usual. It does such a
huge disservice to us as a Nation and to every one of their citizens.
So we should act now. There is no doubt about it. We should act now.
The Social Security trustees, the Comptroller General of the United
States, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board all agree that the sooner
we address the problem, the smaller and less abrupt the changes will be
for individuals and their families.
One of the individuals who works in my office just this past week got
her Social Security statement, her Social Security statement that each
of us get each year, and I was reading through the text of what
everybody receives from the Social Security administration about their
Social Security. And it clearly says and I urge every American to read
the fine print when this comes to your home. It says from the Social
Security Administration, ``Unless action is taken soon to strengthen
Social Security, in just 14 years we will begin paying more in benefits
than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2042 the Social Security
trust fund will be exhausted. By then the number of Americans 65 or
older is expected to have doubled. There will not be enough younger
people working to pay all of the benefits owed to those who are
retiring.''
This is not an opinion by anybody on my side of the aisle or the
other side of the aisle. This is the Social Security administration who
is looking at the numbers, seeing what kind of revenue is coming in and
what is going to happen and warning each and every one of us, further,
that there will be enough money to pay only about 73 cents for each
dollar of scheduled benefits.
So I had the plan from the other side of the aisle. This is their
plan. If you wanted to put a face on it, if you wanted to draw it on a
graph, that plan is this graph. What this says is that we go along and
go along and go along just as we are doing now until we get to that
date, 2041, when the bottom falls out of the system and individuals are
only able to receive 73 or 74 percent, which is a 26 or 27 percent cut
in benefits.
I promise you that that is not acceptable. It certainly is not
acceptable to me. It is not acceptable to our side of the aisle, and I
do not believe it is acceptable to the American people. So it is a
promise. This issue ought to be nonpartisan. We ought to get together,
and I urge my colleagues to do so. There needs to be generational
fairness so that younger individuals have faith that some of the money
certainly that they have put into the system will be able to grow and
be able to provide for their nest egg.
Finally, it is your money. It is Americans' money. It is not the
government's money. It is your money. These ought to be our principles,
and we should focus on the facts, study the issue and alternatives that
are available to us, vigorously debate, both sides of the aisle
vigorously debate and then act. It is imperative that we move forward
with this because, as we have heard, every year we delay costs this
Nation, costs the American public, costs you $600 billion.
Social Security is a system that has worked for decades and for
generations, but the current system is outdated and does not meet the
needs of the American people. It is not secure.
We have a wonderful opportunity right now. Right now, imagine the
peace of mind that you would have knowing that the contributions that
you make each month into Social Security will result in a nest egg for
your retirement that you own and that no one can take away. That is my
vision and that is my dream and I hope that you share that.
{time} 2200
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues and I ask my colleagues
to take the time now, take this time now and let us get to work. We all
look forward to the discussion that is coming about on this issue, but
I am hopeful that we will remember those principles, that it is a
promise and ought not to be partisan and to keep in mind every single
generation and be fair to them. Remember that nest egg that must be
maintained for security and that it is American's money, it is not the
government's money. If we do not act now, that would be the height of
irresponsibility, as with saying that there is no problem or that
little needs to be done.
So I urge this House, I urge the Senate and I urge the President to
work together and I congratulate the President for bringing this issue
forward to find a responsible and a secure solution.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF FORMER CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM LEHMAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Meek) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Members
of the House and also the Democratic leader for allowing me to have
this time tonight.
General Leave
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on the life of Congressman Bill Lehman, the subject of my
Special Order this evening.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, a great man who
served in this House for 20 years went on to glory. On March 16, 2005,
former U.S. Congressman Bill Lehman passed away peacefully in the
presence of his family and a few close friends in Miami, Florida. He
was ninety-one years old, and for 20 of those years he served in this
great institution, the U.S. House of Representatives.
We are here this evening to pay tribute to Congressman Bill Lehman
who served with great dignity and integrity, who the Miami Herald
described as a ``legendary figure in south Florida politics considered
a visionary on racial issues and public transit.''
Only three people have ever served in the 17th Congressional District
of Florida, former Congressman Bill Lehman, former Congresswoman Carrie
Meek and myself, Mr. Speaker. For this reason, it is a great honor for
me to honor him today.
By any measure, Mr. Lehman was an extraordinary man. He was a
successful businessman who went back to college, got his teaching
degree and taught in the Miami Dade County schools. He also was a
school board member and a chairman of the school board, and he led his
school system through a very difficult time, the end of segregation in
schools.
Congressman Lehman was a Member of Congress universally known for
fairness, kindness and compassion. He had strong relationships on both
sides of the aisle and guided national transportation policy through
the 1980's.
Congressman Lehman started out as a used car dealer in Miami, and his
nickname was ``Alabama Bill'' because Congressman Lehman was born in
Selma, Alabama, and I think that it was very appropriate at that time
for
[[Page 6142]]
him to be in leadership, but he was a special kind of businessman even
then. He developed a reputation as a used car dealer that you could
trust, and that is something that is very uncommon these days, Mr.
Speaker.
My constituents still tell stories about ``Alabama Bill.'' One person
said that he bought a car from Mr. Lehman but the battery died a few
days later after he drove it home, and for Mr. Lehman, the solution was
very easy, give him a new battery, something very common.
Another person told the story of how she wanted to go to the prom
with her boyfriend, but because they did not have a car, Mr. Lehman
thought that it was fit for him to lend them a car for the evening.
This was a very common man, but a man who walked softly and was a giant
in this Nation.
Mr. Lehman's customers were loyal and he never forgot them. Once at a
town hall meeting as a Congressman, a constituent showed up and said
that he bought a car from Mr. Lehman 35 years ago. He asked Mr. Lehman,
``Do you remember me?'' Silence fell over the crowd as the two men
looked at each other, and Mr. Lehman said, ``Your name is Willie,'' and
the man said, ``No, that was my brother.'' Mr. Lehman remembered them
both, and he had a great memory and that is something we do not see
common in public service.
Mr. Lehman had a restless mind and could not be confined to business.
His IQ was high enough to qualify him for membership in Mensa, a
society formed in 1946 to promote intelligent exchange between very
bright people. Mr. Lehman said later that he went to a few meetings of
Mensa but soon stopped because he found the people there very boring.
So, after he got his business started, he went back to college and
earned his teaching certificate and became an English literature
teacher in the Miami Dade public schools. He would often quote
Shakespeare and other English writers in his talks.
His foray into education led him into an interest in school politics.
He ran for the school board and won, the first of an unbroken string of
electoral victories at all levels of government.
Later, he would become the school board chairman, just as the Federal
courts ordered busing to end racial segregation in the Miami Dade
County schools.
Mr. Lehman described attending meetings of parents so angry that he
had to have police guards escort him in and out, but his personal
courage and his uncanny skill at easing tensions helped him win the day
and the schools were integrated.
In 1972, the rapid growth in south Florida led to a new congressional
district which was Congressional District 17. Mr. Lehman ran for it.
Seven Democrats ran for that seat, and nobody ever gave Mr. Lehman much
of a chance because he insisted on supporting busing to end racial
discrimination in schools. But he came in a surprising second in that
election against a well-known front runner and came in a surprising
first in the run-off election that followed.
Bill Lehman started out as a member of the House Education and Labor
Committee, but his work in Congress is most closely associated with his
service on the House Appropriations Committee, his chairmanship of the
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee and his membership on the
Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee.
As a member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Committee, Mr.
Lehman used his position to help improve the lives and relieve human
suffering throughout the world.
An example is his work in 1980, when the flood of hundreds of
thousands of Cuban refugees, known as the Mariel Boat Lift threatened
to overwhelm all of south Florida. Financially, Mr. Lehman managed to
get $100 million in Cuban refugee resettlement aid included in a
foreign aid bill, only to see it later stripped from the legislation.
Mr. Lehman did not give up then. He tried for the refugee money again
and again until finally it got included in another bill.
Today, a whole generation of Cuban Americans who came to seek freedom
in this country owe Bill Lehman for looking out for their needs when
they first arrived in this country.
In 1988, Mr. Lehman used his congressional contacts to work with the
Castro regime in Cuba to obtain the release of three Cuban political
prisoners who had spent more than 20 years in jail for opposing the
Cuban government. Lehman bargained behind the scenes through informal
diplomatic back channels. He eventually traveled to Cuba and met
secretly with Castro himself to win their freedom. It was a victory
that only a person like Bill Lehman could achieve.
Bill Lehman only tried to use the power of government to help people
who had no other recourse and often no hope. Just a few examples, Mr.
Speaker: In 1991, Lehman engineered the release of a 16-year-old girl
who was arrested and imprisoned by the repressive government of
Argentina at the time. Lehman's personal diplomacy, along with a
promise to the Argentine government that he would not publicize the
case in a way that would embarrass the regime, led to her release which
she is grateful for today and attended his funeral.
When a constituent who was a single woman wanted to adopt a foreign-
born baby but found that the Federal Government prohibited her from
doing so, Mr. Lehman introduced legislation to change it. The
legislation became law, and now such adoptions are common.
On a visit to a Federal agency in 1986, Mr. Lehman was told about two
employees, a husband and a wife, who both worked in the same agency.
The wife had inoperable cancer and a few months to live. They had young
children, and she had only a couple of months to live. They had used
all of their sick and vacation time on the treatments and care. Their
fellow employees wanted to donate their unused time to the couple but
found that the Federal law prohibited that from happening. Mr. Lehman
introduced legislation to make it legal and started what is known as
leave sharing, which is today an established Federal policy.
When he learned in 1987 that the Communist government in East Germany
would not allow Jews in East Berlin to have a permanent rabbi, Mr.
Lehman made contacts with the U.S. ambassador to East Germany and the
East German government and won approval for the first resident rabbi
since World War II.
Congressman Lehman learned through hearings about ``golden Hour'' for
accident victims. If an injured person gets proper care within an hour
of an accident, he has a much better chance of living or of recovery.
That is called trauma care. Mr. Lehman was one of the major champions
here in this institution for that and could be given credit for trauma
care throughout the Nation and definitely in south Florida.
He enlisted the help of then-Transportation Secretary Elizabeth Dole,
now Senator Dole, and pushed through the establishment of the Miami
Dade trauma center, which is known as the Ryder Center that is working
today. The Bill Lehman Trauma Research Center in Miami is a testimonial
to his work.
These are just a few stories of the kind of man that Bill Lehman was
and how he tried to use the power of government not for personal or
political advantage but to help the lives of others. Perhaps one of the
reasons Congressman Lehman was so effective is that he knew what others
were going through through his own tragedy and trials in his own life.
His beloved daughter Kathy died of a brain tumor. He was diagnosed
with cancer and underwent surgery and rehabilitation therapy. Because
of the surgery that cut some of the nerves that can allow him to speak,
he had to take speech lessons to learn how to talk again. He used to
joke he was the only politician that could only talk out of one side of
his mouth.
He also suffered a stroke that effectively ended his active
lifestyle, which included tennis and various other activities that he
maintained well into his seventies.
Yet through it all, he was an example of grace, endurance and
perseverance.
[[Page 6143]]
His mind remained as sharp and as quick as ever, and he always had a
sense of humor.
The many lives that Congressman Lehman touched, he touched deeply.
Our hearts go out to his wife of 66 years, Joan Lehman; his sons,
Bill Lehman, Junior, and Tom; and their families and grandchildren and
his grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, I just would like to say that Congressman Lehman, they
only walk this way once or twice in our lifetime, someone that was
willing to lead at the appropriate time in the history of this country
and definitely within the 17th District of Florida.
{time} 2215
Mr. Speaker, the entire Florida delegation sends their heartfelt
thoughts not only to the family but also to his friends who had a great
appreciation for his existence. We are forever grateful as a humble
country of having his family share his life with us.
I personally feel the key to public service is helping those who
cannot help themselves, and Mr. Lehman was an example of that.
Mr. Speaker, there are many Members of the Florida delegation and
Members of this Congress that will be adding their comments and
memories.
Finally, I want to end this Special Order with this quote from a book
of poetry that Congressman Lehman wrote in his spare time. He was a
well-read, well-written man. This book of poetry was called ``Hear
Today,'' and the poem is called ``Recognition.''
``We all have our problems,
But my acquiring wealth
Was not the cure.
Though I knew, sure as hell,
I didn't want to be poor.
Recognition was the thing
I knew I needed,
And before it's all over,
I may have succeeded.''
Mr. Speaker, I speak for my colleagues in the House of
Representatives and for the people of South Florida and around the
world whose lives were touched in recognizing Congressman Lehman this
evening.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the following articles for the Record at this
time:
[From the Miami Herald, Mar. 17, 2005]
William Lehman, 1913-2005
(By Amy Driscoll)
Former U.S. Rep. William Lehman, a legendary figure of
South Florida politics considered a visionary on racial
issues and public transit, died Wednesday at Mount Sinai
Medical Center in Miami Beach.
He was 91. He died of heart failure, his family said.
A used-car salesman, teacher, school board chairman and
powerful congressman who exercised broad authority over
transportation spending in the United States, Lehman was
remembered by friends and former staffers as a compassionate
soul and a progressive voice who helped shape South Florida.
He was an Alabama-born Jew who opened a business in a black
neighborhood in Miami and once traveled to Cuba to rescue
political prisoners. Known at home as the father of the
Metrorail and Metromover systems, he was part of a renowned
generation of Democratic politicians, including U.S. Reps.
Dante Fascell and Claude Pepper, who delivered uncommon clout
to Florida.
``A person like this can only come along in a community
once in a century, twice in a century if you're lucky,'' said
John Schelble, once Lehman's press spokesman and now chief of
staff to Miami Democratic U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek. ``He was
truly colorblind.''
At the news of his passing, condolences poured forth, from
Miami to Washington.
a real `folk hero'
Former U.S. Rep. Carrie Meek called him a ``real
humanitarian and folk hero'' in Miami's poor communities. She
recalled his car dealership, set in the heart of black Miami,
and his fight as a school board member in support of
mandatory busing to integrate schools.
``He felt very strongly about the people in the black
community, and that wasn't just pious platitudes. He showed
it in all the things he did. He showed it when he built his
dealership. He showed it when he was on the school board,''
she said.
Mike Abrams, lobbyist and former state representative who
had known Lehman since the 1970s, said the former congressman
was guided by an unshakable sense of right and wrong.
``He was the most moral man I ever knew in politics--and
I've known a lot of men in politics. He was clearly guided by
his personal principles,'' Abrams said. ``But that didn't
mean he didn't know how to use his knuckles in the process.
If he didn't think you had character, forget it. He was a
character man all the way.''
Lehman's ability to reach people wasn't ruled by politics.
U.S. Reps. Clay Shaw and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, both
Republicans, counted Lehman as a friend.
``He was a Democrat through and through, and I'm a
Republican, but that never interfered with our friendship,''
Shaw said.
Ros-Lehtinen characterized him as ``a gentleman to his last
breath.''
Lehman was born Oct. 5, 1913, in Selma, Ala., the son of
candy factory owners. He graduated from the University of
Alabama, and married the former Joan Feibelman in 1939. They
became the parents of three children--two sons and a
daughter, Kathryn, who died of a brain tumor in 1979. She had
been a high school English teacher like her father.
`alabama bill'
He spent 30 years as a used car dealer, calling himself
``Alabama Bill'' in advertisements, before he got into
politics. Lehman was elected to the Dade County School Board
in 1966 and became chairman in 1971. His first election to
Congress to represent a Northeast Dade district came in 1972.
The Biscayne Park Democrat was known for his low-key
manner, for the Southern drawl he never lost--and for his
political power.
``The fact that he was so demonstrably Southern probably
gave him an ability to play a conciliatory and constructive
role in some of Florida's toughest times,'' said former U.S.
Sen. Bob Graham.
In the years when the Democrats held sway in Congress, he
rose to a position of great influence, a member of the so-
called ``college of cardinals'' in the House. With an
unpolished speaking style and quiet strength, he controlled
billions of dollars for transportation as chairman for 10
years of the House Appropriations Committee's subcommittee
overseeing highways, seaports and mass-transit systems.
millions for transit
He brought a significant portion of that money home to
South Florida, with some $800 million going to the
construction of the Metrorail transit system. Millions
secured by Lehman also went to build bridges and improve the
region's seaports and airports.
``Anyone who rides a bus or takes a train in this area,
they owe it to Mr. Lehman,'' Carrie Meek said. ``That's the
way poor people get around and he chose to make that his
priority.''
Other favorite causes included support for Israel and the
resettlement of Soviet Jews.
Sergio Bendixen, a Miami-based pollster who worked in
Lehman's Washington office as press secretary and executive
assistant from 1979 to 1982, said the congressman didn't need
the trappings of success to boost his ego.
small office
``He chose the smallest office--a cubbyhole, really,''
Bendixen recalled. ``He was a congressman. He knew he was
powerful. He didn't need all the plaques on the wall and the
symbols that seemed to make other members of Congress happy.
He was secure.''
Lehman was an unabashed liberal who voted against a
constitutional amendment banning flag-burning, against
military aid to the rebels fighting to topple Nicaragua's
leftist Sandinista government and against sending troops to
the Persian Gulf during the first Gulf War.
prisoner release
But he won respect among conservative Cuban exiles in 1988
when he went to Cuba and negotiated the release of three
political prisoners.
It wasn't his first effort for victims of political
repression: In 1981, he won release of a political prisoner
in Argentina, and in 1984, he smuggled a synthetic heart
valve to a young patient in a hospital in the Soviet Union.
He was also a strong advocate for Haitian refugees.
``I'm a congressman,'' he told an aide inquiring about the
danger of venturing into the Soviet Union. ``If they catch
me, what are they going to do?''
down-to-earth
Despite his power, Lehman retained his down-to-earth
sensibilities. He was a breakfast regular for years at
Jimmy's restaurant on Northeast 125th Street in North Miami.
His two sons remembered him Wednesday as someone who never
raised his voice but taught them the value of working for
others.
``He'd get involved in things and he wouldn't skim the
surface--he'd get down to the very bottom,'' said Bill Lehman
Jr.
``He just took great pleasure in being a friend to
anyone.''
Their father always listened to his internal compass,
financing cars for black customers in the '40s and '50s, when
few other white car dealers would, they said.
``He would look at a man's arms and if they had salt on
them, from sweating, he would know that was a working man,''
said Thomas Lehman. ``That was his credit check.''
Surgery for jaw cancer in 1983 left Lehman's speech
slurred. But he stayed in Congress for another decade, until
his surprise decision in 1992 not to seek reelection when his
influence was at its height.
Friends say that even as he struggled with his speech and
other health problems, Lehman maintained a sense of humor.
[[Page 6144]]
``I'm the only politician who can only speak out of one
side of his mouth,'' he once joked, referring to treatment
that left part of his mouth paralyzed.
But Lehman said he made up his mind to retire in 1992 for
health reasons: He said he had ``a sudden realization'' that
a 1991 stroke had made him a less effective legislator.
end of era
His passing marks the end of a political era, said lobbyist
Ron Book.
``They don't make 'em like that anymore--him, Claude Pepper
and Dante Fascell--they're all gone now.''
Lehman is survived by his wife of 66 years, Joan; sons Bill
Jr. and Thomas, and six grandchildren.
The funeral will be at Temple Israel at 1 p.m. Sunday. In
lieu of flowers, the family requests donations to the William
Lehman Injury Research Center, University of Miami Miller
School of Medicine, P.O. Box 016960 (D-55), Miami, FL 33101.
____
A Man of the People
It is customary to bestow praise on the newly departed,
some of it well deserved, but in the case of former U.S. Rep.
Bill Lehman there is no need to depart from the unembellished
truth. He was a man of the people, and he had a gift for
politics. To those who knew him well and, indeed, to anyone
who encountered him even briefly, Mr. Lehman's humanity and
decency radiated like sunshine.
This wonderful man who did so much for the people of South
Florida died Wednesday at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami
Beach. He was 91.
Mr. Lehman will be remembered for the power he wielded as a
congressman. He was chairman of the House Appropriations
subcommittee that oversaw spending for mass-transit, highways
and seaports. He developed an expertise on transportation
issues that few could rival, and he used his legislative
clout to bring transportation dollars to the state,
especially to South Florida.
Mr. Lehman often used his power to help ordinary people. He
negotiated the release of a political prisoner in Argentina
in 1981 and did the same thing for three political refugees
in Cuba in 1988. And once, he brazenly smuggled a synthetic
heart valve to a patient in the Soviet Union.
For all his political achievements--and they were
legendary--Mr. Lehman will be remembered best for his genuine
warmth and generous spirit. Born in Selma, Ala., Mr. Lehman
embraced liberal values. He voted against a proposed
constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning; he opposed
sending military aid to the contras in Nicaragua; and he did
not favor sending troops to the Persian Gulf in the first
Gulf War.
Mr. Lehman used his power to build community and promote
fellowship. Our community is richer for having had him among
us.
____
A Lifetime of Service
Highlights of William Lehman's life in politics:
1966: Elected to the Dade County School Board, where he
helped desegregate public schools in the late 1960s and early
'70s.
1971: Elected chairman of the School Board.
1972: Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where
he later became chairman of the transportation subcommittee
of the House Appropriations Committee.
1980s: Won about $800 million for construction of the
Metrorail system.
1981: Negotiated the release of a political prisoner in
Argentina.
1984: Smuggled into the Soviet Union a life-saving heart
valve for a teenager.
1986: Despite opposition of the Department of
Transportation, won full funding for two extensions to the
downtown Miami Metromover system.
1987: Thanks to Lehman's work, a rabbi was able to
celebrate Passover in what was then communist East Germany.
1988: Flew to Cuba and picked up three Cuban political
prisoners whose freedom he had secured from Fidel Castro.
1992: Retired from Congress.
____
[From the Sun Sentinel, Mar. 17, 2005]
William Lehman, Dead at 91, Leaves Legacy in S. Florida
(By Buddy Nevins)
South Floridians can see former U.S. Rep. William Lehman's
legacy through their car windshields or out the windows of
their trains: Tri-Rail, Metrorail, the downtown Miami
Metromover, Interstate 595 and I-95 and dozens of other
bridges and roads.
Rep. Lehman, once one of the most powerful congressmen to
hold a firm grip on the nation's transportation spending,
died Wednesday at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach.
He was 91.
Although the hospital did not announce the cause of death,
Rep. Lehman had suffered from a number of illnesses including
cancer and a disabling stroke in his senior years, according
to his family.
During his 20 years representing north and central Miami-
Dade County, Rep. Lehman's passion was moving people, whether
he was selling them cars from one of his auto dealerships, or
building them a modern road and transit system.
Rep. Lehman was the last living member of the trio of
liberal Democrats who wielded enormous clout in Washington
and brought attention and billions of dollars in federal aid
to South Florida. In the 1970s and 1980s Rep. Lehman, along
with U.S. Reps. Dante Fascell and Claude Pepper of Miami,
made the Florida delegation one of the most influential in
the House.
``Public transit was always important to Bill Lehman, as he
knew it was a lifeline to employment, grocery shopping,
doctor visits and other necessary services for poor and
working-class citizens,'' said U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-
Miramar. ``Bill Lehman was known as an `unbending liberal.'
This is one of many characteristics that endeared him to
me.''
As Florida Speaker of the House in the late 1980s, Tom
Gustafson worked with the congressman to kick-start I-595 and
the Tri-Rail transit system, which carries passengers from
Miami to West Palm Beach.
``He was the go-to guy for any money for transportation. If
you needed federal money, you went to Bill Lehman,''
Gustafson recalled.
From his perch as chairman of the subcommittee on
transportation appropriations, Rep. Lehman threw money at
South Florida projects.
``I-595 was Bill Lehman. The Clay Shaw Bridge [on the 17th
Street Causeway in Fort Lauderdale] was Bill Lehman. Tri-Rail
was Bill Lehman. This is a guy who has more monuments to him
than anyone I know,'' said U.S. Rep. Clay Shaw, R-Fort
Lauderdale.
Some of the facilities in Miami-Dade named for Rep. Lehman
illustrate the breadth of his impact: an elementary school, a
causeway, a transit maintenance building, a research center
at the Ryder Trauma Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital.
As news of his death reached the community, tributes poured
in.
``He didn't just make government work, he brought people
together,'' said U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, the Miami Democrat
who occupies Rep. Lehman's seat.
``Mr. Lehman clearly left his mark on the South Florida
community,'' said Mayor Carlos Alvarez of Miami-Dade. ``His
pioneering works will be a fixture in Miami-Dade County for
many years to come. My thoughts and prayers are with his
family during this difficult time.''
Rep. Lehman's liberal voting record included opposing a
constitutional amendment banning flag-burning, voting against
military aid to Nicaragua's contra rebels, and voting against
sending troops to the Persian Gulf in the first Iraq war. He
went to Cuba in 1988 to negotiate the release of three
political prisoners and was an advocate for Haitian refugees.
Born on Oct. 5, 1913 in Selma, Ala., Rep. Lehman's roots
were far from the underprivileged he would champion in
Congress.
His father was a wealthy candy manufacturer. His mother was
a housewife and the young Bill Lehman would ride in the
family's chauffeur-driven Cadillac, family members said
Wednesday.
Rep. Lehman's liberal philosophy sprang from the
realization early in life that his small Southern town was
filled with the less fortunate who could make it in life only
with the help of the government, said Tom Lehman, his son and
a Miami-Dade lawyer.
``He saw that, especially during the Depression, all that
the federal government could do,'' Tom Lehman said. ``He was
a big believer in the role of government in peoples' lives.''
Moving to Miami in the 1930s, Rep. Lehman sold used cars,
billing himself as ``Alabama Bill'' He developed the unusual
reputation for a car dealer as a gentleman who respected his
customers and he carried that into politics.
``He was admired, respected and loved, and you can't say
that about a lot of members of Congress,'' said U.S. Rep.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Miami.
Bill Lehman Jr. recalled that his father never lost the
common touch.
``He was as comfortable talking to Ted Kennedy as he was
talking to a car porter at the dealership.''
After a stint as a public school teacher, Rep. Lehman
entered politics in 1966, winning a seat on the Dade County
School Board. Six years later he went to Congress. Rep.
Lehman left Washington in 1992 after suffering a stroke, but
also as he faced the possibility of being thrown into the
same congressional district as Fascell when boundaries were
redrawn.
Services for Rep. Lehman are at 1 p.m. Sunday at Temple
Israel of Greater Miami. He is survived by Joan, his wife of
66 years, two sons and six grandchildren.
____
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 17, 2005]
William Lehman, Fla. Congressman and Car Dealer, 91
(By Adam Bernstein)
William Lehman, 91, a used-car dealer who later served 20
years in the U.S. House of Representatives and became a force
on transportation legislation, died March 16 at a hospital in
Miami Beach. His heart was weakened from a recent bout with
pneumonia.
Mr. Lehman, known as ``Alabama Bill'' when he was in
business, owed his nickname
[[Page 6145]]
to his birthplace. But he spent most of his car-sales career
in Miami, a district he served as a Democrat in the House
from 1973 to 1993.
He was a member of the Appropriations Committee and chaired
its transportation subcommittee, which controlled billions of
dollars in federal projects.
Soft-spoken and adroit, as a politician he was not at all
the caricature of the flamboyant, hard-sell salesman. Long
gone were the days when he appeared in advertisements sitting
on cotton bales and ``making deals as solid as a bale of
Alabama cotton.''
He was much more subtle in the House. As a member of the
so-called ``college of cardinals,'' so named for their
seniority, he worked quietly to pass bills with the least
resistance.
His attentiveness to his constituents, in the form of
authorizing public works projects for South Florida,
occasionally caused turf disputes with the House Public Works
Committee. When the committee's then-chairman, Rep. James J.
Howard (D-N.J.), called ``egregious'' Mr. Lehman's efforts to
approve a large mass-transit funding bill, the Floridian
backed down.
That is to say, he found another way to get his projects
approved--through an omnibus spending package.
William Marx Lehman was born Oct. 5, 1913, in Selma, Ala.,
where his father owned the American Candy Co. A 1934 graduate
of the University of Alabama, he focused on business at his
father's behest.
Early in his career, he worked for CIT Corp., an industrial
finance company, in New York. He went to Miami on a job to
finance auto dealerships and soon decided he would take some
family money to finance a car-sales venture himself.
During World War II, he learned airplane mechanics and went
to Brazil to help train others aiding the Allied effort.
Mr. Lehman was a member of Mensa International. For years,
he wanted to teach English. After studying at Oxford
University in the early 1960s, he became a high school
English teacher in Miami.
He also won election to the Dade County School Board and
became its chairman. He ran for the U.S. House when a new
district was created.
In Congress, he championed public transportation,
especially light-rail systems in his district. He also helped
shepherd legislation to allow federal workers to donate their
paid leave time to co-workers.
He made several publicized mercy trips.
In 1984, he flew to Moscow and smuggled an artificial heart
valve to an ailing young woman who was related to one of his
constituents.
Describing his part with cloak-and-dagger mystique, he told
Roll Call that he sneaked the device past customs and
immigration authorities.
He then went to a pay phone as arranged, where a voice told
him to be at a certain address and to watch for ``a woman in
red standing next to a short man.'' The woman eventually got
her heart valve.
In 1988, he traveled to Cuba and successfully appealed to
Fidel Castro to release three longtime political prisoners.
Mr. Lehman had a massive stroke in 1991 that hastened his
retirement.
A daughter, Kathryn Weiner, died in 1979.
Survivors include his wife of 66 years, Joan Feibelman
Lehman of Miami; two sons, Bill Lehman Jr. and Thomas Lehman,
both of Miami; six grandchildren; and two great-grandsons.
____
[From Roll Call, Mar. 17, 2005]
Ex-Florida Rep. Bill Lehman Passes Away
(By Jennifer Lash)
Former Rep. Bill Lehman (D-Fla.), considered a strong
advocate on both race and transportation issues, died
Wednesday at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami. He was 91.
Throughout his tenure in Congress, which began in 1972,
Lehman voted against such issues as a constitutional
amendment banning flag burning and sending troops to the
Persian Gulf. He also fought to aid victims of political
repression in areas such as Cuba, Argentina and the Soviet
Union.
Lehman remained in Congress for a decade following a jaw
cancer surgery that left his speech slurred in 1983. Eight
years later, the Florida Democrat suffered a stroke, and in
1992 he announced his decision to retire, citing health
reasons.
Lehman, the son of candy factory owners, was born Oct. 5,
1913, in Selma, Ala. He received his bachelor's from the
University of Alabama in 1934. Three years later, he married
Joan Feibelman. The couple had three children--a daughter,
who died of a brain tumor 1979, and two sons.
Before entering the political arena, Lehman sold used cars
for 30 years, referring to himself as ``Alabama Bill'' in his
advertisements. He also spent time as a teacher and school
board chairman prior to his election to Congress.
Lehman never allowed his Congressional duties to cause him
to lose touch with his Florida district. He regularly ate
breakfast at a restaurant in North Miami, and he resided in
Biscayne Park, Fla., through his final days.
Although Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.) came to Congress 10
years after Lehman had retired, Meek said he was ``struck''
by the friends Lehman had made on both sides of the aisle.
``Only three people have ever represented Florida's 17th
District in Congress: Bill Lehman in the 80's; Carrie Meek in
the 90's and now me,'' Meek said in a statement. ``I will
always cherish the photo of the three of us together, because
Bill Lehman was my Congressman when I was just a teenager and
it is such a privilege to continue his service here.''
____
[From the Hill, Mar. 17, 2005]
Former Rep. Lehman dies
(By Mark H. Rodeffer)
Former Rep. Bill Lehman (D-Fla.) died yesterday morning at
a Miami Beach hospital. He was 91.
Lehman, who chaired the Appropriations Transportation
Subcommittee until he retired from Congress in 1992, was
known for running the subcommittee by consensus and for a
willingness to earmark money for district projects.
Before his 1972 election to Congress, Lehman was a used-car
salesman for 30 years. ``Even though I came to Congress 10
years after Representative Lehman left it, I was struck by
how many good friends he made, in both the House and the
Senate and among both Democrats and Republicans,'' said Rep.
Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.), who today holds the seat Lehman held.
``He didn't just make government work; he brought people
together.''
Carrie Meek (D) was elected in 1992 to Lehman's north Miami
district. She served until 2002, when she was succeeded by
her son, Kendrick.
``I will always cherish the photo of the three of us
together because Bill Lehman was my congressman when I was
just a teenager, and it is such a privilege to continue his
service here,'' Kendrick Meek said.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, my wife, Emilie, and I are deeply saddened to
learn of the passing of Congressman Bill Lehman. I will always remember
his good sense of humor, his leadership and his unrivaled sense of
duty. He had a reputation of having the courage and conviction to do
what was right for his constituents, and his country.
Bill was a good friend, and was a political mentor when I first came
to Washington. He led a remarkable life; from his service to his
community to his strong leadership in Congress. Bill was the Chairman
of the Transportation Subcommittee of the House Appropriations
Committee. Many of the transportation facilities in South Florida are a
direct result of his tireless efforts as Subcommittee Chairman.
Bill will be missed by so many, but has left an extraordinary legacy.
His family will remain in our thoughts and prayers.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to our former
colleague, the late William ``Bill'' Lehman, who recently passed away
in his home state of Florida.
Bill represented the 17th Congressional District of Florida from 1973
to 1992. While he was a great advocate for transportation, foreign
affairs issues, and racial equality in education, he has received very
little or no recognition for his work on behalf of Haitian refugees. In
1979, Haitian refugees faced significant due process violations by the
Federal government. At the time, he represented almost all of the
fledgling Haitian community in South Florida. Bill felt very strongly
that he could not successfully oppose the onerous civil rights
violations faced by Haitians, because of their national origin, without
additional political support. It was at his urging that the
Congressional Black Caucus formed the CBC Task Force on Haitian
refugees. The Task Force eventually succeeded, accompanied by various
legal victories, in establishing an immigration designation, ``Cuban-
Haitian entrant status'', that permitted Haitians seeking political
asylum to remain in the country while they pursued their asylum claims.
Without his personal intervention and commitment on their behalf, the
Haitian community in South Florida may have never received some form of
equitable treatment under our immigration laws. With his passing, our
colleague, Bill Lehman's contributions to improved immigration laws in
this country should not be forgotten. I am proud to have served with
him during his last 10 years in Congress.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember and honor my friend and
distinguished former colleague Bill Lehman.
Bill Lehman represented South Florida in the House of Representatives
for twenty years beginning in 1972. Bill and I came to Congress
together that year. It is with sadness that I stand to pay tribute to
him today as one of the last remaining members of the class of '72.
Though Bill left Congress in 1993, he and I kept in touch. It was
less than a month ago when we last corresponded. He noted my name in an
article in the Miami Herald and wrote to encourage me to keep up the
fight. I'm going to miss those notes and his many years of friendship.
[[Page 6146]]
Bill was unique. He was special among those who've served in this
institution. He was an individual of great principle and compassion
beloved by the community he represented. As his hometown paper the
Miami Herald eulogized him, Bill Lehman was a ``legendary figure of
South Florida politics considered a visionary on racial issues and
public transit.''
Bill Lehman was legendary in this House where he served ten years as
Chairman of the powerful Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation.
He was a tireless advocate of progressive causes at home and abroad,
known for taking principled stands on international and constitutional
issues.
Bill Lehman had another distinction, too. He's the only politician I
ever met that, when compared to a used car salesman, he was proud to be
a used car salesman.
Born in Selma, Alabama in 1913, he took the moniker ``Alabama Bill''
when he moved to South Florida and opened a used auto dealership in
Miami in 1936. Playing country music in his advertising, ``Alabama
Bill'' earned a modest reputation as a country western singer. That
original business has grown into one of South Florida's largest auto
dealerships carried on today by his son Bill Lehman, Jr.
After nearly 30 years in the used car business, Bill Lehman went off
to Oxford University. In the early 1960s, he returned to Miami and
began a second career teaching high school English. In 1966, he began
yet a third career running for and winning a seat on the Dade County
School Board and went on to serve as Board Chairman in 1971. A year
later he was elected to Congress.
I was greatly saddened to hear of Bill Lehman's passing on March 16
of this year and commend my colleagues for dedicating this evening in
his honor.
My thoughts are with Bill's wife Joan, to whom he was married for 66
years, their two sons Bill Jr. and Tom, and their 6 grand children and
2 great-grandsons.
Bill's years of dedicated public service in this House will never be
forgotten. His spirit and the principle and compassion he brought to
the job will continue to be greatly admired by those of us who knew
him.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great man,
Congressman William Lehman of Florida. In his passing, I have lost a
dear friend, Congress has lost a role model, and the Nation has lost a
brave leader and national hero.
Congressman Lehman was, above all, a true liberal, dedicated to
equality among races and classes. He opened his used car dealership in
a black neighborhood, and was one of the few dealers in the 1940's and
1950's--white or otherwise--who would finance cars for black customers.
He supported issues that were important to poor communities, fighting
against highways that divided and ruined communities, and bringing home
more than $800 million for a Metrorail system in Miami, providing
multiple ways for the poor to get to and from work.
He was also a gifted politician, inspiring loyalty in his committee
members and his party. He neither dictated policy, nor ran his
subcommittee overseeing highways, seaports and mass-transit systems
with an iron fist, but by striking a perfect balance between offering
incentives to cooperate and promising consequences to those who didn't.
He knew all the legislative routes, and successfully steered bills he
believed would benefit his constituents and the country around the road
blocks and land mines in the House. If he was defeated on the House
floor, he would work tirelessly in the conference committee to ensure
the soundest legislative policies were written into law.
Bill was respected on both sides of the aisle, and had friends in
both parties and all over Capitol Hill. He conducted himself with
dignity, and he showed others that he believed in the issues he fought
for, and wasn't merely supporting them for political purposes. When you
hear people describe him, they almost always include the words
``honest'' and ``moral'', attributes that are rarely connected with
politicians in this day and age, but which truly fit Bill.
Even after becoming one of the more influential members of Congress,
he never lost touch, with his roots. He maintained his southern accent
and his unpolished yet powerful manner of speaking throughout his
career, and continued to dine and spend time in his old neighborhood.
One would be hard pressed to find a Congressman who took more risks,
and for more noble reasons, while in office. In 1988 he chartered a
plane to Cuba and successfully negotiated the release of three
political prisoners, endearing him to the conservative Cuban community
in his district. Seven years earlier he had negotiated the release of a
political prisoner in Argentina, and he smuggled an artificial heart
valve into the Soviet Union for an ailing 22 year old woman.
In my mind, Bill was more than a gifted colleague and a good person;
he was a very close friend. I can attest that this is one of the rare
cases where the statements being made about a person after his death
are absolutely true. He was as good of a person in life as he is being
described in death--a smart, moral, genuinely decent human being, one
whose company it was a pleasure to keep.
Over the years I had the pleasure of working with Congressman Lehman
a number of times. We served on the House Judiciary committee together,
and in 1982 we traveled to several Latin American countries, including
Nicaragua to investigate illegal arms sales. He was as much of a
gentleman in the professional world as he was in the personal one.
Our country has experienced a great loss. Congressman Lehman was the
kind of man who does not come around often, and we were blessed to have
him in Congress. He was a role model to politicians everywhere and an
inspiration to citizens all across the Nation. He will be sorely missed
wherever he was known.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Gillmor (at the request of Mr. DeLay) for today and the balance
of the week on account of illness in the family.
____________________
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 Mrs. McCarthy) to revise
and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mrs. McCarthy, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Brown of Ohio, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. McDermott, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Jones of North
Carolina) to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous
material:)
Mr. Dent, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for 5 minutes, today and April 13.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina, for 5 minutes, April 13 and 14.
Mr. Gutknecht, for 5 minutes, April 13 and 14.
Mrs. Blackburn, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Burton of Indiana, for 5 minutes, today and April 13 and 14.
Mr. Burgess, for 5 minutes, April 13.
Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Boustany, for 5 minutes, April 13.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 18 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 13, 2005,
at 10 a.m.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
1455. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Defense,
transmitting notification that the Department anticipates it
will be prepared to commence chemical agent destruction
operations at the Newport Chemical Agent Disposal Facility in
Newport, Indiana, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1512(4); to the
Committee on Armed Services.
1456. A letter from the Acting Under Secretary for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Department of Defense,
transmitting the Department's report on the amount of
purchases from foreign entities for Fiscal Year 2004,
pursuant to Public Law 104-201, section 827 (110 Stat. 2611)
Public Law 105-261, section 812; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
1457. A letter from the Under Secretary for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics, Department of Defense, transmitting
the Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs) for the quarter
ending December 31, 2004, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2432; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
[[Page 6147]]
1458. A letter from the Director, Defense Finance and
Accounting Service, transmitting pursuant to the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76, the Service has
implemented the government's Most Efficient Organization
(MEO) to perform Security Assistance Accounting operations,
pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2461(c); to the Committee on Armed
Services.
1459. A letter from the Senior Paralegal, Office of Thrift
Supervision, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Community Reinvestment Act --
Assigned Ratings [No. 2005-09] (RIN: 1550-AB48) received
March 18, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Financial Services.
1460. A letter from the Senior Paralegal, Office of Thrift
Supervision, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Special Rules for Adjudicatory
Proceedings for Certain Holding Companies [No. 2005-08] (RIN:
1550-AB96) received March 18, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
1461. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Export Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting
the Department's final rule -- Defense Priorities and
Allocations System (DPAS): Electronic Transmission of Reasons
for Rejecting Rated Orders [Docket Number: 041026293-5031-02]
(RIN: 0694-AD35) received March 3, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
1462. A letter from the General Counsel/FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations -- received
February 28, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Financial Services.
1463. A letter from the General Counsel/FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Suspension of Community Eligibility [Docket No. FEMA-7861]
received February 28, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
1464. A letter from the General Counsel/FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Changes in Flood Elevation Detemrinations -- received
March 18, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Financial Services.
1465. A letter from the General Counsel/FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations -- received
March 18, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Financial Services.
1466. A letter from the General Counsel/FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Suspension of Community Eligibility [Docket No. FEMA-7865]
received March 18, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Financial Services.
1467. A letter from the General Counsel/FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Suspension of Community Eligibility [Docket No. FEMA-7867]
received March 18, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Financial Services.
1468. A letter from the Secretary, Federal Trade
Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule --
Prescreen Opt-Out Disclosure (RIN: 3084-AA94) received March
3, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Financial Services.
1469. A letter from the Associate General Counsel, National
Credit Union Administration, transmitting the
Administration's final rule -- Loans to Members and Lines of
Credit to Members -- received March 15, 2005, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
1470. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting the Department's FY 2004 annual
performance report to Congress required by the Prescription
Drug User Fee Act of 1992 (PDUFA), as amended, pursuant to 21
U.S.C. 379g note; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
1471. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting a report entitled, ``West Nile
Virus Prevention and Control: Ensuring the Safety of the
Blood Supply and Assessing Spraying Pesticides,'' in
compliance with Pub. L. 108-75; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
1472. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Federal
Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's
final rule -- Amendment of Part 80 of the Commission's Rules
Concerning Use of Frequency 156.575 MHz for Port Operations
Communications in Puget Sound -- received February 9, 2005,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
1473. A letter from the Legal Advisor to the Bureau Chief,
Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting
the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Section
73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations. (Walla
Walla and Burbank, Washington) [MB Docket No. 02-63; RM-
10398] New Northwest Broadcasters, LLC Station KUJ-FM, Walla
Walla, Washington [File No. BPH-20041008ACV] For Construction
Permit to Modify Licensed Facilities (One-Step Upgrade) --
received March 18, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
1474. A letter from the Acting Under Secretary for Industry
and Security, Department of Commerce, transmitting a report
of intention to impose new foreign policy-based export
controls on exports of items for chemical and biological
weapon end-uses, under the authority of Section 6 of the
Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended and Executive
Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, and extended by the Notice of
August 6, 2004; to the Committee on International Relations.
1475. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a
semi-annual report on progress toward nuclear non-
proliferation in South Asia, pursuant to Section 620F(c) of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, covering the
period April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005; to the Committee on
International Relations.
1476. A letter from the Assistant Director, Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
1477. A letter from the Assistant Director for Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
1478. A letter from the Assistant Director, Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
1479. A letter from the Assistant Director, Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
1480. A letter from the Assistant Director, Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
1481. A letter from the Assistant Director, Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
1482. A letter from the Assistant Director, Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
1483. A letter from the Assistant Director for Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
1484. A letter from the Assistant Director, Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
1485. A letter from the Assistant Director, Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
1486. A letter from the Assistant Director, Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
1487. A letter from the Assistant Director, Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
1488. A letter from the Assistant Director, Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
1489. A letter from the Assistant Director, Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
1490. A letter from the Assistant Director, Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
1491. A letter from the Assistant Director, Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
1492. A letter from the Director, Office of Human Capital
Management, Department of Energy, transmitting a report
pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
1493. A letter from the Human Resources Specialist,
Department of Labor, transmitting a report pursuant to the
Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
[[Page 6148]]
1494. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Transportation, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
1495. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Transportation, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
1496. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, transmitting the Commission's FY 2004 Performance
and Accountability Report, prepared in conformance with the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 (Pub.
L. 103-62) and OMB Circular A-11; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
1497. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Maritime
Commission, transmitting a copy of the annual report in
compliance with the Government in the Sunshine Act for
calendar year 2004, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(j); to the
Committee on Government Reform.
1498. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Government Ethics, transmitting notice of an error and
correction of the error, originally included in a report
evaluating the financial disclosure process for employees of
the executive branch (dated March 17, 2005 and pursuant to
Pub. L. 108-458); to the Committee on Government Reform.
1499. A letter from the Chief Counsel, Bureau of Public
Debt, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Offering of United States Savings
Bonds, Series EE. -- received April 1, 2005, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1500. A letter from the Chief Counsel, Bureau of the Public
Debt, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Regulations Governing Treasury
Securities, New Treasury Direct System. -- received March 18,
2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
1501. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Branch,
Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- United States -- Chile Free Trade
Agreement (RIN: 1505-AB47) received March 1, 2005, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1502. A letter from the Acting Chief, Publications and
Regulations Br., Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule -- Modification of Check The Box [TD
9183] (RIN: 1545-BA59) received March 1, 2005, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1503. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Frivolous Arguements regarding Opposition to
Government Policies and Programs Used to Avoid Tax (Rev. Rul.
2005-20) received March 15, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1504. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Frivolous Constitutional Arguments Used to
Avoid Tax (Rev. Rul. 2005-19) received March 15, 2005,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
1505. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Frivolous ``Straw Man'' Claim Used to Avoid Tax
(Rev. Rul. 2005-21) received March 15, 2005, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1506. A letter from the Acting Chief, Publications and
Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule -- Charitable Remainder Trusts;
Application of Ordering Rule [TD 9190] (RIN: 1545-AW35)
received March 15, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1507. A letter from the Acting Chief, Publications and
Regulations Br., Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule -- State and Local General Sales Tax
Deduction [Notice 2005-31] received March 15, 2005, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1508. A letter from the Acting Chief, Publications and
Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting
the Service's final rule -- Last-in, first-out inventories.
(Rev. Rul. 2005-22) received March 15, 2005, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1509. A letter from the Acting Chief, Publications and
Regulations Br., Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule -- Qualified Amended Returns [TD 9186]
(RIN: 1545-BD42) received March 15, 2005, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1510. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Deposits Made to Suspend the Running of
Interest on Potential Underpayments (Rev. Proc. 2005-18)
received March 15, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1511. A letter from the Acting Chief, Publications and
Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting
the Service's final rule -- Coordinated Issue: Losses
Reported From Inflated Basis Assets From Lease Stripping
Transactions -- received March 15, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1512. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Altering the Jurat to Avoid Tax (Rev. Rul.
2005-18) received March 15, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1513. A letter from the Internal Revenue Service, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule --
Frivolous Arguments regarding Waiver of Social Security
Benefits Used to Avoid Tax (Rev. Rul. 2005-17) received March
15, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
1514. A letter from the Acting Chief, Publications and
Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting
the Service's final rule -- Weighted Average Interest Rates
Update [Notice 2005-26] received March 10, 2005, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1515. A letter from the Acting Chief, Publications and
Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule -- Loss Limitation Rules [TD 9187] (RIN:
1545-BA52) received March 3, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1516. A letter from the Acting Chief, Publications and
Regulations Br., Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule -- Announcement and Report Concerning
Advance Pricing Agreements -- received April 5, 2005,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
1517. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Designated IRS Officer or Employee Under
Section 7602(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code [TD 9195]
(RIN: 1545-BA89) received April 5, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1518. A letter from the Acting Chief, Publications and
Regulations Br., Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule -- Rules and Regulations (Rev. Proc.
2005-22) received April 1, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1519. A letter from the Acting Chief, Publications and
Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule -- Imposition of tax on heavy trucks and
trailers sold at retail. (Rev. Proc. 2005-19) received April
1, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
1520. A letter from the SSA Regulations Officer, Social
Security Administration, transmitting the Administration's
final rule -- Wage Credits for Veterans and Members of the
Uniformed Services (RIN: 0960-AF90) received March 4, 2005,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
____________________
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. BARTON: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 29. A
bill to protect users of the Internet from unknowing
transmission of their personally identifiable information
through spyware programs, and for other purposes: with an
amendment (Rept. 109-32). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER: Committee on the Judiciary. S. 167. An
act to provide for the protection of intellectual property
rights, and for other purposes (Rept. 109-33 Pt. 1).
Mr. BOEHNER: Committee on Education and the Workforce.
House Resolution 134. Resolution requesting the President to
transmit to the House of Representatives certain information
relating to plan assets and liabilities of single-employer
pension plans; adversely (Rept. 109-34). Referred to the
House Calendar.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington: Committee on Rules. House
Resolution 202. Resolution providing for consideration of the
bill (H.R. 8) to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent
(Rept. 109-35). Referred to the House Calendar.
Mr. BOEHLERT: Committee on Science. H.R. 28. A bill to
amend the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991, with an
amendment (Rept. 109-36). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. BOEHLERT: Committee on Science. H.R. 1023. A bill to
authorize the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration to establish an awards program in honor
of Charles ``Pete'' Conrad, astronaut and space scientist,
for recognizing the discoveries made by amateur astronomers
of asteroids with near-Earth orbit trajectories (Rept. 109-
37). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union.
Mr. OXLEY: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 749. A
bill to amend the Federal
[[Page 6149]]
Credit Union Act to provide expanded access for persons in
the field of membership of a Federal credit union to money
order, check cashing, and money transfer services' with an
amendment (Rept. 109-38). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.
discharge of committee
Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XII the Committee on House Adminstration
discharged from further consideration. S. 167 referred to the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. THOMAS:
H.R. 1541. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to enhance energy infrastructure properties in the
United States and to encourage the use of certain energy
technologies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. Markey,
Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Olver, Mr. Meehan, Mr.
Delahunt, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Capuano, and
Mr. Lynch):
H.R. 1542. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 695 Pleasant Street in New
Bedford, Massachusetts, as the ``Honorable Judge George N.
Leighton Post Office Building''; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
By Mr. McGOVERN:
H.R. 1543. A bill to enhance and improve benefits for
members of the National Guard and Reserves who serve extended
periods on active duty, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the
Committees on House Administration, Education and the
Workforce, Government Reform, Veterans' Affairs, and Energy
and Commerce, 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. COX (for himself, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi,
Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Smith of
Texas, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Weldon
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Markey, Mr. Shays, Mr. Dicks,
Mr. King of New York, Ms. Harman, Mr. Linder, Mrs.
Lowey, Mr. Souder, Ms. Norton, Mr. Tom Davis of
Virginia, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Daniel
E. Lungren of California, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas,
Mr. Gibbons, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Simmons, Mr.
Etheridge, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Langevin, Mr.
Pearce, Mr. Meek of Florida, Ms. Harris, Mr. Jindal,
Mr. Reichert, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. Dent, and Mr.
DeFazio):
H.R. 1544. A bill to provide faster and smarter funding for
first responders, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Homeland Security.
By Mr. CANNON:
H.R. 1545. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to treat expenses for certain meal replacement and
dietary supplement products that qualify for FDA-approved
health claims as expenses for medical care; to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
By Mr. THORNBERRY:
H.R. 1546. A bill to provide grants to States for health
care tribunals, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Mr. WOLF (for himself, Mr. Ehlers, and Mr.
Boehlert):
H.R. 1547. A bill to preserve mathematics- and science-
based industries in the United States; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin (for himself and Mr. Cardin):
H.R. 1548. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide for collegiate housing and infrastructure
grants; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. REYNOLDS (for himself, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Portman,
Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mrs.
Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Herger, Mr. Ramstad, Mr.
Hay-
worth, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Foley, Mr. Brady of
Texas, Mr. Cantor, Ms. Hart, Mr. Chocola, Mr.
McDermott, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. McNulty, Mr.
Jefferson, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Thompson of California,
Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Boehner,
Mr. Fossella, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Otter, Mr.
Young of Alaska, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California,
Mr. Shays, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Fortuno, Mr. Towns, Mr.
Simpson, Mr. Lynch, and Mr. Skelton):
H.R. 1549. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow an income tax credit for the provision of
homeownership and community development, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. HYDE (for himself, Mr. Lantos, and Mr.
Menendez):
H.R. 1550. A bill to authorize assistance for the relief of
victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami and for the recovery and
reconstruction of tsunami-affected countries; to the
Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. JINDAL (for himself, Mr. Boustany, Mr. McCrery,
Mr. Baker, Mr. Melancon, Mr. Jefferson, and Mr.
Alexander):
H.R. 1551. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act to provide a domestic offshore energy reinvestment
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Resources.
By Mr. JINDAL (for himself and Mr. Souder):
H.R. 1552. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to clarify that the
religious status of a private nonprofit facility does not
preclude the facility from receiving assistance under the
Act; to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. ACKERMAN (for himself, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr.
Pallone, Mr. Crowley, Ms. Watson, and Mr. Menendez):
H.R. 1553. A bill to prohibit the provision of United
States military assistance and the sale, transfer, or
licensing of United States military equipment or technology
to Pakistan; to the Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mrs.
Bono, Mr. Case, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Langevin, Ms. Lee,
Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Towns,
and Mr. Waxman):
H.R. 1554. A bill to enhance and further research into
paralysis and to improve rehabilitation and the quality of
life for persons living with paralysis and other physical
disabilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Ms. BORDALLO (for herself and Mrs. Christensen):
H.R. 1555. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide for the cover over of the refundable portion
of the earned income and child tax credits to Guam and the
Virgin Islands; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CLAY:
H.R. 1556. A bill to designate a parcel of land located on
the site of the Thomas F. Eagleton United States Courthouse
in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ``Clyde S. Cahill Memorial
Park''; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mrs. CUBIN:
H.R. 1557. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide an election for a special tax treatment of
certain S corporation conversions; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 1558. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
prohibit certain computer-assisted remote hunting, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. FORD:
H.R. 1559. A bill to increase the level of funding for the
Partnerships in Character Education Program, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. FORD:
H.R. 1560. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to increase the exclusion equivalent of the unified
credit allowed against the estate tax to $7,500,000 and to
establish a flat estate tax rate; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. FORD:
H.R. 1561. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to expand the incentives for adoption and to amend part
E of title IV of the Social Security Act to increase adoptive
incentive payments; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. FOSSELLA:
H.R. 1562. A bill to protect human health and the
environment from the release of hazardous substances by acts
of terrorism; to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in
addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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. GUTKNECHT (for himself, Mr. Schwarz of Michigan,
and Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota):
H.R. 1563. A bill to establish a Division of Food and
Agricultural Science within the National Science Foundation
and to authorize funding for the support of fundamental
agricultural research of the highest quality, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the
Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. HASTINGS of Washington:
H.R. 1564. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to convey certain buildings
[[Page 6150]]
and lands of the Yakima Project, Washington, to the Yakima-
Tieton Irrigation District; to the Committee on Resources.
By Ms. HOOLEY (for herself, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Bishop of
New York, Mr. Pallone, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Owens, Mr.
Olver, Mr. Towns, Mr. Kind, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr.
Grijalva, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Blumenauer,
Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan,
Mr. Ross, Mr. Payne, Mr. Holden, Mr. Smith of
Washington, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Ruppersber-
ger, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Larsen of
Washington, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Jackson of
Illinois, Mr. Chandler, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, and Mr.
Case):
H.R. 1565. A bill to enhance the benefits and protections
for members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces who
are called or ordered to extended active duty, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition
to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Education and the
Workforce, Ways and Means, and Veterans' Affairs, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. ISSA:
H.R. 1566. A bill to provide a technical correction to the
Federal preemption of State or local laws concerning the
markings and identification of imitation or toy firearms
entering into interstate commerce; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
By Mr. LaTOURETTE:
H.R. 1567. A bill to require the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development to provide tenant-based rental housing
vouchers for certain residents of federally assisted housing;
to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. LEACH (for himself, Mr. Tanner, and Mr.
Abercrombie):
H.R. 1568. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to permanently reduce estate and gift tax rates to 30
percent, to increase the exclusion equivalent of the unified
credit to $10,000,000, and to increase the annual gift tax
exclusion to $50,000; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. LINDER (for himself, Mr. Kingston, and Mr.
Waxman):
H.R. 1569. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act
with respect to the National Foundation for the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
By Mr. LINDER:
H.R. 1570. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide for the continuation of the program for revitalizing
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. LoBIONDO (for himself, Mr. Saxton, Mr.
Frelinghuysen, Mr. Ferguson, and Mr. Smith of New
Jersey):
H.R. 1571. A bill to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior
from issuing oil and gas leases on portions of the Outer
Continental Shelf located off the coast of New Jersey; to the
Committee on Resources.
By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Holt,
Mr. Andrews, Mr. Payne, Mr. Rothman, and Mr.
Pascrell):
H.R. 1572. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to improve the coordination of prescription drug
coverage provided under State pharmaceutical assistance
programs with the prescription drug benefit provided under
the Medicare Program, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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. MICHAUD (for himself, Mr. Evans, Ms. Berkley,
Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Strickland, and Mr. Udall of
New Mexico):
H.R. 1573. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide that the increase of $250 per month in the rate of
monthly dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) payable
to a surviving spouse of a member of the Armed Forces who
dies on active duty or as a result of a service-connected
disability shall be paid for so long as there are minor
children, rather than only for two years; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. MOORE of Kansas (for himself and Mr. Case):
H.R. 1574. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 and the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation
Act of 2001 to restore the estate tax and repeal the
carryover basis rule and to increase the estate tax unified
credit to an exclusion equivalent of $3,500,000; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. MYRICK (for herself and Mr. Spratt):
H.R. 1575. A bill to authorize appropriate action if the
negotiations with the People's Republic of China regarding
China's undervalued currency and currency manipulation are
not successful; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. OTTER (for himself and Mr. Simpson):
H.R. 1576. A bill to rename the Snake River Birds of Prey
National Conservation Area in the State of Idaho as the
Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation
Area in honor of the late Morley Nelson, an international
authority on birds of prey, who was instrumental in the
establishment of this National Conservation Area, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. POMEROY (for himself, Mr. Allen, Mr. Brown of
Ohio, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Holden, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr.
Lipinski, and Mr. Obey):
H.R. 1577. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to retain the estate tax with an immediate increase in
the exemption, to repeal the new carryover basis rules in
order to prevent tax increases and the imposition of
compliance burdens on many more estates than would benefit
from repeal, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. PORTER (for himself, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Tom
Davis of Virginia, Mr. Foley, Mr. Neal of
Massachusetts, Mr. Hoyer, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr.
Cantor, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Wolf, and Mr. McHenry):
H.R. 1578. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to
provide for a real estate stock index investment option under
the Thrift Savings Plan; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
By Mr. PRICE of North Carolina:
H.R. 1579. A bill to amend title 3, United States Code, to
extend the date provided for the meeting of electors of the
President and Vice President in the States and the date
provided for the joint session of Congress held for the
counting of electoral votes, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. PRICE of North Carolina (for himself, Mr.
Castle, Mr. Holt, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Lewis of Georgia,
Mr. Bass, Mrs. Maloney, and Mr. Allen):
H.R. 1580. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 to clarify the requirements for the disclosure of
identifying information within authorized campaign
communications which are printed, to apply certain
requirements regarding the disclosure of identifying
information within communications made through the Internet,
to apply certain disclosure requirements to prerecorded
telephone calls, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
House Administration.
By Mr. SIMMONS (for himself, Mr. Foley, Mr. Burgess,
Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Kuhl of New York, Mr.
Saxton, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Ms. Ginny
Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Cox, Mr. Bass, Mr.
Boustany, Ms. Carson, Mr. Fitz-
patrick of Pennsylvania, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Bartlett of
Maryland, and Mr. Reynolds):
H.R. 1581. A bill to allow seniors to file their Federal
income tax on a new Form 1040S; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. UPTON (for himself, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Terry, Mr.
Wu, Mr. Becerra, and Mr. Bonner):
H.R. 1582. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to authorize expansion of Medicare coverage of
medical nutrition therapy services; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, 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. VAN HOLLEN:
H.R. 1583. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to repeal provisions relating to qualified tax
collection contracts, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. Allen,
Mr. Saxton, Mr. Inslee, Mrs. Drake, Mr. Farr, Mr.
Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Mr. Moran of Virginia,
Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Case, Mr.
McIntyre, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Fortuno, Mr.
Butterfield, Mr. Kildee, and Ms. Lee):
H.R. 1584. A bill to develop and maintain an integrated
system of coastal and ocean observations for the Nation's
coasts, oceans, and Great Lakes, to improve warnings of
tsunamis and other natural hazards, to enhance homeland
security, to support maritime operations, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to
the Committee on Science, 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. WICKER:
H.R. 1585. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
require Department of Veterans Affairs pharmacies to dispense
medications to veterans for prescriptions written by private
practitioners, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
By Ms. NORTON (for herself, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia,
Mr. Wolf, Mr.
[[Page 6151]]
Hoyer, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Cummings,
and Mr. Van Hollen):
H.R. 1586. A bill to establish an annual Federal
infrastructure support contribution for the District of
Columbia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
By Mr. ROYCE (for himself, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Wolf, Mrs.
Kelly, and Mr. Snyder):
H. Con. Res. 127. Concurrent resolution calling on the
Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to transfer
Charles Ghankay Taylor, former President of the Republic of
Liberia, to the Special Court for Sierra Leone to be tried
for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious
violations of international humanitarian law; to the
Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. SHIMKUS (for himself, Mr. McGovern, Mr.
McCotter, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Kucinich, Mr.
Cox, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, and Mr. Kingston):
H. Con. Res. 128. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress that the Government of the Russian
Federation should issue a clear and unambiguous statement of
admission and condemnation of the illegal occupation and
annexation by the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991 of the
Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; to the
Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. SHUSTER (for himself and Mr. Murtha):
H. Con. Res. 129. Concurrent resolution honoring and
memorializing the passengers and crew of United Airlines
Flight 93; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. WYNN (for himself, Mr. Upton, Mr. Snyder, Mr.
Abercrombie, Mr. Payne, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Rangel, Mrs.
Christensen, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Ford, Mr.
Schiff, and Mr. Gutierrez):
H. Con. Res. 130. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress with respect to the awareness,
prevention, early detection, and effective treatment of viral
hepatitis, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
By Mr. COBLE (for himself, Mr. Butterfield, Mr.
Etheridge, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Jones of North
Carolina, Mr. McHenry, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Miller of
North Carolina, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Price of North
Carolina, Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, and Mr.
Watt):
H. Res. 203. A resolution expressing support for the
International Home Furnishings Market in High Point, North
Carolina; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Ms. DeGETTE (for herself, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Watt,
and Mr. Udall of Colorado):
H. Res. 204. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that Pasqualine J. Gibbons of Denver,
Colorado, an African American woman who valiantly served her
country in the Army Air Corps during World War II, was
unfairly passed over for promotion and should have held the
grade of technical sergeant, rather than private first class,
upon her discharge from the service on January 2, 1946; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. EDWARDS (for himself and Mr. Istook):
H. Res. 205. A resolution congratulating the Baylor
University Lady Bear Women's Basketball team on winning the
2005 NCAA Championship for basketball; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. ETHERIDGE (for himself, Mr. Miller of North
Carolina, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Coble, Mr.
Watt, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr.
Butterfield, and Mr. McHenry):
H. Res. 206. A resolution recognizing the 100th anniversary
of Garner, North Carolina; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
By Mr. HULSHOF:
H. Res. 207. A resolution recognizing the 100th anniversary
of FarmHouse Fraternity, Inc; to the Committee on Education
and the Workforce.
By Mr. MURPHY (for himself, Mr. Doyle, Mr. McNulty, Mr.
Payne, Mr. Hinchey, Ms. Hart, Ms. Bordallo, Mr.
Platts, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Fitzpatrick
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Gerlach, Ms. Schwartz of Pennsylvania, Mr. Holden,
Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Case, Mr. Dent, Mr.
Shuster, Mr. Towns, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Smith of New Jersey,
Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Boehner, Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen, Mr. Chocola, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Weldon of
Florida, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Sherwood, Mr. Royce,
Mr. Cantor, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, Mr. Ney, Mr. Turner,
Ms. Harris, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Burgess, Mrs.
Bono, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Shimkus, and Mrs.
Blackburn):
H. Res. 208. A resolution recognizing the University of
Pittsburgh and Dr. Jonas Salk on the fiftieth anniversary of
the milestone discovery of the Salk polio vaccine, which has
virtually eliminated the disease and its harmful effects; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself and Mr. Feeney):
H. Res. 209. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that any Social Security reform
legislation should include a ``Community Bank Option''; to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WEXLER (for himself, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr.
Berman, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Smith of Washington, and Mrs.
Bono):
H. Res. 210. A resolution supporting the goals of World
Intellectual Property Day, and recognizing the importance of
intellectual property in the United States and worldwide; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 8: Mr. Marchant, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr.
Ruppersberger, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, Mr. Dent, Mr.
Price of Georgia, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Flake, Mr. Sweeney,
Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Porter,
Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Calvert, and Mr.
Latham.
H.R. 11: Miss McMorris, Mr. Holden, Mr. DeFazio, and Mr.
Hayes.
H.R. 18: Mr. Rohrabacher.
H.R. 19: Mr. Tancredo and Mr. Deal of Georgia.
H.R. 22: Mr. LaHood, Mr. Kuhl of New York, Ms. Baldwin, Mr.
Hinchey, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Moore of Kansas,
Ms. Herseth, Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Porter, Mrs. Drake, Mr.
Simmons, Mr. Conyers, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr.
Andrews, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California,
Mr. Murtha, and Mr. Reyes.
H.R. 23: Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Chandler, Ms. Jackson-
Lee of Texas, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. George
Miller of California, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Smith of
Washington, Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Weller,
Mr. Boyd, Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Lewis of Georgia.
H.R. 25: Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 28: Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, Ms. Hooley, and Mr.
Johnson of Illinois.
H.R. 30: Mr. Miller of Florida and Mr. Foley.
H.R. 32: Mr. Gordon.
H.R. 37: Mr. Porter.
H.R. 64: Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Davis of
Kentucky, Mr. Dent, Mr. Deal of Georgia, and Mr. Shadegg.
H.R. 98: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Deal of
Georgia, and Mr. Rohrabacher.
H.R. 111: Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Taylor of North
Carolina, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Chocola, Mr. Davis of Alabama, and
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
H.R. 135: Mr. Engel.
H.R. 149: Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Owens, Mr. Grijalva, Mr.
Towns, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr.
McGovern, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Schakowsky, and Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 179: Mr. Fossella.
H.R. 181: Mr. Herger and Mr. Chabot.
H.R. 206: Ms. Millender-McDonald and Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 216: Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 269: Mrs. Capito, Mr. Paul, and Mr. Kolbe.
H.R. 278: Mr. Akin and Mr. Sessions.
H.R. 302: Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H.R. 303: Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Boucher, Mr.
Berry, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Ms. Hooley, Mr. Dicks, Mr.
Bradley of New Hampshire, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Gene Green
of Texas, Mr. Grijalva, and Mr. Salazar.
H.R. 314: Mr. Carnahan.
H.R. 328: Mr. Al Green of Texas and Mr. Kennedy of Rhode
Island.
H.R. 333: Mr. Foley and Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 339: Mr. Hall, Mr. Miller of Florida, and Mr. Deal of
Georgia.
H.R. 369: Mr. Spratt and Mr. Salazar.
H.R. 371: Ms. Lee, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr.
Brown of Ohio, and Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 378: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 401: Mr. McCotter.
H.R. 402: Mr. Fortuno.
H.R. 404: Mr. Fortuno.
H.R. 406: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
H.R. 408: Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 421: Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 448: Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida.
H.R. 504: Mr. Baca, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Berman, Mrs. Bono, Mr.
Calvert, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Cox, Mr. Costa, Mr.
Cunningham, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Doolittle, Mr.
Dreier, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Farr, Mr. Filner, Mr. Gallegly, Mr.
Hayworth, Ms. Harman, Mr. Herger, Mr. Honda, Mr. Hunter, Mr.
Issa, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Lantos, Ms. Lee, Mr. Lewis of
California, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. McKeon, Ms.
Matsui, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. Gary G. Miller of
California, Mr. George Miller of California,
[[Page 6152]]
Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of
California, Mr. Pascrell, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Pombo, Mr.
Radanovich, Mr. Rohrabacher, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Royce,
Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of
California, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Solis, Mr. Stark,
Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thompson of California, Ms.
Waters, Mr. Waxman, and Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 509: Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Fortuno,
and Mr. Saxton.
H.R. 510: Mr. Fortuno.
H.R. 515: Mr. Ortiz.
H.R. 525: Mr. Towns, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Calvert, and Mr.
Gutknecht.
H.R. 551: Ms. Slaughter and Mr. George Miller of
California.
H.R. 558: Mr. Reyes, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Bradley of
New Hampshire, and Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 562: Mr. Boehlert.
H.R. 580: Mr. Brown of South Carolina.
H.R. 583: Mrs. McCarthy.
H.R. 586: Mr. Otter.
H.R. 591: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H.R. 592: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Platts, Mr. Fossella, and Mr.
McHugh.
H.R. 594: Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 615: Mr. Bonner, Mr. Stupak, Ms. Berkley, and Ms.
Linda T. Sanchez of California.
H.R. 623: Mrs. Drake and Mr. Hensarling.
H.R. 626: Mr. Kirk.
H.R. 634: Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 652: Mr. Goodlatte, Ms. Hart, and Mr. Ryan of
Wisconsin.
H.R. 657: Mr. Andrews, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Bishop
of New York, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms.
Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Butterfield,
Mrs. Capps, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Cardoza, Ms. Carson, Mrs.
Christensen, Mr. Clay, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Cuellar,
Mr. Cummings, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr. Davis of Illinois,
Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Faleomava-
ega, Mr. Ford, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr.
Grijalva, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Jackson of Illinois,
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr.
Kildee, Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Lantos,
Ms. Lee, Mr. Levin, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mrs.
McCarthy, Mr. McDermott, Mr. McGovern, Mrs. Maloney, Mr.
Marshall, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Melancon, Ms. Millender-
McDonald, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Moore of
Kansas, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr.
Nadler, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Ms. Norton, Mr. Owens, Mr.
Pallone, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr.
Rangel, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Ross, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Ryan of
Ohio, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. Sanders, Mr.
Serrano, Mr. Skelton, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Thompson
of Mississippi, Mr. Towns, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Waters, Ms.
Watson, Mr. Watt, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Wu,
Mr. Evans, Mr. Filner, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Case, Mr.
Holt, and Mr. Menendez.
H.R. 659: Mr. Udall of Colorado.
H.R. 669: Mr. Kildee, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Rogers of
Michigan, Mr. Miller of Florida, and Mr. Jindal.
H.R. 670: Mrs. Capito and Mr. Graves.
H.R. 687: Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia.
H.R. 691: Mr. Boehlert and Mr. Deal of Georgia.
H.R. 698: Mr. Bilirakis and Mr. Westmoreland.
H.R. 712: Mr. Herger.
H.R. 731: Mr. Porter.
H.R. 745: Mr. Inglis of South Carolina and Ms. Herseth.
H.R. 748: Mr. Shadegg and Mr. Wolf.
H.R. 750: Mr. Bartlett of Maryland.
H.R. 762: Mr. Fossella.
H.R. 763: Mr. Fossella.
H.R. 764: Mr. Kuhl of New York.
H.R. 768: Mr. McNulty.
H.R. 771: Mr. Salazar, Mr. Filner, and Mr. Schiff.
H.R. 776: Mr. Miller of Florida and Mr. Norwood.
H.R. 777: Mr. Miller of Florida.
H.R. 783: Mr. Reyes, Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire, and Mrs.
Capito.
H.R. 787: Mr. Skelton, Mr. Hunter, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Waxman,
Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Lantos,
Ms. Millender-McDonald, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Berman, Mrs.
Capps, Mrs. Tauscher, Ms. Watson, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of
California, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. George Miller of
California, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Stark, Mr. Honda, Ms. Lee, Mr.
Issa, Mr. Herger, Mr. Farr, Mr. Becerra, Ms. Waters, Mr.
Sherman, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms. Eshoo, Mrs.
Davis of California, Mr. Levin, Ms. Solis, Mr. Calvert, and
Mrs. Bono.
H.R. 793: Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Olver, and Mr. Larson of
Connecticut.
H.R. 798: Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 800: Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Ortiz,
Mr. Latham, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, Mr.
Fortenberry, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr. Edwards.
H.R. 810: Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 858: Mr. Miller of Florida and Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite
of Florida.
H.R. 865: Mr. McHugh and Mr. McIntyre.
H.R. 867: Mr. Udall of Colorado and Mr. Berman.
H.R. 871: Mr. Menendez.
H.R. 874: Mr. McCaul of Texas.
H.R. 880: Mr. Gordon.
H.R. 881: Mr. Barrow, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Ackerman, Mr.
Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Latham, and Mr. Ehlers.
H.R. 884: Mr. McHugh, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr.
Foley, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Kind, Mr. Boehlert, Mr.
Simmons, and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
H.R. 885: Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Ms. Slaughter,
Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Leach, Mr. Pence, Mr. Crowley, Mr.
Engel, Mr. Royce, Mr. Schiff, Ms. Watson, Mr. Wexler, Mr.
McCotter, Mr. Flake, and Mr. Issa.
H.R. 896: Mr. Price of North Carolina and Mr. Boswell.
H.R. 897: Mr. McNulty and Mr. Becerra.
H.R. 916: Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Israel, Ms. Hart, Mr.
Terry, Mr. Leach, Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, Mr. Sabo, Mr.
Davis of Alabama, Mr. LaHood, and Mr. Waxman.
H.R. 923: Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 924: Mr. Emanuel.
H.R. 935: Mr. Leach.
H.R. 936: Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 939: Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr.
Pallone, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. George
Miller of California, Ms. Watson, Mr. Honda, and Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 968: Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Mr. Smith of
Washington, Mr. Evans, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts,
Ms. Hooley, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Holden,
Mr. Chandler, Mr. Fortuno, Ms. Herseth, Mr. Cummings, Ms.
Woolsey, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Kind,
Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Conaway, and Mr.
LaTourette.
H.R. 975: Mr. Matheson.
H.R. 985: Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Mr. Forbes, Ms. Hooley,
Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Boren, Mr. Gillmor, Ms. Ginny
Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Sweeney, Mr.
Matheson, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Brown of
South Carolina, and Mr. Doyle.
H.R. 986: Mr. Price of North Carolina.
H.R. 988: Mr. Udall of Colorado and Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 997: Mr. Royce.
H.R. 998: Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Cole of
Oklahoma, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Mr. Rahall, Mr. King of
Iowa, Ms. DeLauro, and Mr. Spratt.
H.R. 1002: Mr. Reyes, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr.
Hefley, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Mr. Peterson of
Minnesota, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Eshoo,
Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Shays, Mr. Baird, Mr. Menendez,
Mr. Engel, Ms. Solis, Mr. Olver, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Bishop of
New York, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Gordon, Mr.
Blumenauer, Mrs. McCarthy, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Gene
Green of Texas.
H.R. 1029: Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Ms. Moore of
Wisconsin, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Allen, and Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H.R. 1056: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 1059: Mr. Larson of Connecticut and Mr. Payne.
H.R. 1088: Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Hayes, Mr. LaTourette, and Mr.
Boehlert.
H.R. 1091: Mr. Simmons.
H.R. 1095: Mr. Reynolds and Mr. McCaul of Texas.
H.R. 1099: Mrs. McCarthy.
H.R. 1105: Mr. Cleaver and Mr. Hinojosa.
H.R. 1114: Mr. Baker.
H.R. 1126: Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Filner, Mr.
Clay, and Ms. DeLauro.
H.R. 1130: Mr. Stark, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Filner,
and Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan.
H.R. 1131: Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Udall of Colorado,
Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Foley, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Bachus, and Mr.
Andrews.
H.R. 1155: Mr. Stark and Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 1157: Mr. Bartlett of Maryland.
H.R. 1166: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 1172: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of
California, and Mr. Filner.
H.R. 1176: Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Wamp,
Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Osborne, and Mr. Hastings of Washington.
H.R. 1185: Mr. Price of Georgia.
H.R. 1201: Mr. Miller of Florida.
H.R. 1204: Mr. Pastor, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Evans, Mr. Hinchey,
Mr. Serrano, and Mr. Johnson of Illinois.
H.R. 1206: Mr. Foley.
H.R. 1217: Ms. Hooley.
H.R. 1241: Mr. Keller, Mrs. Emerson, and Mr. Boehner.
H.R. 1246: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Berman,
Mr. McGovern, Mr. Wexler, Mrs. Davis of California, Mrs.
Drake, Mr. Turner, Ms. Carson, Mr. Akin, Mr. Boucher, and Mr.
Ney.
H.R. 1258: Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. McGovern, Mr.
McNulty, Mr. Mollohan, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Norton, Ms. Baldwin,
and Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 1265: Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 1266: Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 1277: Mr. Olver.
H.R. 1278: Mr. Dingell.
H.R. 1287: Mr. Rush, Mr. Johnson of Illinois, and Mr.
Emanuel.
[[Page 6153]]
H.R. 1288: Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Barrett of South
Carolina, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Everett, Mr. Hulshof, Mr.
Bradley of New Hampshire, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. Norwood,
Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Sweeney, and Mr.
Young of Alaska.
H.R. 1290: Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 1298: Mr. Beauprez, Mr. Dicks, and Mr. Smith of
Washington.
H.R. 1306: Mr. Kolbe, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Calvert, Mr.
Foley, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Paul, Mrs. Drake, Mr.
Culberson, Mr. Upton, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Kind, Mr. Simmons, Mr.
Young of Alaska, Ms. Harris, and Mrs. Miller of Michigan.
H.R. 1308: Mr. Pitts and Mr. Gingrey.
H.R. 1322: Mr. Stark and Ms. Hooley.
H.R. 1335: Mr. Towns.
H.R. 1352: Mr. Kuhl of New York and Mr. Butterfield.
H.R. 1357: Mr. King of New York, Mr. Manzullo, and Mr.
LaHood.
H.R. 1366: Mr. Foley, Mr. Tancredo, Ms. Hooley, and Mr.
Bradley of New Hampshire.
H.R. 1371: Ms. Herseth.
H.R. 1389: Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 1393: Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 1400: Mr. Platts and Mr. Kuhl of New York.
H.R. 1405: Mr. Menendez, Mr. McNulty, and Mr. Andrews.
H.R. 1406: Mr. Reyes and Mr. Baker.
H.R. 1417: Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin and Mr. Camp.
H.R. 1424: Mr. McDermott, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Israel, Ms.
Watson, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Honda, Mr. Brown of
Ohio, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Pallone,
Mr. McGovern, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Olver, Ms. Norton, Mr.
Wynn, Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr. Berman, Mr. Gerlach,
Mr. Filner, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Bishop of
Georgia, Mr. Holt, Mr. Clay, Mr. Pascrell, Ms. Woolsey, Ms.
Hooley, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Abercrombie,
Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mrs. McCarthy, and Mr. Allen.
H.R. 1426: Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Wamp, Mr.
Jackson of Illinois, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mrs.
Bono, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Osborne, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Grijalva, and
Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 1474: Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr.
Matheson, Mr. Berry, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr. Stupak, Mr.
Boswell, Mr. Tanner, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Latham, Mr. Pomeroy,
and Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
H.R. 1478: Mr. Andrews.
H.R. 1491: Mr. Upton.
H.R. 1498: Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Peterson of
Minnesota, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Pallone, Mr. LaTourette, Mr.
Brown of Ohio, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Berry, Mr. Tancredo, Mrs. Jo
Ann Davis of Virginia, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Inglis
of South Carolina, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Stark, Mr.
Pascrell, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Simmons, Mr.
Visclosky, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Issa, and Mr. Rohrabacher.
H.R. 1500: Mr. Sessions and Mr. Saxton.
H.R. 1508: Mr. Moore of Kansas.
H.R. 1521: Mr. Berman and Mr. McGovern.
H.J. Res. 10: Mr. Boustany, Mr. Hayworth, and Mr.
Fortenberry.
H.J. Res. 16: Mr. Feeney, Mr. Hostettler, and Mr.
Hensarling.
H.J. Res. 27: Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Hostettler, and
Mr. Duncan.
H. Con. Res. 11: Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr.
Westmoreland, and Mr. Norwood.
H. Con. Res. 12: Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr.
Westmoreland, and Mr. Norwood.
H. Con. Res. 38: Mrs. Drake.
H. Con. Res. 41: Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Waxman, and
Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California.
H. Con. Res. 69: Mr. Burton of Indiana.
H. Con. Res. 81: Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
H. Con. Res. 85: Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Allen,
Mr. Al Green of Texas, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Mrs. Drake,
and Mr. Boozman.
H. Con. Res. 99: Ms. Baldwin.
H. Con. Res. 102: Mr. Pallone and Mr. Berman.
H. Con. Res. 107: Mr. Davis of Alabama, and Mr. Gary G.
Miller of California.
H. Con. Res. 108: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mrs. Lowey,
Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Berman, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Davis of
Alabama, Mr. Baird, Ms. Schakowsky, and Mrs. Capps.
H. Con. Res. 123: Mr. Nadler and Mr. McNulty.
H. Res. 22: Mr. Turner.
H. Res. 61: Mr. Levin.
H. Res. 78: Mr. Higgins.
H. Res. 84: Mr. Chocola.
H. Res. 85: Mr. Barrow, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Hastings of
Florida, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Price of Georgia.
H. Res. 128: Mr. Holden, Mr. Boren, Mr. Skelton, and Mr.
Sam Johnson of Texas.
H. Res. 131: Ms. Bordallo.
H. Res. 142: Mr. Holt.
H. Res. 150: Mr. Sanders.
H. Res. 169: Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H. Res. 172: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California.
H. Res. 184: Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Ms. Kilpatrick of
Michigan, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Souder, Mr. Ehlers, Mr.
Terry, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr.
Lewis of California, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Foley, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr.
Turner, and Mr. Hinchey.
H. Res. 185: Mr. Al Green of Texas.
H. Res. 186: Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. McHugh, and Mr. Rangel.
H. Res. 189: Mr. Simmons and Mr. Meeks of New York.
____________________
PETITIONS, ETC.
Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the
clerk's desk and referred as follows:
13. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the City Council of
Seattle, Washington, relative to Resolution No. 30749,
opposing the elimination of the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program, and petitioning the Congress and
President of the United States to provide full funding for
housing, economic development and human services programs in
the Department of Housing and Urban Development; to the
Committee on Financial Services.
14. Also, a petition of the Board of Supervisors of Essex
County, New York, relative to Resolution No. 314 petitioning
the State Legislature to increase the HEAP allotments for
this season due to the rising fuel costs; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
15. Also, a petition of the Lithuanian-American Council
Branch of Lake County, Indiana, relative to a Resolution
commending the United States Government for monitoring
election fairness to preserve individual freedoms; to the
Committee on International Relations.
16. Also, a petition of the Board of Supervisors of Essex
County, New York, relative to Resolution No. 28 petitioning
the New York State Department of Transportation and Vermont
Department of Transportation to work together to provide for
continued maintenance and repair at the Lake Champlain Bridge
in Crown Point, New York; to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
____________________
AMENDMENTS
Under clause 8 of rule XVIII, proposed amendments were submitted as
follows:
S. 256
Offered By: Mr. Emanuel
Amendment No. 1: Page 507, line 6, strike the close
quotation marks and the period at the end.
Page 507, after line 6, insert the following:
``(f)(1) The trustee may avoid a transfer of an interest of
the debtor in property made by an individual debtor within 10
years before the date of the filing of the petition to an
asset protection trust if the amount of the transfer or the
aggregate amount of all transfers to the asset protection
trust within such 10-year period exceeds $125,000, to the
extent that the debtor's beneficial interest in the trust
does not become property of the estate by reason of section
541(c)(2).
``(2) An asset protection trust is a trust settled by the
debtor, in which the debtor has a direct or indirect
beneficial interest or under which the trustee may distribute
property to or for the benefit of the debtor, and as to which
a restriction on the voluntary or involuntary transfer of the
debtor's beneficial interest in the trust is enforceable
under applicable nonbankruptcy law. For purposes of this
subsection, the following are not asset protection trusts:
``(A) Retirement funds to the extent that those funds are
in a fund or account that is exempt from taxation under
section 401, 403, 408, 408A, 414, 457, or 501(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(B) Charitable trusts.
``(C) Qualified trusts under section 529 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, and other educational trusts, funds, or
accounts.''.
[[Page 6154]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
IN HONOR OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY TREASURER JIM ROKAKIS
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Cuyahoga
County Treasurer Mr. Jim Rokakis, as he is recognized by the Cuyahoga
County Democratic Party for his service to our community.
A life-long Clevelander, Mr. Rokakis continues to focus on the well-
being of Clevelanders, and beyond. After graduating from the Cleveland-
Marshall School of Law, Mr. Rokakis set out to promote positive change
within our community. In 1978, he was elected to serve as the Ward 15
representative to the Cleveland City Council. For nearly twenty years,
he served the residents of the Old Brooklyn neighborhood with integrity
and dedication. For the last seven years of his tenure as
Councilperson, Mr. Rokakis served as the Chair of the Finance
Committee.
In March of 1997, Mr. Rokakis was elected to the office of Treasurer
of Cuyahoga County. In this capacity, Mr. Rokakis has consistently
demonstrated a vision and focus on improving the tax collection
process. His complete renovation of the system has resulted in greater
efficiency regarding the County's tax collection and disbursement
processes. Under his leadership, the office of the Treasurer has been
awarded with many honors, especially regarding his inner-city housing
initiatives.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in honor and recognition of Mr. Jim
Rokakis. His dedicated service, focused on the well-being of the
residents of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, has served to strengthen
our entire community.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO ANTONIO BONILLA
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Antonio Bonilla who is
being honored at the Brooklyn Caribe Lions Club dinner dance as
``Businessman of The Year.''
Antonio is a successful businessman who was born in Isabela, Puerto
Rico. He came to New York in 1953 and has worked in various jobs,
including carpentry, cooking, and marketing.
One of his first employers was Emerson Radio Corporation, where he
worked for over 10 years. Then in the 1960's his wife, Leonor, exposed
him to Mexico's culture, including its people, food, and music. By
1971, his dream to open a Mexican restaurant had become a reality.
Together with his family, they found and renovated the space on the
corner of Second Ave and 26th Street in Manhattan and named it Mexico
Lindo Restaurant.
Today the restaurant has become a popular nightspot for the
entertainment and political communities. Antonio is a distinguished
businessman whose cooperation with many religious and political
organizations has established him as a philanthropist. He is very proud
of the fact that he has always held a job, and that all his
accomplishments have been the product of hard work.
Antonio and Leonor have three daughters Adriana, Claudia and Lara.
Together as a family, they have strived to stay one step ahead of the
competition. This award should serve to inspire and encourage him in
continuing the important work he has already begun.
Mr. Speaker, Antonio Bonilla has been a leader in his community and
has been a wonderful example of how dedication and perseverance can
lead to success. As such, he is more than worthy of receiving our
recognition today and the award of Businessman of the Year. Thus, I
urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this truly remarkable person.
____________________
HONORING THE 2005 GLADNEY CUP GOLF TOURNAMENT AT THE CONGRESSIONAL
COUNTRY CLUB IN BETHESDA, MD
______
HON. KAY GRANGER
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding
event that is conducted for the benefit of one of the best
organizations in my district, the Gladney Center for Adoption.
On Monday, May 2, 2005, the Gladney Cup Golf Tournament will occur at
the Congressional Country Club in Bethesda, MD, to benefit the Gladney
Center for Adoption. The Gladney Adoption Center was founded more than
100 years ago in Fort Worth, TX, to find ``loving homes for orphaned
children'' and today is one of this Nation's leading adoption services,
which specializes in international and domestic adoptions. The center
has placed more than 26,000 children in loving homes and has assisted
more than 36,000 women experiencing crisis pregnancies. The Gladney Cup
Golf Tournament is a premier event which raises much needed funds for
the center's international and domestic adoption programs. The first
Gladney Cup Golf Tournament was held at the famed Colonial Country
Club, which is located in my district. The caliber of the inaugural
tournament attracted more than 200 players and raised more than $1
million for the Gladney Center. The 2005 Gladney Cup Golf Tournament is
the third event and the reputation of the tournament, coupled with the
beautiful and prestigious greens of the Congressional Country Club,
again is attracting players and corporations from around the country
who not only derive satisfaction from playing on a challenging golf
course, but also who are committed to helping the Gladney Adoption
Center.
Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize the Gladney Cup Golf
Tournament, the organizations and individuals who are participating in
the event so that more children may have happy homes in which to live
and so that women who are experiencing a crisis pregnancy have a loving
and supportive place to which to turn to for help.
____________________
NORTH RIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL BAND WINNER OF JOHN PHILIP SOUSA FOUNDATION
``SUDLER SILVER CUP''
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the North Ridge
Middle School Band of North Richland Hills, located in the 26th
Congressional District of Texas, on winning the 2004 ``Sudler Silver
Cup.''
This award was given by the John Philip Sousa Foundation to only two
middle school bands in Canada and the United States in order to promote
better international understanding. The John Philip Sousa Foundation is
a non-profit foundation dedicated to the promotion of international
understanding through the medium of band music. Through the
administration of band related projects, the foundation seeks to uphold
the standards and ideals of that icon of the American spirit, John
Philip Sousa.
The North Ridge Middle School Band won this prestigious honor for
demonstrating excellence at the international level under the
leadership of director Cynthia Lansford. Not only do bands competing
for this award have to show superiority in their musical skills but
they must also do so under the same director for a period of several
years.
I am proud of this fine band from North Richland Hills Middle School,
and I applaud the students, band director and parents who made this
achievement possible. I am honored to represent you in Congress.
[[Page 6155]]
____________________
HONORING CATHERINE SANTEE, WINNER OF THE 2005 LeGRAND SMITH SCHOLARSHIP
______
HON. JOHN J.H. ``JOE'' SCHWARZ
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let it be known, that it is
with great respect for the outstanding record of excellence she has
compiled in academics, leadership, and community service, that I am
proud to salute Catherine Roselyn Santee, winner of the 2005 LeGrand
Smith Scholarship. This award is given to young adults who have
demonstrated their true commitment to playing an important role in our
Nation's future.
As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Scholarship, Catherine is being
honored for demonstrating the same generosity of spirit, intelligence,
responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that
distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, Michigan.
Catherine is an exceptional student at Addison High School. Aside
from being one of the highest in her class academically, Catherine
possesses an outstanding record of achievement. She has been very
active in the National Honor Society, Choir, Drama, Yearbook, and her
church, serving as youth group president and church secretary. She has
also devoted a great deal of her time volunteering to help others.
On behalf of the United States Congress, I am proud to join her many
admirers in offering our highest praise and congratulations to
Catherine Santee for her selection as winner of the 2005 LeGrand Smith
Scholarship. This honor not only recognizes her efforts, but also is a
testament to her parents, teachers, and other individuals whose
personal interest, steadfast support, and active participation
contributed to her success. To this remarkable young woman, we extend
our most heartfelt good wishes for all her future endeavors.
____________________
IN HONOR AND REMEMBRANCE OF TOM BRAZAITIS
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of
Mr. Tom Brazaitis, dedicated husband, father, author, and friend, whose
brilliant legacy as a journalist and humanitarian has served to elevate
the lives of all who knew him well, including my own.
For more than thirty-two years, Mr. Brazaitis' poignant commentary
and piercing assessment of our nation's political and social scene
graced the pages of Ohio's largest newspaper, the Cleveland Plain
Dealer. His compassion, deep intellect and consistent ability to glean
the heart of a story and have it ready under deadline amazed his
colleagues. He was known for his quick wit, compassionate heart,
progressive mindset and his seemingly effortless ability to stay calm
and cool amidst the fiery pressure of the busy newsroom. Mr. Brazaitis'
compelling editorials consistently garnered strong responses from his
readers, both pro and con. Yet his integrity was unwavering and he
never compromised his personal convictions or viewpoints, regardless of
popular opinion. Mr. Brazaitis was highly trusted, respected and
admired by his colleagues and those of us in the political arena.
Whether interviewing a small town council member or having dinner with
a powerful publisher, Mr. Brazaitis treated everyone with the same
respect, dignity and kindness. He built strong bonds with the public,
strengthened by integrity and trust, and gave Greater Clevelanders an
insightful and balanced perspective into the local and national
political scene.
Mr. Brazaitis' courage and grace was reflected throughout his battle
with cancer, a battle that he openly shared with his readers. From his
initial diagnosis, through every standard and experimental treatment,
Mr. Brazaitis' straightforward descriptions of his cancer experience
deeply connected with his readers, offering us a sense of peace,
clarity and even humor throughout his heroic struggle.
Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance
of Mr. Tom Brazaitis, whose life and legacy served to bring critical
issues into the rational light of day, and whose deep sense of humanity
served to elevate our own humanity. I offer my deepest condolences to
his wife, Eleanor; his daughter, Sarah; son, Mark; stepsons, Edward,
Woodbury and Robert; and his five grandchildren. Tom Brazaitis lived
his life with energy and joy, and the memories of his affable nature
and kind heart will forever light the hearts of all who knew and loved
him well.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO EARL L. WILLIAMS
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Earl L. Williams who is
being honored at the Brooklyn Caribe Lions Club dinner dance as ``Civic
Humanitarian of the Year.''
Earl, who was born in Panama City, Republic of Panama, has been a
community activist and civic leader for more than 40 years. Currently,
he is the New York State Democratic Committeeman (District Leader) for
the 40th Assembly District; Chairman of Community Planning Board #5, in
East New York, Director of Spring Creek Towers Community Center, and a
Certified Meeting Planner.
Earl graduated from San Mateo College in California with a BA degree,
specializing in public affairs. A graduate of the National Housing
Center Institute in Washington DC, he also attended NYU Real Estate
Institute. He is a member of the Starrett City Spring Creek Lions Club,
Brooklyn Borough President's Board, East Brooklyn Empire Zone, Black
Meeting Planners of America, and East New York Hispanic Coalition. He
has also chaired many Lions' activities within the district, region,
New York State, and internationally. Earl has received many citations
and awards from Lions Clubs International including a Presidential
Medal; three Presidential Leadership Medals; nine International
Extension awards; a Melvin Jones Fellow; Leadership Citations from New
York City Mayors Ed Koch and David Dinkins, and Community Service
Awards from New York City Council, New York State Senate and Assembly.
Earl Williams and his wife Ruth, who have been married for more than
40 years, are the parents of two children, Jacqueline Denise, an
attorney, and Mark (deceased) and the grandparents of Marrissa. Earl is
a communicant of St. Lawrence Roman Catholic Church and serves in the
ministry of hospitality.
Mr. Speaker, Earl Williams has been a leader in his community and has
taken on numerous roles and responsibilities to serve others. As such,
he is more than worthy of receiving our recognition today and the award
of Civic Humanitarian of the Year. Thus, I urge my colleagues to join
me in honoring this truly remarkable person.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF ARMY SPC. CLINTON GERTSON
______
HON. KAY GRANGER
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the courage of a
young hero from my district. On February 19, 2005, the Department of
Defense declared that Specialist Clinton Gertson (United States Army,
24th Infantry Division) was killed in the line of duty after being hit
by a sniper in Mosul, Iraq. Gertson's unit was scanning a Mosul
neighborhood when he was shot around 2 p.m. Gertson was deployed to
Iraq last October along with 4,000 other soldiers in the Fort-Stryker
Brigade. His unit had been assigned to be one of the leaders in the
fight against insurgents in Mosul.
Gertson, or ``Big Country,'' was described by fellow soldiers as
well-respected, someone who would always come to the aid of a fellow
soldier and who remained even-keeled, even in the face of extreme
danger.
Gertson demonstrated these qualities when 60 insurgents attacked his
unit on November 11. Despite being injured himself, Gertson helped
other soldiers who were more seriously injured to safety. Gertson again
demonstrated this same heroism when a suicide bomber blew himself up
inside the Forward Operating Base Marez mess hall in December. After
the explosion went off, Gertson rushed to the aid of his wounded
Company Commander, taking him to a nearby field hospital. Gertson's
courage and leadership were qualities his fellow soldiers drew strength
from and admired.
Gertson told his father he hoped everyone knew the sacrifices that he
and the other soldiers were making and asked his father to remind
people that freedom is not free.
The American people know the sacrifices Gertson, like many other
soldiers, made to his country and his memory will not be in vain. I am
proud to honor Specialist Gertson's service to the state of Texas where
he entered the service, and to the United States of America. He will
not be forgotten.
[[Page 6156]]
____________________
KELLER HIGH SCHOOL WINS STATE ACADEMIC DECATHLON
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, It is my great honor to recognize the
outstanding achievements of the Keller High School Academic Decathlon
team from Keller, Texas located in the 26th Congressional District of
Texas.
Keller High School won the state level Academic Decathlon competition
out of a field of 40 teams. The Keller High School HS team brought home
22 team medals and 28 individual event medals from the large school
division. In addition, Keller senior Xiaochu ``Chu'' Song earned the
highest overall score at the competition.
Having won the Texas State Academic Decathlon, team members Alex
Dang-Tran, Tyler Gibson, Van Hoang, Jeff Marthers, Spencer Scherer,
Brandon Simmons, Chu Song, Jennifer Swegler and Joey Wilkinson will
represent the State of Texas at the National Academic Decathlon in
Chicago.
The team has been strongly competitive for the past 10 years, but
this is the first time in its 20 years of existence that the Keller
High School Academic Decathlon team has advanced to the national arena.
These bright young students are coached by Vicki Whitaker and Kaye
Blevins.
I wish them the best of luck at they compete April 14-16 at the
national level. I am proud to represent such gifted students and
dedicated teachers.
____________________
STATEMENT HONORING HEATHER MEYER, WINNER OF THE 2005 LeGRAND SMITH
SCHOLARSHIP
______
HON. JOHN J.H. ``JOE'' SCHWARZ
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let it be known, that it is
with great respect for the outstanding record of excellence she has
compiled in academics, leadership, and community service, that I am
proud to salute Heather Meyer, winner of the 2005 LeGrand Smith
Scholarship. This award is given to young adults who have demonstrated
their true commitment to playing an important role in our Nation's
future.
As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Scholarship, Catherine is being
honored for demonstrating the same generosity of spirit, intelligence,
responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that
distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, Michigan.
Heather is an exceptional student at Addison High School. Aside from
being one of the highest in her class academically, Catherine possesses
an outstanding record of achievement. She has been very active in the
National Honors Society, Girls State, FFA and 4-H, as well as other
community and school activities. She has also devoted a great deal of
her time volunteering to help others.
On behalf of the United States Congress, I am proud to join her many
admirers in offering our highest praise and congratulations to Heather
Meyer for her selection as winner of the 2005 LeGrand Smith
Scholarship. This honor not only recognizes her efforts, but also is a
testament to her parents, teachers, and other individuals whose
personal interest, steadfast support, and active participation
contributed to her success. To this remarkable young woman, we extend
our most heartfelt good wishes for all her future endeavors.
____________________
IN HONOR OF DR. ELIZABETH K. BALRAJ
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Cuyahoga
County Coroner, Dr. Elizabeth K. Balraj, as she is recognized by the
Cuyahoga County Democratic Party for her outstanding service to our
community.
In 1966, following her studies to become a physician and surgeon, Dr.
Balraj left her homeland of India to immigrate to the United States.
She practiced medicine at Akron General Hospital and St. Luke's
Hospital in Cleveland. Dr. Balraj began her work in the Cuyahoga County
Coroner's Office as Deputy Coroner and Pathologist. In 1987, following
the retirement of Coroner Dr. Samuel R. Gerber, she was appointed
Coroner of Cuyahoga County. Dr. Balraj was elected Coroner in November
of 1988, and has been re-elected ever since.
Dr. Balraj's unwavering focus and energy is reflected every day
throughout this office. Beyond supervising a multi-million dollar
budget and a workforce of 87, she often leads cross-agency teams in
uncovering answers for law enforcement officials, and most
significantly, for families who grieve the death of their loved one.
Dr. Balraj's integrity, combined with her sense of calm and precision,
has elevated the work and mission throughout the Coroner's Office. She
broke the glass ceiling for women by successfully carving a path into
an area of science and medicine where women were virtually non-existent
before.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in honor and recognition of Dr. Elizabeth
K. Balraj. Her intellect, wisdom, leadership, quiet determination, and
above all, her compassion and heart, all serve to offer answers to
members of law enforcement, and most importantly, closure, solace and
peace within the minds and hearts of families and individuals within
Cuyahoga County.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO CARLOS CASTILLO
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Carlos Castillo who is
being honored at the Brooklyn Caribe Lions Club dinner dance as ``Lion
of the Year.''
Carlos Castillo, an outstanding Lion member, was born in Myaguez,
Puerto Rico. Upon graduating high school in 1959, he originally came to
New York for just two weeks. However, those two weeks ended lasting a
lifetime. He got into the supermarket business and continued that
venture for 40 years.
Through his work, he has become a highly recognized and distinguished
individual in his industry. In 1989, his efforts were recognized with
the Businessman of the Year Award. Also, in 1991 he received the
Outstanding Puerto Rican Professionals Award from the Office of the New
York City Council President, the Honorable Andrew Stein.
In addition to his accomplishments as a businessman, he is also a
noted humanitarian. Carlos joined the Brooklyn Caribe Lions Club in
1984 and has always had an eye on helping those in need. Throughout his
tenure with the Lions, he has received the Lion of the Year Award, the
100% President Award, the Melvin Jones Award, and the prestigious
Uplinger Award.
He is also a devoted father and an all around exceptional family man.
He has been married to his wife Astrid, for 40 years, and together they
have raised three successful children: Charles Jr., Sandra, and Nelson.
He is the proud grandfather of Michael, Taylor, Ivan, and Carlos Luis.
Mr. Speaker, Carlos Castillo has been a leader in his community and
has been a wonderful example of how dedication and perseverance can
lead to success. As such, he is more than worthy of receiving our
recognition today and the award of Lion of the Year Award. Thus, I urge
my colleagues to join me in honoring this truly remarkable person.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF ARMY SGT. DANIEL TORRES
______
HON. KAY GRANGER
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the courage of a
young hero from my district. On February 4, 2005, the Department of
Defense declared that Sergeant Daniel Torres (United States Army, 3rd
Infantry Division) was killed in the line of duty when a roadside bomb
exploded near his vehicle 140 miles north of Baghdad. Torres enlisted
in the army following 9-11 and was planning to save up for college. He
wanted to study marketing and international business and also had
dreams of becoming a police officer.
His friends describe Torres as spiritual, someone who encouraged his
friends to stay strong when they were down, and who was a role model to
his peers.
He was also devoted to his family. He played catch with his younger
sister Christina to help her improve her softball skills, which she
says played a part in her recently receiving an athletic scholarship to
a community college in Louisiana. He also had just found out that he
was about to become a father and was ecstatic at the prospect.
Torres had been deployed to Iraq at the beginning of the war and
remained there for
[[Page 6157]]
seven months before his unit was sent back home. Torres' unit was
deployed again to Iraq this January for another tour. Torres' father
said his son had a gut instinct that he might not return home this time
and told his family at Christmas that if he didn't return home, he
would die doing what he was called to do. He told his parents that he
was fighting for the children or Iraq, so that they and other Iraqis
his age could have a better life and a better future. He also told them
to be strong and have faith in God.
It is qualities of incredible courage, strength and pride in serving
his country that we see in young heroes like Daniel Torres that makes
us appreciate the freedoms we have here at home. I am proud to honor
Sergeant Torres' service to the state of Texas where he entered the
service, and to the United States of America. He will not be forgotten.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE INSULAR AREAS TAX CREDIT ACT
______
HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO
of guam
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that
would resolve an issue of tax compliance between the United States
Department of the Treasury and the governments of Guam and the United
States Virgin Islands. This legislation addresses concerns regarding
the coordination of the payment of the Earned Income Credit, EIC, and
Child Tax Credit, CTC, to qualifying taxpayers within these
jurisdictions.
The tax codes of Guam and the Virgin Islands mirror that of the
Internal Revenue Code, IRC, and taxpayers in these jurisdictions file
their annual returns with their respective local departments of revenue
and taxation in lieu of filing with the Internal Revenue Service. The
revenue and taxation departments of Guam and the Virgin Islands must
incorporate all provisions of the IRC related to individual and
business taxes for their respective taxpayers, including provisions
authorizing tax credits such as the EIC and the CTC. Revenues are
retained by local treasuries, which they may use to cover the costs of
operating local government agencies and providing for public services.
The coordination of the EIC and CTC is problematic because it
requires the treasuries of Guam and the Virgin Islands to pay
``refundable'' portions of these credits, or those amounts that exceed
an individual taxpayer's total tax liability. While I support the EIC
and CTC and believe that low-income taxpayers in my district should be
able to receive this form of tax relief, requiring the treasuries of
Guam and the Virgin Islands to cover all ``refundable'' portions of
these credits constitutes an unfunded federal mandate. In theory, the
amount of such credit that exceeds an individual taxpayers total tax
liability is meant to offset the impact of FICA taxes on low-income
individuals. While residents of Guam and Virgin Islands pay their FICA
taxes to the U.S. Treasury, the territorial treasuries are tasked with
covering the cost of the ``refundable'' portion of this credit out of
local revenues. Our cashstrapped treasuries are simply incapable of
covering the amount of claimed credit, which constitutes between 6 to 8
percent of all tax revenues in Guam.
Congresswoman Christensen and I have been working on a fair
resolution to this matter over the past 2 years. We have worked with
the Department of the Treasury and the chairmen and ranking members of
the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees. The legislation
I am introducing today is similar to a bill I introduced last year,
H.R. 2186, but with several revisions aimed at facilitating
implementation. This legislation proposes a fair federal-territorial
cost sharing arrangement which will allow low income citizens in the
territories who pay FICA taxes to realize the same tax benefits as
their counterparts in the 50 States and the District of Columbia
without bankrupting the local treasuries of Guam and the Virgin
Islands.
I look forward to working with House Ways and Means Committee
Chairman Thomas and Ranking Member Rangel on this legislation.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THEODORE REKLINSKI
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of
Theodore ``Ted'' Reklinski, upon the occasion of his retirement after
more than 30 years of dedicated service with the Social Security
Administration, where he worked diligently on behalf of the citizens of
our community.
Mr. Reklinski began working as a Claims Representative for the SSA in
1973. He quickly ascended through the ranks, and by 1980, he was
promoted to the position of Operations Supervisor at the Painseville
office. In 1987, he returned to the Cleveland office as Operations
Supervisor, and moved to the west side office in 1994. Mr. Reklinski's
expertise, diligence and keen understanding of the complexities of our
Social Security system, enabled him to provide solutions for countless
individuals, children and families in critical need of assistance.
Beyond his outstanding service to his constituents, Mr. Reklinski
forged solid bonds with community leaders and agencies. He served as an
invaluable contact for my Congressional Staff, and his work reflected
diligence and heart, enabling my Congressional Staff to assist our
constituents and their families when needed.
Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor, gratitude and
recognition of Mr. Ted Reklinski, for his exceptional work and advocacy
on behalf of the citizens of our Cleveland community. His integrity and
expertise, and more importantly, his sincere concern for others has
uplifted the lives of countless citizens throughout our District.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS OF WILLIAMSBURG
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a
distinguished organization, the United Jewish Organizations of
Williamsburg. It is an honor to represent The United Jewish
Organizations of Williamsburg in the House of Representatives and it
behooves us to pay tribute to such a selfless organization.
Mr. Speaker, The United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg was
founded in 1966 to help families in need in South Williamsburg. Over
the course of its Thirty-Nine years of service to the Brooklyn
community The United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg has thrived
marvelously where today it represents more than 50,000 community
residents and 148 not-for-profits, religious, educational, charitable
organizations and civic associations in the Jewish community of
Williamsburg, Clinton Hill and Bedford-Stuyvesant.
Under the tutelage of their President, Rabbi David Niederman, The
United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg has established itself as a
direct provider of social and housing services and is the address for
urban planning, public health and community development services for
the Jewish community of Greater Williamsburg.
The United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg, has been a leader in
providing low-income housing to the Williamsburg community. Their most
recent project includes the development of a waterfront property at the
site of the former Schaeffer Brewery, which has 149 housing units
reserved for low-income people. Additionally, they are the central
address for the New York State and New York City Departments of Health
and the Center for Disease Control in researching and conducting pilot
projects on Cancer and Shigellosis in the culturally rich Hasidic
Jewish community. They also have been instrumental in providing
treatment to those suffering from the adverse effects of tobacco as
well as being involved in collaborative efforts witl1 other not-for-
profits to providing for the overall betterment of the Williamsburg
community.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is incumbent on this body to recognize
the achievements of the United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg.
After the destruction and decimation of many Hasidic dynasties in
Europe during the Holocaust, it is truly an inspiration to see the
Hasidic sects of Satmar, Pupa, Vishnitz, Vien, Tzelem, Skver,
Klausenberg and Spinka join together under the umbrella of The United
Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg and call Brooklyn their home.
Mr. Speaker, may our country continue to benefit from the civic
actions of The United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg and
community groups similar to them.
[[Page 6158]]
____________________
HONORING THE 2005 ALICE PAUL EQUALITY AWARD RECIPIENTS
______
HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWS
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the recipients of the
2005 Alice Paul Equality Award: Vivian Sanks King, Esquire; Jennifer S.
Macleod, Ph.D.; Ruth B. Mandel, Ph.D.; and the Honorable Sylvia B.
Pressler. These remarkable individuals have helped to build a more just
reality for women in New Jersey and beyond.
For 20 years, the Alice Paul Institute has worked to empower women
and girls to become leaders in their communities, careers, and daily
lives. Born in Mt. Laurel, NJ, Alice Paul was a lifelong advocate for
equal rights for women, and led the final campaign for women's right to
vote. She authored and lobbied for the Equal Rights Amendment, a much
needed piece of legislation that would guarantee the equality of rights
under the law for all persons regardless of gender.
The recipients of the 2005 Alice Paul Equality Award have all
demonstrated a strong commitment to advancing women's equality
throughout their lives. Vivian Sanks King, Esquire, currently serving
as Vice President of Legal Management and General Counsel of the
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, is a community
leader in the health law field, and is one of the first African-
American attorneys appointed to head the legal department of a major
academic medical center and university. Dr. Jennifer Macleod is an
outspoken advocate for women's equality: she is a leader in the fight
for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, and was a co-founder and
first president of the first NOW chapter in New Jersey. Dr. Ruth
Mandel, currently the Director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at
Rutgers University, teaches and writes about U.S. women's political
leadership, and has received numerous distinctions for her
extraordinary public service. The Honorable Sylvia Pressler, recently
retired, served as the presiding judge for administration of the
Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. She was the
first female appellate law clerk and the second woman ever to serve on
the appellate court. These four remarkable women deserve our thanks for
their outstanding work on behalf of women in New Jersey and everywhere.
Mr. Speaker, there remains today an equality gap between women and
men that contradicts the basic principles of our great Nation. With the
tireless efforts of the Alice Paul Institute and the 2005 Alice Paul
Equality Award honorees, this gap is being closed. I thank all those
who have sought a more just America through the advancement of equality
for women, and encourage my colleagues to support this cause in the
U.S. Congress. Together we can continue to create better opportunities
for all women.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE GOLDEN JUBILEE OF SISTER MARY HELEN JACZKOWSKI
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of
Sister Mary Helen Jaczkowski, upon the joyous occasion of her 50th
Jubilee Year. As she has for half a century, Sister Mary Helen
continues to serve in dedicated and holy ministry, a ministry of faith
that focuses on the children, seniors and families of our community.
She teaches by example, and her words and deeds, reflecting kindness,
compassion and love, radiate strength and hope within the hearts of
many, including my own.
Inspired by a true calling of spiritual and humanitarian duty, Sister
Mary Helen began her ministry with a strong foundation in education.
She started her life-long career in education by teaching third, fourth
and fifth grade students at St. John Cantius School. Sister Mary Helen
taught at various parochial schools throughout Cleveland and
Northeastern Ohio, and also held leadership roles as assistant
principal and principal. To fortify her knowledge and educational
expertise, Sister Mary Helen earned a Master's degree in Education
along the way. Today, she continues her educational ministry and
leadership as assistant principal at Immaculate Conception School in
Cleveland's Slavic Village neighborhood.
As a long-time social activist, Sister Mary Helens' unwavering
dedication, focused on improving the lives of those around her, is
clearly reflected throughout our Cleveland neighborhoods, from Tremont
to Slavic Village and beyond. In Slavic Village, Sister Mary Helen led
the restoration effort to transform the long-since abandoned Harvard
School into an affordable, warm and secure place to call home for
senior citizens, now known as the Harvard Village Senior Apartments.
Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and celebration
of the Golden Jubilee of Sister Mary Helen Jaczkowski. Her commitment,
kindness and caring for the people of our community, from our children
to our elderly, has served to lift the spirits of countless
individuals, and continues to radiate faith, hope and light throughout
our entire community.
____________________
HONORING THE BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT
______
HON. BARBARA LEE
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Berkeley Police
Department of Berkeley, California on the occasion of its 100th year of
service.
At the time of its founding over a century ago, the Berkeley Police
Department was a pioneering institution. Led by August Vollmer, who was
elected Town Marshall in 1905 and appointed as Berkeley's first Chief
of Police in 1909, the Berkeley Police Department become known for its
innovative management and law enforcement methods, and its practices
were adopted by other departments nationwide.
Chief Vollmer is considered by many to be the father of modem law
enforcement. He was one of the first officials to institute the use of
a basic records system, scientific investigation, and motorcycle
patrols as law enforcement methods. He sought police officers with good
educations, worked with U.C. Berkeley to establish a police school, and
also established the department's Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, which
prohibited officers from receiving gratuities and from smoking on duty,
and also required them to use as little force as possible in making
arrests.
In addition to these innovations, Chief Vollmer was also one of the
most progressive figures in law enforcement during his time. He
recruited the first female and African American officers to the force
in Berkeley, and also became a prominent opponent of the death penalty.
In the years since its remarkable founding, the Berkeley Police
Department has continued to serve the public with courage and
compassion, working to protect the residents of Berkeley and also to
become involved in the community. In addition to its establishment of
the charitable Christmas in April program in 1991 and other community
service projects, the Department has also made a sustained effort to
establish an effective model for community-involved policing.
Furthermore, the Berkeley Police Department has devoted considerable
resources to the development of other programs of dire importance, such
as the Domestic Violence Unit, Youth-Police Workshops with Beat
Officers, the Citizens' Academy and Toys 4 Tots with Marines. In recent
years, the department has received grants from the Department of
Justice, the Office of Traffic Safety and others to institute
innovative public safety reforms, and in 2003 reported the city's
lowest violent crime rates since 1974.
On April 7, 2005, the Berkeley Police Department will be holding its
centennial celebration. I would like to take this opportunity to
commend and thank those who have given of themselves to serve the
public through their work with the police force. I congratulate the
Berkeley Police Department for 100 years of invaluable service, and
salute its officers for their tireless efforts to make our community a
safer, better place.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRESBYTERIAN HOMES
______
HON. ADAM B. SCHIFF
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Southern
California Presbyterian Homes for 50 years of providing outstanding
housing and health care services to older adults throughout Southern
California.
Southern California Presbyterian Homes, a nonprofit corporation, was
founded in 1955, as a mission outreach of the Presbyterian
[[Page 6159]]
Church, to provide quality housing, health, and support services for
senior citizens regardless of faith, race, income, or ethnicity. The
organization is dedicated to serving the needs of seniors that enrich
the physical, social, and spiritual dimensions of their lives.
Southern California Presbyterian Homes has grown from its humble
beginnings of one continuing care retirement community in La Jolla in
1955 to 38 facilities in 2005 and serving over 3,300 senior citizens.
There are continuing care retirement communities, like Royal Oaks Manor
in Bradbury and Windsor Manor in Glendale, that provide multi-level
care from independent living through skilled nursing. Kirkwood of
Glendale is an assisted living facility that provides a residential
alternative to older adults who currently reside in a nursing home or
their own homes, and need assistance with activities of daily living
and specialized dementia care. Affordable housing facilities such as
Rosewood Court in Pasadena, Casa de la Paloma, The Gardens, Otto Gruber
House, Palmer House, and Park Paseo in Glendale provide excellent
living opportunities and support services for senior with limited
incomes. Southern California Presbyterian Homes also provides home and
community-based services through its adult day health care center and
through Southern California Presbyterian Homes Home Care.
I am proud to recognize Southern California Presbyterian Homes for
its 50 years of compassionate care to senior citizens in Southern
California and I ask all Members to join me in congratulating Southern
California Presbyterian Homes for their remarkable achievements.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO CAPTAIN SEAN GRIMES
______
HON. JOE KNOLLENBERG
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, today I join the people of the 9th
Congressional District and the State of Michigan in honoring the
passing of an American hero and patriot, Captain Sean Grimes, who lost
his life in the line of duty in Iraq on March 4th. Captain Grimes was
assigned to the U.S. Army's 1st Infantry Battalion, 9th Infantry
Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team where he served with distinction as a
Combat Medic. At the time of his passing, Sean Grimes was 31.
A Bloomfield Hills native, Captain Grimes graduated from Lahser High
School in Bloomfield Hills in 1991. Shortly after graduating from high
school Sean enlisted in the Army Reserve serving as an enlisted man for
four years. His love of the Army prompted him to enroll in the Reserve
Officers Training Corps (ROTC) while pursuing a Bachelor of Science
degree in Nursing at Michigan State University. In 1997 he graduated
from MSU and was commissioned as a Distinguished Military Graduate. His
efforts and desire to provide the best medical care to soldiers led him
to the Brooke Army Hospital at Fort Sam Houston in Texas in 2003,
whereupon he graduated from the Army's Physician Assistant Course.
Until the day of his death, Captain Grimes displayed a sense of
service not only to his fellow soldiers, but to his fellow man, helping
civilian Iraqis in need of medical care. We may never really know the
full impact his selfless acts may have had on the lives of his fellow
soldiers and civilians he came into contact with. But the manner and
character in which he fulfilled his duties tells us that he indeed made
a difference in the lives of others and that that difference was for
the better. These efforts have been recognized by the Army through a
variety of medals Captain Grimes received during his career,
culminating in being awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart
posthumously.
Captain Sean Grimes exemplified what is best about the American
soldier, devotion to duty above self, tireless dedication to his fellow
soldiers and most importantly a driving desire to protect the freedoms
we cherish so dearly. While he will certainly be missed most by his
family, his sacrifice will not be forgotten. Captain Grimes paid the
ultimate price both to protect the freedoms we exercise daily and to,
bring those same freedoms to people who have never experienced true
liberty. Today we honor his memory and may we never forget his
sacrifice.
____________________
IN HONOR OF CLEVELAND DETECTIVE MAURICE HAMILTON
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of
Detective Maurice Hamilton, Badge #758, in celebration of his recent
retirement from the Cleveland Police Department, after twenty-five
years of dedicated and honorable service to the force and to the
citizens of Cleveland.
Prior to joining the Cleveland Police Department in 1980, Detective
Hamilton worked for the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Department. He began
basic patrol in Cleveland's Sixth District on May 29, 1980. In 1986,
Detective Hamilton was needed on basic patrol in the First District. By
1989, he was promoted to Detective, working within the First District
Strike Force, then the First District Detective Bureau in 1992.
Throughout his committed public service as protector and guardian of
the residents of our community, Detective Hamilton maintained the
highest level of integrity, grace and skill. He developed strong and
trusted bonds with colleagues, neighborhood leaders, members of
Cleveland's court system and members of the FBI. His expertise,
unwavering focus, and compassion for others reflected in his
outstanding work in solving cases and helping individuals and families
who needed assistance. Over the years, Detective Hamilton has been duly
recognized with numerous awards and commendations for his exceptional
police work, yet these honors held little personal significance to him.
His family, friends, fellow officers and the people of our community
have always been, and continue to be, his motivating force. A true
believer in giving back to the community, Detective Hamilton continues
to volunteer his time as a member of the Cleveland Police Patrolman's
Association and as an elder with his church, Grace Lutheran in
Lakewood, where he is actively involved in community children's
programs.
Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and celebration
of Cleveland Police Detective Maurice Hamilton, as we reflect upon
twenty-five years of his significant service to the citizens of
Cleveland. Detective Hamilton's compassion for others, integrity,
expertise, and focus on protecting his constituents in Cleveland have
all served to elevate the lives of countless families and individuals
within our community. We wish Detective Hamilton, his wife, Joyce
Hamilton, and their entire family many blessings of peace, health and
happiness as they journey from this day onward.
____________________
30TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ASIAN PACIFIC STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
______
HON. DORIS O. MATSUI
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to an organization with a
great record of service to the Sacramento Region. For the past three
decades, the Asian Pacific State Employees Association has worked
tirelessly to protect and advance the interests of Asian American state
employees. As the Asian Pacific State Employees Association hosts its
30th Anniversary celebration on April 28, 2005, I ask all my colleagues
to join me in saluting the Asian Pacific State Employees Association,
one of the Asian Pacific Islander community's most important service
organizations.
The Asian Pacific State Employees Association, formerly known as the
Asian State Employees Association, was founded in 1975 for the purpose
of working toward achieving equal opportunity within the state work
force through professional development and community empowerment. The
Association's vision is one of Asian Pacific state employees serving,
enhancing, and leading state government and their community.
Objectives adopted by the Association include advocating for Asian
Pacific Islander state employee interests; providing an Asian Pacific
network for its members and employers; advancing personal and
professional development of its membership; consulting with members
facing adverse action or other employment problems; working with the
community to promote career opportunities, professionalism, cultural
pride, self-esteem, and citizenship; and providing services and
interchange with community, academic, and business groups.
Benefits and services offered by the Association include employee
development, networking, scholarship opportunities, communications, and
celebration of Asian Pacific contributions. At the present time, the
Asian Pacific State Employees Association has over 1,000 members
statewide, which includes the
[[Page 6160]]
Southern, Central Valley, and Bay Area chapters, and officers
frequently serve on legislative fact-finding committees, and provide
testimony before the legislative committees regarding advocacy and
affirmative action policies.
I would like to acknowledge and congratulate the evening's special
honoree, Assemblywoman Judy Chu. Judy's distinguished career and her
commitment to advocate for the interests of Asian American state
employees make her a most deserving recipient of special praise and
recognition
Mr. Speaker, the Asian Pacific State Employees Association has
evolved into a leading organization within the state, a dynamic force
striving to improve the quality of life of its members and the general
community. I am confident that the Asian Pacific State Employees
Association will continue to do great work and yield tremendous
benefits to the Asian Pacific Islander state workers of California. I
ask all my colleagues to join me in wishing the Asian Pacific State
Employees Association continued success in the future.
____________________
SERGEANT FIRST CLASS PAUL RAY SMITH'S MEDAL OF HONOR
______
HON. MICHAEL BILIRAKIS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to honor
one of our nation's bravest servicemembers, Sergeant First Class Paul
Ray Smith. Tragically, Sgt. Smith lost his life two years ago while
serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. For his valor, Sgt. Smith on Monday
was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.
The Medal of Honor is this nation's highest military honor and is
awarded in the name of Congress by the President of the United States.
Before Sgt. Smith, only 3,459 men and women, who have distinguished
themselves, at the risk of life, above and beyond the call of duty,
have received the Medal of Honor since its inception in 1861.
Sgt. Paul Smith is the first recipient of the Medal of Honor for
service in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He also is the first to receive
this great distinction since it was awarded posthumously in 1993 to two
soldiers who died fighting in Somalia.
Mr. Speaker, on July 12, 2004, this body approved legislation, signed
by the President, to name a post office in Holiday, Florida, the
``Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith Post Office.'' On that date, I
first spoke about Sgt. Smith's heroic actions. On April 4, 2003,
outside of Saddam International Airport in Baghdad, Sgt. Smith's unit,
the Bravo Company of the 11th Engineer Battalion of the 3rd Infantry,
was tasked with securing a prison for Iraqi prisoners of war at the
Baghdad airport.
While Sgt. Smith and his men were working in the POW prison, they
spotted members of the Republican Guard nearby. Sgt. Smith called for a
Bradley fighting vehicle, which was at a nearby roadblock, and he
prepared his men for engagement. Sgt. Smith took charge and led the
effort while they waited for the Bradley, which would bring an
intimidating fire force.
Even though Sgt. Smith and his men were outnumbered by more than two
to one, they continued to fight back. Without concern for his own life,
Sgt. Smith jumped on an Army vehicle and began firing a .50 caliber
machine gun. He fired and reloaded and continued to fire, killing 50
enemy soldiers until he was shot and killed.
Sgt. Smith's efforts saved the lives of all of his men and the more
than a hundred American soldiers in the surrounding area. For Sgt.
Smith, this was his job. In a letter he wrote to his family, which he
never mailed, he said, ``It doesn't matter how I come home, because I
am prepared to give all that I am, to ensure that all my boys make it
home.''
Mr. Speaker, the Medal of Honor will never bring Sgt. Smith back to
his family. He will not be able to play baseball with his son David. He
will not be able to walk his daughter Jessica down the aisle when she
gets married. He will no longer be able to kiss his wife Birgit
goodnight. But because of his unyielding courage, his ``boys'' will
have that chance with their families.
Since Sgt. Smith's death, Iraq has been liberated from a brutal
dictator, had democratic elections, and is now a beacon for freedom and
hope for all Middle East countries. The United States is safer today
than we were before the fall of Saddam. I know that without the actions
of Sgt. Smith and others like him, this goal could not have been
achieved so promptly. Sgt. Smith's life was not lost in vain.
We are truly honored to have had a man such as Sgt. First Class Paul
Ray Smith serve in our nation's military. He has become an inspiration
to all men and women of the Armed Forces. His story will forever
resonate in the history of this great nation and his name and legacy
will never be forgotten. May God bless the Smith family and continue to
watch over the country Sgt. Smith so loved.
____________________
IN HONOR AND REMEMBRANCE OF YOLANDA CRACIUN
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of
Yolanda Craciun, loving mother, grandmother, community activist, and
dear friend and mentor to many. Her passing marks a great loss for her
family and friends, and also for the people of Cleveland's west side
neighborhood, whom she supported, promoted and faithfully served.
Mrs. Craciun's family, including her late husband, John Craciun, were
central to her life. The great care and love that she showered on them
extended throughout Cleveland's west side neighborhood, where Mrs.
Craciun led many efforts to uplift her neighborhood. The well-being of
her community, anchored by her parish, Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Church,
was her lifelong focus. Her advice and support was continually sought
by neighbors and neighborhood leaders. Greatly loved, respected and
admired by all, Mrs. Craciun was godmother to twenty-eight children.
Equipped with a compassionate heart, sharp mind and even sharper
focus on the neighborhood she loved, Mrs. Craciun's efforts fostered
hope and possibility throughout the Dentroit-Shoreway neighborhood,
where she lived her whole life. She was a founding member and trustee
of the Detroit-Shoreway Community Development Coalition, leading the
charge to restore the neighborhood with housing, economic and social
initiatives. Her efforts to help others spanned every barrier, and
touched the lives of countless people and family. Mrs. Craciun raised
over $100,000 for the Snowflake Program, used to decorate the
neighborhood during holidays. She volunteered her time as a literacy
tutor, was president of the PTA at St. Edward's High School, and served
on many boards, including St. Augustine Manor and the Westside
Substance Abuse Task Force Project.
Her humble nature precluded her from reveling in awards and
accolades. However, her outstanding service was recognized by others.
She was the recipient of many awards that highlighted her humanitarian
efforts, including the 2004 Father Marino Frascati Neighborhood
Champion Award, and the Giuseppe T. Fiocca Award, presented to her in
1998.
Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance
of Yolanda Craciun. She lived her life with joy, energy and in
unwavering service to others. I extend my deepest condolences to her
many friends and family members, especially her children: Jean, Mary,
John, Joseph and James; and her grandchildren and sister. Her eternal
faith in humanity and in the notion that together, we can make a
positive difference, will continue to serve as an unending force of
light, hope and possibility, throughout the Detroit-Shoreway
neighborhood and beyond.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DORIT AND SHAWN EVENHAIM
______
HON. BRAD SHERMAN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dorit and
Shawn Evenhaim for their dedicated efforts to improve the quality of
life in our community. Throughout their lives Dorit and Shawn have
contributed countless hours of community service by supporting various
organizations and effectively leading several groups. Their ongoing
service to the San Fernando Valley is truly immeasurable.
Dorit and Shawn's strong desire to serve the community dates back to
their native Israel. They both grew up in Southern Israel in working
class neighborhoods. Although they came from modest backgrounds, the
principles and obligations of the Tzedakah were instilled at an early
age. This is the Jewish ideal of aiding those who are less fortunate.
This common bond that Dorit and Shawn shared growing up together
eventually flourished into a romance as they served their military
responsibilities in Israel.
Shortly following their military service they ventured to the United
States with hopes of new opportunities. Shawn quickly immersed
[[Page 6161]]
himself in his brother's painting business. Although he had only been
in the United States for a short time, by 1992 Shawn became president
of a large in-fill development company in the San Fernando Valley. Soon
after, Dorit encouraged Shawn to open his own development firm called
California Homes in 1994. California Homes has become one of the
largest in-fill home builders in the Los Angeles basin.
One of the most important construction projects that Dorit and Shawn
have undertaken was the creation of a new home for the Kadima Hebrew
Academy in the San Fernando Valley. A member of Kadima's Board of
Directors, Dorit was instrumental in convincing Shawn to take on this
project. Dorit and Shawn quickly began searching for new investors who
had the resources and desire to establish a new campus. Not finding the
support needed, Dorit and Shawn took the search into their own hands.
Shawn became aware of a private land auction in West Hills. Shawn,
despite going up against several real estate investors, was the
successful bidder, securing the facility and the surrounding land.
Dorit and Shawn's efforts not only encompassed the purchase and
acquisition of land. They were also deeply involved in all aspects of
the project, using their contacts to acquire all necessary permits to
expedite the process. As a result of Dorit and Shawn's efforts, San
Fernando Valley residents can now take part in a unique educational
experience at the newly developed campus.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing Dorit and Shawn Evenhaim,
amazing individuals who have dedicated their lives to the betterment of
the San Fernando Valley.
____________________
IN HONOR OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY ENGINEER ROBERT KLAIBER
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Cuyahoga
County Engineer Robert Klaiber, as he is recognized by the Cuyahoga
County Democratic Party for his service to our community.
In 1999, Mr. Klaiber was appointed to the office of County Engineer.
In 2000, he was elected to the office. Mr. Klaiber began his career in
engineering as a land surveyor and engineer consultant. Prior to his
acceptance of the office of County Engineer, he worked as the City
Engineer for the City of Strongsville. Mr. Klaiber's work, focused on
improving our community's roadways and bridges, has served to enhance
all aspects of our county's system of transportation.
Mr. Klaiber has been instrumental in assisting my office with
infrastructure improvements, especially with the railway merger, a
project that affected the entire southwest region of the 10th
Congressional District. He has consistently demonstrated a high level
of energy, focus and willingness to assist us in improving
transportation safety and access for all residents within our
community.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in honor and recognition of Mr. Robert
Klaiber, Cuyahoga County Engineer. His dedicated service and expertise,
focused on the well-being of the residents of Cuyahoga County, has
served to uplift our entire community.
____________________
HONORING LINDA WOOD FOR EXEMPLARY SERVICE AS ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARIAN
______
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Linda Wood, upon
her retirement as Alameda County, California's top librarian. After 14
years at the helm of the county library system, with 10 branches and an
annual budget of $21 million, Ms. Wood is stepping down from an
extraordinary career.
She has been working in the library field for almost 40 years and
states, ``I'm proud of my accomplishments, but I'm ready to move on to
the next phase of my life.''
Ms. Wood began her library career reshelving books. After earning her
degree in library science from the University of Washington, she
graduated to reference librarian and went up the ladder from there. She
has taken on many duties, from serving as branch manager to
administrator in libraries from Oregon State to the cities of Riverside
and Los Angeles.
Ms. Wood leaves the Alameda County library system a lot bigger than
she found it. Since being hired as county librarian in 1991, she has
helped open two new branch libraries--in Albany, California in 1994 and
Dublin, California in 2003 and has obtained seed funding and a patch of
land for a new branch in Castro Valley, California.
The county library system, with over 200 full-time employees, also
includes branches in Fremont, Newark, Union City and unincorporated San
Lorenzo, a bookmobile and services for jail and juvenile facility
inmates and literacy and senior outreach programs.
Ms. Wood has overseen a full-scale modernization of library services
and fought to maintain services through ups and downs in funding. She
fought for library services not only in Alameda County but also
throughout the State of California.
Today's collections have expanded from books and periodicals to
include movies, CDs, DVDs and books on tape. Old card catalogues have
given way to databases and now vast Internet services where patrons can
research library holdings day and night.
Throughout her illustrious career, Ms. Wood has demonstrated her
longtime advocacy for libraries. Her advocacy has made a positive
difference in strengthening many library systems for the public's
education and enjoyment.
I join Linda Wood's colleagues, friends and admirers in expressing
good wishes as she retires and thank her for her contributions to our
communities through libraries.
____________________
IN HONOR OF CHUCK WEPNER
______
HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Chuck Wepner for his
outstanding boxing career.
A Bayonne native, Mr. Wepner received no formal training, practicing
at the gym part-time while working as a salesman during the day. In his
prime, he was ranked in the top ten among some of greatest names in
boxing, including George Foreman, Joe Frazier, and Muhamad Ali.
Mr. Wepner boasts a feat that few have matched: 30 years ago he boxed
with Muhamad Ali and was able to knock him to the mat. Though 36 years
old and ranked seventh at the time, he went a full 15 rounds with ``the
Greatest.'' While Ali eventually won the March 24, 1975 fight, Mr.
Wepner is one of only three men to have ever knocked him down. Adding
to his achievement is the fact that Sylvester Stallone used Mr.
Wepner's personal story of an underdog taking on a prize fighter as the
basis for his ``Rocky'' movies. Mr. Stallone acknowledges he used many
aspects of Mr. Wepner's life in the boxing films.
Though retired from the ring, Mr. Wepner remains in contact with
legends such as Joe Frazier, Mike Tyson, and even Sylvester Stallone.
Thirty years after his formidable fight, he is busy working as a
motivational speaker at schools and various organizations across the
country. Additionally, he is developing a movie project and considering
writing a book.
Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Chuck Wepner for
his career achievements as a boxer. He has proven to be a strong,
inspirational force both in and out of the ring, and I wish him the
best in his future endeavors.
____________________
SMALL BUSINESS TAX FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 2005
______
HON. BARBARA CUBIN
of wyoming
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important decisions for the
founder of a business is ``choice-of-entity,'' or the decision to
operate as a corporation, partnership, limited liability company (LLC),
or other form of business.
The law regarding choice-of-entity has changed enormously in the last
15 years, particularly with the widespread adoption of laws authorizing
the creation of the LLC. As a result, many small business owners have
more ``choice of entity'' flexibility than ever before.
First authorized in Wyoming in 1977, LLCs are organized under State
law, and are now recognized in all 50 states. In essence, LLCs are
allowed corporate treatment for local law purposes and partnership
treatment for Federal income tax purpose. LLCs also provide for more
than one class of ownership, allowing for increased flexibility to
allocate income or
[[Page 6162]]
losses to different investors. The flexibility and protections of the
LLC has led to a rapid expansion in the number of small businesses
electing to operate in this manner.
In 1995, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) adopted the position that
general partnerships could be converted into LLCs with little or no tax
effects. Unfortunately, as incorporated entities, this does not hold
true for small businesses operated as subchapter S corporations (S
Corps).
Created in 1958, the S Corp structure allows for no more than 75
shareholders, can issue only one class of stock, and cannot have
partnerships or corporations as shareholders. Yet, until the rise of
the LLC, the S Corp structure provided, for all practical purposes, the
only way that a small business could enjoy the corporate protections of
limited liability without being burdened with corporate taxation. Taxed
much the same way as partnerships, many older, family-owned, small
businesses operate as S corps.
Clearly, the original intent for creating the S Corp structure was
the same reasoning that led to the creation of LLCs--to provide a
simple and flexible tax category for small and family-owned businesses.
However, despite the similarities to LLCs, S Corps are not granted the
same conversion flexibility as other partnership-like entities and are
instead grouped with larger companies under a cumbersome corporate
structure. My bill would modernize the tax treatment of S Corps,
allowing them the same choice-of-entity flexibility offered to other
small businesses operating as LLCs. This is a common sense change that
is overdue.
____________________
CETS: A NEW TOOL TO COMBAT CHILD EXPLOITATION
______
HON. EARL POMEROY
of north dakota
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, the exploitation of children online is a
grave and growing threat, both here in the United States and worldwide.
By 2005, more than 77 million of our children and teenagers will use
the Internet, entering chat rooms and other public online areas, at
times instant messaging with strangers ready to prey on our Nation's
young people.
Simply put, millions of children and teens are now at risk of
abduction or worse. Here's more startling data:
55 percent of children have given their personal information (name,
sex, age, etc) over the Internet.
One in ten children has met someone face to face they previously met
online.
37 percent of children say their parents would disapprove if they
knew what they did, where they went, or with whom they chatted on the
Internet.
40 percent of children do not discuss Internet safety with their
parents.
In short, the borderless nature of the Internet has allowed sexual
predators to stalk innocent children and traffic in child pornography
with near impunity.
Fortunately, new technology may provide powerful new weapons in law
enforcement's arsenal to combat child exploitation: The Child
Exploitation Tracking System, also known as ``CETS.'' CETS is a
computer application developed by Microsoft in partnership with
Canadian and international law enforcement agencies to help law
enforcement tackle the growing problem of online exploitation of
children. This application, which will be provided free of charge to
law enforcement agencies, can help efforts to collaboratively
investigate these crimes and bring criminals to justice.
CETS has been deployed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Canada
and can be used by all major law enforcement agencies in Canada
involved in child exploitation policing. Discussions between Canadian
law enforcement and US law enforcement agencies have already taken
place, with the hope of deploying CETS in the United States. This new
technology is also supported by the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children.
This technology, combined with our efforts to educate children about
risks online, can help reduce the incidence of online child
exploitation.
____________________
OAKLAND COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE'S 40TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. THADDEUS G. McCOTTER
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the administrators,
faculty, staff and students of Oakland Community College as they
celebrate OCC's 40th anniversary this month.
The Oakland Community College District was established by the
electorate of Oakland County, Michigan, on June 8, 1964. The college
opened in September 1965, with a record community college initial
enrollment of 3,860 students on two campuses--Highland Lakes, a
renovated hospital in Union Lake, and Auburn Hills, a former Army Nike
missile site in Auburn Heights. In September 1967, the award-winning
Orchard Ridge Campus opened.
Mr. Speaker, during its 40 years, OCC has grown in stature and
importance, and has earned its pre-eminent position in the vanguard of
training and educating Americans. For example, Oakland Community
College's fire academy has opened the only facility in the Midwest
which provides emergency services personnel with training in a unique
simulated city, complete with roads and buildings. The Combined
Regional Emergency Services Training Center (CREST) is comparable to
the FBI's ``Hogan's Alley'' in Quantico, VA. Police and fire
departments throughout the region send personnel to the center for
extensive training. OCC is also proud to have among its many successful
graduates, Drew Feustel, a NASA astronaut who began his college studies
at the Auburn Hills Campus, and eventually received his Ph.D. in
geologic sciences before being chosen by NASA as a mission specialist.
I ask my colleagues to join with me today in congratulating Oakland
Community College on 40 years of success in educating students and
helping them become an important part of our society and our country,
and in wishing OCC 40 more years of outstanding achievement.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF ULYSSES BRADSHAW KINSEY
______
HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life
of Mr. Ulysses Bradshaw Kinsey, who died on April 2, 2005. Mr. Kinsey,
known as U.B. to all who loved and respected him, was born on June 27,
1918 in Fort White, Florida, one of ten children of Henry and Cora
Kinsey. The family moved to Palm Beach County when Mr. Kinsey was just
eight years old. Throughout his life, he was proud of the fact that,
although he grew up in segregated times, he never drank from
``Colored'' water fountains.
Barred by law from attending the University of Florida, he could not
pursue his dream of becoming an attorney. Instead, he attended Florida
A&M and became a teacher. After graduation, he returned to Palm Beach
County and was hired by his alma mater, Industrial High School, where
he taught nearly every subject. At that time, starting white teachers
were paid $50 more per month than their black counterparts. One month
after starting, U.B. Kinsey and others challenged the school board over
this policy. Future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall argued
their case, and they won.
After their own victory, Mr. Kinsey and his fellow teachers began
battling for the rights of black students. During World War II, black
children were schooled only seven months a year, so they could provide
cheap labor the rest of the time harvesting crops for local farmers.
U.B. Kinsey and his colleagues won that battle, too, and black children
were returned to a nine-month schedule. He went on to become assistant
principal at Industrial High and, later, the first principal of
Palmview Elementary. Along the way, Mr. Kinsey established a
scholarship fund that annually provides three promising students from
low-income families $1,000 each to attend college.
Over the next half-century, about 30,000 children passed through the
doors of Palmview Elementary. The school was later re-named U.B.
Kinsey/Palmview in his honor. At one point in his career, U.B. Kinsey
was offered the opportunity to become an assistant superintendent of
schools in charge of busing. He turned down the offer because he
refused to take part in the busing of black children to white schools
far from their neighborhoods. In the 1980s, as drug dealing became a
problem near his school, Mr. Kinsey confronted many of the dealers and,
out of respect for their former teacher, they stayed away from U.B.
Kinsey Elementary.
After retiring in 1989, he co-founded a non-profit development
company that secured funding to build a low-income housing development
near his school. These are just a few of the remarkable accomplishments
of Ulysses
[[Page 6163]]
Bradshaw Kinsey. Generations of African-American children have
benefited from the battles he fought and won to ensure that they got a
proper education. His efforts are directly responsible for the
graduation and ascension to higher education of countless black young
people. His many victories that advanced the cause of civil rights in
general earned him the gratitude of African-American citizens
throughout Palm Beach County.
U.B. Kinsey was a beloved friend of mine. His stature in the
education of Palm Beach County's children may be matched, but it will
never be exceeded. This very fine gentleman, a truly great American,
will be greatly missed by all who knew him.
____________________
HONORING THE BEDFORD GIRLS VOLLEYBALL TEAM FOR WINNING THE MICHIGAN
CLASS A STATE CHAMPIONSHIP
______
HON. JOHN D. DINGELL
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Bedford
High School girls' volleyball team in honor of its 2005 Class A State
Championship.
This remarkable group of Kicking Mules culminated a year of fantastic
play by toppling top-ranked Grand Rapids Forrest Hills Northern in the
first ever five-game final to capture the championship. These young
ladies have persevered beyond injury and daunting adversaries to become
the best in the State of Michigan. This is Bedford's third title in
eight years, and it continues their amazing streak of 16 straight trips
to the state's Final Four.
Coach Jodi Manore, a graduate of Bedford High School, has been at the
helm of Bedford's girls' volleyball team for 21 years. Her sage
leadership has built one of the most rigorous and successful programs
in the state. The success of the Bedford volleyball program is a true
credit to her vision and ability as a coach.
The intangible synergy necessary to win the State Championship cannot
easily be replicated. These young ladies have reached the pinnacle of
their sport through outstanding athleticism and teamwork. Team members
Kali Kuhl, Petra Whitcraft, Veronica Rood, Emily Fahrer, Tara Breske,
Lexi Leonhard, Amy Zuccarell, Kelsey Cousino, Stephanie Champine, Jamie
Swick, Michelle Obert, Hanna O'Connor, Jackie Blaida and Courtney
Riehle all deserve recognition for their phenomenal achievement.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in commending
the Bedford High School girls' volleyball team on its exceptional
season and 2005 Class A State Championship.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE JOHN YATES
______
HON. LYNN A. WESTMORELAND
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to one of the
members of the greatest generation our nation has known. The Honorable
John Yates, a member of the Georgia House of Representatives
exemplifies a life of service to causes greater than himself, and his
example should be known and followed across this nation.
During his youth in rural Spalding County, Georgia, Representative
Yates grew up on a family farm, working in the cotton fields to help
pay for his family's food.
Representative Yates' served in the military during one of the
greatest struggles for human freedom our nation has known--WorId War
II. He flew his plane, providing air cover for vulnerable ground
troops, and destroying German targets. He was involved in key aspects
of the Battle of the Bulge, and participated as a military observer
during the liberation of the Dachau death camp.
After his service to our country, Representative Yates went on to
work for the Ford Motor Company for many years, while raising his
family. In that same Spalding County where he grew up, Representative
Yates continued his service to the community.
In 1989, the citizens of his home county recognized his past service
and committed to him yet another great trust--a seat in the Georgia
House of Representatives. When he took his position there, the
Democratic Party was still the majority, and Republicans were very few.
But Representative Yates did not give up. He stuck with it, and is
today a member of the majority party, as Republicans took control of
the House of Representatives in Georgia during the 2004 election cycle.
As a result of his commitment and dedication through the years, the
new House leadership gave Representative Yates even more
responsibility--the chairmanship of the Defense and Veterans' Affairs
Committee in the Georgia House. Representative Yates has continued his
valiant service to his nation and state in that capacity during the
course of this 2005 regular legislative session.
But there is more to Representative Yates, and this is revealed by
his deep personal commitment to his wife, Annie. Although she has been
afflicted with some health problems, Representative Yates has continued
his valiant service by serving and caring for his wife, demonstrating
his deep affection and the character that is the foundation of every
area of his life.
Representative Yates has spent his life in service to his nation, his
state, and his family, and is an example to all of us.
Mr. Speaker, I lay before you the life and work of Representative
John Yates--a man that deserves the highest praise of our nation, a
dear friend of mine, and a man that embodies the values that make
America great. I am grateful to call Representative Yates my friend,
and am grateful for this opportunity to bring the valiant service of
John Yates to his country, his state, and his family to the attention
of the American people.
____________________
HONORING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF CHARLOTTE MAYOR MARK T. WILSON
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Mark T. Wilson, Mayor
of Charlotte, Texas, for his dedicated service to his community.
Mayor Wilson is one of Charlotte's proudest native sons. Born and
raised in Charlotte, he graduated from Charlotte High School and
attended TSTI in Waco, TX. While in school, he studied farming and
ranching in preparation for a career as a rancher.
Mr. Wilson's family has been in the ranching business for many years,
and he has established himself in the business community as well,
owning and operating heavy equipment and providing road construction
and land clearing for local ranchers. In addition, he has given back to
the community through his work as a public servant for the City of
Charlotte. He began his service as an Alderman, and rose through the
rank of Mayor Pro-Tem to become Mayor, a post he has held with
distinction for the past 8 and 1/2 years.
He has left his mark on the community in other ways, as well. He and
his wife, Jenci, are the parents of four children of their own, and
have selflessly given their time to the foster parents' program. Mayor
Wilson continues to give his time to his local church, the 4-H, and the
Future Farmers of America.
Mayor Mark Wilson is a tremendous asset for the City of Charlotte,
Texas. His work as a public servant, a successful businessman, and a
dedicated father serve as an example to the rest of us. I am proud to
have the opportunity to thank him here for all he has done.
____________________
HONORING THE DEDICATION OF THE OLIVIA HERMAN TRACK AND FIELD COMPLEX
______
HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my good
friend Olivia Herman, whose life will be commemorated in Lehighton,
Pennsylvania, as the school district dedicates its new athletic complex
as the Olivia Herman Track and Field Complex.
Olivia served on the Lehighton Area School Board for 13 years, from
1991 through 2003. She succumbed to cancer in March 2004 after a short
battle with the disease.
Olivia was elected as president of the school board from 2001 through
2003. When she attended her very last school board meeting in December
2003, the board voted to dedicate to her the new athletic complex that
was being built. Olivia had worked diligently to
[[Page 6164]]
obtain funding for the new facilities, and the school district wanted
to show its appreciation.
For eight years--from 1996 through 2003--Olivia served on the board
of directors for the Carbon-Lehigh Intermediate Unit. Prior to that,
she was the Director of Literacy for Carbon County, and was a volunteer
reading teacher. Olivia Herman was a tremendous asset to the field of
education. She was a lifelong advocate of reading and always stressed
the importance of literacy.
Olivia received her college degree later in life after working
professionally as a social worker for many years. She went to the
University of Delaware, graduating in 1971. Olivia's husband, William,
was sick at the time and the two stayed in Delaware for a few years
before returning to Northeastern Pennsylvania.
Olivia, herself a 1942 graduate of Lehighton Area High School, was by
many accounts one of the most gifted athletes to ever graduate from the
school. She was especially active in gymnastics, but she also
participated in basketball, cheerleading, and track. She remained
active in the school district throughout her life, organizing reunions
for her former classmates every few years. When she retired, she
decided she still had more to give of herself. Olivia ran for school
board and soon made that her full-time job.
Olivia and her husband had four children: Judy Herman Hunsicker,
twins Darryl and Derryl, and Rudy, who passed away at the age of 40.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in celebrating the life of an
extraordinary woman who helped so many children and adults throughout
her life as the Olivia Herman Track and Field Complex is dedicated in
Lehighton.
____________________
RED LAKE SCHOOL TRAGEDY
______
HON. BETTY McCOLLUM
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
deepest condolences to the Red Lake Nation of northern Minnesota for
the profound tragedy that took place on March 21, 2005. On that day a
young man killed nine people on the Red Lake Reservation and then he
killed himself. This extreme violence shatters our own sense of
security because we all know it can happen anywhere at any time. All
Americans and all Minnesotans extend our prayers, condolences, and
support for the families of the Red Lake Nation as they heal and
rebuild their community.
Violence, untreated mental illness, the epidemic of alcohol and drug
abuse, and the ubiquitous availability to guns are all scourges. They
are potentially contributing factors to an environment throughout our
nation in which rational problem solving is all too often replaced with
irrational destruction and death. We will never know why this young man
was driven to enter his own school and embark on a campaign of murder.
We only know the outcome; the painful consequences and the bewildering
agony of families and a community torn apart.
As adults we have a responsibility to our children. We must listen to
them, talk to them, and look for the warning signs. We must work
together as a community to ensure their basic needs are met because
even parents who are doing all they can still need assistance. In this
country, violence surrounds our children, our families, and our
communities. Violence is a plague which is promoted, glorified, and
condoned in popular culture through movies, music, video games, and the
endless television news cycle. It is a disease that is killing our
children in our streets and in our schools and it must be stopped.
The shooting at Red Lake is another tragic episode that is no longer
rare or abnormal. It is now all too commonplace and we are not nearly
as shocked by such tragedy as we once were. Sadly, Red Lake is another
example of this very tragic trend. And as Red Lake knows all too well,
our nation's children are at risk and America needs to be hearing their
voices, investing in their future, and supporting their very real
needs.
____________________
HONORING HIS HOLINESS, POPE JOHN PAUL II
______
HON. RAHM EMANUEL
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of His
Holiness, Pope John Paul II. With his passing on April 2nd, the world
lost one of the most influential and inspirational leaders of our time.
He was a great leader, a man of peace, and a source of hope to millions
across the globe.
Pope John Paul II was born Karol Josef Wojtyla in Wadowice, Poland on
May 18, 1920. He made history by becoming the first Slavic Pope and the
first non-Italian Pope in more than 400 years. He traveled more than
any other Pope in history, visiting over 130 countries and 900 Heads of
State.
The Pope's strong will and vision were instrumental in delivering
hope and inspiration to people around the world. As a young man in an
oppressed country, he courageously protected all people from oppression
and tyranny. Under his reign, Pope John Paul II served as an important
symbol that helped bring about the fall of communism throughout Europe.
Particularly important for Poland, he was an outspoken advocate for
human rights. His peaceful message of human rights and religious
freedom resonated among Polish Catholics, ushering in Poland's peaceful
revolution in their fight against communist rule.
Pope John Paul II ministered to all people through his personal
example of sacrifice and collaboration. He worked tirelessly to spread
the message of compassion, courage, and sacrifice that inspired
millions. Pope John Paul II brought together and forged dialogue
between people of different faiths, promoting cooperation and peace. He
was the first Pope to visit synagogues and mosques as well as areas of
conflict, including the Holy Land.
When the world most needed his eloquent voice, he inspired us. When
the world needed his prayers, he prayed for us. When the world needed
his guidance, he showed us the way. Mr. Speaker, he will forever be
remembered as a tireless promoter of peace for all people and regions
of the world.
____________________
SALUTING SNOWSHOE RESORT
______
HON. NICK J. RAHALL II
of west virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute Snowshoe Resort and
its adaptive skiing program's extensive commitment to enabling disabled
persons to enjoy the recreation of alpine sports.
The Snowshoe Resort adaptive skiing program, under the direction of
Dave Begg, has been very active in providing opportunities for a wide
range of disabled persons and has seen continued growth over the past
decade. The program uses certified Professional Ski Instructors of
America, trained in adaptive skiing, to teach many disabled persons to
ski, including those with spinal cord injuries, amputations, cerebral
palsy, sight and hearing impairments, traumatic brain injury, and
development disorders.
Snowshoe has worked in cooperation with the Challenged Athletes of
West Virginia organization to improve the quality of life for persons
with disabilities through outdoor sports and recreation. This
organization has sponsored training events at Snowshoe for the adaptive
skiing program and is actively involved in creating other outdoor
recreational opportunities for disabled persons for not only their
enjoyment, but also as part of a rehabilitation process.
The program also works extensively with veterans of past wars and
those returning from our current conflicts abroad, for which this
program should be commended for providing our soldiers with ample
opportunity to continue a healthy lifestyle through outdoor recreation.
Each student who enters into the program is worked with on a one-on-
one basis by a professional instructor as well as with help from one of
the many volunteers who come to assist the program. There is a
multitude of equipment for the adaptive skiers to choose from when they
hit the slopes, so that they may find what they feel is the most
comfortable to use while skiing.
The adaptive skiing program at Snowshoe has continually provided a
venue for disabled persons to maintain an active and healthy lifestyle,
and I wish to honor them for this. I implore my fellow members to join
me in honoring Snowshoe Mountain Resort and also to encourage all ski
resorts to follow the example of Snowshoe Mountain in promoting the
equal opportunity for all disabled persons to participate in sports.
[[Page 6165]]
____________________
MATH AND SCIENCE INCENTIVE ACT OF 2005 (H.R. 1547)
______
HON. VERNON J. EHLERS
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Math and Science
Incentive Act of 2005, which today was introduced by Rep. Wolf. I thank
him and his staff for their work on this important legislation. I am
very pleased to join him as the lead cosponsor, and pledge that I will
work with Rep. Wolf to move this legislation through the House.
A number of developments in recent years have fueled concerns that
world technology leadership could shift from the United States to other
countries. In today's global economy, American manufacturers and other
businesses rely on innovation to stay competitive. For the United
States to remain a prosperous country, we must maintain our
technological leadership in the world.
Our knowledge-based economy is driven by constant innovation. The
foundation of innovation lies in a dynamic, motivated, and well-
educated workforce equipped with math and science skills. An
understanding of scientific and mathematical principles, a working
knowledge of computer hardware and software, and the problem-solving
skills developed by courses in science, technology, engineering and
math are now basic requirements for many entry-level positions or for
admission to college. In fact, I fully expect that all of the jobs of
the future will require a basic understanding of the concepts and
principles of math and science.
Unfortunately, we are continuing to see disturbing trends in American
student performance on basic math and science tests. The recent Program
for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International
Math and Science Study (TIMSS) highlight the shortcomings of current K-
12 science and math students in the United States when compared to
other developed countries.
We have also seen that fewer students are pursuing degrees in math
and science. This should be of particular concern when we consider the
large educational and workforce development investments made by
emerging economies with huge populations, such as China, India and
Russia.
We must encourage girls in grades K-12 to become interested in math
and science and urge young women to pursue degrees in math and science.
While the percentages of women holding baccalaureate degrees in
biological and physical sciences closely mirrors that of their male
counterparts, recent statistics from the National Center for Education
Statistics show that women are underrepresented in engineering and
computer science baccalaureate degrees.
The Math and Science Incentive Act of 2005 is a direct response to
the needs I have outlined. The bill will help recruit and retain direly
needed science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) teachers and
workforce professionals. It allows the Secretary of Education to pay up
to $10,000 in interest on undergraduate loans for those who qualify and
agree to enter into a five-year service agreement with the Secretary.
Clearly, we must recommit ourselves to leadership in science,
technology, mathematics and engineering. This legislation puts us on
the path toward ensuring that we will have STEM teachers and workforce
professionals in place.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO MRS. BELVA TEAFORD
______
HON. JOHN A. BOEHNER
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate, thank, and
recognize my constituent Mrs. Belva Teaford. Belva is a testament to
the innate goodness of human nature and the overwhelming positive
effect one individual may have on the community.
As a wife, mother, and tireless volunteer in Ohio's Eighth
Congressional District Mrs. Teaford has quietly given much more than
she has taken. Her work, throughout Darke County over so many decades
is a constant source of pride and unconditional praise. As a volunteer
for the Darke County Republican Party Belva's friendship and reassuring
demeanor have helped guide countless candidates, myself included, to
success. Yet, Belva's efforts stretch far beyond politics. She is, in
the truest sense of the word, a humanitarian whose unyielding belief in
the goodness of her neighbors has helped make Darke County a truly
remarkable community.
Belva's attitude, fierce determination, and community spirit are a
constant source of energy for all those around her. So much of Belva's
work is done quietly and without reward and it is my honor to take this
moment and say thank you and it is with a great deal of personal joy
that I congratulate Belva and wish her a very happy 90th birthday.
____________________
HONORING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF JUDGE DANNY VALDEZ
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the important
contribution of Judge Danny Valdez of Laredo, TX.
In May 1982, Danny Valdez was elected as Justice of the Peace, and is
currently serving his sixth four-year term.
Judge Valdez has also received numerous awards. Some include: the
2000 Martin High School Tiger Legend, the Liberty Bell Award from the
Laredo Bar Association, and the Community Service Award from Lulac
Council #12.
Aside from presiding over one of the state's busiest courts, he makes
time for many community activities. He has worked with at-risk students
for the past 23 years, addressing issues such as truancy, gang
violence, drug abuse, teen pregnancy and juvenile delinquency. He has
been working with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Education
Program to bring male and female inmates to our local middle and high
schools to tell their life stories in an effort to educate, warn, and
inform students about the dangers and consequences involved in making
the wrong choices.
Judge Valdez has worked with the Lamar Bruni Vergara Trust in the
development of the Lamar Bruni Vergara Boy Scout Camp Huisahche and was
also instrumental in the development of the Lamar Bruni Vergara Inner
City Recreation Center.
Judge Valdez chairs the Annual Toys for Tejanitos Drive and the Angel
Wish Program that benefits needy families in our community. He also
chairs the Annual Fishing Derby for physically challenged students.
This event has received Texas state wide recognition. He has also
awarded over $60,000.00 in scholarships to deserving students from
L.I.S.D. in Laredo, TX.
Judge Valdez is married to Isabel Valdez and has a son, Danny, Jr.
and daughter, Maribel.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have had this opportunity to recognize the
contributions of Judge Danny Valdez.
____________________
CONGRATULATING MARTIN FLA-
HERTY ON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT FROM THE WILKES-BARRE VETERANS
AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER
______
HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Martin
Flaherty on the occasion of his retirement from the Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania after
more than 30 years of dedicated service. Martin, or ``Marty,'' as he is
known by friends, co-workers, veterans, and volunteers at the VA, will
be greatly missed and I wish him luck in the next phase of his life.
Martin's service to the government began on April 4, 1966 when he
joined the Army. He spent two years on a tour of duty in Germany and
was honorably discharged on March 17, 1968 at the rank of Spec 5. After
the Army, Marty worked for the Domestic Intelligence Division in
Washington, D.C., and in September of 1970 he joined the Metropolitan
Police Force in Washington.
In the evenings, he attended Georgetown University. Marty was off to
a promising start in life. His career in Washington was cut short when
he left in 1973 to move back home to the Wyoming Valley to care of his
father, who had taken ill.
In that same year, Marty started to work for the VA Medical Center as
a housekeeping aide. Marty worked his way up through the ranks with
hard work and landed a job in the warehouse. From there, Marty's career
took off.
Now Marty is the supervisor of the Inventory Management Department,
where he oversees
[[Page 6166]]
the warehouse, inventory personnel, and SPD. He possesses great
motivational skills to rally staff to accomplish tasks where others
would say: ``it can't be done.'' And at the start of each day, you'll
hear Marty coming down the hallway, thanking his employees for coming
to work that day. In return, he receives a ``thank you'' back.
Marty has received superior performance awards over his career at the
VA and possesses the respect of managers above him. G. Michael Miller,
the VISN 4 Chief Logistics Officer, states that: ``Marty is one of the
people that makes the VA Wilkes-Barre a special place to work.'' Jackie
Malhoyt, the former Facilities Management Director, stated that:
``Marty looks at change as a challenge and opportunity, never as a
threat or bother. He is an example of the heart of this medical
center.''
But this is not the whole story of Marty. Walk around the VA and you
will hear other stories of Marty's selflessness and dedication, whether
it's assisting patients to their next appointment or being a sounding
board for a co-worker in need. You may find him purchasing the balance
of chances for a drawing from veteran volunteers in order to help them
meet their goal. Still, what you will probably hear most about Marty is
how people were moved by his singing voice.
You see, Marty has been blessed with a beautiful voice and has been
singing since he was nine years old, when he received his first lessons
from Mrs. Helen Schivell of Wilkes-Barre. Over and over again, Marty is
asked to share his singing voice at various hospital events, whether
it's a Veterans Day ceremony or an employee awards program. You may
also find him belting out songs in patient rooms or in the VA's nursing
home on other occasions.
George Bath, the VA's Network Contracting Manager and Marty's former
supervisor, notes one instance where there was an unusually large
turnout at an employees' recognition program. George recalls: ``I
walked into Liberty Hall and nearly every seat was taken. I turned and
there at the head of the room, with a mike in hand, was Marty, getting
ready to open the program. Then I heard someone whisper, `I hope he
sings Wind Beneath My Wings.' Folks were there to hear Marty!''
Beyond the walls of the VAMC, you will hear Marty's voice as a
soloist at his church, at local nursing homes, or at other community-
based activities. And he takes nothing in return except the cheer of
the crowd.
In addition to singing, you will find Marty creating floral
arrangements that he donates to his church to help raise money. Roland
E. Moore, the Wilkes-Barre VA's Medical Center Director, sums it up:
``Marty's work ethic and dedication to serving veterans and VA staff is
second-to-none. Whether it's being ranked as a well-respected
supervisor in our medical center/network or boosting the spirits of
veterans with a song, he has truly served this institution with
professionalism and gusto.''
Marty will be missed for his dedication and compassion to the
veterans he has served over the years and also by the employees who
have had the opportunity to work alongside him. I am pleased to join my
friends at the VA in congratulating Marty on this milestone. I wish him
a fruitful and enjoyable retirement and, Marty, thank you for coming to
work for the Wilkes-Barre VA.
____________________
RECOGNITION AND REMEMBRANCE OF THE LIFE AND CAREER OF POPE JOHN PAUL II
______
HON. BETTY McCOLLUM
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the
opportunity to recognize and remember the life of Pope John Paul II.
The world mourns the passing of Pope John Paul II and the great void
he leaves behind as a force for good in the world. Pope John Paul
inspired peoples of all faiths in every corner of the globe by his
living example of faith, justice, peace and love. His twenty-six years
as the Holy Father transformed the Roman Catholic Church and
revitalized the more than one billion Roman Catholics around the world.
Pope John Paul worked tirelessly to advance human dignity, social
justice and peace. His powerful presence helped to defeat communism in
his home country of Poland and contributed to the fall of the Soviet
Union. The Pope urged his fellow Catholics in Poland to support Lech
Walesa and the Solidarity movement in a peaceful and non-violent
campaign that eventually led to Solidarity's successful victory in
Poland's first post-communist election.
Pope John Paul was a great champion and advocate for the poor, the
sick and the forgotten, particularly in the developing world. He loved
children, and often appeared to take great joy from speaking to and
meeting with young people. Pope John Paul traveled the globe inviting
and mobilizing young people to a life of faith and to stand in support
of the rights of those less fortunate than themselves.
The life of Pope John Paul II has been a blessing for Catholics and
people of all faiths. His moral and spiritual leadership of the Roman
Catholic Church and for all mankind make his life an example for all of
us. Let us honor the life of John Paul and express our humble gratitude
for the service, sacrifice and prayers he shared with all of us until
the hour of his death.
____________________
HONORING PRESIDENT VIKTOR YUSHCHENKO
______
HON. RAHM EMANUEL
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today on behalf of the
more than 4,000 of my constituents of Ukrainian descent in the Fifth
Congressional District of Illinois on Chicago's northwest side. I am
also pleased to join with my colleagues in the House to receive the
recently inaugurated President of the Republic of Ukraine, His
Excellency Viktor Yushchenko during his first official visit to the
United States, in a joint session of Congress.
I applaud President Yushchenko for his courage and vision and for his
leadership in the ``Orange Revolution'' that peacefully brought freedom
and democratic reforms to Ukraine late last year. The people of the
Ukraine, and indeed all across the globe, were relieved when the
President survived an assassination attempt that nearly claimed his
life and subsequently persevered among tremendous resistance to the
dramatic reforms he championed.
My hometown of Chicago is home to more than 100,000 Ukrainian
Americans who have been instrumental in helping advance the
increasingly important alliance between our nations. The Ukraine's
prosperity, independence and openness to the West are of vital
economic, cultural and strategic importance to the global community.
Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues and all Americans in
congratulating President Yushchenko for his triumph. I wish him and the
Ukraine continued prosperity and success in advancing the ideals of
democracy and freedom in that nation.
____________________
HONORING ROTARY INTERNATIONAL'S 100TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. NICK J. RAHALL II
of west virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Rotary International
for reaching its' 100th Anniversary, and for the monumental amount of
achievements it has accomplished within its' time.
Rotary Club was first founded in 1905 by Paul Harris, an attorney, in
Chicago Illinois with the interest of organizing a booster club, which
then expanded to Rotary International in 1922, and has grown to include
over 1.2 million members in more than 31,000 clubs that span the globe
in 166 countries. The Rotary District in my own Congressional District
has 32 clubs within it that include some 1509 members.
In my home district, Anthony K. Blankenship, the District Governor
Elect of District 7550, has set a superb example for all business
leaders in the area by serving on his local chamber of commerce and as
the Ohio Valley Automotive Aftermarket Association's vice chair. He has
also served in many capacities for the Matewan Rotary Club, including
President.
Each year the local Rotary District sponsors a Group Study Exchange
to foster peace and understanding between nations that sends four Non-
Rotarian business people and one Rotarian to a paired foreign nation to
experience a different culture and way of life. This past year the 7550
District sent a member and four business professionals to Great Britain
and has plans to send another entourage to Australia this year.
Rotary International has encouraged and fostered the ideal of service
as a basis of worthy enterprise, and thus adopted the 4-Way Test,
formulated by its' own Herbert Taylor, who developed a standard code of
ethics for businesses.
[[Page 6167]]
The Rotary Foundation has been instrumental in funding many
worthwhile service projects that have improved the lives of people
across the globe by promoting world understanding and peace through
humanitarian, educational, and cultural programs. The Rotary clubs in
my district, led by the Beckley Rotary club, recently secured a
$300,000 grant to build a clinic in India.
Rotary International has enacted the Polio-Plus program that has
collected over $500 million, contributed tens of thousands of volunteer
man-hours, inoculated over 2 billion children since 1985 with the polio
vaccine, and is slated to eradicate polio globally by December, 2005.
Rotary has been actively involved in creating a peaceful world by
fostering peace initiatives that have created Rotary Centers for
International Studies at world-renowned universities in an effort to
educate and train Rotary World Peace Scholars in conflict resolution,
peace studies, and international relations. In fact, a West Virginia
native of St. Albans was one of the first graduates of this program.
Many students have excelled and benefited under the Rotary Youth
Exchange, which funded by the Ambassadorial Scholarships, has become
the international community's largest privately funded international
scholarships program. The Matewan Rotary Club ensures each year that
two local high school students will receive a scholarship to further
their higher education goals.
I wish to honor today and hope that my colleagues will join me in
honoring Rotary International for continually striving to promote the
ideal of service as an integral part of enterprise, and a sustained
effort to maintain high ethical standards while promoting peaceful
initiatives around the globe.
____________________
HONORING DR. EDWARD L. KELLY
______
HON. TOM DAVIS
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr.
Edward L. Kelly for his exceptional work and service to the Prince
William County School system.
Since July of 1987 Dr. Kelly has been the Superintendent of Schools
for Prince William County, Virginia. During his tenure he has been
responsible for the supervision of over 66,000 students at 80 different
schools.
Dr. Kelly graduated from Northeast Missouri State University in 1964
with a B.S. in Zoology and Chemistry. He received an M.A. in Secondary
School Administration from the same institution in 1968. During this
time he interacted with adolescents on a daily basis as a Science
Teacher and Coach in Missouri. Dr. Kelly then served as an assistant
principal, vice principal and principal in both Missouri and lllinois.
After having worked for a number of years, Dr. Kelly returned to school
and received his Ph.D. from St. Louis University in 1973.
Dr. Kelly served as Superintendent of schools in Rockford, lllinois
and Little Rock, Arkansas. prior to moving to Prince William County in
1987. As a school administrator, Dr. Kelly strived to bring out the
best in his students, employees and community. His oversight on
educational practices allowed him to implement nationally recognized
School-Based Management Programs, design alternative programs for
students with special circumstances, and supervise curriculum
restructuring and benchmark examinations. Dr. Kelly's positive actions
and open door policy stabilized relations within the school system, and
established trust among parents, teachers, the School Board and the
community at large.
Dr. Kelly's dedication to his work has been recognized through
numerous awards and commendations. In 1987 he was named by a panel of
educators to The Executive Educator 100, a selection of 100 outstanding
educational leaders. Dr. Kelly also received the Virginia Elementary
School Principals ``Educator of the Year'' Award and was elected
Chairman of the Washington Area School Study Council.
In addition to his educational pursuits, Dr. Kelly stays involved in
many charitable and community activities. He is a member of the board
for the United Way, the National Conference of Christians and Jews, as
well as the Boy Scouts of America.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to extend my best wishes to Dr.
Edward L. Kelly on his retirement as the Prince William County
Superintendent. Through his long and distinguished career Dr. Kelly has
touched the lives of countless students. While I know that he will be
greatly missed, his retirement is well deserved. I call upon my
colleagues to join me in honoring Dr. Kelly, and I wish him the best of
luck in all future endeavors.
____________________
CONGRATULATING RABBI JEHIEL ORENSTEIN
______
HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career and
accomplishments of Rabbi Jehiel Orenstein. Rabbi Orenstein is a beloved
figure not only among the 575 families at Congregation Beth EI, but
throughout the community at-large.
In 1961, Jehiel Orenstein received his master's degree in Judaica and
was ordained as a Rabbi at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.
While he was a student there, he received the Lawrence Prager Award for
outstanding scholarship in medieval Hebrew Literature. In 1986, Rabbi
Orenstein received his PhD from New York University in linguistics. In
that same year, he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Divinity from
the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.
Rabbi Orenstein served as Chaplain of the United States Air Force on
Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. After three years on
Lackland Air Force Base, Rabbi Orenstein moved to Lynbrook, New York,
where he was Rabbi of Congregation Beth David. After his stay at Temple
Beth David he became Rabbi at Temple Israel in Great Neck, New York.
For the past 35 years, Rabbi Orenstein has served as the spiritual
leader of Congregation Beth El in South Orange, New Jersey. During his
distinguished tenure at Beth EI, Rabbi Orenstein has overseen a vibrant
and growing Conservative Jewish congregation.
He has written several publications, including a book about Hebrew
Literature. Some of his other works include articles published in
Conservative Judaism, the New York Times, and Bai'nanu, a working
publication for American Conservative Rabbis.
Rabbi Orenstein is the past president of the Maplewood-South Orange
Clergy Association, Chaplain of the State Police of New Jersey, and
Chaplain of the Maplewood Police and Fire Departments. He is also the
past president of the Rabbinical Assembly of New Jersey. I know that he
is particularly proud of founding the South Orange-Maplewood Interfaith
Holocaust Service, a 27-year tradition.
Rabbi Orenstein is married to Sylvia Mowshowitz Orenstein, a very
accomplished attorney in her own right. They are the parents of three
very successful children, and are the proud grandparents of five.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish Rabbi Jehiel Orenstein a hearty
``Mazel Tov!'' on giving the opening prayer today on the Senate floor.
Rabbi Orenstein built a strong synagogue during his 35 years at Beth
EI, and has been a pillar for the South Orange-Maplewood region. I
would also like to thank him for his years of service dedicated not
only to his congregants, but our community and the State of New Jersey.
May he enjoy a very well-deserved retirement
____________________
HONORING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE MAYOR PRO-TEM JAMES D. ROBERTS
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mayor Pro-Tem
James D. Roberts for his public service to the city of Charlotte,
Texas.
A patriotic and dedicated American, Mr. Roberts is no stranger to
service and sacrifice for his town and country. A veteran of Vietnam,
he served in the U.S. Navy from 1968 through 1972.
James Roberts is a dedicated public servant, and a lifelong patron of
the State of Texas. He has served the City of Charlotte for eleven
years, having worked previously as Alderman for 9\1/2\ years.
Working closely with numerous community organizations, Mr. Roberts is
active in the Atascosa Finance Committee, the Charlotte FFA, the 4-H
Club, and the San Antonio Livestock Show Auction Committee. He also
serves his community as a volunteer for the fire department, often
working as the acting Fire Marshal.
Having lived in the community for over 28 years, James Roberts and
his wife Marilyn are the owners of a local feed store. They live in
Charlotte, Texas with their three children Cody, Jerrold, and Cherlyn.
[[Page 6168]]
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply proud to have been given this opportunity to
recognize the Mayor Pro-Tem of Charlotte, James D. Roberts, for his
dedicated public service.
____________________
CONGRATULATING GERALD T. LANGAN UPON 35 YEARS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE
______
HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask you and my esteemed
colleagues in the House of Representatives to pay tribute to Gerald T.
Langan for 35 years of community service and 25 years as president and
CEO of Goodwill Industries as he is honored Friday night at a
celebration at The Radisson Hotel in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Mr. Langan is a 1966 graduate of Central High School in Scranton.
After high school, he went on to Lackawanna Junior College and Bethel
College.
In 1970, he took a job as the education coordinator for Head Start.
Mr. Langan then became the project director for Head Start in 1973.
Since 1985, he has been president and CEO of Goodwill Industries of
Northeastern Pennsylvania.
Mr. Langan has twice served as president of the Pennsylvania Goodwill
Director's Association. He was appointed to the State Office of
Vocational Rehabilitation Board by Governor Robert Casey. Mr. Langan is
a member of the Pennsylvania Association of Rehabilitation, the zoning
board for the City of Scranton, and the housing board of Lackawanna
County. He was awarded ``Health Care Professional of the Year'' by the
State of Pennsylvania. Mr. Langan was a past member of the Lackawanna
College Board of Directors, and served as board chairman for two years.
Mr. Langan and his lovely wife Fran have one daughter, Kristen.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Gerald Langan as he is
honored for his selfless devotion to the community and dedication to
making the world a better place.
____________________
HONORING THRESHOLDS PSYCHIATRIC REHABILITATION CENTERS
______
HON. RAHM EMANUEL
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Thresholds
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Centers on the occasion of their 20th Annual
Golf and Tennis Benefit. I am proud to represent this distinguished
organization and I hope that the Congress will join me in recognizing
their outstanding contributions to the field of mental health
rehabilitation.
As one of the nation's largest non-profit providers of mental health
and recovery services, Thresholds provides a critical service to
members of the community that struggle with mental illness, as well as
their families. Over 5,000 Chicago residents benefit yearly from the
services provided by this impressive organization.
Thresholds provides a comprehensive program of therapeutic support,
case management, education, job training and placement, and housing.
With 30 service locations and more than 75 housing developments in the
Chicagoland area, Thresholds helps restore independence, dignity and
respect to people with mental illness.
Offering outreach programs, residential services, youth and adult
education, and services for homeless, deaf and jailed patients, this
valuable organization has established itself as one of the nations most
successful and respected psychiatric recovery centers.
I am also pleased to recognize Thresholds as an innovator and model
in the field of mental health. Experts from Thresholds carry out
research and regularly publish valuable research papers, and several
mental heath centers around the world have replicated Thresholds'
success.
Thresholds and its extraordinary doctors and staff are regular
recipients of awards in the mental health field. The 2004 Celebration
Recovery Award was bestowed upon CEO Dr. Anthony Zipple's, and Dr.
Jerry Dincin was awarded Honorable Mention for Lifetime Achievement by
Eli Lilly's 2004 Reintegration Awards. These represent only a tiny
fraction of the awards presented to Thresholds.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have Thresholds Psychiatric
Rehabilitation Centers in the Fifth District. I wish them the best at
their 20th Annual Golf and Tennis Benefit, and I hope they continue
their 45-year history of serving mentally ill patients and their
families in the Chicago area for decades to come.
____________________
COMMENDING BOB ANADELL AND TIMOTHY SANDERS
______
HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to commend two of
Northwest Indiana's most distinguished citizens, Mr. Bob Anadell and
Mr. Timothy Sanders. On Saturday, April 23, 2005, they will be honored
for their exemplary and dedicated service to the community. Their
praiseworthy efforts will be recognized at the TradeWinds Gala 2005
banquet at the Radisson Hotel at Star Plaza in Merrillville, Indiana.
Bob Anadell has had many positive accomplishments throughout his
career. He actively contributed to his community through participation
in various programs aimed at improving opportunities for the people of
Northwest Indiana. He has been a powerful member of the Northwest
Indiana Building Trades, Secretary Treasurer of the IBEW State
Conference, Vice-President of the Indiana State AFL-CIO, Trustee of the
Lake Area United Way, Board of Directors of TradeWinds, Member of the
Lake County Integrated Services Delivery Board, Chairman of the Board
of Directors, Investment Committee, and Executive Committee of the
Legacy Foundation, as well as Co-Chairman of the Heroes Committee of
the American Red Cross.
Tim Sanders enjoyed serving the public for several years as Director
of Senator Richard G. Lugar's regional office. In addition to serving
Senator Lugar, Tim has also worked with Senators Dan Quayle and Dan
Coats. Through skillful networking within the state and federal
legislative agencies, he established solid relationships benefiting
Northwest Indiana's businesses and constituents. Tim implemented public
relations initiatives through television, radio, and print to provide
information, gather support, and raise visibility on key issues. He has
also extended his commitment to the community by serving on a number of
Boards and Associations such as the St. Jude House, Lake Area United
Way, American Heart Association, and the TradeWinds Rehabilitation
Center. Although Tim has dedicated his time serving the community, he
has never neglected to provide support and love to his family. Tim and
his wife, Tania, have two children and three grandchildren.
Both of these men have spent years as dedicated members of the
TradeWinds Board of Directors; each adding their individual business
acumen and combined strength that has enabled TradeWinds to continue
providing quality services for children and adults with disabilities.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my distinguished colleagues join me
in congratulating Bob Anadell and Timothy Sanders. Without their
enduring love and compassion for the community and children of all ages
and abilities, TradeWinds would not be what it is today.
____________________
ANTONIO COSTA WAS AN OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY LEADER
______
HON. BARNEY FRANK
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, people in Southeastern
Massachusetts, and Portuguese-Americans in particular, received very
sad news on Sunday of this week of the death of Antonio A. Costa. As
the New Bedford Standard Times noted in its obituary of this
outstanding man, ``Mr. Costa was an esteemed leader, establishing many
firsts within the New Bedford, Mass., Portuguese community.'' Mr. Costa
was a leader in establishing Portuguese language media, and he went on
to be the Broadcasting Director for Voice of America in the Portuguese
language section. He then returned to our area and again provided
significant cultural, intellectual and economic leadership to the
Portuguese-American community in particular, and the broader community
in general. After retirement, he continued his leadership role and
produced the only radio program in Portuguese in South Florida.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Costa was exactly the kind of community leader that
contributes to the strength of America and I ask that his extraordinary
life and his contributions to others be noted here. Mr. Costa's life
reminds us of the great benefit America derives from immigrants such as
himself and the attached editorial
[[Page 6169]]
from the New Bedford Standard Times makes that clear.
Antonio A. Costa, Leader in Portuguese Community
Pompano Beach, Fla.--Antonio Alberto Costa, formerly of
Southeastern Massachusetts, died Sunday, April 10, 2005,
unexpectedly at Imperial Point Medical Center. He was the
husband of Guida (Goncalves) Costa.
Born in Lisbon, Portugal, he was the son of the late Jose
M. and Maria A. (Correia) Costa. He immigrated to America as
a young man.
Mr. Costa was an esteemed leader, establishing many firsts
within the New Bedford, Mass., Portuguese community. He was a
founder and past president of the Luso-American Soccer
Association as well as the Portuguese American Athletic Club
in New Bedford.
An entrepreneur, he began by purchasing Phillips Press and
continued with the founding of Costa Imports. He founded the
first Portuguese-language radio station in the United States,
WGCY, now broadcasting as WJFD-FM in New Bedford, and
produced the first Portuguese variety television program,
``Passport to Portugal'' on WTEV-TV. He initiated a daily TV
cable program ``Panorama of Portugal,'' currently known as
The Portuguese Channel, and purchased and published what is
known as ``The Portuguese Times'' newspaper, also in
Southeastern Massachusetts.
Mr. Costa relocated to Washington, D.C., to represent
Portugal as the Portuguese language broadcasting director for
``Voice of America.'' He returned to New England as co-owner
and director of Radio Club Portugal, ``WRCP.''
In recognition of his services to the Portuguese community,
the government of Portugal conferred upon him the rank of
comendador da ordem do infante dom henrique. Various civic
organizations recognized his achievements as well. The Seven
Castles Club named him Man of the Year, as he received the
Merit Award from the United Way as well as the Portuguese-
American Federation.
He received official citations from the Massachusetts and
Rhode Island houses of representatives, the Medal of Prestige
from the Portuguese Continental Union and the Annual
Achievement Award from the Prince Henry Club.
In retirement, he produced the only Portuguese-language
radio program in South Florida on WHSR-AM, where the
transmission continues via his Web site, radioportugal.net.
He also wrote periodic chronicles published in O Journal
entitled ``Desabafos.''
Survivors include his widow; two sons, Carlos Alberto Costa
and his wife, Susan, of Westport, Mass., and Luis Manuel
Costa and his wife, Nancy, of New Bedford; a daughter, Ana
Maria Costa of New Bedford; five grandchildren; three great-
grandchildren; and a nephew.
His funeral will be at 9 a.m., Friday from the Dartmouth
Funeral Home, 230 Russells Mills Road, Dartmouth, Mass.,
followed by a Mass of Christian Burial at 11 in Immaculate
Conception Church, New Bedford. Interment will be private.
Arrangements are by Porter Funeral Service, Westport.
____________________
HONORING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF DR. RUBEN OLIVAREZ, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE
SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
Superintendent of the San Antonio Independent School District, Dr.
Ruben Olivarez, for his contributions to the local community.
Dr. Ruben Olivarez has dedicated his career to educating our youth.
In 1970, Dr. Olivarez started his career in education. Having taught at
J.T. Brackenridge Elementary School, he is no stranger to the
educational needs of our community. He has held a number of important
educational posts over the years, including a professorship at the
University of Texas at Austin, the title of Principal in the Fort Worth
Independent School District, the post of Deputy Commissioner of the
Texas Education Agency, and many others.
On January 11, 2000, Dr. Ruben Olivarez was named Superintendent of
the San Antonio Independent School District, which has a student
population of approximately 57,000. He is currently responsible for the
``Vision 2005 and Beyond'' plan for educational improvement. Dr.
Olivarez has helped to provide the guidance our schools need, keeping
the needs of our students an important priority.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize the Superintendent of the San
Antonio Independent School District, Dr. Ruben Olivarez, for his
dedicated service to our local schools.
____________________
CONGRATULATING PATTY LAWLER ON BEING NAMED WOMAN OF THE YEAR BY THE
LACKAWANNA COUNTY FEDERATION OF DEMOCRATIC WOMEN
______
HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Patty
Lawler as the Lackawanna County Federation of Democratic Women names
her Woman of the Year.
Patty is the daughter of James and Dolores Lawler. She was born and
raised in the MidValley area, and currently lives in Clarks Summit,
Pennsylvania.
Patty is a graduate of St. Patrick's High School in Olyphant. She
graduated from Marywood University with a bachelor of arts degree in
education and theater. Patty was active in many clubs and organizations
on campus and was president of the class of 1971. She was a member of
the Student Pennsylvania State Education Association and the Marywood
Players. She held leading roles in many productions on campus and
chaired several committees including Sophomore Parents' Weekend and the
Junior Prom. Patty is listed in the 1971 edition of Who's Who Among
Students in American Colleges and Universities.
Patty completed her graduate work at Catholic University of America
in Washington, D.C. in theater and directing. She participated in
Shakespearean productions and represented the university at a meeting
with Ed McMahon in New York City.
Patty currently works as a second grade teacher in the Lakeland
School District, where she is in her 27th year in the education field.
She has served as director of the Lakeland Curtain Club and also
teaches theater courses for Northeastern Educational Intermediate Unit.
She has also worked at a summer camp for the Association for Retarded
Citizens of Wyoming County where she trained campers in the basics of
acting for a performance on the last day of camp.
Patty is a past president of the Lackawanna County Federation of
Democratic Women. She ran as a delegate for John Kerry to the 2004
Democratic National Convention and received the highest number of votes
in each of the counties in her district. She attended the convention in
Boston in July 2004 not only as a delegate, but also as a member of the
Pennsylvania State Education Association Caucus.
Patty is currently a member of the Pennsylvania State Education
Association, the Lakeland Education Association, the Laurel Garden
Club, and the Rock and Mineral Club of Northeastern Pennsylvania. She
is a very active member of the Lackawanna County Humane Society, of
which she is a former board member. She can still be seen walking dogs
in the St. Patrick's Day parade or serving refreshments at fund raising
events. Patty is a member of the Marywood Alumni Club of Northeastern
Pennsylvania and belongs to Holy Rosary Parish in Scranton, where she
is a member of the choir. Patty was recently appointed to the Saint
Joseph's Auxiliary Board and is working diligently on this year's
summer festival.
Patty received the Volunteer of the Year Award from the Association
for Retarded Citizens of Wyoming County for organizing the adoption of
a ward program at Clarks Summit State Hospital.
Quality education and honest politics are Patty's passions. She was
exposed to politics at a very early age when she and her sister
accompanied her parents to political functions. The family attended
functions such as the National Association of Postmasters Convention at
the Waldorf Astoria. Patty's father was the postmaster of Olyphant and
first cousin to County Commissioner Mike Lawler and Assistant
Postmaster General Jo Jo Lawler. The families were very close, and
Patty recalls that, as little girls, she and her sister would accompany
their dad to the corner in Jessup where the men met to talk about
politics.
Patty Lawler has a devotion to the community and expresses that
through her willingness to volunteer her talents helping others. The
Lackawanna County Federation of Democratic Women is awarding this honor
to her this year because she works so hard to make a difference in
Lackawanna County.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Ms. Lawler on the
prestigious honor of being named Woman of the Year by the Lackawanna
County Federation of Democratic Women.
[[Page 6170]]
____________________
50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SUCCESSFUL SALK POLIO VACCINE TRIALS
______
HON. JOHN D. DINGELL
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark a historic day in the
history of public health. Fifty years ago today, Dr. Thomas Francis,
Jr. announced from the University of Michigan's Rackham Auditorium
words that people around the globe were waiting to hear: the Salk polio
vaccine works. With those simple words, eradication efforts began in
earnest to rid the world of this terrible disease.
For generations in the United States, the polio disease struck fear
in the hearts of millions of American parents and children. Late every
summer, hot weather brought with it a rash of new cases of paralytic
polio. No one knew how to I prevent polio, nor was there a cure.
Epidemics of polio could devastate whole communities. For example, an
epidemic struck the state of New York in 1916 killing 9,000 people and
leaving 27,000 disabled. In the 1940s and 50s, the number of cases
reported in the United States ranged from 40,000 to 60,000 each year.
This was the state of our nation affected by polio pre-1955.
Mr. Speaker, all that began to change in the early 1950s. At that
time, Dr. Jonas Salk, a postdoctoral student of Dr. Francis's at the
University of Michigan, developed a promising vaccine against
poliomyelitis in his laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh. In
what has been called the largest cooperative effort undertaken in
peacetime, the Salk vaccine was tested in the most comprehensive field
trials ever conducted. Overseeing those trials was Dr. Francis,
Director of the Poliomyelitis Vaccine Evaluation Center and founding
chair of the Department of Epidemiology at the University of Michigan
School of Public Health.
Mr. Speaker, the polio field trials were unprecedented in scope and
magnitude. Dr. Francis and his team of more than 100 statisticians and
epidemiologists tabulated data received from hundreds of public health
officials and doctors who participated in the study. The trials
involved 1,830,000 children in 217 areas of the United States, Canada
and Finland. No field trial of this scale has been conducted since.
This historic event is a source of pride for the University of
Michigan and the state of Michigan as a whole. Since that day fifty
years ago, polio has been nearly eradicated. In August 2002, there were
no confirmed cases reported in the United States, and only 483
confirmed cases of acute poliomyelitis reported to authorities
worldwide. These successes all began with the announcement from Rackham
Auditorium fifty years ago today.
____________________
HONORING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF BEXAR COUNTY JUDGE MARCIA S. WEINER
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments
and initiatives of Judge Marcia S. Weiner, Justice of the Peace
Precinct 2 of San Antonio, TX.
Judge Marcia Weiner first became a resident of San Antonio in 1956
when her husband, Dr. Bernard K. Weiner, was transferred to Lackland
Air Force Base. Since then, Judge Weiner has become an attorney,
teacher, active community leader, mother of three daughters, and a
grandmother.
Judge Weiner earned a BA degree and lifetime teacher's certificate
with honors in 1965, followed by a Doctor of Jurisprudence in 1970 from
St. Mary's University. In 1971, Judge Weiner began her legal career
with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Judge
Weiner continued to work for HUD for over 26 years and retired as Chief
Counsel. While a Chief Counsel, Judge Weiner was responsible for all
HUD program legal issues throughout a 57 county jurisdiction and was
named the most outstanding HUD Chief Counsel in the country.
In January of 2001, Judge Weiner became a Justice of Peace for
Precinct 2 of San Antonio, TX. As Justice of Peace, she has continued
to improve the Precinct 2, which oversees evictions, small claims,
juvenile disorderly conduct cases, misdemeanors and truancy. Judge
Weiner strongly believes that juveniles can be redirected through early
intervention with the right kind of counseling.
As an active volunteer and leader in the community, Judge Weiner
continues to make significant contributions to the advancement of equal
opportunity, the elevation of federal women's careers, and to the legal
awareness of aging seniors and retired federal employees. Among her
many honors and awards, Judge Weiner was recognized as ``Texas Women to
Watch'' from 2002 to 2004 by the Business and Professional Women
Foundation.
Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to recognize Judge Marcia Weiner
for her dedication, commitment, and service to the betterment of
society.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE LADIES ANCIENT ORDER OF HIBERNIANS, ST. JOHN NEUMANN
DIVISION 1, ON THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF ITS CHARTER
______
HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask you and my esteemed
colleagues in the House of Representatives to pay tribute to the Ladies
Ancient Order of Hibernians, St. John Neumann Division 1, of Wilkes-
Barre, Pennsylvania, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of their
charter that occurred in January of 1980.
The primary purpose of the LAOH, which was first organized as the
``Daughters of Erin'' in 1894 in Omaha, Nebraska, was to protect young
immigrant Irish girls coming to the United States. The LAOH offered
support and encouragement and assisted the young women to secure
employment. The LAOH also assisted the AOH in its efforts to aid the
sick and needy and to defend priests, church and country.
In keeping with the original spirit of the LAOH, St. John Neumann
Division 1 continues to assist young women of Irish descent by
providing an annual scholarship to Bishop Hoban High School in Wilkes-
Barre. They assist the sick and needy by adopting a family each year
and contributing time and resources to the local soup kitchens and
nursing homes. They also volunteer their time and resources to assist
the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the American Diabetes
Association and other worthy community programs.
The group continues to promote Catholic Irish heritage and culture
through support of seminarians, their annual St. Brigid Mass, annual
St. Patrick Mass, participation in Irish cultural history and dance
programs, the Irish teachers program and parades in honor of St.
Patrick.
St. John Neumann Division 1 produced two past LAOH state presidents,
Claire McNelis Karpowich and Kate Brennan Angerson, and is currently
represented on the State board of directors by Maureen Lavelle, who
serves as State historian.
Mary Ann Amesbury is the current president of St. John Neumann
Division 1. Division officers include: Kellie Knesis, vice president;
Maureen Lavelle, recording secretary; Suzanne Cosgrove, treasurer;
Margaret Tudgay, financial secretary; Mary Ellen Dooley, historian; Ann
Marie O'Hara, missions and charities; Eileen Potsko, Catholic action;
Donna Mangan, sentinel and Mary Kathleen Williams, mistress at arms.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating the Ladies Ancient
Order of Hibernians, St. John Neumann Division 1, on this notable
occasion. The Wilkes-Barre area community is fortunate to have the
benefit of the selfless community service that members of the LAOH
provide.
____________________
BANKRUPTCY REFORM
______
HON. TOM DeLAY
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, every year, loopholes in America's bankruptcy
laws are abused, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars--costs that
get passed on to consumers in higher prices and higher interest rates.
Our bankruptcy protections, which have always been available to
debtors as a last resort, have become just another part of financial
planning for too many Americans.
Over the last 15 years, bankruptcy filings have increased 150
percent.
[[Page 6171]]
In that time, our economy has grown, tens of millions of jobs have
been created, and inflation has been held in check.
There are always families and businesses in need of bankruptcy
protection, but not 1.7 million of them a year, Mr. Speaker.
Nor should drug traffickers and violent criminals be eligible for
protection. Nor should debtors be able to use bankruptcy laws to avoid
paying spousal and child support, which should--as this bill ensures--
be the highest priority debts. Nor should small businesses, family
farmers, and fishermen be thrown to the wolves every time their market
takes a temporary downturn.
That is why the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection
Act of 2005 has been a critical item on the Republican economic agenda
for so long.
And that is why the House this week will finally pass a finished
bill--already passed by the Senate--and send it on to the President for
his signature.
These loopholes need closing, and at the same time, honest American
debtors will always need protection.
That is why the bill we will take up--the product of years of
development and negotiation--will include debtor protections such as
credit counseling, financial management courses, and greater clarity in
credit card billing statements.
It isn't enough to punish the abusers and protect the victims; we
must develop a credit system that helps consumers manage their debt
before they get in too deep.
The bankruptcy bill is another example of the far-sighted and fair-
minded reform agenda the House has been passing for a decade.
It has been a long time coming, Mr. Speaker, but this week we will
get the job done.
____________________
GOVERNOR GRANHOLM, SBC COMMUNICATIONS, THE MICHIGAN ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND THE COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend SBC Communications,
Inc.; its Michigan president Gail Torreano; the Governor of my home
State of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm; and representatives from the
Michigan Economic Development Corporation and the Communications
Workers of America.
Earlier this month they came together to unveil a ten-year economic
development project, which will keep 930 metropolitan jobs in Detroit
and invest over $3.6 million to upgrade seven network facilities in
Southfield and Detroit. This incredible news comes only four months
after SBC had initially announced plans to layoff workers.
Over the past five years, Michigan has lost nearly 300,000 jobs, and
has had little prospect for significant job growth in sight. My State's
unemployment rate was nearly two percent above the nation's average.
That number increasingly looked gloomier with news last week that
General Motors expects to lose money in this year's first quarter. As a
result, their stock dropped 14 percent. My distinguished colleagues,
there is no question about it--jobs in Michigan are in jeopardy.
But now, the future appears brighter with SBC Communications and
others leading by example in recognizing that corporations play an
integral role in their communities, and corporate decisions have
consequences that reach much further than their own bottom line.
Such an agreement could not have been reached without strong
leadership and a shared vision for the future from all parties
involved. This agreement to keep SBC Communications' business in
Michigan not only exhibits the great benefits that partnerships between
the private and public sectors can reap for our nation's metropolitan
communities, but more specifically, it demonstrates the success of
Michigan's economic development programs and their capability of
serving as a prime example for the rest of America's cities and states.
In agreeing not to move nearly 1,000 jobs out of Michigan, SBC
Communications will receive a single business tax credit worth
approximately $18 million from the Michigan Economic Development
Corporation, in addition to an Economic Development Job Training grant
of up to $930,000. The proposed cuts had been part of a planned
company-wide reduction of 10,000 workers by the end of this year. And
other companies are also staying, too, rather than moving to
neighboring states as they had once considered. Assay Designs, Inc.
will be adding 86 new jobs and investing an additional $18 million to a
new site in Washtenaw County's Pittsfield Township. Faurecia, a
Michigan auto supplier, will be creating nearly 450 more jobs in
Sterling Heights as part of a $40 million expansion. Emerald Graphics
Corp. will be producing an additional 347 new jobs near Grand Rapids,
rather than in Texas. And with these Michigan fixtures staying, who
knows what the future holds for our great State.
The significance of this private-public partnership cannot be
overstated. In addition to the immediate consequence of job retention,
the University of Michigan projects that the State's agreement with
these companies will create an additional 1,210 jobs and generate over
$97 million in revenue for Michigan over the next ten years, with
another 1,000 jobs indirectly generated at other area companies. Rather
than facing the prospect of helplessly watching hundreds of families
potentially flee the metropolitan area--or even the state--in search of
new jobs, Michigan's economic future looks brighter with a commitment
that these hard workers will remain at home and continue to contribute
to the State's economy. Instead of disrupting their children's lives
with moves to new schools, SBC employees will continue to root
themselves in their respective local communities.
I see no reason why other States cannot create similar incentive
programs to keep private sector jobs within their borders as well. The
tax credits that Michigan has extended to SBC Communications, Assay
Designs, Faurecia, and Emerald Graphics Corp. are just the start. My
home state recognizes that corporations naturally desire to expand. And
it also recognizes that the State has too many brownfields that require
developing. These two are not mutually exclusive. So Michigan has
decided to invest in its own future. And what will be the reward? An
anticipated $558 million in private investment! Michigan has proven
that it is committed to working with labor and management. Our State
has shown that it truly has an open door policy, and will meet and work
with all those interested in doing business within its borders, whether
your company resides there already and is looking to expand, or is
looking to relocate to a local economy that suddenly has a more
optimistic forecast.
I encourage my colleagues in Congress to take a close look at what
Governor Granholm, SBC Communications, the Michigan Economic
Development Corporation and the Communications Workers of America have
accomplished. I see no reason why such a success story cannot be
replicated in other States as well. In closing, I commend all those
parties involved; am grateful for their willingness to work together
for our State's future; and hope that this is just the beginning of
many success stories to come out of Michigan and America's other 49
States.
____________________
HONORING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PRECINCT 1 JUDGE SAUL ACEVEDO
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the important
contributions of Judge Saul Acevedo, of my Congressional District.
Saul Acevedo was born and raised in San Antonio and has been actively
involved in the community. He is a product of San Antonio Independent
School District and graduated from Jefferson High School in 1981. He
earned his Bachelors Degree in Political Science in 1986 from the
University of Texas at San Antonio. He then enrolled at Texas Southern
University, and in 1989 earned his Law Degree.
Judge Acevedo was elected as Precinct 1 Justice of the Peace in 1998;
he works constantly to ensure that the people of his community receive
the services they need from local government. He is a credit to his
community and a tremendous resource for his county.
During his time in office he has dedicated himself to the youth of
the community. He is extremely active in District 19 little league
baseball, and is a past league president. There is one role that Judge
Saul Acevedo plays in the community that trumps everything; he is
married to Marietta and has two beautiful children.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have this opportunity to recognize Judge
Saul Acevedo for his dedication and contributions to the community.
[[Page 6172]]
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF ESTATE TAX RELIEF LEGISLATION
______
HON. DENNIS MOORE
of kansas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce
legislation that would repeal the estate tax for 99.7% of all estates
in our country.
During my time in Congress, I have strongly supported estate tax
relief for American families, farmers, and small businesses, and
continue to support the ability of one generation to transfer a
business and assets to the next generation. During my first term in
Congress I voted to override then-President Clinton's veto of a measure
that repealed the estate tax, and later voted for President Bush's 2001
tax cut package, which included a phase-out and temporary repeal of the
estate tax.
Unfortunately, however, our country's fiscal situation has changed
dramatically over the last several years, and while I continue to
support estate tax relief, I also continue to support fiscally
responsible policies that will not transfer trillions of dollars in
debt to future generations. On February 17, 2004, the national debt of
the United States exceeded $7 trillion for the first time in our
country's history. One year later, our national debt is $7.8 trillion.
In the past year alone, our country has added $800 billion to our
national debt. The ``debt tax'' that we are imposing on our children
and grandchildren cannot be repealed, and can only be reduced if we
take responsible steps now to improve our fiscal situation.
This week the House is scheduled to consider a full repeal of the
estate tax. Repeal of the estate tax will cost approximately $290
billion over just the next ten years, and although I support full
repeal in theory, the sad truth is that our country cannot afford the
luxury of an estate tax repeal at this time.
My legislation would provide immediate relief by raising the amount
of an estate exempt from any estate tax liability from $1.5 million to
$3.5 million. Additionally, the exemption for married couples would
rise to $7 million under my bill. I believe this measure strikes an
appropriate balance between the enormous cost of full repeal and the
unacceptable cost of doing nothing. 99.7 percent of the estates in our
country would face no estate tax liability at all under this
legislation.
Further, H.R. 8, the estate tax repeal bill that the House will
consider in the near future, would preserve the reinstitution of
carryover basis rules that are contained in the 2001 tax law. Replacing
the step-up in basis that currently exists with the carryover basis
rules that used to exist in our tax code, and will temporarily reappear
in 2010, would impose a very real, very significant compliance burden,
and capital gains tax increase, on approximately 71,000 estates every
year. By repealing the step-up in cost basis, which allows heirs to
value an inherited asset at the market value of that asset on the date
of a benefactor's death, H.R. 8 would force individuals and families to
determine the price of a transferred asset at the date at which the
asset was originally purchased. This means that a piece of property
originally purchased several decades ago for $25,000 and sold for
$325,000 today would be subject to a taxable capital gain of $300,000.
Taxable gains on transferred property are particularly burdensome in
light of the unprecedented real estate boom our country has experienced
over the last several years. My legislation would preserve the step-up
in basis and thereby provide substantial capital gains tax relief to
thousands of American families.
Full repeal of the estate tax may still be an option for future
Congresses to consider, but until we are able to improve the fiscal
situation of our country, Congress should attempt to strike a balance
between total repeal and the status quo, which will significantly
increase the estate tax burden in 2011. We need to ensure that the
federal government is preparing adequately for the unprecedented
demographic shift that will strain Social Security and Medicare in the
decades to come. Spending nearly $300 billion over the next ten years
on full repeal of the estate tax poses a genuine threat to Social
Security and Medicare and will impose an unnecessary burden on our
children and grandchildren, who will be forced to pay back with
interest the debt we are accumulating today.
____________________
BACK OUR VETERANS' HEALTH ACT
______
HON. BOB FILNER
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, since the creation of the
Department of Veterans Affairs health care system, the Nation's doctors
of chiropractic have been kept outside and all but prevented from
providing proven, cost-effective and much-needed care to veterans,
including those among the most vulnerable and in need of the range of
the health care services that doctors of chiropractic are licensed to
provide. In 2002, 4.5 million patients received care in VA health
facilities, including 75 percent of all disabled and low-income
veterans. Although the VA health care budget was roughly $26 billion in
2002, less than $370,000 went toward chiropractic services for
veterans. This, in a country with more than 25 million chiropractic
patients and more than 60,000 Doctors of Chiropractic.
I am proud to introduce legislation--H.R. 917, The Better Access to
Chiropractors to Keep Our Veterans Healthy Act (BACK Our Veterans
Health Act)--that is designed to provide veterans with direct access to
a Doctor of Chiropractic, if that is their choice, through the veterans
health care system. In developing this bill, I have worked closely with
chiropractic patients, particularly our veterans, who know the benefits
of chiropractic care and bear witness to the positive outcomes and
preventative health benefits of chiropractic care.
Specifically, my bill seeks to amend Title 38 of the United States
Code to permit eligible veterans to have direct access to chiropractic
care at VA hospitals and clinics. Section 3 of the measure states that
``The Secretary [ of Veterans Affairs] shall permit eligible veterans
to receive needed [health care] services, rehabilitative services, and
preventative health services from a licensed doctor of chiropractic on
a direct access basis at the election of the eligible veteran, if such
services are within the State scope of practice of such doctor of
chiropractic.'' The measure goes on to directly prohibit discrimination
among licensed health care providers by the VA when determining which
services a patient needs.
Over the years, Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Department of
Veterans Affairs have come before the House Veterans Affairs Committee,
a panel on which I serve, and have insisted that chiropractic benefits
are available to veterans and that no bias exists within the VA against
the chiropractic profession. But the facts I cited above speak
otherwise. For all practical purposes, access to chiropractic care has
been non-existent within the VA system. Chiropractic care has so seldom
been offered to veterans that it can be fairly said to be a phantom
benefit--and for years, Mr. Speaker, the VA has done nothing to correct
this deficiency. There is simply no evidence that the VA has ever acted
proactively in any meaningful and substantive way to ensure that
chiropractic care is made available to veterans--and because of that
track record of neglect, the U.S. Congress felt compelled to take
action.
As a result, Congress in recent years has enacted three separate
statutes seeking to ensure veterans access to chiropractic care (Public
Law 106-117, Public Law 107-135 and Public Law 108-170). The last of
those statutes gives explicit authority to the VA to hire doctors of
chiropractic as full time employees. I'm proud to have worked with
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help advance those
initiatives--and I am hopeful that a reluctant VA has finally seen the
light.
I understand that, last year, former VA Secretary Principi released
new policy directives regarding chiropractic care and that we may be on
our way to seeing the true and full integration of chiropractic care
into the VA. But Mr. Speaker, if the past is any guide to the future,
then I must remain concerned until I see these new polices firmly in
place and working well in all VA treatment facilities. To help ensure
that, in the future, barriers to veterans who want and need
chiropractic care are fully removed, I am pleased to introduce
legislation that would require the VA to make chiropractic care
available on a direct access basis to our veterans.
Perhaps my legislation will prove not to be necessary--because
referrals to doctors of chiropractic will actually take place with the
encouragement and support of the leadership of the VA. But as
insurance, the enactment of the legislation I propose would guarantee
the right of a veteran to obtain this important service without the
cost and stumbling blocks of going through potentially hostile
gatekeepers.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting unimpeded
access to chiropractic care throughout the veterans health care system
and help enact this measure, H.R. 917.
[[Page 6173]]
____________________
HONORING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PASTOR TERRENCE K. HAYES
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Pastor Terrence K.
Hayes of St. Paul United Methodist Church for his exceptional career in
public service.
Terrence K. Hayes has served our community for over thirty years. He
has provided spiritual guidance and community leadership for those who
need it the most.
Pastor Hayes has served as the senior pastor of St. Paul United
Methodist Church since 1996. He is a man who believes in the importance
of reaching out and helping those in need. An active and passionate
advocate of the people, he has held a number of leadership and
community service positions.
Pastor Hayes is the recipient of numerous awards including the
Outstanding Young Men of America, the National Fellowship Fund, the
Earl L. Harrison Fellowship, the Henry C. Maynard Award of Outstanding
Pastoral Potential, and the Who's Who in America College Students from
Hampton Institute. He has written numerous publications including
Collaborating in Ministry, Fundraising Resources of the United
Methodist Church, and a number of short stories and newspaper articles.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have the opportunity to recognize the
hard work and important community achievements of Pastor Terrence K.
Hayes.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JIM RYUN
of kansas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, on March 17, 2005, I was unable to
vote on rollcall 87, the Spratt Amendment to H. Con. Res. 95. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________
ESSEX MARINA 50-YEAR ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. ROB SIMMONS
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, on April 2005, a milestone was reached by
one of eastern Connecticut's finest waterfront establishments when
Essex Island Marina celebrated its 50th anniversary.
A half century ago Louis Schieferdecker, the son of a German
immigrant, made a small investment that would end up becoming an
eastern Connecticut institution. Mr. Schieferdecker bought Essex Island
in 1955 and created a tradition of service and a successful business
that his family owns and operates today. Essex Island Marina began as a
boat yard with several slips; today it is one of southeastern
Connecticut's most picturesque places. Lou Schieferdecker had a dream
and he pursued it with a positive attitude and a determination to make
it work.
During the first 10 years of operation the marina added to its
services and amenities and also increased the number of docks. The
family installed a swimming pool, built the deck and added game rooms,
a snack bar and a convenience store.
But for the Schieferdecker family the most important part of the
marina is not the dock or any of the amenities or services they
provide; it's the people who come and enjoy the experience. In the
words of the family, ``Today we see it when the grown children of past
guests bring their children to share the experience. In the last 49
years a 13 acre island has been transformed from a place to `dock your
boat' to a place where memories are made.''
Boaters have responded to the beautiful facility. In 2004 the readers
of ``Offshore Magazine'' named Essex Island Marina the second ``Most
Welcoming Destination'' in the entire northeast and voted it number one
in the northeast in the ``Favorite Marina For A Weekend'' category.
Building a successful business and generating the kind of loyalty and
appreciation expressed by the readers of ``Offshore Magazine'' are not
the result of being lucky. It's the result of working long hours to
achieve a dream and always maintaining a commitment to do nothing less
than your best. For 50 years the Schieferdecker family has been devoted
to the boating public and the boating public has returned that
dedication to the Schieferdeckers and Essex Island Marina. I
congratulate this hard working family and Essex Island Marina for the
first 50 years and I am delighted that they are part of our eastern
Connecticut family.
____________________
HONORING PASTOR JERRY DAILEY
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. CUELLAR. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Jerry Dailey for
his dedication and service as a Pastor and community leader in San
Antonio, Texas.
Dr. Dailey was born in Anderson, Indiana. He attended the public
schools of Duval County Florida, and later graduated from Andrew
Jackson Senior High School. After high school, Dr. Dailey received a
basketball scholarship to study at Bethune-Cookman College. In college,
Dr. Dailey was elected Senior Class President and was also a recipient
of the Crown Zellerbach Foundation Scholarship to study one year at the
University of California, Berkeley. In 1975, he graduated cum laude
with a B.S. in Psychology. Dr. Dailey went on to obtain a Masters of
Divinity degree in 1979 from Philadelphia's Eastern Baptist Theological
Seminary and a Doctor of Theology degree in 1991 from San Antonio's
Guadalupe College. Dr. Dailey also holds many other honorary degrees
for his work in divinity.
For the past 28 years, Dr. Dailey has served many communities as a
pastor and community leader. Since 1985, Dr. Dailey has been the Pastor
of Macedonia Missionary Baptist Church in San Antonio, Texas. He
continues to lead the church today and has led many initiatives in
Macedonia's major expansion and renovation efforts. Other community
projects of Dr. Dailey's have been establishing the Good Samaritan Food
Ministry and Youth Scholarship Fund.
Among his many accolades, Dr. Dailey received the 2000 MLK
Distinguished Achievement Award Nomination from the City of San Antonio
MLK Commission and was the first African American appointed to the
Administrative Executive Board of the Baptist General Convention of
Texas (BGCT). He is now the newly elected President of the African
American Fellowship of the BGCT. His many awards and recognitions
attest to the breadth of his service through the years.
Dr. Dailey is married to the former Janice M. Pullen and they are the
parents of three daughters named Joy Marie, Jasmine Noelle, and Jeri
Nicole. He constantly serves as a role model and inspiration for his
congregation and the local community. It honors me today to have the
chance to recognize and thank Dr. Dailey for his many years of service
and contribution.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE MEDICARE MEDICAL NUTRITION THERAPY ACT OF 2005
______
HON. FRED UPTON
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with Representatives
Anna Eshoo, Lee Terry, David Wu, Xavier Becerra, and Jo Bonner in
introducing the bipartisan Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy Act of
2005. Under current law, Medicare provides coverage for medical
nutrition therapy services provided by registered dietitians and
nutrition professionals to Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes and
renal diseases. Recognizing that many other beneficiaries with diseases
and conditions such as cardiovascular disease and obesity could benefit
from medical nutrition therapy services, the legislation we are
introducing today gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
acting through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the
authority to use the National Coverage Determination Process to expand
coverage for other disease and conditions for which these services
would be both beneficial and cost-effective.
Providing Medicare coverage for medical nutrition therapy services is
sound health care policy. It can prevent unnecessary pain and suffering
and save millions of dollars in health care costs by lessening the risk
of chronic disease, slowing disease progression, and reducing symptoms.
In response to a request in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, the Institute
of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences studied the value of
adding medical nutrition therapy coverage to the Medicare program and
concluded that this coverage would ``improve the quality of care and is
likely to be a
[[Page 6174]]
valuable and efficient use of Medicare resources, because of the
comparatively low treatment costs and ancillary benefits associated
with nutrition therapy.''
I urge my colleagues who have not yet cosponsored this legislation to
join us in this effort.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE FAIR FEDERAL COMPENSATION ACT OF 2005
______
HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON
of the district of columbia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the entire bipartisan regional House
delegation of the national capital region introduces today the Fair
Federal Compensation Act of 2005 to address the District of Columbia's
structural imbalance. The original co-sponsors are: Government Reform
Committee Chair Tom Davis, Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Frank
Wolf, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, Former Congressional Black Caucus
Chair Elijah Cummings and Representatives Jim Moran, Chris Van Hollen,
and Albert Wynn. Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan has authorized
me to say that he suports this bill as well.
D.C. residents and businesses are proud of eight straight years of
balanced budgets that pay for the operations of our government. Yet,
residents and Congress probably know little about the city's structural
imbalance, which according to the GAO, is entirely from federal
sources. However, D.C. taxpayers and Congress are paying for this
imbalance in millions of dollars in taxes and interest. Residents and
businesses pay to cover a structural imbalance caused by federal
mandates and requirements with higher local taxes and the highest debt
load in the nation. Our bill will help the Congress and city residents
understand what the structural imbalance is and how it affects
taxpayers and the D.C. government.
The goal of the bipartisan bill we introduce today is to prevent
another fiscal crisis for our city and to relieve some of the
unsustainable load on the D.C. government and on residents and
businesses. The structural imbalance is the difference between the cost
of D.C. government services and operations and the add-on cost to local
taxpayers that otherwise would be carried by the federal government or
commuters. According to the GAO, (confirming two other major studies;
McKinsey, March 2002 and Brookings, October 2002) the resulting
imbalance is exclusively federal and has three sources: federal use of
the city's most valuable land; the city's continuing responsibility for
many costly state functions; and the commuter tax ban, despite services
the District must provide to 200,000 federal employees. The GAO
concluded that the only options to relieve the structural imbalance
are: to ``change Federal procedures and expand the District's tax base
or provide additional financial support and a greater role by the
Federal government to help the District maintain fiscal balance.'' The
Fair Federal Compensation Act of 2005 we introduce today responds
specifically to these GAO findings.
Our bill offsets part, though not all, of the annual structural
imbalance--found by the GAO to be between $470 million and up to more
than $1.1 billion--by providing for an annual federal contribution of
$800 million. Unlike the old federal payment, which remained constant
and therefore lost much of its value through inflation, the federal
contribution would increase annually. The federal contribution funds
would go to a dedicated D.C. infrastructure support fund. The District
does not have an operating deficit or imbalance and these federal funds
could not be used for operating expenses. The bill provides specific
uses only for the non-operating and urgent capital needs that are
delayed each year in favor of keeping the D.C. government operating.
The federal contribution would be available only for stated
infrastructure purposes, such as roads and school construction and
repairs, and for reducing the District's debt--the highest in the
country. High debt and the interest that results, of course, produce
excessive taxes. The bill also would improve the District's investment
bond rating and thus reduce our present high interest payments, all
charged to taxpayers.
In 1995 Congress carne to grips with the reality that this city's
responsibilities assume it is a state, although it lacks a broad state
tax base and that the District could no longer be expected to shoulder
the full set of state costs. Congress relieved the District of the
costs of some but not all state functions and left the unique federal
structural impediments described in the GAO report. Nevertheless, the
District has made remarkable progress, maintaining balanced budgets and
surpluses every year despite adverse national economic conditions and
improving city services. The CFO has ominously warned, however, that
looking to the out years, the structural imbalance endangers the city's
financial future and cannot continue to be carried by the District
alone. It would be tragic for Congress to allow the progress that has
been made to be retracted because of dangerous and escalating
uncompensated federal burdens. The Fair Federal Compensation Act of
2005 would allow the District to avoid great risks, to continue to
build fiscal strength, and to relieve D.C. taxpayers ofthis federal
structural financial burden.
____________________
HONORING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF SAN MARCOS CITY COUNCILMAN BILL TAYLOR
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished
public service of San Marcos City Council member Bill Taylor.
In 1971, Bill Taylor earned his Bachelor's Degree in Government,
graduating with honors from San Marcos Baptist Academy. He served for 6
years in the Texas Army National Guard, and has been a member of the
National Society of Certified Insurance Counselors. Currently, he is a
Commercial Marketing Manager for Bill Taylor & Associates, Inc.
Mr. Taylor was elected to the San Marcos City Council in 2002. He has
had a tremendously productive career in public service, working on the
City's Airport Commission and on the Small Business Development
Council. Bill has spent his spare time volunteering for the San Marcos
CISD Bond Committee, the Chilympiad Board of Directors, and has been
honored with the title of El Jefe.
Bill Taylor has lived a life of enormous service to his community.
Since arriving in San Marcos 39 years ago, he has been at the center of
volunteer project after volunteer project. Along with his many
accomplishments for the people of San Marcos, Bill has 6 children with
his wife Debbie.
Mr. Speaker, City Council member Bill Taylor is an exemplary public
servant. His work has made San Marcos safer, healthier, more efficient
and more prosperous. I am proud to have the chance to thank him here
today for all he has done for his fellow Texans.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE TAXPAYER ABUSE PREVENTION ACT: CONGRESS SHOULD NOT
ALLOW BOUNTY HUNTERS TO ABUSE TAXPAYERS
______
HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce that today I
introduced the Taxpayer Abuse Prevention Act of 2005. If enacted into
law, this bill would repeal the provision tacked onto the FY2005
Omnibus Appropriations bill that hands over the tax returns of millions
of American taxpayers to private contractors to collect delinquent
taxes, and to keep 25 percent of their take as a commission for
services rendered.
This provision opens the door to taxpayer intimidation and abuse,
practices that have been outlawed by Congress. This practice amounts to
bounty-hunting--at taxpayer expense--by allowing collection agencies to
harass those same American taxpayers, many of whom are guilty of
nothing, with the incentive of collecting their commission as their
primary motivation. Giving unaccountable outside bounty hunters
unfettered access to Americans' personal financial data poses a risk
that we just cannot afford, and that is why these organizations oppose
the IRS proposal: Citizens for Tax Justice, Consumer Federation of
America, Consumers Union, National Consumer Law Center, National
Consumers League.
Late last year, Congress enacted H.R. 4520, the corporate tax bill,
which included a provision that will give the IRS the authority to use
private collection agencies to collect tax debt. This means that up to
2.6 million tax returns--which until then were only scrutinized by
federal government employees--will now be open to private collection
agencies and an untold number of private debt collection staff.
What's more worrisome is the IRS' inability to oversee the work of
these private debt collectors. A 1996 pilot program for private
collection was so unsuccessful that a similar pilot
[[Page 6175]]
program planned for 1997 was cancelled outright. The contractors used
in the pilot programs regularly broke the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, did not protect the security of personal taxpayer
information, and even then failed to bring in a net increase in
revenue.
The IRS has said that it has learned from the 1996 project and is
better equipped to address the problems raised. However, even recent
evidence is to the contrary. An eye-opening report by the Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA Audit #200320010) shows
how IRS contractors put taxpayers' data at risk. The TIGTA audit found
that the ``lack of oversight of contractors resulted in serious
security vulnerabilities.'' The report found that ``contractors
blatantly circumvented IRS policies and procedures even when security
personnel identified inappropriate practices.'' In fact, the report
found that contractors made hundreds of calls to taxpayers during times
prohibited by the FDCPA, and that calls were even placed as early as
4:19 a.m.
The objective of the review was ``to determine whether the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) has adequately protected Federal Government
equipment and data from misuse by contractors.'' The review found:
``The involvement of non-IRS employees in critical IRS functions
increases the risk of misuse or unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer
data, and could lead to loss of equipment or sensitive taxpayer data
through theft or sabotage.''
While IRS employees are explicitly forbidden from being evaluated on
the basis of revenue collected, the private collection scheme would
actually link contractor pay to the amount of revenue collection. This
policy encourages contractors to use aggressive collection techniques
to boost their remuneration. Furthermore, the IRS is currently liable
for damages to a taxpayer resulting from the misuse of confidential
information by an IRS employee, but taxpayers will not be able to
recover damages from the federal government where contractors are
guilty of malfeasance.
The House had already expressed its will that this provision not
become law when it approved by voice vote an amendment to the FY2005
Treasury Appropriations bill that prevented the expenditure of any
federal funds for private collection of federal taxes. Unfortunately,
the Treasury Appropriations bill never became law, and the House-passed
amendment was stripped out of the omnibus spending bill by the
Republican leadership in the conference--behind closed doors, in the
dead of night.
We must repeal this onerous provision. We must protect American
taxpayers from intimidation and abuse. We must ensure that personal
financial records are protected and remain private. Two decades ago
this Congress passed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
specifically to protect Americans from intimidation and abuse, but last
year this Congress perpetrated an injustice by allowing these very
abuses to go forward.
I urge my colleagues to join me in working with the IRS to find a
more effective means of collecting delinquent tax debt collection and
avoid this risky scheme altogether. Let's pass the Taxpayer Abuse
Prevention Act.
____________________
RECOGNIZING SALEM HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
______
HON. DALE E. KILDEE
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Salem Housing
Community Development Corporation, located in my hometown of Flint,
Michigan. On April 14, civic and community leaders will gather to honor
Salem Housing at a Celebration and Awards Banquet entitled, ``20 Years
of Building Community.''
Salem Housing was created in 1984 by 5 neighborhood organizations and
a church on Flint's north side. These 6 groups were brought together by
common concerns about the deteriorating housing stock in their shared
neighborhood: vacant and deteriorating houses, a declining
homeownership base, and low-quality rental housing with high rents.
They also shared concerns for those families who had to live in these
deteriorated housing structures due to lack of financial resources, or
unavailability of other housing options. As a result, they formed the
Salem Housing Task Force, with a mission to ``improve family living
conditions by providing safe, decent, and affordable housing for
families of limited income, and to act as a catalyst to restore the
neighborhoods within its service area.'' This area encompassed a 132-
block region, bounded by Pasadena Avenue on the north, Saginaw Street
on the east, Wood/Begole on the south, and Dupont on the west.
In 2001, the Salem Housing Task Force officially became the Salem
Housing Community Development Corporation. They retained their goals of
affordable homeownership, and the results have included the restoration
of long vacant and blighted homes, helping homeowners renovate their
existing homes, and they continue to work with local neighborhood
organizations to improve and beautify their streets. In addition, they
have provided training and information for skills including home repair
and money management.
Mr. Speaker, for 20 years, the Salem Housing Community Development
Corporation has helped many Flint residents gain the satisfaction that
comes with owning their own home, and they have helped cultivate civic
pride as well. I am appreciative for all they have done to make our
community a better place in which to live. I ask my colleagues in the
109th Congress to please join me in commending them for their efforts
over the past 20 years, and wish them much success in the future.
____________________
CITY COUNCIL OF MOUNT VERNON SUPPORTS THE FAMILY OF AMADOU DIALLO
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of
this chamber a resolution adopted March 9, 2005 by the City Council of
Mount Vernon, New York, supporting relief for the family of Amadou
Diallo. The resolution calls on Congress to grant permanent resident
status to the family of the young African immigrant who was shot 41
times by four plainclothes New York policemen.
The full text of the resolution of the Mount Vernon City Council
follows:
Whereas, Amadou Diallo, a 24 year old immigrant from
Guinea, was tragically gunned down in a hail of 41 bullets on
February 4, 1999, by officers of the New York City Police
Department as he attempted to enter his residence in the
Bronx; and
Whereas, Amadou Diallo, an innocent man, was found to be
unarmed at the time of his shooting; and
Whereas, the tragic story of Amadou Diallo garnered
international attention, and an unprecedented outcry and
weeks of demonstrations by New Yorkers who sympathized with
his family;
Whereas, the Diallo family currently resides in the United
States under ``deferred action status'' and are vulnerable to
deportation in the upcoming months; and
Whereas, the Diallo family wishes to remain in the United
States; and
Whereas, the Honorable United States Congressman Charles
Rangel has proposed legislation, namely H.R. 677, which would
grant permanent resident status to Amadou Diallo's family
members: Kadiatou Diallo, Laouratou Diallo, Ibrahima Diallo,
Abdoul Diallo, Mamadou Bobo Diallo, Mamadou Pathe Diallo,
Fatoumata Traore Diallo, Sankarela Diallo and Marliatou Bah;
and
Whereas, granting permanent resident status to the Diallo
family would be a proper and just recognition of the tragedy
they have suffered, and it will allow the Diallo family to
pursue the opportunities promised by the American Dream; and
Whereas, the City Council of the City of Mount Vernon fully
supports Congressman Rangel's proposed legislation and
commends his efforts to keep the Diallo family in the United
States; Now, Therefore, be it resolved that the City Council
of the City of Mount Vernon, New York:
Hereby, fully supports Congressman Rangel's proposed
legislation, H.R. 677, which would grant permanent resident
status to Amadou Diallo's family members: Kadiatou Diallo,
Laouratou Diallo, Ibrahima Diallo, Abdoul Diallo, Mamadou
Bobo Diallo, Mamadou Pathe Diallo, Fatoumata Traore Diallo,
Sankarela Diallo and Marliatou Bah.
Resolved, that the City Council of the City of Mount
Vernon, New York, calls upon the United States Congress to
support Congressman Charles Rangel's proposed legislation,
H.R. 677, which would grant permanent resident status to
Amadou Diallo's family members: Kadiatou Diallo, Laouratou
Diallo, Ibrahima Diallo, Abdoul Diallo, Mamadou Bobo Diallo,
Mamadou Pathe Diallo, Fatoumata Traore Diallo, Sankarela
Diallo and Marliatou Bah.
I extend my personal thanks to Mayor Ernest D. Davis, City Council
President Karen Watts, City Councilman William R. Randolph, and the
rest of the Mount Vernon City Council for this resolution.
Surely, this Congress can heed the advice of the City Council and
truly embrace the Diallo family for the loss of their son and brother.
[[Page 6176]]
____________________
HONORING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF SAN MARCOS CITY COUNCILMAN ED MIHALKANIN
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ed Mihalkanin for
his nine years of service to the people of San Marcos, Texas.
In addition to serving the City of San Marcos on the Council, Mr.
Mihalkanin works at Texas State University as an Associate Professor of
Political Science. He has been teaching at Texas State since 1990, and
previously taught at Gettysburg College in Gettysburg, PA.
He received a Master's Degree in 1985 and a Ph.D in 1991 from
American University in Washington, DC. Mr. Mihalkanin is originally
from Hanover Park, Illinois, and he received his undergraduate degree
at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois.
Mr. Mihalkanin was first elected to the Council in 1996, and
currently represents the City Council on the Economic Development
Council. He has served as Mayor Pro Tempore in 1999 and Deputy Mayor
Pro Tem in 2003-2004.
Mr. Mihalkanin is a member of the Downtown Association, the Greater
San Marcos Area Chamber of Commerce, and many other organizations that
help to better the San Marcos community as a whole.
Mr. Mihalkanin is a model of hard work and dedication to the city and
to his students. By working as project director for the ``Civitas
Project,'' Mr. Mihalkanin helped to revive civic life in the
communities of Lockhart, San Marcos, and Wimberley, Texas.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have had this opportunity to recognize
the many achievements of San Marcos City Councilman Ed Mihalkanin.
____________________
DR. WILLIAM SCHWARTZ HONORED
______
HON. TOM LANTOS
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. William Schwartz
as the co-founder of the Samaritan House Free Medical Clinic, as well
as his dedication to the clinic since its inception in 1992. Dr.
Schwartz was awarded the Jefferson Award for his work at the clinic
that is located in San Mateo, California, in my district. His friends
and colleagues have praised him for his selfless acts and hard work in
trying to make our community a better place, and I hope the
acknowledgment that comes from this award will inspire others to devote
more of their time to helping those in need.
Thirteen years ago, Dr. Schwartz and Dr. Walter Gains started a free
clinic for those who could not afford health care. They treated
patients in the conference room at Samaritan House one or two nights a
week after spending the day at their own offices. The clinic provided
free care through the generous contributions of lab work and x-rays by
Mills Peninsula Hospital. Now open 6 days a week in two separate
locations in San Mateo and Redwood City, the clinic serves 8,000
patients a year through donations that range from $25 and $50.
Mr. Speaker, small contributions and volunteers have kept this free
clinic thriving. Ninety percent of the staff members donate their time
after they leave their own jobs or after retirement. Dr. Schwartz
worked as an internist in San Mateo for the 32 years in private
practice and was preparing to retire when he got the idea to start the
clinic. Now most of the doctors, nurses and translators running the
clinic are retired. They include specialists in dentistry, gynecology,
oncology, optometry, psychology, and orthopedics.
Dr. Schwartz has seen many free clinics disappear over time with
people turning to more mainstream medical facilities, yet the number of
needy people has risen. Most of the patients have extremely low incomes
of less than thirty percent of median income. The Jefferson Award is
bestowed by the American Institute of Public Service for making a
difference in one's community. Dr. Schwartz has done just that. His
clinic even has been able to relieve some of the stress on overcrowded
emergency rooms that many poor people have come to rely on for many
non-emergency situations.
Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in thanking Dr.
William Schwartz for his contributions to my community. He has devoted
his time to making a difference, beginning as a clinical professor at
the University of California at San Francisco and now giving to the
people of San Mateo and Redwood City medical attention. I rise today to
congratulate him on winning the ``Nobel Prize of Community Service.''
He and his wife, Florette, deserve a long vacation and the nation's
thanks.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE FALCONS ROBOTICS TEAM OF CARL HAYDEN HIGH SCHOOL ON
ITS ACHIEVEMENTS
______
HON. ED PASTOR
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to proudly draw your
attention to the Falcons Robotics Team of Carl Hayden High School in my
district. This talented group of students has succeeded in winning
numerous robotics competitions, even beating the MIT team last year in
a contest sponsored by NASA and the Office of Naval Research.
Teachers Allan Cameron, Fredi Lajvardi and Sam Alexander, with the
help of other Carl Hayden faculty, wanted to create a club where
students could engage in science, engineering, and math related
activities that were educational as well as fun. Through the club, the
students also had opportunities to meet professionals from science-
oriented fields. The robotics team is small, made up of four students:
Cristian Arcega, Lorenzo Santillan, Oscar Vazquez and Luis Aranda. The
Falcons Robotics Team provides these students from low income
neighborhoods a positive option for after school activities. One of the
team members was failing most of his classes before joining the
robotics club and credits the club from keeping him off of West Phoenix
streets and avoiding trouble.
The Falcons Robotics Team's first mission was to put together a robot
to compete in the Marine Advanced Technology Remotely Operated Vehicle
Competition, the underwater robotics contest sponsored by NASA and the
Office of Naval Research. They needed a remote-controlled robot that
could explore a sunken mock-up of a submarine. Thus, Stinky was born.
Constructed of plastic tubing, propellers, lights, cameras, a laser,
depth detectors, pumps, and other equipment, Stinky was capable of
recording sonar pings and retrieving objects 50 feet under water.
Stinky got its unflattering moniker from the foul-smelling glue that
kept it together. The team went into the competition feeling
intimidated, but they won the grand prize, beating out MIT and other
college teams with slicker robots and corporate sponsors.
Since their competition victory last year, the team has gone on to
compete in the For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and
Technology (FIRST) Robotics Competition, where it won the highest
award, the Chairman's Award, at the Arizona Regionals in March. Dean
Kamen, inventor and founder of FIRST, a multinational non-profit
organization that aspires to make science, math, engineering, and
technology cool for kids, presented the award. As Mr. Kamen explained,
the FIRST Robotics Competition is about much more than the mechanics of
building a robot or winning a competitive event. The FIRST mission is
to change the way America's young people regard science and technology
and to inspire an appreciation for the real-life rewards and career
opportunities in these fields.
In his remarks, Mr. Kamen echoed the sentiments of many in Arizona
who are following the progress of this team of innovators. The impact
from the team's victory is priceless. Participation in the Falcons
Robotics Team, and its competition successes, has changed the students'
appreciation of engineering and science, and their attitude towards
education. These students are now hoping to pursue higher education and
are inspiring other students to strive for similar goals. The team's
accomplishments are countering stereotypes of innercity students from
Hispanic neighborhoods, and demonstrating that innercity ``tough kids''
can be just as talented and capable as the best from MIT. The Falcons
team has become the subject of articles in Wired Magazine and the
Washington Post, primetime stories on shows such as NPR's Here and Now
and ABC's Nightline, and Warner Brothers is even planning a movie.
As the team now prepares to compete in the FIRST Championship ITom
April 21 to 23 at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta, I wish to honor the
Falcons Robotics Team and the students, teachers, and community of Carl
Hayden High School. The successes of Cristian, Lorenzo, Oscar and Luis
demonstrate the accomplishments students can achieve, given a little
inspiration from devoted teachers. I ask my colleagues to join me today
in congratulating the Falcons Robotics Team, and wishing
[[Page 6177]]
the students and teachers at Carl Hayden High School much continued
success in their future endeavors.
____________________
PRESERVING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE DRUGS ACT
______
HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to be introducing a
revised version of the Preserving Access to Affordable Drugs (PAAD)
Act. Unfortunately, the misguided Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 threatens to reduce or
eliminate the prescription drug benefits that millions of seniors
across the country already have. And if the law isn't bad enough as is,
the Administration has ignored the recommendations of the President's
State Pharmaceutical Assistance Transition Commission and denied New
Jersey's request to automatically enroll those Medicare beneficiaries
currently enrolled in New Jersey's PAAD and Medicaid programs into a
preferred Medicare prescription drug plan.
This ruling effectively blocks New Jersey's efforts to preserve the
generous prescription drug coverage the state currently provides to the
190,000 seniors enrolled in New Jersey's PAAD program and the 140,000
seniors and disabled enrolled in the state's Medicaid program when the
new Medicare prescription drug benefit goes into effect on January 1,
2006.
In an effort to right this wrong, the bill I'm introducing today will
ensure that our seniors have a seamless transition to the new Medicare
Part D drug benefit, without a reduction or disruption in their
coverage.
The PAAD Act will allow states to automatically enroll PAAD and
dually eligible Medicaid beneficiaries in one or more preferred
prescription drug plans to ensure that these beneficiaries are enrolled
in a Medicare drug plan that maximizes both their federal and state
prescription drug coverage. This will ensure that New Jersey seniors
who currently receive prescription drug benefits under PAAD or through
the state's Medicaid program are not made worse off by the new Medicare
law.
In addition, the PAAD Act will allow New Jersey to provide
supplemental Medicaid prescription drug benefits to low-income seniors
and disabled who currently receive generous prescription drug benefits
under the Medicaid program and who will now receive their prescription
drug benefits through Medicare.
With approximately six million seniors nationwide, including 140,000
in New Jersey, who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, it is
absolutely critical that they do not lose access to their Medicaid
prescription drug benefits, which are more generous than the new
Medicare benefit will be. Not to mention, hundreds of thousands of
seniors across the country, and 200,000 seniors in New Jersey,
currently are enrolled in state pharmacy assistance programs, and will
be forced into a private Medicare drug plan. We need to make sure the
new Medicare Modernization Act transition happens with the least amount
of confusion and loss of coverage possible. With this bill, we will
solve these outstanding problems.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. DARRELL E. ISSA
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, on March 21st, 2005, I was traveling overseas
with Minority Leader Pelosi on officially authorized travel. Had I been
present during roll call vote 90, a motion to suspend the rules and
pass Senate bill 686, for the relief of the parents of Mrs. Theresa
Marie Schiavo, I would have voted ``aye'' in favor of passage.