[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[Issue]
[Pages 5721-5795]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 5721]]
VOLUME 152--PART 5
SENATE--Friday, April 7, 2006
____________________
The Senate met at 8:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
David Vitter, a Senator from the State of Louisiana.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Eternal Spirit, the fountain of light and truth, we rise and stand
because of Your mercies. You make our plans succeed.
Today, shine the light of Your presence upon our Senators. As they
wrestle with complexity, show them the way. Give them the wisdom You
have promised to all who will simply request it. Remind them of Your
mission to bring deliverance to captives and liberty to the bruised.
May they focus on pleasing You and not on political consequences. Give
them contrite and humble spirits. Teach them new and creative ways to
cooperate with each other for the common good. Bless their families and
the members of their staffs.
Lord, guide each of us in these challenging days. Make our ignorance
wise with Your wisdom. Make our weakness strong with Your strength.
We pray in Your holy Name. 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 assistant legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, April 7, 2006.
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 ACTING MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The acting majority leader is
recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today we resume consideration of the
border security bill. After an hour of debate equally divided and the
leaders' remarks, we will proceed to a cloture vote on the motion to
commit, which is the Hagel-Martinez language. This will occur at
approximately 9:45 this morning. This will be the first of several
votes we will have today. If cloture is not invoked, we will
immediately proceed to the second cloture vote on the underlying bill.
If cloture is not invoked on the underlying bill, we will turn to the
cloture motions that were filed on the defense nominations. We
confirmed two nominations last night, and we hope we will be able to
reach agreement on the remaining few. Senators are alerted that we will
have a busy morning and should stay close to the Chamber. I thank my
colleagues for their cooperation before we recess for the Easter break.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is
recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the matter before the Senate at this
time?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Once the leadership time is
reserved, the Senate will resume pending business, which is S. 2454,
and there will be 1 hour of debate equally divided. Does the leader
wish to proceed on his leadership time?
Mr. REID. No. I wish to proceed under the time allotted, 1 hour
equally divided.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
SECURING AMERICA'S BORDERS ACT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 2454, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2454) to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to provide for comprehensive reform and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Specter/Leahy amendment No. 3192, in the nature of a
substitute.
Kyl/Cornyn amendment No. 3206 (to amendment No. 3192), to
make certain aliens ineligible for conditional nonimmigrant
work authorization and status.
Cornyn amendment No. 3207 (to amendment No. 3206), to
establish an enactment date.
Isakson amendment No. 3215 (to amendment No. 3192), to
demonstrate respect for legal immigration by prohibiting the
implementation of a new alien guest worker program until the
Secretary of Homeland Security certifies to the President and
the Congress that the borders of the United States are
reasonably sealed and secured.
Dorgan amendment No. 3223 (to amendment No. 3192), to allow
United States citizens under 18 years of age to travel to
Canada without a passport, to develop a system to enable
United States citizens to take 24-hour excursions to Canada
without a passport, and to limit the cost of passport cards
or similar alternatives to passports to $20.
Mikulski/Warner amendment No. 3217 (to amendment No. 3192),
to extend the termination date for the exemption of returning
workers from the numerical limitations for temporary workers.
Santorum/Mikulski amendment No. 3214 (to amendment No.
3192), to designate Poland as a program country under the
visa waiver program established under section 217 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act.
Nelson (FL) amendment No. 3220 (to amendment No. 3192), to
use surveillance
[[Page 5722]]
technology to protect the borders of the United States.
Sessions amendment No. 3420 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 3192), of a perfecting nature.
Nelson (NE) amendment No. 3421 (to amendment No. 3420), of
a perfecting nature.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will be 1 hour for debate equally divided between the managers or their
designees.
The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, for my colleagues who are in the Chamber and
want to speak under the half hour that is allotted to us, I will leave
time for them. I know Senator Leahy has a matter elsewhere, and I will
speak and give him the time next.
The committee bill that was reported from the Judiciary Committee on
a bipartisan vote is a bill that virtually all Democrats support. We
now are past that piece of legislation and on what we call the Martinez
substitute. Virtually all Democrats support the Martinez substitute. I
thought yesterday morning we were going today to be able to pass this
important legislation. As I was walking from the caucus we had
yesterday, Senator Tom Carper of Delaware said: I have to leave early;
I sure hope we can get something worked out on this. That is how the
Senate felt yesterday. I sure hoped we could work something out. But as
the day went on, things didn't work out as well as we had anticipated.
In the Senate, there are different ways of conducting filibusters.
One is to have people stand and talk for long periods of time. The
other is the ability Senators have, if they wish, to filibuster by
virtue of amendment.
I made a proposal to the distinguished majority leader that we would
have the Judiciary Committee do the conferees and have a limited number
of amendments and move on. Last night, Senator Frist said on the floor
that he would have 20 amendments and, as we know from conversations we
had on the floor, that was just the beginning. There would be more
amendments. These amendments, of course, would be offered by those who
oppose the Martinez legislation.
The majority leader said last night--and I was surprised--that he
thought he would vote no on cloture on the amendment that he offered.
Certainly, there could be an argument made, even though I don't think
it is a good one, that we are going to vote against the substitute
amendment, the Specter legislation, as a result of the fact that the
minority filed a cloture motion. That is not the case here. The cloture
motion that is pending now was filed by the majority leader, he says,
because no amendments have been offered. Why would we reward those who
don't like the bill? Why would we reward those who want to kill this
bill by amendments?
I would hope that night has brought change, that night has turned to
day, and that there will be those on a bipartisan basis who will
support this invocation of cloture. That would be the right thing to
do. To do so takes courage, I know, but it would be the right thing to
do.
Virtually all Democrats support the Martinez legislation. This bill
is supported by wide-ranging groups: the Catholic bishops, the Chamber
of Commerce, civil rights groups, human rights groups, La Raza--on and
on with groups that support this legislation. This legislation is good
legislation, national security, real security, border security. It
gives guest workers the opportunity to come to America with dignity.
Twelve million people would no longer have to live in the shadows.
Franklin Roosevelt said it a lot better than I could in 1938, when he
said: My fellow immigrants, remember always that all of us, and you and
I especially, are descended from immigrants.
General George Washington, in a letter in 1783, said:
The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and
respectable stranger but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations
and religions whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our
rights and privileges if, by decent and proprietary conduct, they
appear to merit the enjoyment.
That is what this is all about--Franklin Roosevelt, George
Washington. Let's vote for cloture and move on, have a day of
celebration.
I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Vermont, the distinguished
ranking member of this committee.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont is
recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic
leader. I thank him for his statement. I also wish to commend him for
the work he has done, both he and the distinguished deputy leader, in
trying to bring us to this point. I know how hard the distinguished
senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, has
worked to pass a bill. I have been proud to work with him.
I was encouraged this week that the majority leader and other Senate
Republicans moved in our direction--a good direction--by recognizing
that we need a solution to the problems posed by having millions of
undocumented immigrants inside our borders. Many of us believe that
immigration reform, to have any chance to succeed, needs to be
comprehensive, with strong enforcement of border security matched with
fair and effective steps to bring millions of hard-working people out
of the shadows and provide them a path to citizenship and a full
measure of America's promise.
The bill now being proposed by the majority leader is not as
comprehensive or as good as that produced by the Judiciary Committee in
that it leaves many among us out of the equation and may have the
perverse effect of driving millions further underground. I thought the
bipartisan Judiciary Committee bill represented a better balance of
strong enforcement of our borders with fair reforms that honored human
dignity and American values. I will continue to work for a bill and a
law that is fair to all. We all agree that it will be tough on
security, but it also has to acknowledge our American values and, above
all, human dignity.
The House-passed bill and the original Frist bill were overly
punitive. But wisely, in our deliberations in the Judiciary Committee
and in the alternative now being proposed, we have rejected the
controversial provisions that would have exposed those who provide
humanitarian relief, medical care, shelter, counseling, and other basic
services to the undocumented to possible prosecution under felony alien
smuggling provisions. That was a cruel, cruel amendment, and I am glad
it is gone. You can't tell those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked,
those who shelter people, that they are going to become felons for
doing so.
We rejected the proposal to criminalize mere presence in an
undocumented status in the United States, which would trap people in a
permanent underclass. Those provisions understandably sparked
nationwide protests and are being viewed as anti-Hispanic and anti-
immigrant. They are inconsistent with American values. As one who is
only one generation from immigrant grandparents, I am glad we removed
those.
I fear that the arbitrary categorization of people in the current
proposal is not fair to all. I would not want us to set bureaucratic
hurdles and arbitrary timeframes that will serve negatively to continue
an underclass in American and drive people underground. The purpose of
the path to citizenship is to bring people into the sunshine of
American life and into law-abiding status so that they abide by all our
laws. That will allow our enforcement resources to be focused on real
security concerns. Sadly, those across the aisle have refused to
proceed on the bipartisan Committee bill so this alternative proposal
is an effort to garner additional support from the Majority Leader and
others but it comes at some expense. He opposed the Specter-Leahy-Hagel
amendment but now supports the Frist amendment, which he graciously
called the Hagel-Martinez amendment. The Majority Leader called it a
``negotiated compromise.''
I was not a party to those negotiations. Given the successful
Republican opposition and obstruction of the bipartisan Committee bill,
I have now joined in efforts to improve the Frist amendment and the
Hagel-Martinez
[[Page 5723]]
amendment. I am working with Senator Obama and Senator Durbin to
improve that measure.
I do not in any way disparage the efforts of my friends from Nebraska
and Florida. I appreciate their efforts. I know that they had indicated
their support for the bipartisan Committee bill. In fact, a majority of
Senators supported the bipartisan Committee bill. Rather, they are
trying to point a way toward the best possible legislation that can
achieve not just a majority but a supermajority of support within the
current Senate.
I will support the majority leader's motion for cloture on the motion
to commit. That will bring the Frist amendment before the Senate, and I
will continue to work for bipartisan, comprehensive, smart, tough, and
fair immigration reform.
I was surprised to hear the Majority Leader say last night that he
was considering opposing his own motion. We should have invoked cloture
yesterday on the bipartisan Committee bill. I hope that we do so today
on the Frist motion on the Frist amendment.
I appreciate that for those undocumented immigrants who can prove
they have been in the U.S. for more than five years, the path to
citizenship that we voted out of Committee would still govern. To earn
status and eventual citizenship, the immigrant must undergo background
checks, work, pay taxes, pay fines, and learn English. That is not an
amnesty program. The Republican Leader has now reversed his position
and supports those provisions. That is progress. In addition, the bill
we will be considering continues to contain the Ag Jobs bill and the
DREAM Act, and the amendments the Senate voted to add to the bipartisan
Committee bill, including the Bingaman enforcement amendment and the
Alexander citizenship amendment.
Those undocumented immigrants who have been here for two to five
years would, under the provisions of the new bill, have to leave the
U.S. and seek approval to return and to work under a temporary status
for four years. They could eventually seek legal permanent status,
probably after a total of 8 to 10 years, and only after those who have
``seniority'' to them by being in the group that has been in the U.S.
for more than five years. Thus, this new grouping of people is treated
under a combination of rules drawn from a bill introduced by the senior
Senator from Nebraska and the Kyl-Cornyn bill. Perhaps those who
negotiated this scheme will garner the support of Senator Kyl and
Senator Cornyn and others with whom they have been working.
At least, this new categorization preserves a potential pathway to
regularized status. The test will be whether it is made so onerous by
its implementation that those in this designated category will come
forward at all. We will all need to work to make that a reality so that
they know that we value them, their families and their hard work.
The most recent arrivals, those immigrants after January 1, 2004, are
offered no special treatment. I was concerned about similar aspects of
the Committee bill. There are no incentives to come forward. They are
merely told to leave the U.S. and apply for one of the limited visas
that will be authorized. They could try to come back as legal temporary
workers.
If we do not, I worry that the Majority Leader's announcement of a
``breakthrough'' will have the unintended effect of having created a
false impression and false hopes. I commend him for changing his
position over the course of the last week. I am delighted that he and
others who had been opposing comprehensive immigration reform with a
path to citizenship are joining us in the effort. But an announcement
is not the enactment of a new law. I urge people, especially the
undocumented, to remember that. We are still a long way from enacting
fair, comprehensive and humane immigration reform. None has yet passed
the Senate. And certainly fair immigration reform has not passed the
House. The cruelest joke of all would be to raise expectations and
false hopes by premature talk of a solution when none has yet been
achieved, especially if it remains elusive and that promise is not
fulfilled.
So while I am glad that some Republicans have dropped their
opposition to establishing a path to citizenship for many, I worry that
many others may be left behind. I also urge everyone concerned about
the lives of those who are undocumented to remain cautious and focused
on enacting a law, and on what it will provide in its final form. It
would be wrong to just pass a bill that ends up serving as a false
promise to those who yearn to be part of the promise of a better life
that is America.
Our work on immigration reform is a defining moment in our history.
We are writing laws that will determine people's lives and what it is
that America stands for. I continue to urge the Senate to rise to the
occasion and act as the conscience of the Nation. I will continue to
work on immigration reform so that the laws we enact will be in keeping
with the best the Senate can offer the Nation and the best that America
can offer to immigrants. I hope that our work will be something that
would make my immigrant grandparents proud, and a product that will
make our children and grandchildren proud.
There will be more rallies around the country next week by thousands
of people in cities across the United States. They know what we
Senators now know--our immigration system is broken and we need to fix
it. We need to fix it with effective, comprehensive reforms. The
question is still open whether the Senate is committed to making real
immigration reform.
I have said from the outset that Democratic Senators could not pass a
good immigration bill on our own. With fewer than 50 Democratic
Senators, we will need the support of Republican Senators if the Senate
is to make progress on this important matter.
The majority leader had often spoken of allowing two weeks for Senate
debate of this important matter. We now approach the end of that work
period. I had hoped we would be farther along. When the Senate did not
complete work on the lobbying reform bill on schedule--because
Republicans refused to vote on the port security amendment--it cut into
time for this immigration debate. When the majority leader decided to
begin the debate with a day of discussion of the Frist bill, we lost
more time. We were left then with one week, not two. We have lost time
that could have been spent debating and adopting amendments when some
Republicans withheld consent from utilizing our usual procedures over
the last days. We have endured the false and partisan charges of
obstruction came from the other side. We have experienced seemingly
endless quorum calls without debate or action.
I thank the Democratic leader for his efforts. He has been working
for a comprehensive, realistic and fair immigration bill. We still are.
I regret that over the last several days some tried to make this into a
partisan fight. I hope that we are now able to draw back together in a
bipartisan effort to pass a good bill that becomes a good law.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as soon as the distinguished chairman
finishes his remarks, I will yield 8 minutes to Senator Durbin, and
following his statement, 8 minutes to the ranking member, Senator
Kennedy. If a Republican comes in between, that is fine with us. So 8
minutes to both Senators Durbin and Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Before the distinguished ranking member, Senator Leahy,
leaves the floor, I would like his attention for a minute. He has to
leave because he has other commitments. First, I congratulate him on
the work he has done on this bill. I congratulate him on the work he
has done in his 31 years in the Senate generally, but especially in the
last 15 months, when he and I have worked together on the Judiciary
Committee. I wanted to say this while he was still on the floor.
As chairman, I am committed to make this immigration bill the No. 1
priority of the Judiciary Committee. When we are unable to complete
action on this bill today, as it now appears, I
[[Page 5724]]
want everyone to know when we come back after the recess, this is our
No. 1 priority. We succeeded in the Judiciary Committee, where
everybody thought we would fail. Senator Kennedy was on the committee
and Senator Durbin was on the committee. I mention them because they
are in the Chamber. We were given an impossible deadline, but we met
it. We met it by having a marathon markup on a Monday, which is unheard
of around here--especially a Monday after a recess. We did it by voting
57 times. We had in that marathon markup 14 rollcall votes and 43 voice
votes.
We had a lot of tough votes, but we finished the bill and we reported
it to the Senate. We are going to go back to work on this bill because
if the full Senate cannot find the answer, then the Judiciary Committee
is going to find the answer. We are going to return to the floor of the
Senate a bill which I believe the Senate will find acceptable, and we
will set forth procedures that I think the full Senate will find
acceptable. That is the commitment.
Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield a moment on that, I have
commended the Senator before for his indefatigable leadership. He
worked extraordinarily hard. I commit to the senior Senator from
Pennsylvania that on the Democratic side we will continue to work with
him on any amount of time he needs in committee. Our committee
demonstrated that we can produce a bipartisan bill. We will continue to
work with him in any way necessary to finish this. I agree with him
that it is important. On this of the aisle, we will continue that work.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished ranking member.
Addressing the situation generally as to what we face now on the
immigration bill, I think it is most unfortunate, really unacceptable,
that the compromise arrangement has fallen through. I believe this
legislation is vital for America's interests, vital for our national
security interests, vital for our economic interests, and vital for our
humanitarian interests.
The agreement has been decimated, has fallen through, because of
partisan politics. Regrettably, partisan politics plays too large a
role on both sides of the aisle, with Democrats and Republicans, and
there is more concern about political advantage in this situation--as
it is in many situations--than there is on public policy and the public
welfare. The procedures for not allowing tough votes, regrettably--that
practice has been undertaken by both Democrats and Republicans. I have
been in the Senate for 25 years now, and this has been a repeated
practice which I have noted at least from the past decade and a half.
It has occurred even beyond that period of time. Both the Democratic
and Republican leaders--minority leaders, but mostly leaders--have been
in the position to do what is called ``fill the tree.''
Senate procedures are arcane and complicated. I would not begin to
try to explain them now. But the conclusion is that you can use the
rules to avoid having votes come up, if you want to do it. It is called
filling the tree. Republicans on this immigration bill have been
stymied from offering amendments. But at the same time, on other bills,
on prior days, Democrats had been stymied from offering amendments. So
it is a matter of bipartisan blame.
But what is happening is that the public interests are being damaged.
A very similar situation occurred last year on the filibusters. The
Democrats filibustered President Bush's judicial nominees in
retaliation for tactics employed by Republicans to stymie President
Clinton's nominees from having votes, from coming out of committee or,
once out of committee, from having votes on the Senate floor. That
impasse, that confrontation on judges, almost threatened to destroy a
very vital part of the institution of the Senate, and that is the right
of unlimited debate. Where the filibusters were used, in my view,
inappropriately, consideration was given to changing the rules of the
Senate to change the number of Senators necessary to cut off debate
from 60, which is the current rule, to 51. Fortunately, we were able to
avoid that confrontation.
Now as I said to the distinguished minority leader in a private
conversation, that reason is going to have to prevail, and Democrats
and Republicans in the Senate are going to have to come together and
stop this reprehensible practice of denying votes. We are sent here to
vote. When a bill comes to the floor, as we reported the immigration
bill out of committee, other Members are entitled to offer amendments
to see if they can persuade 51 Senators to vote their way or, if
cloture is necessary, to cut off debate, to see if they can get 60
Senators to vote their way, and then to change a committee bill.
The committee doesn't speak for the Senate. The committee makes a
recommendation. The Senate must speak for itself, in accordance with
our procedures, with 51 votes to pass amendments or a bill, or 60 votes
if it involves cutting off debate. But it is totally an unacceptable
practice to stymie a bill by refusing to give votes. That is what has
happened here.
In the negotiations between Senator Frist and Senator Reid yesterday,
Senator Reid said the maximum number of votes that would be permitted
was three. I don't think he was concrete on three, but he wasn't going
to go much beyond three--perhaps, as a suggestion was made, there might
be a compromise for six. But on the Republican side, Senators wanted to
offer a minimum of 20 amendments. An arrangement could not be agreed
upon and, obviously, Senator Frist could not accept three votes, or
even six votes. The position was taken to avoid having Democratic
Senators take tough votes. In committee, Republicans and Democrats took
tough votes--57 votes, with 14 rollcall votes, during a marathon
session on that Monday on the markup.
It is an open secret that there are many people who do not want to
have an immigration bill. I think it is a fair comment--although
subject to being refuted--that there is advantage for the Democrats to
have only the bill of the House of Representatives before the public,
which provides only for border security, and which doesn't take care of
the 11 million undocumented aliens. That bill has provoked massive
rallies--500,000 people in Los Angeles, 20,000 people reportedly in
Phoenix, and more rallies are coming. The view is--and I think it is
accurate--that it is very harmful to the Republican Party to have the
Hispanics in America angry with the Republican position, as taken by
the House of Representatives, to have only border security and not have
a program to accommodate the 11 million undocumented aliens.
The Senate bill, of course, directs our attention to that bill, and
the Judiciary Committee bill has a very rational, humanitarian,
sensible approach--not amnesty, because there is not forgiveness,
because these undocumented aliens have to pay a fine, have to pay back
taxes, have to learn English, have to work for 6 years; they have to
undertake many conditions in order to be on the citizenship track. With
refinements put in by the Judiciary Committee, they are at the end of
the line.
Then, in order to achieve an accommodation, changes were made on
suggestions by Senator Hagel and Senator Martinez to modify that
proposal, treating those who have been in the country more than 5 years
differently from those who have been here less than 5 years. Frankly, I
preferred the Judiciary Committee bill; I preferred our bill without
amendments. But people have a right to make amendments. I was prepared
to accept the compromise that brought into play the ideas of Senators
Hagel and Martinez so we would have a bill. The issue that a legislator
faces is not whether it is a bill he would prefer but whether the bill
is better than the current system. In my mind, there is no doubt that
had we moved forward with the compromise that was struck yesterday, it
would be a vast improvement over the current system. It would secure
the borders. It would provide a rational way to handle the 11 million
undocumented aliens. It would provide a rational way to handle the
guest worker situation. And it should have gone forward. It has not
gone forward because
[[Page 5725]]
there is political advantage for the Democrats not to have an
immigration bill, not to take tough votes, to have the opprobrium of
the House bill, which is objected to by the Hispanic population,
illustrated by the massive rallies, to have that as the Republican
position. Contrasted with what would have happened had the Senate
produced a bill which was bipartisan, which was sponsored by
Republicans, then the opprobrium, the edge would have been taken from
the House bill.
So we are going to leave here, by all indications, without having
completed action on the immigration bill or without having come to a
point where we would have a definitive list of amendments, to have an
agreement that on our return from the recess we could, in short order,
finish the bill. That is totally unacceptable.
Again, I emphasize that the partisanship exists on both sides of the
aisle. When I say the Democrats are wrong on this bill to avoid hard
votes, I say simultaneously that we Republicans have been wrong in the
past to deny Democrats votes on amendments which they wanted to offer.
The distinction has been made by some of my colleagues--and I think it
is accurate--that they have been denied votes in most situations on
matters where they are nongermane to the bill.
Senator Reid mentioned stem cells, and I agree, we ought to resolve
the stem cell issue. I don't know if there was ever a stem cell vote
offered in a way which would be nongermane, but we ought not take up an
issue such as stem cells on the Transportation bill, for example.
There have been amendments offered by Democrats which were germane.
They wanted to offer amendments which were germane, which have been
denied.
It is my hope that we can come together. I have already talked with
the distinguished Democratic leader this morning saying that we ought
to come to some agreement that neither side will use the technicalities
at our disposal to deny the other side votes. The Democratic leader has
been very lavish in praise in supporting the work Senator Leahy and I
have done. That spirit of accommodation ought to be carried forward to
the floor of the Senate when we consider matters such as this
immigration bill. For the future, it is my hope that we will come
together and stop this practice of denying votes to the other side.
Again, my commitment is to make this immigration bill the first
priority item for the Judiciary Committee when we return after the
Easter recess because America needs immigration legislation reform.
I inquire as to how much time our side has remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois is
recognized for 8 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor weary--weary
after 2 weeks of working on this historic legislation, both in the
Senate Judiciary Committee and in the back rooms of the Senate Chamber
and on the Senate floor; weary after a long, sleepless night thinking
about how we might have done this better; weary with the knowledge that
we come here this morning, having missed a historic opportunity. This
opportunity is slipping through our hands like grains of sand.
It is hard to imagine that we have reached this point when one looks
at the people of goodwill who have tried to bring this bill to passage
and completion.
I first salute the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It
took extraordinary courage for him to vote in favor of the bipartisan
bill which came to the floor. He stuck with it. I thought he was fair
in the way he handled his committee, and I thought we produced a good
work product which I was proud to support.
I salute the Senator from Massachusetts who, for decades, has made
this cause, immigration reform, his passion. He has never given up. In
the weeks we have spent up to this moment, his strength has been
remarkable.
On the Republican side, Senator McCain, Senator Graham, Senator
Brownback, Senator DeWine, Senator Martinez, Senator Hagel, and so many
others were bound and determined to defy the critics who said we
couldn't come to a bipartisan agreement.
Yesterday, for one brief moment, one shining moment, we believed we
had a bipartisan agreement. Senator Martinez and Senator Hagel worked
all night and put together an amendment, came to us on the Democratic
side and said: Can you accept these modifications, and then can we move
forward together? We agreed. We stood together.
I think the most dangerous place in America for a politician is the
front row of the St. Patrick's Day parade in the city of Chicago. I
have been there. I have been pushed and shoved and elbowed aside by men
and women who follow in the grand Chicago tradition of Dick Butkus and
Brian Urlacher. But there is a second place I recall as the most
dangerous for politicians in America, and it was in the press gallery
yesterday as Senators were preening and priming themselves to appear
before the cameras and announce we have an agreement, we have a bill,
pushing one another aside to get to the microphone so they could
announce the success of our efforts.
I was there. I stood back and thought: There is plenty of time for
congratulations. Let's wait until we have done something before we
congratulate ourselves.
Sadly, 24 hours have passed. The world has turned, and things have
changed.
I stand here today uncertain about where the Republican Party of the
United States of America stands on the issue of immigration. I know
where the House Republicans stand. They are very clear. It is a
punitive, mean-spirited approach to immigration, which most Republicans
in the Senate have rejected. The idea of charging volunteers, nurses,
and people of faith who help the poorest among us with a felony if one
of those poor people happens to be an undocumented immigrant is the
ultimate. That is the position of the House Republicans.
For the life of me, I don't know what the position of the Senate
Republicans is on immigration. Their leader stood before us yesterday
and accepted this bipartisan compromise, came before the cameras and
said this was his bill, too. He filed a motion so that we could limit
debate and move to final passage of this bill and announced last night
that he would vote against his own motion.
In the history of the United States, there was a political party
known as the mugwumps. They were called mugwumps because people said
they had their mug on one side of the face and their wump on the other.
That is what I see when I look at the Senate Republican caucus. Where
are they on immigration?
I listened to Senator Sessions who has been open. He opposes
immigration reform. He has 15 amendments. He wants to stop this
process, slow it down. I watch as the leadership of the Senate
Republican team files before the television cameras rejecting the very
compromise their leader has embraced. Where are they? Who are they? And
do they believe that the people across America, carefully following
this debate because their faith, their future, and their family is at
stake, are going to ignore the obvious, that in just a few moments, a
vote will be taken on the floor of the Senate and Senate Republicans
will march down and vote against the Senate Republican leader's motion?
When it is all said and done, the House Republicans are very clear.
They are opposed to immigration reform. They have taken the most
punitive stand. But where do the Senate Republicans stand? We won't be
able to tell after this vote. But I will tell you this: The people who
are following this debate will know that the Senate Republicans did not
stand for comprehensive immigration reform. There are heroes among
them. I have listed some of them, and I will stand by them and defend
them to any group because I do believe they are sincerely committed
[[Page 5726]]
to immigration reform. But when it comes to the majority of that
caucus, when it comes to the leadership on that side, it is impossible
to divine what their position is on this critical issue.
The saddest part of it is this: Across America, millions of people
are living in fear, living in the shadows, people who have come to me
in tears because their children's future is at stake, people who have
come to me crying because their mothers came to this country from
Poland years ago and never filed the right papers and are technically
illegal. These people wanted us to do something, to achieve something
in the Senate, and we have failed. We have failed because the Senate
Republican leadership will not say to its own membership: There is a
limit as to how far you can take us with these debilitating amendments.
Last night, the Senate Republican leader said all we want is about 20
or so amendments. With 20 amendments and second-degree amendments, we
would eat up a week of time just on the Republican amendments, and
there is no promise it would end there.
This was clearly a moment for the Senate Republican leader to step
forward, not just at the microphone, but in his own caucus and say that
we as a party are going to be counted as to whether we are really for
this immigration reform.
I think it is time, Mr. President, that we acknowledge the obvious.
It is time for us as a nation to have comprehensive immigration reform
with enforcement--enforcement on our borders and enforcement in places
of employment--but also to give a legal pathway to those good people
who want to be our fellow citizens, who want to share this dream in
America.
This morning we will not achieve it. And when the Senate Judiciary
Committee chairman tells us we will return to this bill when we get
back from the Easter recess, I don't have much hope that we will either
have the time or the will to overcome what we have seen on the floor in
the last several days.
I will work, put every ounce of my strength into making it a success.
But as I stand here today, I think we have allowed this historic
opportunity to escape us.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois has
consumed 8 minutes. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is an interesting time on the floor of
the Senate. We just heard the most fascinating speech about
fingerpointing I have heard in decades--fingerpointing from the other
side that is trying to suggest they are blameless, absolutely without
blame, because the Senate is stalled in its attempt to gain a
comprehensive immigration reform bill.
This is one Republican Senator who, several years ago, stepped across
the aisle and stood with Senator Ted Kennedy in a clear recognition
that something had to be done to deal with illegal foreign nationals in
our country in a just, reasonable, humane, and legal way.
To suggest that the Democratic caucus has not had conflict behind
closed doors over the last week is, in fact, a false statement because
today we see this veneered front. To suggest that they are without
blame because the Senate for 1 week has stood still doing nothing
because they would not allow amendments on the comprehensive bill? May
I say shame on you? I am saying that because the veneer doesn't fit. It
is paper thin like the front page of the legislation before us.
The Senate Judiciary Committee worked its will, and it brought forth
a bill to this floor. Is it perfect? No. Is it the best they could do?
Absolutely, yes. Did they work hard? You darn bet they did. Does it
have all the components in it that we would want for tough border
security and control to contain our borders, to secure them? It must
have that, and it does have that. Because I don't care how good the
legislation is that I think I have created with a coalition of over 500
groups of Hispanics and labor and agriculture over the last 5 years, as
good as my legislation is, known as AgJOBS, it is not going to work if
the border isn't secure. You have to stop the flow of illegals, and we
do that. But we don't do it by pointing a finger at all of them and
saying: You are all felons. We cause them to earn, in the course of
years of hard work, the right to continue to work and, if they choose--
if they choose--to become an American citizen by another lengthy
process. Is that unfair? Is that irresponsible? It is absolutely not.
Was that created by Republicans? Yes, it was. By Democrats? Absolutely.
So let me suggest that when the assistant minority leader stands up
and says: No, not me, not us, not ours, that simply is not true. Yes,
the Republican side is conflicted. Yes, we have differences. Yes, there
were amendments. But those amendments, as would be the normal process
on the floor of the Senate after a bill came out of committee, have
been denied by that paper-thin veneer you have just heard this morning
from the other side.
Immigration has been and will always be a bipartisan issue. It must
be. It should be. Is it to our advantage to make it partisan?
Absolutely not. But some are now playing that game, and that in itself
is most dangerous.
I will continue to work with all of my colleagues to resolve this
issue. It is fundamentally important to America that we do.
Yesterday, on the floor of the Senate, I said: America, turn and look
at yourself in your mirror, and you will find a multiethnic, a
multinational image. We as Americans are the phenomenal mosaic of the
world, and we are because we have historically had an orderly,
responsible immigration policy that didn't point fingers and didn't
play partisan politics and worked its will. I must tell you there have
been and there always will be those who got here yesterday who don't
want those coming tomorrow. Yet America's great energy is simply that
we continue to bring people from around the world who become Americans
in search of the great American dream, who live under our
constitutional structure, who embody it because of the new energy as a
free citizen they employ. It is in itself the only Nation in the world
that has been able to do that.
I say, when I am out in Idaho and around the country, is it possible
for you to become Japanese if you are not born one? Absolutely not. Or
to become an Italian if you are not born one? You can't become that.
But you can become an American. Why? Because this great country was
never one nationality, never one religion; it was the place the world
came to find freedom and to be able to use its individual energies
underneath the framework of a constitutional system that established
laws.
What are we attempting to do here today? We are attempting to clarify
a law, to strengthen a law, to make sure that the wonderful process we
have seen throughout our history continues to be orderly and just and
responsible.
Who is to blame here? The U.S. Senate, the Congress of the United
States, when, in 1986, they passed a law about immigration, but they
didn't recognize in doing so that they were creating a natural magnet
and they didn't control the border, dominantly to our south; and then
again in 1996 we did the same thing and we didn't control the border.
This great economic engine of ours became the magnet for the
downtrodden to come to work, to earn a little money, to improve
themselves. We took advantage of that, hopefully in a positive way,
hopefully in a humane way--not always, but we did take advantage of it.
Then, after 9/11, we awakened to this phenomenal reality that there
were millions in our country who were illegal, and some of them were
bad guys bent to do us harm. Now we are playing political games on the
floor as to who is on first and who is on second on this issue. Shame
on us. Because the veneer on the other side is just that: paper thin.
This has been and will remain a bipartisan issue, it is an American
issue, and it is responsible for this Senate to deal with it. It is
right and proper under our rules that if someone has an amendment in
disagreement to what I have done--and now I see my colleague from
California, Senator Feinstein, who worked with me and introduced into
the committee mark a very valuable component as it relates to American
agriculture. We didn't play the
[[Page 5727]]
partisan game. We came together because she has in her State and in the
great San Joaquin Valley, which is, without dispute, the greatest
agricultural valley in the world, a true need to stabilize and build a
legal workforce; and in Idaho, at the peak of our labor season, I have
anywhere from 25,000 to 30,000 illegals. She has more illegals in one
county in California working than I have in my entire State. Still,
Senator Feinstein and I understand one thing very appropriately: that
what we do must be legal, that American agriculture cannot build its
strength on an illegal foundation, and it knows it, too. That is why we
have worked with them to solve this problem.
We think that within the committee bill, there is a solution. There
are some on my side and on the other side who probably disagree with
that, and there are amendments over here that would change what Senator
Feinstein and I have proposed, and that is within the committee mark. I
think I can defeat those amendments. I am certainly willing to debate
them. It would be appropriate under the rules of the Senate that some
of those amendments would be offered, but that has been denied. I am
disappointed in that.
I hope that over the course of the next 2 weeks, calm heads will
prevail. I hope the idea of finger-pointing goes away. We all have a
responsibility here, not only to our home States but to our Nation, to
develop a comprehensive immigration reform policy to secure our borders
for the sake of our Nation's security. That is what this Senate has
attempted to do, and that is what we are now being denied. I don't
believe that is the appropriate position for any of us.
Immigration reform has been--let me repeat--and will always be and
must be a comprehensive approach, a bipartisan issue where we work
together to resolve what is in itself a major national issue of the
day. Our citizens have asked that we do this. While they are divided by
our effort in every way, we attempt to bring together that division in
what we hope is a comprehensive, responsible, legal approach that first
embodies national security and secondly, and as importantly, though,
represents a balance for our economy, a reasonable and responsible
approach toward humanity for those who come to work and for those who
want to be citizens. In my opinion, that is a responsible position.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is
recognized for 8 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Chair tell me when I have 2 minutes remaining,
please?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will so advise.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at this stage of the whole consideration
of immigration reform, I wish to mention my friend and colleague,
Senator McCain, whom I have had the good opportunity to work with--I
have worked with many others but particularly with Senator McCain over
the last 3 years--in terms of developing a comprehensive approach on
this issue.
There was a bipartisan group that came together, including members of
our Judiciary Committee and people who had a particular interest who
were outside of our committee. I am very grateful to them and the
chairman of our committee, Senator Specter, and, as always, a valued
friend and also a leader, Senator Leahy. I thank my own leader, Senator
Reid, for all of his good work and counsel and advice. The Senator from
Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and Senators Salazar, Menendez, Lieberman, and
Obama have all been good supporters during this period of time.
On the other side, Senators Graham, Brownback, DeWine, Martinez, and
Hagel have worked very closely with us.
Senator Feinstein has been a person of enormous knowledge,
understanding, and awareness of the range of immigration issues, with
very special attention to California, which presents such challenges.
She has not only been in this debate and discussion an extraordinary
ally, but to any debate and discussion on immigration and immigration
reform, she brings a special dimension. She worked with Senator Craig
in a very strong, bipartisan way in the initial proposal Senator McCain
and I introduced. We recognized that the AgJOBS bill was enormously
important. It had a few different approaches, but rather than making
this issue more complicated, we did not include it. We welcomed it, but
we had the leadership of Senator Feinstein and Senator Craig.
So this has been a bipartisan effort in trying to bring about
immigration reform. I will not review the very powerful and strong
arguments about the border being broken and the need for our focus and
attention on the border, about our national security interests and
issues in trying to get it right, and about considering who comes to
the United States and who does not come. As to our sense of humanity, I
will speak about that for just a few minutes, in terms of how we are
going to treat those who have come here and worked hard, played by the
rules, who are devoted to their families and their religion, and who
join the Armed Forces of our country and serve nobly.
So I rise this morning recognizing that the Senate has failed to
adopt urgently needed immigration reform, and in doing so, we failed in
our duty to our Nation and our democracy and our American people. We
only make progress on issues of civil rights and immigration when we
have bipartisanship. We haven't had a great deal of bipartisanship over
the recent past. We certainly did on this issue, and that is why it is
doubly disappointing and sorrowful that we have missed the opportunity
at this time. I believe we also failed our immigrant heritage and the
11 million undocumented workers and families who looked to us for hope.
Clearly, the obstacles to progress are many, but for those who are
committed to immigration reform, this debate certainly is not over. We
will continue, if not today, then tomorrow and in the days ahead
because the battle must go on.
As one who has been in the trenches on this issue since I first came
to the U.S. Senate over 40 years ago and who has been a part of this
effort to try to put into perspective the enormous magnet of America to
people who look to it with hope and opportunity and progress and those
who understand that we have to do this in an orderly and rational and
reasonable and thoughtful way, there is always tension. But we are
proudly a nation of immigrants, and I certainly believe we have lost an
important chance and opportunity to make important progress on this
issue.
What is at stake is not just our security but our humanity as well.
We can't set that aside. We vote today on our security but also on our
humanity. We cast a vote on what Congress will do about Sheila, an
undocumented immigrant originally from Cork, Ireland, who has lived on
Cape Cod for the last 10 years. She left Ireland due to the economic
depression. Now her whole life is here in the United States. Her
citizen brother is fighting in Iraq. But upon petitioning for her, he
found he had a 15- to 20-year wait. Sheila listened to her
grandfather's funeral through a cell phone because she wasn't able to
travel to Ireland. A talented musician, she has worked and paid taxes
for the past decade as a carpet cleaner and a secretary.
We vote today about what to do about William, who came to
Massachusetts 14 years ago from Guatemala to make a better life for his
family. He is a factory worker who has paid taxes for the past 14
years. He has a 7-year-old son, David, with cerebral palsy. David is
severely blind, disabled, and can't walk. William is his sole provider.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). The Chair would remind the
Senator he has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am reminded now, in these last moments,
Cardinal Mahony, the Archbishop of Los Angeles, has been a courageous
voice on these issues: Now is a historic moment for our country. We
need to come together and enact immigration reform that protects our
national security and upholds our basic human rights and dignity. That
is the challenge before us.
[[Page 5728]]
Fifty years ago President Kennedy wrote a book called ``A Nation of
Immigrants.'' In this book--I will just mention a very brief part--he
writes:
In just over 350 years, a nation of nearly 200 million
people has grown up, populated almost entirely by persons who
either came from other lands or whose forefathers came from
other lands. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt reminded a
convention of the Daughters of the American Revolution,
``Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I
especially, are descended from immigrants and
revolutionists.''
As Walt Whitman said,
``These States are the amplest poem, Here is not merely a
nation but a teeming Nation of Nations.''
To know America, then, it is necessary to understand this
peculiarly American social revolution. It is necessary to
know why over 42 million people gave up their settled lives
to start anew in a strange land. We must know how they met
the new land and how it met them, and, most important, we
must know what these things mean for our present and for our
future.
Those words are as alive today as they were at that time. The
challenge is here. We want to give assurances to those who have given
us great support over this period of time that we are in the battle to
the end.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am yielding 1 minute of my leader time to
Senator Feinstein and 1 minute of my leader time to Senator McConnell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California is recognized for 1 minute.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer these words on behalf of
Senator Boxer, my friend and colleague, and myself. Senator Craig said
it correctly. Senator Boxer and I have more illegal people in one
county than most Senators have in their entire State. Therefore, what
happens here is of serious consequence for the people of California and
for us as well.
We are both going to vote for this motion to commit. We are going to
vote for it with the hope that the ensuing weeks are going to enable
some parts of it to be worked out more clearly.
I serve on Judiciary. I serve on the Immigration subcommittee. The
beauty of the original McCain-Kennedy legislation was that once you
accepted that approach, you accepted an approach of balance which was
simple and which was able to be carried out.
My concern is by developing the three tiers of individuals, as the
Martinez plan does, that you create a much more complicated scenario in
terms of enforcement and therefore run the risk that it cannot be
carried out well, particularly for those here for less than 2 years--
who are in the millions. They simply disappear into the fabric, once
again, of America, and you have the same problem all over again.
I hope during the 2 weeks cool minds will prevail and that we will be
able to work on this legislation further. We have been on rather a
forced march, a forced march in Judiciary to mark up a bill. There have
been more than a half dozen guest worker plans in committee. It has
been a difficult and complicated path.
I urge that we come together as one body, that we work together as
one body. I think the lives to be affected by what we do are perhaps
more deeply affected than with virtually any other piece of
legislation. Both Senator Boxer and I offer our time and our energy to
try to help in this.
We will vote yes on cloture. It is our hope a majority of this body
will do so also.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak for 20 minutes on
immigration.
Immersed in the routines of daily life, many people don't make an
extra effort to track legislation as it winds through Congress. It
usually takes an issue that hits close to home before it motivates
people to take notice.
This issue has hit home to many. We have dived into a very passionate
and emotional debate in the U. S. Senate. Our country was founded by
immigrants, and continues to be a Nation of immigrants. We have
benefited from the achievements of many new residents. And, today,
people in foreign lands want to be a part of this great country.
Generation after generation tirelessly pursues the American Dream. We
should feel privileged that people love our country and want to become
Americans. We are a wonderful nation, and it is evident by the number
of people who want to come here.
But it is hard to empathize with those who thumb their noses at the
rule of law. Estimates say more than 11 million undocumented immigrants
already live in the country. They deliberately bypassed the proper
channels and broke our laws to enter the country.
We are a nation of laws. Our country was founded on the rule of law.
And now our welcome mat is being trampled on.
I am a member of the Judiciary Committee, and I was a part of the 5-
week markup session. I voted against the committee bill. But I think we
made great strides on the border security and interior enforcement
titles.
I supported amendments to provide more authority and resources to our
State and local law enforcement. One of my amendments increased the
number of ICE agents we have in each State. I supported amendments
dealing with expedited removal and increased detention space.
We enhanced border security and increased our manpower to patrol the
border. We reformed the L visa program and the Temporary Protected
Status program. We addressed the problem with countries which don't
take back their illegal citizens by denying them visas.
We did a lot of positive things. But these reforms will mean nothing
if an amnesty in sheep's clothing goes forward.
Some say that our enforcement-only approach in 1996 didn't work. Let
me remind my colleagues that the 1996 bill contained measures that
still have not been implemented. The best example is the entry-exit
system. It is not fully operational because Congress and our
bureaucrats keep delaying its implementation.
The compromise before us may contain enforcement measures, but they
mean nothing if Congress and the administration don't make the
commitment to follow through. And our strong enforcement measures are
worthless if we pardon every illegal alien.
I was here in 1986. I voted for the amnesty during the Reagan years.
I know now that it was a big mistake. I have been here long enough to
know the consequences of rewarding illegal behavior.
Let me take a moment to raise some concerns about the compromise
before us.
The compromise provides for a three-tier system. It puts illegal
aliens into three categories. Those who have been here for 5 years or
more automatically get a glide path to citizenship. Those who have been
here for 2 to 5 years have to go home--at some point in the future--and
re-enter through a legal channel. Those who have been here for less
than 24 months are illegal aliens, and we assume that they will return
to their home country.
Some have estimated that there are 7.7 to 8.5 million illegal aliens
who have been here for more than 5 years. That is more than 75 percent
of the illegal population. But that is not all. The compromise says
that the family of the illegal alien--their spouses and children--can
also apply. It doesn't say that their family has to be in this country.
In fact, those back in their home countries are now getting a free pass
to cross the border. They, too, are on their way to a citizenship.
Those in the second tier who are required to go home and re-enter
through a legal channel won't go home. Why would they if their
neighbors are getting citizenship? They will hold out for their reward.
They will wait for Congress to pass another amnesty bill. We are
sending a bad signal. We are saying some can get amnesty and some
cannot.
I know my colleagues say this isn't amnesty, but it is. I know some
say that the alien has to pay their taxes, pay a fine, have worked for
3 years, and learn English. They say that the aliens
[[Page 5729]]
are earning their citizenship. I respectfully disagree.
Yes, an alien has to pay $2,000 to come out of the shadows. But
individuals under 18 don't have to pay. And the fine probably won't
cover the costs of implementing the program, nor will it cover the
costs of a background check.
I have said it before, and I repeat is now: $2,000 is chump change.
These same people probably paid a smuggler $15,000 to get them across
the border. We are selling citizenship.
The proponents say that illegal aliens have to pay their taxes. Don't
let them fool you. Sure, they have to pay all outstanding Federal and
Sate taxes before their status is adjusted, but they only have to pay
the taxes they owe for the 3 years that they are required to work. What
about the other years? They have been here for at least 5. What about
those under the age of 20 who are exempt from having to work? What if
they work? Don't they have to pay their taxes?
Another point about this provision on taxes is that it is going to be
a burden on the IRS. As chairman of the Finance Committee, which
oversees the IRS, I can tell you that the taxman is going to have a
difficult time verifying whether an individual owes any taxes. It will
be impossible for the IRS to truly enforce this because they cannot
audit every single person in this country. We need to place the burden
on the alien, not the Federal Government. We need to require them to
come forward and show us their tax returns.
When an alien applies for legal status, they have to prove that they
have been working for 3 out of the last 5 years. If an illegal alien
can't get their IRS records or an employer to attest to their working,
then they can get a friend to attest. They can have anybody on the
street sign a sworn affidavit to attest for them. That is fraud and
corruption waiting to happen. Do you think the Federal Government is
going to have time to check out their sources and prove their claims?
The proponents of amnesty also say that the alien is not eligible if
they do not meet certain health standards. It does not say that one has
to undergo a medical exam. In fact, those who fall under the second
tier, who have been here for 2 to 5 years, may be required to take a
medical exam.
My home State of Iowa is currently dealing with a mumps epidemic.
Some speculate that the disease was brought over by a foreign student.
That is the point of a medical exam. This compromise would place
heavier burdens on our public health departments because we won't know
what types of diseases these individuals have. They should be required
to undergo a medical exam at their own expense. We need to require them
upfront in order to prevent outbreaks of contagious diseases.
The English requirement is weak. It is weaker than current
naturalization requirements. Under current law, an immigrant has to
demonstrate an understanding of the English language and a knowledge of
the fundamentals of our history and government. Under this compromise,
an alien only has to prove that they are pursuing a course of study in
English, history, and U.S. Government. Anybody could make that claim.
The compromise would require the Department of Homeland Security to
do a background check on the illegal aliens in the United States. In
fact, this compromise has placed a time limit on our Federal agents.
They have 90 days to complete them. That is unrealistic. It is
possible. It is a huge burden. And it is a huge expense.
Homeland Security will surely try to hurry with these background
checks. They will be pressured by Congress to rush them. They will
rubberstamp applications despite possible gang participation, criminal
activity, terrorist ties, and other violations of our laws. This is a
national security concern.
The compromise before us prohibits the Government from using the
information in an application against an alien. So if an illegal alien
writes in their application that they voted, or that they smuggled in
drugs, or that they are related to Osama bin Laden, then our Government
cannot use that information for critical investigations. In fact, the
compromise would fine bureaucrats $10,000 if they use the information
in an application for purposes other than adjudication.
But wait--there is more. If an alien has been ordered removed, and is
sitting in jail ready to be deported, the alien still gets the chance
to apply for this amnesty. The thousands of illegal aliens with orders
to leave the country can apply. Their country won't take them back, so
our country will give them citizenship. That doesn't make sense.
Everything that I have spoken about so far is based on the amnesty
program for those who are currently in the United States. I would like
to express two concerns about the future flow provisions. When we say
future flow we mean those who aren't here but who can apply for legal
entry through a ``temporary'' guestworker program.
First, on day 1 of their entry into the U.S., an employer can sponsor
the alien for a green card. If they are not sponsored within 4 years,
then the alien can petition for him or herself. Yes, this temporary
program for temporary workers becomes a citizenship program for anybody
and everybody.
Second, there is a numerical limit of 400,000. It is intellectually
dishonest to say that this is the ceiling. The cap can be increased
automatically without congressional approval if the limit is reached.
It will never decrease; it can only increase.
This compromise will have enormous economic and employment
implications for the Nation. If we enact it, we will sell out the
middle class in America. We would also push aside the lower, uneducated
class of American citizens.
Foreign workers won't have to take low-skilled jobs anymore. They
won't be required to do the jobs that Americans supposedly won't do.
Their spouses and children will permanently take jobs away. These
aren't temporary workers anymore.
What happens when this country goes into recession? Americans will be
banging on our door, asking why we did this to them.
We are allowing businesses to hire people at lower wages because they
are illegal, rather than hire Americans at somewhat higher wages. Maybe
this country needs to focus more on training and educating our own
people, and less on how businesses can make more money by hiring
illegals. By opening the floodgates for these kinds of low-skilled
immigrants, we are taking away opportunities for our own.
Businesses have no problems paying under the table or paying lower
wages. They also don't have problems paying CEOs and executives
astronomical salaries. There is something wrong with this equation.
I have an amendment to create an Employer Verification System. This
amendment, worked out between the Finance and Judiciary Committees,
will require employers to check the eligibility of their workers.
It will give businesses the tools they need to be compliant with the
law. Right now, the system is voluntary, but it is time to make this
system a staple in the workplace. We will increase worksite enforcement
and penalties, safeguards and privacy protections.
But this system needs to be in place if we are going to have a guest
worker program. Employers are put on notice--we will hold them
accountable, and we will penalize them if they violate the law.
We are taking a huge step here in shaping the future of our country.
What we do here with immigration will impact every aspect of our daily
lives.
An amnesty program for millions of people will increase the fiscal
burden on our country. It will further strain our health care,
education, and infrastructure systems. If these folks are not paying
their taxes, then American citizens will have to pick up the tab.
Americans will have to build bigger schools, and pay for the huge
medical expenses of these people.
So I ask my colleagues to think twice. Read the fine print. Ask
yourself this: What about fairness? What about those who waited their
turn in line? What about those who abide by the rules?
[[Page 5730]]
I know many of my colleagues will support the compromise that was
agreed to in the last day. I know they are saying to themselves: This
is better than nothing. We had to do something. I ask my colleagues
this: Do you think voting for this without the process of amending and
debating is what we were elected to do? Voting for this bill because it
is supposedly the best thing out there isn't a good enough reason.
As a U.S. Senator, I took an oath of office to honor the
Constitution. I bear a fundamental allegiance to uphold the rule of
law. And that is why I cannot in good conscience support granting legal
status to illegal immigrants who have violated our laws. Lawbreakers
should not be rewarded. The compromise sends the wrong message to
millions of people around the world. If you vote for this compromise,
you obviously don't respect the rule of law.
With a wink and a nod, Uncle Sam would turn America's historic
welcome mat into a doormat trampled upon by millions and millions of
illegal immigrants.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I voted in favor of cloture on the
Hagel-Martinez compromise on the immigration bill. I did not like the
changes that this compromise made to the Senate Judiciary Committee
bill, and I would vastly prefer that the Senate pass the committee bill
intact. But we lost the cloture vote on the committee bill yesterday,
and I saw this as the only way to move forward with comprehensive
immigration reform this year. I remain hopeful that after this coming
recess, we will be able to come to some agreement on meaningful,
comprehensive reform. This issue is too significant to put off--too
important to our national security, to our economy, and most
importantly to the millions of people whose lives will be affected.
Like so many of my colleagues, I am willing to work on a bipartisan
basis to address the critical problems facing our Nation with regard to
immigration, just as the Judiciary Committee was able to do.
I do want to lay out some of my concerns about the Hagel-Martinez
substitute. But first, I should note that this compromise leaves intact
most of the committee bill, including very important provisions like
the guest worker program for foreign workers who want to enter the
country in the future for jobs that Americans are not filling, the
family reunification provisions, the AgJOBS title to help agricultural
workers, and the DREAM Act to provide higher education opportunities
for children who are long-term U.S. residents and came to this country
illegally through no fault of their own.
Nonetheless, the compromise makes some troubling revisions to how we
would deal with undocumented individuals who are currently in the
country. I appreciate that Senator Kennedy was able to secure some
important changes to the original Hagel-Martinez proposal that help
protect workers, such as stronger wage protections. Those were
important concessions. But I am concerned about the core modification
that the compromise makes to the committee bill; that is, treating
differently those people who have been here for more than 5 years and
those who entered the country illegally in the last 2 to 5 years. This
approach is overly complicated and difficult to administer, and it is
unfair to treat these two categories of people differently.
Mr. President, we must enact realistic, comprehensive reform, and I
will continue to work with my colleagues toward a solution. I hope that
we can accomplish that this year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the minority has expired.
Mr. McCONNELL. Am I correct there is now 4 minutes left on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, let me say the bill that came out of the
committee, the Kennedy-McCain bill, was substituted there over the
Specter bill. It lurched the bill even further toward amnesty than we
already were heading. When it came up for a vote yesterday, it needed
60 votes to proceed. It got 60 votes against it--only 39 to proceed. It
was defeated overwhelmingly.
Then they hatched a compromise among Members who already supported
the Kennedy bill and they claimed they were producing a compromise that
could be supported. But people who should have been involved in that
compromise, who worked so hard on this, such as Senator Kyl, Senator
Cornyn, Senator Feinstein, Senator Dorgan, Senator Nelson, and Senator
Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is here--I am not aware they were involved in
it. So they bring that up now and expect us to support it.
Ninety-five percent of what was in the bill rejected yesterday is in
this one and there is no substantial change in matters of amnesty. In
fact, with regard to green cards, it increases significantly the number
that would be granted over the bill we rejected yesterday. It is an
unprincipled approach, in my view, and not a well thought out plan.
With regard to this question, who will say on the floor of this
Senate that the enforcement provisions will be carried out and we will
actually have enforcement on the border? That is why the Presiding
Officer, Senator Isakson, had a perfectly important amendment. That was
not allowed to be voted on. It would at least have taken a strong step
toward ensuring that whatever we passed becomes law.
Finally, when asked what the cost was, nobody knew until last night
and we find that the cost of this bill is $29 billion over 5 years.
Nobody had even thought about it. That clearly is a budget-busting
matter.
This bill is a dead horse, in my view. It should be rejected because
amendments have not been allowed, and it should be rejected most
importantly because it does not do what it purports to do.
I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, no one has been the beneficiary of
legal immigration more than this Senator. My wife, who has the
privilege of serving in the President's Cabinet, came to this country
at age 8 not speaking a word of English and has realized the American
dream and been an important part of my life, obviously, as my partner
for a number of years. So I am one Senator who wishes to see a
comprehensive immigration reform bill pass.
But the Hagel-Martinez bill is a lengthy, complicated measure, and it
was suggested last night by my good friend, the Democratic leader, that
somehow it is extraordinary to request 20 amendments on a bill of this
magnitude and complexity.
Routinely on bills of this size we have at least this many
amendments. In this Congress alone, for example, we had 21 votes on the
Energy bill, 37 votes on the budget resolution, and 31 votes on the
bankruptcy bill, including a couple of nongermane amendments on minimum
wage. All of those bills, of course, were arguably complex, but
certainly this one is as well.
We have been allowed to have only three votes on amendments to this
bill, and we have been on this bill well in excess of a week. So what
Republicans are arguing for today is fairness in the process, the
routine, normal way with which we deal with complex legislation here on
the floor of the Senate, after which we will produce, hopefully, a
comprehensive bill that will be passed on a bipartisan basis. In the
meantime, it is my hope and expectation that all Republican Senators
will oppose cloture until we are allowed to offer this rather
reasonable and modest number of amendments--about 20.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. If the majority agrees here, I will make a brief statement
and use my leader time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I spoke yesterday about the American
people's need for a win on immigration--not the Republicans, not the
Democrats. Today we have another chance to give them that win if we
vote for cloture and move forward on legislation that will
[[Page 5731]]
protect our borders and fix our badly broken immigration system. All of
us, Democrats and Republicans--we all need the courage to do what is
required of us now. It is time to move forward on tough and smart
immigration reform.
The amendment before us does what we need of an immigration bill. An
immigration bill will secure our borders, crack down on employers who
break the law, and allow us to find who is living here by giving 12
million undocumented workers a reason to come out of the darkness, out
of the shadows, pay a fine, undergo a background check, stay out of
trouble, have a job, pay the penalties, and become legal when their
number is called, even though it is many years from now.
Americans have demonstrated literally in the streets for a bill like
this. They have spoken. It is up to the majority to answer their call.
If tough, comprehensive immigration reform fails to move forward, it
will be the Republicans' burden to bear. Virtually all Democrats
supported the Specter bill that came before the Senate. Virtually all
Democrats support the Martinez substitute. So the majority must explain
to the American people why they are permitting a filibuster of
immigration legislation, a filibuster by amendment.
On such an important national security issue, this is no place for
stonewalling and obstruction. Yet that is where we are. We are ready
today to fix our broken immigration system and give Americans the real
security they deserve. They are looking for a win. They deserve a win.
We can do it with a vote to invoke cloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, a lot of people are asking what happened
between the optimism of yesterday morning that centered on real
progress, as people did come around working together, both sides of the
aisle, on a Hagel-Martinez amendment, and this morning where it looks
as if everything has been obstructed, stopped, stonewalled. There are
talks of obstruction from the other side of the aisle. What has
happened is no amendments have been allowed by the other side of the
aisle to come to the floor to be debated, to be discussed, to be voted
upon. Rollcall votes or voice votes--zero over the last 24 hours, where
the clear understanding yesterday morning was that we would have an
opportunity to allow Senators to express themselves on votes.
The Democratic leadership has effectively stopped, put a halt to that
great progress that was being made yesterday morning, by not allowing
amendments. Yes, they put a stranglehold on the right of every Senator
to offer amendments and to have his or her views expressed and acted
upon. The facts tell the story. Over the last 9 days, on complex issues
based on a very good, solid product generated by the Judiciary
Committee, about 400 amendments have been filed and only 3 of 400 have
been allowed by the other side of the aisle to come to the floor to be
voted upon. Only 3 out of 400. That tells the whole story. In the
process on a bill that is a challenging bill, a large bill, a bill that
will affect almost 300 million Americans now and many more in the
future, we have only been allowed to have three votes over the last 9
days.
Viewers, I know, ask, people at home ask all the time: How can that
possibly be, if you have good support and people look as though they
are working together and all? And the answer is if anything takes
unanimous consent around here, anything does, the Democratic leadership
can effectively stop, put a halt to that debate and amendment process.
Of 400 amendments, 3 have been considered over the last 9 days. It is a
process that has been broken. It is a process we have to fix if we are
going to be able to address the issues before us, whether it is
immigration or other important bills.
It has been interesting, listening to some of the comments this
morning and last night, and as has been reflected in both the
Democratic leader's statements and in mine and others, it is true the
Democratic leader--to me this is almost laughable--has said we are
going to dictate who is on the conference committee, the minority
leader, the Democratic leader, saying we are going to dictate who is on
the conference committee. It is absurd. It is laughable. It has never
been done. But it is proposed as if that is even a reasonable proposal
before allowing us to take up amendments and debate them and have them
voted upon.
I asked unanimous consent last night--because it is frustrating
having 400 amendments over there and in 9 days only being allowed 3
votes--let's take up one of those amendments. That was refused. Let's
take up another one. That was refused, my unanimous consent request,
and a third was refused just to demonstrate--yes, it is frustration,
and it is the right of the minority to obstruct, but that explains the
difference between the optimism moving forward for a solution before we
began the recess and now what is obviously going to occur; that is, we
are going to have to postpone and delay full consideration of this
bill.
The Democratic leader earlier this morning asked: Why aren't we
allowing these amendments to come forth from the other side? Indeed,
out of 400, I said: Can't we consider 20 of them at some point in the
future? The answer was no. Why don't we consider amendments? Why are we
shutting down the amendment process because some Members might not
agree with everything in that 425-page bill?
There are going to be things in there that need to be fixed,
modified. There may be some dangerous things in there in many people's
minds. And to not even allow them to bring them to the floor to debate
them is just flat out wrong.
I can understand the other side trying to advantage themselves in the
outcome in their favor, but to shut out all amendments, to say that
only 3 of 400 amendments are to be considered is simply wrong. It
really does come down to a matter of fairness.
I began this debate a week and a half ago saying: Let's have a civil
process, a dignified process. It is an important issue with many
millions of people coming across our borders. We need to secure our
borders. We need to have worksite enforcement and interior enforcement.
We need to have a temporary worker program. There are 12 million people
in the shadows. We need to bring them out.
It has effectively been brought to a halt by the other side. It is
unfair to deny Members on both sides of the aisle the right to express
their voice and have their amendments considered. It is unfair to the
authors of the bill and the Judiciary Committee that generated this
bill. It is unfair to this body, and I believe to the institution as a
whole and to the American people.
Although I am strongly supportive of a border security bill--tighten
those borders--a bill that addresses worksite enforcement, a temporary
worker plan, and one that brings people out of the shadows, I feel it
is important that we oppose bringing debate on the Hagel-Martinez
amendment to a close in order to protect the rights of Members to offer
amendments and to have them debated and voted on.
I yield the floor.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded, under the
previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate
the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending
motion to commit S. 2454, the Securing America's Borders Act.
Bill Frist, Arlen Specter, Michael B. Enzi, Lindsey
Graham, Trent Lott, Chuck Hagel, John McCain, Mitch
McConnell, George V. Voinovich, Mel Martinez, Lamar
Alexander, Norm Coleman, Pete Domenici, Orrin Hatch,
David Vitter, Johnny Isakson, Jim DeMint.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
pending motion to commit S. 2454, the Securing
[[Page 5732]]
America's Borders Act, to the Committee on the Judiciary with
instructions to report back forthwith shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 38, nays 60, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 89 Leg.]
YEAS--38
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Dayton
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden
NAYS--60
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Rockefeller
Stevens
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 38, the nays are
60. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by
which cloture was not invoked.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next vote
be a 10-minute rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, the
next vote will be a 10-minute rollcall vote. If cloture is not invoked,
we are working on an agreement that will have about 55 minutes--
hopefully less--before we will have another rollcall vote. That will be
immediately followed by another rollcall vote, and then, depending on
the outcome of that vote, that would either be the last vote or we
might have one more vote. So a 10-minute vote, about 55 minutes, two
rollcall votes, and then we will have more to say.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No.
376, S. 2454, a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to provide for comprehensive reform, and for other
purposes.
Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell, Pete Domenici,
R.F. Bennett, Jim Talent, Craig Thomas, Elizabeth Dole,
Conrad Burns, Jim DeMint, Saxby Chambliss, Johnny
Isakson, Ted Stevens, Wayne Allard, Norm Coleman, Trent
Lott, John Thune.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S.
2454, the Securing America's Borders Act, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 36 nays 62, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 90 Leg.]
YEAS--36
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Enzi
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Isakson
Lott
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Sununu
Talent
Thune
Vitter
NAYS--62
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brownback
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Rockefeller
Stevens
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 36, the nays are
62. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to express my dismay regarding
the collapse of the Senate's work on border security legislation.
As a border State Senator, I know first-hand the need to secure our
international borders because every day I hear from constituents who
must deal with illegal entries into our country. We have a crisis on
our borders and the status quo is not acceptable. We need to address
this situation but are not being allowed to because of Democrats'
refusal to allow votes on amendments to border security legislation on
the Senate floor.
Their refusal to allow votes means that my amendments, which are very
important to New Mexico, the southwest border, and the Nation, cannot
be considered. Those amendments would have provided for two more
Federal judges in New Mexico to deal with immigration cases, provided
250 new deputy U.S. Marshals to transport and guard criminal illegal
aliens, authorized $585 million for land port of entry infrastructure
and technology, and called for Mexico's cooperation on border security.
My amendments are based on needs that are imperative to border
security. I have been told of the need for new Federal district judges
in New Mexico by the Chief Judge for the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals, the Chief Judge of the New Mexico District, and several other
Federal district judges in my home State. In fiscal year 2005, more
than 1800 immigration cases were filed in the District of New Mexico.
We must have more Federal judges to handle this caseload that the
Judicial Conference has referred to this situation as a ``crisis.'' I
have been told of the need for new deputy U.S. Marshals by the U.S.
Marshal for New Mexico. His deputies are responsible for transporting
illegal aliens to court and guarding them when they appear in Federal
district court. I have seen firsthand the need for port of entry
improvements in New Mexico, and since I worked with Senator DeConcini
on the last major land port of entry overhaul in 1986, I know that the
time has come to again address our land port needs. Lastly, I am
[[Page 5733]]
convinced that we must have Mexico's cooperation to secure our porous
southwest border, and my amendment would have provided a path to secure
that cooperation.
The refusal of Democrats to allow consideration of these amendments
is nothing short of irresponsible behavior towards the security of
America.
The Democrats' refusal to limit debate on the majority leader's
border security bill today confirms their lack of understanding
regarding the need for border security. Senator Frist's Securing
America's Borders Act includes 1,250 new customs and border protection
officers, 1,000 new DHS investigative personnel, 1,250 new DHS port of
entry inspectors, 1,000 new Immigration and customs enforcement
inspectors, and 2,400 new border patrol agents. The bill authorizes
funding for new border security technologies and assets, including new
unmanned aerial vehicles, vehicle barriers, cameras, sensors, and all-
weather roads. This bill would have addressed many of our border
security needs, and I am frustrated that we were not allowed to vote on
this bill.
As it stands now, we will not see any of the comprehensive border
security improvements that New Mexico and other States desperately
need. I could not be more disappointed.
On February 10, 2005, I introduced legislation to create additional
Federal district judgeships in the State of New Mexico.
On November 17, 2005, I introduced the Border Security and
Modernization Act of 2005, S. 2049, with bipartisan support. That bill
calls for improvements to our port of entry infrastructure, increased
Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and Department of Justice
personnel, new technologies and assets for border security, increased
detention capacity, and additional Federal assistance for States.
On February 17, 2006, I introduced the Welcoming Immigrants to a
Secure Homeland Act. That bill calls for an increase in the number of
DHS personnel who investigate human smuggling laws, employment of
immigrants, and immigration fraud and increased penalties for
violations of immigration laws. It also creates a new guest worker visa
that lets individuals who want to, come to the United States to work.
Lastly, it creates a way to account for the millions of undocumented
aliens residing in the United States without creating an automatic path
to citizenship.
I supported the efforts to jointly address border security and
immigration reform legislation, but I am convinced that if we cannot
agree regarding immigration reform, we must still secure our borders.
The President must budget for our border needs, and Congress must
appropriate for those needs.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF DORRANCE SMITH TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in executive session, I ask unanimous
consent that the cloture motion be withdrawn with respect to Calendar
No. 485, and that the Senate proceed to its consideration; provided
further that there be 55 minutes for debate as follows: Senator Warner
10 minutes, Senator Levin 25 minutes, Senator Harkin 10 minutes, and
Senator Reed 10 minutes.
I further ask that following the use or yielding back of time, the
Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination; provided
further that the Senate then proceed to the vote on invoking cloture on
the nomination of Calendar No. 252.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that if either nomination is
confirmed, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's
action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the nomination.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Dorrance
Smith, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for
up to 5 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Immigration Reform
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to comment on what has happened
over the last 2 weeks on a very important bill--maybe the most
important bill for the future of our country that we will take up this
year, and that is immigration reform.
I was very disappointed that we were not able to have a vehicle on
which we can have amendments in the normal course of action that we
have on the floor of the Senate. I cannot think of a more complicated,
comprehensive issue that we could amend and make a better bill that
would have the support of the vast majority of the Senate. Yet we have
spent 2 weeks and were only able to have three amendments.
There are many differing views on what to do with the 12 million
illegal immigrants that are in our country. But I think there is a
consensus that we need better control of our borders, that we need
security measures to know who is in our country, and that we need a
guest worker permit program that would allow people to come into our
country legally to work and earn a living for their families,
contribute to the economy of the United States, and perhaps become
citizens, if they decide to, or not become citizens if they wish to
remain citizens of their home country.
However, the issue of what to do with the 12 million people was not
able to be discussed, debated, or refined on the Senate floor. I think
that is a mistake, and I think we have missed a very important
opportunity. The negotiations got down to allowing 20 amendments--20
amendments--on one of the most complicated bills that we will take up
this year. We take up appropriations bills that have 70 amendments. We
take up authorization bills that have 40 amendments. The negotiation
was down to allowing 20 amendments, and we were not able to get the
consent of the minority to take up 20 amendments to try to refine a
bill that would allow the Senate to speak with an overwhelming
majority, or at least to have all the voices heard so that we could
start beginning to craft a bill that would help with an issue in our
country of security and economics.
Mr. President, I am very disappointed. I think we have missed an
opportunity. I hope very much that, as we go home for a 2-week break,
we will think about how we can come together, come back here and not
give up on having an immigration reform bill that secures our borders,
that creates a guest worker program that will be productive for the
participants and for the economy of our country, that will not displace
American jobs but will welcome the immigrants who seek to come here, as
we have done for over 200 years in our country on a regularized basis.
I thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I know he is
going on to very important work. I hope that we can address this issue
when we return, and I hope the minority will work with the majority not
to block future amendments that would make this a better bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we wish to confine ourselves strictly to
the time the joint leadership agreed upon in the event we need recorded
votes.
Mr. President, Dorrance Smith, the nominee, is designated to be the
principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on matters relating to
public affairs in the media. Mr. Smith is a four-time Emmy Award-
winning television producer, a political consultant, and a media
strategist who has worked for over 30 years in television and politics.
[[Page 5734]]
He spent 9 months in Iraq, in the years 2003 and 2004, where he served
as senior media advisor to the setup at that time.
He was responsible for developing a state-of-the-art communications
facility in Baghdad for the Coalition Provisional Authority and a
public diplomacy strategy for the U.S. Government. In addition, Mr.
Smith was asked to overhaul certain aspects of the Iraqi media network,
which he did. He was quite successful, such that they had a television
channel that was launched on satellite.
For those efforts, he was awarded by the Secretary of Defense a medal
for exceptional public service.
I have met with Mr. Smith on several occasions. I believe him to be
highly qualified, and I fully support his nomination.
At a full Armed Services Committee hearing on October 25, 2005, and
later, at an Executive Session on December 13th, at which Mr. Smith was
present, he was questioned about an Op Ed article he wrote that
appeared in the Wall Street Journal on April 25, 2005, which I also
attach. In this article, based on his in the trenches experience as
Ambassador Bremer's Senior Media Advisor in Baghdad, Mr. Smith
questioned the practice relied on by major media outlets in the United
States of airing video of insurgent attacks supplied by the Arab
satellite news channel Al Jazeera. Mr. Smith has clarified his intent
about the role of U.S. Networks in his in raising these issues for
discussion and public scrutiny. He has emphasized publicly that he has
never written or stated that the United States networks aid and abet
terrorists. In this regard, I have attached Mr. Smith's response to a
question for the record he provided after the hearing.
I ask unanimous consent that a biography of Dorrance Smith, and some
questions and answers during his nomination hearing be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Dorrance Smith
Dorrance Smith is a four-time Emmy award winning television
producer, political consultant, and media strategist who has
worked over 30 years in television and politics.
Mr. Smith spent nine months in Iraq in 2003-2004 Senior
Media Adviser. He was responsible for developing a state of
the art communications facility in Baghdad for the Coalition
Provisional Authority and a public diplomacy strategy for the
United States government. In addition, Mr. Smith was asked to
overhaul the fledgling Iraqi Media Network. By April, 2004
this effort was deemed so successful that the terrestrial
channel--AI Iraqiya--was launched on satellite. For his
efforts he was awarded the Secretary of Defense Medal for
Exceptional Public Service.
A four time Emmy Award winning ABC News and Sports
producer, he has held a number of positions at the network,
including serving as the first executive producer of ``This
Week with David Brinkley.''
From 1989 until 1991, Smith was the executive producer of
ABC News ``Nightline.'' During his tenure he was responsible
for the weeklong ``Nightline'' series originating from South
Africa, which covered the release of Nelson Mandela. The
broadcasts won an Emmy award. In addition he served as
executive producer of the prime time special ``Tragedy at
Tiananmen--The Untold Story,'' which was honored with the
duPont Columbia University Award, the Overseas Press Club
Award and an Emmy. ``Nightline'' also won an Emmy in 1991 for
outstanding news coverage of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Prior to his work on ``Nightline,'' Smith was the executive
producer of the number one rated Sunday public affairs
program, ``This Week with David Brinkley,'' a post he held
from the program's inception in 1981 until 1989. During his
tenure the broadcast received the first Joan Barone Award,
the George Foster Peabody Award, and was named the Best
National TV Interview Discussion Program by the readers of
the Washington Journalism Review.
In 1991 Smith left ABC News to become Assistant to the
President for Media Affairs at the White House. In this
capacity Smith handled all television and radio events
involving President Bush, members of the White House staff
and Cabinet. In addition his office handled all regional
media; coordinated media strategy for administration
officials seeking confirmation; and organized the debate
preparation during the 1992 political campaign.
In 2001, Smith was designated by FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh
to handle all media following the events of September 11th.
In this capacity Smith was responsible for FEMA's media
strategy for print, radio and television. Smith organized and
distributed the now famous FEMA video feeds from Ground Zero.
He reorganized the Public Affairs Office to meet the post
September 11th media demands.
At ABC News, Smith became executive producer of all weekend
news programming in 1980. He was responsible for the
production and programming of ``World News Saturday,''
``World News Sunday,'' ``The Weekend Report,'' and ``The
Health Show.''
Prior to his weekend assignment. Smith was Washington
producer of ABC News' ``The Iran Crises: America Held
Hostage.'' He also served as ABC News Senior Producer at the
1980 Winter Olympics, the 1984 Winter and Summer Games, and
the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary.
From 1978-1979, Smith served as ABC News' White House
producer. Smith joined ABC News as a Washington producer in
1977. Previously he was staff assistant to President Gerald
Ford.
He began his broadcasting career at ABC Sports in 1973 as
an assistant to the producer. In 1974 he was made Manager of
Program Planning for ABC's Wide World of Sports.
Smith is a member of the Advisory Council for the George
Bush Library in College Station, Texas.
He graduated from Claremont Men's College in 1973 with a
Bachelor of Arts degree. He lives in McLean, Virginia.
____
Nomination Hearing for Mr. J. Dorrance Smith, Senate Armed Services
Committee, October 25, 2005
Member: Senator John Warner, Witnesses: Young, Smith, Etter, Bell,
Smith
Question #1
Arab Satellite News
Question: 1. Mr. Smith, on April 26, 2005, you wrote an
article for the Wall Street Journal titled ``The Enemy on our
Airways.'' In the article you stated that ``. . . Al-Jazeera
continues to aid and abet the enemy . . .'' Have you ever
stated or written that U.S. broadcast networks have aided or
abetted terrorists by airing video that first appeared on the
Arab satellite news channel? Do you believe this to be the
case?
Answer: I have never written or stated that the United
States networks aid and abet terrorists by airing video that
first appeared on the satellite news channel Al-Jazeera. I
did write an Op Ed piece in April, 2005 for the Wall Street
Journal which raised a number of questions following the
airing of hostage video by Al-Jazeera and all 6 U.S. news
networks. In that piece I wrote, ``the battle for Iraqi
hearts and minds is being fought over satellite T.V. It is a
battle we are losing badly. And I wrote, ``As long as Al-
Jazeera continues to aid and abet the enemy, as long as we
are fighting a war on the ground and in the airwaves, why are
we not fighting back against Al-Jazeera . . .''
My past experiences running the Iraq Media Network in
Baghdad gave me insight into the communications strategy of
our enemy. Raising the tactics of the enemy in a newspaper
piece was an effort to spur public discourse. I believe the
public, the networks and policy makers should examine the
tactics of the enemy including providing video to the Arab
satellite network with the knowledge that it will be
broadcast in the United States as well. Understanding the
communications strategy of the enemy is a prerequisite to
developing a communications strategy that is effective. In
the WSJ, I was not writing as a policy maker or government
official, nor was I a candidate for the Public Affairs job at
the Pentagon.
Newspaper accounts that I believe the U.S. networks aid and
abet terrorists are incorrect. When asked at the confirmation
hearing ``But you think it's a fair characterization now to
say that the networks in the United States aid and abet
terrorists by showing that.'' I said, ``No, I do not.'' That
is and always has been my belief.
I worked in network television for over 22 years and I
maintain a professional working relationship with the today.
During my nine months with the CPA in Iraq, I worked very
closely with U.S. networks to meet their coverage needs. Most
recently I was a media consultant to the United States Senate
for the Joint Congressional Committee for Inaugural
Ceremonies (JCCIC). For four months I represented that
institution to the U.S. network pool with the aim of
producing the best event for both parties. After the
inauguration Tom Shales wrote in the Washington Post, ``ABC's
Peter Jennings noted that for the relatively few viewers able
to see them in high-definition TV, the images were often
``fabulous.'' Indeed they were.
As a network executive I appreciate the difficult decisions
facing journalists during wartime especially potential
conflicts between journalistic integrity and national
security. If confirmed, I look forward to conducting my
relationship with U.S. networks in a professional and
respectful manner as I did when working in Iraq for nine
months
[[Page 5735]]
and for JCCIC. I also look forward to working closely with
this committee on these important issues.
Do you agree with these goals?
Yes, I support the goals of the Congress in enacting the
reforms of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend
Goldwater-Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do
you believe it might be appropriate to address in these
proposals?
I am unaware of any need to modify Goldwater-Nichols at
this time. If I am confirmed, I will raise any such
requirements that I may identify within the Department. The
Department would consult closely with Congress, especially
this Committee, on any changes that might be appropriate.
Duties
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Policy?
I understand that, if I am confirmed, my duties as
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Policy will be to serve as the principal assistant and
advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in
formulating and implementing national security and defense
policy in a wide range of areas, including: nuclear forces;
technology security; missile defense; Europe and NATO;
Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia; arms control, non-
proliferation, and counter-proliferation.
Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary Rumsfeld would prescribe for you?
I would expect Secretary Rumsfeld to look to the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy to
fulfill all the duties assigned to that office under the
authorities of the Secretary of Defense and the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy in particular, assistance and
advice on the formulation of national security and defense
policy in the areas noted in the response to the previous
question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes to speak on the
nomination of Dorrance Smith to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Public Affairs.
I oppose this nomination for a very critical reason, which is that
Dorrance Smith has spoken out against the very media in the United
States that he would be involved with, engaged in, as the public
affairs official for the Department of Defense.
Mr. Smith has shown in his writing and in his testimony before the
Senate Armed Services Committee that he believes that our media
undermines our national security when they perform their legitimate
role of providing newsworthy information to the public about what is
going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has gone so far as to accuse our
major networks of acting in partnership with al-Qaida.
That extreme position is not appropriate for the spokesperson of the
Department of Defense. This is what Mr. Smith said in his April 25,
2005, article in the Wall Street Journal, entitled ``The Enemy on Our
Airwaves,'' in which he complained about what he called ``the ongoing
relationship between terrorists, Al-Jazeera, and the [major U.S.
television] networks.'' The basis of this alleged relationship is the
fact that the networks played video of hostages in Iraq, which Al-
Jazeera allegedly obtained from terrorist sources.
The text of Mr. Smith's article leaves little doubt about his belief
that the ``enemy on our airwaves'' are our major television networks
themselves, all of them--ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN--all of them. Here is
what Mr. Smith said in this article:
Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and al-Qaida have a
partner in Al-Jazeera and, by extension, most networks in the
U.S. This partnership is a powerful tool for the terrorists
in the war in Iraq.
That is the view taken by the proposed spokesperson for the
Department of Defense--that our networks are partners with Osama bin
Laden, the man who orchestrated the slaughter on 9/11.
The smear then continues as Mr. Smith raises ``ethics'' issues about
the conduct of the media.
The arrangement between the U.S. networks and Al-Jazeera
raises questions of journalistic ethics. Do the U.S. networks
know the terms of the relationship that Al-Jazeera has with
the terrorists? Do they want to know?
What if one of the networks had taken a stand and refused
to air the [video of an American hostage] on the grounds that
it was aiding and abetting the enemy, and from that point
forward it would not be a tool of terrorist propaganda?
Mr. Smith is entitled to his views. I will defend that right any day
and any place. But we should not confirm him to represent the
Department of Defense to the very media that he calls a partner with
our deadly enemy, al-Qaida. That is over the top. It is extreme. It is
not the kind of view that should be represented by the Department of
Defense in their dealings with the media.
The Armed Services Committee held a hearing on Mr. Smith's nomination
on October 25, 2005. At that time, I asked Mr. Smith about his
statement that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida ``have a partner in Al-
Jazeera and, by extension, most networks in the United States.'' Mr.
Smith testified that he still believes this statement to be a fair
characterization of the relationship between the networks and al-Qaida.
He insisted that ``there is a relationship that exists'' and ``the
relationship is a cooperative one.''
I pressed him:
Does this ``relationship'' make the networks partners of
our terrorist enemies, as you wrote? Do you really believe
this, that they are partners?
Mr. Smith declined to provide a direct answer to that question.
I then asked him about his rhetorical question:
What if one of the networks had taken a stand and refused
to air the [video of an American hostage] on the grounds that
it was aiding and abetting the enemy, and that from this
point forward it would not be a tool of terrorist propaganda?
Mr. Smith testified he does not believe that the networks aid and
abet terrorism by showing film of hostages. He insists that he was
``raising the point that you never know where this video comes from and
that . . . simply because it plays on al-Jazeera does not mean that it
should necessarily play on any given network.''
That is not being straight with the committee. That is not what his
question clearly implied. There is only one implication from the
question which he wrote, and that is that networks are aiding and
abetting terrorism by airing this video. So if Mr. Smith does not
believe this to be the case, it appears that Mr. Smith was willing to
smear our television networks by implying something that he does not
actually believe.
On December 13, 2005, the committee met with Mr. Smith in executive
session to afford him a further opportunity to explain his position.
And while I cannot quote from Mr. Smith's statements in closed session,
I believe it is fair to say that it was consistent with his testimony
in open session.
Mr. President, the free press in this country is not our enemy.
Freedom of the press is not only guaranteed in our Bill of Rights, it
is a fundamental part of what we stand for as a country. Every one of
us disagrees with stories and characterizations that appear in the
press from time to time, but to label our networks as partners with
those who attacked us on September 11 is over the top, it is extreme,
it is unacceptable, and it is not the kind of position that is going to
be useful for a representative of the DOD with our media.
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs is the primary
Department of Defense official responsible for providing timely and
accurate information to the press and to the public about the
activities of the Department of Defense. A person who believes that the
U.S. media is the enemy is not the right person for this position. A
person who shows a willingness to try to intimidate the press, to try
to limit or color its cover, is not the right person to serve in this
position. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that our
distinguished colleague from Rhode Island will be addressing another
matter.
Mr. LEVIN. No, this matter.
Mr. WARNER. Let me interject an observation or two, and then I will
be happy to yield the floor.
Mr. President, the good Senator from Michigan and I have been
partners on
[[Page 5736]]
this committee now the 28th year and rarely do we have matters of--
particularly with executive positions--difference because we screen
them carefully. But on this one, we do. That is the way the system
works.
I cannot impress upon my colleagues too strongly several points.
One, we did have an executive session, and I shall observe the
confidentiality of that session, but I got quite a different impression
when Senator Levin and I largely--I think Senator Reed was present--
cross-examined Mr. Smith very carefully. I felt he more or less
acknowledged a better selection of words in hindsight he should have
made.
In no way do I believe he was trying to smear the press. I think the
best evidence I can produce for my colleagues that it wasn't sort of a
smear is that, to the best of my knowledge--and I will put the question
to all Members of the Senate, most particularly my distinguished
ranking member--we did not receive--at least I did not--any comments
from the media industry, individual stations, or trade associations, or
anything else. I think they took this in stride as a 30-year veteran of
their profession with great distinction.
Everybody makes an error now and then. Who among us on this floor has
not made a public statement that he or she wishes perhaps they had
couched in different words?
To deny this man the position of the Assistant Secretary for Public
Affairs, having been nominated by the President of the United States,
having really been personally screened by the Secretary of Defense and
others for the position--the Secretary of Defense, with whom I have
discussed this matter, has total confidence in this individual. He has
been performing in an acting capacity in the Department now for some
period of time.
I urge my colleagues to look at the overall picture, but most
importantly, is anybody going to stand up and say: Oh, no, this is what
the media industry communicated with me, and for that reason I feel I
should oppose the nomination? I don't think that evidence is before us.
That industry is tough, tough on itself, and it wants to maintain its
reputation. The industry, as such, has accepted this as an event which
happens to all of us who speak in public life.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I stand to support the position of Senator
Levin with respect to the nomination of Dorrance Smith to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. I, too, participated in his
hearings. I listened to Mr. Smith, and I think he lacks the judgment
necessary to be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.
Senator Levin has quoted the Wall Street Journal op-ed piece. This
was not the example of making an offhand statement. This is not the
situation where someone was being quizzed and extemporaneously
suggested something that later one regrets. This was a very carefully
crafted editorial which was sent to the Wall Street Journal for
publication. In it, Mr. Smith says:
Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and al Qaeda have a
partner in al-Jazeera and, by extension, most networks in the
U.S.
Mr. President, can you think of a more provocative and a more
incendiary comment, to suggest that anyone is equivalent, by extension,
to bin Laden and al-Zarqawi? That is essentially what he said about the
media in the United States. I believe it represents extremely poor
judgment. Perhaps that is why he is getting the job, because we have
heard before these very loose suggestions that somebody is just like
Zarqawi, somebody is just like that.
We also heard coming out of the Department of Defense the notion that
we have problems not because of strategic mistakes that have been made,
we have problems because the media just doesn't get the story right.
This may be part of their approach to the media, but I don't think it
represents the judgment necessary for an individual to discharge the
responsibilities of that nature for the United States and the
Department of Defense.
The other point is that Mr. Smith later went on to say:
Al-Jazeera continues to broadcast because it reportedly
receives $100 million a year from the government of Qatar.
Without this subsidy it would be off the air, off the
Internet and out of business. So, does Qatar's funding of al-
Jazeera constitute state sponsorship of terrorism?
As long as al-Jazeera continues to practice in cahoots with
terrorists while we are at war, should the U.S. Government
maintain normal relations with Qatar?. . . . Should the U.S.
not adopt a hard-line position about doing business with
Qatar as long as al-Jazeera is doing business with
terrorists?
All of these quotes are from the Wall Street Journal article.
I think what he fails to recognize is that Qatar is a major base of
American military operations in the region. I asked at the hearing if
he seriously thinks we ought to break diplomatic relations to Qatar.
The answer was rather unsatisfactory, sort of: I was just posing a
question. But these are the kinds of provocative questions that suggest
he doesn't have the judgment to do the job.
Let me just suggest our involvement with Qatar. Qatar has invested
over $1 billion to build Al-Udeid Air Base, one of our principal air
operations in the region. There are 2,200 U.S. air men and women
stationed today at that airbase. During our operations in Afghanistan,
that number was over 4,000.
U.S. military flights leave and arrive from Iraq every single day
going into Qatar. All of us on the Armed Services Committee have
traveled in Qatar, have stayed in Qatar, have visited with the
Government of Qatar, and to suggest, even rhetorically, that we should
consider abandoning our normal relations with Qatar is absurd.
This was not some cocktail-party comment where he was just thinking
out loud; this was a very well-crafted editorial. Again, it just goes
to my conclusion that he lacks judgment.
It is a very intricate arrangement we have with the Government of
Qatar. Yes, they do support al-Jazeera. Al-Jazeera is not an entity
that is trying to promote American interests in the region. That is
clear. But we have to recognize not just the simple black-and-white
comic book approaches to policy but the reality of our engagement with
Qatar, their support of our operations, and the essential facilities
that are there. Statements such as these are totally, in my mind,
indefensible and demonstrate a gross lack of judgment. That is not the
kind of individual we want in a position that is supposedly designed to
craft a policy that will, through ideas and engagement, get the people
of this region to be supportive of the United States and its policies.
So I join my colleague in opposing this nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I know of no other Senator who is going to
speak with regard to Mr. Smith.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield? I don't
know how much time I used on the previous comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 17 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 2 minutes more on Mr. Smith.
Mr. President, I have no better friend in the Senate, nor have I ever
had a better friend in the Senate than John Warner. I know of no finer
Senator and no finer gentleman. We have a disagreement on this
nomination, and we respect each other's points of view.
As he has pointed out, we have been partners, and we are partners.
And the use of the word by Mr. Smith, ``partner,'' carries very special
meaning. For him to say in writing, in a prepared op-ed piece, that
Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida have a partner in al-Jazeera and, by
extension, most networks in the United States--and he rattles them off:
ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, and MSNBC--is absolutely indefensible, it is
extreme, it is over the top, and it is unbecoming somebody who is going
to be representing the Department of Defense with the media.
If any one of us had said this on the Senate floor, that FOX News is
a partner with the people who attacked us on
[[Page 5737]]
9/11, we would think that person not only owed FOX an apology but would
probably owe every single victim of 9/11 an apology. I find this such
an extreme statement. And the use of the term ``partner'' and his
defense of that when we pressed him on it I find to be one of the most
extreme, irresponsible, and reckless kinds of statements anyone can
make. Again, I will defend Mr. Smith's right to make it; that is not
the issue here. He can write any article in the Wall Street Journal or
any other paper and I will defend his right to do so. But the issue
here is whether someone who has this position--this position--on the
issue of whether tapes of al-Jazeera should be played on American
television is, it seems to me, the wrong representative for our
Department of Defense.
I want to thank my friend from Virginia. As always, he is putting
differences in context. We have very few of them, and when we do have
them, we deal with them with great respect for each other and our
points of view, and I will always not only admire him for that, but
always relish this particular relationship which we have had for so
many years.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my long-time friend and good
colleague for his thoughtful remarks, and I assure you, I offer the
same long-term feelings for you. But in this instance, I come back to
the simple proposition that there is not a one of us who has not at
times in our public career uttered or written statements that we wish
we could have revised. I felt in executive session he was sufficiently
contrite and acknowledged that he still has the basic concerns about
al-Jazeera, and I share those concerns, but a better choice of words
might have avoided it. Then all of the networks he enumerated, I didn't
get any communications on it from any of them.
I suggest at this time, so that we can move and accommodate all of
our colleagues--and I am very grateful to the majority leader and the
Democratic leader for allowing these nominations to be acted upon
today. For all Members, last night, I am pleased to say, we voice voted
the Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, so we made good
progress in putting into position those persons who have been
designated by the President for the Department of Defense.
____________________
NOMINATION OF PETER CYRIL WYCHE FLORY TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE
Mr. WARNER. We now turn to Peter C.W. Flory who became the principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Affairs in 2001. In this capacity he serves as the principal assistant
to the Assistant Secretary of International Security Affairs who is the
principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense on the formulation and
coordination of international security strategy and policy for East
Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Africa, and Latin
America. I wish to put further facts regarding this distinguished
gentleman into the Record, but I am very anxious to keep the momentum.
I think the concern of my colleague can be best expressed by himself
momentarily, perhaps not to Mr. Flory himself but to the matter of
process, and that process is an issue that in some respects I share
with my distinguished colleague.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how many minutes remain?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to explain to my colleagues why the
Senate should not proceed to the nomination of Peter Flory to be the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy.
At its core, this is an issue of the executive branch refusing to
provide the Senate with documents that are relevant to the confirmation
proceeding.
This issue dates back to the summer of 2003 when I directed the
minority staff of the Committee on Armed Services to conduct an inquiry
into the flawed intelligence prior to the war in Iraq. As part of that
inquiry, I wrote a request to the Department of Defense in November of
2003 seeking documents relating to the activities of the Office of
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith concerning Iraq.
Mr. Flory was a part of that office. It took 18 months of struggle to
get as many documents as I could. I did not receive all the documents
that were relevant to the inquiry and which are now relevant to the
Flory nomination.
The Department of Defense has refused to produce key documents
regarding the efforts of that office to develop and disseminate an
alternative intelligence assessment which exaggerated the relationship
between Iraq and al-Qaida. That assessment went directly to senior
administration policymakers, bypassing the ordinary intelligence
community procedure. These documents are critical to understanding
exaggerated statements which were made by senior administration
officials that al-Qaida and Iraq were allies, despite the conclusion of
the intelligence community that there was no such link between the two.
Here is the critical connection between the Feith office and Mr.
Flory: Mr. Flory worked in the office of Under Secretary Feith at the
time the alternative assessment was developed and disseminated. Some of
the internal e-mails we have been able to obtain indicate Mr. Flory
requested and received briefings on the collection of intelligence from
the Iraqi National Congress in December 2002. The INC material should
have been evaluated by the intelligence community and filtered through
their screen. Instead, it went to the Feith policy shop, which included
Mr. Flory.
Mr. Flory was also a member of Mr. Feith's briefing team which came
to the Senate in June of 2003 to explain to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services staff the origins and work of the Office of Special
Plans and the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation group. Those were the
two entities within Secretary Feith's office that were very much
involved in characterizing the prewar intelligence.
In addition to the denial of relevant documents, the inspector
general of the Department of Defense is currently conducting a review
to determine whether Mr. Feith's office conducted unauthorized,
unlawful, or inappropriate intelligence activities. We do not know
what, if anything, that review may reveal about the role Mr. Flory may
have played in such activities. What we do know is that his name
appears in a number of relevant documents we have been able to obtain
so far.
Before the Senate proceeds to his nomination, the Defense Department
should provide the documents they have previously denied, or resolve
the matter in a satisfactory manner, and the inspector general's office
should be allowed to complete its investigation of the activities of
Under Secretary Feith's office. That investigation may shed additional
light on Mr. Flory's activities. It may show absolutely nothing about
Mr. Flory's activities, but we will have to await its conclusion to
know.
This is not a case of blocking Mr. Flory from occupying the office to
which he has been nominated. I want to emphasize this for our
colleagues: Mr. Flory has received a recess appointment. He occupies
the office. He is currently serving in the position to which he was
nominated. So there should be no argument that we need to give up a
vital institutional right to obtain documents relevant to our carrying
out of our confirmation function. Again, Mr. Flory occupies the office
to which he has been nominated. The issue here is whether we are going
to have access to documents that are relevant or may be relevant to
this nomination.
I want to provide a little bit of additional background and context
for this issue to indicate the seriousness of these matters to this
institution's obligations and responsibilities. In the period before
the war, the intelligence community did not find a substantial link
between Iraq and al-Qaida. The intelligence community stated that the
relationship ``appears to more closely resemble that of two independent
actors trying to exploit each other,'' and
[[Page 5738]]
that ``al-Qaida, including bin Laden personally, and Saddam were leery
of close cooperation.'' Nonetheless, senior administration officials
alleged at times that Iraq and al-Qaida were ``allies'' and that there
was a close connection and cooperative context between Iraqi officials
and members of al-Qaida.
How could that happen? How could there be such a disconnect between
what the intelligence community believed and what some of the senior
administration officials were saying? For one thing, there is evidence
that there was an alternative intelligence assessment, an alternative
assessment that did not go through the intelligence community or the
CIA; an alternative assessment that was prepared by Under Secretary
Feith and his office, and that this was an important source for those
administration statements. For example, the Vice President specifically
stated that an article based on a leaked version of the Feith shop
analysis was the ``best source of information'' on this issue. The
Feith assessment was presented directly to senior administration
officials by Secretary Feith, including White House officials, a very
different assessment from that of the CIA.
This issue of the alleged Iraq-al-Qaida connection was central to the
administration's efforts to make its case for war against Iraq. And
according to public opinion polling, more than 60 percent of Americans
believed there was a connection between Saddam and the horrific attacks
of 9/11, although there has never been any evidence of such a
connection. The Feith operation product, which bypassed the
intelligence community, went directly to top leaders and, it quite
clearly appears, had a major impact on the lives of Americans and on
the course of events in Iraq.
The process of seeking the relevant documents on this matter from the
Department of Defense has been painfully slow and laborious. I have
written many letters and raised the issue of the Department's
insufficient response and slow response on numerous occasions. I have
also raised the issue at hearings of the Committee on Armed Services
with senior Defense Department officials. I raised it with Mr. Flory at
his nomination hearing in July 2004, but the Department was still slow
to respond. Sometimes the Department of Defense indicated there were no
additional documents responsive to my request, only to be followed by
acknowledgments that there were more documents. Documents were dribbled
out. It was always a struggle. This chart behind me indicates the list
of some of the efforts that were made to get documents relating to the
Feith operation of which Mr. Flory was a part, and some of the
documents that we have been able to receive in which Mr. Flory is
named.
I finally met with Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England
in June of 2005 to discuss the documents I was seeking. Secretary
England was able to provide a large number of additional documents in
July. He also stated at that time they were the last documents the
Department would release, and that there were 58 additional documents
the Department would not release. So that is what it came down to: 58
documents that they have, responsive to my continuing requests, which
may--may--like some of the documents we did receive, relate to Mr.
Flory. We don't know until we get the documents. We have a right to the
documents. The Senate, to the last person, should insist upon relevant
documents. This should be an institutional issue where we all defend
each other's rights to get documents that are relevant to a
confirmation.
In late July 2005, I offered to lift my objection to proceeding with
the Flory nomination if the administration would simply provide a list
of the 58 documents they are not going to provide. Just give us the
list, together with an indication that the President's senior advisors
would recommend that he invoke executive privilege with regard to these
documents, because that is what we were told orally. All we wanted was
the accounting, the inventory. We didn't need the substance. Just tell
us: What are the 58 documents? Who wrote whom on what date? Don't give
us the substance, we will get along without that, providing you tell us
that senior administration officials are going to recommend to the
President that executive privilege be asserted.
Defense Department officials, by the way, indicated their willingness
to do this, but it was the administration that declined to agree.
Then Mr. Flory received a recess appointment. So once again, he is in
office. By the way, I want to thank my friend from Virginia. He has
tried on a number of occasions to help me obtain these documents.
The administration has had the opportunity to resolve this matter in
a very simple way. It has chosen not to. I offered the compromise which
I have just outlined that the administration finally rejected.
Mr. Flory was a Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Feith
office. That office produced an alternative intelligence assessment.
That is No. 1. That is his connection to the Feith office.
Second, he is mentioned in a number of the documents which have been
made available, and he participated in briefing the Senate Armed
Services Committee on behalf of that office, relative to the subject
matter we are talking about here today.
I have said that I believe the Senate as an institution should insist
on access to documents which may be relevant to a confirmation process.
This should not be a partisan issue. We have supported each other's
rights to documents consistently. As long as I have been here, we have
defended each other's rights to access to documents.
Senator McCain last year or the year before held up promotions and
transfers of senior officers in the Air Force because the Department of
Defense refused to provide information he sought which was relevant to
a proposed Air Force lease of tanker aircraft. We supported him. He was
right; he is entitled to that information.
We all supported the nominations, or most of us did. But it was the
way in which he chose to obtain relevant information, and we--I think
probably every member of the Armed Services Committee--stood up for his
right to get documents. That is what this issue is about. Are we as an
institution going to stand up for the right of Senators to get
documents that are relevant to a confirmation process or which may be
relevant to a confirmation process? That is the issue here.
The issue here is this body and what we have a right to, or whether
the executive branch--and I don't care who is in the executive branch,
Democrat or Republican--can stiff us, can stonewall us in terms of
producing documents that may be relevant to a confirmation process.
There is example after example where Senators have taken the position
that we should not vote on the confirmation of nominees until documents
have been provided. In 1986, Senators said they didn't want to vote on
the confirmation of William Rehnquist to be a Supreme Court Justice
until after documents were provided. The administration finally
provided the information.
Senator Helms in 1991 blocked the nomination of an ambassador until
he received State Department cables in which one of Senator Helms'
aides was accused of leaking U.S. intelligence to the Pinochet
government.
Mr. President, how much time does Senator Harkin have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Harkin has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. He has indicated his willingness to me, and I ask
unanimous consent, that I have 3 of those minutes at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. I will not object, but I wish to advise my colleague a
number of my colleagues are on the tightest of schedules. I am
proposing, on the conclusion of the debate on Flory, we immediately go
to an up-or-down vote on Smith followed by a cloture vote on Flory. Is
that understood?
Mr. LEVIN. That is the existing unanimous-consent agreement.
Mr. WARNER. If cloture is obtained, will the Senator be willing to
have a voice vote on Flory?
[[Page 5739]]
Mr. LEVIN. If cloture is obtained, I would be willing. I have to make
sure that is acceptable to others.
Mr. WARNER. We will reserve that for the leadership, but as manager
that would be my position. I must impress upon colleagues--they are all
here, those able to remain for the votes--in order to accommodate a
great many, let us hold rigidly to the time schedules allocated for the
votes.
Mr. LEVIN. I was perfectly content to have these votes occur
immediately after the recess. I am the last one who wants to hold up
our colleagues from leaving, and I will abide by the suggestion of the
good Senator from Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized
for 3 additional minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. Senators Helms, Kennedy, Jeffords, all of us--not all of
us, many of us at times--have said we should not vote on a nomination
until relevant documents have been obtained by the interested Senator,
relevant to that confirmation process. We have supported those Senators
in getting those documents. It has been an institutional position that
Senators should be able to get documents that relate to a confirmation
of a particular nominee.
These are documents which relate to this nomination or may relate to
this confirmation process. We don't know until we see the documents,
but we do know two things, that Mr. Flory was a Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary in the Feith office and he was actively involved in
the discussions and the matters to which these documents pertain and
that he is named in a number of the documents we have been able to
obtain as being involved in this subject matter. That much we know.
That is more than enough, it seems to me, for this body to insist that
these documents be made available before we vote on his confirmation.
Finally, he is in office now. We are not blocking him from going into
that office. He got a recess appointment.
To reiterate, there is nothing novel or unique about holding up a
nomination in order to obtain information that is being withheld by
executive branch officials. This defense of Senate prerogatives goes
back a long way, probably to our beginning.
In 1972, Senator Sam Ervin insisted that the Senate would not vote on
the nomination of Richard Kleindienst to be Attorney General until the
administration provided information on a deal to drop an antitrust case
against ITT in return for a $400,000 campaign contribution. The
administration eventually provided the information and the nomination
was confirmed,
In 1991, Senator Helms blocked the nomination of George Fleming Jones
to be U.S. Ambassador to Guyana until he received State Department
cables in which one of Helms' aides was accused of leaking U.S.
intelligence to the Pinochet government. The administration eventually
provided the information and the nomination was confirmed.
In 2004, Senator Jeffords placed a hold on nominations for four top
jobs at the Environmental Protection Agency because of 12 unmet
requests for documents over the previous three years. The documents in
question related to the Bush administration's changes to air pollution
rules.
In short, the Senate has a longstanding practice of holding up
nominations in order to obtain documents relevant to confirmation and
oversight responsibilities. This has been done by Senators of both
parties, in Senates controlled by both parties, and with
administrations controlled by both parties.
It is in the interest of the Senate as a whole to uphold our right to
documents. It is at times essential to our obtaining the information we
need to do our jobs. All colleagues should protect the right of any
colleague to documents relevant to a nominee in a confirmation process.
This information that we seek is directly relevant to the nomination
of Mr. Flory. The entire Senate should, as an institutional matter,
insist on access to the relevant information before we act on his
nomination. We should speak with one Senatorial voice against executive
branch stonewalling on access to relevant information.
Mr. Flory has received a recess appointment to the position to which
he has been nominated. By refusing to act on his nomination until we
receive this information, we are not preventing this individual from
carrying out his executive duties. On the contrary, it is the Executive
Branch which is obstructing the Senate's ability to carry out our
confirmation responsibilities when they deny us relevant documents.
I hope every member of the Senate will stand together to defend the
right of the Senate to have access to the relevant documents that bear
on this nomination.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, by way of wrapup, Mr. Flory is nominated
to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy.
Peter C.W. Flory, by recess appointment on August 2, 2005, became
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. He
previously served from 2001 to the present as the principal assistant
to the Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs, who is
the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on the formulation
and coordination of international security strategy and policy for East
Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and Persian Gulf, Africa, and Latin
America.
From April 1997 to July 2001, Mr. Flory was Chief Investigative
Counsel and Special Counsel to the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, SSCI. Mr. Flory had responsibility for the People's
Republic of China and other regional issues, as well as
counterintelligence, covert action, denial and deception, and other
intelligence oversight matters.
An Honors Graduate of McGill University, Mr. Flory received his law
degree from Georgetown University Law Center. After working as a
journalist, he served as a national security advisor to Members of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee. From 1989 to 1992, Mr. Flory served as the Special
Assistant to Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul D. Wolfowitz.
From 1992 to 1993, he was an Associate Coordinator for Counter-
Terrorism in the Department of State with the rank of Deputy Assistant
Secretary. From 1993 until he joined the SSCI staff in 1997, Mr. Flory
practiced law with the firm of Hughes, Hubbard & Reed LLP.
Mr. Flory speaks German and French. He and his wife Kathleen have six
children, and reside in Nokesville, Virginia.
I would simply conclude, this is somewhat of a dilemma for those not
following it. This man is eminently qualified to discharge the
responsibilities to which the President has nominated him. There is no
doubt in my mind.
I have worked with my colleague. I will continue to work with my
colleague. It is no different than other chairmen and ranking members,
irrespective of party. We are always in a push-pull contest with the
executive branch regarding the documents we need to perform oversight.
I do not in any way disparage or criticize my colleague's observations.
I think he is meticulously correct in what he has set forward to the
Chamber. But the problem is, I am not sure this gentleman was party to
in any way the obstruction of those documents coming forward. Those
decisions primarily were made by his superiors. I think it would
penalize him for actions of superiors, which superiors were acting as
they believed in the best interests of the United States, and within
the parameters of the time-honored traditions between the executive and
legislative branches about the privacy of certain documents.
I hope now we could move on. I see my friend, the Senator from Rhode
Island. Does he have a few concluding words?
Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, and I apologize for being
distracted and not able to hear the Senator, but apparently it was
announced already that this would be the last vote today. I think we
have to leave it at that.
Mr. WARNER. Wait a minute. I must get from my side a clarification on
[[Page 5740]]
that. My understanding is there were two votes.
Mr. LEVIN. The last two votes today.
Mr. WARNER. You said the last vote. Let's be clear.
Mr. LEVIN. I apologize. I think the Senator is correct. It has been
announced these will be the last two votes, depending on the outcome of
the second vote.
Mr. WARNER. We could consequently have a voice vote. I doubt if it
will be necessary.
Mr. LEVIN. Let me see if we can accomplish that. Mr. WARNER. I see
the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
Mr. REED. I do not intend to take all that time, but I yield myself 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, there are two issues with respect to Mr.
Flory. The first is access to documents which are necessary for the
Senate to do its job. We can't formulate policy, we can't draft
legislation, we can't properly review the activities of the Department
of Defense if we are denied critical information. This Defense
Department persistently, constantly denies information of that sort.
This is something about which Senator Levin has made the point very
well, made the point about his attempts to get information with respect
to issues that touch on the activities of Mr. Flory and the activities
of others. Senator Levin has been denied. Without any justification,
without any legal precedent, they simply said we are not giving it to
you--and that is outrageous.
Frankly, because we have acquiesced in this policy over many years,
we have not done our job in the Senate. We allowed this Defense
Department to take military forces to war without a plan for occupation
because we didn't ask--demand that they give us the information in that
plan. We have done this repeatedly. It has to stop because it has real
consequences in the activities of our military and the effect on these
young men and women across the globe. We have to do our job. Our job
begins with getting this type of information.
It is outrageous that we continue to sit here and literally beg the
Defense Department to give us information that is rightfully ours
because of our responsibilities under the Constitution to supervise the
activities of the Department of Defense. That is point No. 1.
Point No. 2 is Mr. Flory, by his own job description, was involved
with the formulation and coordination of international security
strategy and policy for several areas including the Middle East in
2001. As Senator Levin pointed out, he was part of this team that
developed this alternate intelligence view--alternate in the sense that
it was inaccurate, grossly inaccurate.
Now we propose to promote him. There are millions of Americans who
are wondering who planned this operation in Iraq so poorly. And if they
find out, it is not to give these individuals a promotion. There is
real responsibility here and that is the other point I find very
difficult to accept. No one seems to be accountable for palpable
mistakes that have been made by the Department of Defense in the
conduct of these operations--not the Secretary of Defense, not the new
Secretary of State, who was the National Security Advisor--and now we
are promoting someone who is deeply involved in the Feith operation
that created the alternate intelligence view that was at dramatic odds
with the intelligence community, with the suggestion that there were
serious links between Saddam Hussein, al-Qaida, and other terrorist
groups.
I think on both these points we should not proceed to this
nomination. We have to have the information necessary to do our jobs.
If we do not, we are not doing our jobs. We are not doing our duty.
Today I hope is an opportunity to focus attention on, No. 1, the fact
we need the information from the Department of Defense, and also I
think it is about time someone is held in some degree responsible for
errors that have been made by the Department of Defense.
I yield my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields.
Vote on Nomination of Dorrance Smith
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
nomination of Dorrance Smith.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Dorrance Smith, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense?
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Washington
(Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 34, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 91 Ex.]
YEAS--59
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--34
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Mikulski
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden
NOT VOTING--7
Biden
Boxer
Brownback
Murray
Roberts
Rockefeller
Stevens
The nomination was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the President will
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________
NOMINATION OF PETER CYRIL WYCHE FLORY TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE
Mr. WARNER. I urge we proceed immediately to the second vote, a
cloture vote on Peter Flory.
cloture motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report the motion to invoke cloture.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination
of Peter Cyril Wyche Flory to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense.
Bill Frist, Lamar Alexander, Mike Crapo, Jim Bunning,
Richard Burr, Wayne Allard, Johnny Isakson, Richard
Shelby, Craig Thomas, Ted Stevens, David Vitter, James
Inhofe, Chuck Hagel, Norm Coleman, Mike DeWine, Robert
F. Bennett, John Thune.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this will be the last recorded vote of the
day. There could be a voice vote subsequently, but this will be the
last recorded vote for the record.
Mr. LEVIN. Whether cloture is invoked or not, we have agreed this
will be the last vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
[[Page 5741]]
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
nomination of Peter Cyril Wyche Flory, of Virginia, to be an Assistant
Secretary of Defense, be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Washington
(Mrs. Murrary), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller)
are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 41, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 92 Ex.]
YEAS--52
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
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
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--41
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden
NOT VOTING--7
Biden
Boxer
Brownback
Murray
Roberts
Rockefeller
Stevens
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays 41.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume
legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a
period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to
10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Warner pertaining to the introduction of S. 2600
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. I appreciate the courtesy of my friends, the distinguished
Senator from Oregon and the leader, Senator Byrd, for allowing me to
speak for a few minutes. He has been waiting a long time.
____________________
LEAK OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday the American people received the
shocking news that the Vice President's former chief of staff, Scooter
Libby, may have acted on direct orders from President Bush when he
leaked classified intelligence information to reporters. It is an
understatement to say that this is a serious allegation with national
security consequences. It directly contradicts previous statements made
by the President. It continues a pattern of misleading America by this
Bush White House. It raises somber and troubling questions about the
Bush administration's candor with Congress and the American people.
Today, I come to the floor to request answers on behalf of our
troops, their families, and the American people. For years President
Bush has denied knowing about conversations between his top aides and
Washington reporters, conversations where his aides, like Scooter
Libby, sought to justify the war in Iraq and discredit the White
House's critics by leaking national security secrets. In fact,
President Bush is on record clearly, in September of 2003, as saying:
I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked
classified information. If somebody did leak classified
information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take appropriate
action.
Yesterday, we found there is much more to the story. According to
court records, President Bush may have personally authorized the very
leaks he denied knowing anything about. In light of this disturbing
news, we need to hear from President Bush which of these is true: His
comments in 2003 or the statements made by the Vice President's chief
of staff. Only the President can put this matter to rest.
Harry Truman had on his desk in the Oval Office a plaque. It said:
``The buck stops here.'' In George Bush's White House, perhaps he
should put one that says: The leaks start here.
He, the President of the United States, must tell the American people
whether President Bush's Oval Office is a place where the buck stops or
the leaks start. This is a question he alone must answer, not a
spokesman, not a statement, only the President of the United States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I, too, thank the Senator from West
Virginia for his courtesy. I ask unanimous consent to speak this
afternoon for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
WITHDRAWAL OF U.S. TROOPS FROM IRAQ
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to offer a simple proposition:
Congress should act like a coequal branch of Government and vote on
whether to keep American troops in Iraq for at least 3 more years. Late
last month, the President told the American people that it is his
intent to keep American soldiers in Iraq through the end of his term in
office. He has never before made such a sweeping commitment. When the
Senate voted in October of 2002 to send troops to Iraq, few Americans
believed then that the U.S. military would be in Iraq in 2006, let
alone 2009 or beyond. Based on what the Bush administration said then,
Americans would be justified in thinking that by now Iraq would be free
and democratic. Based on what the Bush administration said then,
Americans would be justified in thinking that by now Iraq would be
stable and self-supporting. Based on what the Bush administration said
then, Americans would be justified in thinking that by now the vast
majority of U.S. forces, if not all of them, would be safely back home.
Unfortunately, the rosy forecast put out by the White House and the
Pentagon in 2002 perished in the harsh reality of Iraq.
The failure to plan for the post-war period has thus far created less
security for the world, greater heartache for Iraq, and extraordinary
costs for America.
As of today, neither the American people nor the Congress knows how
the President intends to get American troops out of Iraq. Instead,
virtually every day, the administration offers a new theory for how
discouraging events on the ground in Iraq are actually positive signs.
Here is what is indisputable: 2,348 American soldiers are dead,
17,469 are injured, and 262 billion taxpayer dollars have been spent.
[[Page 5742]]
If our troops remain in Iraq for at least 3 more years, how many more
will die, how many more will be injured? How many more hundreds of
billions of dollars will it cost?
By all accounts, the insurgency remains strong and is constantly
attacking and killing American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi
civilians. Every day there is another bombing, another brutal image on
the TV that reflects the chaos that passes for an average day in Iraq.
Sectarian violence is rampant. The ethnic strife is so grave that
Shiites and Sunnis living in mixed neighborhoods are fleeing for the
safety of ethnic enclaves.
In recent months, there have been more and more groups of bodies
found--hands bound, shot in the back of the head or beheaded--and many
Iraqis have come to believe that their own Iraqi Interior Ministry is
participating in these death squad-style killings.
According to Ambassador Khalilzad, the ``potential is there'' for
all-out civil war. That, my friends, is an understatement. As former
Prime Minister Allawi concedes, a low-level civil war is already being
waged in Iraq.
The so-called ``enduring bases'' that the Pentagon has built in Iraq
certainly create the appearance that the Bush administration intends
for the United States to occupy Iraq indefinitely, unnecessarily
fostering ill-will among the Iraqi population and throughout the Arab
world.
Oil production, household fuel availability, and electricity
production are lower than they were 2 years ago. Iraqis have
electricity half of each day. About 32 percent of Iraqis are
unemployed.
The list of problems that plague Iraq goes on and on.
Supporters of the war tout the Iraqi forces that are standing up and
taking responsibility for security. Yet it has been reported that not a
single Iraqi security force battalion can operate without U.S.
assistance. The Iraqi police force is plagued by absenteeism and
militia infiltration. The level of incompetence is high enough that
U.S. forces are reluctant to hand over their best weapons to the
Iraqis.
You will also hear supporters of the war point to the three elections
as proof of progress. Yes, there have been elections. But as the
current impasse makes clear, elections are just the beginning. And
while those elected have been deliberating for the past 3 months,
unable to reach consensus over the makeup of the new Iraqi Government,
insurgents have been exploiting the power vacuum to kill, to maim, and
to instill terror and fear.
Supporters of the war will also point to our reconstruction efforts.
But billions of reconstruction dollars have been misused, misspent, or
lost by American contractors, like Halliburton, and Iraqi ministries,
including the Ministry of Oil.
While in Iraq recently, as a member of the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, I sat down with representatives of the Oil Ministry to
discuss the issue of graft. After I repeatedly pointed to independent
analyses documenting the serious corruption problems within the Iraqi
oil sector, the Iraqi officials finally acknowledged that there were
``small'' problems with graft in this sector. Considering that oil
accounts for more than 90 percent of the country's revenues, this ought
to be extremely disturbing to Congress and people all across America.
Just as the President made the case to go to war, he owes it to
Congress and the American people to come to Congress and lay out his
plan and his budget for achieving a lasting peace in Iraq.
Congress owes it to the American people and the institution to vote.
If the President refuses to come to Congress in the coming weeks with
his plan and his budget to win the peace in Iraq, Congress owes it to
the American people to vote up or down on whether to keep American
troops in Iraq for at least 3 more years.
The President's case for winning the peace in Iraq should address
these concerns:
First, how the President can help make the Iraqis self-reliant so
that they can defeat the deadly insurgency.
Second, how the President intends to help Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish
leaders break the political impasse so that they can form a unity
government.
Third, how the President intends to pull the Iraqi people back from
the brink of all-out civil war and the specter of another Rwanda or
Darfur.
Fourth, how the President intends to help rebuild the Iraqi
infrastructure and ensure that Iraqis have access to basic services
like electricity and clean water.
And fifth, how the President intends to bring the troops home from
Iraq.
If need be, to be sensitive to national security matters, I would not
be averse to the Senate moving into Executive Session to consider
portions of the President's plan and his budget for securing the peace
in Iraq.
I simply ask the President to come to Congress and describe his plan
and his budget specifically, and let Congress consider its potential to
succeed before the Congress, with its silence, consents to 3 more years
of very costly involvement in Iraq.
The vote I call for today, if held, won't be about cutting-and-
running. It won't be about who comes up with the best spin. It will be
about holding the President and Congress accountable. The vote will
hold the President accountable for presenting a plan and a budget for
securing the peace. And the vote will hold Congress accountable by
making it finally act like a co-equal branch of government.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Oregon, who has just spoken, for what he has said. I shall read his
speech carefully tonight, the Lord willing, the general theme of which
I am in accordance with. His was a speech that had to be said and ought
to be said. It was in his words. I might have made it with a change or
two. But we are together, as we were when the Senator and I joined the
immortal spirits of the 23 who on that day cast the most important vote
that I have ever cast in my 48 years now in the U.S. Senate.
____________________
EASTER WEEK
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this Sunday, April 9, is Palm Sunday, thank
God. It marks the beginning of the Christian holy week and Easter. The
Senate will recess today so that Members might celebrate this holy week
in the home churches, among their families, friends, and constituents.
Before we adjourn, I would like to give a little consideration to those
world-shaping events of some 2,000 years ago.
Whether one counts himself or herself as a Christian of any
denomination or a follower of any other faith, one must admit that the
man, the person, at the center of the Easter celebration was and is a
figure of historical import, just as are the founding figures of the
rest of the world's religions. There are today, by some estimates,
approximately 2.1 billion Christians of all denominations, more than
any other religious affiliation, and almost twice as many as those who
describe themselves as secular, nonreligious, agnostic, or atheist--1.1
billion. By way of contrast, there are approximately 1.3 billion
adherents of Islam and just 14 million of Jesus' Jewish faith. That one
man's example and teachings have affected so many people so deeply and
for so many years is a testament to his faith.
On Palm Sunday, a rabbi from Galilee, whom we know best today as
Jesus, made a public entrance into Jerusalem to celebrate the Jewish
holiday of Passover.
In doing so, Jesus surely knew what was in store for Him. He knew--He
knew--He was a wanted man. He knew He was a wanted man--He knew it--
marked for arrest by the civil authorities who feared that He would
incite a rebellion that would lead to Roman occupation and unprotected
by religious authorities who feared His teachings and who could not
countenance His refusal to deny being more than human. But still He
came. Still He came and the people cheered and threw palm
[[Page 5743]]
leaves, a symbol of triumph and the national symbol of an independent
Palestine, before his path. What a remarkable act of faith. What a
remarkable act of faith to come willingly to one's tragic end, seeing
through the suffering to the miracle of resurrection. The miracle; the
miracle of resurrection. What a remarkable act of courage, to remain
silent and smiling at the people He knew would not or could not aid Him
in His final hours.
Some 2,000 years later, those 2.1 billion Christians around the world
commemorate Jesus' final entry into Jerusalem by making crosses out of
palm fronds, combining the triumphant entrance with the lasting image
of Jesus Christ on the cross.
By Thursday, called Maundy Thursday or Holy Thursday, Jesus' freedom
ended after His last meal, when He was arrested and imprisoned,
betrayed--yes, betrayed--by Judas for 30 pieces of silver.
Foreknowledge could not have made those fateful moments any easier to
bear. On Good Friday, Christians will solemnly remember His suffering
and death upon the cross. Candles and lights will be extinguished in
memory of His final hours. Good Friday remains a sad, dark day despite
the knowledge of His resurrection to leaven the terrible suffering He
endured.
Holy Saturday is a day of vigil, as Christians figuratively keep
watch over Christ's tomb and await the glorious resurrection to come.
And Easter Sunday, or Resurrection Sunday, is a joyful, glorious day of
reaffirmed faith, of promises kept, of hope restored.
I read now from the Book of St. Matthew, the 28th chapter, the first
through the seventh verses, the King James version of the Holy Bible:
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the
first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
to see the sepulchre.
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of
the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the
stone from the door, and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightening, and his raiment white
as snow:
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as
dead men.
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not
ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the
place where [Jesus] lay.
The scriptures say:
Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen
from the dead; and, behold, He ``goeth before you into
Galilee; there shall ye see Him: Lo, I have told you.''
For the next 40 days, Christ proved to his followers that He had,
indeed, risen from the dead. Then He ascended into Heaven, fulfilling
the final promise of His wondrous life. As John 3:16 so beautifully
summed up the central promise of the Christian faith, ``For God so
loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.'' In
Jesus' resurrection and ascension, God offers the greatest and only
proof of His love and His promise that in death, there is life in
faith. That--that, not chocolate bunnies and colorful eggs--is the
great gift of Easter. Its comfort and solace linger on in the soul even
longer than chocolate does on the lips. It warms us even more during
sad times--yes--than does the spring sun after a cold and cheerless
winter.
And so it is because of this great gift, this promise--yes, this
promise of everlasting life and the heart-searing proof through
sacrifice that Christianity survived the passing of its founder. Nearly
2,000 years later, the words and example of the Rabbi from Galilee
motivate and support over 2 billion--over 2 billion--people around the
world. Governments have tried to stamp Him out, but still He endures in
the hearts of His devout followers. Technology has tried to distract
us, but still His word--yes, his word--beckons. I am sure that whatever
trials and tribulations lie ahead, His teachings and faith will offer
comfort and hope no matter how bleak the future might appear. In all of
the moments of our lives, large and small, joyful and desolate,
triumphant and abject, He--yes, He is there at our side with support
and hope. I do feel for those 1.2 billion people who do not have faith
to sustain them and give them strength. It is a deep, deep well of
support and nourishment for the weary soul--for the weary soul.
Mr. President, I close my speech with the words of Henry Wadsworth
Longfellow from his poem ``Christus: A Mystery.'' In the poem, Prince
Henry is speaking to Elsie as they cross the square:
This is the day, when from the dead our Lord arose; and
everywhere, out of their darkness and despair, triumphant
over fears and foes, the hearts of his disciples rose, when
to the women, standing near, the angel in shining vesture
said, ``The Lord is risen; He is not here!'' And, mindful
that the day is come, on all the hearths in Christendom the
fires are quenched, to be again rekindled from the sun, that
high is dancing in the cloudless sky. The churches are all
decked with flowers, the salutations among men are but the
Angel's words divine, ``Christ is arisen!'' And the bells
catch the glad murmur, as it swells, and chant together in
their towers. All hearts are glad; and free from care the
faces of the people shine. See what a crowd is in the square,
gayly and gallantly arrayed!
Mr. President, let me close--and I hope I have not imposed too long
on the Senate and on my friends who may have been waiting--let me close
with these words spoken by William Jennings Bryan in his speech on
immortality. Now is the time to think about it. That is what Easter is:
the promise of immortality.
If the Father deigns to touch with divine power the cold
and pulseless heart of the buried acorn, and make it burst
forth from its prison walls again in the mighty Oak, will He
leave neglected in the Earth the soul of man, who was made in
the image of his Creator? If He stoops to give to the
rosebush, whose withered blossoms float upon the autumn
breeze, the sweet assurance of another springtime, will He
withhold all the words of hope from the sons of men when the
frosts of winter come? If Matter, mute and inanimate, though
changed by the forces of Nature into a multitude of forms,
can never die, will the imperial spirit of man suffer
annihilation after a brief visit to this tenement of clay?
No.
Rather, let us believe that He who, in his apparent
prodigality, wastes not the raindrop, the blade of grass, or
the evening's sighing zephyr, but makes them all to carry out
His eternal plans, has given immortality to the mortal.
Amen.
in thanks to jay and sharon rockefeller
Mr. President, at this time of Easter, at this time of rejoicing in
the promise of eternal life, I also rejoice in the friendship that I
share with my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Jay Rockefeller,
and his lovely wife, Sharon. Jay and Sharon Rockefeller are jewels.
They have always opened their doors and their hearts to me and to my
darling wife, Erma.
For more than 20 years, Jay Rockefeller and I have worked in
partnership for the people of West Virginia. There have been good times
and bad; moments of great joy and moments of great hardship. But at
each turn, we have stood together for our State, the Mountain State,
West Virginia, where Mountaineers are always free.
In the past few years, when my wife battled against illness, Jay
Rockefeller always took the time to ask about her. He and Sharon always
wanted to know how Erma was. Stand her side-by-side with Jay, and Erma
probably didn't reach his chest. But she had a place in his and
Sharon's heart, just as he and Sharon did in hers.
Today, Senator Jay Rockefeller is recovering from back surgery. He
has missed some time in the Senate, and we have missed him here. I know
that Jay will be back on his feet soon. And, when he walks through the
Senate door, I shall welcome him with open arms.
I wish Senator Jay Rockefeller and his charming wife, Sharon, a most
blessed Easter, and I thank them for their long and warm friendship
toward Erma and me.
I thank all Senators, and I yield the floor.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 5744]]
____________________
REMEMBERING PAUL COVERDELL
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today with a little bit of
sadness in my voice, but also with a lot of happiness about an occasion
that is going to be taking place in about 30 minutes at the University
of Georgia in Athens, GA, where I had hoped to be today, but,
unfortunately, the business of the Senate required us to stay here.
Today at 2 o'clock there will be a dedication of the Paul Coverdell
Center for Biomedical and Health Sciences at the University of Georgia
in Athens. This building is going to be named for a man who was not
only a close friend of mine, but he was a close political ally.
He is a man who served in the Georgia Legislature for almost two
decades and served in the U.S. Senate for 8 years, from 1992 to 2000,
when, unfortunately, he died much too early as a result of a very
sudden illness that he developed.
Paul Coverdell was a man of great vision, one of the hardest working
individuals I have ever known in my life, and a man who truly believed
in what was best for his country. He was a man who served, not just in
the Senate in Washington, but he also was a director of the Peace Corps
under President George Herbert Walker Bush. Today, President Bush and
Mrs. Bush are in Athens to be the keynote speakers at the dedication of
this building.
Paul Coverdell was a man who really took the Peace Corps to a
different level. I was very pleased, along with a number of other
Members of this body--particularly his close friend, Phil Gramm, the
former Senator from Texas--and a number of other individuals who
attended the dedication ceremony at the Old Executive Office Building
in 2001, when President George W. Bush announced that we were naming
the headquarters of the Peace Corps the Paul D. Coverdell Peace Corps
Headquarters Building.
Paul had a great vision for biomedical science as well as research,
so I think it is only fitting that today the building in Athens at the
University of Georgia be named for him. Were it not for the hard work
and the vision of another Member of this Senate, Senator Zell Miller,
who succeeded Senator Coverdell, that probably would not have happened.
While it is sad to think of the fact that Paul is no longer with us,
for him to be remembered as he is being remembered today, once again,
on the campus of the University of Georgia, which is my alma mater,
gives me a great feeling about carrying on the life, the vision, and
the hope that Paul Coverdell had for our country.
His wife Nancy was very active in Paul's political life. She
continues to be a very vivacious lady today. She happens to serve as
the chairman of my military academy appointment committee, and does she
ever do a terrific job. She is a great lady in and of herself, but Paul
Coverdell was a special person.
He rose very rapidly in the leadership of the Senate after his
election. He became the secretary of the conference and served his
conference well. He served not only his Republican colleagues well, but
he was an individual who, on virtually every occasion when he worked on
an issue, reached across the aisle to Members on the Democratic side to
make sure they were included in the process, and that his ideas and his
visions for a greater America would always be shared and there would be
cooperation with the folks on both sides of the aisle.
Today I stand with a little bit of a heavy heart but with a wonderful
remembrance of a great friend, a man with whom I spent so much time,
talking about not only politics. During the 8 years I served in the
House, Paul was here in the Senate for most of those years. We had
occasion to talk by telephone at least once a week. We made it a point
to visit about things that were happening both in our State as well as
here in Washington.
He is a man with whom I also had the opportunity to talk about life
and about how to not only set examples, as Paul did--and I have always
subscribed to but have never reached the level that Paul did--but he is
a man who also just gave you a great feeling about the direction in
which our country was headed.
When I had the opportunity to talk with Nancy Coverdell this morning,
I expressed my significant disappointment in not being there today but,
thank goodness, she being a wife of a former Member of the Senate,
understood that our life up here is not controlled by our wishes and
desires but oftentimes by people on both sides of the aisle. I am
really pleased that we are once again honoring the name and the memory
of Paul Coverdell with the dedication of this building on the campus of
the University of Georgia today.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, there has been a fairly lively debate.
I ask unanimous consent I have such time as needed to make my remarks,
should my remarks run more than 10 minutes, under the morning business
rules. I need possibly 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President.
____________________
IRAQ
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, there has been almost a raging debate
around here these last couple of days on evaluations of what is taking
place in Iraq, where do we stand in this war--almost a war of
attrition, as I see it.
And included in the reports on deaths, killings, this morning we
heard about an explosion, with suicide bombers detonating a bomb in a
mosque that killed around 40 people. It is almost a daily thing that we
hear and see, the horror of families being torn apart by the loss of a
loved one. Children, men, women, it does not matter. It is just
universal killing and demolition. It is a terrible act to witness.
Now we have some different news that has come about to accompany
those stories of horror from Iraq. Everybody now knows that the Vice
President's former chief of staff, Scooter Libby, has been indicted as
part of the investigation into the leak of classified material from the
White House.
I remember when this controversy broke. President Bush acted
incredulous that anyone would leak classified national security
information. In fact, in September 2003, the President said:
There's just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of
my administration, I want to know who it is.
But now we find out--I think embarrassingly for the President,
embarrassingly for the United States--we now find out that the
President himself was ordering a leak of classified material. And he
leaked that classified information for political reasons. He was trying
to undo some of the political damage caused by the disclosure that the
intelligence community did not believe Iraq was trying to purchase
uranium. There it was: the reason we went to Iraq in the first place,
and substantial doubts.
People who supported that view are now challenging the intelligence
that led us there, or at least the intelligence reports we got. Now,
here we are, still bogged down in Iraq, with no hope in sight to fix
the mess we have caused there.
Yesterday, there was debate between two of our colleagues. One was
Senator Kerry, who served in Vietnam, decorated for that service, the
other was the Senator from Colorado, who was harsh in his criticism of
Senator Kerry's speech on Iraq.
Now, Senator Kerry and I are both veterans. I am a veteran of World
War II, and I served in Europe during the war. His, again,
distinguished service in Vietnam is well known. So we are both
veterans, and we are very interested in the military analysis of the
Senator from Colorado.
The speech of the Senator from Colorado sounded much like White House
talking points: short on facts, long on innuendo and fantasy.
While politicians in Washington sometimes wear rose-colored glasses
[[Page 5745]]
and fantasize about the situation in Iraq, American troops are dying,
American troops are wounded. One need only visit Walter Reed Hospital
to see how serious some of those wounds are. People have lost limbs.
People lose their sight. People suffer very severely from post-
traumatic stress, invisible wounds that penetrate, nevertheless, very
deeply.
I have gone to many memorial services and funerals for young people
from New Jersey who died in Iraq. Seventy-three soldiers from my home
State of New Jersey have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. As I mentioned,
I have visited Walter Reed Army Hospital here in Washington several
times, and I have been struck by the incredible resilience and
dedication to our country of those young Americans, those who want to
be able to pick up arms again so they can do their duty. And while
these brave men and women put their lives on the line, the
administration is simply ignoring reality.
Paul Eaton, a former commanding general of the Coalition Military
Assistance and Training Team, wrote in the New York Times on March 19,
recently, that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is--and here I
quote the Times--``not competent to lead our armed forces.''
Eaton further said that Rumsfeld ``has shown himself incompetent
strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than
anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission
in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.''
This past Sunday on ``Meet The Press,'' retired General Anthony
Zinni, who just published a book, repeated the call for Mr. Rumsfeld to
resign. General Zinni of the U.S. Marine Corps is a former Commander of
the Central Command. He said Secretary Rumsfeld should be held
accountable for tactical mistakes in Iraq.
I had the opportunity the other night to go to a testimonial for
General Shalikashvili and saw films of him done with former Secretary
of State Colin Powell, President Clinton--all kinds of testimonials. As
I looked at General Shalikashvili, I recalled how splendidly he handled
his assignment as the Chief of the joint members of the senior staff
and recalled that he said that in Iraq we would need perhaps 300,000
troops or more. He was right. And we never delivered on that
commitment. As a consequence, in many military circles it is believed
that lack of force is responsible for some of the problems we currently
see.
Several days after General Zinni spoke, President Bush dismissed
calls for Rumsfeld to step down, saying he was ``satisfied'' with his
performance.
How in the world can the Commander-in-Chief, President Bush, be
satisfied with the situation in Iraq? It is chaotic. It is near a civil
war. The definition of a ``civil war'' is that people within the same
country are fighting one another. My gosh, it could not be clearer.
So how can he be satisfied with Secretary Rumsfeld's miscalculations,
with his profound errors in judgment, with his stubborn unwillingness
to admit mistakes?
These mistakes have had tragic consequences--tragic for the nearly
2,400 American men and women who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan,
tragic for the families they have left behind.
To examine the incompetence a little bit further--I have not been in
Iraq in the last couple of years. I was there then, and I met with
troops, and they were asking for better body armor. They were asking
for better Humvee armor. And it took 2 years to loosen up those
products to protect our troops. How incompetent must one be for the
President not to be up in arms?
After my visit, I said I was going to the Defense Department, and
did, requesting expedited treatment for these articles that our troops
needed to protect themselves and to fight the war fully.
We know that most of the claims of the Bush administration in the
leadup to war were simply false. The administration claimed there was a
connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Not true.
The Bush administration claimed that there were weapons of mass
destruction there. Not true.
The Bush administration claimed that the war would cost ``in the
range of 50 to 60 billion dollars.'' Not true. The wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, including the next supplemental to be brought before the
Congress in coming weeks, will total a half a trillion dollars, nearly
$7 billion a month spent just in Iraq.
The Bush administration said before the war the oil revenues from
Iraq could bring ``between 50 and 100 billion [dollars] over the course
of the next two to three years.'' Not true again.
President Bush announced, ``Mission accomplished,'' on May 1, 2003.
He lulled the Nation into believing that it was all settled: Families,
look forward to your kids coming home. Look forward to families
restored. Look forward to fathers and mothers coming back to their
children. He told the Nation that major combat in Iraq was over. Not
true. Ninety percent of the Americans who have died in Iraq have died
since combat operations had supposedly ``ended.''
The Bush administration claimed that the Iraq insurgency was in its
``last throes.'' Not true. We know the insurgency has gained strength.
General Abizaid recently said the number of foreign terrorists
infiltrating Iraq has increased.
Since the last week of February, sectarian violence and death have
reached new heights, while electricity production has dropped below
prewar levels. Unemployment ranges from 30 to 60 percent.
The American people do not want their leader to deny reality. They
want to hear the truth.
People on the floor of the Senate have heard me say it time and time
again: I will never understand why the President of the United States
refuses to let journalists, photographers, journalists who do
photography, come in and take pictures of flag-draped coffins--flag-
draped coffins. It is the country's last sign of honoring its dead.
They are unable to take pictures of that because they do not want to
tell the American people the truth about what is happening. It is, in
my view, insulting to those families whose loved ones sacrificed their
lives on the battlefield. Outrageous.
They do not want to tell us the truth. What they want to do is tell
us untruths. Leaking information is inexcusable, when the penalties for
anyone who leaks that information could be jail time.
The President of the United States, President Bush, under the guise
of releasing the classification of sensitive material, had passed
information, with Vice President Cheney apparently being the person who
furnished it, according to Libby, who is now fighting for his freedom.
So he is saying things that he can prove, I would imagine; otherwise,
he would not dare say it.
We are sick and tired of this war. I am not saying what the date is
that we have to leave there, but I am saying that the date has passed
for the truth, for knowing what is really happening there, for knowing
what our troops and their families can expect.
Last week, I went to a return-home function in New Jersey, people who
have come back. They were away, some of them, 18 months--little kids
running around who haven't seen their fathers or mothers for that
period of time. It is outrageous. We are in a state of confusion that
defies imagination, that we, this country, with all of its might and
all of its wealth, can't figure out some way to deal with this problem,
after having made empty promises about how easy it was going to be--
``treats and sweets'' was one of the expressions used--totally
misunderstanding, not thinking about what it was going to take, not
only to fight this war but how do you win it. And winning it means that
you go home triumphant. Not so.
We see in front of us a situation that reminds us of the sad days of
Vietnam, when we wanted to extricate ourselves and couldn't quite do it
until the pain was so excruciating that the population could no longer
stand it. We need a leader who sees clearly what is really happening
and who speaks candidly--we can take bad news; we don't
[[Page 5746]]
like it, but we can take it--about what is taking place in front of our
eyes on television and newspapers in our homes. We can take the news.
We will accept it and fight on to rebuild our strength and our moral
conviction about what we are doing. But we need to know the truth on
how to do that.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, before I speak on the subject of
immigration, I would like to make a couple of brief remarks, having
noted the comments of the distinguished Senator from New Jersey about
the difficult military struggle we are in today in Iraq. I wanted to
make the observation that the distinguished Senator talked about his
very honorable and distinguished service at another time and in another
struggle during World War II. He speaks with shock and dismay--and it
is a subject of great dismay--about the fact that there has been death
and there are family separations and there are injuries as a result of
the great sacrifice our men and women are making today in Iraq with
great valor and distinction which we highly honor, just like he and
others did in World War II.
The question is, Is it worth it? Are we in this matter of a war over
there with a choice to do anything other than success?
What I didn't hear from the Senator was a solution, a plan, an idea
of how he might extricate us from this effort differently. I believe
the only way is to pursue it until its conclusion, when it is
ultimately a peaceful and democratic Iraq. To do otherwise would do
great harm to the honor of those who serve and those who have
sacrificed.
____________________
IMMIGRATION
Mr. MARTINEZ. I turn now to a subject we have been involved in all
this week, the subject of immigration. I am very pleased that Leader
Frist and Chairman Specter have chosen to utilize the product of the
good work of Senator Hagel for a number of years, for over 5 years, on
this issue of immigration, an effort which I was glad to join in over
the last couple of weeks and which now appears to be poised to be the
basis of a sensible and reasonable compromise. I am pleased that this
will be the vehicle which will be on the Senate floor when we return to
this topic sometime in the next month. I am grateful to Senator McCain
and Senator Kennedy for their leadership on this issue, for all the
work they have done. Others who have worked with us on this--Senators
Brownback, Graham, Salazar, and Lieberman--have all been a huge help as
we tried to put together a way in which we can deal better with this
complicated and very much broken down system of immigration.
We approach this issue by securing the borders, by dealing with a
guest worker program, and by recognizing that the 1 million people who
are in this country living under the radar, in the shadows, need a way
out, need a way for us to welcome them into the mainstream of American
life where they have now been, many of them, living for years and
years, contributing, working, making a difference.
It does not give them amnesty. It requires a number of steps for them
to go through. For those who have been here 2 years or less, it does
not provide for them a vehicle to remain. For those who have been here
5 years or less, it requires that they return to a port of entry and
make a legal entry into the United States before they can then follow a
path toward normalized and regularized status.
The provisions of this bill have the support and encouragement of a
large majority of the Senate. I hope over the next several days the
procedural issues which prevented this matter from being voted upon,
where I believe--and I know Senator Hagel believes--we would have had
substantial majority support, will have a chance to be heard. I am
still hopeful and optimistic. It is too important to the country. It is
an issue that deserves a response. It deserves an answer and needs a
solution.
I am very pleased to be working with the Presiding Officer on this
issue. I hope in the next few days and weeks we will have an
opportunity for full, fair debate and then a vote up or down on what is
something of great need so we can engage with the House of
Representatives in a conference committee and final resolution to this
difficult issue for America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished assistant majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me commend the Senator from Florida
and the occupant of the chair for their extraordinary leadership on
this difficult issue the Senate has been wrestling with for the last
couple of weeks. I join the Senator from Florida and the occupant of
the chair, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, in hoping that this
issue will come back before the Senate and we will be able to deal with
it in a comprehensive manner sometime in the very near future.
____________________
CONFERENCE ON THE PENSION REFORM BILL
Mr. REID. Mr. President. I am concerned with the lack of progress
being made in conference on reaching a final agreement on the pension
bill. To this point, little movement has been made to bridge the
differences between the House and Senate bills.
This process does not need to be a partisan one. Throughout
consideration of the pension bill, Democrats have worked with
Republicans to move forward on pension reform. The Senate, working in a
bipartisan manner, was able to produce a strong bill that passed by a
vote of 97 to 2.
Democrats are eager to participate in the conference negotiations and
are committed to enacting a strong pension reform bill. It is my hope
that a conference agreement can be completed in a timely manner so that
the uncertainty surrounding pensions can be resolved.
However, House Republicans seem intent on producing a bill without
including Democrats. That would be unfortunate and is likely to produce
a bill that fails to meet the principles supported by the Democratic
caucus.
The Senate pension bill was crafted with bipartisan participation,
and that approach produced a bill that received almost unanimous
support in the Senate. Working together, the conferees can produce a
conference agreement that would garner an equally strong vote.
Attached is a set of principles that our caucus has supported
throughout consideration of this important bill. I believe these
principles should be the basis for any agreement reported by the
conference. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The conference agreement should include balanced funding
rules
The conference agreement should strike a proper balance
between improving pension funding and keeping these plans an
attractive benefit option for employers. While there is a
trend away from defined benefit pension plans and this trend
is likely to continue, rules should not be enacted that
exacerbate this problem.
The key is to establish new rules that impose stronger
funding requirements while maintaining incentives for
employers to continue these plans. The Administration missed
the mark on this. Their focus was primarily on the health of
the PBGC and the ramifications for the future of defined
benefit pension plans were considered collateral damage.
Democrats in the Senate share the concern over the PBGC's
finances, but they also want help to preserve the traditional
defined benefit system.
The conference agreement should protect older workers while
clarifying the status of cash balance plans
As a type of defined benefit pension plan, cash balance
plans contain protections for participants that Democrats
support.
[[Page 5747]]
Cash balance plans are insured by the PBGC. They provide
greater portability for workers. And they are more easily
understood by participants.
On the other hand, some companies used conversions to cash
balance plans to hide the fact that they were cutting
benefits for workers. In some instances older workers saw
their future pension accruals frozen for many years as a
result of ``wearaway'' provisions of the new plans.
Recent court decisions on the legality of cash balance
plans have created uncertainty for employers who maintain
cash balance plans. Congress should clear up this
uncertainty, but Senate Democrats will insist that rules be
established to protect older workers.
The conference agreement should include targeted relief for
troubled industries
The airline industry, and more importantly its workers, has
faced difficult times the past few years. Those difficulties
are likely to continue for some time.
In recognition of these difficulties, the Senate bill gives
the airlines more time before the new stricter funding rules
apply. This idea also has strong support in the House where a
motion to instruct the House conferees to accept the Senate
provision passed by a vote of 265-158.
The conference agreement must include relief to troubled
industries.
The conference agreement should improve employer-based
retirement savings plans
The Senate bill includes changes to defined contribution
plans that address the problems uncovered as a result of the
collapse of Enron.
These changes include getting better and timelier
information to plan participants and giving participants
greater ability to diversify away from employer stock.
The Senate bill also includes provisions allowing employers
to incorporate automatic enrollment in their plans. The
overwhelming evidence suggests that auto enrollment will
significantly increase worker participation in DC plans.
Many 401(k) plan participants are looking for specific
advice on how to invest their plan assets. Employers who
would like to provide this to their employers are usually
advised not to do so because it could subject the employer to
liability for investment losses. The Senate bill provides
employers relief from this liability so long as the
investment advisors are independent.
The conference agreement should include reform of
multiemployer pension plans
Multiemployer plans are defined benefit plans maintained by
two or more employers. One in four pension plan participants
are members of multiemployer plans.
Employers, employer associations, unions and multiemployer
plans have worked together on a package of changes to improve
multiemployer plan funding.
The conference agreement must include reforms that give
these plans the tools they need to address their funding
needs.
The conference agreement cannot include provisions that
undermine patient's rights
At the 11th hour the House leadership inserted a special
interest provision into the pension bill to benefit the
insurance industry.
This provision would put insurance companies ahead of
injured patients in any claim against wrongdoers.
The conference agreement should modernize ERISA without
weakening worker protections
In the 32 years since ERISA was enacted it has served
pension plan participants quite well. The Senate bill makes
improvements to these rules while retaining important worker
protections.
Conferees should be very cautious about going further than
the Senate bill.
The financial strain facing pension plans makes it even
more critical to retain provisions that guard against self
dealing and conflicts of interest.
Recent scandals involving some mutual fund and other
financial services providers highlights that these
protections are vital to protecting our current and future
retirees.
The conference agreement should be fiscally responsible
The Senate bill's cost is modest at $12 billion,
attributable to the changes made to the funding rules and the
cost of the automatic enrollment changes.
The House loaded up its pension reform bill with nearly $87
billion in tax cuts over the next ten years.
The Savers credit, which helps low- and middle income
families save for retirement expires at the end of this year.
It certainly should be extended, and is included in the list
of expiring provisions that are part of the conference
negotiations on the tax reconciliation bill.
The House also included permanent extension of the higher
contribution limits for 401(k) plans and IRAs that were part
of the 2001 tax cut bill. These provisions are popular, but
they don't expire for another four years. There are many
equally popular tax provisions that have already expired and
should be considered first. For example, the research credit,
the state and local sales tax deduction, the credit for
hiring disadvantaged workers, and the deduction for classroom
expenses paid by teachers have all already expired. Before we
consider provisions that won't expire for another four years,
we need to extend these important items.
The remaining tax cuts in the House bill relate to health
care. Health care affordability is an important issue, which
deserves to be addressed in its own right on a comprehensive
basis, not piecemeal as an afterthought to this pension bill.
____________________
CFIUS REFORM LEGISLATION
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to acknowledge
Senators Shelby and Sarbanes in their work to ensure national security
is at the forefront of the critical Government review process that is
triggered when a foreign-owned company attempts to purchase U.S.
companies and assets. At the same time, Senators Shelby and Sarbanes
struck a balance that will not unnecessarily hinder investment in
America.
The Dubai Ports fiasco shined a light on a flawed process at the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States--referred to as
CFIUS. It raised questions regarding the competence of those in the
Bush administration to review these matters and make decisions about
the purchase of strategic U.S. assets. It also raised questions about a
process that did not trigger a full investigation into a transaction
that was so important to our national security.
Members of Congress, Governors, and even the President found out
about the approval only through newspaper reports. Notwithstanding the
President's knee-jerk threats to veto legislation overturning the deal
and frantic efforts by the Treasury and Homeland Security to justify
this sale, the American public is rightly convinced that something
needs to be changed about the CFIUS process.
First, this process has to place a far greater emphasis on nationa1
security. Second, the process has to have more legitimacy--so the
American public will have confidence that these sales of strategic
assets get the thorough review they deserve by Government. Third, the
CFIUS process must require a greater level of accountability from those
who administer the program so that we ensure that the process is
followed as designed. Finally, the process must be balanced to ensure
that the vast majority of transactions that raise no concerns are not
inadvertently undermined.
The Senate Banking Committee on Thursday voted to report legislation
unanimously that would reform the CFIUS process. It was a difficult
job. I commend Senators Shelby and Sarbanes for putting together
bipartisan, consensus legislation that puts security first, while
striking a balance that continues to welcome foreign investment.
America has benefited a tremendous amount from foreign investment into
our economy, so I am glad that we have not overreacted to the Bush
administration's mistakes and mismanagement in their review of these
important transactions.
As with other legislation we deal with, this legislation is not
perfect. And, as it moves forward, I hope we can work together to make
further improvements. I urge the majority leader to schedule floor
consideration as soon as possible so that we can complete action on
this bill before we adjourn this fall.
____________________
SCHOOL SAFETY PATROLLERS
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize several young
people who were recently selected by the American Automobile
Association, AAA, to receive the Lifesaver Award for their outstanding
work as school safety patrollers.
More than 500,000 students in 50,000 schools worldwide participate in
AAA's School Safety program. These young people have taken on the
important responsibility of making the streets around their schools
safer for their classmates. Though their responsibilities are often
routine, the patrollers on occasion must place themselves in harm's way
in order to save lives. Today, I want to recognize four students who
received the AAA Lifesaver Award for selfless and heroic actions while
fulfilling their duties as patrollers.
[[Page 5748]]
Nico DelGraco and Mitchell Davis of Simpson Elementary School in
Bridgeport, WV, are the first two recipients of this year's awards. In
the second week of November 2005, Nico and Mitchell were watching their
patrol posts for traffic; a first-grader on his way home from school
began to cross the street. As the student walked just past the center
of the street, Nico noticed an SUV coming toward the red light that
showed no signs of stopping. Nico quickly left his post, took hold of
the child, and directed him toward Mitchell. Mitchell then grabbed the
first-grader from Nico and dragged him back toward the sidewalk. No one
was injured in the incident.
The third AAA Lifesaver Award recipient is Molly Kaiser, a fifth-
grade student from Defer Elementary School in Grosse Pointe Park, MI.
On the morning of November 9, 2005, Molly pulled a second-grader out of
the street as a bus was turning. Molly had tried to verbally caution
the student that he was in danger. After this was met with no response,
she pulled the student out of the intersection and the path of the
school bus that was making its turn. The bus swerved to avoid the child
and drove on without stopping.
The fourth AAA Lifesaver Award recipient is also from the State of
Michigan. Her name is Emma Elise Binegar, and she is a student at
Morenci Elementary School in Morenci. On December 9, 2005, Emma quickly
noticed that 5-year-old William Leeroy Webster was in danger as he was
crossing the street in the path of a fast-approaching car. Emma saved
him by pulling him out of the path of a vehicle about 10 feet away.
I would like to thank AAA for making the school safety program
possible. The program has helped save many lives over the years and has
made our schools safer for our students. As the stories of the
Lifesaver Award recipients demonstrate, the streets around our schools
are not safe enough. That is why I have worked for the last 2 years to
create a national Safe Routes to School program, which was adopted as
part of the Federal transportation bill on July 29, 2005. The $612
million allotted for the program can now help communities construct new
bike lanes, pathways, and sidewalks, as well as to launch Safe Routes
education and promotion campaigns in elementary and middle schools.
____________________
KATAHDIN IRONWORKS
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to correct the record
regarding conservation funding I secured last year under the Forest
Legacy Program.
During debate on the fiscal year 2006 Interior Appropriations Act, I
worked with Senator Olympia Snowe to obtain $4.5 million to protect
37,000 acres of forested land in my home state of Maine. I was very
pleased that these crucial resources were allocated for this section of
the 100-mile wilderness, which in addition to its natural beauty
provides critical habitat to a variety of species, providing vital
breeding, feeding, and resting grounds.
The site of a long-deserted factory, Katahdin Ironworks, marks the
gateway to this treasured expanse of wooded land. It was from this
notable Piscataquis County landmark that project supporters generated
the name ``Katahdin Ironworks Forest Legacy Program'' to refer to this
effort to protect and preserve this stretch of forest. As the old adage
goes, so much is in a name. And this name has sparked unfounded
criticism from colleagues and outside interest groups who have jumped
to the assumption that funding secured for this project was to be
utilized for the upkeep of an abandoned building. Today, I wish to set
the record straight and assure my fellow Senators and other interested
parties that this highly competitive program funding will be used to
ensure the survival of thousands of acres of precious forest.
There are many things that make America great, but it is our
commitment to safeguarding our open spaces and wooded lands that make
us unique as an industrialized Nation. Sadly, the growing trend of
urban sprawl, along with the increased pressure to exploit our natural
resources, has placed the survival of these invaluable lands in
jeopardy. General agreement that we must undertake conservation efforts
to ensure the preservation of these precious natural landscapes for
future generations has lead to the development of conservation programs
like Forest Legacy. This initiative has afforded us a needed mechanism
to facilitate the survival of these lands. Supported by the Wilderness
Society, the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, and other respected
environmental protection groups, the Forest Legacy Program enjoys a
wide range of support among organizations committed to natural
preservation causes.
Sadly, limited resources preclude our ability to defend all
endangered wilderness areas through this program, and it thus remains
appropriately competitive. For this reason, I was extremely pleased
that both the President's budget and the Senate Appropriations
Committee recognized the importance of maintaining this pristine
wilderness in my home state, and included funding to protect it through
tight Forest Legacy Program dollars. In fact, this project was
recognized as one of the most meritorious in the country by a
distinguished panel of experts at the United States Forest Service.
I am hopeful that through increased understanding of the Forest
Legacy Program and a more accurate depiction of the Katahdin Ironworks
project that my colleagues will appropriately recognize and appreciate
my commitment to preserving our wooded lands.
____________________
``MEXICO AND THE MIGRATION PHENOMENON'' DOCUMENT
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke about the need to pass a
comprehensive immigration reform bill. In the course of those remarks,
I described a document signed by all five of Mexico's Presidential
candidates in the run-up to this July's Presidential elections in that
country, as well as leaders from every major party in Mexico. That
document makes clear that leaders on both sides of the border
understand that border security is a fundamental necessity. I ask
unanimous consent that the document, ``Mexico and the Migration
Phenomenon,'' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Mexico and the Migration Phenomenon
In Mexico, as in other countries and regions of the world,
migration is a complex and difficult phenomenon to approach.
The diverse migration processes of exit, entrance, return and
transit of migrants are all present in our country.
Given the extent and the characteristics of today's
migration phenomenon, which will continue in the immediate
future and given the implications that it represents for our
country's development, a new vision and a change are
necessary in the way Mexican society has approached, thus
far, its responsibilities toward the migration phenomenon.
Over the last years, the magnitude reached by Mexican
migration and its complex effects in the economic and social
life of Mexico and the United States, have made the migration
phenomenon increasingly important for the national agendas of
both countries, and a priority issue in the bilateral agenda.
From the outset of the Administration, the government of
President Fox put forward a proposal to the Mexican public
opinion and to the highest authorities in the United States,
regarding a comprehensive plan aimed at dealing with the
diverse aspects of migration between the two countries.
Mexico based its proposal on the principle of shared
responsibility, which acknowledges that both countries must
do their share in order to obtain the best results from the
bilateral management of the migration phenomenon.
In 2001, the governments of both nations intensified the
dialogue and set in motion a process of bilateral
negotiations with the intent of finding ways to face the
multiple challenges and opportunities of the phenomenon;
these actions were taken with the objective of establishing a
new migration framework between the two countries.
However, the terrorist attacks of September 2001 against
the United States, criminal acts which were unmistakably
deplorable, altered the bilateral agenda on migration. On the
one hand, the link between migration and national security--
mainly along the shared border--is now an essential issue of
that agenda. On the other hand, the participation in the
migration debate of varied political actors--especially
legislators of both countries--has increased.
The debate that is currently taking place in the United
States, concerning a possible
[[Page 5749]]
migration reform, represents an opportunity for Mexico and
for the bilateral handling of the phenomenon. It also
encourages a deep analysis of the consequences that this
process can have for our country and its migration policy.
Based on a joint initiative by the Executive Branch and the
Senate of Mexico, a group of federal authorities responsible
for the management of the migration phenomenon, senators and
congressmen, members of the academia, experts in migratory
issues, and representatives of civil society organizations,
agreed to initiate an effort that seeks to build a national
migration policy, founded over shared diagnoses and
platforms. Accordingly, the group has held a series of
discussions titled Prospects and Design of Platforms for the
Construction of a Mexican Migration Policy.
The ideas expressed in this document are the result of
those discussions. They intend to bring up to date Mexico's
migration position and to offer some specific guidance
regarding the process of migration reform in the United
States.
principles
Based on the discussions held, the participants agreed upon
the following set of principles that should guide Mexico's
migration policy:
The migration phenomenon should be fully understood by the
Mexican State--society and government--because it demands
actions and commitments that respond to the prevailing
conditions.
The migration phenomenon has international implications
that demand from Mexico actions and international
commitments--in particular with the neighboring regions and
countries--which, in accordance with the spirit of
international cooperation, should be guided by the principle
or shared responsibility.
Mexico's migration policy acknowledges that as long as a
large number of Mexicans do not find in their own country an
economic and social environment that facilitates their full
development and well-being, and that encourages people to
stay in the country, conditions for emigrating abroad will
exist.
Mexico must develop and enforce its migration laws and
policy with full respect for the human rights of the migrants
and their relatives, notwithstanding their nationality and
migration status, as well as respecting the refugee and
asylum rights. In accordance with the applicable
international instruments.
The increased linkage between migration, borders and
security on the international level, is a reality present in
the relationship with our neighboring countries. Hence, it is
necessary to consider those three elements when drawing up
migration policies.
Mexico is committed to fighting all forms of human
smuggling and related criminal activities, to protecting the
integrity and safety of persons, and to deepening the
appropriate cooperation with the governments of the
neighboring countries.
The migration processes that prevail in Mexico are
regionally articulated--in particular with Central America--
and therefore the Mexican migration policy should deepen its
regional approach.
recommendations regarding the commitments that Mexico should agree on
Main recommendations considered by the group in order to
update Mexico's migration policy:
Based on the new regional and international realities
regarding immigration, transmigration and emigration, it is
necessary to evaluate and to update the present migration
policy of the Mexican State, as well as its legal and
normative framework, with a timeline of fifteen to twenty
years.
It is necessary to impel the economical and social
development that, among other positive effects, will
encourage people to stay in Mexico.
If a guest country offers a sufficient number of
appropriate visas to cover the biggest possible number of
workers and their families, which until now cross the border
without documents because of the impossibility of obtaining
them. Mexico should be responsible for guaranteeing that each
person that decides to leave its territory does so following
legal channels.
Based on international cooperation, Mexico must strengthen
the combat against criminal organizations specialized in
migrant smuggling and in the use or false documents, as well
as the policies and the legal and normative framework for the
prevention and prosecution of human smuggling, especially
women and children, and the protection of the victims of that
crime.
It is necessary to promote the return and adequate
reincorporation of migrants and their families to national
territory.
Mexico's migration policy must be adjusted taking into
account the characteristics of our neighboring countries, in
order to safeguard the border and to facilitate the legal,
safe and orderly flow of people, under the principles of
shared responsibility and respect for human rights.
Order and security in Mexico's north and south borders must
be fortified, with an emphasis on the development of the
border regions.
Reinforce cooperation with the United States and Canada
through the Security and Prosperity Partnership for North
America, and with the regional bodies and mechanisms for the
treatment of the phenomenon, like the Regional Conference on
Migration and the Cumbre Iberoamericana.
The review and, if necessary, adjustment of the juridical
and institutional framework, in order to adequately respond
to the present and the foreseeable conditions of the
migration phenomenon; this will require the creation of a
specialized inter institutional mechanism of collaboration.
The creation of permanent work mechanisms for the Executive
and Legislative Branches, with the participation of academic
and civil society representatives that allow the development
and fulfillment of Mexico's migration agenda.
elements related to a possible migration reform in the United States
Mexico does not promote undocumented migration and is eager
to participate in finding solutions that will help us face
the migration phenomenon. Accordingly, the group decided to
express certain thoughts about what is the Mexico's position
in case a migration reform takes place in the United States:
Acknowledging the sovereign right of each country to
regulate the entrance of foreigners and the conditions of
their stay, it is indispensable to find a solution for the
undocumented population that lives in the United States and
contributes to the development of the country, so that people
can be fully incorporated into their actual communities, with
the same rights and duties.
Support the proposal of a far-reaching guest workers
scheme, which should be one of the parts of a larger process
that includes the attention of the undocumented Mexicans that
live in the United States.
In order for a guest workers program to be viable, Mexico
should participate in its design management supervision and
evaluation, under the principle of shared responsibility.
A scheme aimed to process the legal temporary flow of
persons, will allow Mexico and the United States to better
combat criminal organizations specialized in the smuggling of
migrants and the use of false documents, and to combat, in
general, the violence and the insecurity that prevail in the
shared border. Likewise, Mexico would be in a better position
to exhort potential migrants to abide by the proper rules and
to adopt measures in order to reduce undocumented migration.
Mexico should conclude the studies that are being conducted
to know which tasks will help with the implementation of a
guest workers program, regarding the proper management of the
supply of potential participants, the establishment of
supporting, certification mechanisms, and the supervision and
evaluation of its development.
Mexico acknowledges that a crucial aspect for the success
of a temporary workers program refers to the capacity to
guarantee the circular flow of the participants, as well as
the development of incentives that encourage migrants to
return to our country. Mexico could significantly enhance its
tax-preferred housing programs, so that migrants can
construct a house in their home communities while they work
in the United States.
Other mechanisms that should be developed are the
establishment of a bilateral medical insurance system to
cover migrants and their relatives, as well as the agreement
of totalization of pension benefits, which will allow
Mexicans working in the United States to collect their
pension benefits in Mexico.
Mexico could also enhance the programs of its Labor and
Social Development Ministries, in order to establish social
and working conditions that encourage and ease the return and
reincorporation of Mexicans into their home communities.
This working group aims to become a permanent body of
study, debate and development of public policies for the
handling of the migration phenomenon.
____________________
U.S. DECISION ON UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to express my regret that the
administration has decided to decline the opportunity for candidacy on
the newly formed U.N. Human Rights Council. I supported the creation of
the Human Rights Council because I believe that we need to create a
system where human rights abusers are held accountable for the
atrocities they commit. It was for that same reason that there was
overwhelming international support for the creation of the Human Rights
Council.
In choosing not to join the council, the U.S. Government has signaled
its intention to address worldwide human rights abuses unilaterally.
This decision will damage U.S. credibility when weighing in on the
human rights debates of the future and further isolate the United
States from multilateral decisions.
[[Page 5750]]
Human rights abuses should be addressed through an international
strategy to ensure that there are internationally agreed-upon standards
to protect all members of society. I am deeply concerned that the
administration's decision will undermine our human rights agenda,
rather than advance it.
I have repeatedly expressed my concern about the approach to the U.N.
taken by this administration and am further disappointed by this most
recent decision. The U.N. is by no means perfect, but a world without a
global human rights body would be a more dangerous one for people
everywhere and would serve to undermine fundamental U.S. interests.
I urge the administration to reconsider its decision.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
COMMEMORATING THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF EUREKA, CALIFORNIA
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I wish to take this opportunity to recognize
the city of Eureka as it prepares to celebrate the 150th anniversary of
the city's formation.
The city of Eureka has a long history and often parallels
California's past. Founded during the time of the gold rush, it became
an important port city for northern California's logging and commercial
fishing industries because of its proximity to a rich supply of natural
resources. Eureka was incorporated on April 18, 1856, and was
designated by the State legislature as the county seat for Humboldt
County.
On a more personal note, Eureka is an important part of my family's
history. My mother's family left St. Petersburg during the Russian
Revolution and traveled by cart through Siberia and boarded a boat
finally landing in Eureka.
Today, with a population of over 25,000, Eureka is a city on the move
and the cultural center of the California's north coast region. It is
the destination for many people wanting to explore miles of unspoiled
coastline and visit the world-famous coastal redwoods that are within
close proximity of the city.
The city's famed historic architecture has been preserved, earning it
the designation as a ``Victorian Seaport.'' The historic Eureka Inn is
currently undergoing renovations that will make it once again the
center of many community events such as the location of the city's
Christmas celebrations.
I congratulate the city of Eureka on your special day and extend my
regards to all of the citizens who will be celebrating this important
milestone in the city's history. You should feel proud of your past,
and I wish you the very best in the future.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF ASIL
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to take this
opportunity to congratulate the American Society of International Law,
ASIL, on its 100th anniversary celebrated on January 12, 2006.
The ASIL was founded in 1906 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan association
to advance the study of international law and encourage the
establishment and maintenance of international relations on the basis
of law and justice. A century later this organization continues to
promote these goals by the publication of scholarly works in
conjunction with providing policymakers and the public with outreach
programs and research resources.
The membership of the ASIL is derived from nearly 100 nations and
includes attorneys, academics, judges, and representatives from foreign
governments and nongovernmental organizations. Four thousand strong,
the society strives to contribute to the understanding of international
law and its role in foreign affairs.
I would like to commend the ASIL for its 100 years of work in the
field of international law and encourage the continuation of this
course of thoughtful study.
____________________
NATIONAL YOUTH SERVICE DAY
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the
millions of young people across the United States--and in other
countries--who will participate in National Youth Service Day on April
21, 2006. There is no doubt that communities will continue to be
positively impacted by the dedication and kindness of children that
participate in this annual celebration.
Earlier this week, the Senate enacted S. Res. 422, which designated
April 21, 2006, National and Global Youth Service Day. I was proud to
be a cosponsor of this resolution, which we unanimously passed.
However, I am even more proud of the thousands of youth in my native
Colorado who will participate in National Youth Service Day.
In Timnath, second graders at Timnath Elementary School are holding a
schoolwide donation drive. During this drive, they will be collecting
shampoo, soap, toothpaste, and toothbrushes to be donated to the local
food bank to give to individuals in need.
In Thornton, volunteer youth are organizing an afternoon of service
for frail, disabled, and chronically ill seniors throughout Adams
County by helping them with the maintenance of their homes and gardens.
They will clean up yards, garages, and homes, and work to beautify
their community. This valuable service will be performed in conjunction
with the local Big Brother/Big Sister program.
In Aurora, the Mile High Youth Corps will help the Denver Urban
Gardens fix up their farm. The Denver Urban Gardens is one of the only
organic farms in the Denver Metro area which offers unique educational
opportunities and low-cost organic food to people of all economic
levels. Youth volunteers will seed, weed, till, paint, plant, fix,
mend, build, and any other valuable and needed volunteer activities to
keep the farm in shape.
These are just a few examples of the incredible volunteer efforts
that are occurring throughout Colorado. I thank the volunteers, and all
of the staff and organizers of National Youth Service Day.
Speaking directly to the youth participating in National Youth
Service Day, in Colorado and around the world, I commend your service
and thank you for the positive difference you will make not only in the
lives of the people you help directly, but for all the people within
your neighborhoods and communities.
I would also like to remind you that your service and commitment is
needed not just for just a few days but year round. I encourage you to
carry forth your excitement, energy and goodwill into the future. I
urge you to turn your sense of civic responsibility into a habit that
will last for a lifetime.
The youth participating in National Youth Service Day today are our
future doctors, lawyers, police officers, senators, parents, and
community leaders of tomorrow. Instilling an early sense of service,
involvement and dedication toward the betterment of their neighbors and
communities is essential to continuing the caring and compassionate
tradition embraced in America.
____________________
AMERICAN COMMUNITY SCHOOL AT BEIRUT CENTENNIAL YEAR
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I wish to recognize an important
milestone for an institution in the Middle East that brings American-
style education to the region.
This academic year, the American Community School at Beirut
celebrates 100 years of providing quality education in Lebanon. Founded
in 1905 by a group of American missionary families living in the
country, and supported by the American University of Beirut and Aramco,
ACS was the first American K-12 school to open in Lebanon. An
independent, nonprofit, co-educational institution chartered in the
State of New York, about 1,000 students are now enrolled at the school.
ACS aims to provide an American education for Lebanese and
international families. Similar to many schools in the United States,
the school's mission clearly states that it: ``. . . seeks to educate
the whole person and to lay the foundations for life-long learning . .
. Students are encouraged to take responsibility for their
[[Page 5751]]
thoughts, words and actions, to act with honor and purpose, and to make
a difference in our diverse, complex global society. . . .'' The
school's alumni have distinguished themselves in a range of fields,
including serving the United States government and in Lebanese-American
relations.
ACS, which appreciates the support of Congress through U.S. Agency
for International Development and ASHA grants, starts a new century
with a legacy of academic excellence, committed educators, and a
dedicated community. I congratulate the school on this impressive
achievement, and extend my best wishes for its next 100 years.
____________________
RECOGNIZING KENT STATE UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT CAROL CARTWRIGHT
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to commend and
congratulate Dr. Carol Cartwright who, after 15 outstanding years, is
set to retire as president of Kent State University in Kent, OH.
Kent State was originally founded in 1910 as a teacher-training
school. It has a proud history of meeting the evolving needs of
northeast Ohio and the Nation, and throughout her time on campus,
President Cartwright worked hard to ensure that this commitment to
history was preserved.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate President
Cartwright on successfully overseeing one of the Nation's largest
university systems with an annual budget of more than $416.1 million
and eight campuses serving about 34,000 students from throughout Ohio
and the Nation, and from more than 90 countries.
Dr. Cartwright has earned many distinctions in her tenure at Kent
State University--she was the first female president of a State
university in Ohio when she took the helm in 1991 as the university's
10th president. Her presidency has been marked by innovations that have
fostered economic growth on the campus and in the community. I am
especially thankful for her work to train students for careers in
underpopulated fields, and focus on unique courses of study to
accommodate all students.
As a member of the Greater Akron Chamber and the Northeast Ohio
Council on Higher Education; a cochair of the Ohio Technology in
Education Committee; the Governor's Commission on Higher Education and
the Economy; and the Ohio Business Development Coalition, President
Cartwright worked to ensure that a cooperative relationship between
students and industry was strong on her campus. In fact, she welcomed
the Northeast Ohio Trade & Economic Consortium, NEOTEC, an economic
development partnership that promotes trade, business, and economic
opportunities for northeast Ohio to Kent State University's campus to
further students' connection to future employment opportunities.
In 2004, the Kent Campus also became the site for NEOTEC's new
regional International Trade Assistance Center, providing free
information, resources, referrals, and counseling to small businesses,
and expanded services such as market research. Also, in 2004, a new,
market-driven Division of Regional Development was created to allow
Kent State to serve a much wider constituency, develop mutually
beneficial partnerships, and do an even better job of matching faculty
and staff expertise with northeast Ohio's educational and economic
needs. Further, working with the local Small Business Development
Center, headquartered in Kent State's College of Business
Administration, students are now exposed to real-world experiences
while providing business and industry with essential new ideas and out-
of-the-box thinking.
These kinds of partnerships and innovations will carry Ohio into the
next era of progress and development, and Kent State will be an
important part of that success. Already, 10 start-up companies have
been created in the last 6 years to capitalize on Kent State faculty
research and add to the economic growth in the region. This is real-
world research that benefits society, consumers, and the university.
Under Carol Cartwright's leadership, Kent State was named by the
Association of University Technology Managers as fourth in the Nation
for the number of start-up companies formed per $10 million in research
spending. Kent State also plays an important leadership role in
JumpStart Inc., a new organization to help advance technology
commercialization and foster economic development in Ohio.
Overall, President Cartwright's presidency has been marked by a
commitment to developing students who are leaders and experts in
innovation and service. Kent State has launched degree programs in
high-demand and emerging fields, including an interdisciplinary
undergraduate program in biotechnology that is unique in the State of
Ohio; an interdisciplinary bachelor's program in American Sign
Language; a baccalaureate program in paralegal studies; and the first
graduate programs in Russian and Japanese at a public university in
northeast Ohio. The revolutionary joint doctoral program in biomedicine
with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation matches some of America's best and
brightest students with world-class medical training opportunities, and
Kent State is a partner in the Nation's only joint, 4-year doctoral
program in audiology.
Her commitment to preparing students for the future and working with
regional economic growth initiatives should be a model for colleges and
universities across the country to emulate.
I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and commending
President Cartwright on an excellent job of leading Kent State through
an age of innovation and extraordinary achievement during her tenure. I
wish her well on her upcoming retirement.
____________________
MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME
The following bills were read the first time:
S. 2603. A bill to reduce temporarily the royalty required
to be paid for sodium produced on Federal lands, and for
other purposes.
S. 2611. A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration
reform and for other purposes.
S. 2612. A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration
reform and for other purposes.
____________________
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-6341. A communication from the Director, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to Remove the
Arizona Distinct Population Segment of the Cactus Ferruginous
Pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum) From the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Withdrawal of the
Proposed Rule to Designate Critical Habitat; Removal of
Federally Designated Critical Habitat'' (RIN1018-AU22; 1018-
AI48) received on April 6, 2006; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-6342. A communication from the Regional Forester, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture, Department of the
Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Subsistence Management Regulations for Public
Lands in Alaska, Subpart A'' (RIN1018-AT81) received on April
6, 2006; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-6343. 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 ``Protection
of Stratospheric Ozone: Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements for the Import of Halon-1301 Aircraft Fire
Extinguishing Vessels'' ((RIN2060-AM46) (FRL No. 8157-5))
received on April 6, 2006; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
EC-6344. 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 ``Revisions to
the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality'' (FRL No. 8054-8) received on April 6,
2006; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-6345. 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 ``Interim
Final Determination to Stay and/or
[[Page 5752]]
Defer Sanctions, Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality'' (FRL No. 8054-9) received on April 6, 2006; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-6346. 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 ``Revisions to
the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District and South Coast Air
Quality Management District'' (FRL No. 8053-2) received on
April 6, 2006; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
EC-6347. A communication from the General Counsel, Consumer
Product Safety Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule: Standard for the
Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets'' (RIN3041-AC02)
received on April 6, 2006; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6348. A communication from the Legislative Affairs
Branch Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Healthy Forests Reserve Program
Interim Final Rule'' (7 CFR Part 625) received on April 6,
2006; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-6349. 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
``Pendimethalin; Pesticide Tolerance'' (FRL No. 7770-4)
received on April 6, 2006; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-6350. A communication from the Director, Strategic Human
Resources Policy Division, Office of Personnel Management,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Excepted Service--Student Program'' (RIN3206-AK59) received
on April 6, 2006; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-6351. A communication from the Archivist of the United
States, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Report on the
Proposed Richard Nixon Library; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-6352. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Service, Department of Education,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Parental Information and Resource Centers--Notice of Final
Priorities and Eligibility Requirements'' received on April
6, 2006; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
EC-6353. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Service, Department of Education,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``State Charter School Facilities Incentive Program''
received on April 6, 2006; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-6354. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, transmitting,
authorization of 2 officers to wear the insignia of the grade
of rear admiral in accordance with title 10, United States
Code, section 777; to the Committee on Armed Services.
____________________
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
The following petition or memorial was laid before the Senate and was
referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:
POM-291. A joint memorial adopted by the Legislature of the
State of Washington relative to international trade; to the
Committee on Finance.
Engrossed Senate Joint Memorial 8019
We, your Memorialists, the Senate and House of
Representatives of the State of Washington, in legislative
session assembled, respectfully represent and petition as
follows:
Whereas, The trade liberalization efforts of the early
1990s and trade agreements such as the North American Free
Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization Uruguay
Round agreements have increased the role of state
policymakers in international trade decisions; and
Whereas, Trade liberalization has transformed the
historical state-federal division of power and taxed state
agency resources in dealing with the world marketplace; and
Whereas, Recent trade agreements have proceeded beyond
discussion of tariffs and quotas and now address government
regulation, taxation, procurement, and economic development
policies that are implemented at state and local levels; and
Whereas, States often lack a clearly defined institutional
trade policy structure, making it difficult to handle
requests from trading partners and federal agencies and to
articulate a unified state stance on trade issues; and
Whereas, International lawsuits may be brought against
states and governments found to be in violation of trade
agreements; and
Whereas, There is a need for a stronger federal-state trade
policy consultation mechanism; and
Whereas, Many state and local executive, legislative, and
judicial branch officials have voiced the need for an
informed, nonpartisan trade policy dialogue on a national
level; and
Whereas, Federal-state communication and cooperation in the
implementation of trade agreements is needed now more than
ever before; and
Whereas, In August 2004, the Intergovernmental Policy
Advisory Committee, a state-appointed advisory committee to
the United States Trade Representative, recommended that a
Federal-State International Trade Policy Commission would be
an ideal resource for objective trade policy analysis and
would foster communication among federal and state trade
policy officials; and
Whereas, The creation of a federal-state trade policy
infrastructure would assist states in understanding the scope
of federal trade efforts and would assist federal agencies in
understanding the various state trade processes: Now
therefore,
Your Memorialists respectfully request that the United
States Trade Representative create a Federal-State
International Trade Policy Commission with membership to be
drawn from federal and state trade policy officials; and be
it
Resolved, That copies of this Memorial be immediately
transmitted to the Honorable George W. Bush, President of the
United States, the Ambassador Rob Portman, United States
Trade Representative, the President of the United States
Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and each
member of Congress from the State of Washington.
____________________
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 Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
S. 2596. A bill to modify the boundaries for a certain
empowerment zone designation; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mrs. CLINTON:
S. 2597. A bill to facilitate homeownership in high-cost
areas; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
By Ms. STABENOW:
S. 2598. A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to establish and operate a community-based outpatient
clinic in Alpena, Michigan; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
By Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Enzi, Mr.
Santorum, Mr. Coburn, Mrs. Dole, and Mr. Sununu):
S. 2599. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to prohibit the
confiscation of firearms during certain national emergencies;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 2600. A bill to equalize authorities to provide
allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel of
the United States Government in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. DeMint):
S. 2601. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to improve
choices available to Medicare eligible seniors by permitting
them to elect (instead of regular Medicare benefits) to
receive a voucher for a health savings account, for premiums
for a high deductible health insurance plan, or both and by
suspending Medicare late enrollment penalties between ages 65
and 70; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 2602. A bill for the relief of Silvia Leticia Barojas-
Alejandre; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
S. 2603. A bill to reduce temporarily the royalty required
to be paid for sodium produced on Federal lands, and for
other purposes; read the first time.
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 2604. A bill to address the forest and watershed
emergency in the State of Colorado that has been exacerbated
by the bark beetle infestation, to provide for the conduct of
activities in the State to reduce the risk of wildfire and
flooding, to promote economically healthy rural communities
by reinvigorating the forest products industry in the State,
to encourage the use of biomass fuels for energy, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 2605. A bill to amend the Great Sand Dunes National Park
and Preserve Act of 2000 to explain the purpose and provide
for the administration of the Baca National Wildlife Refuge;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Coburn):
S. 2606. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to make publicly available on the official Medicare
Internet site
[[Page 5753]]
medicare payment rates for frequently reimbursed hospital
impatient procedures, hospital outpatient procedures, and
physicians' services; to the Committee on Finance.
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Bennett):
S. 2607. A bill to establish a 4-year small business health
insurance information pilot program; to the Committee on
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Vitter):
S. 2608. A bill to ensure full partnership of small
contractors in Federal disaster reconstruction efforts; to
the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
S. 2609. A bill to improve the oversight and regulation of
tissue banks and the tissue donation process, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 2610. A bill to enhance the management and disposal of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Martinez,
Mr. McCain, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Graham, and Mr.
Brownback):
S. 2611. A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration
reform and for other purposes; read the first time.
By Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Specter,
Mr. McCain, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Graham, and Mr.
Brownback):
S. 2612. A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration
reform and for other purposes; read the first time.
By Mr. THUNE (for himself and Mr. Obama):
S. 2613. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to
establish a program to provide reimbursement for the
installation of alternative energy refueling systems; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. THUNE (for himself and Mr. Obama):
S. 2614. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to
establish a program to provide reimbursement for the
installation of alternative energy refueling systems; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 2615. A bill to provide equitable treatment for the
people of the Village corporation established for the Native
Village of Saxman, Alaska, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 2616. A bill to amend the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 and the Mineral Leasing Act to
improve surface mining control and reclamation, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Kerry,
Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. DeWine):
S. 2617. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
limit increases in the costs to retired members of the Armed
Forces of health care services under the TRICARE program, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
S. 2618. A bill to permit an individual to be treated by a
health care practitioner with any method of medical treatment
such individual requests, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. PRYOR:
S. 2619. A bill to authorize the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to provide relief to the victims of
Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita by placing manufactured
homes in flood plains, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
By Mrs. CLINTON:
S. 2620. A bill to amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to
authorize the Assistant Secretary for Aging to provide older
individuals with financial assistance to select a flexible
range of home and community-based long-term care services or
supplies, provided in a manner that respects the individuals'
choices and preferences; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Hatch,
and Mr. Nelson of Florida):
S. Res. 438. A resolution expressing the sense of Congress
that institutions of higher education should adopt policies
and educational programs on their campuses to help deter and
eliminate illicit copyright infringement occurring on, and
encourage educational uses of, their computer systems and
networks; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Snowe, Ms.
Landrieu, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Levin, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Coleman):
S. Res. 439. A resolution designating the third week of
April 2006 as ``National Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness
Week''; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mrs. Dole):
S. Res. 440. A resolution congratulating and commending the
members of the United States Olympic and Paralympic Teams,
and the United States Olympic Committee, for their success
and inspired leadership; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
S. Con. Res. 88. A concurrent resolution urging the
Government of China to reinstate all licenses of Gao Zhisheng
and his law firm, remove all legal and political obstacles
for lawyers attempting to defend criminal cases in China,
including politically sensitive cases, and revise law and
practice in China so that it conforms to international
standards; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 333
At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Baucus) 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. 633
At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Obama) was added as a cosponsor 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. 877
At the request of Mr. Domenici, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Thune) was added as a cosponsor of S. 877, a bill to
provide for a biennial budget process and a biennial appropriations
process and to enhance oversight and the performance of the Federal
Government.
S. 908
At the request of Mr. McConnell, the name of the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. Lugar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 908, a bill to allow
Congress, State legislatures, and regulatory agencies to determine
appropriate laws, rules, and regulations to address the problems of
weight gain, obesity, and health conditions associated with weight gain
or obesity.
S. 1035
At the request of Mr. Inhofe, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1035, a bill
to authorize the presentation of commemorative medals on behalf of
Congress to Native Americans who served as Code Talkers during foreign
conflicts in which the United States was involved during the 20th
century in recognition of the service of those Native Americans to the
United States.
S. 1881
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the names of the Senator from
Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the
Senator from Virginia (Mr. Allen), the Senator from Montana (Mr.
Baucus), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the
Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Washington (Ms.
Cantwell), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from New
York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator
from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton), the
Senator from Ohio (Mr. DeWine), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Dodd), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from
North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords),
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr.
[[Page 5754]]
Kohl), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), the Senator
from Indiana (Mr. Lugar), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Washington
(Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), the
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr.
Reed), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), the Senator from
Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the
Senator from Maine (Ms. Snowe), the Senator from Michigan (Ms.
Stabenow), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), the Senator
from Missouri (Mr. Talent) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) were
added as cosponsors of S. 1881, a bill to require the Secretary of the
Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the Old Mint at San
Francisco otherwise known as the ``Granite Lady'', and for other
purposes.
S. 2025
At the request of Mr. Bayh, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kohl) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2025, a bill to promote the
national security and stability of the United States economy by
reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of
alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.
S. 2201
At the request of Mr. Obama, the names of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) and the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) were added as
cosponsors of S. 2201, a bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to
modify the mediation and implementation requirements of section 40122
regarding changes in the Federal Aviation Administration personnel
management system, and for other purposes.
S. 2249
At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2249, a bill to
eliminate the requirement that States collect Social Security numbers
from applicants for recreational licenses.
S. 2322
At the request of Mr. Enzi, the name of the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2322, a bill to amend
the Public Health Service Act to make the provision of technical
services for medical imaging examinations and radiation therapy
treatments safer, more accurate, and less costly.
S. 2563
At the request of Mr. Talent, the name of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Bond) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2563, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to require prompt payment to
pharmacies under part D, to restrict pharmacy co-branding on
prescription drug cards issued under such part, and to provide
guidelines for Medication Therapy Management Services programs offered
by prescription drug plans and MA-PD plans under such part.
At the request of Mr. Cochran, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
DeWine) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2563, supra.
S. RES. 313
At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the names of the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) were
added as cosponsors of S. Res. 313, a resolution expressing the sense
of the Senate that a National Methamphetamine Prevention Week should be
established to increase awareness of methamphetamine and to educate the
public on ways to help prevent the use of that damaging narcotic.
AMENDMENT NO. 3244
At the request of Mr. Stevens, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Ms. Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3244 intended
to be proposed to S. 2454, a bill to amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act to provide for comprehensive reform and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 3463
At the request of Mr. Inhofe, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3463 intended
to be proposed to S. 2454, a bill to amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act to provide for comprehensive reform and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 3470
At the request of Mr. Inhofe, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3470 intended
to be proposed to S. 2454, a bill to amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act to provide for comprehensive reform and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 3528
At the request of Mr. Thomas, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Salazar) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3528 intended
to be proposed to S. 2454, a bill to amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act to provide for comprehensive reform and for other
purposes.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
S. 2596. A bill to modify the boundaries for a certain empowerment
zone designation; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Collins to
introduce legislation to help reverse the devastating population
decline and economic distress that has plagued individuals and
businesses in Aroostook County, the northernmost county in Maine. What
the bill does is simple, it will bring all of Aroostook County under
the Empowerment Zone (EZ) program. The legislation is identical to a
bill that we introduced in the 108th Congress and was included in the
FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill in 2003 as passed by the
Senate.
To fully grasp the importance of this legislation, it is necessary to
understand the unique situation facing the residents of Aroostook
County. ``The County'', as it is called by Mainers, is a vast and
remote region of Maine. As the northernmost county, it shares more of
its border with Canada than its neighboring Maine counties. It has the
distinction of being the largest county east of the Mississippi River.
Its geographic isolation is even more acute when considering that the
county's relatively small population of 73,000 people are scattered
throughout 6,672 square miles of rural countryside. Aroostook County is
home to 71 organized townships, as well as 125 unorganized townships
much of which is forest land and wilderness.
As profound as this geographic isolation may seem, it is the economic
isolation and the recent out-migration that has had the most
devastating impact on the region. The economy of northern Maine has a
historical dependence upon its natural resources, particularly forestry
and agriculture. While these industries served the region well in
previous decades, and continue to form the underpinnings of the local
economy, many of these sectors have experienced decline and can no
longer provide the number and type of quality jobs that residents need.
While officials in the region have put forward a Herculean effort to
redevelop the region, with nearly 1,000 new jobs at the Loring Commerce
Centre alone, Aroostook County is still experiencing a significant
``job deficit'', and as a result continues to lose population at an
alarming rate. Since its peak in 1960, northern Maine's population has
declined by 30 percent. Unfortunately, the Main State Planning Office
predicts that Aroostook County will continue losing population as more
workers leave the area to seek opportunities and higher wages in
southern Maine and the rest of New England.
In January 2002, a portion of Aroostook County was one of two regions
that received Empowerment Zone status from the USDA for out-migration.
The entire county experienced an out-migration of 15 percent from
86,936 in 1990 to 73,938 in 2000. Moreover, a shocking 40 percent of 15
to 29-year-olds left during the last decade.
[[Page 5755]]
The current zone boundaries were chosen based on the criteria that
Empowerment Zones be no larger than 1,000 square miles, and have a
maximum population of 30,000 for rural areas. The lines drawn for the
Aroostook County Empowerment Zone were considered to be the most
inclusive and reasonable given the constraints of the program. It
should be noted as well that the boundaries were drawn based on the
1990 census, making the data significantly outdated at the start and
included the former Loring Air Force Base and its population of nearly
8,000 people, which had closed nearly 8 years before the designation,
taking its military and much of its civilian workforces with it. The
Maine State Planning Office estimated that the base closure resulted in
the loss of 3,494 jobs directly related to the base and another 1,751
in associated industry sectors for a total loss of $106.9 million
annual payroll dollars.
Some of the most distressed communities that have lost substantial
population are not in the Empowerment Zone, and other communities like
Houlton literally are divided simply by a road, having one business on
the south side of the street with no Empowerment Zone designation look
out their window to a neighboring business on the north side of the
street with full Empowerment Zone benefits. The economic factors for
these communities and for these neighbors are the same as those areas
within the Empowerment Zone. This designation is not meant to cause
divisiveness within communities, it is created to augment a partnership
for growth and to level the playing field for all Aroostook County
communities who have equally suffered through continuing out migration
whether it be in Madawaska or Island Falls.
The legislation I am introducing would provide economic development
opportunities to all reaches of Aroostook County by extending
Empowerment Zone status to the entire county. This inclusive approach
recognizes that the economic decline and population out-migration are
issues that the entire region must confront, and, as evidenced by their
successful Round III EZ application, they are attempting to confront. I
believe the challenges faced by Aroostook County are significant, but
not insurmountable. This legislation would make great strides in
improving the communities and business in northern Maine, and I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2596
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF BOUNDARY OF AROOSTOOK COUNTY
EMPOWERMENT ZONE.
(a) In General.--The Aroostook County empowerment zone
shall include, in addition to the area designated as of the
date of the enactment of this Act, the remaining area of the
county not included in such designation, notwithstanding the
size requirement of section 1392(a)(3)(A) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and the population requirements of
section 1392(a)(1)(B) of such Code.
(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall take effect as of
the effective date of the designation of the Aroostook County
empowerment zone by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague,
Senator Olympia Snowe, in introducing legislation that will modify the
borders of the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone to include the entire
county so that the benefits of Empowerment Zone designation can be
fully realized in northern Maine.
The Department of Agriculture's Empowerment Zone program addresses a
comprehensive range of community challenges, including many that have
traditionally received little Federal assistance, reflecting the fact
that rural problems do not come in standardized packages but can vary
widely from one place to another. The Empowerment Zone program
represents a long-term partnership between the Federal Government and
rural communities so that communities have enough time to implement
projects to build the capacity to sustain their development beyond the
term of the partnership. An Empowerment Zone designation gives
designated regions potential access to millions of dollars in Federal
grants for social services and community redevelopment as well as tax
relief.
Aroostook County is the largest county east of the Mississippi River.
Yet, despite the impressive character and work ethic of its citizens,
the county has fallen on hard times. The 2000 Census indicated a 15-
percent loss in population since 1990. Loring Air Force Base, which was
closed in 1994, also caused an immediate out-migration of 8,500 people
and a further out-migration of families and businesses that depended on
Loring for their customer base.
In response to these developments, the Northern Maine Development
Commission and other economic development organizations, the private
business sector, and community leaders in Aroostook have joined forces
to stabilize, diversify, and grow the area's economy. They have
attracted some new industries and jobs. As a native of Aroostook
County, I can attest to the strong community support that will ensure a
successful partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Designating this region of the United States as an Empowerment Zone
will help ensure its future economic prosperity. However, the
restriction that the Empowerment Zone be limited to 1,000 square miles
prevents all of Aroostook's small rural communities from benefiting
from this tremendous program. Aroostook covers some 6,672 square miles
but has a population of only 74,000. Including all of the county in the
Empowerment Zone will guarantee that parts of the county will not be
left behind as economic prosperity returns to the area. It does little
good to have a company move from one community to another within the
county simply to take advantage of Empowerment Zone benefits.
Senator Snowe and I introduced this legislation during the 108th
Congress. In fact, we were successful in getting this legislation
passed in the Senate by attaching it to the fiscal year 2004
Agriculture Appropriations bill. Unfortunately, this language was
removed during conference negotiations with the House. Senator Snowe
and I remain committed to bringing the benefits of the Empowerment Zone
designation to all of Aroostook County's residents and will work to
pass this legislation in both Chambers during this Congress.
______
By Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Santorum,
Mr. Coburn, Mrs. Dole, and Mr. Sununu):
S. 2599. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act to prohibit the confiscation of firearms
during certain national emergencies; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, the
``Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006'' that would amend
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to
prohibit the confiscation of firearms during certain national
emergencies.
The city of New Orleans confiscated more than 1,000 firearms under
the misguided policy of a local law enforcement officer. Our Second
Amendment rights should not be subject to the whims of individuals. My
bill would prohibit any agency using Federal disaster relief funds from
seizing firearms or restricting firearm possession, except under
circumstances currently applicable under Federal or State law.
Our law enforcement officers are under intense pressure to protect
and serve, and I value their call to duty with great respect. The
``Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006'' would not prevent
law enforcement from confiscating guns from convicted felons or other
prohibited persons. Also, it would have no effect on law enforcement
outside of disaster relief situations.
The horrible tragedy that unfolded upon the State of Louisiana was
certainly unprecedented. The devastation that occurred will last for
generations, and yet, there is immense hope that our great State of
Louisiana will shine
[[Page 5756]]
better than ever before. In the days and nights that followed there
were mistakes at all levels of government, and the confiscation of law-
abiding citizens' personal protection was one of them.
I ask my fellow Senators to support this legislation in the hope that
in the unfortunate likelihood of another disaster our citizens will be
able to protect themselves without fear of government intruding upon
our second amendment rights.
______
By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 2600. A bill to equalize authorities to provide allowances,
benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel of the United States
Government in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. WARNER. I would like to take a few minutes of the Senate's time
to introduce a bill together with Senator Clinton. The bill is to
equalize authorities to provide allowances, benefits, and gratuities to
civilian personnel of the United States Government for their services
in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other purposes. Throughout the hearings
of the Armed Services Committee this year and the appearance of our
distinguished group of witnesses, and based on two--and I say this most
respectfully and humbly--personal conversations I have had with the
President of the United States and, indeed, the Secretary of State, I
very forcefully said to each that we need to get the entirety of our
Federal Government into a greater degree--they have done much--of
harness in our overall efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to secure a
measure of democracy for the peoples of those countries.
For example, the QDR so aptly states that ``success requires unified
state-
craft: the ability of the U.S. Government to bring to bear all elements
of national power at home and to work in close cooperation with allies
and partners abroad.''
General Abizaid, when he appeared before our committee this year,
stated in his posture statement:
We need significantly more non-military personnel . . .
with expertise in areas such as economic development, civil
affairs, agriculture, and law.
Likewise General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
iterated much the same message when he appeared before our committee.
I commend the President and the Cabinet officers. I ask unanimous
consent to print in the Record a letter that I sent every Cabinet
officer and agency head, asking what they had done thus far and of
their ability to contribute even more.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, March 15, 2006.
Hon. Condoleezza Rice,
Secretary of State,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Secretary: Over the past few months, the
President has candidly and frankly explained what is at stake
in Iraq. I firmly believe that the success or failure of our
efforts in Iraq may ultimately lie at how well the next Iraqi
government is prepared to govern. For the past three years,
the United States and our coalition partners have helped the
Iraqi people prepare for this historic moment of self-
governance.
Our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan requires coordinated
and integrated action among all federal departments and
agencies of our government. This mission has revealed that
our government is not adequately organized to conduct
interagency operations. I am concerned about the slow pace of
organizational reform within our civilian departments and
agencies to strengthen our interagency process and build
operational readiness.
In recent months, General Peter Pace, USMC, Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General John P. Abizaid, USA,
Commander, United States Central Command, have emphasized the
importance of interagency coordination in Iraq and
Afghanistan. General Abizaid stated in his 2006 posture
statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, ``We need
significantly more non-military personnel . . . with
expertise in areas such as economic development, civil
affairs, agriculture, and law.''
Strengthening interagency operations has become the
foundation for the current Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
The QDR so aptly states that, ``success requires unified
statecraft: the ability of the U.S. Government to bring to
bear all elements of national power at home and to work in
close cooperation with allies and partners abroad.'' In the
years since the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986,
``jointness'' has promoted more unified direction and action
of our Armed Forces. I now believe the time has come for
similar changes to take place elsewhere in our federal
government.
I commend the President for his leadership in issuing a
directive to improve our interagency coordination by signing
the National Security Presidential Directive-44, titled
``Management of Interagency Efforts Concerning Reconstruction
and Stabilization,'' dated December 7, 2005. I applaud each
of the heads of departments and agencies for working together
to develop this important and timely directive. Now that the
directive has been issued, I am writing to inquire about the
plan for its full implementation. In particular, what steps
have each federal department or agency taken to implement
this directive?
I ask for your personal review of the level of support
being provided by your department or agency in support of our
Nation's objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Following this
review, I request that you submit a report to me no later
than April 10, 2006, on your current and projected activities
in both theaters of operations, as well as your efforts in
implementing the directive and what additional authorities or
resources might be necessary to carry out the
responsibilities contained in the directive.
I believe it is imperative that we leverage the resident
expertise in all federal departments and agencies of our
government to address the complex problems facing the
emerging democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am prepared
to work with the executive branch to sponsor legislation, if
necessary, to overcome challenges posed by our current
organizational structures and processes that prevent an
integrated national response.
I look forward to continued consultation on this important
subject.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely,
John Warner,
Chairman.
Mr. WARNER. In my conversations with President Bush and the Cabinet
officers and others, there seems to be total support. The
administration, at their initiative, asked OMB to draw up the
legislation, which I submit today in the form of a bill.
I hope this will garner support across the aisle--Senator Clinton has
certainly been active in this area, as have others--and that we can
include this on the forthcoming supplemental appropriations bill. The
urgency is now, absolutely now. Every day it becomes more and more
critical in the balance of those people succeeding with their message
of 11 million on December 15 in Iraq: We want a government, a unified
government stood up and operating. To do that, this government,
hopefully, will utilize such assets as we can provide them from across
the entire spectrum of our Government. Our troops have done their job
with the coalition forces. Their families have borne the brunt of these
conflicts now for these several years. Now it is time for every
individual to step forward and work to make the peace secure in those
nations so they do not revert back the lands of Iraq and Afghanistan to
havens for terrorism and destruction to the free world.
I yield the floor.
______
By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. DeMint):
S. 2601. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to improve choices
available to Medicare eligible seniors by permitting them to elect
(instead of regular Medicare benefits) to receive a voucher for a
health savings account, for premiums for a high deductible health
insurance plan, or both and by suspending Medicare late enrollment
penalties between ages 65 and 70; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Health
Care Choices for Seniors Act. My colleague from Tennessee,
Representative Black-
burn, has taken the lead in the House of Representatives, and I am
proud to join with her by introducing this bill in the Senate. Our
legislation is about giving seniors a new health insurance option by
making it easier for them to create or continue using a health savings
account (HSA) after they reach age 65.
A growing number of Americans are using HSAs, which allow individuals
to
[[Page 5757]]
save for future medical expenses on a tax-free basis. The money you put
into an HSA is tax-deductible, the money in your account grows tax-
free, balances can be rolled over year-to-year, and you can take money
out of the account tax-free to pay for a wide range of health care
expenses. Plus HSAs are portable--you can take them with you from job
to job.
Many members of the Baby Boom generation are not planning to retire
at age 65 and want more health care options. But the problem under
current law is that seniors can't continue using health savings
accounts after turning 65 because they are penalized if they don't join
Medicare. The first penalty is that once you join Medicare, you can no
longer make tax-free contributions into HSAs. The second penalty is
that if you don't join Medicare, you can't collect your Social Security
benefits. The third penalty is that if you delay enrollment in Medicare
to a later age, you have to pay more. So, of course, almost everyone
joins Medicare when they turn 65 instead of using an HSA for their
health care needs.
At a time when health care costs are rising sharply, we need to move
in the direction of giving Americans more options for getting health
coverage at an affordable cost. Rather than forcing people into
Medicare at age 65, the legislation that I am introducing today would
make it easier for seniors to delay joining Medicare and to continue
using health savings accounts. First, you could delay joining Medicare
without losing the ability to make tax-free contributions into your
HSA. Those who delay enrollment in Medicare would be eligible for a
monthly voucher of up to $200 for an HSA. Second, you could delay
joining Medicare without losing your Social Security benefits. Third,
if you use an HSA, you would not be penalized for putting off joining
Medicare until age 70. With these changes, HSAs would become a real
option for seniors in Tennessee and throughout the nation.
I am a strong supporter of HSAs, which show the promise of holding
down health care costs by putting more health care decisions in the
hands of individual consumers and families. Health savings accounts
only became available in January 2004, but they have seen significant
growth in both individual and employer markets. A recent census by
America's Health Insurance Plans showed that high deductible health
insurance plans (HDHPs) offered in conjunction with HSAs covered 3.17
million people in January 2006, up from 1.03 million in March 2005.
This bill is an important step toward giving seniors more options to
manage their health care and to allow greater use of health savings
accounts. I look forward to working with Representative Blackburn to
build support for our legislation in both Chambers of Congress.
______
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 2604. A bill to address the forest and watershed emergency in the
State of Colorado that has been exacerbated by the bark beetle
infestation, to provide for the conduct of activities in the State to
reduce the risk of wildfire and flooding, to promote economically
healthy rural communities by reinvigorating the forest products
industry in the State, to encourage the use of biomass fuels for
energy, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today out of concern for the
Western United States. The Rocky Mountain West is currently facing a
very real threat to one of its most rare and precious resources. Out
West there are few things more important than water, and it is this
very important and increasingly needed resource that is in peril. This
threat was in part brought upon us by a scourge barely larger than my
finger tip, the bark beetle. This devious little devil has chewed its
way through nearly 7,500,000 trees in Colorado. The beetle left these
drought weakened trees dead and dying. This threat is exacerbated by
the additional 6,300,000 acres of hazardous fuels that have accumulated
throughout Colorado.
This devastation is concerning enough on its own, but when you
consider the fire danger that it has created, and the direct threat
that a catastrophic fire would pose to our watersheds, the true weight
of this situation becomes clear. Much of the precipitation that falls
into the forests ultimately finds its way into streams, ponds, rivers
and lakes. Changes to forested lands caused by fire can have strong and
devastating repercussions on the quality and quantity of water in these
bodies. A forest fire is one big chemical reaction which releases a
myriad of chemical elements from forest materials into the ecosystem.
These chemicals can be washed or leach into our water systems. Forest
fires can cause immediate and lasting changes to the chemistry of
forest water systems, this happens as a result of increases in water
temperature and from the smoke and ash created during the burning
process. These effects can last long after the flames have passed,
effecting water quality for years after the initial fire.
Colorado should be called ``the Headwaters State,'' because it is the
origin point of major rivers flowing both east and west and the source
of a vast amount of the water of the United States. In fact the
Colorado Rocky Mountains create the headwaters for 4 regional
watersheds that eventually supply water to 19 Western States. Should
the streams and rivers flowing out of Colorado become choked and
polluted with ash and debris from a forest fire much of the United
States' water supply would be affected.
The Federal agencies that manage the majority of the affected areas
need to adopt an accelerated pace to reduce the public health and
safety risk as soon as possible. To address this I am introducing The
Headwater Protection and Restoration Act today that would work to help
alleviate the pending threat to our Nation's water supply. My
legislation takes into consideration the desperate need to create
healthy forests in the lands around our Nation's water supply. This
bill will not only help provide relief from this threat in the short
term, but will help to create the necessary infrastructure to ensure
that it does not happen again. It will give us a long term solution to
this desperate problem. This would be achieved through steady,
judicious, and effective forest management over time. This displays a
much better and more cost effective strategy than dealing with the
management of catastrophic events under emergency circumstances. Today
we find ourselves poised in a position to take steps to help avert this
potential disaster before it starts. It is my hope that I will be
joined by my colleagues here in the Senate to act swiftly on my
legislation before it is too late.
______
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Coburn):
S. 2606. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
make publicly available on the official Medicare Internet site Medicare
payment rates for frequently reimbursed hospital inpatient procedures,
hospital outpatient procedures, and physicians' services; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the Medicare
Payment Rate Disclosure Act of 2006. This legislation tackles a key
problem facing Americans today--that of rising health-related costs. It
does so by empowering citizens to act as informed consumers when
purchasing their health care. Countless examples in our Nation's
history demonstrate that the American consumer possesses the ability to
drive prices down and quality up by making informed decisions in the
marketplace. Yet the cost of health care is not easily accessible to
the American consumer, given the nature of our present system.
The Medicare Payment Rate Disclosure Act would create price
transparency at a consumer level, allowing Americans to choose for
themselves health care services that are affordable within their
region. This bill ensures that there is one location on the Internet
where either consumers with health savings accounts or who are
uninsured can go to view the Medicare reimbursement rates for all
common medical procedures and physician visits, region by region. This
information will provide a critical baseline for these individuals to
assess health care costs.
[[Page 5758]]
I believe that by removing barriers for health care consumers to
``own their health care'' and make the best personal choices, we
empower Americans with the knowledge to take charge of their health
spending and to negotiate health care prices. I should note that my
home State of Kansas is also considering price-transparency
initiatives.
This legislation is a good first step towards improving the quality
of health care and lowering costs to consumers. I thank the original
cosponsor, Senator Tom Coburn, for his support of this measure.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the Medicare Payment Rate
Disclosure Act of 2006.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Bennett):
S. 2607 A bill to establish a 4-year small business health insurance
information pilot program; to the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long believed that it is my
responsibility and the duty of this chamber to help small businesses,
as they are the driver of this Nation's economy, responsible for
generating approximately 75 percent of net new jobs annually.
Today, I rise with Senator Bennett to introduce legislation that
would address the crisis that faces small businesses when it comes to
purchasing quality, affordable health insurance. This is not a new
crisis. Nearly 46 million Americans are currently uninsured. We've now
experienced double digit percentage increases in health insurance
premiums in four of the past five years. Small businesses face
difficult choices in seeking to provide affordable health insurance to
their employees. We must act now.
Study after study tells us that the smallest businesses are the ones
least likely to offer insurance and most in need of assistance.
According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, of the working
uninsured, who make up 83 percent of our nation's uninsured population,
60.6 percent either work for a small business with fewer than 100
employees or are self-employed.
Furthermore, many of the small businesses who we meet with tell us
how they feel like the cost and complexity of the health care system
has moved health insurance far beyond their reach.
That is why today we introduce the Small Business Health Education
and Awareness Act of 2006. This bill establishes a pilot, competitive
matching-grant program for Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs)
to provide educational resources and materials to small businesses
designed to increase awareness regarding health insurance options
available in their areas. Recent research conducted by the Healthcare
Leadership Council has found that a short, less than 10 minute
education session, can increase small business knowledge and interest
in offering health insurance by about 33 percent.
For those of you who are not familiar, SBDCs are one of the greatest
business assistance and entrepreneurial development resources provided
to small businesses that are seeking to start, grow, and flourish.
Currently, there are over 1,100 service locations in every state and
territory delivering management and technical counseling to prospective
and existing small business owners.
Our legislation would require the Small Business Administration (SBA)
to provide up to 20 matching grants to qualified SBDCs across the
country. No more than two SBDCs, one per State, would be chosen from
each of the SBA's 10 regions. The grants shall be more than $150,000,
but less than $300,000 and shall be consistent with the matching
requirement under current law. In creating the materials for their
grant programs, participating SBDCs should evaluate and incorporate
relevant portions existing health insurance options, including
materials created by the Healthcare Leadership Council.
In addition, SBDCs participating in the pilot program would be
required to submit a quarterly report to the SBA.
Enacting this legislation is an important step in the right direction
towards assisting small businesses as they work to strengthen
themselves, remain competitive against larger businesses that are able
to offer affordable health insurance, and in turn bolster the entire
economy.
We encourage our colleagues to join us in supporting this bill, and
to continue to work to address the issues facing the small business
community.
Thank you. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2607
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 ``Small Business Health
Education and Awareness Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to establish a 4-year pilot
program to provide information and educational materials to
small business concerns regarding health insurance options,
including coverage options within the small group market.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administration.--The term ``Administration'' means the
Small Business Administration.
(2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Small Business Administration, acting
through the Associate Administrator for Small Business
Development Centers.
(3) Association.--The term ``association'' means an
association established under section 21(a)(3)(A) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(a)(3)(A)) representing a
majority of small business development centers.
(4) Participating small business development center.--The
term ``participating small business development center''
means a small business development center described in
section 21 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648) that--
(A) is certified under section 21(k)(2) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(k)(2)); and
(B) receives a grant under the pilot program.
(5) Pilot program.--The term ``pilot program'' means the
small business health insurance information pilot program
established under this Act.
(6) Small business concern.--The term ``small business
concern'' has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
(7) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam.
SEC. 4. SMALL BUSINESS HEALTH INSURANCE INFORMATION PILOT
PROGRAM.
(a) Authority.--The Administrator shall establish a pilot
program to make grants to small business development centers
to provide information and educational materials regarding
health insurance options, including coverage options within
the small group market, to small business concerns.
(b) Applications.--
(1) Posting of information.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall
post on the website of the Administration and publish in the
Federal Register a guidance document describing--
(A) the requirements of an application for a grant under
the pilot program; and
(B) the types of informational and educational materials
regarding health insurance options to be created under the
pilot program, including by referencing such materials
developed by the Healthcare Leadership Council.
(2) Submission.--A small business development center
desiring a grant under the pilot program shall submit an
application at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by
such information as the Administrator may reasonably require.
(c) Selection of Participating SBDCs.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall select not more
than 20 small business development centers to receive a grant
under the pilot program.
(2) Selection of programs.--In selecting small business
development centers under paragraph (1), the Administrator
may not select--
(A) more than 2 programs from each of the groups of States
described in paragraph (3); and
(B) more than 1 program in any State.
(3) Groupings.--The groups of States described in this
paragraph are the following:
(A) Group 1.--Group 1 shall consist of Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, and Rhode
Island.
(B) Group 2.--Group 2 shall consist of New York, New
Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
(C) Group 3.--Group 3 shall consist of Pennsylvania,
Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, the District of Columbia,
and Delaware.
[[Page 5759]]
(D) Group 4.--Group 4 shall consist of Georgia, Alabama,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida,
Kentucky, and Tennessee.
(E) Group 5.--Group 5 shall consist of Illinois, Ohio,
Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.
(F) Group 6.--Group 6 shall consist of Texas, New Mexico,
Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.
(G) Group 7.--Group 7 shall consist of Missouri, Iowa,
Nebraska, and Kansas.
(H) Group 8.--Group 8 shall consist of Colorado, Wyoming,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Utah.
(I) Group 9.--Group 9 shall consist of California, Guam,
American Samoa, Hawaii, Nevada, and Arizona.
(J) Group 10.--Group 10 shall consist of Washington,
Alaska, Idaho, and Oregon.
(4) Deadline for selection.--The Administrator shall make
selections under this subsection not later than 6 months
after the later of the date on which the information
described in subsection (b)(1) is posted on the website of
the Administration and the date on which the information
described in subsection (b)(1) is published in the Federal
Register.
(d) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--A participating small business development
center shall use funds provided under the pilot program to--
(A) create and distribute informational materials; and
(B) conduct training and educational activities.
(2) Content of materials.--In creating materials under the
pilot program, a participating small business development
center shall evaluate and incorporate relevant portions of
existing informational materials regarding health insurance
options, such as the materials created by the Healthcare
Leadership Council.
(e) Grant Amounts.--Each participating small business
development center program shall receive a grant in an amount
equal to--
(1) not less than $150,000 per fiscal year; and
(2) not more than $300,000 per fiscal year.
(f) Matching Requirement.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
section 21(a)(4) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
648(a)(4)) shall apply to assistance made available under the
pilot program.
SEC. 5. REPORTS.
Each participating small business development center shall
transmit to the Administrator and the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Administration, as the Administrator may
direct, a quarterly report that includes--
(1) a summary of the information and educational materials
regarding health insurance options provided by the
participating small business development center under the
pilot program; and
(2) the number of small business concerns assisted under
the pilot program.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act--
(1) $5,000,000 for the first fiscal year beginning after
the date of enactment of this Act; and
(2) $5,000,000 for each of the 3 fiscal years following the
fiscal year described in paragraph (1).
(b) Limitation on Use of Other Funds.--The Administrator
may carry out the pilot program only with amounts
appropriated in advance specifically to carry out this Act.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Vitter):
S. 2608. A bill to ensure full partnership of small contractors in
Federal disaster reconstruction efforts; to the Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Chair of Senate Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to introduce The Small
Business Partners In Reconstruction Act of 2006. This legislation, co-
sponsored by Senator David Vitter, is the product of 3 hearings held in
my Committee in September and November 2005, and in February 2006,
which examined the response of the Small Business Administration, the
Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Homeland Security and its
Federal Emergency Management Agency, and other Federal agencies to the
devastation wrought by the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on our Gulf
Coast states.
Speaking on September 15, 2005 from New Orleans' historic Jackson
Square, President Bush declared that ``It is entrepreneurship that
creates jobs and opportunity; it is entrepreneurship that helps break
the cycle of poverty; and we will take the side of entrepreneurs as
they lead the economic revival of the Gulf region.'' Unfortunately, the
Federal Government's performance has not matched the President's
declaration. This is particularly true with regards to the role of
small firms, especially Gulf Coast small firms, with regards to
contracts and subcontracts for recovery and reconstruction. Too often,
small contractors have been treated in the disaster contracting process
less like the partners in disaster recovery and economic revitalization
they are, and more like unwanted stepchildren. Eight months after
Hurricane Katrina, it is time for this to change.
To begin with, some Federal bureaucrats have used the Katrina and
Rita disasters to exclude small business from contracting in the name
of emergency and speed. Contracting with small firms, it was said, does
not provide sufficient flexibility to the contracting officers in time
of crisis. Quite the opposite is true. The Small Business Act contains
flexible contracting authorities as part of the 8(a) program, the
HUBZone program, and the service-disabled veteran-owned program, which
allow Federal agencies to quickly buy goods and services in emergency
situations. Indeed, on May 30, 2003, the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy issued guidance on Emergency Procurement Flexibilities, which
encouraged Federal agencies to use contracting flexibilities, such as
the HUBZone flexibilities, which are part of the Small Business Act.
This guidance was largely ignored, as billions of dollars went to large
corporations through non-competitive mechanisms such as no-bid
contracts or the so called micro-purchase authority, originally
intended by Congress to cover small purchase card transactions.
My legislation requires the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and
the Small Business Administration (SBA) to ensure that Federal
contracting officials have the most comprehensive and up-to-date
guidance on the full use of available small business emergency
procurement flexibilities, and that such guidance is published in the
Federal Register. My legislation also ensures that the SBA provides
government-wide training for procurement agencies on using small
business contracting flexibilities in emergency situations, and directs
the SBA to designate at least one advisor for small business emergency
contracting who would help Federal agencies apply small business
procurement flexibilities in emergency situations.
Small contractors have also been denied access to reconstruction
dollars by paperwork and bureaucracy. Red tape had the most serious
effect on small disadvantaged businesses. Many of these contractors
have been certified to do business under the Federally-funded,
Congressionally-established Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program
(DBE) for transportation contracting such as highway or bridge
construction. In the Federal procurement system, a parallel Small
Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Program exists. According to law and the
Memorandum of Understanding between the SBA and the U.S. Department of
Transportation, the DBE certifications are based on the SDB
certification requirements under the Small Business Act. Unfortunately,
DBEs have been unable to secure recognition as SDBs by the Federal
agencies or by Federal prime contractors. As a result, agencies and
prime contractors had little assurance that SDB goals may be met by
doing business with DBEs. My measure will ensure that capable small
contractors enjoy full reciprocity among contracting programs instead
of the red tape they currently face.
Lack of comprehensive procurement data on Katrina and Rita
contracting is another flaw which my bill is trying to correct. It is
hard to believe that almost 8 months since the Hurricane Katrina
struck, the Federal Government's disaster contracting ship is literally
sailing blind. Both the Small Business Act and the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act require that accurate and comprehensive data on
government contracting and subcontracting, especially including small
business participation, be collected and maintained. Although the
government-wide procurement spending database, the Federal Procurement
Data System (FPDS), collects the data related to
[[Page 5760]]
Hurricane Katrina and Rita reconstruction, this data is demonstrably
incomplete. According to the Government Accountability Office and
admissions of Federal procurement officials, the FPDS data is not
accurate and omits billions in Defense and Homeland Security contracts.
As a result of these deficiencies, the Executive Branch made
exaggerated claims concerning the share of reconstruction work that
went to small businesses. For instance, last October, the Commerce
Department claimed that small businesses received 72 percent of Katrina
contracting dollars, and the SBA claimed the small business share to be
at 45 percent. During hearings before my Committee, the GAO confirmed
that the Administration's claimed numbers are unrealistic and
unsubstantiated. My legislation directs the Administrators of the SBA
and the OFPP to ensure that the Federal Procurement Data System
reflects comprehensive government-wide contracting spending on Katrina
and Rita reconstruction.
For years, the Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone)
program, created to direct Federal contacting dollars to small firms in
economically distressed areas, has been recognized as a potent economic
development stimulus. Since its inception in 1997, the HUBZone program
stimulated the hiring of over 124,000 HUBZone residents and investment
of over half a billion dollars in HUBZones by HUBZone-certified firms.
With the support of the Administration, I propose extending the HUBZone
designation to the disaster region. A HUBZone designation would enable
small businesses located in the disaster area and employing people in
that area to receive contracting preferences and price evaluation
preferences to offset greater costs of doing business. Extending the
HUBZone designation to the Gulf Coast would bring needed businesses
development tools to affected areas of the Gulf Coast. Under my
proposal, the SBA Administrator would have the discretion to define the
geographic scope or duration of this designation to ensure that the
HUBZone preference is targeted to those who need it the most.
Small businesses vying for government contracts or subcontracts often
must post bid or performance bonds in order to convince Federal
contracting officials or prime contractors that small business are a
good project risk. In turn, small firms must seek bonding from private
bonding companies. The SBA, through its surety bond program, has
provided guarantees on bonds awarded to small businesses up to $2
million. But small firms need an increase in bonds to handle larger
projects for hurricane relief. Local small businesses in the Gulf Coast
can use higher bonds to compensate for the damage to their assets from
the hurricanes. My legislation would increase the maximum size of SBA
surety bonds from $2 million to $5 million, and provide the SBA with
authority to increase the maximum size to $10 million upon request of
another Federal agency. In its proposal to re-build the Gulf Coast
region, the Administration suggested making the $5 million increase.
My legislation also directs the SBA to create a contracting outreach
program for small businesses located or willing to locate in the
Katrina disaster area for the next five years. Federal contracts and
subcontracts can provide critical assistance to small businesses
located in the areas devastated by the hurricanes in the form of solid
business opportunities and prompt, steady pay. In addition, government
procurement would open doors for many local small businesses to
participate in the long-term reconstruction work in the Gulf Coast
areas. While many small businesses would benefit from other forms of
disaster assistance, many of them want to get back to work and into
business as soon as possible. Technical assistance and outreach through
the SBA, the Procurement Technical Assistance Centers, the Federal
Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilizations, and other
organizations could prove invaluable to these firms.
Yet, outreach alone would not ensure fair participation of small
businesses in Gulf Coast reconstruction contracts. To promote jobs
creation and development in the disaster region, the Federal Government
must set and follow definitive goals for small business participation.
Prior to the disaster, small construction companies in Alabama,
Mississippi, and Louisiana received nearly $500 million in Federal
contracts a year. Total small business contracts in the Gulf Coast
region exceeded $3 billion a year. With the Federal cost of hurricane
relief and rebuilding estimated at over $100 billion, small businesses,
particularly those located in the disaster area and that employ
individuals in the affected areas, should receive their fair share of
Federal contracting and subcontracting dollars. My legislation
establishes a 30 percent prime contracting goal and a 40 percent
subcontracting goal on each agency's hurricane-related reconstruction
contracts. These goals are compatible with the Department of Homeland
Security's and the Army Corps of Engineers' history of small business
achievements.
My legislation would also address two unfortunate provisions in the
Second Katrina Supplemental Appropriations that unwisely changed the
emergency procurement authority Congress granted to contracting
officers in the aftermath of 9/11 and reclassified many reconstruction
contracts into categories that excluded small firms from prime
contracting or subcontracting. I spoke out against these provisions,
and Congress ultimately repealed them last year. Nonetheless, this bill
puts in place safeguards to ensure that small firms do not fall prey to
such actions again. My legislation protects the Small Business
Reservation (SBR) for disaster-related contracts below the Simplified
Acquisition Threshold (SAT). The SAT and the SBR are normally set at
$100,000. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act allowed Federal
agencies to use simplified procedures for all contracts below the SAT,
but only if they attempt to place, or ``reserve'', these contracts to
qualified small businesses. Many small businesses qualify for contracts
under expedited procedures under the Small Business Act, which would
help to move the reconstruction process forward. The SBR does not delay
relief contracting. If no qualified small business is available to do
the job, agencies can place the contract with any qualified supplier.
This provision restores the parity between the SBR and the SAT any time
the SAT is increased for disaster-related contracts.
My legislation also restores small business subcontracting
requirements in emergency procurements. The Second Katrina Supplemental
abolished small business subcontracting requirements for all Katrina-
related contracts by treating contracts for hundreds of millions of
dollars as purchases of commercial items, like contracts for office
supplies. This is an improper and unjustified procurement practice. The
Army Corps of Engineers currently imposes a 73 percent subcontracting
requirement on hurricane-related contracts, demonstrating that the
subcontracting requirements are not onerous. Under the Small Business
Act, only a ``good faith effort'' to provide subcontracting
opportunities is required. The legislation allows a grace period of 30
days to negotiate an acceptable plan (subject to a 50 percent payment
limitation until the plan is concluded).
Looking forward, my legislation directs the Administrators of the
OFPP and the SBA to work with other Federal agencies to ensure creation
of multiple-award contracts for disaster recovery which are set aside
for small business concerns. As the GAO testified before the Senate
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship last year, Federal
agencies lacked adequate acquisition planning for hurricane disaster
relief. This measure would reverse this practice both for ongoing and
for future disaster recovery efforts.
I am a firm believer that the reconstruction acquisition process must
be not only efficient, but also transparent. In this regard, the
Federal Government provides central website postings for all Katrina-
related opportunities through the SBA's Sub-NET. Unfortunately, the
SBA's Sub-NET subcontracting database, though recommended by the
Government, has
[[Page 5761]]
been until recently unused by the Katrina prime contractors. My
legislation directs all prime contractors which received substantial
Federal contracts related to the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita for which
subcontracting plans are required to post subcontracting announcements
on the SBA's Sub-NET online database.
Finally, my legislation addresses the government's failure to direct
contract dollars to those who need them the most--local small
businesses. During the hearings in my Committee last November, I was
deeply troubled to discover that Federal agencies failed to grant
business opportunities to qualified Gulf Coast small firms. These
shocking practices make a mockery of our national commitment to rebuild
the Gulf Coast. For instance, while investigating Hurricane Katrina
contracts at my request, the GAO found a memorandum from an official in
the Army Corps of Engineers informing the SBA that the Corps has
successfully concealed the information about millions of dollars in
upcoming contracts for mobile classrooms in Mississippi from, among
others, local small businesses. The Corps requested that SBA approve
giving this work to an out-of-state company without any prior
experience. As a result, the Corps excluded a local small business,
licensed by the Mississippi Department of Education, from bidding.
Incredibly, the SBA obliged and approved the contract three times,
eventually increasing its value from $10 million to $47 million.
Practices such as these violate Section 15 of the Small Business Act,
which unequivocally directs priority in government contracts ``to small
business concerns which shall perform a substantial proportion of the
production on those contracts and subcontracts within areas of
concentrated unemployment or underemployment or within labor surplus
areas.'' It is hard to imagine a clearer example of an ``area of
concentrated unemployment or underemployment'' or a area with labor
surplus than the devastated Gulf Coast region. Nonetheless, some have
ignored the clear command of the statute. My legislation would
designate the Gulf Coast disaster area as a labor surplus area for
purposes of the Small Business Act's preference for labor surplus area
contractors. In addition, this provision authorizes Federal agencies to
use contractual set-asides, incentives, and penalties to enhance
participation of local small business concerns in disaster recovery
contracts and subcontracts.
Finally, my legislation suspends the application of the Small
Business Competitiveness Demonstration (Comp Demo) program to Gulf
Coast disaster contracts. The Comp Demo Program denies the protections
of the Small Business Act like set-asides to small businesses involved
in construction and specialty trade contracting, refuse systems and
related services, landscaping, pest control, non-nuclear ship repair,
and architectural and engineering services, including surveying and
mapping. Historically, small businesses have been the backbone of these
industries, and these industries are in heavy demand for disaster
recovery efforts. The Comp Demo Program, ostensibly a test program,
denies Federal agencies likes the Departments of Defense and nine other
agencies the ability to do small business set-asides. Essentially, the
Comp Demo Program reserves whole industries for big business. Last
year, at the request of the Department of Defense, I supported an
amendment to terminate the Comp Demo Program. The Senate agreed that
small businesses in all industries should receive the full protections
of the Small Business Act, and unanimously voted to repeal this
Program. Suspending this Program for Katrina and Rita contracts would
go a long way towards restoring fair treatment for small businesses
affected by this disaster.
I believe this legislation will find broad support in this body.
Indeed, the HUBZone designation, the outreach programs, and the surety
bonding increase have already been adopted by the Senate on a vote of
96-0 as part of my amendment to the Science, State, Commerce, and
Justice Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. The provisions dealing
with the small business reservation offset and retention of small
business subcontracting in emergency procurements were cosponsored by a
bi-partisan group of Senators as part of my bi-partisan disaster relief
bill, S. 1807. With the Senate leadership and every Senator of both
parties on the record in support of greater access of small businesses
to Federal contracts, I look forward to speedy consideration of this
legislation and its support by the Senate.
______
By Mr. THUNE (for himself and Mr. Obama):
S. 2614. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to establish a
program to provide reimbursement for the installation of alternative
energy refueling systems; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation along
with my colleague from Illinois, Senator Obama, concerning what we
believe is yet another important step in reducing our Nation's
dependence on petroleum fuels.
S. 264, the Alternative Energy Refueling System Act of 2006 would
provide an incentive for gas station owners across the country to
install alternative refueling systems for automobiles. This legislation
builds upon the existing tax credit that gas station owners can receive
for installing alternative energy tanks. Most importantly, I would like
to point out to my colleagues that this legislation does not require
any additional taxes.
Currently, as a result of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a tax credit
of up to $30,000 is available through 2009 for gas station owners who
install an alternative refueling system. Eligible alternative fuels
include those that contain 85 percent by volume of ethanol, natural
gas, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum
gas, hydrogen, or any mixture of biodiesel or diesel fuel that is
composed of at least 20 percent biodiesel.
Our legislation basically allows gas station owners and operators to
be reimbursed for 30 percent of the costs--not to exceed $30,000--of
installing an alternative energy system.
One of the primary benefits of this legislation is that it can be
used for up to two alternative refueling systems per gas station. This
is important because under the tax credit that was part of last year's
energy bill, a gas station owner can only utilize the $30,000 tax
credit one time--even for those individuals who own multiple refueling
stations.
For example, if a gas station owner in South Dakota, Illinois, or
elsewhere wanted to install three new alternative refueling systems at
his or her gas station, under the current system that owner would be
limited to the $30,000 tax credit for a single alternative fuel system.
Under our legislation, that same gas station owner would continue to
receive the tax credit for the first alternative fuel system. However,
the station owner could also be reimbursed for 30 percent of the
costs--not to exceed $30,000--for up to two additional alternative
refueling systems. Therefore, the legislation we have introduced today
would drastically increase the incentives for gas station owners to
install additional alternative fuel systems.
I am hopeful that if this bill is signed into law, gas station owners
across the country will be able to use this reimbursement mechanism to
help consumers who already own or are thinking of purchasing an
alternative fuel vehicle.
Senator Obama and I are both strong supporters of alternative fuels.
In fact, South Dakota and Illinois are leaders in the production of
ethanol--our Nation's leading renewable fuel. The legislation we are
introducing today in no way preferences ethanol over other alternative
fuels. In fact, they are all treated equally under our bill.
Alternative fuels such as E-85, which is composed of 85 percent
ethanol, are starting to gain popularity. However, while automakers
such as Ford and General Motors are producing an increasing number of
flex fuel vehicles, which can run on either E-85 or gasoline, there is
a critical need for more
[[Page 5762]]
alternative refueling sites across the country. Many individuals would
be shocked to know that of the 180,000 gas stations across the country,
only 600--far less than 1 percent--offer alternative fuels such as E-
85.
There are approximately 5 million flexible fuel vehicles on the road
today. The addition of alternative refueling systems--such as E-85,
compressed natural gas, biodiesel, and hydrogen--will allow American
consumers the ability to refuel their vehicles with alternative fuels
that are better for both the environment and our Nation's security.
As President Bush noted in his State of the Union Address earlier
this year, ``America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from
unstable parts of the world.'' Since being elected to Congress I have
worked hard in promoting the development of alternative energy sources.
In fact, last year's energy bill marked an important milestone due to
the 7.5 billion gallon renewable fuels standard that I and others
advocated.
S. 2614 utilizes the interest earned from the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Trust Fund, which currently has a $2.6 billion surplus, to
reimburse eligible gas station owners who add alternative refueling
systems.
This trust fund continues to grow from a portion of the Federal gas
tax--one-tenth of a cent per gallon--which amounted to roughly $190
million last year. The fund also continues to grow from the interest
that is earned on the balance of the fund, which amounted to roughly
$67 million in 2005.
I firmly believe that the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program
serves an important function in keeping our land and water safe from
storage tank releases. Our legislation simply seeks to use a portion of
the interest earned annually to reimburse gas station owners for a
portion of the costs associated with the installation of new
alternative refueling systems.
An added benefit of using a portion of the interest from this trust
fund is that the installation of alternative refueling systems reduces
the overall number of petroleum tanks that can cause leaks.
Additionally, this bill ensures that States are not required to use
their annual allocation of appropriated funding to reimburse gas
station owners for the installation of alternative refueling systems.
Such reimbursement would come directly from the EPA Administrator.
Mr. President, this bill would help to lessen our Nation's dependence
on foreign sources of oil and--increase the use of alternative fuels.
It is a step in the right direction, and is something I hope my
colleagues will support.
Mr. OBAMA. I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague from South
Dakota, Mr. Thune, in introducing the Alternative Energy Refueling
System Act of 2006. I applaud his work in crafting this bill and I hope
my colleagues will provide their full support and work towards its
swift enactment.
As members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the
Senator from South Dakota and I have worked to promote the expansion of
alternative fuels production capacity in the United States--most
notably with the enactment of the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS)
included in last year's Energy Policy Act of 2005. The RFS states that
7.5 billion gallons of ethanol must be phased into the 140-billion-
gallon annual national gasoline pool during the next 6 years.
That's a bold step in reducing our reliance on foreign oil, but we
can't just rely on greater production of alternative fuels if we also
don't make sure those fuels are available at gas stations. We need to
make sure that when American drivers want to ``fill `er up'' with
something other than petroleum, they can.
Last year, I introduced S. 918, a bill to provide a tax credit for
the cost of installing alternative fuel pumps. I was pleased that this
tax credit was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Soon
hundreds more ethanol and biodiesel pumps throughout the United States
will be installed as a result of this new policy.
But if we are serious about reducing our reliance on foreign oil in
an expeditious fashion, we must intensify our efforts. We must double,
triple, and quadruple our efforts. And that's exactly the purpose of
our bill today, which simply provides a partial Federal reimbursement
for the installation of alternative fuel pumps that otherwise are
ineligible or have received the new tax credit.
Many more alternative refueling properties will be established by
this bill--a strong complement to the tax credit passed last year. And
this bill is fully offset in that it is financed by using just a small
slice of the approximately $70 million in annual interest generated by
the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund. We don't ask to
use that small slice in perpetuity, but just for the next several years
until enough alternative fuel refueling capacity is established across
the country.
The total principal of the LUST fund is more than $2.5 billion--none
of which we propose to draw down. And given that this fund has been
capitalized by a one-tenth-of-a-penny fee for every gallon of petro-gas
or petro-diesel purchased by the American people, it is altogether
appropriate that any interest generated by any unused fractions-of-
pennies be reinvested in infrastructure that weans our Nation from its
dependence on the Middle East. All of this can be accomplished, while
ensuring that the integrity of the LUST fund--which is used to clean up
underground storage tanks--remains fully intact and untouched. In fact,
I hope my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee will take note and
will increase funding for LUST fund activities to the level it has long
needed and deserved.
The Thune-Obama bill is a good bill that will accomplish good things
for our national energy dependence, but even if enacted, this bill
cannot by itself guarantee more alternative fuel refueling stations. As
my colleagues are aware, alternative fuel refueling stations make up
only a tiny fraction of the nationwide network of gas stations. And
while that fraction is growing by leaps and bounds, the vast majority
of stations within that small fraction are independently owned and
operated.
By comparison, the big oil companies--the Exxons, the BPs, or the
ConocoPhillips of the American petroleum industry--have not installed
alternative fuel pumps. Rather, the evidence is accumulating that these
companies have used institutional policies to deter the installation of
alternative fuel pumps despite their retailers asking to sell these new
fuels to meet growing consumer demand.
I think these practices must end. It is time for these companies to
demonstrate leadership and reinvest in America. Until that day comes,
however, I pledge to continue my work in Congress with like-minded
colleagues to ensure that this Nation invests in a 21st Century
refueling structure. The bill we are introducing today is part of that
investment. I thank my colleague from South Dakota for his authorship
on this bill.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Menendez, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. DeWine):
S. 2617. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to limit
increases in the costs to retired members of the Armed Forces of health
care services under the TRICARE program, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Military
Retirees' Health Care Protection Act along with my colleagues, Senators
Hagel, Kerry, Menendez, Lincoln, and DeWine.
This important legislation will keep the Pentagon from dramatically
raising health care fees on military retirees.
Our bill will limit increases to TRICARE military health insurance
premiums, deductibles, and co-payments for those in the National Guard
and Reserves who are enrolled in TRICARE. Under this legislation,
increases in health care fees cannot exceed the rate of growth in
uniformed services beneficiaries' military compensation, thereby
protecting beneficiaries from an undue financial burden.
[[Page 5763]]
In February, officials at the Department of Defense (DOD) announced
plans to double fees on senior enlisted retirees and triple them for
officer retirees. If enacted this would mean increases of up to $1,000
annually for some military retirees. While the Department of Defense
has since temporarily halted plans to raise fees, it still has
authority to implement steep increases in the future and may do so. We
must pass legislation now that limits the amount of any health care
increase and protects beneficiaries from extreme health care fee
increases in the future.
Senator Hagel and I want to demonstrate our commitment to our troops
and future veterans by assuring them that just as they protected us, we
will take care of them when their service ends. Just as our men and
women in uniform vow never to leave a soldier behind in battle, so
should we commit never to leave a veteran behind when he or she needs
health care.
For three years, Congress has rejected a $250 Veterans Administration
health fee increase for non-disabled veterans--doubling and tripling
fees for career military is equally inappropriate.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support our troops
by supporting this important bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2617
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 ``Military Retirees Health
Care Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND SENSE OF CONGRESS.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Career members of the Armed Forces and their families
endure unique and extraordinary demands, and make
extraordinary sacrifices, over the course of 20-year to 30-
year careers in protecting freedom for all Americans.
(2) The nature and extent of these demands and sacrifices
are never so evident as in wartime, not only during the
current Global War on Terrorism, but also during the wars of
the last 60 years when current retired members of the Armed
Forces were on continuous call to go in harm's way when and
as needed.
(3) The demands and sacrifices are such that few Americans
are willing to bear or accept them for a multi-decade career.
(4) A primary benefit of enduring the extraordinary
sacrifices inherent in a military career is a range of
extraordinary retirement benefits that a grateful Nation
provides for those who choose to subordinate much of their
personal life to the national interest for so many years.
(5) One effect of such curtailment is that retired members
of the Armed Forces are turning for health care services to
the Department of Defense, and its TRICARE program, for the
health care benefits in retirement that they earned by their
service in the Armed Forces.
(6) In some cases, civilian employers establish financial
incentives for employees who are also eligible for
participation in the TRICARE program to receive health care
benefits under that program rather than under the health care
benefits programs of such employers.
(7) While the Department of Defense has made some efforts
to contain increases in the cost of the TRICARE program, a
large part of those efforts has been devoted to shifting a
larger share of the costs of benefits under that program to
retired members of the Armed Forces.
(8) The cumulative increase in enrollment fees,
deductibles, and copayments being proposed by the Department
of Defense for health care benefits under the TRICARE program
far exceeds the 31 percent increase in military retired pay
since such fees, deductibles, and copayments were first
required on the part of retired members of the Armed Forces
10 years ago.
(9) Proposals of the Department of Defense for increases in
the enrollment fees, deductibles, and copayments of retired
members of the Armed Forces who are participants in the
TRICARE program fail to recognize adequately that such
members paid the equivalent of enormous in-kind premiums for
health care in retirement through their extended sacrifices
by service in the Armed Forces.
(10) Some of the Nation's health care providers refuse to
accept participants in the TRICARE program as patients
because that program pays them significantly less than
commercial insurance programs, and imposes unique
administrative requirements, for health care services.
(11) The Department of Defense has chosen to count the
accrual deposit to the Department of Defense Military Retiree
Health Care Fund against the budget of the Department of
Defense, contrary to the requirements of section 1116 of
title 10, United States Code, as amended section 725 of
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375; 118 Stat. 1991).
(12) Senior officials of the Department of Defense leaders
have reported to Congress that counting such deposits against
the budget of the Department of Defense is impinging on other
readiness needs of the Armed Forces, including weapons
programs, an inappropriate situation which section 1116 of
title 10, United States Code, was intended expressly to
prevent.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Department of Defense and the Nation have a
committed obligation to provide health care benefits to
retired members of the Armed Forces that exceeds the
obligation of corporate employers to provide health care
benefits to their employees;
(2) the Department of Defense has many additional options
to constrain the growth of health care spending in ways that
do not disadvantage retired members of the Armed Forces who
participate or seek to participate in the TRICARE program and
should pursue any and all such options rather than seeking
large increases for enrollment fees, deductibles, and
copayments for such retirees, and their families or
survivors, who do participate in that program;
(3) any percentage increase in fees, deductibles, and
copayments that may be considered under the TRICARE program
for retired members of the Armed Forces and their families or
survivors should not in any case exceed the percentage
increase in military retired pay; and
(4) any percentage increase in fees, deductibles, and
copayments under the TRICARE program that may be considered
for members of the Armed Forces who are currently serving on
active duty or in the Selected Reserve, and for the families
of such members, should not exceed the percentage increase in
basic pay or compensation for such members.
SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN INCREASES IN HEALTH CARE COSTS
FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES.
(a) Pharmacy Benefits Program.--Section 1074g of title 10,
United Stated Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(C) The amount of any cost sharing requirements under
this paragraph shall not be increased in any year by a
percentage that exceeds the percentage increase of the most
current previous adjustment to retired pay for members of the
armed forces under section 1401a(b)(2) of this title. To the
extent that such increase for any year is less than one
dollar, the accumulated increase may be carried over from
year to year, rounded to the nearest dollar.''.
(b) Premiums for TRICARE Standard for Reserve Component
Members Who Commit to Service in the Selected Reserve After
Active Duty.--Section 1076d(d)(3) of such title is amended--
(1) by striking ``The monthly amount'' and inserting ``(A)
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the monthly amount'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) In any year after 2006, the percentage increase in
the amount of the premium in effect for a month for TRICARE
Standard coverage under this section may not exceed a
percentage equal to the percentage of the most recent
increase in the rate of basic pay authorized for members of
the uniformed services for a year.''.
(c) Copayments Under CHAMPUS.--Section 1086(b)(3) of such
title is amended in the first sentence by inserting before
the period at the end the following: ``, except that in no
event may such charges exceed $535 per day''.
(d) Prohibition on Enrollment Fees Under CHAMPUS.--Section
1086(b) of such title is further amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(5) A person covered by subsection (c) may not be charged
an enrollment fee for coverage under this section.''.
(e) Premiums and Other Charges Under TRICARE.--Section
1097(e) of such title is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Secretary of
Defense''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) In any year after 2006, the percentage increase in
the amount of any premium, deductible, copayment or other
charge established by the Secretary of Defense under this
section may not exceed the percentage increase of the most
current previous adjustment of retired pay for members and
former members of the armed forces under section 1041a(b)(2)
of this title.''.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for
Senator LAUTENBERG's and Senator HAGEL's bill, the Military Retirees
Health Care Protection Act, which I have co-sponsored. We must ensure
[[Page 5764]]
that our military personnel and military retirees, as well as their
families, have access to affordable, quality health insurance.
Over the past 10 years, military health care benefits have been
greatly expanded to include Medicare eligible retirees, Reservists, and
their families. Additionally, new options for health care have been
added for active duty families, including an elimination of co-pays if
the families use military treatment facilities instead of civilian
doctors. Since 1995, health insurance costs have increased in the
civilian sector, but TRICARE rates have not increased. If fees aren't
increased and other avenues for funding TRICARE aren't explored,
defense health care costs, alone, may rise to as much as $64 billion by
2015.
As part of the fiscal year 2007 budget request, the Department of
Defense proposed a significant increase to the enrollment and
prescription drug prices for military retirees under age 65 and
survivors. This increase would more than double enrollment fees. In
almost every case, that's an un-
fathomable single-year increase for families who live on a very tight
budget. This is particularly troublesome when the Department of Defense
has many other options that it may pursue to limit the mounting costs
of medicine.
In addition, last year I worked to extend military health insurance
to every dependent child of a deceased servicemember at no cost as if
that parent were still alive and serving our Nation. The Department of
Defense indicates that this important benefit could save dependents as
much as $15,000 per year compared to the cost of private health
insurance premiums. This cost-free extension of TRICARE Prime medical
insurance to surviving minor children will alleviate one of the biggest
worries on families today--and that's health care costs. However, if
premiums and fees are increased drastically for the surviving spouse,
worries about health care costs will still weigh heavily on these
families. TRICARE Prime premium increases would undo the good we have
accomplished on this front.
The legislation we are introducing today would begin to address the
need for premiums and other health care fees to keep pace with the rise
in health care costs, while keeping in mind the effect such increases
would have on the yearly budget for our military retirees, survivors,
and their families.
This proposal calls for a yearly increase in premiums that is
equivalent to the cost of living increase that military retirees
receive. For instance, if the cost of living increase is 2 percent,
TRICARE Prime premiums will increase by 2 percent. Similarly, under
this proposal, fees for TRICARE Reserve Select--which I have fought for
with many of my colleagues--would increase by the same percent as the
basic pay raise. I believe that these represent fair fee increases for
the men, women, and families who have selflessly served our country.
Unfortunately, I understand that these modest fee increases will not
completely solve the rising costs of providing superior military health
care. I encourage the Department of Defense to explore other options
for reducing the overall cost to taxpayers of delivering this benefit.
For instance, the DoD should negotiate with drug manufacturers for
discounts in the TRICARE retail pharmacy network and encourage
beneficiaries to use the mail-order pharmacy. There are many more
options available to DoD to fund this health care system, which I
strongly urge them to explore.
I believe we owe a great debt of gratitude to those men, women, and
families who served our country in the armed services in uniform and on
the home front. It is essential that we honor our commitment and
investigate all available options for funding our military health care
system, rather than strap the bill on the backs of those who already
have paid for their health insurance with their blood, sweat, and
tears. I will continue to work with Senators Lautenberg and Hagel to
ensure fair treatment of these men and women.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
S. 2618. A bill to permit an individual to be treated by a health
care practitioner with any method of medical treatment such individual
requests, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Grassley
today to introduce the Access to Medical Treatment Act. The idea behind
this legislation is to allow greater freedom of choice and increased
access in the realm of medical treatments, while preventing abuses of
unscrupulous entrepreneurs. The Access to Medical Treatment Act allows
individual patients and their properly licensed health care providers
to use certain alternative and complementary therapies not approved by
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but that may be approved
elsewhere. As more Americans seek out alternative and complimentary
treatments for their health care, we need to be responsive. We need to
see what works and what does not, but we also need to make sure that
patients are protected, and are not misled about the potential benefits
and risks of alternative treatments. The Access to Medical Treatment
Act presents one option to help Americans make better choices, and it
is my hope that this legislation can help spur a dialogue about the
best way to promote access to safe and effective alternative medical
treatments.
Importantly, the bill contains an informed consent protection for
patients, modeled after the National Institutes of Health's, NIH, human
subject protection regulations. Under the protections provided for in
the legislation, a patient must be fully informed, orally and in
writing of the following: the nature, content and methods of the
medical treatment; that the treatment is not approved by the FDA; the
anticipated benefits and risks of the treatment; any reasonably
foreseeable side effects that may result; the results of past
applications of the treatment by the health care provider and others;
the comparable benefits and risks of any available FDA-approved
treatment conventionally used for the patient's condition; and any
financial interest the provider has in the product. The consent
documents will then become part of the patient's medical record.
Providers and manufacturers are required to report to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, any adverse effects from
alternative treatments, and must immediately cease use and manufacture
of the product, pending a CDC investigation. The CDC is required to
conduct an investigation of any adverse effects, and if the product is
shown to cause any danger to patients, the physician and manufacturers
are required to immediately inform all providers who have been using
the product of the danger.
Our legislation ensures the public's access to reliable information
about complementary and alternative therapies by requiring providers
and manufacturers to report the results of the use of their product to
the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at NIH,
which is then required to compile and analyze the information for an
annual report. The bill also stipulates that the provider and
manufacturer may make no advertising claims regarding the safety and
effectiveness of the treatment of therapy, and grants FDA the authority
to guarantee that the labeling of the treatment is not false or
misleading.
Mr. President, the goal of this legislation is to preserve the
consumer's freedom to choose alternative therapies while addressing the
fundamental concern of protecting patients from dangerous treatments
and those who would advocate unsafe and ineffective therapies. I hope
that we have struck the appropriate balance, and I welcome feedback
from interested parties.
It wasn't long ago that William Roentgen was afraid to publish his
discovery of X-rays as a diagnostic tool. He knew they would be
considered an alternative medical practice and widely rejected by the
medical establishment. As everyone knows, X-rays are a
[[Page 5765]]
common diagnostic tool today. Well into this century, many scientists
resisted basic antiseptic techniques as quackery because they refused
to accept the germ theory of disease. I think we can all be thankful
the medical profession came around on that one.
The underlying point is this: today's consumers want alternatives in
many medical situations for them and their families. They want less
invasive, less expensive preventive options. Americans want to stay
healthy. And they are speaking with their feet and their pocketbooks.
Mr. President, Americans spend $30 billion annually on unconventional
therapies. That is one of the reasons we established the National
Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine, NCCAM, at NIH in
1998. As more Americans look for alternative courses of treatment, we
needed to provide a way to see what works and what does not. This bill
is another step in that direction.
This legislation simply provides patients the freedom to use--with
strong consumer protections--the complementary and alternative
therapies and treatments that have the potential to relieve pain and
cure disease. And it provides a means to see what works and what does
not. I thank Senator Grassley for his continued leadership on this
issue, and urge my colleagues to consider this bill.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON:
S. 2620. A bill to amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to authorize
the Assistant Secretary for Aging to provide older individuals with
financial assistance to select a flexible range of home and community-
based long-term care services or supplies, provided in a manner that
respects the individuals' choices and preferences; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the
Community-Based Choices for Older Americans Act of 2006. This
legislation would take several important steps toward helping older
Americans meet their long-term care needs.
Issues related to long-term care are of growing concern to many in
New York and around the country, especially as baby boomers begin to
require more of these important services. Older Americans are
struggling to afford costly care and to maintain dignity and choice
regarding these services.
As I talk with seniors around the State of New York and throughout
the country, what I hear most is that people want to stay in their
homes for as long as they can. However, too many individuals struggle
to afford quality home and community-based care and, as a result, are
forced into institutional care: A more costly outcome they do not
desire and that places additional burden on the Medicaid program.
That is why I am introducing this legislation today. The Community-
Based Choices for Older Americans Act will assist individuals age 60 or
older who grapple with daily living activities or with a disability,
yet are above a State's Medicaid eligibility threshold, in meeting
their long-term care needs.
This bill will establish a matching grant program to States to help
these individuals pay for a broad range of health, social, and
supportive services based on the individuals' personal choices and
preferences in collaboration with a service coordinator. Eligible
individuals will be able to purchase services and supports that would
be provided in home or community-based settings, such as home
modifications like a wheelchair or ramp, assistance with grocery
shopping or meal preparation, or adult day services.
This legislation is based on the Cash and Counseling model
successfully used in demonstration projects in 15 States. This
consumer-directed approach offers individuals more choice, flexibility,
and control in managing their daily lives.
Through this bill, State Agencies on Aging throughout the country
will be given the tools to develop a community-based, long-term care
system where seniors choose the services and the providers they want so
they are able to maintain independence and dignity while they age in
place in the homes and communities where they have often lived for
decades.
This year marks the first year that the baby boom population turns
60. Development of a consumer-friendly, home and community-based system
of long-term care is a critical step in planning services for this
population.
I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to ensure passage
of this bill to help our seniors choose the long-term care resources
and services they need to remain independent.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2620
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 ``Community-Based Choices for
Older Americans Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to provide grants to States in
order to achieve the following:
(1) To enable eligible individuals to make informed choices
about the long-term care services and supplies that best meet
their needs and preferences.
(2) To provide financial assistance to older individuals to
purchase a flexible range of long-term care services or
supplies in a manner that respects the individuals' cultural,
ethnic, and lifestyle preferences in the least restrictive
settings possible.
(3) To make the purchase of long-term care services and
supplies delivered in a home or community-based setting, such
as a naturally occurring retirement community, more
affordable for individuals with financial need.
(4) To help families continue to care for their older
relatives with long-term care needs, including older
individuals with physical and cognitive impairments, and to
help reduce the number of older individuals who are forced to
impoverish themselves in order to pay for the long-term care
services and supplies they need.
(5) To help relieve financial pressure on the medicaid
program by delaying or preventing older individuals from
spending down their income and assets to medicaid eligibility
thresholds.
(6) To concentrate the resources made available under this
Act to those individuals with the greatest economic need for
long-term care services and supplies.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL LONG-TERM CARE CHOICE
PROGRAM.
The Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``TITLE VIII--NATIONAL LONG-TERM CARE CHOICE PROGRAM
``SEC. 801. DEFINITIONS.
``In this title:
``(1) Caregiver.--The term `caregiver' means an adult
family member, or another individual, who is a paid or unpaid
provider of home or community-based care to an eligible
individual.
``(2) Consumer choice.--The term `consumer choice' means
the opportunity for an eligible individual--
``(A) to have greater control over the covered long-term
care services and supplies the individual receives; and
``(B) to elect--
``(i) to receive a payment under this title through a
fiscal intermediary as described in section 806(b)(2)(B) for
the purpose of purchasing covered long-term care services or
supplies; or
``(ii) to receive such services or supplies from a provider
paid by the State involved (or its designee) as described in
section 806(b)(2)(A).
``(3) Covered long-term care services or supplies.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term
`covered long-term care services or supplies' means any of
the following services or supplies, but only if, with respect
to an eligible individual, such services or supplies are not
available or not eligible for payment by any entity carrying
out a program described in section 804(b)(8) or a similar
third party:
``(i) Adult day services (including health and social day
care services).
``(ii) Bill paying.
``(iii) Care-related supplies and equipment.
``(iv) Companion services.
``(v) Congregate meals.
``(vi) Environmental modifications.
``(vii) Fiscal intermediary services.
``(viii) Home-delivered meals.
``(ix) Home health services.
``(x) Homemaker services (including chore services).
``(xi) Mental and behavioral health services.
``(xii) Nutritional counseling.
``(xiii) Personal care services.
``(xiv) Personal emergency response systems.
``(xv) Respite care.
[[Page 5766]]
``(xvi) Telemedicine devices.
``(xvii) Transition services for individuals who have a
plan that meets such requirements as a State shall establish,
to relocate from a nursing home to a home or community-based
setting within 60 days.
``(xviii) Transportation.
``(xix) Any service or supply that a State describes in its
State plan and is approved by the Assistant Secretary.
``(xx) Any service or supply that is requested by an
eligible individual (in coordination with the individual's
service coordinator) and that is approved by the State.
``(B) Exclusions.--
``(i) Service coordination.--Such term does not include a
service directly provided by the service coordinator for an
eligible individual as part of service coordination under
this title.
``(ii) Services for nursing home residents.--Such term does
not include any service for a resident of a nursing home,
except a service described in subparagraph (A)(xvii).
``(4) Eligible individual.--The term `eligible individual'
means an individual--
``(A) who is age 60 or older;
``(B) who is not eligible for medical assistance under the
medicaid program established under title XIX of the Social
Security (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.);
``(C) who meets such income eligibility and total asset
criteria as a State may establish;
``(D) who--
``(i)(I) is unable to perform (without substantial
assistance from another individual) at least 2 activities of
daily living (such as eating, toileting, transferring,
bathing, dressing, and continence); or
``(II) at the option of the State, is unable to perform at
least 3 such activities without such assistance;
``(ii) has a level of disability similar (as determined by
the State) to the level of disability described in clause
(i); or
``(iii) requires substantial supervision due to cognitive
or mental impairment; and
``(E) who satisfies such other eligibility criteria as the
State may establish in accordance with such guidance as the
Assistant Secretary may provide.
``(5) Eligible state.--The term `eligible State' means a
State with an approved State plan under section 804.
``(6) Fiscal intermediary.--The term `fiscal intermediary'
means an entity that--
``(A) assists individuals who choose to employ providers of
covered long-term care services or supplies directly, to--
``(i) carry out employer-related responsibilities, as
designated by a State with the approval of the Assistant
Secretary;
``(ii) assure compliance with Federal, State, and local
law; and
``(iii) assure compliance with other requirements
designated by the State; and
``(B) receives and disburses, as described in section
806(b)(2)(B), payments described in section 806(b).
``(7) Fiscal intermediary service.--The term `fiscal
intermediary service' means a service to enable an eligible
individual to carry out a responsibility described in
subparagraph (A)(i) or (B) of paragraph (6) or assure
compliance with Federal, State, or local law, or another
requirement designated by the State.
``(8) Long-term care.--The term `long-term care' means a
wide range of supportive social, health, and mental health
services for individuals who do not have the capacity for
self-care due to illness or frailty.
``(9) Naturally occurring retirement community.--The term
`naturally occurring retirement community' means a
residential area (such as an apartment building, housing
complex or development, or neighborhood) not originally built
for older individuals but in which a substantial number of
individuals have aged in place and become older individuals.
``(10) Nursing home.--The term `nursing home' means--
``(A) a nursing facility, as defined in section 1919(a) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r(a));
``(B) a skilled nursing facility, as defined in section
1819(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-3(a)); and
``(C) a residential care facility that directly provides
care or services described in paragraph (1) of section
1919(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r(a)) but
does not receive payment for such care or services under the
medicare or medicaid programs established under titles XVIII
and XIX, respectively, of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395 et seq., 1396 et seq.).
``(11) Qualified provider.--The term `qualified provider'
means a provider of covered long-term care services or
supplies who meets such licensing, quality, and other
standards as the State may establish.
``(12) Representative.--The term `representative' means a
person appointed by the eligible individual, or legally
acting on the individual's behalf, to represent or advise the
individual in financial or service coordination matters.
``(13) Service coordination.--The term `service
coordination' means a service that--
``(A) is provided to an eligible individual, at the
direction of the eligible individual or a representative of
the eligible individual (as appropriate); and
``(B) consists of facilitating consumer choice or carrying
out--
``(i) a function described in section 805; or
``(ii) a function described in section 804(9), as
determined appropriate by the State involved.
``(14) Service coordinator.--The term `service coordinator'
means an individual who--
``(A) provides service coordination for an eligible
individual; and
``(B) is trained or experienced in the skills that are
required to facilitate consumer choice and carry out the
functions described in paragraph (13)(B).
``(15) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
``SEC. 802. ALLOTMENTS TO ELIGIBLE STATES.
``(a) Allotments.--
``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary shall make an
allotment to each eligible State for a fiscal year, to enable
the State to carry out a program that pays for the Federal
share of the cost of providing covered long-term care
services and supplies for eligible individuals under this
title. The Assistant Secretary shall make the allotment in an
amount determined under section 803.
``(2) Limitations.--From an allotment made under paragraph
(1) for a program carried out in a State under this title for
a fiscal year, not more than 15 percent may be used to pay
for administrative costs (other than service coordination) of
the program.
``(b) Federal Share.--From that allotment for that fiscal
year--
``(1) funds from the allotment shall be available to such
State for paying a Federal share equal to such percentage as
the State determines to be appropriate, but not more than 75
percent, of the cost of administration of the program carried
out in the State under this title; and
``(2) the remainder of such allotment shall be available to
such State only for paying a Federal share equal to such
percentage as the State determines to be appropriate, but not
more than 85 percent, of the cost of providing covered long-
term care services and supplies through the program.
``(c) Supplement, Not Supplant.--Allotments made to a State
under this section shall supplement and not supplant other
Federal or State payments that are made for the provision of
long-term care services or supports under--
``(1) the medicaid program carried out under title XIX of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.);
``(2) a program funded under title XX of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1397 et seq.);
``(3) a program funded under title III of this Act; or
``(4) any other Federal or State program.
``SEC. 803. ALLOTMENTS.
``(a) Allotments.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (b), from sums
appropriated for a fiscal year to carry out this title, the
Assistant Secretary shall allot to each eligible State an
amount that bears the same relationship to such sums as the
number of individuals who are age 60 or older and whose
income does not exceed 100 percent of the poverty line who
reside in the State bears to the total number of such
individuals who reside in all States.
``(2) Data.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the number of
individuals described in that paragraph shall be determined
on the basis of the most recent available data from the
Bureau of the Census.
``(3) Definition.--In paragraph (1), the term `State' does
not include a State specified in subsection (b).
``(b) Allotments to Territories.--Of the sums appropriated
for a fiscal year to carry out this title, the Assistant
Secretary shall allot an amount equal to 0.25 percent of such
sums among the following commonwealths and territories
according to the percentage specified for each such
commonwealth or territory:
``(1) The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 91.6 percent.
``(2) Guam, 3.5 percent.
``(3) The United States Virgin Islands, 2.6 percent.
``(4) American Samoa, 1.2 percent.
``(5) The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 1.1
percent.
``(c) Availability of Amounts Allotted.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an
amount allotted to an eligible State for a fiscal year shall
remain available for expenditure by the State for the 2
succeeding fiscal years.
``(2) Availability of redistributed amounts.--An amount
redistributed to an eligible State under subsection (d) in a
fiscal year shall be available for expenditure by the State
for the succeeding fiscal year.
``(d) Redistribution of Unspent Funds.--An amount that is
not expended by an eligible State during the period in which
such amount is available under subsection (c) shall be
redistributed by the Assistant Secretary according to a
formula determined by the Assistant Secretary that takes into
account the extent to which an eligible State has exhausted,
or is likely to exhaust, its allotment for that fiscal year.
[[Page 5767]]
``SEC. 804. STATE PLANS.
``(a) In General.--In order to receive an allotment made
under section 802 for an eligible State for a fiscal year,
the State shall submit to the Assistant Secretary for
approval a State plan that includes the information and
assurances described in subsection (b).
``(b) Contents.--
``(1) Eligibility.--The plan shall include descriptions of
the eligibility criteria and methodologies that the State
will apply, consistent with section 801(4), to determine
whether an individual is an eligible individual for the
program carried out in the State under this title.
``(2) Priority for eligible individuals with greatest
economic need.--The plan shall include an assurance that, in
establishing and applying the eligibility criteria and
methodologies described in paragraph (1), the State will give
priority to providing assistance to those eligible
individuals who have the greatest economic need, as defined
by the State.
``(3) Needs and preferences of eligible individuals.--The
plan shall include a description of how the State will ensure
that the needs and preferences of an eligible individual are
addressed in all aspects of the program.
``(4) Payments for services.--The plan shall include an
assurance that the State will make payments, at the election
of an eligible individual, in accordance with section
806(b)(2), and will provide a fiscal intermediary for each
eligible individual electing to receive a payment as
described in section 806(b)(2)(B).
``(5) Services and supplies.--The plan shall describe the
services and supplies that the State will make available to
an eligible individual, consistent with the definition of
covered long-term services or supplies specified in section
801(3).
``(6) Cost-sharing.--The plan shall include a description
of the methodologies to be used--
``(A) to calculate the ability of an eligible individual to
pay for covered long-term care services or supplies without
assistance under the program carried out under this title;
``(B) based on the calculation of ability to pay, to
determine the amount of cost-sharing that the eligible
individual will be responsible for under the program, set on
a sliding scale based on income;
``(C) to collect cost-sharing amounts, both in cases in
which the State makes payments directly to a qualified
provider as described in section 806(b)(2)(A), and in cases
in which the State makes payments to a fiscal intermediary on
behalf of an eligible individual, as described in section
806(b)(2)(B); and
``(D) to track expenditures by eligible individuals for the
purchase of covered long-term care services or supplies.
``(7) Cost-sharing requirements for providers.--The plan
shall provide an assurance that the State will require each
provider involved in the program carried out in the State
under this title--
``(A) to protect the privacy and confidentiality of each
eligible individual with respect to the income, and any cost-
sharing amount determined under paragraph (6), of an eligible
individual;
``(B) to establish appropriate procedures to account for
cost-sharing amounts; and
``(C) to widely distribute State-created written materials
in languages reflecting the reading abilities of eligible
individuals that describe the criteria for cost-sharing, and
the State's sliding scale described in paragraph (6)(B).
``(8) Coordination with other programs.--The plan shall
include a description of the methods by which the State will,
as appropriate, refer individuals who apply for assistance
under a program carried out under this title for eligibility
determinations under--
``(A) the State medicaid program carried out under title
XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.);
``(B) the medicare program carried out under title XVIII of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.);
``(C) a program funded under title XX of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1397 et seq.);
``(D) other programs funded under this Act; and
``(E) other Federal or State programs that provide long-
term care.
``(9) Entities and procedures.--The plan shall include a
description of the entities and procedures that the State
will use to carry out the following functions:
``(A) Establishing eligibility for the program carried out
under this title.
``(B) Assessing the need of an eligible individual for
covered long-term care services or supplies.
``(C) Determining the amount of payments described in
section 806(b) to be made for the eligible individual under
the program.
``(D) Evaluating the cost-sharing by the eligible
individual under the program.
``(E) In the case of an eligible individual who elects to
receive payments as described in section 806(b)(2)(B),
helping the eligible individual or the eligible individual's
representative (as appropriate) identify, retain, and
negotiate and terminate agreements with, qualified providers
of covered long-term services or supplies.
``(F) Monitoring payments made for an eligible individual
to ensure that--
``(i) the cost-sharing amounts that the eligible individual
is responsible for under the State plan are paid;
``(ii) the payments made by the State for the eligible
individual--
``(I) are made in a timely fashion; and
``(II) do not exceed the annual assistance amount
established for the eligible individual under section 806(a);
and
``(iii) when appropriate, the payments are made by the
State in an expedited manner to account for health status
changes of an eligible individual that require rapid
responses.
``(G) Establishing a quality assurance system that assesses
the covered long-term services or supplies provided for the
eligible individual to ensure that the qualified provider of
such services or supplies meets such licensing, quality, or
other standards as the State may establish in accordance with
paragraph (11).
``(H) Providing information to eligible individuals about
average market rates for covered long-term care services or
supplies.
``(I) Administering payments in a timely fashion and in
accordance with a written care plan described in section
805(1) for an eligible individual (that takes into account
payment rates established by the eligible individual or a
representative of the eligible individual (as appropriate)),
including the methods for--
``(i) making payments directly to a qualified provider as
described in section 806(b)(2)(A);
``(ii) making payments to a fiscal intermediary on behalf
of an eligible individual, as described in section
806(b)(2)(B), for the purchase of such services or supplies;
and
``(iii) making payments (when appropriate) in an expedited
manner to account for health status changes of the eligible
individual that require rapid responses.
``(J) Carrying out such other activities as the eligible
State determines are appropriate with respect to the eligible
individual or the program carried out under this title.
``(10) Service coordinators.--The plan shall include a
description of how the State will--
``(A) provide a service coordinator (directly or by
contract) for each eligible individual receiving assistance
under the program carried out under this title; and
``(B) ensure that the service coordinator carries out the
responsibilities described in section 805, including any
responsibilities assigned by the State under section 805(5).
``(11) Qualified providers.--The plan shall include a
description of any licensing, quality, or other standards for
qualified providers (including both providers paid directly
by the State as described in section 806(b)(2)(A) or through
payments made to a fiscal intermediary on behalf of an
eligible individual, as described in section 806(b)(2)(B).
``(12) Quality assurance.--The plan shall include a
description of the procedures to be used to ensure the
quality and appropriateness of the covered long-term care
services or supplies provided to an eligible individual and
the program carried out under this title, which shall
include--
``(A) a quality assessment and improvement strategy that
establishes--
``(i) standards that provide for access to covered long-
term care services or supplies within reasonable time frames
and that are designed to ensure the continuity and adequacy
of such services or supplies; and
``(ii) procedures for monitoring and evaluating the quality
and appropriateness of the covered long-term care services or
supplies provided to eligible individuals under the program
carried out under this title; and
``(B) a mechanism for obtaining feedback from eligible
individuals and others regarding their experiences with, and
recommendations for improvement of, the program carried out
under this title.
``(13) Outreach.--The plan shall include a description of
the procedures by which the State will conduct outreach for
enrollment (including outreach to persons residing in
naturally occurring retirement communities) in the program
carried out under this title.
``(14) Indians.--The plan shall include a description of
the procedures by which the State will ensure the provision
of assistance under the program carried out under this title
to eligible individuals who are Indians (as defined in
section 4(c) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25
U.S.C. 1603(c))) or Native Hawaiians, as defined in section
625.
``(15) Data collection.--The plan shall include an
assurance that the State will annually collect and report to
the Assistant Secretary such data and information related to
the program carried out under this title as the Assistant
Secretary may require, including the information required
under section 807(a)(1)(B).
``SEC. 805. RESPONSIBILITIES OF SERVICE COORDINATORS.
``Each eligible State shall ensure that the service
coordinator for an eligible individual receiving assistance
under the program carried out under this title, at a minimum,
carries out the following responsibilities:
``(1)(A) Assisting an eligible individual and the eligible
individual's representative (as appropriate) with the
development of a written care plan for the eligible
individual that--
[[Page 5768]]
``(i) specifies the covered long-term care services or
supplies that best meet the needs and preferences of the
eligible individual; and
``(ii) takes into account the ability of caregivers to
provide adequate and safe care.
``(B) Assuring that the care plan is coordinated with other
care plans that may be developed for the eligible individual
under other Federal or State programs (including care plans
applicable to naturally occurring retirement communities).
``(2) Reassessing and, as appropriate, assisting with
revising the care plan for the eligible individual--
``(A) not less than annually; and
``(B) whenever there is a change of health status or other
event that requires a reassessment of the care plan.
``(3) Educating--
``(A) an eligible individual who elects to receive payments
as described in section 806(b)(2)(B) about available
qualified providers of covered long-term care services or
supplies; and
``(B) an eligible individual about specific covered long-
term care services or supplies.
``(4) Recommending, as appropriate, methods for community
integration for an eligible individual who resides in a
nursing home and who is relocating to a home or community-
based setting.
``(5) Carrying out any other responsibilities assigned to
the service coordinator by the State.
``SEC. 806. PAYMENTS FOR COVERED LONG-TERM CARE SERVICES OR
SUPPLIES.
``(a) Annual Assistance Amount.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an eligible
State shall establish an annual assistance amount for each
eligible individual enrolled in the program carried out under
this title based on an assessment of the eligible individual.
``(2) Cost-sharing amount.--The State shall subtract from
the annual assistance amount the individual's cost-sharing
amount determined under section 804(b)(6) to obtain the
amount of the payments described in subsection (b).
``(3) Limitation.--The annual assistance amount made for an
eligible individual under a program carried out under this
title may not exceed--
``(A) in the case of fiscal year 2007, $8,000; and
``(B) in the case of any subsequent fiscal year, the amount
described in this paragraph for the preceding fiscal year
increased by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price
Index for all urban consumers (all items: U.S. city average)
for the preceding fiscal year.
``(b) Payments.--
``(1) Written care plans.--Under a program carried out
under this title, an eligible State (or its designee) shall
make payments for the provision or purchase of covered long-
term care services or supplies for eligible individuals in
accordance with the written care plans established for such
individuals.
``(2) Elections.--At the election of an eligible
individual, the payments shall be made by the State (or its
designee)--
``(A) directly to a qualified provider of covered long-term
care services or supplies; or
``(B) to a fiscal intermediary on behalf of the eligible
individual, to enable the fiscal intermediary to disburse the
payments for the purchase of such services or supplies--
``(i) in advance to the provider or the eligible
individual; or
``(ii) as reimbursement for the eligible individual.
``(c) Limitations.--In making payments under this section,
a State shall ensure that not more than 10 percent of the
funds made available to the State under section 802(a) shall
be used to pay for service coordination.
``(d) Exclusion From Income.--Payments made for an eligible
individual under this section for a program carried out under
this title shall not be--
``(1) included in the gross income of the eligible
individual for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
or
``(2) treated as income, assets, or benefits, or otherwise
be taken into account, for purposes of determining the
individual's eligibility for, the amount of benefits under,
or the amount of cost-sharing required by, any other Federal
or State program.
``SEC. 807. ANNUAL REPORTS.
``(a) State Reports.--
``(1) In general.--Each eligible State shall--
``(A) evaluate the establishment and operation of the State
plan under this title in each fiscal year for which the State
receives allotments under section 802; and
``(B) prepare and submit to the Assistant Secretary, not
later than January 1 of the succeeding fiscal year, a report
that includes the following:
``(i) The number of total unduplicated eligible individuals
and the amount of expenditures made for the individuals,
analyzed by type of payment specified in subparagraph (A) or
(B) of section 806(b)(2) in the program carried out under
this title in the State.
``(ii) The number of eligible individuals in the program
that received each of the categories of covered long-term
care services or supplies described in clauses (i) through
(xx) of section 801(3)(A), analyzed, for each category by
type of payment specified in subparagraph (A) or (B) of
section 806(b)(2).
``(iii) The total amount of cost-sharing amounts that the
State received from eligible individuals in the program.
``(iv) Information on the age and income of the eligible
individuals.
``(2) Format.--The Assistant Secretary shall provide
guidance to eligible States regarding the format for the
information included in the report required under paragraph
(1) in such manner as to allow for comparison of the
information provided across such States.
``(3) Public availability.--The Assistant Secretary shall
make the State reports submitted under paragraph (1)
available to the public.
``(b) Reports by Fiscal Intermediaries and Qualified
Providers.--The State shall require fiscal intermediaries and
qualified providers participating in the program carried out
in the State under this title to prepare and submit to the
State, not less often than twice a year, reports containing
such information as is necessary for the State to meet the
reporting requirements described in subsection (a) and as is
necessary for the administration of the program.
``(c) Report to Congress.--At the end of each fiscal year,
the Assistant Secretary shall prepare and submit to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee of Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions of the Senate a report that contains a
summary of the data submitted under subsection (a)(1)(B) and
a description of any implementations issues with the programs
carried out under this title.
``SEC. 808. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
to carry out this title, such sums as may be necessary for
each of fiscal years 2007 through 2012.''.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 438--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION SHOULD ADOPT POLICIES AND EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAMS ON THEIR CAMPUSES TO HELP DETER AND ELIMINATE ILLICIT
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT OCCURRING ON, AND ENCOURAGE EDUCATIONAL USES OF,
THEIR COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS
Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Nelson of
Florida) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
S. Res. 438
Whereas the colleges and universities of the United States
play a critically important role in educating young people;
Whereas the colleges and universities of the United States
are responsible for helping to build and shape the
educational foundation of their students, as well as the
values of their students;
Whereas the colleges and universities of the United States
play an integral role in the development of a civil and
ordered society founded on the rule of law;
Whereas the colleges and universities of the United States
have been the origin of much of the creativity and innovation
throughout the history of the United States;
Whereas much of the most valued intellectual property of
the United States has been developed as a result of the
colleges and universities of the United States;
Whereas the United States has, since its inception,
realized the value and importance of intellectual property
protection in encouraging creativity and innovation;
Whereas intellectual property is among the most valuable
assets of the United States;
Whereas the importance of music, motion picture, software,
and other intellectual property-based industries to the
overall health of the economy of the United States is
significant and well documented;
Whereas the colleges and universities of the United States
are uniquely situated to advance the importance and need for
strong intellectual property protection;
Whereas intellectual property-based industries are under
increasing threat from all forms of global piracy, including
hard goods and digital piracy;
Whereas the pervasive use of so-called peer-to-peer (P2P)
file sharing networks has led to rampant illegal distribution
and reproduction of copyrighted works;
Whereas the Supreme Court, in MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster,
Ltd., reviewed evidence of users' conduct on just two peer-
to-peer networks and noted that, ``the probable scope of
copyright infringement is staggering'' (125 S. Ct. 2764, 2772
(2005));
Whereas Justice Breyer, in his opinion in MGM Studios Inc.
v. Grokster, Ltd., wrote that ``deliberate unlawful copying
is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety
theft'' (125 S. Ct. 2764, 2793 (2005));
Whereas many computer systems of the colleges and
universities of the United
[[Page 5769]]
States are illicitly utilized by students and employees to
further unlawful copying;
Whereas throughout the course of the past few years,
Federal law enforcement has repeatedly executed search
warrants against computers and computer systems located at
colleges and universities, and has convicted students and
employees of colleges and universities for their role in
criminal intellectual property crimes;
Whereas in addition to illicit activity, unauthorized peer-
to-peer use has multiple negative impacts on college computer
systems;
Whereas individuals engaged in illegal downloading on
college computer systems use significant amounts of system
bandwidth which exist for the use of the general student
population in the pursuit of legitimate educational purposes;
Whereas peer-to-peer use on college computer systems
potentially exposes those systems to a myriad of security
concerns, including spyware, viruses, worms or other
malicious code which can be easily transmitted throughout the
system by peer-to-peer networks;
Whereas peer-to-peer use on college computer systems also
exposes those systems to increased volumes of pornographic or
obscene material, including child pornography, which are
readily available on peer-to-peer systems;
Whereas peer-to-peer systems have also been used to gain
unauthorized access to personal and sensitive information,
such as social security account numbers, medical information,
tax returns, and bank statements;
Whereas colleges and universities must use valuable and
finite resources in responding to requests from victims and
law enforcement seeking to stop illegal downloading on
college computer systems;
Whereas computer systems at colleges and universities exist
for the use of all students and should be kept free of
illicit activity;
Whereas college and university systems should continue to
develop and to encourage respect for the importance of
protecting intellectual property; the illegality and
potential legal consequences of unauthorized downloading of
copyrighted works; and the additional security risks
associated with unauthorized peer-to-peer use; and
Whereas it should be clearly established that unauthorized
peer-to-peer use is prohibited and violations punished
consistent with upholding the rule of law: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That--
(1) colleges and universities should continue to take a
leadership role in educating students regarding the
detrimental consequences of online infringement of
intellectual property rights; and
(2) colleges and universities should continue to take all
practicable steps to deter and eliminate unauthorized peer-
to-peer use on their computer systems by adopting or
continuing policies to educate and warn students about the
risks of unauthorized use, and educate students about the
intrinsic value of and need to protect intellectual property.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution that
expresses the Sense of Congress that colleges and universities should
continue to educate their students about the importance of intellectual
property and the harm caused by copyright infringement. I am joined in
introducing this resolution by Senators Leahy, Hatch, and Nelson of
Florida, and I thank them for their support.
The intent of this resolution is to help draw attention to the
problem of digital piracy on campus through the use of university
computer networks to illegally share copyrighted materials. Efforts to
combat digital piracy were bolstered last year when the U.S. Supreme
Court handed down its decision in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
That ruling has allowed the movie and recording industries to take
additional steps to protect intellectual property and prevent what
Justice Breyer described in the Grokster decision as ``no less an
unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft.''
However, truly stamping out digital piracy requires that we challenge
the widespread belief that there is nothing wrong with illegally
downloading music and other copyrighted material, and that it doesn't
hurt anybody except for rich performers and corporate executives who
have plenty of money. I can tell you that's not true because I have
personally met with songwriters from Nashville who have explained how
illegal downloading has hurt their livelihoods. There are many other
Americans without million-dollar bank accounts who have been hurt by
copyright infringement as well.
The place to start turning that belief around is at our institutions
of higher learning. For many students, a college campus is the first
place where they have high-speed Internet access and are exposed to
technology that allows them to trade copyrighted files with other
computer users. At the same time, college campuses are the source of
some of our Nation's most valuable intellectual property. The
combination of these two factors makes our colleges and universities
the ideal place for students to develop a respect for intellectual
property and to understand the harm caused by copyright infringement.
The resolution that my colleagues and I are introducing today
encourages colleges and universities to take a leadership role in
educating students regarding the importance of protecting intellectual
property, and to take steps to prevent unauthorized downloading on
their computer systems. Throughout the country, many schools are
already meeting this challenge. In my own State, Vanderbilt University
has taken steps to instill respect for intellectual property in its
students, while taking action to prevent its computer system from being
misused. For example, Vanderbilt has created VUmix, a music downloading
service, to help its students understand the digital piracy issue and
provide them with a legal alternative. The VUmix service is part of the
university's Digital Life Initiative, a comprehensive approach to
offering music, film, and other forms of digital media to the
Vanderbilt community. Other schools are doing similar things to combat
copyright infringement, and this resolution encourages such efforts.
I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution and promote
respect for one of America's most valuable assets: its intellectual
property.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to stand with my
colleagues, Senator Alexander, Senator Hatch, and Senator Nelson of
Florida, to express the sense of this Congress that institutions of
higher education should act diligently to help eliminate the harms from
the illicit copyright infringement that plagues many campus computer
systems.
Online piracy, especially illegal file-sharing of copyrighted works
such as music, movies and software, is a growing problem. While I
always encourage technological innovation, I am also acutely aware of
the need to respect the intellectual property rights and talent of
those who create the works that are made available online. Some peer-
to-peer software applications allow individuals, without authorization,
to copy and distribute--for free--unlimited numbers of these valuable
works. The speed and convenience of our universities' networks, which
were built for academic pursuits, have unfortunately also proved to be
a lure for students seeking to engage in this illegal and detrimental
behavior.
When music and movie industry representatives speak with me about
this problem, they describe a disturbing level of online piracy. In
addition to exposing students to legal liability, illegal file-sharing
on school networks may compromise the integrity of those systems by
using up expensive bandwidth, introducing spyware, and hosting
destructive viruses.
I am pleased that colleges and universities in my home state have
been working for nearly two years to combat these problems. In July
2004, Middlebury College, located in Middlebury VT, announced a deal
with Napster to provide legitimate file sharing services that offer
online music to students. It is my hope that more institutions will
follow in step, and work to provide students with the tools needed to
lawfully access the wealth of information available on the web.
As technology continues to advance, the issues that surround
legitimately accessing online content will become increasingly
important. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the isle for
working with me to convey this important message.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 439--DESIGNATING THE THIRD WEEK OF APRIL 2006 AS
``NATIONAL SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME AWARENESS WEEK''
Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs.
[[Page 5770]]
Clinton, Mr. Levin, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Salazar, Mr.
Durbin, and Mr. Coleman) submitted the following resolution; which was
considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 439
Whereas the month of April has been designated ``National
Child Abuse Prevention Month'' as an annual tradition that
was initiated in 1979 by former President Jimmy Carter;
Whereas the most recent National Child Abuse and Neglect
Data System figures reveal that almost 900,000 children were
victims of abuse and neglect in the United States in 2002,
causing unspeakable pain and suffering to our most vulnerable
citizens;
Whereas among the children who are victims of abuse and
neglect, nearly 4 children die in the United States each day;
Whereas children aged 1 year or younger accounted for 41.2
percent of all child abuse and neglect fatalities in 2002,
and children aged 4 years or younger accounted for 76.1
percent of all child abuse and neglect fatalities in 2002;
Whereas abusive head trauma, including the trauma known as
``Shaken Baby Syndrome'', is recognized as the leading cause
of death of physically abused children;
Whereas Shaken Baby Syndrome can result in loss of vision,
brain damage, paralysis, seizures, or death;
Whereas a 2003 report in the Journal of the American
Medical Association estimated that, in the United States, an
average of 300 children will die each year, and 600 to 1,200
more will be injured, of whom \2/3\ will be babies or infants
under 1 year in age, as a result of Shaken Baby Syndrome,
with many cases resulting in severe and permanent
disabilities;
Whereas medical professionals believe that thousands of
additional cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome are being
misdiagnosed or are not detected;
Whereas Shaken Baby Syndrome often results in permanent,
irreparable brain damage or death to an infant and may result
in more than $1,000,000 in medical costs to care for a
single, disabled child in just the first few years of life;
Whereas the most effective solution for ending Shaken Baby
Syndrome is to prevent the abuse, and it is clear that the
minimal costs of education and prevention programs may
prevent enormous medical and disability costs and
immeasurable amounts of grief for many families;
Whereas prevention programs have demonstrated that
educating new parents about the danger of shaking young
children and how they can help protect their child from
injury can bring about a significant reduction in the number
of cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome;
Whereas education programs have been shown to raise
awareness and provide critically important information about
Shaken Baby Syndrome to parents, caregivers, daycare workers,
child protection employees, law enforcement personnel, health
care professionals, and legal representatives;
Whereas efforts to prevent Shaken Baby Syndrome are
supported by advocacy groups across the United States that
were formed by parents and relatives of children who have
been killed or injured by shaking, including the National
Shaken Baby Coalition, the Shaken Baby Association, the
Shaking Kills: Instead Parents Please Educate and Remember
Initiative (commonly known as the ``SKIPPER Initiative''),
the Shaken Baby Alliance, Shaken Baby Prevention, Inc., A
Voice for Gabbi, Don't Shake Jake, and the Kierra Harrison
Foundation, whose mission is to educate the general public
and professionals about Shaken Baby Syndrome and to increase
support for victims and the families of the victims in the
health care and criminal justice systems;
Whereas child abuse prevention programs and ``National
Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week'' are supported by the
National Shaken Baby Coalition, the National Center on Shaken
Baby Syndrome, the Children's Defense Fund, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America,
Prevent Child Abuse America, the National Child Abuse
Coalition, the National Exchange Club Foundation, the
American Humane Association, the American Professional
Society on the Abuse of Children, the Arc of the United
States, the Association of University Centers on
Disabilities, Children's Healthcare is a Legal Duty, Family
Partnership, Family Voices, National Alliance of Children's
Trust and Prevention Funds, United Cerebral Palsy, the
National Association of Children's Hospitals and related
institutions, Never Shake a Baby Arizona, Prevent Child Abuse
Arizona, the Center for Child Protection and Family Support,
and many other organizations;
Whereas a 2000 survey by Prevent Child Abuse America shows
that approximately half of all citizens of the United States
believe that, of all the public health issues facing the
United States, child abuse and neglect is the most important
issue;
Whereas Congress previously designated the third week of
April 2001 as ``National Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week
2001''; and
Whereas Congress strongly supports efforts to protect
children from abuse and neglect: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates the third week of April 2006 as ``National
Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week'';
(2) commends those hospitals, child care councils, schools,
and other organizations that are--
(A) working to increase awareness of the danger of shaking
young children; and
(B) educating parents and caregivers on how they can help
protect children from injuries caused by abusive shaking; and
(3) encourages the citizens of the United States to--
(A) remember the victims of Shaken Baby Syndrome; and
(B) participate in educational programs to help prevent
Shaken Baby Syndrome.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 440--CONGRATULATING AND COMMENDING THE MEMBERS OF THE
UNITED STATES OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC TEAMS, AND THE UNITED STATES
OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, FOR THEIR SUCCESS AND INSPIRED LEADERSHIP
Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mrs. Dole) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 440
Whereas athletes of the United States Winter Olympic Team
captured 9 gold medals, 9 silver medals, and 7 bronze medals
at the Olympic Winter Games in Torino, Italy;
Whereas the total number of medals won by the competitors
of the United States placed the United States ahead of all
but 1 country, Germany, in total medals awarded to teams from
any 1 country;
Whereas the paralympic athletes of the United States
captured 7 gold medals, 2 silver medals, and 3 bronze medals
at the Paralympic Winter Games, which were held immediately
after the Olympic Winter Games in Torino, Italy;
Whereas the total medal count for the United States Winter
Paralympic Team ranked the team 7th among all participating
teams;
Whereas members of the United States Winter Olympic Team,
such as skater Joey Cheek, who donated his considerable
monetary earnings to relief efforts in Darfur, Sudan, and
skier Lindsey Kildow, who exhibited considerable courage by
returning to the field of competition only days after a
painful and horrendous accident, demonstrated the true spirit
of generosity and tenacity of the United States and the
Olympic Winter Games; and
Whereas the leadership displayed by United States Olympic
Committee Board Chairman Peter Ueberroth and Chief Executive
Officer Jim Scherr has helped transform the committee into an
organization that--
(1) upholds the highest ideals of the Olympic movement; and
(2) discharges the responsibilities of the committee to the
athletes and the citizens of the United States in the manner
that Congress intended when it chartered the committee in
1978: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) commends and congratulates the members of the 2006
United States Winter Olympic and Paralympic Teams;
(2) expresses its appreciation for the firm, inspired, and
ethical leadership displayed by the United States Olympic
Committee; and
(3) extends its best wishes and encouragement to those
athletes of the United States and their numerous supporters
who are preparing to represent the United States at the 2008
Olympic Games, which are to be held in Beijing, China.
____________________
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 88--URGING THE GOVERNMENT OF CHINA TO
REINSTATE ALL LICENSES OF GAO ZHISHENG AND HIS LAW FIRM, REMOVE ALL
LEGAL AND POLITICAL OBSTACLES FOR LAWYERS ATTEMPTING TO DEFEND CRIMINAL
CASES IN CHINA, INCLUDING POLITICALLY SENSITIVE CASES, AND REVISE LAW
AND PRACTICE IN CHINA SO THAT IT CONFORMS TO INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Brownback) submitted the following
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committees on Foreign
Relations;
S. Con. Res. 88
Whereas, since November 2005, the Beijing Judicial Bureau
has shut down the law firm and suspended the license of Mr.
Gao Zhisheng, one of China's best known lawyers and legal
rights defenders;
Whereas Mr. Gao has represented citizens of China in
lawsuits against various local and administrative
governmental bodies of the People's Republic of China over
corruption, land seizures, police abuse, and violations of
religious freedom;
[[Page 5771]]
Whereas Mr. Gao wrote 3 open letters to President Hu Jintao
and Premier Wen Jiabao condemning the methods employed by the
Government of China in implementing its ban on ``evil
cults'', such as the Falun Gong and an additional letter
documenting severe persecution of Christians in Xinjiang
Uighur Autonomous Region;
Whereas Mr. Gao's law practice filed a petition to appeal
the verdict against Cai Zhuohua, who was found guilty of
``illegal business practices'' based upon his distribution of
Bibles and religious material;
Whereas Mr. Gao's home has been constantly monitored by
agents from the Ministry of State Security and Mr. Gao was
prevented by the Public Security Ministry from meeting with
the representatives of the United Nations Special Rapporteur
on Torture during his November 2005 visit to Beijing;
Whereas agents of the Public Security Bureau of China,
numbering between 10 and 20, have consistently monitored the
activities and whereabouts of Mr. Gao, his wife, and his
daughter since late November 2005;
Whereas, on November 10, 2005, an open letter, signed by
138 organizations worldwide, was submitted to President Bush
calling on him to voice support of Mr. Gao and his legal
practice during the President's November 2005 visit to China;
Whereas other human rights lawyers, collectively known as
``rights defenders'', or Wei Quan, have also faced
harassment, arrest, and detention for their consistent and
vigorous activities to defend the fundamental rights of the
people of China, contrary to measures within the law of China
protecting human rights and rights of lawyers;
Whereas Mr. Chen Guangcheng, a blind human rights lawyer
who has exposed cases of violence against women, including
forced abortion and forced sterilization perpetrated by
authorities of China under the 1-child policy, was beaten on
October 10, 2005, and currently remains under house arrest;
Whereas law professor and People's Political Consultative
Congress Delegate, Xu Zhiyong, who advocates on behalf of
petitioners filing grievances with the Central government in
Beijing, was also beaten on October 10, 2005, when meeting
with Chen Guangcheng;
Whereas Mr. Yang Maodong (also known as Guo Feixiong), a
lawyer representing villagers in Taishi village who attempted
to oust their village head in peaceful elections, has been
arbitrarily detained repeatedly and remains under consistent
surveillance by security agents;
Whereas Mr. Tang Jingling, a Guangdong based lawyer also
working on the Taishi village elections case, has been fired
from his law firm and was beaten on February 2, 2006, after
attempting to meet with Yang Maodong;
Whereas, according to the Department of State 2005 Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices, lawyers who aggressively
tried to defend their clients continued to face serious
intimidation and abuse by police and prosecutors, and some of
these lawyers were detained;
Whereas the Constitution of China states that the courts
shall, in accordance with the law, exercise judicial power
independently, without interference from administrative
organs, social organizations, and individuals, but in
practice, the judiciary is not independent and it receives
policy guidance from both the Government of China and the
Communist Party, whose leaders use a variety of means to
direct courts on verdicts and sentences, particularly in
politically sensitive cases;
Whereas the Criminal Procedure Law of China gives suspects
the right to seek legal counsel, but defendants in
politically sensitive cases frequently find it difficult to
find an attorney;
Whereas the Lawyers Law of the People's Republic of China
states that a lawyer may ``accept engagement by a criminal
suspect in a criminal case to provide him with legal advice
and represent him in filing a petition or charge or obtaining
a guarantor pending trial'';
Whereas according to Article 306 of the Criminal Law of
China, defense attorneys can be held responsible if their
clients commit perjury, and prosecutors and judges in such
cases have wide discretion in determining what constitutes
perjury;
Whereas according to the All-China Lawyers Association,
since 1997 more than 500 defense attorneys have been detained
on similar charges, and such cases continued during the last
year despite promises made by the Government of China to
amend Article 306;
Whereas the State Department's 2005 Annual Report on Human
Rights states that China's human rights record ``remained
poor'', that authorities of China quickly moved to suppress
those who openly expressed dissenting political views, and
that writers, religious activists, dissidents, lawyers, and
petitioners to the Central Government were particularly
targeted;
Whereas directly following their August 2005 visit to
China, the United States Commission on International
Religious Freedom found that--
(1) the Government of China actively seeks to control and
suppress the activities of unregistered religious
organizations;
(2) China has outlawed unregistered religious organizations
and provides severe penalties for engaging in unregistered
religious activities;
(3) leaders of unregistered Protestant organizations have
come under increased pressure to register their churches and
affiliate with one of the government approved organizations,
and those who refuse, for theological or other reasons, are
subject to harassment, detention, arrest, and closing of
their religious facilities;
(4) groups determined by the Government of China to be
``evil cults'', such as Falun Gong, are brutally suppressed;
and
(5) practitioners of Falun Gong have experienced severe
persecution, including arrests, numerous detentions, torture,
irregular trials, imprisonment, and subjection to the
reeducation through labor system, whereby accused criminals
are subject to up to 3 years detention;
Whereas despite questions raised by the Government of the
United States and others about the charges made against
Pastor Cai Zhuohua, the Government of China sentenced Pastor
Cai and other members of his family to 3 years in prison for
``illegal business practices'' for their printing and
distribution of religious materials;
Whereas, according to China's Regulations on Religious
Affairs, promulgated in March 2005, any religious
organization that carries out activities without registering
with the government is subject to civil punishment and to
criminal prosecution;
Whereas since the promulgation of the Regulations on
Religious Affairs, the Government of China has stepped up its
efforts to eliminate unregistered religious activity, with
raids on ``house church'' Christian groups in several
provinces, resulting in detention of hundreds of leaders of
the house church, dozens of whom remain in custody; and
Whereas the Government of China has, on several occasions,
stated a commitment to ratify the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, but has delayed ratification
since signing the document in 1998: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That--
(1) Congress--
(A) commends ``rights defense'' lawyers and activists of
China for their courage and integrity, and expresses moral
support for this grass-roots ``rights defense'' movement in
China;
(B) urges the Government of the People's Republic of China,
at all levels, to cease its harassment of Mr. Gao Zhisheng,
overturn the suspension of his license to practice law, and
restore his legal right to represent the clients of his
choosing as protected by China's own Constitution, its
Criminal Procedure Law, and its Lawyers Law;
(C) urges the Government of the People's Republic of China
to repeal Article 306 of the Criminal Code of China, which
provides penalties for lawyers whose clients are accused of
perjury and has been used to curtail the active legal defense
of individuals accused of political crimes;
(D) urges the Government of the People's Republic of China
to undertake measures to further amend the Lawyers Law to
ensure lawyers' rights to investigate charges brought against
their clients, to provide a vigorous defense of their
clients, and to remain free of harassment and intimidation
throughout the course of representing clients, including
clients who are charged with offenses related to political or
religious activities;
(E) urges the Government of the People's Republic of China
to respect fully the universality of the right to freedom of
religion or belief and other human rights;
(F) urges the Government of the People's Republic of China
to ratify and implement in law the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, and to adopt such legislative or
other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the
rights recognized in the Covenant;
(G) urges the Government of the People's Republic of China
to amend or repeal Article 300 of the Criminal Code of China
so it is consistent with international law, and to halt its
crackdown on spiritual movements;
(H) urges the Government of the People's Republic of China
to halt arrests, harassment, and intimidation of leaders of
unregistered religious organizations on the basis that their
organizations violated the law by not registering with the
Government of China;
(I) urges the Government of the People's Republic of China
to Amend the Regulations on Religious Affairs to conform more
closely with the internationally recognized freedom of
thought, conscience, religion or belief and allow all
religious believers in China to practice their religion
without interference from the government or from government
sponsored ``patriotic religious associations'';
(J) urges the Government of the People's Republic of China
to release Pastor Cai Zhuohua, his wife, and others
imprisoned with him, and to allow Pastor Cai to resume
religious activities and to resume leadership of his
congregation in Beijing; and
(K) urges the Government of the People's Republic of China
to invite the Special
[[Page 5772]]
Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on freedom of
religion or belief to China as promised according to an
agreement between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China
and the Department of State of China in March 2005; and
(2) it is the sense of Congress that--
(A) the Government of the United States should support
democracy and human rights programs that strengthen
protection of basic rights and freedoms, and should initiate
programs to train lawyers, judges, academics, and students in
China about international human rights law, to inform
citizens of China about international human rights norms, and
to build organizations and associations to promote these
priorities;
(B) the Government of the United States should support
programs to promote legal protections and cultural awareness
of the right to the freedom of religion or belief in China;
and
(C) the President should raise the issue of the Government
of China's harassment, arrest, detention, and persecution of
rights defense lawyers and activists and the need for the
Government of China to respect the basic human rights of its
citizens and the rule of law with Chinese President Hu
Jintao.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 3587. Mr. McCONNELL (for Mr. McCain) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by Mr. McConnell to the
bill H.R. 3351, to make technical corrections to laws
relating to Native Americans, and for other purposes.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 3587. Mr. McCONNELL (for Mr. McCain) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by Mr. McConnell to the bill H.R. 3351, to make
technical corrections to laws relating to Native Americans, and for
other purposes; as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Native
American Technical Corrections Act of 2006''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS AND OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO NATIVE
AMERICANS
Sec. 101. Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act technical amendment.
Sec. 102. ANCSA amendment.
Sec. 103. Mississippi Band of Choctaw transportation reimbursement.
Sec. 104. Fallon Paiute Shoshone tribes settlement.
TITLE II--INDIAN LAND LEASING
Sec. 201. Prairie Island land conveyance.
Sec. 202. Authorization of 99-year leases.
Sec. 203. Certification of rental proceeds.
TITLE III--NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION FUNDING AMENDMENT
Sec. 301. National Indian Gaming Commission funding amendment.
TITLE IV--INDIAN FINANCING
Sec. 401. Indian Financing Act Amendments.
TITLE V--NATIVE AMERICAN PROBATE REFORM TECHNICAL AMENDMENT
Sec. 501. Clarification of provisions and amendments relating to
inheritance of Indian lands.
TITLE I--TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS AND OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO NATIVE
AMERICANS
SEC. 101. ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT TECHNICAL
AMENDMENT.
(a)(1) Section 337(a) of the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003 (Division F of
Public Law 108-7; 117 Stat. 278; February 20, 2003) is
amended--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``Section 1629b of title 43, United States Code,'' and
inserting ``Section 36 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (43 U.S.C. 1629b)'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``by creating the
following new subsection:'' and inserting ``in subsection
(d), by adding at the end the following:''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``by creating the
following new subsection:'' and inserting ``by adding at the
end the following:''.
(2) Section 36 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(43 U.S.C. 1629b) is amended in subsection (f), by striking
``section 1629e of this title'' and inserting ``section 39''.
(b)(1) Section 337(b) of the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003 (Division F of
Public Law 108-7; 117 Stat. 278; February 20, 2003) is
amended by striking ``Section 1629e(a)(3) of title 43, United
States Code,'' and inserting ``Section 39(a)(3) of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1629e(a)(3))''.
(2) Section 39(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1629e(a)(3)(B)(ii)) is amended by
striking ``(a)(4) of section 1629b of this title'' and
inserting ``section 36(a)(4)''.
(c) The amendments made by this section take effect on
February 20, 2003.
SEC. 102. ANCSA AMENDMENT.
All land and interests in land in the State of Alaska
conveyed by the Federal Government under the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) to a Native
Corporation and reconveyed by that Native Corporation, or a
successor in interest, in exchange for any other land or
interest in land in the State of Alaska and located within
the same region (as defined in section 9(a) of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1608(a)), to a Native
Corporation under an exchange or other conveyance, shall be
deemed, notwithstanding the conveyance or exchange, to have
been conveyed pursuant to that Act.
SEC. 103. MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW TRANSPORTATION
REIMBURSEMENT.
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed,
within the 3-year period beginning on the date of enactment
of this Act, to accept funds from the State of Mississippi
pursuant to the contract signed by the Mississippi Department
of Transportation on June 7, 2005, and by the Mississippi
Band of Choctaw Indians on June 2, 2005. The amount shall not
exceed $776,965.30 and such funds shall be deposited in the
trust account numbered PL7489708 at the Office of Trust Funds
Management for the benefit of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians. Thereafter, the tribe may draw down these moneys
from this trust account by resolution of the Tribal Council,
pursuant to Federal law and regulations applicable to such
accounts.
SEC. 104. FALLON PAIUTE SHOSHONE TRIBES SETTLEMENT.
(a) Settlement Fund.--Section 102 of the Fallon Paiute
Shoshone Indian Tribes Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990
(Public Law 101-618; 104 Stat. 3289) is amended--
(1) in subsection (C)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking the matter preceding subparagraph (a) and
inserting the following: ``Notwithstanding any conflicting
provision in the original Fund plan during Fund fiscal year
2006 or any subsequent Fund fiscal year, 6 percent of the
average quarterly market value of the Fund during the
immediately preceding 3 Fund fiscal years (referred to in
this title as the `Annual 6 percent Amount'), plus any
unexpended and unobligated portion of the Annual 6 percent
Amount from any of the 3 immediately preceding Fund fiscal
years that are subsequent to Fund fiscal year 2005, less any
negative income that may accrue on that portion, may be
expended or obligated only for the following purposes:''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Fees and expenses incurred in connection with the
investment of the Fund, for investment management, investment
consulting, custodianship, and other transactional services
or matters.''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) No monies from the Fund other than the amounts
authorized under paragraphs (1) and (3) may be expended or
obligated for any purpose.
``(5) Notwithstanding any conflicting provision in the
original Fund plan, during Fund fiscal year 2006 and during
each subsequent Fund fiscal year, not more than 20 percent of
the Annual 6 percent Amount for the Fund fiscal year
(referred to in this title as the `Annual 1.2 percent
Amount') may be expended or obligated under paragraph (1)(c)
for per capita distributions to tribal members, except that
during each Fund fiscal year subsequent to Fund fiscal year
2006, any unexpended and unobligated portion of the Annual
1.2 percent Amount from any of the 3 immediately preceding
Fund fiscal years that are subsequent to Fund fiscal year
2005, less any negative income that may accrue on that
portion, may also be expended or obligated for such per
capita payments.''; and
(2) in subsection (D), by adding at the end the following:
``Notwithstanding any conflicting provision in the original
Fund plan, the Fallon Business Council, in consultation with
the Secretary, shall promptly amend the original Fund plan
for purposes of conforming the Fund plan to this title and
making nonsubstantive updates, improvements, or corrections
to the original Fund plan.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 107 of the Fallon Paiute Shoshone
Indian Tribes Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990 (Public Law
101-618; 104 Stat. 3293) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (D), (E), (F), and (G) as
subsections (F), (G), (H), and (I), respectively; and
(2) by striking subsections (B) and (C) and inserting the
following:
``(B) the term `Fund fiscal year' means a fiscal year of
the Fund (as defined in the Fund plan);
``(C) the term `Fund plan' means the plan established under
section 102(F), including the original Fund plan (the `Plan
for Investment, Management, Administration and Expenditure
dated December 20, 1991') and all amendments of the Fund plan
under subsection (D) or (F)(1) of section 102;
[[Page 5773]]
``(D) the term `income' means the total net return from the
investment of the Fund, consisting of all interest,
dividends, realized and unrealized gains and losses, and
other earnings, less all related fees and expenses incurred
for investment management, investment consulting,
custodianship and transactional services or matters;
``(E) the term `principal' means the total amount
appropriated to the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribal Settlement
Fund under section 102(B);''.
TITLE II--INDIAN LAND LEASING
SEC. 201. PRAIRIE ISLAND LAND CONVEYANCE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army shall convey all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
land described in subsection (b), including all improvements,
cultural resources, and sites on the land, subject to the
flowage and sloughing easement described in subsection (d)
and to the conditions stated in subsection (f), to the
Secretary of the Interior, to be--
(1) held in trust by the United States for the benefit of
the Prairie Island Indian Community in Minnesota; and
(2) included in the Prairie Island Indian Community
Reservation in Goodhue County, Minnesota.
(b) Land Description.--The land to be conveyed under
subsection (a) is the approximately 1290 acres of land
associated with the Lock and Dam #3 on the Mississippi River
in Goodhue County, Minnesota, located in tracts identified as
GO-251, GO-252, GO-271, GO-277, GO-278, GO-284, GO-301
through GO-313, GO-314A, GO-314B, GO-329, GO-330A, GO-330B,
GO-331A, GO-331B, GO-331C, GO-332, GO-333, GO-334, GO-335A,
GO-335B, GO-336 through GO-338, GO-339A, GO-339B, GO-339C,
GO-339D, GO-339E, GO-340A, GO-340B, GO-358, GO-359A, GO-359B,
GO-359C, GO-359D, and GO-360, as depicted on the map entitled
``United States Army Corps of Engineers survey map of the
Upper Mississippi River 9-Foot Project, Lock & Dam No. 3 (Red
Wing), Land & Flowage Rights'' and dated December 1936.
(c) Boundary Survey.--Not later than 5 years after the date
of conveyance under subsection (a), the boundaries of the
land conveyed shall be surveyed as provided in section 2115
of the Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 176).
(d) Easement.--
(1) In general.--The Corps of Engineers shall retain a
flowage and sloughing easement for the purpose of navigation
and purposes relating to the Lock and Dam No. 3 project over
the portion of the land described in subsection (b) that lies
below the elevation of 676.0.
(2) Inclusions.--The easement retained under paragraph (1)
includes--
(A) the perpetual right to overflow, flood, and submerge
property as the District Engineer determines to be necessary
in connection with the operation and maintenance of the
Mississippi River Navigation Project; and
(B) the continuing right to clear and remove any brush,
debris, or natural obstructions that, in the opinion of the
District Engineer, may be detrimental to the project.
(e) Ownership of Sturgeon Lake Bed Unaffected.--Nothing in
this section diminishes or otherwise affects the title of the
State of Minnesota to the bed of Sturgeon Lake located within
the tracts of land described in subsection (b).
(f) Conditions.--The conveyance under subsection (a) is
subject to the conditions that the Prairie Island Indian
Community shall not--
(1) use the conveyed land for human habitation;
(2) construct any structure on the land without the written
approval of the District Engineer; or
(3) conduct gaming (within the meaning of section 4 of the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)) on the land.
(g) No Effect on Eligibility for Certain Projects.--
Notwithstanding the conveyance under subsection (a), the land
shall continue to be eligible for environmental management
planning and other recreational or natural resource
development projects on the same basis as before the
conveyance.
(h) Effect of Section.--Nothing in this section diminishes
or otherwise affects the rights granted to the United States
pursuant to letters of July 23, 1937, and November 20, 1937,
from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of War
and the letters of the Secretary of War in response to the
Secretary of the Interior dated August 18, 1937, and November
27, 1937, under which the Secretary of the Interior granted
certain rights to the Corps of Engineers to overflow the
portions of Tracts A, B, and C that lie within the
Mississippi River 9-Foot Channel Project boundary and as more
particularly shown and depicted on the map entitled ``United
States Army Corps of Engineers survey map of the Upper
Mississippi River 9-Foot Project, Lock & Dam No. 3 (Red
Wing), Land & Flowage Rights'' and dated December 1936.
SEC. 202. AUTHORIZATION OF 99-YEAR LEASES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of the first section of the
Act of August 9, 1955 (25 U.S.C. 415(a)), is amended in the
second sentence--
(1) by striking ``Moapa Indian reservation'' and inserting
``Moapa Indian Reservation'';
(2) by inserting ``the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation,'' before ``the Burns Paiute
Reservation'';
(3) by inserting ``the'' before ``Yavapai-Prescott'';
(4) by inserting ``the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation and
land held in trust for the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe,'' after
``the Cabazon Indian Reservation,'';
(5) by striking ``lands comprising the Moses Allotment
Numbered 10, Chelan County, Washington,,'' and inserting
``the lands comprising the Moses Allotment Numbered 8 and the
Moses Allotment Numbered 10, Chelan County, Washington,'';
(6) by inserting ``land held in trust for the Prairie Band
Potawatomi Nation,'' before ``lands held in trust for the
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma'';
(7) by inserting ``land held in trust for the Fallon Paiute
Shoshone Tribes,'' before ``lands held in trust for the
Pueblo of Santa Clara''; and
(8) by inserting ``land held in trust for the Yurok Tribe,
land held in trust for the Hopland Band of Pomo Indians of
the Hopland Rancheria,'' after ``Pueblo of Santa Clara,''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to any lease entered into or renewed after the
date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 203. CERTIFICATION OF RENTAL PROCEEDS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any actual
rental proceeds from the lease of land acquired under the
first section of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for
loans to Indian tribes and tribal corporations, and for other
purposes'' (25 U.S.C. 488) certified by the Secretary of the
Interior shall be deemed--
(1) to constitute the rental value of that land; and
(2) to satisfy the requirement for appraisal of that land.
TITLE III--NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION FUNDING AMENDMENT
SEC. 301. NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION FUNDING
AMENDMENT.
(a) Powers of the Commission.--Section 7 of the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2706) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(d) Application of Government Performance and Results
Act.--
``(1) In general.--In carrying out any action under this
Act, the Commission shall be subject to the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-62; 107
Stat. 285).
``(2) Plans.--In addition to any plan required under the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Public Law
103-62; 107 Stat. 285), the Commission shall submit a plan to
provide technical assistance to tribal gaming operations in
accordance with that Act.''.
(b) Commission Funding.--Section 18(a)(2) of the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2717(a)(2)) is amended by
striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
``(B) The total amount of all fees imposed during any
fiscal year under the schedule established under paragraph
(1) shall not exceed 0.080 percent of the gross gaming
revenues of all gaming operations subject to regulation under
this Act.''.
TITLE IV--INDIAN FINANCING
SEC. 401. INDIAN FINANCING ACT AMENDMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 201 of the Indian Financing Act of
1974 (25 U.S.C. 1481) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Sec. 201. In order'' and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 201. LOAN GUARANTIES AND INSURANCE.
``(a) In General.--In order'';
(2) by striking ``the Secretary is authorized (a) to
guarantee'' and inserting ``the Secretary may--
``(1) guarantee'';
(3) by striking ``members; and (b) in lieu of such
guaranty, to insure'' and inserting ``members; or
``(2) insure''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Eligible Borrowers.--The Secretary may guarantee or
insure loans under subsection (a) to both for-profit and
nonprofit borrowers.''.
(b) Sale or Assignment of Loans and Underlying Security.--
Section 205 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C.
1485) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Sec. 205.'' and all that follows through
subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``SEC. 205. SALE OR ASSIGNMENT OF LOANS AND UNDERLYING
SECURITY.
``(a) In General.--All or any portion of a loan guaranteed
or insured under this title, including the security given for
the loan--
``(1) may be transferred by the lender by sale or
assignment to any person; and
``(2) may be retransferred by the transferee.
``(b) Transfers of Loans.--With respect to a transfer
described in subsection (a)--
``(1) the transfer shall be consistent with such
regulations as the Secretary shall promulgate under
subsection (h); and
``(2) the transferee shall give notice of the transfer to
the Secretary.'';
(2) by striking subsection (c);
(3) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h),
and (i) as subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h),
respectively;
(4) in subsection (c) (as redesignated by paragraph (3)),
by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
[[Page 5774]]
``(2) Validity.--Except as provided in regulations in
effect on the date on which a loan is made, the validity of a
guarantee or insurance of a loan under this title shall be
incontestable.'';
(5) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (3))--
(A) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Compensation of fiscal transfer agent.--A fiscal
transfer agent designated under subsection (f) may be
compensated through any of the fees assessed under this
section and any interest earned on any funds or fees
collected by the fiscal transfer agent while the funds or
fees are in the control of the fiscal transfer agent and
before the time at which the fiscal transfer agent is
contractually required to transfer such funds to the
Secretary or to transferees or other holders.''; and
(6) in subsection (f) (as redesignated by paragraph (3))--
(A) by striking ``subsection (i)'' and inserting
``subsection (h)''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``, and issuance of
acknowledgments,''.
(c) Loans Ineligible for Guaranty or Insurance.--Section
206 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1486) is
amended by inserting ``(not including an eligible Community
Development Finance Institution)'' after ``Government''.
(d) Aggregate Loans or Surety Bonds Limitation.--Section
217(b) of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C.
1497(b)) is amended by striking ``$500,000,000'' and
inserting ``$1,500,000,000''.
TITLE V--NATIVE AMERICAN PROBATE REFORM TECHNICAL AMENDMENT
SEC. 501. CLARIFICATION OF PROVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS RELATING
TO INHERITANCE OF INDIAN LANDS.
(a) Clarifications Relating to Applicable Laws.--
(1) In general.--Section 207(g)(2) of the Indian Land
Consolidation Act (25 U.S.C. 2206(g)(2)) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``described in paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``specified in
paragraph (1)''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``identified in
Federal law'' and inserting ``identified in such law''.
(2) Limitation on effect of paragraph.--Section 207(g) of
the Indian Land Consolidation Act (25 U.S.C. 2206(g)) is
amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the
following:
``(3) Limitation on effect of paragraph.--Except to the
extent that this Act would amend or otherwise affect the
application of a Federal law specified or described in
paragraph (1) or (2), nothing in paragraph (2) limits the
application of this Act to trust or restricted land,
interests in such land, or any other trust or restricted
interests or assets.''.
(b) Transfer and Exchange; Land for Which Patents Have Been
Executed and Delivered.--
(1) Transfer and exchange of land.--Section 4 of the Act of
June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 464), is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 4. TRANSFER AND EXCHANGE OF RESTRICTED INDIAN LANDS
AND SHARES OF INDIAN TRIBES AND CORPORATIONS.
``Except as provided in this Act, no sale, devise, gift,
exchange, or other transfer of restricted Indian lands or of
shares in the assets of any Indian tribe or corporation
organized under this Act shall be made or approved: Provided,
That such lands or interests may, with the approval of the
Secretary of the Interior, be sold, devised, or otherwise
transferred to the Indian tribe in which the lands or shares
are located or from which the shares were derived, or to a
successor corporation; Provided further, That, subject to
section 8(b) of the American Indian Probate Reform Act of
2004 (Public Law 108-374; 25 U.S.C. 2201 note), lands and
shares described in the preceding proviso shall descend or be
devised to any member of an Indian tribe or corporation
described in that proviso or to an heir or lineal descendant
of such a member in accordance with the Indian Land
Consolidation Act (25 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), including a
tribal probate code approved, or regulations promulgated
under, that Act: Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Interior may authorize any voluntary exchanges of lands of
equal value and the voluntary exchange of shares of equal
value whenever such exchange, in the judgment of the
Secretary, is expedient and beneficial for or compatible with
the proper consolidation of Indian lands and for the benefit
of cooperative organizations.''.
(2) Land for which patents have been executed and
delivered.--Section 5 of the Act of February 8, 1887 (25
U.S.C. 348) is amended in the second proviso by striking
``That'' and inserting ``That, subject to section 8(b) of the
American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-
374; 118 Stat. 1810),''.
(3) Effective dates.--Section 8 of the American Indian
Probate Reform Act of 2004 (25 U.S.C. 2201 note; 118 Stat.
1809) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Effective Dates.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this Act apply on and after the date that
is 1 year after the date on which the Secretary makes the
certification required under subsection (a)(4).
``(2) Exceptions.--The following provisions of law apply as
of the date of enactment of this Act:
``(A) Subsections (e) and (f) of section 207 of the Indian
Land Consolidation Act (25 U.S.C. 2206) (as amended by this
Act).
``(B) Subsection (g) of section 207 of the Indian Land
Consolidation Act (25 U.S.C. 2206) (as in effect on March 1,
2006).
``(C) The amendments made by section 4, section 5,
paragraphs (1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), and
(11) of section 6(a), section 6(b)(3), and section 7 of this
Act.''.
(c) Effective Date of Amendments.--The amendments made by
subsection (b) shall take effect as if included in the
enactment of the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004
(Public Law 108-374; 118 Stat. 1773).
____________________
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 a hearing has been
scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 at 10 a.m. in
the Salon Ortega at the National Hispanic Cultural Center of New Mexico
located at 1701 4th Street SW in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding the
drought conditions facing the state of New Mexico and S. 2561, to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make available cost-shared
grants and enter into cooperative agreements to further the goals of
the Water 2025 Program by improving water conservation, efficiency, and
management in the Reclamation States, and for other purposes.
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 Nate Gentry at (202) 224-2179
or Steve Waskiewicz at (202) 228-6195.
____________________
NOTICE: REGISTRATION OF MASS MAILINGS
The filing date for 2006 first quarter mass mailings is Tuesday,
April 25, 2006. If your office did no mass mailings during this period,
please submit a form that states ``none.''
Mass mailing registrations, or negative reports, should be submitted
to the Senate Office of Public Records, 232 Hart Building, Washington,
D.C. 20510-7116.
The Public Records office will be open from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on
the filing date to accept these filings. For further information,
please contact the Public Records office at (202) 224-0322.
____________________
MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME--S. 2603, S. 2611, AND S. 2612
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I understand there are three bills at
the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2603) to reduce temporarily the royalty required
to be paid for sodium produced on Federal lands and for other
purposes.
A bill (S. 2611) to provide for comprehensive immigration
reform and for other purposes.
A bill (S. 2612) to provide for comprehensive immigration
reform and for other purposes.
Mr. McCONNELL. I now ask for their second reading and, in order to
place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I
object to my own request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The bills will be read for the second time on the next legislative
day.
____________________
H.R. 4939--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 391,
[[Page 5775]]
H.R. 4939, the supplemental appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the pending legislation
be set aside until Tuesday, April 25, at a time to be determined by the
majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
TREATY ON THE MARPOL CONVENTION
______
TREATY ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE WITH JAPAN
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to executive session to consider the following treaties on
today's Executive Calendar: No. 12 and 14.
I further ask unanimous consent that the treaties be considered as
having passed through the various parliamentary stages up to and
including the presentation of the resolutions of ratification, that any
statements be printed in the Record as if read, and the Senate take one
vote on a resolution of ratification to be considered as separate
votes; further, that when the resolutions of ratification are voted
upon, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be
notified of the Senate's action, and that following the disposition of
the treaties, the Senate return to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for a division vote on the
resolutions of ratification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A division vote has been requested.
Senators in favor of the ratification of these treaties, please rise.
Those opposed will rise and stand until counted.
With two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the
affirmative, the resolutions of ratification are agreed to.
The resolutions of ratification are as follows:
Protocol of 1997 Amending MARPOL Convention (Treaty Doc. 108-7)
Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein),
Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent Subject to
Understandings and Declaration.
The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the
Protocol of 1997 to Amend the International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by
the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto (hereinafter in this
resolution referred to as the ``Protocol of 1997''), signed
by the United States on December 22, 1998 (T. Doc. 108-7),
subject to the understandings and declaration in sections 2
and 3.
Section 2. Understandings.
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following understandings, which shall be
included in the United States instrument of ratification:
(1) The United States of America understands that the
Protocol of 1997 does not, as a matter of international law,
prohibit Parties from imposing, as a condition of entry into
their ports or internal waters, more stringent emission
standards or fuel oil requirements than those identified in
the Protocol.
(2) The United States of America understands that
Regulation 15 applies only to safety aspects associated with
the operation of vapor emission control systems that may be
applied during cargo transfer operations between a tanker and
port-side facilities and to the requirements specified in
Regulation 15 for notification to the International Maritime
Organization of port State regulation of such systems.
Section 3. Declaration.
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following declaration, which shall be included
in the United States instrument of ratification:
The United States of America notes that at the time of
adoption of the Protocol of 1997, the NOX emission
control limits contained in Regulation 13 were those agreed
as being achievable by January 1, 2000, on new marine diesel
engines, and further notes that Regulation 13(3)(b)
contemplated that new technology would become available to
reduce on-board NOX emissions below those limits.
As such improved technology is now available, the United
States expresses its support for an amendment to Annex VI,
that would, on an urgent basis, revise the agreed
NOX emission control limits contained in
Regulation 13 in keeping with new technological developments.
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty With Japan (Treaty Doc. 108-12)
Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein),
The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the
Treaty between the United States of America and Japan on
Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed at
Washington on August 5, 2003 (Treaty Doc. 108-12).
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
return to legislative session.
____________________
DESIGNATING THE THIRD WEEK OF APRIL AS ``NATIONAL SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME
AWARENESS WEEK''
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 439, which was
submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 439) to designate the third week of
April 2006 as ``National Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness
Week.''
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague
Senator Alexander, to introduce a resolution that of the resolution the
Senate has passed to proclaim the third week of April of 2006 as Shaken
Baby Syndrome Awareness Week. Last year, we passed a similar resolution
and continue to support raising awareness of this important issue. I
would like to recognize the many groups, particularly the National
Shaken Baby Coalition and the SKIPPER Initiative, who support this
effort to increase awareness of one of the most devastating forms of
child abuse, one that results in the death or lifelong disability of
hundreds of children each year.
We must recognize child abuse and neglect as the public health
problem it is, one that is linked with a host of other problems facing
our country and one that needs the comprehensive approach of our entire
public health system to solve. The month of April has been designated
National Child Abuse Prevention Month as an annual tradition that was
initiated in 1979 by former President Jimmy Carter. In 2006, April is
again National Child Abuse Prevention Month.
The tragedy of child abuse is well documented. According to the
National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, NCANDS, almost 900,000
children were victims of abuse and neglect in the United States in
2002, causing unspeakable pain and suffering to our most vulnerable
citizens. Each day, nearly four of these children die as a result of
this abuse. Most experts are certain that cases of child abuse and
neglect are in fact underreported.
Abusive head trauma, including the trauma known as Shaken Baby
Syndrome, is recognized as the leading cause of death of physically
abused children, especially young children. Shaken Baby Syndrome is a
totally preventable form of child abuse that results from a caregiver
losing control and shaking a baby, usually an infant who is less than 1
year old. This severe shaking can kill the baby, or it can cause loss
of vision, brain damage, paralysis, and seizures, resulting in lifelong
disabilities and causing untold grief for many families.
Too many families have experienced the pain of Shaken Baby Syndrome.
A 2003 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association
estimates that, in the U.S., an average of 300 children will die each
year, and 600 to 1,200 more will be injured, of whom two-thirds will be
babies or infants under 1 year in age, as a result of Shaken Baby
Syndrome. Medical professionals believe that thousands more cases of
Shaken Baby Syndrome are being misdiagnosed or not detected.
Families should be spared the needless tragedy of Shaken Baby
Syndrome. Prevention is the most effective solution to ending Shaken
Baby Syndrome. It is clear that the minimal
[[Page 5776]]
costs of educational and prevention programs may help to protect our
young children. Families as well as professionals who care for children
must be made aware of the injuries that shaking can cause. In 1995, the
U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect recommended a universal
approach to the prevention of child fatalities that included services
such as home visitation by trained professionals or paraprofessionals,
hospital-linked outreach to parents of infants and toddlers, community-
based programs designed for the specific needs of neighborhoods, and
effective public education campaigns.
Prevention programs have demonstrated that educating new parents
about the danger of shaking young children and how they can help
protect their child from injury can bring about a significant reduction
in the number of cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome. In 1998, Dr. Mark Dias
started the Upstate New York SBS Prevention Project at Children's
Hospital of Buffalo, which uses a simple video to educate new parents
before they leave the hospital. Since that time, the number of shaken
baby incidents in the Buffalo area has dropped by nearly 50%; none of
the perpetrators have been identified as participants in the hospital
education program. Hospitals around the country, including several in
my own State of Connecticut, have adopted programs similar to these to
educate new parents about the dangers of shaking young children.
I urge the Senate to adopt this resolution designating the third week
of April of 2006 as National Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week, and
to take part in the many local and national activities and events
recognizing the month of April as National Child Abuse Prevention
Month.
The prevention of Shaken Baby Syndrome is supported by advocacy
groups across the U.S. that were formed by parents and relatives of
children who have been killed or injured by shaking. I ask unanimous
consent that a list of groups supporting this resolution be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Groups Supporting National Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week
The National Shaken Baby Coalition, The National Center on
Shaken Baby Syndrome, The Children's Defense Fund, The
American Academy of Pediatrics, The Child Welfare League of
America, Prevent Child Abuse America, The National Child
Abuse Coalition, The National Exchange Club Foundation, The
American Humane Association, The American Professional
Society on the Abuse of Children, The Arc of the United
States, The Association of University Centers on
Disabilities, Children's Healthcare is a Legal Duty, Family
Partnership, Family Voices, National Alliance of Children's
Trust and Prevention Funds, United Cerebral Palsy, The
National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related
Institutions, Never Shake a Baby Arizona/Prevent Child Abuse
Arizona, The Center for Child Protection and Family Support.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating
thereto be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 439) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 439
Whereas the month of April has been designated ``National
Child Abuse Prevention Month'' as an annual tradition that
was initiated in 1979 by former President Jimmy Carter;
Whereas the most recent National Child Abuse and Neglect
Data System figures reveal that almost 900,000 children were
victims of abuse and neglect in the United States in 2002,
causing unspeakable pain and suffering to our most vulnerable
citizens;
Whereas among the children who are victims of abuse and
neglect, nearly 4 children die in the United States each day;
Whereas children aged 1 year or younger accounted for 41.2
percent of all child abuse and neglect fatalities in 2002,
and children aged 4 years or younger accounted for 76.1
percent of all child abuse and neglect fatalities in 2002;
Whereas abusive head trauma, including the trauma known as
``Shaken Baby Syndrome'', is recognized as the leading cause
of death of physically abused children;
Whereas Shaken Baby Syndrome can result in loss of vision,
brain damage, paralysis, seizures, or death;
Whereas a 2003 report in the Journal of the American
Medical Association estimated that, in the United States, an
average of 300 children will die each year, and 600 to 1,200
more will be injured, of whom \2/3\ will be babies or infants
under 1 year in age, as a result of Shaken Baby Syndrome,
with many cases resulting in severe and permanent
disabilities;
Whereas medical professionals believe that thousands of
additional cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome are being
misdiagnosed or are not detected;
Whereas Shaken Baby Syndrome often results in permanent,
irreparable brain damage or death to an infant and may result
in more than $1,000,000 in medical costs to care for a
single, disabled child in just the first few years of life;
Whereas the most effective solution for ending Shaken Baby
Syndrome is to prevent the abuse, and it is clear that the
minimal costs of education and prevention programs may
prevent enormous medical and disability costs and
immeasurable amounts of grief for many families;
Whereas prevention programs have demonstrated that
educating new parents about the danger of shaking young
children and how they can help protect their child from
injury can bring about a significant reduction in the number
of cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome;
Whereas education programs have been shown to raise
awareness and provide critically important information about
Shaken Baby Syndrome to parents, caregivers, daycare workers,
child protection employees, law enforcement personnel, health
care professionals, and legal representatives;
Whereas efforts to prevent Shaken Baby Syndrome are
supported by advocacy groups across the United States that
were formed by parents and relatives of children who have
been killed or injured by shaking, including the National
Shaken Baby Coalition, the Shaken Baby Association, the
Shaking Kills: Instead Parents Please Educate and Remember
Initiative (commonly known as the ``SKIPPER Initiative''),
the Shaken Baby Alliance, Shaken Baby Prevention, Inc., A
Voice for Gabbi, Don't Shake Jake, and the Kierra Harrison
Foundation, whose mission is to educate the general public
and professionals about Shaken Baby Syndrome and to increase
support for victims and the families of the victims in the
health care and criminal justice systems;
Whereas child abuse prevention programs and ``National
Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week'' are supported by the
National Shaken Baby Coalition, the National Center on Shaken
Baby Syndrome, the Children's Defense Fund, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America,
Prevent Child Abuse America, the National Child Abuse
Coalition, the National Exchange Club Foundation, the
American Humane Association, the American Professional
Society on the Abuse of Children, the Arc of the United
States, the Association of University Centers on
Disabilities, Children's Healthcare is a Legal Duty, Family
Partnership, Family Voices, National Alliance of Children's
Trust and Prevention Funds, United Cerebral Palsy, the
National Association of Children's Hospitals and related
institutions, Never Shake a Baby Arizona, Prevent Child Abuse
Arizona, the Center for Child Protection and Family Support,
and many other organizations;
Whereas a 2000 survey by Prevent Child Abuse America shows
that approximately half of all citizens of the United States
believe that, of all the public health issues facing the
United States, child abuse and neglect is the most important
issue;
Whereas Congress previously designated the third week of
April 2001 as ``National Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week
2001''; and
Whereas Congress strongly supports efforts to protect
children from abuse and neglect: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates the third week of April 2006 as ``National
Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week'';
(2) commends those hospitals, child care councils, schools,
and other organizations that are--
(A) working to increase awareness of the danger of shaking
young children; and
(B) educating parents and caregivers on how they can help
protect children from injuries caused by abusive shaking; and
(3) encourages the citizens of the United States to--
(A) remember the victims of Shaken Baby Syndrome; and
(B) participate in educational programs to help prevent
Shaken Baby Syndrome.
[[Page 5777]]
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE MEMBERS OF THE U.S. OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC TEAMS
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 440, which was submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 440) congratulating and commending
the members of the United States Olympic and Paralympic
teams, and the United States Olympic Committee, for their
success and inspired leadership.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 440) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 440
Whereas athletes of the United States Winter Olympic Team
captured 9 gold medals, 9 silver medals, and 7 bronze medals
at the Olympic Winter Games in Torino, Italy;
Whereas the total number of medals won by the competitors
of the United States placed the United States ahead of all
but 1 country, Germany, in total medals awarded to teams from
any 1 country;
Whereas the paralympic athletes of the United States
captured 7 gold medals, 2 silver medals, and 3 bronze medals
at the Paralympic Winter Games, which were held immediately
after the Olympic Winter Games in Torino, Italy;
Whereas the total medal count for the United States Winter
Paralympic Team ranked the team 7th among all participating
teams;
Whereas members of the United States Winter Olympic Team,
such as skater Joey Cheek, who donated his considerable
monetary earnings to relief efforts in Darfur, Sudan, and
skier Lindsey Kildow, who exhibited considerable courage by
returning to the field of competition only days after a
painful and horrendous accident, demonstrated the true spirit
of generosity and tenacity of the United States and the
Olympic Winter Games; and
Whereas the leadership displayed by United States Olympic
Committee Board Chairman Peter Ueberroth and Chief Executive
Officer Jim Scherr has helped transform the committee into an
organization that--
(1) upholds the highest ideals of the Olympic movement; and
(2) discharges the responsibilities of the committee to the
athletes and the citizens of the United States in the manner
that Congress intended when it chartered the committee in
1978: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) commends and congratulates the members of the 2006
United States Winter Olympic and Paralympic Teams;
(2) expresses its appreciation for the firm, inspired, and
ethical leadership displayed by the United States Olympic
Committee; and
(3) extends its best wishes and encouragement to those
athletes of the United States and their numerous supporters
who are preparing to represent the United States at the 2008
Olympic Games, which are to be held in Beijing, China.
____________________
NATIVE AMERICAN TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2005
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Indian Affairs be discharged from further consideration of
H.R. 3351 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3351) to make technical corrections to laws
relating to Native Americans, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, H.R. 3351, the Native American Technical
Corrections Act of 2005, was passed by the House on November 16, 2005,
and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. Many of the provisions
in the House bill have already been acted on by the Senate in various
bills. I will ask the Senate to pass the bill with a substitute
amendment which includes most of the provisions in the original House
version of the bill as well as some amendments that were not in the
House version. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Dorgan as an
original cosponsor of the amendment.
The Senate amendment to H.R. 3551 that I am offering contains the
following: Section 104 is the same as S. 1484, which passed the Senate
on July 26, 2005, and it amends the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Indian
Tribes Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990 to adjust the spending rule
set forth in that act for the Tribe's Settlement Fund. The provision
would authorize expenditure of 6 percent of the average market value of
the Settlement fund over the preceding 3 years. Section 201 is the same
as S. 706, which passed the Senate on July 26, 2005, and it authorizes
the transfer of lands, now held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to
the Department of the Interior to be held in trust for the benefit of
the Prairie Island Indian community in Red Wing, MN. The transfer will
have no effect on the tax status of the lands, nor will the Prairie
Island Indian Community be permitted to develop commercial or gaming
facilities on the land; section 202 authorizes various 99-year leases.
Part of this section passed Senate in S. 1485 on July 26, 2005, while
other provisions were contained in H.R. 3351. Section 203 addresses the
problem of lack of appraisers in Indian country by providing that for
purposes of obtaining agricultural loans, the market value of land is
the default appraisal value. This section is the same as S. 1489, that
passed the Senate on July 26, 2005. Section 301 previously passed the
Senate in S. 1295 on December 12, 2005, and it authorizes the National
Indian Gaming Commission to collect fees up to 0.08 percent of gross
gaming revenues, and eliminates $12 million cap, and subjects NIGC to
the Government Performance and Results Act. Section 401, like S. 1758,
that passed the Senate on August 22, 2005, amends the Indian Financing
Act of 1974 to clarify that nonprofit tribal entities are eligible for
Bureau of Indian Affairs Loan Guaranty Program. In addition, because
the BIA is fast reaching its $500 million limit on the amount of loans
it can have outstanding, and this section will increase that number to
$1.5 billion.
The four new provisions that have not passed the Senate as stand-
alone measures do the following: Section 101 corrects a drafting error
to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; section 102 facilitates
exchanges between Alaska Regional and Village Corporations of land
obtained through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act by clarifying
that undeveloped land received by each Native corporation participant
in the exchanges is deemed to be land conveyed under ANCSA; and section
103 will allow the State of Mississippi to pay the Mississippi Choctaw
for work already preformed, through a newly established BIA Trust Fund.
The final new provision is section 501, the Native American Probate
Reform and Technical Amendment, described in more detail below.
Section 501 corrects drafting errors and clarifies and includes new
provisions relating to amendments made by the American Indian Probate
Reform Act of 2004, AIPRA, and S. 1481, which was enacted into law in
December of 2005. One of these provisions is an amendment to 25 U.S.C.
464. In 2004, this section was amended in AIPRA so that it would
conform to the new uniform Indian probate code that was the centerpiece
of AIPRA; however, after reviewing the various amendments that were
made by AIPRA, which was a very complex piece of legislation, we
concluded that the AIPRA amendments to 25 U.S.C. 464 was drafted in a
way that its execution was unclear. So in the 109th Congress, we
attempted to correct this in S. 1481--P.L. 109-157, enacted on December
30, 2005, by restating section 464 as it should have read.
Unfortunately, there were drafting errors in S. 1481 that were not
picked up prior to its enactment. Accordingly, my substitute amendment
includes a new restatement of section 464 correcting these drafting
errors and conforming the statute to the new uniform Indian probate
code enacted as part of AIPRA. I would like to make the point here that
the purpose of the amendments restating section 464, both in S. 1481
and in the current substitute
[[Page 5778]]
amendment to H.R. 3351, were and are intended to do nothing more than
to conform the provisions in that section relating to the devise and
inheritance of lands to the new uniform probate code contained in the
American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004. As the author of both S.
1481 and the substitute amendment, I want to make it clear that neither
measure intends to affect any of the other sorts of transactions that
might otherwise be subject to section 464 or to affect in any way the
application of any other Federal laws that might apply to lands that
are covered by section 464.
We are also making clarifying amendments to AIPRA relating to the
effective date of its amendments and to its amendments to the
``Applicable Federal Law'' provisions of section 207(g) of the Indian
Land Consolidation Act. With respect to the former, the substitute
includes technical amendments to the effective date section of AIPRA,
section 8(b) of AIPRA, to make it clear that the amendments that were
made to 25 U.S.C. 464 and 25 U.S.C. 348 are intended to take effect 1
year after the date on which the Secretary of Interior certified that
notice of the AIPRA amendments had been given to Indian country in
accordance with AIPRA section 8(a), and that sections 348 and 464, as
they read immediately prior to the passage of AIPRA, would continue to
apply until the effective date of the new amendments.
Finally, the substitute also makes some minor changes to the wording
of section 207(g) of ILCA just to further clarify congressional intent
that nothing in ILCA supercedes or affects the application of special
laws that relate to specific Indian tribes or the allotted lands of
specific tribes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
committee substitute at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be
read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3587) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The bill (H.R. 3351), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 382, the adjournment
resolution; provided that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 382) was agreed to, as
follows:
H. Con. Res. 382
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative
day of Thursday, April 6, 2006, on a motion offered pursuant
to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his
designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, April
25, 2006, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs
first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any
day from Thursday, April 6, 2006, through Sunday, April 9,
2006, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand
recessed or adjourned until noon on Monday, April 24, 2006,
or such other time on that day as may be specified by its
Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or
adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs
first.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly
after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and
the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members
of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at
such place and time as they may designate if, in their
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
____________________
APPOINTMENT AUTHORITY
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding the upcoming recess or adjournment of the Senate, the
President of the Senate, the President pro tempore, and the majority
and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions,
committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences
authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order
of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO REPORT
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding the Senate's adjournment, committees be authorized to
report legislative and executive matters on April 20, 2006, from 10
a.m. to 12 noon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 366 which was
received from the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the concurrent
resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 366) to congratulate
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on the 21st
anniversary of the first flight of the space transportation
system.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, there have been times that we, as a
nation, have become so accustomed to successful space shuttle launches
that we barely heard about them on the evening news. One hundred and
fourteen successful missions have provided a wealth of information and
research results that are seen and felt in our everyday lives. Yet few
of us could identify these as having resulted from Space Shuttle
research.
Today, the Space Shuttle is viewed by many as an over-aged relic of
the past and the vehicle whose two failures in the past 24 years of its
service cost the lives of 14 brave astronauts. As tragic and
unforgettable as the Challenger and Columbia accidents were, we must
honor the memory of their crews by honoring the task for which they
gave their lives. I am proud that our Nation has chosen to learn
everything possible from those tragic losses to minimize the risks that
will always be present in human space flight and to move forward to
keep the dream of spaceflight alive.
It is appropriate today, as we consider House Concurrent Resolution
366, to reach back to the very beginning of space shuttle nights to the
day, 25 years ago next week--April 12, 1981, at 7 a.m. eastern time. On
that morning, the space shuttle Columbia lifted off on her maiden
voyage, carrying two brave and intrepid explorers, Commander John Young
and Pilot Robert Crippen. They orbited the Earth 36 times in two days,
six hours and twenty minutes, landing in California at Edwards Air
Force Base on April 14, 1981, at 1:20 p.m. eastern time. This first
mission of a reusable spacecraft marked the beginning of a new era in
human spaceflight.
This era also provided the Nation and the world with new and
incredible views of our Earth as seen from orbit. It also provided a
continuous stream of important microgravity research that has found its
way into medical devices, treatment procedures, computer enhancements,
communications technologies, and a host of other practical applications
that generally go unnoticed. The Great Telescopes, such as Hubble,
Chandra and the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, were all made possible
by the Space Shuttle. In the case of the Hubble, its inestimable value
as a research tool was both rescued by the Space Shuttle and extended
by servicing missions not possible without the Space Shuttle.
In the next several years, as the Space Shuttle completes the mission
[[Page 5779]]
for which it was designed--completing the assembly and outfitting of
the International Space Station--we will move into a new era of human
spaceflight. We will experience new firsts and enter new names into the
history books of those who accomplish the important milestones along
our way to the Moon, Mars and beyond.
None of that would be possible, however, without the service of those
who have gone before, and especially those two heroes we honor and
recognize today. These two men took a vehicle never flown before on a
journey of over a million miles. By any standard, that is an impressive
first step.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, 25 years ago, on April 12,
1981, the Space Shuttle Columbia lifted off from the Kennedy Space
Center in Florida. It marked the beginning of a historic two day
mission, and more importantly, it was the first of many future shuttle
missions. I am pleased to support passage of H. Con. Res. 366,
commemorating this important anniversary.
I applaud the tremendous bravery of the STS-1 crew--Commander John W.
Young and Pilot Robert L. Crippen--on accomplishing the mission safely
and successfully. This anniversary is a testament to the thousands of
people who worked to bring the Space Shuttle Program to life and to
those who have sustained it throughout the years.
The Space Shuttle Program brought our Nation commercial and
government satellite deliveries, in-orbit satellite repairs, delivery
of large science observatories such as the Hubble Space Telescope,
Space Lab science missions, historic dockings with the Russian Mir
Space Station and assembly of the International Space Station.
Since the STS-1 launch in 1981, this Nation has launched more than
100 flights. Sadly, the Challenger and Columbia were lost in 1986 and
2003, respectively. What we learned about safety in spaceflight,
brought by the sacrifices of the Challenger and Columbia crews, has
made our space program stronger.
Today the great challenge facing our space program is one of
transition. We must complete the construction of the station and retire
the shuttle fleet with dignity. And equally important, we must work
together to preserve the workforce that will soon become the backbone
of the new Crew Exploration Vehicle and the next human space project.
With the 25th anniversary of STS-1, let us all rededicate ourselves
to the unfinished mission of exploration and discovery. Let us pledge
to complete the journey that Commander Young and Pilot Crippen began by
returning safely to flight with STS-121 later this summer, and move
forward in leading the world in space exploration.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements
relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 366) was agreed to.
____________________
AUTHORITY TO SIGN DULY ENROLLED BILLS OR JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the
adjournment of the Senate, the majority leader and senior Senator from
North Carolina be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint
resolutions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATIONS DISCHARGED
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to executive session; provided further that the Commerce
Committee be discharged from further consideration of the following
Coast Guard nominations: PN 1332, PN 1333, PN 1334, and PN 1335;
provided further that the Senate proceed to their consideration; I
further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, with
the motions to reconsider laid upon the table, the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return
to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed are as follows:
coast guard
The following named officer for appointment as Commander,
Atlantic Area of the United States Coast Guard and to the
grade indicated under Title 14, U.S.C., Section 50:
To be vice admiral
Rear Adm. David B. Peterman, 0000
The following named officer for appointment as Commander,
Pacific Area of the United States Coast Guard and to the
grade indicated under Title 14, U.S.C., Section 50:
To be vice admiral
Rear Adm. Charles D. Wurster, 0000
The following named officer for appointment as Chief of
Staff of the United States Coast Guard and to the grade
indicated under Title 14, U.S.C., section 50a:
To be vice admiral
Rear Adm. (lh) Robert J. Papp, 0000
The following named officer for appointment as Vice
Commandant of the United States Coast Guard in the grade
indicated under Title 14, U.S.C., section 47:
To be vice admiral
Vice Adm. Vivien S. Crea, 0000
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
return to legislative session.
____________________
ORDERS FOR MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2006
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment under the
provisions of H. Con. Res. 382 until 2 p.m. on Monday, April 24. 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
proceed to a period of morning business with Senators allowed to speak
for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. McCONNELL. We will return after the Easter/Passover break and
begin consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill. As I
indicated earlier, there will be no votes on Monday, April 24. However,
Senators will be able to come to the floor for opening statements on
the supplemental bill. We will begin consideration of the bill on
Tuesday, and therefore votes will occur on Tuesday.
We also have two district judges on the calendar and may well
schedule votes on them on that Tuesday as well.
I certainly wish everyone a restful and safe break.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2006, AT 2 P.M.
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 provisions of H. Con, Res. 382.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 2:34 p.m., adjourned until
Monday, April 24, 2006, at 2 p.m.
____________________
DISCHARGED NOMINATIONS
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation was
discharged from further consideration of the following nominations and
the nominations were confirmed:
COAST GUARD NOMINATION OF REAR ADM. DAVID B. PETERMAN TO BE
VICE ADMIRAL.
COAST GUARD NOMINATION OF REAR ADM. CHARLES D. WURSTER TO
BE VICE ADMIRAL.
COAST GUARD NOMINATION OF REAR ADM. (LH) ROBERT J. PAPP TO
BE VICE ADMIRAL.
COAST GUARD NOMINATION OF VICE ADM. VIVIEN S. CREA TO BE
VICE ADMIRAL.
[[Page 5780]]
____________________
CONFIRMATIONS
Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate, Friday, April 7, 2006:
department of defense
DORRANCE SMITH, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE.
THE ABOVE NOMINATION WAS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE NOMINEE'S
COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY
BEFORE ANY DULY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE.
in the coast guard
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT AS COMMANDER,
ATLANTIC AREA OF THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD AND TO THE
GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 14, U.S.C., SECTION 50:
To be vice admiral
Rear Adm. David B. Peterman
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT AS COMMANDER,
PACIFIC AREA OF THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD AND TO THE
GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 14, U.S.C., SECTION 50:
To be vice admiral
Rear Adm. Charles D. Wurster
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT AS CHIEF OF
STAFF OF THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD AND TO THE GRADE
INDICATED UNDER TITLE 14, U.S.C., SECTION 50A:
To be vice admiral
Rear Adm. (lh) Robert J. Papp
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT AS VICE
COMMANDER OF THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD IN THE GRADE
INDICATED UNDER TITLE 14, U.S.C., SECTION 47:
To be vice admiral
Vice Adm. Vivien S. Crea
[[Page 5781]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
INCREASING AWARENESS OF KIDNEY DISEASE IN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN
COMMUNITY
______
HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN
of the virgin islands
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, as Congress recognizes National
Minority Health Month, I join my colleagues, Congressman Watt and
Congressman Jefferson to increase awareness about the devastating
effects of kidney disease on the African American community.
Both kidney failure and its precursor, Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD),
disproportionately affect African Americans. Although only about 13
percent of the U.S. population, African Americans make up 32 percent of
the patients treated for kidney failure. The American Heart Association
reports that African Americans have a 4.2 times greater rate of kidney
failure than white Americans. The Congressional Black Caucus is
especially concerned about the growing prevalence of kidney disease
because of this disproportionate impact.
Mr. Speaker, the leading causes of kidney disease are diabetes and
high blood pressure, both of which also disproportionately affect
African Americans. Diabetes occurs at twice the rate in the African
American community than it does with Caucasians. High blood pressure
affects 1 out of every 3 African American adults. According to the
American Heart Association, the prevalence of hypertension in the
African American community is among the highest in the world.
Mr. Speaker, African Americans are four times more likely to develop
kidney failure than Caucasians. African Americans make up 12 percent of
the population but account for 30 percent of people with kidney
failure. Diabetes and high blood pressure account for about 70 percent
of kidney failure in African Americans. A recent National Kidney
Disease Education Program (NKDEP) survey of African Americans found
that only 17 percent named kidney disease as a consequence of diabetes,
and only 8 percent named it as a consequence of high blood pressure.
African American males ages 22-44 are 20 times more likely to develop
kidney failure due to high blood pressure than Caucasian males in the
same age group. Forty-five percent of African American men with kidney
failure received late referrals to nephrologists. In some cases people
were not aware they had a problem until they needed dialysis.
We must continue our strong support of the efforts of the kidney care
community to meet the needs of these patients. We must fund education
programs to raise awareness of the disease within the African American
community. We must ensure that Medicare treats those who care for
patients with kidney disease the same way it treats all other groups of
providers--this means enacting an annual update mechanism to recognize
inflation and other increases related to caring for these patients.
Without equitable reimbursement, it will be difficult for the community
to continue to meet the needs of the ever-growing patient population.
Supporting educational programs and high quality care not only
improves quality of life for patients, but also reduces the cost to the
overburdened Medicare program. Preventing kidney failure and improving
care will result in substantial savings for the government. In
addition, if treated early, individuals with kidney disease will
experience an improved quality of life and be able to maintain more
daily life activities, including keeping their jobs.
My colleagues and I applaud the efforts to increase awareness about
this important issue and to show support for Americans living with
kidney disease. We must act now to help Americans learn more about this
deadly disease and how to prevent its development and progression to
kidney failure.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DR. RAY STOWERS' SERVICE TO MEDPAC
______
HON. JOHN SULLIVAN
of oklahoma
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a physician who
has served my home State of Oklahoma and the Nation with distinction
over the past 6 years. On April 20, 2006, Ray E. Stowers, D.O. will
participate in his final meeting as a member of the Medicare Payment
Advisory Commission (MedPAC).
For the past 6 years, Dr. Stowers represented the interest of
Medicare beneficiaries, physicians, and hospitals as a member of this
distinguished Federal body. Most notably, he represented the interest
of rural America. During his years of service, MedPAC made
recommendations on several difficult health policy issues, including
advice on how to establish and implement a prescription drug benefit
within the Medicare program.
Dr. Stowers spent over 25 years in a private, solo family practice
clinic in northwest Oklahoma. At various times throughout his career,
he was the only physician in the entire county. He provided care for
the young and old alike. Many evenings were spent visiting the homes of
those too ill to travel to his office.
Following his years in practice, Dr. Stowers accepted a position as
the Director of Rural Health at the Oklahoma State University College
of Osteopathic Medicine (OSU-COM) in Tulsa, OK. This position allowed
him to share his experiences with medical students and residents, while
designing training programs to prepare them for practice in rural and
underserved areas. The Rural Health Center has emerged as one of the
premier rural training programs in the country and continues to provide
a valuable service to the citizens of Oklahoma.
Throughout his career, he has served the citizens of Oklahoma and the
Nation well. Before serving on MedPAC, he was a member of the Physician
Payment Review Commission (PPRC) prior to the formation of MedPAC in
1997. Additionally, Dr. Stowers served 7 years on the American Medical
Association's Relative Value Update Committee (RUC). He truly is one of
the Nation's foremost experts on physician payment policies.
Many will never understand or appreciate the time and energy Dr.
Stowers dedicated to his service on MedPAC. However, as a Member of
Congress representing constituents impacted by the policies developed
by MedPAC, I appreciate the professional and caring manner in which he
went about his duties. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my fellow Oklahomans I
would like to thank Dr. Stowers for his service and wish him the best
in his future endeavors.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ARMY SERGEANT TROY JENKINS
______
HON. TERRY EVERETT
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the service
and the memory of Army Sergeant Troy Jenkins of Repton, Alabama in my
congressional district. He lost his life in defense of freedom on April
24, 2003.
Sgt. Jenkins loved his country, serving in both the Marine Corps and
the Army. He studied Arabic and trained to be a paratrooper. His
service took him to Afghanistan and Iraq. As a member of the 101st
Airborne Division, he was standing patrol in Baghdad when a cluster
bomb exploded, taking his life.
Sgt. Jenkins was known at home and among his comrades for his
bravery. He demonstrated it when he put his own life in harm's way to
protect others from the cluster bomb. He was remembered by his fellow
soldiers as a friend and a hero; all of America can be proud of his
service and his dedication to duty.
I would also like to commend Sgt. Jenkins' mother, Connie Gibson, for
her efforts to honor the bravery and service of her son and all others
who have lost their lives defending our great country. She has reached
out to local veterans and their families to bring our community
together to pay tribute to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice
for America.
On the third anniversary of the loss of Sgt. Jenkins, I send my
condolences out to his
[[Page 5782]]
family, including his wife, Amanda, and sons, Tristan and Brandon. The
thoughts and prayers of America are with you.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VILLAGE OF NORTH PALM
BEACH, FLORIDA
______
HON. E. CLAY SHAW, JR.
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago Dwight D. Eisenhower was
President of the United States, the communist regime in Cuba was
underway, Elvis Presley's ``Hound Dog'' topped the charts, Don Larson
pitched a perfect game as the Yankees beat the Brooklyn Dodgers in the
World Series, and the cost of a first class stamp was .03 cents.
Amidst these historical events taking place, the Village of North
Palm Beach was created. Much has changed in those fifty years in and
around the village with new development, highways and a large
population spurt to reach its present size, however, one thing that has
not changed is the ``small town'' nature of the Village of North Palm
Beach and its friendly residents.
The village has been blessed over the years with outstanding local
elected officials and a strong participation by its residents and civic
leaders. Mr. Speaker, over the years I have proudly represented this
community, I have witnessed time and time again where the community has
pulled together to support a common cause. The spirit of togetherness
and pride is ubiquitous in the Village of North Palm Beach.
From the days that John D. MacArthur sold his property, which
included a golf course and a country club, to create North Palm Beach,
the first of Florida's master planned communities, the Village has
always set the mark.
Now with 13,000 residents, its well managed growth has been a model
for future planned communities throughout the state and country.
Environmentally, the Village is also ahead of the curve, when in 1989
the State of Florida purchased 437 areas of property from the Village
along the Atlantic Ocean to preserve a natural coastal barrier Island.
Preserved forever from being developed, it provides a home for nesting
sea turtles, birds, indigenous plant and wildlife, reefs and a birthing
and natural nursery for Florida Manatees. It is suitably named,
MacArthur State Beach Park.
In recent years, the Town has also enhanced our local and State
governments by being the hometown and formative training ground of Palm
Beach County Commissioner Karen Marcus and State Senator Jeff Atwater.
Well done North Palm Beach in your first fifty years. You truly are
``The Best Place to Live Under the Sun.''
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE ROYALTY-IN-KIND FOR ENERGY ASSISTANCE IMPROVEMENT
ACT OF 2006
______
HON. MARK UDALL
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this week I have introduced the
Royalty-in-Kind for Energy Assistance Improvement Act. This bill is
intended to make it possible for the Department of Interior to
implement a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that was
intended to provide a new way to assist low-income people to heat or
cool their homes.
For several years before 2005, the Department of Interior had
authority to develop ``royalty-in-kind'' arrangements under which
companies developing federal oil could meet their required royalty
payments by providing oil instead of cash. The Energy Policy Act
expanded this provision to apply to natural-gas developers as well, and
also added new authority for Interior to grant a preference to low-
income consumers when disposing of natural gas it obtained under such
an arrangement.
While this Energy Policy Act provision does not specifically
reference the federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP), its implementation could benefit that program.
LIHEAP is intended to help low-income Americans pay for their heating
and cooling costs. However, at current funding levels this critically
important program serves less than 15 percent of those who qualify for
it. Implementing the Energy Policy Act provision to grant a preference
to low-income consumers would supplement LIHEAP funding and expand the
amount of energy assistance available to the poor.
Last September, I joined my colleagues from Colorado in writing a
letter to Interior Secretary Gail Norton asking her to consider
beginning implementation of the new provision through a pilot program
in Colorado. In the letter we emphasized the importance of helping this
country's most vulnerable citizens, who are increasingly hard hit by
rising energy costs.
In a reply to my office, the Interior Department responded that the
Interior Department's lawyers had reviewed the Energy Policy Act
provision and had concluded that as it now stands it could not be
implemented because the current law ``does not provide the Department
with the authority or discretion to receive less than fair market value
for the royalty gas or oil.''
My bill is intended to correct the legal deficiencies in the
provision as enacted to make it possible for the Interior Department to
implement the program. In developing the legislation, my staff has
reviewed the Interior Department's legal opinion and has consulted with
the Interior Department's lawyers and with other legal experts. Based
on that review, I think enactment of my bill will resolve the legal
problems cited by the Interior Department and will enable the program
to go forward.
Spring may be upon us, but hot summer temperatures and another winter
are just months away. I believe the Energy Policy Act provision to help
low-income consumers is an innovative tool that must be allowed to
work. The Royalty-in-Kind for Energy Assistance Improvement Act would
make this possible. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation
and to support energy assistance for this nation's most vulnerable
residents.
Here is a brief outline of the bill:
Section One--provides a short title (``Royalty-in-Kind for Energy
Assistance Improvement Act of 2006'').
Section Two--sets forth findings regarding the importance of LIHEAP
and the intent of the relevant provisions of law regarding payment of
royalties-in-kind and the conclusion of the Interior Department that
the provision of the 2005 Energy Policy Act intended to allow use of
royalties-in-kind to benefit low-income consumers cannot be
implemented. This section also states the bill's purpose, which is to
amend that part of the Energy Policy Act in order to make it possible
for it to be implemented in order to assist low-income people to meet
their energy needs.
Section Three--amends the relevant provision (Section 342(j)) of the
Energy Policy Act by--
(1) adding explicit authority for the Interior Department to sell
royalty-in-kind oil or gas for as little as half its fair market value
in implementing that part of the Energy Policy Act under an agreement
that the purchaser will be required to provide an appropriate amount of
resources to a Federal low-income energy assistance program;
(2) clarifying that such a sale at a discounted price will be deemed
to comply with the Anti-deficiency Act; and
(3) authorizing the Interior Department to issue rules and enter into
agreements that are considered appropriate in order to implement that
part of the Energy Policy Act.
These changes are specifically designed to correct the legal
deficiencies that the Interior Department has determined currently make
it impossible for it to implement this part of the Energy Policy Act.
____________________
HONORING BILL STAGGS FOR VALIANT SERVICE DURING WORLD WAR II
______
HON. LINCOLN DAVIS
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor William
(Bill) Staggs, Captain, United States Army Air Force for his valiant
service as a fighter pilot during World War II.
Upon entering the service in September 1942, Mr. Staggs, born in
Portland, Tennessee, was sent to Santa Anna, California for ground
school. He soloed in April 1943, in a Ryan PT-22 at King City,
California. He flew the PT-13A at Gardner, California, and the AT-6 and
P-40 at Luke Field in Phoenix, Arizona. Staggs flew the P-47 at Baton
Rouge, Louisiana before departing for England.
In the fall of 1944, Bill was assigned to fly the P-51 Mustang with
the 55th Fighter Group, 38th Squadron of the 8th Air Force
[[Page 5783]]
based at Wormingford, England. The P-51's mission was long-range escort
of American and British bombers over Germany. Bill flew 56 missions
totaling 279 combat hours from late 1944 to the end of the war.
During World War II, the three squadrons of the 55th Fighter Group
destroyed over 580 enemy aircraft and Bill was officially credited with
destroying three. Of particular note is the downing of one Focke-Wulf
190 for which he was not credited but resulted in Bill being awarded
the Distinguished Flying Cross. While flying bomber escort over Germany
in the spring of 1945, Bill came to the aid of a fellow P-51 pilot who
was in a losing battle with a German plane. He skillfully maneuvered
his plane behind the Focke-Wulf and shot the plane off his fellow
pilot's tail. Bill later learned the pilot in the other P-51 was an 8th
Air Force General. For his heroic act in saving the General's life,
Bill was awarded the medal for extraordinary achievement in June 1945,
by Brigadier General M.C. Woodley, Commanding General of the 8th Air
Force's 66th Fighter Wing. During his entire service in England, Bill
was awarded the Air Medal and six Oak Leaf Clusters. The Air Medal is
awarded for an act of meritorious service in aerial combat. An Oak Leaf
Cluster is awarded as an addition to the Air Medal and each Cluster
represents an additional act of meritorious service.
I commend Captain Staggs and the many men and women of the ``greatest
generation'' for stepping up when the people of the world needed them
the most. One only wonders how the world would be today if it wasn't
for those brave souls.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO JEFF STEINBERG ON HIS RECEIPT OF THE THOMAS JEFFERSON
AWARD FOR HIS WORK ON SOJOURNS TO THE PAST
______
HON. TOM LANTOS
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jeff
Steinberg, who was recently awarded the Thomas Jefferson Award for
creating Sojourns to the Past. Mr. Steinberg is a resident of Millbrae,
California, which is in my Congressional District.
Mr. Steinberg has lived and worked around the Bay Area his entire
life. He began his community involvement as a history teacher at
Capuchino High School in San Bruno, California and has worked to make
our community a better place for over a decade as an educator. In 1999,
Jeff created the Sojourns to the Past as an educational tool to teach
high school students about American history in the South and to promote
tolerance and human rights. Since its inception, over 3000 students
have participated.
Sojourns to the Past promotes a living history of the Civil Rights
movement. The curriculum contains books, documentaries, audio
recordings, and on-site experiences. Veterans of the movement, like my
friend and colleague Congressman John Lewis, meet with the students to
teach lessons of tolerance, nonviolence and personal courage. The
students visit eight cities in the South, starting with Atlanta and
ending in Memphis. They tour landmarks of the Civil Rights era and can
see firsthand the destructive effects of racism, sexism, homophobia and
other forms of discrimination.
Mr. Speaker, Sojourns to the Past has inspired thousands of students.
When they return from their trip the students have a better
understanding of American history and the struggle for civil rights. I
have received hundreds of letters from students who share their
experience with me and I know that these students return from the trip
with a unique appreciation for the struggle faced by the pioneers of
the civil rights movement.
Mr. Speaker, Sojourns to the Past is a truly stimulating program and
Jeff Steinberg is an extraordinary person who has worked tirelessly for
his students and our community. Students who participate in this
program become more engaged civically and are more likely to vote. I
urge all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating him on this
wonderful recognition.
____________________
IN HONOR OF CALVIN D. WEST
______
HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a dear friend and
someone who has served the people of Newark and my state of New Jersey
nearly his entire life--Mr. Calvin D. West.
Calvin has served our state since he returned home from his time in
the military more than fifty years ago. Elected to the Newark City
Council in 1966, Calvin was the first African-American at-large-
councilman in the city of Newark's history. His leadership and advocacy
on behalf of the people of Newark and our state has been remarkable,
and his more than fifty years of public service serves as an example
for us all.
A true champion of the civil rights movement, Calvin helped Newark
through the 1967 civil disobediences. He has continued to play a
crucial role in the rebuilding of Newark and in bringing together the
diverse communities that make the city so great. He has advised
Presidents going back to John F. Kennedy, a long succession of New
Jersey governors, including his service as Executive Director of the
Governor's North Jersey Office for the past five years. Throughout his
time in public service he has been a dedicated and tireless advocate
for children and those in need.
On a personal level, Calvin's generosity and kindness has touched the
lives of so many in Newark and across New Jersey. His work with the
Boys & Girls Club of Newark, the Newark Preschools Council and other
educational institutions and nonprofit organizations in the community
has given countless young people the opportunity to be mentored by
someone who understands their struggles.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to call Calvin my friend and I wish him the
very best as we celebrate his fifty years of public service. The people
of Newark and our state can only hope that we can continue to benefit
from his service, his expertise and his good will for many years to
come.
____________________
CONGRATULATING KELLY NICOLE BRYANT
______
HON. VIRGINIA FOXX
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to recognize and
congratulate Miss Kelly Nicole Bryant for being selected to represent
the State of North Carolina in the 2006 National Cherry Blossom
Festival. Kelly has strong ties to North Carolina's Fifth District, as
she is the granddaughter of Juanita Bryant and the late Frank Bryant of
Boonville.
Kelly has already represented our state at the festival's traditional
Japanese lantern lighting ceremony. She has attended several embassy
parties and has toured the White House and Kennedy Center.
Tonight, I am looking forward to meeting Kelly at the National Cherry
Blossom Congressional Reception. I wish her well for the remainder of
her stay in Washington. On Saturday she will represent North Carolina
in the National Cherry Blossom Parade.
Kelly is a junior at East Carolina University, where she is majoring
in Political Science and minoring in history. She is on the Dean's List
and is a Member of the National Society of Collegiate Scholars. Kelly
has made a positive difference in her community by volunteering for the
Exploris Museum, Habitat for Humanity, Relay for Life and the Race for
the Cure.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Miss Kelly Bryant for
being an outstanding representative for the State of North Carolina.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILL TO AMEND THE INDIAN GAMING ACT
______
HON. JIM COSTA
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce this proposed legislation
to require States to implement commonsense planning policy as it
relates to the Class III Indian gaming within State borders.
Too often, Indian tribes are at the mercy of the shifting political
winds of State government. Negotiating a Tribal-State compact for the
right to engage in Class III gaming on their tribal lands is a process
complicated by elections, changing attitudes towards the tribe, as well
as an understanding that tribal gaming can be a lucrative business for
the State. This process is frequently understood as ``let's make a
deal'' time.
This proposed legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to
withhold approval of a Tribal-State compact until the State first
develops a long-term plan to administer Class III gaming within its
State boundaries. It employs
[[Page 5784]]
a process to incorporate opinion by both the local communities and
tribes, and represents a process often recognized by State and Federal
Government as necessary but missing from the present application
process for Class III gaming. This legislation will not prevent tribes
from engaging in the application process or affect already approved
Tribal-State compacts.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE MORE WATER AND MORE ENERGY ACT OF 2006
______
HON. MARK UDALL
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this week I have introduced the
``More Water and More Energy Act of 2006.''
My bill deals with the issue of ``produced water,'' the saline water
generated in the production of oil. For every barrel of oil produced,
approximately 10 barrels of saline water is generated. This country
generates over 5 billion gallons of produced water per day.
While sometimes this water can be and is used for agriculture or
other purposes, most often it has been handled as a waste and
reinjected. But as we expand our development of fossil energy resources
to meet our increasing demand for energy, we are also increasing the
volume of water produced in the development process. And given the
increasing demand for fresh water supplies in many areas of the
country--especially in the West--it makes sense to consider how this
produced water could supplement our limited fresh water resources.
I'm glad that this issue is beginning to engage so many around the
country as they realize the potential benefits of produced water. Just
this week, the Colorado Water Resources Research Institute is hosting a
``Produced Water Workshop'' to discuss ``Energy & Water--How Can We Get
Both for the Price of One?''
In my opinion, few topics could be more timely or important, not only
for Colorado but for our country.
That's why I'm introducing the More Water and More Energy Act--to
facilitate the use of produced water for irrigation and other purposes,
including municipal and industrial uses. The bill would direct the
Secretary of the Interior (through the Bureau of Reclamation and the
U.S.G.S.) to carry out a study to identify the technical, economic,
environmental, legal, and other obstacles to increasing the extent to
which produced water can be used for such purposes.
In addition, it would authorize federal grants to assist in the
development of facilities to demonstrate the feasibility,
effectiveness, and safety of processes to increase the extent to which
produce water can be recovered and made suitable for use for such
purposes.
Developing beneficial uses for produced water could reduce the costs
of oil and gas development, while also easing demand for water--
especially in the West--by alleviating drought conditions and providing
water for agriculture, industry, and other uses. Energy and water are
two of our most important resources--so it makes sense to pursue ways
to produce more of both. I believe my bill is a step in this direction.
Here is a brief outline of the bill's provisions:
Section One--provides a short title (``More Water and Energy Act of
2006''), sets forth findings, and states the bill's purpose, ``to
facilitate the use of produced water for irrigation and other purposes
and to demonstrate ways to accomplish that result.''
Section Two--provides definitions of key terms used in the
legislation.
Section Three--authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior,
acting through the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Geological
Survey, to conduct a study to identify the technical, economic,
environmental, legal, and other obstacles to increasing the use of
produced water for irrigation and other purposes and the legislative,
administrative, and other actions that could reduce or eliminate these
obstacles. The study is to be done in consultation with the Department
of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and appropriate
Governors and local officials, and the Interior Department will be
required to seek the advice of experts and comments and suggestions
from the public. Results of the study are to be reported to Congress
within a year after enactment of the legislation.
Section Four--authorizes and directs (subject to the availability of
appropriated funds) the Interior Department to award grants to assist
in developing facilities to demonstrate the feasibility, effectiveness,
and safety of processes to increase the use of produced water for
irrigation, municipal or industrial uses, or for other purposes. No
more than one such project is to be in a State of the Upper Basin of
the Colorado River (i.e. Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, or Wyoming), no
more than one is to be in either Arizona or Nevada, and no more than
one is to be in California. Grants are to be for a maximum of $1
million, and can pay for no more than half the cost of any project.
Grants cannot be used for operation or maintenance of a project.
Section Five--authorizes appropriations to implement the legislation,
including up to $5 million for grants authorized by section 4.
____________________
HONORING MILLARD V. OAKLEY
______
HON. LINCOLN DAVIS
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Millard V.
Oakley of Livingston, Tennessee for his many contributions to the State
of Tennessee and the people of the Upper Cumberland.
Millard has been a good and loyal friend to many people. A lifelong
resident of Overton County, Tennessee, Oakley graduated from Livingston
Academy High School, attended Tennessee Technological University, and
graduated from Cumberland University School of Law, LLB, in 1951.
Shortly upon receiving his degree, Oakley engaged in the general
practice of law and is still a practicing attorney.
Mr. Oakley was elected to four terms to the Tennessee Legislature,
served one term to the Constitutional Convention, and was elected to
four terms as County Attorney of Overton County.
His expertise in law took him to the U.S. House of Representatives
where he served from 1971-1973 as General Counsel for the House Select
Committee on Small Business. Moving back to Tennessee, Millard served
as State Insurance Commissioner from 1975-1979.
Today, Oakley serves on the Board of Directors, First National Bank
of Tennessee-Livingston/Cookeville/Crossville/Sparta. He also serves on
the Board of Directors and Executive Committee, Thomas Nelson
Publishers, the world's largest Bible publishing company.
Throughout his life, Millard has been a leader in business
specializing in property and economic development in the Upper
Cumberland. Through his financial institutions he has helped several
entrepreneurs start and expand their business. A tireless advocate for
education, Millard has been a leader in recruiting a satellite campus
of Volunteer State Community College to Livingston and has been
instrumental in the development of the science, technology,
engineering, and math facility at Tennessee Technological University in
Cookeville. His support of these facilities makes him one of the
premiere advocates for the children of the Upper Cumberland area.
Millard's compassion and sincere concern for the people of the Upper
Cumberland region of Tennessee is seldom surpassed by anyone.
He is married to J. Annette Oakley. They have one daughter, Melissa
Oakley Smith, and one granddaughter, Kendall Vaughn Smith, also of
Livingston, Tennessee.
It is fitting and appropriate that Millard V. Oakley be recognized
for his charitable deeds and his abiding friendship to all of those who
know him and future generations that we honor him in the U.S. House of
Representatives.
____________________
CELEBRATING SAN MATEO COUNTY'S SESQUICENTENNIAL ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. TOM LANTOS
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to
celebrate the sesquicentennial anniversary of San Mateo County,
California, a county which I proudly represent, along with my good
friend Anna Eshoo in the United States House of Representatives.
Much of the history of San Mateo County can be derived from its
unique founding. The county was not one of the original counties
created when California was granted Statehood in 1850, but instead came
about as a political compromise. Originally part of San Francisco
County, a group of progressively minded citizens, fed up with
corruption in San Francisco, decided that it would be easier to clean
up one government rather than two and proposed merging the San
Francisco County
[[Page 5785]]
and City governments. However, those opposed to this plan were also
politically strong and at the end the day a compromise was agreed
upon--that the San Francisco governments would be consolidated but it
would become two counties.
The newly constituted San Mateo County was created from the most
rural areas of San Francisco County and had a population of about 2500
people. While the progressives of San Francisco anticipated seizing
control of this more remote area to establish a clean ethical
government, their efforts were defeated by rampant ballot box stuffing
and election fraud in 1856. In an interesting turn of event, two of the
Judges who certified the election, John Johnson and Charles Clark, were
themselves elected as two of the new county's first supervisors. This
group of criminals were run out of town shortly after being elected
when a vigilante mob of 800 San Franciscans rose up to take revenge on
James Casey for his shooting of newspaper editor James King of William.
After hanging Casey for shooting the popular editor, the mob turned
south and his cronies who had infiltrated the County government fled
San Mateo.
Mr. Speaker, although this is the 150th anniversary of San Mateo
County, the human story of the land dates back much further and was
home to numerous and varied cultures. Recent archeology indicates that
man lived on the Peninsula as far back as 6500 years ago. When the
first European settlers from Spain came in 1769, about 2000 native
Californians called the Peninsula home. These Spanish conquistadors
quickly colonized the area bringing their Catholic faith with them.
Before the Gold Rush of 1848, a number of Americans and other
foreigners inhabited the southern hills of San Mateo working in a
fledgling logging industry or at the port that was quickly expanding in
Redwood City. Despite the fact that these industries continued to grow
with the discovery of Gold in northern California, the County remained
a lightly populated and mostly rural community for the remainder of the
19th Century.
It was this rural nature of San Mateo County that made it a place
where certain activities could take place that were not permissible in
San Francisco. Although San Francisco has always possessed a reputation
as an ``open city,'' but for many years it was common knowledge that if
you were unable to get away with something in San Francisco all you had
to do was cross over the county line. Examples of such activities
included gambling, prostitution and dueling. Although outlawed
everywhere in California, dueling continued to exist in San Mateo
County and Daly City was the location of a duel that resulted in the
death of United States Senator David Broderick. By the turn of the
century prize fighting and horse racing, now illegal in San Francisco,
were also commonly occurring in San Mateo County and the historic Bay
Meadows Race Track was opened in 1934. During the era of Prohibition
the prolific bootlegging operations run out of the County prompted one
gangster to declare San Mateo the most corrupt county in California.
Mr. Speaker, despite the examples of lawlessness, San Mateo County
remained a sleepy suburb of bustling San Francisco until America
entered World War II. Like so many other towns and areas of the
country, the need for components for the war machine revved up San
Mateo County's economic engine as factories sprang up to produce
necessary electronic parts. Coupled with the growth of firms such as
EIMAC, Varian, Dalmo Victor and Ampex, was the expansion of hotels,
warehouses and other supporting business. Perhaps the best example of
the increasing stature of San Mateo County can be seen in the fact that
the airport in South San Francisco, once dubbed a ``mud hole'' was
handling one-tenth of all air traffic in the United States by 1946.
Industrial growth brought an increase in population and by the end of
World War II the rural nature of San Mateo County passed into oblivion.
This once quiet community is now home to some of the largest companies
in the world, and a magnet for the computer software and
biotechnological industry. Mr. Speaker, even though San Mateo County is
now a major population and business hub, it continues to remain
committed to the values of open space that were present when the then
rural County was founded 150 years ago. I am proud to have contributed
to the County's commitment to environmental conservation by expanding
the Golden Gate National Recreation Area to include extraordinary
landscapes such as Rancho Corral de Tierra, Mori Point and Sweeney
Ridge. By designating these beautiful tracts of land as part of our
national park and protecting them from development, we are able to
maintain a connection to the rural heritage of San Mateo.
Mr. Speaker, San Mateo County's history during the past 150 years has
certainly been colorful and storied and serves as an important bridge
to a limitless and bright future. I urge all of my colleagues to join
me in recognizing this significant milestone, the celebration of the
150th Anniversary of San Mateo County in California.
____________________
HONORING THE MONMOUTH UNIVERSITY ``HAWKS'' FOR AN OUTSTANDING NCAA
EFFORT
______
HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the outstanding
achievement of the Monmouth University ``Hawks'' this year in becoming
the first men's basketball team in the college's history to win a
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) tournament game.
This accomplishment also gives me the opportunity to highlight
Monmouth University--an educational institution that has experienced
dramatic growth in recent years, enticing students from across the
country and around the world to take advantage of its innovative
academic programs.
The Hawk's trip to the NCAA was launched on March 8 when they
defeated Fairleigh Dickinson and won the college's fourth Northeast
Conference Tournament and an invitation to the NCAA Tournament. The
Hawk's then were assigned to play their televised, 2006 NCAA Opening
Round play-in game against Hampton, which had won the Mid-East Athletic
Conference tournament championship.
As recounted by Ed Occhipinti, sports editor of the school paper, ``A
textbook display of motion offense, backdoor cuts, accurate long-
distance shooting and a stifling match-up zone defense led to a
dominant 71-49 win over Hampton. The country now knew what Hawks fans
have known for years: their brand of basketball is effective, even if
it lacks high-flying, show-time appeal and flair.''
A few days later, the Hawks, as the No. 16 seed, faced a monumental
challenge from Villanova, the Number 1 seed in the NCAA tournament's
Minneapolis region. Even though the Hawks were able to cut Villanova's
lead to seven points in the last four minutes of the game, it was not
enough to overcome Villanova's legendary powerhouse team. While the
Hawks lost by a score of 58-45, they certainly achieved new levels of
national recognition and respect for their performance.
CBS announcer Jim Nantz, as quoted in the school paper ``Outlook,''
stated: ``The effort of Monmouth is what makes March Madness what it
is. (Coach) Dave Calloway did a tremendous job, and for the kids
themselves, there was a dream. Today was a special day for Monmouth,
teams like that are what give the tournament its charm.''
The players and coaching staff, under the direction of Dave Calloway,
as well as the entire university community, are to be heartily
congratulated for this great performance.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF CENTRAL OHIOANS TO THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF
HONDA IN 2006
______
HON. DEBORAH PRYCE
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate some of
the men and women who live in my Congressional district and are
dedicated employees of Honda North America, whose contributions to
Honda's products helped the company receive four of the most
prestigious awards given to automakers. Earlier this year, the Honda
Civic lineup and Honda Ridgeline were selected as the 2006 Motor Trend
Car and Truck of the Year. This is the first time that a single brand
has won both awards from Motor Trend in the same year.
Significantly, the Civic Coupe, Civic Si and Ridgeline vehicles were
researched, designed and developed at Honda R&D of the Americas with 10
facilities located across the United States. The major development
facility is located in Raymond, Ohio in my 15th Congressional district.
This facility employs approximately 1,000 U.S. associates and handles a
variety of engineering, design, vehicle. fabrication and testing
responsibilities.
In addition, at the 2006 Detroit International Auto Show, the Civic
lineup and Ridgeline were awarded the 2006 ``North American Car and
Truck of the Year''. The winners of these awards are selected by 49
full-time automotive
[[Page 5786]]
journalists from the United States and Canada. Winners are chosen based
on a multitude of factors including innovation, design, safety,
handling, driver satisfaction and value for the money. Once again, this
is the first time a single brand has won both awards in the same year.
These achievements reflect a very significant maturation of Honda's
operations in America and the meaning of American workers, and
specifically Ohioans, to Honda itself. Today, nearly 30 percent of the
Honda and Acura vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2005 were researched,
designed and developed in America. Honda currently employs
approximately 15,000 associates in Ohio and its investment includes
five manufacturing plants that produce automobiles, light trucks,
motorcycles, engines and transmissions. Honda utilizes more than 160
parts suppliers from the ``Buckeye State'' to produce these vehicles
and their components--further signifying the relationship between Honda
and the Ohio worker.
I want to offer my congratulations to the associates of Honda in Ohio
and especially those in Raymond, Ohio at Honda R&D of the Americas on
receipt of these four awards. I appreciate the House allowing me to
bring this matter to its attention.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF BASIC HIGH SCHOOL'S MARINE CORPS JROTC PROGRAM AND
PARTICIPANTS
______
HON. JON C. PORTER
of nevada
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the contributions of a
special group of high school students in Henderson, Nevada, the members
of Basic High School's Marine Corps JROTC.
Basic's JROTC unit was activated in 1977 and is one of over 200 plus
units sponsored by the United States Marine Corps. Basic's MCJROTC has
been designed as a ``Naval Honor School'' 14 times and has received
state and national recognition and honors. The Senior Marine Instructor
and Marine Instructors are retired Marines with over 80 years of
combined military service and 30 years at Basic High School.
The mission of the MCJROTC is to develop young leaders and
responsible citizens with respect for constituted authority, to help
individuals strengthen character and form habits of self discipline,
and to learn the importance of national security in a democratic
society. Students that participate in the MCJROTC program at Basic
learn self-discipline, self confidence, personal responsibility and
build their character.
Basic's MCJROTC students participated in the Western United States
National Drill Meet on April 1, 2006 and were deemed the overall winner
for the West Coast. Other awards earned included: 1st place in Armed
Inspection; 2nd place in Unarmed Inspection; 1st place in 4 Person
Unarmed; 5th place for 4 Person Unarmed; 3rd place in Unarmed
Inspection; 2nd place for Color Guard Regulation; 1st place for 4
Person Armed; 1st place in Unarmed Exhibition; 2nd place in Color Guard
Regulation; 4th place for 4 Person Armed; 2nd place for Armed
Inspection; 3rd place for Unarmed Exhibition; 4th place for Color Guard
Inspection; Outstanding Unarmed Commander Cadet.
Basic's MCJROTC students have won this prestigious championship twice
in the last 4 years. Their commitment to this important program and
devotion to excellence has helped them achieve these high honors, and I
am proud to recognize them today for their accomplishments.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I salute the MCJROTC
students at Basic High School.
____________________
IN HONOR OF JOHNNY RYE, SR.
______
HON. MARION BERRY
of arkansas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to pay tribute to Johnny
Rye, Sr., of Poinsett County, Arkansas, a great friend, and someone who
has made countless contributions to his community.
Johnny was born into a sharecropping family on September 2, 1924, in
Smithville, Mississippi but moved to Arkansas just 8 years later. After
finishing school, Johnny started his own grocery business in the Black
Oak Community. He has operated that grocery for more than 50 years,
making it the oldest grocery business in all of Poinsett County.
In addition to being a great businessman, Johnny is an active member
of his community. He is known for his generosity to many local
charities, and has been a member of the Marked Tree Church of God since
1946. He has also taken the time to get involved in civic activities,
serving as a delegate to the Democratic State Convention and helping
Bill Clinton win Poinsett County in his 1982 race for Governor.
Johnny Rye and his wife, Maxine Branch Rye, have two sons, Johnny
Rye, Jr., the Assessor of Poinsett County, and Randy Rye who works for
the family business. They also have one granddaughter, Robin Rye who is
studying to be a nursing major at the University of Central Arkansas.
I ask my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me
today in recognizing Johnny Rye, Sr. for his significant contributions
to eastern Arkansas. He is a great friend, a great businessman, and a
great American.
____________________
CARL ELLIOTT AND LISTER HILL: TWO INDISPENSABLE GREAT ANGELS FOR PUBLIC
LIBRARIES
______
HON. MAJOR R. OWENS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, April 7, 2006, the University of
Alabama School of Library and Information Studies and the University
Libraries will conduct a Library Services Act 50th Anniversary Program
honoring Congressman Carl Elliott and Senator Lister Hill, two great
legislators who were the first great federal advocates for the Library
Services and the National Defense Education Acts. As the only Librarian
who has ever served in the Congress I was honored to be invited to
speak at this commemoration; however, the scheduled vote on the budget
prevented me from attending. The following are a portion of the remarks
I prepared for that landmark occasion:
In his 2001 inaugural address President Bush left us with one
profound image: the specter of an ``Angel in the Whirlwind'' guiding
the fate of our nation. Democracy in America has survived and expanded
despite the numerous whirlwinds and storms. At several critical periods
our ship of state could have been blown off course and been wrecked on
the rocks. Always in the past, the churning American political process
has produced the leadership capable of conquering crises and opening
new vistas.
Representative Carl Elliott and Senator Lister Hill were two leaders
who opened new vistas. In the story of the making of America we can
find many angels emerging from the whirlwind. Many of our greatest
angels are unsung, unknown beyond a small circle. But the abundance of
angels, ordinary and everywhere, has created the most fantastic nation
on the face of the earth. Not from royal bloodlines or from pampered
privileged classes but from the cradles in the tenements, from log
cabins and shotgun shacks. Every citizen, all Americans are potential
angels called by the voice of Thomas Jefferson to come forward and add
your contribution to the ongoing miracle of America. Because we loudly
assume that all persons are created equal we automatically break the
chains of doubt and set our imaginations and spirits soaring to achieve
at higher and higher levels, and to create new institutions.
Lister Hill refused to let his regional origins interfere with his
national visions. Carl Elliott did not allow a lack of wealth and high-
class status to limit his spirit and ambition. Both men focused
intensely and accomplished missions that place them among the legions
of great American angels.
Just as school systems for the masses never existed before they
emerged in America, so it was with public libraries. Yes, from the time
of ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome there were libraries, but always they
were the closely guarded property of the rich and available only to the
elite. From the embryo implanted by Benjamin Franklin to the urban
facilities provided by the generosity of Andrew Carnegie to the
legislation of enduring federal support for libraries the American
angels were in motion.
To achieve the imprimatur of federal sponsorship was a life
sustaining development for modem public libraries. Only a fellow
legislator can imagine what Representative Elliott had to overcome to
realize his dream. Politicians seldom dwell on systems and long-term
goals that benefit citizens beyond their political district. Elliott
was ridiculed as a man who was tinkering with the impossible. He was
strongly advised to do what every other lawmaker was
[[Page 5787]]
attempting. To get reelected and be celebrated back home, he was told
to get himself an appropriation to build a bridge. Get something
concrete to show off that could be dedicated with a ribbon cutting and
marching bands. If Elliott had accepted that practical but mundane
proposition, oh what a devastating gap there would have been in the
progress of library service in America. Carl had to be the pitcher in
the House of Representatives and Lister had to be the catcher in the
Senate in order for the game of public library expansion to go forward.
Across the nation we can now boast of magnificent public libraries
and library systems. The DNA of Elliott and Hill goes marching on.
Other great library nurturing angels like Eileen Cooke of the ALA
Washington Office boldly forged ahead in their spirit and played a
major role in the legislation and administration of the E-Rate
providing widespread utilization of computers and the Internet in
libraries. A whole new dimension exciting the young and the old has
been added to the information and education mission of public
libraries.
As a philosophical descendant of Elliott and Hill; and a more
immediate child of the LSCA I arrived in Congress determined to raise
the profile of libraries of all kinds to a level where they could never
be forgotten and neglected again. Certainly I have been frustrated that
the higher Federal appropriations have not been gained which I think
libraries deserve in order to relieve some of the funding burden on
State and local governments. But basically I will be leaving the
Congress after 24 years contented that most of my concerns have been
fulfilled. There are now many legislative advocates for libraries and
they exist in both parties, Republican and Democratic. In politics that
pinnacle of bipartisan support is the ultimate goal. The fight is no
longer for recognition and survival as a national priority. The fight
is for growth and the expansion which will provide opportunities for
libraries to meet the new emerging challenges of education located away
from campuses and outside of classrooms.
Our libraries are indispensable institutions. President Clinton has
described America as an indispensable nation. Carl Elliott and Lister
Hill were indispensable great angels for this indispensable nation. Out
of the limelight, with no headlines to encourage them they remained
steadfast in their unglamorous mission. As early as 1919, the American
Library Association was seeking federal support for libraries. But not
until 1936 was there a small breakthrough which established the Library
Services Division within the Office of Education. Through side doors
such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the WPA more federal support
was garnered. But not until 1956 was the great breakthrough achieved;
the Library Services Act was passed and later expanded in 1960. In the
history of the House and the Senate there are few records of such
longevity and perseverance in the unselfish pursuit of uplifting
legislation.
The rock-solid basic principle pioneered by Carl Elliott and Lister
Hill is the proposition that wealth, financial well being, should not
be the deciding factor in determining who has access to information and
knowledge. Elliott and Hill understood that the growth and development
of the State and region economy were inextricably interwoven with the
intellectual growth and development of ordinary residents of the State
and region. While public libraries were only a small part of the
overall education effort they were the institutions with the greatest
cost-benefits ratio. Huge opportunities were provided for large numbers
of persons on the roads to upward mobility at the lowest possible
costs. Oh, yes the investment in libraries and education pays great
dividends.
Long before the military leaders could comprehend it, Elliott and
Hill understood that an educated populace was our nation's greatest
asset for national security. From what was often labeled as an abstract
dream of universal literacy reflected in their concern for rural
libraries these two giant angels of American progress leaped to the
hard-nosed preparations for a space age national defense system. The
massive feats of science and engineering needed to develop the laser,
satellites, spacecraft and rockets were made possible as a result of
the initiatives of the National Defense Education Act. There is a clear
connection between the vision and labor of Elliott and Hill and this
nation's landing of a man on the moon.
America, not by accident, is the richest, most powerful nation that
the world has ever known. In comparison the great Roman Empire was
merely a village. America is great because the unsung heroes, the
invisible angels are always at work carrying out the details that make
our democracy a success.
There will be in America no aristocracy of the well informed. Know-
how shall never be a rare or scarce commodity. The government shall
encourage all persons to pursue their fullest development. Beyond
universal access to information, libraries will provide assistance with
knowledge creation and utilization. In the appreciation and the
application of wisdom librarians will continue to play a vital role.
The vision and foresight of Carl Elliott and Lister Hill have been
validated by time. Their concerns have become more relevant as we
plunge further into the age of information. In America information will
never become the weapon of elite dictatorships. Information, knowledge
and the records of wisdom must be permanently supplied to the citizens.
In many forms this library mission must carry on to maintain the land
of the free, home of the brave, and the nation of the most thoroughly
informed who are capable of that continuing oversight and vigilance
necessary to guarantee that our great democracy will long endure.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE NATIONAL INTEGRATED DROUGHT INFORMATION SYSTEM ACT
OF 2006
______
HON. MARK UDALL
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague
Mr. Hall in introducing the National Integrated Drought Information
System Act of 2006. This bill establishes a National Integrated Drought
Information System--or NIDIS--within the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that will provide early warnings,
forecasts, and information about drought conditions to mitigate the
impacts of drought.
The western part of our country, including my own state of Colorado,
has experienced severe drought conditions in recent years, with adverse
consequences that have included severe wildfires that have devastated
many homes and businesses.
Droughts are a recurring part of climatic cycles, but that does not
make them benign. And because unlike hurricanes or other weather events
they develop slowly and their effects are felt over longer periods,
there is a danger that efforts to mitigate or reduce the damage will
not begin in time.
The direct impacts of drought include reduced crop yields and forest
productivity, increased fire hazards, lower water levels, and damage to
wildlife habitats. Droughts are costly to our economy as they reduce
the incomes of farmers and increase the prices of foods and
agricultural materials such as timber. Drought adversely impacts our
environment and wildlife habitats, taking away from our public lands
and recreational opportunities, which have become an essential
component of the way of life for many western communities.
But while the Department of Homeland Security, is working to prepare
for natural disasters such as floods and hurricanes, the federal
government is not doing enough to mitigate and reduce the effects of
drought.
Currently, NOAA works with several agencies to produce drought
forecasts and monitoring. However, a report by the Western Governors'
Association found that much of the current drought forecasting
information is overly technical and not in a standard format. Many
users also are not aware of resources available to reduce the impacts
of drought.
The bill that Mr. Hall and I are introducing today responds to those
problems by expanding NOAA's efforts in drought monitoring and
forecasting, improving the dissemination of data to ensure more
informed and effective decisions are made about drought.
Specifically, the bill establishes an early warning system called
NIDIS. NIDIS will integrate information from key indicators of drought
to provide timely assessments. NIDIS will be used to disseminate a
drought forecast on a regular basis to decision makers on the federal,
state, local, and tribal levels, as well as to the private and public
sectors.
Real-time data is often the most helpful in making decisions about
drought; however, data is rarely available to decisions makers until
after the fact. Thus, NIDIS will provide real-time data where possible
for regional and local drought conditions.
Our bill also calls for the coordination and integration of federal
research to support NIDIS, thus ensuring that we continue to understand
droughts and their impacts. Lastly, our bill directs NOAA to consult
and coordinate with other federal agencies in the development of NIDIS
to ensure that all appropriate communities benefit from the system.
I believe that NIDIS will ensure that we are able to proactively
reduce the effects of drought and allow decision makers to take
advantage of all opportunities to reduce as many
[[Page 5788]]
impacts as possible. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the
creation of NIDIS and better monitoring and forecasting of drought.
____________________
THE CONGRESSIONAL YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL MAKES A DIFFERENCE
______
HON. SAM JOHNSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when you think of the leaders
of the future--what qualities come to mind? Civic activism? Community
awareness? Personal leadership? Academic excellence? It is a privilege
to recognize the members of the 2005--2006 Congressional Youth Advisory
Council because they embody these qualities and more.
For the last 2 years, the members of the Congressional Youth Advisory
Council have represented the young people of the Third District well by
working as ambassadors of the future. Several times a year the members
of the Youth Council would share a valuable youth perspective on the
current issues before Congress. This year 42 students from public,
private, and home schools in grades 10 through 12 made their voices
heard and made a difference to Congress.
For the first time, this year there was a philanthropy element to the
Youth Council. For the community service project, the members of the
Youth Council reached out to veterans and encouraged them to share
their stories. Called the ``Preserving History Project,'' each member
had to interview a veteran. Then the student had to submit a lengthy
paper detailing the veteran's service and sharing what the student
learned from that experience. The students submitted a summary of their
work. Today I'm proud to submit the briefs provided so the hard and
valuable work of the Youth Council may be preserved for antiquity in
the Congressional Record.
Someday, each member will be able to share with children and
grandchildren--``In high school I served my community and my work will
always be recognized in the official Congressional Record.''
A copy of each submitted student summary follows.
To each member of the Congressional Youth Advisory Council, thank you
for your time, effort and sacrifice to help make the Congressional
Youth Advisory Council a success. You are the voices of the future and
I salute you. God bless you and God bless America.
My name is Lauren Huber and I had the great opportunity to
interview my grandfather, Second Lieutenant Robert W. Jensen.
My grandfather was a bombardier pilot in World War II. He has
accomplished a lot in his lifetime and has survived being a
prisoner of war, and living on barely anything. He has
received many medals for his service in World War II,
including: the Oakleaf Medal Cluster, Air Medal, and a Purple
Heart. It was a pleasure and an honor to interview my
grandfather and listen to what he had to say about his
experience as a bombardier in WWII. I have learned a great
deal about my grandfather I did not know, such as his
strength. I have learned that conditions were horrible during
the war and that many innocent people were killed because of
WWII. I now have even deeper respect for not only my
grandfather, but for all the veterans of every war in the
world. I have a deeper gratitude for the soldiers who are
currently fighting in Iraq and honor them with all my heart.
I am very lucky to have known my grandfather long enough for
him to tell his war stories for me, and I will be sure his
legacy will live on in me and in the stories that I will tell
my children and grandchildren of Robert W. Jensen.--Lauren
Huber
Carl Eugene Beck, my grandfather, is an American veteran
who relied on determination and dedication as he proudly
served in the Navy during the Korean War. Carl finished the
Navy as an aviation mechanic third class. Mr. Beck's
experience in the Navy greatly allowed him to mature because,
as he states, this was his first time to be independent. The
Navy also matured Mr. Beck through discipline and hard work,
all that he is thankful to have acquired. Finally, in the
work field, the Navy provided Carl with a strong work ethic
and an education that Carl states allowed him to keep his
job. Thanks to the G.I. Bill, Mr. Beck was also able to have
financial advantages not only in his education, but also
later in life, such as when he bought his first house.
Overall, the Navy taught Carl to be self-sufficient and gave
him motivation to work hard in college and in life. Although
Carl never actually fought, the very fact that he voluntarily
joined the military, to me, is something that anyone should
be proud of. Even though he came from a poor family, Carol's
dedication and determination ultimately led to his successes
in the Navy, as well as later in life.--Patrick Dyer
George William Wallis served during World War II in the
96th, 69th, and 3rd Infantry divisions. The Army gave him a
battlefield commission in which he became a Second
Lieutenant. Wallis was stationed primarily in Germany where
his division gradually moved from town to town across Germany
until it was the first to reach the Russians. George Wallis
received an Air Medal, a European Theatre Ribbon, and two
battle stars for his service. In addition to these tangibles,
Wallis gained an increased level of maturity and a greater
sense of teamwork and responsibility as a direct result of
being in our Armed Forces.
Oftentimes the media, as well as many others, portray the
military in a negative light. Because of this, I developed a
somewhat faulty image of what life in the military was like.
As opposed to hearing horror stories about cruel sergeants,
rampant diseases, and lack of food, Wallis told me generally
positive accounts of tough but kind sergeants, adequate food,
and pretty decent conditions. My discussions with George
Wallis helped to change my somewhat myopic view of military
life, and it allowed me to gain a greater sense of what it
was like to live let alone fight during a war that engulfed
the entirety of the world.--Alyssa DeLorenz
I interviewed Private First Class Leo Serian. Leo Serian
was drafted from New York into the Army in 1943 as part of
the last company of soldiers to be shipped across to Europe
where they advanced farther than any other company in WWII
and ultimately liberated the concentration camp, Hers-
bruck. Although not a Christian during the war, Serian now
looks back and believes the Lord held him in His hands during
his whole enlistment. This includes many miracles like near
misses by machine guns, to safe crossings of minefields, and
even his placement in his company. For Serian, his experience
in World War II was truly unforgettable, and he now resides
in Dallas, Texas. Being devoted to Christ, Serian blended his
faith with his war experiences in the poems he wrote, which
are included in the essay.--Austin Lutz
Tony Brigham attended Sunset High School in South Oak Cliff
and graduated in 1969. In 1971, at the young age of 20, he
sought a future in the military. Before he got drafted for
the Vietnam War, he decided to join the Air Force. He was
stationed on the island of Okinawa for the majority of his
time in the United States Air Force, and he experienced
unforgettable moments while over there. He played a leading
role in Operation BabyLift, as he coordinated the special
flights coming into Hawaii. He is proud of his role helping
infants and newborn children escape the perils of Vietnam. As
it happened, many of the soldiers formed anti-Vietnam War
opinions. Tony Brigham was one of those soldiers who enlisted
with one opinion, which soon changed during his time of
service. Seven years later, Tony retired from the Air Force.
He decided to attend Eastroundsbourg St. Pennsylvania
College, Steven F. Austin University, and the University of
Texas at Dallas, all on the G.I. Bill. He received two
undergraduate degrees, a B.S. in Environmental Science and in
Forestry, and one graduate degree in Science Education. He
applies all this knowledge in the classroom where he has been
teaching for the past 22 years of his life.--Michael McCleary
I interviewed Chief Warrant Officer Jarvis W. Coburn, U.S.
Army (Ret.). He served his country from 1965 through 1969.
During his time in uniform, he served in the 176th Aviation
Company of I Corps in the Vietnam War. He flew both lift and
attack helicopters and received numerous awards and
citations, including two Purple Hearts, two Distinguished
Flying Crosses, thirty-nine air medals, one Presidential Unit
Citation, and one Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. Several
times he was in life and death situations, and each time he
managed to find a way through. He experienced the thrill of
fighting alongside the United States Marine Corps and the
agony of losing fellow soldiers in horrific battle. He
returned to the United States, became a flight instructor and
taught the next generation of Army pilots. His work in the
private sector with Ross Perot's EDS led to the heroic rescue
of two captured American prisoners as recorded in Ken
Follett's On Wings of Eagles.
After interviewing Mr. Coburn, I gained a newfound respect,
not only for the man himself, but also for all the soldiers
that have served our country. Listening to the stories he
shared with me reinforced how important the Armed Forces are
to our Nation.--J. Andrew Clark
For the Preserving History: Veteran's Interview Project, I
had the opportunity to interview a veteran of World War II.
My grandfather, Michael Pessalano, was the veteran who shared
his personal experiences with me. This man accomplished a lot
in my eyes. He was a Codman in the United States Navy during
World War II. He was awarded three ribbons: the American
European Theater and Victory medal, and the American and
European medals from serving overseas. Although he didn't see
much combat, hearing his stories were still really
interesting. Just by serving in the U.S. armed service I
[[Page 5789]]
believe that you have been able to accomplish a lot. Having
the determination, strength, risks taken, and dedication to
one's country will vastly benefit anyone who serves. After
having the opportunity to interview and hear the personal
story of one's experience, I was shown the truth. Many people
today, including myself, are clueless on what a soldier's
life is really like. From this interview experience, I have
learned to have more pride in my country, respect the people
who are fighting for me, and we need to preserve the history
so others can see the reality to how and who got our country
where it is today.--Ashlea Banick
For this project I interviewed Captain Rick Burges. Captain
Burges served in the Marine Corps of the United States of
America from 1980 to 1984. He was positioned in artillery at
Camp Le Jeune in North Carolina. Although he was never a part
of combat or enlisted during a time of declared war, Captain
Burges established himself as a Marine Corps hero by
selflessly serving and climbing up the ranks for four years.
This was an opportunity to open my mind up to the rigors of
war and military training. Captain Burges was able to explain
how military training is very long, hard, and tedious, but it
also provides the greatest sense of satisfaction. But the
greatest lesson is that I must always fulfill my dreams, no
matter how hard or tiresome it may be, because only then can
I live life completely satisfied.--Hansini Sharma
I interviewed my grandfather, Bentley Byrd Hinman. He
served in the United States Army for two years as a Master
Sergeant between the years of 1950 and 1952. During that time
the United States was involved in the Korean War. My
grandfather, however, was far removed from any field of
combat. He spent the majority of his service in Germany
serving as a superintendent for a collecting station, the
place where the wounded were brought after battle. He was not
exactly the definition of a war hero; in fact, he never even
fought a battle. That fact, however, does nothing to demean
the sacrifice he made. When he was drafted for the military
in 1950, he was not anxious or excited to go. It was simply
something that must be done, so he went. He traveled to
Germany for two years performing a thankless job, but he
fulfilled his duty and that is all we can ask. I discovered
what many men serving our country feel like. Oftentimes, men
are not required to enter battle but are simply called. That
calling is duty and the men who are strong enough to hear its
call and answer are the true heroes.--Jennifer Smart
I interviewed Captain Andrew George Schneider, formerly of
the United States Navy Supply Corps. Mr. Schneider joined the
Navy voluntarily during the Korean War. He served first on
the USS Elderado as a seaman recruit. Later, he transferred
to a Navy destroyer, the USS Watts, where he was a Lieutenant
(junior grade). Only in his early twenties, he was a Supply
Officer and head of the supply department. After several
years of active duty, Andrew joined the reserves where he
remained on alert status for 22 years. During that time he
worked with classified missile plans and as a government
auditor. In 1979, he retired after 29 years of service. I
learned a lot about Mr. Schneider through this project. I
never knew what he had done in the Navy, and I found his
story particularly interesting because Andrew Schneider is my
grandfather. He is a true hero!--Kristin Schneider
Mr. Johnson is dedicated to God, his country and his
family. He has lived the story of a POW war hero that had
determination to survive. He made his way back to Texas and
his family. During the time of Mr. Johnson's captivity, Mrs.
Johnson never believed that her husband was dead. Two years
after he had been shot down she received evidence to prove
that he was still alive. She has said that her main goal was
to keep continuity in the children's lives, while her husband
was away. Many supporters and friends offered her prayers of
hope and wore Mr. Johnson's POW bracelet in his honor. The
bracelet told the prisoner of wars' name and rank and date
captured. My family was among those who did so, and they all
remember the day Mrs. Johnson received the message of her
husband being shot down and missing in action and then when
she had heard that he was coming home.
Sam Johnson is a decorated hero. He has earned 2 Silver
Hearts, 2 Legions of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross,
the Bronze Star with Valor, the Meritorious Service Medal,
and 9 other medals, including 2 Purple Hearts, as written in
his book. He now serves his country as a United States
Congressman. I am very thankful to have heard his story
because it made my understanding of past war history even
greater. Although I was not alive at the time, I can
empathize and only imagine how horrible Mr. Johnson was
treated as a captive prisoner. I gain strength in my Faith
through the telling of his life story, and I admire all of
his accomplishments.--Amanda Lipscomb
As part of the ``Preserving History Project'' I completed
for Congressman Sam Johnson and the Congressional Youth
Advisory Council, I had the pleasure of interviewing Mr. Bud
Taylor who served in World War II as a Navy seaman. His
exploits in the Pacific theater included the attack on Pearl
Harbor, the bombardment Atu in the Aleutian Island chain, and
minesweeping at Bikini Atoll and around Japan. Upon being
transferred to the Atlantic theater, he was assigned to a
convoy escort destroyer and participated in D-Day at
Normandy. Mr. Taylor joined the Navy in 1940 as a sailor,
rose to Seaman's 2nd Class, Seaman's 1st Class, and
eventually his final rank of Gunner's Mate 3rd Class. As a
result of this interview with Mr. Taylor, I saw how some of
the men in the U.S. Armed Forces in Pearl Harbor fought
against the odds to protect our country and the freedoms we
enjoy in the U.S. I was confronted with how men gave their
lives and Herculean efforts to protect America. My interview
with Mr. Taylor opened my eyes to the privilege of serving in
the U.S. Armed Forces; that in the time of need, we must all
be ready to serve.--Michael Scott
Private First Class, George C. Powell was a member of the
field artillery unit of the 66th Black Panther Division of
the United States Army during World War II. Powell was born
on November 6, 1924 in McKinney, Texas and was drafted by the
U.S. military by the time he was eighteen. Upon completion of
his training in Fort Sill, Oklahoma, Powell was sent to the
European Theater of Operations, where his unit was engaged in
the campaign on Northern France, where he fought until the
end of the war in 1945. As part of the Baker 2 firing battery
of the 66th field artillery unit, Powell was involved in
several successes and achievements, namely the sinking of a
German submarine. As a veteran of World War II Powell was
able to serve his country and the United States of America,
which is indeed his biggest accomplishment of all.
From this interview, I have gained so much more respect for
the people who serve this country, as they truly understand
the value of freedom. I have also come to realize the
importance and the gift of living in a country where my
rights are protected, and some day I hope to pass this on to
others to make them realize the values of such a nation as
the United States of America.--Morgan Bailey
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE WORKFORCE HOUSING ACT OF 2006
______
HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the
Workforce Housing Act of 2006.
Finding a moderately priced home used to be a concern solely for
those with low incomes. Today, as the median price for a home in some
parts of the United States is over $400,000, it has become an issue for
all workers. This is especially true when only about 18 percent of the
working population has enough income to purchase such a home. Other
workers simply do not have the down payment needed to buy a home.
When large numbers of Americans are priced out of the housing market,
it affects more than just a working family's ability to purchase a
home. Communities that fail to provide affordable housing leave
employers straining to find employees. The price to attract prospective
workers ultimately makes essential jobs and services more difficult and
more expensive for everyone.
Workers who cannot find affordable housing in or around places of
employment are pressured to move further away. They endure longer
commutes, use more gasoline, increase the levels of greenhouse gases,
and spend more of their hard earned money on transportation. The
financial impact is especially hard on low-income families who can
spend 40 percent of their incomes on transportation alone.
In other cases, people are forced to seek less expensive homes
elsewhere. Many of the housing alternatives they have to choose from
are often built from older materials, emit more pollution, and require
up to 50 percent more energy. Faulty ventilation and energy hungry
appliances also increase the costs to heat, cool, and power a home.
Rising energy costs required Americans to spend 24 percent more for
energy in 2005 than in the previous year. Such expenditures quickly
deplete any savings that working families hope to use when trying to
buy a home.
Left unchecked, the shortage of affordable housing, combined with
higher energy prices and increased transportation demands paralyzes
employment, holds back economic growth, and leads to inflation. The
Workforce Housing Act successfully addresses the challenges faced by
America's current housing crisis. This bill provides badly needed
assistance to help individuals and families purchase their first home
and to encourage developers to build affordable workforce housing.
For those looking to purchase a home, the Workforce Housing Act
creates two forms of assistance that can be used for the down payment,
service charges, appraisal, and other
[[Page 5790]]
acquisition costs to purchase a single-family home or condominium.
First, the bill creates a tax-exempt mortgage down payment account to
be used for purchasing a home. This account works much like an
Individual Savings Account, but can be used regardless of age and
allows contributions of up to $10,000. Taxpayers that earn incomes up
to 125 percent of the area median income will receive a tax credit
equal to the amount of their annual contributions. The maximum credit
is $2,500 for either single or married-filing-joint taxpayers. Those
making below 80 percent of AMI can also receive an additional $500
credit to start the account.
Once the home is purchased, it is also possible to use any remaining
funds for the future repair or replacement of items such as roofs,
water heaters, or major appliances. This provision helps to ensure
families can pay for these types of expenses without jeopardizing their
mortgage payments.
Those who purchase homes using assistance from the Workforce Housing
Act must use the home as their primary residence. To preserve the
supply of homes created under this act, ownership of these homes can
only be transferred to those with incomes that meet the stated
affordability requirements.
Second, the Workforce Housing Act provides potential homebuyers with
finance counseling and up to $15,000 in down payment assistance. Local
communities have the discretion under the bill to give teachers, first
responders, certain service workers, the elderly, and low-income
families priority for this part of the program.
For builders, incentives are available for the construction of
affordable workforce homes. Developers are allowed base incentives in
the form of expedited building permits and density allowances that are
above current limits when at least 25 percent of the units are priced
affordably. Affordability is based on homes with a sale price that does
not exceed the median purchase price for a specific area.
Additional incentives are provided in the bill for affordable
workforce homes that are built near mass transit lines, with energy
efficient technologies and appliances, and using active and/or passive
solar technology. These incentives can be used individually or in any
combination not to exceed 15 percent of the base incentive value. Local
jurisdictions will determine how to utilize these incentives based on
the needs of their communities.
The Workforce Housing Act is necessary to ensure there is an adequate
supply of affordable housing for the people who need it most. It also
provides reasonable alternatives that reduce some of the negative
effects of increased energy demands. These are factors that threaten
our economy, our ability to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and
the viability of our cities and towns.
I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and urge the House
leadership to bring it swiftly to the House floor for consideration.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SAINT HYACINTH ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
______
HON. JOHN D. DINGELL
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Saint Hyacinth
Roman Catholic Church, in Detroit, MI on its centennial anniversary.
Since 1907, Saint Hyacinth has served as a place of worship and
gathering point for the Polish community in Detroit.
Saint Hyacinth was established in 1907 by a small group of Polish
immigrants. At the beginning of the 20th century, this new parish
served the large and growing Polish immigrant community in Detroit.
During World War I, the congregation came together in order to provide
solidarity for their brothers and sisters in Poland, as well as to
contribute to the overall war effort. With a growing population Saint
Hyacinth built a new church in 1924. This beautiful Byzantine-
Romanesque church building towered over all other local buildings,
serving as a deep source of pride for the Polish community.
World War II brought another opportunity for Saint Hyacinth to serve
its country, community, and loved ones in Poland. With its strong
connection to Poland, there was no doubt that Saint Hyacinth and many
of its parishioners would play an active role in the American war
effort. Their bravery and sacrifice was honored with an honor roll
installed in the church vestibule.
The post-War years brought change to the surrounding community, but
Saint Hyacinth remained steadfast in its dedication to serving the
community. Following WWII, then Bishop Monsinger Woznicki appealed to
the Church's many Polish parishioners to retain their family names,
instead of changing them, as had become the custom. He also called on
his parish not to flee to the suburbs, but stay in the surrounding
neighborhood.
Saint Hyacinth was honored with its listing in the State of
Michigan's Historical Site Registry on September 21, 1988. In January
2001, Saint Hyacinth was honored by the City of Detroit and its 300th
Anniversary Committee, with a Heritage Award. It also received a
granite paver, inscribed in both English and Polish, on the Riverfront
Promenade. This serves as a testament to the great contributions this
parish has provided to the city of Detroit and its people.
Mr. Speaker, for one hundred years Saint Hyacinth has served as the
heart of Detroit's Polish community. Innumerable parishioners have
passed through its doors through the years and the lessons they have
learned helped shape their values and beliefs. Saint Hyacinth has stood
as an example of all the hard work, determination, sacrifice and love
that the surrounding community provides. For generations, the parish of
Saint Hyacinth has turned a beautiful building into something much
more, the heart of a community. I want to congratulate the congregation
of Saint Hyacinth; the good works they have done serve as an example of
all that a community can and should be.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ELBERT GARCIA, RECIPIENT OF THE LATINO ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OF
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY'S TRAILBLAZER AWARD
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Elbert
Garcia, an extraordinary gentleman to whom I was first introduced when
he was an American Political Science Association fellow in my
congressional office, and who is now a media and policy analyst
currently employed at my New York District Congressional office.
I commend the Latino Alumni Association of Columbia University on
their decision to bestow their first annual Trailblazer Award on a
group of exceptional individuals that included Elbert Garcia.
I was very pleased to find that this unique and very first annual
Trailblazer award was presented April 1st during a celebration of the
diversity and achievements of Columbia's Latino alumni appropriately
called ``El Regreso.'' The Columbia University alumni honorees consist
of Marcel Agueros, Rafael Collazo, Jennifer Duran, Michael Maldonado,
Vivian Santiago, and last but certainly not least, Elbert Garcia. The
group was cited because ``their dedication, vision, and representation
of a wider movement were instrumental to the creation of the Center for
the Study of Ethnicity and Race.''
In 1995, this group of Latin American students at Columbia were
frustrated that the initiatives to bring the history of ethnic studies
to their campus continued to result in failure. They were determined to
draw attention to their plight by staging a non-violent hunger strike.
The strike ended in the arrest of 22 students and the resulting media
coverage of the arrest finally propelled Columbia and its lack of
ethnic studies into the national spotlight. This publicity served as a
wake-up call to the powers that be and ultimately led to change which
resulted in the creation of Columbia's Center for the Study of
Ethnicity and Race. That Elbert was a leader of a group who had the
strategic vision, self-discipline, determination and persistence to
succeed is not a surprise to me because these are qualities which
Elbert exhibits in his professional and personal life.
I know Elbert to be a dedicated family man with great conviction.
A Washington Heights-born freelance writer, Elbert has written about
politics, music and culture for such publications as The Source,
Urbanlatino Magazine, The New York Post and the Manhattan Times. The
31-year old son of Dominican immigrants has also worked as Web producer
at MSNBC, the New York Times, and Philadelphia-based Latino news Web
site, LATNN.com.
Elbert earned a B.A. in Urban Studies with a specialization in
Political Science while being an active student leader at Columbia
University. In addition to helping to establish the school's Latino
Studies program and the Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Race, he
[[Page 5791]]
served as one of founders of Columbia University's undergraduate
Dominican organization, EI Grupo Quisqueyano and managing editor of the
multicultural magazine Roots & Culture.
Prior to entering the field of journalism, Garcia worked several
years as alumni counselor and supervisor at the Prep for Prep program,
a New York City leadership development organization that works with
students of color from fifth grade through college. He was also one of
the early organizers of the New York International Latino Film
Festival.
Elbert spent a year working on Capitol Hill as a 2002-2003 American
Political Science Association Congressional (APSA) Fellow, the oldest
and most prestigious Capitol Hill fellowship program. Elbert rejoined
my New York staff on a part-time basis in January, 2006. A product of
the Ethical Cultural Fieldston School and the community's gifted and
talented magnet school, Mott Hall, Elbert currently resides in the
Upper Manhattan neighborhood of Inwood with his wife, Grissel.
Elbert's background in media relations and journalism has proven to
be an invaluable asset as he assists me in communicating and
implementing the role of government in the lives of the constituents of
the 15th congressional District. Elbert is a non-assuming, focused and
savvy analyst who genuinely cares about people. He is dedicated to
ensuring that the needs of our constituency are met. I am particularly
proud of the great strides Elbert Garcia has made not only at Columbia
University but also in his service to the residents of the 15th
District of New York City.
I salute and congratulate Elbert Garcia along with the five other
honored Columbia alumni for the fortitude and bravery displayed in 1995
that brought about positive change that continues to benefit Columbia
University to this day. I also salute Elbert for his continued work for
the public in his chosen field.
At a time of sharp difference between us on the question of
immigration policy, we all should keep in mind these words of Elbert
Garcia. To quote Elbert, ``A nation steeped in ethnic studies would not
be in such a hurry to punish its immigrants.''
____________________
TESTIMONY OF STEVE GRANDSTAFF
______
HON. DALE E. KILDEE
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, my constituent Steve Grandstaff is shop
chairman of the United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 651, which represents
hourly workers at Delphi East in my hometown of Flint, Michigan.
For the record I would like to read an excerpt of the electronic
testimony that Steve wrote for the Education and the Workforce
Committee e-hearing on the impact of the Delphi bankruptcy filing:
I am the Shop Chairperson of UAW Local 651 in Flint,
servicing Delphi Flint East and representing 2,800 hard
working people. Early on in this whole saga I had a
realization what the whole issue boils down to.
I refer to it as the promise; the promise was part of the
deal. The deal was that you came to work and did your job for
30 years and at the end of that time you could have the
opportunity to go on your way with a somewhat comfortable
pension to see you through your later years.
The workers' end of the promise was that they worked the
off shifts for the first decade of employment. This meant
working the hot days in the summer and the cold ones in the
winter. That in itself meant that you were at work when your
family and your friends were working normal hours and
enjoying life.
The promise meant that you worked in the grimy, dangerous
conditions. You did boring, monotonous jobs. You suffered the
labeling by society because you worked in a factory.
You would work the extra hours so that you could get the
nice things that life offered. The things that seemed to come
easier to other people but in your case you had to do a
little extra to get them. . .
Over the years many of us had the opportunity to make a
decision, should I stay or should I move on to something
else. Many, many people stayed on because of the promise.
They made decisions not to go to a new career because they
were many years into the equation of which the promise
weighed oh so heavily.
The promise was always out there.
The company always reminded anyone that would listen about
how they were funding our pensions and used that as a
bargaining chip when our wages or benefits were on the table.
It was always figured in as a benefit cost even though now
some wonder if the company ever really intended to fulfill
the promise.
Now here we are near the end of our careers, not as young
as we used to be, many of us broken. When so many of us are
so close to being able to cash in on the promise, the company
is attempting to take it away from us . . .
Mr. Speaker, this Congress has failed to protect American workers
while focusing on protecting the privileged few.
It is time for these workers' stories to be heard and I am pleased to
have this opportunity to share one of these stories.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE FEDERAL AND SMALL BUSINESS TELE-
WORK PROMOTION ACT
______
HON. MARK UDALL
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the
``Federal and Small Business Telework Promotion Act'' to assist our
Nation's small businesses in establishing successful telework programs
for their employees and to secure energy saving opportunities, like
teleworking for our Nation's Federal employees.
Across America, numerous employers are responding to the needs of
their employees and establishing telework programs. In 2000, there were
an estimated 16.5 million teleworkers. By the end of 2004, there will
be an estimated 30 million teleworkers, representing an increase of
almost 100 percent.
Unfortunately, the majority of growth in new teleworkers comes from
organizations employing over 1,500 people, while just a few years ago,
most teleworkers worked for small to medium-sized organizations.
By not taking advantage of modem technology and establishing
successful telework programs, small businesses are losing out on a host
of benefits that will save them money, and make them more competitive.
By establishing successful telework programs, small business owners
would be able to retain these valuable employees by allowing them to
work from a remote location, such as their home or a telework center.
In addition to the cost savings realized by businesses that employ
teleworkers, there are a number of related benefits to society and the
employee. For example, telecommuters help reduce traffic and cut down
on air pollution by staying off the roads during rush hour. Fully 80
percent of home-only teleworkers commute to work on days they are not
teleworking. This also gives employees more time to spend with their
families and reduces stress levels by eliminating the pressure of a
long commute.
Mr. Speaker, our legislation seeks to conserve the energy consumption
of the Federal workforce and to extend the benefits of a successful
telework program to our Nation's small businesses.
Specifically, each agency shall take such actions as are necessary to
reduce the level of fuel consumed by vehicles of employees of the
agency. Due to the needs to reduce our dependence on imported oil, the
bill directs all Federal agencies to find ways to reduce energy
consumption by 10 percent in the year following the bill's passage.
Agencies can achieve this reduction through telework, carpooling,
bicycling and walking to work, fuel-efficient trip planning, public
transportation use; and limiting travel.
Further the bill establishes a pilot program in the Small Business
Administration (SBA) to raise awareness about telework among small
business employers and to encourage those small businesses to establish
telework programs for their employees.
Additionally, an important provision in our bill directs the SBA
Administrator to undertake special efforts for businesses owned by, or
employing, persons with disabilities and disabled American veterans. At
the end of the day, telework can provide more than just environmental
benefits and improved quality of life. It can open the door to people
who have been precluded from working in a traditional office setting
due to physical disabilities.
The legislation is also limited in cost and scope. It establishes the
pilot program in a maximum of five SBA regions and caps the total cost
to five million dollars over two years. It also restricts the SBA to
activities specifically proscribed in the legislation: Developing
educational materials; conducting outreach to small business; and
acquiring equipment for demonstration purposes. Finally, it requires
the SBA to prepare and submit a report to Congress evaluating the pilot
program.
Several hurdles to establishing successful telework programs could be
cleared by enacting our legislation. The bill will go a long way
towards educating small business owners on how they can draft
guidelines to make a
[[Page 5792]]
telework program an affordable, manageable reality and demonstrating
the willingness of the Federal Government to expand their own telework
policies.
Here is a brief outline of the bill's provisions--
Section One--provides a short title, namely ``Federal and Small
Business Telework Promotion Act.''
Section Two--sets forth findings regarding the potential benefits of
increasing the extent to which employees have the option of
teleworking.
Section Three--amends the National Energy Conservation Policy Act by
adding a new subsection requiring Federal agencies to act so far as
possible to reduce the amount of fuel used by its employees by at least
10 percent during the year after enactment. Military use of fuel would
not be affected. An agency could seek to achieve this reduction through
increased telework opportunities; more carpooling; more people
bicycling or walking to work; fuel-efficient trip planning; greater use
of public transportation; or by limiting use of vehicles for business
travel.
Section Four--directs the Small Business Administration to carry out
a pilot program to raise awareness of telework among small businesses
and to encourage them to offer telework options to their employees.
This program is to include special outreach to businesses owned by or
employing people with disabilities, including disabled veterans.
Priority for locating the pilot program will be given to regions where
Federal agencies and small businesses have demonstrated a strong
commitment to telework. The pilot program will terminate after 2 years.
This section also authorizes appropriation of $5 million for
implementation by SBA.
____________________
HONORING MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM A. BECKER
______
HON. JEB HENSARLING
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Major
General (Retired) William A. Becker, a distinguished veteran of World
War II and Vietnam.
A Kaufman County native, William Becker was born on his family
homestead in 1919. He graduated from Kaufman High School in 1936. He
later attended Texas A&M College, where served as cadet corps commander
during his senior year. Upon graduation in 1941, he was given a
diploma, a commission as 2nd Lieutenant of field artillery, and orders
to report within eight days to the 1st Calvary Division at Fort Bliss,
Texas.
Maj. Gen. Becker was sent to fight in the Southwest Pacific Theater
during WWII, and in four years, he advanced from the rank of 2nd
Lieutenant to Lieutenant Colonel.
Maj. Gen. Becker also served in Vietnam. Over his 30-year career he
had a variety of other commands and assignments. His last active duty
assignment was to the Pentagon with the Office of the Secretary of the
Army, as Chief of Legislative Liaison, working with the United States
Congress from 1968-1971.
During his years of service he was awarded the Distinguished Service
Medal twice with one Oak Leaf Cluster, Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf
Clusters, Bronze Star with one Oak Leaf Cluster, and the Air Medal with
10 Oak Leaf Clusters.
Upon retirement from the Army, Gen. Becker returned to his home
community with his wife, Fran, and their four children. In the early
1970's he established a real estate brokerage and is still active with
that business. He also served as President of the Kaufman-Van Zandt
Board of Realtors and Director of the Texas Association of Realtors.
President Calvin Coolidge once said, ``The Nation which forgets its
defenders will itself be forgotten.'' As a veteran, Gen. Becker
understands that better than most Americans. On behalf of the grateful
citizens of the Fifth District of Texas, it is my pleasure to honor
Maj. Gen. Becker today in the United States House of Representatives.
It is because of his service, we are able to enjoy freedom, peace,
prosperity, and the many other blessings that God has bestowed upon
this great land, the United States of America.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF MARJORIE S. ANTHONY
______
HON. JOHN B. LARSON
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay great
honor to a dear friend and colleague of mine, Marjorie S. Anthony of
South Windsor, Connecticut, who passed away on March 27, 2006. Marge
was wonderfully unique in the way she pursued politics and community
service. She did it with enthusiasm and love, candor and spirit.
Marge was a devoted wife, mother and grandmother. My heart goes out
to her family, her loving husband of 48 years, Peter T. Anthony, Sr.
Marjorie will be greatly missed by her four children and their spouses:
Katherine Kennison and her husband, Ed, of South Windsor; Marybeth
D'Onofrio and her husband, Tom, of Ellington; Patty Antonaras and her
husband, Sam, of Ellington. Marjorie will also be deeply missed by her
12 grandchildren, Ashley Kennison, Shannon and Trevor Anthony, Matt,
Rachel and Vinny Metacarpa, Katie, Tommy, and Christopher D'Onofrio,
John, Brittany and Mikala Antonaras. Marjorie leaves behind five
exceptional brothers, Charles J. Sullivan and sister-in-law, Maureen,
of Riverton, NJ; Michael Sullivan and sister-in-law, Tina, of Atlanta,
GA; Thomas Sullivan and sister-in-law, Carole, of South Bend, IN;
Patrick Sullivan and Chris Domenick of Marlborough; and Kevin Sullivan
of Hartford; her brother-in-law and sister-in-law, Thomas and Jane
Anthony of Rocky Hill. Marjorie will also be deeply missed by her many
nieces, nephews and cousins who were all a close knit family.
Marge led a tremendous life and was an active member of her
community. Marge lived in South Windsor for 48 years of her life and
graduated from Bulkeley High School. For 30 years of her life, Marjorie
was a private business owner, Justice of the Peace, member of St.
Francis of Assisi Church and Ladies Society, and State Central
Connecticut Woman. Marge served as Past President of the South Windsor
Democratic Women's Club, Past Vice-Chair and Secretary of the
Democratic Town Committee, Past Chairman of the Zoning Board of
Appeals, Chairperson of the Economic Development Commission,
Chairperson of the South Windsor Committee for St. Patrick's Day
Parade, Past Corresponding Secretary of the South Windsor Historical
Society, and Past President of the South Windsor Athletic Booster Club.
She was a member of the Board of Directors of the Greater Hartford
Transit District, Board of Directors of the Tolland County Chamber of
Commerce, and an Advisory Board member for Rockville Bank.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in honoring the
life of Marjorie S. Anthony. Marge will be missed by her family,
friends and her community. She was a dear friend of mine and my family
who join with her family in mourning her passing but rejoicing in her
life.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ELI SEGAL
______
HON. ANNA G. ESHOO
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary
American, Eli Segal, who passed away on February 20, 2006 at the age of
63.
Eli Segal was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1943. He graduated
Brandeis University in 1964 and received a law degree from the
University of Michigan in 1967.
Mr. Segal began a distinguished political career in 1968 when he
joined Senator Eugene McCarthy's presidential campaign. Though Senator
McCarthy lost, Mr. Segal was not deterred and served in key positions
in several Democratic presidential campaigns, culminating with
President Clinton's 1992 campaign, which was Mr. Segal's first campaign
victory.
Mr. Segal then served as Assistant to the President in the Clinton
White House, and within months established the Corporation for National
Service, better known now as AmeriCorps. Thanks to his skilled
management, the once controversial program has become an acclaimed
success, and 400,000 young Americans have been enrolled in the program
and helped to improve their communities and their country. Mr. Segal
also took an active interest in City Year, another service program he
eventually chaired. At the request of Nelson Mandela, he helped launch
City Year in South Africa.
In 1996, when President Clinton signed welfare reform into law, Mr.
Segal took on the challenge of creating opportunities for former
welfare recipients who were required to work. He began asking American
companies to make commitments to hire former welfare recipients, and
his ``welfare-to-work partnership'' grew from five companies to twenty
thousand. As he did with AmeriCorps, Mr. Segal left a great legacy in
his contribution to the success of welfare reform.
[[Page 5793]]
Mr. Segal is survived by his wife Phyllis, his son Jonathan and his
daughter Mora, two grandchildren, and his brother Alan.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring an
outstanding American and an extraordinary public servant, and extending
our deepest sympathy to his family. He touched the lives of many
Americans and changed our nation for the better.
____________________
HONORING ATHENS' FIRST MAYOR
______
HON. JEB HENSARLING
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Mr. John
Matthews McDonald, the first known Mayor of Athens, Texas. John
Matthews McDonald (1827-1883) was born in North Carolina but came to
Texas in 1848 and lived first at Larissa, Cherokee County and then
Mound Prairie, Anderson County, where his brother Murdoch earlier
settled. Two years later, he moved to the young town of Athens and
became a teacher and a lawyer.
He also served as the town's first mayor. He wed Mary Ann Elizabeth
Pinson (1842-1931) in 1858, and the couple had ten children. During the
Civil War, McDonald fought with the Confederate Army as part of Hood's
Texas Brigade.
Active in public service, he held the offices of Justice of the
Peace, County Judge and State Representative. His pioneer leadership
proved vital to the early development of this adopted home.
On behalf of the citizens of Athens and the Fifth District of Texas,
it is my pleasure to honor John Matthews McDonald in the United States
House of Representatives.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF ROSE BOUZIANE NADER
______
HON. JOHN B. LARSON
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a
distinguished constituent in my district, Rose Bouziane Nader of
Winsted, Connecticut, whose incredible life has provided inspiration to
all who have come in contact with her. Rose was a devoted mother,
teacher and civic advocate, who passed away on January 20, 2006.
Rose Nader lived just 18 days short of her 100th birthday and led a
life fulfilled by the inspiration she gave and the nurturing compassion
she provided. Rose inspired America's foremost consumer advocate, her
son Ralph Nader, and further inspired the rest of her children who are
all dedicated to giving back to their community. The following are but
glittering excerpts from the outpouring of people who spoke from their
heart about this shining example for humanity.
``We have been brought together today by our mother, who was the
light of our lives, the anchor, the compass and the vision. These are a
few of her main qualities, qualities that we see in many good people.
They represent the heights of human beings.''--Ralph Nader.
``She was not a person of many words, but her content contained much
memorable wisdom.''--Claire Nader.
``On child-rearing formulas, Mom observed that, `there is no recipe.'
On supporting each other, it was `operation cooperation.'''--Laura
Nader.
``She was as fine an expression of the human spirit as I have ever
met, and I say this from my heart.''--Phil Donahue.
``I thought she was a remarkable person who lived a remarkable life,
going literally from one century to another.
``She was strong, loving, hard-working and modest. All of the virtues
were hers. I used to ponder how much she and her husband had seen in
their lives for it was a great American story. They had come here in
the Twenties with little more than their hopes and their capacity for
hard work, and in just one generation they had seen their own children
prosper--enriching what was around them and being enriched at the same
time.
``What I will remember is her kindness to our family over the years,
her sense of obligation to others, and a belief that citizenship
demanded a daily commitment. And of course her modesty, in the
midsixties, back when Life Magazine was still powerful, the editors put
Ralph on the cover. My mother, thrilled by this, immediately called
Rose to tell her.
`Yes,' said Mrs. Nader, `that's nice. I must get out and get a copy.'
We all loved that, the `a copy' reference.'' David Halberstam
Journalist, Author, Historian.
It has been my experience that what makes this country great are
those humble people amongst us who live day to day and perform
unheralded deeds for their community. Rose was one of those people. Her
life was a testimony of inspiration, humor and compassion, and the love
and satisfaction that comes from giving of oneself.
How blessed her family is to have had such an influence, how
fortunate the community that her works lives on. Epitomized by her
world famous son, Ralph, and her daughters, Claire and Laura, who never
forget their community and their mother's devotion.
President Kennedy was fond of saying that communities reveal a lot
about themselves in the memorials they create and the individuals they
honor. How fitting it is for the family to establish the Rose Nader
Circle: For the Agitation of the Caring Mind. I know all Americans join
in saluting Rose Nader. I personally want to be part of the planting of
roses throughout Winsted. What a fitting tribute to an extraordinary
lady. I am both humbled by her virtue and honored to place her name in
the annals of the United States Congress, an institution that could
learn much from this incredible American.
____________________
IN HONOR OF SERGEANT RICHARD F. LITTO, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
______
HON. STEPHEN F. LYNCH
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and honor that I
rise today to pay tribute to Sergeant Richard Francis Litto, United
States Marine Corps and a resident of South Boston, MA.
Upon graduation from South Boston High School in 1976, Sergeant Litto
joined the Marine Corps Active Reserve Unit. In 1990, Richie was called
to active duty in Operation Desert Shield and assigned to the Military
Police Criminal Investigations Division. During his tenure in Desert
Shield, Richie received several accolades for his exemplary work ethic.
One in particular, The Meritorious Mast, was awarded to Richie for his
outstanding service.
Richie's next tour came in 2005, as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom
where he was again asked to serve his country. Richie was activated in
June of that year as a member of the 6th Civil Affairs Group (CAG), 2nd
Marine Division of the United States Marine Corps. During this tour
Richie was on a 137 ``outside the wire mission,'' where he and his
fellow members of the CAG Division worked on the streets of Fallujah,
Amiriyah, and Zaidon protecting the citizens of Iraq from enemy
insurgents.
Due to his exemplary service Richie was given Gunnery Sergeant
responsibilities with E5 status, which any Marine knows is an amazing
accomplishment and honor. Throughout his service in the United States
Marine Corps, Richie Litto has been decorated with numerous awards. He
has been awarded the Iraqi Campaign Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Medal,
Good Conduct Ribbon, Combat Action Ribbon and the National Defense
Ribbon on several occasions.
On a personal note, I have had the pleasure of counting Richie Litto
among my dearest friends for most of my life. Recently, as part of a
Congressional Delegation that visited Iraq and Afghanistan I had the
opportunity to visit with Richie while he was stationed at Camp Mercury
in Fallujah and tell him in person how proud we were of his service to
our country.
Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House
of Representatives today to join with Richie's wonderful family,
friends, and brothers and sisters in the Marines and thank him for a
job well done and welcome him home. I hope my colleagues will join me
in celebrating Richie Litto's many accomplishments and all his future
endeavors.
____________________
HONORING JERRY DeFEO
______
HON. JEB HENSARLING
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Mr. Jerry
DeFeo and his work with the National Exchange Club. Mr.
[[Page 5794]]
DeFeo joined the Noon Exchange Club of Garland, Texas as a charter
member in 1982 and went on to serve in numerous offices at the club,
district and national levels, culminating with his term as President of
the National Exchange Club this past year.
Jerry DeFeo has devoted his time, talent and energy promoting the
Exchange Club and it's mission: to make our communities better places
to live through programs of service in Americanism, community service,
youth activities, and its national project, the prevention of child
abuse.
Mr. DeFeo is an accomplished member of the Garland Noon Exchange Club
and has served the National Exchange Club Foundation board of trustees
from 1987-88 and is a volunteer field representative (VFR). He has
received multiple recognitions throughout his involvement, including
the first ever VFR of the Year Award in 1997. He was also awarded the
National Master Recruiter Award and he has recruited more than 350
members and built 15 Exchange Clubs.
Mr. DeFeo received a bachelor's degree in engineering management from
the University of Texas at Arlington, and is the founder and president
of DeFeo & Co. Enterprises, which specializes in a variety of
architecture and construction. Jerry and his wife Mary Defeo reside in
Garland and have four grown children and five grandchildren.
Still active in his community, DeFeo is serving his 12th year on
Garland's Board of Adjustments, a zoning appeals board. He has also
been involved with the Stars for Children Child Abuse Prevention
Center, the Garland Chamber of Commerce, YMCA Indian Guides, and
Crimestoppers and Scouting.
Over the course of his career, Jerry DeFeo has demonstrated a unique
commitment to the Exchange Club and his community. Today I would like
to recognize his outstanding service to his dedication to the people of
Texas and the mission of the Exchange Club.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. STEPHANIE HERSETH
of south dakota
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, On April 5, 2006. I missed Rollcall vote
No. 90 on H.R. 1127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act to impose
sanctions against individuals responsible for genocide, war crimes, and
crimes against humanity, to support measures for the protection of
civilians and humanitarian operations, and to support peace efforts in
the Darfur region of Sudan, and for other purposes. Had I been present
and voting, I would have voted yes on the Darfur Peace and
Accountability Act.
____________________
HONORING THE MARTINS MILL GIRLS BASKETBALL STATE CHAMPIONS
______
HON. JEB HENSARLING
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor the Martins
Mill Lady Mustangs basketball team who recently won the Texas
University Interscholastic League 1A Division State Championship. On
Friday March 3, 2006 the Lady Mustangs competed at the University of
Texas in Austin's Frank Erwin Center (UTAFEC) for the Girls Basketball
State Championship.
I would like to recognize teammates Cara Chaney, Courtney Gregory,
Rebecca Hensley, Jordan Barncastle, Hayley Butler, Taylor Daniel,
Brittney Perkins, Alexis Popelar, Ashley Tarrant, Jennifer Tindle,
Christa Williams, Lynzi Williams, and Kim Wilson as well as team
managers Carlee Alsobrook, Kati Clark, Joanna Daniel, Ashlee Milner,
and Emily Williams.
The outstanding team performance of the Martins Mill Lady Mustangs
earned them the number one ranking in the state from start to finish
this season. At the State Championship game in Austin the Lady Mustangs
defeated Elkhart Slocum 61-30 to claim the Class 1-A Division 1 Title
in front of a crowd of 3,500 people.
Jordan Barncastle was named Most Valuable Player, and Offensive Most
Valuable Player was awarded to Lynzi Williams and Christa Williams.
Additionally, state team selections went to Taylor Daniels, Jennifer
Tindle and Kim Wilson, and Ashley Tarrant. Cara Chaney, Brittney
Perkins, and Hayley Butler also received honorable mention recognition.
I would also like to honor Martins Mill Head Coach Doug Barncastle and
Assistant Coach Don Tarrant, who were named Coaching Staff of the year.
As the congressional representative of the families, coaches, and
supporters of the Martins Mill Lady Mustangs, it is my pleasure to
recognize their tremendous victory and outstanding season.
____________________
RECOGNIZING BAY OF PIGS VETERANS ASSOCIATION 2506 ASSAULT BRIGADE
______
HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the Bay of
Pigs Veterans Association 2506 Assault Brigade. On April 15 of this
year, this brave group of men will observe two monumental events. They
will be commemorating the 45th anniversary of the invasion of the Bay
of Pigs and the 43rd anniversary of the liberation of the captured
members of the 2506 Brigade. The members of the 2506 Brigade came from
all walks of life, ages, and backgrounds. The men range from doctors
and farmers to students and priests. The oldest was a highly decorated
52-year-old World War II paratrooper and the youngest a 15-year old who
lied about his age in order to be a part of the Bay of Pigs Assault
Brigade. The 2506 Brigade trained for months with little supplies in
preparing for this assault that they hoped would dethrone a cruel and
heartless tyrant. These great patriots risked their lives in hopes of
freeing their homeland from the tyrannical grip of a brutal dictator.
My parents and I were fortunate enough to escape the oppression and
persecution of Castro's regime when I was a young girl. Unfortunately,
many have not been as lucky and still live in a country that does not
recognize the human rights and personal freedoms that we cherish here
in the United States. I applaud the efforts of all those who seek to
eliminate the cruel dictatorship in Cuba and in its place instill a
foundation for democracy and freedom. I along with the men in this
distinguished group look forward to the day when Cuba is a free and
sovereign nation. I pray that this day will soon come and that the
Cuban people still living under Castro's oppressive regime will be able
to have the freedom and democracy that was so patriotically fought for
by the members of the 2506 Brigade.
____________________
HONORING SISTER CATHERINE DUNN
______
HON. JIM NUSSLE
of iowa
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Sister Catherine
Dunn, President of Clarke College in Dubuque, Iowa who will retire on
June 30th 2006, after serving in this position for 22 years.
Sister Catherine came to Clarke in 1973 and started her service to
Clarke and the Dubuque Community as a member of the education
department faculty. In 1979 she became vice president of institutional
advancement. On January 27th, 1984, she became Clarke's 14th president.
The first few months for the leader of any organization can be
challenging, hectic, and perhaps chaotic at times. Sr. Catherine would
face all of that and more, as her strength and fortitude were tested
111 days later, when on May 17th, 1984, fire destroyed one-third of the
historic buildings on campus. In the spirit of Sister Mary Frances
Clarke who founded the school in 1843, and propelled by students who
hung banners proclaiming `Clarke Lives,' Sr. Catherine oversaw an
aggressive rebuilding project. Rising from the ashes were a new
library, a chapel, music performance hall, administrative offices and a
glassed atrium, which were dedicated in October of 1986. Most
importantly, it showed the resilience of a woman who would not let
devastation chart a negative destiny for the school or her presidency.
Since then the school has had several other additions and expansions
including a new sports and recreation complex, an activity center and
increased student housing.
For most new presidents that would have been challenge enough, but
Sr. Catherine's spirit reached far beyond 1550 Clarke Drive.
[[Page 5795]]
She has served on the boards of numerous local, regional, and national
education and civic organizations. She has served on the executive
committee of the National Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities (NAICU) and chaired the organization's tax policy
committee. In 1989, she was appointed to the Iowa Transportation
Commission, making history in 1994 when she was named chair of the
commission. She was the first woman to hold the position in the 81-year
history of the commission.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pay tribute to Clarke College President
Sr. Catherine Dunn. The many lives she has touched will never be known,
but that work, through others, will live on. We celebrate, we honor and
we will remember Clarke College's 14th president.
____________________
HONORING THE VIENNA COMMUNITY CENTER'S 40TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. TOM DAVIS
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the
40th Anniversary of the Vienna Community Center located in Fairfax
County, Virginia.
For 40 years, the Vienna Community Center has served as the main
location for the Town of Vienna Parks and Recreation Department. Like
all aspects of the Town of Vienna Parks and Recreation Department, the
Vienna Community Center enjoys a rich history of providing quality
programs and facilities to the town's citizenry.
Even before the Community Center's construction, it was bringing the
Town of Vienna together as a neighborhood. In 1946, the Vienna Lions
Club provided the initial donation for the Community Center. In 1964,
the opening night performance of the Vienna Theater served as a benefit
event kicking off the final leg of the fund raising drive to build the
Town's new Community Center. Tickets for the event were available from
sponsoring organizations, which included the First National Bank and
the Vienna Trust Co. The fund raising goal required to build the
Community Center was completed through these community-backed ticket
sales as well as direct donations from businesses, organizations, and
community residents. Construction of the center began shortly
thereafter.
The Community Center opened its doors on Sunday, April 17, 1966. The
dedication ceremonies, organized by the Vienna Woman's Club, brought
together a variety of area clubs and organizations.
Since those opening ceremonies, The Vienna Community Center has
provided facilities for many events serving people of all ages such as
fashion shows, bazaars, health fairs, plays, and antique exhibits.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank the Vienna Community
Center for 40 years of dedicated service to its community. The
activities, classes, programs, camps and trips, which the Vienna
Community Center facilitates, enhance the town's sense of community. I
call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding the Vienna Community
Center's past accomplishments and in wishing the Center continued
success in the many years to come.