[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[Issue]
[Pages 1563-1741]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 1563]]
VOLUME 153--PART 2
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, January 18, 2007
____________________
The House met at 10 a.m.
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
The love of the Lord is perfect; it gives life to the soul. The word
of the Lord can be trusted; it gives wisdom to all. The command of the
Lord is clear; it gives light to the eye.
Those who love their neighbors fulfill the law, for the whole law is
summed up in the command to love. So the command of the Lord is clear.
Let us embrace it with our whole heart both now and forever. Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's
proceedings and announces to the House her approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) come forward
and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. BOSWELL 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.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER. The Speaker's policy with regard to special order
speeches announced on February 11, 1994, as clarified and reiterated by
subsequent Speakers, will continue to apply in the 110th Congress and,
without objection, will be printed in the Record.
There was no objection.
On Tuesdays, following legislative business, the Chair may
recognize Members for special-order speeches that may not
extend beyond midnight. On other days of the week, the Chair
may recognize Members for special-order speeches for up to 4
hours after the conclusion of 5-minute special-order
speeches. Such speeches may not extend beyond the 4-hour
limit without the permission of the Chair, which may be
granted only with advance consultation between the
leaderships and notification to the House. However, the Chair
will not recognize for any special-order speeches beyond
midnight.
The Chair will first recognize Members for 5-minute
special-order speeches, alternating initially and
subsequently between the parties regardless of the date the
order was granted by the House. The Chair will then recognize
Members for longer special-order speeches. A Member
recognized for a 5-minute special-order speech may not be
recognized for a longer special-order speech. The 4-hour
limitation will be divided between the majority and minority
parties. Each party is entitled to reserve its first hour for
respective leaderships or their designees. Recognition for
periods longer than 5 minutes also will alternate initially
and subsequently between the parties each day.
The allocation of time within each party's 2-hour period
(or shorter period if prorated to end by midnight) will be
determined by a list submitted to the Chair by the respective
leaderships. Members may not sign up with their leadership
for any special-order speeches earlier than 1 week prior to
the special order. Additional guidelines may be established
for such sign-ups by the respective leaderships.
Pursuant to clause 2(a) of rule V, the television cameras
will not pan the Chamber, but a ``crawl'' indicating the
conduct of morning-hour debate or that the House has
completed its legislative business and is proceeding with
special-order speeches will appear on the screen. The Chair
may announce other adaptations during this period.
The continuation of this format for recognition by the
Speaker is without prejudice to the Speaker's ultimate power
of recognition under clause 2 of rule XVII should
circumstances warrant.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER. The Chair will entertain up to five 1-minute speeches on
each side.
____________________
OPPOSITION TO INCREASING U.S. TROOP LEVELS IN IRAQ
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to
increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq. As one Member of Congress who
voted in support of the Iraq resolution in 2002, I recognize the
pretext for going to war was based on faulty, misleading intelligence.
I can not reverse that vote, but I can no longer acquiesce to a failed
and tragic military exercise in Iraq.
Two months ago, Generals Casey and Abizaid stated they did not
support increasing U.S. troop levels in Iraq. Last month, President
Bush maintained that military policy with regard to Iraq would be
determined by our military leaders. However, last week President Bush
ignored his top military advisors and called for a 20,000-plus increase
in U.S. troops to Iraq.
I, along with others, have been pressing the administration to level
with the American people on the status of the American security forces
being trained and ready to defend their nation. If Iraqis are trained
and ready as we are told, we should begin a planned phased withdrawal
of U.S. forces; if not, the administration should tell us when they
will be trained and ready.
Sending more troops to Iraq does nothing to enhance the Iraqis'
training; it only places more U.S. forces into harm's way to become
additional targets for the insurgency. This failed policy must be
stopped.
We can support our troops in the field and oppose the escalation of
U.S. forces. I urge all my colleagues to work in opposition to the
President's increase in U.S. forces.
____________________
OPPOSITION TO DEMOCRATS' PROPOSED ENERGY BILL
(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the
Democrats' proposed energy bill that would only hurt hardworking
Americans through raising taxes, forcing the cost of gas and home
heating oil to increase, and inflicting massive job losses as a result.
[[Page 1564]]
In the 109th Congress, I distinctly remember the Democrats
continually saying that the Republicans were outsourcing jobs. With
increased taxes, many hardworking Americans in the oil industry will
lose their jobs to overseas corporations, not only hurting the American
worker, but also increasing our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.
We have not built a refinery in America since 1976, which further has
added to our dependence on foreign oil by giving the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, massive control over us.
Madam Speaker, if we want true energy reform, we must begin to build
refineries, allow for responsible exploration of energy within our own
borders, and invest in energy alternatives.
Raising taxes, causing job losses and increasing fuel costs are not
the answer. If we fail to act in a responsible manner, we are
continuing to allow ourselves to be at the mercy of OPEC and the
nations that control it.
____________________
ELECTION OF MINORITY MEMBERS TO CERTAIN STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE
HOUSE
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I
offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 74) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 74
Resolved, That the following named members be and are
hereby elected to the following standing committees of the
House of Representatives:
(1) Committee on the Budget.--Mr. Bonner, Mr. Garrett of
New Jersey, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. McCotter, Mr.
Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Daniel E.
Lungren of California, Mr. Simpson, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Mack,
Mr. Conaway, Mr. Campbell of California, Mr. Tiberi, Mr.
Porter, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
(2) Committee on Foreign Affairs.--Mr. Manzullo, to rank
after Mr. Rohrabacher.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
THE HILL OF OPPOSITION
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. My colleagues, a few years ago I was doing some
climbing of hills and mountains in Colorado, and when I had started my
journey I looked up into the hills and it looked like it would take a
few hours to climb to a hill. I started my climb and I finally got
there, it took about a half a day. And when I got to the top of this
hill, when I was first starting I thought I would just get there and I
am right at the top, I am at my destination; but as I got to that top
of that hill, I saw there was another hill, and I had to climb another
half day.
This Congress is about to climb a hill, and that hill is opposition
to the escalation. But when we climb that hill, we are only going to be
halfway there because the top of the hill we've got to reach, that
second hill, is called ``ending the occupation.'' Stopping the
escalation is only half the journey here, we have to end the
occupation.
Similarly, people say, well, now they oppose the war. Well, opposing
the war, well, that is halfway up that hill. Take that journey. But
going all the way up the hill you are going to have to say, stop the
funding for the war. The Kucinich plan enables us not only to stop the
funding for the war, but to secure Iraq and create a whole new America
and world.
____________________
``FOREIGN CRIMINALS ARE FREE'' IN THE CITY BY THE BAY?
(Mr. POE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. POE. When foreigners commit crimes, serve their time, they should
be sent back to their native land; but some jurisdictions ignore this
commonsense idea and foreigners are not deported. In fact, an audit
ordered by this Congress showed that foreign citizens get arrested, go
to jail, and on an average--get this--six more times they are arrested
after they are released from American jails and not deported. That's
right, foreigners commit a crime, go to jail, then cities let them hang
around to commit more crime in the ``Land of the Free.''
The Federal Government has even dumped taxpayer dollars into
jurisdictions to help the cost of jailing these foreign criminals. Some
jurisdictions take the money but don't help with sending these outlaws
back home. San Francisco took $1 million, but, folks, it is a ``City of
Refuge''; in other words, give us your tired, your poor foreign
criminals who steal and rob that are yearning to be free, and we will
let them stay in the City by the Bay.
Foreigners who commit crime should go to jail and then be sent back
across the seas where they belong.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
SECURITY BREACH
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the
attention of my colleagues to a large-scale data breach that was
announced just yesterday. A hacker was able to gain access to the
database maintained by T.J. Maxx and others, and was able to obtain
payment card information stored in the database. Millions of
cardholders' records are now potentially compromised, all affecting all
major payment card brands.
Mr. Speaker, the situation is under investigation and we do not know
all the facts yet, but we do know that this is not the only example, it
is only the latest in a long series of breaches. The largest so far was
CSSI, and this affected over 40 million cardholders in America. This
breach that happened yesterday, or was announced yesterday, may even be
larger.
How many more breaches like this will the public tolerate before
Congress acts to adopt national data security rules?
____________________
CONTRACT WITH AMERICA VS. 100 HOURS AGENDA
(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, another day, another closed rule governing
consideration of legislation in the people's House. The other side
likes to highlight the bipartisan support for their so-called 100 hours
agenda. But almost 2\1/2\ weeks into it, Republicans have yet to be
allowed a single amendment on this floor. No committee hearings, no
amendments, no alternatives.
Mr. Speaker, it doesn't have to be this way. In 1995, the process
under the new Republican majority was far more open. Just look at the
numbers. The Contract with America was comprised of 24 bills. Only
three of those bills were considered under a closed rule. Democrats
were allowed to offer 154 amendments to the Contract with America
legislation and 48 of those amendments passed.
Mr. Speaker, the people's House should be a place where all the
people have a voice, opportunity to offer amendments, alternatives, and
let the best idea win. Under Democratic rule, that is not the case.
____________________
BRINGING SENSE TO THE ENERGY DEBATE, BRINGING JOBS HOME
(Mr. WILSON of Ohio asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen, I would
like to talk about the commonsense energy debate that we are going to
have today in regard to the bill that we are proposing. Being from the
Midwest and from Ohio, I truly believe that our energy costs in Ohio
are one of our most significant problems with why we haven't been able
to do as much business development as we would like to. We have the
opportunity right now instead of paying royalties to the companies that
are providing us with our energy, we can now invest in alternatives
ways of finding resources to be able to
[[Page 1565]]
provide the energy for our people and to stimulate the business growth,
especially in Ohio and hopefully in America as well.
It is important to realize that we have the opportunities to burn
ethanol. I am excited about the fact that certainly in my area we have
an abundance of coal, and with clean coal technology we can create more
energy. We have the opportunity now, Mr. Speaker, to look at coal-to-
liquid fuel as an alternative to lessen our dependency on foreign oil.
I truly believe that this is a move in the right direction, Mr.
Speaker, and something that will help. I am looking forward to
resolving the energy problems of our country.
____________________
{time} 1015
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, reserving my right to object, could the
Speaker tell me why we are limiting 1-minutes to five per side, yet we
are getting out today in the middle of the day at 2 o'clock?
Mr. Speaker, I will accept that for an answer. I just wanted to ask
the question and make sure that we understood that we are.
____________________
NO REASON TO CELEBRATE
(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today the majority party will
increase taxes on American oil companies and, hence, on all Americans.
And they will increase our dependence on foreign oil. This will
complete the sixth item of the majority party's initial agenda. This is
the sixth time, but certainly not the last time, that Democrats will
put forth a policy that fills a sound bite, but not sound policy. And
according to a Democrat clock that stops and starts when it is
politically convenient, they will be completed within 100 hours.
While those from across the aisle will pat themselves on the back,
this is no cause for celebration. Adopting legislation without allowing
consideration by any committee, or even a single amendment, is not a
reason to celebrate. Applying the rules of the House only when they
serve your purpose are no rules at all. And a blatant disregard to
follow through on promises made in November shatters the trust of the
American people and is no reason to celebrate.
This is the people's House. It thrives when ideas are wrestled with
and challenged. The best ideas and solutions then rise to the top.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are watching. Doing anything less is
no reason to celebrate.
____________________
A NEW DIRECTION
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today we are going to discuss energy and
a new direction.
The Speaker has set a vision to get us off our oil addiction. And in
order to do that, we have got to find some money to begin to develop
alternative energy sources.
Now, the newspapers today are filled with stories about why we are
still in Iraq. We are trying to get a law passed over there that puts
in production sharing agreements with the big oil companies of this
country. We are trying to get a hold of the Iraqis' oil. We want to
take 70 percent of the profits at the beginning.
Now, no Iraqi who has any nationalist feelings is going to sign that,
and that is why we are still there 4 years later. We are till trying to
get a hold of their oil and control it.
This country has to take the beginning step today, with H.R. 6, to
get us off this oil addiction. Alternative energy, whether you are
talking solar or wind or biomass or bio diesel, all these are ways that
Americans can use for energy and we don't have to live off the rest of
the world. We get 3 percent of our oil from the United States. All the
rest comes from outside. We are totally dependent on it.
____________________
COUNTY PAYMENT
(Mr. WALDEN of Oregon asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, this Congress and the last have
failed to keep the Federal Government's commitment to the people who
live near our national forests. This breach of faith means 100
hardworking county employees in Jackson County, Oregon, will lose their
jobs in June. That is 10 percent of the county's workforce.
Within 3 months, Jackson County will close all 15 county libraries
and slash their road budget.
Remember the heart wrenching search for the Kim family lost in the
national forest in southern Oregon? Jackson County used their equipment
to help in that search, equipment and personnel paid for by the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. As Jackson County
Commissioner C.W. Smith said: ``Loss of this program is a national
domestic funding crisis.''
I call on the Democratic leadership to put H.R. 17 on your 100-hour
legislative agenda. Keep faith with rural schools and counties. Keep
the word of the Federal Government to timbered communities.
____________________
ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 73) and I ask
unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 73
Resolved, That the following named Members be and are
hereby elected to the following standing committee of the
House of Representatives:
(1) Committee on the budget.--Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Edwards,
Mrs. Capps, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Allen, Ms. Schwartz of
Pennsylvania, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Doggett, Mr.
Blumenauer, Mr. Berry, Mr. Boyd of Florida, Mr. McGovern, Ms.
Sutton, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Etheridge,
Ms. Hooley, Mr. Baird, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Bishop of New
York.
Mr. PALLONE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Capuano). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the initial request of
the gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6, CLEAN ENERGY ACT OF 2007
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 66 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 66
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6)
to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing
in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources,
promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing
greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy
Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative
energy, and for other purposes. All points of order against
the bill and against its consideration are waived except
those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill
shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) three hours of debate, with 60
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means,
60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources, 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Agriculture, and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Science
[[Page 1566]]
and Technology; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 6 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to a time designated by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
my friend from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) 30 minutes, pending which I
yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 66 is a closed rule that allows the House to
consider the final piece of the first-100-hours agenda. This rule, as
has been mentioned, provides 3 hours of debate in the House, with 60
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 60 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Natural Resources, 30 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the Committee on Agriculture, and 30 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member on
the Committee on Science and Technology.
Mr. Speaker, I expect that we will hear a great deal from my friends
on the other side of the aisle about process, and they will be upset
that this is a closed rule.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats campaigned on changing the culture in
Washington. We campaigned on ending the culture of corruption and on
draining the swamp, and we have done that. We campaigned most
importantly, Mr. Speaker, on doing what is right for hardworking
American families whose priorities and whose concerns have been ignored
for the last 12 years.
Over the last 100 hours, Mr. Speaker, the House has voted to clean up
the ethical mess in Congress, to strengthen homeland security, to
combat the Federal deficit by instituting pay-as-you-go rules, to
invest in lifesaving stem cell research, to make college more
affordable by lowering the interest rates on student loans, to reduce
prescription drug prices for seniors by allowing the government to
negotiate lower prescription drug prices, and to increase the minimum
wage for millions of hardworking and underpaid workers in America.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to note that each of these initiatives
not only has passed the House of Representatives, but has enjoyed
strong bipartisan support.
And in a difference in approach to legislation compared to the
Republican majority in the past, who used to subscribe to the rule that
they would only bring measures to the floor if a majority of the
majority on their side supported it, I am happy to report that
yesterday's vote on making college tuition more affordable for our
young people not only enjoyed a majority of the majority in terms of
support, but a majority of the minority actually voted in support, and
that is refreshing.
Mr. Speaker, we made a promise to the American people that we would
achieve these goals quickly, and that is what we have done. And in
order to keep that promise to the voters, we have utilized an expedited
process.
With the passage of this rule, the House will consider H.R. 6, the
CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. As an original cosponsor of this legislation,
I am proud to stand here in support of this initiative.
The voters sent us a message in November. They called us to account
for bill after bill of kickbacks to special interests like Big Oil. We
were not sent here to allow huge corporations to continue to reap the
benefits of tax breaks while gouging their customers at the gas pump. I
commend Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer for holding true to
their commitments and listening to the American people by bringing this
legislation to the floor for a vote.
The distinguished chairmen of the Committees on Ways and Means, Mr.
Rangel, and Natural Resources, Mr. Rahall, crafted this legislation to
balance fiscal responsibility with our Nation's growing energy needs.
At long last, Mr. Speaker, Congress is putting its money where its
mouth is and increasing our investment in renewable energy. We are not
just talking the talk; we are walking the walk. We promised no quick
fixes. It took years of failed legislative policy to dig us into this
hole. But the bill before us today will set us on the path toward
energy independence.
For years, experts have warned of an impending energy crisis. They
pointed to the Nation's increasing oil and gas consumption and called
attention to our limited supply of these natural resources.
Unfortunately, Congress and the Bush administration failed to heed
these warnings. In fact, under the Republican-controlled Congress,
Federal investment in alternative energy sources actually decreased
over the past decade. And at the same time, the administration
prescribed more of the same, giveaways to the oil and gas industries.
During the 109th Congress, President Bush heralded the Republican
Energy Policy Act of 2005 as a necessary approach to the Nation's
energy crisis. In all, it provided $8.1 billion, let me repeat that,
$8.1 billion in tax incentives for the entire energy industry. And
despite their record profits, oil and gas companies took 93 percent of
these tax breaks, $7.5 billion.
Now, I suppose that that shouldn't be a surprise to many people here,
given the fact that in the 2006 elections the oil companies gave $17.5
million to candidates running for Congress. $14.5 million of that money
went to Republicans.
Mr. Speaker, all that money going to the oil industry did not leave
very much money for alternative and renewable energy supplies. So, Mr.
Speaker, when that energy bill was debated, many of us on this side of
the aisle voiced concerns that the bill would do nothing to ease the
price of gas at the pump or decrease our dependence on foreign oil or
provide significant investment in renewable sources of energy.
I should say, Mr. Speaker, there is study after study after study,
news article after news article after news article which support our
concerns, unfortunately.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 is a critical step in the right direction. It
closes the tax loophole for oil companies which provided Conoco
Phillips $106 million in 2005, even as that company enjoyed profits
totaling $13.5 billion. It rolls back tax breaks for geological studies
for oil exploration and repeals five royalty relief provisions from the
2005 energy bill.
{time} 1030
Finally, Mr. Speaker, and I think most importantly, for a lot of us
who believe that we need to do more to achieve energy independence, it
reinvests those funds into clean, renewable energy and energy
efficiency. Certainly, there are no easy solutions to remedy our energy
crisis.
But we know one thing for certain, if we fail to pass this bill and
make the necessary changes and investments now, our dependency on
foreign oil will continue to worsen. The time to is now. For those who
want the same old, same old, who are married to the status quo, vote
the rule down. But for those who are tired of being dictated to by big
oil companies, for those who believe that we should reinvest in
renewable energy, for those who believe that citizens matter more than
campaign contributions, vote ``yes'' on this rule.
Chairman Rahall said in his testimony before the Rules Committee 2
days ago that what we are considering today is just the first step. We
have much more that we need to do. I look forward to working with him
and other Members of this Congress and moving this country forward.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the leadership, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Rahall, for
their work. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and
supporting the supporting bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page 1567]]
I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for the time.
Fairness, openness, sunshine, transparency, bipartisanship, those are
just some of the words that the new majority used to describe the way
they were going to run the 110th Congress. But today, as we begin
debate on the sixth bill of the Democrats' ``100 Hours for 6'' or 100
hours agenda, we have seen all too clearly, Mr. Speaker, the truth
about those promises.
They have been, at best, hollow promises.
On Tuesday of this week, the Committee on Rules met to take testimony
and report a rule on the legislation that has been brought to the floor
today. Before any testimony was even taken, the distinguished
chairwoman of the committee announced that the committee's majority
would report out a closed rule.
After the chairwoman's declaration, there really was not any need for
testimony or debate on any amendments. The Rules Committee had been
closed for business. The majority had already made up its mind to block
amendments despite any merits of all possible amendments that could be
brought before the committee.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to see how you can claim an open and
transparent process when you block all amendments before they are even
brought before the committee.
During consideration of the bills that comprised the Contract with
America in 1995, we Republicans allowed consideration of 154 Democrat
amendments; 48 Democrat amendments eventually passed the House and were
included in the Contract with America bills that passed the House of
Representatives.
But that is not what we see happening today, Mr. Speaker. Today as we
consider the last of the new majority's 100 hour agenda, we have not
had the chance to debate one amendment, not even one.
From either party, they have been consistent, they close out their
Members as well. They promised openness, they promised transparency.
Some openness, some transparency.
According to the majority leader's office, Mr. Speaker, we have over
65 hours left in the so-called 100 hours for 2006. The reality is that
we have more than enough time, more than enough time to debate some
thoughtful amendments. What does the majority plan to do with the rest
of their 100 hours? Are we to expect more closed rules?
The 100 hours for 2006 campaign means that six people make all the
decisions, apparently. I would imagine it is the Speaker, the majority
leader, the whip, the caucus chairman and two others, six for '06 and
six for '07 and six for '08, but then the American people get to speak
again.
Now, Democrats claim that Congress already debated the bills last
year, the bills that are being brought forth to the floor. While it is
true that some provisions have come before the Congress in other
legislation in previous Congresses, provisions that may be in
legislation brought before us under these closed rules that shut out
all the amendments, there are many aspects of the bills, including the
bill today, that have never seen the light of day. Even more important
is that our 54 new colleagues, they were not here for any of our
previous debates. Four committees of jurisdiction have jurisdiction
over the bill that the majority brings to the floor at this time, Ways
and Means, Resources, Budget and Rules. Yet the majority did not allow
any of those committees of jurisdiction to hold any hearings or debate
the bill.
I am honored to serve as the ranking member on the Rules Subcommittee
on Legislative and Budget Process, which has jurisdiction over parts of
this underlying consideration. The subcommittee has never held a
hearing on the bill. The majority decided it was better if the bill
never saw the light of day in any committee process.
I think it is important to recall why we have committees, why we have
a committee process. The committee process allows Members to understand
the merits and implications of bills and to vet, refine and amend
legislation. Completely shutting out committees of jurisdiction is
certainly not healthy for the democratic process.
This year we have already seen what happens when you bypass the
committee process and blindly bring legislation to the floor. We get
outcomes, such as the one in the minimum wage bill that ends up
exempting companies from paying the minimum wage in American Samoa. If
it had gone through the committee process, at least we would have known
about that aspect of the bill. If we had held hearings on the
underlying bill before us today, we would learn some of the
consequences of this bill.
For example, some bill would cut back on incentives for domestic
production of oil and gas. Those incentives are aimed, and the existing
incentives, are aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil by
encouraging domestic exploration and production of oil and natural gas.
Removal of those incentives will drive up the cost, obviously, for
those who search for oil and gas and thus increase our dependence on
foreign suppliers, such as Venezuela and Nigeria. Those countries, I
would maintain, are not reliable sources. In the case of Venezuela, its
government is clearly anti-American. Do we really want to rely on those
countries? Apparently the majority today is saying yes.
Republicans are committed to increasing clean energy supplies and
increasing our domestic energy sources. Since 2001, we have seen the
investment of nearly $12 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more
reliable domestic energy sources. This includes the development of
biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, advanced hybrid and plug-in,
hybrid electric vehicle technologies, hydrogen fuel cell technologies,
wind and solar energy, clean coal and advanced nuclear technologies.
You know, we hear my friend from Massachusetts talking about the fact
that some tax breaks or unfair tax breaks were given to the oil and gas
companies. It is interesting, because I was seeing a report from the
Congressional Research Service that talks about despite the fact that
there has been a lot of talk and there continues to be a lot of talk
over the tax breaks given to big oil in the energy bill that we passed
in 2005, in reality, that energy bill substantially raised taxes on the
oil and gas industry $300 million. There was a $300 million tax
increase, according to the Congressional Research Service, while at the
same time, giving more than almost $9 billion in tax incentives for
alternative clean and renewable energy resources.
The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that we should not be considering
closed rule after closed rule after closed rule and systematically
bypassing the committee process. This constant bypass operation that
our friends on the other side of the aisle have become enamored to, the
constant bypass operation, it really constitutes an affront, I would
say, to the democratic spirit as well as, obviously, to the promises
that were repeated and repeated by our friends on the other side of the
aisle before they arrived and constituted and instituted the
continuous, constant bypass operation, bypass the committees, bypass
the Members, bypass the possibility of amendments, and go straight to
the floor with legislation that no one has seen. That is not healthy.
That is not healthy, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. First of all, let me thank the gentleman from Florida
for voting with the Democratic majority in support of increasing the
minimum wage and for voting with us to make it more affordable for
students to go to college. We appreciate your support. Judging from his
statement on this bill, I get the sense that he is opposed to the
underlying bill.
Let me just say if you are opposed to the underlying bill, vote
``no'' for everything. If you are for the same old, same old, if you
want more, if you support tax breaks and subsidies for big oil, if you
are against investing more in renewable energy, vote ``no'' on the
rule, vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. I mean, that is the way this
place works. That is your right.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member of the
Rules
[[Page 1568]]
Committee, the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago we passed legislation to end the culture of
corruption in Congress. Today we consider legislation to reverse some
of the harmful consequences of that corruption. H.R. 6, the CLEAN
Energy Act, will repeal $14 billion in tax reduction subsidies and
other outrageous benefits given to the big oil companies.
Many of these measures were included in legislation that was written
in backroom and late-night meetings. With the passage of our ethics
reform in this bill, we are fulfilling our responsibility to the
American people to clean up Congress and reverse the past lapses that
led us to where we are today.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation not only repeals the excesses given to
oil companies, our bill uses the money to create a Strategic Renewable
Energy Reserve. This will invest in clean renewable energy resources
and alternative fuels, promote new energy technologies, develop greater
efficiency and improve energy conservation. Investing in alternative
and renewable energies and efficiency is not only about protecting the
environment and homeland security, it is about promoting new industry
and creating jobs.
This type of new investment will help create jobs and support
industries in northeast Ohio, where we are already working on new
energy technology through organizations like the Ohio Fuel Cell
Coalition, which is working to strengthen Ohio's fuel cell industry.
I am proud to say that this coalition includes the University of
Akron and the Lorain County Community College in my congressional
district. This investment in new energy technology, combined with new
incentives and initiatives to make higher education more accessible
recently passed by this Congress, will help ensure that our students
have the education and the skills necessary for the jobs of the future.
That is what we are doing here today, eliminating the abuses of the
past and investing in our Nation's future. Let's pass the CLEAN Energy
Act.
Making in Order At Any Time Consideration of H.R. 475, House Page Board
Revision Act of 2007
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be
in order at any time without intervention of any point of order to
consider in the House H.R. 475; the bill shall be considered as read;
and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to
final passage without intervening motion except: 30 minutes of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on House Administration, and one motion to
recommit, with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Capuano). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Reserving my right to object, Mr.
Speaker, and I may not object, but I don't have a copy of what the
gentleman, my friend, was talking about. If the gentleman would explain
the motion, because I was not shown a copy before.
Mr. McGOVERN. This is on the Page Board issue, and the explanation is
here. My understanding is that your side has had a copy of this.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I have received it now. I
certainly see no reason to object, and I withdraw my reservation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
{time} 1045
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to
the distinguished Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues that this is the seventh
bill that has come to this floor that has not gone through committee,
that has not had ample opportunity for amendment in subcommittee or
full committee, no opportunity for an amendment on the floor on any of
these bills, nor the opportunity for our side of the aisle to offer a
substitute.
I am encouraged that the Rules Committee this week has organized and
met, but I would note that as the Rules Committee opened, the first
debate on the first rule where there was going to be a rule on the bill
yesterday, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee made it clear before
there were any witnesses before the Rules Committee, before there was
any testimony, before there was any discussion, that this would be a
closed rule, there would be no amendments, and there would be no
substitute offered to the Members on our side of the aisle.
I come here today to talk to my colleagues. The gentleman from
Massachusetts who is managing this rule for the majority knows exactly
what I am talking about. We have had this discussion here for a long
time.
I understand the need for the majority party to want to make its
move, to make its first impression; and I understand the first couple
of bills had to come flying right to the floor. But we are short-
circuiting democracy here, and I think my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle understand that.
On the opening day, when I handed the new Speaker the gavel, the
first woman in the history of our country to be Speaker, I said that
the House needed to work in a more bipartisan way. Over the course of
the last several years, I heard my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle talk about the need to work in a more bipartisan way.
I said also on the opening day that we do have different ideas about
how to solve America's problems and that we should cherish the
differences that we have, we should debate them, that we can disagree
here without being disagreeable. I also said that we should be nice.
What I didn't say is that we shouldn't be silent, and I won't be
silent on behalf of our Members on this side of the aisle.
I think that there is a lot to be gained in bringing legislation to
the floor that has been through the subcommittee process, that has been
through the committee process, that has an opportunity for a real Rules
Committee debate and an opportunity for Members on both sides of the
aisle to offer amendments, to allow the minority the opportunity to
offer a substitute. That is what the American people want. Our Members
represent some 48 percent of the American people, and we are being
silenced in this process.
I understand it is in the process. The new majority has only had the
majority for 2 weeks. But I am here today to ask my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle to live up to the promises that were made, to
live up to the desire to be treated fairly.
When we took control of this House in 1995, we had a lot of Members
in the new majority then who said we ought to treat the Democrats the
way they treated us, and I argued vociferously that that was not the
right thing to do, that we should treat the new minority as we had
asked to be treated. We worked and I worked to be sure that we were
living up to our commitment to treat the then-Democrat minority as we
wanted to be treated back in the early nineties when we were making an
awful lot of noise.
Over the last year, there has been an awful lot of conversation
coming from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they were
in the minority to make things more fair.
Let me quote one of the pledges: ``Bills should generally come to the
floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate,
consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the
right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''
What we are asking for here is fairness, fairness in this process, so
that all Members can participate in a deliberative process on behalf of
our constituents. Our constituents are just as important as your
constituents, and they have a right to be heard and their Members have
a right to participate in this process.
[[Page 1569]]
So I ask my colleagues, when? When is the time going to come to live
up to what you asked for, to live up to your promises, and to live up
to your commitment?
____________________
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to adjourn
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 184,
nays 233, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 34]
YEAS--184
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--233
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kingston
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--18
Barton (TX)
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Costa
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Donnelly
Engel
Johnson, Sam
Levin
Lucas
Marchant
McMorris Rodgers
Norwood
Peterson (PA)
Ramstad
Waters
{time} 1122
Mr. WILSON of Ohio, Mrs. CAPPS, and Mr. BERRY changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. GOODLATTE, SOUDER, KNOLLENBERG, ISSA, and PLATTS changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on this vote that just occurred,
when the clock expired, the yeas were ahead of the nays and the
majority of the Members were voted.
According to H.R. 6, a recorded vote by electronic device shall not
be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such
vote.
Would the Speaker agree with me that this vote then was in violation
of the rules?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the gentleman is aware, the 15-minute
period is a minimum and, in the case of the first vote of the day, and
an unexpected vote at that, a longer time may be necessary to complete
the vote.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman shall state his point of
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Can the Speaker tell me how often the majority
party will hold open votes on issues regardless of the result?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a point of
parliamentary inquiry.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CLEAN ENERGY ACT OF 2007
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1
minute to the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms.
Slaughter.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you very much. I appreciate your yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, let me confess off the top, it is true, I committed an
act of honesty in the Rules Committee, something we hadn't seen in over
12 years.
I also explained at the time that rules H.R. 5 and H.R. 6 were coming
up under the point of privilege with which we started this session.
We are working on an agenda that the minority would not or could not
do and we are fulfilling our promise to the American people, and all
the whining you can do and all that you can produce will not deter us
from it. The
[[Page 1570]]
majority is pleased and gratified by the minority votes on all of these
issues.
I thought I heard a faint chorus yesterday after the bill on student
loans was passed, I thought I heard someone singing, Free at last. Free
at last.
Obviously, helping the majority to do these bills for the American
people has not been any too painful for you. But these have not been
addressed for 12 years. We said that we were going to. It was under the
beginning rule of the personal privilege. There was nothing amiss
there; we were simply being honest.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to
the distinguished Republican whip.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am here in opposition to this rule. I don't feel as
strongly about the bill because I don't really think the bill is a
serious piece of legislation. I don't think it addresses the issues
that need to be addressed.
I think the fact that this bill has come to the floor without going
to committee, without any opportunity for debate, without the freshmen
Members having any opportunity to ever be part of anything except one
vote today is truly outrageous.
This should be the premier issue for this Congress. Energy
independence and all of that affects everything we are, everything we
do as a people. It affects foreign policy, it affects our international
situation in so many ways, it affects the economy, it affects the
environment. And here we are with a bill today that hopefully is just
checking off the list and we really get back to serious discussions of
energy legislation.
Mr. Speaker, energy independence is critically important, and it is
not going to be achieved in this bill in this way. This bill does take
a problem, a problem that was created in 1998 and 1999, a problem that
was created when the Secretary of the Interior failed to put in a
contract, what the laws that we passed clearly allowed the Secretary of
the Interior to do. It didn't happen later, it didn't happen in 2000,
it never happened in the current administration. It was a problem. It
is a problem in a contract. Whether that is worth 3 hours of debate on
the House floor or not, I don't know. I do know that contracts are
normally dealt with in a court of law, not on the floor of the House of
Representatives.
This is a problem that was created by a past administration that
needs to be clarified, but is so far off base from what we ought to be
talking about today. We ought to be talking about energy independence
for the country.
This rule doesn't allow us to have that kind of debate because the
process didn't allow that kind of debate. I guess we are going to be
told later today that we are at the end of the 100 hours, which is an
interesting calculation in and of itself. And maybe when we will get to
the end of the 100 hours, we can get this checklist. I wondered for
some time why we didn't have an agenda that would last 100 days.
{time} 1130
Since Franklin Roosevelt that has sort of been a mark of the work of
the Congress. I have really decided there is not enough work here to do
for 100 days, but these 100 hours are checking a list off that will not
produce legislation that results in anything happening. At the end of
the day today we hopefully can move on to the real business of this
Congress, none of it more important than energy independence. This
doesn't solve that problem, doesn't even take a significant step in
solving that problem.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize once again that Chairman
Rahall, in his testimony before the Rules Committee 2 days ago, said
that this was the first step, that there are a lot more issues that we
need to address as a Congress to achieve our goal of energy
independence, and we are going to do that. What we are doing today
really is responding to the outcry of the American people who are
outraged by the fact that in the midst of being gouged by Big Oil, the
previous Congress decided to pass a bill to provide billions of dollars
in subsidies and tax breaks to those very companies.
So with that, Mr. Speaker, let me yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL of New York. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I find it amusing to be
lectured about energy independence and working hard to get things done
from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who for the last 6
years could have solved these problems, but instead watched us sink
further into dependence on foreign and polluting sources of energy.
In April 2005, President Bush was quoted as saying, ``With oil at
more than $50 a barrel, energy companies do not need taxpayer
incentives to explore for oil and gas.'' Then, even as prices went
higher, he and the Republican Congress went ahead and gave them a
goodie bag of taxpayer subsidies. Gas prices topped $3 per gallon, Big
Oil made record profits of $97 billion, and record dependence on
foreign oil still leaves us vulnerable to the whims of unfriendly
regimes.
Today, we are going to take back the tax giveaways to Big Oil so we
can give the American people a break at the pump, a breath of fresh
air, and a more secure nation.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to
the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I obviously join my colleagues, rising in
strong opposition to this closed rule, which did not allow for any kind
of deliberation whatsoever.
I have to begin by saying that I am somewhat troubled at the fact
that we continue to see this pattern of name calling from the other
side of the aisle.
We recognize that we have begun a new Congress. I am very proud, as a
Californian, that we have the first Californian and the first woman
Speaker of the House of Representatives. I am very proud of that fact
and I think it is a great thing. I am proud that our State has been
able to do that. And she is the first Italian American Speaker of the
House of Representative, and she always likes to state that, and I
congratulate her for that.
I believe we need to, as members of the minority, give the benefit of
the doubt to this new majority. It has been 12 years since they have
been in the majority, and I think we should provide an opportunity for
people to understand their new roles in this institution. But I have to
say that while we have continued to have name calling--and the
distinguished chair of the Rules Committee has just said that for the
last 12 years the Rules Committee was dishonest. I don't know exactly
what that means. I am very proud of the record that we have had the
last 12 years in the majority in the Rules Committee, and I am proud of
the fact that we have been able to put together strong policies to
encourage economic growth in this country, we have been able to ensure
that we have not had an attack on our soil since September 11. These
kinds of policies have come from committees in the Congress, through
the Rules Committee to the floor, and I am proud of that fact. So I
don't know exactly what it means to simply say the Rules Committee has
been dishonest for the last 12 years. We all know that there has been a
lot of name calling that has come from the other side of the aisle.
I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that we are at a point right now where it
is important for us to recognize that it is not about what we did, it
is about what the new majority promised they were going to do.
Now, the distinguished Republican leader stood here and talked about
the fact that we have, over the past several days, gone through this
process right now; it has been under a closed rule. Yes, Speaker Pelosi
announced there would be no opportunity for debate and discussion
through the regular order process. So that was an announcement that was
made. As the Republican leader said, the Chair of the Rules Committee
announced before the process even began that we were going to have
closed rules on both the education bill and on this energy bill. I have
to say that it is a troubling indication because it is 180 degrees from
what was
[[Page 1571]]
promised by the new majority when they were in the midst of their
campaign.
I have to also say, Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentleman from
Massachusetts get up and congratulate our friend from Miami for having
supported a couple of the items. I am proud that I have supported a
number of these items. I think something important to note is that at
least half of the items in the Six for `06 were voted on and passed by
the Republican Congress. Stem cell research, in a bipartisan way,
passed. It would not have come to the floor had the Republican
leadership not seen fit to bring it to the floor.
On the issue of the minimum wage, we brought to the House floor, Mr.
Speaker, the issue of increasing the minimum wage. We simply said that
we should recognize that those who create jobs might want to have the
wherewithal to pay those people the minimum wage. And so we had a vote
on that.
Earmark reform. We are very proud of the fact that last fall we
passed very broad-sweeping earmark reform that enjoyed bipartisan
support here.
So what we are doing in many ways on this Six for `06, Mr. Speaker,
is simply voting again on initiatives that passed in a Republican
Congress.
I also have to say that we passed lots of energy legislation in the
past, and we have been able to see a reduction in oil costs. Oil prices
are dropping right now. We continue to see that, and that is because of
the fact that we want to encourage alternative sources and attaining
domestic energy self-sufficiency.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is just important for us to take a moment to
look at this issue of fairness and balance and recognize that we do
want to work in a bipartisan way, but the issue of this name calling I
think should come to an end, and let's try to look to the future rather
than the past.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, and the
underlying legislation, H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. I am a
firm believer that Congress should do everything possible to address
the Nation's energy needs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil
while still protecting the environment and maintaining reasonable
energy prices. I believe, however, that this bill falls short of
fulfilling this responsibility. Not only that, the Democrats have shut
out any hope of fixing the bill's problems by reporting a closed rule
for H.R. 6.
The basis of this bill is very simple--it raises taxes on domestic
oil producers and then turns around and spends that money to subsidize
ethanol, solar energy, and windmills. In the process, Democrats also
want to tell the market how to work. Common sense would tell us that if
you increase the cost of domestic oil production by $10 billion, you
are ensuring that U.S. imports of foreign oil will rise and domestic
production will fall. These are basic market principles.
Consumers want affordable gas prices, Mr. Speaker, and unfortunately
this bill does nothing to lower them. Raising taxes on firms in the oil
and gas industries does nothing to lower the price of a barrel of oil.
We all know that numerous factors affect gas prices--Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita, and OPEC members in the Middle East, for example. These are
complex domestic and international market factors that are hard if not
impossible to control. The Democrats are apparently oblivious to this
reality.
We also understand that this bill would raise $5 to $6 billion in
revenue by removing the tax breaks provided to the oil companies in the
2005 energy bill. But in fact, the Congressional Research Service has
reported that the net impact of the 2005 energy bill was an increase in
taxes to the oil and gas industry by some $300 million. So how will
removing this provision help raise revenues? Furthermore, as Members of
Congress, we want to enable companies to take every step forward in the
exploration of domestic sources of oil and natural gas. It is
counterintuitive to take away incentives for companies to participate
in this exploration.
The Democrats talk about keeping America competitive, yet this
legislation would impact a domestic company's eligibility to remain
competitive with foreign manufacturers by repealing a 2004 tax
provision that reduced the effective corporate income tax rate to 32
percent from 35 percent. Why would we deliberately put American
producers at a disadvantage with their foreign competitors?
Included in this piece of legislation, which, I will remind my
colleagues, did not receive any committee consideration in the 110th
Congress, are provisions for a trust fund for alternative fuels. The
Democrats say this trust fund money, created by funneling the revenue
from abolishing crucial tax incentives and the tightening of royalty
regulations, will accelerate the use of clean energy resources and
alternative fuels and promote the research and development of renewable
energy technologies. This trust fund is an idea that's been heralded by
Members on both sides of the aisle. And the objectives that I just
mentioned are surely noble ones. However, this bill creates a trust
fund and then ends there. There is no mention in the bill as to how
this new revenue is to be spent, just suggestions. In this respect,
this is a bill with good intentions but no teeth.
Mr. Speaker, we are not arguing that more time and money deserves to
be spent on the development of alternative energy. It should. In fact,
studies have shown that between 2004 and 2006, investment in
alternative energy doubled to $63 billion. And the market is
responding. Venture capital funding of green-energy technologies has
quadrupled since 1998. Members of Congress have submitted numerous
amendments to H.R. 6 mirroring these efforts. The Rules Committee
received almost 20 amendments with thoughtful suggestions as to how to
direct trust fund money, and other productive approaches to solving our
energy needs. Not one amendment, Mr. Speaker, was made in order. In
fact, even before the Rules Committee had heard testimony from any of
the amendment sponsors, Chairwoman Slaughter announced that she would
be granting a closed rule. The Democrats had already made up their
minds and closed their ears before they even heard the first amendment.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 was referred to four committees. In another
instance in denying the due process and minority rights that Democrats
promised the American people, those committees never once met on the
bill at hand. Members on both sides of the aisle never had the chance
to draft, review or amend the bill. The Democrats campaigned on honesty
and openness, and heralded a new era in minority rights, but again have
failed to live up to their promises. Again, they completely ignored
regular order and pushed this bill to the front of the line, and the
deficiencies in the bill are evident because of it.
Mr. Speaker, once again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have missed yet another opportunity today to craft comprehensive
legislation that would address issues that are important to the energy
debate. During the 109th Congress, we worked with Members on both sides
of the aisle on legislation that increased refinery capacity. This
legislation received strong bipartisan support, and yet is noticeably
absent from this legislation we have before us today.
This bill is just like Proposition 87--the 2006 ballot initiative
that would have taxed California's home-produced oil in order to
subsidize ``green technology'' alternatives. Thankfully those in my
home state were smart enough to defeat Proposition 87, knowing full
well it would have damaged California's home oil and gas industry,
increased foreign oil consumption, and raised the energy bills of the
state's residents.
Mr. Speaker, this bill raises taxes and raises prices at the pump.
And all the American people are getting in return is a promise that
we'll actually do something down the road. The new majority is well on
its way to fulfilling another empty promise and at the expense of the
American consumer. Let's vote down this rule, and force the majority to
take this bill through committee where we can have a real energy bill
with real solutions.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished former chairman of the
Rules Committee and the distinguished minority whip have made it clear
that they are not impressed with the first 100 hours of this Congress,
but the American people are and, quite frankly, that is what counts.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), who is a member of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, the issue for us in this Congress
is procedure, but it is really about substance. In the last Congress,
what happened was something that you can't make up. Oil companies have
enjoyed $125 billion in profits over 3 years, were the beneficiaries of
legislation that lowered taxes for them by about $14 billion. You can't
make it up.
What this legislation is about is addressing that and for the first
time taking a step in the direction of providing incentives for what
every American knows is long overdue, and that is
[[Page 1572]]
to provide incentives for alternative energy opportunities. We need
that to strengthen our economy and create good jobs; we need that to
strengthen our position in foreign policy so that we are independent;
and we also need it to begin addressing global warming.
This legislation is the beginning, it is only a beginning. There is
going to be an enormous amount of time for the committees to take up
the large issues and for us together to take the broader steps that are
required to become truly independent on energy.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to go to the Rules
Committee the other evening. Of course it was after the distinguished
Rules Committee chairwoman said that they weren't going to accept any
of our amendments or a substitute. I made a comment at that point that
I was essentially wasting my time in the committee, which is
unfortunate.
Today we have an opportunity to debate in front of the American
people what should be an important policy about energy independence,
but this bill doesn't do anything like that, Mr. Speaker. All this bill
does is get back at the oil companies. We had many members of the Rules
Committee say essentially that it was vengeance. They didn't use the
word ``vengeance,'' but essentially I believe that that was the point
that they were making because they are putting up a facade that this
bill actually does something to lower energy prices to the American
people. In fact, all this does is roll back some tax cuts, specifically
takes out oil and gas for domestic producers, does nothing to the
Middle East producers, and now we are basically going to be left with a
bill that isn't going to go anywhere. The majority knows it is not
going to go anywhere, and that doesn't even include the process that we
have gone through to get this legislation.
Earlier one of the speakers--I forget who said it--for the majority
side said that the Republicans crafted their energy bills in the
backrooms. Well, I would ask the majority if the backrooms included the
subcommittees and the full committees, like the normal process that
this Congress is supposed to go through where we have full committee
debate, we have a bill introduced, we have debate on the bills. Maybe
that was the backrooms that you guys were referring to on the other
side.
In this case, you essentially had a few staff people in the Speaker's
office write up a bill. Then they put out a facade that this is going
to lower the gas prices to Americans and lower energy costs and be the
bridge to the next renewable energy trust fund that they are going to
create.
It is interesting in the last Congress we had a bipartisan bill that
did put money into a trust fund, but you know what we did? We went out
and I said, let's take our resources that we have, like in Alaska,
let's go and drill in ANWR. Let's put those royalties into a trust
fund, and then we can bridge ourselves into the next generation of
energy. That is good energy policy. Taxing small domestic oil producers
in America is only hurting American-made energy.
I am frustrated not only by the policy that has been put out here as
an end-all-be-all perfect solution to America's energy solutions, which
it is not, but I am even more frustrated--and I normally don't come
down here to speak on rules, but I had to come down here and speak on
this rule because I was in the Rules Committee the other night and I
wasted my time, and everyone in that committee wasted their time
because the Rules Committee chairwoman said, before we even met, that
she was not going to accept any amendments or even a substitute.
This is frustrating. I hope that the majority will live up to their
promise to the American people and will have full open and honest
debate.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from
California by saying to him that I appreciated him being in the Rules
Committee. I thought his testimony was very thoughtful, and I look
forward to his engagement in a lot of these issues as, again, the
chairman of the Resources Committee said, this is the beginning, not
the end.
I just want to point out one thing to him so he understands one
thing, and that is, in the last year, when the Republicans were in
control of the Congress, there were 34 rules provided to bills that
were not reported out of committee. I point that out not to make a
partisan point, but simply to kind of illuminate him on the fact that
there were a lot of bills that no one ever saw before they came before
the Rules Committee.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlelady from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Castor.
Ms. CASTOR. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, instead of giving away billions of dollars to big oil
companies which made multibillion-dollar profits last year, the new
Congress intends to chart a course in a new direction by investing in
alternatives for the American people. This will help America become
energy independent and ultimately lower the utility cost for average
Americans.
Big Oil has held too much sway in the halls of Congress in past
years. They even targeted drilling off of Florida's beautiful
coastline, putting our tourism industry at risk. The Bush
administration refused to get serious about a sensible and sustainable
energy policy, even after President Bush proclaimed last year that our
country is addicted to foreign oil.
The American people understand that what we really need is a far-
sighted plan for energy independence, and they did vote for change. The
new Democratic Congress will plan for a more sustainable future,
independent of foreign oil entanglements that interfere with our
foreign policy. The new Democratic Congress will encourage conservation
and development of alternative fuels which in turn will lessen our
dependence on polluting fossil fuels.
In my own district, the University of South Florida has developed
initiatives at its Clean Energy Research Center to develop and promote
new sources of alternative energy, and we can do more.
{time} 1145
So let's take the first step together today and then commit to
launching a broad new energy strategy for future generations.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding and, Mr. Speaker, I
rise in opposition to this rule.
In 2005, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Energy
Policy Act, or EPACT, the first comprehensive energy package enacted
with bipartisan support in well over a decade. I supported it for one
reason, because it made a much needed and sustained investment in the
basic science and applied energy research that will end our reliance on
foreign oil.
Congress and the Federal Government must make a steadfast commitment
to support the development of advanced energy technologies and
alternative fuels that will help end our addiction to oil and gasoline.
That is why in the 109th Congress I introduced H.R. 6203, the
Alternative Energy Research and Development Act. This bill reflected
the latest research, the emergence of innovative technologies, and new
ways of thinking about our power problems. Among other things, it
supported the development of biofuels, solar and wind power, and
battery technologies. It also promoted energy conservation in a number
of important ways.
This bill received bipartisan support from the Science Committee. It
was approved unanimously by this body in September of last year, but
the other body, on the other side of the rotunda, failed to act on it
before Congress adjourned. So why aren't these widely supported
provisions included in the bill we are considering today? Good
question.
I tried to offer an amendment to include provisions from H.R. 6203 in
this
[[Page 1573]]
bill. I went to the Rules Committee to explain my amendment and how it
might contribute to our energy independence. But before I could speak,
a decision had already been made by the Democratic leadership not to
allow any amendments to this bill, not even those whose provisions had
been passed unanimously just 4 months ago.
So how does this bill contribute to our energy independence, Mr.
Speaker? I supported fixing the Clinton administration oil and gas
leasing errors, but I believe we are missing the opportunity to take
the next step. We should know where the money will go. Instead of
creating a slush fund, as this bill does, for some unknown use in the
indefinite future, we should take the steps today to invest in the kind
of research, development, and demonstration projects outlined in H.R.
6203 that will ultimately lead to advanced energy technologies. We need
to start today.
If we are serious about energy independence, we should put that money
to work today as an incentive for consumers to become more energy
efficient and use alternative fuels. This could be accomplished by
extending and expanding the tax credits created in EPACT for the
purchase of vehicles that run on alternative fuels. Let us lift the cap
on the number of vehicles that can qualify for these credits. Let us
expand incentives for the installation of alternative refueling
infrastructure.
I introduced another bill in the last Congress that would do just
that by using the revenue generated from repealing certain tax credits
for oil and gas production. These are the kind of concrete initiatives
that will bring us measurably closer to achieving true energy
independence. These are the kind of worthy initiatives we should
consider.
I will have to support this bill, I guess, but I think it could be
better, so much better, and that is why I urge my colleagues to oppose
the rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).
Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts, for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in strong support of
the underlying bill, H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007.
Mr. Speaker, my State, New Hampshire, is a State known for its
pragmatism. The energy crisis that this country faces is no mystery to
my constituents. They see our independence on foreign energy sources,
they see our climate changing, and they see the tax breaks for Big Oil
while their own resources are stretched thin. They have seen roller-
coaster high prices at the pumps, giveaways to Big Oil, and those same
Big Oil companies reporting record profits.
This should not be a Democratic or Republican issue because it is a
common sense issue. And the bill we will consider today is a
commonsense and much needed start to solving the problem. H.R. 6 would
repeal the billions of dollars in subsidies given to Big Oil in the
ill-conceived 2005 energy bill and reinvest those funds in clean
renewable energy and energy efficiency.
The bill would require oil companies to pay their fair share in
royalties, and would close glaring loopholes in the Tax Code. More
importantly, Mr. Speaker, this bill would create a Strategic Renewable
Energy Reserve to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit in this country,
to jump-start our investment in renewable and alternative energy
resources, and to promote conservation and the development of critical
new technology.
Energy independence is an issue of national security, it is an issue
of jobs, and it is an environmental imperative. No issue is more
important to our future or our children's future. Mr. Speaker, I am
exceedingly proud of this new majority's 100-hour agenda, but I am
perhaps most proud and most ardently supportive of H.R. 6.
It is time to invest in a new energy policy, and I encourage my
colleagues to support this rule and support H.R. 6.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
my distinguished friend from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and salute my
colleagues for working at a concept really that we all agree on: Energy
independence. I refer only to the second title in these comments, where
I oppose the rule which says there will be no amendments.
Title II is the one where the Washington Post says ``This House bill
would break its deadlock by imposing heavy penalties on firms that do
not renegotiate on terms imposed by the government.'' They go on to
say, ``This heavy handed attack on the stability of contracts would be
welcomed in Russia and Bolivia.''
Let's look at just a couple of things that have occurred recently. In
2005, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez mandated private oil firms to
cooperate with new contractual changes, much as we are doing in section
2. The investment from foreign firms, which is vital for Chavez's
economic plan to succeed, are already being curtailed due to the
uncertain investment environment.
In 2006, Bolivia threatened to expel oil companies that refused to
agree to new terms on existing contracts. These actions were done for
short-term increases in revenue, yet they are leading to massive
economic problems in the country through the oil and gas industry.
Also, in Russia, 2006, companies such as Shell, Exxon, and BP have
held valid oil and gas leases for years, yet Putin has declared that
the agencies are going to pull these leases for a number of suspect
reasons. In section 2, title II, we have those same sorts of heavy
handed approaches that the Washington Post editorial complains about.
Our colleagues have said that President Bush refused to get serious.
If getting serious is undermining the full faith and credit of this
government, then I will agree that President Bush failed to get
serious.
I had also heard a comment from one of my distinguished colleagues on
the other side that this agenda includes things that the minority would
not do, and I will agree the minority would not do those things which
undermine the contractual basis of this government.
I think this bill should be back in committee to have the hearing and
the amendments that would occur, because you know that these things are
not valid and will not promote more production from U.S. companies but
less.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the Rules Committee
for yielding.
I rise in support of this rule. I am a member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, and I watched 2 years ago as my Republican
colleagues larded up the Energy Policy Act. While we were trying to
talk about energy efficiency and we were trying to talk about energy
conservation, they were giving over $8 billion in tax breaks to the oil
and gas companies, the companies that are making huge profits right
now.
What this bill does is roll back that tax break as well as require
the oil and gas companies to pay appropriate royalties to the
government, appropriate royalties to the taxpayer.
This bill is looking forward. I am afraid my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle are looking backwards. They are still talking about
oil and gas. We on the Democrat side, however, get it. We understand
that, yes, we are using oil and gas today, but we are also running out
of oil and gas in the world and in this country and that we must have
alternative energy sources.
So what do we do? We say, let's take this unnecessary tax break of $8
billion and let's collect our royalties and let's put that money in a
trust fund to develop alternative energy, renewable energy that can
last us well into the latter part of this century.
Now, personally, I am very enthusiastic about hydrogen fuel cell
development because hydrogen fuel cell development definitely leads us
down the road to energy independence. Hydrogen fuel cells don't have
any emissions; they don't leave any emissions. Hydrogen fuel cells
aren't dependent on foreign countries. It is a technology we
[[Page 1574]]
can develop here in this country that will really make us energy
independent and will also address the problem of global warming. But we
must invest in it.
So let's not look backwards and give oil and gas companies more tax
breaks. Let's look forward and invest in renewable energy, in hydrogen,
in wind and solar, and the things we have in this country that can make
us truly independent. I urge adoption of this bill.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
my good friend from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the
chairwoman's honesty earlier about the fact this was going to be a
closed rule. We listened for 2 years about the whining on closed rules
and the fact that it reflected a closed mind. So on our side, for the
next 2 years, we will try to keep our whining to a minimum.
Words are inflammatory. Title I to this act says ``Ending Subsidies
for Big Oil Act of 2007.'' I have a title I would like to put on title
II of section 1, and that would be the ``Congressional Abrogation of
Contracts Using Blackmail Act of 2007.'' We can throw these wild words
around at each other all we want to.
I speak against the rule and the process. This is staff-developed
underlying legislation. Not one Member of Congress had any input into
it at a point in time where you could actually do something about it.
There are flaws throughout it.
I offered an amendment yesterday, which turned out to be for no good
reason, that would simply say if you are in fact going to hamper
domestic production of crude oil, and clearly in the near term
increased domestic production is a way to get us to the point where we
are no longer as dependent on foreign oil, if this act works to hamper
that, then it wouldn't take effect. In other words, get the Secretary
of Energy and the Secretary of the Interior to tell us this won't have
a negative effect on oil production.
The other amendment I offered would simply say if you are taking
those profits, whether you consider them obscene or not, if you are
taking those profits and putting them back in the ground to find
additional sources of domestic crude oil and natural gas, then this act
wouldn't apply. Evidence shows the small oil companies, to which the
tax provisions affect, not just Big Oil but it affects the small
companies, those small E&P companies reinvest 617 percent of their
profits back in the ground finding additional supplies.
The bill is flawed in its mechanics, and I will speak later this
afternoon against the underlying concepts, but one of the flaws is, if
I am an owner of one of those covered leases and I sell it to somebody
else and am no longer in the loop, I am still covered and tainted with
that until everybody else in that loop subjugates themselves to this
American government and renegotiates those contracts.
The price threshold mechanism is flawed. At 34.73 a barrel there is
no threshold, yet at 34.75, I have a $9 pop, which means I am only
really making $25 a barrel. These are the kind of things that, had it
gone through committee, or I guess it did. Oh, it did not go through
committee, that is right. This came straight to the floor without any
input from anywhere else. Whether you agree with our positions or not,
your closed mind on this issue is clearly evident in this.
My only caution is, and we have heard we are coming to the end of
this railroad train, that the other side has now become so intoxicated
with the power and authority that they have being in the majority, that
they do not continue to misuse that power and authority and continue to
ignore open debate and honest ideas and an exchange of honest ideas
that the committee process typically allows and that brings better
legislation to this floor and helps us address these things.
The consequence of the taint may be intended. I don't think it is,
but we ought to know that. And there is no real way to know that
without debate within the committee structure where there is adequate
time to go at this.
So I urge my colleagues to vote against this closed-minded rule, a
little bit of whining just to keep up appearances, to vote against this
rule, and I will speak against the underlying bill later this
afternoon.
{time} 1200
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill today is a historic bill. What it
is going to do is to reclaim billions of dollars, the GAO says upwards
of $10 billion, which will then be moved over from unnecessary tax
breaks and royalty relief for oil and gas companies, and moved over to
a Strategic Renewable and Energy Efficiency Reserve so that we can
change the direction of energy in our country by just taking back that
which is undeserved in tax breaks and royalty relief.
So, what's the issue? Well, the issue is that back in 1998 and 1999
the oil industry received royalty breaks that didn't require them to
pay any royalties back to the American people, the American taxpayer,
as they drilled on the public lands of our country.
What this bill does is it gives a choice to the oil and gas industry:
either renegotiate those leases or pay a fee going forward for the
drilling on those lands. And that money will then go into a trust fund
for renewables, for energy conservation, for ethanol, so that we can
move in a new energy direction for the 21st century. It is a quite
simple formula.
Now, the royalty relief, the change in how royalties are collected,
it has already passed here on the House floor. But it was then blocked
by the Bush administration. The $9 fee was the Pombo amendment. That
has already passed on the House floor. So we are not talking about
things that haven't already been debated. We are not talking about
things that have already passed. What we are talking about are things
that the Bush administration then blocked from becoming law. And what
the Democrats are adding is just that it be put into a renewable and a
conservation and ethanol trust fund so that we can move this country
into a new energy direction.
I hope that this rule passes, and then I hope that we have an
overwhelming vote, as we have had twice before in the past, by the way,
on this royalty issue by all Members of the House, so that we can
finally move in a new direction for the 21st century in energy policy.
Mr. Speaker, the bill that we will consider later today represents
the important first step in charting a new direction for the Nation's
energy policy. H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, which repeals the
unnecessary and wasteful tax breaks and royalty-free drilling rights
for big oil and gas companies, and instead creates a Strategic Energy
Efficiency and Renewables Reserve that would invest in clean, renewable
energy sources and clean alternative fuels like ethanol, as well as
energy efficiency and conservation.
H.R. 6 will put an end to oil companies drilling for free on public
land no matter how high oil prices climb. The Government Accountability
Office has estimated that the American taxpayers stand to lose at least
$10 billion from leases issued in the late '90s that do not suspend so-
called royalty relief. H.R. 6 would correct this problem by barring
companies from purchasing new leases unless they had either
renegotiated their existing faulty leases or agreed to pay a fee on the
production of oil and gas from those leases.
The House has already adopted the royalty relief fixes included in
H.R. 6 by overwhelming, bipartisan votes. By a vote of 252-165, the
House adopted the Markey-Hinchey amendment to the Interior
appropriations bill to provide a strong incentive for these companies
to renegotiate. The House also voted last year to impose a $9 per
barrel fee on oil produced from these leases in a bill authored by
former Resources Chairman Pombo. Both those provisions are in H.R. 6.
So two times this House has said that we want to put real pressure to
renegotiate on all the oil and gas companies holding those 1998-1999
leases.
However, the Bush administration has consistently opposed our efforts
to bring every oil company holding one of these leases back to the
negotiating table and it continues to oppose the provisions in H.R. 6
that would do so. Instead, the Bush administration has argued that we
should allow oil companies to
[[Page 1575]]
``voluntarily'' renegotiate with the Minerals Management Service.
However, of the 56 companies holding these leases, only 5 have
voluntarily agreed to renegotiate. When billions of taxpayer dollars
are at stake, that is simply not an acceptable rate of return. This
bill says that it's time for the oil companies to stop playing Uncle
Sam for Uncle Sucker.
Passage of H.R. 6 will allow us to begin to move in a new, clean
direction on energy and put an end to the free ride that big oil has
had under the Bush administration. H.R. 6 represents the beginning of a
change in direction, away from subsidizing industries that don't need
extra financial incentives, and towards the technologies that do need a
helping hand and I urge its adoption.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. For 12 years, Mr. Speaker, I have engaged
in an energy brain trust that would hopefully engage the industry but
help to reform the industry. And so I say to my colleagues, today we
are making that first step, not ignoring the industry, but opening our
doors to engagement and discussion so that we can truly have a reformed
energy industry that focuses on energy independence and security for
the American people.
Now, we realize in 1998 and 1999 the price per barrel for oil was
very low. And the administration, at that time, reasonably addressed
the question of royalty relief. Today we have a different economic
structure, and the price per barrel is $50-plus and up.
And so what is this Congress and this leadership doing? It is doing
the right thing. It is making a determination that we can now place
some $14 billion in trust to support clean alternative energy and, of
course, renewables, renewables and alternative energy that have been
proposed by Members on both sides of the aisle.
I look forward to an engagement of the energy industry so that it can
diversify its own portfolio. It is necessary for our independence from
foreign oil, and it is necessary for our homeland security.
But what we do not do in this bill is important. For example, we do
not repeal refinery expansion expensing. We don't repeal the intangible
drilling cost deduction, nor do we impose a windfall profits tax.
We are balanced. We are respectful of this process of engagement, and
we don't repeal the natural gas line depreciation or the foreign tax
credit.
And so we understand that the industry, one, has to work to ensure
that it is productive and that it moves away from total dependence on
foreign oil to give relief to the American people as they proceed to
develop greater energy independence and conservation.
This is a good bill that focuses, in a balanced way, to begin the
march toward energy reformation and opens the door towards new ideas
for the energy industry that will allow energy independence and
security for America.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6, which will create
long-term energy alternatives for the Nation. The Creating Long-Term
Energy Alternatives for the Nation, CLEAN, Act of 2007, includes two
components that will roll back the unnecessary tax benefits and costly
federal oil and gas leasing provisions included in the Energy Policy
Act of 2005. The legislation would also help to correct the mistakes of
the leases issued by the Interior Department between 1998 and 1999--
which, if left unchanged, could cost the Federal Treasury an estimated
$60 billion over the next 25 years.
The CLEAN Act calls for investing in clean, renewable energy by
repealing $14 billion in subsidies given to Big Oil companies by
requiring these companies which were awarded 1998 and 1999 leases for
drilling without price thresholds to pay royalties or pay a fee. H.R. 6
also eliminates unnecessary tax deductions which exist in the tax code
and in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In the first ten years, the
Congressional Budget Office estimates that these fees will generate $6
billion in revenue and the Joint Commission on Taxation estimates that
the elimination of these deductions will result in $7.6 billion in
revenue.
The CLEAN Act also creates a Strategic Renewable Energy Reserve which
would promote energy efficiency by investing in clean, renewable energy
and alternative fuels, promote new energy technologies, develop greater
efficiency, and improve energy conservation. We cannot justifiably
continue to allow big oil companies to reap astronomical financial
benefits while the citizens of this country continue to struggle to pay
their living expenses due to the outrageous cost of oil and gas.
These high costs derive primarily from our overwhelming dependence on
foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration estimates that the
United States imports nearly 60 percent of the oil it consumes.
Moreover, the world's greatest petroleum reserves reside in regions of
high geopolitical risk, including 57 percent of which are in the
Persian Gulf.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot even remotely begin to reduce the high price
of oil and gas which has caused many of our citizens to change their
standards of living, unless and until we find ways to create a more
self-sufficient energy environment within the United States. Investing
in clean, renewable energy is an important first step to achieving this
goal. For example, an innovative solution to our national energy crisis
is in the 21st Century Energy Independence Act, which I introduced in
the 110th Congress. This legislation alleviates our dependence on
foreign oil and fossil fuels by utilizing loan guarantees to promote
the development of traditional and cellulosic ethanol technology.
Investing in domestic alternatives such as traditional and cellulosic
ethanol can not only help reduce the $180 billion that oil contributes
to our annual trade deficit, but it can also end our addiction to
foreign oil.
According to the Department of Agriculture, biomass can displace 30
percent of our Nation's petroleum consumption. In addition to ensuring
access to more abundant sources of energy, replacing petroleum use with
ethanol will help reduce U.S. carbon emissions, which are otherwise
expected to increase by 80 percent by 2025. Cellulosic ethanol can also
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 87 percent. Thus, transitioning from
foreign oil to ethanol will protect our environment from dangerous
carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. Cellulosic ethanol technology
requires initial governmental investment and policy support to achieve
the necessary scale to become self-sufficient and gain market-
penetrating capacity. That is why I introduced the 21st Century Energy
Independence Act since it ensures that America achieves energy
independence and improves our environment.
In addition to being from the energy capital of the world, for the
past twelve years I have been the Co-Chair of the Energy Taskforce of
the Congressional Black Caucus. During this time, I have hosted a
variety of energy braintrusts, panels, conferences, and symposia
designed to bring in all of the relevant players ranging from
environmentalists to producers of energy from a variety of sectors
including coal, electric, natural gas, nuclear, oil, and alternative
energy sources as well as energy producers from West Africa. Bringing
together thoughtful yet disparate voices to engage each other on the
issue of energy independence has resulted in the beginning of a
transformative dialectic which can ultimately result in reforming our
energy industry to the extent that we as a Nation achieve energy
security and energy independence.
The CLEAN Act strikes energy bill provisions suspending royalty fees
from oil and gas companies operating in certain deep waters of Gulf of
Mexico. The bill also repeals royalty relief for deep gas wells leased
in shallow waters of the western and central areas of the Gulf. It
includes a provision from the President's FY 2007 budget restoring
drilling permit application cost recovery fees; fees which the 2005
Energy bill prohibited. The measure also strikes royalty relief for
specific offshore drilling in Alaska, and special treatment for leases
in the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPR-A).
H.R. 6 requires companies, which unfortunately have been able to
escape paying royalties as a result of the 1998 and 1999 leases, to pay
their fair share in order to be eligible for new federal leases for
drilling. Specifically, the measure requires current offshore fuel
producers who are not paying federal royalties to either: (1) Agree to
pay royalties when fuel prices reach certain thresholds, $34.73 per
barrel for oil and $4.34 per million Btu for natural gas, or (2) to pay
new fees established in the bill--in order to be eligible for new
federal leases for drilling. Under the bill, a new conservation of
resource fee would be based on the amount of oil produced and will
apply to new and existing leases and shall be set at $9 per barrel for
oil and $1.25 per million Btu for gas.
The changes regarding royalties offered under H.R. 6 are not entirely
new. Similar royalty relief provisions have been debated and passed by
the House as part of the OCS drilling bill, H.R. 4761, and in the
Interior Appropriation bill with bipartisan support of 67 Republicans.
[[Page 1576]]
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 would also close gaping loopholes and end
gigantic giveaways for Big Oil in the tax code and in the 2005 Energy
bill. The bill would eliminate a loophole written into the
international tax bill, H.R. 4520, which allowed oil companies to
qualify for a tax provision intended to encourage domestic
manufacturing. According to the New York Times, this loophole provided
ConocoPhillips $106 million in 2005, even though its profits totaled
$13.5 billion.
The benefits which ConocoPhillips reaped from the tax loophole,
represents just a snapshot of the lopsided picture that overwhelmingly
favors the financial well-being of big oil companies over average
American families. While big oil companies continue to rake in millions
and millions of dollars, American families see their budgets shrinking
because of high costs of oil and gas. It is our responsibility to
refocus our legislative lenses on solving this Nation's energy
dependence problem so that we may rescue American families from the
recent oil and gas price hikes.
Because I represent the city of Houston, the energy capital of the
world, I realize that many oil and gas companies provide many jobs for
many of my constituents and serve a valuable need. That is why it is
crucial that while seeking solutions to secure more energy independence
within this country, we must strike a balance that will still support
an environment for continued growth in the oil and gas industry, which
I might add, creates millions of jobs across the entire country. We
have many more miles to go before we achieve energy independence.
Consequently, I am willing, able, and eager to continue working with
Houston's and our Nation's energy industry to ensure that we are moving
expeditiously on the path to crafting an environmentally sound and
economically viable energy policy. Furthermore, I think it is
imperative that we involve small, minority and women owned, and
independent energy companies in this process because they represent
some of the hard working Americans and Houstonians who are on the
forefront of energy efficient strategies to achieving energy
independence.
H.R. 6 is a vehicle by which we can drive this country in the
direction of energy independence. Under this bill, we can invest in
clean, renewable energy resources through the creation of the Strategic
Renewable Energy Reserve which would: Accelerate the use of clean
domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels; promote the
utilization of energy-efficient products, practices and conservation;
and increase research, development, and deployment of clean renewable
energy and energy efficiency technologies.
It is critical that some of the additional funding created by this
bill is invested in small, minority and women owned business and
minority serving institutions. By investing in minority owned business
and minority serving institutions, we are ensuring that sectors of our
Nation and economy which are often overlooked are given an opportunity
to compete against much larger businesses and institutions of higher
learning.
Madam Speaker, the changes we propose to the CLEAN Act will allow us
to move this country in the right direction--the direction of becoming
less dependent on foreign oil and in turn, more reliant on renewable
energy. Because of these changes, we anticipate a win-win situation.
These changes should stimulate the expansion of research into renewable
energy because such changes positively impact oil companies that choose
to reinvest in new and emerging technology. Thus, H.R. 6 offers great
incentives for oil companies to contribute greatly to our efforts to
create an energy-independent America.
Moreover, the provisions that oil companies care about the most are
preserved under the CLEAN Act. In part due to the concerted effort of
the Houston/Harris County delegation, this bill WILL NOT include the
following provisions: (1) Repeal of last-in-first-out (LIFO)
accounting; (2) Refinery expansion expensing repeal; (3) Imposition of
a windfall profits tax; (4) Repeal of intangible drilling costs
deduction; (5) Repeal of natural gas distribution lines depreciation;
and (6) Foreign tax credit repeal.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I urge my colleagues to support
H.R. 6 to create long-term energy alternatives and to create a more
energy-independent and secure America.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we continue to
reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this rule and debate how we are
going to debate this rule, an F-16 is burning 25 gallons of fuel every
minute. A Stryker combat vehicle on which our troops travel is
traveling at the rate of about 7 miles per gallon. I was on a C-17
recently. It is burning 3,000 gallons an hour.
Energy is a national security issue. It is a vital national security
issue. And we can't afford to continue to debate the debate to adjourn
this House. The decision before to ask this House to adjourn, I think,
is emblematic of failed energy policies. There is no more debating or
delaying. It is time to act.
Last year the Department of Defense spent $10.6 billion on basic
energy costs. Of that, the Air Force spent $4.7 billion on one thing,
buying fuel for its planes.
Now, I believe in a robust defense. We have got some significant
challenges in the world. China is a significant challenge. Iran is a
significant challenge. But the policies on energy that we have had for
the past 6 years have put us in the position where we are borrowing
money from China to fund our defense budgets, to fuel our military,
which requires buying oil from the Persian Gulf to protect us from
China and the Persian Gulf. How does that make sense? It makes no
sense.
I was in China just several weeks ago. They are going to reduce their
energy consumption by 20 percent and keep growing, and increase their
use of renewables, while we continue to rely on our adversaries to
power our military to protect us from our adversaries.
This dependence on foreign oil, Mr. Speaker, is as glaring a threat
to our national security as Sputnik was, as the Cold War was, as the
space race was. And our answer to those threats was, we will research
and develop and manufacture and engineer and land men on the Moon by
the end of the decade. We confronted those threats and beat those
threats.
It is time to quit debating and quit delaying and quit stalling. It
is time to put the protection of our troops ahead of the profits of the
big oil companies. It is time to understand that this is a critical
national security issue that has been tried and debated and delayed for
30 years. It is time to act now.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons
why we are so concerned about and opposed to this process of having
closed out all of the Members from bringing forth their ideas to
improve this legislation is because we seriously believe that this
legislation, as drafted, if it were to become law, would increase our
dependence on foreign oil. That is why we are so adamant in our
opposition to the unfairness of the process, because of the product
that this process has brought forward.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous
question so that we can amend this closed rule and allow the House to
consider H.R. 6 under a fair and open process. If the previous question
is defeated, I will offer an amendment to consider H.R. 6 under an open
rule. This is the least we can do for the Members of this Congress who
have had absolutely no input into this far-reaching piece of
legislation, or any other piece of legislation that has been brought to
the House floor so far. By considering this bill under an open rule,
Members will be finally afforded an opportunity, for the first time in
the 110th Congress, to offer meaningful amendments to this bill. For
the new majority it is a novel concept, I know. In fact, it is the very
concept, though, on which they campaigned. This vote on the previous
question represents their last opportunity to live up to their promise
to join together in these first 100 hours to make this Congress, in
their words, the most honest and open Congress in history; and yet they
have closed the process completely down and allowed no amendments by no
Member from either side of the aisle.
According to the official 100-hour clock, and I see the clock there,
Mr. Speaker, we are only about 35 hours into the first 100 hours. That
means we have approximately 65 hours left. If this is, as we are
informed, the last item of the Six in '06, 100 hours in '06, agenda, it
seems to me that we have plenty of time to consider this bill under an
open and fair rule, rather than closing out all the Members and rushing
it to the floor as they have.
By defeating the previous question, we will give the Democrats the
opportunity to live up to their campaign
[[Page 1577]]
promises of a more open and transparent legislative process. Let's
allow all Members, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to create a real energy
bill with real answers to diminish, not increase, our dependence on
foreign oil.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me, first, begin by reiterating
something that has been said many times here.
One of the great features of H.R. 6 is that it would create a
Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve. It could be used to
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Everybody talks about wanting to
become energy independent, but they don't want to do anything about it;
and this would actually create a reserve to do that, to accelerate the
use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels,
to promote the utilization of energy-efficient products and practices
and conservation, and to increase research development and deployment
of clean renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies.
Again, this is the beginning of our dealing with this issue. There is
a lot more to do. And I look forward to more debates and hearings and
more ideas from Members from both sides of the aisle to figure out how
we can achieve our goal of energy independence.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
for participating in the debate today. Over the past 100 hours, this
House has made tremendous progress in addressing the needs of the
American people. We have strengthened the ethical rules of this House.
We have made the homeland safer by adopting the recommendations of the
9/11 Commission. We have given low-wage workers a much needed raise. We
have embraced the promise of stem cell research. We have made student
loans and prescription drugs more affordable.
And with the passage of this rule and the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007,
we will take our energy policy in a new direction, toward cleaner,
renewable energy and away from tax giveaways to huge oil and gas
companies.
If you want the same old same old, vote against this rule and vote
against the underlying bill. If you want a new direction, then support
the rule and support the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, let me close with a word about process. I understand the
concerns expressed by my friends on the other side of the aisle. I
served in the minority party during the last Congress, and I suspect my
friends are worried that they will be treated as poorly and
disrespectfully as we were.
I was here when the Republican majority passed exactly one open rule
on a non appropriations bill. I was here when votes were held open for
3 hours to change people's votes. I was here when special interests
provisions were tucked into conference reports after they were signed.
This House is broken, Mr. Speaker, and the Democratic majority was
elected to fix it, and that is what we are going to do.
All I can tell my friends on the other side of the aisle is what I
believe. I believe that every Member of this House deserves to be
respected. I believe that one party does not hold a monopoly on good
ideas; and I believe that openness should be the rule, and not the
exception. And all I can offer my friends is my word that I will work
as hard as I possibly can to make sure that this House runs in a more
open, democratic fashion than was the norm over the past 12 years. We
will not be perfect, because human endeavors never are. But we will be
better.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 66 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the
following:
``That at any time after the adoption of this resolution
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 6) to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by
investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy
resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies,
developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic
Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in
alternative energy, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against the bill and against its consideration are waived
except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed three hours, with 60 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means, 60 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Natural Resources, 30 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Agriculture, and 30 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Science and Technology. After general debate
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. During consideration of the bill for amendment,
the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.''.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote
on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231,
nays 194, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 35]
YEAS--231
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
[[Page 1578]]
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--194
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Edwards
Johnson, Sam
Levin
Lucas
McMorris Rodgers
Norwood
Ramstad
{time} 1237
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obey). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230,
noes 194, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 36]
AYES--230
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--194
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
[[Page 1579]]
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Edwards
Johnson, Sam
Levin
Lucas
McMorris Rodgers
Napolitano
Norwood
Ramstad
{time} 1247
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 36, had I been present,
I would have voted ``yes.''
____________________
CLEAN ENERGY ACT OF 2007
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 66, I call up
the bill (H.R. 6) to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by
investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources,
promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater
efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables
Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other purposes, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6
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 ``Creating Long-Term Energy
Alternatives for the Nation Act of 2007'' or the ``CLEAN
Energy Act of 2007'' .
TITLE I--DENIAL OF OIL AND GAS TAX BENEFITS
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Ending Subsidies for Big
Oil Act of 2007''.
SEC. 102. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO
DOMESTIC PRODUCTION OF OIL, NATURAL GAS, OR
PRIMARY PRODUCTS THEREOF.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 199(c)(4) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions) is
amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii), by
striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting
``, or'', and by inserting after clause (iii) the following
new clause:
``(iv) the sale, exchange, or other disposition of oil,
natural gas, or any primary product thereof.''.
(b) Primary Product.--Section 199(c)(4)(B) of such Code is
amended by adding at the end the following flush sentence:
``For purposes of clause (iv), the term `primary product' has
the same meaning as when used in section 927(a)(2)(C), as in
effect before its repeal.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 199(c)(4) of such Code
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(i)(III) by striking ``electricity,
natural gas,'' and inserting ``electricity'', and
(2) in subparagraph (B)(ii) by striking ``electricity,
natural gas,'' and inserting ``electricity''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 103. 7-YEAR AMORTIZATION OF GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL
EXPENDITURES FOR CERTAIN MAJOR INTEGRATED OIL
COMPANIES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 167(h)(5) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule
for major integrated oil companies) is amended by striking
``5-year'' and inserting ``7-year''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
TITLE II--ROYALTIES UNDER OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASES
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Royalty Relief for
American Consumers Act of 2007''.
SEC. 202. PRICE THRESHOLDS FOR ROYALTY SUSPENSION PROVISIONS.
The Secretary of the Interior shall agree to a request by
any lessee to amend any lease issued for any Central and
Western Gulf of Mexico tract during the period of January 1,
1998, through December 31, 1999, to incorporate price
thresholds applicable to royalty suspension provisions, that
are equal to or less than the price thresholds described in
clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)). Any
amended lease shall impose the new or revised price
thresholds effective October 1, 2006. Existing lease
provisions shall prevail through September 30, 2006.
SEC. 203. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE PRICE
THRESHOLDS FOR CERTAIN LEASE SALES.
Congress reaffirms the authority of the Secretary of the
Interior under section 8(a)(1)(H) of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(H)) to vary, based on
the price of production from a lease, the suspension of
royalties under any lease subject to section 304 of the Outer
Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (Public Law
104-58; 43 U.S.C. 1337 note).
SEC. 204. ELIGIBILITY FOR NEW LEASES AND THE TRANSFER OF
LEASES; CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES FEES.
(a) Issuance of New Leases.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not issue any new
lease that authorizes the production of oil or natural gas in
the Gulf of Mexico under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) to a person described in
paragraph (2) unless--
(A) the person has renegotiated each covered lease with
respect to which the person is a lessee, to modify the
payment responsibilities of the person to include price
thresholds that are equal to or less than the price
thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section
8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)); or
(B) the person has--
(i) paid all fees established by the Secretary under
subsection (b) that are due with respect to each covered
lease for which the person is a lessee; or
(ii) entered into an agreement with the Secretary under
which the person is obligated to pay such fees.
(2) Persons described.--A person referred to in paragraph
(1) is a person that--
(A) is a lessee that--
(i) holds a covered lease on the date on which the
Secretary considers the issuance of the new lease; or
(ii) was issued a covered lease before the date of
enactment of this Act, but transferred the covered lease to
another person or entity (including a subsidiary or affiliate
of the lessee) after the date of enactment of this Act; or
(B) any other person or entity who has any direct or
indirect interest in, or who derives any benefit from, a
covered lease;
(3) Multiple lessees.--
(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), if there
are multiple lessees that own a share of a covered lease, the
Secretary may implement separate agreements with any lessee
with a share of the covered lease that modifies the payment
responsibilities with respect to the share of the lessee to
include price thresholds that are equal to or less than the
price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of
section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
(43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).
(B) Treatment of share as covered lease.--Beginning on the
effective date of an agreement under subparagraph (A), any
share subject to the agreement shall not constitute a covered
lease with respect to any lessees that entered into the
agreement.
(b) Conservation of Resources Fees.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior by
regulation shall establish-
(A) a conservation of resources fee for producing Federal
oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico; and
(B) a conservation of resources fee for nonproducing
Federal oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
(2) Producing lease fee terms.--The fee under paragraph
(1)(A)--
(A) subject to subparagraph (C), shall apply to covered
leases that are producing leases;
(B) shall be set at $9 per barrel for oil and $1.25 per
million Btu for gas, respectively, in 2005 dollars; and
(C) shall apply only to production of oil or gas
occurring--
(i) in any calendar year in which the arithmetic average of
the daily closing prices for light sweet crude oil on the New
York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) exceeds $34.73 per barrel
for oil and $4.34 per million Btu for gas in 2005 dollars;
and
(ii) on or after October 1, 2006.
(3) Nonproducing lease fee terms.--The fee under paragraph
(1)(B)--
(A) subject to subparagraph (C), shall apply to leases that
are nonproducing leases;
(B) shall be set at $3.75 per acre per year in 2005
dollars; and
(C) shall apply on and after October 1, 2006.
(4) Treatment of receipts.--Amounts received by the United
States as fees under this subsection shall be treated as
offsetting receipts.
(c) Transfers.--A lessee or any other person who has any
direct or indirect interest in, or who derives a benefit
from, a lease shall not be eligible to obtain by sale or
other transfer (including through a swap, spinoff, servicing,
or other agreement) any covered lease, the economic benefit
of any covered lease, or any other lease for the production
of oil or natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.),
unless--
(1) the lessee or other person has--
(A) renegotiated all covered leases of the lessee or other
person; and
(B) entered into an agreement with the Secretary to modify
the terms of all covered leases of the lessee or other person
to include limitations on royalty relief based on market
prices that are equal to or less than the price thresholds
described in clauses (v)
[[Page 1580]]
through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)); or
(2) the lessee or other person has--
(A) paid all fees established by the Secretary under
subsection (b) that are due with respect to each covered
lease for which the person is a lessee; or
(B) entered into an agreement with the Secretary under
which the person is obligated to pay such fees.
(d) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) Covered lease.--The term ``covered lease'' means a
lease for oil or gas production in the Gulf of Mexico that
is--
(A) in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
(B) issued by the Department of the Interior under section
304 of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief
Act (43 U.S.C. 1337 note; Public Law 104-58); and
(C) not subject to limitations on royalty relief based on
market price that are equal to or less than the price
thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section
8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).
(2) Lessee.--The term ``lessee'' includes any person or
other entity that controls, is controlled by, or is in or
under common control with, a lessee.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 205. REPEAL OF CERTAIN TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZED ROYALTY
RELIEF FOR THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY.
(a) Repeal of Provisions of Energy Policy Act of 2005.--The
following provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public
Law 109-58) are repealed:
(1) Section 344 (42 U.S.C. 15904; relating to incentives
for natural gas production from deep wells in shallow waters
of the Gulf of Mexico).
(2) Section 345 (42 U.S.C. 15905; relating to royalty
relief for deep water production in the Gulf of Mexico).
(3) Subsection (i) of section 365 (42 U.S.C. 15924;
relating to the prohibition on drilling-related permit
application cost recovery fees).
(b) Provisions Relating to Planning Areas Offshore
Alaska.--Section 8(a)(3)(B) of the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(B)) is amended by striking
``and in the Planning Areas offshore Alaska'' after ``West
longitude''.
(c) Provisions Relating to Naval Petroleum Reserve in
Alaska.--Section 107 of the Naval Petroleum Reserves
Production Act of 1976 (as transferred, redesignated, moved,
and amended by section 347 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(119 Stat. 704)) is amended--
(1) in subsection (i) by striking paragraphs (2) through
(6); and
(2) by striking subsection (k).
TITLE III--STRATEGIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLES RESERVE
SEC. 301. STRATEGIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLES RESERVE
FOR INVESTMENTS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY
EFFICIENCY.
(a) In General.--For budgetary purposes, the additional
Federal receipts by reason of the enactment of this Act shall
be held in a separate account to be known as the ``Strategic
Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve''. The Strategic
Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve shall be available
to offset the cost of subsequent legislation--
(1) to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable
energy resources and alternative fuels;
(2) to promote the utilization of energy-efficient products
and practices and conservation; and
(3) to increase research, development, and deployment of
clean renewable energy and efficiency technologies.
(b) Procedure for Adjustments.--
(1) Budget committee chairman.--After the reporting of a
bill or joint resolution, or the offering of an amendment
thereto or the submission of a conference report thereon,
providing funding for the purposes set forth in subsection
(a) in excess of the amounts provided for those purposes for
fiscal year 2007, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
of the applicable House of Congress shall make the
adjustments set forth in paragraph (2) for the amount of new
budget authority and outlays in that measure and the outlays
flowing from that budget authority.
(2) Matters to be adjusted.--The adjustments referred to in
paragraph (1) are to be made to--
(A) the discretionary spending limits, if any, set forth in
the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget;
(B) the allocations made pursuant to the appropriate
concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section
302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
(C) the budget aggregates contained in the appropriate
concurrent resolution on the budget as required by section
301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(3) Amounts of adjustments.--The adjustments referred to in
paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not exceed the receipts
estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that are
attributable to this Act for the fiscal year in which the
adjustments are made.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obey). The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, under what rule are we considering
H.R. 6?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rule that the House just adopted.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Does the rule under which we are considering
H.R. 6 allow any amendments to H.R. 6?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Only through the motion to recommit.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, because of the rule being adopted
on the floor, I demand the question of consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman demands the question of
consideration. Under clause 3 of rule XVI, the question is: Will the
House now consider H.R. 6?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228,
noes 193, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 37]
AYES--228
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--193
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
[[Page 1581]]
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Bachus
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Chandler
Holt
Johnson, Sam
Levin
Lucas
McMorris Rodgers
Murphy, Patrick
Norwood
Ramstad
{time} 1308
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 66, debate
shall not exceed 3 hours, with 60 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Ways and Means, 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources, 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, and 30
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Science and Technology.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Rahall) and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) each will
control 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson),
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) each
will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
We are here to take one small and bipartisan step toward making clean
renewable energy a reality in America. And imagine my surprise, Big Oil
doesn't think it is a good idea. But let's set the stage for this
debate.
Two years ago, Big Oil muscled their way into a corporate tax break
they had never earned and didn't need. They are siphoning off $1
billion a year right out of the pockets of U.S. taxpayers, and they
want it to last forever, right along with $10 billion in quarterly
profits that they have been reporting.
Their answer to everything is more drilling and more money. The
President completely agrees. He thinks it is unfair of us to expect Big
Oil to actually earn money. He would actually just give it to them.
That is what they think; that is what the American people face.
According to a report by the Department of Energy, it is expected
that 86 percent of our energy supply will come from oil, coal, and
natural gas in the year 2030. That is the same proportion of our energy
consumption that carbon provides today.
That same report states that we should expect oil, gas, and coal
prices to continually climb. In other words, if this country does not
pursue a radically different approach to energy, we can expect dirty
air, more pain at the pump, and more reliance on foreign oil.
The bill before us takes the vital first step in the pursuit of a new
energy policy that looks to American innovation to provide renewable
energy. This bill is a down payment, and only that, on a commitment to
an energy policy that is fitting for the 21st century. The bill before
us is fundamentally fair.
In 2004, the Congress sought to help American manufacturers better
compete in the global economy, but in doing so they provided a 10
percent reduction in the Federal taxes owed by Big Oil. That translates
into a tax subsidy for over $1 billion a year, a real boondoggle.
What is more, the Congress gave this subsidy to oil at a time when
the industry was enjoying recordbreaking profits that were resulting
from $60 a barrel oil. That is wrong. Today we take the first step back
in the right direction.
Today we're taking the taxpayer money and putting it to better use.
Today the House of Representatives will decide that it's wiser to
invest in renewable energy, innovation, and a future for our economy
and our planet.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed
a so-called energy bill that they claim will promote America's energy
independence. In reality, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have presented the
House Chamber with a placebo that will ultimately reduce domestic
energy production, give American energy companies less of a reason to
invest in exploration here at home, encourage greater dependence on
foreign oil, and damage America's manufacturing base.
H.R. 6 has become another political football for the Democratic
Party. And, frankly, Mr. Speaker, as The Washington Post rightfully
editorialized yesterday, energy policy deserves more serious treatment.
The Democrats' solution to America's energy crisis is to single out
oil and gas producers for a tax increase. The fact is, Mr. Speaker,
this legislation is not likely to impact oil producers' profits in any
way, shape, or form. This is energy policy by focus group, not a
serious prescription for achieving America's energy future.
The one thing that we can be assured that this bill will do is raise
prices at the pump for America's consumers. Furthermore, it creates
disincentives that will decrease the supply of domestic natural gas and
oil and increase our country's energy imports.
While H.R. 6 not only forces our country to become more dependent on
foreign oil, it will also force America's working families to bear the
brunt of increased energy costs.
The $6.6 billion tax increase embedded in this bill will inevitably
be borne entirely by consumers in the form of higher gasoline and home
energy prices. The effects of high gas prices will ripple throughout
the economy, increasing prices on everything from electronics to school
supplies. Like the Keystone Kops, the House leadership aims at one
target but ends up hitting the American public.
{time} 1315
In addition, the Democrats have yet to detail what exactly they will
do with an additional $14 billion in revenue. In my view, such excess
revenue will provide the Democratic leadership with a liberal slush
fund to curry favor with one industry over another.
If Democrats want to invest in new energy technologies, they should
debate and define their priorities openly. This, Mr. Speaker, is
political pork barrel at its worst.
Finally, H.R. 6 is an assault against America's manufacturing base.
Using nearly one-third of the Nation's energy, both as fuel and feed
stock, energy production is the very heart of American manufacturing.
With such an energy-intensive industry, raising energy prices will make
domestic manufacturers less competitive in the world
[[Page 1582]]
market. This is one reason why the National Association of
Manufacturers has firmly opposed this bill.
By making the oil and gas industries ineligible for the section 199
deduction for domestic manufacturing activities and changing current
amortization rates for the geological and geophysical costs incurred in
energy exploration, H.R. 6 will further erode the U.S. comparative
advantage, forcing more and more of our good-paying manufacturing jobs
overseas.
Mr. Speaker, I have long advocated for a comprehensive energy policy
to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase America's access
to clean, affordable and dependable energy for their cars, homes and
businesses. H.R. 6 is simply not the answer.
This legislation is bad energy policy and bad tax policy which
explains why the Democratic leadership shoehorned it through the
process without a committee markup or even a single public hearing.
We must stand up for American manufacturers, stand up for American
consumers, and preserve our domestic energy supply. So I urge my
colleagues to join me today in opposing H.R. 6 and supporting the
Republican alternative.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. McDermott
for yielding me this time.
After I got done hearing my friend from Pennsylvania speak, I was
reminded once again of a recurring theme in this town from Republicans:
have they ever met a special interest they didn't love.
The struggles of Big Oil: profits last year of 117 percent. Remember
as we heard these arguments just a couple of minutes ago from those
champions of the average guy, as they would have you believe today,
these are the people who in a craven moment in the closing days of the
109th Congress tied an increase in the minimum wage to repeal of the
estate tax, conveniently forgetting about that individual who had to
work one day a week at minimum wage just to fill their gasoline tanks.
This is good policy. It is sensible, and it speaks to the idea of
returning $14 billion to the Treasury that will be redirected to
renewable and energy-efficient programs resulting in a cleaner and more
efficient America where both consumer and business reap the benefits.
Advancing progressive energy will wean us off of foreign oil, which
all Americans agree is needed. It has been said that American needs
another Manhattan Project, not to create weapons of mass destruction,
but to create masses of jobs by harnessing America's technological
innovation.
We all know how many jobs have been lost due to foreign competition,
and we are going to continue to lose them if we fail to make the
necessary investments in energy technology and the people who are
behind the research and its development.
Put the American people and their interests first here. The idea that
we would drill on public land and not seek some sort of compensation
for the Federal Government, relief for the taxpayer, is ridiculous.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield
2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and
a strong advocate of energy policy, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Weller).
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, today politics trumps policy. If
regular order had been followed in this House, allowing this tax
increase to go through the Ways and Means Committee, we would have a
better understanding of the consequences of today's $14 billion tax
increase.
You know, if the House of Representatives was subjected to the truth-
in-labeling requirement, H.R. 6 would be called the Ship Jobs Overseas
Act because it imposes a $14 billion tax increase on investing in
America.
We have all heard the campaign rhetoric; both sides use it: you know,
the Tax Code sends jobs overseas. Well today, this House may well do
that if it votes to pass this $14 billion tax increase.
I support replacing imported oil with home-grown biofuels like
ethanol and biodiesel, as well as alternatives sources of energy like
wind power and solar. And thanks to the energy bill we passed in the
previous Congress, there are hundreds of millions of dollars in new
wind investment in the district I represent, six new ethanol and
biodiesel plants moving forward in our districts; and because I am
concerned about climate change, I believe we need to do more.
That is why I believe 25 percent of our energy that we consume by
2025 should come from nonfossil fuel sources.
This bill doesn't do anything about that because H.R. 6 only raises
taxes. I would note that one of the biggest refineries in America is in
the district I represent, providing 600 jobs. That particular company
is investing $1 billion right now to expand. They chose to expand in
America, creating American jobs. They could have expanded in Venezuela,
making Hugo Chavez happy; but they chose to invest here. And what is
their reward? Higher taxes.
That is why this legislation, H.R. 6, should be called the Ship Jobs
Overseas Act. Think about it, if you invest in energy in America, you
invest in oil and natural gas development in America, my friends on the
other side of the aisle want you to pay higher taxes. I urge a ``no''
vote.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6, the Creating Long-
Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act of 2007. I rise in
opposition because this bill before us today will make our country more
dependent on foreign oil and less secure.
It's pretty safe to say that every Member here supports the goal of
reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It's a national security issue
and it hits home every single day when people go to the pumps to fill
up their vehicles.
And I agree with the concept of this bill that our Nation must invest
in renewable sources of energy like ethanol, biodiesel, wind and solar.
In the upcoming weeks I will be introducing multiple pieces of
legislation that will increase our use of renewable energy and I look
forward to working in a bipartisan way with those in the majority to
make some of these ideas a reality.
What really doesn't make sense to me is that, in this bill, the
majority do the complete opposite of achieving the goal of reducing our
dependence on foreign oil.
They are going to raise the taxes of oil companies that produce oil
here domestically and make it more difficult to produce oil here at
home.
In my district, ExxonMobil has one of the largest domestic refineries
in the country, employing approximately 509 people.
Over the last 5 years, they have invested more than $500 million in
the Joliet Refinery of which about $300 million was for equipment to
produce low sulfur gasoline and ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel.
In 2007 and 2008 they plan to invest more than $400 million to
install additional control equipment.
Now, by passing this bill, we are going to be sending the message to
companies like Exxon who by 2008 will have invested close to a billion
dollars in central Illinois, saying ``Thanks for investing in America,
now we are going to raise your taxes.''
Bills just like this here before us today should be labeled ``the
send jobs overseas act'' because that is exactly what it will do. Close
to a thousand energy related jobs in my district and the approximately
1.8 million jobs in the U.S. are put in jeopardy now because of this
policy that discourages investment in America.
And who are the big winners of this bill? Leaders like Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela and OPEC who are watching this and loving the fact that we
are passing punitive tax policy on domestic energy producers.
With the Energy Policy Act of 2005, we took steps forward in reducing
our dependence on foreign oil by creating policy that increased the use
of renewable energy in tandem with increasing our domestic production
of energy sources.
Due to the Energy bill, we have seen hundreds of millions invested in
wind energy and four to five new ethanol and biodiesel plants in my
district. In total, we saw investment in renewable energy double in the
United States to $68 billion.
We need to go back to those roots of encouraging investment here in
the United States.
This bill makes us less secure and more dependent on foreign oil.
[[Page 1583]]
Vote against this send jobs overseas act that will raise taxes and
discourage investment here in America.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my gentleman friend from
Illinois that the United States is among the lowest countries in the
world in terms of corporate taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/3\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Dr. McDermott, the
gentleman from Washington, for yielding me this time and bringing this
piece of legislation to us.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act. More
than ever, we need to get our priorities straight. We need to stop
helping big oil companies and start helping American families. We need
to stop dancing while Rome burns and reverse the damage we have done to
our environment.
Oil companies are making record profits. They do not need our help.
They are not begging for our help. They made more than $96 billion in
profit in 2006. It is time to end the massive giveaway to the big oil
companies. It is time to end corporate welfare. It is time to take
taxpayer dollars back from the oil companies and use them to solve our
energy problems.
It is our moral duty to use other forms of energy, and H.R. 6 starts
us on this process. Global warming can no longer be ignored. 2006 was
one of the hottest years on record. The weather in Washington during
the last 2 weeks has felt more like the warm weather I am used to in my
home State of Georgia. We need to act now. H.R. 6 will start to address
global warming and turn back the damage we are doing to our
environment.
We also need to reduce our reliance on Middle Eastern oil. It is our
duty to help inspire the next generation of energy technology:
hydrogen, ethanol, wind and other sources of energy that will not harm
our little planet, our little spaceship we call Earth.
The American people need relief from energy costs. By improving our
energy efficiency, we can all spend less to light and heat our homes
and fuel our cars with gas.
Do the oil companies really deserve tax breaks while they earn
billions of dollars in profits? It is time to end this waste. It is not
right. It is time to start improving our quality of life. The people
have a right to know what is in the air we breathe and what is in the
water we drink. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege now to
yield 3 minutes to a strong advocate of a strong American energy
policy, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition
to H.R. 6, the so-called CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. I oppose this bill
because in it our Democratic friends are putting America's security and
economic vitality at risk. This bill is fundamentally a tax-increasing
and job-destroying piece of legislation that will result in less energy
independence, not more.
Mr. Speaker, there are several provisions within this bill that I
take exception to. As one of the Representatives from Oklahoma, I would
focus on a particularly onerous provision that will assist in the
destruction of small American producers in the domestic oil and gas
industry.
In 2005, the Republicans worked for and passed legislation with
substantial Democratic support creating clear incentives for domestic
production of oil. That policy contributes directly to our efforts to
achieve energy independence in America. Today, the Democratic Party
claims the oil and gas industry has become too profitable and believes
this industry needs to be reined in by burdening it with increased
taxes. This conclusion is wrong, and the end result will be increased
reliance on foreign oil production, less energy independence here in
America, and higher prices for every American consumer.
This legislation is based on the false premise that the oil and gas
industry is too profitable. In fact, according to the Census Bureau and
the American Petroleum Institute: ``The oil and gas industry earned 8.5
cents on every dollar of sales compared to 7.4 cents for all U.S.
manufacturing, mining and wholesale trade.'' The API further states:
``For the last 5 years, the oil and gas industry has earned 5.9 cents
compared to an average for all U.S. industry of 5.2 cents for every
dollar of sales.'' This is hardly greedy or out of line with other U.S.
businesses.
Mr. Speaker, the negative ripple effects of this tax on one of the
most basic industries in America are dire; and this will affect the
whole oil and gas industry, both large and small. Eliminating this tax
break is certain to increase the price of gasoline, natural gas and
heating oil, as the extra costs will be passed on to consumers.
Consumers should oppose it for the same reasons they oppose taxes on
imported oil and gas production: it will raise prices. Moreover, it
will discourage domestic energy exploration, extraction, production,
and refining, thereby making America more dependent on foreign sources
of oil and gas. And it will harm State and local economies as smaller
producers are forced to shut down marginal wells. Oklahoma has roughly
70,000 wells producing less than 10 barrels of oil a day, and these
will be among the first wells to close down due to unsustainable costs
in this tax increase.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 will have profound and long-lasting harmful
effects on our economy and our security. Overall, this bill takes our
country in the opposite direction than the one in which we need to go.
H.R. 6 is nothing more than a ploy by the Democratic Party to create
political sound bites at the expense of sound energy policy. Frankly, I
hope my Democratic friends from energy-producing States do not feel
compelled out of blind partisan loyalty to vote for this bill.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am a Democrat representing an energy-
producing State, and I will be proudly supporting this bill.
This bill creates a very important reserve, a reserve that will serve
as a funding base for our efforts to significantly expand critical
research in order to develop greater energy independence for our
country while continuing those tax credits that have been absolutely
essential to the growth of renewable fuels in our country.
We face the promise of not looking to the Middle East, but looking to
the Middle West for our energy future, and we are seeing across the
plains of this country wonderful developments. A 10-fold increase of
ethanol production alone in my State is under construction at the
present time due essentially to these tax credits that continue to fuel
this revolution.
What about the issues of a new tax, something that will crack people
right at the pump. The reality is we are addressing something that was
slipped into a massive bill dealing with the tax needs of
manufacturers.
{time} 1330
As we restructured the tax base on the Nation's manufacturers, in
light of international trade pressures, we constructed a bill, moved
the bill forward, and at no point in the debate in the Ways and Means
Committee or on the floor of the House was there notice provided that a
similar tax treatment was slipped in for the oil companies. This is
something they did not have before; it is something that has not been
long critical to their operations. This was an ill-gotten windfall
amounting to $700 million a year, and it is time it be withdrawn.
In the withdrawing, however, it is not going to the General Treasury.
We are dedicating it, dedicating it to the energy picture. So as we try
to move from big oil into renewables, we will have the wherewithal to
do it. I urge passage.
This bill is an important step for our growing renewable energy
industry. H.R. 6 will set up a Strategic Energy Efficiency and
Renewables Reserve, which will allow this Congress to begin to get
serious about developing America's renewable energy industries.
Through enhanced investment in renewable energy we will not only
build a sustainable industry for our State but we will also be helping
make America more energy independent and more secure.
[[Page 1584]]
There will be many new proposals made in the coming months regarding
how we should use this reserve, but we must make sure that while we
place significant funds into research and development we also continue
to place importance on policies and tax credits that have an immediate
impact on the creation of renewable energy. These tax credits include
those for ethanol, biodiesel and the production tax credit for wind and
other renewables.
The tax credits for biodiesel and ethanol are set to expire in the
next few years. These credits must be extended to ensure that the
biofuels industry is able to continue its expansion and meet more and
more of our transportation fuel needs. These credits helped spur the
development of 350 million gallons of ethanol and over 100 million
gallons of biodiesel in my State, North Dakota, over the last 2 years
alone.
In 2006 over 1 billion gallons of ethanol production capacity came
online with another 5.4 billion expected to become operational in the
next 18 months easily surpassing the 7.5 billion gallon Renewable Fuels
Standard set for 2012. Meanwhile the biodiesel industry has tripled its
production capacity each year since 2004. Expansion of these credits
will have a direct effect on the volume of biofuels produced,
encouraging the development that we need to lower our dependence on
foreign oil.
In addition to the biofuels incentives, the production tax credit,
which expires at the end of next year, must be extended for 5 years to
allow industries such as the wind industry to operate under stabile
conditions. Without stabilizing the tax credit, companies like DMI
Industries in West Fargo and LM Glassfiber in Grand Forks are in
constant limbo. DMI manufactures wind turbine towers and had furloughed
over 100 employees in late 2003 after the expiration of the wind
production tax credit. LM Glassfiber, which manufactures wind turbine
blades, had previously idled all production due to the delay in
extending the wind tax credit and was forced to furlough 60 to 70
employees.
America has great potential for meeting our energy needs
domestically. In order to achieve energy independence we must enact
policies that will take full advantage of our renewable fuel potential
but at the same time we must also continue to invest in traditional
sources of energy such as clean coal and domestic oil production.
Technologies such as coal-to-liquids, enhanced oil recovery through
carbon sequestration and clean coal technologies hold great potential
for increasing the efficiency of these industries while at the same
time making them more environmentally friendly.
Reliance on foreign sources for our energy supply and the volatility
of the Middle East create a national security risk that cannot be
ignored. We must work to harness our own Nation's energy resources
while also bolstering new and inventive methods of meeting our growing
energy needs. We are taking an important first step today and I look
forward to the debate on renewable energy that will occur in the coming
months.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 20\1/2\
minutes and the gentleman from Washington has 21\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield
2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means
Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
Mr. HULSHOF. Before my friend from North Dakota leaves the floor, the
bill to which he referenced, he, in fact, along with 72 of his
colleagues, voted for. The FSC/ETI bill that actually we are now
pulling back that tax reduction. We are repealing that.
It has been an interesting 2 weeks, Mr. Speaker. We have now forced
small businesses to take on additional labor costs, yet we have done
nothing to cushion the blow for the mom and pop stores across the
country. Last week, the majority wanted to stick it to those drug
companies that develop life-saving miracle drugs, while we all have
family members who actually live longer and healthier lives because of
those miracle drug therapies. Today, we are considering a tax increase
on the domestic energy companies.
Now, how many Members have come to the floor and made speeches and
beat their breasts and lamented the loss of the manufacturing base in
this country? And it is something we agree with, except that the
majority's response then is to tax those very domestic energy producing
companies?
Let me make a prediction, not a bold one, but as we are wrapping up
this 6 in 2006, I suspect that the newly elected Speaker will actually
be in the Chair as the vote is called, and as the votes are there to
pass this measure there will be thunderous applause from one side of
the Chamber, with handshakes and back claps all around.
You know who else is going to be applauding today's measure? The
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Companies, upon whom we are already
so dependent. You know who else is going to applaud today's efforts?
Another big fan. The dictator from Venezuela.
And, of course, there are some on the majority side who have actually
called upon Mr. Chavez in Venezuela, visited him during the last
Congress, and came back to this country speaking of his benevolence?
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Research Service has
reported that the net impact of the 2005 energy bill was to actually
raise revenue from the domestic oil and gas industry by $300 million.
But let not the facts get in the way of good bumper sticker politics.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 6.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the majority for making it a
whole 2 weeks before deciding to raise taxes--34 hours if you are
keeping track by the clock on the Speaker's website. It must have been
tough to wait this long.
I've been around here long enough to follow the twists and turns of
the FSC/ETI case, and I'm somewhat puzzled by what we are doing today.
It is true that oil and gas companies were not able to claim the
previous FSC benefit. It is also true that Chairman Rangel championed
an approach to replace FSC with a broad benefit targeted at domestic
manufacturing. The JOBS bill ultimately provided a broad definition of
manufacturing activity to avoid arbitrarily creating winners and
losers. Yet today, we find ourselves here picking and choosing among
domestic activities, without concern for the broader policy
implications, based solely on the need for the majority's Leadership to
put out a splashy press release about getting tough on big oil.
The bill before us provides an insight into the governing philosophy
of the new majority. The concern of people in my district--and across
the country for that matter--is that we need to maintain an affordable
supply of energy by breaking our dependence on foreign oil. By any
common-sense measure, domestic exploration must be part of a multi-
faceted solution to this problem. So in that regard, it is counter-
intuitive to think that tax hikes on U.S. exploration activities will
help provide an affordable, steady supply of gasoline to consumers.
Put another way--most of us took Econ 101 in college. I must admit,
it was a few years ago when I took this class, but the way I remember
it, if an added cost is put on an industry--in this case a tax--those
costs will eventually get passed on to the consumer. And in that
regard, I guess the majority's desired policy aim is to make gasoline
more expensive.
Everyone agrees that we must break our dependence on foreign oil, and
I take a backseat to no one when it comes to promoting homegrown
renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel as a way to reduce our
consumption of petroleum. In fact, had the Rules Committee made my
amendments in order, the House could have voted to extend these
important incentives.
But the majority's answer to this problem--tax hikes--is simply
misguided, and I urge
my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on
H.R. 6.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who is an original cosponsor of the bill.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a proud conservative
and Republican, as well as a cosponsor, to urge support of H.R. 6.
Oil and natural gas are not forever. When we burn them, they are
gone. The U.S. has only 2 percent of known oil reserves. We use 25
percent of the world's oil and import two-thirds of what we are using.
We pump our reserves four times faster than the rest of the world.
I just returned from a trip to China. China is preparing for a post-
oil world.
There are three reasons to pursue renewable alternatives to fossil
fuels. One is climate change. A second reason is preparing for peak
oil. A third reason is for national security risk of our dependence on
foreign oil.
[[Page 1585]]
As predicted by M. King Hubbert, and ratified by a recent SAIC
report, the world either has or will shortly reach peak oil. As a
cofounder and cochairman of the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus, I can
assure you that halfway through the age of oil, there is an urgent need
for the U.S. to pursue conservation efficiency and alternative
renewable sources of domestic energy.
We have a moral obligation to leave younger generations some oil. I
urge support of this bill.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield
2 minutes to a leader in the area of energy policy on the Ways and
Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, would it be correct if I asked about the long
title of this bill? Is the long title of this bill, to reduce our
Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable,
and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy
technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic
Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative
energy?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is a long title, but that is the title of
the bill, yes.
Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to confirm the long title,
because it appears today that we are talking about this bill being
about energy independence. And earlier, during the rule debate, it was
brought up by the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, who
referred to the process that was used under the last Congress,
referring to Mr. Dreier's process, as being dishonest.
Mr. Speaker, this whole process that we are going through today is
about dishonesty, and I want to be clear that I am talking about the
process. This is unacceptable to me. Because if this is about energy
independence, this bill we are going to pass today, then why is there
this quote this morning in the Wall Street Journal, and I will read the
quote. ``Tomorrow we finish our 100 hours and I will talk about what
comes next. And included in that is energy independence.''
Ms. Pelosi made this statement in the Wall Street Journal this
morning. So are we debating today about energy independence? We are
going to pass this bill about energy independence, or is this going to
be something that we are going to do after this? If so, then something
about this process is dishonest. I don't know if this bill is about
energy independence or, as the Speaker said, in the future we are going
to talk about energy independence. I thought this bill was about energy
independence.
So I hope for the rest of this debate that the majority will clarify
this, because I don't understand what this is about. And we have had a
lot of strong words stated during the rules debate about dishonesty in
the process, and I am thoroughly confused as to who is right. Are we
doing energy independence today or are we going to do that tomorrow, as
the Speaker said?
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, let me assure the gentleman that after 12
years of Republican misrule here in the House, it will take much more
than 100 hours to undo the damage. Today is a first step toward energy
independence. It is certainly not the conclusion of what will be a long
process that will involve all Members of this House.
We began this 100-hour legislative agenda with ethics laws to clean
up this Congress--and it sure needed cleaning up--and we conclude it
today with this effort to clean up our environment and clean up our tax
code. Although modest, the CLEAN bill is truly a breath of fresh air.
Our oil and gas giants are experts at drilling holes. They drill
holes into our earth to get the resources that we need, but they have
also been pretty fortunate in drilling holes into our tax code and
comingup with tax break after billion dollar tax break.
Allowing Big Oil to convert valuable public assets to private gain
also exploits public resources, but we should not also exploit the
American taxpayer. Leases should be set at a fair market rate.
Under the former Republican Leadership, Big Oil's best prospecting
was not in Texas, not in the Gulf of Mexico, it was right here on the
floor of the House and in secret meetings with Vice President Cheney.
They prospected in Washington and they never came up with a dry well.
It was one gusher of tax benefits and special privileges after another.
Now, we finally have an opportunity to rewrite a genuine energy
policy. We don't just end unreasonable tax breaks in this bill--tax
breaks that I think even most of my Republican colleagues, will admit
were unjustified--but we use the proceeds of those tax breaks to focus
on renewable energy, on energy independence.
We now begin moving toward using our all-American ingenuity for what
could be a job creation program of new leadership in energy technology,
in clean energy. That is our objective. This CLEAN bill is an important
start to restoring fiscal discipline and embarking on genuine energy
independence.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a valued member of
the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Thank you for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to H.R. 6 and
encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill, because one of its
consequences is to raise revenue for some of America's most adamant and
ardent enemies, such as Mr. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Mr.
Ahmadinejad in Iran.
As I travel my district, my constituents have a consistent message
for me: Find a way to achieve energy independence and end our reliance
on foreign oil from unstable regions of the world. I am extremely
disappointed that the Democrat leadership has chosen to pursue an
energy bill that does nothing to achieve this goal and is simply a ruse
perpetrated on the American people.
In the past, I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to promote alternative energy legislation. In previous Congresses, I
have sponsored bills to offer incentives for the development of
biodiesel and ethanol, to encourage investment in coal-to-liquid
technology, and increase the use of renewable fuels. Each of these
received bipartisan support.
I attempted to offer an amendment to this bill on an issue that has
received bipartisan support, but it was refused. This is the sole piece
of energy legislation in the 100-hour agenda, yet our party was not
allowed even a single amendment. Why has this legislation not been an
opportunity to discuss real solutions to our Nation's energy crisis?
Why does this bill include no provisions to move our Nation away from
oil use at all?
Why, Mr. Speaker? Because the majority doesn't want a real solution.
They only want to stand here today and play politics with our Nation's
future.
I truly wish this debate could have been about the virtues of
developing alternative energies. Instead, this is a veiled tax hike to
create what some may say is a slush fund for future use. This is
unconscionable, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. McDermott. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, let's review the score. Big Oil, one;
taxpayers, zero. But today we are about to even the score.
When he took office, President Bush said this country was in need of
a comprehensive energy policy. He was right, and unfortunately we are
still waiting.
We are still waiting because rather than a solution we got a $14
billion taxpayer handout to oil and gas companies. Taxpayers were
forced to pay twice, once at the pump and then again
[[Page 1586]]
on April 15. At the same time, the five big oil companies made record
profits of $97 billion in 2006, and the taxpayers were asked to
subsidize their industry.
Where are gas prices today? Almost double where they were when George
Bush took office. Today, as we complete our first 100 hours, it is the
beginning of clean energy and the end of dirty politics.
Just last week, my colleagues on the other side were saying that we
were subsidizing; that the private sector was working in the
prescription drug area, and today they argue in favor of a $14 billion
taxpayer handout for big oil companies. I am proud the inconsistency
doesn't seem to get in the way of a good argument.
I think this serves a fitting end to our first 100 hours agenda and
the 6 in '06. Two weeks ago, we began the 100 hours by enacting the
most comprehensive ethics reform since the Watergate era, and we end
the culture of corruption where the special interests had a free rein
in determining national policy. Nowhere was that corruption of the
system more apparent than the handouts to the energy companies.
Mr. Speaker, for the past 4 years, I have come to this podium and
said that that gavel was supposed to open up the people's House, not
the auction house. Today, I proudly can say that we have given the
people a voice, stood up to the special interests, and fought for
hardworking families. The score is tied, and we are just getting warmed
up.
{time} 1345
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I now have the privilege of
yielding 2 minutes to a distinguished and very articulate member of the
Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with our Democrat
friends: we need to invest more in renewable energy. It is the right
thing to do, and it is long overdue. But doing it by taxing American
energy companies more for exploring and creating jobs here at home
makes no sense.
Let's be clear. This bill says, foreign oil and foreign jobs are
good; American oil and American jobs are bad. And that is crazy.
The new House leadership may believe it scores in political points to
target Texas energy companies and refiners, many of whom are union
workers. But our communities don't think it is so funny and our union
workers don't think it is so funny.
This bill punishes energy companies for doing the research that leads
to successful wells. The old Tax Code had a perverse disincentive. If
you failed in finding a successful well, you could write off expenses.
If you are successful, though, we punished you for it. We changed that,
because we think companies ought to do more research, not less, drill
accurate wells, drill fewer of them, and have smaller footprints.
This provision is an anti-research and an anti-environmental
provision. This bill declares energy jobs in America aren't
manufacturing jobs. Under this bill, we treat energy workers, including
high-paying union workers, as foreign workers. We treat our people as
foreign workers. And farmers are manufacturers under this bill.
Cartoonists are manufacturers under this bill. But those who work on
oil rigs and refineries in Texas are foreign workers, and we don't
touch the foreign oil companies at all.
Ladies and gentlemen, this bill will not lower gas prices one penny.
It won't lessen our dependence on foreign oil one barrel. This bill
does not strengthen our energy security. Just the opposite. It does not
deserve our support.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, after 12 years of failure to deal
meaningfully with a comprehensive energy policy Republicans instead,
gave this Congress and the American public a legislative grab bag.
Today, under Democratic leadership, we are starting in the right
direction to give conservation and energy choice, which Americans
understand will take more than 100 hours, given the schizophrenic
approach to energy by this administration and the previous Republican
Congress.
We want to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that we are dealing with an
overall framework to reduce greenhouse gases, to deal with carbon
emissions, to provide predictability for all the players, whether they
are people who are going to be dealing with alternative energy or they
are the American consumer.
By eliminating unnecessary subsidies to form a fund to deal with
alternative energy conservation and global warming is a terrific start.
I am pleased that we are doing it at the conclusion of these first 100
hours and look forward to more in the months to come.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to
yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a new Member of the House who I think brings a
strong perspective on energy policy to this House, the gentlewoman from
Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).
Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time today. This bill today
is a disappointment to those of us who care about the goal of energy
independence. This legislation sabotages the incentives with American
energy companies to expand their drilling operations and undermines the
opportunities to take advantage of our Nation's untapped resources.
American energy reserves are very real. The Bureau of Land Management
recently estimated the United States territory contains over 2 trillion
barrels of oil shale, 100 billion barrels of energy just alone on the
North American slopes of Alaska, enough oil to trump Saudi oil by 10-
fold. And it is our U.S. policies that keep us from accessing the U.S.
reserves.
Ladies and gentlemen, when we import over 63 percent of our foreign
energy supplies from foreign energy sources, who are, many times, not
friendly to the United States, and spend almost $300 billion of revenue
in buying those foreign energy sources, it is both a national security
threat and an economic threat to this Nation. That is why it is
important that we carefully review this legislation, that we look at
all the ramifications of it, and that we work carefully together
towards a process that will move us towards energy independence and
also towards the exploration of renewable energy sources.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation that
will undermine the goal of energy independence in the United States
and, in doing so, also drains the resources of the average American.
The solution to America's energy crisis lies in expanding our oil
production capacity in the short term, while investing in the
alternative energy sources in the long-term solution.
To subject new exploration to punitive taxes would surrender our role
and our goal as an energy-independent Nation to the Middle East. And,
Mr. Speaker, this logic is not an option for us at all.
There is no doubt that meeting America's energy needs is one of the
most daunting challenge we face as a nation. It is not, however, an
impossible challenge I believe as most Americans believe that this
Congress can and must take steps towards making our Nation energy
independent, so that America is not held hostage by the oil reserves of
the world's most volatile regions. The path forward is clear--we must
move towards energy independence by increasing domestic production of
oil in he short term while we invest in alternative sources of energy
in the long term. I agree with the concept of this bill but believe
this path is the wrong answer. Instead of moving towards energy
independence, this bill tightens the noose around our neck by making us
even more dependent on foreign oil. Never before has it been clearer
that we should not and cannot depend on the Middle East for our
resources, and yet that is exactly what this bill proposes we do at the
expense of our own national security.
Slowing down the production of American oil by instating an
irresponsible tax increase also represents a grave economic threat to
my State. Oklahoma oil and gas producers--large and small--will be hit
hard by this. Make no mistake this legislation will cost Oklahoma jobs.
This tax increase will mean less money for new production and
ultimately less money in State revenue. We cannot today impose a tax
increase which American workers will pay tomorrow at the gas pumps.
[[Page 1587]]
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, H.R. 6, begins the
process of weaning off of corporate welfare. This is the beginning of
it, so you had better get used to it.
I am very shocked to hear what the opponents are saying to this
legislation. Ensuring that oil companies actually pay their fair share
in royalties is reasonable and prudent.
Why isn't this welfare looked at as our tax money that we provide for
these corporations?
They don't need it. You know it, and I know it.
This bill will ultimately repeal approximately $14 billion in oil
subsidies given to big oil companies and, most importantly, invest
those funds, because the question has been asked on the other side,
will this wind up in a slush fund. They cavalierly talk about that.
Specifically, if you read the bill, these funds will go to clean
renewable energy and energy-efficient programs. This is critical. The
bill creates the Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve,
which will help accelerate the use of clean, domestic renewable energy
resources, thereby reducing our dependence on foreign oil. And the case
has been made over and over and over again this afternoon.
This is the beginning of real security for our country, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have
remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 10
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 14\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in that case, I would
welcome the opportunity to allow the gentleman from Washington to
allocate some more time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Crowley) 1 minute.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, a bill
that will finally put our Nation in the correct direction, a new
direction towards weaning ourselves off the addiction of oil and gas.
This bill is about the future of America.
In the 1960s, President Kennedy challenged our country to dream the
unthinkable and to put a man on the Moon. While President Bush has
talked about the addiction to foreign oil, the Republican view of the
treatment is to continue to pass tax cuts for oil companies, instead of
focusing on innovation and new sources of energy.
By this investing in new technology, we have an opportunity for a
win-win situation, more energy independence and more jobs for American
citizens here in America. Who could be against that?
Please pass this bill. Create a clean energy trust fund and free the
resourceful minds of the most resourceful people on Earth today to do
what Americans do best, to create and innovate.
We can kick our addiction to foreign oil, and the first step in this
is to pass H.R. 6.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to
yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished Member of the House, a leader
from Tennessee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I think we can appropriately dub this
the Hold on to Your Wallet Congress. And today, the tax increase that
is being passed is one that is being put on the energy that runs our
cars and heats our homes; and tomorrow, who knows? But hold on to your
wallet, America, because they are coming for it.
Some of the previous speakers have said that they are trying to
depict this bill as something that would be repealing subsidies to Big
Oil and redirecting money to alternative energy. Both are false. Those
are false premises. Even The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal,
and the Washington Times don't agree with this bill. They know it is
going to raise prices at the pump, punish domestic production, run up
the cost of energy on manufactured goods, all of it being done at a
time when we are supposed to be weaning off foreign sources of oil. And
this bill is going to do exactly the opposite.
There is nothing in the bill that would guarantee that the increased
revenues would be spent on alternative energy. While a new reserve is
created, it does not have one single enforcement mechanism. In other
words, the increased revenues could, in reality, be directed to any
Federal discretionary expenditure without penalty, growing the
government.
It is the classic bait and switch. It is an energy tax on hardworking
Americans with no guarantees for alternative energy.
I will not be a part of the bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote
against H.R. 6.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the CLEAN
Energy Act. This plan will lead the Nation in a new direction on energy
policy.
The United States imports 65 percent of the oil we consume. We spend
$800 million every day on foreign oil-producing countries. This
threatens our economic stability, our environmental security, and our
national security. And today we say, enough.
Today we roll back the Republican-led Congress's giveaways to the oil
industry. We stop rewarding the oil companies with taxpayer dollars;
and, instead, we start to turn our attention to energy independence in
this country.
We will invest the revenues, $14 billion, to put this Nation on the
path to energy independence and environmental security. We will reduce
our energy consumption by encouraging the development and construction
of energy-efficient buildings and consumer appliances and motor
vehicles; and, most importantly, we will advance our energy
independence by using these revenues to research. We are going to use
this money to research and develop and bring to market the alternative
sources of energy for a safer, cleaner, cheaper and American-made
energy alternatives. We set this country in a new direction.
I wholeheartedly encourage a ``yes'' vote in doing that today on the
floor of Congress.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I need some clearance on this. In this trust
fund that is created, is clean coal or coal an option as a possibility
to use this trust fund?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. NUNES. Well, I am trying to get clarification on the language in
the bill, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. NUNES. Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe it is better addressed to the
majority party and the author of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman would better address what he
is raising in the debate on the bill.
{time} 1400
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, may I yield the gentleman
from California 30 seconds to do that?
Mr. NUNES. I would ask Mr. McDermott, or the majority party, could
you clarify if this trust fund can be used for clean coal technologies,
since the United States is known as the Saudi Arabia of coal?
Mr. McDERMOTT. The gentleman raises an interesting possibility, and
the legislative process will move forward. There will be bills put into
the Congress and this will be discussed.
What we are doing today is creating a fund from which proposals can
be funded.
Mr. NUNES. Reclaiming my time. I think the answer is----
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obey). The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Davis).
[[Page 1588]]
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon this
debate can sound a bit technical to people, so let me put it in very
plain English. We are saving $14 billion in United States taxpayer
dollars. That is an important change in values in this institution
because the last Congress, when they wanted to save money, here is how
they did it. They decided we will save $8 billion by going to young
adults in this country and saying, you know what, we are going to
change the rate of interest on your student loan and you have got to
pay more money every month. They decided at one point they will save $3
billion by saying to working class families who struggle to have health
care, you have to pay more premiums now to go to the doctor. That is
how they saved money in the old Congress.
A lot of issues at stake today, Mr. Speaker, but this is the most
important one. There is now a new set of values that runs this
institution. We no longer ask the least of us to sacrifice, because
guess where we are getting this $14 billion from? From companies who at
their best average around $15 billion a year in profit after their
liabilities. That is a much more equitable way to do it. That is, in
major measure, why this side of the aisle sits in the Speaker's chair
today and not our opposition.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield myself, Mr. Speaker, 15 seconds
simply to point out to the last gentleman that all they are really
doing here is moving forward in some leasing policies that are similar
to what Congress has passed before, or at least the House has passed
before. And beyond that, they are raising taxes, not saving money. That
is going to be felt by consumers across the spectrum
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished
member of the Pennsylvania delegation who has been a strong advocate
for new exploration in the United States, the gentleman, Mr. Peterson.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. To those that propose this bill, I want
to tell you I support a large fund for renewables. I am for all
renewables. But why did you choose to tax American-produced oil and gas
and not tax foreign oil and gas? When you tax our production, you will
have less of it, when you tax their production, you would have less
foreign. You have stacked the deck. It is already cheaper to produce
foreign energy than it is American energy. We have locked up so many of
our fields, and where in old tired fields the cost of producing has
increased, the incentive to go in deep water because it cost so much
companies wouldn't go there, and we couldn't even get there.
In 10 years since I have been here, we have increased foreign oil
from 46 percent to 66 percent. Why is foreign energy taking over?
Ninety percent of the land in this country available for oil production
is government land, and this Congress has been locking so much of it
up.
I totally agree with a large renewable energy fund, but instead of
increasing the cost of producing energy in America, open up new fields.
The Outer Continental Shelf is our greatest untouched area. We are the
only civilized country in the world that doesn't produce there.
Everybody produces there. It makes no sense for us not to be there. We
haven't even allowed seismic testing to find out what is there because
we might produce it.
Locking up supply by this Congress in the past, by Congress and by
those proposing this bill, is why four of the oil companies are making
huge profits. When energy usage is increasing more than renewables can
increase, you need more oil and gas. And when you need more oil and gas
and you lock it up, you give those who have purchased the rights to it
all over the world, their $30 oil becomes $60 oil becomes $70 oil, that
is where their huge profits are. It is the Congress of the United
States that has rewarded Big Oil with increased profits.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank the gentleman from Washington; I would like
to ask him a couple of questions.
It is my understanding that this legislation will save the American
people billions of dollars. Will those savings be put into a fund?
Mr. McDERMOTT. Yes. The bill before us directs some of the subsidies
we currently give to Big Oil into a new fund which is created by this
bill called the Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Can you explain what the goal of this fund will be?
Mr. McDERMOTT. The purpose is really this, to accelerate the use of
clean domestic renewable energy and to promote energy efficient
products and conservation; and furthermore, we want to spur research,
development and deployment of clean renewable energy.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I think that is great news for America
because it is going to change our energy priorities and bring a new
direction for this country. It is especially good for Golden, Colorado
and Colorado because we have the preeminent research facility in
America in the National Renewable Energy Lab.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to
reserve the balance of my time until the end of debate and after the
other committees have used their time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, could you tell us the amount of time that
we have left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 10\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 5\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, it was just about a year ago that the President of the
United States came before this Congress and told the country that
America is addicted to oil. He was right then and many of us were
pleased to hear him acknowledge that very real fact. However, even as
we all acknowledge the seriousness of the energy challenge we face as a
Nation, the President and the last Congress failed to actually do
something about it. We heard great words, but didn't see good deeds. In
fact, rather than invest adequately in renewable energy and energy
efficiency, we took the opposite approach. We gave greater breaks in
taxes to the oil and gas industry even as prices at the pump went up
and profits soared. That policy only served to feed the addiction to
oil, not break that addiction. It made us more dependent, not less
dependent on oil and gas and the volatile regions of the world that
control the greatest reserves.
This is a time to change direction, to set a new course on energy
policy, to say to the country: We're not just talking rhetoric. We mean
what we say.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I have been listening to this debate. It is, like all debates,
interesting. Yesterday we had a debate, a relatively extended debate,
in which Republican after Republican rose and said, This bill does not
do enough. In this instance, it does not bring us full energy
independence. That is obvious. But person after person got up and said,
We're not doing enough for students, we're not doing enough for college
aid, and then, lo and behold, the vote was taken and 356 people out of
435 voted for that bill, including 124 Republicans. We are not doing
enough in this bill, that is clear, but the journey of a thousand
miles, as has been observed, starts with a step.
Another individual got up, and then I will go to my remarks, and
talked about the Washington Post editorial. An interesting comment that
she made. I don't think she had perhaps read all of the editorial
because the editorial said this:
``The good part of the bill revokes tax breaks for oil and gas
production in the United States that should never have been granted.''
I believe in the free market system. What is the free market system?
If you have a demand for a product and you can get a good price for it,
you produce
[[Page 1589]]
it. That's supply and demand. In point of fact, the price of the
product has gone up and up and up. I do not criticize the oil companies
for wanting a tax break. We all want tax breaks. What I criticize is
the Congress of the United States for not making a judgment on behalf
of the American people. That is who I criticize. The actions taken in
the ETI bill were wrong.
Mr. Speaker, one of the lessons that most of us learn early on is to
study history so that we can avoid making the same mistakes of the
past. A generation ago, this Nation faced a series of crises born of an
overreliance on foreign oil. Prices spiked and supplies were rationed.
It took work, but Congress and the President acted to combat that
dependence and ushered in a wave of new technologies, conservation and
efficiency improvements that have saved untold billions of dollars and
barrels of oil and greatly enhanced the Nation's economic performance
and national security.
Unfortunately, in recent years, however, we seem to have forgotten
that time period. The economy grew, the price of oil waned and we
forgot the lessons of the past and abandoned the progress toward a more
fuel efficient existence. Mr. Speaker, crises at home and abroad have
changed that, changed it dramatically, and we find ourselves once again
increasingly reliant on foreign oil. And drilling for more oil and gas
alone is not the solution. Mr. Bartlett said that earlier today. Oil is
a wasting resource. What wasting means is it is going to go away. I
have a great-grandchild, unlike some of you who are much younger than I
am. She may not use oil. It may not be available for her.
Today, we will pass the last of the bills that we promised the
American people we would undertake at the beginning of this Congress.
This legislation is but a first down payment on the promise of a new
energy future for our country. This bill is not about punishing one
sector of industry, nor does this bill represent the totality or even a
substantial component of our energy policy, as evidenced by the Rural
Caucus's biofuels energy package, Speaker Pelosi's innovation agenda,
and the PROGRESS Act, which I, along with 129-plus Members of this body
in the last Congress, introduced. However, the CLEAN Act starts to move
our Nation in a new direction. It is about the focus of precious
taxpayer dollars and the future of our country.
The oil and gas industry is extraordinarily well-established and
well-off. I applaud it for being so. It does not need the American
taxpayers' help to be successful or to make a dollar. There is not an
American who goes to the gas pump that doesn't know that. Even
President Bush, a former executive of an oil company, agrees that the
industry does not need additional government subsidies when prices are
this high. But our future energy resources do need help to get started.
Renewable energy, alternative fuels, conservation and efficiency
programs are underutilized in our effort to wean our Nation off our
dependence on foreign oil.
The money saved by this bill will be spent on our energy future and
set aside to, among other things, accelerate the use of clean domestic
renewable energy resources and alternative fuels; promote the use of
energy efficiency practices and conservation; and increase research,
development and deployment of clean renewable energy and energy
efficiency technologies.
By acting now to take this small but significant step to move toward
making America energy independent, we have the opportunity, ladies and
gentlemen of this House, to leave future generations a lasting legacy
that makes our Nation and our world a better place. The legislation is
a good first start in that effort.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in response may I yield
myself 15 seconds, simply to point out to the majority leader that he
is terribly mistaken if he thinks he is repealing a special tax break.
In fact, oil and other energy production was treated the same way under
the tax bill that was passed as all other manufacturers, and this
differential treatment is one of the reasons why the National
Association of Manufacturers so strongly opposes this bill. This does
not fulfill any of their commitments on energy any more than the
underlying rule fulfills their commitment to an open process.
{time} 1415
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, my constituents, like yours, paid over $3 a
gallon for gas last year. Isn't that enough? Do they really need to be
paying a second time with their tax dollars?
Last year, Big Oil saw higher profits than any industry in the
history of the world, yet we are writing them welfare checks. The
United States is 65 percent dependent on foreign oil, worse than we
have ever been before, sending $800 million a day to the Middle East.
This situation creates conflicts of interest in crucial matters of
security and diplomacy whereby we, the United States of America, are
beholden to nations who do not represent our best interests. Still, we
are cutting a welfare check to Big Oil.
When we embrace the wave of the future and dedicate ourselves to
developing alternative, renewable, clean more-affordable energy
sources, America will create more than a quarter million new jobs,
generate $30 billion in new worker wages, and finally stop funding both
sides of the war on terror.
Despite all that, we are still using taxpayer dollars to hand a huge
welfare check to billionaire oil companies. The CLEAN Energy Act takes
the crucial first steps to ending this policy, and I urge my colleagues
to support it.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I had prepared remarks, but I am going to
set them aside and submit them for the Record, because as I was
listening to the debate, I couldn't believe my ears as speaker after
speaker on the other side of the aisle came up and attacked this
relatively simple piece of legislation, talking about how it doesn't go
far enough and it doesn't do this and it doesn't do that, when they
have had at least 6 years to actually do something about the energy
crisis in this country.
When they had the opportunity to do something, they came up with that
god-awful 2005 energy bill, where 93 percent of the tax subsidies went
to oil, gas and nuclear, and only 7 percent went to alternative energy
sources, so that we could develop these alternative energy sources,
harness the Sun, wind, Moon, not the Moon, although maybe if we had
enough money, we could try that too, geothermal, all of these possible
alternative energy sources. And what did they do? Seven measly percent
of the tax subsidies went to that.
I would suggest that we have a golden opportunity to do something,
and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a
good first step.
Mr. Speaker, in 2005, Congress passed energy legislation intended to
promote secure, affordable and reliable energy. This was an important
goal, because many of us realized that to keep our Nation safe, we must
break our dependence on foreign oil.
Unfortunately, instead of focusing on the promotion of clean,
renewable energy sources, the 2005 energy bill gave substantial
subsidies to the oil and gas industry. I voted against this bill
because it made no sense to give incentives to an industry that was
enjoying record profits.
Today, oil and gas companies continue to rake in high profits while
Congress fails to offer substantial incentives to alternative energy
investors. In the absence of effective federal policy to promote
investment in renewables, many states have passed their own incentives.
In my home state of Nevada, the legislature has required that by
2015, 20 percent of power sold to Nevadans come from renewables.
Nevadans are already seeing results from this mandate--last June,
construction began in Las Vegas on the largest solar power installation
in the country built by a public agency, and five other solar projects
are planned for southern Nevada.
I am supporting H.R. 6 today because it is a great first step toward
securing energy independence. In the last Congress, I introduced a bill
to promote renewable energy production,
[[Page 1590]]
and I reintroduce this bill in the 110th Congress. We are far from
being energy independent, but today's bill is a good place to start,
and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Meek).
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we listen
to the debate that is taking place here on this floor. Some of it is
true; some of it is fiction. I think it is very important to understand
that $14 billion is going to go into a place that is going to help us
to be able to have the kind of energy we need in the future, to be able
to invest in the Midwest versus the Middle East.
But I was just on the floor last night talking about something that
the American people want even more than what we are doing here in this
debate here on the floor, because a lot things are being said here, but
they want bipartisanship, and they have had it over the last 2 weeks.
And I think the Republican leadership is a little afraid of the fact
that their Members are voting on behalf of the American people. So they
want to stand in front of the door of the House and say how bad it is.
But when the board lights up here, Members have a choice: do they
want to vote on behalf of their constituents and making sure that we
have the kind of future here in the United States, or do they want to
vote on behalf of the special interests and the status quo for breaks
to big oil companies that they didn't even ask for.
I think we are moving in the right direction with this legislation.
This is just the beginning of us working together in a bipartisan way,
and I look forward to moving in that spirit, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Each side has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until
the end of the debate.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, I
reserve the balance of my time until the end of debate and after other
committees have used their time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West
Virginia.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as we know, the House is considering a part of the 100-
hours agenda, H.R. 6, the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for
the Nation Act.
This legislation seeks to end the unwarranted tax breaks and
subsidies which have been lavished on Big Oil over the last several
years, and done so at a time of record prices at the gas pump and
record oil industry profits.
Big Oil is hitting the American taxpayer not once, not twice, but
three times. They are hitting them at the pump, they are hitting them
at the Treasury through the Tax Code, and they are hitting them with
royalty holidays put into oil in 1995 and again in 2005.
Meanwhile, our people back home stand in their work boots pumping
precious, costly gas into their tanks, while energy lobbyists have
scuttled about in Armani suits wanting more.
Indeed, over the last few years we have suffered an unprecedented
assault on America's resources and on American taxpayer pockets under
the guise of contributing to our energy security. It almost seems like
Albert Fall's ghost walks the halls of the Interior Department.
Now, as you remember, Fall was the Secretary of the Interior who
embroiled the administration of Warren Harding in the infamous Teapot
Dome scandal. Without competitive bidding, Fall leased the Federal oil
reserves at Teapot Dome and the Naval oil reserves at Elk Hills in
exchange for $404,000 in gifts from the oilmen. In those days, that was
a hefty sum of money, but a princely sum back in 1992.
Today, we have a situation at the Interior Department where the OCS
oil and gas leasing program is hemorrhaging money as a result of
unwarranted royalty relief, royalty underpayments, inadequate audits
and potential fraud. The GAO and the Interior Department's Inspector
General, Earl Devaney, in particular, have issued scathing reports on
these matters.
Last year, in testimony before the House Government Reform Committee
hearing on the bureaucratic bungling of oil and gas leases, Devaney
went so far as to say: ``Simply stated, short of a crime, anything goes
at the highest level of the Department of the Interior.''
This is no small matter. These are public resources. The names of
every American are on the deeds to these public lands and waters where
these drillings for oil and natural gas take place. Royalties from this
production contribute a significant amount to the Treasury, nearly $8
billion in the last fiscal year, and it would be more if it were not
for all the mismanagement at the Department of the Interior.
The pending legislation represents the beginning of the exorcism of
Albert's Fall's ghost from the Interior Department by dealing with one
egregious aspect of the OCS leasing program. I can assure my colleagues
that the Natural Resources Committee will follow up with aggressive
hearings into other areas of this program in the near future.
The situation that we seek to address in the pending bill, of course,
harkens back to the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995, which
Congress passed over the objections of many on this side of the aisle.
That act sought to encourage oil companies to drill in the Gulf of
Mexico by allowing them to avoid paying royalties on oil and gas
production of publicly owned resources.
As many of us warned at the time, this was nothing but an unwarranted
giveaway of public resources, paying the companies to do what they
would do anyway, drill for oil. To make matters worse, the Interior
Department botched the administration of the law. They failed to
include provisions in leases issued between 1998 and 1999 to cut off
royalty relief when market prices are high. In other words, these
leases did not contain any threshold, any threshold, for when royalty
relief would kick in. According to GAO, the failure to include price
cutoffs for royalty relief in the 1998-99 gulf leases could cost the
Treasury up to $10 billion. H.R. 6 would fix these abuses.
The bill would establish thresholds in the 1998-1999 leases for
royalty relief. The holders of these royalty-free leases would be
required to either agree to negotiate with the Interior Department to
pay royalties when market prices reach those thresholds, or pay a new
conservation resource fee established in the bill. In addition, H.R. 6
would impose an annual per-acre fee on nonproducing OCS oil and gas
leases. According to CBO, these provisions would raise $6.3 billion
over 10 years, money that could be used to finance renewable and
alternative energy initiatives.
There are two items that I would like to emphasize with respect to
these provisions. First, this legislation is not violating any
contractual arrangements. The leases in question were issued with a
clause that allows the Federal Government to impose new requirements on
them in the future, such as the conservation resource fee being
proposed in this bill.
Second, the House is already on record as supporting provisions of
this nature. Provisions of this legislation as they relate to the OCS
leases have been addressed by amendments offered in the past by Maurice
Hinchey, Ed Markey, Ron Kind, and Raul Grijalva over the years.
Further, the Jindal-Pombo OCS leasing bill that passed the House last
year also included the imposition of a fee on the 1998 and 1999
royalty-free leases. So I would point out that none of the oil
companies complained about their contracts being violated at that time.
Finally, H.R. 6 would repeal the extension of the original 1995
royalty relief provision that was contained in the Energy Policy Act of
2005 and also reform several other royalty relief and special benefit
provisions in that law. Amendments offered in the past by Ron Kind and
Raul Grijalva over the last two Congresses to various of our energy
legislation attempted to strike these provisions.
[[Page 1591]]
So now, as I conclude, Mr. Speaker, it is time to stand up and be
counted: to vote for the integrity of America's resources, to vote for
the end of corporate welfare, to vote for a new dawn, a new era, in the
management of our public energy resources. And that is to vote for H.R.
6.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will join with the distinguished chairman in bringing
actions to terminate employees who are incompetent in the Interior
Department and bring legal malpractice actions against those firms
negotiating for the U.S. Government and creating the problems.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking
member of the Resources Committee, the distinguished and honorable
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the
committee.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to my dear colleagues, just about 100 hours
ago you stood in this House and raised your hand and you followed this
quote with an ``I do'': ``Do you solemnly swear you will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic.''
This bill, and I am wearing this red shirt today, is the color of the
bill that we are debating, communist red. It is a taking. And
regardless of what one says, it will go to court, and it should be
decided in court. It should be decided there.
My biggest concern, it is often said the road to hell is paved with
good intentions, and this is a great example. The good intentions of
this bill are a pursuit of new forms of energy to replace our
dependency. We all support that.
But even The Washington Post, which is not my favorite newspaper,
says this is a low-wattage bill and it fits the realm of Russia and
Putin, and it fits Bolivia and Venezuela. And if there is anything this
bill will do, in fact it will increase the competitive edge of foreign
oil imported to this country. That is what this bill does.
{time} 1430
I ask my colleagues, if the problem is foreign oil, and it is, why
increase taxes and make it harder to produce American oil and gas? That
makes no sense to me.
I had a motion to recommit and I cannot offer it, but I wanted to
take and strike everything after the enacting clause and insert taxes
on all foreign oil imported. That would raise your money for renewable
resources.
But what we are doing here today is taxing our domestic oil. We are
raising dollars supposedly for renewable resources, yet we are still
burning fossil fuels.
This is really a San Francisco energy policy, and America is not San
Francisco.
My State gets 85 percent of its budget from oil production. I am
proud of it and I hope we get more. The pipeline we want to build for
gas to deliver the oil to the lower 48 will cost $20 billion, and this,
by increasing taxes and taking away the incentives, which this bill
does, raises the question of whether we can finance this pipeline,
which we all need.
We talk about Joe Blow and all the rest of these people in the
smaller income brackets and get the big old oil companies. The reality
is if this bill was to become law gas would go to $5 a gallon.
Everybody talks about Big Oil and how much profit they made. These
international companies are making that profit overseas shipping the
oil to the United States.
If you want to do this right, then let us tax the foreign oil. Let us
not tax the American oil. Let us not hurt our little companies, which
this bill does. Let us not discourage what I call the frontier areas.
Let us help American oil to deliver oil to the American people and quit
paying the money to the foreign oil companies, and that is what you are
doing.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Alaska, I
welcome him as the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee. I
am sure it will be a good year ahead. I look forward to working with
him.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a member of the Natural Resources
Committee, a gentleman to which I have already referred in my opening
remarks and a leader on this issue.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, in 2005, during the debate on the energy
bill, I asked my colleagues to strike down provisions that amounted to
more corporate welfare for oil companies. At that time the Republican
majority voted down that amendment.
Now, as news reports continue to mount regarding the billions of
dollars in profit oil and gas companies are reaping we have to look
seriously at that policy. Why should the American taxpayer continue to
shell out subsidies to oil companies when clearly they need no
incentives to drill?
Moreover, why are we still allowing them to drill in our public lands
and waters for free because of some mistakes made in the 1990s during
the leasing process?
Had the President and his appointees acted when this was discovered,
it would have saved taxpayers upwards of $1 billion that has already
been lost. Instead, they have deliberately ignored and covered up this
problem.
We must send a message that the American taxpayer will no longer be
ripped off by Big Oil.
But ending this fiscally ridiculous practice of subsidies for
megarich oil companies is not enough. We also need to make a clean
break from the past and take a bold step into the 21st century.
Global warming is upon us. We need clean renewable fuel, and we need
it now. It will be a tough transition but we have to start right now.
We are ready for this challenge. We have the know-how and a highly
skilled workforce, and we will create millions of new jobs in the
process.
In the strongest way possible, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''
on H.R. 6, a hometown American energy bill that helps and protects the
American taxpayer.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6,
legislation that puts America's independent energy producers at risk
and increases America's dependence on foreign oil.
This bill unfairly punishes offshore oil and natural gas companies
who signed leases with the Federal Government in 1998 and 1999. These
leases, due to a mistake by the Clinton administration, did not set
price thresholds for royalty incentives. The bill requires all
companies to renegotiate these leases, even though they were fairly
signed in the first place.
The companies who entered into these agreements cannot be blamed for
the Federal Government's mistakes. The contracts signed by the Federal
Government and energy producers are legal and binding, regardless of
the mistakes of the Federal Government in drafting them. In addition, a
fair version of this provision was included in the Republican Outer
Continental Shelf drilling bill that was adopted last year.
We talk about this and I think this is a national security issue.
Right now we should be encouraging domestic production here in the
United States of America, and we are not.
We get 60 percent of our oil from foreign sources, and a lot of that
oil that we are getting is from areas that we are at conflict with or
we have carpet bombed recently. I think it is asinine we are not doing
all we can to spur domestic production here in the United States and
not penalizing companies for doing such. It is absolutely ridiculous.
Not only are gas prices low right now, in Tulsa where I am from it is
below $2 a gallon when I left this past week, but also crude oil prices
are as low as they were in 2005. They are going down.
All this legislation will do is increase gasoline prices at the pump
to upwards
[[Page 1592]]
of $5 a barrel. What we need to be working on is a comprehensive energy
policy in this country that will actually get prices down by not only
spurring domestic production but also working on getting more refining
capacity in this country.
We are operating at 100 percent capacity right now. We need to be
expanding, building five or so additional refineries in this country.
And we can do it in an environmentally sound way.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, well, who would have ever thought that the
Republicans would be defending welfare queens on the floor of the House
of Representatives, but they are.
Lee Raymond, just-retired CEO, ExxonMobil, $400 million, part of it
in tax subsidies, part of it in royalty forgiveness, and part of it
gouging consumers at the pump. But they are standing up here today to
defend poor little ole Lee Raymond with his $400 million pension and
ExxonMobil, his company, that only made $29.2 billion last year, the
largest corporate profit in the history of the world.
They need those subsidies or they will not go out and explore for
oil, the Republicans will tell us. Here they are defending welfare
queens, subsidies to the most profitable industry in the world. It is
sad to see the Republicans come to this.
Now, they laughably say this will lead to higher prices. Oh, higher
prices, unlike the price gouging after Katrina where gasoline went over
three bucks a gallon in Oregon and we do not even get any supply from
the eastern United States? Or the price gouging that goes on day in,
day out? The price fixing that goes on day in, day out in this
industry? The collusion between the American companies, the foreign
companies operating in America, and the OPEC cartel to drive down the
supply, to drive up the price, which gives them an excuse to go even
higher at the pump?
What about a trade complaint to the WTO? No, the Republican
administration does not support that, but George Bush does support two
provisions of this bill, saying those are tax breaks that are not
necessary to the oil industry. The oil man in the White House says the
oil industry does not need this, and the Republicans are down here
fighting hard to preserve it, to drain money from the taxpayer, to not
take royalties. Unlike any other owner of public resources, the United
States would be the only one not to take royalty.
Now, they talked about communism. That would be communism if we did
not get a fair return for our taxpayers, if we did not get a fair
return for depleting our resources.
Pass this bill and begin to turn back the inordinate influence of Big
Oil on this government.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring a couple of points up on this in
response to the gentleman who was just making the points.
First of all, we talk about the $440 million that the head of Exxon
makes. If we divide out the numbers of millions and billions of dollars
that Exxon pays out to shareholders and compare it to Tiger Woods, for
instance, Tiger Woods made $25,181 a stroke. Shaquille O'Neal made
$18,300 per minute that he played. A-Rod made $180,000 per run batted
in.
And the people who provide gasoline and oil at the price, $3 for
gasoline, you will pay more than $3 for this fingernail polish that
comes out to $25,000 per bottle. This bottled water is over $400 per
barrel, and it does not require an investment in an operation like
this. These offshore platforms are over $1 billion investment, and you
are saying that oil is overpriced and we are gouging the American
consumers. Next, you should go after bottled water and after fingernail
polish because this is $25,000 per barrel.
We need to understand that it takes a lot of investment to put gas in
the pumps. It cannot be done. I have heard today that we are going to
provide wave energy. Wave energy on our F-16s, I can just imagine it
now. The investments to power this Nation are extraordinarily high, and
we are not overcompensating the companies that do that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a gentleman with whom we have worked with on
this legislation in good faith and appreciate his leadership and input.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our
Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. Speaker, most Americans believe that dependence on foreign oil is
a problem and alternative energy sources deserve our support,
particularly after 9/11. The recent election season saw such high
consumer gas prices and high anxiety about energy security.
But let us look at another industry. Very cold weather in southern
California is causing loss of fruits and vegetables, and ranchers in
the Midwest are losing cattle because of the cold weather. The farmers
and ranchers who still have crops and livestock stand to make a lot of
money from the price spikes that we are seeing literally as we stand
here on the floor today.
Are we blaming those farmers and ranchers for the high prices? Are we
going to cut farm benefits and raise taxes on the farmers? No.
But for some reason when we have cold winters and hot summers and
hurricanes in the gulf that raise gas prices, we all get mad at energy
suppliers. It is the easy way out to get mad at the industry, since
most of our country just uses energy and does not produce it.
We have a budget deficit, and funds for new alternative energy
programs are in short supply. So industry is being targeted for this
purpose.
I understand why my colleagues are choosing to do this, but this plan
carries a significant risk of being counterproductive, especially in
the near future.
H.R. 6 exempts the oil and gas industry from a recent manufacturing
tax benefit, cuts geological expense to major energy producers and
requires new payments on 1998-1999 offshore leases to make up for
serious government errors in the original contracts.
These provisions raise $14 billion over 10 years for clean
alternative energy programs that Congress will establish through
regular order. That is why I support this bill. That $14 billion will
be used for alternatives through the regular order of this Congress,
through our committee process.
These tax provisions reduce incentives for domestic production and
could increase dependence on foreign oil and LNG which hurt national
security.
With current high oil prices, we may not miss these incentives as
much if prices were low, but the effects could be very real in the long
term.
However, the 100 hours energy bill is a compromise within the
Democratic Caucus to promote alternative energy. For the first time in
my years in Congress, the Democratic leadership included the Members
from energy producing States in the process.
The section 199 tax provision is most unfair because it singles out
oil and gas as ineligible, as compared to other manufacturing
operations.
The main royalty provision is based on the Jindal-Pombo bill that
House Republicans overwhelmingly supported a few months ago in June.
I am also very concerned about the effects of the provision on
contract certainty in U.S. oil and gas leasing, but for better or
worse, there is a consensus among both parties to address this 1998-
1999 lease issue.
While this bill is a far cry from my preferred energy policies, the
Democratic leadership has been narrow and targeted.
After extensive discussions between our office and other Members'
offices from oil and gas producing States, this bill does not include
more punitive measures that seek to alter long-standing oil and gas tax
or accounting treatment that could destabilize our Nation's gasoline
supply even more.
We do not repeal the refinery tax provision or the deductions for
intangible drilling costs. We also do not eliminate LIFO accounting,
impose a windfall
[[Page 1593]]
profits tax, or repeal of natural gas distribution line depreciation.
Mr. Speaker, as a result and the good faith we have had in this 100
hours agenda, I am voting for the bill.
Before I close, I have two messages. First, you cannot hit an
industry for $14 billion and go back time and time again.
And my second message is to the oil and gas industry. With the recent
November elections, this bill should be a wake-up call to explain
energy issues to Democratic Members who may have been ignored in recent
years.
We also do not eliminate LIFO accounting, impose a windfall profits
tax, or repeal of natural gas distribution line depreciation.
As a result, and as a show of good faith during this critical 100
hours period for our new majority, I am voting for this bill.
Before I close I have two messages, and the first is for the
Democratic Caucus--when you hit one industry for $14 billion, you
cannot go back for more later and expect enough gasoline in your cars
and fuel to heat and cool our homes.
My second message for the oil and gas industry--the recent November
election and this bill should be a wake-up call to explain energy
issues to Democratic members that they may have ignored in recent
years. We are going to need those members to prevent additional
legislation of this type.
{time} 1445
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Nunes).
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, it is evident in the Democrats' energy bill,
to gain and achieve energy independence they are not using any coal in
this country. And I hope that the majority party from the Resources
Committee can answer at some point during this debate why clean coal
and coal-to-liquid technology is not included as a possibility to
achieve energy independence. That question needs to be answered before
the American people on the House floor before this debate ends.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, if I understood the gentleman's question, he
is asking why we are not using more clean coal.
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RAHALL. Yes, to get a clarification of your question to me.
Mr. NUNES. The trust fund that you guys are creating in this bill
prohibits clean coal and coal-to-liquid technology.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. The gentleman is
inaccurate. The fund created would allow for the development of
renewable and alternative fuels. And as far as the lack of clean coal
technology in the past, it is because Congress in the past energy bills
has never gotten serious about clean coal technology. Lip service, yes.
Authorizations to go fish, yes. But hard-core appropriation dollars for
clean coal technology, no. Thanks to my senior colleague in the other
body, yes, we did that, but not through any actions of energy policy
acts of this Congress in the past.
And, besides, how can we get anything from coal when we are so
addicted to the oil diet? Because we give tax incentives and royalty
holidays and other grants to the oil industry without any mention of
coal in these pieces of legislation.
I would say to the gentleman from California we have joined in the
past in cosponsoring legislation that would help coal liquefication.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. SHIMKUS. And I appreciate it. I know the gentleman is a big
supporter of coal. And we did bring to the Rules Committee an amendment
that would amend the language in this bill to allow some of this money
to go to contract with the Department of Defense so they can move on
coal-to-liquid provisions.
You know there are really three avenues to expand coal-to-liquid
technology: one is forward contracting for the Department of Defense;
one is a tax provision; and the other one is a collar provision that we
are working on. And if we could have gotten some provision in this
bill, because there is going to be money available to move directly, we
have got to get that first coal-to-liquid plant built, then the others
will come. And I think that is what our disappointment is.
Mr. RAHALL. I understand the point that the gentleman from California
raises, and it is not one with which I disagree. If I might say, in due
process, in due time that will be considered by this Congress. I have
no question about it. This bill is not a comprehensive energy bill.
Nobody is out here touting it as such. That is to be addressed later.
This is part of our 6 for '06 agenda; it is to get us started in the
right direction, and my agenda on the Natural Resources Committee will
go much further than this, not only hearings on our bills and
legislation, but extensive oversight over the entire oil and gas
leasing program both offshore and onshore.
Mr. SHIMKUS. And if the gentleman would yield, I know you are a big
backer of coal, and I do look forward to working with you. This is our
window of opportunity to really exploit coal-to-liquid activities, and
we are disappointed now. We hope that we can recover later on in this
debate.
Mr. RAHALL. I say to the gentleman, please be patient. We didn't get
in this mix in 100 hours; we are not going to get out of it in 100
hours.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, today we really do begin America's clean
revolution in this bill. Every revolution has a beginning. The American
Revolution began at Concord; the aerospace revolution began at
Kittyhawk; and America's clean energy revolution begins today with this
bill. And years from now when we have licked global warming and we have
achieved energy independence, we will look back to this day as the
first step on the road to clean energy for America.
Today we are going to break the shackles of oil and gas. We are going
to free Americans to invent, to innovate, to create the clean
technologies we need in energy. This is only common sense.
We pay once at the pump for gasoline already. We shouldn't have to
pay again on tax day on April 15 to line the pockets of the oil and gas
industry. It is common sense.
Our national resources should be going to the innovators who will
lead us in energy in the 21st century, rather than to those who have
kept us in serfdom to the oil industry, an industry of the 19th
century. Change is afoot starting today.
Now we are going to unleash the talents of the Nanosolar Company in
California. It is perfecting thin cell solar cells. We are going to
empower the Ocean Power Technology Company that is perfecting wave
energy, enough wave energy off the California coast to light the entire
State. We will get loan guarantees to the Iogen Corporation, which is
going to build the first cellulosic ethanol plant in the Western World
in Idaho starting today.
Today we recognize that the solution to our energy challenges is not
below our feet in the ground. It is above our shoulders in our brains,
and we are going to unleash the intellectual talents of America to see
that that happens.
I will be introducing again the New Apollo Energy Project bill, which
will marshal our Nation's talents, just as John Kennedy marshaled our
national resources in the original Apollo Project. Today is the first
step of the new Apollo Energy Project. Tomorrow I will introduce the
Plug-In Hybrid Bill, a bill that will hasten the day when our cars are
powered on clean energy, clean electricity, and clean biofuels so we
can get our energy from Midwestern farmers rather than Middle Eastern
sheiks.
These are just two of the many steps on this long road of the clean
energy revolution; and there is no silver bullet to our energy
challenges, but there is a silver lining, and that is the genius of the
American people. Today we are freeing the genius of the American
people. It is long overdue.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes on this new energy policy
for the Nation that some are calling the
[[Page 1594]]
Hugo Chavez Competitive Rewards Advantage Program to Mr. Shimkus from
Illinois.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, again, I enjoyed my comments with my
colleague, but I know my colleague from Washington State who just left
would not mention coal. My folks from the west coast will not mention
the benefits of coal, and we have a lot of work to do. We are going to
continue to move it forward, and this was our opportunity to be
helpful.
I want to talk about section 199. And I know my colleagues on the
other side like to talk about the Big Oil guys, but let's talk about
the Little Oil guys, the ones in southern Illinois. In southern
Illinois, we produce about 30,000 barrels of crude oil per day
amounting to $574 million minus about one-eighth of that to royalty
owners. These are small mom and pop operations of marginal wells, you
know, those wells that you have to put energy in to get the crude oil
out.
Section 199 has three primary purposes: exploration, that is a good
thing. Production, that is a good thing. Refining, that is a good
thing. Three good things to help address our reliance on imported crude
oil from overseas.
Illinois crude oil, being delivered from Illinois soil up to the
surface area so that it can meet our fuel needs, the attack on section
199 in this bill to a small mom and pop oil producer in southern
Illinois in 2008 will be a $200,000 tax increase. In 2009, it will be a
$300,000 tax increase on this small marginal oil producer. This is
money that she, a woman-owned business operation, cannot use to expand,
employ, provide health care benefits to. This is all money that is
going to come out of the bottom line in her ability to expand and find
new oil reserves and resources in southern Illinois, and that is why I
am going to vote against this bill.
Mr. Speaker, if you want to decrease our reliance on foreign energy--
exploiting our coal reserves is one way. I offered and amendment
through the rules committee that would move some of the revenue from
this tax increase to allow DOD to forward contract and purchase CTL
fuels.
But this bill will make it more difficult to recover what oil we have
left in Southern Illinois.
In Southern Illinois--we produce around 30,000 barrels of crude per
day amounting to $574 million minus about \1/8\ of that to royalty
owners. These are all small mom and pop operations and marginal wells.
The smaller oil and gas producers in my district rely on Section 199
deduction as it lowers the effective tax rate on manufacturing income
that comes from exploration, production and refining.
One small producer in my district, for example, estimates that
depending on the timing the Democratic repeal would go into effect,
they would lose $200,000 in 2008 and around $300,000 in 2009. Now this
is $500,000 that a small oil and gas producer in rural Southern
Illinois cannot use to improve the efficiency of their business, buy
new equipment, hire new employees or even use to pay health insurance
cost of their current employees.
Regular order would have allowed a committee to hear some of these
concerns so that adjustments could have been made to eliminate the
unintended consequences of this bill--or maybe they aren't unintended.
Amortization of Geological and Geophysical (G&G) expenses, another
provision that they are trying to repeal today--was passed in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, because it allows producers to affordably
use a technology to examine, without drilling, the best spot to drill
for oil or gas--this is also an environmentally friendly practice--
without it they would have to revert to drilling all over an area to
find an optimal drilling point.
The cost of this Geophysical exploration is around 20 to 30 thousand
dollars per square mile of exploration--so simple math shows you that
this is a significant investment that is being made by the industry,
taking that away will lower production and efficiency, making the U.S.
less competitive in the world market.
We need to develop policies that make it easier to produce affordable
domestic energy.
And, again, we did that in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that is why
expansion is starting to happen today. Expansion with petroleum
refineries, with ethanol refineries, with clean coal generation,
nuclear generation, expansion of the areas where we can explore for new
energy sources.
Here are some numbers: Over 500 million of new ethanol production and
nearly 30 new plants; 500 million gallons of new annual ethanol
production online; 25 new nuclear reactors planned; 2,000 megawatts of
new wind power online; 120 new coal-based facilities in various stages
of planning; and 2 million barrels of oil daily that can be replaced by
clean, synthetic fuel from coal by 2025.
Raising taxes in this bill will in fact do more harm to the little
guys--the guys that are spread across the U.S. diversifying where our
domestic petroleum and gas come from. And will not help us reduce our
dependence on foreign sources of gas and oil.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from Illinois,
some of the issues which he just addressed are properly addressed in
the Ways and Means Committee or the Ways and Means section of this
bill.
I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Regarding clean coal, we believe clean coal could be part
of our energy future, and we need to do research in it to find a way to
sequester carbon dioxide so that resource can be used. But in doing so,
we can only do it if we have some limitation on carbon dioxide. The
FutureGen project will never be built unless we have a limit on carbon
dioxide. That is the only way it is going to be built. Democrats stand
for research on that. It is part of this bill, it is part of clean
energy.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of our Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. HOLT. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, this week I received an e-mail message from a
constituent of mine in Lawrenceville, New Jersey. She said: ``Please
help turn the tide by doing not a little but a lot to help solar, wind,
hydrogen become the mainstream energy sources and turn oil into the
alternative.''
She is right. This legislation which will end the subsidies,
renegotiate the leases, and use the revenues to develop sustainable
energy technologies is a very good start.
There are any number of things. Take wind energy. The United States
does not lead the world in total production of wind energy. We fall
behind Spain, Germany, Denmark. It is because these governments have
made commitments that we have not. We have lost some technological
leads that we have had, and we won't lessen our addiction to foreign
oil in the United States without making investment in these sustainable
energy sources. Wind is just one example. Generating power from the
oceans is another. This bill is not enough, but it is a good start.
I rise today in support of H.R. 6, the Creating Long-term Energy
Alternatives for the Nation Act or the CLEAN Energy Act. This is an
important step for our nation in reducing our dependence on foreign oil
and I commend Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Rahall, and Chairman Rangel for
including this legislation in the first 100 hours of legislative
business in the 110th Congress.
We have already heard from our colleagues today about the three major
tenets of this bill--ending subsidies for large oil companies,
renegotiating leases for oil companies that have avoided paying
royalties on leases they signed in 1998 and 1999, and creating the
Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve. I would like to
take some time to speak about the importance of the Strategic Energy
Efficiency and Renewables Reserve.
The new sustainable energy reserve created in this legislation will
be funded by repealing the tax breaks that have been provided to the
large oil companies, who consistently reap excessive profits at the
expense of the American consumer. There is a lot that is funding can be
used for. It is my hope that we focus our attention on research and
development of sustainable energy sources and invest in the
technologies needed to wean ourselves from fossil fuels.
One example of a real investment is the wind industry. It was once
the case that the wind industry was based-only in California.
Production across the country has increased, and I commend the industry
for the progress they have made. There is, of course, still more we can
do. The United States does not lead the world in total production of
wind energy--we fall behind Spain and Germany. These countries have a
greater commitment to wind energy than we. And Denmark has made a
turnaround in the past thirty years, moving away from relying solely on
oil to relying a great deal on wind power for their electricity. This
is because the government in Denmark made a real commitment to
investing in this
[[Page 1595]]
technology. The United States can and should be the leader on wind
energy. With the proper investment from the government, it will be.
According to the American Wind Energy Association, 46 of our states
have the potential to produce significant wind energy. We must harness
this potential across our country and make a real commitment to wind
power. We can start by including a long term extension of the
production tax credit. We can also adopt a renewable portfolio
standard, which over twenty states have already done on their own.
We will not lessen our addiction on foreign oil in the United States
without making the investment in alternative energy sources now. Wind
energy is not the only solution to our energy needs. Neither is
generating power from the ocean. But investing in research and
development in a variety of different sustainable energy sources will
lead us on our path to energy independence. But having a dedicated
renewable energy reserve to fund this research and development is an
important step.
Many of my constituents have written to me over the past few years
passionately urging us in Congress to reverse our energy policy. Just
last Friday, I received an email from a constituent of mine in
Lawrenceville, New Jersey. She said ``Please help turn the tide by
doing not a little, but a lot, to help solar, wind, and hydrogen
[power] become the mainstream energy source[s]--and turn oil into the
``alternative''.'' She is right. We must do something drastic to change
our energy policy and put our country back on a rational energy path.
Making advancements in sustainable energy sources is a major component
of where our energy policy should be.
Of course, this bill is not enough. But it is a start, and a very
good start. Once we pass this bill, we will be able to consider other
alternative energy legislation and I am confident that we will. I urge
my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask again:
Why did we start the new energy independence with taxing domestic
production but not taxing foreign oil? We are going to lead us in the
wrong direction.
In your anger against Big Oil, I understand that, but you are
penalizing everybody. Eighty-two percent of natural gas is produced by
independents; 68 percent of oil is produced by independents; 50 percent
of refined products is from independents. My little refinery in Warren,
Pennsylvania, will get taxed harder because of your new bill. And I
have watched them struggle to fund clean diesel; I watched them
struggle to fund clean gasoline units, very expensive.
The use of foreign oil under your bill will continue at the same rate
of increase, and I predict in 5 years will be 76 percent dependent. I
am for all your renewables, I want to fund them all. But if we produce
the energy, took the royalties from the new energy that keeps us alive
in this country, we could fund them adequately. If we don't open new
fields, we will not have a fertilizer industry, a petrochemical
industry, a polymers and plastics industry, and we will make bricks and
glass in South America.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time we have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has 8
minutes remaining; the gentleman from New Mexico has 18 minutes
remaining.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
{time} 1500
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I would like to make three quick points. Sadly, this bill will
increase our dependency on foreign oil, exactly the wrong public
policy. It taxes the production of domestic oil and, therefore,
encourages us to buy more foreign oil. The wrong policy.
Second, this bill will increase the cost of gasoline and fuel oil for
every American. Make no mistake about it, when you increase the tax,
the producers will pass that tax on and our prices are going up.
But I want to make a broader, more important point, and that is to
discuss for the American people and for the record how this bill and
the preceding five bills were brought to the floor. That procedure is a
raw exercise of power, and I would like to ask my Democratic colleagues
why they are afraid to allow discussion and dissent.
This bill came to the floor allowing Republicans no amendments. Zero.
This bill didn't go through committee. It couldn't be amended in
committee and it can't be amended on the floor.
Some people say this is a response to the Contract With America. I
would like to make the point that in the Contract With America, we were
allowed to set our agenda. You are entitled to set your agenda here.
But in the Contract With America, for those bills we allowed Democrats
to offer 154 floor amendments. To our Contract With America in 1995,
you got to offer 154 amendments. We get to offer zero.
In our Contract With America, in allowing you to offer 154 amendments
in addition to the amendments in committee, 48 of the Democrat
amendments to the Republican Contract With America were adopted and
became a part of the bill. Zero Republican amendments will be adopted
because you allow none.
I do not understand and I do not believe that beginning this debate
by not allowing the minority to express itself shows any pride. Let the
minority speak. What are you afraid of?
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I recognize one of our new Members, Mr.
Lamborn from Colorado, for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 would be bad enough if it only
increased taxes by $6.5 billion. H.R. 6 would be bad enough if it only
drove up the price of domestic energy, hurting working families and
empowering Hugo Chavez and OPEC.
But there is a flaw in this bill that goes even deeper and touches on
our oath to uphold the United States Constitution. This bill has a
takings with no compensation in it which should not be allowed under
the United States Constitution.
I thought we had all learned in the aftermath of the Kelo decision
that the American people are offended when the government grabs
property without just compensation. Yet this bill does exactly that.
This bill forces owners of certain oil and gas leases to renegotiate
those leases and forces them to forgo all economic benefits from those
leases until they do so. This is a clear violation of the fifth
amendment.
Under my oath of office, I cannot support H.R. 6. I urge all Members
to oppose it for this reason alone, apart from all of the other bad
policy that it contains.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize my friend from
Texas, Mr. Conaway, for 1 minute.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The word ``integrity'' in this bill has been used several times
today. It is offensive in the extreme just because of what my colleague
just mentioned. The lead-in sentence to section 202, which is the
beginning of this wreck where we take money, confiscate money from
otherwise good hardworking individuals for government purposes, says,
``The Secretary of Interior shall agree to a request by any lessee,''
and I can assure you that no lessee that has negotiated in good faith
leases is going to request without some sort of a gun held to their
head, and that gun is this bill.
Tax rates go up and tax rates go down. Everybody understands that.
Every businessman understands that. What these businessmen don't
understand is this Congress's attack on the sanctity of contracts.
These leases were signed in 1998 and 1999. If mistakes were made by the
Federal Government, fine, go find those lawyers and bring them up on
malpractice suits. But those leases were signed.
This bill has delay rentals which were not in the original
negotiation. This bill takes money away from those folks.
The bottom line for this increase in taxes and these takings is that
there will be less money reinvested in oil and gas domestic production.
Every reduction in domestic production leads to a
[[Page 1596]]
demand for foreign crude oil and foreign natural gas. I recommend a
``no'' vote on this bill.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have heard complaints from across the aisle today alleging that
oil and gas leases being addressed right now were negotiated in a
culture of corruption.
Mr. Speaker, if the Democrats have evidence that the Clinton
administration that negotiated these leases did so corruptly, it needs
to be brought forward. If that evidence is there, the Attorney General
can go forward and rescind these leases and get damages. Maybe that is
some of the evidence that Sandy Berger was stuffing in his socks to
steal away. But if we don't have the evidence, then it is not right to
go forward and break contractual words of this country and this
Congress.
Once upon a time there was a king who broke his word regularly, like
the Democrats are trying to do here, and our forefathers came forth
with a document that said when in the course of human events it becomes
necessary to dissolve the political bands which have connected one with
another, that is what started this country when the king started being
so arbitrary and capricious as this.
Now our forefathers tried to protect against that, so they inserted
in the Bill of Rights a fifth amendment provision called the takings
clause that says you shall not take private property for public use
without just compensation.
Now this bill basically says if you don't renegotiate your lease, you
can't get any more leases on your existing lease. You can't have
economic benefit. That is one of the things. The Penn Central case from
1978 made clear what the test was, and this rises to the level of a
regulatory taking.
In this bill, the Democrats are also going to try to change the Tax
Code and deprive the oil and gas industry of a deduction that every
other industry has. And what it will do is, in effect, prevent domestic
drilling, drive us to more foreign oil and send money to our enemies.
We should rename the bill the ``Chavez Shelter Bill'' or the
``Terrorist Assistance Bill'' or maybe the ``National Insecurity
Bill.''
Gas prices will skyrocket, and if that is what somebody here wants,
they will be happy. Look, I am not happy with the deal that the Clinton
administration cut. It was not a good deal, but a country cannot go
about breaking its word. That is not the right thing to do.
What the majority wants to do is what was done in ``Animal House''
after a freshman pledge's car was wrecked. He got an arm around his
shoulders and the words, ``Son, you messed up. You trusted me.'' That's
not the way to run a government.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman who just spoke that
he voted for the Pombo bill in both committee and on the floor last
year, which included the imposition of these new conservation fees.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, there are three titles in this bill. First deals with
ways and means problems, those problems that have to do with taxes. We
can have legitimate discussions on whether to tax or not tax
corporations.
The third title deals with the renewable resources. Being from New
Mexico, I think we should be exploring and investing in renewable
resources. New Mexico is one of the few States that would be self-
sufficient in wind and solar. We are making heavy investments in
nuclear energy and in biomass, hydrogen, and geothermal.
I am very committed to the section that the Democrats have on title
III. The one I have deep reserves about is title II. In that title,
page 10 says a lessee shall not be eligible to obtain the economic
benefit of any covered lease, or any other lease.
Mr. Speaker, what is occurring here is the piece that is referred to
in yesterday's Washington Post editorial where the Democrats are
described as being heavy handed. The stability of contracts that would
be recognized and welcomed in Russia and Bolivia, I do not think that
our friends on the other side of the aisle intended to do this.
Therefore, I recommend that we kindly send this back to committee and
we could take out these offenses.
Mr. Speaker, the quality of a nation and its government depends on
the full faith and credit of that government. This government depends
on making promises that are not written to its seniors, to its
veterans. Those promises are honored. But it also makes contractual
promises, promises where companies are spending billions of dollars
based on the contractual agreement that is there. If we are going to
find a way out of those foolish mistakes made by the Clinton
administration, I agree we need to do it, but we do not need to do it
in the way that they did in Venezuela and Bolivia and Russia. We need
to go about it in a proper way. If we are going to punish people who
did not voluntarily change a contract, we are no better than those
countries that nationalize their industries.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, in response to the speaker from New Mexico
referring to the silly mistakes of the Clinton administration, I remind
him that the current administration has been in power for 6 years.
I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey), a member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle
have been talking a great deal about the so-called Contract With
America. But what our experience has shown over the years is that was
not a Contract With America but a contract with and for powerful
special interests.
They allowed the drug companies, for example, to write a Medicare
bill; and they have allowed the oil companies to determine energy
policy in our country. That needs to change.
All day long today they have been talking about how they don't like
the idea that the oil companies have to pay their fair share of taxes
even while they are making record profits and they have charged record
prices at the pump and elsewhere for their product. It makes no sense.
The energy policy that they put in place beginning in 1995, and then
made even worse in 2005, caused oil prices to increase dramatically
because of their affiliation with the energy companies. We need to
change that.
What this bill does is it takes bad policy and turns it into good
policy. It takes policy that is based upon the interest of special
interests, the oil companies, and changes it into policy that is based
upon the big interests of the American people.
It takes as much as $14 billion over the course of the next 10 years
and uses that money to promote energy conservation, alternative energy,
to bring our country to a situation of increasing energy independence.
They have been talking a great deal about how we are going to be
importing more oil. Well, the fact of the matter is 60 percent of the
oil that we use in our country today is imported from outside of the
country.
The product that we have in places such as the Gulf of Mexico is a
very valuable product. It is owned by the American people. The value of
that product is going to go up over time significantly. You just want
to make it easier for the oil companies to take it now at a cheap
price. We are against that. Pass H.R. 6.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Boustany) for 1 minute.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, this ill-conceived legislation will halt
recent efforts to increase domestic oil and gas production and will
further boost our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.
The price we pay for turning a blind eye towards our Nation's energy
security is absolutely staggering. Most Americans don't realize the
hidden cost of our reliance on foreign oil.
According to the National Defense Council Foundation, the cost to
defend America's access to foreign oil supplies rose to nearly $137
billion in 2006.
The majority is pushing through this job-killing legislation that
threatens
[[Page 1597]]
thousands of jobs in my gulf coast district.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you firsthand, we are not talking about
minimum wage jobs. Many times over minimum wage.
Furthermore, the creation of an energy slush fund with no specific
wording in this legislation about how it is going to be used is
fiscally irresponsible. America deserves a comprehensive bill to
address our Nation's energy security. H.R. 6 is not close, and I urge
my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Kennedy), another member of the Committee on Natural
Resources.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, in 2006, our Nation's oil companies made
$97 billion in profits, five times the profits they made in 2002. In
the last 3 years, their profits per gallon of gasoline went from 15
cents per gallon of gas that you pumped in your car to 50 cents last
year.
{time} 1515
So just think of it. Today, when you put your gallon of gas in the
car, oil and gas is taking 50 cents a gallon for profits. That is
scandalous.
Now, if you want to challenge me, I ask the press to challenge me.
And if oil and gas wants to disprove my facts, I ask the oil and gas
industry to disprove my facts. Open up your books, oil and gas
companies, and disprove what I have to say to you today.
Otherwise, let's pass this bill and give back to the people of this
country some of the excess profits these companies have been taking
from the American people.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma
(Ms. Fallin) 2\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, you know, in America, I still believe that a
man's word is a man's word. And in America, contract rights are
property rights. And the fifth amendment prohibits the government from
taking away those property rights without due process and without just
compensation.
Under the Democrat energy bill, contract rights are bona fide leases
that are taken away. You cannot sell your lease, you cannot transfer
your lease, you cannot derive any economic benefit from your lease
until you open up your lease renegotiation. This is a complete
elimination of value of these valid and binding contracts. The Supreme
Court has long held that when this occurs property owners must be
compensated.
The Democrat energy bill doesn't recapture the money lost from the
Clinton administration's badly written leases, it just opens up the
floodgates for takings litigation. This is a trial lawyer's dream bill.
Federal takings claims and property disputes are notoriously long. They
can take a long time to resolve.
Now, there was a bipartisan resolution and a vote in Congress to fix
the lease mess, but last year's language was killed by the other body.
It had a fix on the leases that would give back $10 billion to the
American taxpayers. The Democrat bill, as written, will hurt offshore
investment in drilling by American companies, which in turn does
nothing to reduce our U.S. dependence on foreign energy.
We are breaking our word with American companies who hold these
leases and who have invested a lot of their money into drilling. In my
opinion, Mr. Speaker, a man's word is a man's word, and a deal is a
deal. If our government interferes with lease contracts and changes
this deal, who will want to invest in American exploration?
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, for too long Big Oil has benefited from weak
royalty laws, huge tax breaks, and subsidies. Last year, the five
biggest oil companies' profits were $97 billion, nearly five times
their profit in 2002. These record profits were bolstered by excessive
tax breaks, generous subsidies, and being allowed to drill on public
land without reimbursing taxpayers.
In the meantime, Americans are being taken at the gas pump as gas
prices rose to over $3 per gallon last summer. Rather than helping oil
companies' bottom lines, these tax breaks and special subsidies will be
reallocated in H.R. 6 to promote and develop clean and renewable energy
to end our Nation's addiction to oil.
Under prior Republican leadership, the oil industry enjoyed years of
record profits with minimal oversight, resulting in price manipulation
and record gas prices. The American people have chosen a new direction,
and under Democratic leadership we will end the tax breaks and the
subsidies to Big Oil.
America will begin to end our addiction to foreign oil, improve our
environment, and promote our economic and national security through
clean and renewable energy. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not energy policy, it is industrial policy.
The San Francisco wing of the Democrat Party is switching from blaming
America first to blaming the American way of life first for all the
ills they conjure up.
San Francisco Democrats want to tell the American people they should
be running their cars off wind, yet I will tell you that there is only
one institution in this Nation that runs off wind and that is the hot
air that fuels this institution.
Mr. Speaker, energy is the largest business in the world, not because
governments make it so but because 6 billion people demand the freedom
and quality of life that its use provides. When America went from
horses to cars it was because cars were more efficient and faster than
horses, not because government deemed they should be driving in cars.
When America went from dirt roads to asphalt it was because asphalt was
the more efficient surface that could withstand rain and snow, not
because government told people to use it.
Just because we say people should be using wind and solar to power
their cars does not mean it is going to occur.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. May I have a time check, please, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has 4
minutes remaining.
Mr. RAHALL. And the gentleman from New Mexico?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Mexico has 5\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I would observe that it is my intent to
reserve the balance of my time until the closing of the entire bill, if
that would assist the gentleman in planning his time.
Mr. RAHALL. I am sorry, I have the right to close; is that right?
Mr. PEARCE. I am just going to reserve my 5 minutes of debate time
until after the next two committees have gone.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield for unanimous consent only to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of H.R. 6.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6, which works to stop global
warming by creating a fund that will support research in renewable
energy sources and encourage energy efficiency.
Yesterday, the publishers of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, a
group of prominent experts including physicist Lawrence Krauss of Case
Western Reserve University, said we are perilously close to destroying
the stability of our planet by ignoring the threat of climate change.
Carbon dioxide levels are 27 percent higher now than at any point in
650,000 years, and 2006 registered as the warmest year in recorded
history. We can no longer afford to postpone action.
Our need to act now is further enhanced by our Nation's dependence on
foreign oil. Currently, we import 60 percent of our oil, and that
number will increase to 75 percent in the next four years.
With diminishing domestic oil reserves and growing instability in the
Middle East, dependence on imported oil leaves our Nation vulnerable to
volatility in foreign nations.
Yet we can reverse our course, and H.R. 6 takes a step toward doing
so.
The CLEAN Act will create a Strategic Energy Efficiency and
Renewables Reserve,
[[Page 1598]]
which will finance legislation that promotes renewable energy and
energy efficiency.
Although 86 percent of America's energy comes from the burning of
fossil fuels, a number of alternatives exist that are better for the
environment.
Ohio is home to the largest wind turbines east of the Rockies,
installed near Bowling Green. These utility-scale turbines produce 1.8
Megawatts of electricity. Honda and Iten Industries are currently
studying developing wind farms at their facilities in Ashtabula and
Logan counties.
As part of its Sustainability Program, the City of Cleveland has
partnered with Green Energy Ohio to study the feasibility of installing
wind turbines on Lake Erie.
Ohio is also a leader in biofuels. Most gasoline sold in Ohio
contains 10 percent ethanol, and the Ohio Department of Development
offers incentives for research in agricultural-based fuels. Ohioans are
installing solar panels on their roofs to heat their water, buying
hybrid cars to decrease fuel consumption, and building low-impact dams
to produce hydro-power. The City of Cleveland is building new bike
lanes to encourage commuters to leave their cars at home.
Ohioans are committed to using cleaner energy, but doing so is
expensive. The reserve fund established by H.R. 6 would provide the
means needed to pursue these environmentally sound strategies.
This reserve will be financed by reinvesting money that used to go to
large oil companies through tax breaks, allowing Congress to provide
this fund without increasing the deficit.
Critics of H.R. 6 argue this measure will place an undue burden on
oil companies, which will lead to higher gas prices. However, by
helping reduce our dependence on oil and diversifying the source of
energy for Americans, H.R. 6 will lead to increased long-run fuel price
stability. Even President Bush has said, ``Energy companies do not need
taxpayer funded incentives to explore for oil and gas.''
Other critics argue the threat of global warming has not been proved.
Those in denial ignore the opinions of not only the scientific
community, but of corporations such as Wal-Mart and General Electric,
state and local governments around the country, and the National
Academy of Sciences, who all agree that the fight to stop global
warming must start now.
H.R. 6 will not single-handedly solve our climate change problems,
but it is one part of an elaborate strategy we must undertake in order
to ensure that the planet we love will be here for our grandchildren's
grandchildren.
Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, just by way of clarification with the
gentleman of New Mexico, my name is the lead sponsor on this bill and I
am from the State of West Virginia, not San Francisco. Just to correct
any misperceptions there.
Mr. PEARCE. I appreciate that clarification from the gentleman.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to a valued member of our
Natural Resources Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Capps) 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding, and I rise in strong
support of H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act. Today, our economy relies on
fossil fuels for energy. We must simply change that.
President Bush admits we are addicted to oil, and this addiction is
harming our country. The best way to beat this addiction is to stop
using so much oil and gas by reducing demand, promoting renewables, and
developing alternatives.
Since America is not exactly awash in oil and gas, reducing our
dependence upon them would be good not only for our environment but for
the economy and our national security as well.
To be honest, though, we have to do more than just talk about the
potential that renewables and alternative energy has for this country.
We have to put in place more funding for programs to bring these energy
sources to market. We have to make changes in energy policy to
encourage their use. And that is exactly what H.R. 6 does.
In the debate on the floor today, the minority side has described
H.R. 6 as a takings. So let me remind all of us that when the House
considered and passed the Jindal-Pombo OCS drilling legislation last
June, 2006, no Republican Member challenged the conservation fee as a
breach of contract or a taking. In fact, the Committee on Resources
report on that legislation, H.R. 4761, states, and I quote, ``this new
fee addresses the mistakes made in leases issued in 1998 and 1999 where
price triggers for royalties were not included in the lease without
violating contractual obligations of the United States.''
Mr. Speaker, Americans want real meaningful solutions to our Nation's
energy challenges. Big Oil has received more than its fair share of
handouts. It is time we put taxpayer funds to more productive use. Let
us pass the CLEAN Energy Act.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to point out
that the conservation fee in this bill, contrary to the testimony we
are hearing, applies to all leases, according to the language in the
bill, and that clarification is a very important distinction.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. How much time do I have left now, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a valued member of our
Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his great work and
for yielding, and I thank Mr. Hinchey, who has worked with me over the
past 2 years to bring to the attention of the American people this
issue of the fact that there is drilling going on off the shores of our
public country on public lands where there are no royalties being paid,
whether it is $30, $40, $50, $60, $70, or $80 a barrel.
Here is what President Bush said about that on April 19, 2005. ``I
will tell you, with $55 oil, we don't need the incentives to oil and
gas companies to explore,'' Bush said in a speech in April.
So what are we saying? We are saying keep your contracts. You don't
have to change the contracts. Keep them. But if you want new contracts
on new drilling sites, renegotiate the old contracts or pay a $9 fee.
You can keep the sanctity of the old contracts, but you are not
entitled to new contracts. Very simple.
Then, after the money is recollected, we are going to create a
Renewable Energy Strategic Fund to change and put our country heading
in a new direction.
Mr. Speaker, the bill that we are considering today represents the
important first step in charting a new direction for the nation's
energy policy. H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, repeals the
unnecessary and I wasteful tax breaks and royalty-free drilling rights
for big oil and gas companies, and instead creates a Strategic Energy
Efficiency and Renewables Reserve that would invest in clean, renewable
energy sources and clean alternative fuels like ethanol, as well as
energy efficiency and conservation.
At a time when they are making record profits and American consumers
are being tipped upside down at the pump we should not be giving
massive subsidies and tax breaks to big oil companies. Even President
Bush conceded in an April 19, 2005 Washington Post article, ``I will
tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies
to explore. . . . There are plenty of incentives.'' Even George Bush
admits that at $55 dollars, the price of oil is enough of an incentive
for oil companies to drill and they don't need the additional taxpayer
subsidies that were created under the Republican Congress. Today, with
H.R. 6, we are simply going to repeal the most egregious of those
unnecessary incentives and tax breaks to big oil.
In addition, H.R. 6 will put an end to oil companies drilling for
free on public land when oil prices are high. The Government
Accountability Office has estimated that the American taxpayers stand
to lose at least $10 billion from leases issued in the late 90s that do
not suspend so-called royalty relief. H.R. 6 would correct this problem
by barring oil companies from purchasing new leases unless they had
either renegotiated their existing faulty leases or agreed to pay a fee
on the production of oil and gas from those leases.
Now, I have heard some Members on the other side of the aisle argue
that if we were to pass the royalty relief fixes included in H.R. 6 and
take back from big oil the $10 billion or more that rightfully belongs
to the American people, it will violate the contracts that they are
holding. That it will turn our country into Bolivia or Russia. But let
me be clear--we have spoken to the top constitutional lawyers in the
country and they all agree that we are on the firmest of constitutional
ground.
[[Page 1599]]
The contracts that these oil companies are holding allow for the
federal government to impose fees like the ones in this bill.
Furthermore, the American Law Division of the Congressional Research
Service has said time and time again that including a condition in new
oil and gas leases to exclude oil companies that have not renegotiated
their faulty leases would not abrogate existing contracts or constitute
a takings. All H.R. 6 does is give these big oil companies a choice--
they can continue producing royalty-free oil no matter how high the
price of oil climbs, that's fine, but then they're not going to get any
new leases from the Federal Government.
And more than that, this House has already adopted the royalty relief
fixes included in H.R. 6 by overwhelming, bipartisan votes. Many of my
Republican colleagues voted for both of those provisions. The House
adopted the Markey-Hinchey amendment to the Interior appropriations
bill to provide an incentive for these companies to renegotiate by
suspending their ability to bid on new leases by a vote of 252-165. The
House also voted last year to impose a $9 per barrel fee on oil
produced from these leases in a bill authored by former Resources
Chairman Pombo. That Pombo fee is this bill, and the Markey-Hinchey
suspension on bidding for new leases is also there as an alternative.
So, this is something that the House has already voted to do two times.
Two times, this House has said that we want to put real pressure on all
the oil and gas companies holding those 1998-1999 leases to
renegotiate.
However, the Bush Administration has consistently opposed our efforts
to bring every oil company holding one of these leases back to the
negotiating table and it continues to oppose the provisions in H.R. 6
that would do so. Instead, the Bush Administration has argued that we
should allow oil companies to ``voluntarily'' renegotiate with the
Minerals Management Service. However, of the 56 companies holding these
leases, only 5 have voluntarily agreed to renegotiate. When billions of
taxpayer dollars are at stake, that is simply not an acceptable rate of
return. H.R. 6 says that it is time for the oil companies to stop
playing Uncle Sam for Uncle Sucker.
According to an Interior Department's Inspector General's report that
came out today, senior officials at the Minerals Management Service
have known about these faulty leases for nearly three years, yet sat
idly by and did absolutely nothing while big oil companies failed to
pay nearly $1 billion in royalties that rightfully belonged to the
American people. If the allegations in the IG's report are true, top
Bush Administration officials have aided and abetted one of the
greatest heists in history. We should not now leave those same
officials in charge of getting oil companies to ``voluntarily''
renegotiate those same leases.
Finally today, as part of the first 100 hours, we are starting the
comprehensive debate about our nation's energy policy that we should
have been having over the last 6 years. Finally today, we are beginning
to talk about how we can radically increase the amount of renewable
fuels such as ethanol we consume in the country. Finally today, we are
beginning to talk on the Floor of the People's House about how to make
our appliances or our buildings or our vehicles more energy efficient
so that we can reduce our consumption of foreign oil and our emissions
of greenhouse gasses.
Adopting H.R. 6 will allow us to begin to move in a new, clean
direction on energy and put an end to the free ride that big oil has
had under the Bush Administration. This bill is a beginning. It is the
beginning of a change in direction, away from subsidizing an industry
that doesn't need extra financial incentives, and towards the
technologies that do need a helping hand. Today, we have a Strategic
Petroleum Reserve that we can tap to help American consumers in the
event of another Middle East oil embargo or crisis. But with this bill
we create a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve, that we
can tap to ensure that America can move towards energy independence.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 6.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership in
introducing this bill.
We are following through with our promise to hold big oil and gas
companies accountable to the American people. Now, 6 years ago, when
temperatures were spiking around the world, and the effects of global
warming were raising alarm bells about the fate of the polar bear, the
Vice President was holding secret meetings with energy executives and
offering cozy deals and incentives to his Big Oil buddies.
When oil prices spiked, and they spiked after Hurricane Katrina, and
oil companies began reporting the highest corporate profits in American
history, the President and the Republicans in Congress were eagerly
offering their cronies another generous helping of public giveaways.
While the American people were emptying their pockets to fill up at the
pump, Republicans were lining up to be the first to open our coast to
new drilling.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that those days are over. By forcing
oil and gas companies to pay their fair share for the natural resources
that belong to us, we are recovering more than $14 billion of the
taxpayers' money over the next 10 years. That $14 billion represents a
real investment in green energy initiatives that will one day allow us
to declare energy independence.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the
chairman of the Education and Labor Committee and a valued member of
our Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has 30
seconds remaining.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I think it is just incredible that the other side of the aisle would
argue, at a time when the most competitive and the most stressed oil
market in the world, that what you need to develop oil leases offshore
is to have government subsidies. At a time when you have national
governments and international oil companies scouring the world to lock
up resources, almost willing to do business with anybody in the world,
doesn't matter if they are a dictator from the right or the left, at a
time when countries are out trying to get their hands on these
resources, we suggest the only way you can get people to drill in the
most secure area of the entire world is to give them a subsidy.
The national security of the United States is the subsidy they get
when they drill here. They do not need additional subsidies.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia
has expired.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until the
end of debate after the other committees have used their time.
{time} 1530
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). At this time, the gentleman
from Minnesota and the gentleman from Virginia each control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, thank you. I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I am
pleased today to rise in support of H.R. 6. Rural America is already
leading the way towards reducing our dependence on foreign oil and
generating electricity from renewable resources.
To encourage the growth of renewable energy production, the
Agriculture Committee will be including an energy title in the farm
bill that we will write this year; however, we currently have no
baseline money to write that energy title.
The funds created in the energy reserve in H.R. 6 will help us
establish farm bill policies that will move us closer to energy
independence.
One of my top priorities for renewable energy in the farm bill will
be funding for additional research and development on cellulosic
ethanol, which I believe is the real key to achieving energy
independence.
To begin the transition to cellulosic ethanol, we need to start
growing cellulosic feedstocks so that we are ready to get the industry
off the ground when the technology and infrastructure are in place to
begin producing it.
To make this happen, we are going to propose a new farm bill program
that will pay farmers and ranchers to begin growing cellulosic
feedstocks, such as switch grass, sweet sorghum, miscanthus and other
crops in actual,
[[Page 1600]]
real-world settings. This will help us identify the best feedstocks
that each region of the country can grow and supply to this new
cellulosic ethanol industry.
While we are learning how to grow the feedstocks that will fuel the
cellulosic ethanol industry, we must also help get the first generation
of cellulosic ethanol plants up and running. We hoped that the
Department of Energy would issue the loan guarantees to start that
process, but the unfinished appropriation process left over from the
last Congress, it appears, makes that unlikely. So I am going to work
with the other committees of relevance to determine what we need to do
to help these first cellulosic ethanol plants to be built and to be
operational.
Although I am most interested in finding ways to encourage the move
to cellulosic ethanol, we will also be looking for ways to make our
current starch ethanol industry more efficient by supporting research
on better use of by-products and better corn yields.
As we build on the success of the starch ethanol industry and as a
value-added agriculture product, we need to continue to support one of
our most important value-added industries in agriculture, our livestock
industry. This industry has been one of the greatest value-added
success stories in recent years, boosting income in our farming
communities. We need to ensure that any renewable fuels policies that
we pursue do not damage this important sector.
We must also continue to grow our domestic biodiesel industry, so the
Agriculture Committee will continue the CCC Bioenergy program, a farm
bill program that can also provide incentives for the cellulosic
ethanol production.
Beyond the renewable fuel production, there are other policies that
the Agriculture Committee will support to help our Nation's farmers and
ranchers both conserve and produce more energy. For example, in the
2002 farm bill, we included a program to help farmers and ranchers make
their operations more energy efficient. That program, known as the
Section 9006 Program, also helps agriculture producers install methane
digesters or wind turbines on their land to produce renewable energy.
As we continue to consider the future of the energy production in the
United States, we need to be sure that we can provide the technical
expertise needed to plan and test all kinds of bio-based products, not
just fuels, such as shirts made from corn fiber, which are produced in
my district, and fast-food containers made from corn starch.
Mr. Speaker, my home State of Minnesota has been a leader in
renewable energy, recognizing the growing needs for a growing industry.
Many of our rural communities are coming alive with the excitement and
the new investment that renewable energy has brought. I want to be sure
that the rest of the country can benefit from this great experience
that we have had in Minnesota.
Rural America stands ready to plant, grow and harvest the future of
energy independence for our Nation. I encourage the support of this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6. Like my
colleagues, I believe we should find solutions to address the growing
demand for energy, and I look forward to working with my colleague, the
chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Peterson, to find new ways
for American agriculture to provide increasing sources of domestic
energy.
In the Republican-led Congress, I supported an energy bill that was
signed into law that actually encouraged domestic energy production and
lessened our dependence on foreign oil. Today's legislation, however,
seems to dismantle any progress we have made in achieving energy
independence.
The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, they don't agree
with each other very often, they both condemn this legislation. The
Wall Street Journal calls it the OPEC Energy Security Act: ``This bill
is said to promote America's energy independence, but the biggest
winner may be OPEC. Raise taxes on domestic oil producers,'' it said.
``Yes, raise the cost at the gas pump for American consumers. Raise the
cost for American farmers who have to buy oil and natural gas to
operate their farms. Every American farmer has to do that.''
The Washington Post says: ``This heavy-handed attack on the stability
of contracts would be welcomed in Russia, Bolivia or other countries
that have been criticized for tearing up revenue-sharing agreements
with private energy companies.'' The Wall Street Journal again says:
``So at the same time that the U.S. is trying to persuade Venezuela and
other nations to honor property rights, Congress does its own Hugo
Chavez imitation.''
Many Members have discussed passionately how America needs to
decrease its dependence on foreign oil. In fact, many campaigned on
promises to decrease our independence. But here we are in the midst of
the Democratic leadership's first 100 hours considering a bill to
increase America's dependence on foreign oil. This is dangerous policy
for our national and economic security.
This legislation increases fees for domestic energy production and
repeals for energy companies only the manufacturing tax deduction which
was put in place to encourage domestic manufacturing and jobs from
domestic production of goods. The manufacturing tax deduction was
extended to all manufacturing to fix the problematic FSC-ETI problem,
and was in no way a giveaway to the oil companies.
By singling out one industry alone, we are not righting a wrong. We
are persecuting an industry and the people employed in that industry
domestically. This is not attacks on foreign production in Venezuela or
Iran or Saudi Arabia. This is attacks on American production of energy.
Repealing these incentives makes it less economical to produce domestic
energy and will compel companies to seek cheaper options abroad.
While energy demands continue to rise, this bill would discourage
domestic production, forcing the U.S. to import more foreign oil. While
the proponents will tell you only oil companies will pay, the truth is
every single one of us will pay the price.
So why are we increasing the price of energy as well as our
dependence on foreign oil? Those on the other side think this will help
spur research for alternative energy. It is estimated that this bill
robs about $14 billion over the next decade from domestic energy
production. That is quite a lot of money. But where is the plan
outlining how that money will be used? Sadly, there isn't one, thanks
to a closed rule, with no amendments offered whatsoever time after time
during this process, in contrast with the Contract With America, where
we allowed 154 Democratic amendments, 48 of which, by the way, passed
and were included as a part of the Contract With America. In this
process, that possibility of spelling that out is gone. There is no way
to tell people how we can use this for more domestic production for
renewable fuels, for example. Sadly, there isn't anything like that.
This bill creates a $14 billion piggy bank or slush fund that we have
been told will be used for future alternative energy legislation.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this very bad legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished vice chairman of the House Agriculture
Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6, a piece of
legislation that will move us towards energy independence. We are 65
percent dependent upon foreign energy, and we need to take advantage of
our own natural resources. And in reference to the prior debate, that
includes coal.
The only reason we do not have a coal-to-liquid plant in the United
States of America right now has nothing to do with anyone in this
Chamber
[[Page 1601]]
on either side of the aisle, but it has directly to do with the
Department of Energy that refuses to follow the letter of the law and
enforce a loan guarantee of $100 million. If they would do that, we
would have a coal-to-liquid plant right now in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania in the borough of Gilberton. We need to take advantage of
all of our natural resources. And serving as the vice chairman of the
Agriculture Committee, I look forward to taking advantage of our
agriculture natural resources.
The chairman and ranking member last year, when their roles were
reversed, traveled around the country having hearings, trying to see
what we need to do in the next farm bill. One thing was heard loud and
clear, we need to take advantage of our own natural resources. And in
the trip to Minnesota at the chairman's district, when we learned how
far ahead the State of Minnesota is in ethanol production and
cellulosic research, we understood right then what we need to do in
writing this farm bill.
So I rise in support of this legislation to give us the opportunity
to do the research, to find the feedstocks to make us energy
independent so we can, once and for all, not depend upon foreign energy
and be independent and bring the price down.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 aims to punish Big Oil. In reality,
the only people it punishes are the American people.
It is a fact that America is dependent upon foreign sources of oil.
Six out of every 10 barrels of oil our Nation consumes come from
foreign sources. This means that our Nation's energy security rests in
the hands of the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Algeria, Chad, Angola,
Nigeria, and Russia. This state of affairs is unacceptable, and we must
do all we can to change it.
The way we change the situation is straightforward, but not easy. We
need to be more efficient with the energy we use to fuel our economy,
heat our homes, and run our cars. We need to increase the use of
alternative and renewable fuels, like ethanol and soy diesel, wind
energy and nuclear power. We need to deploy new technologies that will
allow us to make clean and efficient use of our nearly inexhaustible
supplies of coal, and we need to look forward to a new age where we can
use the power derived from hydrogen-replaced fossil fuels.
I am pleased to say that on every one of these fronts, Congress has
already acted. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, the first comprehensive
energy bill in decades, provided significant incentives for renewable
fuels, including the very successful and renewable fuel standard. It
provided significant incentives for new nuclear power plants, energy-
efficient buildings, solar and wind power, biomass and geothermal
energy. It provides funding for FutureGen and other clean coal projects
for research into the use of hydrogen and fuel cells. And it provides
loan guarantees for projects employing carbon sequestration, coal
gasification and coal-to-liquids technology.
This landmark legislation moved us toward where we will ultimately
need to be, a country less dependent on uncertain foreign sources of
energy.
I agree with many of my colleagues that we need to do more. We need
to ensure that this country can deploy nuclear power plants, that we
can provide the power investment climate whereby clean coal-to-liquid
plants can be built. And we need to push the deployment of E-85
infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, we need to do all these things and more, but we also
need a vibrant and effective energy sector in this country. We need to
produce and develop our own energy. We need to open ANWR. We need to
make more of our offshore resources available for development, and we
need additional investment in energy infrastructure. What we do not
need, Mr. Speaker, is a tax increase on domestic energy exploration,
production and development. We do not need to make American energy less
competitive than energy produced overseas.
And make no mistake about it, increasing taxes on our Nation's energy
industry means one thing: more reliance on foreign oil and gasoline. I
had the honor of being in Soviet Union, Russia, last fall; met with
Premier Putin. He spent 2\1/2\ hours talking about how Russia was going
to combine and provide the energy for all of Europe and America if we
wished to buy it.
{time} 1545
Incidentally, he wanted our investment dollars, he wanted companies
to invest there. Higher taxes means we have less investment here, less
exploration here, development of resources here at home, and more
development dependence on energy derived from foreign sources.
Mr. Speaker, we need to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 is shortsighted policy. Oil companies in recent
years have made huge profits, no doubt about it. I, for one, have
argued that they use these profits and re-invest them here in
developing new energy projects and building new refineries.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, however, want to punish
such investment in America with new taxes. That is wrong, it is
shortsighted and it won't work.
As the Wall Street Journal noted, this is an energy bill only OPEC
Ministers could love.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with many of my colleagues that we should fix
the Clinton Administrations mistake in not putting price thresholds in
offshore leases granted to oil companies in 1998 and 1999.
I voted, along with many of you, to correct this mistake. But I do
not agree with my Democrat colleagues that we should punish investment
in our Nation's energy resources and infrastructure.
Far from punishing Big Oil we are only punishing ourselves. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my good
friend, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. I thank my distinguished friend, the chairman of the
Agriculture Committee, for giving me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy
Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation. When
we passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress put the interests of
Big Oil ahead of enacting a comprehensive energy bill for the American
people.
Today we begin to right that wrong by repealing $14 billion in
giveaways in tax loopholes to Big Oil. We are also repealing a
provision which suspended the royalty fees from oil and gas companies
operating in the Gulf of Mexico. We simply cannot let these companies
off the hook for reaping record profits without paying their fair
share.
We will then invest these funds in clean, renewable energy and energy
efficiency and create a Strategic Renewable Energy Reserve which will
also promote new energy technologies and improve energy conservation.
The 110th Congress presents us with a new opportunity to advance
forward-thinking 21st century energy policy. As a matter of national
security we must wean ourselves off of foreign oil.
I will be reintroducing the bipartisan Engel/Kingston DRIVE Act, also
known as the Fuel Choices for American Security Act. I hope we pass
that bill as well.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for the purpose of
controlling debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hinchey). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the committee.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6 for a whole series of
reasons. The gentleman addressed Vladimir Putin, who just nationalized
$20 billion worth of Shell Oil Company's investment. You get a sense of
what we have when you have those countries taking over the private
investment.
[[Page 1602]]
I, for one, don't object to profits that go into companies like
Exxon, Chevron, Shell, companies that take their profits and reinvest
them back into research and development and exploration. That is why
oil went from $75 a barrel down to $53 a barrel, and the trend is on
back down.
This bill sends it the other way. I happen to represent Iowa, and
Iowa produced 26 percent of the ethanol in the United States of
America. That is number one of the States in the United States. We have
a Nation that eclipsed Brazil in ethanol production. We have over $1
billion in private capital investment just in my congressional district
for the 2006 construction season for renewable energies.
That tells me that research and development is coming in the private
sector. They are producing enzymes in the private sector. They will
catch up, and they will take care of the cellulosic ethanol. The
government does a poor job of investing those dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition of H.R. 6, the CLEAN
Energy Act. We need a balanced energy policy in this country. This bill
hurts agriculture and renewable fuels, small petroleum companies and
well as the energy sector. This bill that affects every man, woman and
child in America was not even given committee consideration. I guess an
iron fisted rule from the Democrats is what we have come to expect.
Mr. Speaker, the liquid hydrocarbon sector supplies more then 99
percent of fuel used by Americans for transportation and operation of
businesses. They produce the diesel fuel used by farmers in my district
to run their tractors and combines. These are tractors and combines
that plant and harvest our food in America. Natural gas is also the
major cost in Nitrogen fertilizer farmers in my district use to grow
corn. Corn, Mr. Speaker, is the major feedstock for ethanol in this
country followed only by natural gas. This bill will hurt America's
farmers by making them pay more for fuel to grow food and more for
fertilizer to grow more ethanol. One last point, asphalt is made from
petroleum. Asphalt is used for roads. Roads are used to transport grain
to market and children to school.
I wonder if the Democrats realize they will be putting additional
strain on local and State governments, the largest buyers of asphalt,
who will then have to raise taxes to cover their cost. To recap, this
bill raises operational costs of farming in my district by making fuel
and fertilizer more expensive. In addition, farmers will get hit by
increased taxes from their local and country governments.
While recovering royalties from the 98-99 lease issue seems like a
politically friendly catch phrase, I would like to make two points on
this issue. Recently, Russia forced Shell to hand over a $20 billion
project. The Democrat plan to force producers to renegotiate their
lease royalties or be barred from future leases is blackmail of
American oil companies. This blackmail stems from a mistake from a
Democrat administration. Maybe the Democrats are taking a page from
Putin's energy policy playbook. They make American petroleum companies
fear blackmail on two continents.
Have the Democrats given any consideration to what this legislation
will do to small business? Large companies are somewhat cushioned
against these types of blows. Small independent oil producers are not.
If they are forced into bankruptcy or mergers, all the Democrats have
done is to consolidate petroleum production into fewer hands.
Right now, America is importing a large sum of petroleum from
unstable countries. By importing this petroleum, America is enriching
her enemies. Importing oil is a fact of life right now. Since I have
been in Congress, I have been saying that we need to produce more BTU's
here in America. Section 345 of the 2005 Energy bill contained
incentives for petroleum producers to venture into deep water. In
September 2006 Chevron discovered an oil field 270 miles south-west of
New Orleans. This field is projected to increase America's proven
reserves by 50 percent. I don't know if Chevron took advantage of
Section 345 but it sure would make it easier to convince the
accountants of the need to head to deep water. H.R. 6 repeals section
345. The test-well that Chevron had to drill to find this new field
cost them $100 million.
The Democrats will no doubt point out the revenues reported in the
media as justification for this legislation. I'm curious if the
Democrats will acknowledge that the media has reported the gross
revenue of oil companies. Not the net profits, but the gross receipts.
As a former small business owner, I wish to remind my Democrat
colleagues about simple economics about how to calculate how much
profit is made. The GROSS revenue are profits before bills are paid.
Once the bills are paid, the net revenues of oil companies are very
much in line with other industries as stated by Congressman Cole
earlier today.
Some of the debt that oil companies pay is to shareholders. With the
recent run-up in oil prices, oil companies have been a profitable
sector to invest. When Democrat's take a bite out of the oil companies,
they are taking a bite out of 401(k) plans, retirement plans and
pension funds. Any tax increase on oil companies will hurt retirees and
stockholders. Right now over seventeen million people rely on those
funds for their retirement security.
I realize that this bill contains a section that will use royalty
money for renewable research. Yet, there is no provision that would
prevent this account from being raided for other projects. Most of my
colleagues know that Iowa is not only a consumer of energy, but a
producer of energy. The Fifth District of Iowa is an energy export
center, exporting ethanol and biodiesel all across this Nation. Rest
assured the American consumer is driving renewable demand. It is also
driving research. Ethanol is good to invest in. Ethanol companies
realize that more investment means more money. Ethanol companies also
realize that more ethanol means more money for investors. In order to
maximize ethanol production companies are doing research to increase
the yield of ethanol from feedstock. Rural investors raise money for
new ethanol plants in days. Mr. Speaker, if the Democrats want research
to happen for renewable energy, then clear the way of burdensome
regulations.
Mr. Speaker as I conclude, I wish to reiterate, H.R. 6 sounds good,
but it will do nothing but drive up energy prices for the American
consumer. The American consumer, who drives to work, drives kids to
wrestling practice, the independent truck driver driving more miles to
make ends meet. It will make it harder for the American consumer living
on a fixed income to make ends meet. I ask my colleagues to join with
the American consumer and oppose H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize a
new member of the House Agriculture Committee, the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth) for 1 minute.
Mr. ELLSWORTH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is an argument that has been going on for a long
time, when I was a young boy, since the 1970s, talking about reducing
our dependence on foreign oil.
I rise today in strong support of this bill for cutting big oil
subsidies and investing in our homegrown energy sources.
I have to think of an analogy that this is much like when I was
trying to teach my daughter how to ride a bicycle. Had training wheels
on a small Stingray. She road like that, and I ran behind her with my
hand on the back of the seat. Then at the point she was ready, I let
her go. She could ride, and she rode well. I think these companies and
these big oil companies are ready to ride on their own.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is time we get serious about kicking our
dependence on foreign oil, relying on homegrown sources like we grow in
Indiana, corn and soybeans. We know how to do it, we know how to grow
it. With the technology incentives, we can turn that into the energy we
need.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to focus, in the small amount of time that I
have, on one of the principal components of this particular piece of
legislation. That is the apparent attempt to say that some of these
leases that were granted in 1997 and 1998 were somehow flawed, and that
there were mistakes made and things were covered up and the oil
companies tried to renegotiate some of these leases to get a sweetheart
deal. Nothing could be further from the truth.
On November 28, 1995, President Clinton signed Public Law 104-58. It
was entitled the Outer Continental Shelf Deepwater Royalty Relief Act,
Royalty Relief Act. It was the intent of this act to offer royalty
relief, royalty suspension in certain tracts in the Gulf of Mexico in
order to create an incentive to get the oil companies, both large and
small, to actually bid on these leases, to spend money to promote them,
develop them and hopefully find some commercial production.
[[Page 1603]]
There was no mistake about it. It was the intention of the act to
sign some leases that did not have royalty or had a lesser royalty than
was commonly in place. Now, remember at this point in time oil was
selling for $10 to $15 a barrel, and there was no production, there was
no exploration, or very little exploration going on.
Section 303 of that act established a new bidding system that allowed
the Secretary of the Interior to offer tracts with royalty suspensions
for a period, volume or value that the Secretary so determines. Now,
section 304 of that ACT went on and says that all tracts, a-l-l, all
tracts that were off within 5 years of the date of enactment in
deepwater; that is, water that is at least 200 meters deep, had to be
offered under a new bidding system, had to be, not could be, might be,
had to be.
This new bidding system had a royalty clause in it, but the royalty
clause was based on volume of production and is also based on the depth
of the water. The deeper the water was, the less the volume was that
you had to produce before you triggered a royalty.
In other words, if you were in the deepest water in the gulf that was
leased, you could produce up to 87 million barrels of oil without
paying a royalty. That is a lot of oil, 87 million barrels is a lot of
oil.
So we, those of us that were in the Congress, in the mid-1990s,
passed a Royalty Relief Act, it is in the title. It says, if you will
put your hard-earned dollars and go out and bid on these leases, and
you win one of those leases, if it is in the deepwater, we are putting
in a bidding system, and under this bidding system you may have to pay
a royalty based on how much you produce but you won't pay a royalty
based on the price.
Now, we only offered these leases for, I think, 2 years, 571 were
actually bid on. Of those, about half, I think, were accepted. Of
those, we discovered we have current production in 19 of them, 19.
Now, after the fact, we can come back here in 2007, when prices are
at $50 a barrel, and say that was a bad deal 12 years ago, we should
not have done it. But 12 years ago oil was at $10 a barrel. We had no
domestic exploration going on. We passed a specific act of Congress
that said give this royalty relief. Today we are, in hindsight, saying
take it away. That is wrong, and I oppose the bill.
Mr. Speaker, during the 2006 campaign we were promised civility and
``playing by the rules, following regular order.'' Today, like the rest
of the 110th Congress so far, we face the extreme opposite: government
by martial law and bumper sticker. Mr. Speaker, your bumper stickers
worked in the campaign but they are not governance worthy of the
American people and it won't take time for the people to understand the
difference.
The last major energy legislation enacted by Congress was the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. It was a long and heavy lift. We had countless
hours of hearings before the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Committee mark-up seemed to take forever because of the many amendments
offered by Members on both sides of the aisle.
And then there was the exhausting conference with the Senate. Many
provisions were negotiated in excruciating detail. What did it give us?
One of the most important, historic, and consequential pieces of
comprehensive legislation in history. It has already directly accounted
for several liquefied gas facilities, new nuclear plant announcements,
vastly improved electricity transmission reliability, and impressive
capital investment in solar, wind, and other renewables.
Did the minority party participation slow things down? You bet it
did, but it also improved the product. I am proud of the 70 Democrat
votes on final passage but especially of one vote, that of our new
chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from
Michigan. We earned each other's support for the final product.
Today, by contrast, we have a bumper sticker: ``Stick it to Big
Oil.'' That's a cute bumper sticker, but, please, Mr. Speaker, don't
use it to govern with because you are only hurting the very people who
sent us all here.
In 2004 we agreed that the JOBS Act was important for keeping
American manufacturing and production here at home in the face of an
increasingly competitive global market. Today we're saying, ``all that
is still true--let's keep the JOBS Act, except we will carve out one
industry for which we don't want American production, American
manufacturing, American jobs: the energy industry. No, we'd rather tip
the scales so that global companies with American operations in the
energy industry will take their jobs and production off shore where
they are more welcome: say Nigeria, or Iran, or Venezuela.
Last year virtually all Members recognized the disturbing shortage of
U.S. based refining capacity. We had various ideas to address it and
virtually every Member of this body voted for one or the other. But
driving refineries off shore was on nobody's agenda. Why is it on
your's?
Meanwhile, as off-shore energy prices spike as a direct, inevitable
result, so do consumer prices for commuters, and soccer moms, and
grandmothers struggling to pay home heating.
These prices matter to our constituents in places like Indiana,
Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, and other States.
Mr. Speaker, why must you turn every bumper sticker into more taxes
and more spending? Why throw $14 billion into the Department of Energy
to produce energy? In its entire history with all its billions, how
much electricity, how much transportation fuel has DOE really created?
Let's step back, see this H.R. 6 bumper sticker for what it really is
and have the courage to say, ``The bumper sticker was for last year,
now it's time to govern and to put the people of America first.'' I
urge a ``no'' vote on final passage.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
30 CFR Part 260
RIN 1010-AC14
Royalty Relief for New Leases in Deep Water
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to
offer Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) tracts in parts of the
Gulf of Mexico for lease with suspension of royalties for a
volume, value, or period of production. This applies to
tracts in water depths of 200 meters or more. This final rule
specifies the royalty-suspension terms for lease sales using
this bidding system.
DATES: This final rule is effective February 17, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Cruickshank, Chief,
Washington Division, Office of Policy and Management
Improvement, at (202) 208-3822.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Legislative
On November 28, 1995, President Clinton signed Public Law
104-58, which included the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water
Royalty Relief Act (``Act''). The Act contains four major
provisions concerning new and existing leases. New leases are
tracts leased during a sale held after the Act's enactment on
November 28, 1995. Existing leases are all other leases.
First, section 302 of the Act clarifies the Secretary's
authority in 43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3) to reduce royalty rates on
existing leases to promote development, increase production,
and encourage production of marginal resources on producing
or non-producing leases. This provision applies only to
leases in the Gulf of Mexico west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes
West longitude.
Second, section 302 also provides that ``new production''
from existing leases in deep water (water at least 200 meters
deep) qualifies for royalty suspensions if the Secretary
determines that the new production would not be economic
without royalty relief. The Act defines ``new production'' as
production (1) From a lease from which no royalties are due
on production, other than test production, before the date of
the enactment of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water
Royalty Relief Act; or (2) resulting from lease development
activities under a Development Operations Coordination
Document (DOCD), or supplement thereto that would expand
production significantly beyond the level anticipated in the
DOCD approved by the Secretary after the date of the Act. The
Secretary must determine the appropriate royalty-suspension
volume on a case-by-case basis, subject to specified minimums
for leases not in production before the date of enactment.
This provision also applies only to leases in the Gulf of
Mexico west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes West longitude.
Third, section 303 establishes a new bidding system that
allows the Secretary to offer tracts with royalty suspensions
for a period, volume, or value the Secretary determines.
Fourth, section 304 provides that all tracts offered within
5 years of the date of enactment in deep water (water at
least 200 meters deep) in the Gulf of Mexico west of 87
degrees, 30 minutes West longitude, must be offered under the
new bidding system. The following minimum volumes of
production are not subject to a royalty obligation:
17.5 million barrels of oil equivalent (MMBOE) for leases
in 200 to 400 meters of water;
[[Page 1604]]
52.5 MMBOE for leases in 400 to 800 meters of water; and
87.5 MMBOE for leases in more than 800 meters.
Regulatory
On February 2, 1996, we published a final rule modifying
the regulations governing the bidding systems we use to offer
OCS tracts for lease (61 FR 3800). New Sec. 260.110(a)(7)
implements the new bidding system under section 303 of the
Act.
We published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPR) in the Federal Register on February 23, 1996 (61 FR
6958), and informed the public of our intent to develop
comprehensive regulations implementing the Act. The ANPR
sought comments and recommendations to assist us in that
process. In addition, we conducted a public meeting in New
Orleans on March 12-13, 1996, about the matters the ANPR
addressed.
On March 25, 1996, we published an interim final rule in
the Federal Register (61 FR 12022) specifying the royalty-
suspension terms under which the Secretary would make tracts
available under the bidding system requirements of sections
303 and 304 of the Act. We issued an interim final rule, in
part, because we needed royalty relief rules in place before
the lease sale held on April 24, 1996. However, in the
interim final rule we asked for comments on any of the
provisions and stated that we would consider those comments
and issue a final rule. This final rule now modifies some of
the provisions in the March 25, 1996, interim final rule.
On May 31, 1996, we published another interim final rule in
the Federal Register (61 FR 27263) implementing section 302
of the Act. The interim final rule established the terms and
conditions under which the Minerals Management Service (MMS)
would suspend royalty payments on certain deep water leases
issued as a result of a lease sale held before November 28,
1995. (The rule also contained provisions dealing with
royalty relief on producing leases under the authority
granted the Secretary by the OCS Lands Act.) We again asked
for comments that we would consider before issuing a final
rule.
Simultaneous with the publication of this rule, we are
issuing another final rule (RIN 1010-AC13) to replace the
interim final rule implementing section 302 of the Act. The
final rule will revise 30 CFR 203 to establish conditions for
suspension of royalty payments on certain deep water leases
issued as a result of lease sales held before November 28,
1995.
II. Responses to Comments
One respondent--Exxon Exploration Company (Exxon)--
submitted comments on the Interim Final Rule for Deep Water
Royalty Relief for New Leases, issued March 25, 1996.
Exxon disagreed with our definition of the term ``Field''
(Sec. 260.102). Exxon said that our definition could be
applied in such a way as to place unrelated and widely
separated reservoirs within the same field. Exxon offered an
alternative definition that it said provides for the creation
of fields based on geology by allowing the inclusion of
separate reservoirs in the same field when there is a
meaningful geologic relationship between those reservoirs and
avoids inclusion of reservoirs when such a relationship does
not exist.
Exxon offered this alternative definition:
``Field means an area consisting of a single hydrocarbon
reservoir or multiple hydrocarbon reservoirs all grouped on
or related to same local geologic feature or stratigraphic
trapping condition. There may be two or more reservoirs in a
field that are separated vertically by intervening impervious
strata. Separate reservoirs would be considered to constitute
separate fields if significant lateral separation exists and/
or they are controlled by separate trapping mechanisms.
Reservoirs vertically separated by a significant interval of
nonproductive strata may be considered as separate fields
when their reservoir quality, fluid content, drive
mechanisms, and trapping mechanisms are sufficiently
different to support such a determination.''
Except for a minor editorial change, we have decided to
leave the definition of ``Field'' unchanged from the interim
final rule for the following reasons:
The definition in the interim final rule is similar to, or
consistent with, standard definitions used in industry and
government, including the American Petroleum Institute, the
National Petroleum Council, and the Department of Energy's
Energy Information Administration.
We do not segregate reservoirs vertically since the
reservoirs are developed from the same platforms and use the
same infrastructure. Affected lessees/operators typically
make development decisions based on a primary objective(s)
knowing that secondary targets exist which they will pursue
subsequently.
Reservoir quality, fluid content, and drive mechanisms are
not appropriate determinants for field designations. These
factors are reservoir performance/recovery issues. Indeed,
such information is rarely available to MMS at the time field
determinations are made. We have not considered these factors
in our past field designations and their inclusion now would
complicate the process significantly and lead to too much
subjectivity.
Elements of the alternative definition, e.g., ``a
significant interval of nonproductive strata'' and
``significant lateral separation'' would be difficult to
define and even more difficult to apply consistently.
We recognize industry's concerns about field designations.
This rule establishes, as discussed below, a process whereby
lessees may appeal field designations to the Director, MMS.
Other steps include:
The MMS Field Naming Handbook, which explains our
methodology for designating fields, is available on the
Internet (www.mms.gov). The Gulf of Mexico Region will
entertain suggestions for improvements in the methodology.
We will elevate the level at which we make field definition
decisions in the Gulf of Mexico Region. The Chief, Reserves
Section, Office of Resource Evaluation, will make these
determinations after a lease has a well into the field
qualified as producible.
As part of the field designation process, affected lessees/
operators will have the chance to review and discuss the
field designation with Gulf of Mexico Region personnel before
MMS makes a final decision.
III. Summary of Modifications to the Interim Final Rule
As discussed below, we have modified the interim final rule
to:
Allow for appeals of field designations;
Clarify when the cumulative royalty-suspension volume ends;
Describe how MMS will establish and allocate royalty-
suspension volume in fields that have a combination of
eligible leases and leases that are granted a royalty-
suspension volume under section 302 of the Act; and
Eliminate the reference to a pressure base standard in the
provision for the conversion of natural gas to oil
equivalency (Sec. 260.110(d)(14)). The rule now indicates you
must measure that natural gas in accordance with the
procedures set forth in 30 CFR 250, subpart L.
1. We have added a new provision (Sec. 260.110(d)(2))
establishing that you or any other affected lessees may
appeal to the Director the decision designating your lease as
part of a field. The Director's decision is a final agency
action subject to judicial review.
2. The preamble to the interim final rule indicated that a
royalty-suspension volume would continue until the end of the
month in which cumulative production from eligible leases in
the field reached the royalty-suspension volume for the
field. The interim final rule itself did not include this
provision. This final rule now includes a provision
(Sec. 260.110(d)(10)) that a royalty-suspension volume will
continue through the end of the month in which cumulative
production from leases in the field entitled to share the
royalty-suspension volume reaches that volume. The purpose of
this provision is to avoid the complications that would occur
for royalty payors if the royalty rate changed in the middle
of the month.
3. We have modified Sec. 260.110(d)(9) and added a new
Sec. 260.110(d)(10) to describe how MMS will establish and
allocate royalty-suspension volumes in fields having a
combination of pre-Act and eligible leases. (Pre-Act leases
are defined as OCS leases issued as a result of a sale held
before November 28, 1995; in a water depth of at least 200
meters; and in the Gulf of Mexico west of 87 degrees, 30
minutes West longitude. See 30 CFR 203.60 through 203.80).
The provisions are necessary to account for and ensure
consistency with the deep water royalty relief rules for pre-
Act leases (Sec. 203.60). We published the interim final rule
for pre-Act leases on May 31, 1996 (61 FR 27263), after
publication of the interim final rule for new leases in deep
water on March 25, 1996.
We have added wording in Sec. 260.110(d)(9) for cases where
an eligible lease is added to a field that includes pre-Act
leases granted a royalty-suspension volume under section 302
of the Act. This rule provides that the addition of the
eligible lease will not change the field's established
royalty-suspension volume. The added lease(s) may share in
the suspension volume even if the volume is more than the
eligible lease would qualify for based on its water depth.
The new Sec. 260.110(d)(10) describes a case where pre-Act
leases in a field that includes eligible leases apply for and
receive a royalty-suspension volume larger than the
suspension volume established for the field by the eligible
leases. This rule provides that the eligible leases may share
in the larger suspension volume to the extent of their actual
production until cumulative production by all lessees equals
the royalty-suspension volume.
4. This final rule states that lessees must measure natural
gas in accordance with 30 CFR 250, Subpart L. We have
eliminated the specific measurement procedures from the
interim final rule because a forthcoming final rule will
change those procedures.
IV. Administrative Matters
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
This rule is a significant rule under E.O. 12866 due to
novel policy issues arising out of legal mandates. You may
obtain a copy of the determination from MMS. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this rule.
[[Page 1605]]
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior (DOI) has determined that
the primary impact of this rule, i.e., royalty relief to spur
deep water oil and gas development, may have a significant
effect on small entities although we can't estimate their
number at this time. The number of small entities affected
will depend on how many of them acquire leases that meet the
statutory and regulatory criteria for royalty relief at lease
sales between November 28, 1995, and November 28, 2000.
Exploration and development activities in the deep water
areas of the Gulf of Mexico have traditionally been conducted
by the major oil companies because of the expertise and
financial resources required. ``Small entities'' (classified
by the Small Business Administration as oil and gas producers
with fewer than 500 employees) are increasingly active on the
OCS, including in deep water, and we expect that trend to
continue. The only firm to whom we have granted royalty
relief so far under section 302 of the Act is a small entity.
In any case, this rule will have positive impacts on OCS
oil and gas companies, large or small. Royalty relief in the
form of a royalty-suspension volume is automatically
established for leases that meet the statutory and regulatory
criteria. No applications or special reports are necessary.
The beneficial effect of this relief on companies'
financial operations will be substantial. Once we determine
that a lease is eligible for a royalty-suspension volume, the
value of that relief may range from tens of millions of
dollars to over $100 million. The suspensions will allow
companies to recover more of their investment costs before
paying royalties, which may allow greater opportunity for
small companies to operate in deep water.
This rule also will have a very positive impact on small
entities. Constructing and equipping the platforms and other
infrastructure associated with deep water development are
huge projects that involve not only large companies but
numerous small businesses nationwide as well. Once the
platforms are operational, other small businesses will
provide supplies and services.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains no reporting and recordkeeping
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Takings Implication Assessment
DOI certifies that this rule does not represent a
governmental action capable of interference with
constitutionally protected property rights. A Takings
Implication Assessment prepared pursuant to E.O. 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights, is not required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
DOI has determined and certifies according to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this final
rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any
given year on State, local, and tribal governments, or the
private sector.
E.O. 12988
DOI has certified to OMB that this regulation meets the
applicable standards provided in section 3(b)(2) of E.O.
12988.
National Environmental Policy Act
We examined this rulemaking and have determined that this
rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment pursuant to
Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 260
Continental shelf, Government contracts, Minerals
royalties, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands--mineral
resources.
Dated: September 22, 1997.
Sylvia V. Baca,
Assistant Secretary,
Land and Minerals Management.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Minerals
Management Service (MMS) amends 30 CFR part 260, as follows:
PART 260--OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING
1. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 and 1337.
2. In Sec. 260.102, the definitions for ``Eligible lease''
and ``Field'' are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 260.102 Definitions.
* * * * *
Eligible lease means a lease that results from a sale held
after November 28, 1995; is located in the Gulf of Mexico in
water depths 200 meters or deeper; lies wholly west of 87
degrees, 30 minutes West longitude; and is offered subject to
a royalty-suspension volume authorized by statute.
Field means an area consisting of a single reservoir or
multiple reservoirs all grouped on, or related to, the same
general geological structural feature and/or stratigraphic
trapping condition. Two or more reservoirs may be in a field,
separated vertically by intervening impervious strata, or
laterally by local geologic barriers, or by both.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 260.110, paragraph (d) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 260.110 Bidding systems.
* * * * *
(d) This paragraph explains how the royalty-suspension
volumes in section 304 of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep
Water Royalty Relief Act, Public Law 104-58, apply to
eligible leases. For purposes of this paragraph, any volumes
of production that are not royalty bearing under the lease or
the regulations in this chapter do not count against royalty-
suspension volumes. Also, for the purposes of this paragraph,
production includes volumes allocated to a lease under an
approved unit agreement.
(1) Your eligible lease may receive a royalty-suspension
volume only if your lease is in a field where no current
lease produced oil or gas (other than test production) before
November 28, 1995. Paragraph (d) of this section applies only
to eligible leases in fields that meet this condition.
(2) We will assign your lease to an existing field or
designate a new field and will notify you and other affected
lessees of that assignment. Within 15 days of that
notification, you or any of the other affected lessees may
file a written request with the Director, MMS, for
reconsideration accompanied by a statement of reasons. The
Director will respond in writing either affirming or
reversing the assignment decision. The Director's decision is
final for the Department and is not subject to appeal to the
Interior Board of Land Appeals under 30 CFR part 290 and 43
CFR part 4.
(3) The Final Notice of Sale will specify the water depth
for each eligible lease. Our determination of water depth for
each lease is final once we issue the lease. The Notice also
will specify the royalty-suspension volume applicable to each
water depth. The minimum royalty-suspension volumes for
fields are:
(i) 17.5 million barrels of oil equivalent (MMBOE) in 200
to 400 meters of water;
(ii) 52.5 MMBOE in 400 to 800 meters of water; and
(iii) 87.5 MMBOE in more than 800 meters of water.
(4) When production (other than test production) first
occurs from any of the eligible leases in a field, we will
determine what royalty-suspension volume applies to the
eligible lease(s) in that field. The determination is based
on the royalty-suspension volumes specified in paragraph
(d)(3) of this section.
(5) If a new field consists of eligible leases in different
water depth categories, the royalty-suspension volume
associated with the deepest eligible lease applies.
(6) If your eligible lease is the only eligible lease in a
field, you do not owe royalty on the production from your
lease up to the applicable royalty-suspension volume.
(7) If a field consists of more than one eligible lease,
payment of royalties on the eligible leases' initial
production is suspended until their cumulative production
equals the field's established royalty-suspension volume. The
royalty-suspension volume for each eligible lease is equal to
each lease's actual production (or production allocated under
an approved unit agreement) until the field's established
royalty-suspension volume is reached.
(8) If an eligible lease is added to a field that has an
established royalty-suspension volume as the result of an
approved application for royalty relief submitted under 30
CFR part 203 or as the result of one or more eligible leases
having been assigned previously to the field, the field's
royalty-suspension volume will not change even if the added
lease is in deeper water. If a royalty-suspension volume has
been granted under 30 CFR part 203 that is larger than the
minimum specified for that water depth, the added eligible
lease may share in the larger suspension volume. The lease
may receive a royalty-suspension volume only to the extent of
its production before the cumulative production from all
leases in the field entitled to share in the suspension
volume equals the field's previously established royalty-
suspension volume.
(9) If a pre-Act lease(s) receives a royalty-suspension
volume under 30 CFR part 203 for a field that already has a
royalty-suspension volume due to eligible leases, then the
eligible and pre-Act leases will share a single royalty-
suspension volume. (Pre-Act leases are OCS leases issued as a
result of a sale held before November 28, 1995; in a water
depth of at least 200 meters; and in the Gulf of Mexico west
of 87 degrees, 30 minutes West longitude. See 30 CFR part
203). The field's royalty-suspension volume will be the
larger of the volume for the eligible leases or the volume
MMS grants in response to the pre-Act leases' application.
The suspension volume for each lease will be its actual
production from the field until cumulative production from
all leases in the field equals the suspension volume.
(10) A royalty-suspension volume will continue through the
end of the month in which cumulative production from leases
in a field entitled to share the royalty-suspension volume
reaches that volume.
(11) If we reassign a well on an eligible lease to another
field, the past production from that well will count toward
the royalty-suspension volume, if any, specified for the
field to which it is reassigned. The past
[[Page 1606]]
production will not count toward the royalty suspension
volume, if any, for the field from which it was reassigned.
(12) You may receive a royalty-suspension volume only if
your entire lease is west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes West
longitude. A field that lies on both sides of this meridian
will receive a royalty-suspension volume only for those
eligible leases lying entirely west of the meridian.
(13) Your lease may obtain more than one royalty-suspension
volume. If a new field is discovered on your eligible lease
that already benefits from the royalty-suspension volume for
another field, production from that new field receives a
separate royalty suspension.
(14) You must measure natural gas production subject to the
royalty-suspension volume as follows: 5.62 thousand cubic
feet of natural gas, measured in accordance with 30 CFR part
250, subpart L, equals one barrel of oil equivalent.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock,
Dairy and Poultry, Mr. Boswell of Iowa.
Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to say a
few words about this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I support it without reservation, in contrast to my
colleague from Iowa, another person who spoke a moment or two ago. I
really support this. Farmers across Iowa, across the Midwest, across
the country, realize that this is an opportunity for us to be more
self-sufficient.
I, some 30 years ago, was stationed as a soldier in Portugal when we
had the first oil crisis, and I realized that the chaos that took
place, that we are in bondage to OPEC. It was really bad then, but now
it is even worse. We are up to 65 percent import.
Here is something we can grow out of ground this year. It is the
thing to do. It is environmentally sound. We grow it out of the ground
this year. We can turn around and grow it next year and have a great
step forward and be independent in our energy production.
I hope that everybody will support this bill. It is a good thing all
the way around, not just the farmers, it is good for everybody. Support
H.R. 6.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, this is a tough vote for some of us here this
afternoon. For me, I support greater spending, spending for alternative
fuel, so that we can lessen our dependence on foreign oil. For me I am
appalled at the ineptness and bungling of the Interior Department's
troubled program to collect royalties on oil and gas and public lands
in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. It needs to be
investigated, and it needs to be remedied.
But other items in this legislation, specifically the repeal of
section 199, which will likely drive more refinery production elsewhere
overseas, and thus more jobs, is not right.
When Joe Barton was chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, he
was rightly proud of the process. It was open and, indeed, bipartisan.
Lots of debate, Democrats and Republicans, and lots of amendments were
accepted, Democrats and Republicans, and the proof was in the pudding.
We passed a bipartisan bill, energy bill, which included the vote of
Mr. Dingell, the chairman today of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Nobody saw this bill until late last week. No hearings, no markup in
subcommittee or full committee, no amendments on the House floor
allowed. We know this bill is going to pass, but listening to the
debate, I know it could have been a much better bill and one that could
have been called bipartisan, and it would pass by a much larger margin
than it will this afternoon.
Maybe the margin of the vote could have helped us with the Senate to
actually get the bill to the President's desk for his signature, rather
than a veto. I urge my Republican colleagues to vote ``no'' so that we
can truly pass a bill that will do something for our constituents in
our country.
Mr. Speaker, this is a tough vote for some of us.
For me, I support greater funding of alternative fuels so we can
lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
For me, I'm appalled by the ineptness and bungling of the Interior
Department's troubled program to collect royalties on oil and gas on
public lands in both the Clinton and Bush Administrations and it needs
to be investigated and remedied.
But other items in this legislation--specifically the repeal of Sec.
199 which will likely drive more refinery production elsewhere, and
therefore jobs, is not right.
When Joe Barton was Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, he
was rightly proud of the process. It was open and indeed bi-partisan.
Lots of debate (Democrat and Republican) and amendments accepted
(Democrat and Republican).
And the proof was in the pudding--we passed on a bi-partisan vote
which included the vote of Mr. Dingell--the new Chair of the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
Nobody saw this bill on the Republican side until Friday of last
week, no hearings, no markup in subcommittee or full committee and no
amendments on the Floor. This bill will pass, but listening to the
debate, I know it could have been a much better bill and one that
really could be called bi-partisan and pass by a much greater margin
than it will today.
And maybe--the margin of that vote would help us, with the Senate, to
actually get the bill to the President's desk for signature rather than
a veto.
I urge my Republican colleagues to vote ``no'' so we can truly pass a
bill that will do something for our constituents.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to a leader on the Agriculture Committee and in the Congress on
renewable fuels, the distinguished gentlelady from South Dakota (Ms.
Herseth).
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding.
I rise today in strong support of this bill, the CLEAN Energy Act of
2007.
It is the capstone of the Democrats 100-hour agenda for America, and
it is also a significant step towards fulfilling our commitment to
meeting our Nation's growing energy needs with clean, homegrown,
renewable sources. This bill will redirect roughly $14 billion of
taxpayers's money to help fund important existing renewable energy
programs, accelerate the development of new and more aggressive
renewable energy initiatives and technologies and promote energy
efficiency.
The biofuels industry, though still in its infancy, is already
providing much needed income to thousands of family farmers and rural
citizens across the Great Plains and across the Midwest. It has proven
to be a vital economic lifeline to hundreds of communities.
It is the tip of the iceberg. This bill will provide additional
funding to further advance research and development in order to greatly
diversify the feedstock used to produce biofuels, including cellulosic
ethanol. This will include not only dedicated energy crops, but also
crop residue, municipal waste, woody biomass and a whole source of
other inexpensive renewable sources.
The benefits that will flow from this bill are broader than just
biofuels. It can also promote the development of wind energy in this
country. In addition to having considerable corn and biomass resources
for the production of biofuels in my home State of South Dakota, we
also have been blessed with an abundance of wind.
In fact, the Dakotas have been called the Saudi Arabia of wind
energy. For decades wind energy development in this country has been
hamstrung by inadequate and erratic Federal support.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact long-term
incentives to provide the certainty and the resources to vastly
increase the role of wind in our Nation's energy picture. This bill
reprioritizes our national energy policy and our future investments in
a way that recognizes the unique challenges, but also the undeniable
strengths of rural America. We truly have the solution to our national
energy crisis growing in and blowing over our fields.
{time} 1600
This bill is a strong statement of our commitment to an energy policy
that decreases our dependence on foreign oil, benefits the environment,
enhances our national security, and revitalizes rural America's
economies, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page 1607]]
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), the
chairman of the General Farm Commodities Subcommittee and a leader on
renewable fuels on the committee and in the Congress.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate Speaker Pelosi and the House
Democratic leadership for bringing this legislation to the floor for a
new direction for America's energy independence. Last Congress, I had
the honor of serving with Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth as co-chairs
of the Speaker's Rural Working Group. Working with leaders like
Chairman Collin Peterson, we identified biofuels as a win-win for
America's energy needs.
Over the past few years, as gas prices have steadily risen higher and
higher, there has been no significant legislation passed in this body
to gain our energy independence. Anyone who has filled up his or her
gas tank in the past year knows that gas prices are highly volatile and
really too high for the average American.
Yet while Americans are struggling to make ends meet, oil companies
are making record profits. As a former small businessman in North
Carolina and as a part-time farmer, I believe it is our duty to find
alternatives for what can become a dangerous reliance on foreign oil.
And let me be clear, our Nation has the capacity to gain its energy
independence. H.R. 6 will promote this by creating a renewable fuel
standard requiring that, by 2015, 15 percent of our fuels be renewable.
This legislation will also extend and expand tax credits for ethanol
and biodiesel. It will extend loan guarantees to farmers to produce
renewable energy, and it will increase and expand tax credits to
promote the use of flex fuel vehicles.
Today we have the technology to solve our energy crisis growing in
our fields. We have the ability to turn soybeans and peanuts, both
grown in large amounts, I should say, in my home State of North
Carolina, into biodiesel, and the technology to turn sugar cane and
corn into ethanol. What we haven't had up to this point is the
leadership to develop the infrastructure needed to facilitate the use
of these fuels.
This legislation before us today will begin to do just that. I
encourage my colleagues to vote for H.R. 6.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the Chair of the
Agricultural Appropriations Committee and a leader on agriculture
issues and energy independence.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the need to move our Nation toward energy
independence has never been clearer, yet this administration has stood
by, leaving consumers struggling to pay their winter heating bills as
oil companies continue to enjoy billions in record profits.
With this legislation, we can recover $14 billion in unnecessary oil
and gas subsidies and target that money toward where it should have
been going all along, into renewable energy sources created right here
at home, into alternative fuels grown on our farms and energy-
efficiency technologies, creating jobs, protecting our consumers and
our economy.
We could generate over 800,000 jobs by 2010, jobs from the Great
Plains to the Northeast. In Bethlehem, Connecticut, we have the first
biodiesel production plant in New England, in partnership with Maryland
and Delaware soybean growers.
By supporting this legislation, we have an opportunity to begin
bridging the cultural, economic and social divide growing between rural
America and other parts of the country. It starts with investments. It
starts with this bill. Let us take control of our energy policy. Let us
put our country on the path to energy independence and reenergize our
farm economy.
Let's pass this bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when we can work across the
aisle to do what I have heard so many of the speakers here today talk
about doing in terms of encouraging greater production of renewable
energy here in the United States. The committee will look forward to
doing that, indeed.
But this legislation doesn't do it. Unfortunately, it doesn't do it
because of the very closed rule that we pointed out throughout the
Democrats' 100 hours; no openness whatsoever, in contrast to the
Contract with America, when Democrats offered 154 amendments. In fact,
48 were adopted.
We could have spelled out in good legislation, if it had been through
the committee process and we had held hearings and markups in each of
the committees represented here today, to say what we were going to use
this money for.
But, instead, what we are asked to do is vote for a tax increase on
domestic production of energy, no tax increase on Venezuela and Hugo
Chavez, no tax increase on Iran, no tax increase on any Middle Eastern
country, no jobs lost over there, but jobs lost in the United States
and American consumers paying for it at the gas pump and American
farmers and ranchers paying for it with increased energy cost.
Oppose this legislation.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have been around agriculture all my life, and I have
never seen the excitement that is generated by this opportunity,
because not only are we going to have economic benefits; we are going
to help get this country off oil dependence.
The internal combustion engine and diesel engine were invented to run
on alcohol and peanut oil. They went to gasoline because it was cheaper
and I guess more available. Well, times have changed and we are going
back to the future, and this legislation is going to give us the
opportunity and the resources to do that.
So I encourage everybody to support H.R. 6.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hall) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as a father of a 5-year-old daughter, I am deeply
concerned about the future of our country. I am concerned that our
children could be the first generation of Americans that do not have a
better quality of life than their parents. I am concerned about the
availability of quality jobs for our children. I am concerned that our
country's competitive position in the world will continue to
deteriorate. And I am concerned that our country will not have access
to energy supplies needed to sustain our economy and our growth.
For far too long, our country has relied on foreign sources of oil to
meet our energy needs. This dependency is bad for our economic
security, it is bad for our national security, it harms our ability to
create new quality jobs, and it harms our ability to maintain our
competitive position in the world. Ten years from now, I want to look
at my daughter and know that I did my part to find a solution.
The bill we are considering today will make a significant down
payment for the development of new energy technologies. A stable
domestic energy supply is essential to economic well-being and security
of our Nation. For years, we have been chipping away at energy policy,
increasing production here, a tax incentive there, funding energy R&D
when it is convenient, and letting programs languish when it is not.
It is time we think of new ways to approach this problem. Replacing
traditional energy sources requires an unprecedented basic research and
development technology effort. We must be a world leader, developing
new technologies and sustainable energy sources that will maintain our
competitive position.
As chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, you have my
commitment that our committee will be
[[Page 1608]]
doing our part. We will be working to use R&D to accelerate the
production and use of new biofuels, increase the use of renewable
energy, like solar, wind, geothermal, and boost energy efficiency in
part by making the Federal Government a model of conservation.
We will not ignore the potential contribution of clean coal, carbon
capture and storage technologies and better, cleaner ways to produce
oil and gas. And we will not shy away from engaging in a thoughtful
dialogue of the role of nuclear power. In these ways, we will help
ensure a strong, secure energy future for our children and help
manufacturers keep jobs here by ensuring a stable, reliable, and
affordable energy supply.
Mr. Speaker, today I will have the privilege of yielding my time to
the next generation of leaders in the energy debate. These new members
of the Committee on Science and Technology came to Washington to change
things and to make a difference. This is their chance. This is their
opportunity to leave a legacy that includes the creation of a
reasonable, balanced, and effective energy policy for years to come. I
am proud I can join with them in supporting this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today, of course, in opposition to H.R. 6. While
I would like to believe that we all have the same goal in creating
energy independence for our country, I really regret that this bill
before us today would not lead us to that goal. This is really, I am
very fearful, just the initial attack or one of the early attacks on an
industry that is going to have other attacks this year, that survived
the windfall profit tax that passed during the Jimmy Carter years of
disaster, as far as energy was concerned.
This energy act is more likely to increase the dependence on foreign
oil. By decreasing after-tax revenues for oil and gas companies,
including the small independent producers that are considered small
businessmen, the effect will be an increase in the cost of energy to
consumers and a decrease in domestic exploration and production of oil
and natural gas, because companies will have less money available to
them for their activities.
This will, of course, require our country to import more oil and
natural gas from countries that are not our natural allies. We will be
dependent on these countries and to the OPEC group to supply us with
the lifeblood of our economy. I just can't in good conscience vote for
anything that would have that type of outcome.
I have said all along that this country will fight for energy, and
the way to prevent our sons and daughters and grandsons and
granddaughters from having to go overseas to take some oil away from
someone or another country is to ensure that we utilize our own natural
resources efficiently and effectively.
I am well aware that drilling alone on U.S. soil is not going to
quickly solve all of our problems. I know that we also need to expand
our usage of renewable energy and increase the efficiency of how we use
fossil fuels. This is why I am supportive of the legislation that
passed last Congress on a voice vote under suspension of the rules by
my colleague from Illinois, Congresswoman Biggert. Among other
initiatives, her bill supports the development and advancement of
renewable energy in areas such as solar, wind, biofuels, coal, and
encourages energy efficiency in buildings and technology.
I am fully supportive of seeing these initiatives enacted now. We
have unanimous bipartisan support. Why do we need to wait for
``subsequent legislation,'' as is stated in the Rahall bill? Let's not
wait any longer to ensure energy independence.
The United States has substantial amounts of oil and natural gas, but
our laws prevent our domestic companies from accessing these resources
in both onshore and offshore areas. In fact, we are the only country in
the world that has limited ourselves like this. If our goal really is
energy independence, then we need to increase access to our domestic
resources, not increase taxes on one industry.
{time} 1615
The point to remember here is that the Tax Code has little to do with
the increase in energy prices. So penalizing oil and gas companies by
increasing their taxes is not going to solve our energy problem.
Make no mistake, this country will fight for energy, and if we have
to we will send our sons and daughters across the ocean to take energy
away from someone when we have plenty right here at home.
Let us help our constituents, not hurt them. Vote against H.R. 6.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) and welcome him back
to Congress and to the Science Committee, my friend.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6. When I was
campaigning last year back in Indiana, people found it incredible that
while they were paying $3 a gallon for gasoline Congress was giving the
oil companies a tax cut. They wanted change because of those kinds of
things that Congress was doing.
Well, today, they are going to get their change. Instead of giving
tax cuts to oil companies we are going to pour those resources into
renewable energy.
My home State of Indiana boasts two premier research universities,
Indiana University and Purdue University. Both of these schools have
renowned research labs that study a wide range of topics, including
alternative energy creation and use.
Indiana has a lot to contribute to the field of alternative energy.
My constituents are very involved in biodiesel oil production. It is
important to remember this source of alternative energy, as well as
ethanol and hydrogen when deciding what types of initiatives to support
with the new clean energy fund.
I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill that will
help make the United States truly energy independent.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Akin) on the Science Committee.
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to discuss the
question here about our dependence on foreign oil.
The leadership in the House of Representatives because of the last
election has changed, but the problems that confront our Nation remain
the same. The question is how are we going to deal with our dependence
on foreign oil, and that is a serious question for many reasons.
Well, there are different ways to approach it, but it is certainly
hard for the party of the Democrats that are now in charge to advocate
a lot of nuclear because they have a lot of people who do not like
that. Very well. And they really do not like burning a lot of fossil
fuels because of global warming.
Well, what tool are we going to use? Well, we use our favorite tool,
a tax increase. The only trouble with a tax increase, though, is what
it is going to do is it is going to make the problem worse because when
you increase the taxes on American oil and gas by $10 billion you make
it less competitive, and if they are less competitive that means OPEC
fills in the gap.
Now, is this just about the problem of $3 gasoline? The answer is no.
It is about a lot more than that. When you go over to the Middle East,
particularly a human rights trip that I took about a year or two ago to
Pakistan, what you find is that there is a very nice country by the
name of the Saudis who are funding private education so the little kids
in Pakistan can learn. Well, until you find out what they are learning.
They are being trained to be radical Islamic terrorists. And who is
funding this? Saudi oil money, OPEC oil money.
So this question before us today is not just about SUV owners paying
$3
[[Page 1609]]
for gasoline. It is a question about where is that money going and the
radical Islamists that we are going to fund essentially with this tax
increase.
So this is a bill that is trying to deal with a problem that is a
serious problem, but a tax increase is not the way to go.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Mitchell), the former mayor of Tempe, as
well as a former member of the Arizona State Senate.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be cosponsor of H.R. 6, the
CLEAN Energy Act, because it is time for Congress to do more than talk
when it comes to investing in clean and renewable energy sources.
During this last election, the American people asked to repeal
billions of dollars in indefensible tax giveaways to big oil and invest
in new, clean energy technologies that will reduce our dependence on
foreign sources of fuel, and this is what we are doing today.
We are keeping our promise to the American people and we are meeting
our obligation to our grandchildren and future generations of Americans
by improving our national security and protecting our environment.
But there is another important benefit we are talking about today,
and this is an important step in growing the American economy and
creating good, high paying jobs.
By investing in research and development for solar, wind and other
sources of clean energy, we will be tapping the potential of our
Nation's most innovative minds and best engineers.
I am particularly excited about investing in solar energy because I
believe my State of Arizona can one day be the Middle East of solar
energy, and instead of importing energy we can export it around the
world.
This bill puts us on the right path.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is a three-legged stool if we
are going to get to energy independence. It is alternatives fuels,
which there is great promise. There is also the expansion of
refineries. We knew that early, and if we were going to have a stable
supply and cheaper prices, we needed more refining capability in
America. And it was domestic production. You need all three so that we
do not send more money to Ahmadinejad and Chavez.
Political theater is what we see here today. A bill that did not go
through the committee process gives you this.
I agree, giving $400 million to a CEO of which they had no material
stake in a company is wrong, but what is worse is giving more money to
the very people who are targeting the United States and seek our
destruction.
Do not fool yourself. This is where this money is going. You make it
more expensive to refine gasoline in the United States, this bill does
it, they will buy it offshore. You make it more expensive to produce
energy in the United States, they will buy it offshore.
These will be the recipients of these dollars. Let us take this bill
back and go do it the right way. We can come together on renewable
energy. Michigan State University is doing great work on cellulosic
research, so we can get to that next generation of ethanol that burns
efficiently in American-made automobiles. But we cannot do it if we are
sending money to the very people that seek our destruction.
Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge that we have a little common
sense, we close the curtain to this political theater and we get back
to the reality of what our policies will really mean for the future of
this country. If you care about your children, stop sending the money
to Ahmadinejad and Chavez.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney) one of the few Members of this
body that really brings real world experience in the renewable energy
area.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Speaker, the energy policy in this country is neither sustainable
nor healthy. Every day we import $800 million worth of oil, and not
only does that put our economy at great risk, but some of that money is
going to the very people who would harm us.
Our vote today in H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, will begin
moving towards a rational and sustainable energy policy.
After spending more than 20 years climbing wind turbines and
developing new energy technology, I can tell you that we have not even
begun to realize the potential for jobs creation and sustainability in
this industry. We need to be doing much more to expand the use of
renewable energy. This bill is a first step to diversify our energy
sources.
With H.R. 6 we will end billions of dollars of corporate welfare that
we have doled out to big oil companies currently enjoying record
profits.
By investing in new energy technologies, we will also create an
entire spectrum of good paying jobs right here in America. In fact, the
passage of this bill will produce nearly 1 million jobs, generating
close to $30 billion in new wages.
I am pleased that we are doing more than just paying lip service to
expanding innovation and clean energy by following through with our
responsibility to make the environment livable for future generations.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working in a bipartisan way with my
colleagues on the Science and Technology Committee to increase
innovation and investment in our energy future.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the bill on the floor.
Supporters of the bill claim that this will boost our energy
independence, promote the use of renewable and alternative energy, but
looking at this bill, you really cannot find anything that will help us
accomplish those goals.
In fact, there are four provisions in this bill that will make us
more, not less, dependent on foreign oil by making it more difficult
and more expensive to produce the needed energy here in the United
States.
The bill specifically disallows energy companies from receiving the
domestic manufacturing tax deduction, thereby making it more expensive
for them to do business in the United States and more likely that we
will be buying our oil from someone outside this country.
Higher energy taxes will be passed on to the consumers in the form of
higher gasoline and in the form of higher home energy prices.
Similarly, heavy users of oil and natural gas, such as other
manufacturers and agricultural producers, will feel the pinch of these
higher prices.
Mr. Speaker, I just cannot help but note the irony that film makers
will continue to be eligible for this manufacturing deduction, yet in
my district I have not had a single constituent complain about our
increasing dependence on foreign film.
The bill before us today would repeal the royalty incentives put in
place under last Congress' Energy Policy Act of 2005 to encourage the
energy production in hard-to-reach and technologically challenging
places such as the ultra deepwater Gulf of Mexico and offshore Alaska.
Mr. Speaker, the Gulf of Mexico delivers more oil and more natural
gas to United States markets than any other single source. Since
approximately 97 percent of America's coasts are off limits for energy
production, energy companies are forced to explore for and produce from
increasingly difficult-to-reach places.
The incentives included in the energy bill we passed in August of
2005, which now would be repealed by the Democrats, encouraged
production in the Gulf of Mexico that will help the Nation meet the
production needs of the future.
It is important to note that unlike the 1998-1999 Clinton leases,
under every provision in the energy bill, where royalty relief is
granted, the Secretary of the Interior is granted the authority to set
those price thresholds,
[[Page 1610]]
to set those price triggers based upon market price.
Producers would not and do not receive royalty relief through the
energy bill of 2005 under today's price climate. These provisions
provide energy companies with some price certainty, a price floor that
they need, that it is necessary to make to justify the billion dollar
investments in America's energy.
The bill creates a new Strategic Energy Efficiency Renewables Reserve
but does not specify how those funds would be used. Mr. Speaker, I
strongly support the increased use of renewable and alternative energy.
In fact, Texas has a strong State renewable energy portfolio and is the
largest producer of wind energy in the United States, but before we
cast our votes today let us be sure what we understand that the bill is
for. It is for partisan advantage, not for the good of the American
people.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), the successor of the former
chairman of the Science Committee.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in proud support today of the CLEAN Energy Act of
2007. My constituents in upstate New York know what it is like to have
to pay more than most people in the country for energy. They also know
what it is like to have to deal with winters that are more severe, and
they know that during those winter months they have to adjust their
budget to be able to handle the added expense for fuel costs.
But they also know that prices will continue to rise if something is
not done to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels.
{time} 1630
However, we must address our long-term energy demands with more than
just short-term solutions. We have to face the facts, and the fact is
that oil is a finite resource. We ought to be investing in a wide array
of clean energy.
The giveaways this legislation will reclaim from oil and gas industry
will be placed into a renewable energy account to fund research and
development of alternative fuels, providing a much needed new direction
to address our Nation's growing energy needs.
It is important to note that we don't pass this legislation today for
ourselves, but rather we pass this legislation for our children and our
children's children.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we
have left.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hinchey). The gentleman from Texas has 5
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Tennessee has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Judge Poe of
Texas, a member of the Transportation Committee.
Mr. POE. I want to thank my friend from Texas for yielding some time.
Mr. Speaker, where I come from in southeast Texas, that area of the
State is called the energy capital of the world. We have numerous
refineries, petrochemical plants, and hundreds of offshore rigs. Energy
byproducts from these areas are shipped all over the country, even to
States that won't allow refineries and, heaven forbid, those offshore
rigs near their shores.
This is a tax bill, and Economics 101 says when you tax something,
you get less of it. Now, we will get less energy because of this bill.
This tax bill will discourage energy independence. It will increase
gasoline prices; it will discourage American exploration; it will
increase dependence on foreign countries and OPEC; it will cost
Americans jobs, especially those in my district. It takes money and
invests it in alternative energy.
Investment is a politically correct word for Federal subsidies for
special interest groups. Alternative energy is necessary, but this bill
doesn't do that, and this bill breaks a contract this government
signed. Now we want to legalize contract breaking with oil companies
like they do in Bolivia and Venezuela.
So if this bill passes, Americans need to get their checkbooks out
because Americans are going to pay more at the pump. Americans always
have to pay.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the former State
senator from Arizona (Ms. Giffords), who really has experienced both
the private sector and the public sector and will be a great addition
to our Science Committee.
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled today to speak on this final
piece of legislation of our first 100 hours and perhaps the most
important piece of legislation, the CLEAN Energy Act.
In the early 1960s, in response to the Russians when they launched
Sputnik, President Kennedy decided to send a man to the Moon. And
remember his words. He said: ``We choose to go to the Moon. We choose
to go to the Moon in this decade, not because it's easy, but because
it's hard.'' And we did it and we led in science and math and
engineering, and it was greatness for our Nation.
These policies led to a major technological breakthrough that
benefited both our military and our economy; and now America faces a
greater challenge than ever. How we respond to this challenge will have
lasting effects not just for the American people but for the entire
world. We put our national security at risk when we are reliant on
unstable regimes, Middle Eastern oil, Latin American oil. We put our
economy at risk by not adequately investing in science and math and
engineering and technology, and we put our world at risk when we ignore
the real threats of global warming.
Ending America's addiction to foreign oil, investing in renewable
energy, and achieving clean energy independence is the Apollo mission
of our generation. This will not just result in better jobs and the
creation of hundreds of thousands of new economic opportunities for our
citizens, but a more stable and a more sustainable world. The CLEAN
Energy Act is a meaningful first step in our new mission, and I look
forward to working with both Republicans and Democrats in achieving
this goal.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for 3 minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, there is one economic fact that doesn't belong to the
Democrats or the Republicans. Facts work that way. And that is, that
price in the long run is the cost of production, period. It is true
with anything.
What we are doing with this bill, should it pass, is we are
increasing the cost of production, specifically, domestic production.
We live in a world where, in 2004, we spent $103 billion buying oil
from nondemocratic countries. Now, some of them might be your best
friends. Saudi Arabia, for example. Others might be less than your best
friends. Of course, I say that tongue in cheek. But Iran, Iraq, Russia,
Venezuela, that is who you are buying your oil from today; and you are
going to increase the cost of domestic production. It doesn't quite
make sense, except for in the context of the last 2 weeks, the context
of the transfer of power from Republican to Democrat. We were promised
open government; we were promised open rules; we were promised the
opportunity to add amendments and to have fair debates. And yet this
bill, as has been the case with the five bills before it, did not even
have a committee hearing. It is like giving a book report having not
read the book.
Sure, it is a power jam, and certainly the majority has the right to
jam its power through on the minority. But in this case, wouldn't it
have been more helpful to have a committee hearing so we could have
gotten rid of what I would call the tuna fish clause?
Now, we know what the tuna fish clause is. Right? That is where we
heard over and over again on the minimum wage debate that increasing
wages was good for everybody, good for the economy, good for the
worker, particularly the poor worker. And then we read this insidious,
surreptitious scheme to exempt American Samoa
[[Page 1611]]
and the tuna worker factories. Sorry, Charlie, but only the best tuna
workers are entitled to minimum wage, not the folks on American Samoa.
Now, that is the tuna fish clause. Now, frankly, I think other States
ought to have that option, too. We found out there was a tuna fish
clause yesterday in the education bill; and that was that the title of
the bill was to decrease the student loan interest rate down to 3.4
percent, but the tuna fish clause in it said that it was only applied
for 6 months of the bill. How do you go back home and tell people you
cut student loan rates in half when you only did it for 6 months? It is
a tuna fish clause.
How do you tell the American people that you are going to have open
government, and yet your first six bills bypass the committee process?
That is the tuna fish clause.
Today the tuna fish clause is that our domestic oil production is low
in terms of our consumption, and we are going to be increasing the cost
of the production, which will be passed on to the American consumers.
We do need alternative energy. We need it on a bipartisan basis. I
would say to the majority, you missed a great opportunity to work on
this.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
chairman of the Space and Aviation Committee from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 6, and I am compelled to respond to some of the criticisms of the
Members of the other party about the intent of this legislation.
It is clear that the oil and gas industry is doing quite well. There
are a number of tax breaks, tax credits, tax deductions, and
encouragements that are already in place. This bill says the short-term
benefits that were extended to the oil and gas community are
overridden, and that the royalty problems that we have had are going to
be revised and solved so that taxpayers get a fair return on their
investments. After all, we own these assets as the people of this
country.
This starts us finally on the right path by creating a Strategic
Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve. It says we will set aside $14
billion to invest in clean energy technologies. And as the Chair of the
bipartisan Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I can tell
you that these are crucial technologies not only to protect our
environment but to ensure job creation and, as a member of the Armed
Services Committee, to ensure our national security.
So I want to stand in strong support of this legislation. We ought to
pass it. The country is for it, and Democrats and Republicans are for
it.
I want to echo the views of many of my colleagues who have talked
about the importance of diversifying and balancing our energy portfolio
and moving toward a clean energy regime. We all know that energy
security and national security go hand in hand, and right now we don't
enjoy either. That's why--as part of the 100 Hours agenda--we are
passing this important legislation. We need a national effort to
address our reliance on foreign energy sources.
I rise in support of H.R. 6. H.R. 6 starts us finally on the right
path by creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve.
The CLEAN Energy Act would set aside roughly $14,000,000,000 to invest
in clean renewable energy resources and alternative fuels, promote new
energy technologies, and improve energy efficiency.
As co-chair of the bi-partisan Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency
Caucus, I can tell you that renewable energy and energy efficiency
technologies can increase our energy security AND allow us to think
anew about our energy future.
This isn't just about doing right by the environment--this is also
about creating jobs. The U.S. currently leads the world technology in
developing advanced energy technologies. But we won't hold onto the
lead for long unless U.S. government policies begin to favor their
development more than they do now. With the world market for new energy
technologies projected to be in the trillions of dollars in twenty
years, we would be foolish to forgo this opportunity.
And it is an opportunity--for new jobs, for rural development, for a
cleaner environment, for national security. States and localities have
realize this, and with federal action at a standstill, many of them--
like my state of Colorado--have already acted on renewable portfolio
standards and other forward-looking policies. Now Congress is in a
position to follow their lead.
We will use this strategic fund to extend the renewable energy
production tax credit to give the market the assurance it needs to
respond. We can extend energy efficiency tax incentives for buildings.
equipment, and appliances, We can invest in renewable energy and energy
efficiency research programs at the Department of Energy, and make sure
that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory has enough money and
enough staff to do its important work. It is these programs that can
drive down costs, make commercialization of new technologies possible,
and help retain America's leadership role in these technologies.
The best thing about investing in clean energy is that Americans
support it. This Administration supports it. Democrats and Republicans
alike support it. It is the right thing to do.
The CLEAN Energy Act sets our priorities straight, and for that
reason, Mr. Speaker, I will support it wholeheartedly.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have 30 seconds. We do not need
that. I will be glad to yield to Chairman Gordon all 30 of those
seconds.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas,
and I yield myself the balance of my time and his time.
You know, most of my life I have heard of red herrings. Today, I got
to hear about a red tuna.
It is amazing to me to think that the opponents of this bill could
categorize it as sending money overseas. The fact of the matter is what
we are doing is we are going to be developing an energy efficiency, an
alternative energy, renewable energy in this country so we don't have
to send money overseas. It is just the reverse. And not only are we
doing that, we are doing it in an economically responsible way in that
we are paying as we go. And that is the reason that we are taking these
unneeded tax breaks and using them to help us to develop a new type of
energy for this country, new jobs for my children, for your children,
and for our Nation.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I encourage
Democrats and Republicans alike to support this good bill.
Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I would inquire how much time I have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Baldwin). The gentleman from New Mexico
has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker and fellow House Members, let's take a look at what we
are doing here today. The Democrats say that they are reducing
America's dependence on oil by investing in clean, renewable, and
alternative resources. Both goals, I agree, are admirable.
In the process, they are trying to unravel a very thorny problem of
contracts that were badly negotiated by the Clinton administration,
contracts that the Clinton administration made no attempt to remedy.
But let's look at what is actually occurring.
In title I, we are penalizing American oil and gas companies and
rewarding foreign companies by taxing them differently. That is, we are
going to favor foreign jobs and foreign oil over domestic jobs and
domestic oil.
The second thing we are doing is charging a conservation fee on U.S.-
produced oil while protecting foreign oil from this tax. Now, again,
this is $9. If I could get the House to focus on the percentages for
just a moment.
If $9 is added on top of the $70 charged to a production company that
is making $70 a barrel, that is about 12.8 percent. But already the
price of oil has fallen to about $52. And if $9 is assessed into a $50-
a-barrel revenue stream, then it is 18 percent.
But what happens if the price of oil falls to $30? I would remind my
constituents that as little as 3\1/2\ years ago the price of oil was
actually at $20. And there, you now have a fee on top of the taxes that
is 45 percent. A 45 percent fee will begin to move exploration away
from this Nation.
In 1999 and 2000, I was in an oil and gas company that did repairs
for oil and gas wells. The price of oil fell to $6.
[[Page 1612]]
At that point, our fee is going to be 150 percent.
This bill is extraordinarily prescriptive in declaring not a percent,
but instead a fixed fee. It disadvantaged tremendously the production
of oil and gas.
But probably the most serious consequence of this bill is where, on
page 10, it describes that ``a lessee shall not be eligible to obtain
the economic benefit of any covered lease or any other lease.''
This is the piece of the bill that The Washington Post declares to be
heavy handed, the heavy-handed attack on the stability of contracts, a
process that would be welcomed in Russia and Bolivia.
In 2005, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez mandated that private oil
firms cooperate with new contractual changes. Those firms that did not
agree had their assets nationalized.
{time} 1645
This bill does not nationalize, but it prohibits firms who do not
agree from participating in future contracts. It is a very serious
contractual problem.
Bolivia in 2006 threatened to expel oil companies that refused to
agree to new government terms on already existing contracts. That is
extraordinarily close to what we are doing in this bill. What Bolivia
did has caused investors to begin to take their investments out of
Bolivia.
In Russia, President Vladimir Putin wants to gain complete control,
and so he has begun to renegotiate with companies like Shell, Exxon and
BP, who have held valid oil leases in Russia for several years. Mr.
Putin had a number of government agencies threaten to pull these leases
for a number of suspect reasons. That is exactly the language contained
in this bill.
I do not think it is the intent of my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle to be this heavy handed. This bill would have been presented
differently if it had been sent to committee, if it had been debated in
committee and if amendments had been allowed. My request is that we
vote ``no'' on this bill and we send it back to the committee where we
can get a good hearing to take the very troublesome parts of this bill,
troublesome parts which The Washington Post describe as heavy handed
and the sort of thing that you would expect in Russia and Bolivia.
In this country, we want an environment that causes people to go out
and invest. We want people to create jobs and to create a better
standard of living. But this bill begins to undermine the full faith
and credit of the United States by changing the contractual basis. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Baldwin). The gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. McCrery) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, the portion of this bill under my committee's
jurisdiction, the Ways and Means Committee, is somewhat complex; but
the effect it would have is simple. These provisions raise taxes on our
domestic energy industry. We should not mince words or use semantics;
that is what those provisions do. They raise taxes on our home-grown
domestic energy industry.
The result of that will be higher prices for gasoline, home heating
oil, fewer manufacturing jobs and even more dependence on foreign oil.
This legislation is in these respects the exact opposite of the energy
policy that the United States needs. Anyone who is serious about energy
security should oppose this bill.
There are two tax provisions in the legislation. The first deals with
geological and geophysical expenses. These costs, referred to as G&G
expenses, are amortized over several years, just like other business
expenses. The Democrats' bill would increase the amortization period
for costs associated with efforts to find new domestic oil and gas from
5 years to 7 years for the largest American oil companies. That would
raise their taxes by about $100 million over 11 years.
But the far larger tax increase is a second provision, and this one
is the one that is most unfair. It would eliminate the oil and gas
industry, and only the oil and gas industry, from eligibility for the
manufacturers' tax incentives, section 199 of the jobs bill. It
increases taxes not just on Big Oil but on all oil and gas companies,
big and small, that pay corporate taxes. That change will raise the
industry's taxes by $7.6 billion over 11 years. This provision would
not repeal any special tax break for Big Oil. It won't repeal any
subsidy for Big Oil. Instead, it would single out oil and gas
businesses for higher taxes than all other manufacturing businesses in
the United States.
Worse, it would not place any additional cost on foreign producers of
oil and gas. In effect, the legislation would give a new competitive
advantage to foreign oil producers and refiners. Why should Congress
vote to help Hugo Chavez's regime in Venezuela at the expense of our
own domestic energy industry?
The heart of the Democrats' argument seems to be that somehow energy
is not an American manufacturing industry. That conclusion is absurd.
The United States energy industry employs 1.8 million Americans. These
are precisely the sort of high-paying manufacturing jobs that Democrats
constantly complain America is losing. The average pay for those
workers is $19.34 an hour for workers for oil and gas extraction,
$28.41 an hour for refinery workers, and of course they get good
benefits in addition to that.
The new Speaker of the House has said, ``Manufacturing jobs are the
engines that run the economy. These are good jobs that give working
families high standards of living.'' And I agree with her.
The new majority leader has said, ``Jobs still will be the number one
issue next fall, and manufacturing job loss overseas is a subset of
that. We're hearing that giant sucking sound that Perot warned about.''
Well, given that prominent Democrats claim to be concerned about the
loss of American manufacturing jobs, why are they now leading an effort
to drive these jobs overseas?
We should also remember that these jobs are concentrated in the area
of the country that was hardest hit by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I
know in my State of Louisiana, good-paying energy industry jobs are a
key to our recovery.
In addition, as we saw in the wake of those storms, our domestic
refining is already strained to full capacity. The sticker shock many
of us faced at the pump after the hurricanes hit was not as a result of
a shortage of crude oil, but a shortage of refined gasoline. There are
now plans to substantially boost our refining capacity to avoid a
repeat of that situation. But repealing section 199 for American oil
and gas companies could change that and leave the United States economy
even more vulnerable.
We should also remember during this debate that oil companies are not
some sort of evil rapacious organization. Indeed, higher taxes on oil
companies affect nearly every American with a retirement or pension
account because those accounts now hold about 41 percent of the shares
in American oil and gas companies.
Both of these new taxes would discourage new exploration for domestic
energy resources and weaken our domestic energy industry, and the tax
increases will be passed along to consumers. In addition, the effects
will ripple throughout our economy, increasing the cost of nearly
everything Americans buy and nearly every service they hire.
Increasing the cost of producing oil and gas in America, which this
Democratic bill would do, will raise gasoline prices, ship
manufacturing jobs overseas, and make America more dependent on foreign
oil.
This bill certainly does not constitute a balanced energy policy for
this country. What it does constitute is a purely political exercise
that should be rejected by this House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
[[Page 1613]]
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, as I listened to my colleague from Louisiana, I would
think that the end of the Western World as we have known it is about to
descend upon us by these rather minor changes we are making in the tax
policy of this country, by taking back subsidies to an oil industry
that between January and September of 2006 has had $96 billion worth of
profit reported.
Now these are minor changes at the most and we know that. This is a
down payment on the changes that must go on in this country. We know
the American people have spoken on this issue. They are demanding
change. That is why they voted the way they did in November. They saw
what they got out of the White House and out of the Vice President's
office, the records of which are still kept secret so we don't know
what agreements were made with the oil companies at the beginning of
this administration.
I spoke earlier, and after I spoke I went out of the Chamber and I
bumped into some people from the National Wildlife Federation, and they
gave me 30,000 signatures of people who want this bill to pass, people
who care about the environment. People who care about global warming,
people who believe in national security, who believe in economic
security, signed this in the last 3 weeks. The American people
obviously are way ahead of us.
Detroit didn't know what was going on. The Prius was on the street
for 3 years in Tokyo, and they never saw it coming. When the Prius came
to the United States, the waiting time was 18 months long. That is what
we have to change. We have to change the thinking in this country about
whether we are going to be addicted to oil forever or not.
Now global warming is real. The average temperature in the ocean has
gone up 1 degree worldwide. In the Northwest, it is up more than 2
degrees. And the changes that means for salmon spawning and for the
ecology that goes on are under way. Yesterday's New York Times had a
story about the melting of the glaciers in Greenland. There is no
question about whether global warming is happening. The question is
whether this Congress will respond and lead the way.
Speaker Pelosi when she came in said she was going to do these things
and set a new direction for this country. Today we are finishing up 100
hours of efforts in a whole series of areas, this being the toughest,
this being the most complicated, the most costly, the one that is going
to take us the most time.
We can change the health care system in fairly short order if we want
to. We can change college loans in fairly short order if we want to.
But changing the way we use energy in this country needs to start
today.
No one says this bill is the be-all and end-all of what should
happen, but we can see countries that have done it. In Brazil, they
have gotten themselves off gasoline. They are using ethanol. We could
do that. The Brazilians are not smarter than we are. They just decided
as a country they were going to get off their addiction to oil.
The Danes, when we dropped our support for the wind industry, picked
up the technology and now at every place you go to see a windmill in
this country, it is made in Denmark. Why is that? We started that in
1994 with some amendments supporting the wind industry, and then we let
them expire.
Last year, 2005, we suddenly woke up and said, Oh my God, the Danes
are ahead of us. We better start again. There is a whole series of
things that we should be doing if we are serious about what is going to
be our future.
Now, I have hoped that we would have a day like this when we would
start to make the change. This is one small step. The Chinese say a
journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step. This is the
first step.
Mr. Rahall has done an excellent job, and I want to congratulate the
staff of the Ways and Means Committee, and particularly John Buckley
whose idea this bill was. He came to me with the idea. It was not my
idea. It was John Buckley's and congratulations to John.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R.
6, the ``Clean Energy Act of 2007.'' I agree with Democrats that we
need to invest more in renewable energy, including new ways to fuel our
cars. But by taxing American companies more for exploring and creating
jobs here at home--and letting foreign oil companies off the hook--this
bill says foreign oil and foreign jobs are good, American oil and
American jobs are bad. That's just crazy.
It's bad energy policy--with big costs. Costs to the consumer at the
pump, to the refinery worker in the Gulf, and to the retiree whose
pension depends on the strength of American industry.
Don't be fooled--the special tax breaks they say the oil and gas
industry gets aren't special at all. In 2004, at a time when
manufacturing jobs were heading overseas by the thousands and we were
increasingly worried about our foreign dependence on oil, Congress
passed a bill that gave a tax incentive to all American manufacturers
to get them to invest more here at home--including oil and gas
producers.
A year later, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act that the
Democrats say provided huge tax breaks to ``big oil.'' But they got
that wrong, too. According to the non-partisan Congressional Research
Service, this bill imposed a net tax increase of nearly $300 million
over the next decade. At the same time, we provided incentives for
energy exploration in difficult terrains so that our country could take
another step toward weaning ourselves off foreign oil.
And we're seeing an important result from these policies: Jobs. The
U.S. energy sector employs more than 1.8 million Americans, with good
pay--up to $30 an hour on average, and often with union benefits.
In Texas, energy independence is our economy's life blood. Over
35,000 people work in the oil and gas sector in the Houston area alone,
and nearly a quarter of our nation's crude oil is refined along the
Texas Gulf Coast. Drilling is at record levels and reserves of natural
gas are growing. Production is holding steady. The cost of oil, which
is historically volatile, is down. And while Democrats like to take a
swat at record oil and gas profits, these same companies are putting
those profits back into infrastructure and technology--often more than
twice their profits in a year. Margins are actually much lower.
But the damage inflicted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to our
exploration and refining capacity in the Gulf unmasked just how
vulnerable our energy sector is. Plans are underway to strengthen that
capacity--but that progress could be jeopardized if we place an undue
tax burden on our refineries. In an area of the country that's still
recovering from these disasters, why strip away even more jobs by
taxing an industry that is helping supply thousands?
What's even crazier is that House Democrats will now consider
American energy workers, including oil rig and refinery workers, as
foreign workers for tax purposes--just so they can raise taxes on U.S.
companies. Under this bill, farmers, software designers, and even
cartoonists are considered manufacturing workers, but Americans who go
to work each day to supply energy for this nation are classified as
foreign workers. Explain that.
Democrats like to claim that we need this bill to lower gas and oil
prices. I'm not sure who came up with that theory, but common sense
tells me that if we put a strain on domestic manufacturers, that only
serves to give a boost to foreign competition--and a boost to prices.
At a time when some Americans are relying on Hugo Chavez to heat
their homes this winter--we need to take a step back and clearly
understand the consequences of our actions. Repealing these tax
incentives would only serve to stifle domestic production of oil and
gas, raise gas prices and home heating costs for Americans, send more
jobs overseas, and increase our dependence on foreign sources of
energy.
The new House leadership may believe it scores them cheap political
points to target Texas energy companies, many of whom employ union
workers, but our communities don't think it's so funny. And at a time
we need more U.S. energy and less foreign oil, it makes no sense at
all.
As I said before, I believe we should invest in the development of
renewable energy and alternative fuels to protect our future and our
children's future. But short-changing American jobs today isn't the way
to do it.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, the
CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. This bill takes an important first step
towards a new energy future by investing in clean energy resources that
will reduce harmful pollution and help break our addiction to foreign
oil.
[[Page 1614]]
H.R. 6 would reclaim $13 billion in tax breaks and giveaways that the
Republican Congress extended to big oil in 2004 and 2005 and ensure
that oil companies pay their fair share to drill on public land. It
would use that revenue to create a Strategic Renewable Energy Reserve
to invest in clean, renewable energy resources and alternative fuels,
promote new energy technologies, develop greater efficiency and improve
energy conservation.
Over the last several years, Big Oil has raked in record profits
while our dependence on foreign oil has climbed ever higher. At the
same time, scientists have uncovered new and alarming facts about
global warming that demand our urgent attention. While there is broad,
bipartisan public support for investing in clean energy technology, the
last Congress and the Administration seem to have been more concerned
with taking care of their Big Oil buddies than steering us toward a
sustainable energy future.
Today, we have an opportunity to chart a new course. H.R. 6
establishes a forward-thinking approach to energy that looks to
American innovation to provide renewable energy for our future. Our
security, our economy, and indeed, our very existence require nothing
less.
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, it has been said several times but bears
repeating. When you're in a hole, stop digging. Our dependence on oil--
foreign and domestic--requires us to stop making the problem worse by
giving oil companies billions upon billions of dollars in truly
unnecessary subsidies that worsen our dependence. This bill redirects
$14 billion away from these subsidies and toward more sustainable
energy production.
The transition to a renewable energy economy is not optional. The
question is whether we will wait so long to create the transition that
we do not make it on our own terms. Europe gets it. They are pouring
orders of magnitude more money into research on renewables, positioning
their industries to thrive in the future. On the other hand, this
Administration has been digging its heels in by throwing billions of
taxpayer dollars at an industry that made record profits on the backs
of hard working Americans. We have a long way to go to catch up and
this bill steers us firmly in that direction. I urge my colleagues to
vote ``yes''.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of
the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN)
Energy Act, H.R 6. This critical legislation is an important step in
increasing our investment in the development of clean and efficient
energy technology that will one day end our dependence on foreign oil.
The oil industry has been reaping record profits while working
Americans have faced record high gas prices. Last year, while millions
of Americans struggled to afford gasoline at $3 a gallon, the top five
oil companies made nearly $97 billion in profit. The hard truth is that
at a time of record energy costs and oil profits, families in
Connecticut and across the country were getting tapped into twice: once
at the pump and once again with their tax dollars going to oil
companies in the form of tax breaks and subsidies.
The bill before us today restores some common sense to our federal
budget by repealing or minimizing nearly $13 billion in unnecessary tax
subsidies given away to the oil and gas industries. It includes a
rollback of a tax break for geological and geophysical exploration, a
provision that the President himself suggested that Congress eliminate.
In addition, it closes a $7.6 billion loophole written into the FSC/ETI
international tax bill which allowed oil companies to qualify for a tax
provision intended to help domestic manufacturers struggling to sell
their products overseas. Finally, the CLEAN Energy Act ensures that oil
companies that were awarded the 1998 and 1999 leases for drilling pay
their fair share in royalties.
Our dangerous dependence on foreign oil is much more than just an
energy issue--it is at its very core a matter of national security,
foreign policy, environmental responsibility, economic development and
technological advancement. Our dependence on foreign energy has grown
to an alarming 65 percent of our total need, and we send $800 million
each day to the Middle East and other oil producing countries.
H.R. 6 takes the important step towards ending this dependence by
directing receipts to a newly created Strategic Energy Efficiency and
Renewables Reserve. This fund will be used to fund future legislation
promoting energy efficiency and investing in renewable energy
technologies, such as the hydrogen fuel cells developed in Connecticut,
which will one day provide us with almost unlimited amounts of energy
to run our cars, power our homes and businesses and move us away from a
petroleum based energy economy.
Eliminating unneeded tax breaks for the oil industry and investing in
new energy sources are just part of the solution to lowering energy
prices for hardworking American families. As we move forward in the
110th Congress, we must also work to protect the American people from
high energy costs by preventing the manipulation of the oil futures
market and ending the practice of price gouging. H.R. 6 is just the
start and I look forward to working with my colleagues to address
issues.
Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the CLEAN
Energy Act. Protecting our environment and promoting energy
independence are two of the most important jobs I have as a Member of
Congress.
I have long advocated repealing some of the tax breaks we give oil
companies as ``incentives'' because our current market place provides
adequate incentive as is to find additional sources of oil.
I also support using the $14 billion this bill will save in royalty
relief to fund a renewable energy and efficient energy trust fund.
The bottom line is we are not resolving our energy needs because we
are not conserving. We'll just continue to consume more and waste more,
consume more and waste more, and act like it doesn't matter. This
legislation is a first step to begin to address our energy needs.
This bill is similar to a provision in my energy legislation, the
Energy for Our Future Act, which also repeals extraneous oil and gas
company tax breaks. This is just one of the three principal goals the
Energy For Our Future Act has for our national energy policy. I also
hope Congress works to improve the fuel efficiency of passenger
vehicles, provide incentives for the purchase of energy-efficient
appliances and promote the growth of renewable energy, all three of
which I deal with in my legislation.
In the past we have taken steps to increase our supply with no focus
on our need to conserve. I am pleased to see legislation that finally
recognizes that we are on a demand course that is simply unsustainable
if we do not take control of our over-consumption.
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this
bipartisan legislation which commits nearly $14 billion to renewable
energy technology and energy conservation and I rise in strong support
of it.
Today we are eliminating unneeded subsidies and tax benefits for the
largest and most profitable energy companies, and instead, investing
the resources in the development and deployment of renewable energy
resources and energy efficient technologies and practices.
This investment is critical because the status quo is not sustainable
for our country.
We know that:
(1) The burning of fossil fuels is accelerating global climate
change.
(2) We have only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves yet we consume
25 percent of the world's annual oil production.
(3) Two billion people on our planet today do not have access to
electricity which is a basic necessity of life and economic security.
They aspire to the prosperity we enjoy.
(4) Without a change, we will face stiff competition for oil from the
developing world. The Department of Energy estimates that China and
India will spur a tripling of energy consumption among Asia's
developing nations in the next 25 years.
Rather than a series of problems, I see a tremendous opportunity for
our nation.
In Silicon Valley in my Congressional District, the entrepreneurs who
developed personal computers, the Internet, e-commerce, biotechnology,
and nanotechnology are now turning to energy as the next great frontier
for innovation and growth.
With the growing global demand for energy, they understand that the
U.S. has the opportunity to be the primary exporter of clean energy and
clean energy technology.
In the first 9 months of 2006, these entrepreneurs helped fund $600
million of U.S. investment in green technology.
They are investing in bio-fuels, bio-fuel infrastructure, and R&D to
make bio-fuel production more efficient.
One company in my district is developing a fuel cell system that will
produce clean, onsite electricity for homes and offices while also
providing transportation fuel for hydrogen vehicles.
Others are developing technology that will put fuel cells in laptop
computers, consumer electronics and automobiles.
They are developing and manufacturing new, more productive solar
cells and solar technology.
Some of the largest computer, technology, and Internet firms are
working to develop solutions to reduce the power used by large data
centers.
In my region, Tesla Motors, now the third-largest American-owned auto
maker, has produced a new line of efficient electric sports
[[Page 1615]]
cars, with more practical and affordable models on the way.
This isn't happening just in Silicon Valley. Wal-Mart is committing
$500 million a year to become more energy efficient and reduce its
greenhouse gas emissions.
Just as it was important in the creation and commercialization of the
Internet, Federal leadership is needed in this endeavor.
With the funding we're setting aside today, we're setting a national
priority and providing the impetus for research, development, and
deployment of new and emerging renewable energy technologies in the
United States.
This is a very positive step toward energy independence and I urge my
colleagues to vote for this bill.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act. This
bill eliminates $7.7 billion in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil and
gas industry, and raises another $6.3 billion for the Federal Treasury
from new royalties on oil and gas removed from Federal waters. This $14
billion is a good down payment on future energy policies that can help
eliminate our oil addiction and stop global warming.
This bill is a good first step, but I will work with my colleagues to
eliminate many of the other unnecessary tax subsidies for the oil and
gas industry. Oil companies are enjoying record profits. Every time the
price of gas increases, the value of existing tax subsidies increases
and they make even more money. At a time of record gas prices and
record profits we should not provide tax incentives for exploring,
extracting or refining oil and gas.
The best ways to eliminate our dependence on oil and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions is to lower demand and reduce emissions from
power plants and vehicles. For example, fuel economy standards for
passenger cars have not been raised since 1985, and even lower ``light
truck'' standards encourage manufacturers to produce gas-guzzling SUVs.
I support raising fuel economy standards to at least 33 miles per
gallon, which would save 1.1 million barrels of oil a day by 2015 and
2.6 million barrels by 2025. Those who say that we can't do any better
than 20-year-old technology might also like to trade their DVDs for VHS
tapes, cell phones for pay phones, ipods for boomboxes, and then see
just how advanced 1980s technology seems today.
Eliminating tax subsidies will increase revenues, but we must spend
those revenues wisely in our quest for clean renewable energy sources.
Incentives for clean coal, ethanol and nuclear are not the answer. We
must focus our efforts on promoting advancements in wind, hydrogen,
solar and thermal power. These renewable sources can provide
significant energy output with minimal environmental impact.
I support H.R. 6 and urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for
a cleaner America.
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
6, which will raise the prices at the pumps, discourage domestic energy
production, hurt America's working families, and encourage America's
dependence on foreign energy.
I'm reminded of the family down the road from me back home in
Michigan. They are a family with four kids, both their parents work and
are struggling to get by; and if this legislation becomes law every
time they fill up their gas tank or heat their house it will be an even
greater burden on this family.
I've always said my number one priority while I'm in Congress is to
protect the American taxpayer, that's a promise I made and that's a
promise that I'll keep. Never voting for a tax increase is the same
promise I made and kept during my 16 years in the Michigan House.
This is the first tax increase vote in 13 years and it didn't take
the new majority more than 2 weeks to bring it to the floor to punish
the American worker.
This legislation doesn't just force taxpayers to throw more money to
the government, it also has our government tearing up already
negotiated private contracts with the government at the same time we're
trying to convince Russia, Venezuela and other countries to abide by
the rule of law and respect its citizen's property rights.
Bottom line, this bill will increase our reliance on foreign oil,
decrease our competitiveness and raise the prices at the pumps and the
energy bills of working families. I urge my colleagues to vote no on
increasing our dependence on foreign oil and yes on lower taxes, less
regulation and respect to the rule of law.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act. In the first 100 hours of this new
Congress, the time finally has come to end the royalty rip-off, which
has lined the pockets of Big Oil at the expense of the American
taxpayers for entirely too long. For years, I have been working to
ensure that Americans get what is owed to them from oil and gas
companies through my work on the Government Reform Committee, scathing
reports from the Government Accountability Office, and offering
amendments here on the House floor. I am thrilled that we finally have
the opportunity to give this issue the full attention it deserves.
It is indisputable that the American taxpayers are losing billions of
dollars in royalties due to them by the oil and gas companies who are
taking valuable resources out of Federal lands. The GAO estimates that
because price thresholds were not included in deepwater leases from
1998 and 1999, the government has already lost up to $2 billion in
royalties and could lose as much as $10 billion over the life of the
leases.
H.R. 6 addresses the problem by requiring current offshore fuel
producers with royalty-free leases to either agree to pay royalties
when fuel prices reach certain thresholds or agree to pay a new
``conservation of resource fee.'' It would also close loopholes and end
giveaways for Big Oil in the tax code and in the 2005 Energy Bill.
Together these savings would generate $14 billion to create a Created
Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil. The majority of the American public support
investing in alternative energy sources to end our addiction to oil,
and even President Bush promised to invest in clean renewable fuels and
cutting-edge technologies in his 2006 State of the Union Address. This
clean energy fund will be used to pay for upcoming legislation to
encourage people to use clean domestic renewable energy resources
already in existence, promote use of energy-efficient products and
practices, and increase research and development of new cutting-edge
technologies.
Today, we must take the opportunity to show the American people that
we are with them, not with Big Oil. H.R. 6 is an important first step
towards a smart energy policy and a clean energy future, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation
before the House, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007.
It's time for Congress to face the facts and begin to break our
nation's dangerous addiction to oil. The industry tax breaks and
royalty holidays that we seek to eliminate today no doubt serve the
interests of the big oil companies, but they do not serve the interests
of our nation's long-term energy security, or, for that matter, the
interests of taxpayers, consumers and the environment.
We import more than 60 percent of the oil we consume every day in
this country. We are increasingly dependent on oil imports from
volatile regions of the world and from countries that are not
necessarily our friends. If we do nothing, our dependence on imported
oil will only grow. Some will say that the answer is to provide more
subsidies and tax breaks to encourage oil drilling in the United
States. Well, we've tried that, and it hasn't worked. We're more
dependent on foreign oil than ever. All the industry subsidies in the
world won't change the fact that the U.S. has just 3 percent of the
global oil reserves. We can't drill our way out of this problem.
Rather than continue business as usual, today we are beginning to
chart a new course to energy security. The legislation before the House
repeals $13 billion in egregious tax subsidies and royalty holidays
that have been given to the oil companies in recent years. Instead, we
will invest these funds in clean, renewable energy that is made here in
the United States, including solar, wind, biomass, and biofuels. We
will also invest in new energy technologies and develop policies to
stimulate investment and deployment of energy efficient products and
services. Investing in alternative fuels and new energy technologies is
also an investment in jobs here in America.
I want to make it clear that this legislation eliminates only the
most egregious energy industry subsidies. First of all, we target the
flawed deepwater oil and gas leases that were awarded in 1998 and 1999.
Contrary to longstanding practice, these leases did not provide for
royalty payments--no matter how high oil prices rise. In this
legislation, we require that these leases be renegotiated. The American
people deserve a fair royalty for publicly-owned resources.
I also want to respond to some of the statements made today by
opponents of this legislation. Some have suggested that our legislation
unfairly singles out the oil and gas industry by repealing their
ability to take advantage of a tax provision intended to encourage
domestic manufacturing. This is not the case. Many of my colleagues
will recall that several
[[Page 1616]]
years ago our trading partners in the European Union successfully
challenged a tax benefit that the Federal Government provided to U.S.
exporters. Let's be clear that the oil and gas industry did not qualify
for the old FSC-ETI tax benefit, and neither did any number of other
U.S. industries, including financial services, hospitals, and real
estate, to name only a few. When Congress repealed the FSC-ETI in 2004,
we provided a replacement benefit to U.S. exporters in the form of tax
benefit for domestic manufacturers. But for some reason, this
manufacturing tax break was extended to include the oil and gas
industry, even though they were never eligible for the old FSC-ETI
benefit. If there is a problem with unfairly singling out an industry,
it is not in the bill before the House today. The problem lies in the
loophole in the 2004 bill that singled out the oil and gas industry to
receive a domestic manufacturing benefit that was not justified.
I hope this clears up this matter and that all my colleagues will
join me in voting for this important legislation.
Ms. WATSON. Madam Speaker, today Democrats will bring forward the
final piece of legislation in the Six for 06 for America, the Clean
Energy Act of 2007. This bill is vital in assuring the American
taxpayers that the government will close loopholes and end giveaways in
the tax code for major oil companies.
In my work as Ranking Member on the Government Reform Subcommittee on
Energy and Resources in the 109th Congress, I worked closely with my
colleague Darrell Issa in investigating the overlooked but serious
problems with the oil and gas royalty programs. The mismanagement of
several of these leases potentially could cost America's taxpayers
nearly twenty billion in royalties over the next 25 years because of
errors in drafting the leases.
Had the leases been negotiated properly, it is estimated that the
government would have collected an additional $700 million in royalties
in 2005 alone. Do the math. These funds would allow one American family
to fill their Dodge Caravan minivan over 12 million times, even with
the high gas prices we are facing now.
Madam Speaker, our citizens should not pay for bureaucratic mistakes
nor should they suffer the consequences of this administration not
holding these companies accountable. H.R. 6 will be a start to fixing
this and many other examples of government mismanagement in the energy
sector.
Madam Speaker, it is time for us to promote energy legislation that
will lead to positive outcomes for the economy and the environment
while protecting taxpayers and consumers. H.R. 6 does this and I urge
my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6. Over the
last 24 years, America's dependence on foreign oil has more than
tripled. We currently import about 65 percent of our oil, a new record
high. At the same time, the Federal Government has been providing tax
incentives that have only exacerbated our oil dependence problem.
It's time that we pass this bill and repeal the subsidies created in
the 2005 Energy Bill. These government giveaways could be much better
used by investing in research and development of clean, renewable
energy sources.
Madam Speaker, in my home State of New Jersey, we consume 11.1
million gallons of gasoline per day! That ranks 11th in the Nation.
With such high consumption in New Jersey and across our country, we
need to start thinking about the future and turn to alternative energy
sources. Americans need more choices at the pump.
This legislation will not solve our energy dependence problems
overnight, but we have to start somewhere. This legislation gives us a
good starting point. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 6.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Clean Energy
Act of 2007, H.R. 6.
This bill, like all of the bills brought to the floor by the
Democratic leadership under the Six for '06 package has the same
effect, to try to level the proverbial playing field so that every
American family has a fighting chance.
This bill takes a huge step in the right direction by repealing $14
billion in subsidies given to Big Oil companies and paid for by
American taxpayers. It also addresses a future that we know is coming--
a future where fossil fuels will be in far less plentiful supply--and
sets the stage for investing those profits in clean, renewable and
alternative energy technologies and sources.
This bill closes tax loopholes for oil companies, rolls back tax
breaks for geological and geophysical expenditures and repeals five
royalty relief provisions from the 2005 Republican energy bill. In
fact, this bill will require companies that have been reaping billions
in profits and providing record golden parachute packages to departing
CEOs while the average American family has seen an overall decline in
income, to pay royalties in order to qualify for new federal leases for
drilling.
The goal of this bill is energy independence for our country that
will allow our foreign policy decisions to be based more on what's good
for our citizens and not just what's good for our gas tanks.
I applaud the Democratic leadership for bringing this legislation to
the floor and I applaud this Congress for successfully passing six
critical pieces of legislation that affect the everyday lives of all
Americans.
Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, affordable and reliable energy is an
important component of continued economic growth. It heats and cools
our homes, facilitates the means of production, and fuels our
transportation system. However, politics, not sound energy policy is
driving the legislation before us today.
The tax provisions targeted for repeal in H.R. 6 are designed to
encourage new capital investment in U.S. energy projects, and they are
fulfilling this goal. Their repeal will discourage new domestic oil and
gas production and refinery capacity, threaten American jobs, and make
it less economic to produce domestic energy resources--thereby
increasing our dependence on imported crude oil and refined fuel
products. A recent economic analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers
confirms:
``Higher taxes on the U.S. activities of the oil and natural gas
industry, as would result under H.R. 6, would be expected to reduce
U.S. exploration, production, and refining activities and increase U.S.
dependence on foreign oil. This outcome is in sharp contrast to long-
term energy goals for a Nation less reliant on imported energy
sources.''
These results run directly counter to sound energy policy goals and,
by diminishing energy supplies, would strike a blow to U.S. energy
consumers.
Provisions in the bill affecting the deep water royalty relief
program will set back the significant gains in oil and gas production
that are attributable to the program and discourage new domestic
production. This program has been one of the most successful policy
stimulants for U.S. oil and natural gas exploration and production. It
has contributed to a nearly 400 percent increase in natural gas
production and more than 100 new discoveries.
The real impact of actions taken in this bill will be felt by our
Nation's manufacturers and every day consumers of energy. The higher
energy taxes will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher
gasoline and home energy prices. Similarly, heavy users of oil and
natural gas, such as manufacturers and their customers, will feel the
pinch of these higher prices and the effects of higher gas prices will
ripple throughout the economy.
This legislation would give an unfair competitive advantage to
foreign energy firms by placing tax increases squarely on the shoulders
of domestic energy producers. This will encourage domestic energy
companies, which employ 1.8 million Americans to move those jobs
overseas.
America's energy future is too important to risk a rush to judgment,
and H.R. 6 represents a significant step backward for our Nation's
energy security. Imposing new costs, whether in the form of taxes or
fees is contrary to the goal of providing stable and affordable energy
supplies for American consumers.
America's energy consumers deserve a sound energy policy that will
not hit them with unnecessarily increased energy costs. This
legislation is a poor substitute for a real energy policy. I urge my
colleagues to reject this punitive energy legislation and to decrease
our dependence on foreign oil.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I stand in opposition to H.R. 6. This bill
is fatally flawed, both because of the provisions that it contains and
also the process that brought it to the floor.
Simply put: Congress performs best when the process of Authorization,
Appropriation, and Oversight is followed through the regular order.
This bill seeks to both Authorize and Appropriate at the same time by
short-cutting the authority of the Budget Committee and directing
spending.
In addition, this new language was brought to the floor without the
benefit of review by any Committees, and even before the Resources
Committee has been organized.
Finally, this bill seeks to create a slush fund for spending on non-
specific programs with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that funds
are spent appropriately.
We are not talking about an insignificant amount; rather, CBO
estimates that these provisions will raise $14 billion dollars in
federal revenue--$14 billion that should be returned to the Treasury
for deficit reduction, if raised at all.
[[Page 1617]]
Beyond the argument of oil and gas tax incentives, sanctity of
contracts, or renewable resources, I simply cannot support a bill that
displays such a disregard for the legislative process and handle
taxpayer dollars with such irresponsibility.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise in
support of H.R. 6, which will help our Nation take a major step toward
energy independence.
We must recognize that we cannot dig or drill our way out of our
energy crisis and must move away from our reliance on oil and gas. Our
nation deserves a comprehensive energy policy that guarantees access to
affordable power, encourages energy conservation efforts, and pursues
increased use of environmentally responsible and renewable sources of
energy. H.R. 6 moves us in exactly that direction. It will close
expensive loopholes and end giveaways to oil and gas companies and
invest those dollars in clean and renewable sources of energy here in
the United States.
I have strongly supported efforts to develop and adopt new sources of
energy, not only for the important environmental benefits they create,
but also for their positive impact on our economy and national
security. Just as our Nation worked together to put a man on the moon,
we must now unite behind an energy policy that enhances national
security, creates American jobs, and protects our environment. We must
harness Americans' ingenuity and creativity to make the United States a
world leader in new energy technology and move our nation toward energy
independence.
Many of my colleagues have talked for a long time about how we need
to end our addiction to foreign sources of energy. Today we finally
have an opportunity to follow through on our promises by voting for
H.R. 6.
Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6, which
will begin to right our country's course on energy policy, steering us
away from costly subsidies for the oil and gas industries that are both
unnecessary and unwanted. Instead, this bill will allow our government
to invest in its own industries, which produce clean, efficient energy
that will improve our environment, produce jobs, and increase our
national security.
Madam Speaker, I cannot say why, during a time of record profits by
oil and gas companies, this industry was targeted for tax relief in
2004 and 2005. I honestly cannot say why the majority of this congress
thought it was a good idea to give away billions of taxpayer dollars in
this way. What I do know, is that I am not alone in wondering why.
Our own President, whose personal ties to the oil industry are well
known, has said numerous times that industry does not need these
subsidies. Just last year, he was quoted in the Washington Post saying:
Record oil prices and large cash flows also mean that
Congress has got to understand that these energy companies
don't need unnecessary tax breaks like the write-offs of
certain geological and geophysical expenditures, or the use
of taxpayers' money to subsidize energy companies' research
into deep water drilling. I'm looking forward to Congress to
take about $2 billion of these tax breaks out of the budget
over a 10-year period of time. Cash flows are up. Taxpayers
don't need to be paying for certain of these expenses on
behalf of the energy companies.
President Bush was saying these things even before we passed the
energy bill. In 2005 he said, ``With oil at more than $50 a barrel, by
the way, energy companies do not need taxpayer funded incentives to
explore for oil and gas.''
Even the President, from the oil State of Texas, understands that our
country needs to move in a new direction on energy policy. In his State
of the Union address last year, he said, ``America is addicted to oil,
which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way
to break this addiction is through technology.''
Madam Speaker, H.R. 6 will repeal the unnecessary giveaways to the
energy industry by reducing the tax deductions for exploration that
were included in the 2005 energy bill, and eliminating a tax break the
industry never should have had. This is expected to raise $6.6 billion
over 10 years, which will be set aside in a new strategic energy
efficiency and renewables reserve to go toward research and development
of newer, cleaner alternatives.
It is time for us to invest in the midwest, not the Middle East. I
urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, the real issue here is about
moving this Nation in the direction of energy independence.
It's true that this bill is about increasing royalties for oil
extracted from land owned by the American people.
Lease agreements from 1998 and 1999 mistakenly did not include the
proper royalty language.
As a result, the American people lost out on an estimated $865
million in royalties.
With this legislation, Congress has an opportunity, and a
responsibility, to correct this mistake.
We also have an opportunity to roll back unnecessary subsidies and
tax breaks for oil companies.
But the bill is not about sticking it to the oil industry as some
critics have claimed. It is about creating an important funding
mechanism for our Nation's energy future.
Throughout history, America has been an innovator in technology.
Benjamin Franklin's experiments with electricity paved the way toward
harnessing its capabilities.
The Wright Brothers flew the first airplane.
America was the first to put a man on the moon.
Now is the time for America to become a leader in another field:
renewable energy.
The funding generated from this bill will allow us to significantly
increase our Nation's investment in renewable energy.
As a Nation, we have become more and more dependent on oil. We simply
cannot maintain our current rate of oil consumption.
Madam Speaker, let's not wait until we hit rock bottom before making
significant progress toward energy independence.
When it comes to renewable energy, we must go forward with the
dedication and commitment that put America first in flight and put a
man on the moon.
Let's show the American people that this Congress will set this
Nation on the path toward clean, renewable energy.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in
support of H.R. 6, Creating Long-Term Energy Alternative for the
Nation, also known as the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007.
This bill closes up the tax loopholes that have enabled energy
companies to reap huge profits in recent years, as the prices of oil
and gas have risen exponentially.
It also rolls back a 2005 Energy Bill tax break for geological and
geophysical expenditures, and it repeals provisions that have enabled
energy companies to duck out on paying taxes on these profits.
One provision that especially appeals to me is the creation of a
Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve.
The Reserve will be used to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and
it would accelerate the use of alternative fuel sources and renewable
energy. In addition, it will encourage energy-efficiency and
conservation of our resources. The provision will also ultimately fund
research to produce better renewable energy technologies.
The House Science Committee, of which I am a member, has had hearings
and markups on renewable energy research strategies, and it is clear
that we should push harder toward renewable energy.
Energy research and development are the keys to lessening our
dependence on foreign oil and to lessening our dependence on fossil
fuels. The federal government should continue to support energy
research and also provide incentives to encourage the American public
and businesses to buy hybrid cars and support renewable fuels.
We must take the lead in supporting energy policies that are good for
the environment and help reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased we're discussing the growing
problem of America's dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas, and
the high prices that consumers are paying here at home. In the 109th
Congress we made great strides in promoting energy independence through
tax incentives for oil and gas exploration, improvement of outdated
infrastructure and added research into renewable resources.
But while the goal of ``energy security'' is a good one, I am
concerned that today's bill moves us away from that objective. I
frequently hear from constituents concerned about our growing
dependence on foreign supplies. And rightly so--when we experienced the
first ``energy crisis,'' foreign countries provided one, third of our
energy needs. Thirty years later, that reliance has nearly doubled.
H.R. 6 does not address this problem. Quite the opposite: Through
increasing taxes, the legislation makes it more costly for U.S. firms
to develop domestic supplies. This means our over-dependence on foreign
supplies will increase even more. The policies we have already put in
place are working: American production of natural gas is up 407
percent, and deep water oil production is up 386 percent. And billions
of dollars that would otherwise go to hostile nations have been
invested in renewable energy developed from open-loop biomass,
geothermal and other resources.
Madam Speaker, my constituents want a forward-thinking energy
strategy that seeks new ways to meet our needs. Everyone
[[Page 1618]]
agrees we should pursue ``energy independence.'' H.R. 6 moves us
farther from this goal.
Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the bill
being considered before the House today that would raise taxes on the
energy industry, encourage American jobs to go overseas and cause us to
become more dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas. H.R. 6 can
only make energy more expensive for the American people. And I urge my
colleagues to join me in voting against this anti-manufacturing bill.
Raising taxes on a legitimate American manufacturing industry,
regardless of its size or profitability, is not good for our economy or
for creating and retaining more domestic jobs. H.R. 6 would siphon
billions of dollars out of the energy economy that otherwise could have
been reinvested into jobs and domestic energy projects.
In the past few years when fuel prices skyrocketed, I heard regularly
from my constituents who were experiencing financial hardship due to
these high energy costs. Farmers and ranchers were stuck with rising
energy bills, small businesses were forced to raise prices for their
products and services and American families were forced to spend more
of their disposable income on gasoline.
Rather that focusing on ways to continue lowering energy costs, the
Democrats are intent on doing precisely the opposite. Raising taxes on
the American manufacturing industry that produces our oil and gas is
not the way to help lower energy costs for consumers.
Not only could H.R. 6 lead to higher gasoline prices by raising
taxes, but it could also bring about more expensive natural gas. Higher
natural gas prices are a very real possibility if natural gas
investment, exploration and production fall. Americans already pay more
for natural gas than any other country in the world. Higher natural gas
will not just be an inconvenience; it will cost more American jobs.
Because we pay as much as 600 percent more for natural gas than other
countries, American businesses are often at a competitive disadvantage
when trying to compete with foreign businesses.
As elected officials sent to Washington to represent the interests of
our constituents, we cannot afford to pass legislation that harms jobs
and raises the cost of doing business for domestic manufacturers of
energy. Singling out one domestic industry and excluding it from
manufacturing tax breaks that other manufacturers are entitled to use
is nothing more than pandering by the Democrats for political gain.
Instead of voting to raise taxes on energy manufactures, we should
instead be considering proposals today that would encourage more
domestic energy, which in turn would produce more American jobs and
would boost our economy. We should be voting on legislation that would
help America increase its refining capacity. We should be making it
easier for energy companies to invest in American jobs by exploring for
new sources of domestic oil and natural gas. Instead, we are voting on
a Democrat energy bill that will encourage more dependence on foreign
sources of oil and gas.
This bill is especially harmful for small and medium refineries that
are reinvesting their profits to expand refining capacity. In a time
when America imports 10 percent of its refined fuel, we should be
encouraging expansion of our own refining industry, not raising their
cost of doing business. When we raise taxes, we discourage reinvestment
and make it more likely the United States will become more dependent on
foreign countries for our refined energy products.
As many have already pointed out, the United States dependency on
foreign oil is already more than 60 percent, and growing. When we
become even more dependent on unstable regions of the world for our oil
and gas energy needs, we are placing more of our security into the
hands of unpredictable and often hostile foreign governments and
dictators.
As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
and the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, I can tell you
placing more of our energy security into dangerous regions of the world
is the wrong path for America.
I am a supporter of both using and investing in alternative forms of
energy as one way to decrease American dependency on foreign oil. The
State of Kansas has great potential for being a leader in wind energy
production and being a supplier of biomass for biofuel production.
But while our present economy depends largely on safe access to
dependable sources of oil and natural gas, we must not penalize these
manufacturing industries that provide us with the energy we all use.
I urge all my colleagues who care about keeping American jobs,
boosting our economy and treating manufacturers tax equity to vote
against this misleading Democrat energy bill.
Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 6,
the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation--CLEAN
Energy--Act. At a time of record profits for the oil and gas industry,
H.R. 6 repeals many incentives that I have not supported over the years
and it takes a vital first step in bringing the energy policies of the
United States into the 21st century. By recouping Federal revenues
through the repeal of nearly $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to
oil and gas companies, H.R. 6 appropriately dedicates this revenue to
create a research and development fund for renewable energy sources
including solar and wind energy, alternative fuels like ethanol and
biodiesel, efficiency efforts, and conservation incentives.
H.R. 6 rightly creates an incentive for offshore fuel producers to
renegotiate leases issued in the late 1990s; an error that has not yet
been corrected, which allowed companies to skirt royalty payments
because no price threshold was included in lease agreements. It also
repeals provisions that authorize additional royalty relief, as well as
two tax breaks benefiting oil companies. This is not a tax increase as
some may lead you to believe, it is sensible governing. I opposed
legislation authorizing the subsidies in the first place and this is
why I strongly support directing this money towards conservation and
investment in the development in alternative sources of energy.
Continued and increased investment in renewable and alternative
fuels, efficiency, and conservation domestically is critical to
severing the United States' dependence on fossil fuels, which has been
linked to national security concerns as well as significant
environmental harm, including global warming pollution.
With the negative impacts of climate change on the security, economy,
environment and health in our Nation and around the world abundantly
clear, we can no longer delay in implementing policies to address the
damaging effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We also need to
set reasonable CAFE standards, which I believe are both achievable and
valuable to a good energy policy.
I remain committed to broadening the energy debate to sound and
balanced proposals to meeting America's energy needs--while still
acting as a steward of the environment. I urge my colleagues to join me
in support of H.R. 6.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. We must be mindful in the
creation of long-term energy alternatives for the future of our nation,
as the acronym CLEAN denotes. I am honored to be among my many esteemed
colleagues as an original cosponsor of this legislation.
At this juncture, we must move beyond the obvious motivations for
responsible energy policies. As my colleagues have acknowledged,
scarcity of resources, national security, greenhouse gas emissions, and
the impact of oil exploration top the list of concerns addressed by
this legislation. However, we must also acknowledge the true impact of
these challenges on our nation's most vulnerable populations. In this
sense, progressive energy policy is inextricably linked with the
pursuit of true environmental justice.
Madam Speaker, my support for this legislation is founded in a
profound desire to confront the diminishing life changes and
debilitating health conditions attributed to polluting energy sources.
Asthma has significantly increased over the past few decades,
especially among African American populations. In 2004, 17 percent of
African Americans under the age of 18 lived with asthma compared to
only 11 percent of their white counterparts. On behalf of our children,
we must understand the root cause of this disparity and take action to
pursue alternative sources of energy for posterity.
Furthermore, I support the thrust of this legislation because it
discourages extraction from offshore oil and natural gas reserves. I
stand with many of my constituents in acknowledging that the pursuit of
these resources has the potential to cause life-threatening accidents
and irreversible environmental damage to our Outer Continental Shelf.
Rescinding incentives for this form of oil and natural gas production
set forth in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act will undoubtedly
protect our fragile marine ecosystems and stimulate the quest for
alternative energy sources.
Madam Speaker, complemented by other pieces of legislation, the CLEAN
Energy Act of 2007 will bring accountability to the industries
responsible for many environmental injustices and shift our nation away
from a defunct paradigm of reliance on irresponsible energy sources. A
new age for energy use is upon us.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 6, the
[[Page 1619]]
CLEAN Energy Act, which will end federal welfare for big oil companies
and redirect billions of dollars towards investments in a cleaner, more
secure energy future.
Less than two weeks into the 110th Congress, Democrats have already
delivered real progress for American families by passing the six
measures outlined in the 100 Hours Agenda with time to spare. The CLEAN
Energy Act (H.R. 6) is one of these priorities. As a co-sponsor of H.R.
6, I was proud to vote for the bill when it passed the House 264-163 on
January 18, 2007 with the support of 36 Republican members.
Over the past several years, U.S. taxpayer subsidies to oil companies
have increased at a time of record-high energy prices for American
consumers and record profits for oil companies. In 2006, the five
largest oil companies operating in the U.S. received $97 billion in
profits--five times their earnings in 2002. In this economic
environment, the oil companies themselves have said most federal
supports are unnecessary.
The new Congress is ushering in new priorities. H.R. 6 repeals $13
billion in subsidies that should never have been granted during a time
of war and spiraling federal budget deficits. Specifically, the measure
requires large oil companies that were awarded royalty-free federal
drilling leases in 1998 and 1999 to pay their fair share or lose
eligibility for future federal leases. It would also close loopholes
and end giveaways for big oil in the tax code and in the 2005 Energy
bill. In keeping with the Democrats' pledge to take America in a new
direction, H.R. 6 reinvests these billions into a Strategic Renewable
Energy Reserve that will be used to fund clean, renewable energy
technologies such as home-grown biofuels.
H.R. 6 is an important first step in reducing America's dependence on
oil. In this new era of global terror and global warming, energy
security is national security. Only by pursuing a bold new direction on
energy policy will America achieve our three, interdependent goals of
national security, economic strength and environmental protection. With
an abundance of renewable energy sources in our backyard and clean
energy technology companies across the state, Minnesota stands to reap
more than its share of benefits from a new national push for clean
energy.
One year ago, in his State of the Union Address, President Bush
promised to end our oil addiction. Today, the new Democratic majority
is helping the President make good on that promise and working to
create a more secure and prosperous future for the next generation of
Americans.
Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, we all agree that reducing
America's consumption of foreign oil and gas is important. But, sadly
this legislation is a missed opportunity. In fact, it will likely
increase the country's dependence on foreign fossil fuels.
H.R. 6 will increase taxes on domestic oil and gas producers and
place the additional Federal revenues in a fund that will pay for
future legislation to subsidize alternative energy programs. Imposing
higher taxes one sector of the economy that is responsible for creating
millions of jobs and accounts for 3.5 percent of total national
employment is nothing short of terrible economic policy. H.R. 6 is a
recipe for layoffs, lowered U.S. investment, and higher prices at the
pump.
One of the main provisions in the bill is to deny tax benefits
enacted in 2004 to oil and gas companies. The tax benefits in the 2004
bill did not single out the oil and gas industry. In fact, the 2004
legislation lowered the corporate tax rate for all domestic
manufacturers. The goal of the bill was to encourage companies, from
tool and die manufacturers to the film industry, to remain in the
United States instead of moving operations to lower-taxed countries. By
singling out oil and gas companies and raising their taxes, H.R. 6 will
have the effect of encouraging them to expand production overseas,
limit U.S. investment, and cut their American workforce.
Another source of concern is the millions of Americans who invest
their pension and retirement savings in the oil and gas sector. Many
State and local pension funds, as well as individual stockholders,
invest in these companies. Retirees and investors depending on high
performing stocks will likely be negatively impacted by Congress's
decision to single out this sector.
I am also concerned that H.R. 6 will force companies who signed
leases with the Federal Government in 1998 and 1999 for drilling rights
in the Gulf of Mexico to renegotiate the terms of the contracts they
signed. Under the Clinton administration, the Department of Interior
failed to insert a clause in these contracts that would require firms
to pay royalty fees when the price of oil exceeded a certain amount.
Now, realizing the mistake, the Government has begun to renegotiate the
leases on a voluntary basis with the affected companies. Some of them
have agreed to begin paying royalty fees while others have not. The
Government should continue to voluntarily negotiate with these firms.
But, for the Government to force companies to pay new, higher fees as a
penalty for not renegotiating legitimate contracts seems akin to what a
Russian, Venezuelan, or Bolivian government would do.
As a sponsor of legislation to expand tax incentives for solar energy
and hybrid vehicles, I am committed to the improvement of energy
conservation and new technologies. Reducing oil and gas consumption is
important, but I do not believe H.R. 6 is not the right policy for
achieving this objective. I urge my colleagues to resist policies like
H.R. 6 that arbitrarily penalize American oil and gas companies and
practically incentivize them to move operations overseas.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 66, the bill is considered read and the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. McCrery
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. McCRERY. Yes, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. McCrery moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 6) to the
Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Natural
Resources, the Committee on the Budget, and the Committee on
Rules with instructions that each Committee report the same
back to the House after the Committee holds hearings on, and
considers, the bill.
{time} 1700
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, the substance of this motion to recommit
is basically to say, look, these matters are complex. My good friend on
the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McDermott, said that himself just a
few minutes ago. And because of that complexity and because of the
complexity of the issues, not only the tax issues in this legislation
but the energy issues as well, this bill deserves regular order. It
deserves to go through the relevant committees with full hearings, full
ability of both the majority and the minority to offer amendments in
committee, and then have some sort of rule on the floor which allows
for different opinions to be voted on as either amendments or
substitutes as the process goes forward.
As we all know by now, in this 100-hour exercise, which I think still
has plenty of time left in it, frankly, we could even go back now and
within the 100 hours have committee hearings and dispense with this
bill in the regular order, and that is what this motion to recommit
will do.
It simply says this is not a rejection of the bill, it is not a
rejection of the substance of the bill, it is merely saying let's take
this important piece of legislation through regular order, let's allow
Members of this House the full rights of Members to talk about a bill,
hear expert witnesses, delve into the particulars of the legislation,
offer amendments, try to make it better, and then, finally, bring it to
the floor for a vote.
The way that this bill has been rushed through, without regular
process, without opportunity for amendment, or even a substitute, makes
a mockery of the legislative process and certainly, I think,
shortchanges the important subjects covered in this legislation.
I have talked about the tax consequences of the provisions in the
bill which increase taxes on only one sector of American manufacturing,
oil and gas. Again, it is not taking back a subsidy to oil and gas, it
is not taking back a special tax break for oil and gas, it is singling
out oil and gas for
[[Page 1620]]
harsher treatment under the Tax Code than any other economic sector in
this country. That is punishing oil and gas. That is punitive.
And that is not what this Congress should be engaged in, in my view.
We should try to give a level playing field to all sectors of the
American economy, give them all the same opportunities to succeed, to
return value to its shareholders, to all those millions of pensioners
that have pieces of shares of stock in these American oil and gas
companies. They shouldn't be punished by this Congress.
We should be striking a balance between the need for, as my good
friend from Washington says, new alternative and renewable sources of
energy for the future, but also recognize the immediate needs of this
country and for the foreseeable future, the 20 or 30 years the experts
say we are going to be reliant on fossil fuels. So we ought to have a
balanced approach. We ought to encourage, not discourage exploration
and development of fossil fuels in this country, and also encourage
research and development of new renewable sources of energy.
Unfortunately, the process that we have gone through on this bill
didn't give us the opportunity to do that. This motion to recommit
would give us that opportunity, and I urge its passage.
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, in response to the declaration of the
gentleman from Louisiana that this is a tax increase on the oil and gas
industry, this bill is not a tax increase, I say to my colleagues. What
we are doing is repealing subsidies, repealing royalties, and asking
the oil and gas industry to pay their fair share. There is no tax
increase whatsoever in this bill.
The meat and potatoes of this legislation, H.R. 6, came through our
Natural Resources Committee. It was drafted by our committee in
consultation with the leadership. This committee is the same committee
chaired in a previous Congress by our former colleague, Chairman
Richard Pombo. Much of the legislation in this bill, H.R. 6, has been
debated, has had hearings held therein, and has even been voted upon by
the House of Representatives in the previous Congress.
So I would suggest to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to
go back and look at those votes that were held in a previous Congress
in order to be consistent today.
For example, the new conservation fee of $9 per barrel that is set up
in this bill if the companies choose to pay no royalties. That was set
up in the Jindal-Pombo bill of the last session of Congress and
supported by a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
Reference has been made to these notorious leases of 1998 and 1999,
where the American taxpayers got socked the most; that these were
instituted and allowed to take place under the Clinton administration.
True, President Clinton was President of the United States at that
time. But I would also remind my colleagues who make this charge that
in 2000 we elected President George Bush as President of the United
States, and the last time I looked at the calendar, this is 2007. Six
years with no action by the current Department of the Interior to
correct these abuses. And, I might say, until December 31 of this year,
Republicans controlled the Congress as well, yet no action was taken.
So what we are doing here is an attempt to correct mistakes, correct
bungling by the Department of the Interior, mismanagement, whatever
word you want to call it, on these 1998-1999 leases where there were no
royalties collected, where the price of oil has certainly gone above
the threshold that was established in the 1995 Deep Royalty Relief Act,
again passed by a Republican Congress, and which was overlooked in the
implementation and collection on these 1998-1999 leases.
To those who charge that we are breaching contracts today, there is
ample precedent and reservation of power in the U.S. to impose fees for
the conservation of resources both in the statute in the Outer
Continental Lands Act, and reserved specifically in the leases that are
issued in the Gulf of Mexico. Again, these leases issued in 1998 and
1999 are royalty free regardless of market, and that is when we impose
this conservation fee passed by the Republican Congress in the past but
failed to be enacted into law. So we have set ample precedent here.
As I conclude, let me say that I urge my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle, in a bipartisan fashion, as we have voted before on this
legislation, to pass H.R. 6 for the sake of the American taxpayers.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington, a member of
the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McDermott.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, can you tell me how much time I have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I urge people to vote down this motion
to recommit. Mr. McCrery sat in the other day when we had a forum in
the Ways and Means Committee and we discussed this bill. We went over
it fairly carefully with experts from two sources at least. And,
clearly, we are making very modest changes. That was clear from the
testimony we had, that these were modest changes to the law.
When we make the bigger changes, which we will have to do to give us
a real source of money for this, and decide how we are going to
allocate it in the most effective way for the country, there will be
full hearings in the Ways and Means Committee, and I look forward to
having your participation. You have been a real wonderful change in the
Ways and Means Committee for us, and we are looking forward to working
with you on the Tax Code to make this truly the first step, the first
teeny step, and then we are going to make a lot of other big steps.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 6, if ordered, and the motion to
suspend the rules on H. Res. 62.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 194,
nays 232, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 38]
YEAS--194
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
[[Page 1621]]
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--232
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cooper
Johnson, Sam
Lucas
McHenry
Norwood
{time} 1733
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Ms.
WOOLSEY and Mr. TERRY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Point of Order
Mr. BLUNT. Point of order, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Baldwin). The gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I do intend to request a recorded vote.
However, I first want to make a point of order that the Chair just
failed to properly announce the result of the question of passage by
the requisite three-fifths pursuant to clause 5(b) of rule XXI, which
requires a three-fifths vote to increase tax rates.
Section 102 of H.R. 6 proposes to deny a deduction under section 199
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for an income attributable to
domestic production of oil, natural gas or primary products thereof.
Section 199 of the Internal Revenue Code provides for up to a 9
percent deduction in the amount of corporate income that is taxable
under section 11(b) of the Code.
As described in the joint statement of managers accompanying H.R.
4520, which created section 199, when enacted section 199 effectively
created a lower percentage rate of tax and therefore reduced the amount
of tax proposed by such section. Once fully phased in in 2010, section
199 reduces the tax rate under section 11(b) by 3 points.
Section 102 of the pending bill proposes to disallow this deduction
for certain taxpayers, thus imposing a new, higher percentage of tax,
and thereby increasing the amount of tax imposed on a taxpayer under
section 11(b).
The Joint Committee on Taxation has indicated that section 102 will
increase tax receipts by $7.6 billion between 2007 and 2017.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, since this bill increases taxes, and since
that tax burden will ultimately be passed on to every American consumer
who owns or operates an automobile, I insist on my point of order and
demand that H.R. 6 not be considered as passed unless agreed to by
three-fifths of those Members present and voting.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from
Washington rise?
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, to hear the Speaker's answer to the
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
this point of order?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I ask to be heard on the point of order.
This bill should require a three-fifths majority for passage. Madam
Speaker, it is important to point out that section 199(d)(6), the
subject in this bill, incorporates by reference section 55 of the
Internal Revenue Code. Section 55 is specifically identified as a
provision subject to the point of order found in clause 5(b) of House
rule XXI. By amending section 199, the bill is increasing the
applicable rate under section 55 as applied to oil and gas
manufacturers.
Recognizing the connection between section 199 and section 55 is
critical to the interpretation of House rule XXI. All of the sections
identified in House rule XXI deal with the imposition of taxes, and
those sections, in turn, are referenced throughout the Internal Revenue
Code.
For example, Internal Revenue Code section 2(a)(1) defines the term
``surviving spouse'' for purposes of section 1 as a person whose spouse
died up to 2 years before the current tax year. Amending section 2 of
the Code to change the definition of a spouse to someone who died only
1 year ago would have the direct effect of increasing the tax rate on
widows that is set by section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.
By way of further example, one computation method for farm income is
found in section 1301 of the Internal Revenue Code. That section of the
Code also explicitly references section 1. By changing the methods for
computing farm income in section 1301, you can directly raise the tax
rate of a farmer that is set by section 1.
Madam Speaker, here comes the denouement. Madam Speaker, certainly
the intent of rule XXI is for the House to clear a higher hurdle, a
three-fifths majority, before it increases taxes on farmers or widows.
That intent would be just as relevant in this case where a bill
effectively raises the tax rate on some American manufacturers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does anyone else seek recognition on this
point of order?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
[[Page 1622]]
Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, these guys passed $14 billion in tax
breaks to Big Oil. Now is not the time to redo it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The requirement in clause 5(b) of rule XXI for a three-fifths vote on
certain tax measures comprises three elements.
The first element is that the measure amends one of the subsections
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that are cited in the rule. The
second element is that the measure does so by imposing a new percentage
as a rate of tax. The third element is that in doing so the measure
increases the amount of tax imposed by any of those cited subsections
of the Code.
The Chair is unable to find a provision in the bill that fulfills
even the first element of the requirement.
A bill that does not meet any one of the three elements required by
clause 5(b) of rule XXI does not carry a Federal income tax rate
increase within the meaning of the rule.
Accordingly, the Chair holds that a majority vote is sufficient to
pass H.R. 6, and the Chair properly announced the result of the voice
vote on passage.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman shall suspend.
The question is, shall the decision of this Chair stand as the
judgment of the House.
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. McDermott
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the
ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by 5-
minute votes on passage of H.R. 6, if ordered, and on the motion to
suspend the rules on H. Res. 62, if arising without further debate.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230,
nays 195, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 39]
YEAS--230
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--195
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cooper
Johnson, Sam
Lucas
McHenry
Norwood
Peterson (MN)
{time} 1759
Mr. KING of New York changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from
Washington rise?
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays on the
passage of the bill.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 264,
nays 163, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 40]
YEAS--264
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
[[Page 1623]]
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--163
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
English (PA)
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Issa
Jindal
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cooper
Johnson, Sam
Lucas
McHenry
Norwood
{time} 1809
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
A message in writing from the President of the United States was
communicated to the House by Ms. Wanda Evans, one of his secretaries.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY LAKERS FOR WINNING THE
2006 NCAA DIVISION II FOOTBALL NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP
The SPEAKER. The unfinished business is the question of suspending
the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 62.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) that the House suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution, H. Res. 62, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 422,
nays 0, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 41]
YEAS--422
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Butterfield
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
[[Page 1624]]
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cooper
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Lucas
McHenry
Musgrave
Norwood
Poe
Stark
Turner
{time} 1819
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 41, on H. Res. 62, I am
not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to my leave of absence, I am
submitting for the Record how I would have voted if I had been present
earlier today.
I would have voted as follows on today's recorded votes:
Rollcall No. 34, ``yea''--Motion to Adjourn; rollcall No. 35,
``no''--Ordering the Previous Question; rollcall No. 36, ``no''--
Agreeing to H. Res. 66, rollcall No. 37, ``no''--On Consideration of
H.R. 6; rollcall No. 38, ``yea''--Motion to Recommit H.R. 6; rollcall
No. 39, ``no''--Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair;
rollcall No. 40, ``no''--Final Passage of H.R. 6; rollcall No. 41,
``yea''--Adoption of H. Res. 62--Congratulating the Grand Valley State
University Lakers.
____________________
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the prior order of
the House, would it be in order to call up H.R. 475 at this time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The order of the House provides that the
bill may be brought up at any time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the prior order of
the House, regarding H.R. 475, is it correct that it allows for just 15
minutes of debate on each side, that is, 30 minutes total?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his further
inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Is the Chair aware of any other legislative
business that we are doing today?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Is the Chair aware of any further legislative
business that we are doing today?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman to
consult the leaderships on that question.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. We do indeed understand the majority's desire
to have a 5-day workweek, but is 30 minutes of work on a Friday
considered a full day?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I move to call up H.R. 475.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Only a manager identified by the order of
the House would be recognized to call up that bill.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair.
____________________
RESIGNATION AS MEMBER OF COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
resignation as a member of the Committee on Armed Services:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, January 18, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: This letter is to advise you that,
effective today, I am taking a leave of absence from the
House Armed Services Committee in order to serve on the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I understand that
I will retain my seniority on the Armed Services Committee
for the duration of my leave.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
James R. Langevin,
Member of Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resignation is
accepted.
There was no objection.
____________________
ELECTION OF MAJORITY MEMBERS TO CERTAIN STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE
HOUSE
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I
offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 75) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 75
Resolved, That the following named Members and Delegate be
and are hereby elected to the following standing committees
of the House of Representatives:
(1) Committee on armed services.--Mr. Meek of Florida (to
rank immediately after Mr. Cummings).
(2) Committee on financial services.--Mr. Boren.
(3) Committee on the judiciary.--Mr. Berman, Mr. Boucher,
Mr. Nadler, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Watt, Ms. Zoe Lofgren
of California, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Waters, Mr.
Meehan, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Wexler, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of
California, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Gutierrez,
Mr. Sherman, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Davis of Alabama,
Mr. Ellison.
(4) Committee on natural resources.--Mr. Kildee, Mr.
Faleomavaega, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Pallone, Mrs.
Christensen, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Holt, Mr. Grijalva, Ms.
Bordallo, Mr. Costa, Mr. Boren, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. George
Miller of California, Mr. Markey, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Hinchey,
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kind, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Udall of
Colorado, Mr. Baca, Ms. Solis, Ms. Herseth, Mr. Shuler.
(5) Committee on science and technology.--Mr. Costello, Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Udall of
Colorado, Mr. Wu, Mr. Baird, Mr. Miller of North Carolina,
Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Lampson, Ms. Giffords, Mr. McNerney, Mr.
Rothman, Mr. Honda, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Ross, Mr. Chandler, Mr.
Carnahan, Mr. Melancon, Mr. Hill, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Wilson of
Ohio.
(6) Committee on veterans' affairs.--Ms. Berkley (to rank
immediately after Mr. Doyle), Mr. Walz of Minnesota.
Mr. McGOVERN (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk continued to read the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
[[Page 1625]]
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 47
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove the
name of Ms. Millender-McDonald as a cosponsor from H.R. 47. Her name
was placed on this bill in error.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
____________________
QUESTION OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from
Texas rise?
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of personal
privilege.
Madam Speaker, the question of personal privilege to which I rise is
one regarding the tarnish that is on my reputation and the reputation
of others here in this body.
We had heard for the last couple of years the term ``culture of
corruption''; and, frankly, one of the things that I looked forward to
is an end to all this discussion about corruption that tarnishes each
one of us. And I know for all of the people whom I am close to it is a
big deal as far as our reputation when it is tarnished.
And so what I would submit is that in the last 2 weeks that we have
not cleared a culture of corruption; that a cloud of corruption has
hovered over this body, it hovers over me now, tarnishing all that we
are and that I am. And to have an American territory excluded from a
minimum wage bill that directly benefits one of the Members, in fact
the Speaker and a company----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Under rule IX, the gentleman has not stated a basis for a question of
personal privilege.
Mr. GOHMERT. Point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. GOHMERT. Under rule IX, it is provided in the precedents that any
time someone's reputation has been tarnished or sullied, it may be
addressed.
I would in fact direct you to the second page of section 708
regarding the prior usage for the question of personal privilege. And
you will find on the second page of the reference in section 708 of the
Rules and Practice Manual that Former Speaker Jim Wright rose to a
question of personal privilege and he addressed a matter that was
sullying the reputation of the House, and him in particular, and
addressed it in order to clear the air.
If you look underneath that in that same page, it references Speaker
Gingrich, who rose to a question of personal privilege in order to
clear the air and the cloud and allegation of corruption that had
arisen. And then, beneath that you will see a reference of a precedent
from Speaker Hastert in 2000 who rose to a question of personal
privilege to clear the air and clear the question of malfeasance over
the issue of the selection of the Chaplain.
{time} 1830
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would be pleased to examine the
basis on which the gentleman from Texas would rely, individually, to be
recognized on a point of personal privilege.
Mr. GOHMERT. Well, then perhaps it would be better for the Speaker to
come so we can clear the air and get this matter behind us so we can
move forward in a bipartisan manner. If it was a staff member or
someone else that allowed American Samoa to be exempted, we can get it
cleared. The question of personal privilege would disappear. I would
rise to make that----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
If the gentleman has documents, newspaper articles, or the like, that
identify him personally, he may rely on them as a basis for a question
of personal privilege.
Mr. GOHMERT. I have a constitutional point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his point of order.
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, under Article I, section 6, a matter that
was discussed at some length in the past year, it says that for any
speech or debate in either House, they, the Senators and
Representatives, shall not be questioned in any other place.
This is the only place in which a question of personal privilege, in
which a matter that is tarnishing anyone's reputation or everyone's
reputation in here may be addressed. If I will not be allowed to go
further with the question of personal privilege, I would ask the
Speaker to rise to a question of personal privilege as the last three
Speakers have under Article I, section 6, clear the air, clear the
cloud of corruption that is hovering over us so we can move forward in
a clean and wholesome, bipartisan environment. And I will do as the
Parliamentarian has requested.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the precedents of this House, the
Chair would be pleased to examine any documentary evidence the
gentleman might bring to her attention in order to be able to proceed
on a question of personal privilege. The Chair presently has no basis
for decision. The Chair would ask the gentleman to conform to precedent
to be allowed to proceed. The Chair has not been provided anything to
examine as the basis of his question of personal privilege.
Mr. GOHMERT. Parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. GOHMERT. Is the Speaker asking or directing that I bring in
articles and things into this House to present to the Speaker here in
this floor of the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair at this moment is unable to
identify a valid basis for a question of personal privilege. The Chair
would encourage the gentleman to give the Chair a basis for decision.
Mr. GOHMERT. The law on its face and what we just passed exempted a
territory. It should be very clear.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not recognized.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1024(a), and the order
of the House of January 4, 2007, the Chair announces the Speaker's
appointment of the following Member of the House to the Joint Economic
Committee:
Mrs. Maloney, New York.
____________________
KEEP ECONOMY ROLLING
(Mr. FEENEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, recently President Bush wrote that now is
not the time to increase taxes on the American people. As the stock
market hits an all-time high, employment is at an all-time high,
unemployment is at a record low. Unfortunately, the first couple weeks
in this House is not a good indication of Democratic leadership.
In week number one, we effectively repealed the three-fifths
requirement to raise taxes.
In week number two, we passed a so-called PAYGO law that says any of
the new liberal spending programs are going to be accompanied with huge
new tax increases on the people of America.
And today, with the first major tax increase in 10 years, $7 billion
is put on the backs of American energy producers that will directly
translate to higher gas prices at the pump.
I ask all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to sign a
letter that is on your desk where we encourage the President to veto
any bad tax increases, and we pledge to sustain that veto. Democrats
and Republicans alike ought to keep this economy rolling. Please sign
the letter that is on your desk. I welcome all of my colleagues to join
me.
[[Page 1626]]
____________________
REMEMBERING WILFRED G. GOODEN
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute
to Wilfred G. Gooden, who passed in January of this year. Wilfred G.
Gooden was a philanthropist, and certainly someone who loved his
country, but loved service.
Born in Jamaica, West Indies in the Westmoreland area, he was a
naturalized citizen. He came to New York City. In his commitment to
serving the community, he became a master builder and opened a
construction company in 1961 where he created jobs for young men and
women in the Harlem area. He was a master artisan, a carpenter, a
perfectionist in his work.
As he became an astute businessperson, he also was concerned about
affordable housing for many in the New York area. Mayor David Dinkins
appointed him to have the opportunity to devise a housing program for
the City of Houston. But yet he continued to do more, and he was a
great philanthropist, providing clothing and opportunity for the people
of Jamaica. We pay great tribute to Wilfred Gooden, and we mourn his
loss.
____________________
RAILROAD OVERSIGHT
(Mr. KUHL of New York asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KUHL of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring attention
to an issue that concerns all of us, and that is railroad safety.
On Tuesday night, there was a train derailment near my congressional
district in East Rochester, Monroe County, New York. Fortunately, no
one was injured. There have been dozens of other derailments in New
York: Recently, on December 28 along route 15 in Gang Mills, in which
cars were carrying butane.
According to an online Federal Railroad Administration database,
defective tracks have been the number one cause of train derailments
since 1996 in New York and Monroe County.
Madam Speaker, I understand the role of railroads and the importance
they serve in transporting goods and people across the country. As a
member of the House Transportation Committee which oversees the
railroad industry, I firmly believe that Congress must provide more
thorough oversight of this industry.
Furthermore, I believe that Congress, CSX, and the Federal Railroad
Administration and the Department of Environmental Conservation must
work together to identify what must be done to avoid similar disasters
in the future.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues in
Congress to create a safer, more efficient rail system for everyone.
____________________
AMERICAN SAMOA UNDER FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I just want to make a point of
clarification for my friend here from Texas, insinuating and implying
there was something special given to my district, American Samoa, over
this minimum wage issue.
I suggest the gentleman should read the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act. American Samoa has been subjected to the minimum wage
law since 1938. So I suggest to my Republican friends, they ought to
check their law and find out what the situation has been.
The Northern Mariana Islands was not even in existence for the past
50 years, only until 1976. So I want to clarify that for the record.
And I suggest to my friend from Texas, read the law before you start
making accusations against the Speaker, insinuating and implying that
her character, that she applied a double standard to the company that
supposedly has been operating in my district. I suggest to my friend
from Texas, read the law before you start attacking the Speaker on this
matter.
____________________
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION CRISIS IN ARIZONA
(Ms. GIFFORDS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Speaker, with the completion of the first 100
hours, I stand here today to discuss an issue of critical importance to
southern Arizona, and that is our illegal immigration crisis.
Let me point out two recent events. On January 12, a Border Patrol
agent had a deadly altercation with an illegal immigrant crossing into
our district. That investigation is going on at this moment. A couple
of weeks ago, members of the National Guard unit assigned to work with
the Border Patrol were threatened by an armed gang that came into our
country and then left. That incident is being looked at.
While many questions still surround these recent incidents, one thing
is crystal clear: Now that our 100 hours are over, we must address the
illegal immigration crisis and secure the border today.
We are putting our Border Patrol and the National Guard under
tremendous strain. It is our responsibility to provide them with the
necessary resources and the tools they need.
Fighting for a comprehensive immigration plan must be a priority for
this Congress, Democrats and Republicans working together.
____________________
STRONG SUPPORT FOR H.R. 6, CLEAN ENERGY ACT
(Mr. BRALEY of Iowa asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon to express
my strong support for H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. This bill
will help move our country toward a goal shared by all Americans, a
desire to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by shifting our energy
emphasis from the Middle East to the Midwest.
According to the GAO, the United States has spent $130 billion in the
past 32 years in government subsidies to the oil industry. The CLEAN
Energy Act of 2007 represents a bold new direction in our energy policy
by creating a strategic renewable energy reserve to invest in clean
renewable energy resources like ethanol, biodiesel and wind energy.
As someone whose family has been farming in Iowa for the past 150
years, I am proud that Iowa has been at the epicenter of the renewable
fuels explosion and alternative energy boom with over 55 ethanol and
biodiesel refineries built or under construction. Iowa also ranks third
in wind energy production and tenth in wind energy potential in the
United States.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to have had the privilege to have voted
today for the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007.
____________________
CLOUD OF CORRUPTION
(Mr. GOHMERT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I appreciate so much my friend from
American Samoa coming in here. I am not casting any aspersions on him
or his wonderful territory. I didn't throw allegations or aspersions on
anyone. But there is a cloud of corruption hovering over this body that
effects every one of us, and it would be so easy to get the air
cleared. But there is really one person that could clear the air.
For so long people in this country cynically say: It is not what you
know, it is who you know. Many of us say: That is not the case.
I believe if the Speaker would come forward, rise to a question of
personal privilege, Madam Speaker, we could get this thing resolved and
get it behind us so it is no longer an issue, and figure out how in the
world a group, a territory got exempted that actually
[[Page 1627]]
benefits a company in the Speaker's own district. And then we will be
beyond it and move on in a bipartisan way, which I hope we will
eventually have the opportunity to do.
____________________
{time} 1845
ENERGY SECURITY
(Mr. SCHIFF asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, in these opening weeks of the 110th
Congress, the Democratic majority in the House has succeeded in passing
a package of bills that is designed to secure America. We passed a bill
to improve our Nation's ability to prevent another 9/11 style attack on
our country. We have made life a little more secure for millions in the
United States who toil at the minimum wage, and millions of young
people who leave college with a degree and a mountain of debt. We have
secured the ability of America's medical researchers to explore and
exploit the life-saving potential of stem cells. We have committed this
government to safeguarding our economic security by ending years of
fiscal irresponsibility. And today, we have begun what may be the most
important project of all, to ensure America's energy security by ending
our dependence on foreign oil and developing clean, green renewable
sources of energy.
Ensuring our energy security will require more than just the
protection of American oil supplies from terrorists in hostile nations.
It will also mean we find homegrown fuel sources that reduce our
dependence on foreign oil.
It will mean that we pare down our energy consumption and promote
efficiency. It will mean that we transition to renewable energy sources
that ensure a clean, dependable energy supply for years to come.
There are those who say that it would cost too much to shift our
infrastructure over to new energy sources. They say that the market has
decided that coal and oil are the cheapest energy, and that switching
to renewable energy would harm our economy.
This is shortsighted, false, and, ultimately, dangerous because much
of the true cost of oil and coal don't appear on the gas pump or on our
electric bills. Extracting coal and oil harms the environment and
burning fossil fuels produces pollution that clogs our cities and
greenhouse gases that warm our atmosphere. Tens of thousands of
Americans get lung cancer and other respiratory diseases from power
plant air pollution and this, too, is part of the true cost of
``cheap'' energy. These expenses are paid by the American people just
as surely as they pay their electric bills.
But to find the true cost of a barrel of oil, we must look further,
to a foreign policy beholden to oil and gas, and that price is too
steep.
Today the House passed a bill that will roll back tax breaks for oil
and gas companies and reform the royalty relief system that has cost
American taxpayers billions of dollars. The $13 billion dollars saved
by this overdue reform will be placed in a strategic reserve to be
spent on programs to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy and
alternative fuels, promote energy efficiency, and step up research on
advanced energy technologies. Initiatives like these are the only way
to permanently reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and this bill is a
good first step on the road to true energy security.
European and Asian competitors are already developing technologies
that will reduce fuel consumption and lower emissions of greenhouse
gases. Rather than American entrepreneurs, it is our competitors who
are prospering from these developments. By marshaling America's great
strengths, our inventiveness, our technological prowess, and our
entrepreneurial spirit, we can better secure our Nation, save our
environment, and become the world leader in this cutting-edge industry.
We must encourage the development of flexible-fuel and hybrid
vehicles. These vehicles can be built with today's technology and will
enable a smooth transition from gasoline to biofuels.
We must raise the corporate average fuel economy standards.
We must invest in research and development of new energy
technologies, like wind power, cheap solar cells, plug-in hybrid cars,
and cellulosic ethanol. The new energy economy will be dominated by
rapid innovation, and the scientific investment we make now will be
paid back with interest by the technologies it creates.
We must encourage employers to offer mass-transit benefits so that
employees can commute without their cars, and support mass transit
systems around the country.
We must pass global warming legislation to reduce our output of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Many of America's most
successful companies have realized that something must be done to
contain global warming and they are now pushing Congress to lead.
We know what must be done to end our dangerous addiction to oil. All
we need now is the will to do it.
Madam Speaker, we have lost so much time since 9/11, time that could
have been so profitably used to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
But it is not too late to abruptly and constructively change course.
The American people are ready for a clean energy economy, and the bill
we passed today will begin to put our country on that new road to
energy independence and a more secure future.
____________________
LOOKING FORWARD TO GREATER PARTICIPATION
(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, the Democrat Party has just ended its 6
for 600 hours, or whatever they call it. I wish I had a clock at home
that tracked hours the way the Democrats did. By that standard, I would
be 25 years old, and probably look a lot better, as a matter of fact;
more youthful.
But I want to say this. The Democrats did this agenda based on kind
of, you know, trite, older, more established, safer issues. There was
no real reach for the sky here; no entitlement reform, no tax
simplification, no energy independence. What they did also was cram
down a bunch of things that bypassed the committee process, and I want
to give a contrast with the Contract With America.
The Contract With America was 24 pieces of legislation. The number of
bills we had open to amendment was nine. The number of bills considered
under a closed rule was only three. The numbers of bills considered
under suspension of the rules was only two. The total number of
Democrat amendments, 154, of which only 95 failed. Many, many Democrat
amendments passed.
I hope, as we go into your next 200 or 300 hours, that we can have a
more participatory democracy.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE HONORABLE STEVE CHABOT, MEMBER OF CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Honorable Steve Chabot, Member of Congress:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, January 17, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: This is to notify you formally,
pursuant to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, that I have been served with three
subpoenas, issued by the Municipal Court of Hamilton County,
Ohio, for testimony in criminal cases.
I do not appear to have any relevant or material testimony
to offer, and the parties who issued the subpoenas have
declined to inform me what testimony they seek from me.
Accordingly, after consultation with the Office of General
Counsel, I have determined that compliance with the subpoenas
is inconsistent with the precedents and privileges of the
House.
Sincerely,
Steve Chabot,
Member of Congress.
____________________
CONTINUATION OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO TERRORISTS WHO
THREATEN TO DISRUPT THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS--MESSAGE FROM THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 110-8)
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following message
from the President of the United States; which was read and, together
with the accompanying papers, without objection, referred to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed:
To the Congress of the United States:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d))
provides
[[Page 1628]]
for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to
the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the
Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that
the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In
accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for
publication the enclosed notice, stating that the emergency declared
with respect to foreign terrorists who threaten to disrupt the Middle
East peace process is to continue in effect beyond January 23, 2007.
The most recent notice continuing this emergency was published in the
Federal Register on January 20, 2006 (71 FR 3407).
The crisis with respect to the grave acts of violence committed by
foreign terrorists that disrupt the Middle East peace process and that
led to the declaration of a national emergency on January 23, 1995, as
expanded on August 20, 1998, has not been resolved. Terrorist groups
continue to engage in activities that have the purpose or effect of
threatening the Middle East peace process and that are hostile to
United States interests in the region. Such actions constitute an
unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign
policy, and economy of the United States. For these reasons, I have
determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency
declared with respect to foreign terrorists who threaten to disrupt the
Middle East peace process and to maintain in force the economic
sanctions against them to respond to this threat.
George W. Bush.
The White House, January 18, 2007.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
today, the following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.
____________________
REPEATING THE MISTAKES OF VIETNAM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, you have been doing a wonderful job up
there today.
Madam Speaker, I rise today for the 180th time in the last few years
to challenge the Congress and the President to end the destructive,
violent, senseless military occupation of Iraq.
A generation ago, Madam Speaker, Democratic and Republican Presidents
alike entangled the Nation in a foolish and unnecessary war. Even after
a decade, and thousands upon thousands of American casualties in the
jungles of Vietnam, our leaders could not bring themselves to publicly
admit what most Americans knew; that the United States was asking its
youngest and bravest to risk life and limb on an unwinnable mission.
Today, our President is repeating this American tragedy. President
Bush said that his goal is to win in Iraq. But he has offered no clear
idea of what he means by this or how it is achieved. He just knows he
doesn't want to lose.
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group concluded that the United States
cannot win in Iraq; that the only question is how best to exit. Iraq is
mired in a civil war, and even though we helped ignite it, we have very
little influence on its outcome. You can't expect American soldiers as
brave, as intelligent, and honorable as they are to solve a religious
and sectarian conflict that stretches back centuries.
Whether we stay or leave, the Iraqis will be the ones to decide their
own fate. Yet President Bush is sending 20,000 more American lives into
mortal danger, and spending $100 million a day just to avoid the
humiliation of admitting that his policy has been fundamentally flawed
from the very beginning. I think most Americans would prefer the
wounding of Presidential pride to the wounding of thousands more of
their countrymen and women.
That is why I joined my distinguished colleagues, Ms. Waters and Ms.
Lee, yesterday in introducing the first comprehensive legislation that
will quickly, within a 6-month time frame, end the occupation and bring
our troops home.
In addition to military withdrawal, the Bring Our Troops Home and
Solvency of Iraq Restoration Act would accelerate training of a
permanent Iraqi security force during the 6-month transition. It would
authorize, only upon the Iraqi government's request, a 2-year U.S.
support for an international stabilization force, which would be
combined with economic and humanitarian assistance.
Our bill would also prohibit the construction of permanent U.S.
military bases in the country; ensure Iraqi control over its own oil
supplies; and guarantee full health care funding, including mental
health, for U.S. veterans of military operations in Iraq and other
conflicts.
It is not enough to stand up and speak out against the President's
new escalation plan. I am concerned not just about the 21,000 soldiers
that are already being deployed as an add-on to this occupation, I am
losing sleep over the 130,000 who are already there. I want to see them
returned, and I want to see them returned safely to their families. It
is not just the President's escalation of this policy that is
unconscionable, it is the policy itself.
That is why our new bill is the answer. That is why it is time to end
the occupation now. I fear that in 3 months he will ask for yet another
chance to make his plan work and ask more American families to
sacrifice. He will tell us once again that he must win. But, really, it
will be about saving face, running out the clock until January 2009
when he can make this some other President's problem.
Our more than capable young men and women in Iraq have shown great
courage, and it is time that our leaders in Washington showed some
courage of their own and stopped trying to defend the indefensible. It
took a long time to muster that courage in Vietnam. It is time we have
that courage here.
____________________
DEMOCRATS RAISE TAXES AFTER ONLY TWO WEEKS IN POWER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, on the first day that Republicans took
control of the Congress in 1995, one of their very first actions was to
establish a rule that required a supermajority, or three-fifths vote,
to raise taxes. This was a good thing, Madam Speaker. On the very first
day of Congress in 2007, however, the Democrats established new rules
in this Chamber to make it easier to raise taxes with a simple majority
vote.
And now, after just 2 weeks in power, the Democrats, our colleagues,
have already passed legislation today to raise taxes. What is worse,
the taxes that are collected under this new bill will not be going
toward deficit reduction or toward paying down the Federal debt. The
money is going to be set aside in a special account for more spending.
In Minnesota, we had a phrase when we were in session. We said, hold
on to your wallets. And we can say that to the American people right
now.
As a Federal tax litigation attorney myself, as a small business
owner with my husband Marcus, and as a mother to Lucas, Harrison,
Elisa, Caroline, and Sophia, and our 23 foster children, I can tell you
as a parent the best way to grow an economy, the best way to raise more
jobs is not to raise taxes but to let people, families, keep more of
their hard-earned money.
In 2003, tax relief was passed, and the great thing is that 7.2
million jobs were created. In fact, our economy has been adding jobs
for 40 straight months. The unemployment rate is incredibly low, at 4.5
percent, well below the average of the last 40 years.
Nowhere are the results more evident, Madam Speaker, than in my home
State of Minnesota, which has closed out the calendar year with 54,000
more jobs than at the end of 2005, the strongest job growth since 1999.
Our State's annual job growth rate of 2 percent has outpaced the
national rate of 1.4 percent. Our unemployment rate is the envy of the
Nation, phenomenally low at 4.2 percent.
[[Page 1629]]
Meanwhile, tax revenues are absolutely surging into the Treasury.
Guess what? Federal receipts rose 14 percent in 2005, 11 percent in
2006, and they kept rising by 9 percent the first 2 months of 2007.
These are the highest consecutive revenue increases in the past 25
years.
America, did you hear that? The highest revenue increases in the past
25 years. They come on the heels of the largest tax relief measures in
American history.
{time} 1900
And the budget deficit, in turn, has fallen $165 billion over 2
years. And just as the economy is gaining tremendous momentum, now,
unfortunately, my Democrat colleagues are saying, this is the time to
raise taxes.
Madam Speaker, I have learned very quickly in the few days I have
been here in Washington, D.C., that facts don't always get in the way
of people's opinions here in this fair city. But it is hard to dispute
3 years of unparalleled prosperity.
It is important that we recognize what tax relief does for the
average American. It gives us money, a chance to grow a business, a
chance to raise our kids while growing the economy and raising a lot
more jobs in the process.
I urge my colleagues here in this Chamber, my esteemed colleagues who
I have come to respect, to reject new taxes. Instead, let's do this.
Let's work to make the tax reduction rates permanent now, while we can,
and continue to reduce the overall tax burden.
The American people deserve our best, and the colleagues here are the
best from across the country. Let's do that for the American people.
____________________
SRI LANKA'S CIVILIANS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Sutton). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to bring attention to
the full blown violence taking place in Sri Lanka. The last round of
talks in Geneva ended up in a failure, and there are no signs of new
negotiations. There is no peaceful solution in sight, and it is the
civilians who are desperately suffering.
Since 1983, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) has been in a
military confrontation with the Government of Sri Lanka to win a
separate ethnic minority Tamil state. Since last April, more than
200,000 people have been displaced from their homes by the escalation
in violence and insecurity. And this is in addition to more than
310,000 people who were displaced previously due to the conflict.
Now, because of this violence, the main highway connecting the two
major areas in the north and east region of the country is closed,
forcing civilians to use tortuous routes to reach safety. In recent
months about 20,000 people have fled through jungles and treacherous
waterways towards the government-controlled territory.
Thousands who have not fled are trapped in eastern Sri Lanka and
caught between the intense crossfire. Every day there are more news
stories highlighting the increasing casualties among the civilian
populations, especially children and young adults. Violence continues
in other parts of the island nation as well. And many civilians have
been killed in air raids and bus bombings in recent weeks. Families
live in constant fear, anxiously hoping for their security.
Now, meanwhile, Madam Speaker, access for humanitarian agencies has
been a growing problem over the past year. Civilians in Jaffna in the
north and in the affected districts of the east have had great
difficulty obtaining necessary food and medical supplies.
Both the government and the Tigers should commit to providing
humanitarian agencies with unregulated access and full support.
Madam Speaker, the army says the civilians are being used as human
shields by the Tamil Tigers. The Tigers deny this claim and accuse the
army of targeting civilians to facilitate their forthcoming offensive.
And regardless of blame, innocent civilians are dying.
After nearly 25 years of violence, it is clear: there can be no
military solution to the conflict. A negotiated political settlement
must be reached, and that one will have to be fair to all of the ethnic
communities living in the country of Sri Lanka.
I am deeply troubled by the worsening situation in Sri Lanka, Madam
Speaker, and it must be addressed by the United States. I commend the
commitment by the Bush administration to provide funding for refugees,
but I strongly urge President Bush to further U.S. involvement to help
secure a lasting peace.
Last week I added my name to a letter urging President Bush to
appoint a special envoy for Sri Lanka. The letter is being circulated
by my friend from New Jersey, Mr. Rush Holt. And I urge my colleagues
to also sign on. By naming a special envoy, the U.S. can create a
personal monitoring presence in the country and make recommendations
for steps to lead to peace. Sri Lanka, more than ever before, needs
U.S. engagement.
____________________
EVERYONE SUPPORTS THE TROOPS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I have never met anyone who did not support
our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or
some group does not support the men and women serving in our Armed
Forces. But this is pure demagoguery, and it is intellectually
dishonest. The accusers play on emotions to gain support for
controversial policies, implying that those who disagree are
unpatriotic. But keeping our troops out of harm's way, especially when
the war is unnecessary, is never unpatriotic. There is no better way to
support the troops.
Since we now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and
was not threatening anyone, we must come to terms with 3,000 American
deaths and 23,000 American casualties. It is disconcerting that those
who never believed the justifications given for our invasion and who,
now, want the war ended, are still accused of not supporting the
troops. This is strange, indeed.
Instead of questioning who has the best interest of our troops at
heart, we should be debating which policy is best for our country.
Defensive wars to preserve our liberties, fought only with proper
congressional declarations are legitimate. Casualties under such
circumstances still are heartbreaking, but they are understandable.
Casualties that occur in undeclared, unnecessary wars, however, are
bewildering. Why must so many Americans be killed or hurt in Iraq when
our security and our liberty were never threatened?
Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from
failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that
benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real
reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.
Many now agree that we must change our policy and extricate ourselves
from the mess in Iraq. They cite a mandate from the American people for
a new direction. This opinion is now more popular and, thus, now more
wildly held by politicians in Washington. But there is always a
qualifier. We can't simply stop funding the war because we must support
the troops. I find this conclusion bizarre. It means one either
believes the support-the-troops propaganda put out by the original
promoters of the war, or that one actually is for the war after all,
despite the public protestations.
In reality, support for the status quo and the President's troop
surge in Iraq means expanding the war to include Syria and Iran. The
naval buildup in the region and the proxy war we just fought to take
over Somalia demonstrate the administration's intention to escalate our
current war into something larger.
There is just no legitimacy to the argument that voting against
funding the war somehow harms our troops. Perpetuating and escalating
the war only serves those whose egos are attached to some claimed
victory in Iraq
[[Page 1630]]
and those with a determination to engineer regime change in Iran.
Don't believe for a minute that additional congressional funding is
needed so our troops can defend themselves or extricate themselves from
the war zone. That is nonsense. The DOD has hundreds of billions of
dollars in the pipeline available to move troops anywhere on Earth,
including home.
We shouldn't forget that the administration took $600 million from
the war in Afghanistan and used it in Iraq before any direct
appropriations were made for the invasion of Iraq. Funds are always
available to put troops in harm's way. They, likewise, are always
available for leaving a war zone.
Those in Congress who claim they want the war ended, yet feel
compelled to keep funding it, are badly misguided. They either are
wrong in their assessment that cutting funds would hurt the troops, or
they need to be more honest about supporting a policy destined to
dramatically increase the size and the scope of this war. Rest assured,
one can be patriotic and truly support the troops by denying funds to
perpetuate and spread this ill-advised war.
The sooner we come to this realization, the better it will be for all
of us.
____________________
CLEAN ENERGY ACT OF 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I was pleased to cast my vote today for
the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007.
Some of us have been urging energy independence for decades. In fact,
President Jimmy Carter had it right over three decades ago when he said
the Arab oil embargo was the moral equivalent of war. But America lost
sight of his compelling vision for energy independence. We need to give
birth to a new sustainable energy age that is bold and develops
alternative energy supplies and the infrastructure to support it.
President Bush suddenly realized last year that we have become
addicted to foreign oil, of course, most of it coming from the most
undemocratic regimes in the world. But during his administration, we
are importing 1 billion more barrels of oil from those very
undemocratic places since he assumed office. Simply put, his rhetoric
doesn't match reality.
I am pleased today that we took some important steps in shifting how
Federal resources are dedicated, taking them away from preferential
treatment to an oil industry with record profits and little social
conscience. Instead, we must incentivize a domestically owned energy
industry that has record potential, a shift that America wants and we
must take.
While $14 billion over 10 years is nothing to ignore, it is still far
too little, especially since more than a third of this amount, a little
more than $5 billion, doesn't become available until the 10th year.
According to the Government Accountability Office, this government has
spent more than $130 billion on subsidies to the oil industry over the
last 3\1/2\ decades. So today's step forward is the first rung of the
ladder to energy independence.
As this country spends billions on oil addiction, 75 percent of it
being imported from the most undemocratic places in the world, I might
repeat, consider an estimate by the Congressional Research Service
which shows the recent increase in oil prices accounts for an
additional $60 to $75 billion rise in our country's abysmal trade
deficit.
While the oil companies manipulate the market, they continue to rake
in billions. During President Bush's tenure, their profits have been
record. From 2001 until the first quarter of 2006, ExxonMobil, alone,
made $118.2 billion. Now, in the bill today we talk about $14 billion
over 10 years. They made $118.2 billion over the last 3 years. Shell
has earned $82.3 billion. Shell, one company. BP has made $67.8
billion. Our bill today had $14 billion over 10 years. Chevron Texaco
has made $43.1 billion, and Conoco Phillips made $31.1 billion.
We are talking $14 billion over 10 years, with $5 billion in the very
last year. Recognizing that those companies' profits were beginning to
infuriate the public, does it surprise you that gasoline prices just
happened to drop 75 cents a gallon during the run-up to last year's
election for Congress?
As we consider this bill today, prices across our Nation,
conveniently, are dropping. Imagine, in a place like Toledo, Ohio, they
dropped from $2.40 a gallon to $1.75 a gallon. Isn't that strange
during the week that we considered this bill?
Imagine an industry earning so much in profits it can manipulate the
world and manipulate every single person in our country. Imagine the
jobs we could create if we were to dedicate $14 billion, not over 10
years, but each month, rather than spending that money on oil wars in
far-flung places, invest it in solar, in wind, in geothermal, in
photovoltaic energy, in fuel cells and hydrogen and clean coal
production and distribution. Imagine the jobs we could create if we had
vision.
These accomplishments that we seek will require not just real
imagination, but real leadership. Hopefully this bill today offers a
glimmer. America will, at long last, at long last, take seriously what
President Jimmy Carter envisioned. He was right then. He remains right
today: America must become energy independent. Our people want it. Why
shouldn't this Congress deliver it?
____________________
{time} 1915
PEACE NOT APARTHEID: MORE FICTION THAN FACTS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, in today's Washington Post, former President
Jimmy Carter defended his book, ``Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.''
President Carter wrote, `` . . . most critics have not seriously
disputed or even mentioned the facts . . . ''
But after reading the book, I have become a critic and today will
only correct the facts that he purports in his book. Regarding our
policy towards Israel, there is little room for mistakes, let alone
outright misstatements of fact.
For that reason, I want to present to the House eight factual
inaccuracies found in President Carter's book.
Error number one, on page 62, President Carter quotes Yasser Arafat
as telling him, ``The Palestinian Liberation Organization has never
advocated the annihilation of Israel.'' No evidence is provided, and
the book does not contain a single footnote.
Fact check, article 22 of the PLO's charter states, ``The liberation
of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence.''
Yasser Arafat supported this charter, and he directly lied to President
Carter.
Error number two, on page 57 President Carter writes, ``The 1947
armistice demarcation lines became the borders of the new nation of
Israel, and were accepted by Israel and the United States, and
recognized officially by the United Nations.''
Fact, the 1949 armistice lines were never accepted as the official
borders of Israel, United States or the United Nations. The error
reflects a very poor attention to detail in the book.
Error number three, on page number 127, President Carter writes that
there was ``a surprising exodus of Christians from the Holy Land.''
Fact, Israel is one of the only Middle Eastern nations where the
Christian community has grown in the last half century. But Christian
communities and other faith communities like Baha'is have dropped in
size in many Muslim nations.
Error number four, on page 152 President Carter writes, ``It was
later claimed that the Palestinians rejected a `generous offer' put
forward by Prime Minister Barak with Israel only keeping 5 percent of
the West Bank. The fact is no such offers were made.''
Fact, according to President Clinton's lead negotiator, Ambassador
Dennis Ross, Prime Minister Barak accepted President Clinton's
proposal, offering to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank, to
dismantle isolated settlements, and to accept the Palestinian
[[Page 1631]]
state with Jerusalem as its capital. Arafat rejected this proposal, and
a quick call between President Carter and President Clinton would have
corrected this error.
Error number five, on page number 148 President Carter presents two
maps he claims were considered at Camp David, one of them labeled
``Israel's interpretation of Clinton's proposal.''
Fact, there were no maps at Camp David. The map President Carter
labeled as Israel's interpretation is a copy of a map that was created
later by Dennis Ross for his book, ``The Missing Peace.'' Ambassador
Ross's map is a representation of an offer agreed to by Prime Minister
Barak and rejected by Arafat. President Carter violated Ambassador
Ross's copyright of the map.
Error six, on page 197 President Carter writes, ``Confessions
extracted through torture are admissible in Israeli courts.''
Fact, the Israeli Supreme Court banned the use of torture in
interrogations in a decision handed down by the court on September 6,
1999, by Supreme Court President Barak.
Error number seven, on page 188 President Carter writes, ``Kadima had
been expected to gain 43 seats based on its pledge of a unilateral
expansion of the `great wall.'''
Fact, Israel's Kadima Party ran on Prime Minister Sharon's platform
of disengagement, a pledge to dismantle settlements and unilaterally
withdraw from territory.
Error number eight, on page 215 President Carter writes that the one
option for Israel is ``withdrawal from the 1967 border as specified in
U.N. Resolution 242.''
Fact. The U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 does not define a
border.
Madam Speaker, these errors, in fact, diminish the credibility of
President Carter's book. President Carter is entitled to his own
opinions, but not to his own facts. The errors I present here are only
a sampling of the other errors included in his book.
Now, in the twilight of his career, with many at the Carter Center
resigning from their posts, President Carter should recall the book and
hire competent assistants to assure that his future work does not
reflect such poor scholarship.
I want to thank, especially, Dr. Mitchell Bard and the Committee for
Accuracy in the Middle East Reporting in America for helping compile
this list of errors.
____________________
SEED DEMOCRACY IN CUBA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, there is one nation in the world where
seeding democracy right now might take root. It is Cuba. It is only 90
miles away from our shores, but we are using the same sort of wrong-
headed thinking regarding Cuba that we are using in international
affairs around the world with equally dismal results.
Today the Bush administration has draconian travel restrictions in
place for any American trying to visit family members in Cuba. It is
their idea of promoting democracy by punishing the people we are trying
to befriend. It makes no difference if a relative is well, sick or
dying in Cuba. You get one chance every 3 years to visit Cuba legally.
If an American visits a relative in Cuba and that relative is stricken
by a heart attack the day after you leave, you cannot go back for 3
years.
The administration thinks that by cutting off families in Cuba from
loved ones in the United States, they will encourage the overthrow of
Castro.
When will we ever learn? This policy plays right into the hands of
those who want to portray the United States as an arrogant bully
willing to use innocent people as a wedge against a regime we don't
like.
Our policy regarding Cuba is hurting innocent people here and there,
not the government we have been trying to overthrow for a generation.
It has hurt one of my constituents, an Iraq war hero, who came to the
United States from Cuba 15 years ago risking his life coming on a raft
floating in the ocean.
Sergeant Carlos Lazo made national headlines last year when he tried
to get to Cuba to visit his teenage sons. Carlos is a man who joined
the Washington National Guard to give service to his new country.
As a combat medic in Iraq, he risked his life to save others, and for
his heroism he was awarded the Bronze Star. I had the honor to pin that
medal on him in a ceremony in Seattle last year.
Carlos is an American citizen, a decorated war hero, and he is barred
from boarding a flight to visit his family in Cuba. That is not how you
promote democracy in Cuba or anywhere else for that matter. And the
fact is, there are countless stories just like Carlos. It makes no
diplomatic or strategic sense. We hurt U.S. interests by hurting U.S.
citizens who reach out to family in Cuba.
Who could possibly be a better ambassador representing the United
States than the blood relative of someone living in Cuba? The most
powerful statement we could ever make to the people of Cuba is to let
them interact with Americans who are related by blood or marriage.
Are the Cubans more likely to listen to U.S. propaganda or to a son
or to a daughter? The answer is obvious, and it should be just as
obvious that the U.S. needs to revise its travel ban to Cuba.
As it stands now, we are separating families. Instead, we should be
reuniting loved ones. We don't promote freedom by denying it to
innocent civilians, and we don't make new friends anywhere when an
American citizen is denied the ability to visit a dying mother in Cuba.
Imagine the propaganda of a press release, Americans barred from
visiting mother on death bed in Cuba. A story like that can and will be
used against us all over the world.
We don't gain from a policy that forces separate families, and it is
time to change. We don't have to lift the embargo against Cuba to
restore family relations among Cubans and their relatives who live in
America. We have a real opportunity to make progress promoting
democracy in Cuba, and we ought to take it.
We need to revise the U.S. travel policy to Cuba to recognize that
the American people are the best ambassadors we could ever deploy.
Every visit by an American citizen to a loved one in Cuba will do more
to promote freedom and democracy than all the leaflets and all the
broadcasts and all the saber rattling that we have tried unsuccessfully
in the last half century. We don't need to tear down a wall, we do need
to tear up a policy and start over, and we should do it now.
____________________
THE MISSOURI MIRACLE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, they are calling it the Missouri miracle,
but it didn't start out that way. In fact, it was a parent's worst
nightmare. A 13-year-old gets off a school bus near his home in rural
Missouri but never makes it home. The local sheriff's office works
frantically to locate the missing boy but has few leads. That was the
real life saga for Ben Ownby's family last week near Beaufort,
Missouri, in my congressional district.
Last Monday, January 8, after a normal day at school William Ben
Ownby rode the bus to school. He got off and disappeared. The wrenching
news energized the local community. Volunteers turned out in droves to
assist law enforcement and to search the nearby woods. Friends and
neighbors began prayer chains and offered moral support to Ben's
family. Police officers and sheriffs' deputies from surrounding
counties lent their assistance.
Fortunately the single lead provided by 14-year-old Mitchell Hults
was a good one. Mitchell had gotten off the school bus with Ben and
described having seen a beat-up white Nissan pickup truck with a camper
shell, even describing the trailer hitch to a T. Two police officers
who had gone to a Kirkwood, Missouri, apartment complex to serve an
unrelated warrant saw a truck
[[Page 1632]]
matching the description, sought additional legal authority and, lo and
behold, last Friday, January 12, when officers approached the
apartment, not only did they find Ben Ownby unharmed, but a second
youth, Shawn Hornbeck, a boy from Washington County, Missouri who had
been missing since 2002.
More than 4 years ago, October 6, 2002, when he was 11, Shawn
Hornbeck disappeared while riding his bike. In a similar fashion, the
community and law enforcement worked hard on that case to no avail. Yet
Craig and Pam Akers, Shawn's parents, never gave up. Their ability to
persevere 4\1/2\ years is a testament to their strength and faith.
During that time, the Akers family established the Shawn Hornbeck
Foundation, whose mission it is to help families and law enforcement
search for missing children. Craig Akers' commitment to finding Shawn
and helping families has come at great personal expense and took a
physical and emotional toll, and yet he remains devoted to helping
others deal with cases of missing children.
What a miracle that both youths were rescued.
I would be remiss if I did not recognize the hard work of area law
enforcement, especially singling out Franklin County Sheriff Gary
Toelke and the Franklin County Sheriff's Department. Gary is a friend
of mine. This happens to be the second time in 4 months that Sheriff
Toelke has reported a happy ending in a missing child case.
You may remember last September, his department recovered an 8-day-
old baby girl when a woman attacked the baby's mother. That case became
a national news story, as has this one. The outcome of both of these
cases is a testament to that department's professionalism and
commitment to the community.
I also applaud the great detective work of young Mitchell Hults by
remembering the details of that suspicious white pickup truck right
down to the dents, rust spots and trailer hitch. Mitchell not only
saved the life of his friend Ben, but also rescued Shawn from 4\1/2\
years of captivity. All are true heroes, and their diligence saved the
lives of two young boys and brought solace to the Akers and Ownby
families.
On behalf of all Americans and parents nationwide, this House
appreciates their good work. To the Akers and Ownby families, I am sure
my colleagues will join me in expressing your shared beliefs that your
prayers have been answered. Truly, a Missouri miracle.
____________________
{time} 1930
PREVENTING IRAN FROM OBTAINING NUCLEAR WEAPONS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear
weapons ought to be the number one foreign policy objective of the
United States. A nuclear Iran would spark region-wide nuclear
proliferation. In fact, (Saudi Arabia and its allies have already
announced that they are beginning a nuclear program to respond to what
Iran is doing). Further, if the Iranian Government were close to being
overthrown, and some of us look forward to that day, it could smuggle a
nuclear weapon into the United States--either in an effort to reassert
popularity with its own people, or with the idea that they would rather
go out with a bang.
Now, we cannot stop Iran's nuclear program just by meeting with
Iranian emissaries. Secretary Rice has offered to meet with
representatives of the Iranian Government anywhere, at any time, to
discuss any agenda--so long as during the talks Iran suspends uranium
enrichment, just as Iran suspended uranium enrichment when they were
talking with European leaders. The refusal of Iran to suspend uranium
enrichment, even for a few days in order to speak with Secretary Rice,
speaks loudly about their willingness and desire to speak with us.
Likewise, we cannot stop Iran's nuclear program by making unilateral
concessions to Iran. We did that in the year 2000. We opened our
markets to everything Iran would want to export to us, except oil--
things like carpets and dried fruit. In fact, we opened our markets to
everything we didn't need, and they couldn't sell anywhere else. The
result in public was nasty comments from the Iranian foreign minister.
In private what they did was redouble their efforts to obtain nuclear
weapons, and provide assistance to the 9/11 hijackers, according to the
9/11 Commission, though they apparently didn't know the exact mission
of those they were assisting.
But we can block Iran's nuclear program only if we can pass extreme
Security Council sanctions. The mere adoption of strong sanctions at
the United Nations would be of enormous political impact on the people
of Iran. A ban on selling Iran refined petroleum products would
dislocate its economy and bring enormous popular pressure on the
Government of Iran, because although Iran exports petroleum, it doesn't
have the refining capacity--and therefore is dependent on imports for
almost half of its gasoline.
So how do we get these very extreme U.N. Security Council sanctions?
Only with a dramatic change in Russia's policy.
Now, our current approach to securing that critical Russian support
has been very ineffective, and we have achieved only token sanctions
that Tehran can laugh off.
The only way to get the kind of Russian support we need is by
offering real changes on our policy toward issues in Russia's own
geographic region--issues Russia cares a lot about, issues not of great
significance to most of us in the United States. Our efforts to
convince Russia to change its Iran policy only because, well, they
ought to do it, have been remarkably unsuccessful. We need to address
Russia's concerns to change their policy toward Iran's nuclear weapons.
In particular, we may need to offer to make modest changes in our
policies towards such issues as the Russian-speaking peoples of
Moldova, Latvia and Estonia, the route of Caspian Sea oil pipelines,
and Chechnya and Abkhazia.
Now, the State Department bureaucracy is prejudiced towards this
approach for three reasons: First, a bureaucracy has bureaus, and they
have got an Abkhazia bureau that doesn't want its interests sacrificed
for some more important national security priority. Second, there are
those in the administration with such an almost faith-based excessive
estimate of our national power. They think we can achieve all of our
national objectives and that we don't have to sacrifice or delay any of
them. Finally, many of America's foreign policy experts grew up in the
Soviet era. They spent their time strategizing how to encircle and
weaken Russia. And, Madam Speaker, old habits die hard.
Nothing is more important to America's national security than an all-
out diplomatic effort to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
____________________
RECOUNTING REASONS FOR VOTING IN FAVOR OF 2002 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
USE OF MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
today, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks,
the President began talking about going to war with Iraq. In the fall
of 2002, with the midterm elections heating up, the President
increasingly talked about the threat Iraq poses to the United States
and its allies. On October 10, 2002, the House voted on H.J. Res. 114,
the Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq resolution. It
passed the House by a vote of 296-133: 215 Republicans voted for the
resolution, 6 voted against it. 81 Democrats voted for it, and 126
voted against it.
Madam Speaker, in light of what many of our Members know today, they
perhaps would not have voted for that resolution. As a matter of fact,
day in and day out as I talk with my
[[Page 1633]]
colleagues, they recount all of that which was told to us by the
President of the United States and others on the opposite side of the
aisle, for the most part, about why it was so important to go to war
with Iraq.
They told us there were weapons of mass destruction. They told us
that the troop levels that they were sending were necessary. They told
us about the cost of the war. They told us that oil revenues would be
paying for the reconstruction. They told us we would be greeted as
liberators. They told us we would be able to contain sectarian
violence.
Well, Madam Speaker, I have colleagues that are here this evening who
will recount perhaps some of what they were being told and the way they
trusted the Commander in Chief, they trusted our President. They were
concerned about the safety and the security of our Nation.
So we have with us tonight some of the brightest, most hardworking,
most respected Members of the Congress of the United States. They are
going to remind us of what we were being told and how they came to
their decision and what they are thinking now.
Leading that discussion will be my dear friend from Missouri, that is
my hometown, my birthplace, who I have gotten to know very well. He is
the Chair of one of the most important committees of this House, the
Armed Services Committee, a highly respected gentleman, Representative
Ike Skelton.
I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend originally from
Missouri for yielding this time.
Last year, I had the opportunity to visit the Joint Forces Staff
College in Norfolk, Virginia. After a ceremony there, I went into the
library, and in the glassed-off section for old and rare books I found
a book printed in 1926 about the 1915 British misadventure at
Gallipoli, entitled ``The Perils of Amateur Strategy.'' I have often
thought regarding the situation in Iraq that we face today that this
administration is not giving food for thought to some author to write a
book entitled ``The Perils of Amateur Strategy II.''
The issue before us this evening is what would we have done, had we
known what we know today. Had that been the case, we probably would
never have had a resolution before us, much less voted in favor of it.
We have a wonderful military, the finest we have ever had and the
finest in modern history. The young men and young women are dedicated,
they are professional and they are volunteers, whether they be active
duty, whether they be National Guard or Reserve. Gosh, I am proud of
them. I have been with them aboard ship; I have been with them in their
training. I have been with them in Iraq and Afghanistan and had the
privilege of spending Christmas Day with them in Baghdad. But I wonder
where all of this ends.
They moved the goalposts on us. The first goal was to make sure that
weapons of mass destruction were not there, then to establish a
democracy, and now to bring stability to Iraq. And those goalposts keep
moving.
I am truly concerned about where we have been and much more concerned
about where we go in Iraq. Whatever happens there, and I feel that
there is no positive outcome for this, the star of this show will be
the young men and young women who wear the uniform of the United
States. History will treat them well and our gratitude should go toward
them.
There are some mistakes that are made that are irretrievable. There
have been such mistakes that we have made in Iraq. The first, of
course, was going in with the intelligence that at least was available,
not having a plan in use, despite the fact that there was a plan
available. Lieutenant General Jay Gardner asked for the people to help
draw it up and was finally given one person from the State Department.
But the plan was not allowed to be used.
Looting was allowed, and then we dismissed those who belonged to the
Baathist Party, who made the trains run and the local government run.
Some thousands of school teachers were put out of jobs. Then the army
was dismissed, rather than giving them a paycheck and a shovel and the
opportunity to help bring security and stability to that torn country.
The military ammunition, weapons and caches, were not guarded. In
September of 2003, John Spratt, Robin Hayes and I were told by David
Kay that there were 50-some-odd caches that went unguarded, and the
truth in fact is there were many, many more. That is where the
insurgents got their weapons and ammunition to use against our young
people.
We fought the insurgents, the Baathists, criminals, foreigners and al
Qaeda helping the insurgency, and then more recently the sectarian
violence that overlays all of the insurgency that is going on; and we
are there trying to bring stability to that torn land.
{time} 1945
I am hoping for a positive outcome. It is dark and misty as to where
we are going today. I am hoping lightning will strike for the benefit
of our young people who are there.
It is having serious implications in our readiness which we will
explore and talk about and hope to rectify to some extent in the Armed
Services Committee.
All of these areas, I think, are irretrievable, and I am hopeful that
in the days ahead there will be some light at the end of the tunnel in
this very sad misadventure in Iraq.
Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman, and before the gentleman leaves
the microphone, would you please confirm for me that did you not have a
son that served or is serving in Iraq?
Mr. SKELTON. That is correct.
Ms. WATERS. Thank you so much.
Mr. SKELTON. I appreciate the gentlewoman making reference. As you
know, I am very, very proud of all three of our sons, two of whom are
in uniform, and I do not speak about them other than just to be proud
of them.
Ms. WATERS. Thank you so very much. We appreciate your service, we
appreciate your work, and we appreciate the fact that you sit here
every day trying to manage this most important problem and crisis that
we have and the fact that you have your son who is put at great risk.
Thank you very much.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Tauscher), who is a member of the Armed Services Committee, who is the
chair of the New Democrats, one of the hardest working members of the
California delegation who will present.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, let me first thank my friend and
colleague from California for her passion and her presence and for her
leadership and also my other colleague Barbara Lee and for Lynn Woolsey
and so many of my colleagues who have been indefatigable, unrelenting
and brilliant in their insistence that we continue to put pressure on
the administration and the President specifically for the litany of
mistakes that have been made in Iraq, but at the same time holding
deeply in our hearts the fighting men and women that come from all of
our neighborhoods, come from all of our communities. For your
patriotism, I cannot thank you enough. For your leadership and
friendship, I will always be indebted.
Madam Speaker, I cannot and will not support putting more American
troops on the ground in Iraq. I stand here today more convinced than
ever that the President's so-called new plan to send over 21,000
additional American troops to Iraq will only lead to further chaos.
My opposition to this troop surge is built upon years of hearings in
the House Armed Services Committee, where I serve as subcommittee
chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, congressional briefings
and five trips to the region, including three to Iraq, witnessing the
war firsthand and speaking with our troops and commanders on the
ground.
Sadly, the President has gotten it very wrong every step of the way.
Yet he continues to ask us to trust him.
When the Republican-controlled Congress was rushing a vote to
authorize the war in the middle of 2002's campaign season, I joined my
friend Dennis
[[Page 1634]]
Kucinich to call on the Republican leadership to take the politics out
of the vote, take the decision to send our troops into harm's way
seriously and postpone the vote until after the election.
We wrote to our colleagues in October of 2002: ``It is incumbent upon
us to address the matters of national security and decisions through
the reasoned and deliberate process afforded us by our Constitution.
This becomes particularly important when these decisions could possibly
mean putting our young servicemen and women in harm's way. This is not
a process that can be rushed for the sake of political expediency.''
Our best attempts failed. Congress was rushed to a vet, and we had no
opportunity to sort through what we now know was the Bush
administration's personal collection of cherry-picked or just plain
false intelligence.
The President made it clear that he wanted to rush to invade Iraq and
prevent international weapons inspectors from finishing their job.
I spoke out at the time saying, ``We must consider every peaceful
alternative and contemplate every possible outcome before we turn to
force.''
Our warnings were again ignored. In February of 2003, I co-authored
legislation that would have required the President to submit a public
report to Congress prior to initiating military action in Iraq.
Our bill said: ``The United States should not proceed with unilateral
or preemptive military action in Iraq, but if we do have to go to war
to disarm Saddam, Congress needs to be sure there are sensible plans
that will not compromise our ability to prosecute the War on Terror
elsewhere or further destabilize an already volatile region.''
That same month, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell presented
the United Nations with the Bush administration's case on Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction, I again said, ``I continue to believe that
the United States should not proceed with unilateral or preemptive
military action.''
After the invasion, I remained concerned about the Bush
administration's rush to war, and in July 2003 I authored legislation
to create a select committee to hold public hearings to investigate
several aspects of intelligence, including whether intelligence
supported the claim that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United
States, questioning the accuracy of intelligence that led the
administration to believe Iraq was working with al Qaeda, and
questioning the role of the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon.
The Republican-controlled Congress at the time would not allow my
bill to see the light of day.
In September 2003, the President requested an additional $87 billion
to finance the war. In response, I authored legislation calling for
explanations, noting that ``President Bush has not yet provided
Congress with a detailed plan that outlines the strategic objectives of
Operation Iraqi Freedom.''
I have sent dozens of letters to the President, Secretary Rice,
Secretary Rumsfeld and others over the past 4\1/2\ years urging them to
explain our mission and exit strategy for Iraq. I have offered
suggestions to stabilize Iraq and bring our troops home sooner. Yet I
have received few answers.
Last week, I watched the President plead his case to the American
people, trying to justify why more troops will save his failed policy.
But yet again I was disappointed by the stubbornness exhibited by a
President that has failed in Iraq every step of the way.
I have stated throughout the timeline of the war that the Commander-
in-Chief has the responsibility to define a well-articulated mission
that has the support of the American people and an exit strategy to
bring our troops home sooner and safer. The President has neither.
Top military commanders in Iraq, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and
the American people all agree that sending more troops to Iraq will not
end the civil war. They understand that we should immediately begin a
strategic redeployment of U.S. troops in conjunction with diplomacy
that forces Iraq's neighbors to step up as responsible regional
partners.
Adding additional troops further prevents the Iraqi government from
taking responsibility for securing their own country. If the President
sidesteps the Congress, he does this at his own peril, and sadly, he
does it with the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families
paying the highest price.
This is why I am an original cosponsor of the Meehan legislation that
requires the President to ask Congress for an up-or-down vote if he
plans to raise troop levels in Iraq.
I am not advocating cutting funds for the troops while they are in
harm's way, but I am an advocate of conditioning all further spending
for the Iraq War based on the Iraqis meeting security and political
benchmarks and establishing a plan for the redeployment of our troops.
I will continue to challenge the President to abandon his flawed
troop surge policy, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. We
owe it to our troops, to the American people and to our conscience.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from
California, not only for the statement that she has made this evening,
but I believe that you are an example of one of our highly respected
Members of Congress who trusted the President, who believed what he was
saying when he offered all of the reasons why we should be going into
the war, and to have lost your support, I think, is the kind of
significance that everyone should have an appreciation for.
We have come to that point in time where supporters who believed in
the President are now withdrawing their support and urging him to
abandon the failed policies that took us into that war.
Next, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Wynn). He is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, another one
of our respected Members in this House who supported the Commander-in-
Chief when he brought to us all of the flawed evidence, that we did not
know was flawed at that time, and he has taken a lot of criticism for
it, but he certainly has clarified his understanding now and he has a
statement that he would like to bring forward this evening. I yield to
the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank first the gentlewoman
from California for yielding, and also for her consistent, aggressive
and activist leadership on this issue. She has been very courageous
throughout. She has always taken a principled position, and she is now
leading our efforts to stand up and express our opposition to the
President. I want to thank her for that.
Sometimes one of the most difficult things for a politician or
elected official to do is to say I was wrong; I made a mistake. I am
here to say that tonight.
After 9/11, after the Pentagon was attacked in addition to New York,
my district, which is just outside of Washington, D.C., felt the
effects very severely. A lot of my constituents worked in the Pentagon.
I went to several funerals, and I was very sensitive to the fact that
my constituents in suburban Washington, D.C., in Montgomery County and
in Prince Georges County, as Federal workers, were very vulnerable to
an attack in what is arguably the number one or the number two target
of terrorists in the United States.
I represent 72,000 Federal employees, most of whom work right here in
the Nation's capital, in the immediate Capitol complex area.
At that time, the President was presenting, as the gentlewoman
mentioned, extensive evidence about the existence of weapons of mass
destruction, about attempts to develop a nuclear arsenal, about
chemical and biological warfare, and I was of the belief that the
President, on issues of national security, would put politics aside and
would consider only the best interests of the country. Boy, was I
wrong.
[[Page 1635]]
It has turned out and become evident to everyone that the President's
intelligence was seriously flawed. It was inaccurate, it was distorted,
and it was exaggerated to create a false impression of urgency that
this country had an urgent threat and that weapons of mass destruction,
in fact, existed and that they posed a threat to the citizens of the
United States and, in my consideration, a threat to my constituents
here in the Washington metropolitan area.
We were shown classified information, documents, photographs and the
like, all of which were designed to create the impression that we were
facing an imminent threat. Assuming the President would not mislead the
country, I supported the war. That was a mistake.
But then it came to pass and became increasingly evident that there
were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that we were not facing
an imminent threat. So in May of 2004, in an appearance before the
Muslim Council in my district, I said I think my vote was wrong; I
think my vote was a mistake.
Subsequent to that, I heard people say, well, what about the fact
that we toppled Saddam Hussein? Well, that was a laudable goal, but it
was not worth 3,000 troops. Well, what about the fact we created
elections and they put their finger in purple ink and they had
elections for the first time? I said I agree, that, too, is a laudable
goal, but that was not worth 3,000 troops.
If you had asked me then to make this decision based on what I know
now, I would not have voted to support the use of troops.
{time} 2000
Because, you see, there are a lot of dictators in the world, some of
whom we not only deal with, some of whom we actually arm. There are a
lot of dictators that are cruel, that murder their own people, that
violate human rights. There are a lot of countries that don't have
democratic processes. And yet we do not make the decision that we ought
to engage with them militarily. So to my way of thinking, the only
justification, the only justification would have been the existence of
weapons of mass destruction and an imminent threat to the United States
that in fact did not exist.
What we have in fact seen is that our military presence has worsened
the situation. Areas that did not have terrorists now have terrorists.
They are called breeding grounds for terrorism because our presence
creates a cause for the terrorists, a motivation, if you will, a
catalyst, an antagonism. That is not solving the problem of terrorism.
That is not effectively fighting the war on terrorism. Our military
role has not been productive and effective; in fact, it is been
counterproductive and sadly ineffective.
It is time to withdraw our troops. We need to begin now to withdraw
our troops so that the Iraqis will take more responsibility for their
own security. In fact, Mr. Maliki says that is what he wants us to do.
He says, ``Give us the weapons, we will do it.'' He is not so excited
about having us. Clearly, the American people don't want to be in Iraq.
More importantly, the Iraqi people don't want us to be in Iraq. It is
time for us to pull out. We are in the midst of a civil war, one that
we cannot resolve, and therefore we are not playing a constructive
role.
We are now on the eve of another adventure in Iraq or, should I say,
misadventure, in which the President is proposing not to withdraw but
just the opposite, contrary to the recommendations of the joint chiefs,
contrary to the recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group. The President
is saying, Let's send more troops. He calls it a surge. Folks, it is a
troop escalation and an escalation of this war, and I will oppose it.
There is a saying that the old folks used to say: Fool me once, shame
on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Mr. President, you fooled me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice? I
don't think so.
I am opposed to any troop escalation. I am opposed to any surge. I am
opposed to any expansion of this war by military means. Yes, we have to
fight the war on terrorism, but it seems to me we need to use
diplomatic means to create an environment in which we can promote
peace. We need to involve the other countries in the region, be it Shia
or be it Sunni, who have an interest in a stable region. It is their
region. They don't want war as a way of life in their region. Let's
involve those countries, the Egypts, the Jordans, the Saudi Arabias.
Let them get engaged in helping resolve this war. Let us step back from
this war. We need to implement diplomatic solutions.
So this is not a question of withdrawing United States leadership. We
need to leave, but we need to leave diplomatically. We need to
understand that, in the modern world, the use of military force is
extremely limited, limited in its utility, because we are operating in
a different environment, a terrorist environment, an insurgent
environment in which additional troops only work for a temporary period
of time. The insurgency withdraws, melts away, and then reemerges,
which is to say, the President's proposal can only lead to a permanent
U.S. presence of even more troops, putting them in harm's way.
We have lost over 3,000 troops. The Iraqi people have lost tens of
thousands more, maybe even hundreds of thousands. It is time to
withdraw our military presence. It is time to advance the cause of
peace through diplomatic means and diplomatic leadership.
I want to thank the gentlewoman again for giving me this opportunity
to speak.
Ms. WATERS. I would like to thank the gentleman for that very clear
statement as one who voted to support.
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to direct
their remarks to the Chair.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for
that very clear statement as one who supported the war in Iraq who has
withdrawn that support and is sharing with others his feelings about
why he supported it and why he no longer supports it.
Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from California, one of
my colleagues on the financial services committee, Representative Brad
Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I remember well the debate on this floor in 2002 about whether to
give the President the power he sought to take military action, if
necessary, against Saddam Hussein. But before that resolution even came
to this floor, we considered it in the International Relations
Committee. There, we were told that the administration would invade
Iraq only if the inspectors were not allowed to do their job. In fact,
Secretary Powell told us that before the whole committee. Then he told
me that privately.
Now, I did not completely trust the administration. So in committee I
offered a resolution that would allow the use of force only if the
inspectors were not allowed to do their job. A majority of Democrats in
the committee voted for that resolution. The Republicans pretty much
all voted against it; and it was defeated.
Then we all came to this floor, and Mr. Spratt of South Carolina put
forward a resolution that would allow the President to use military
force, but only under certain circumstances, such as force being
authorized by the United Nations. I voted for Mr. Spratt's resolution.
Unfortunately, it was defeated.
And, finally, the supporters of the President were able to say that
there was only one last resolution before us: either we gave the power
to the President that he sought, but that he promised to use only if
the inspectors were expelled or prevented from doing their job, or we
left ourselves in a position where Saddam was free to expel the
inspectors and to go all out with his weapons of mass destruction
program.
At that point, I voted for an overly broad resolution, a resolution
that gave the President more power than he claimed he would use, or
gave him power to act under circumstances all under when he said that
he would act only under a limited number of circumstances. That of
course is not what happened.
[[Page 1636]]
The President took that power, made little or no attempt to ensure
the inspectors were allowed to do their job, dismissed them, in effect
pulled them out of Iraq, and invaded at an early opportunity.
Obviously, if I knew then how the President would use the power granted
by this Congress, I never would have voted to give him that power.
Not only did he invade even though the inspectors were then able to
do their job and, as it turned out, they were right, there were no
weapons of mass destruction--but then, in secret briefings on this
floor, we had been told (and this has been reported in press, I am not
revealing anything), that the plan was to invade Iraq from the north
and from the south, so as to take control of the country quickly. What
happened was that Turkey at the last minute declared that our troops
couldn't go through Turkey, and our best division was sitting there in
the middle of the Mediterranean.
So we had a plan. The plan had been previewed to those of us in
Congress. The plan involved our best division. (I will just say one of
our best divisions; I don't want to cast anything but total glory on
all our divisions.) But one of our best divisions was left sitting in
the Mediterranean. Now, you would think if you had a plan and you
couldn't execute the plan, you would go draft a new plan. Instead, they
just took the northern half of the plan and threw it away and
implemented the southern half of the plan. Needless to say, we did not
take immediate control of Baghdad. Needless to say, there was chaos.
And the rest is history.
But there are a host of other mistakes made by the Bush
administration. They were detailed by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton). They included an inadequate number of troops at the
beginning; disbanding the Iraqi Army when the Saudis, who have some
understanding of the area, had advised us to do the exact opposite; not
guarding the arms depots; and a host of other problems.
Now we are being asked to authorize a surge. An escalation is the
real word. And we are told that this is critical because Iraq is the
central front in the war on terrorism. Well, is that really true?
We are told that Iraq could become a place where terrorists could
meet and plot. Today they are meeting and plotting in North Waziristan,
in much of Afghanistan, in much of Somalia, pretty much anywhere they
want in Iran and in Syria and Sudan. They have plenty of places to meet
and plot. How many Americans are supposed to die on the theory that
denying the terrorists one place to meet will prevent them from meeting
in all the places they are meeting today?
Then we are told that there will be a humanitarian debacle in Iraq.
And, again, the prognosis for Iraq is not particularly good, but it is
by no means clear that we have not done all we can be expected to do to
help the people of Iraq avoid a civil war and achieve unity. And at
some point it may be necessary to say that Iraq's decisions need to be
made by the Iraqis.
Keep in mind that during Saddam's tenure, year in and year out, he
killed far more people than have been killed in the time since we
invaded. We have bestowed upon the Iraqi people not just the pain and
suffering that they have now, but also freedom from a Saddam Hussein
who in prior decades had killed not the thousands we see being killed
now but hundreds of thousands and millions. Our moral responsibility to
the Iraqi people was to do what was reasonable to help them reestablish
order. I think we have met much of our moral responsibility. We can do
more by providing economic and other aid. And we should keep in mind
that Iraq is just one of many places in the world suffering great
humanitarian crises.
Finally, we are told that we are going to empower and overjoy the
terrorists if they see us leave Iraq or see us fail to surge into Iraq.
Keep in mind, the smarter terrorists are thrilled to have us pinned
down there, and to have us bled dry there.
But, finally, even if all these things being put forward by the
administration are true, even if withdrawal from Iraq or failure to
surge into Iraq gives terrorists a place to gather, sets the stage for
humanitarian crisis, and overjoys the terrorists, there is no evidence
that we are now doing anything but delaying the inevitable by surging
over the next few months, or escalating over the next few months. So
since we are by no means winning or prevailing, surging is just doing
more of the same.
The President has asked us to compare the Global War on Radical Islam
with the Cold War, and I think it is an apt comparison. Iraq has some
real similarities to Vietnam. And the one thing we all remember about
Vietnam is being told that if we didn't prevail in Vietnam, the
communists would be on the beaches in Santa Monica. What did we finally
do? We withdrew from Vietnam, and doing so was a critical step in
winning the Cold War just 15 years later.
I would say that we should pick our own battlefields, we should learn
from the Vietnam mistake, and we should recognize that the way to beat
radical Islam may be to recognize that Iraq is not the central front
and that we have to do a lot of things in a lot of places in the world,
and cannot allow ourselves to be utterly fixated on Iraq.
Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from California. And I yield to the
gentleman from New Jersey, Representative Steve Rothman, who serves on
the Appropriations Committee, he is on the Subcommittee on Defense, and
on the Subcommittee For Foreign Operations. This is not the first
evening he has been on the floor; he has made it clear, but he even
goes further tonight in helping to clarify and make it known where he
stands on this war.
Mr. ROTHMAN. I thank the gentlewoman from California.
Madam Speaker, my friends, I was asked by the gentlewoman from
California if I would share with my colleagues and with you, Madam
Speaker, the process by which I came to the conclusion that America
should withdraw all of its troops from Iraq without delay.
Like most Americans, Madam Speaker, when the President said to
Members of Congress and the entire country that Saddam Hussein intended
to bring weapons of mass destruction to the United States to destroy
us, to kill thousands of Americans, that got my attention, especially
since it was after 9/11.
I am from northeastern New Jersey, and a great number, too many, of
my constituents were killed at the World Trade Center. But nonetheless,
as an American, after 9/11 I didn't want to wait to get hit again. If
the President of the United States and his entire Cabinet were willing
to go before me in closed session, before the country in his State of
the Union address, before the United Nations with photographs and other
testimony that Saddam Hussein was sending Iraqi agents to America with
weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical, to be deposited
in our water supply system, to bring smallpox to our Nation, et cetera,
then maybe we needed to stop Saddam Hussein and stop him immediately.
{time} 2015
Then maybe we needed to stop Saddam Hussein, and stop him
immediately.
Again, we were told it was an imminent, immediate threat to the
national security of the United States: Saddam, using agents bearing
weapons of mass destruction and bringing them on our shores. And so I
voted to authorize the President to bring military action against
Saddam Hussein.
I think most Americans, Madam Speaker, agreed with me that we didn't
want to be caught again off guard, especially if our President told us
so unequivocally that these were the facts.
Well, after we deposed Saddam Hussein, removed him from power, Madam
Speaker, it became clear to us, most of us and most Americans, and most
people in the world, that virtually everything that the President of
the United States had told us about Iraq wasn't true. There were no
weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had no intention of bringing Iraqi
agents to slaughter Americans on our shore and that Saddam had precious
little if not zero contact of any significance with any foreign
terrorists or anybody who on their
[[Page 1637]]
own wanted to do something against America.
And so we realized after we deposed Saddam Hussein that we had been
led to go to war in Iraq on false statements. I don't believe they were
intentionally false, but they were false. And I believe that history
will record thereafter, after we gave the President the authority to go
to war in Iraq, he and his administration, Madam Speaker, committed
historic military and diplomatic blunders.
But, you know, I felt in my heart that, yes, at that point there were
no weapons of mass destruction. The reason for going to war had
evaporated. But what had we done? Yes, we did a great thing by removing
this evil murderous dictator from Iraq as an oppressor of his people.
But then because of the botched way it was handled, those people were
living amidst looting and insecurity and murder and terrible hardship,
and I felt that we had a moral obligation to help the Iraqi people
stabilize their country and perhaps give them a way to become a
democracy, to live in freedom.
Even though they were a multi-ethnic society that had never enjoyed
that kind of freedom, I felt that was our moral responsibility after we
had removed their dictator and created such chaos.
Madam Speaker, after the death of more than 3,000 American servicemen
and -women, after the more than 23,000 American men and women wounded
in Iraq, after more than 3\1/2\ years of our Nation being at war with
150,000 troops a year there, and after spending almost one-half a
trillion U.S. taxpayer dollars in Iraq, I believe we have met our moral
obligation to the Iraqi people; in particular because we have given
them a chance in these 3\1/2\ years to decide that they will live
together in peace, their own neighbor on neighbor, Sunni, Shia and
Kurd.
But the Iraqi people have not yet decided that they want to live in
peace. And, frankly, our standing there, being shot at and blown up,
has apparently not persuaded them to live with their fellow Iraqis in
peace.
And we have needs here in America. Homeland security needs, al Qaeda
is in over 60 nations in the world planning and plotting against us,
and that is a real threat.
Homeland security needs are unmet. We don't inspect 100 percent of
the containers coming into our ports; 5 percent. Cargo going on
passenger airplanes is not inspected. I could go on and on. Our borders
are not secure.
And our military, our brave and courageous and magnificent military,
the best in the world, has been depleted, our Army and Marines in
particular. Depleted by this 3\1/2\ year engagement in Iraq. They have
done heroically, but some of them are on their second, third and fourth
tour of duty in Iraq. It is time to bring our troops home. We should
leave 20,000 or 30,000 in the region in Jordan just in case a foreign
nation would want to intervene, but that is unlikely and I will explain
that in a second.
But bring our troops home and rebuild our military and deal with our
own homeland security needs and deal with our domestic needs in
education and health care, balance our budget, and get ready to face
the threats that are out there in the world that are real because we
still live in a dangerous world.
The President says if we do that, there would be a catastrophe in
Iraq. Well, Madam Speaker, over 30,000 died in Iraq last year. Thirty
thousand. If you do the math, they only have a country of 25 million.
We have a country of 300 million. If you do the math, those 33,000 dead
Iraqi civilians, that is equivalent to almost 400,000 civilian American
deaths last year.
If that was the case in America, 400,000 American civilians killed in
a civil war, wouldn't we call that serious?
What is going on in Iraq today is a disaster already. He says al
Qaeda will probably take over. Nonsense. Today you have al Qaeda, who
are primarily Sunni members of the Islamic faith. You have Sunni Iraqis
killing al Qaeda Sunnis. They don't like foreign fighters in Iraq,
whether they be American or al Qaeda.
And the Shia in Iraq are no fans of the Sunni al Qaeda, either. But
the folks that they don't like the most in their midst are Americans.
The President says we believe in democracy and we went to Iraq to
give them a chance for democracy. This is after there were no weapons
of mass destruction and all of the other reasons had changed. He says
we should be there to give them democracy, notwithstanding the fact
that we are bleeding our own Nation dry of human and other resources.
Madam Speaker, what do the Iraqi people wish us to do? The point of
democracy is to allow people to express their will on how they wish to
be governed. The Iraqi people, 80 percent of them say: Americans, leave
our country. Eighty percent of Iraqis say: Americans, leave our
country. Sixty percent of Iraqis today say it is all right to kill
Americans.
Madam Speaker, when we leave Iraq, and I hope it is within the next
six months, caring only about the safety of our troops as we make this
strategic withdrawal and rebuild our military and get ready to face
others in the region, know that Iran will be very unhappy that we are
leaving. Iran will be very unhappy that we are leaving Iraq.
Why? Because then Iran will have to decide if they go fight on behalf
of the Shia members of the Iraqi civil war. Maybe Syria will have to
come in on behalf of the Sunnis fighting the Shia because Syria is a
Sunni nation.
Maybe Saudi Arabia may have to get in. That won't happen.
When we leave, the regional players in the Middle East around Iraq
will finally realize this is their problem that they have to solve and
can't continue to stand on the sideline causing trouble.
I appreciate all the time the gentlelady has given me, and I
appreciate the opportunity to explain how now for just about a year
when I announced to my constituents why I believed it was time for us
to withdraw our troops from Iraq, that it is indeed time to do so. It
is in America's vital national interest that we do so. It is the smart
thing to do for our country. We have other needs to address, including
rebuilding our military and getting ready for real threats that face us
around the world. And the better results will occur in Iraq and the
region after we leave. I thank the gentlelady from California.
Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for all of the time
and effort he is putting into helping us get out of Iraq.
Madam Speaker, I yield to Mr. Bill Jefferson from Louisiana.
Mr. JEFFERSON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Madam Speaker, this is a very important subject on which we speak
tonight. Most of what needs to be said has already been said by Members
who have gone before me, and I know the time is short.
However, I want to say a couple of things. I have had the privilege
of serving in the military of our country. I was first commissioned as
a military intelligence officer and then commissioned in the JAG Corps
as a judge advocate general officer. I take it seriously when the
Commander in Chief says we need to protect ourselves and defend our
country.
I have a district full of veterans. We have a large port facility
that is vulnerable to attack and penetration. I had long talks with
Colin Powell about these issues, and they were all very persuasive and
convincing about what we needed to do to protect ourselves.
I thought back about what we did when President Clinton came to us
about Bosnia and Kosovo when he told us that we needed to give him
authority to do what we needed to do to protect our country. I thought
it was fair to treat both Commanders in Chief the same. We should not
play politics over this issue. If we needed to protect our country, we
should.
We all know now there were no weapons of mass destruction, no
justification for the war, no nuclear weapons could be found there.
Nothing that the President told us was true was true. Whether he
intended or not, as has been said, the information was untrue;
[[Page 1638]]
and, therefore, we should not have based the war on it.
The other thing that is important is that most of us who voted on the
resolution decided and expected that the resolution would be followed.
Number one, that the President would go to the U.N. and talk to folks
and try to get a consensus.
And number two, that he would only go when there was a consensus
reached. He really just raced right past the U.N. and went right to
war, from the very beginning violating the obligations and trust he
asked us to repose in him.
Now we are in the middle of a civil war, and we are asked now to add
more troops, add a surge and escalate our efforts there. I don't
believe that the American people want to see that done. I surely can't
support that at this point down the road.
As we look at what we need to do in our country, there is so much
that needs to be done. I happen to represent a district that was
inundated by flood waters, not because of a natural disaster only, but
because the Corps of Engineers, a U.S. Government agency, failed to
protect our people and built levees that were not designed properly,
that were not constructed properly and that were not maintained
properly. Consequently, they failed and our city drowned.
It is time for our government to face up to domestic
responsibilities, particularly for Hurricane Katrina. And all of the
money that we are going to spend now on a surge in Iraq, I would like
to see a great part of it spent to bring our people home and restore
our communities and rebuild back the confidence that people ought to
have in us right here in America.
Madam Speaker and Congresswoman Waters, all of you who have done so
much in this area, I thank you for giving me a chance to come here and
say these few words tonight. I know our time is very short.
But I want to see our emphasis placed on our domestic responsibility
now in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. That is where our country
needs to focus.
If it was the Iraq war, after the wheels came off the war machine,
that has brought about the change in this body, and if that was a major
reason for what has happened here, I believe on the domestic front,
Hurricane Katrina was just as important to the changes that we have
seen in our Congress now. Therefore, our response must be as intense
and as direct on what we do to adjust ourselves in that war as we do to
come back here and take care of our people back home.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak
tonight. I look forward to our getting together to get this war behind
us and bring our troops home. I applaud diplomacy in this area, and I
look forward to getting our focus back on our people at home,
particularly on our Hurricane Katrina survivors and evacuees.
{time} 2030
Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for that very clear
statement.
And now, Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oakland,
California (Ms. Lee), who has given so much leadership on this issue.
She has been with us constantly, urging us to get out and coming up
with the prescription for how to do it.
Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, first, let me thank the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), the founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus, for her
leadership and for this special order tonight, because this is
historic.
First of all, let me just say that with regard to the Out of Iraq
Caucus, Ms. Waters knew, and this was early on, that Members of
Congress, whether they supported or opposed the war, needed a space in
this body, needed a framework to begin to discuss ways to get out of
Iraq. She saw early on that Members of Congress knew that they were
misled; that the information and intelligence was distorted; and that
whether, once again, they believed then and voted for the resolution or
not, that they wanted now to have that dialogue and that debate. So she
really did open up the space for the debate which we see now occurring,
which is extremely important because the debate, quite frankly,
especially with regard to this war, has been shut down. So thank you,
Ms. Waters, for your leadership.
Let me also say that tonight we heard from many Members, and I have
to thank them for their courage and their very clear statements. They
trusted, as they said, the Commander-in-Chief, and the Commander-in-
Chief violated their trust. Three thousand of our young men and women
now have died and countless Iraqis have died.
The President the other night said that he has made some mistakes,
and some of us thought that he was going to talk about how he was going
to rectify those mistakes. Instead, he talked about how he was going to
continue to escalate this war and continue to dig this country deeper
into a hole. He also said, very recently, and his staff, Mr. Snow,
said, that if the critics of his policies have a plan on what to do, to
come forward with it.
Quite frankly, I believe, and have said this over and over and over
again, the President got us into this mess and it is up to him to get
us out. But if he wants us to come up with a plan, then we have a plan.
We did just that. We introduced, Congresswoman Woolsey, Waters, and
myself, H.R. 508, which develops a plan to begin to bring our troops
home within 6 months. It also provides for reconstruction of Iraq in
terms of our assistance, and it ensures that there will be no permanent
military bases in Iraq.
What is going on right now, and we need to call this what it is, is
an occupation and it is a civil war. The Iraqi people do not want us
there as occupiers. The American people are sick and tired of this war,
and we need to bring our troops home.
Let me just remind you that when this authorization to use force was
presented to the Congress, Mr. Spratt, as was said earlier, offered an
alternative resolution, and I offered an alternative resolution, which
basically said that, look, the United Nations has the responsibility
for the inspections process to occur. Let the U.N. process move
forward. We received, I believe, about 72 Members, some of which came
down and spoke tonight on my resolution. And many Members have told me
now that they wish they had voted for that resolution because we would
not be in the mess we are in now.
Finally, let me just say once again to Ms. Waters, thank you for your
leadership. I want to thank you for your voice and for making sure that
the debate finally is occurring in this Congress, and I urge members of
the public and others who believe that what the American people said in
November gives us our marching orders to move forward, that they know
that we are hearing.
We are going to continue with this debate. Many of us are going to
say no to this escalation and no to this $100 billion supplemental. We
want our troops home, we want them protected, and we think the funds
should be used to do just that.
Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlewoman from California for all the work
she is doing.
We heard earlier from Members who had voted for the resolution to go
to war, who have since changed their minds. Fifteen Members signed up
for tonight, but some had to leave. They waited as long as they could.
And so we will continue to bring to the floor those Members who have
changed their minds.
Tonight not only do we have Ms. Lee, who just joined us, but we have
Representative Keith Ellison from Minnesota, one of our newer Members
who has been consistent on getting out of Iraq. I yield to the
gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlewoman from California. And I was told
early on, Madam Speaker, that the gentlewoman from California wanted to
feature Congress people who had voted for the war in Iraq and then had
subsequently changed their minds. I was persistent in trying to be a
part of tonight's special order, and I thank the gentlewoman from
California for allowing me to, because I just wanted to point out that
back in 2003 I had no
[[Page 1639]]
idea that I would ever be standing in the halls of Congress, but I did
know in 2003, in March, that this war was wrong and we needed to stand
absolutely against it.
But I respect those Members of Congress who came forward tonight and
pointed out that this war is wrong, was wrong, and we have to get out
of Iraq now.
Today--after 6 long years of subsidies to big oil companies with
outrageous profit margins--we made a bold change for America.
Today we gave America an energy policy that will move the Nation
towards a day in which no young American will ever again have to fight
another oil war for any President--especially this one.
The President finally admitted last Wednesday night what most
Americans have known for a long time.
His Iraq policy is a failure.
I rise today to strongly oppose this President's solution to that
failure--a surge of American troops.
Surge in Bushspeak is plain and simple--an expansion of the same
disastrous policy in Iraq.
The vast majority of our country's top military and foreign policy
experts disagree with the viability of the President's approach.
This list includes the current Joint Chiefs of Staff, current
military commanders in the region--General Abizaid and Casey, the
Baker-Hamilton commission and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel told it like it is last week: ``I
think this speech given last night by this President represents the
most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.''
As a Vietnam Veteran he should know.
Our military leaders state we must view Iraq policy as a three-legged
stool.
Each leg of the stool represents a key strategy to support
reconstruction of Iraq--one leg represents our military strategy, one
economic and one political.
All 3 legs have to be present, and strong, to ensure Iraqi success.
If one strategy is over-emphasized--and others don't even exist--the
stool and our strategy falls apart.
The President's plan is--at best--a one-legged stool--our military
involvement. A one-legged stool cannot stand.
Nor should it--when it is built on the lives of 22,000 young
Americans.
I am not a military expert, but experts of counterinsurgencies look
at Iraq and recommend a military force of a quarter million, to a half
million troops for any hope of success.
[Let me be clear I am not for any increase in our troop levels in
Iraq]
But, 22,000 troops don't even come close to making this critical
military benchmark.
Ted Carpenter of the Cato Institute stated last week:
. . . A lesser deployment would have no realistic chance to get the
job done. A limited surge of additional troops is the latest illusory
panacea offered by the people who brought us the Iraq quagmire in the
first place. It is an idea that should be rejected.
This is a reckless and irresponsible proposal. To allow the President
to place these selfless young Americans in a virtual shooting gallery
is wrong.
Since last night, 3,012 of America's most promising young men and
women have lost their lives in Iraq--and over 22,000 more have been
grievously wounded.
We have squandered more than $350 billion of our Treasury in Iraq
with no end in sight.
Three hundred fifty billion dollars would fund 48 million kids a year
of Head Start; it could provide 17 million students 4 year scholarships
at public universities; we could build 3 million additional housing
units; or we could hire 6 million more public school teachers for one
year.
Instead, we've dug 3,012 graves and mortgaged our children's future.
Enough is enough.
Monday, we celebrated Dr. Martin Luther King's life and work. In one
of Dr. King's last speeches in which he criticized our Vietnam policy,
Dr. King stated that: ``a time comes when silence is betrayal.''
That time has come--and our continued silence will be our Nation's
betrayal. The immediate withdrawal of our troops is the only new way
out of Iraq:
Lt. Gen. William Odom, of the Hudson Institute said, (and I quote):
``The wisdom and moral courage to change the course for strategic
purposes is what we need today, not mindless rhetoric `about staying
the course.' `Cutting and running' from Iraq is neither cowardly nor
imprudent. It is the only way to recover from what is turning out to be
the greatest strategic mistake in American history.''
I concur wholeheartedly.
I thank the gentlewoman from California for her courage and
persistence in the pursuit of peace; the pursuit of a saner and safer
world for our children, and all the children of the world.
____________________
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) is recognized for 60
minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, it is great to be here tonight.
Wow. I came here planning to talk about H.R. 6, which was passed this
afternoon, but not knowing how much time our colleagues across the
aisle were going to take, I was instructed to get here quite early in
order that if they quit ahead of time that we might lose our hour. So I
have sat here for the last, almost 45 minutes, and listened to my
colleagues.
It must be great, it must be wonderful to be so smugly self-confident
to know the answers unequivocally. Things going on in Iraq are anything
but clear-cut. We have some tough things going on ahead of us. I think
there is a phrase that describes what really bothers me the most, and
that is the classic, if I had known then what I know now, I might have
taken a different course. Well, who wouldn't say that?
It is just amazing to watch folks flee to the sidelines of this fight
and say it is all yours, Mr. President, this is all your deal; and we
are smugly confident to know that you are doing it the wrong way and
our plan is to flee Iraq immediately. And all of the evidence to the
contrary, that Iraq would become a disaster of biblical proportions,
they simply ignore with a cavalier attitude that just amazes me.
They continue to ignore the fact that since 9/11 we have not had a
terrorist attack on this country, and I think that comes from several
factors. One, we have some really wonderful men and women standing
between us and the bad guys. Whether it is in uniform, whether in the
intelligence services, or whether it is in the black operations all
around this world, there are great men and women putting their lives on
the line so that that has not happened. And they have done a great job.
We are working real hard here at home at Homeland Security and
elsewhere to make sure that doesn't happen, but I am afraid we have
also been lucky that that has not happened.
We heard some comments this morning from an expert in jihadists. She
breaks down the Muslim religion and Muslim group into moderates, who
make up about 80 percent of the Muslim population of the world, and 17
or 18 percent would be referred to, in her vernacular, as Islamists,
who are kind of in between; and then there is that 1 or 2 or 3 percent
she referred to as jihadists. Those are the ones that perpetrated 9/11,
and may not have had a hand in 9/11 but cheered and danced in the
street. And those are the ones whose intention it is to kill Americans.
They hate us for who we are and the freedoms that we have. And they
are still coming to get us. And all of the rhetoric to the contrary
that this would be a great wonderful world if we would just simply grab
hands and sing Kumbaya is like the little guy walking by the cemetery
in the dark, late at night, whistling to beat the band just to try to
keep himself from getting his pants scared off.
It is unfortunate we are at this point with respect to the debate,
and I am quite frankly saddened by it. It is unworthy of us to be
setting ourselves up to say I told you so; the Monday morning
quarterbacking. The second-guessing is just legion among the squad who
is, with hindsight, with the ability to know things didn't work, yet
who at the time supported the program and supported the President, to
now come back and cast these horrible aspersions against him and his
intelligence squads and all the other things.
Yes, mistakes were made. No doubt about it. Mistakes are made in
every war. But, you know, I think I will move on to something that is
maybe a little better to talk about.
Another sad day. Today, on this floor we did something I didn't think
was, A, possible or legal, but we did it, and I
[[Page 1640]]
will walk you through it. We passed H.R. 6 with about a 100-vote
margin, which I suspect the folks who voted for it will crow that it is
a giant bipartisan bill to make this country less dependent on foreign
crude oil and natural gas.
In fact, the preamble to the bill says that the intent of H.R. 6 is
``to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in
clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources,'' et cetera, et
cetera, et cetera. Quite frankly, it doesn't do any investing in that.
This bill's preamble is false because it simply sets aside the money
taken away from the folks who are trying to provide crude oil and
natural gas to this country and puts it into a slush fund to be spent
by who knows who in the future on things we don't have a clue about.
But their intent is, I suspect, straightforward when they talk about
that.
Would that this bill even came close to doing even that modest a
statement. It doesn't.
The one thing that most of my colleagues and I on both sides of the
aisle agree on, and most Americans, most folks in my District 11, who I
represent, is that we are far too dependent on foreign sources of crude
oil and natural gas.
I grew up in west Texas, and still make west Texas my home. It is one
of the oil and gas capitals of the United States, and so I am
unabashedly in favor of crude oil production and natural gas
production. It feeds my family, in some instances, and fed me growing
up. So I don't make any apologies for being in support of crude oil and
natural gas.
I heard a new phrase today during the debate. One of my colleagues on
the other side talked about foreign and polluting sources of crude oil
and natural gas and fuels. What I would say to my colleague is that his
righteous indignation would be a little more sincere if he would come
to me and say, I have committed to either getting to and from my
district by walking, I am going to ride a horse, a bicycle, a horse-
drawn carriage, or I have come up with some new conveyance that does
not use any fossil fuels, non-electric cars, some sort of a new non-
fossil fuel way to get here as the first step on making that happen,
because I feel so offended by the use of fossil fuels that I am going
to begin to take those steps.
If my colleagues would begin to say that, then their disdain for the
oil business and all the wealth it has created in this country, all the
solutions it has provided would be a little more understandable.
Yes, there are problems with it, and we ought to be dealing with
those in a straightforward manner. But that seems to be lost on the
folks who on the one hand drive their cars, ride in their airplanes,
and at the same time insult the domestic oil and gas industry of this
country.
And it is an insult, quite frankly. Just look at the title to section
101, the short title, ``Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act of 2007.''
What is Big Oil? It is not defined in the act. It is just one of those
pejorative terms thrown out there by the folks who drafted this bill,
which, by the way, had no Member input into this bill.
And I am going to try to keep the whining about process to a minimum
and just whine about the bill itself, but this is a staff deal. So at
least the staff think the name Big Oil is pejorative, maybe the Members
don't, but those who voted for it certainly agreed to that. So they are
disdainful of the oil and gas business.
Back to what we agree on. From the President down to anybody that you
talk to, all of us want to be less dependent on foreign sources of
crude oil and natural gas or, in fact, totally independent of those
sources.
{time} 2045
Well, that road to independence is decades away. And between here and
there, that road is paved with fossil fuels. That road is driven by
crude oil and natural gas, and it is going to be a combination of
domestically produced crude oil and natural gas and foreign sources of
crude oil and natural gas because we consume 21 million barrels a day
of gasoline, and whatever our imports are, about 65 percent of that is
foreign sources. So I think most folks recognize that an immediate
cessation of importing foreign crude oil and natural gas is not in the
cards, not only in the short term, near term or really long term as we
go about trying to become less dependent on fossil fuels, less
dependent on foreign sources of that crude that we are headed to that
path.
I would also argue that every single barrel of domestically produced
crude oil and every MCF of natural gas makes us less dependent on
foreign sources. That is just one more barrel that we didn't have to
import. That is another 50-plus dollars that we didn't send to some
country that may hate us. It is another $6 an MCF of natural gas that
didn't go somewhere else.
And so, why, for goodness sakes, would we want to intentionally
inflict financial harm on the folks that are producing the crude oil
and natural gas from domestic sources? It is counterproductive in the
extreme.
And so when you talk about reducing our Nation's dependency over some
period of time, since we recognize we are going to have to have crude
oil and natural gas, then by reducing the domestic production of crude
oil and natural gas, you have, in fact, increased the foreign source
requirements of that crude oil and natural gas. And so that is what
this bill does.
Now, does to do it in a way that is going to destroy the economy or
destroy life as we know it? Not likely. This economy, these producers,
are incredibly resilient and in spite of all of our predictions of doom
and gloom on the one hand, in all likelihood this will have an impact
on it. But there will be great men and women working hard every day in
the oil business to overcome the challenges that we have put in front
of them tonight with the passage of this bill in the House. We will
see, of course, whether or not our colleagues in the Senate take this
up.
The one disappointing thing about this bill is that as it talks
about, they call it clean, renewable and alternative energy sources, it
clearly ignores clean-burning coal technology, as well as nuclear
power. Most folks who understand the need for energy in this country
and understand the scope of energy and the scope of how that energy is
produced would acknowledge that clean-burning coal and nuclear are two
major and significant sources of energy for this path that we are on to
try to get to where we have weaned ourselves off of crude oil and
foreign crude and foreign natural gas. It is ignored in this bill.
Now, I know I heard earlier this afternoon, the chairman of the
Natural Resources Committee, in his mind, alternative energy sources is
coal, but it is a fossil fuel; and I am hard pressed to understand that
clean-burning coal fits into the generally accepted definition. So I am
disappointed that he was not able to, well that is right, this didn't
go through his committee. So he had no opportunity to make that
clarifying statement in the committee where the chairman has great
sway, whether you are the Republican or Democrat. If you are the
chairman of a committee, you have got great control over the bill. And
had it been through his committee in the regular order, my guess is,
given West Virginia's coal production, that my good friend would have
clarified that the money that is confiscated from producers out of this
bill would have been used in the clean-burning coal arena to help us
wean ourselves from crude oil and natural gas.
Let me talk a little bit about the specifics of what this bill does.
Back under the Big Oil category, let me talk about what that did. That
is simply a tax increase. Most businessmen and -women understand that
taxes on businesses go up and they go down, they go up, they go down,
so a 3 percent increase in the tax rate on businesses is not something
that is going to destroy any single business, I wouldn't expect. But it
is cash flow that would have otherwise gone into their business. And in
this instance, their business is producing crude oil and natural gas.
Statistics show that the small producers who are impacted by this
provision reinvest about, in 2005, reinvested
[[Page 1641]]
617 percent of their profits back in the ground. Let me make sure you
understand that. If they made a dollar out of their businesses, they
borrowed $5 and put $6 back in the ground.
Now I would give you the statistics from 1999 to 2005, but it is
embarrassing. It is 898 percent. And so these are folks that take that
money that they earn, taking the risks of drilling for oil and gas. And
I am going to be joined here in a few minutes by a colleague who fed
his family for a while owning a service company in the oil and gas
business, taking the risks that are inherent with all the oil and gas
exploration, all of the regulatory burden with trying to produce crude
oil and natural gas and making money with it and turning that money
back into additional activity.
That 617 percent provides additional jobs, because you spend that
with drilling contractors; you spend it with service companies, some
large and some small, some mom and pop organizations. In fact, my dad
and mom owned an oil field service company for the last 25-plus years
of my dad's career. They spent it with folks like him, who he also
hired folks, and so that is how that system worked.
What section 102 does is to change a section of the code, section
199, which, back in 2003 when America was losing jobs, particularly
manufacturing jobs, the Republican Congress in place at the time said,
we need some way to incent manufacturing jobs because most
manufacturing jobs have better benefits and better pay than service
jobs, particularly entry-level service jobs.
Now, you know, lawyers and accountants and doctors and others are in
service business and they make really good money. But the bulk of
service jobs are such that they don't make as much money. But
manufacturing jobs, by and large, really are important to this economy
on a go-forward basis.
In fact, back in 2003, Speaker Pelosi said manufacturing jobs are the
engines that run the economy. These are good jobs. They give working
families high standards of living. So even our current Speaker agreed
that to incent manufacturing jobs to stay in this country was an
important thing to do. So that is what section 199 of the code was
intended to do.
The net effect was to take the corporate tax rate which, on C
corporations is 35 percent, and over its implementation time frame
would lower that rate about 3 percent to somewhere between 32 and 33
percent, meaning that those manufacturing jobs would have that 3
percent taxes that instead of coming to the Federal Government and
having the 435 of us spend it, the companies would spend that money
themselves. And with respect to the oil and gas business, they would
take that money and multiply it by, from 200 percent to 600 percent for
the small companies with additional activity, additional jobs.
Now, by definition, oil and gas production was considered to be
manufacturing under the definition that was put in place. Now, under
the ending subsidies for Big Oil, every single oil company, the
companies that produce the largest average daily production down to the
smallest daily production, if they are a C corp, are impacted by this.
So I guess by impact, we will have to assume, my colleagues on the
other side's definition of Big Oil includes every oil company, just
because that is how this impact will be. This impacts every single oil
company that is in that business.
And again, I said taxes go up, taxes go down. But the net effect on
this is that there is less money for these companies to spend in the
oil business drilling, producing, completing all the things that go on
to produce additional crude oil and natural gas which, again, as I said
earlier, limits our need for imported crude oil and natural gas. Every
single barrel is a barrel that we have not had to buy from somebody who
really hates us.
There are a couple of other tax provisions that, whether the
amortization period should be 5 years or 7 years or 3 years, reasonable
people are going to differ on that and it is unfortunate that we have
made that change, but that was not one that I think anybody is
necessarily going to fall on their sword over.
Let me talk a little while about the most insulting piece of this
entire piece of legislation, and that is referred to under section 201
as the Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act of 2007. Now, just the
title would mean that apparently American consumers are paying
royalties. That is not the case, and so the title is flawed.
I had introduced an amendment that was not made in order for reasons
you will see here in a minute when I quote it. My better title, my
amendment would have given this thing a little more descriptive title
to the bill than the Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act, which
is meaningless, except the individual terms have meaning, but in
context of this bill they don't have much meaning.
The title is far more descriptive of what the impact of title II does
on our oil producers, is the Congressional Abrogation of Contracts
Using Blackmail Act of 2007. That is much more descriptive of what
section or title II in these following sections do as a result of this.
Let me set a little bit of the history for you. There are always
going to be ups and downs in the oil business, not to be confused with
drilling for oil and gas, but nevertheless there are swings in the
economy. There are swings in oil and gas, and sometimes it is great to
be in the oil business and other times it is not really good to be in
the oil business.
One of those times that was particularly bad to be in the oil
business was 1998, 1999 when the price of crude oil, sweet crude was
about 10 bucks a barrel. Sour crude was $7.50 or less per barrel. And
so at that point in time, companies were coming to the Federal
Government to lease offshore leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
Now, again, the price was 10 bucks a barrel, 12 bucks a barrel.
Contrast that and today. This is 1998 and 1999. I lived through that
time in west Texas. We had a march on the Capital led by some folks who
demanded that the Texas legislature do something to try to help the oil
business. There were thousands and thousands of jobs lost in the
economies of west Texas and throughout the oil business as a result of
those low prices. It was almost impossible to make money at that price,
and folks were being laid off. Rigs were being stacked and not
utilized, and it was one of those bottom down times in the oil business
that happens from time to time.
So against that backdrop, the Clinton administration, led by
Secretary Bruce Babbitt, who I assume is a competent Secretary of the
Interior, offered up leases for the oil and gas companies to drill on.
Now, when you are trying to decide how much bonus money to pay the
leaseholder, in this instance the Federal Government, obviously the
price of crude, the price of natural gas is a significant piece of what
you are trying to do. Another piece of it is what your share of the
crude oil will be if you find crude oil or natural gas in the ground.
Most leases provide for a royalty to the mineral owner. In this
instance the Federal Government is the mineral owner. But given the
circumstances of the day, there is some fuzziness as to why this
happened. But the leases issued in 1998, 1999, which would have
normally had a royalty associated with them, did not.
Now, I have to assume that there are competent lawyers, maybe some of
them still there at the Interior Department who worked on behalf of the
Interior Department to negotiate, in good faith, with the companies who
were actually wanting to buy these leases or actually wanted to pay the
Federal Government for the right to drill in the Gulf of Mexico in an
environment which is very difficult to drill.
I have to assume, since we have not seen any malpractice suits, we
have not seen anybody lose their law license, that these guys were
doing the job they were told to do. The companies were represented by
reputable lawyers, and a deal was struck. In effect, the Federal
Government shook hands with these companies and said, here are the
leases. Here are the terms. Here is what you need to do. And go forth
[[Page 1642]]
and drill. 1998, 1999. $10 a barrel crude oil.
Well, today, crude oil has been much higher than it is right now. But
it is still over 50 bucks a barrel last time I checked, although it may
have dropped some yesterday, and circumstances are radically different.
Well, the opportunists on the other side see this as a chance to, in
their view, in their mind, correct something that was done wrong in
1998 and 1999.
{time} 2100
The truth of the matter is, a deal was struck in good faith by the
Federal Government, by other companies. These companies should have
been able to rely on those written contracts to conduct their business.
This Congress, though, has seen fit to step into the breach to do
something I didn't think was legal for us to do but nevertheless are
doing. Most times, when you have a contract conflict or a conflict over
the terms of a contract, our judicial system is where that is ferreted
out, where facts are drawn, where rational arguments on both sides are
presented, where you have a trier of the fact, you have a judge, and
everybody comes to whatever conclusions.
That is not how this works on this floor. On this floor somebody came
up with a good idea that we ought to go get this money, and 260 of our
colleagues agreed to that idea. I am not sure that everybody fully
understands that these were contracts that companies should have been
able to agree to, should have been able to rely on. Most companies can
deal with taxes going up and down. What companies hate to deal with is
dealing with a customer, dealing with a partner that you cannot trust.
We have now placed the United States in that category. We are now in
league with the conduct of Hugo Chavez, the conduct of Evo Morales in
Bolivia in terms of how we treat contracts with this Federal
Government.
From this day forward, as far as the House is concerned, and, again,
this may not happen in the Senate, but as far as the House is
concerned, we are told, at least people in the oil and gas business, if
you sign a contract with the Federal Government, too bad. Now, we are
going to hold you to every single term in there, but we on the Federal
Government side, if we don't like the deal, if the deal changes, if the
deal looks like it is too good for you, then in addition to taking tax
money away from you, we are going to impose either a fee or we are
going to force you to renegotiate these contracts.
Here is some language that is just unpalatable in the extreme.
Section 202, the Secretary of the Interior shall agree to a request by
any lessee to amend leases. A request by a lessee to come in and change
a contract? That is not going to happen. Since when do you have to
demand that the Secretary of Interior accept that?
This is only happening because this law is, in effect, a gun held at
the head of these lease owners to come in and renegotiate. There are
some mechanical flaws in this thing that I am not sure was an intended
consequence. One is that if you are a holder in due course of one of
these leases, and you sell it to somebody else, you sell all of your
right, title and interest in it. Then unless that new leaseholder
agrees to these terms and agrees to this, nonsense, then you are
forever tainted. You cannot get another lease. That is where the
blackmail comes in. Unless you renegotiate the lease, you cannot get
another lease from the Federal Government to drill on Federal lands.
I know there are a lot of folks who hate the oil and gas business,
and never drilling on another Federal land is an acceptable public
policy, but it is wrong-headed if you think that we can continue to
import foreign crude oil and get to where we want to with respect to
the energy independence.
Another problem that is, in all likelihood, is a Republican problem
as well, back in June we passed a similar concept, a conservation fee
that is triggered at $34.73 a barrel. Here are the mechanics. If the
price is above $34.73 a barrel on average for a year, then you owe a $9
fee on that production. If it is less than that, then you don't owe
that fee. So you are the business guy, you are the guy that is
producing crude oil and natural gas, you have been rocking along all
year along at $34.70 on average, and so you are not paying that fee.
You built your business model based on that number.
Then you get a $.10 increase in the average price over that
timeframe, and you are now making $34.80. You now owe a $9 fee, which
drops you back to a $25 gross revenue on each barrel of oil that is
sold.
There are many places in the world where business people have to deal
with that kind of a 25 percent haircut just because something went up
over a particular threshold.
A couple of amendments that I offered, then I am going to turn to my
colleagues for whatever time they would like to take that I offered up
that seem to be a little more straightforward than my first one. The
first one would have said there is plenty of uncertainty as to what the
impact this is going to have on domestic crude oil and natural gas
production. We all agree that for every barrel that is produced
domestically is a barrel we don't have to buy from somebody else.
Given the uncertainty, given the rush to judgment that this was,
let's have the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Interior
document what the impact is going to be and tell this body for sure and
for certain that this will not reduce the investment in crude oil and
natural gas and will not reduce the domestic production that we rely on
to help wean ourselves off of foreign production. I got turned down on
that.
Then the second one was if our goal is to increase domestic
production while we bring on these other technologies that are decades
into the future, then let's not penalize the people who are taking the
money and putting it back in the ground. Let's only have these
penalties apply to people who are taking the money and giving it to
shareholders or, you know, some nasty thing like that.
So folks who reinvest over 75 percent of their net profits would not
be affected by this. For those folks who are taking the money, putting
it back in the ground, they wouldn't be impacted by this law; those
folks who are taking less than 75 percent of their profits and putting
it in the ground, then they would have to pay these penalties, and they
would be associated with that.
I meant to say early on that the chairman of the Rules Committee had
told us in advance that none of these amendments would be made in order
and that we were wasting our time and breath, but it seemed like
something I ought to do.
I am joined tonight by Steve Pearce from New Mexico. He and I share
the New Mexico border along a good long stretch. He is also the
Congressman for my three grandsons, and I am particularly interested in
him doing a good job on behalf of my three grandsons and my son and
daughter-in-law.
Mr. Pearce, would you share with us some of your thoughts?
Mr. PEARCE. I would thank the gentleman from Texas for bringing this
important item up tonight and will enjoy the opportunity to address it.
First of all, as we went through the discussions today, we were told,
I heard that it was not the intent to lower production. It was not the
intent to harm the American consumer. It was not the intent to defraud
the contracting process. But I would share with my colleagues that the
same kind of language had to be used in the first item that came to the
floor.
That item, the majority placed an element into the new rules package
which said that a Member, Delegate Or Resident Commissioner may not use
personal funds, official funds or campaign funds for a flight on a
nongovernmental airplane that is not licensed by the FAA to operate for
compensation or hire.
Now, when it came up for their own colleagues, they came to the floor
and just declared in their comments that this was not the intent of the
provision. But it is the effect of the provision, because they
absolutely outlawed, they made it illegal to use even your own funds or
campaign funds or MRA, that is the Congressional delegation funds, for
private aircraft. So you had
[[Page 1643]]
then Mr. Hastings of Florida say, I want to assure my colleagues that
this is not the intent of this provision.
Now, either we are bumping into people who were not quite prepared to
present legislation to the floor, who are maybe getting bad advice,
maybe thinking a little bit too quickly, maybe being driven by an
agenda to bring stuff to the floor, to bring legislation to the floor
that is a little bit narrowly constructed without the opportunity to go
to committee.
But let's take a look at what happened today in this energy bill. The
first thing they declared was that energy companies are making so much
profit that they must be declared immoral, that we must take back some
of that money. We heard that over and over and over again today.
But I would like to take a look at a chart here that begins to break
down the cost of petroleum versus the cost of some of the other items
take we have.
The cost of oil, today, is $52 per barrel. The cost of bottled water
is $409.50 per barrel. The cost of American beer is $448 per barrel.
The cost of ice cream is $934 per barrel. Nail polish rings up an
amazing $75,264 per barrel.
So we have to ask how it is that we are declaring too much profit is
being made? I heard today that oil companies, the top oil companies
made $96 billion in profit. Yet when I look at Microsoft in just this
past year, it was $36 billion just by itself.
If we are going to make it wrong, if we are going to simply set up
the class struggle between companies that make extraordinary profits,
we should look at those that have no investment in large capital.
When I look at the elements of producing oil that we are describing
today, I see an investment in a rig that is almost like $1 billion to
$1.5 billion. Now each one of these components that is made on this rig
creates jobs, they create cash flow, they create profits for a whole
range of companies.
So when my colleagues were saying we need to go up on the taxes for
these pieces of property, I think that the American consumer is smart
enough to realize that investors just might choose not to put their
money into this project.
If that is the case, then we are going to find that our colleagues,
in trying to assure energy independence, will, in fact, ensure energy
dependence.
Because in America, in the United States, we are driven further and
further offshore, further and further down into the ground in order to
produce oil.
Saudi Arabia produces from a very shallow depth. Some of the wells in
our district may be 20,000 feet deep. Saudi Arabia could be producing
from as shallow as 1,000 feet deep. Saudi Arabia already has
significant cost advantages over the United States production. We have
tried to encourage this kind of drilling, this kind of production, to
see that we have as much oil and gas as possible from internal sources.
Now, our friends have said that they wanted to create incentives for
the renewable fuels. Then they declared that the previous Congress for
12 years did nothing. I don't think they absolutely intended to mislead
the American public on that, but they certainly did.
Just because of the effects of the Energy 2005 Act that we passed
from the Republican House, let me read a list of renewable projects
that have already started or are already showing results.
First of all, because of that legislation in 2005, 27 new ethanol
plants have broken ground, 500 million gallons of new annual ethanol
production is online already, 1.4 billion gallons of ethanol production
are online by the end of 2006; 401 E-85 pumps, those are the pumps that
can give you 85 percent ethanol if you pull up and have an engine that
will burn ethanol; 25 new nuclear reactors are planned, 25,000
megawatts of electricity will be generated by 2020 if all 25 plants are
built, 15 million households can be powered from the electricity by the
25 plants; 116,871 new hybrid vehicles have been purchased since
January 1 of 2006, so the last calendar year, over 116,000 vehicles
that are hybrids; there were 2,000 megawatts of new wind power.
Many of those wind generators went into the second district of New
Mexico that I represent. Many others lie just outside the district.
Wind generators are not suitable for all parts of the country, but New
Mexico is one of the few States that could be self-sufficient on wind
energy. Very few States are capable of doing that; 493,000 homes will
now be powered by new wind power.
Three billion in economic activity is spurred by the wind power
production. There is 7 billion pounds of CO2 offset by new wind power
production, 1 million homes that can be powered by new wind power by
the end of 2006, 100 percent increase in California and New Jersey and
the applications for photovoltaic systems, 30 percent increase
nationwide are solar, thermal collector installations. We had 15 new
efficiency standards implemented for large appliances and 50,000
megawatts of energy saved by 2020 because of the 15 new efficiency
standards.
Now, our friends today said frequently that they were giving comments
like clean energy policy starts today. Well, they are making the
implication that nothing was done previously, and such is just not the
case.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to refer
back to something that he was saying on the alternative fuels
development, draw attention to that. I know that the gentleman from
Texas will agree with me, just as the gentleman from New Mexico has.
{time} 2115
What we are doing is recapping much of what took place in the Energy
Act of 2005, and in that act, the $8 billion that was set aside and
designated for alternative fuels development, the reason that was done
was because the Republican House leadership knew and the Senate agreed
and the President agreed that beginning some alternative fuels
development was very, very important. It was something that needed to
be done. Great ideas needed to be brought to the table.
I think what the gentleman is saying is so very significant, and I
want to highlight it because I appreciate so much the fact that you are
bringing it forward, that whether you are looking at the blended fuels
and ethanol and biodiesel, all of that is coming on line.
If I understood the gentleman correctly, what we have seen over the
past 18 months is generation capacity of these alternative fuels,
fossil-based fuels and blends. What we are seeing is hundreds of
millions of gallons available at the retail level every year. This will
increase every year.
We will hear more this evening from our dear colleague from Maryland
about developments in other alternative energies and getting outside of
the box and thinking outside of that paradigm. But I appreciate so much
the gentleman highlighting the provisions that were there and shedding
a little bit of sunlight on the statement that was made today over and
over and over on the floor of this House, an untruth, whether they are
misinformed or misdirected or misguided or whatever, that clean energy
policy would start today. Then what did they do when they voted for the
energy act that we passed in 2005, because we got that out of Energy
and Commerce Committee on a bipartisan vote.
We took significant steps at that point in time, and, as the
gentleman is seeing, results are being yielded and brought forth.
Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
One of the distressing things about the vote we took today was that not
only were we setting up kind of an undisclosed fund, a slush fund for
things that had already been done, the $8 billion referred to by my
colleague from Tennessee was in the Energy Act of 2005 and was very
specific. It had incentives for wind, solar, biomass, geothermal,
hydrogen and nuclear. It had incentives for many of the renewable
fuels. Those incentives are taking place and those incentives are
causing developments to take place that are very significant.
But the very damaging thing about this bill today was it violated a
constitutional provision that prohibits the Federal Government from
taking private property. That occurs on page 10 of the bill. Again, I
would read the excerpts from the bill, line 4 on transfers.
[[Page 1644]]
Basically the language says: ``A lessee,'' and some language in
between, ``shall not be eligible to obtain the economic benefit of any
covered lease or any other lease for production of oil or natural gas
in the Gulf of Mexico'' unless they voluntarily back away from, agree
to undo these contracts written in full faith.
If you can imagine an investor, or even a stockholder, having to walk
away from an investment like this because the government changed its
standards, the government changed the contracting basis, you would
understand then why The Washington Post said: ``This House bill would
break the deadlock,'' meaning the deadlock in this contracting process
that has been so messed up. ``The House would break this deadlock by
imposing heavy penalties,'' that is the heavy penalty of walking away
from that investment without economic return, ``on firms that do not
renegotiate on terms imposed by the government.
``This heavy-handed attack on the stability of contracts would be
welcomed in Russia, Bolivia and other countries that have been
criticized for tearing up revenue sharing agreements with private
energy companies.''
I would like to share with my colleagues, before I yield back, the
things that this Washington Post is referring to. For instance, in
Venezuela in 2006, Hugo Chavez caused royalty rates to be increased
from 1 percent to 16 percent without renegotiation. In 2005, Venezuelan
President Hugo Chavez mandated that private oil firms cooperate with
new contractual changes. Those firms that did not agree had their
assets nationalized.
Now, we are not nationalizing these assets, but we are saying you
have to sacrifice any potential to make economic benefit from that.
That does not seem American. It does not seem like the way that we want
to run business in this country, and yet it is what the majority
presented to us today. They said, well that is an unintended
consequence, which brings me back to my initial point, that maybe they
just should have sent these things to committee before they came to the
floor with such outlandish provisions.
Bolivia in 2006 threatened to expel oil companies that refused to
agree to new government terms on already existing contracts. That is
very similar to what this language in this bill did. If you don't agree
to the terms in the language here, then you do not get to make economic
impact from an investment such as this.
In May of 2006, President Evo Morales in Bolivia suspended
negotiations and nationalized his country's energy industry. These
actions were done for short-term increases in revenue from taxes and
royalties, but foreign investors have canceled almost new projects,
which will likely lead to massive economic problems in the future.
Now, if they are going to cancel economic projects in Bolivia because
of the overturn of existing contracts, I will guarantee you that they
will do the same in the United States, and they will cancel future
contracts.
Russia found the same thing. President Putin made firms agree to
change existing leases that had been in existence for several years. He
threatened to pull these leases for suspect reasons. Now he is willing
to hold all of Europe hostage as he takes these nationalized assets. I
will tell you that companies will not invest in Russia in the energy
business in the future.
These are all problems that this bill today that was passed off the
floor of the House of Representatives are going to cause. So if my
colleague would give me one more second, we would run through a chart
showing what American consumers can expect from this bill.
First, it sends American manufacturing jobs overseas. The second
thing that it does is lower domestic energy production, so we are going
to use more foreign oil, not less. It is going to provide higher prices
at the pump, $3, $4, $5. Hugo Chavez, the Iranian Government and the
Russian Government get the handouts at the expense of the American
consumer.
American voters need to understand what has occurred in the House of
Representatives today. I think that they are going to rise up when they
begin to see the effects on jobs, when they see the effects at the
pump, and when they see that the contractual basis, the full faith and
credit of the United States, has been undermined by this piece of
legislation.
I thank the gentleman for yielding. If he has additional time, I have
other comments. But I thank the gentleman from Texas for bringing this
important issue up.
Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining us
tonight. It just occurred to me that the Federal Government has
contracts with investors all over the world, where we have borrowed
money from them at interest rates that may or may not be advantageous.
I wonder if those holders of those bonds and T-notes out there all
around the world are noticing tonight that if interest rates go the
wrong way, that this Federal Government set a precedent of simply
changing them at will. That ought to put a chilling effect on the
purchase of this money.
Mr. PEARCE. That is a great point. Let me make one additional
comment. The very amusing thing is the people that are so critical of
the contracting process, the negotiation process, are exactly the same
people that said we should trust the Federal Government, who negotiated
so badly here, to negotiate in good faith on our prescription drugs. I
will tell you, it is not congruent. It does not fit any sense of logic
that I understand.
Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, we are also joined tonight by a good
colleague from Tennessee, Marsha Blackburn. I yield to the gentlewoman.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman so very much.
The gentleman from Texas, being an accountant and understanding what is
at stake when you talk about changing contracts and changing rates of
taxation, it is so wise to point these things out for our colleagues
tonight, and we appreciate that, and also the expertise in the energy
industry that our colleague from New Mexico holds.
I have dubbed this the ``hold-on-to-your-wallet Congress,'' and
indeed I believe it is. To the Americans who are watching us, you just
better be hanging on to that wallet, because if you are not, they are
coming to a pocket near you to get every single penny out of it that
they can wring out of it. They are off in their 100 hours to quite a
start.
As we talk about the energy bill tonight, the gentleman from New
Mexico was recapping what this means and the impact this is going to
have on the American people, and he is exactly right. The bill that the
Democrats in the House passed today does not put one more penny toward
alternative energy development or exploration or alternative fuels. It
doesn't do it.
It will not make gas cheaper. Contrary to what you heard on the floor
of the House today, this is not going to make gas at the pump cheaper.
It will not increase U.S. production. As a matter of fact, it is
going to make it more difficult to produce fuels and gas and heating
oil in the United States.
Now, the foreign gas production companies and foreign refineries
probably love the action that was taken here today, because they saw
House Democrats saying we don't have enough faith, we don't trust the
U.S. oil industry enough; but we are going to put our attention on
foreign investment and foreign oil, because indeed what they did was
make us less dependent on U.S. oil and more dependent on foreign
sources of oil.
The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington
Times, three publications that very seldom agree, all agreed today that
the bill, H.R. 6, the Democrat bill, was not a wise move for the people
of this great country.
So to the gentleman from Texas, and Madam Speaker, I will commend to
you that indeed this is the hold-on-to-your-wallet Congress. As we have
heard in this first 100 hours that our friends across the aisle have
been in charge of this majority, we have had no regular order. We have
no rules. They did go in and make a change to make it easier to raise
taxes.
[[Page 1645]]
As I said, hold on to that wallet because they are coming for it.
They actually made it easier to raise taxes on the American people.
They even want to get into committees and not record votes so that
you will not know what they are doing in the Rules Committee and in
some of the committees so that you can play both sides of the aisle on
these issues.
In addition to the energy bill that was passed today, they also
passed a bill dealing with student loans. It is not going to do one
single thing to help get one student into college. They were dealing
with interest rates after, after, you leave college.
They decided they wanted to rework a Medicare prescription drug plan.
Well, do you know what? Over 75 percent of the seniors are satisfied
with the prescription drug plan; and here they go, they are wanting to
make that one more expensive.
With the 9/11 Commission, we heard from our transportation industry,
from companies large and small that transport goods and merchandise
that it would be a cost of billions and billions of dollars to the
American public.
The minimum wage bill that brought about Tunagate, my goodness, $5
billion to $7 billion worth of added cost to the small businesses, plus
our fiasco with Tunagate that was carried forth by the gentlelady from
California.
So it has been an interesting 100 hours. They did pass their energy
bill today; and as has been said, it is not a bill, Madam Speaker, that
is going to make gas cheaper at the pump, more affordable, or make the
U.S. less dependent on foreign oil. It will make it more dependent on
foreign oil.
I yield back to the gentleman from Texas.
{time} 2130
Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentlewoman for coming back from her
previous engagement this evening to join my colleague from New Mexico.
We are just winding down. Does my colleague from New Mexico have
another point or two he wanted to make?
Mr. PEARCE. Yes. I would comment to my colleagues that a government
depends on the confidence of the people. We make promises all the time,
and we are expected to honor those promises if we are going to be a
good government. We make promises to our seniors. We make promises to
our veterans. We make promises to our young men and women who serve in
the military that we will watch out for them, that we will take care of
them.
But like the gentleman says, we also make written contracts and
written agreements. In this bill today, we have undermined the
contracting process. We have declared that previous agreements simply
must be renegotiated or you give up all future rights, and when we as a
country choose to do that, not only do we offend and compromise our
constitutional protection of private property rights, we undermine the
confidence in our Nation and in our government.
This is such a very serious step. It is a step that other Nations
take very easily and yet is so significant, and yet this major step,
this change in American policy was done without one single committee
hearing.
This bill that was in front of us today, H.R. 6, should have gone to
four different committees. Instead, it went to none, not one committee
hearing, and there were new provisions in this bill. There were new
people on the floor who were elected just this year who have not heard
the old provisions. I do not disagree with my colleagues who wanted to
make us energy independent, but they failed in that task, and in the
process, they have begun to undermine the confidence of this great
Nation and the great reputation it has for treating fairly those people
who invest and those people who trust the government.
Who else will be undercut by actions from the floor of this House and
the Democrat majority that is willing to take any step to try to
enforce a new standard while declaring it to be a new way? Instead, it
is an old, tried way that many other Nations have tried in the past. It
is unfortunate to see now this Congress and this majority taking steps
that Russia or Bolivia might have taken.
I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. CONAWAY. I appreciate the gentleman from New Mexico being with us
tonight.
On the campaign trail and in the town hall meetings throughout my
brief career, I have talked about Social Security being basically a
contract with ourselves, a promise with ourselves, that we would not
break that. From now, every time I talk about that, I will have to
think about this legislation, have to think about the fact that, wow,
here is a written contract, much like the written provisions of Social
Security, much like the written provisions in our veterans' benefits,
that we tend to keep but here is one that we did not.
I appreciate both my colleagues coming tonight. Here is one final
thing. I go through the long list of co-sponsors on this bill. At the
end of it, it says they have introduced this bill and it has been
referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, Natural Resources, Budget
and Rules for a period to be consequently determined by the Speaker. I
do not think there is a stopwatch fast enough that could measure the
amount of time that this bill laid before those committees because they
did not work. So how those committees did meet, how they were able to
get it through all four of those committees without anything happening,
without any meeting is one of those well-kept secrets about how this
process works when you do not have a transparency that a full committee
process will have.
As I told them earlier this afternoon, I hope that my colleagues on
the other side are not so intoxicated with this power that they now
wield that they continue this process of not having committee hearings,
not taking regular order, not moving things through in ways where at
least we can point out the flaws in a format and in an arena in which
it can be perhaps have an impact on the ultimate legislation.
So I want to thank the Chair for having us in here tonight.
____________________
PEAK OIL
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murphy of Connecticut). Under the
Speaker's announced policy of today, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Bartlett) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, last evening we were here just
about this time talking about this same subject, the subject we have
been talking about for the last hour. We had been discussing the
phenomenon known as peak oil. That is the term given to a prediction
that a geologist made, M. King Hubbert, working for the Shell Oil
Company in 1956. He gave a speech in San Antonio, Texas, which I
believe within a decade will be recognized as the most significant,
most important speech given in the last century.
What he predicted was that the United States, which at that time was
king of oil, we were producing more oil than any other country. We were
using more oil than any other country, and we were exporting more oil
than any other country. M. King Hubbert had the audacity in San
Antonio, Texas, in 1956 to predict that in just a bit less than a
decade-and-a-half, by about 1970, he said that the United States would
reach its maximum oil production, and after that, inevitably, no matter
what we did, oil production would tail off.
That prediction came true. Surprisingly, in 1970, some may say 1971,
we peaked in oil production. In 1969, using this same analysis
technique, he predicted that the world would be peaking in oil
production about now. So last night we had come in our discussion to
the point that we were looking at the potential for the alternatives
that we and the world would need to turn to as we slide down the other
side of what is referred to as Hubbert's peak. We noted that there were
some finite resources, some nuclear resources and then the true
renewables.
There are three justifications one might use for moving to
alternatives. One is peak oil, and we will transition from fossil fuels
to alternatives. Oil,
[[Page 1646]]
gas and coal obviously will not last forever, and as the earth at some
point runs down the other side of what we call Hubbert's peak and there
is not enough oil, gas and coal to meet our energy needs in the world,
we will transition to alternatives. The only question is whether we do
that on a time scale that we control so that it is a pretty easy ride,
or whether we do it as dictated by geology, where it may be a very
difficult ride.
Two other reasons for moving to alternatives. One is our dependence
on foreign oil. Today, we have only about 2 percent of the known
reserves of the oil in our country. We use about one-fourth of all the
oil in the world, and we import about two-thirds of what we use.
Obviously, if M. King Hubbert was right about the world, and there is
every reason to believe he will be right about the world, we will need
to transition to alternatives.
From a national security perspective, we ought to have been doing
this a long while ago. A couple of years ago, 30 prominent Americans,
Jim Woolsey, Boyden Gray, McFarland and 27 others, wrote a letter to
the President saying, Mr. President, and they used the statistics I
just used, the fact that the United States has only 2 percent of the
known reserves and uses 25 percent of the world's oil and imports
almost two-thirds of what we use is a totally unacceptable national
security risk. Mr. President, we really need to do something about
that. So even if you think that there is a whole lot of oil and gas out
there, you still may be very incentivized to look for alternatives if
you are concerned about our national security.
There is another reason to look for alternatives, and that is, if you
believe that we have global warming, and I think there is an increasing
body of evidence that suggests that that is probably true, and that we
are probably contributing to that, although in the past the earth has
been very much warmer, this is in a very distant past. Ordinarily, the
past that we are talking about is from the last ice age, which is like
some 10,000 years back. It is now the warmest we have ever been since
that last ice age, but sometime way in the past the earth has been very
much warmer because there were apparently subtropical seas in what is
now the north slope of Alaska and the North Sea because we are finding
oil and gas there.
The general belief is that this oil and gas was produced by organic
material that grew in these subtropical seas, that every season it
matured and fell to the bottom and was covered and mixed with sediment
that was washed off of the adjacent hills, and then that built up for a
very long time. Finally, with moving, the tectonic plates was submersed
down with enough pressure and enough heat from the molten core of the
earth and enough time that this finally was processed into gas and oil,
and then if there was a rock dome over it which would hold the gas, now
you have a very fertile place in which to drill. It took a very long
time to grow all of that organic material and to turn it into gas and
oil.
We are now in a relatively few years releasing all of the carbon
dioxide that was sequestered in this organic material over quite a long
time, until we are driving up the CO2 of the world, which in the last
century or so is nearly twice now what it was a century or so ago. This
is what we call a greenhouse gas.
You can get some idea as to the greenhouse effect. If tomorrow is a
sunny day and a cold day, and if your car is parked outside with the
sun shining on the windshield, you may find quite a warm car when you
go out there. That is because of what we call the greenhouse effect.
The light that comes in from the sun, call it white light, it comes in
over a long spectrum of wave lengths, and it goes through the glass of
your car. Then it warms up the material of your car and it reradiates
only in the infrared. Well, the glass of your car is pretty much opaque
to the infrared. It keeps the heat inside. It reflects it back, and
that is why your car gets so warm.
The greenhouse gases out there, you may remember being in an
airplane, you are 44,000 feet, and the pilot tells you it is 70 degrees
below zero, when down just below you may be flying over south Florida
where it is very warm, and this is because of the greenhouse effect.
The energy coming in from the sun heats up things in the earth, and
when that heat is reflected back out, emanated back out, it is
reflected by what we call the greenhouse gases and CO2 as one of those.
So there is increasing evidence that we have global warming, and
there may be a need to move to the alternatives because many of these
alternatives, although they will produce CO2 when you burn them like
ethanol, that CO2 was taken out of the atmosphere by the corn plant
when it grew. So you are not contributing any more CO2 to the
atmosphere if you are using a product that just last year or so took
the CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Now, what you would want to do in these last 2 cases is a little
different in moving to alternatives. We have a essentially run out of
time and run out of energy to invest in alternatives. We absolutely
knew by 1980 that M. King Hubbert was right about the United States. We
had peaked in 1970. We have done nothing in the ensuing years. If M.
King Hubbert is right about the world, we have no excess energy to
invest or oil would not be $50, $60 barrel, which means we have
essentially run out of time and have no energy to invest.
{time} 2145
Now, we could buy some time and free up some energy with a very
aggressive conservation program.
Now, if your concern is foreign oil, then you could also get some
additional energy from such things as tar sands and oil shales and
coal. But if your concern is global warming, this will be a very bad
place to get energy to invest in the alternatives that we will
ultimately have to transition to because it take a lot of energy to get
energy out of tar sands, and that energy is fossil fuel energy and that
releases CO2 into the atmosphere.
So you are making a bad situation worse if your concern is global
warming and you think CO2 is the cause of that and you want to
transition to renewables, and you are going to get the energy to
transition to renewables from tar sands and oil shales and particularly
in coal somewhat. You will simply be releasing more carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere. But let's look at these, because if the other two
incentives are your incentives, then these are good bets.
If you are simply concerned that we have got to transition to
renewables, then you will use whatever energy is available, and there
is potentially enormous amounts of energy available in these tar sands
and oil shales. And if you are concerned about dependence on foreign
oil, then this is a good place to begin.
The tar sands. Some may call them oil sands; they are tar, thank you.
It doesn't flow; it is really very much like tar. It is, I guess, a bit
better than the asphalt parking lot out here, but not much better. If
you put a blow torch on the parking lot, that will flow, too, which is
pretty much what we have to do with the tar sands. They exist in Canada
around Alberta, Canada. There is an incredible amount of potential
energy there. There is more energy in these tar sands than in all the
known reserves of oil in the world.
But why aren't we resting easy, then, that we have got an easy
transition, a big source of energy? Because this energy is not all that
easy to get out of the tar sands. The Canadians are now getting about a
million barrels of oil a day. That sounds like a lot of oil, and it is
a lot. It is a little less than 5 percent of what we use in our country
and just a bit more than 1 percent of the 84 million, 85 million
barrels a day that the world uses; but they are using an incredible
amount of energy to get this.
They are mining this, if you will. They have a shovel there that
lifts 100 tons at a time, they dump it into a truck that hauls 400
tons, and then they take it and they cook it, and they are cooking it
at the present with natural gas. They have what is called stranded
natural gas there. There are not very many people in Alberta, Canada,
that use it and gas is very difficult
[[Page 1647]]
to move long distances; and so they are using this gas to produce oil
from the tar sands.
I am told, and you can be told a lot of things that aren't true, but
I am told that they may be using more energy from the natural gas than
they are getting out of the oil that they produce. But from an economy
perspective, that is okay, because the gas is very cheap and the oil is
very expensive. And I understand it costs them $18 to $25 a barrel to
produce the oil; and if it is selling for $50, $60 a barrel, obviously
there is a big profit there. But this natural gas will not last
forever.
And where will the next energy come from? They are talking about
building a nuclear power plant there so they will have additional
energy for cooking this oil.
And they have another problem. The vein I understand, if you think of
this as a vein, it now ducks under a big overlay of rock and soil, so
that they will not be able to continue to develop this by mining it
which is what they are doing now. They will have to develop it in situ,
and I don't know that they have any economically feasible way of
developing it in situ.
So although there is an incredibly large amount of potential energy
available there, it will take a lot of energy to get it out, so what
you really need to be thinking about is the net energy or the energy-
profit ratio that you get out of this.
Who knows what new technologies we may come up with, what the
engineers may be able to do, but one should not be too sanguine that
this will be a savior, that we will get enormous amounts of energy from
this, because of the difficulty of getting the oil out.
The oil shales. The name might better be called tar shales, but we
refer to oil shales, and they are found in our western United States,
in Utah and Colorado and so forth. And, again, there is absolutely an
incredible potential amount of oil that could be extracted from these
oil shales, or tar shales. Probably more than all of the known reserves
of oil in the world, if we could get it all out. There have been a
couple of attempts to do that. The most recent one was by the Shell Oil
Company, and there was some glowing reports in the papers about what
they did there. But there are aquifers associated with this shale that
they need to protect, and so what they do to develop this is to go in
and drill a bunch of holes around the perimeter and then freeze it.
So they in effect have a frozen vessel, and the oil will not move
through that frozen vessel. And then they drill wells in the middle of
it and they cook it, and they cook it for a year. And then they drill a
third set of wells, and then when they get to the bottom, they go
horizontally. They are very good at doing that now. So the oil that
they cooked, loosened up by the second set of wells they drilled, now
flows down through the shale, into the well that they drilled that
finally went horizontal, and then they pump it out of those wells, and
then they pump it for several years and they get a really meaningful
amount of oil out.
A couple of years ago I was out in Denver, Colorado, speaking to a
peak oil conference there, and the engineer, the scientist who did this
little experiment cautioned that it would be several years before Shell
Oil Company decided whether it was even economically feasible to get
any oil out of the oil shales using that technique. Now, there may be
other techniques, but at present to my knowledge nobody has any big
exploitation
of the oil shales. The one that got the most publicity was this
experiment by the Shell Oil Company, and they have indicated it would
be several years before they can determine whether $60 a barrel is even
feasible to get that oil.
The next one here is coal, and we will put another chart up in front
of this one, because we hear a lot about coal. And you may hear it said
that we have 250 years, 500 years of coal. We don't have 500 years, but
we do have 250 years of coal at current use rates. Be very careful when
people are telling you how much we have of some resource. If it is at
current use rates, you have to factor in how long it will last you if
you have an increased use rate.
After the development of atomic energy, and the world was amazed by
that, Dr. Albert Einstein was asked: What will be the next great energy
source in the world? And he said the most powerful force in the world
was the power of compound interest.
And when you look at exponential growth, if you increase the use of
coal just 2 percent, and I submit that we will have to dig into coal
much more than just 2 percent increase per year over what we now use,
but if it is only 2 percent, that 250 years immediately shrinks to
about 85 years; and then you can't fill your trunk with coal and go
down the roads. You have to convert it to a gas or liquid. And, by the
way, we have been doing this for decades. Hitler ran his whole military
and his whole country on oil from coal. When I was a little kid, the
lamps that you now call a kerosene lamp we called coal oil lamp because
it was coal oil that replaced whale oil in the lamps, and long after we
were using kerosene I still called it coal oil.
But if you use some of the energy from the coal to convert the rest
of the coal into a gas or a liquid, now you are down to 50 years with
just 2 percent growth rate. And there is something else to look at.
Because oil is fungible and moves on a world market, and it really
doesn't matter in today's world who owns the oil, the guy who bids the
highest gets the oil. It all moves on a global marketplace. And since
we use one-fourth of the world's oil, our 50-year supply at only 2
percent growth rate will last the world just one-fourth of 50, or 12\1/
2\ years.
So the coal is there. It is the most readily developed,
unconventional fossil fuel energy source, and we need to husband it.
But it is dirty. You will pay an environmental penalty if you use it
without cleaning it up, or you will pay a big economic penalty if you
clean it up.
Let's go back to the original chart we were looking at. And the
previous speakers talked about nuclear, and indeed today we produce
about 20 percent of our electricity, 8 percent of our total energy from
nuclear. We could and maybe should do more. There is no energy source
that is without its drawbacks. When you burn any fossil fuel, you
release CO2 into the atmosphere and that produces greenhouse
effects, which might very well produce global warming. There are
potential drawbacks to nuclear, but so are there drawbacks to not
having enough energy for your civilization.
There are three ways in which we can get energy from nuclear
materials. One of them is the lightwater reactor, which is the only
kind of reactor that we have in our country that uses fissionable
uranium, and there is not an inexhaustible amount of fissionable
uranium in the world.
And one of the big problems in this whole dialogue is agreement on
what the facts are. When I ask how much fissionable uranium remains in
the world, and I guess you have to say at current use rates, I get
numbers that range from 15 years to 100 years. We desperately need an
honest broker to help us agree as to what the facts are so that we can
have a meaningful dialogue.
I have thought a lot about this, and perhaps the National Academy of
Sciences, which is highly respected and very knowledgeable, would be
this honest broker. Because when we sit at the table discussing where
we are and where we need to go, you can't have a rational discussion
without agreeing on the facts. But nobody disagrees that there is an
inexhaustible supply of fissionable uranium. So obviously at some point
in a few years, or a few more years with building more nuclear power
plants, and China wants to build a lot more nuclear power plants, we
will run out of fissionable uranium.
And then we will have to move to the second type of energy released
with nuclear fission, and that is the breeder reactor. The only breeder
reactors we ever had were those that were used for producing nuclear
weapons. France produces about 80 percent, 85 percent of its
electricity from nuclears, and they have some breeder reactors. The
breeder reactor does what its name implies,
[[Page 1648]]
it breeds fuel, so you now will have essentially a replaceable and
therefore inexhaustible amount of fuel.
But there are problems that go with the breeder reactor. It has waste
products that you have to somehow store away for maybe one-quarter of a
million years. Now, we have only 5,000 years of recorded history. It is
hard for us to imagine one-quarter of a million years. Something that
is so hot that I have to store it away somewhere for one-quarter of a
million years I think ought to have enough energy in it that we ought
to be able to do something productive with that energy. As a matter of
fact, the usual nuclear power plant gets only a tiny percentage of all
the potential energy out of the nucleus.
So I would like to challenge our engineers to look at a way to make
something good out of what is now a big problem when you have breeder
reactors, and that is a byproduct that you need to store away for very
long time periods.
The second type of nuclear energy release is what is called fusion.
And we have a great fusion reactor; it is called our Sun, which is a
mediocre star over near one end of the Milky Way. By the way, if you go
someplace where the air is not so polluted and you look up at night,
you can see across the sky that great Milky Way. It looks like you have
taken a brush across the sky. There are just billions and billions of
stars out there.
{time} 2200
All of the stars are the equivalent of our sun, by the way. Nuclear
fusion, power plants, if you will, and we are kind of a mediocre one
near one end of the Milky Way.
We invest about $250 million a year in nuclear fusion. I happily
support that. I wish there was a technology out there to and a
technologist to use more money. I would happily vote for that. But if
you think that we are going to solve our energy problems with nuclear
fusion, you probably have some confidence you are going to solve your
personal economic problems by winning the lottery. The gamble is about
the same.
I think there are huge, huge engineering challenges with nuclear
fusion. We have been working for many years, and we are always about
20-30 years away from a solution. We have been 20-30 years away from a
solution for the last 20-30 years. We may get there. But it is not the
kind of thing that you would want to bet the ranch on. By the way, we
are home free if we get that. That would be an inexhaustible source of
energy, essentially pollution free except for thermal pollution.
I would like to talk about thermal pollution in our power plants. We
have had the luxury in this rich country we live in to put our nuclear
power plants away from where we live, and the heat energy that comes
out of them, we dissipate. If you drive, you see the big cooling towers
for the nuclear power plants. What we are doing is we are evaporating
drinking water to cool these power plants.
Almost everywhere else in the world, whether it is nuclear or coal,
no matter what it is, unless it is hydro, then it is where the water
is, but every other power plant is pretty much in the city right where
people live, and they use the heat from that for what they call
district heating. They pipe it to homes and businesses, and they use it
in the wintertime to heat. In the summertime, you can use the heat to
cool by the ammonia refrigeration, ammonia cycle refrigeration system,
which used to be very popular in this country. But now you have to buy
one from Argentina if you want one, for some reason. They have no
moving parts and last a very long time. You can get cooling out of
heat. So you can both heat and air conditioning with the excess heat
from these power plants if you simply sited them nearer where people
live.
Once you have used these finite resources, and they are finite,
except for the nuclear that we have discussed. The others are finite.
They will not last forever, then we will have only the true renewables
left. They are such things as solar and wind and geothermal. This is
true geothermal.
You may have people talk to you about geothermal and they are talking
about connecting your heat pump to the earth or a well. What you are
doing with your heat pump in the summertime, your air conditioner is
really trying to heat up the outside air, that is how it cools the
inside. And in the wintertime, your heat pump is keeping you warm by
trying to cool down the outside air.
If you are working against groundwater, and here it is about 56
degrees, groundwater looks very cool in the summertime, and it looks
very warm in the wintertime. I remember as a little boy we had a
springhouse on our farm, and that is where our food was kept cool. I
used to wonder how does that happen.
In the summertime I went into the springhouse and it was so cool. And
in the wintertime, it felt so warm. Of course it was essentially the
same temperature. But in contrast with the hot summer air it felt cool,
and in contrast with the cold winter air it felt warm.
True geothermal is where we are connected to the heat from the molten
core of the Earth. If you have been to Iceland, there is not a chimney
in all of Iceland because they have geothermal and they get all of
their heat sources from that.
Several places in our country we can tap that, and wherever we can we
should. It is not really inexhaustible. The molten core of the Earth
will not be there forever, but it will be there for millions and
millions of years, so from our perspective that is an inexhaustible
source of heat so we include it under renewables.
Then we have a number of sources of energy from the oceans. There is
huge potential from the oceans. The tides, and by the way, the tides
are one of the few energy sources that are not either the direct or
indirect result of the sun. All of the fossil fuels that we are
burning, gas and oil, and all of these tar, sands and oil shale were
all produced by organic material that grew because the sun was shining
a very long time ago.
I knew that when I was a little boy for coal because we lived on a
farm in western Pennsylvania, and there was a coal mine on our farm.
There had been a cave-in and they simply took the mules and the people
out an air shaft that had a walkout slope, and so there was still some
coal left. There was not enough to open the mine, but we partnered with
a miner from the local town but he opened the mine and they drug coal
with a pick and a shovel and a wheelbarrow. So we had what was called
run-a-mine coal. We had a coal furnace, as did everybody in western
Pennsylvania. Some of the lumps were too big to get in the furnace.
Leaning against the cellar wall was a sledge hammer. If the lump was
too big, you would break it. I remember breaking those lumps of coal
and they would break open and there would be the imprint of a fern
leaf. I still get a chill when I think about that.
Here I am looking at something that grew who knew how many eons ago.
So I knew very well where coal came from, it came from vegetation that
had fallen and was overlaid with Earth.
You can see coal in the process of production, by the way, in the
bogs of England. It is not yet coal but it is on the way to coal. And
if you take it out, it will burn.
The sun produces most of the energy that you can get from the oceans.
It produces thermal gradients. It produces the waves. How does it do
that, by producing wind. The wind is the result of the differential
heating of the Earth, and that therefore is sun driven.
There is one big potential source of energy in the ocean that is not
sun generated, and that is the tides. They are generated by the
gravitational pull of the Moon, which lifts the whole ocean 2 to 3
feet.
Can you imagine the incredible amount of energy it takes to lift
three-fourths of the earth's surface 2 or 3 feet a day. We have tried
to get meaningful energy from the tides without a whole lot of success,
and it is simply because they are so disperse. There is an old axiom,
energy or power to be effective must be concentrated, and the tides are
anything but concentrated. They are spread over huge, huge expanses.
[[Page 1649]]
We get some meaningful energy from the tides in the fjords where
because of funneling effects you may have a 60-foot tide. You let it
come in and then you wall it off and let it flow out through a
generator when the tide goes out.
There is another potential source of energy from the oceans, it is
not really oceans but you find most of it there, and that is gas
hydrites. There is more potential energy in the gas hydrites I
understand than in all of the fossil fuels in all of the Earth, but we
have been singularly unsuccessful in trying to collect those little
nodules of gas hydrites and get the energy from them because they are
dispersed largely on the ocean bottom over enormous expanses of the
ocean. Well, these are all challenges. And one day when energy becomes
less and less available from fossil fuels and more and more expensive,
some of these other sources will be more exploitable.
And then the agricultural resource, and let me put the next chart up
here.
I would like to start on the left-hand side of this because it really
shows us where we are and the challenges we face. We are very much like
the young couple whose grandparents have died and left them a pretty
big inheritance, and so they have established a life-style, pretty
lavish life-style where 85 percent of the money they spend comes from
their grandparents' inheritance and only 15 percent, some people will
say 14, 15 percent comes from their income. They look at how old they
are and how much they are spending, gee, it is going to run out before
they die, before they retire, as a matter of fact. So they obviously
have to do one of two things, or both: They have to make more money or
spend less money. That is pretty much where we are with energy.
Three-fourths of all of the energy that we use comes from fossil
fuels: Petroleum, natural gas, and coal.
Only 15 percent of it comes from something other than fossil fuels.
Eight percent comes from nuclear power, and that is 8 percent of our
total energy. Nuclear power represents 20 percent of our electricity.
If you don't like nuclear power, imagine when you go home tonight that
every fifth business and every fifth home doesn't have any electricity
because that's what the picture would be if we didn't have nuclear
power. So 8 percent. And this is data from 2000. It is a little
different because we have been trying to do something since then.
Seven percent of the energy represents the true renewables, like
solar and wood and waste and wind, conventional hydro. Agriculture,
here we have alcohol fuel and then the geothermal that we talked about
where you are truly tapping into the heat from the molten core of the
Earth.
These numbers would have to be a little bigger now, but they would
have to be a lot bigger to be relevant because in 2000, solar was 0.07
percent. That is trifling. It has been growing at 30 percent a year so
it is several times larger than it was in 2000. But still, it is
minuscule compared to the 21 million barrels of oil that we use per
day.
And 38 percent of this comes from wood and that's largely the paper
and timber industry burning waste product.
Then a very interesting one, waste to energy. A lot of people look at
the incredible amount of waste we have and say if we could just burn
that waste, we could get a lot of energy from that. That's true.
As you go up into Montgomery County, they have a very nice one, I
would be proud to have it beside my church. You don't even know it is a
waste to energy power plant. It is a nice looking building and the
train or the truck comes in and the waste is all in containers and you
don't even see it.
But let me remind you that almost all of this waste is the result of
profligate use of fossil fuel energy. What you are really doing when
you burn that waste to produce electricity is you are kind of burning
secondhand fossil fuels because that's what was used to produce this
waste. In an energy deficient world, there will be far, far less waste
because waste is a by-product of large energy use, and in an energy-
deficient world we would be using nowhere near as much energy.
Wind. Wind is really growing. Our previous hour talked about wind.
The wind machines today are huge. You may see the blades for them go
down the highway. They may be 60 feet long, as big as an airplane wing.
They are huge, and produce megawatts of electricity. They are producing
them at about 2.5 cents a kilowatt hour.
By the way, because we did not have the proper incentives in our
country, we have now forfeited the manufacture of this product. Almost
all I understand of the new big what I think are handsome wind machines
are made overseas. Most are made in Denmark.
The cheapest electricity costs several times the 2.5 cents a kilowatt
hour, so wind machines are now really competitive with other ways of
producing electricity.
There are a lot of siting problems, a lot of nimby kinds of
reactions. That is, not in my backyard. My wife says these are really
bananas, build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody, she says is
the attitude of many of these people.
You know, pretty is as pretty does, and if your alternative is
shivering in the dark in an energy deficient fossil fuel world, that
may be what we are coming to, and wind machines may start to look a
whole lot better. I know some people who live along the coast would
mind wind machines if they couldn't see them, so they are trying to
site them out in the ocean beyond the horizon so they won't see the
wind machines.
{time} 2215
Conventional hydroelectric. You see, that is the biggest sector of
these renewables. We have about maxed out on that. We have dammed every
river we should have dammed and maybe some we shouldn't. The migratory
path of fishes, and I saw a big article the other day about eels, we
are now building some ladders so that eels, which are snake-like fish,
can get back to their spawning grounds, but there is a huge potential,
I understand, maybe as big as that, from something called microhydro.
And that is using the water flow and drop in small streams. And there
you can use it without the big impacts on the environment that you have
when you dam up a big river.
By the way, if you have dammed that river up for water for a
downstream city, that will become less and less effective as it
gradually fills in with silt, and it will. And by and by, who knows how
many years later, there will be little water there because it will be
mostly filled with silt that came down from further up in the
watershed.
If you are just interested in electricity, it still, when it comes
over the dam, falls the same distance. So that silting in won't really
effect how much electricity you can produce, but it will affect how
much you can vary the height of the reservoir so as to always maintain
some reserve for producing the electricity.
I would like to spend a few moments talking about energy from
agriculture. There is an awful lot of hype about energy from
agriculture. I read the other day, and I don't know why it took us so
long to find this, but in 1957, 50 years ago this year, Hyman Rickover,
the father of the nuclear submarine, gave a talk to a group of
physicians. It is an incredible speech. He was so prophetic. He
understood that gas and oil were not forever. That, I think, is
obvious.
Maybe it is because I am a scientist, but probably 40 years ago I
started asking myself the question, you know, since gas and oil
obviously are finite, they are not infinite, they will not last
forever, at what point do we need to start being concerned about what
is left? Is it a year, 10 years, 100 years, 1,000 years? I didn't know
when I first started asking this question. But I knew that at some
point in time the world would have to start thinking about, gee, what
do we do when gas and oil and coal are gone? Because one day gas and
oil and coal will be gone.
So there is a lot of hype about energy from agriculture. But Hyman
Rickover, very, very astutely observed that as our population
increased, the ground would be more used for producing food than it
would be something you burned or fermented. And he also noted, talking
about biomass, that biomass might
[[Page 1650]]
be more valuable returning it to the soil so that you still had soil
rather than taking it off to either burn or ferment.
We will get some energy from agriculture, but every bit of corn you
use to make ethanol is corn that is not used as a food. We are well fed
in this country, many of us more than well fed, but tonight, about 20
percent of the world will go to bed hungry. But as our population
continues to increase, there will be less and less opportunity to use
agriculture products for energy rather than food.
By the way, there is one way we could free up a lot of agricultural
products for energy. If you will eat the corn and the soybeans rather
than the pig and the cow that ate the corn and the soybeans, then you
could free up a lot of corn for ethanol and soybeans for biodiesel. The
animal breeder may brag he has a pig or a chicken that is so efficient
that three pounds of corn will make one pound of pig. That is true. But
that is three pounds of dry corn and one pound of wet pig; maybe 90
percent dry matter in the corn and for sure 70 percent water in the
pig. And you can't eat his bones.
And so on a dry matter to dry matter basis, it takes at least 10
pounds of dry matter in corn to make one pound of dry matter in the pig
or the chicken, and probably 20 in the steer. You get very much more
efficient conversion of these grains and beans into good food if you
use milk.
A cow will today produce 20,000 pounds of milk in a year with a ton
of dry matter. She doesn't weigh a ton, but you have a ton of dry
matter in her milk for the year, which has very high food value. There
is no protein that is as good as milk protein. We determine the quality
of protein by feeding young rats. It may not be complimentary that the
animal has dietary requirements nearer us than any other, rats, but
they do. And they are also omnivorous. And we determine how good their
protein is by how fast young rats grow.
If you assign a value of 100 to milk protein, eggs come in at about
96, and the meats on down. And that shouldn't surprise you. God or
nature, or whoever you think did it, obviously designed milk to grow
young animals. A 100-pound sheep will put a pound each on twin lambs
just from her milk. Enormously efficient. And eggs are very efficiently
produced compared to producing the chicken that you eat.
So we can free up a lot of these food crops for energy if we will
simply eat the food crops rather than processing them through animals.
The next chart shows one of the challenges in producing ethanol.
Indeed, there are some scientists who believe that we use more energy
in producing ethanol, more fossil fuel energy in producing ethanol than
we get out of it. I hope they are wrong. I believe that it can be
possible. But even after you have made the ethanol, you still have all
of the protein and all of the fat left in the corn, and that is pretty
good feed.
Just an observation about what we eat and give to our animals. If you
go to the Orient, the main protein source there for people is what is
called tofu, and that is soybean protein. In this country, we take the
soybean and we express the oil, which is the least valuable
nutritionally, and we use the oil and we feed what is left of it to our
pigs and chickens. No wonder that they are healthier than many of us.
Here is a little comparison of the energy inputs in producing ethanol
and in producing gasoline. Obviously, you expend some energy. You don't
get all the energy from the oil in your gas tank. You expend some of
that in drilling it, in pumping it, transporting it, refining it and
hauling it to the service station, and so forth. So you use 1.23
million Btu's to get 1 million Btu's.
Well, what is the story with corn? Now, you have a lot of free energy
with corn. You have the solar energy, the photosynthesis that makes the
corn grow. And this is about as good as it is going to get. To get 1
million Btu's of energy out of corn, you are going to have to spend
about three-fourths of a million Btus in growing the corn, harvesting
it, processing the ethanol, and so forth.
Down at the bottom here is a very interesting pie chart, and it shows
something that very few people know, and that is that almost half the
energy that goes into producing corn comes from nitrogen fertilizer,
which is now made from natural gas. So this is a fossil fuel input.
This is all fossil fuel input, by the way.
You just go around this little pie here and you are talking about
mining the potash, and mining the phosphate, and mining the lime that
makes the soil sweeter so that the nutrients can be absorbed. The
diesel fuel in the tractor, the gasoline, the liquid propane gas, the
electricity you use is produced by fossil fuels. The natural gas you
use for drying your crops, for instance, the custom work, the guy you
hire to come.
And then all of the chemicals, something that we rarely, rarely
reflect on. Gas and oil are huge feedstocks for a very important
petrochemical industry. Most of our insecticides, most of our
herbicides and so forth are made from gas and oil. And this is the
contribution they make to growing corn. It is really, really quite
large there, isn't it?
I have been told that 13 percent of our corn crop would displace 2
percent of our gasoline. But the only fair way to look at the
contribution ethanol can make is to grow corn with energy from corn,
and you can do that. But if you grow corn with energy from corn, to get
a bushel of corn to use here, you have to use three bushels of corn.
Remember, the 750,000 Btu inputs to get a million? You need three
bushels going in to get one out, which means that it is one to four.
You only get a fourth of it out, which means that you are going to have
to use 52 percent of your corn crop to displace just 2 percent of our
gasoline.
So when you are hearing the euphemistic projections of how much of
our gasoline we are going to displace with ethanol, just remember these
numbers.
Now, some people are even more enthusiastic about what is called
cellulosic ethanol. Cellulose and lignin, particularly cellulose, we
can't digest. It is made up of a whole long string of glucose
molecules, which is a simple sugar; half of what we call sucrose, which
is a double sugar disaccharide. But they are so tightly bound together,
we don't have any enzymes in our gut which will release them. And
neither does any other animal, by the way.
So, gee, you might say, how do cows, sheep, goats, horses, and guinea
pigs make do eating grass and hay? They make do because they have in
their gut what are called comincils, animals or little critters that
live in there, some of them multi-cellular, some single cells, that
have chemicals, enzymes that can split the cellulose into the requisite
glucose molecules and then the host simply absorbs those.
We are now able to bioengineer some little organisms that can do
that. So now, when you look at the huge piles of beet pulp, look at the
corn fields with all the corn fodder out there, people are saying, gee,
look how much energy we could get from this agricultural waste. You can
get it by burning it, or you can use it by making cellulosic ethanol
from it. But, you know, topsoil is topsoil because it has organic
material. It gives it tilth. Why does it have to be there? Because
without the organic material, the soils can't hold the nutrients and
they can't hold the water necessary for growing things. You can't grow
plants in stone dust and you can't grow plants in sand. So you have to
have organic material there. For a few years, we might be able to mine
the organic material and still grow some crops, but there will be
diminishing returns. I don't know steady state how much we can take.
Some people are euphemistic about how much we are going to get from
sawgrass, prairie grass. They see it growing in huge amounts. But I
suspect this year's prairie grass is growing because last year's
prairie grass died and is fertilizing it. Now, we certainly can get
something from this biomass, from agricultural waste and from growing
trees and so forth, but it will not be enormous.
Let me give you some idea of what the challenge is. We use 21 million
barrels of oil a day. Each barrel of oil has
[[Page 1651]]
the energy equivalent of 12 people working all year. Hyman Rickover
used data which showed the average family in 1957 used fossil fuel
energy resulting in the equivalent of having 33, he said, full-time
servants.
{time} 2230
If you have some trouble getting your mind around this one barrel of
oil and 12 people working all year, and by the way, that is costing you
less than $10 per person per year, think how far a gallon of gasoline
or diesel fuel, I appreciate the chart from the previous hour which
showed how cheap oil was. It costs considerable less than water in the
grocery store, by the way. But think how far that gallon of gasoline or
diesel fuel carries your car and how long it would take you to pull the
car there. And that gives you some idea of the challenge we face.
Another little example: if you are a strong man and work hard all day
long, I will get more work out of an electric motor for less than 25
cents' worth of electricity. Now, that may be humbling to recognize
that you are worth less than 25 cents a day in terms of fossil fuel
energy, but that is the reality.
There are two publications. We have only a few moments remaining. I
want to go quickly through some slides here. We have two major studies,
one of them is a Corps of Engineers study and these first few slides
will be from their study. The second one is the big SAIC study,
commonly known as the Hirsch Report. I just want to read quickly some
of the things they said. These are paid for by our government. They are
out there. You may be asking the question, Gee, why aren't people
talking about this and why aren't we doing something about it? Good
question.
This is from the Corps of Engineers: the current price of oil is in
the 45 to 57 per barrel range and is expected to stay in that range for
several years. When they wrote this, by the way, it was about 65. Oil
prices may go significantly higher, and some have predicted prices
ranging up to $180 a barrel in a few years.
Oil is the most important form of energy in the world today.
Historically, no other energy source equals oil's intrinsic qualities
of extractability, transportability, versatility, and cost. The
qualities that enabled oil to take over from coal as the front line
energy source for the industrialized world in the middle of the 20th
century are as relevant today as they were then. And then this quote:
In general, all nonrenewable resources follow a natural supply curve,
getting more and more till you reach a peak and then falling down the
other side. And they are concurring, a careful estimate of all the
estimates lead to the conclusion that world oil production may peak
within a few short years, after which it will decline. Once peak oil
occurs, then the historic patterns of world oil demand and price cycles
will cease.
And the last one from this source: Petroleum experts indicate that
peaking is either present or imminent; will occur around 2005.
And now some charts from the Hirsch Report. This is very widely
publicized. They concluded that we would have unprecedented risk
management problems as we face the problem of transitioning from
declining quantities of gas and oil and moving to alternatives. The
economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. And then
they state, We cannot conceive of any affordable government-sponsored
crash program to accelerate normal replacement schedules. They said we
should have started 20 years before peaking. If it is here, we are 20
years too late, aren't we?
And then this quote: The world has never faced a problem like this.
There is a third report out there and that is by the Cambridge Energy
Research Associates, and they believe that peaking will occur sometime
in the future. And they present this little chart. This shows Hubbert's
peak here, by the way, and because the actual data points didn't
exactly follow his prediction, they are saying that you can't rely on
his analysis. The little peak here, by the way, and the next chart will
show us, that is from the Alaska oil find. Just a blip and the slide
down the other side of Hubbert's peak.
And then in the couple of minutes remaining to us, the last slide we
will have a chance to look at here. And this shows several predictions,
depending upon whether you think the world will find enormously more
oil than we now have found. And I will tell you that most of the
experts that I have talked to believe we have found 95 percent of all
the oil we will ever find. That is this curve. If you think we are
going to double the amount of oil that we have now found, then that is
this curve. And the one on top here, and by the way, they say that they
don't believe in peaking, but they present this curve which shows
peaking. This is unconventional oil.
Make up your own mind how much of that we are going to get,
remembering the discussion we had earlier of the difficulty of getting
this oil.
Mr. Speaker, we in the world face a huge challenge. I just returned
from China. They are talking about post oil. They get it. I wish we
did.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Levin (at the request of Mr. Hoyer) for today until 1:00 p.m.
Mr. Ramstad (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today until 2:00 p.m.
on account of attending a funeral.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any Special Orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Pallone) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. McCarthy of New York, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. McDermott, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. George Miller of California, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Stupak, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Sherman, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Schiff, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Kirk) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Foxx, for 5 minutes, today and January 19, 22, 23, 24, and 25.
Mr. Gilchrest, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Moran of Kansas, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Pence, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina, for 5 minutes, January 22, 23, and 24.
Mr. Hulshof, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 35 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, January 19, 2007, at
10 a.m.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
318. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Fluthiacet-methyl; Pesticide
Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0788; FRL-8108-8] received
December 27, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Agriculture.
319. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Zeta-Cypermethrin; Pesticide
Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0769; FRL-8093-6] received
December 27, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Agriculture.
320. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Update to
Materials Incorporated by Reference [PA200-4201; FRL-8249-6]
received
[[Page 1652]]
December 27, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
321. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Amendment to Tier 2 Vehicle
Emission Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Requirements: Partial
Exemption for U.S. Pacific Island Territories [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0363; FRL-8263-4] (RIN: 2060-AN66) received December 27,
2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
322. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; PM-10 Test Methods
[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0904; FRL-8264-8] received December 27,
2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
323. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Revisions to the Nevada State
Implementation Plan; Requests for Rescission [EPA-R09-OAR-
0590; FRL-8260-1] received December 27, 2006, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
324. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Tennessee: Approval of Revisions to the
Knox County Portion of the Tennessee State Implementation
Plan [EPA-R04-OAR-2004-TN-0004, EPA-R04-OAR-2005-TN-0009,
EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0532, 200607/17(a); FRL-8256-6] received
December 27, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
325. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Tennessee: Approval of Revisions to the
Knox County Portion of the Tennessee State Implementation
Plan [EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0577-20062 (a); FRL-8265-4] received
December 27, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
326. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Tennessee: Approval of Revisions to the
Knox County Portion of the Tennessee State Implementation
Plan [EPA-R04-OAR-2005-TN-0009, EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0471, EPA-
R04-OAR-2006-0532, 2006014(a); FRL-8265-8] received December
27, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
327. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories From Oil and
Natural Gas Production Facilities [EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0238; FRL-
8254-1] (RIN: 2060-AM16) received December 27, 2006, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
328. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
(Surface Coating) Operations [EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0357; FRL-8264-
2] (RIN: 2060-AO03) received December 27, 2006, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
329. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Regulation of Fuels and Fuel
Additives: Extension of the Reformulated Gasoline Program to
the East St. Louis, Illinois Ozone Nonattainment Area [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2006-0841; FRL-8261-9] received December 27, 2006,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
330. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, Imperial County Air Pollution Control
District and South Coast Air Quality Management District
[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0876; FRL-8258-8] received December 27,
2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
331. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, Imperial County Air Pollution Control
District [EPA-R09-OAR-2005-CA-0011, FRL-8289-9] received
December 27, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
332. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Unregulated Contaminent Monitoring
Regulation (UCMR) for Public Water Systems Revisions [Docket
No. OW-2004-0001; FRL-8261-7] (RIN: 2040-AD93) received
December 27, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
[Filed on January 2, 2007]
Mr. BARTON of Texas: Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Report on the Activity of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce for the 109th Congress (Rept. 109-751). Referred to
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. GORDON:
H.R. 547. A bill to facilitate the development of markets
for alternative fuels and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel
through research, development, and demonstration and data
collection; to the Committee on Science and Technology.
By Mr. DeFAZIO (for himself, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Allen,
Ms. Lee, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Slaughter, Ms.
Kaptur, Mr. Welch of Vermont, Mr. Costello, Ms.
Sutton, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Hall of New York, Mr.
Lipinski, Mr. Melancon, Mr. Wu, and Mrs. Tauscher):
H.R. 548. A bill to establish a Congressional Trade Office;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CAMP of Michigan (for himself, Mr. Tanner, and
Ms. Pryce of Ohio):
H.R. 549. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to increase, extend, and make permanent the above-the-line
deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary
school teachers; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. McNULTY (for himself and Mr. Camp of Michigan):
H.R. 550. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to extend the investment tax credit with respect to solar
energy property and qualified fuel cell property, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself, Mr. Herger,
Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms.
Woolsey, Mr. Cardoza, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Farr, Mrs.
Tauscher, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Honda, Mr.
Costa, Mr. Filner, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Calvert, Mr.
Waxman, Mr. Berman, and Mr. Lantos):
H.R. 551. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
with respect to the eligibility of veterans for mortgage bond
financing, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. LEWIS of Georgia (for himself and Mr.
Pickering):
H.R. 552. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to provide coverage for cardiac rehabilitation
and pulmonary rehabilitation services; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways
and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mrs. BIGGERT (for herself, Mr. Rogers of Michigan,
Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Levin, Ms. Kaptur, Mr.
McCotter, Mr. Petri, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Higgins, Mr.
Lipinski, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Walsh of New
York, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Camp of
Michigan, Mr. Conyers, Ms. Sutton, Mr. Stupak, Mrs.
Miller of Michigan, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Upton, Mr.
Emanuel, and Mr. McHugh):
H.R. 553. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to
operate and maintain as a system the Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal dispersal barriers; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. McGOVERN (for himself and Mr. Renzi):
H.R. 554. A bill to provide for the protection of
paleontological resources on Federal lands, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in
addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. RUSH (for himself, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Gutierrez,
Mr. Wynn, Mr. Towns, Mr. Cleaver, and Mr. Cummings):
H.R. 555. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to
require the Federal Communications Commission to prescribe
rules regulating inmate telephone service rates; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mrs. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Ms. Pryce of
Ohio, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Paul,
Mr. Ackerman, Mr.
[[Page 1653]]
Baker, Ms. Bean, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Cleaver, Mr.
Cummings, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey,
Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Hinojosa, Ms.
Hooley, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Klein of Florida,
Mr. Langevin, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. McCotter,
Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Gary G. Miller of
California, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Ms. Moore of
Wisconsin, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Smith of Texas,
Mr. Reichert, and Ms. Watson):
H.R. 556. A bill to ensure national security while
promoting foreign investment and the creation and maintenance
of jobs, to reform the process by which such investments are
examined for any effect they may have on national security,
to establish the Committee on Foreign Investment in the
United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Financial Services, and in addition to the Committees on
Energy and Commerce, and Foreign Affairs, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania:
H.R. 557. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to direct
the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to
establish a vocational and technical entrepreneurship
development program; to the Committee on Small Business.
By Mr. DAVIS of Alabama (for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Scott
of Georgia, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Clay, Mr.
Moore of Kansas, and Mr. Cohen):
H.R. 558. A bill to provide relief for African-American
farmers filing claims in the cases of Pigford v. Veneman and
Brewington v. Veneman; to the Committee on the Judiciary, and
in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. DELAHUNT (for himself, Ms. Herseth, and Mr.
Inslee):
H.R. 559. A bill to promote renewable fuel and energy
security of the United States, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, and the
Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. DOOLITTLE:
H.R. 560. A bill to establish a pilot program to eliminate
certain restrictions on eligible certified development
companies; to the Committee on Small Business.
By Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania:
H.R. 561. A bill to expand visa waiver program to countries
on a probationary basis, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mr.
Pomeroy):
H.R. 562. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to ensure and foster continued patient quality
of care by establishing facility and patient criteria for
long-term care hospitals and related improvements under the
Medicare Program; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. HUNTER (for himself, Mr. Poe, Mr. Jones of North
Carolina, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Goode,
Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Royce, Mr.
Duncan, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Herger, Mr.
Cole of Oklahoma, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr.
Carter, Mr. Porter, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Burgess, Mr.
Gerlach, Mr. Mica, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Davis of Kentucky,
Mr. Sessions, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Hobson, Mr. LaHood, Mr.
Walsh of New York, Mr. Terry, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Hastings
of Washington, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Bishop of
Utah, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mrs. Myrick,
Mr. Stearns, Mr. Renzi, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Baker, Mr.
Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Everett, Mr. Cannon,
Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Coble, Mr.
English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Hayes,
Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Mr.
David Davis of Tennessee, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Gingrey,
Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr.
Tiberi, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Young of
Florida, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Smith of New
Jersey, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. McHugh, Mr.
Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Akin, Mr.
Kingston, and Mr. Tiahrt):
H.R. 563. A bill to vacate further proceedings in the
prosecution of certain named persons; to the Committee on the
Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland
Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. JEFFERSON:
H.R. 564. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to ensure
that when a small business participating in the 8(a) business
development program is affected by a catastrophic incident,
the period in which it can participate is extended by 18
months; to the Committee on Small Business.
By Mr. JEFFERSON:
H.R. 565. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to improve
the availability of disaster loans to individuals and
businesses affected by catastrophic incidents; to the
Committee on Small Business.
By Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (for herself, Mr.
Lewis of Georgia, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr.
Butterfield, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Payne,
Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr.
Edwards, and Mr. Wynn):
H.R. 566. A bill to waive the time limitations specified by
law for the award of certain military decorations in order to
allow the posthumous award of the Medal of Honor to Doris
Miller for actions while a member of the Navy during World
War II; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (for herself, Mr.
Young of Alaska, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Moore of Kansas,
Mr. Engel, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Conyers,
Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Ms. Lee, Ms. Hirono, Mr.
Ortiz, Mr. Berman, Mr. Hare, Mr. Pomeroy, Mrs.
Capito, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms.
Bordallo, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Fortenberry,
Ms. Harman, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Cuellar, Mr.
Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. Hinojosa,
and Mr. Bishop of New York):
H.R. 567. A bill to ensure Pell Grant eligibility for any
student whose parent or guardian died as a result of
performing military service in Iraq or Afghanistan after
September 11, 2001; to the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. MATHESON (for himself, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of
Florida, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Davis of
Kentucky, Ms. Waters, Mrs. Biggert, and Mr. Gary G.
Miller of California):
H.R. 568. A bill to amend section 255 of the National
Housing Act to remove the limitation on the number of reverse
mortgages that may be insured under the FHA mortgage
insurance program for such mortgages; to the Committee on
Financial Services.
By Mr. PASCRELL (for himself, Mr. Camp of Michigan, and
Mr. Capuano):
H.R. 569. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to authorize appropriations for sewer overflow
control grants; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. ROGERS of Michigan (for himself, Mr. Fossella,
Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Shimkus, Mr.
Ehlers, Mr. Knollenberg, and Mr. McCotter):
H.R. 570. A bill to provide grants from moneys collected
from violations of the corporate average fuel economy program
to be used to expand infrastructure necessary to increase the
availability of alternative fuels; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
By Mr. TANCREDO:
H.R. 571. A bill to require additional tariffs be imposed
on products of any nonmarket economy country until the
President certifies to the Congress that the country is a
market economy country, and to direct the Secretary of the
Treasury to deposit the amounts generated from those tariffs
into the Social Security trust funds; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. TOWNS:
H.R. 572. A bill to establish the Comprehensive Immigration
Reform Commission; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. VISCLOSKY:
H.R. 573. A bill to amend the Act entitled ``An Act to
provide for the establishment of the Indiana Dunes National
Lakeshore'' to clarify the authority of the Secretary of the
Interior to accept donations of lands that are contiguous to
the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. WHITFIELD:
H.R. 574. A bill to ensure the safety of residents and
visitors to Lake Barkley, Kentucky, and to improve
recreation, navigation, and the economic vitality of the
lake's region, the Army Corps of Engineers, together with any
other Federal agency that has the authority to change the
pool elevation of such lake, shall establish a pilot program
to maintain the pool elevation of such lake at 359 feet until
after the first Monday in September; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. TANCREDO:
H.J. Res. 19. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States to establish English as
the official language of the United States; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
[[Page 1654]]
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (for herself, Mr. Davis
of Illinois, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Costello, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Ms. Norton, Mr. Ehlers, Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Holt, and Ms. Matsui):
H. Con. Res. 34. Concurrent resolution honoring the life of
Percy Lavon Julian, a pioneer in the field of organic
chemistry research and development and the first and only
African American chemist to be inducted into the National
Academy of Sciences; to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
By Ms. LEE (for herself, Mrs. Christensen, Ms. Waters,
Mr. Towns, and Ms. Kilpatrick):
H. Con. Res. 35. Concurrent resolution supporting the goals
and ideals of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. TANCREDO:
H. Con. Res. 36. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
importance of Western civilization; to the Committee on
Education and Labor.
By Mr. TANCREDO:
H. Con. Res. 37. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress with regard to pardoning Border Patrol agents
Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. BACA (for himself, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Al Green of
Texas, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Clay, Ms. Harman, Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas, Mr. Lantos, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr.
McDermott, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Honda, Mrs. Davis of
California, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Mrs. Capps,
Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Ortiz, Mrs. Napolitano,
Mr. Gonzalez, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Becerra, Mr.
Filner, Mr. Dingell, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr.
Grijalva, Mr. Gutierrez, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Salazar,
Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Hinojosa,
Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms. Lee, Mr.
Sires, and Mr. Reyes):
H. Res. 76. A resolution urging the establishment and
observation of a legal public holiday in honor of Cesar E.
Chavez; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. REHBERG:
H. Res. 77. A resolution amending the Rules of the House of
Representatives to establish the Committee on Indian Affairs;
to the Committee on Rules.
____________________
PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 3 of rule XII,
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas introduced a bill (H.R. 575) for
the relief of Enrique Soriano, Cleotilde Soriano, and Areli
Soriano; which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 11: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Udall of New Mexico,
Mr. Moran of Virginia, and Mr. Weiner.
H.R. 14: Mr. Porter, Mr. Price of Georgia, Ms. Pryce of
Ohio, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Miller of
Florida, and Mr. Coble.
H.R. 16: Mr. Payne.
H.R. 22: Mr. Calvert and Mr. Brown of South Carolina.
H.R. 25: Mr. Moran of Kansas.
H.R. 65: Mr. Hinojosa, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Lewis
of Kentucky, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Chandler, and Mr.
Higgins.
H.R. 83: Mr. McCotter.
H.R. 89: Mrs. Davis of California.
H.R. 101: Mr. Stark and Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H.R. 129: Mr. Sires.
H.R. 130: Mr. Sires.
H.R. 136: Mr. Gary G. Miller of California.
H.R. 137: Mr. Andrews, Mr. Coble, Mr. Larsen of Washington,
Mr. McNerney, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Bachus, and Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania.
H.R. 161: Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 180: Mr. Allen and Mr. Miller of North Carolina.
H.R. 192: Mr. Terry.
H.R. 196: Mr. Salazar and Mr. Lewis of Kentucky.
H.R. 206: Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 211: Mr. Camp of Michigan.
H.R. 237: Mr. Pearce.
H.R. 278: Mr. Rush, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr.
Shimkus, and Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 303: Mr. Lewis of Kentucky and Mrs. Davis of
California.
H.R. 312: Ms. Shea-Porter, Ms. Carson, Mr. Pitts, and Mr.
Hinojosa.
H.R. 322: Mr. Stearns.
H.R. 324: Mr. Gallegly, Mr. McCotter, Ms. Granger, and Mr.
Platts.
H.R. 327: Mr. Israel, Mr. Kagen, Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr.
Walz of Minnesota, Mr. McCaul of Texas, and Ms. Castor.
H.R. 336: Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 352: Mr. Cleaver, Ms. Woolsey, and Mr. Clay.
H.R. 353: Mr. Welch of Vermont.
H.R. 358: Mr. McCaul of Texas, Ms. Castor, and Mr.
Hinojosa.
H.R. 373: Mr. Lewis of Kentucky and Mr. Price of Georgia.
H.R. 374: Mr. Lewis of Kentucky and Mr. Price of Georgia.
H.R. 379: Mr. Lewis of Kentucky and Mr. Price of Georgia.
H.R. 390: Mrs. Maloney of New York and Mr. Lewis of
Georgia.
H.R. 402: Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Miller of Florida,
Mr. McCaul of Texas, and Mrs. Drake.
H.R. 433: Mr. Payne.
H.R. 435: Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 439: Ms. Carson.
H.R. 455: Ms. Lee and Mr. Filner.
H.R. 463: Mr. Bishop of New York and Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 464: Mr. Hinchey and Mr. Price of North Carolina.
H.R. 471: Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia.
H.R. 472: Mrs. Biggert, Ms. Fallin, and Mrs. Jo Ann Davis
of Virginia.
H.R. 488: Mr. Carney.
H.R. 489: Mr. Marchant, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Brown of
South Carolina, Mr. Campbell of California, Mr. Feeney, Mr.
Price of Georgia, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Lamborn, and Mr. McCaul
of Texas.
H.R. 493: Mr. Hoyer, Ms. Castor, and Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of
Virginia.
H.R. 502: Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Rodriguez, and Mr. Ortiz.
H.R. 508: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Farr,
Ms. Carson, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, Mr. Stark, and Mr. Ellison.
H.R. 544: Mr. Hinojosa.
H.J. Res. 1: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Dent, Mr.
LaTourette, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Poe, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Whitfield,
Mr. Jordan, and Mr. McIntyre.
H.J. Res. 14: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.J. Res. 15: Mr. Gerlach.
H.J. Res. 18: Mr. Wexler, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Johnson of
Georgia, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, and Mr. DeFazio.
H. Con. Res. 9: Mr. Scott of Georgia and Mr. Honda.
H. Con. Res. 21: Mr. Holt, Mr. Berman, and Mr. Tim Murphy
of Pennsylvania.
H. Con. Res. 33: Mr. Olver, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Larson of
Connecticut, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Moran of
Virginia, and Mr. Price of North Carolina.
H. Res. 18: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida and Mr.
Forbes.
H. Res. 29: Mr. Snyder, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Marshall, Mr.
Terry, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Porter.
H. Res. 51: Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Shays, Mr. Hare, Mr. Gillmor,
Mr. Doyle, Mr. King of New York, Mr. McCaul of Texas, and Mr.
Ruppersberger.
H. Res. 52: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H. Res. 54: Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr.
English of Pennsylvania, and Mr. McHugh.
H. Res. 59: Mrs. Gillibrand and Mr. Kuhl of New York.
____________________
DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills
and resolutions as follows:
H.R. 47: Ms. Millender-McDonald.
[[Page 1655]]
SENATE--Thursday, January 18, 2007
The Senate met at 9 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable Amy
Klobuchar, a Senator from the State of Minnesota.
______
prayer
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Today's prayer will be offered by guest
Chaplain, RADM Harold L. Robinson, deputy chief of Navy chaplains for
Reserve matters.
The guest Chaplain offered the following prayer:
Eternal God, keep us always in awe of Your grandeur and Your great
love for us. You are creator of heaven and Earth, yet You have created
us in Your own image. Though we are creatures of clay and dust, You
have shared Your spirit with us. We are conscious, able to distinguish
good from evil, virtue from vice, selflessness from selfishness. Though
these contend for mastery of our lives and we complain of the struggle,
let us recall that Your gift of choice is the grandeur and greatness of
our humanity. When we choose well and wisely, the hosts rejoice with
the psalmist and declare: You have made us just a little less than
divine and crowned us with glory and honor.
We pray today for all Your creatures. May peace and good will obtain
among all the inhabitants of all lands, most especially our own. We
pray fervently for our great Nation and for all whom the people have
set in authority. Guide and bless this Chamber and the Senators who
here serve You. May each of them be enlightened with Your wisdom and
sustained with Your love.
We pray, too, for those who serve us in harm's way: sailors,
soldiers, marines, airmen, and coastguardsmen who willingly sacrifice
the protection and comfort of home and family to defend our safety and
our security. We pray also for their loved ones left at home, family
and friends whose daily vigil is the worry for their warrior's well-
being. Eternal God, we pray for warrior and worrier alike. Keep them
under the protecting shadow of Your wing.
Dear God, make each of us more worthy messengers of Your will, that
together we might make real the ancient dream that justice shall flow
down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream and our world
be perfected under Your unchallenged rule.
Eternal God, bless us and protect us. Look favorably upon us and be
gracious to us. Take notice of us and grant us the blessing of peace.
And let us join in saying Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Amy Klobuchar led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd).
The assistant legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, January 18, 2007.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Amy Klobuchar, a Senator from the State of Minnesota, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
MEASURE PLACED ON THE CALENDAR--H.R. 391
Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my understanding that H.R. 391 is at
the desk and is due for a second reading.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the bill for
the second time.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 391) to authorize the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development to continue to insure, and to enter into
commitments to insure, home equity conversion mortgages under
section 255 of the National Housing Act.
Mr. REID. I object to any further proceedings at this time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard. The bill will
be placed on the calendar.
____________________
PARTY INSTITUTES
Mr. REID. Madam President, many years ago the Congress created the
party institutes to do development work across the world, building
democratic institutions from Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa, to the
Middle East. They have come such a long way in the time since they were
created. Their workers serve in extremely tough and very dangerous
situations and conditions. John McCain has been chairman of the
International Republican Institute, and Madeleine Albright chairs the
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. We appreciate
so much the work and service both these institutes perform throughout
the world in developing and creating democracies.
I am so sad to report that yesterday in Baghdad a convoy carrying a
team of NDI employees was attacked and four NDI employees were killed,
including one American. This tragedy is a reminder that we have
sacrifices of all kinds being made on behalf of democracy across the
world. The Nation mourns the losses that occur in Iraq on a daily
basis. Yesterday, 170 Iraqis were killed that we know of, 4 Americans.
I haven't received the reports this morning on what happened last
night. We also mourn for people like these gallant individuals, who
were there trying to make the world a better place. Our thoughts go out
to the families of these four individuals. Later today, their names
will be spread across the Record of the U.S. Senate.
____________________
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. REID. Madam President, on the Democratic side, we have six 10-
minute speeches. I ask unanimous consent that each Democratic Senator
have their full time and, of course, the Republicans would have their
full 60 minutes when we complete ours.
Now I ask unanimous consent that Senator Salazar be recognized,
followed by Senator Gregg, if he is here, Senator Conrad, Senator
Bennett, Senator Durbin, and me, in that order.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with
Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the
first hour under
[[Page 1656]]
the control of the majority leader or his designee and the second hour
under the control of the Republican leader or his designee.
The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
____________________
OUR WESTERN HEMISPHERE
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, just days before the start of the 110th
Congress, I had the great honor of traveling to Bolivia, Peru, and
Ecuador in South America with our majority leader, Harry Reid, as well
as four of my other colleagues: Senator Judd Gregg from New Hampshire,
Senator Bob Bennett from Utah, Senator Kent Conrad from North Dakota,
and Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. It was a great and wonderful trip
for me for a number of reasons.
First, my own view is that over the last decade, and perhaps even
more, this country has not paid enough attention to our relationship
with Latin America and South America. For me, there is a special bond
and relationship because of my own history in the Southwest of the
United States. My family founded the city of Santa Fe, NM, now 409
years or four centuries ago. So before Plymouth Rock was founded or
Jamestown was founded, my family was already living in what is now the
northern part of the State of New Mexico.
The place I come from still bears the same names that were put on
those places by the Spaniards who settled northern New Mexico and
southern Colorado. There is our ranch in the San Luis Valley. When you
look around to the mountains to the east, those mountain ranges are
called the Sangre de Cristo Mountains or the Blood of Christ range. The
mountain ranges in the west at 14,000 feet are named after John the
Baptist, the San Juan Mountains, and the river that runs through our
ranch is called the Rio San Antonio, the Saint Anthony River. That
history has always created a very special bond with our neighbors to
the south in Mexico and Central America and Latin America.
When Senator Reid and the delegation of six Senators went to South
America, it was important for me because what we were doing as a
collective group was making a strong statement to Latin America that
they are our friends and that we will be working closely with Latin
America to make sure that the bond and the relationship between the
United States of America and those countries to the south is a bond
that is strong and one that will continue.
I also was very pleased with the fact that it was a bipartisan
delegation. As we met in those countries with the Presidents of Bolivia
and Ecuador, it was important that we were one voice, telling the
leaders of those countries that we would find ways in which we would
strengthen the relationship between the United States and those
countries. That signalled a friendship and mutual interest on the part
of the U.S. Government to those countries, and it was very important.
I believe we need to recommit ourselves to strengthening our
relationships with Latin America. I also believe our failure to do so
will imperil the U.S. strategic interests in fighting terrorism,
combating drugs, and helping democratic governments throughout Latin
America.
Over 45 years ago, there was another Senator taking on a new role in
our Nation's history in this city, and at that time he reached out to
Latin America with a program that he called the Alliance for Progress.
On March 13, 1961, as the Cold War was beginning to mushroom, President
John Kennedy launched the Alliance for Progress--known in Spanish
throughout Latin America as la Alianza del Progreso--with a vision to
create a strong and united Western Hemisphere of nations. On that
momentous day, President Kennedy spoke with remarkable clarity about
our country's connection with Latin America. He said:
We meet together as firm and ancient friends, united by
history and experience and by our determination to advance
the values of American civilization. This world of ours is
not merely an accident of geography. Our continents are bound
together by a common history. And our people share a common
heritage--the quest for the dignity and the freedom of man.
The effort of the Alliance for Progress was not as successful as
President Kennedy wished. Indeed, over the next half century, we
witnessed political upheaval in many of the Latin American countries,
and we saw strained relationships between the United States and some of
these nations. But the Alliance for Progress did work to establish good
will among the people of the Americas, and we can learn from its
shortcomings as we continue to move forward.
As we enter 2007, I hope our six Senators have begun to shine a
spotlight on our strategic alliance with Latin America. Under that
spotlight, you will find the difficult and complex issues of
international trade, immigration, and the battles we wage together
against the awful scourge of drugs which affects the populations of
those countries as well as ours. We also face the challenge of
increasing economic opportunity and eliminating poverty in that part of
the world.
Our first stop in South America was in Bolivia, which is one of the
poorest countries in this hemisphere, with one of the largest
indigenous populations in Latin America. We met with Bolivia's
President, Evo Morales, who was sworn in in 2006 as the country's first
indigenous President in its history. We spoke with President Morales
about his concerns relating to coca production and our concerns about
coca production in Bolivia. We also spoke to him about the interest of
Bolivia in extending the Andean trade preferences agreement. I believe
it was a productive dialog, but we must continue the dialog if we are
to build a stronger relationship with the country of Bolivia and keep
Bolivia from going down a path which ultimately will end up in
opposition to the interests of the United States.
We also there met with the U.S. Agency for International Development
and learned about the scope and impact of their projects in Bolivia.
USAID is working to create economic opportunities and alleviate
poverty, which is so important to improving the lives of the Bolivian
population.
In Ecuador, we met with President Correa, who was busy preparing for
his January 15 inauguration. He took time to meet with us, assembling
his Cabinet and talking about the importance of the relationship
between Ecuador and the United States. President Correa pledged to shut
down the drug trafficking that is occurring in and around Ecuador and
also raised the need to extend the Andean trade preferences program.
When we visited the LatinFlor flower farm, we saw firsthand the
impact of this trade program. It is creating thousands upon thousands
of jobs for the people of Ecuador and keeping people there from being
recruited by drug traffickers or from having to flee poverty through
illegal immigration into the United States.
In Peru, we met with President Alan Garcia. The United States and
Peru have long had a strong and lasting relationship.
In fact, during World War II, as Senator Reid reminded the President
of Peru, Peru provided our country with the strategic materials that
were necessary to carry on the war and allowed the United States to set
up military bases in Peru and take the fight on in the South Pacific.
President Garcia is very interested in seeing the U.S.-Peru free
trade agreement approved by the U.S. Congress. While questions have
been raised about this agreement, I am hopeful and confident that we
will work through those issues. I look forward to learning more about
this agreement and some of the issues that have been raised by some
Members about the labor and environmental provisions of the agreement.
I admire President Garcia's interest in formulating fundamental and
long-lasting change for the poor people of Peru, to improve education,
nutrition, and basic health services.
I hope Democrats and Republicans can work together to lift all of the
peoples of the Western Hemisphere to a place of hope and opportunity,
including those who live in the margins to
[[Page 1657]]
the south of us. So now it is time for the United States of America to
meet the eyes of our Latin American neighbors and to ensure that the
many countries sharing our hemisphere will bequeath to our children a
common land and future for the people of all the Americas.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire is
recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I also rise to discuss the recent
meetings we held in South America. The nature of the meetings has been
outlined by the Senator from Colorado and, obviously, the majority
leader.
I think I should start by saying that I admire the majority leader
for putting together the delegation--and I appreciate having
participated in it--which was bipartisan. More importantly, the
majority leader chose as his first outreach in the area of foreign
policy, in the sense of his taking the status of majority leader of the
Senate, which is a significant status, to go to these countries in
South America--countries which, regrettably, we probably haven't put as
much energy and effort into as we should have over the years, and
countries that are important to us in a variety of ways. So I think his
choice of these three nations--important nations that are major players
in our neighborhood--was significant and appropriate. I appreciated the
chance to participate in it.
In all three of these nations we are seeing significant change--
change which I sort of sense is in a historical context of repeating,
in many instances, past actions. South America has, unfortunately, had
a history of going from democracy to military leadership to populace
leadership and then back to democracy. These three nations have all
recently held very democratic elections, and they have elected very
outspoken leaders, some of whose views I agree with and some of whose I
definitely do not agree with. But they are in the vortex of a movement
in Central and South America involving the question of populace
socialism as presented by, in part, obviously, Fidel Castro and, more
recently, President Chavez of Venezuela. We have seen in that sort of a
populist, socialist movement, a distinct antagonism toward democracy.
In fact, Cuba hasn't had an election in 40 years. I don't know whether
we will see a real election in Venezuela again in the foreseeable
future. So I think it was important for us to show the American spirit,
which is committed democracy, liberty, and individual rights, and
having an electoral process that works--to show that spirit by coming
to these three nations that recently held elections and elected new
leadership.
There are a lot of issues involving these nations. Bolivia and
Ecuador and Peru have significant questions relative to poverty. But
there are three issues which dominate our relationship with them, which
have been discussed already, and which we discussed with their
leadership extensively at different levels, starting with the
Presidency of those three countries. Of course, the first is the
question of illegal drugs such as cocaine.
I think it is rather difficult for us as a nation to go to a country
such as Bolivia, which is exporting cocaine products mostly to Europe,
or Ecuador and Peru, which export it here--it is hard to go to those
countries because we don't come with clean hands. Basically, we are the
demand. As long as we have the demand in this Nation, which is so
overwhelming, somebody is going to supply that demand. So we have put
these nations at risk by us having our demand for the use of these
illegal drugs, especially cocaine. I feel compassion for these nations
in that we have undermined them by our Nation putting so much pressure
on them regarding illegal trafficking. You have to admire their
leaders.
It was great to travel with the Senator from Colorado and his wife.
It was nice to have an American face that spoke pure Spanish. It gave
us a presentation that immediately gave us identity with those nations.
So it was wonderful to have the Senator and his wife there, especially
for those of us who allegedly spoke Spanish when we were in college but
never really did. Each one of these Presidents was totally committed to
fighting illegal drugs. They recognize the harm it is doing to their
nations. So we want to support them in that effort.
Secondly is the issue of immigration, which again, to some degree,
you can understand their problem, which is that they have people who
want to support their families and they come to America to do that, and
a fair number come illegally. How we deal with that as a country is a
big issue for us and for those nations. Money coming back into those
countries as a result of Ecuadorians or Peruvians working in America
and sending money back significantly contributes to their economy. They
want to have the ability for their people to come here legally. We want
to structure a system to help them.
The reason people are leaving those countries goes to the third
issue, which is trade. They need good jobs in their country. There are
products that they can provide in their countries which, in the classic
context of comparative advantage, they can do better than we can. The
same is true vice versa. In fact, we can do a lot of things better than
they can. So open and free trade is something they want. Every one of
those leaders wants open and free trade with the U.S, which is a very
positive attitude on their part because we can produce more products
that they need, with value added, and they can produce products we
need. I suspect we will be in a surplus fairly quickly with each one of
these countries if we go to a true free market. That will raise the
standard of living down there, which will relieve, to some degree, the
pressure for illegal immigration to the U.S.
So it works to our benefit, and not only from the standpoint of
trade. One of the interesting statistics I saw in Peru was that trade
from New Hampshire increased 880 percent over the last 2 years--that
increase of New Hampshire-produced goods going into Peru. We started at
a very low base, but a couple of corporations I am familiar with have
significantly expanded economic activity in Peru and, as a result, the
opportunity. So there are two pending agreements, one of which we
extended, the Indian Free Trade Agreement and Drug Enforcement Act, and
the other the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement. I especially think we need
to address the second one.
Peru has a government that is more market oriented, that is not
pursuing nationalization or quasi-nationalization of any foreign
investors there, as has happened in Ecuador and Bolivia. Therefore, we
should be sympathetic to that government. This agreement is not going
to significantly expand issues that are international in the sense of
the free trade bite, and we have those issues with China, obviously,
and Southeast Asia. To the extent there are environmental and labor
issues with other countries, that is not in play relative to Peru. That
is not that big an economy. The Peruvian agreement has been caught up,
unfortunately, in this bigger contest in the Congress, and in the
popular opinion of American political culture, on the issue of the
bigger issue of free trade. We should try to separate it and move the
Peruvian Free Trade Agreement forward promptly, if we can, recognizing
that it will significantly improve our relationship with Peru and, more
importantly, be a statement in the part of the world that we need to
have a statement that we are committed to market forces in the face of
what is clearly not occurring in Venezuela, which is where you are
seeing massive nationalization and a compression and flattening of
market forces and a flattening of democratic forces, and that is an
issue about which we need to be concerned.
If we can assist Peru and Bolivia and Ecuador in being more
economically successful in using a market-oriented model, that is going
to undermine the capacity of Venezuela to export their form of populace
socialism, which in the end is going to lead, if they are successful,
to undermining the quality of life throughout South and Central
America.
[[Page 1658]]
So it was, in my opinion, a very worthwhile trip. I learned a great
deal and met a lot of interesting people. We had the opportunity to
meet extraordinary people who worked in our State Department. Each one
is a very talented and dedicated person. The people in the Peace Corps
are extraordinary. The people working in the AID and microlending
projects are doing good work and, of course, the government officials
of each country, including the incoming Presidents. It was very
valuable. I congratulate the majority leader for pursuing it.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is
recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I join with my colleagues who were part
of the delegation to Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. I also salute the
majority leader, Senator Reid, for making as his first trip as majority
leader one to these countries in our hemisphere. I think it sent a very
important signal to those countries that America is interested in them,
that America cares about them, and that we want to improve relations
with them. It did make an impression.
In country after country, people told us they could not remember the
last time a Senate delegation from the United States had come. They
could not recall a delegation of this size and this significance
coming. You could tell it made an impression.
Now, why was it important to go? I believe it was important to go
because, first, we see Mr. Chavez, the head of Venezuela, attempting to
put together an anti-American bloc in our Southern Hemisphere. Even a
casual observer can see that is being attempted.
After going to these countries and meeting with the Presidents of
each--President Morales, President Correa, President Garcia, and their
cabinets--meeting with our Ambassadors in each of the countries--our
outstanding Ambassador to Bolivia, Philip Goldberg, our Ambassador to
Ecuador, Linda Jewell, who impressed us all with her professionalism,
and our Ambassador to Peru, James Struble, deeply knowledgeable,
someone who has had wide-ranging experience all around the world--I can
tell my colleagues that one of my impressions from this trip was the
absolute excellence of our Foreign Service people in each of these
countries. They were superb.
But I was also deeply impressed by how serious Mr. Chavez is about
putting together an anti-American block. In one country, he is buying
30 radio stations, putting up 30 radio stations to influence public
opinion. In other countries, he had interceded in the elections--some
directly, others indirectly--in order to try to achieve a result. In
fact, in Peru, he went so far as to openly endorse the candidate who
lost to Mr. Garcia.
It is very clear, if one goes country to country--Bolivia, Peru, and
Ecuador--that Mr. Chavez is working actively and, I might say, hand in
glove with the Cubans, to try to influence outcomes there. We see, and
have seen in recent weeks, Mr. Chavez take a series of steps, in terms
of expropriation, that I think ought to send a message about his
intentions.
This delegation consisted of the majority leader, Senator Reid,
Senator Durbin, the majority whip, Senator Bennett, at the time of the
trip the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, Senator Gregg, at
the time of the trip chairman of the Budget Committee, and Senator
Salazar, who really did light up the faces of people in these countries
as he speaks such perfect Spanish. One could tell what a difference
that makes. My wife speaks some Spanish as well. Of course, Senator
Salazar's wife is very fluent in Spanish. One could see how it lit up
people's faces when those three members of our delegation spoke
Spanish.
In addition to the question of Mr. Chavez and his plans to create an
anti-American bloc there were other important reasons for this trip. On
trade, we have the Andean Trade Preferences Act that will expire. It
was only extended for 6 months in the last Congress. Make no mistake,
that Trade Preferences Act is critically important to the economies of
these three countries. Literally, hundreds of thousands of jobs in
those countries are at stake if the Andean Trade Preferences Act is not
extended.
I know there is some controversy attached to it, but if one sees the
potential outcomes of a failure to extend the Andean Trade Preferences
Act, one can see that the pressure for more people to come to this
country will intensify and intensify dramatically. That is not in our
interest. We already have millions of people from these three countries
who are in our country, many of them illegally. That is a fact. If we
want millions more to come, one way to assure that is to turn a blind
eye to what is needed for those countries to have a chance to suceed.
In country after country--these three countries--we learned that half
the people are living on less than $2 a day. We are talking millions of
people living on less than $2 a day. We saw poverty that was akin to
walking back into time. People are living at a level of subsistence
that is almost unimaginable, certainly unimaginable in our country. We
have areas of great poverty, but to see people living literally in
hovels and huts without electricity, without a clean water supply,
other than a river flowing by, without sewage, without anything other
than the most meager subsistence kind of life is jolting. A dramatic
proportion of their populations being in that condition sends a very
sobering signal about the challenge facing this hemisphere. So I think
it was very important that Senator Reid chose as his first trip to go
to countries such as Bolivia. Bolivia is the second poorest country in
our hemisphere. Only Haiti is poorer.
One of the reasons we learned that delegations are not necessarily
eager to go to these countries is because they are at 13,000 feet,
11,000 feet, and it takes a little adjustment to get used to it. One
spends part of the time walking around with a headache. These are not
places that are the first on most people's list of where they want to
go. The fact that Senator Reid chose this as the first place that he
would take a delegation sent an important message.
Not only do we have this challenge of Mr. Chavez in Venezuela and the
question of the Andean Trade Preferences Act that runs out because it
was only extended 6 months in the last Congress, we also have the free-
trade agreement with Peru pending. That is a controversial matter. We
understand that. In the House and the Senate, that is a controversial
matter. We have been assured by the trade ambassador's office that they
will seek to negotiate some of the labor provisions of that agreement
in order to make it more acceptable and have a greater chance of
passage. I welcome that indication from the trade ambassador's office,
and I hope they pursue it aggressively.
Still another important reason for this delegation going to Bolivia,
Ecuador, and Peru is, of course, most of the illicit drug traffic comes
out of the Andean region. Bolivia is increasingly a factor. Most of
their product has not come to the United States, as Senator Gregg
indicated, but we all know that the drug trade, once it rears its ugly
head, has spillover effects everywhere.
Peru, obviously, is an important drug-trafficking location, and
President Garcia assured us of his absolute commitment to fight the
drug trade. In fact, they told us of a commitment they had made in
their budget to spend their money combating illicit drug trade in their
country because they recognize the toxic and corrosive effect it will
have in their society.
We should salute President Garcia for stepping to the plate and
committing funds in a place that is very hard pressed for money, as we
are in a different way, that they are committing their own money to
combating the illicit drug trade and at some substantial risk to
themselves. Let's be clear, those drug cartels are vicious, they are
murderous, and they are not averse to taking lives from those who
oppose them.
I want to indicate one exchange we had that I believe gives an
example of why it is important to do this kind of outreach.
In Bolivia, we heard rumors, discussions that the Government there
believed there was a plot by the United
[[Page 1659]]
States to destabilize the Morales Government. When we met with
President Morales, I raised that issue with him. I said: We have heard
repeatedly you have concerns that there is a move by our Government to
destabilize yours. I was able to tell him that our delegation had
quizzed all aspects of our Government very closely on that question
before we went into the meeting with him, and we were assured in
significant detail that there is no such plan by our Government to
destabilize the Morales Government, that, in fact, there has been no
discussion of any move to destabilize his Government.
He became very animated at that point and went through a series of
examples of events that told him or at least that gave him concern that
perhaps there is a plot by our Government to destabilize them. He was
very specific. He talked about an American who went into the country
and set off bombs in La Paz last year. He gave as a second example of
American students who had taken his picture when he was with President
Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. He believed that was perhaps part of an
American Government enterprise to spy on him. He cited the example of
his Vice President being denied boarding rights to an American
airliner.
He felt all of these events were indicators--at least indicators to
him--that perhaps the United States was seeking to destabilize his
Government.
Ambassador Goldberg was able to go through each of these examples
with him and give him answers as to why these events had nothing to do
with the United States. In the case of the American who set off bombs
in La Paz, this is somebody traveling on a world federalist passport,
illegal documents, had nothing to do with the United States--in fact,
was an unstable person and recognized as such by our Government.
On the question of the pictures being taken of President Chavez and
President Morales, our Ambassador indicated that these were people who
were fans of the two and were simply tourists taking pictures.
On the question of boarding being denied the Vice President on an
American airline, the Ambassador was able to point out that our
Government then moved to make it right by providing our aircraft so
that the Vice President of Bolivia could make the trip to the United
States.
I believe this trip was important in sending a signal. It was an
important chance to communicate clearly and directly our interest in
the region and our desire to improve relations. I am not naive. I don't
think one trip is going to change the course of history. We know that
there are serious challenges on our Southern border, but reaching out,
talking with people, indicating that we have an interest in improving
relations, sending a signal that the majority leader of the Senate, in
his first foreign trip, is coming to these countries--impoverished
countries, countries that are not exactly on the list of countries that
people might visit--I think was important and productive.
I thank the majority leader for leading this delegation. I thank the
other Members. My wife and I found it an exceptional group of people.
The people who were on this delegation--Senator Reid, Senator Durbin,
Senator Bennett, Senator Gregg, and Senator Salazar--did an exceptional
job of representing this country.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah is
recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, as we have a debate around here about
ethics and congressional perks and all of the rest of those issues, I
am interested to find some Members of my own party, at least in the
other body, boasting that they do not even have a passport, that they
are so focused on their jobs that they don't do any foreign travel at
all. When I was a newly elected Senator, the then-Republican leader,
Bob Dole, took me and a number of other freshmen up to New Jersey to
spend a day with former President Richard Nixon. Whatever you might
think of Richard Nixon, I think you might confess he had a grasp of
foreign affairs that was perhaps unparalleled. And he will be
remembered, along with his other problems, for his opening to China,
for his level of detente with Russia, and the other things he did in
the foreign affairs field.
As we sat with him, one of the first things he said to us was: You
cannot do your jobs as Senators if you do not travel. You need to be
overseas. You need to be in these other countries. He said: I know the
press will criticize you for it, but it is essential that you do it.
I have taken his advice. I have discovered he was right. The press
does criticize us for it. There were articles in the Washington Post
saying: What are these people doing viewing Inca ruins on a holiday at
taxpayer expense, as if the whole purpose was some kind of
congressional junket. And there would sit some of my friends in the
House, smug in their assurance they didn't even have a passport and
they were never going to be criticized for doing this.
The fact is, Nixon was right--not only for the things we learn when
we travel but also for the messages we send when we travel. The
majority leader had to go over the holiday period because his schedule
was so full with other demands that this was the only time he could get
away. I was honored and very much pleased when he asked me to come
along. The fact that he made it a bipartisan delegation demonstrates
his determination to make these trips have an impact both at home and
abroad. It did have an impact on the six of us who were there. We have
now come back with an understanding of trade issues in ways that you
could not get reading a newspaper or, as one paper said: Why couldn't
he find out these facts by getting on the telephone? Well, we went to a
flower farm where it was pointed out to us, and we saw specific
evidence, that the efforts to raise potatoes in Ecuador or corn or
wheat may sound good in a political situation, as some Ecuadorian
politicians are saying, but the climate and the altitude say they
should be raising flowers. It gave a flavor to the whole question of
free trade around the world when we realized the most efficient place
to raise corn is in the Great Plains of the United States, and the most
efficient place to raise baby's breath or roses is in the high
altitudes and sunshine of Ecuador.
The fellow who was running the plant said to us: All we are doing is
harvesting the sunshine and sending it abroad, and these people have
jobs which they would not otherwise have. And this soil and this
altitude means raising corn would be crazy. So let the Americans raise
corn and ship it to Ecuador, and let the Ecuadorians raise roses and
ship them to us.
Being there, seeing the plant, seeing the people at work, seeing the
conditions they were under is worth 10,000 phone calls to have somebody
try to explain it to us. But perhaps more importantly, on the political
level, what Senator Conrad was talking about, showing up in three
countries that have not seen a significant congressional delegation in
anybody's memory was a big deal. The press was everywhere. We were on
the front page of the newspapers. We were on all of the television
stations. The Ecuadorians gave us each a Panama hat. The Panama hat is
misnamed. It has always been produced in Ecuador, but for some reason
it got labeled the Panama hat. I wore mine. I was not an important
member of the delegation as far as title is concerned, but I got on
television because I was wearing a Panama hat. The Ecuadorians took
sufficient pride in that I found the cameras following me around, just
to say here is a U.S. Senator who is wearing one of our local products.
I don't know how much good that did, but it can't have done any harm.
Senator Reid handled himself with his usual good taste and aplomb in
all of the exchanges and all of the press opportunities he had. No
matter how much the Presidents of some of these countries who have an
anti-American background might resent the Americans, they could not, in
the presence of six American Senators, including the Senate majority
leader, not be impressed. They could not not be tempered in their
attitudes toward the
[[Page 1660]]
United States. And some of these Presidents who have the reputation of
anti-Americanism in the meetings with others in addition to us were
very gracious, and then ultimately in the presence of these Senators,
outgoing in their praise of the United States and their delight at
having this kind of delegation. Every single Ambassador made it clear
to us that by our being there, we made their jobs easier. We made their
jobs better. We demonstrated an American interest.
I was reminded when I was there on a congressional delegation of a
statement I heard from the leader of a European country who opened the
conversation by chiding us and saying: It has been too long since a
Senator has been here. What is the matter? Aren't we important enough
for you to come?
Well, if a European country that sees Senators come through about
every 6 months had that reaction when it had been over a year since a
Senator came, how about a South American country that had never seen a
Senator in the lifetime of that particular administration.
So, again, we who were on the trip were well served by the things we
learned. I have just given one quick example. My colleagues will give
others. But just as importantly, the United States was well served in
terms of the impact this kind of travel made on those countries that
had not seen senatorial delegations.
So I intend for the rest of my Senate career to follow Richard
Nixon's advice when he said: You cannot do your job if you don't
travel. And I would urge those who somehow think they can get a little
cheap publicity in the United States by saying: I am above that, I
don't accept all of that travel--you are being derelict in your duty.
Nixon made one other comment. He said: Yes, I know the press will
criticize you, but it makes great speech material when you get home. I
hope that has been the case for those of us here today from whom the
Senate has heard.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois is
recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me thank my colleague from Utah for
his remarks and for joining us on this trip, this official trip which
Senator Reid, our majority leader, put together. Senator Bennett is
correct. Members of Congress have to make a decision early in their
career: Are they going to travel? I think it has been one of the most
valuable experiences of my public life. I have made a point of always
announcing in advance where I am going and why I am going, giving full
disclosure so that people know. I can say without exception that every
time I have taken a trip, carefully planned, I have come back with a
better knowledge of the world and a better appreciation of our home.
I have learned things on these trips I just could not appreciate
reading in a book. I have met people on these trips who have changed my
life. I don't say that loosely; I mean it.
Over 15 years ago, I met a man in Bangladesh named Muhammad Yunus. We
had gone to Bangladesh, one of the poorest countries on Earth. This
economics professor took us out to show us that he was testing a
concept from his economics class called micro credit. He believed--this
professor believed--that if you loan a small amount of money to the
poorest people on Earth, they would pay it back, and that that small
amount of money would change their lives. A simple concept, but he was
out to prove it would work, and he proved it over and over again until
that concept reached 100 million people on the face of the Earth. That
man was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I met Muhammad Yunus on
an official trip. I have fought for micro credit ever since, and I
consider him a real inspiration to my public life.
The same is true about Africa. When I finally was able to go to
Africa, looking at micro credit food programs, I was hit smack dab
between the eyes by the global AIDS crisis. It changed my public
service. I came back and established the first bipartisan global AIDS
caucus on Capitol Hill and have fought every single year to fight for
more money to fight this scourge, this epidemic of AIDS. We have now
put together an additional $1 billion in money added to budgets, $1
billion to be spent around the world saving lives. It has made a real
difference, and it was the result of an official trip where I saw
firsthand what AIDS was doing to that great continent of Africa.
So I would say to my colleagues and my critics, I believe that
Members of Congress should be compelled and required to travel overseas
every single year and should account for their travel and account for
their refusal to travel. We have to understand that these trips help us
in public service, help to project the image of our country, and help
us to reach a new level of understanding with leaders around the world.
This trip was no exception.
Why would we go to Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru? Of all places on
Earth, why would we go there? The first trip by the majority leader,
Harry Reid, was scheduled to this region of the world, and I know that
many of the leaders down there were surprised, as well, to see us. It
is one of the poorest places on Earth. Bolivia is the second poorest
nation in our hemisphere next to Haiti. The people there struggle to
survive, the majority of them on fewer than $2 a day.
We met with indigenous Bolivian Evo Morales, now President of that
country, elected in a free election. We fear that he will lean toward
the Chavez model of government, and we hope he will be more open
minded. This trip helped us to deliver a message. As Senator Conrad
mentioned earlier, he has misgivings about his relationship with the
United States. I think what we had to say to him in our meeting with
him, and Senator Harry Reid's insistence that we respect the
sovereignty of his nation, was important, a very important thing for
him to see.
Bolivia itself is a fascinating country in many respects--very
entrepreneurial, with a sense of street justice which you don't find in
many poor countries around the world. But I left there with a better
understanding of the challenges facing them.
Going on to Ecuador, there was a special meeting with the President-
elect, now President Rafael Correa. I felt a special attachment to
President-elect Correa because in the year 2001 he received a Ph.D. in
economics from the University of Illinois at Champagne-Urbana. We joked
about it, and we joked about his experience living in the United
States. That evening I got to meet his wife born in Belgium. She served
as a special education teacher in Champagne, IL. I say that because
those linkages between the United States and the new leadership of
Ecuador are valuable. He saw America firsthand. He said to his friends
in Ecuador: What I like about America is they don't ask you your
mother's lineage. They just want to know who you are, not whether you
come from some aristocratic stock.
That is a good lesson to learn in America. It is a good lesson to
apply around the world. It says a lot about us and our values.
We went on to Peru as well. There aren't a lot of delegations that
visit Peru. I am glad we did. President Garcia is a real friend. In
World War II Peru was one of our earliest allies, and they are proud of
it. Our standing with Peru as a nation couldn't be better, and it gets
better by the year. It tells us, though, that we have critics around
the world.
First, let me say if someone stopped me on the streets of Chicago and
said: Senator Durbin, why in the world did you go to Bolivia and
Ecuador and Peru, I would ask them one question: Do you think narcotics
are a problem in America? I know the answer. The answer is obvious: a
big problem. Not just a problem for law enforcement but for families
and children, a great expense and a great danger caused by these
narcotics, and the Andean region of the world that we visited supplies
100 percent of the cocaine that comes to the United States.
When Senator Reid and Senator Bennett and others and I went to these
countries, we sat down with our Ambassadors, we sat down with the Drug
Enforcement Agency, we sat through classified briefings and talked
about our cooperative efforts with these nations to stop this flow of
narcotics.
[[Page 1661]]
That is a priority for this Senator, and I am sure it is a priority
for many others. By meeting and encouraging these leaders to continue
to cooperate with the United States, I think it is going to help to
make our Nation safer. When we hear firsthand from the President of
Bolivia that he believes he is being shortchanged in bilateral
assistance from the United States compared to other countries, it is a
legitimate point and one that we brought home and one on which we will
follow through. We want to make sure the flow of narcotics is reduced.
We want to make America safer, reduce drug crime, and it starts with an
understanding between Senators and leaders in these countries that we
have the same goals.
Let me say one thing before I turn it over to our majority leader.
How do we project the image of the United States? We believe that five
or six Senators bringing that message is an important part of it but a
tiny part of it. When we visited Bolivia, Senator Reid, I believe,
asked the question: What is the presence of Cuba in Bolivia? The answer
is an important one for us to reflect on. Today, out of about 20,000
medical doctors in Bolivia, 1,500 come from Cuba, another 5,000
classroom teachers come from Cuba. When we asked, in Bolivia, our
Ambassador what are we doing, he said the United States is making
substantial investments in infrastructure. Stop for a moment and think
about it. Which version of the world, which message, will have more
impact: A message delivered to a person in Bolivia in a clinic or a
classroom or a message delivered on a sign next to a stretch of
concrete? Not to diminish the importance of infrastructure, but the
fact is those Ambassadors of Mr. Castro's view of the world are going
to have an impact on the people they help far beyond what impact we
will have by building this infrastructure.
Senator Reid makes it a point on his trips and I make it a point on
mine to meet with Peace Corps volunteers. We had great meetings in
Ecuador. Some of these great American kids--I shouldn't call them kids;
young men and women, some not so young--who are Peace Corps volunteers
literally spent over 12 hours on an overnight bus to make it to a
luncheon. We had a great time. We talked. I had a chance to meet a
couple of them from the State of Illinois. Andrew Wiemers from
Galesburg was one of them. We talked about the challenges we faced, and
we talked about how proud we were that they were, for little or no
money, giving 2 years of their lives to tell the American story by
giving, by helping. They are making a difference. But around the world,
there are only 7,000 Peace Corps volunteers. I think we can do more,
and I think we need to do better. We can stretch ourselves and stretch
our message out to parts of the world that have the wrong message of
the United States.
When John Kennedy was President, he took a hard look at Central and
South America for the first time, understanding that in the history of
that region, many times our Government and private interests in the
United States have exploited it. He created a new opportunity. He
called it the Alliance For Progress. And President Kennedy's name is
sacred now in this part of the world because of his recognition that
they were not just our neighbors but our friends and potential allies.
We have to renew that conversation. It starts with official trips
such as these. It starts when we bring our message back to the
Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. But it can't end there. We have
to make sure the legislation we consider, the policies of this country,
and our relationships continue to grow.
I will say to those who criticize the official trips by Members of
Congress, they don't understand the world in which we live. We have a
special responsibility to learn about this world, to tell our message
to people around the world and come back with our knowledge and share
it with our colleagues. It is important for us as Members of Congress
to spend time together in these settings. It builds friendships and
alliances and relationships that on the floor of the Senate I have
already seen in a few short weeks have paid off. That level of comity,
that level of dialog, leads to a more civilized Senate and a better
work product at the end of the day.
I thank Senator Reid for inviting me to be part of this trip, and I
yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Madam President, how much time does the majority leader
have in morning business?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority has 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask that the time of the minority be
extended. I will complete my remarks, if not in 5 minutes, shortly
thereafter. But whatever time I expend, I ask that time be given to
Republicans so they have a matching amount of time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I so appreciate the statements of my
colleagues who traveled with me to South America. As has been
indicated, Bolivia, if not the poorest country in this hemisphere, is
the second poorest. You land in an airport, the highest airport in the
world--13,400 feet. As my distinguished friend, the Senator from Utah,
said, President Nixon said that people should travel, Members of
Congress. I use as an example Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was an anti-
Communist, and that is an understatement, but Ronald Reagan always
spoke to his enemies. But for Ronald Reagan's insistence that there be
bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union on a constant, frequent
basis, I am not sure the Cold War would have ended. Not only did he
personally meet with the Soviet leaders time after time, people working
in his State Department were in constant contact with the Soviet Union.
Members of Congress should travel. There is no better example than
these three countries to which we traveled. They are begging for the
attention of the United States, and they are getting no attention. They
are not begging for the attention of Venezuela and Cuba, but they are
getting lots of attention. As a result of that, they have a significant
amount of influence where the United States should be the one exerting
the influence.
They want us to be involved. We should be involved. Ninety percent of
the cocaine in the world comes from the Andean region. Shouldn't we be
involved? But we are not. We set up programs to help them fight the
illicit growing and production and transmission of illegal narcotics--
and we are cutting back on those moneys. They are limited amounts,
anyway. These little democracies cannot afford to do this on their own.
It is unpopular for them to do that. The President of Bolivia was the
head of a union of coca farmers. He wants to fight the illicit drug
trafficking, but he needs our help, as does the President of Ecuador.
The most biodiverse nation in the world is Ecuador.
The President of Peru loves America. He was effusive in his praise
for America. Why can't we help more?
I wish to mention a couple of things. First of all, the hidden heroes
of our Government are our Foreign Service officers. I have been in
Congress now going on 25 years. My first tour of duty was in the House
of Representatives. I was a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and
learned to travel at that time, and rightfully so. I traveled with
great chairmen, such as Clem Zablocki from Wisconsin and Dante Fascell
from Florida.
I have come to learn that our diplomats, our Foreign Service
officers, are the cream of the crop. To become a Foreign Service
officer, you have to be very smart and very interested in what goes on
in the world. They are the best. They are wonderful people. Every place
I go when I travel, I tell these Foreign Service officers something
they don't hear very often: They are the difference between America
having relations with these countries and not having them.
Ambassadors to these three countries are great human beings. Philip
Goldberg in Bolivia--what a tremendous job he is doing, working day and
night to improve relations between our country and Bolivia. In Ecuador
is a distinguished woman who has a great diplomatic career. She has a
smile that is contagious--Linda Jewell. She is doing
[[Page 1662]]
great work for us in Ecuador; and in Peru, James Curtis Struble, a real
professional. I have so much warmth for the work these people do. They
go to the remote parts of the world. Every time I meet an ambassador, I
say: Where have you been? And you should hear where they have been--the
most remote places in the world, starting off as a political officer,
economic officer, places where they handle visas, and they work their
way up through the ranks. These Ambassadors are similar to a four-star
general. I think we only have 140 Ambassadors, and they are the best,
the cream of the crop. If you see a person who has been appointed
Ambassador through the career State Department offices, they are the
best. They are all Americans. They are generals; they are admirals. I
so admire the work they do.
Then, as Senator Durbin mentioned, every place I go, I talk to the
Peace Corps volunteers. We only have, in the world, a little over 7,000
of them. We should have 70,000 Peace Corps volunteers. A woman from
Reno, NV, traveled 20 hours to meet me in Ecuador, to have lunch with
me in Ecuador. This is her tour of duty as a Peace Corps volunteer. One
Peace Corps volunteer from Nevada has a master's degree in biology. She
works in public health. Another Foreign Service officer from Nevada
works with troubled youth. She showed me her pictures. Her father came
to visit her. He lives in New York. He came to see her and where she
lives, and when he saw her, he started crying. He said: I expected more
than this for my daughter. After he left, after visiting his daughter,
he cried with joy, recognizing what this woman does for mankind. That
is what Peace Corps volunteers do.
This was a wonderful trip. We need to compete with Cuba and Venezuela
in this part of the world and other parts of the world or we are going
to lose these democracies.
I have to be very candid with you, Madam President. The snide
remarks, the cute little things people write in newspapers about trips
taken by Members of Congress, I resent them, and I think it does the
American public a disservice. I am going to continue to travel in spite
of what the newspapers say because I believe I am serving my country by
doing that.
With America's attention focused on the Middle East, South America
does not get the attention that it deserves, particularly the three
countries we visited--Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru.
And when the world does focus on South America, it is with increased
concern over the region's leftward turn, and the inflammatory rhetoric
issued by several of the region's leaders criticizing our Government.
There is no doubt that there are serious problems in the region.
There is also no question that the Bush administration has neglected
the region, and its lack of a comprehensive policy has contributed to
this current trend.
Venezuela and Cuba have been filling a vacuum, attempting to pull the
region to the left.
But I do not think we should be deterred by this trend. We have much
to gain through increased engagement with South America--and much to
lose if we retreat from our obligations to the region. We can and must
do more.
On our trip, we had productive meetings with the leaders of Bolivia,
Ecuador, and Peru. Most importantly, we came away from our visit with
an appreciation for the people of these three important nations, and an
awareness of the key issues confronting them.
Our first stop was Bolivia, where we had an amicable discussion with
President Evo Morales. Much has been said about the somewhat difficult
relationship the United States has encountered with President Morales,
but we were able to set forth our concerns about increased coca
production, the rule of law, and the periodic expressions of anti-
Americanism. President Morales also laid out each of his grievances
about the U.S. We did not always agree, but we had a very honest and
open exchange, and that is what close relationships require.
I was also pleased to see the devoted engagement of our Ambassador
Philip Goldberg and his diplomatic team in La Paz. Their insight will
be particularly crucial in monitoring the current Bolivian
constitutional crisis. We will have to watch these developments
closely. We truly hope that whatever happens, Bolivian democracy and
Bolivian democratic institutions are strengthened, not weakened. That
would be the right result for Bolivia, for the region, and for the
relationship with the United States.
Then it was on to Ecuador, the most bio-diverse country in the world.
From its snow capped peaks, to the Galapagos Islands, to the Amazon
Rain Forest--Ecuador is an environmental treasure. My son spent 2 years
there years ago, and to this day, still speaks of his days in Ecuador.
After being there, I can understand why Ecuador made such an impact on
him.
We were pleased that, although he had not even been sworn in yet,
President Correa assembled his new cabinet to meet with our delegation.
He seemed quite aware that Ecuador risks becoming a transit hub for
narco-trafficking in the region, and vowed to take swift action to shut
down the trafficking in and around Ecuador.
Ecuador is the home of the U.S. Forward Operating Location at Manta,
which plays a key role in the multilateral approach to fighting the war
on drugs. The mission at Manta advances the joint interest that the
United States and Ecuador have in curbing the illegal flow of drugs.
The American presence at Manta also contributes around $6.5 million a
year to the local economy. We hope that this can be the start of a
constructive dialogue on this issue, through which the Ecuadorian
Government will come to realize the benefits yielded from the Forward
Operating Location at Manta.
Peru, our final stop, must also contend with the problem of drug
trafficking. But Peru's President, Alan Garcia, is a leader committed
to meeting this challenge. We had such a good meeting with President
Garcia, a pro-democracy, pro-capitalist and pro-American leader. I am
very grateful for the graciousness he showed to our delegation.
President Garcia possesses a keen understanding of the dynamic of the
region today, and desires to work together to combat the leftist
ideology being promoted by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Fidel
Castro. He noted that, with Castro's possible passing, the U.S. has an
opportunity to reengage in the region, and reach out to a new
generation looking at the United States as a model for freedom,
democracy and opportunity.
Going forward, we must remember that the U.S. and South America will
continue to have its ups and downs. But all relationships do. The six
of us took this trip because we know that existing relationships must
be cultivated and tended to in order to keep them healthy and strong.
There is so much more we can do here at home. Our delegation intends
to meet with the Secretary of State in the coming weeks to relay to her
the small things the U.S. Government do to improve our position in the
region. For example, I believe: we should be doing more with IMET
assistance, which in addition to the training program, proves so
valuable to developing longstanding relationships between military
officers the United States and the IMET beneficiary; we need to
increase the USAID budgets for these nations. We learned that Ecuador's
aid budget will be cut considerably, from $35 million to under $20
million, and I believe that is a mistake. One thing we learned is how
far a few U.S. dollars can go; and we also need to do more to support
micro-lending and the counter-drug efforts of the Andean region, in
order to keep cocaine off the streets of the United States. I was
disturbed to learn that the State Department is contemplating
significant cuts to the Andean Counter-drug Program. That, too, would
be a serious mistake, and I plan on raising the issue with the
Secretary of State.
Finally, I think it is important to extend the trade preferences for
Ecuador and Bolivia. I also know that Peru is eager to get its Free
Trade Agreement finalized, and this is something that Congress needs to
address in the coming year.
[[Page 1663]]
Through increased trade, more robust aid and exchange programs, and
stronger diplomacy to this region, the United States can help lift many
people out of poverty, improve economic conditions, which would have a
significant impact on illegal immigration to the United States. We
would also help counteract the region's shift to the left. In short,
the people of this region want stronger ties with the United States,
and that is what we should aim to deliver.
The Andean region is not lost to us; its challenges provide us with
an opportunity which we must seize. With more sustained engagement, we
can win it back again.
I thank my colleagues for joining me on the floor to talk about this
important issue today.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho is
recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I assume this starts this side's period
of morning business, to be extended to what time?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority has 62 minutes.
____________________
ENERGY
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I come to the Chamber today to speak
about efforts that are now underway in the 110th Congress to deal with
an issue the American people have become tremendously sensitized to
over the last couple of years--the issue of energy, the availability of
energy, and the cost of energy. I believe it is important, as we look
at cost and America's reaction to it, to recognize that while Americans
are paying a higher price for energy today, there has never yet been a
question about the availability of energy and the supply itself. I
think we forget that when we paid, in midsummer, $3 at the gas pump for
gas and substantially more for diesel, it was always there, it was
always available, and that never became the issue.
What I believe is important for us today, in the new Congress, under
new leadership in the House and the Senate, is to not only focus on the
availability of energy but also move ourselves toward being a nation
that becomes independent in its ability to produce its own energy--all
kinds, in all ways--for the American consumer.
I find it fascinating that somehow, in the midst of all of this, we
have forgotten that while the energy is still at the pump, the lights
still come on when we throw the switch in our house in the morning, and
America is awash in the use of energy, we have become increasingly
dependent on foreign sources for a substantial portion of the very
energy that moves this country. Here is a chart which I think
demonstrates that. Today, arguably, we have become 60 percent dependent
upon someone else producing our hydrocarbons--our oil to produce our
gas and our diesel and, of course, the plastics our country uses as a
derivative of that.
In this new Congress, we should focus as aggressively as we did in
the last Congress in the creation of the National Energy Policy Act of
2005. We ought to now move a major step forward toward energy
independence by not only encouraging the increased production of all
forms of energy but looking to see if Government stands in the way of
that. Is Government promoting it or are we inhibiting it and forcing
those who supply our energy to progressively seek offshore sources of
that supply?
The new Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that I serve on,
under the guidance of Jeff Bingaman, recently held a hearing on who
supplies the oil for the world. Is it ExxonMobil? No. Is it Conoco? No.
Is it Phillips? No, even though we think it is because that is where we
get our fuel when we go to the gas pump. What we found out and what
many have known is that 80 percent of the world's oil supplies are
controlled by governments. And they are not our Government. They are
controlled by government or government-owned companies.
I recently gave a speech to a group of oil producers. I talked about
petro nationalism and a growing concern in this country that the world
that supplies this portion of our oil can use their political muscle
but, more importantly, the valve on the pipeline of the oil supply, to
determine the kind of politics and international relations they want to
have with us, knowing how we have become so dependent upon that supply.
I hope we continue to focus on supply and availability instead of
doing what some are saying we are going to do. We are going to punish
the oil companies because they are making too much money. We are going
to tax them, and we are going to tax the consumer because somehow that
will produce more oil? No, no, no. That is politics, folks. That is,
plain and simply, big-time politics, to show the consumer you are
macho, that somehow you will knock down the big boys who supply the
oil.
Ask the questions, if you are a consumer: Will that keep oil at the
pump? Will that keep gas available to me? Will that produce more gas to
bring down the price? Those are the legitimate questions that ought to
be answered when the leadership of the new Senate says: No, we will
muscle up to the big boys and knock 'em down because somehow they may
be price gouging. Yet investigation after investigation after
investigation suggests that is quite the opposite. That simply is not
happening.
Nowhere are they going to tell you in all of this political rhetoric
that I would hope would take us toward energy independence and a
greater sense of energy security in our country that the new deep wells
we are drilling in the gulf that produce or new oil supply could cost
upward of $1 billion a well in actual expenses before the oil begins to
flow out of that well and into the ships or into the pipelines that
take it to the refineries that ultimately put it in the pipeline that
get it to the consumers' pumps. And the issue goes on and on.
I hope that in this Congress, while some will want to play politics,
a good many will focus on the reality not only of what we have done,
which has been very successful in the last few years--and that is the
Energy Policy Act of 2005--but go on with the business of setting goals
and driving incentives that move us to energy independence. It is
phenomenally important we do that as a country. Long-term investment,
new technologies, clean sources of energy are going to become
increasingly important.
But more important is that we can stand as a Nation and say we are
independent of the political pressures of the Middle East or the
political pressures of Venezuela or the political pressures of Central
Europe and Russia, that now control the world's supply of oil. That is
what Americans ought to be asking our Congress at this time. Are you
going to ensure an increased supply? Are you going to ensure a greater
sense of independence by the reality of where our oil comes from?
This is not just an issue of oil. We know it is an issue of new
technology. It is an issue of cleanness. It is an issue of nonemitting
greenhouse gas sources of energy because today we are all about clean
energy. And we ought to be. Yet we understand the agenda for climate
change is going to be a punitive one, one that would obviously distort
a market's growth toward cleaner supplies. It is called cap and trade
or command and control instead of saying, yes, that is the old
technology. Now let's invest in new technologies. Instead of
penalizing, let's create the incentives that move toward new
technologies and let us then lay down the old. That is how we cause
America to become increasingly energy independent. I am talking climate
change.
The Speaker of the House yesterday did something very fascinating.
She couldn't get the climate change she wanted out of her own committee
so she has created a new select committee on climate change to be
headed up by Representative Ed Markey. I remember Representative Markey
over the years: All antinuclear, day after day, year after year. He
lost that battle. Americans said: You are not going to go there
anymore. You are going to start producing energy because it is clean.
Now he has been assigned a select committee on climate change.
Congressman Dingell, who chairs the appropriate committee, said
select
[[Page 1664]]
committees are about as useful as feathers on a fish. Congressman
Dingell gets it right.
What is useful, what is important in the argument of climate change,
is new technology, it is incentives, it is producing energy in today's
market that is, by any dimension, cleaner than what we produced in the
past. You do not penalize the producer, you incentivize the producer to
make sure that they move in the direction of clean energy. When you do
that, you also say, as we said in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and as
we sought to say again and again and again to the consumer, we are
going to provide you with the tools to conserve, to become more
efficient in your use of energy.
All of those things, in combination over the next 10 to 15 years,
clearly ought to allow this country to stand up and say we have
narrowed this gap; we are more independent as a Nation today in our
supply of energy than we were in 2007, and we are more independent
because our Government stood up, got out of the way, incentivized,
created those kinds of tools that the private sector could effectively
use for an ever-increasing supply of clean energy and that we, as
consumers, were given the tools to become more efficient in the use of
those clean supplies of energy.
I hope that ought to be and will become the mission of this new
Congress, not to play games with the politics they thought brought them
to power but to realize that the American consumer still is going to
ask that the gas pump be full of energy, that the light switch supplies
electricity in the morning and that, hopefully, it will come in a
cleaner form and it won't cost any more than it has cost in the past in
relation to cost of living and inflation.
Those are the realities of a marketplace that we ought to help, not
penalize. Is that politically wise to do? In the long run, it is very
politically wise to do because then America can stand on its own two
feet. It will not have to bow to the suppliers, such as Russia and the
Middle East, and to let a dictator in Venezuela jerk us around because
he has a major supply of oil. We can say: No, we supply our own. We are
independent. We have been responsible in doing so, and we did it in a
clean and diverse way.
It is a phenomenal challenge for us but a challenge that is important
to meet.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from
Georgia.
(The remarks of Mr. Isakson and Mr. Alexander pertaining to the
introduction of S. 330 are located in today's Record under ``Statements
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about energy, and I start
by reminding people, as well as my fellow Senators, that in August
2005, the President signed an energy bill that was very comprehensive--
probably tilted toward renewable fuels, such as ethanol, and toward
conservation, such as fuel cell cars, but also a small part of it was
some incentives for domestic fuel, petroleum production, for refining
and for distribution and for things of that nature.
It was a very comprehensive bill because we were concerned about the
price of gasoline. We were concerned about what working men and women
of America were having to pay. We were concerned about national
security. There were a lot of reasons for passing that bill.
But then you get into an election year, 2006, and the impression you
get from the election rhetoric is that we never had an energy policy,
never passed a bill, or what we did pass was only for the big oil
companies, and that there was no concern whatsoever about national
security, there was no concern on the part of the Senate, when we
passed that Energy Policy Act in 2005, about what many working men and
women were paying for gasoline and things of that nature.
And all of this rhetoric against it--or what was said about it, if
anybody wanted to admit we had an energy policy passed by Congress--was
that it was all for big oil. I wish to remind people that bill was
overwhelmingly bipartisan. But yet during the last campaign, one
political party talked all about giveaways to big oil, never talked
about ethanol, never talked about conservation, that it was an energy
bill that was just for big oil and for big corporations, making the
other political party out to be nothing but for big corporations, as
opposed to what our incentive was: to drive down the price of gasoline
and to have an adequate supply of gasoline and not be dependent so much
upon foreign sources of oil, which was our motivation.
So I am here, now that the House of Representatives is working on a
bill that deals with energy policy, and particularly to repeal what was
referred to in the last election as ``sweetheart tax deals for big
oil'' that were included in that Energy Policy Act of 2005, to say this
bill that we passed was very well balanced for ethanol, alternative
energy, conservation, with a small part of it for domestic oil
production, and how intellectually dishonest it is to refer to this
bill as a giveaway to big oil.
I will use some statistics to back up what I am referring to. At the
time we considered the Energy Policy Act of 2005, I was chairman of the
Senate Finance Committee because my party was in the majority. So I
played a central role in developing the tax title, along with my
colleague, Senator Baucus. So, in fact, it was a very bipartisan bill.
In fact, Senator Baucus and I produced, on a bipartisan basis, this
comprehensive tax package that included provisions to increase domestic
energy production, increase energy efficiency, and increase the
development of alternative and renewable energies.
On the whole, I think the effort was a success. All you have to do to
know it was a success is to look at the explosion in the building of
ethanol plants throughout the country--most of them in the Midwest but
throughout the country--as people are going to alternative energies,
renewable fuels now because ethanol is made from crops that are growing
from year to year. So I think the effort was very much a success, and
that is one small part of it being a success.
The Senate tax title was supported unanimously--I wish to emphasize
unanimously--because there, at that time, were 11 Republicans and 9
Democrats on the committee. It came out of our committee unanimously.
This bill, which during the last election was talked about as a
giveaway to big oil, came out of our committee unanimously and
eventually passed the Senate 85 to 15. And the conference agreement,
ironing out the differences between the House and the Senate, passed by
a margin of 74 to 26.
So throughout the whole process it was bipartisan, that this was the
answer to the energy problems facing the Nation--not that it was the
end-all and be-all, but it was a very comprehensive effort and a
successful effort to solve the energy problems of our Nation.
The entire tax package that was in this bill, the Energy Policy Act
of 2005, had a budget score of $11.1 billion over 10 years.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, $2.6
billion or 18 percent of the package was for oil and gas production,
refining, and distribution. Distribution isn't always by the big oil
companies. So 18 percent--that is why I said our bill, passed in 2005,
signed by the President, was overwhelmingly tilted toward renewable
fuels and toward conservation, not toward domestic petroleum
production. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax title
of the Energy Policy Act actually raised taxes on oil and gas companies
by at least $224 million.
Understand, this was described in the last election as a giveaway to
big oil. Yet nonpartisan staff said that oil and gas companies ended up
paying $224 million in new taxes. In the last election, the tax title
was characterized as tax giveaways to big oil, anywhere from $9 billion
to $14 billion. How do you get $14 billion, if you want to say it was
100 percent for big oil instead of 18 percent? How can you say a bill
that was scored at $11.1 billion could end up being a giveaway of $14
billion? It doesn't add up. And figures don't lie.
[[Page 1665]]
At a time of record high gas prices last year, the other side accused
the Republican majority of failure of leadership. They said it was time
to rewrite the Energy bill and stop the billion dollar tax giveaways
for big oil, the same kind of misleading insinuations I have been
referring to on another issue they had in the last campaign, about the
fact that we ought to negotiate with drug companies to get prescription
drug prices down, when we are already doing that, as I pointed out in
some speeches last week. For the 24 most-used drugs by seniors, the
plans that are negotiating with the drug companies have negotiated
prices down an average of 35 percent.
Getting back to energy, during the same campaign cycle, Members on
the other side sold the taxpayers a bill of goods. They committed to
repealing all the tax giveaways to big oil that the Republican Congress
included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which ended up with $224
million more coming in from oil and gas. With the results of the
November election, I presume they believe they were given a mandate
from the voters to take away all of those ``tax giveaways''--the words
they used--in that bill. We heard the arguments over and over, both
here on the Senate floor and across the country on the campaign trail.
But now that the debt has come due, it is time for the new Democratic
majority to deliver on their promises to the American people. So what
have they come up with to repeal? How much money are they going to take
back from big oil to alleviate consumer pain at the pump? Just one
provision--that is right, one provision.
After all the demagoguery against our party and the Energy bill that
passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, supposedly because of
ties to big oil, are they accusing the Democrats who voted for it of
ties to big oil as well? And they are going to repeal what? One single
tax provision enacted in the Energy Policy Act signed by the President
in August of 2005. Of course, that is only half the story. It turns out
this outrageous ``tax giveaway'' to big oil is scored by the
Congressional Budget Office to save the U.S. Treasury $104 million over
10 years, not the $14 billion that was the outside figure used during
the campaign, not $1.4 billion but $104 million.
I am a family farmer from New Hartford, IA. I know $104 million is
still a lot of money. But it turns out to be less than 1 percent of the
entire package of the energy tax incentives included in that Energy
Policy Act that came out of my committee on a unanimous vote, all
Republicans and all Democrats, and passed the Senate in an
overwhelmingly bipartisan manner. So in a desperate attempt to increase
the size of the tax penalty on domestic oil and gas producers, they
have also included the repeal of the oil and gas industry's eligibility
for the manufacturing income tax deduction. That is not just for oil
and gas; that is for all manufacturing in America. This was another
bill, in 2004, that passed overwhelmingly with a bipartisan majority.
The American JOBS Creation Act of 2004 was a new law supported by 69
Senators--that is bipartisan--that contained far-reaching measures to
revive the manufacturing base in America because of outsourcing.
We did that by cutting taxes so that the cost of capital is
competitive with the cost of capital overseas, so we don't lose jobs
overseas. We also created incentives for people to invest in the United
States instead of investing overseas. It devoted tax benefits to
American manufacturers in the form of a 3-percentage-point rate cut
subject to the payment of wages to their employees. If they didn't hire
more people, they didn't get the benefit. Remember, it was called the
Americans JOBS Creation Act. This manufacturing tax cut goes to large
and small corporations, family-held S corporations, partnerships, sole
proprietors, family farmers, and cooperatives. If you manufacture here,
you get the tax cut here. If you manufacture overseas, you don't get
the tax cut. It was only for manufacturing in the United States, and it
was only for U.S. manufacturers that paid employees' wages. It was not
for manufacturing offshore and it was not for folks who only
manufacture and hire overseas.
In defining U.S. domestic manufacturing, Congress included in the
definition all things that are extracted or grown, including what the
family farmers grow. That means that all domestic minerals and the
people who produce domestic minerals receive benefits. And that would
include extraction of domestic--meaning here in America--oil and gas
and the production of products made out of our own oil and gas.
It seems very strange to me that if you want to become less dependent
upon foreign oil, the first thing you would do, in your first 100 days
being in the majority for the first time in 12 years, is to increase
the taxes by 3 percentage points on domestic production of oil and gas,
which was part of the American JOBS Creation Act of 2004, which passed
in a bipartisan majority in the Senate.
In addition, the House proposal also increases the taxes on all
refinery products. That means your home heating oil and your farmer's
diesel used to run the machines that harvest the crops. In addition,
fertilizer is a primary product of natural gas, so midwestern family
farmers are going to be hurt and not helped by any of this proposal.
That is what is coming out of the other body to this body to consider.
Maybe because it is represented by so many people from the big cities
of America, they don't realize food grows on farms. It doesn't grow in
a supermarket. Maybe they don't realize what they are doing to the
American farmer. But we don't need the cost of our anhydrous ammonia,
which last summer was $550 a ton compared to about $250 a ton 2 years
ago--so we have fertilizer to grow our crops--to be driven up still
more.
In the 100 days of the new majority, this is what they are doing to
the American consumer, the American farmer. All of this in the new
House majority so they can rewrite and adopt a campaign promise to cut
tax benefits to big oil. It is an example of a problem they made up
that now they have to deliver on. In the process, they are going to
hurt the family farmers, hurt the consumers, and cut out one of the
things this body adopted in the JOBS Creation Act of 2004, to create
manufacturing jobs in America, incentives to invest in America so that
we don't have outsourcing.
If they wanted to get back at Exxon--that is big oil, if there ever
was big oil--they missed the mark. The people who produce here in the
United States are the same people you go to church with and your kids
see in school. If you want to become more dependent upon foreign oil,
then you should be happy with this proposal coming out of the first 100
days of the new majority in the new House of Representatives. If you
want to create incentives for the production of U.S. lower 48 domestic
oil and gas, then this quite obviously is the wrong policy, all for a
campaign gimmick, all for campaign pandering. That is not right, to
teach the family farmers and the consumers of America, who are already
paying enough for their prices and are suffering from high energy
costs, to do more by taking away this 3-percent point tax incentive we
gave for investment in America to create jobs in America. If it is made
in America, you get the benefit of it. If it is made overseas, you
don't get the benefit.
Granted, there were also three provisions relating to royalty relief
that were included in their bill. Two were included in the bipartisan
Energy Policy Act, and one seeks to remedy an error caused by the
Clinton administration bureaucrats in the Interior Department of 10
years ago. I will leave those discussions to the people who are best
prepared to answer those, my colleagues on the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, who have jurisdiction and expertise in this area.
I also point out to my colleagues and constituents that I am not
beholden to big oil or the energy industry. In the years I have been in
the Senate, I have battled big oil, because they hate renewable fuels
that we call ethanol. They don't want you burning anything in your gas
tank that doesn't come out of their oil wells. They don't want you
burning in your gas tank those things
[[Page 1666]]
that come off the farmers' fields in the way of corn from which we make
ethanol, also for all of the sorts of things that they don't like, what
we call energy conservation and forcing electric utilities to use
renewable portfolio standards within the industry. I have supported
biodiesel. I have supported ethanol. I have supported renewable
portfolio standards--all things that big corporations in America don't
like. But we have been successful in doing it.
I have relentlessly chased the bad players in the petroleum industry
at all levels, both legal and illegal. As chairman of the Senate
Finance Committee, we closed over $10 billion in tax provisions that
the President signed into law, shutting down fuel fraud and folks
stealing fuel excise taxes from the Highway Trust Fund. These are real
provisions, collecting $10 billion of taxes that were evaded that will
no longer be evaded.
So what are the facts concerning the track record of the previous
Congress and the President of the United States on energy policy and
promoting renewable and alternative energy, and what is wrong with the
rhetoric of the last campaign that led people to believe it was
something different than we ended up passing? We extended and expanded
the production tax credit for electricity produced from renewable
sources such as wind, biomass, geothermal, and landfill gas. We enacted
tax credits for the purchase of hybrid fuel cells and advanced lean
burn diesel vehicles. We enacted incentives for the production and use
of ethanol and biodiesel and the infrastructure to dispense that fuel.
The distinguished Presiding Officer contributed the idea behind doing
that, so we would set up more biodiesel pumps at stations through the
30-percent tax credit that the Senator from Illinois thought of. I
thank him for that idea. I was very happy to work with him on that.
That is the distinguished Presiding Officer. We enacted the first ever
renewable fuel standard for ethanol and biodiesel that has led to
fantastic growth in the industry.
With regard to energy efficiency, we enacted incentives for
efficiency improvement for new and existing homes and commercial
buildings and for energy-efficient home appliances.
According to the clock in the other body, we are still somewhere
within the first 100 days of the new Democratic majority, and again we
see another example of legislative action not living up to campaign
rhetoric. A word of caution to voters across America: Beware of the
goods that you might be sold during an election. That applies to both
Republicans and Democrats as far as I am concerned. In the case of
repealing the ``big oil tax giveaways''--those are words used in the
last election--from the Energy Policy Act, it turns out in fact to be a
pig in a poke.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, we are debating an important piece of
legislation. The American people are rightly frustrated with the
process Congress uses to consider. That is to say, it is not done in
the light of day and with full transparency. They believe lobbyists
have too much influence on this institution. Last year, we tried to
pass a lobbying reform bill to help clean up some of the ways that we
do legislation around here. We were not able to come to an agreement
between the House and Senate, so there is another effort underway this
year.
I think this legislation is very important. Republicans support
reform. We have been offering relative amendments to make Congress more
accountable to the American people. More transparent. These amendments
will address the problems that have existed for some time. The
majority, however, is trying to end the debate on this bill. They are
not willing to let the Senate consider some very important amendments
that will improve how Congress handles the people's business. I will
mention a couple of my own amendments to this legislation in just a
moment. I would say that the majority would be right to cut off debate,
if Republicans were strictly trying to obstruct passage of this bill.
Then their parliamentary move would, I agree, be appropriate. But the
minority is not being obstructionist. We have legitimate amendments
that deserve to be debated and voted on. Senators deserve to be heard.
It is not right for the majority to try to railroad this piece of
legislation through this body without giving Members their right to
have amendments debated. Particularly when those amendments are not
being used as a delaying tactic. I simply do not believe that is the
way this institution should be run. That is why, last night, 45
Senators voted against what is called cloture. That would have brought
debate to a close and would have brought any attempt to improve this
legislation to a close.
Let me give you two examples of legitimate amendments that have been
offered and why they are important to be debated and voted on.
The first amendment I want to talk about addresses provisions where
this bill falls short, particularly with respect to transparency and to
allow the American people to observe how this Congress operates.
Section 102 of this bill is an example of where the bill falls short. I
commend the authors of the legislation for including this section. The
intent is to stop the conferees from putting unrelated pieces of
legislation in a conference report. Too often in the past conferees
have inserted provisions in the conference that were completely
unrelated to the bill. This simply is not the way the Congress should
be legislating. The Senate should not bypass the regular legislative
process. When we do, it means we are passing legislation, in some
cases, without even holding a hearing. This process also denies
Senators the opportunity to debate and offer amendments to improve
unrelated provisions. But the most offensive part of this is that it is
done outside of the public's view.
In a democracy such as ours, Congress should do its business in the
full light of day. The entire Senate should consider, debate, and amend
legislation in full view of the American public. I often hear from
constituents who have concerns about legislation we are debating on the
Senate floor. That feedback has always been important to me. I have
always appreciated Nevadans who have taken the time to participate in
the legislative process. So when we insert unrelated matters into a
conference report, we deny the American people the chance to observe
what we are doing, to participate in that process, and to be heard.
That is why I fully support the intent of section 102 of the bill
because the intent is to fix that which is broken.
In my review of this section, and after consulting with the Senate
Parliamentarian's Office, I don't believe that the current language in
this bill will work. This section will not change what we are saying
needs to be changed. What do I mean? First and foremost, section 102
states that a Senator may object to a conference report that contains
provisions that were not considered by the House or the Senate. That
sounds good. As written, this sentence reads how rule XXVIII actually
operates; that is to say that the point of order is raised against the
entire conference report and not the offending provision or
objectionable item in a conference report.
While the intent of section 102 is to allow a Senator to object to a
single provision that is added into the bill, the bill is not written
to allow that. My amendment makes it clear that the point of order is
to be raised against an individual item that is in the conference
report and not the conference report itself. In other words, this
small, simple change is absolutely critical to the process because if
you want to strip something out of the bill, without my amendment you
cannot strip a single provision out of the bill. You raise a point of
order and it brings the entire conference report down. Why is that
important? Well, let me tell you why it is important.
For instance, we had a port security bill last year. There was an
unrelated item put into the port security bill. There may have been
objections to that item, but if one had raised the point of order, it
would have brought the whole port security bill down. Nobody wanted to
do that. It was an important piece of legislation. Without
[[Page 1667]]
my amendment, that is the way we would continue to operate.
But that is not what section 102 in this bill states. Its intent is
to be able to surgically go in and cut out a piece that is added in the
dead of night, behind closed doors, in a conference report--the types
of things that, frankly, most Americans find objectionable. So this is
one of the reasons that we should not be passing this legislation until
the Senate has carefully considered each provision of this bill. We
should allow for amendments to go forward, to be debated. We should
make sure that we get things in this bill right before it leaves the
Senate, so that when it is joined with the House's bill, we have done
the best possible job to ensure that we cleaned up the way we do our
business.
I have another amendment that I want to talk about. This illustrates
the other important point of why it is important to allow Senators to
have their time with amendments.
The minority--the Republicans in the Senate--want legitimate
amendments to improve this legislation. I believe we should have the
right to offer those amendments.
The second amendment I want to talk about is to ensure that our men
and women in the military, those serving in harm's way, remain our top
budget priority. I want to speak about protecting defense spending from
being raided and used for nondefense purposes.
Over the past several years, there have been several congressional
scandals that have undermined public confidence in government. It is my
sincere hope that this legislation before us will be the first of many
steps to restore that confidence. The message to both parties last
November was that Congress has to change the way we operate. The
American people will no longer accept some of the practices of the
past, nor should they. It is up to this body to change our practices,
to reform how Congress does the people's business. We should ensure
that our dealings are transparent, that we are accountable, and that we
are honest with the American people.
The tradition of America is that we rise to the occasion. Americans
have a history of meeting the challenges that we face together. Each
generation has met obstacles and overcome them. For Congress's part, we
must be honest and straightforward with the American people about the
nature of the challenges facing our Nation.
Unfortunately, in some respects, Congress has not lived up to its end
of the bargain. We have been using sleight of hand and budget gimmicks
to mask our out-of-control spending habits. Over the past 5 years,
Congress has been underfunding defense in the regular appropriations
process in order to shift some of those funds into what are called
other discretionary programs that are nondefense items.
The game being played, with a wink and a nod, is that if we underfund
defense in the regular appropriations process, we will then make
defense whole with what are called emergency supplemental bills. In
some instances, Congress has shifted as much as $11.5 billion from
defense to nondefense spending in just 1 single year. We know that
emergency spending has increased substantially in each of the last 5
years.
I have a chart to illustrate this. In the years 1990 to 1993, under
the first President Bush, we had a total of $115 billion in emergency
supplementals. During the Clinton administration, the total was just
about the same, $115 billion. Since President Bush has been in office,
there have been a total of $585 billion in emergency supplementals.
Now, we have had 9/11, Katrina, and we have had the war against Islamic
extremists around the world, including the wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq, that account for most of that spending but not for all of it.
This increased reliance on supplementals coincides exactly with the
same time period in which defense has been underfunded. The effects of
this gimmick are not felt just in 1 year either. Because of the way we
do budgeting, called baseline budgeting, money that is shifted from
defense in 1 year is really a permanent shift in funding. And, as a
result, a $1 billion shift represents not only a shift of $1 billion
this year, but that is put in the baseline next year and adds up
cumulatively in perpetuity.
Let me point out exactly how this works and illustrate it. In 2002,
$1.9 billion in new spending was shifted from the Department of
Defense. That new spending is built into the baseline in the next year.
The green part of the graph is from the previous year. The red part on
top of that is the amount that defense was underfunded and shifted into
other programs that year. Take that and shift it into the next year,
and on and on, where we have a total of 4 years later built into the
baseline the $29 billion that we have shifted from defense into other
programs. That is one of the reasons spending is out of control in
Washington, DC. What was labeled as defense spending is not spent on
defense and is then being made up in supplemental appropriations bills.
Which is a clever way to disguise increased spending in other places.
People in Washington have talked about spending around here. They say
we have held the line on spending, except for defense-related items.
That is not true. We have actually been playing a smoke and mirrors
game, and this chart illustrates that.
I believe what we are doing is not honest with the American people,
and we have the annual budget deficits as a result of that. I mentioned
before that it is important for us to be able to offer amendments. I
would not be able to offer an amendment if cloture is invoked on this
bill, and we should not cut off debate. This would be considered a
nongermane amendment. It would not survive cloture, even though the
point of this bill is to require legislative transparency. We are
trying to make Congress' actions transparent and to clean up the budget
process, however, the majority is trying to cut off debate on these
critical reforms.
I am going to have one last chart to demonstrate the effect of this
budget gimmick. The total effect of underfunding defense and playing
this game has cost the American people. This last chart, when one
totals the cost of this gimmick up, is $84 billion. We have shifted $84
billion by using these budget gimmicks. $84 billion that was shifted
from defense to nondefense programs. Then we backfill the defense
accounts with supplemental appropriations.
We need to have honest budgeting around this place. We need to be
honest with the American people. If we are going to appropriate money
for defense, let's do it for defense. If it has to be for some other
program, let's be honest with the American people and stop playing
these budget gimmick games.
If we are going to have transparency in Government, we should have
transparency in Government. Accountability in government. That is what
this bill is supposed to be about. It is what we are telling the
American people that we intend to do. This amendment, along with the
one I discussed earlier, are very important to ensure that we end the
games and that we end the gimmicks. This amendment ensures that we tell
the truth to the American people.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. PRYOR. 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. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maine.
____________________
OFFICE OF PUBLIC INTEGRITY
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, last night the Senate voted not to invoke
cloture on the ethics and lobbying reform legislation we have been
considering for the past couple of weeks. I come to the floor this
morning to explain why I voted to continue debate on this bill to
which, as the Presiding Officer knows, I am very committed
[[Page 1668]]
and have worked very hard on in the past Congress.
First, then, let me emphasize that I remain committed to passing a
strong lobbying reform and ethics bill. I have said before and I will
repeat that before we can conduct the business of the people of this
country, it is important that we reform our practices.
We need to strengthen the lobbying rules and the ethics rules to
increase disclosure and to ban practices that might call into question
the integrity of the decisions we make.
We need to assure the American people that the decisions we make are
in their interests, that they are not tainted by undue influence or
influence by special interests.
The underlying bill, S. 1, is the same bill that last year was the
bipartisan product of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, which I was privileged to chair. It is a good
bill and it remains a good bill.
Over the past week and a half, we have debated and voted on
amendments that have further improved the legislation before us, and
the Senate is making good progress. However, as much progress as we
have made, this bill has not reached the point where we should invoke
cloture and cut off debate.
Some observers of the Senate may not understand that invoking cloture
means that all amendments to this bill that are not germane can no
longer be considered. The term and test for germaneness severely limits
the types of amendments that can be considered, and many of these
amendments--although they are not technically germane to the bill--are
nevertheless very relevant to the bill. And perhaps the most important
of these amendments is the Collins-Lieberman amendment that would
create an Office of Public Integrity.
I know the Presiding Officer has been a strong supporter of an Office
of Public Integrity as well, as has the Senator from Arizona, Mr.
McCain. The four of us have worked very hard on that concept.
I strongly believe we will have failed our test of producing a truly
strong and complete ethics bill if we leave out the enforcement angle,
if we do not create an Office of Public Integrity to conduct impartial,
independent investigations of allegations against Members of Congress.
The other provisions of this bill are very important and very good,
but we cannot ignore the enforcement piece. We need an Office of Public
Integrity.
I realize that leaders on both sides of the aisle disagree with me on
this issue. I realize I am not likely to prevail. But surely we deserve
a vote. But if we invoke cloture before there is a vote on the
amendment that Senator Lieberman, the Senator from Illinois and the
Senator from Arizona and I have offered, our amendment will fall. It
will not pass the strict germaneness test, even though it clearly is
relevant to the underlying bill. I think that is wrong. I think we
deserve a vote on the Office of Public Integrity. People feel strongly
on both sides about this issue. It doesn't break down along party
lines. As I said, the two leaders of the Senate are both opposed to the
concept. But surely they ought to give us a vote. That is all I am
asking. Let's have the Senate go on record on whether this independent
office should be included in this bill.
I wish to make sure, since there was a lot of debate about this last
year, that everyone understands the key role that the Ethics Committee
would continue to play. All the Office of Public Integrity would do is
to handle the investigative stage. It would still be up to the Ethics
Committee to make critical decisions on whether to proceed with the
case. The Ethics Committee would decide what is reported publicly. The
Ethics Committee would decide whether action to penalize a Member
should be taken. It would be the Ethics Committee that would still have
tremendous authority in this whole process, but it would be combined
with this independent Office of Public Integrity that would ensure an
impartial investigation of allegations and, thus, would help restore
public confidence in our ethics system. Isn't that what this debate is
all about? It is about restoring public confidence that the decisions
we are making are made in the best interests of the American people. I
believe that an ethics bill without the Office of Public Integrity is
an incomplete response to the concerns so clearly expressed by the
American people in the elections last fall.
Again, the underlying bill is a good bill. It is essentially the bill
that was reported by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee last year. We have made it even better with some of the
amendments we have adopted. Let's complete the task. Let's go the rest
of the way down the road. Let's create an Office of Public Integrity.
But if it is the will of this body not to create an Office of Public
Integrity, the American people deserve to know that also.
So I want a vote. I am not going to vote to cut off debate on this
bill until we get a vote on the Office of Public Integrity. The
American people deserve to know where every Member of this body stands
on this important issue. There are different views. There are
legitimate views both for and against the office, but we deserve a vote
on this issue.
Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. OBAMA. 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. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted
to speak for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
IRAQ
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly on what is a
roiling debate not only in the Senate but across the country and that
is the President's policy with respect to Iraq. There are countless
reasons the American people have lost confidence in the President's
Iraq policy, but chief among them has been the administration's
insistence on making promises and assurances about progress and victory
that do not appear to be grounded in the reality of the facts. We have
been told we would be greeted as liberators. We have been promised the
insurgency was in its last throes. We have been assured again and again
that we are making progress and that the Iraqis would soon stand up so
we could stand down and our brave sons and daughters could start coming
home. We have been asked to wait, we have been asked to be patient, and
we have been asked to give the President and the new Iraqi Government 6
more months and then 6 more months after that and then 6 more months
after that.
Now, after the loss of more than 3,000 American lives, after spending
almost $400 billion after Iraq has descended into civil war, we have
been promised, once again, that the President's plan to escalate the
war in Iraq will, this time, be well planned, well coordinated, and
well supported by the Iraqi Government. This time, we didn't have to
wait to find out that none of this seems to be the case. Already,
American military officials have told the New York Times that there is
no clear chain of command between Iraqis and U.S. commanders and no
real indication that the Iraqis even want such a partnership.
Yesterday, Prime Minister al-Maliki, the person whom the President said
had brought this plan to us, the man who is supposed to be our partner
in chief for this new plan, told foreign journalists that if the United
States would only give his Army better weapons and equipment, our
soldiers could go home.
The President's decision to move forward with this escalation anyway,
despite all evidence and military advice to the contrary, is the
terrible consequence of the decision to give him the broad, open-ended
authority to wage this war back in 2002. Over 4 years later, we can't
revisit that decision or reverse some of the tragic outcomes, but what
we can do is make sure we
[[Page 1669]]
provide the kind of oversight and constraints on the President this
time that we failed to do the last time.
I cannot in good conscience support this escalation. It is a policy
which has already been tried and a policy which has failed. Just this
morning, I had veterans of the Iraq war visit my office to explain to
me that this surge concept is, in fact, no different from what we have
repeatedly tried, but with 20,000 troops we will not in any imaginable
way be able to accomplish any new progress.
The fact is that we have tried this road before. In the end, no
amount of American forces can solve the political differences that lie
at the heart of somebody else's civil war. As the President's own
military commanders have said, escalation only prevents the Iraqis from
taking more responsibility for their own future. It is even eroding our
efforts in the wider war on terror as some of the extra soldiers will
come directly from Afghanistan where the Taliban has become resurgent.
The President has offered no evidence that more U.S. troops will be
able to pressure Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds toward the necessary
political settlement, and he has attached no consequences to his plan
should the Iraqis fail to make progress. In fact, just last week, when
I repeatedly asked Secretary Rice what would happen if the Iraqi
Government failed to meet the benchmarks the President has called for
and says are an integral part of their rationale for escalation, she
couldn't give me an answer. When I asked her if there were any
circumstances whatsoever in which we would tell the Iraqis that their
failure to make progress means the end of our military commitment, she
could not give me an answer. This is simply not good enough. When you
ask how many more months and how many more dollars and how many more
lives it will take to end the policy that everyone now knows has not
succeeded, ``I don't know'' isn't good enough.
Over the past 4 years, we have given this administration every chance
to get this right, and they have disappointed us many times. But
ultimately it is our brave men and women in uniform and their families
who bear the greatest burden for these mistakes. They have performed in
an exemplary fashion. At no stage have they faltered in the mission
that has been presented to them.
Unfortunately, the strategy, the tactics, and the mission itself have
been flawed. That is why Congress now has the duty to prevent even more
mistakes and bring this war to a responsible end. That is why I plan to
introduce legislation which I believe will stop the escalation of this
war by placing a cap on the number of soldiers in Iraq. I wish to
emphasize that I am not unique in taking this approach. I know Senator
Dodd has crafted similar legislation. Senator Clinton, I believe,
yesterday indicated she shared similar views. The cap would not affect
the money spent on the war or on our troops, but it would write into
law that the number of U.S. forces in Iraq should not exceed the number
that were there on January 10, 2007, the day the President announced
his escalation policy.
This measure would stop the escalation of the war in Iraq, but it is
my belief that simply opposing the surge is not good enough. If we
truly believe the only solution in Iraq is a political one--and I
fervently believe that--if we believe a phased redeployment of U.S.
forces in Iraq is the best--perhaps only--leverage we have to force a
settlement between the country's warring factions, then we should act
on that. That is why the second part of my legislation is a plan for
phased redeployment that I called for in a speech in Chicago 2 months
ago. It is a responsible plan that protects American troops without
causing Iraq to suddenly descend into chaos. The President must
announce to the Iraqi people that, within 2 to 4 months, under this
plan, U.S. policy will include a gradual and substantial reduction in
U.S. forces. The President should then work with our military
commanders to map out the best plan for such a redeployment and
determine precise levels and dates.
Drawing down our troops in Iraq will put pressure on Iraqis to arrive
at the political settlement that is needed and allow us to redeploy
additional troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region, as well
as bring some back home. The forces redeployed elsewhere in the region
could then help to prevent the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider
war, something that every international observer is beginning to worry
about. It will also reassure our allies in the gulf. It will allow our
troops to strike directly at al-Qaida wherever it may exist and
demonstrate to international terrorist organizations that they have not
driven us from the region.
My plan would couple this phased redeployment with an enhanced effort
to train Iraqi security forces and would expand the number of our
personnel--especially special forces--who are deployed with Iraqis as
unit advisers and would finally link continued economic aid in Iraq
with the existence of tangible progress toward reducing sectarian
violence and reaching a political settlement.
One final aspect of this plan that I believe is critical is it would
call for the engagement by the United States of a regional conference
with other countries that are involved in the Middle East--particularly
our allies but including Syria and Iran--to find a solution to the war
in Iraq. We have to realize that neither Iran nor Syria wants to see
the security vacuum in Iraq filled with chaos, terrorism, refugees, and
violence, as it could have a destabilizing effect throughout the entire
region and within their own countries. So as odious as the behavior of
those regimes may be at times, it is important that we include them in
a broader conversation about how we can stabilize Iraq.
In closing, let me say this: I have been a consistent and strong
opponent of this war. I have also tried to act responsibly in that
opposition to ensure that, having made the decision to go into Iraq, we
provide our troops, who perform valiantly, the support they need to
complete their mission. I have also stated publicly that I think we
have both strategic interests and humanitarian responsibilities in
ensuring that Iraqi is as stable as possible under the circumstances.
Finally, I said publicly that it is my preference not to micromanage
the Commander in Chief in the prosecution of war. Ultimately, I do not
believe that is the ideal role for Congress to play. But at a certain
point, we have to draw a line. At a certain point, the American people
have to have some confidence that we are not simply going down this
blind alley in perpetuity.
When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and
assurances, for waiting and patience is over. Too many lives have been
lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the
President on another tried-and-failed policy, opposed by generals and
experts, opposed by Democrats and Republicans, opposed by Americans and
even the Iraqis themselves. It is time to change our policy. It is time
to give Iraqis their country back, and it is time to refocus America's
effort on the wider struggle against terror yet to be won.
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. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business
for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
DRUG BARGAINING POWER
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, we all understand there has been an awful
lot of heated rhetoric about this issue of Medicare and negotiating
drug prices and how much savings will come about for the consumer.
[[Page 1670]]
I and the distinguished senior Senator from Maine have been working
for well over 3 years, in a bipartisan way, on this issue. I and
Senator Snowe have been able to come up with an approach for dealing
with this issue, helping the seniors of this country, helping the
taxpayers of this country, and lowering the temperature of the debate
about prescription drugs by showing how Medicare can be a smart shopper
without setting up some kind of big Government price control regime.
Throughout this discussion over the last 3 years, Senator Snowe and I
have repeatedly put into the legislation that we have brought to the
Senate a strict prohibition on establishing any kind of price control
regime or any kind of uniform formulary, which is essentially a list of
drugs that restricts the choices for those involved--seniors or anyone
else.
What Senator Snowe and I have tried to do is lower the temperature on
this issue, to try to zero in, in a bipartisan way, on the areas where
it is important for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to be in
a position of trying to have some negotiations to get a break for the
seniors and for the taxpayers. I will use those words specifically. We
are talking about what could be a negotiation--not going in with some
arbitrary price and throwing around figures of $1.20 a pill or
something like that. We are talking about the opportunity for our
Government to be a smart shopper, while steering clear of any price
control regime. By the way, I know this was an important issue for the
Presiding Officer as he campaigned to come here.
Senator Snowe and I voted for the Medicare prescription drug program.
I still have the welts on my back to show for it. But what Senator
Snowe and I said from the very outset, from the very time of the
original Senate debate, is we were going to go to work on a bipartisan
basis to try to fix those areas, such as the one identified by the
Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. We have
set out to do just that. And in 2004, the Congressional Budget Office
sent us a letter saying we were heading in the right direction.
Senator Snowe and I said from the beginning we have to make sure that
seniors and taxpayers get a good deal when we have what are called
single-source drugs, monopoly drugs. These are drugs where there isn't
any ability to have the kind of leverage and clout we would like to
have in the marketplace.
In 2004, the Congressional Budget Office sent me a letter that there
could be savings if negotiations were permitted on single-source drugs
for which there is no therapeutic equivalent. It is common sense, it
seems to me, when the Congressional Budget Office says there could be
savings in one kind of area, we would want to add that. The
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Finance, Senator Baucus,
puts it pretty well. Senator Baucus says: Why don't you add that to
your cost containment tool box? Senator Baucus has said what we need is
a variety of ways to hold down the cost--he calls it, in my view
correctly, a kind of tool-box approach to making sure seniors and
taxpayers get a good deal. What Senator Snowe and I have said is let's
make sure that tool box that Senator Baucus has been talking about zero
in on this question of single-source drugs, where we do need some
bargaining power.
There are some who have said the only possible way to have
negotiations is if you set up some kind of one-size-fits-all national
formulary. They say: The VA has one. Gosh, you all in the Senate would
not want to limit the drugs available to our country's seniors.
Let me make it clear what Senator Snowe and I are doing rejects that
approach. We are not talking about a nationwide formulary or some kind
of list of drugs that restricts seniors' choices.
By the way, when the former Secretary of Health and Human Services,
Tommy Thompson, felt it was important to do the kind of thing Senator
Snowe and I are talking about on the drug Cipro, Secretary Thompson did
not go out and set up a nationwide formulary. He didn't say: We are
going to say the price of the pill is $1.27. He did not set up some
kind of arbitrary price-control regime. Secretary Thompson, in his last
meeting with the press when he was leaving the Department, said he
wished he had the power to bargain under Medicare.
Secretary Thompson did exactly the kind of thing that I and Senator
Snowe have been talking about. He said we have to make sure that the
consumer and the taxpayers get a good deal for Cipro. Secretary
Thompson did not set up a nationwide formulary. Secretary Thompson did
not set up some price-control regime. Secretary Thompson did not say:
It is going to be $1.27 per pill. He said: Let's negotiate, let's talk,
let's go back and forth as everyone does in the marketplace in Rhode
Island, Oregon and everywhere else across the country. Let's ask: What
are we going to do to make sure that everyone gets a fair shake?
That situation, of course, was an emergency, because we had anthrax.
But as the Senator from Rhode Island has pointed out a number of times
over the last few months, for a lot of seniors, trying to afford
prescription medicine is kind of like having a new emergency every day.
Secretary Thompson said: Yes, we have a big emergency on this anthrax
situation. I think the Senator from Rhode Island knows exactly what I
see when I am home in Coos Bay, John Day, Pendleton, or Gresham,
Oregon, and everywhere else. For a lot of seniors in this country,
every day is an emergency with respect to being able to afford their
medicine. Those seniors ought to know that their Government, in the
case of the single-source drug, for example, where there is monopoly
power, can bargain in those kind of instances without price controls,
without a nationwide formulary. That is what Senator Snowe and I and
others, on a bipartisan basis, wish to stand up for--to help those
seniors and those taxpayers.
Now, some have argued that as seniors get a better deal for Medicare,
that means higher prices for everyone else. They, also, argue that
negotiations would not do anything. I don't know how one can make both
arguments at the same time and make sense. Those two do not connect.
What Senator Snowe and I wish to do is have a Medicare program that
is a smart, savvy shopper. By being a better shopper, seniors and
taxpayers are going to save. We know that no one goes to Costco and
buys toilet paper one roll at a time. They shop smart. We ought to do
that with Medicare.
I was pleased with last week's Committee on Finance hearing. Chairman
Baucus and others said it is valuable to have additional information to
know whether markets for drugs are achieving the best price possible. I
and Senator Snowe have been interested in that approach as well. We
know there are a variety of pharmacies out there that can offer cheaper
medicines to seniors without limiting the drugs available, and we find
it hard to believe that Medicare cannot do exactly the same thing. Let
us give Medicare the opportunity to do exactly the same thing that
people do in New Hampshire, Texas, and Rhode Island; that is, to shop
smart, look for a bargain, and don't set up nationwide price controls
and don't set up a nationwide formulary that restricts the kind of
drugs our seniors can get.
If we work in a bipartisan way, which is what Senator Snowe and I
have been trying to do on this issue for 3\1/2\ years, we can draw a
line that promotes smart shopping in Medicare without going over the
line to price controls and restrictive formularies. Let us try to lower
the temperature on this particular debate by looking at ways to shop
smart without price controls.
In 2004, the Congressional Budget Office said it would make a
difference in at least one key area I have been talking about today. I
believe it would make a difference in other key areas. I am looking
forward, as a member of the Senate Committee on Finance, to working
under the leadership of Chairman Baucus, on a bipartisan basis, to get
this issue resolved because, as the Presiding Officer of the Senate has
noted over these many months, this is
[[Page 1671]]
not an abstract issue for the people most involved. Those are seniors
walking on an economic tightrope. We don't know what will happen to
medical costs this year, but we can make sure we use every possible
opportunity without price controls to make the Medicare Program a smart
shopper.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business
for 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
IRAQ
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to talk a little bit about the
situation in Iraq and how we are trying to deal with this as a nation.
We need to start with, when we are discussing Iraq, what are our
national interests and why are we engaged there.
Our basic national interest in Iraq is the protection of America, our
desire to make sure that we are projecting our purposes in a way that
reduces the ability of those who would wish to do us harm in this war
against us, which was declared in the late 1990s, when it was obviously
brought to our shores on September 11, that in that war we are best
postured to make sure terrorists, specifically Islamic fundamentalists
who wish to do us harm, are not successful. That is the first purpose
of our engagement in Iraq.
The second purpose, of course, is to make sure our troops, who are
engaged in pursuing this war on the ground in Iraq, are adequately
funded and given the support they need in order to do their job and not
be exposed to risks which would occur were they not adequately funded
and supported.
It has been 5 years since we were attacked. That is the good news,
that we have not been attacked for 5 years. Obviously, some of that is
good fortune and luck, I suspect. But a lot of that is the result of a
policy which has essentially said we are going to find the terrorists
before they can find us, and we are going to bring them to justice. And
we are going to also try to initiate a process where we establish, in
the Middle East, an attitude that respects democracy, respects
individual rights, respects the rights of women, and respects the
approach of a marketplace economy.
In Iraq, we have attempted to accomplish that, and much has occurred
in Iraq that has been good, although, obviously, there is a lot there
that has occurred that has been unfortunate, and there have been
mistakes made. But the fact is, they have gone through major election
processes. They have elected a government. They have had a number of
elections, where a large percentage of the population participated.
Women have been allowed out of the household and are participating in
society.
It remains, however, a nation which is torn by religious strife and
cultural and deep ethnic differences. We have not been successful in
being able to resolve that and nor have the Iraqi people been able to
do that through their democratic process.
But the question becomes for us--in light of the President's request
that there be an increase of troops, called the surge, of potentially
20,000 troops, especially concentrated in the Baghdad area, to try to
bring more stability to that region--how do we approach this as we move
down the road?
Well, I think we have to, as we approach this, keep in context what
is our goal. Our goal is to protect us--America--from attacks by
radical fundamental Islamic movements and individuals, terrorists
specifically, and to make sure our troops, who are in the field, are
adequately protected and have the support they need in order to do
their job correctly.
A precipitous, immediate pullout, which is the proposal that has come
from the other side in a number of different scenarios, would, I
suspect, lead to a number of results which would not be acceptable to
us and would undermine our basic purpose, which is to protect America
from further attack and to protect our soldiers who are in the field
protecting us.
How do you manage a precipitous pullout that does not immediately
lead to chaos in Iraq, where the sectarian and religious violence has
escalated dramatically, where the potential that a client state of Iran
will be set up, at least over a portion of Iraq, where safe havens will
occur and result for al-Qaida in other portions of Iraq, and where even
greater numbers of people--even though that may seem hard to
understand--but where even greater numbers of people may die in Iraq,
where a massive civil war, potentially in catastrophic proportions in
relation to the population there, will precipitate?
I do not see how you avoid those occurrences if you immediately
withdraw. An immediate withdrawal also leads to the issue of what
happens to the troops who are left behind. You cannot get 130,000
troops out of Iraq overnight. It is going to take, even under the
scenario laid out here by the Democratic leadership, 8 to 12 months to
accomplish that. And if you are doing that in a compressed time--as is
proposed by the recent language that has been put forward by some of
our colleagues--if you compress that time, you are going to leave some
troops behind at significant risk, much more significant risk than if
they have the support mechanisms they need in order to do the job
right.
Is the surge the right approach? Is this concept of 20,000 troops
going to resolve this? Is that going to lead us to an Iraq that is more
stable? I do not know the answer to that question. I have deep
reservations that that is going to accomplish that goal. I have to
admit, I suspect if we are able to stabilize certain sections of
Baghdad, divided into nine districts, as is proposed--stabilize them in
sequence or in parallel--that as you stabilize one district, you are
going to push the people who are causing the problems into another
place. It is not as if they are going to disappear or even probably be,
for the most part, corralled. They are simply going to move.
So I am not sure it is going to accomplish its goal. But I do know
this: It is the proposal put forward by the people who are on the
ground and to whom we have given the responsibility of trying to
address this issue of how you deal with an Iraq in the context of the
problems which it has. To take the other option is to lead inevitably
to a dramatic problem that will be immediate, both for us as a nation,
because it will give potentially safe haven to al-Qaida and create an
Iran client state, and it will also lead to what I suspect would be a
huge explosion in the area of civil war.
So although I have reservations, I, also, am not about to vote to cut
off the support for the troops who are in the field. Now, I do not
command those troops. I am a Senator. I am not the commander of the
troops. The President is Commander in Chief. He has literally the
unilateral authority to pursue this course of action, unless we vote as
a Senate to cut off funding. And the practical implications of us doing
that would mean that troops in the field would not have the money they
need in order to undertake their own protection. That would be the
result of us cutting off funds.
That is a vote I am never going to take or support because the first
obligation we have is to those soldiers who are in the field. You may
disagree with the Commander in Chief's position, but I do not think
that as people who are charged with the responsibility of funding the
troops in the field, that you take that disagreement to the point of
putting them at risk. So that would not be a vote that I think would be
a good vote for us, as a Congress, to take.
But it appears to me--listening to the debate as it has evolved
here--there are some who wish to have it sort of both ways. They want
to be able to say one thing but not do what they say. I almost am of
the view that we should engage this at the level of substance, and we
should have that vote. I am not going to vote for it, but we should
have that vote. We should say: OK, if it is the position of the
Democratic Party that they want to cut off funds to the troops in the
field, if they feel that should be the course of action, so be it.
[[Page 1672]]
I happen to be attracted, more appropriately, or more positively, to
the proposals of the Iraq Study Group. I think they have laid out a
blueprint for us to pursue. I am not sure that is going to lead to
anything that fundamentally resolves the problem in Iraq, as the
problem in Iraq is religious and it is ethnic and it is cultural and it
goes back a long way. But at least they have laid out a roadmap. I will
not use that word because that word, obviously, has other implications.
They have laid out a blueprint we can pursue and I believe we should
pursue.
I, for example, think we should engage both Iran and Syria in
diplomacy. I agree with former Secretary of State Baker on that point.
The way you engage them--of course, that does not instantaneously give
them credibility, but there are ways to engage governments that are so
antithetical to us, as has been shown over the years, without giving
them inordinate credibility as a result of that engagement. And I think
that is appropriate.
So there are processes we could follow. But we have to, under any
circumstances, get back to what is our basic purpose, I believe, as
governors--and I use that term in the generic sense--and it is, A, No.
1, to protect this Nation from another attack. And that means finding
the terrorists before they find us and bringing them to justice. And
the effort in Iraq was a legitimate and appropriate effort to try to
support the construction of a state in the middle of the Middle East
which would subscribe to democratic values, which would give its people
the opportunity to have a pluralistic society, where individuals are
respected, especially women, and as a result to build a center from
which we would have the capacity to undermine the Islamic
fundamentalist movement's philosophy that Western values are
fundamentally at variance with the Muslim religion and the Muslim way
of life. And I believe that is still a legitimate and valued purpose.
But it all comes back to how it protects us. And it protects us by
creating an atmosphere where we can go to the Muslim world and say we
are not your enemy, but we are actually an opportunity for you to have
a better lifestyle, if you follow the course of action of liberty,
freedom, individual rights, rights for women, and a market-oriented
approach. That protects us. And that should be our first goal: the
protection of America from further attack.
We should respect the fact that this administration has succeeded for
5 years in protecting us. Some of that is good fortune, as I said, but
a lot of it is the fact that we have reached beyond our borders to find
them before they could find those who wish to do us harm.
The second purpose must be to make sure the troops who are in the
field have the support they need, not only financial and technical and
logistical support but the moral support they need, so they know they
are fighting for what is an American cause and is going to keep America
safe--which they are. And we need to respect them. They are
extraordinary young men and women who are on the frontlines of this war
against terrorism and who are doing exceptional service for us.
So that is a brief outline of my thoughts on this matter. I notice,
in the concurrent resolution which was submitted by some of our
colleagues, they stated that the primary objective of the strategy of
the United States in Iraq should be to have the Iraq political leaders
make political compromise necessary to end the violence in Iraq. That
is an objective, but that is not our primary objective. To make
compromise? Whom are they going to compromise with, al-Qaida? Are they
going to compromise with Iran?
That is not our objective. Our objective is to, hopefully, have an
Iraq that is democratic, is pluralistic, and that is reasonably stable,
that is not a client state of Iran, that is not a safe haven for al-
Qaida.
Our primary purpose in Iraq is to create an atmosphere in the Middle
East where people will look at democracy, at liberty and say: It works.
Even though I am Muslim, that works for me as a Muslim--where women
have a chance to pursue their options, where market forces work.
Our other primary purpose in Iraq must be to make sure our soldiers,
who are fighting for us and protecting us and who are engaged there,
are properly supported as long as they are there. Our Commander in
Chief has made a decision to move additional troops in there; and that
those troops are equally supported.
It is, obviously, a difficult and torturous issue for us as a nation
because we are a good nation. We do believe genuinely--I ask unanimous
consent for an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Hampshire yield
for a question?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if I could complete a quick thought and
then turn to the Senator for his question, my thought was this: This is
obviously a torturous issue for us as a nation, because we are
basically a very good people. And our history shows that when we use
force, we use it for the purposes of trying to free people, of giving
people more options and a better lifestyle. We did it during World War
I and World War II, and we did it throughout the Cold War. Our success
is extraordinary. We have never sought territorial gain, and we do not.
We seek to give people the opportunity to pursue the liberties and
freedoms which were defined so brilliantly by our Founding Fathers.
When we see something such as Iraq, where there seems to be such an
inability of the culture to grasp these concepts, even though we are
trying as hard as we can to give them that option, it is difficult.
But we still can't take our eye off the ball, which is to basically
recognize that we are doing this for our national defense, as we try to
stabilize a region that represents an immediate threat to us and has
already damaged us more than any other event in our history has damaged
us, other than potentially Pearl Harbor, and that we have troops in the
field who need to be supported.
I yield to the Senator from Texas for a question.
Mr. CORNYN. I agree with the argument the Senator from New Hampshire
has made about the importance of our prosecuting the war against terror
and particularly what has been called by the terrorists themselves
``the central front in the war on terror'' in Iraq.
Some of our colleagues have introduced a resolution, which the
Senator has spoken to, which is a nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate
resolution. I heard others this morning talk about imposing caps on the
number of troops we might deploy there.
I ask the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, if it is so
important that we not fail in Iraq and that the region not descend into
either a failed state or a launching pad for future terrorist attacks
or a regional conflict ensue, does he not believe it would be important
for those who criticize the President's announced plan to offer a
constructive alternative of their own, if they believe that the
President's chosen plan is not the best course of action?
Mr. GREGG. Answering the Senator through the Chair, that seems to me
to be the logical approach. As I mentioned earlier, there are some who
seem to want the language of opposition but don't want the
responsibility of opposition. If the case is that some believe we
should have immediate withdrawal, then that ought to be put on the
table in a context which would have the force of law and effect, and
let us vote on that. I would vote against it, but let us vote on it.
Mr. CORNYN. If the Senator will yield for one final question.
Mr. GREGG. Yes, I yield to the Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Notwithstanding the fact that we have a number of our
colleagues running for President of the United States in 2008, and
notwithstanding the fact that obviously we have Senators of different
party affiliation, Republican and Democrat, isn't a matter of national
security exactly the kind of issue that should rise above partisan
divisions and upon which we should work to find common ground so we can
protect the national security of
[[Page 1673]]
the United States? I ask the Senator whether he believes that perhaps
we have let our guard down and let this discourse become too political
in nature rather than solution oriented?
Mr. GREGG. Responding to the Senator through the Chair, the Senator
makes a good point. My big concern goes to the morale of the troops in
the field. What are they thinking? What are they thinking as a young
19-, 20-, 22-year-old soldier in Iraq today when they hear this
discourse going forward and they are asked to go out on patrol, and
they are told that maybe the troops their military leadership says it
needs to support them is an issue? It is a legitimate issue as to how
long we should allow this to hang out there. Let's have the debate.
Let's resolve our national position as to what it is going to be, at
least for the next year, if we get that far, and resolve it so that we
know where we are; otherwise, we do harm to our national policy,
because it is so disruptive to have this many voices at the same time
claiming legitimacy and, more importantly, it does harm to our troops
in the field, which is my primary concern.
I thank the Senator from Texas for his questions and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
____________________
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized
to speak for up to 10 minutes, followed by the Senator from Michigan
for 10 minutes, followed by the Senator from Colorado for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by the
Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, with regard to his concerns
about the public debate in this body on the progress of the war against
terrorism and, specifically, the role of the conflict in Iraq. I have
to express some deep concern that on an issue so important to our
national security, on the type of matter where we have historically
said partisan differences should not extend beyond our shorelines, that
we ought to try to work harder to find some solution to this problem
for our country. I couldn't agree more with the Senator from New
Hampshire: This is a matter of America's national interest and
America's national security. That is our No. 1 responsibility. That
ought to be our focus. We ought to focus on that like a laser and not
be distracted by anything else.
I have heard, in addition to nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate
resolutions being offered, expressing disapproval of the President's
proposed plan, suggestions this morning by the Senator from Illinois
that he wants to put a cap on the number of troops that can be deployed
in the battlefield. Perhaps there will be other efforts that come
forward to try to one-up the other proposal, to micromanage the conduct
of this very grave and serious matter which so directly affects our
national security. While I disagree fundamentally that we ought to have
any suggestion to our troops and to those who are in harm's way that we
are going to undermine their efforts by cutting off funds to support
our troops during a time of war or whether we are going to send
nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate resolutions in a way that will only
encourage our enemies and undermine our war effort, or whether we are
going to try to micromanage the conduct of the war rather than to rely
upon the senior military leadership who has advised the President and
been so much a part of the proposal that the President has made, I
think this is all extraordinarily premature.
I hope if there is one thing we can all agree on, it is that we have
a chance to be successful in Iraq. I know there are those who differ on
what success would mean. The President has talked in impressive terms
about his vision of establishing a democratic beachhead in Iraq in an
area with too few democracies, because the fact is, democracies don't
wage war against other democracies. It would be helpful to the long-
term stability of the Middle East if that were successful. But I hear
people giving up on that vision and saying: Well, the most we can hope
for is what the Iraq Study Group said, which is to provide an Iraq that
can be sustained, governed, and defended by the Iraqi people.
I would be satisfied at this time if we were able to accomplish that
goal. I would hope that would be a goal we could all embrace. But I
know there are two ways to fail in achieving that goal. One would be to
give up and to have a precipitous withdrawal of our troops or to cut
off funds to support our troops now or to try to micromanage from
Washington, DC, how many troops are in the field or under what
circumstances, what the rules of engagement might be. The other way is
to actually try to see whether the President's proposal demonstrates
any improvement or progress in Iraq, which I would think we would all
welcome, if, in fact, that happens. But of course, we can't guarantee
that. No one knows whether that plan will be successful for sure. I do
believe the President has attempted to get advice from the very best
military minds available--people such as GEN David Petraeus, who
hopefully will be confirmed here shortly to serve as the head of
coalition forces in Iraq; people such as Admiral Fallon, who will take
over as CENTCOM commander--while continuing to rely on the advice of
people such as GEN George Casey and GEN John Abizaid, whom those two
gentlemen will be succeeding.
It strikes me as odd to say we are going to give up on this new plan,
which many have clamored for months and maybe even years, before we
have even had a chance to implement it. Indeed, the fact is we have had
as many as 160,000 troops in Iraq at any given time, where now we have
approximately 130,000. And even this so-called surge will not bring us
up to the maximum number of troops we have had in Iraq at any given
period of time.
I think we ought to take a moment and think about what is being
proposed here in terms of nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate resolutions,
attempts to micromanage the conduct of the war and the battlefield,
because I truly believe if we are to allow Iraq to descend into a
failed state, that it will, like Afghanistan did after the Soviet Union
left, serve as a launching pad for terrorist organizations to train,
recruit, and launch terrorist attacks to other parts of the world,
including the United States, and that more American civilians will die
as a result.
Of course, there is also the issue of a regional conflict. We have
already heard from people such as the Saudis that if, in fact, the
Iranians take advantage of the Shiites' momentum in Iraq in that there
is ethnic cleansing of Sunnis in Iraq, that likely the Saudis will come
in in an effort to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis, and there
will certainly be other countries drawn into what will be a regional
conflict.
It is not only responsible for the critics of the President's plan to
say what they would do differently, but also to explain how they are
going to deal with the consequences of a regional conflict in Iraq,
should that happen. I do believe that is likely to happen unless we try
to see whether the President's plan, in consultation with bipartisan
groups such as the Iraq Study Group and in consultation with the very
best military minds in the world, has a chance of success.
I don't know of any American who would not support an effort to win
and to stabilize Iraq, to provide a means for it to govern itself and
defend itself if, in fact, that is in the best interest of the United
States, which I believe it is.
Mr. KERRY. Would the Senator allow me to interrupt for a request and
I will ask unanimous consent that the interruption not show in his
comments?
Mr. CORNYN. I don't know what the interruption is for.
Mr. KERRY. I want to make request to get into the order, if I could.
Mr. CORNYN. I would prefer if the Senator wait until after I am
through talking rather than interrupt my comments. I have no objection
if he would like to be added to the end of the current unanimous
consent request to be recognized after the Senator from Colorado. I ask
unanimous consent that that be the case.
[[Page 1674]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me mention one other subject while I
am up, and that has to do with the comments of the distinguished
Senator from Oregon about Medicare prescription drugs and the success
of the Part D Medicare prescription drug program. I don't know of many
governmental programs that have met with more success than this
prescription drug program, in terms of the acceptance of America's
seniors and the way it has allowed them to get access to prescription
drugs at a reasonable cost that they were never able to access before.
But I do have grave concerns about those who would attempt to basically
interfere with that successful program by imposing Federal controls on
the price for which these pharmaceuticals may be charged under the
guise of some negotiation. When the Federal Government negotiates with
a private entity, there is no real negotiation; it is a take-it-or-
leave-it proposition.
I pose as exhibit A to support that the current VA health care
system, which is held out as a model by which this kind of negotiation
could go forward. The fact is, the VA system is pointed to as a model
by which this Government negotiation could occur, and today that system
does not supply nearly the variety of pharmaceuticals to its
beneficiaries the Medicare system does.
I have read in various places that the number ranges from 19
percent--I have heard as high as 30 percent--of the drugs that are
available to Medicare beneficiaries are available to veterans under the
VA system because of this feature. So when you impose price controls,
which is what is being advocated by those who want to change the
current successful system of Medicare prescription drugs, basically,
what we are going to find is a rationing effect. I would think that
would be the last thing any of us would want to do--to ration the
prescription drugs available to our seniors under the enormously
successful Medicare Part D reform we passed in 2003.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
____________________
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the Medicare
prescription drug benefit. I have a different view, and the Michigan
seniors and people with disabilities who are trying to access this
program have a different experience and view than my friend from Texas.
As I said yesterday, I think it is incredibly important that we join
with the House of Representatives to do the first step, which is to
require negotiation for the best price on prescription drugs through
Medicare. I also know there is incredible confusion, that seniors have
been offered a variety of private choices but not the one that most
seniors asked for, which is to be able to go through Medicare and sign
up as they do for Part B and the rest of Medicare and get a good price.
I also know there is great concern from seniors who find themselves in
this gap, somehow being called a doughnut hole, but the gap in coverage
where you continue to pay a premium but don't receive any help. There
are a number of concerns I hope we are going to address.
Number 1 needs to be to say clearly that we want the Secretary to
negotiate the best price for people. Right now, as we know, the law
actually prohibits, actually stops the Secretary from using the
bargaining power of all of the seniors and the people with disabilities
on Medicare to be able to get the best price. Why in the world does
that make sense? In fact, it doesn't make sense--particularly for
something that is lifesaving; it is the major way we provide health
care today from a preventive and maintenance standpoint, as well as in
a crisis.
There are huge differences between the way the Veterans'
Administration successfully serves our veterans and what is being done
through, unfortunately, inflated prices through the Medicare system
that not only seniors are paying, disabled are paying, but taxpayers
are paying as well.
Yesterday, I talked about a report--and I want to talk to that
today--from Families U.S.A. released last week, which looked at 20
prescription drugs commonly used by seniors. The results are startling.
The report compares the prices the private Medicare Part D plans charge
and the prices obtained by the VA, which negotiates for low drug prices
on behalf of America's veterans. It showed, again, what we have been
seeing over the past year: For each of the top 20 drugs prescribed to
seniors, the lowest prices charged by any of the top private Part D
providers are higher than the price secured by the VA. It is not just a
little bit higher, but in many cases it is astoundingly higher.
Let's look at some examples. I am mentioning specific drugs, not to
pick on particular drugs, but we talked about the fact in the committee
that transparency, the ability to compare price, and the ability for
people to know what they are purchasing is very important. This is
something we want the Secretary, on behalf of the people of America, to
be doing--looking at the differences in these prices, and the
particular points where there is a wide disparity, using their
negotiating power to be able to step in on behalf of seniors and the
disabled.
When we look at Zocor, which I mentioned yesterday--the drug many
seniors use to control their cholesterol levels--the lowest VA price
for a year is just over $127. The lowest price under a private plan is
$1,485.96--over a 1,066-percent difference. That is astounding. I argue
that you could still continue to work with the Federal Government and
partner to do research and bring that price down.
Why should seniors pay $1,359 more in a year for this particular
prescription drug than veterans do? It is exactly the same drug.
Now, I also mentioned Protonix yesterday. It is the same thing. We
are looking at $214.52 for a year, the VA price, negotiating the best
price, and $1,148.40 with the lowest Part D plan, a difference of 435
percent.
It is the same thing as we go through the next one, which is Fosamax,
which is a 205-percent difference, and on down.
We are talking about substantial differences in price--some smaller
than others. But the reality is negotiation works. All we have to do is
look at the fact that, on average, we are seeing a price difference of
58 percent between the Veterans' Administration and what is happening
from the lowest possible plan with the top 20 most prescribed drugs for
our seniors. In other words, for half of the drugs our seniors need
most, the lowest price charged is almost 60 percent higher, and it is
not demagoguery to say people are choosing between food and medicine.
It is not. It is not an exaggeration to say that right now somebody is
sitting down and deciding: am I going to pay the heating bill or get
the medicine I need? That is the reality for people. We need to have a
sense of urgency about fixing this.
I also want to speak to the fact that we have heard a lot about the
VA. Unfortunately, we have heard things that are not true, according to
information from the Veterans' Administration. Yesterday, I was asked
if I knew there were well over 1 million veterans who moved to Medicare
Part D. The assertion was made that veterans were leaving the VA
because the VA could not give them the drugs they wanted. I knew there
were veterans who were adding Medicare Part D coverage. We went back to
look and see what that was all about after I received that question. In
fact, approximately 280,000 veterans have signed up for Medicare. They
are not leaving the VA. In fact, it is not even clear that they are
getting any drugs through Medicare at this point. They may have done it
to add extra coverage. We are not sure what that mix is, but we are not
talking about a million veterans or more running to leave VA because it
is such a bad program.
Moreover, according to both the Government Accountability Office and
the Institute of Medicine, the VA system is working well. According to
the GAO,
[[Page 1675]]
an overwhelming majority of VA physicians report that the formulary,
the grouping of drugs that are available, allows them to prescribe
drugs that meet their patients' needs.
The Institute of Medicine has reported that veterans believe their
needs are being met. Access to drugs is an issue in less than one-half
of 1 percent of the complaints about the VA health system. One-half of
1 percent relate an inability to be able to get the medicine they need.
I also need to point out that at our Finance Committee hearing last
week it was mentioned that there are fewer drugs available to our
veterans. In fact, we have heard it today on the floor. That is exactly
the opposite of what is true. The VA actually has more drugs on its
formulary, its list of available drugs. I have not heard anybody say,
first of all, that we should take the VA system and impose it on
Medicare. But there is a lot of misinformation about what is happening
in the VA and what is happening for our veterans, and there is a lot we
need to do to focus on the reality and the facts of the huge
disparities, an average of 58 percent, and the highest is over 1,000
percent.
I find it very interesting that, on the one hand, we hear two
different kinds of arguments occurring. One is that negotiation will
make no difference in price. On the other hand, we hear we will lose
lifesaving research because of negotiation. Those two arguments don't
fit together, even though they are being made by the same people. We
don't have to worry about research and development if, in fact,
negotiation doesn't lower prices. I argue--and I think common sense
dictates--that when you are looking at a 1,000-percent difference in
price, at the fact that the American taxpayer is contributing, on
average, at least as many dollars for research as the brandname
industry is--overall, at least contributing that, because we want the
lifesaving drugs--when you look at all of the facts, it doesn't add up;
it doesn't add up for anybody but the industry itself to be able to
argue that they want to keep the prices this high. I appreciate that.
Any industry that has such a significant advantage certainly wants to
fight to keep it. But I am very hopeful we will join with the House in
saying this is lifesaving medicine, it is not an optional product, and
we have to get the best price for our seniors and for the disabled in
America.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized under
a unanimous consent agreement for 10 minutes.
____________________
ENERGY DEPENDENCE
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today because our dependence on
foreign oil is dangerously out of control and it is putting our Nation
at risk. It is weakening our defenses and undermining our power around
the world.
From my point of view, as I look at the defining issues of the 21st
century, there is no doubt in my mind that our energy security is at
the very top of those issues which we must address. We must address it
because of national security implications, because of our economic
security, and because of the environmental security of the United
States of America.
First, with respect to the national security of our country, it is
incredible to me that in this year, 2007, we are importing 60 percent
of our oil from foreign countries, and 22 percent of the world's oil
reserves are official sponsors of terrorism that are under some kind of
U.N. sanction. When we look at the conflict underway in the Middle
East, when we look at the tensions with Venezuela, we in the United
States of America are putting our very national security at risk simply
because of our overdependence on foreign oil.
Second, the economic security of the United States of America is very
much at risk as well. We need to have a new energy economy that will
produce jobs in the United States of America and give us stability with
respect to the costs that go into our energy economy.
Third, the environmental security of our Nation is also very much at
risk.
As we move forward to try to address issues such as global warming,
it is important for us to address this issue from a national security
point of view, an economic security point of view, and environmental
security point of view. Therefore, I believe the Congress and President
Bush, Secretary Bodman, and others who are involved in this effort have
to get very serious about our energy security. It is time for us to put
rhetoric behind us.
As we heard last week in the Senate Energy Committee, we have a pre-
9/11 energy policy that is failing us in a post-9/11 world. We have an
energy policy which is still a pre-9/11 energy policy, and it is
failing us in this post-9/11 world. We must take dramatic steps to
reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, conserve energy with new energy-
efficient technologies, and expedite the development of renewable
energy resources. We must build a clean energy economy that restores
our independence and our competitive advantage around the world.
For much of the last century, the United States has been the single
most powerful Nation on this globe. We have been a clarion voice for
freedom, democracy, and justice for all people. My father and 16
million young Americans served their country in World War II, defeating
the Nazis and the fascists around the world, earning us our role on
this globe of the most powerful Nation of the last century. Many died
to achieve that legacy for the United States of America. My uncle was
one of those 400,000 Americans who died in that conflict of World War
II, leaving his life, his blood, and his spirit on the soils of Europe.
Today, our dependence on foreign oil is sapping the strength that the
World War II generation built for us. Countries such as Saudi Arabia,
Russia, and Iran are playing their oil holdings like chess pieces on a
chessboard, applying pressure here, threatening there, and eroding U.S.
influence around the world. Since 2001, China and Russia have partnered
to lock up oil in central Asia, rolling us out of the region. Venezuela
has wielded its resources to bully its neighbors and to oppose our
interests in South America. And Iran has used its oil resources to
court Russia and China, convincing them to oppose our diplomatic effort
to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons. We ought not put our
foreign policy in the hands of Iran or Venezuela or the sheiks and
kings of the Middle East.
Countries that wish us harm know full well of our addiction to their
oil. They know that any disruption in supply sends gas prices through
the roof and slows our economy. And they are happy to profit from our
addiction. Oil money lines the pockets of the terrorists, the
extremists, and unfriendly governments. It helps the Syrians buy
rockets, such as those the Hezbollah has in Lebanon today. It reaches
bin Laden and al-Qaida. It funds the militants in Nigeria who capture
and terrorize westerners. The sad truth is that we are funding both
sides of the war on terror. We spent over $100 billion last year to
fight the extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan--extremists armed with
weapons purchased from our oil revenues. It is crazy.
We are importing more oil today than we ever have. Over 60 percent of
our oil--more than 12 million barrels a day--comes from abroad. The
vast majority of this oil comes from state-owned oil companies in
unfriendly countries. This is only going to get worse in the coming
years. Take a look at who controls the world's oil reserves. If we look
at the chart, the countries of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Iraq--and
the list goes on--control most of the world's oil reserves, and many of
these countries are either unfriendly to the United States or have a
shaky government around them. But we know one thing for sure: It is not
the best interests of the United States they have at heart.
If our oil dependence continues, we will be relying on companies such
as Petrovesa, Saudi Aramco, and Gazprom for our oil. What does this
mean? It means that Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela will hold
our very energy security in their hands, which means they hold our very
national security in their hands.
[[Page 1676]]
We have to change course, and we have to change course now. We are no
longer a world where oil costs $12 a barrel. We no longer carry the
illusion that others wish us no harm. We live in a complex and
dangerous time. Yet we continue to depend on this pre-9/11 energy
policy that simply is not working for us in this 21st century.
The good news is that the future of our Nation's energy security lies
right here at home. It lies in our farms and in our fields and with the
ingenuity of American workers and American technologies.
There are two things we can do immediately to improve our energy
security. First, we can dramatically increase our energy efficiency.
Improved efficiency is the cheapest and largest source of energy. The
technologies that will save us energy and money are already in place,
but Government policies often discourage consumers from using them. We
have to be much smarter as a country about energy efficiency.
Second, we need to expand our domestic energy production from
renewable energy sources. We have taken aggressive steps over the past
few years to open new sources of oil and natural gas in this country.
We see the effects of these policies throughout our country, especially
in my State of Colorado where natural gas production has jumped over 50
percent over 2000, and we see it in the Gulf of Mexico where just a few
months ago we in Congress opened millions of new acres for leasing.
But we have fallen woefully short on the renewable energy front. We
have fallen woefully short. In last year's State of the Union Address,
President Bush touted the virtues of cellulosic ethanol and solar
power. He told the American people:
. . . We have a serious problem, we are addicted to oil.
And he indicated that he would make a serious commitment to renewable
energy. That is what the President said a year ago in his State of the
Union Address. Yet, in fact, that hasn't happened. The proof is that it
simply is not in the budget, and the proof is that if you look at what
has happened with renewable energy and energy efficiency, we are
investing less in these initiatives than at the time President Bush
became President. If you look at our renewable energy investments from
2001 to 2006, you see this line, this thin line. We have actually been
investing less in renewable energy resources from 2001 until 2006. For
us to have declined by almost $100 million during that time period in
terms of what we are investing in renewable energy means we are not
walking the talk about what we can do with respect to renewable energy.
I also want to briefly demonstrate the reductions that have been made
with respect to our investments in energy efficiency. Again, in 2001,
we were investing about $900 million to make this a more energy-
efficient country. In the time that has passed in the last 5 years,
now, in 2006, we are investing $200 million less. So when people talk
about getting energy efficient or investing in renewable energy, the
fact is America simply is not walking the talk. We need to start
walking the talk if we are going to get to energy independence.
Mr. President, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 2
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SALAZAR. I thank my friend and colleague from Massachusetts,
Senator Kerry, for being patient.
We need to move forward to start walking the talk, and the first step
is for President Bush, when he comes before the Congress for the State
of the Union Address, to talk about energy independence, but to make
sure the budget that is put on the table for Congress to consider is a
real budget that is robust in terms of how it will move us forward with
respect to renewable energy, with respect to alternative technologies,
and with respect to investments in a greater energy-efficient economy.
This is an imperative for the United States of America, and unless we
move forward aggressively in a bipartisan fashion, bringing
conservatives and progressives, Democrats and Republicans, together on
this initiative, we will be compromising the national security of the
United States in a manner that is absolutely inexcusable.
I look forward in the days ahead to working with my colleagues as we
move forward with a robust energy package that will get us to energy
independence.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, first, let me begin by congratulating my
colleague from Colorado on his comments, which are important. As I
think the Chair knows, during the course of the 2004 cycle, I made
energy independence one of the centerpieces of the campaign. In fact, I
am proud that I was the first Presidential candidate to ever advertise
in a campaign on that topic. We tried to lay out why and how it is so
critical to the security of our country, the health of our country, the
economy of our country, and the jobs that would be created. Of course,
in terms of environmental protection, it is common sense. There are
huge gains to be made with respect to efficiency. Efficiency, in fact,
is the largest place available to grab CO2 out of the
atmosphere, which is the biggest problem with global warming, global
climate change. So there is an enormous agenda here. In fact, this
administration isn't even in the game. It is sad when you measure it
against the demands of the country.
So I appreciate what the Senator has said. This is something that has
to become a priority over the course of the next days here, and we are
going to do everything in our power to help make it so.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO PAUL TSONGAS
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, 10 years ago today, this country lost a
leader and this Chamber lost a colleague, and Massachusetts lost a
favorite son. Ten years ago today, cancer took Paul Tsongas from us
prematurely at 55 years of age. He left three wonderful daughters:
Ashley, Katina, and Molly, and his special and extraordinary wife Niki,
and he left an enormous number of friends and people whom he touched
and affected across the country, those who joined him to help reform
our politics.
Paul was a very different kind of public person. He walked his own
path. He walked to his own tune. Today we remember him and we join the
people in Merrimack Valley and across Massachusetts and so many others
who came to appreciate and respect him and learned a lot about him
through his Presidential campaign. We honor a life that elevated those
whom he knew, and the countless people he never met, but whose lives he
affected through the things he fought for and believed in.
Paul Tsongas inspired with his optimism and his drive, his disarming
humor, and his love of causes both distant and local. He was proud of
his Greek heritage, proud of his roots as the son of a drycleaner,
proud of Lowell, and he became a champion of environmental protection
and expanding opportunity so the full measure of the American dream
that he came to see as a young person himself was accessible to
everybody else.
He set a high standard for public service which he continued even
after he left the Senate. He continued out of office to work across the
aisle proving, with former Senator Warren Rudman and their Concord
Coalition, that balancing the budget was not a partisan agenda item and
that fiscal discipline could, in fact, invigorate and not stifle the
American economy. Paul Tsongas was a Democratic deficit hawk before it
was popular and, I might add, together with Senator Gary Hart, was part
of that new vanguard that helped to define the defense issues of our
Nation in a modern context.
He understood also that being a Democrat did not mean being
antibusiness. In Lowell, Paul served as a city councilor and then later
as a reformed
[[Page 1677]]
county commissioner. He loved Lowell. He loved that old mill town where
he was born. Even at the end of his life, he knew every single person
there, from Main Street through the largest businesses, and he could
still see where he had grown up from the house where he lived in his
last days.
Paul came to Washington, where he worked with Tip O'Neill, Joe
Moakley, Republican Sil Conte, and Ed Brooke in a bipartisan, golden
age for the Massachusetts delegation. Paul's love of ideas and his love
of Lowell helped trigger one of the earliest sparks of high-tech
innovation in Massachusetts. Through his championing of early computer
companies such as Wang and others, he helped to fuel the whole era of
such stunning ingenuity that it changed the face of America and
enhanced our technological leadership in the world. Paul helped Lowell
reinvent itself after years of decline, and in 1978, he was elected to
the Senate. After one term only in the Senate, he gave up his seat in
order to be with his family and fight cancer. He was sustained by the
loving support of his sister, his wife, and his daughters, whom he
treasured. Paul at age 7, had lost his own mother to tuberculosis, so
this idea of being with family during that kind of crucial time was
particularly poignant to him.
As a friend of Paul's famously told him: No man ever died wishing he
had spent more time with his business. Paul was first diagnosed with
cancer in 1983 and he fought it courageously from that day forward.
Right to the end of his life, he was tenacious in his support for the
causes he believed in, in his fight against the devastating disease
that eventually took him but never stole his spirit. Instead, he
brought to the fight the same optimism and determination that made him
so successful in the Peace Corps. In 1992, when in remission, Paul ran
for the Presidency, and he ran one of the most bracingly honest and
politically courageous Presidential campaigns of our time. His was a
campaign defined by common sense and by that wry sense of humor more
than it was defined by fiery oratory. He managed to win Democratic
primaries in New Hampshire and three other primaries and four State
caucuses before the man from Lowell finally ceded the nomination to the
man from Hope.
Paul reached across the country to the distant shores of the Pacific
as coauthor of the Alaska Lands Act, which protected millions of acres
of pristine wilderness. He made an admirable contribution to our
environment. His aggressive policies to protect our natural resources
were truly an investment in our future. He made life-long friends in
Ethiopia as a result of his Peace Corps service in the early 1960s,
proving even as a young man that his sense of the world reached beyond
the horizon and to cultures far from his roots.
Today, in Lowell, the name Tsongas graces a museum of industrial
history, part of the National Park Service, where the full story, both
good and bad, of the industrial revolution and the textile industry in
Massachusetts is presented for thousands of visitors, young and old,
every year. Today, the name Tsongas graces an arena where athletic
excellence, a passion dear to Paul's heart, is practiced along with
political conventions and trade shows.
So I rise today not only as the Senator who inherited his seat; I
rise as an admirer and a friend. To know Paul Tsongas was to see up
close what this business we work in means in people's lives, and the
full arch of his time on Earth illuminates the larger impact each of us
can have on our communities, on our State, and on our Nation.
That is why this day is special for this Chamber, a sad, proud memory
for Lowell and for Massachusetts, and a moment to reflect on Paul's
life and his contributions. It is hard to believe Senator Tsongas has
been gone for 10 years. If he were with us today, Paul would be a
strong voice full of insight, humor, and wisdom, all in that inimitable
style, once modest, but incredibly forceful, the style we came to know
and appreciate so much. Lowell, MA will miss Paul Tsongas, America
misses him, but we remember him today.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to join my
colleague, the junior Senator from Massachusetts, to mark a significant
and sad anniversary. Ten years ago today, America lost a great patriot,
Massachusetts lost a great advocate, and John Kerry and I lost a great
friend when Paul Tsongas passed away after a valiant and courageous
fight with cancer.
Paul Tsongas was the epitome of a public servant. From his time in
the Peace Corps in both Ethiopia and the West Indies in the 1960s
through his spirited campaign for the Presidency in 1992, Paul lived by
the words my brother Jack believed so strongly, that each of us can
make a difference and all of us should try.
Paul Tsongas tried his best to do so, all his life, and he made a
large and continuing difference. To the people of his beloved Lowell,
he proved that our great industrial cities can be reborn and renewed,
with a creative emphasis on reshaping their great history to meet the
needs of our current high tech economy. In the 1970s and 1980s, when
America was moving inexorably to the suburbs and so many of our great
urban centers were being hollowed out, many of our people found it
increasingly difficult to see a bright future for urban areas decimated
by the decline of manufacturing.
But today, across the country, a new movement has been born to
encourage creative investment in our cities, and one of the first
models for how such efforts can succeed is the vision Paul Tsongas had
for Lowell, MA.
F. Scott Fitzgerald may have said there are no second acts in
American life, but Paul Tsongas could have responded, ``Let him come to
Lowell.''
Paul served in the House and joined me in the Senate in 1978. He was
someone I knew I could always count on to fight hard for the people of
Massachusetts, and the Nation. He was tireless, determined, and always
well prepared. Sometimes we would disagree on policy matters, here and
there, but if you were going to challenge Paul, you had better have
your facts straight because he knew what he was talking about.
He also was an outstanding campaigner. The conventional wisdom in
politics has always been--at least as long as I can remember--that
candidates with difficult to pronounce names have a small additional
hurdle.
Paul had a silent ``t'' at the beginning of his name, and I will
never forget how brilliantly he turned that small disadvantage into a
major asset in his victorious campaigns for elective office.
He ran hilarious ads that had all these people struggling to
pronounce his name, and none of them could do it. But by the end of the
campaign, every voter could do the silent ``t'' and everyone loved the
candidate who made fun of himself on TV.
Its is a lesson that Paul would carry on throughout his courageous
battle against cancer. Everyone faces obstacles--some great and some
small. It's how we choose to deal with them that makes us who we are.
Paul Tsongas was an inspiration to all who knew him. The son of a
Greek immigrant father and a mother who died of tuberculosis, he
demonstrated again and again that through hard work, commitment, and a
passion for doing what is right, all things are possible in our
America.
He charted a new course for the city he loved. He authored the Alaska
Lands Act to protect millions of acres of American wilderness, and he
founded, with our former colleague, Warren Rudman, the Concord
Coalition, which has become a highly respected force for fiscal
responsibility since its creation in the early 1990s.
When the diagnosis of cancer was made, he left the Senate to spend
more time with his wonderful wife Niki, his loving sister Thaleia, and
his three daughters, Ashley, Katina, and Molly.
After completing his rigorous treatment, he threw his hat in the
Presidential ring in the 1992 primaries and his candidacy helped fuel
the movement to make Government accountable for its fiscal policies. He
left an immense and enduring legacy.
We miss you, Paul. We miss your bravery and your commitment. We miss
your friendship and concern, but we know you are resting in peace today
after an extraordinary and well-lived life.
[[Page 1678]]
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
APPOINTMENT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the information of the Senate, the Chair
makes the following announcement:
The President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives, pursuant to the provisions of 201(a)(2) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, have appointed Dr. Peter R. Orszag as
Director of the Congressional Budget Office effective immediately for
the term expiring January 3, 2011.
The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
Mr. THUNE. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Thune and Mr. Salazar pertaining to the
introduction of S. 331 are located in today's Record under ``Statements
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
DISCHARGE AND REFERRAL
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. Res. 32 be
discharged from the Rules Committee and referred to the Committee on
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and note the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROTECT THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in the late hours last night, I took to the
floor to decry some Senators who wish, if I may put it in this
language, to sabotage the ethics reform legislation with a dangerous
and unconstitutional line-item veto proposal. What is happening is
little more than political blackmail, and the American people--those
people out there who are watching through the lenses above the
President's chair, the American people--should be outraged. I have been
around here a long time. I have spoken on this subject many times. This
so-called line-item veto is an assault on the single most important
protection that the American people have against a President, any
President, who wants to run roughshod over the liberties of the people
prescribed in the Constitution. Today I am talking about the
congressional power over the purse. The congressional power that is
right here, and over on the other side of the Capitol, the
congressional power over the purse.
Weaken the power of the purse and one weakens strong--the word
``strong'' is too weak--one weakens oversight, for example, on this
bloody nightmare of a war in Iraq. Get that? Weaken the power over the
public purse and we weaken the oversight over this bloody war in Iraq.
That is just one example. One weakens the power of the purse and one
weakens the checks on a President who wants to tap into personal
telephone calls or pry into bank accounts or tear open the mail.
Without congressional power over the purse--money--there is no
effective way to stop an out-of-control President who is bent on his
way, no matter the price, no matter the repercussion. Make no mistake--
hear me, now. The Roman orator would say, ``Romans, lend me your
ears.'' Make no mistake, this line-item veto authority would grant
tremendous--I say tremendous and dangerous--new power to the President.
There are new Members of this body. Perhaps we ought to have some
discussions about the line-item veto. The President would have
unchecked authority to imperil congressional power over the purse, a
power that the constitutional Framers felt was absolutely vital to
reining in an overzealous President.
Eight years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the line-
item veto--hear me, Senators; you may be watching your boob tubes. Hear
me. Eight years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the
line-item veto was unconstitutional. I said at the time that the
Supreme Court saved the Congress from its own folly. But now, it seems,
memories in this Senate are short and wisdom may be even shorter in
supply. Here we are, on the heels of 6 years of assault on personal
liberty, 6 years of a do-nothing Congress all too willing to turn its
eyes from the real problems of the Nation, 6 years of rubberstamps and
rubber spines--here we are, all too ready to jettison the single most
important protection of the people's liberties: the power of the purse.
Let's review the record. We have a President--I say this in all due
respect. I respect the President of the United States. I respect the
Presidency; I respect the Chief Executive. We have a President who
already has asserted too much power while refusing to answer questions:
I am the commander--see, I don't need to explain--I do not
need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting
thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to
explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I
owe anybody an explanation.
Those are the words of our President, the very President who some in
this body are all too willing to allow to dominate the people's branch,
this branch, your branch--the people's branch of Government.
This President claimed the unconstitutional authority to tap into the
telephone conversations of American citizens without a warrant, without
court approval. This President claimed the unconstitutional authority
to sneak and peek, to snoop and scoop into the private lives of you,
the American people. This President has taken the Nation to a failed
war--yes, to a failed war that we should have never entered into--based
on faulty evidence and an unconstitutional doctrine of preemptive
strikes, a doctrine that is absolutely unconstitutional on its face.
More than 3,000 American sons and daughters have died in Iraq in this
failed Presidential misadventure.
What is the response of the Senate? To give the President even more
unfettered authority? Give him greater unchecked powers? It is
astounding. We have seen the danger of the blank check. We have lived
through the aftermath of a rubberstamp Congress. We should not continue
to lie down for this or any other President.
Of course, this President wants to strip Congress of its strongest
and most important power, the power of the purse. Congress has the
ability to shut down the administration's unconstitutional practices.
Congress is asking tough questions and demanding honest answers.
Congress is taking a hard look at finding ways to bring our troops home
from the President's misadventure in Iraq that has already cost the
lives of more than 3,000 of the American people's sons and daughters.
Of course, the President wants to control the Congress. Some Presidents
have wanted to do this before--silence the critics, ignore, if you
will, the will of the people seriously cripple oversight.
Strip away the power of the Congress to control the purse strings,
then you strip away the power of the Congress to say ``No more, Mr.
President;'' strip
[[Page 1679]]
away the single most important power granted to the people in this
Constitution. That is the White House demand. I, for one, will not
kowtow to this President or to any President. I, for one, will not
stand quietly by while the people's liberties are placed in jeopardy.
No Senator should want to hand such power to the President. No American
should stand for it--not now, not today, not tomorrow, not the day
after tomorrow, not ever.
Just a few weeks ago, Members of the Senate took an oath, ``I do
solemnly swear that I will support and defend. . . .'' This is in our
oath, my oath, that I have taken several times.
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely,
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and
that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the
office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
That is the oath I take: ``So help me God.''
If our Republican colleagues want to stop the Senate's efforts to end
the scandals that plagued the last Congress, that is their right. If
our Republican colleagues want to stop the first increase in the
minimum wage in the past decade, that is their right. But I, this
mountain boy from the hills, will not stand with them. And the American
people will see through this transparent effort to gut ethics reform.
I, as one Senator with others, if they will stand with me, will do my
very best to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Yet I will bear true faith and allegiance to this Constitution and to
the people of this great Nation, defying an effort to weaken the power
of the purse.
Mr. President, 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. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I will speak briefly on the second look at
waste amendment which I have offered which has generated a fair amount
of interest and discussion in this Senate. It is an amendment that
essentially is an enhanced rescission amendment. It is not a line-item
veto.
I am a great admirer of the Senator from West Virginia. I have
enjoyed serving in the Senate and being educated by him on all sorts of
issues. I respect his view on the importance of the power of the purse
and identify with it. That is the essence of the legislative branch's
source of power. But I must respectfully disagree with his
characterization of this amendment, and I believe I can defend that
position effectively and respond to the points he has made and make it
clear to our colleagues that we are not voting on line-item veto.
Back in 1995, a line-item veto was given to the President. It was
ruled unconstitutional. This amendment is not that proposal or anything
similar to that proposal.
I said earlier today, to compare this amendment to the line-item veto
amendment is akin to comparing the New England Patriots to the Buffalo
Bills. They may be in the same league, but they have no identity of
ability or purpose, as far as I could tell.
The enhanced rescission language which I have proposed--which is
essentially second-look-at-waste language--the purpose of it is to give
the Congress another look at provisions that may have been buried in a
bill and which the executive branch thinks need a second look.
The enhanced rescission language which I have proposed essentially
tracks the proposal that was put forward by, at that time, Senator
Daschle as their alternative to the line-item veto. It has the same
essential purposes, except it is weaker, quite honestly, than what
Senator Daschle proposed. It allows the President to send up a group of
rescissions, in our case four. Under the Daschle proposal, he could
have sent up as many as 13 different packages.
Those rescissions, if a Member introduces them, must be voted on in a
timeframe; the same thing as the Daschle proposal was. Those
rescissions, under the Daschle proposal, were not referred to committee
but under our proposal do go back to committees of authorization--a
weaker proposal than the Daschle proposal.
Both Houses must act on the rescissions, not just one House, for the
rescissions to survive, and they must be acted on with a majority--the
same thing as the Daschle proposal.
The President is limited in the amount of time that he can hold the
money. The timeframe under the Daschle proposal was, I believe, longer
than under our proposal. I am not absolutely sure of that, but our
proposal limits him to 45 days that he can hold that money, pending the
Senate taking action.
There is some sunlight between the two because the Daschle proposal
allowed motions to strike in specific instances, if there were 49
Senators agreeing to the motion to strike. I have said I am open to
that as a concept, were we to get into a process of amending the
proposal I have proposed. But that is an element of difference.
But there is very little else that is different between what I am
proposing and what Senator Daschle proposed as his rescission package.
This is not a line-item veto amendment. It reserves to the Congress the
authority to make the final call. All it gives to the President is the
ability to ask us to take another look at something. That is pretty
reasonable in the context of what we see today because we see all these
omnibus bills arrive at our doorstep, spending tens of millions, in
some instances hundreds of billions of dollars, and in those bills a
lot of language works its way in that could be suspect, a lot of
earmarks, a lot of things which maybe do not have majority support, but
the President gets this big bill. He has to sign the whole thing or the
Government shuts down or something else heinous happens.
So it is reasonable to say: All right, let's take out those earmarks
and send them back up and give Congress another look. It gives the
President no unique authority--no unique authority--that could be
identified as a line-item veto. There is no supermajority which is the
essence of a line-item veto, no capacity to go in and delete something
from a bill which is the essence of a line-item veto. It simply gives
him the capacity to say to Congress, four times: Take a look. See if
these rescissions make sense.
The Daschle amendment was so far from a line-item veto that the most
effective spokesperson in opposition to line-item veto in this Senate,
in my lifetime, and probably in anybody else's lifetime, cosponsored
the Daschle amendment. That was Senator Byrd.
So I would ask Senator Byrd to take a serious look at what I have
offered and say: Aren't we dealing with apples and oranges? Yes, I can
understand his opposition to line-item veto. That is fine. That is his
position. It has been well said for years. The argument of the
importance of protecting the power of the purse is a good one. It is
critical--critical. But this rescission language does not affect that.
It does not affect the power of the purse. It is not a line-item veto
amendment and so far from it that it basically tracks the Daschle
amendment.
In fact, I ask unanimous consent that the Daschle amendment be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
daschle (and others) amendment no. 348 (senate--march 21, 1995)
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Legislative Line Item Veto
Act''.
SEC. 2. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PROPOSED
CANCELLATIONS OF BUDGET ITEMS.
(a) In General.--Title X of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) is
amended by adding after section 1012 the following new
section:
``EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PROPOSED CANCELLATIONS OF BUDGET
ITEMS
``Sec. 1012A. (a) Proposed Cancellation of Budget Item.--
The President may propose, at the time and in the manner
provided
[[Page 1680]]
in subsection (b), the cancellation of any budget item
provided in an Act. An item proposed for cancellation under
this section may not be proposed for cancellation again under
this title.
``(b) Transmittal of Special Message.--
``(1) Special message.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to the time limitations provided
in subparagraph (B), the President may transmit to Congress a
special message proposing to cancel budget items contained in
an Act. A separate special message shall be transmitted for
each Act that contains budget items the President proposes to
cancel.
``(B) Time limitations.--A special message may be
transmitted under this section--
``(i) during the 20-calendar-day period (excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) commencing on the day
after the date of enactment of the provision proposed to be
rescinded or repealed; or
``(ii) at the same time as the President's budget for any
provision enacted after the date the President submitted the
preceding budget.
``(2) Draft bill.--The President shall include in each
special message transmitted under paragraph (1) a draft bill
that, if enacted, would cancel those budget items as provided
in this section. The draft bill shall clearly identify each
budget item that is proposed to be canceled including, where
applicable, each program, project, or activity to which the
budget item relates.
``(3) Contents of special message.--Each special message
shall specify, with respect to the budget item proposed to be
canceled--
``(A) the amount that the President proposes be canceled;
``(B) any account, department, or establishment of the
Government to which such budget item is available for
obligation, and the specific project or governmental
functions involved;
``(C) the reasons why the budget item should be canceled;
``(D) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated
fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect (including the effect
on outlays and receipts in each fiscal year) of the proposed
cancellation; and
``(E) all facts, circumstances, and considerations relating
to or bearing upon the proposed cancellation and the decision
to effect the proposed cancellation, and to the maximum
extent practicable, the estimated effect of the proposed
cancellation upon the objects, purposes, and programs for
which the budget item is provided.
``(4) Deficit reduction.--
``(A) Discretionary spending limits and adjustment of
committee allocations.--Not later than 5 days after the date
of enactment of a bill containing the cancellation of budget
items as provided under this section, the President shall--
``(i) with respect to a rescission of budget authority
provided in an appropriations Act, reduce the discretionary
spending limits under section 601 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 for the budget year and any outyear affected by
the rescission, to reflect such amount; and
``(ii) with respect to a repeal of a targeted tax benefit,
adjust the balances for the budget year and each outyear
under section 252(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 to reflect such amount.
``(B) Adjustment of committee allocations.--Not later than
5 days after the date of enactment of a bill containing the
cancellation of budget items as provided under this section,
the chairs of the Committees on the Budget of the Senate and
the House of Representatives shall revise levels under
section 311(a) and adjust the committee allocations under
section 602(a) to reflect such amount.
``(c) Procedures for Expedited Consideration:
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Introduction.--Before the close of the second day of
session of the Senate and the House of Representatives,
respectively, after the date of receipt of a special message
transmitted to Congress under subsection (b), the majority
leader or minority leader of each House shall introduce (by
request) the draft bill accompanying that special message. If
the bill is not introduced as provided in the preceding
sentence in either House, then, on the third day of session
of that House after the date of receipt of that special
message, any Member of that House may introduce the bill.
``(B) Referral and reporting.--The bill shall be referred
to the appropriate committee or (in the House of
Representatives) committees. The committee shall report the
bill without substantive revision and with or without
recommendation. The committee shall report the bill not later
than the seventh day of session of that House after the date
of receipt of that special message. If the committee fails to
report the bill within that period, the committee shall be
automatically discharged from consideration of the bill, and
the bill shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
``(C) Final passage.--A vote on final passage of the bill
shall be taken in the Senate and the House of Representatives
on or before the close of the 10th day of session of that
House after the date of the introduction of the bill in that
House. If the bill is passed, the Secretary of the Senate or
the Clerk of the House of Representatives, as the case may
be, shall cause the bill to be engrossed, certified, and
transmitted to the other House within one calendar day of the
day on which the bill is passed.
``(2) Consideration in the house of representatives.--
``(A) Motion to proceed to consideration.--A motion in the
House of Representatives to proceed to the consideration of a
bill under this subsection shall be highly privileged and not
debatable. An amendment to the motion shall not be in order,
nor shall it be in order to move to reconsider the vote by
which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
``(B) Motion to strike.--During consideration under this
subsection in the House of Representatives, any Member of the
House of Representatives may move to strike any proposed
cancellation of a budget item if supported by 49 other
Members.
``(C) Limits on debate.--Debate in the House of
Representatives on a bill under this subsection shall not
exceed 4 hours, which shall be divided equally between those
favoring and those opposing the bill. A motion further to
limit debate shall not be debatable. It shall not be in order
to move to recommit a bill under this subsection or to move
to reconsider the vote by which the bill is agreed to or
disagreed to.
``(D) Appeals.--Appeals from decisions of the Chair
relating to the application of the Rules of the House of
Representatives to the procedure relating to a bill under
this section shall be decided without debate.
``(E) Application of house rules.--Except to the extent
specifically provided in this section, consideration of a
bill under this section shall be governed by the Rules of the
House of Representatives. It shall not be in order in the
House of Representatives to consider any bill introduced
pursuant to the provisions of this section under a suspension
of the rules or under a special rule.
``(3) Consideration in the senate.--
``(A) Motion to proceed to consideration.--A motion to
proceed to the consideration of a bill under this subsection
in the Senate shall be nondebatable. It shall not be in order
to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to proceed
is agreed to or disagreed to.
``(B) Motion to strike.--During consideration of a bill
under this subsection in the Senate, any Member of the Senate
may move to strike any proposed cancellation of a budget item
if supported by 11 other Members.
``(C) Limits on debate.--Debate in the Senate on a bill
under this subsection, amendments thereto, and all debatable
motions and appeals in connection therewith (including debate
pursuant to subparagraph (D)), shall not exceed 10 hours. The
time shall be equally divided between, and controlled by, the
majority leader and the minority leader or their designees.
``(D) Appeals.--Debate in the Senate on any debatable
motion or appeal in connection with a bill under this
subsection shall be limited to not more than 1 hour, to be
equally divided between, and controlled by, the mover and the
manager of the bill, except that in the event the manager of
the bill is in favor of any such motion or appeal, the time
in opposition thereto, shall be controlled by the minority
leader or his designee. Such leaders, or either of them, may,
from time under their control on the passage of a bill, allot
additional time to any Senator during the consideration of
any debatable motion or appeal.
``(E) Motion to limit debate.--A motion in the Senate to
further limit debate on a bill under this subsection is not
debatable.
``(F) Motion to recommit.--A motion to recommit a bill
under this subsection is not in order.
``(G) Placed on calendar.--Upon receipt in the Senate of
the companion bill for a bill that has been introduced in the
Senate, that companion bill shall be placed on the calendar.
``(H) Consideration of house companion bill.--
``(i) In general.--Following the vote on the Senate bill
required under paragraph (l)(C), when the Senate proceeds to
consider the companion bill received from the House of
Representatives, the Senate shall--
``(I) if the language of the companion bill is identical to
the Senate bill, as passed, proceed to the immediate
consideration of the companion bill and, without intervening
action, vote on the companion bill; or
``(II) if the language of the companion bill is not
identical to the Senate bill, as passed, proceed to the
immediate consideration of the companion bill.
``(ii) Amendments.--During consideration of the companion
bill under clause (i)(II), any Senator may move to strike all
after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the text
of the Senate bill, as passed. Debate in the Senate on such
companion bill, any amendment proposed under this
subparagraph, and all debatable motions and appeals in
connection therewith, shall not exceed 10 hours less such
time as the Senate consumed or yielded back during
consideration of the Senate bill.
``(4) Conference.--
[[Page 1681]]
``(A) Consideration of conference reports.--Debate in the
House of Representatives or the Senate on the conference
report and any amendments in disagreement on any bill
considered under this section shall be limited to not more
than 2 hours, which shall be divided equally between the
majority leader and the minority leader. A motion further to
limit debate is not debatable. A motion to recommit the
conference report is not in order, and it is not in order to
move to reconsider the vote by which the conference report is
agreed to or disagreed to.
``(B) Failure of conference to act.--If the committee on
conference on a bill considered under this section fails to
submit a conference report within 10 calendar days after the
conferees have been appointed by each House, any Member of
either House may introduce a bill containing only the text of
the draft bill of the President on the next day of session
thereafter and the bill shall be considered as provided in
this section except that the bill shall not be subject to any
amendment.
``(d) Amendments and divisions prohibited.--Except as
otherwise provided by this section, no amendment to a bill
considered under this section shall be in order in either the
Senate or the House of Representatives. It shall not be in
order to demand a division of the question in the House of
Representatives (or in a Committee of the Whole). No motion
to suspend the application of this subsection shall be in
order in the House of Representatives, nor shall it be in
order in the House of Representatives to suspend the
application of this subsection by unanimous consent.
``(e) Temporary Presidential Authority To Cancel.--At the
same time as the President transmits to Congress a special
message under subsection (b)(I)(B)(i) proposing to cancel
budget items, the President may direct that any budget item
or items proposed to be canceled in that special message
shall not be made available for obligation or take effect for
a period not to exceed 45 calendar days from the date the
President transmits the special message to Congress. The
President may make any budget item or items canceled pursuant
to the preceding sentence available at a time earlier than
the time specified by the President if the President
determines that continuation of the cancellation would not
further the purposes of this Act.
``(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) The term `appropriation Act' means any general or
special appropriation Act, and any Act or joint resolution
making supplemental, deficiency, or continuing
appropriations.
``(2) The term `budget item' means--
``(A) an amount, in whole or in part, of budget authority
provided in an appropriation Act except to fund direct
spending programs and the administrative expenses social
security; or
``(B) a targeted tax benefit.
``(3) The term `cancellation of a budget item' means--
``(A) the rescission of any budget authority provided in an
appropriation Act; or
``(B) the repeal of any targeted tax benefit.
``(4) The term `companion bill' means, for any bill
introduced in either House pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(A),
the bill introduced in the other House as a result of the
same special message.
``(5) The term `targeted tax benefit' means any provision
which has the practical effect of providing a benefit in the
form of a different treatment to a particular taxpayer or a
limited class of taxpayers, whether or not such provision is
limited by its terms to a particular taxpayer or a class of
taxpayers. Such term does not include any benefit provided to
a class of taxpayers distinguished on the basis of general
demographic conditions such as income, number of dependents,
or marital status.''.
(b) Exercise of Rulemaking Powers.-- Section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 note) is
amended--
(1) in subsection ( a), by striking ``and 1017'' and
inserting ``1012A, and 1017''; and
(2) in subsection (d), by striking ``section 1017'' and
inserting ``sections 1012A and 1017''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections for subpart
B of title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 1012 the following:
``Sec. 1012A. Expedited consideration of certain proposed
cancellations of budget items.''.
(d) Effective Period.--The amendments made by this Act
shall--
(1) take effect on the date of enactment of this Act;
(2) apply only to budget items provided in Acts enacted on
or after the date of enactment of this Act; and
(3) cease to be effective on September 30, 1998.
Mr. GREGG. As to this amendment, on March 23, Senator Byrd rose and
said: `` . . . I am 100 percent behind the substitute by Mr. Daschle,
and I ask unanimous consent that my name may be added as a cosponsor.''
This amendment is essentially what I have offered as the second-look-
at-waste amendment. In fact, I will be honest, I would be willing to
probably modify my amendment to basically track the Daschle amendment
exactly. I have some differences with the Daschle amendment. I do not
think in some places it is constructed as well as mine because it has
13 shots from the President. I happen to think that is a mistake. And
it is not referred to committees, which I think is a mistake. I would
be willing to offer it. If that is what it takes to mute the argument
that this is a line-item veto amendment, then I will do that because
this is not a line-item veto amendment.
So my immense respect for the Senator from West Virginia and my very
high regard for his arguments as to why he opposes the line-item veto
remain. I continue to have enthusiasm in both those accounts for him.
But I have to say I think for him to characterize this amendment as a
line-item veto amendment is incorrect. This amendment is much better
characterized as being close to, in fact, the child of, the Daschle
amendment of 1995, which had broad support on the other side of the
aisle, as I have already mentioned.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold his yielding the
floor? I would like to ask him a few questions.
Mr. GREGG. Of course.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gregg for his work in this
area and for the several speeches he has given on this matter over the
last few days. I have found it very informative. I hope we have
something worked out where we can actually get a vote on this issue. It
is still the Senate and, generally speaking, we try to accommodate
Members' wishes to discuss an issue and get a vote.
But a little bit of history: I worked very hard, as I pointed out
yesterday, on line-item veto legislation, and we got it done. The first
time it was used I was very disappointed in the way that President
Clinton used it. I thought the veto list had some serious political
implications and was very disappointed in that and wondered if I had
done the right thing. Then, of course, the Supreme Court struck it
down. And now we are back here.
Now, tell me again--where a layman can understand--why is this so-
called enhanced rescission?
Mr. GREGG. Second look at waste.
Mr. LOTT. Second look at waste. I like that. I like them taking
another look at waste. And I like putting it against the deficit. In
fact, I remember back in the 1970s arguing that a President should be
able to rescind funding, not spend money that Congress said he should
spend because they had been doing it back since the time of Jefferson.
That led to, in 1974, the Budget Empowerment Act, which stopped
President Nixon and subsequent Presidents from doing that.
There is no question that we sometimes adopt bills that spend funds
that should not be spent or events overtake spending. I think there
should be some process for a President to get a reconsideration. There
may be better ways to use that money. But I do think we have a
constitutional role in that too. Once we indicate this is where we
think it should be spent, the overwhelming burden should be to explain
why not.
The question to you, I say to the Senator, is this: No. 1, why is
this different from the line-item veto that we passed that was stricken
down by the Supreme Court?
Mr. GREGG. Well, the fundamental difference from the line-item veto
is that it does not require a supermajority to reject the idea of the
President. It requires a majority of both Houses--both Houses have to
have a majority vote in favor of the President's position. Therefore,
either House can strike down the President's position. So you retain--
we, the Congress--the power of the purse.
Mr. LOTT. Was there language in the Supreme Court that indicated this
sort of thing might solve their constitutional reservations?
[[Page 1682]]
Mr. GREGG. It is my understanding, from the constitutional lawyers
whom we have had look at this, that this would solve the constitutional
issues which were raised by a line-item veto because it is not a line-
item veto.
Mr. LOTT. Why do you think it is necessary to have four bites at this
apple? I am inclined to give Presidents a chance to send up a
rescission list. I think it should have a vote. I think it should be an
expedited procedure. I like the fact that if we do not spend it, he
cannot turn around and spend it somewhere else and it goes to reduce
the deficit. I can even see giving him a second bite later on in the
year as long as it is not some of the same things a second time. And
you took care of that concern I had last year.
But why four times? We will wind up spending half the year working on
expedited proceedings to get a vote on rescissions, possibly.
Mr. GREGG. Well, Mr. President, the administration asked for 10
times. The Daschle amendment had 13 times. We reduced it to 4 times,
for the exact point that the assistant Republican leader made, which
was we did not think the Congress should be able to have these issues
wrap up our schedule.
Under this schedule, each rescission would be subject to 10 days
before it had to be voted on. I am perfectly agreeable, should we get
this into a process where we can amend it, as I said earlier, to
include strike language or consider that and to also include language
which would take it down to fewer times. That is not a problem, as far
as I am concerned. We settled on four, arbitrarily, to say the least.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I hear a lot of talk
in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle about how we do worry about
deficits and getting spending under control and getting some further
disclosure or limits on earmarks. Some of that I do not even agree
with. But there is a lot of positioning about how we need to get some
better control on spending. Wouldn't this be one way to do that? ``It
would sort of help me before I do it again,'' sort of thing.
Mr. GREGG. To answer the Senator's question, absolutely, that is what
it would do. It, essentially, would create another mechanism where
Congress would have a light-of-day experience on things that tend to
get buried in these omnibus bills and may have to make a clear call as
to whether that spending was appropriate. So, yes, it is very much an
issue of fiscal discipline. It is very much an issue of managing
earmarks.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we gripe about this earmark or that earmark.
Usually it is somebody else's earmark, not our earmark. So we do
position on that subject. But this is one last way to make sure those
earmarks see the light of day and are reviewed, not in a way where the
President can just summarily do it but where he can do it, and we have
to face up and vote yes or no.
So I thank the Senator for what he has done. He has been a great
chairman of the Budget Committee. I am looking forward to watching him
and the Senator from North Dakota work together. I believe we might
actually do some good things under yours and his leadership. I wish you
the very best in that effort. Thank you.
Mr. President, here we are, the Sun has set on Thursday. It is a
quarter to 6. The Sun officially went down at 5:13. We are like bats.
The Senate will soon come out from wherever we have been. I am not
blaming anybody on either side of the aisle, but I don't know what
happened today. Somewhere back, I guess, about 2 o'clock all the
combatants went to their respective corners, and there has not been a
blow thrown since.
So some people might say: Do something about it. Well, I am trying to
do something about it by shedding a little light on what we are not
doing. We have been out here marking time all afternoon.
I know how it works. Papers are exchanged, amendments added and
struck, and agreements are made. Hello, it is a quarter to 6. I had
high hopes and I have high hopes that the Senate is going to find a way
to work together and do a better job and that we work at 11 o'clock on
Wednesday morning instead of 11 o'clock at night. I know a lot of
people don't agree with me on this, but I don't see why it is a good
idea to be voting at 11 o'clock on Thursday night but not on Friday
morning. I still think it is a really good idea to work during the
daylight and go home and not have a meal with a lobbyist but have a
meal with your family.
I don't know what else to do. I have called everybody involved. I
have been to offices. I have been stirring around, scurrying around. Is
there an agenda here? I don't get it. But I know what is going to
happen. All of a sudden, we are going to come out of our cages and we
are going to start a whole series of votes. Well, let's get started.
I notice the Presiding Officer is an old House Member. There was a
clear rule in the House, an adage that was proven right every time, and
that has been one of the problems with the House. More and more, the
House tried to cram a week's worth of work into 2\1/2\ days, and they
would have a series of votes at 11 o'clock--outrageous--at night. Any
time you are in session beyond 9 o'clock, the odds are pretty good you
are going to mess up, do something wrong and embarrass yourself.
So I would say to our leaders: We have an opportunity here to do a
better job and to work with each other. But the last 2 days? Again, you
might say: Well, it is because Senator Gregg had an amendment. Well,
why don't we just vote and move on? People can say: Well, we are
working out an agreement where we won't have a lot of votes. Well, we
might just as well have a lot of votes. We are standing around giving
speeches on something we are not even going to vote on. This is the
kind of thing that I think leads to problems and tarnishes our image. I
wish we could find a way to do things in a more normal way. But maybe
the Senate can't do that. Maybe the Senator from Maryland will help us
find a better way to do things as a new Member of the institution. I
hope so.
I thought maybe I could draw somebody out, but I guess I was too
general. Nobody has moved. The doors are still closed. I have half a
mind to ask unanimous consent that we complete all votes on all
amendments and all time be expired effective in the morning at 9
o'clock, and I will see you all tomorrow. Maybe I ought to do that.
That would be good. Of course, I have no authority to do that, but
somebody ought to do it to try to get this place to function normally.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope to speak at some length about the
line-item veto at a later time. However, for the benefit of my
colleagues, I want to respond to the arguments put forward today about
two measures I endorsed in 1995 and 1996.
The Daschle amendment that I cosponsored in 1995, and the amendment I
offered to the motion to recommit the line-item veto conference report
in 1996, are vastly different in regard to their Constitutional
ramifications from what has been offered by Senator Gregg to the ethics
reform bill.
The Gregg proposal allows the President to submit rescission
proposals up to 365 days after he signs a bill into law. Such latitude
would allow the President to unilaterally veto a one-year appropriation
by delaying its expenditure, and then submitting it for rescission
within 45 days of its expiration. In contrast, the proposals I endorsed
in 1995 and 1996 would have limited a President to submitting
rescission proposals within 20 days of a bill being signed into law.
The proposals I have endorsed would have prevented the President from
unilaterally cancelling a one-year appropriations. The
[[Page 1683]]
Gregg amendment contains no such protection.
The Gregg proposal also prohibits amendments to the President's
rescission requests. In contrast, the proposals I have endorsed would
have allowed motions to strike. Without the right to amend, Senators
are vulnerable to threats by any President who would target a Member's
spending and revenue priorities and force the Senate to vote on them at
a time and in the manner decided by the President.
I have the greatest respect for the Senator from New Hampshire, and
the knowledge and expertise he brings to the Congressional budget and
appropriations process. He is a good Senator. But I cannot endorse his
views with regard to the line-item veto.
AMENDMENT NO. 31
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to speak on amendment No. 31,
which I have offered with Senator Obama, and which, unless agreement is
reached otherwise, will be voted on when we return to the bill in an
attempt to finish it. We have offered this amendment to try to give
some teeth to the so-called revolving door statute.
The shortcomings of the revolving door law have been known for some
time. This bill already corrects two of them, and I strongly support
those provisions.
First, it increases the so-called cooling off period--that is, the
period during which restrictions on the activities of former Members of
Congress apply--from 1 year to 2 years.
Second, it expands the prohibition that applies to senior staff
members who become lobbyists. Rather than having to refrain from
lobbying the former employing Senator or committee, staffers turned
lobbyists may not lobby the entire Senate during this cooling-off
period.
These are important changes, but there is an additional reform that I
believe we must adopt if the revolving door statute is to be a serious
impediment to improper influence peddling.
My amendment would prohibit former Senators not only from personally
lobbying their former colleagues during the 2-year cooling-off period,
but also from engaging in lobbying activities during that period.
Let me talk for a minute about revolving door restrictions generally,
and then I will discuss the need for this particular amendment. The
revolving door is a problem for two basic reasons. First, because of
the revolving door, some interests have better access to the
legislative process than others. Former Members and staff, or former
executive branch employees, know how to work the system and get results
for their clients. Those who have the money to hire them have a leg up.
The public perceives this as an unfair process, and I agree.
Decisions in Congress on legislation, or in regulatory agencies on
regulations or enforcement, or in the Defense Department on huge
Government contracts, should be made, to the extent possible, on the
merits, not based on who has the best connected lobbyist.
The second problem of the revolving door is it creates the
perception--perception--that public officials are cashing in on their
public service, trading on their connections and their knowledge for
personal profit. When you see former Members or staff becoming
lobbyists and making three or four or five times what they made in
Government service to work on the same issues they worked on here, that
raises questions for a lot of people.
Both sides of this coin combine to further the cynicism about how
policy is made in this country and who is making it. That, ultimately,
is the biggest problem here. The public loses confidence in elected
officials and public servants.
One of the worst things we can do here is say we are addressing a
problem, knowing we are not getting at the core of the problem. That is
what has happened with the revolving door. We have a so-called cooling-
off period, which basically has become a ``warming-up period.'' Former
Members leave office and they almost immediately join these lobbying
firms. Both they and their employers know they cannot lobby Congress
for a year, but it does not matter. They can do everything short of
picking up the phone or coming to the meeting. They can strategize
behind the scenes. They can give advice on who to contact, what
arguments to use, what buttons to push. They can even direct others to
make the contacts, and say they are doing so at the suggestion of the
ex-Senator in question, who is supposedly in the middle of this 2-year
cooling-off period.
Making it a 2-year warming-up period does not do enough. We have to
change what is allowed during that period. Only then will the public
believe we have addressed the revolving door problem.
The Lobbying Disclosure Act requires lobbying firms and organizations
that lobby to report on how much they spend not on lobbying contacts
but on lobbying activities. ``Lobbying activities'' is a defined term,
covering ``lobbying contacts and efforts in support of such contacts,
including preparation and planning activities, research and other
background work that is intended, at the time it is performed, for use
in contacts, and coordination with the lobbying activities of others.''
This term I just mentioned and defined has been in use for over a
decade without controversy.
So the Feingold-Obama amendment simply prohibits former Members of
Congress from engaging in lobbying activities for the 2 years following
their congressional service. If the money spent on what the former
Member is doing would have to be reported under the LDA, then the
former Member cannot do it. Adopting this amendment will show the
public we are serious about addressing the revolving door problem. It
will make a real difference, which I fear simply lengthening the
cooling-off period will not.
I have heard some complain that by doing this we are going after our
former colleagues' ability to make a living and support their families.
I strongly disagree with that.
According to a study done by Public Citizen in 2005, it is only in
the last decade or so that lobbying has become the profession of choice
for former Members of Congress. In any event, we are not talking about
a lifetime ban, just a real cooling-off period for 2 years. Members of
Congress are highly talented, highly employable people. Surely, their
experience and expertise is of interest to potential employers for
something other than trying to influence legislation right after they
leave the House or the Senate.
There are many other kinds of work, including some that may be just
as fulfilling, though perhaps not as rewarding financially, as
representing private interests before their former colleagues. This is
not a question of punishing those who serve in Congress. It is a
question of Members of Congress recognizing that we are here as public
servants, and when that service ends, we should not be allowed to turn
around and transform it into a huge personal financial benefit.
If after sitting out an entire Congress--2 full years--a former
Member wishes to come to Washington and lobby, he or she can do that.
But some of the issues will have changed, and so will the membership of
the Congress. The former Member will not have quite the same advantages
and connections after a true 2-year cooling-off period. So even if
these Members do become lobbyists at that point, I think we will be
able to tell our constituents with a straight face that we have
addressed the revolving door problem in a meaningful way.
Let me emphasize one thing about this amendment. It does not apply to
former staff. The reason is simple. We let, under this, former staffers
leave this building and become lobbyists tomorrow. They are limited in
what offices they can contact, but they are allowed to lobby. So
preventing them from engaging in lobbying activities only with respect
to certain offices would not make sense. But for former Members, who
are prohibited from contacting anyone in the Congress, this additional
prohibition actually makes a lot of sense and will have a real impact.
The American people are looking for real results in this legislation.
We cannot claim to be giving them that with
[[Page 1684]]
respect to the revolving door without this amendment. So I urge my
colleagues to vote for the Feingold-Obama amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I listened with interest to my friend
from Wisconsin. I have to repeat what I said on the floor before. I may
be the only one--I am not sure--who has had experience with the
revolving door, as one who went through it. I worked in the Nixon
administration. The day after I walked out, I had a number of clients
who wanted me to lobby them at my former department. I was at the
Department of Transportation, and I was the chief lobbyist. We pretend
that executive departments don't have lobbyists. We call them
congressional relations specialists or congressional liaisons, but they
are lobbyists. And I had been lobbying the Congress on behalf of the
Department of Transportation.
In that role I got access to the Secretary's inner circle. And the
day after I left, I was hired by people who had interests before the
Department. There was no prohibition for that at that time. So I went
to the Department of Transportation and to my old friends with whom I
had been working very closely for that period of time. I discovered
very quickly that the fact that I no longer was at the Secretary's ear,
the fact that I no longer had any position of influence in the
Department made me a whole lot less welcome in their offices than I had
been the week before. They were happy to see me. They were polite. But
they had other things to do. And they were happy to get me out of their
offices and out of their hair as quickly as they could.
Did I have an advantage? Yes, I had the advantage of knowing the
Department well enough to know where to go and not waste my time. Did I
have any additional clout to get these people to do something that
would not have been in the public interest by virtue of the fact that I
had been there and worked with them and knew them? Not at all. These
were legitimate public servants who were not about to do something
improper just because a friend who had worked with them asked them to
do it. Of course, I was not about to ask them to do anything improper
because that would be a violation of my responsibility to my clients.
But I learned quickly that this idea of the revolving door is vastly
overrated and overstated by some of our friends in the media.
I suppose we will pass the Feingold amendment. I don't suppose it
will make any difference. But the idea that a former Member sitting in
a board room talking to other people who are engaged in lobbying
activity and saying to them: Don't talk to Senator so-and-so, talk to
Senator so-and-so because the second Senator so-and-so is the one who
really understands this issue. Don't waste your time with the first
one. I know him well enough to know that he really won't get your
argument--to criminalize that kind of a statement made in a law firm or
a lobbying firm, to me, is going much too far. But we will probably
pass it. We will go forward. We will see if it survives the scrutiny
that it will get in conference and in conversations with the House.
I, once again, say that we are doing a lot of things that are in
response to the media and in response to special interest groups that
call themselves public interest groups but raise money and pay salaries
just as thoroughly as the special interest groups. And they have to
have something to do to keep their members happy. They have to have
something to do to keep those dues coming in, those contributions
coming in. So they scare them that a U.S. Senator, who leaves and goes
to a law firm, cannot be in the room when anybody in that law firm is
talking about exercising their constitutional right to petition the
Government for redress of their grievances because, if the Senator is
in that room for a 2-year period, he is somehow corrupting the entire
process. I think that is silly.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would just say, in response to my
friend from Utah, that I don't doubt for a minute that what he has said
is true. But to generalize from his experience I don't think makes
sense. Our former colleagues are making millions of dollars trading on
their experience. I don't think these lobbying firms are throwing away
their money for nothing. And I know the public doesn't believe that,
which is a very good reason to adopt this amendment. It is not silly;
it is the right thing to do.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning
business be closed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1) to provide greater transparency in the
legislative process.
Pending:
Reid amendment No. 3, in the nature of a substitute.
DeMint amendment No. 12 (to amendment No. 3), to clarify
that earmarks added to a conference report that are not
considered by the Senate or the House of Representatives are
out of scope.
DeMint amendment No. 14 (to amendment No. 3), to protect
individuals from having their money involuntarily collected
and used for lobbying by a labor organization.
Vitter-Inhofe further modified amendment No. 9 (to
amendment No. 3), to prohibit Members from having official
contact with any spouse of a Member who is a registered
lobbyist.
Leahy-Pryor amendment No. 2 (to amendment No. 3), to give
investigators and prosecutors the tools they need to combat
public corruption.
Gregg amendment No. 17 (to amendment No. 3), to establish a
legislative line item veto.
Ensign amendment No. 24 (to amendment No. 3), to provide
for better transparency and enhanced congressional oversight
of spending by clarifying the treatment of matter not
committed to the conferees by either House.
Ensign modified amendment No. 25 (to amendment No. 3), to
ensure full funding for the Department of Defense within the
regular appropriations process, to limit the reliance of the
Department of Defense on supplemental appropriations bills,
and to improve the integrity of the congressional budget
process.
Cornyn amendment No. 26 (to amendment No. 3), to require
full separate disclosure of any earmarks in any bill, joint
resolution, report, conference report or statement of
managers.
Cornyn amendment No. 27 (to amendment No. 3), to require 3
calendar days notice in the Senate before proceeding to any
matter.
Bennett (for McCain) amendment No. 28 (to amendment No. 3),
to provide congressional transparency.
Bennett (for McCain) amendment No. 29 (to amendment No. 3),
to provide congressional transparency.
Lieberman amendment No. 30 (to amendment No. 3), to
establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity.
Bennett-McConnell amendment No. 20 (to amendment No. 3), to
strike a provision relating to paid efforts to stimulate
grassroots lobbying.
Thune amendment No. 37 (to amendment No. 3), to require any
recipient of a Federal award to disclose all lobbying and
political advocacy.
Feinstein-Rockefeller amendment No. 42 (to amendment No.
3), to prohibit an earmark from being included in the
classified portion of a report accompanying a measure unless
the measure includes a general program description, funding
level, and the name of the sponsor of that earmark.
Feingold amendment No. 31 (to amendment No. 3), to prohibit
former Members of Congress from engaging in lobbying
activities in addition to lobbying contacts during their
cooling off period.
Feingold amendment No. 33 (to amendment No. 3), to prohibit
former Members who are lobbyists from using gym and parking
privileges made available to Members and former Members.
[[Page 1685]]
Feingold amendment No. 34 (to amendment No. 3), to require
Senate campaigns to file their FEC reports electronically.
Durbin amendment No. 36 (to amendment No. 3), to require
that amendments and motions to recommit with instructions be
copied and provided by the clerk to the desks of the Majority
Leader and the Minority Leader before being debated.
Cornyn amendment No. 45 (to amendment No. 3), to require 72
hour public availability of legislative matters before
consideration.
Cornyn amendment No. 46 (to amendment No. 2), to deter
public corruption.
Bond (for Coburn) amendment No. 48 (to amendment No. 3), to
require all recipients of Federal earmarks, grants,
subgrants, and contracts to disclose amounts spent on
lobbying and a description of all lobbying activities.
Bond (for Coburn) amendment No. 49 (to amendment No. 3), to
require all congressional earmark requests to be submitted to
the appropriate Senate committee on a standardized form.
Bond (for Coburn) amendment No. 50 (to amendment No. 3), to
provide disclosure of lobbyist gifts and travel instead of
banning them as proposed.
Bond (for Coburn) amendment No. 51 (to amendment No. 3), to
prohibit Members from requesting earmarks that may
financially benefit that Member or immediate family member of
that Member.
Nelson (NE) amendment No. 47 (to amendment No. 3), to help
encourage fiscal responsibility in the earmarking process.
Reid (for Lieberman) amendment No. 43 (to amendment No. 3),
to require disclosure of earmark lobbying by lobbyists.
Reid (for Casey) amendment No. 56 (to amendment No. 3), to
eliminate the K Street Project by prohibiting the wrongful
influencing of a private entity's employment decisions or
practices in exchange for political access or favors.
Sanders amendment No. 57 (to amendment No. 3), to require a
report by the Commission to Strengthen Confidence in Congress
regarding political contributions before and after the
enactment of certain laws.
Bennett (for Coburn) amendment No. 59 (to amendment No. 3),
to provide disclosure of lobbyist gifts and travel instead of
banning them as proposed.
Bennett (for Coleman) amendment No. 39 (to amendment No.
3), to require that a publicly available website be
established in Congress to allow the public access to records
of reported congressional official travel.
Feingold amendment No. 63 (to amendment No. 3), to increase
the cooling off period for senior staff to 2 years and to
prohibit former Members of Congress from engaging in lobbying
activities in addition to lobbying contacts during their
cooling off period.
Feingold amendment No. 64 (to amendment No. 3), to prohibit
lobbyists and entities that retain or employ lobbyists from
throwing lavish parties honoring Members at party
conventions.
Feingold-Obama amendment No. 76 (to amendment No. 3), to
clarify certain aspects of the lobbyist contribution
reporting provision.
Obama-Feingold amendment No. 41 (to amendment No. 3), to
require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership
PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange
contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions
collected or arranged.
Nelson (NE)-Salazar amendment No. 71 (to amendment No. 3),
to extend the laws and rules passed in this bill to the
executive and judicial branches of government.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, I apologize to everybody for
having Senators wait around. I can remember when I was in the House,
and in the interest of coming to the Senate, I turned on the TV set.
Jim Exon from Nebraska kept suggesting the absence of a quorum. I was
so upset not knowing what the procedure was. But I came and served with
Jim Exon--first of all, he was as big as the Presiding Officer, and he
was a man who was very dedicated to the Senate. But after I got here, I
understood more what was happening. So I apologize for all the quorum
calls. A lot of people think nothing is going on, but Democrats and
Republicans and staff have been working so hard from last night to
today to get us to this point.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all amendments to the
amendment No. 3 be withdrawn and that the following be the only
amendments remaining in order to the bill or substitute amendment; that
the votes in relation to the amendments begin at 8:10 this evening,
with 2 minutes for debate equally divided between each vote; that upon
disposition of the above-listed amendments, the substitute amendment
No. 3 be agreed to as amended, the bill be read the third time, and the
Senate vote, without any intervening action or debate, on final passage
of the bill.
The amendments that I have referred to are as follows: Bennett
amendment No. 20 on grassroots lobbying; Lieberman-Collins amendment
No. 30; Vitter amendment No. 9 on spouses; Coburn amendment No. 51 on
gifts and travel disclosure; Ensign-DeMint amendment on scope of
conference; Feingold amendment No. 31 on former members lobbying;
Feingold amendment No. 33 on gym and parking; Durbin amendment No. 77
on providing managers copies of amendments; Obama amendment No. 41 on
bundling; Sanders amendment No. 57 on study; Coleman-Cardin amendment
No. 39, as modified, on travel Web site; managers' amendment to be
agreed to by both managers; further, that the Senate begin
consideration of H.R. 2, the minimum wage bill on Monday, January 22,
at 2 p.m. and that Senator Coburn be recognized to speak following
final passage following the remarks of the two leaders.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, would the leader add to
that, after the first vote that subsequent votes be 10-minute votes?
Mr. REID. Yes, I will.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my
understanding is that when the Senate turns to minimum wage, the
majority leader, or his designee, will offer a substitute amendment
that will be fully amendable; is that correct?
Mr. REID. True.
Mr. GREGG. Further, I understand the majority leader is aware that I
have agreed to withdraw my amendment on this bill, the lobby reform
bill, and I will be here Monday to offer my language to the minimum
wage bill.
Mr. REID. That is my understanding. The Senator absolutely has that
right.
Mr. GREGG. Further reserving the right to object, I understand that
the majority leader will be unable to reach consent for a time
agreement to vote on my amendment; therefore, it is likely that a
cloture motion will be filed on my language on Monday. I expect my
language to be the first amendment to the bill.
Mr. REID. It may not be the first, but we have an agreement that it
would be following my recognition, the offering of the substitute, and
the minority leader, who would be recognized.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the two leaders for their assistance in this
process. I believe this is a reasonable way to bring up the amendment
that I have offered and to move this bill at the same time.
I understand that on Monday it would be the expectation that nobody
will be complaining that I have it on the wrong vehicle.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Republican leader says anything,
I will be brief. We have been able, if this agreement is reached, to
accomplish what the distinguished Republican leader and I intended to
do this week. As a result of that and an agreement to go forward on the
minimum wage, there will be no votes tomorrow or Monday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, to reiterate what the majority leader
indicated, as a result of this agreement, which did take a while--and I
know some of our colleagues wondered if we were ever going to get
there--we will complete the bill tonight, and we will have no votes
tomorrow or Monday.
This was a successful example of good negotiation--although it took a
while--for a favorable result.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, has the agreement been accepted?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, in that we are not voting until 8:10, I will
say a few words. Let me say this. This legislation has been extremely
difficult to deal with. It is difficult because it directly affects our
lives, Members of the Senate. In the short term, this is going to be
difficult because we are going to have to get used to the provisions in
[[Page 1686]]
this piece of legislation. But in the long term, we will all be
thankful these steps have been taken. This legislation will remove even
the appearance of impropriety from the work done in this Chamber.
This is not a time for declaring victory. Legislation is the art of
compromise, the art of consensus building. There has been a victor in
all of this when this matter is completed and that is the American
people. I am not a victor, I am not a loser. Senator McConnell is not a
victor or a loser. We have worked through this in the way that
legislators should work through difficult pieces of legislation. I
believe last November Americans, through their votes, asked us to make
Government honest. We have done that. We are going to give them what I
believe is a Government they deserve.
I am satisfied that this debate has been good for this body. Now we
are going to move forward, recognizing the last 24 hours has not been
easy legislatively. As Senator Durbin said last night, it was a bump in
the road. It was a real bump and people should have had their seatbelts
on because it was a difficult bump. But I believe last night there were
people looking for an excuse to not move this bill forward. Let me say,
underlying and underscoring this, as I said last night--and I will say
it again--Senator Judd Gregg, the senior Senator from New Hampshire, is
a person who has tremendously strong principles. He believes in this
legislation. I believe just as strongly that it is wrong. But he
believes it is right. I admire and respect him for doing that, just as
his partner on the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, is a person of
principle. They have worked on this issue and other issues together, as
legislators should work together. I so much respect the way they work
together. They disagree on a number of different issues, but they do it
in a way that I think brings dignity to this body.
I, also, wish to say one thing about my friend, Senator Russ
Feingold. He has been a pioneer on a number of different legislative
issues. He fought tooth and nail with my friend, the Republican leader,
on campaign finance reform. It was a debate that went on for a number
of years in this body. Senator Feingold is a person who has talked
about ethics since he came to the Senate. There are a lot of people
responsible for this legislation, but there is no one more responsible
than the Senator from Wisconsin.
He has been a pioneer, and he has not let up from the time he came to
the Senate to today in moving forward on what he believes is good for
this body politic. With rare exception, I agree with him. He is my
friend. He is a person for whom I have great admiration based on his,
if nothing else--and there is plenty more--being a Rhodes Scholar, a
Harvard graduate with honors, a man who was a dignified and successful
lawyer before he came to the Senate. He has shown he is a good
legislator. So I have great respect for him.
In the past, I called this legislation the toughest reform since
Watergate. That is an understatement. This is the toughest reform bill
in the history of this body as it relates to ethics and lawmaking. So
everyone tonight, when they vote on this bill, should vote proudly.
What is going to happen soon is historic: requiring new lobbying
disclosure, banning all gifts, reforming earmarks, requiring Senators
to pay charter rates on corporate jets. We will restore the confidence
of our citizenry in the Government.
I so appreciate the work that has been done on this legislation. I
appreciate the work of my friend, the Republican leader. We have had
disagreements on this legislation, but we have an agreement in
principle as to what this body is all about. I look forward to working
together on more bipartisan legislation. This is bipartisan legislation
sponsored by the Democratic leader and the Republican leader of the
Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend, the majority
leader, I couldn't agree more. This is a classic example of
bipartisanship in the Senate at its very best. We had good bipartisan
support last year when we passed a similar bill 90 to 8. This year, I
think we are going to finish the job.
I particularly wish to recognize, on this side of the aisle, the
extraordinary work of Senator Gregg in achieving his goal on the next
bill up to get an important vote that is important not only to him but
to many Members on our side of the aisle.
I extend my congratulations to my good friend, Bob Bennett, the
ranking member on our side, who has been involved on this from
beginning to end and has done an extraordinary job of managing a very
complex and difficult bill; to Senator Susan Collins, who has been a
leader on the Collins-Lieberman amendment on which we will be voting
shortly; to Senator Vitter, Senator Coburn, Senator DeMint, who have
been extremely active on this bill, and each of them has an imprint on
this final passage measure that we will be dealing with shortly.
Mr. President, I congratulate all Senators for an extraordinary
accomplishment, under very difficult circumstances on a broad,
bipartisan basis. The patience that was exhibited to allow us to get to
this point, I remind everyone, is what produced an opportunity to have
no votes tomorrow and no votes on Monday. I think this was worth the
wait.
I congratulate the majority leader.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I failed to acknowledge the managers of this
bill. I apologize to both of them. They have been masterful in working
this bill the last 2 weeks. The two managers are going to be involved
heavily in getting this through conference. I have so much respect for
both of them. They are outstanding Senators.
I repeat, I am so sorry I didn't acknowledge them. I should have done
that in the beginning because they have done more than anybody else in
moving this bill forward. They worked as partners moving this bill
forward. It has been a difficult partnership because of the different
thoughts on different sides of the aisle as to what is good and bad.
They have been able to be dignified in what they have done. I
appreciate it.
Amendment No. 20
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Bennett amendment
No. 20.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
Mr. BENNETT. How is the time allocated between now and the scheduled
votes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time is allocated. The Senator may speak.
Mr. BENNETT. Do I understand, Mr. President, that the votes are not
locked in for 8:10 p.m.?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the voting begins at
8:10 p.m.
Mr. BENNETT. So the time between now and 8:10 p.m. is not allocated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I wish to be fair to whoever opposes my
amendment to allow time for them to do that, but I would like to speak
briefly in favor of my amendment.
My amendment is called the grassroots lobbying amendment. I have
discussed it and its virtues at some length previously during the
period of debate, but I remind everyone what this is all about.
This has to do with the regulations and reporting requirements placed
on organizations that stimulate people to contact their Members of
Congress. These organizations can be, and many times are, outside of
Washington, DC. They can, and many times do, carry on their work
without ever contacting a Member of Congress directly or participating
in any of the activities we normally think of as lobbying. And yet, if
an organization or an individual were to stimulate neighbors, Members
of a fraternal organization, their bowling club--whatever it is--to try
to get them active in the process of petitioning the Government, they
run the
[[Page 1687]]
risk of not registering properly because under the underlying bill,
they are defined as lobbyists, and if they fail to fill out their forms
properly, if they fail to register properly, they are subject to a
$200,000 fine.
The ACLU has said--in my opinion accurately--that this would have a
chilling effect on all of these kinds of activities. People on the
right side, the National Right to Life, have said this would have a
chilling effect on everything we do.
I know there has been talk about astroturf lobbyists and astroturf
campaigns. I am certainly competent to know when an astroturf phony
campaign has been mounted. The letters and the postcards come into the
office, and it is very transparent they are not genuine and real. I do
not need to be protected from my constituents by the language in the
underlying bill.
My amendment is very simple. It simply strikes the grassroots
provision.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I intend to support amendment No. 20
offered by my colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett. This amendment
would strike section 220, the grassroots reporting provision, from the
bill.
Yesterday, during my statement on the need for comprehensive lobbying
and ethics reform, I discussed the importance of an informed citizenry
and how it is essential to a thriving democracy. A democratic
government operates best in the disinfecting light of the public eye.
With this bill, we have an opportunity to balance the right of the
public to know with its right to petition government; the ability of
lobbyists' to advocate their clients' causes with the need for truthful
public discourse; and the ability of Members to legislate with the
imperative that our government must be free from corrupting influences,
both real and perceived. We must act now to ensure that the erosion we
see today in the public's confidence in Congress does not become a
collapse of confidence.
We have an obligation to address this crisis of confidence, but we
also have an obligation to ensure that we do so in a thoughtful,
reasoned, and constitutional manner. It is imperative that we be
mindful of the rights of American citizens to freely contact their
public officials and take part in the political process. After careful
consideration, and much input from groups representing all parts of the
political spectrum, it has become evident to me that section 220 of the
underlying bill could seriously impact legitimate communications
between public interest organizations and their members. That is why I
will support the efforts of my colleague from Utah to strike section
220 from the bill.
It is my understanding that, under this provision, small
organizations--many with no representation in Washington--would have to
register as grassroots lobbying firms. These groups would then have to
comply with onerous quarterly reporting requirements or face fines and
criminal penalties. I do not think it was the intention of the
proponents of this provision to restrict the ability of groups to
communicate with their membership, but I have concluded that this could
very well be the outcome.
The approach taken in the underlying bill is one of greater
disclosure of and transparency into the interactions of lobbyists with
our public officials. More transparency and disclosure of professional
lobbyists' activities can only lead to better government.
Unfortunately, section 220 simply goes too far, and I fear that the
unintended consequences would negatively impact the legitimate,
constitutionally protected activities of small citizen groups and their
members.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by Senator
Bennett which would strike the grassroots lobbying provision in S. 1.
Several years ago, I, along with several colleagues, undertook the
task of strengthening reporting requirements for lobbyists. This
culminated in the passage of the Lobbying Disclosure Act which broke
new ground by allowing sunlight into the activities of lobbyists in
Washington. It finally required meaningful disclosure of the billions
of dollars spent on lobbying Members of Congress.
While great progress was made, there was a major loophole left open
which needs to be closed. Under current law, lobbyists are permitted to
exclude the cost of their efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying when
they report under the LDA. We recognized this problem in 1996 but were
not successful in efforts to address it. However, I continue to believe
that lobbyists who engage in this so-called ``Astroturf'' lobbying
should also be required to disclose their spending.
The Wall Street Journal examined this issue when we last reviewed
this and reported that an estimated $790 million was spent on this type
of grassroots lobbying in a 2-year period alone. Accounting for the
growth in the lobbying industry that we have seen over the last decade,
this number is surely over a billion by now.
What sort of activities does money spent on ``Astroturf'' lobbying
efforts pay for? It is spent on phone banks, telephone patch-throughs
to Members, and even professional campaign organizers who are paid to
go to key congressional districts to organize letter-writing campaigns.
These are coordinated efforts costing tens of thousands of dollars
which on their face are part of professional lobbying efforts.
I was pleased to work with Senator Lieberman last year to craft a
provision during the Homeland Security and Government Affairs
Committee's consideration of the lobbying bill that would close this
loophole by requiring disclosure of ``paid efforts to stimulate
grassroots lobbying.'' It requires disclosure by paid lobbyists and
lobbying firms who stimulate the grassroots to take action. We even
went so far as to define pure grassroots lobbying and exclude it from
this provision.
The Lieberman-Levin provision that was included in S. 1 simply
requires disclosure. This provision does not in any way ``restrain'' or
``regulate'' paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying. All that it
does is require paid lobbyists to disclose how much they are spending
on their grassroots lobbying efforts. This disclosure would be no more
burdensome than the disclosure already required by the Lobbying
Disclosure Act for direct lobbying: Amounts spent for efforts to
stimulate grassroots lobbying, like amounts spent on direct lobbying,
would be disclosed only in the form of good-faith estimates, which
would be rounded to the nearest $20,000.
In addition, the provision, like the Lobbying Disclosure Act,
recognizes that certain organizations are already required to track
lobbying expenses, and grassroots lobbying expenses, for IRS purposes.
The provision allows these organizations to use their IRS numbers for
disclosure purposes, ensuring that they do not have to account twice by
different rules.
This section was carefully crafted to exclude certain activities that
are not part of this Astroturf lobbying industry. Efforts by an
organization to communicate with its own members, employees, officers,
or shareholders are expressly excluded. Organizations that exist solely
to lobby Congress but do not employ paid lobbyists do not have to
report. Finally, any grassroots lobbying efforts targeted at less than
500 people do not have to be reported.
I would also like to clarify just who is required to disclose as a
lobbyist under this provision, as there seems to be confusion over this
point. Paragraph (b) of section 220 clearly states that individuals who
are not registered lobbyists now would not have to register as a
lobbyist under this provision so long as their expenditures are only
directed at grassroots lobbying. This provision is intended to shed
light on the dollars being spent by lobbyists. It in no way affects
individuals who want to call or write their Member of Congress.
For the past decade, we have allowed lobbyists to exclude the cost of
their organized grassroots lobbying campaigns, even while they are
reporting their other lobbying expenses. It is time to put an end to
this arbitrary exclusion because the public has a right to know who is
paying how much to whom in an effort to influence our decisions.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Bennett amendment.
[[Page 1688]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 8:10 p.m. having arrived, the
question is on agreeing to the Bennett amendment No. 20.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, before I propound a unanimous consent
request, I would very much like to thank both leaders. I know this has
been a difficult day. I think it has worked out, and I think that is to
the good. I hope everyone else who has waited hour after hour
understands that the leadership was in negotiations and there is a
product of those negotiations.
I, also, thank the ranking member with whom it has been a great
pleasure for me to work. Members should know that we are new. Members
should know that our staffs are new to the committee and that this is
their first bill on the floor. I believe they have done an excellent
job, both on the Democratic side and on the Republican side. It is a
kind of baptism of fire, if you will. I say thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee for
her kind words. I echo her laudatory comments about the staffs on both
sides. This is a baptism of fire for all of us, for my staff and her
staff as well, and they have had enough background that they know how
to swim.
We are very grateful for the cooperation we have received and the
support that has come from the staff. I look forward to a productive
Congress, working with Senator Feinstein on the Rules Committee on all
of the other matters that will come before us.
amendment no. 98
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, in a moment, the Senate will adopt the
Ensign-McCain-DeMint amendment related to scope of conference. I want
to thank Senator McCain and Senator DeMint for working with me on this
amendment.
I also want to explain why this amendment is such an important
improvement over the underlying bill. Under the Constitution, the
legislative branch controls the purse strings. That is a significant
authority given to Congress. Congress must use that authority wisely.
As I explained earlier today on the floor, too often conferees insert
earmarks in conference reports that were not funded in either bill
passed by the House or the Senate.
In a democracy such as ours, Congress should do its business in the
full light of day. The entire Senate should consider, debate, and amend
legislation in full view of the American public. We should scrutinize
how Federal dollars are spent. Each project Congress funds should be
debated and considered by Congress. We must do a better job of
oversight. We must ensure that the taxpayers' dollars are being spent
wisely. But when we insert projects in a conference report, without
debate and without oversight, we fail to live up to our
responsibilities as Senators.
What the Ensign-McCain-DeMint amendment would do is fix what has
become a broken process. My amendment makes clear that a point of order
can be raised against any funding, no matter how specific, for any
program, project, or account that was not originally funded in either
bill sent to conference. This is a simple but critical change. It will
improve how Congress operates, and it will make the Government more
accountable to the American people.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the underlying substitute does include two
provisions that are intended to address the out-of-control earmarking
and porkbarrel spending of the past years. And, the adoption of the
DeMint and Durbin amendments earlier this week have improved upon the
underlying bill to ensure that all earmarks are disclosed--including
those to Federal entities, as well as all that are included in
statements of managers and conference reports. A number of us supported
a similar proposal last year, and I am pleased that the effort was
finally successful.
I am now pleased that additional improvements will be adopted with
respect to section 1 of the underlying bill concerning out of scope
matters in conference reports. The amendment sponsored by Senators
Ensign, DeMint, and myself, which I understand is agreeable on both
sides, would ensure that points of order can be raised against specific
items in conference reports. It would add a definition of any matter so
that members are empowered to remove out of scope earmarks and policy
riders from conference reports without taking down the entire
conference report. And, importantly, it would ensure that funding
associated with any provision stricken from a conference report is
reduced from the total amount appropriated--a critical requirement
missing from the underlying measure.
For example, if a conference report provides $10 million for bridge
improvements, but then adds a directive that $5 million of that funding
should be directed to a specific bridge in a specific place--a
directive that was not included in either the House or Senate bill, our
amendment would ensure the $5 million that accompanies that out of
scope earmark is also removed from the total allocation of the bill. So
that the total appropriated would be $5 million, not $10 million. This
is about fiscal restraint, Mr. President. It makes little sense to
raise a point of order that is sustained against an out of scope
earmark, but to appropriate the funding regardless.
While I support the improvements proposed and accepted so far,
earmark reform still needs to go much further. We need to curtail
earmarks, not just disclose them. The process is clearly broken when
each year Congress continues to earmark billions and billions of
taxpayer dollars, sometimes with virtually no information about the
specifics of those earmarks. The scandal that came to light during the
last Congress that involved earmarking by a former House member--now in
prison--is a pox not just on him, but on each of us and the process
that we have allowed to occur on our watch. The American public, Mr.
President, deserves better. That is what this amendment is about.
The growth in earmarked funding in appropriations bills during the
past 12 years has been staggering. According to data gathered by CRS,
there were 4,126 earmarks in 1994. In 2005, there were 15,877--an
increase of nearly 400 percent. There was a little good news in 2006,
solely due to the fact that the Labor-HHS appropriations bill was
approved almost entirely free of earmarks--an amazing feat given that
there were over 3,000 earmarks the prior year for just that bill.
Despite this first reduction in 12 years, it doesn't change the fact
that the largest number of earmarks in history have still occurred in
the last three years--2004, 2005, and 2006.
Now, let's consider the level of funding associated with those
earmarks. The amount of earmarked funding increased from $23.2 billion
in 1994 to $64 billion in fiscal year 2006. Remarkably, it rose by 34
percent from 2005 to 2006, even though the number of earmarks
decreased. Earmarked dollars have doubled just since 2000, and more
than tripled in the last 10 years. This is wrong and disgraceful and we
urgently need to curtail this seemingly out of control pork barreling
practice that has become the norm around here.
I filed an amendment designed to curtail earmarking. I was pleased to
be joined by Senators Feingold and Graham in introducing amendment No.
29. Unfortunately, it is clear that we will not be given an opportunity
to vote on that amendment and I find myself in the same position as I
was in last March during debate on lobbying reform when I was not
allowed a vote on my amendment. But one day soon, I am confident we
will fundamentally change business as usual with respect to pork barrel
spending. The American public has a powerful voice, and I would have
thought more of us would have heard that voice last November. But I do
want to state my recognition that at least some improvements have
[[Page 1689]]
been made to require full disclosure of all earmarks and to prevent out
of scope matters in conference. And, I believe the Ensign, McCain,
DeMint amendment makes further improvements.
Amendment No. 41
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to discuss the
amendment I introduced with Senator Feingold to require that lobbyists
disclose the contributions that they bundle for campaigns. I am
grateful to the leadership for accepting the amendment and believe it
strengthens an already very strong bill.
Neither I nor any of my colleagues enjoy the amount of money that
running for office requires us to raise and spend. And I realize that
having influential people help a campaign by asking their friends for
contributions makes that task a little easier. And so I appreciate how
difficult it can be for us to legislate our own behavior in this area.
But lobbyists who bundle contributions have a personal stake in the
outcome of specific legislation before Congress. And because of that
nexus, lobbyists should have to report who they are raising money for
and the amounts that they are raising--including the contributions that
they collect for campaigns from their networks of friends and
colleagues.
The legislation before us today is meant to shine a bright light on
how lobbyists influence the legislative process. Influence is not just
about free meals or gifts or travel but about the millions upon
millions of dollars raised to get us elected every few years. We should
not keep the biggest role lobbyists play in that process hidden.
We all know that with strict campaign contribution limits, an
important sign of a lobbyist's influence is not only how much money he
gives but also how much he raises from friends and associates. During
the last Presidential campaign, both candidates made great use of
bundling.
For instance, the Bush Rangers each raised over $200,000; the Bush
Pioneers each raised over $100,000. The Kerry campaign also relied on
``vice chairs'' who raised at least $100,000.
According to a USA Today story in 2003: ``Motives for becoming a
bundler include the possibility of increased influence on government
policy and consideration for appointment to ambassadorships and other
government posts.''
And so if we believe that lobbyists should have to disclose campaign
contributions, then they should certainly have to disclose the bundling
they engage in so that the public knows the relationship between
members, their views on policy, and the industries that support them.
Right now, this relationship is largely hidden from public view. So
to correct this gap in the underlying bill, my amendment would require
quarterly reporting of all contributions that a lobbyist collected or
arranged that total more than $200 in a calendar year. This includes
not only campaign contributions, but also contributions to Presidential
libraries, inaugural committees, and lawmakers' charities.
The amendment has the support of all the major reform advocacy
organizations, as well as congressional scholar Norm Ornstein and
Thomas Susman, the chair of the Ethics Committee for the American
League of Lobbyists.
According to Norm Ornstein: ``What is needed is disclosure here--who
is doing the bundling, for whom, and how much. These are simple but
critical steps for openness in the lobbying and money relationship. The
public deserves to know--and this amendment gives them that
opportunity.''
And in Professor Susman's words: ``Full disclosure of these
activities, including the `bundling' of campaign contributions for a
candidate, will not burden or inhibit lobbyists. Lobbyists are proud of
the role that we play in helping to finance federal campaigns, and we
will be just as effective if the public knows about that role as well.
Senator Obama's amendment is a reasonable way to keep these activities
out in the open.''
Under the amendment that Senator Feingold and I are offering,
contributions are considered to be collected by a lobbyist if they are
received by the lobbyist and forwarded to the campaign. Contributions
are considered to be arranged by a lobbyist if there is an arrangement
or understanding between the lobbyist and a campaign that the lobbyist
will receive some kind of credit or recognition for having raised the
money.
In discussing this proposal that I am offering, a Washington Post
editorial this week said: ``No single change would add more to public
understanding of how money really operates in Washington.''
This is an important addition to the bill we are considering, and I
thank my colleagues for accepting it.
Amendments Nos. 9, 98, 51, 31, 33, 77, 41, 57, and 39, as Modified, En
Bloc
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following amendments be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc, with
the motions to reconsider laid on the table, and that the action
thereupon appear separately in the Record. The amendments are: Vitter
amendment No. 9; Ensign-Demint amendment No. 98; Coburn amendment No.
51; Feingold amendment No. 31; Feingold amendment No. 33; Durbin
amendment No. 77; Obama amendment No. 41; Sanders amendment No. 57; and
Coleman-Cardin amendment No. 39, as modified.
I believe this has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 9, 51, 31, 33, 41, and 57) were agreed to.
The amendment (No. 39), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CONGRESSIONAL TRAVEL PUBLIC WEBSITE.
(a) In General.--Not later than January 1, 2008, the
Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives shall each establish a publicly available
website without fee or without access charge, that contains
information on all officially related congressional travel
that is subject to disclosure under the gift rules of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, that
includes--
(1) a search engine;
(2) uniform categorization by Member, dates of travel, and
any other common categories associated with congressional
travel; and
(3) all forms filed in the Senate and the House of
Representatives relating to officially-related travel
referred to in paragraph (2), including the ``Disclosure of
Member or Officer's Reimbursed Travel Expenses'' form in the
Senate.
(b) Extension Authority.--If the Secretary of the Senate or
the Clerk of the House of Representatives is unable to meet
the deadline established under subsection (a), the Committee
on Rules and Administration of the Senate or the Committee on
Rules of the House of Representatives may grant an extension
of such date for the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of
the House of Representatives, respectively.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section.
Amendments Nos. 98 and 77 to Amendment No. 3, En Bloc
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report amendments Nos. 98 and
77.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], for himself, Mr.
McCain, and Mr. DeMint, proposes an amendment numbered 98 to
amendment No. 3.
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an
amendment numbered 77 to amendment No. 3.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 98 and 77) were agreed to, as follows:
amendment no. 98
(Purpose: To provide for better transparency and enhanced Congressional
oversight of spending by clarifying the treatment of matter not
committed to the conferees by either House)
Strike page 3, line 9 through page 4, line 12 and insert
the following:
``(a) In General.--A point of order may be made by any
Senator against any item contained in a conference report
that includes or consists of any matter not committed to the
conferees by either House.
(1) For the purpose of this section ``matter not committed
to the conferees by either House'' shall include any item
which consists of a specific provision containing a specific
level of funding for any specific account, specific program,
specific project, or
[[Page 1690]]
specific activity, when no such specific funding was provided
for such specific account, specific program, specific
project, or specific activity in the measure originally
committed to the conferees by either House.
(2) For the purpose of Rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of
the Senate ``matter not committed'' shall include any item
which consists of a specific provision containing a specific
level of funding for any specific account, specific program,
specific project, or specific activity, when no such specific
funding was provided for such specific account, specific
program, specific project, or specific activity in the
measure originally committed to the conferees by either
House.
The point of order may be made and disposed of separately for
each item in violation of this section.
(b) Disposition.--If the point of order raised against an
item in a conference report under subsection (a) is
sustained, then--
(1) the matter in such conference report shall be stricken;
(2) when all other points of order under this section have
been disposed of--
(A) the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of
whether the Senate should recede from its amendment to the
House bill, or its disagreement to the amendment of the
House, and concur with a further amendment, which further
amendment shall consist of only that portion of the
conference report that has not been stricken (any
modification of total amounts appropriated necessary to
reflect the deletion of the matter struck from the conference
report shall be made).
amendment no. 77
(Purpose: To require that amendments and instructions accompanying a
motion to recommit be copied and provided by the Senator offering them
to the desks of the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader before
being debated)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . AMENDMENTS AND MOTIONS TO RECOMMIT.
Paragraph 1 of Rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate
is amended to read as follows:
``1. (a) An amendment and any instruction accompanying a
motion to recommit shall be reduced to writing and read and
identical copies shall be provided by the Senator offering
the amendment or instruction to the desks of the Majority
Leader and the Minority Leader before being debated.
``(b) A motion shall be reduced to writing, if desired by
the Presiding Officer or by any Senator, and shall be read
before being debated.''.
Amendment No. 20
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, utilizing a moment in opposition to the
amendment of my friend from Utah, Mr. Bennett, if the section on
grassroots lobbying in the bill were as Senator Bennett described it
and as other groups on the outside have described it, I would oppose
it.
This provision was in the overall lobbying bill that passed the
Senate 90 to 8 last year. It is a natural extension of what the entire
bill is doing, which is asking for disclosure from professional
lobbying.
Billions of dollars are spent on so-called grassroots lobbying. It is
totally legal, but let's get it out into the sunshine. The individual
groups writing to Members to lobby us do not have to disclose anything.
This only requires disclosure if a group retains a professional
lobbyist and only if they pay that lobbyist more than $25,000 a
quarter.
This is not amateur citizen lobbying. This is to find out who is
getting how much money to influence us. It is not, in any sense, a
limitation on the revered first amendment right to petition Congress
for a redress of grievances. It is an attempt for disclosure consistent
with the entire bill. So I ask my colleagues respectfully to leave this
critical provision in this progressive reform bill.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment
offered by Senator Bennett. This is a very rare instance where I
disagree with my colleague and good friend from Connecticut. I simply
don't want to discourage any effort to increase citizen participation
in Government. Too many citizens are convinced that their voices don't
count. They become apathetic about their Government. They become
convinced they cannot influence our positions. I think activity that
encourages citizens to contact us, to participate in the process,
should be encouraged, not discouraged, and I believe the language in
the bill could well discourage citizen contact with Members of
Congress. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by
the Senator from Utah.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Amendment No. 99
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send a manager's package to the
desk. It combines a number of technical corrections requested by the
Parliamentarian, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Indian Affairs
Committee. It is concurred in by both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself
and Mr. Bennett, proposes an amendment numbered 99.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
amendment no. 99
(Purpose: to make technical amendments)
On page 4, strike lines 16 through 19.
On page 13, lines 1 and 2, strike ``the Select Committee on
Ethics and''.
On page 15, strike beginning with line 22 through page 16,
line 21, and insert the following:
(a) In General.--Section 207(j)(1) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended, by--
(1) striking ``The restrictions'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--The restrictions''; and
(2) adding at the end the following:
``(B) Indian tribes.--The restrictions contained in this
section shall not apply to acts done pursuant to section 104
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450i).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 104(j) of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450i(j)) is amended by striking ``and former officers and
employees of the United States employed by Indian tribes may
act as agents or attorneys for or'' and inserting ``or former
officers and employees of the United States who are carrying
out official duties as employees or as elected or appointed
officials of an Indian tribe may communicate with and''.
On page 24, strike lines 11 through 20 and insert the
following:
(A) by striking the first sentence and inserting the
following: ``Not later than 20 days after the end of the
quarterly period beginning on the 1st day of January, April,
July, and October of each year, or on the first business day
after the 20th day if that day is not a business day, in
which a registrant is registered with the Secretary of the
Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, a
registrant shall file a report or reports, as applicable, on
its lobbying activities during such quarterly period.''; and
On page 27, strike line 12 through ``day,'' on line 15 and
insert ``Not later than 20 days after the end of the end of
the quarterly period beginning on the 1st day of January,
April, July, and October of each year, or on the first
business day after the 20th day if that day is not a business
day,''.
On page 46, lines 12 and 13, strike ``over sight and
enforcement'' and insert ``administration''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 99) was agreed to.
Vote on Amendment No. 20
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Bennett
amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 17 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
[[Page 1691]]
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Salazar
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--43
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Tester
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Brownback
Johnson
The amendment (No. 20) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Lieberman-Collins
amendment.
The Senator from California.
Amendment No. 30
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, there have been a variety of proposals
for what has been called an Office of Public Integrity. The Senate
voted 67 to 30 against one such proposal last year. Last time, Senators
Johnson and Voinovich, the chairs of the Ethics Committee, stood in
opposition. This time, the new chairs of the Ethics Committee, Senators
Boxer and Cornyn, stand in opposition.
I recognize the strong interest in
this issue, especially by Senators Lieberman, Collins, Obama, Feingold,
McCain, and others. I have spoken with Senator Obama about it. I have
assured him that we would hold a hearing in the Rules Committee and
that we would take a look at this proposal and what might or might not
be done.
I will vote against this amendment, and I will see that the Rules
Committee and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
hold these hearings. They will focus on these proposals and ways of
strengthening ethics enforcement in the Senate.
Let me say this now. I do believe we need to take great care in how
we do this. Yes, we need to reassure the public that those who run
afoul of the Senate rules will be held accountable. But we must make
sure this does not simply become a new tool used by political opponents
who would seek to manipulate the political process by filing false
claims. You can be sure that the minute a claim becomes public, without
any verification as to its veracity, and is released to the public,
that claim will be a 30-second spot in someone's campaign. That is not
what we are about.
We have to also ensure that we do not create an office--with a
special prosecutor bound and determined to justify his or her existence
by creating an atmosphere of ongoing investigation--that will cost
taxpayers millions of dollars. The Constitution provides:
Each House of Congress may determine the Rules of its
Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and,
with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Our Founders knew the importance of this and placed it in article I.
The challenge we face right now is how to do it right and ensure that
the tough ethics rules we are putting in place will be vigorously
overseen and enforced.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to
create an Office of Public Integrity.
This underlying bill is a very good one. It will help to restore
public confidence in the integrity of our decisions. But we leave the
job undone if we do not create an Office of Public Integrity. I thank
the leaders on both sides of the aisle for allowing the Senate to have
a vote on this important issue.
The problem is that the current system is inherently conflicted. We
are our own advisers, we are our own investigators, we are our own
prosecutors, we are our own judges, and we are our own jurors. This
amendment would take only the investigative part of the process and
invest it in an independent, impartial Office of Public Integrity that
would help restore the public's confidence in the integrity of our
ethics system.
I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, there is not much to add to my
colleague from Maine. I thank her for her statement.
Basically, we have a very strong reform of the rules by which we
govern our ethics and that of those who lobby before us. What is
missing is an equal reform of the process which would do that.
Nothing in this amendment alters the superior role of the Senate
Ethics Committee pursuant to the Constitution to make final decisions
on claims before it. This amendment simply sets up an independent
investigative office. Incidentally, it is merely responding to what my
friend from California, Senator Feinstein, said. There is actually more
protection against abuse of this process with frivolous complaints than
there is in the current system.
I have a feeling this will not pass tonight, but our committee is
going to take it up and hopefully report out a bill independently later
this session.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 27, nays 71, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 18 Leg.]
YEAS--27
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Cantwell
Carper
Casey
Collins
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reed
Snowe
Stabenow
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--71
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cardin
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Kennedy
Kyl
Leahy
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
NOT VOTING--2
Brownback
Johnson
The amendment (No. 30) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The substitute amendment, as amended, is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have been privileged to serve as a
legislator--first in the Maryland House of Delegates, then in the U.S.
House of Representatives, and now in the Senate. I appreciate the trust
that the people of Maryland placed in me. And I appreciate how
important it is that we adhere to the strictest ethical standards. The
American people need to believe their Government is on the up and up.
I served on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct from
1991 to 1997. I served as the ranking member of the adjudicative
subcommittee that investigated and ultimately recommended sanctions
against former
[[Page 1692]]
House Speaker Newt Gingrich. In 1997, the House leadership appointed me
to serve as the cochairman of the House Ethics Reform Task Force, with
my colleague Bob Livingston from Louisiana. Our bipartisan task force
came up with a comprehensive set of reforms to overhaul the ethics
process. We created a bipartisan package to change House and committee
rules. This was the last bipartisan effort in the House to fix ethics
procedures. Unfortunately, the ethics process in the House broke down
after that.
Here in the Senate, there has been more bipartisan cooperation when
it comes to ethics reform. Last year, the Senate voted 90 to 8 to
approve a reform bill. And we are getting off to a good start this
year, with both the Democratic leader and the Republican leader co-
sponsoring both S. 1 and the substitute amendment. Members on both
sides of the aisle have been given ample opportunity to offer
amendments and have them considered.
As amended, S. 1 represents a significant change in the way elected
officials, senior staff, and lobbyists would do business--change the
American people are demanding.
When it comes to how we treat ourselves, this legislation revokes the
pensions of Members convicted of bribing public officials and
witnesses, perjury, and other crimes. S. 1 bans gifts and meals from
lobbyists. It slows down the revolving door by extending lobbying bans
for former Members and staff. It eliminates floor privileges for former
Members who become lobbyists. And it stops partisan attempts, such as
the K Street Project to influence private-sector hiring. The bill makes
ethics training mandatory for Members and staff.
When it comes to making how Congress works more transparent, this
legislation shines a spotlight on earmarks, targeted tax breaks, and
tariff reduction bills, to make it clear who is offering them, and on
whose behalf. S. 1 ensures that the minority will get to participate in
conference committees, and that conference reports can't be changed
after they're signed by a majority of the conferees. The bill requires
that conference reports have to be posted on the Internet 48 hours
prior to consideration so that Members of Congress, staff, and the
public can find out what's in them.
When it comes to how lobbyists are to act, this legislation puts an
end to the lavish parties they throw in our honor at the national
conventions. S. 1 quadruples the penalty for failure to comply with the
requirements of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. It requires
lobbyists to file quarterly reports instead of semi-annually. And it
directs the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives to maintain on the Internet a publicly available
database of lobbying disclosure information.
I am pleased to report that the bill contains an amendment that
Senator Coleman from Minnesota and I offered to require the Secretary
of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives to
establish a website freely available to the public that will contain
easy-to-understand information on all officially related congressional
travel subject to disclosure under the gift rules.
During the debate on S. 1, we have heard over and over again former
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' famous dictum, ``Sunlight is said
to be the best of disinfectants,'' because it is so true. That is the
direction we are moving in by passing this bill. That is what the
American people want us to do, and that is what we need to do to regain
their trust.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, as allegations of ethical abuses swirl
around their government, the American people have understandably lost
confidence in the ability of their elected representatives to lead with
integrity. Their confidence has dwindled as the undue influence of
lobbyists and special interests has permeated their government. They
have lost faith not only in their elected leaders, but also in the
institutions that stand as the very pillars of our representative
democracy. With their trust waning, Americans spoke at the ballot box
last November, admonishing their elected leaders and declaring that
they would no longer tolerate the exploitation of their government by
those who wield excessive influence.
For this reason, I was gratified to see the House of Representatives
move so quickly on ethics and lobby reform when the 110th Congress
convened, and I was pleased when Majority Leader Reid placed ethics and
lobby reform at the top of the Senate agenda. Both the Legislative
Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 and the Lobbying
Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 enact long overdue ethics
and lobbying reforms that will hold our elected officials to the
highest possible standards.
If we are going to restore the American public's trust in their
government, any reform we enact must squarely confront the undue
influence that special interests and lobbyists exert on the legislative
process. It must strengthen the rules that govern lobbying and close
the revolving door between the ``K Street'' lobby firms and the
Capitol. It must shine a light on what has until now been a legislative
process corrupted by backroom promises and deals struck in the dead of
night. It must promulgate new rules that curb wasteful spending by
creating greater transparency in the earmark process.
Earning back the confidence and trust of the American people will
require greater transparency and stronger laws. The American public
deserves to be certain that their elected officials are not being
swayed by lavish gifts offered as quid pro quo for promoting special
agendas. To that end, gifts from registered lobbyists have no place in
our legislative process. For that reason, I support the sweeping ban on
lobbyist-paid gifts in the Senate bill. This ban includes not just
meals but also gifts of travel and lodging, areas that have been the
subject of notorious abuse.
Our commitment to a new era of openness must go hand in hand with a
similar commitment on the part of lobbyists. We must demand more
disclosure from lobbyists about their practices and increase the
penalties for their failure to disclose their activities. To be clear,
our Constitution protects the right of Americans to petition their
government. However, what it does not do is protect their ability to
hire lobbyists to buy influence by showering elected officials with
expensive gifts and vacations.
Reining in wasteful spending must also be a part of any ethical
reform we enact. Specifically, we must bring reform and accountability
to the process of earmarking. Although the term ``earmark'' has taken
on a negative connotation, the designation of funds for individual
projects or programs is not in and of itself devious. The practice of
earmarking permits essential public projects that would otherwise go
unfunded and ignored to receive critical funds that can sustain their
important community work. However, the process by which earmarks are
currently distributed is susceptible to corruption and abuse, and that
must be corrected by injecting both accountability and transparency
into the process.
In order to promote accountability, the Senate bill requires that the
legislator sponsoring the earmark identify him or herself and provide a
description explaining the ``government purpose'' served by the
sponsored project. Additionally, I believe we can improve
accountability by mandating publication of the earmark for a minimum
period of time prior to any vote on the underlying measure, ensuring
that both other elected officials and the general public have the
opportunity to scrutinize the sponsored outlay. Taking these common
sense steps would ensure that legislators are made to answer for the
spending they sponsor.
The American people demand a more open and honest government, one
that strives to put their concerns ahead of those of special interest,
one that endeavors to hold its elected officials accountable to the
electorate, and one that inspires the confidence of its people. In
order to achieve these goals, we must remove any semblance of
impropriety. The reforms contained in both
[[Page 1693]]
the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 and the
Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 enact much-needed
and long-awaited reforms that move us toward those goals.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor to
this Senate ethics reform legislation. The American people sent a clear
message in the last election. No more scandals. No more bribes. No more
dirty politics. They wanted real ethics reform. The American people
want to know that Congress is working in their interest--not for
special interests. The American people deserve a government which is
honest and open. They want a government which will fight for their
values not for corporate values. Democrats have made it our top
priority to clean up Washington and clean up politics.
What does this bill do? This bill bans all gifts and travel from
lobbyists. It closes the revolving door by extending the lobbying ban
for former Members of Congress from one to two years. It improves
lobbying disclosure requirements and brings transparency to the Senate.
Finally, it requires that all Senators and their staff attend ethics
training.
The American people wanted to clean up Washington. They wanted real
ethics reform. They wanted to know that lawmakers are fighting for the
people they represent--not the special interest lobbyists. This bill
holds lawmakers and lobbyists accountable by creating real penalties
for those who break the law--by punishing them with jail time not just
fines. This bill sets the tone for this Congress--dirty politics will
not be tolerated.
The American people demanded change in the last election. They wanted
a government they could trust. They wanted a government that would
protect everyday, hardworking Americans. This bill is a step in the
right direction. We are listening to what American people are telling
us. We here in the U.S. Senate are taking their concerns seriously. We
are making changes in Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was
read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, for the information of all Senators, we
will have a vote Tuesday morning--well, at least by noon Tuesday. No
votes Friday or Monday, but we will vote Tuesday at noon or
thereabouts.
Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 19 Leg.]
YEAS--96
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--2
Coburn
Hatch
NOT VOTING--2
Brownback
Johnson
The bill (S. 1), as amended, was passed, as follows:
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. BENNETT. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I had asked for this time to spend a few
minutes talking about what has happened in the last few weeks. One of
the things that is going on in our country is that we have a little bit
of a crisis of confidence in our legislative bodies. Some of it is well
deserved.
We have had a bill on the floor under the guise of ethics reform. The
bill is a statute. It is not a rule. It is going to become law. But I
think the American people should be on guard. I was one of two people
who voted against this bill and for some very good reasons.
What the American people would like to see is transparency. They
would like to see clarity. They would like to see sunshine. Some of the
amendments to this bill made it much better; there is no question about
that. But some of the things that happened along the way did not allow
the American people to really know what is going on in terms of what
needs to change. A lot of the amendments tonight were accepted only on
the basis that they would preclude debate. Now it is Thursday night.
The Senate is not in session tomorrow. And the question people have to
ask is, why didn't we debate those amendments? Why didn't we want to
debate those amendments? The reason we didn't want to debate those
amendments is because they are going to be discarded as soon as we get
to conference.
Let me talk about one of them because I believe it is important. We
have had hundreds of stories over the last 2 years of Members of
Congress who have used the earmark process to enhance the well-being of
either members of their office staff's families, personal family
members, and even in the House a couple of occasions where they helped
themselves. I am thinking particularly about a $1.2 million road that
was built for properties owned by the Member of Congress. That fact is,
that should have been debated. The American people need to know what
the problems are, and there needs to be sunshine. There needs to be
transparency about what we do.
The question the American people ought to ask is: What is going to
happen when this bill goes to conference and what is going to come out?
And is all the rhetoric we heard on the floor truly going to be
reflected in an ethics bill that will change behavior?
A lot of effort has been concentrated on lobbyists. Lobbyists aren't
the problem. Members of Congress are the problem. And transparency
solves that problem. So we are not going to have transparency anymore.
We are going to say you can't take a meal from somebody, but you
certainly can deliver on a couple-million-dollar earmark. And we are
going to create a situation where we say we are going to expose it, but
you shouldn't count on that happening until the final bill comes.
My faith and my hope is that we put everything we have done away and
don't do any of the things that have been accepted by the Senate
tonight because of fear of political consequences, but that we do what
the American people want, and that is to be transparent in both our
actions and our deeds. The way to clean up ethical problems in Congress
is for the Members to be transparent about what they do. So if this
bill were to come back and we pass it just as it is, we are going to go
through all these hoops that will have been created, and we are going
to make sure people don't come to the Senate to serve. We are going to
have
[[Page 1694]]
a ``gotcha'' system. That is what we just passed. Good, honorable
people of integrity are going to make an innocent mistake, and they are
going to be gotten. I am not talking about the things that were
intentionally done that we have seen over the past 4 to 6 years from
both parties. I am talking about good, honest people making an innocent
mistake, and it is going to ruin them. Consequently, people are not
going to come here. Only those who are shielded and armored, who are
careerists and have enough money that no matter what happens, they can
defend themselves with the trial lawyers they are going to need to
defend themselves after we pass all these rules that are going to come.
I know this sounds a bit negative now that we have passed supposedly
an ethics reform bill. But my warning to the American people and to
this body is, we should measure that when we see the final product. And
we should measure the final product against Senator DeMint's amendment
for true transparency on earmarks, my amendment on true lack of ethical
bias in terms of monetary gain for staff members' families or Members'
families in terms of earmarks. My faith will be renewed if, in fact, we
come out with a great ethics bill. I wait and remain to be convinced
that that will be the case.
The final point I want to make is process. Why did we not want to
debate in front of the American people the idea that it is unethical
for somebody to gain monetarily, directly or indirectly, staff member
or staff member's family, Member's family or Member, from an earmark?
Why did we not want to debate that? That is a question the press ought
to be asking. That is a question we all ought to be asking, as the
conference comes back.
The way we solve the problems with ethics in the Senate is through
complete and total transparency about what we do. And if we are not
ashamed of what we are doing, we should not be ashamed of putting up
what we are doing and how we are doing it.
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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a
period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein
for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE RULES OF PROCEDURE
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of
the Standing Rules of the Senate, I submit for publication in the
Congressional Record the rules of the Committee on Finance for the
110th Congress, adopted by the committee on January 17, 2007. I ask
unanimous consent that the rules be printed.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
I. RULES OF PROCEDURE
(Adopted January 17, 2007)
Rule 1. Regular Meeting Days.--The regular meeting day of
the committee shall be the second and fourth Tuesday of each
month, except that if there be no business before the
committee the regular meeting shall be omitted.
Rule 2. Committee Meetings.--(a) Except as provided by
paragraph 3 of Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate
(relating to special meetings called by a majority of the
committee) and subsection (b) of this rule, committee
meetings, for the conduct of business, for the purpose of
holding hearings, or for any other purpose, shall be called
by the chairman after consultation with the ranking minority
member. Members will be notified of committee meetings at
least 48 hours in advance, unless the chairman determines
that an emergency situation requires a meeting on shorter
notice. The notification will include a written agenda
together with materials prepared by the staff relating to
that agenda. After the agenda for a committee meeting is
published and distributed, no nongermane items may be brought
up during that meeting unless at least two-thirds of the
members present agree to consider those items.
(b) In the absence of the chairman, meetings of the
committee may be called by the ranking majority member of the
committee who is present, provided authority to call meetings
has been delegated to such member by the chairman.
Rule 3. Presiding Officer.--(a) The chairman shall preside
at all meetings and hearings of the committee except that in
his absence the ranking majority member who is present at the
meeting shall preside.
(b) Notwithstanding the rule prescribed by subsection (a)
any member of the committee may preside over the conduct of a
hearing.
Rule 4. Quorums.--(a) Except as provided in subsection (b)
one-third of the membership of the committee, including not
less than one member of the majority party and one member of
the minority party, shall constitute a quorum for the conduct
of business.
(b) Notwithstanding the rule prescribed by subsection (a),
one member shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of
conducting a hearing.
Rule 5. Reporting of Measures or Recommendations.--No
measure or recommendation shall be reported from the
committee unless a majority of the committee is actually
present and a majority of those present concur.
Rule 6. Proxy Voting; Polling.--(a) Except as provided by
paragraph 7(a)(3) of Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate (relating to limitation on use of proxy voting to
report a measure or matter), members who are unable to be
present may have their vote recorded by proxy.
(b) At the discretion of the committee, members who are
unable to be present and whose vote has not been cast by
proxy may be polled for the purpose of recording their vote
on any rollcall taken by the committee.
Rule 7. Order of Motions.--When several motions are before
the committee dealing with related or overlapping matters,
the chairman may specify the order in which the motions shall
be voted upon.
Rule 8. Bringing a Matter to a Vote.--If the chairman
determines that a motion or amendment has been adequately
debated, he may call for a vote on such motion or amendment,
and the vote shall then be taken, unless the committee votes
to continue debate on such motion or amendment, as the case
may be. The vote on a motion to continue debate on any motion
or amendment shall be taken without debate.
Rule 9. Public Announcement of Committee Votes.--Pursuant
to paragraph 7(b) of Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate (relating to public announcement of votes), the
results of rollcall votes taken by the committee on any
measure (or amendment thereto) or matter shall be announced
publicly not later than the day on which such measure or
matter is ordered reported from the committee.
Rule 10. Subpoenas.--Witnesses and memoranda, documents,
and records may be subpoenaed by the chairman of the
committee with the agreement of the ranking minority member
or by a majority vote of the committee. Subpoenas for
attendance of witnesses and the production of memoranda,
documents, and records shall be issued by the chairman, or by
any other member of the committee designated by him.
Rule 11. Nominations.--In considering a nomination, the
Committee may conduct an investigation or review of the
nominee's experience, qualifications, and suitability, to
serve in the position to which he or she has been nominated.
To aid in such investigation or review, each nominee may be
required to submit a sworn detailed statement including
biographical, financial, policy, and other information which
the Committee may request. The Committee may specify which
items in such statement are to be received on a confidential
basis. Witnesses called to testify on the nomination may be
required to testify under oath.
Rule 12. Open Committee Hearings.--To the extent required
by paragraph 5 of Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate (relating to limitations on open hearings), each
hearing conducted by the committee shall be open to the
public.
Rule 13. Announcement of Hearings.--The committee shall
undertake consistent with the provisions of paragraph 4(a) of
Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate (relating to
public notice of committee hearings) to issue public
announcements of hearings it intends to hold at least one
week prior to the commencement of such hearings.
Rule 14. Witnesses at Hearings.--(a) Each witness who is
scheduled to testify at any hearing must submit his written
testimony to the staff director not later than noon of the
business day immediately before the last business day
preceding the day on which he is scheduled to appear. Such
written testimony shall be accompanied by a brief summary of
the principal points covered in the written testimony. Having
submitted his written testimony, the witness shall be allowed
not more than ten minutes for oral presentation of his
statement.
(b) Witnesses may not read their entire written testimony,
but must confine their
[[Page 1695]]
oral presentation to a summarization of their arguments.
(c) Witnesses shall observe proper standards of dignity,
decorum and propriety while presenting their views to the
committee. Any witness who violates this rule shall be
dismissed, and his testimony (both oral and written) shall
not appear in the record of the hearing.
(d) In scheduling witnesses for hearings, the staff shall
attempt to schedule witnesses so as to attain a balance of
views early in the hearings. Every member of the committee
may designate witnesses who will appear before the committee
to testify. To the extent that a witness designated by a
member cannot be scheduled to testify during the time set
aside for the hearing, a special time will be set aside for
the witness to testify if the member designating that witness
is available at that time to chair the hearing.
Rule 15. Audiences.--Persons admitted into the audience for
open hearings of the committee shall conduct themselves with
the dignity, decorum, courtesy and propriety traditionally
observed by the Senate. Demonstrations of approval or
disapproval of any statement or act by any member or witness
are not allowed. Persons creating confusion or distractions
or otherwise disrupting the orderly proceeding of the hearing
shall be expelled from the hearing.
Rule 16. Broadcasting of Hearings.--
(a) Broadcasting of open hearings by television or radio
coverage shall be allowed upon approval by the chairman of a
request filed with the staff director not later than noon of
the day before the day on which such coverage is desired.
(b) If such approval is granted, broadcasting coverage of
the hearing shall be conducted unobtrusively and in
accordance with the standards of dignity, propriety, courtesy
and decorum traditionally observed by the Senate.
(c) Equipment necessary for coverage by television and
radio media shall not be installed in, or removed from, the
hearing room while the committee is in session.
(d) Additional lighting may be installed in the hearing
room by the media in order to raise the ambient lighting
level to the lowest level necessary to provide adequate
television coverage of the hearing at the then current state
of the art of television coverage.
(e) The additional lighting authorized by subsection (d) of
this rule shall not be directed into the eyes of any members
of the committee or of any witness, and at the request of any
such member or witness, offending lighting shall be
extinguished.
(f) No witness shall be required to be photographed at any
hearing or to give testimony while the broadcasting (or
coverage) of that hearing is being conducted. At the request
of any such witness who does not wish to be subjected to
radio or television coverage, all equipment used for coverage
shall be turned off.
Rule 17. Subcommittees.--(a) The chairman, subject to the
approval of the committee, shall appoint legislative
subcommittees. The ranking minority member shall recommend to
the chairman appointment of minority members to the
subcommittees. All legislation shall be kept on the full
committee calendar unless a majority of the members present
and voting agree to refer specific legislation to an
appropriate subcommittee.
(b) The chairman may limit the period during which House-
passed legislation referred to a subcommittee under paragraph
(a) will remain in that subcommittee. At the end of that
period, the legislation will be restored to the full
committee calendar. The period referred to in the preceding
sentences should be 6 weeks, but may be extended in the event
that adjournment or a long recess is imminent.
(c) All decisions of the chairman are subject to approval
or modification by a majority vote of the committee.
(d) The full committee may at any time by majority vote of
those members present discharge a subcommittee from further
consideration of a specific piece of legislation.
(e) Because the Senate is constitutionally prohibited from
passing revenue legislation originating in the Senate,
subcommittees may mark up legislation originating in the
Senate and referred to them under Rule 16(a) to develop
specific proposals for full committee consideration but may
not report such legislation to the full committee. The
preceding sentence does not apply to nonrevenue legislation
originating in the Senate.
(f) The chairman and ranking minority members shall serve
as nonvoting ex officio members of the subcommittees on which
they do not serve as voting members.
(g) Any member of the committee may attend hearings held by
any subcommittee and question witnesses testifying before
that subcommittee.
(h) Subcommittee meeting times shall be coordinated by the
staff director to insure that--
(1) no subcommittee meeting will be held when the committee
is in executive session, except by unanimous consent;
(2) no more than one subcommittee will meet when the full
committee is holding hearings; and
(3) not more than two subcommittees will meet at the same
time.
Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (3), a subcommittee may
meet when the full committee is holding hearings and two
subcommittees may meet at the same time only upon the
approval of the chairman and the ranking minority member of
the committee and subcommittees involved.
(i) All nominations shall be considered by the full
committee.
(j) The chairman will attempt to schedule reasonably
frequent meetings of the full committee to permit
consideration of legislation reported favorably to the
committee by the subcommittees.
Rule 18. Transcripts of Committee Meetings.--An accurate
record shall be kept of all markups of the committee, whether
they be open or closed to the public. This record, marked as
``uncorrected,'' shall be available for inspection by Members
of the Senate, or members of the committee together with
their staffs, at any time. This record shall not be published
or made public in any way except:
(a) By majority vote of the committee after all members of
the committee have had a reasonable opportunity to correct
their remarks for grammatical errors or to accurately reflect
statements made.
(b) Any member may release his own remarks made in any
markup of the committee provided that every member or witness
whose remarks are contained in the released portion is given
a reasonable opportunity before release to correct their
remarks.
Notwithstanding the above, in the case of the record of an
executive session of the committee that is closed to the
public pursuant to Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate, the record shall not be published or made public in
any way except by majority vote of the committee after all
members of the committee have had a reasonable opportunity to
correct their remarks for grammatical errors or to accurately
reflect statements made.
Rule 19. Amendment of Rules.--The foregoing rules may be
added to, modified, amended or suspended at any time.
____________________
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP RULES OF PROCEDURE
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, Senate Standing Rule XXVI requires each
committee to adopt rules to govern the procedures of the Committee and
to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March
1 of the first year of each Congress. Today, January 18, 2007, the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship held a business
meeting during which the members of the committee unanimously adopted
rules to govern the procedures of the committee. Consistent with
Standing Rule XXVI, I am submitting for printing in the Congressional
Record a copy of the Rules of the Senate Committee on Small Business
and Entrepreneurship for the 110th Congress.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Rules for the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship--110th
Congress
1. general
All applicable provisions of the Standing Rules of the
Senate, the Senate Resolutions, and the Legislative
Reorganization Acts of 1946 and of 1970 (as amended), shall
govern the Committee.
2. meetings
(a) The regular meeting day of the Committee shall be the
first Wednesday of each month unless otherwise directed by
the Chairman. All other meetings may be called by the
Chairman as he or she deems necessary, on 5 business days
notice where practicable. If at least three Members of the
Committee desire the Chairman to call a special meeting, they
may file in the office of the Committee a written request
therefore, addressed to the Chairman. Immediately thereafter,
the Clerk of the Committee shall notify the Chairman of such
request. If, within 3 calendar days after the filing of such
request, the Chairman fails to call the requested special
meeting, which is to be held within 7 calendar days after the
filing of such request, a majority of the Committee Members
may file in the Office of the Committee their written notice
that a special Committee meeting will be held, specifying the
date, hour and place thereof, and the Committee shall meet at
that time and place. Immediately upon the filing of such
notice, the Clerk of the Committee shall notify all Committee
Members that such special meeting will be held and inform
them of its date, hour and place. If the Chairman is not
present at any regular, additional or special meeting, such
member of the Committee as the Chairman shall designate shall
preside.
(b) It shall not be in order for the Committee to consider
any amendment in the first degree proposed to any measure
under consideration by the Committee unless thirty written
copies of such amendment have
[[Page 1696]]
been delivered to the Clerk of the Committee at least 2
business days prior to the meeting. This subsection may be
waived by agreement of the Chairman and Ranking Member or by
a majority vote of the members of the Committee.
3. quorums
(a)(1) A majority of the Members of the Committee shall
constitute a quorum for reporting any legislative measure or
nomination.
(2) One-third of the Members of the Committee shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of routine business,
provided that one Minority Member is present. The term
``routine business'' includes, but is not limited to, the
consideration of legislation pending before the Committee and
any amendments thereto, and voting on such amendments.
(3) In hearings, whether in public or closed session, a
quorum for the asking of testimony, including sworn
testimony, shall consist of one Member of the Committee.
(b) Proxies will be permitted in voting upon the business
of the Committee by Members who are unable to be present. To
be valid, proxies must be signed and assign the right to vote
on the date of the meeting to one of the Members who will be
present. Proxies shall in no case be counted for establishing
a quorum.
4. nominations
In considering a nomination, the Committee shall conduct an
investigation or review of the nominee's experience,
qualifications, suitability, and integrity to serve in the
position to which he or she has been nominated. In any
hearings on the nomination, the nominee shall be called to
testify under oath on all matters relating to his or her
nomination for office. To aid in such investigation or
review, each nominee may be required to submit a sworn
detailed statement including biographical, financial, policy,
and other information which the Committee may request. The
Committee may specify which items in such statement are to be
received on a confidential basis.
5. hearings, subpoenas, and legal counsel
(a)(1) The Chairman of the Committee may initiate a hearing
of the Committee on his or her authority or upon his or her
approval of a request by any Member of the Committee. If such
request is by the Ranking Member, a decision shall be
communicated to the Ranking Member within 7 business days.
Written notice of all hearings, including the title, a
description of the hearing, and a tentative witness list
shall be given at least 5 business days in advance, where
practicable, to all Members of the Committee.
(2) Hearings of the Committee shall not be scheduled
outside the District of Columbia unless specifically
authorized by the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member or
by consent of a majority of the Committee. Such consent may
be given informally, without a meeting, but must be in
writing.
(b)(1) Any Member of the Committee shall be empowered to
administer the oath to any witness testifying as to fact.
(2) The Chairman and Ranking Member shall be empowered to
call an equal number of witnesses to a Committee hearing.
Such number shall exclude any Administration witness unless
such witness would be the sole hearing witness, in which case
the Ranking Member shall be entitled to invite one witness.
The preceding two sentences shall not apply when a witness
appears as the nominee. Interrogation of witnesses at
hearings shall be conducted on behalf of the Committee by
Members of the Committee or such Committee staff as is
authorized by the Chairman or Ranking Minority Member.
(3) Witnesses appearing before the Committee shall file
with the Clerk of the Committee a written statement of the
prepared testimony at least two business days in advance of
the hearing at which the witness is to appear unless this
requirement is waived by the Chairman and the Ranking
Minority Member.
(c) Any witness summoned to a public or closed hearing may
be accompanied by counsel of his own choosing, who shall be
permitted while the witness is testifying to advise him of
his legal rights. Failure to obtain counsel will not excuse
the witness from appearing and testifying.
(d) Subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses or the
production of memoranda, documents, records, and other
materials may be issued by the Chairman with the consent of
the Ranking Minority Member or by the consent of a majority
of the Members of the Committee. Such consent may be given
informally, without a meeting, but must be in writing. The
Chairman may subpoena attendance or production without the
consent of the Ranking Minority Member when the Chairman has
not received notification from the Ranking Minority Member of
disapproval of the subpoena within 72 hours of being notified
of the intended subpoena, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and
holidays. Subpoenas shall be issued by the Chairman or by the
Member of the Committee designated by him or her. A subpoena
for the attendance of a witness shall state briefly the
purpose of the hearing and the matter or matters to which the
witness is expected to testify. A subpoena for the production
of memoranda, documents, records, and other materials shall
identify the papers or materials required to be produced with
as much particularity as is practicable.
(e) The Chairman shall rule on any objections or assertions
of privilege as to testimony or evidence in response to
subpoenas or questions of Committee Members and staff in
hearings.
6. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
(a) No confidential testimony taken by, or confidential
material presented to, the Committee in executive session, or
any report of the proceedings of a closed hearing, or
confidential testimony or material submitted pursuant to a
subpoena, shall be made public, either in whole or in part or
by way of summary, unless authorized by a majority of the
Members. Other confidential material or testimony submitted
to the Committee may be disclosed if authorized by the
Chairman with the consent of the Ranking Member.
(b) Persons asserting confidentiality of documents or
materials submitted to the Committee offices shall clearly
designate them as such on their face. Designation of
submissions as confidential does not prevent their use in
furtherance of Committee business.
7. MEDIA AND BROADCASTING
(a) At the discretion of the Chairman, public meetings of
the Committee may be televised, broadcasted, or recorded in
whole or in part by a member of the Senate Press Gallery or
an employee of the Senate. Any such person wishing to
televise, broadcast, or record a Committee meeting must
request approval of the Chairman by submitting a written
request to the Committee Office by 5 p.m. the day before the
meeting. Notice of televised or broadcasted hearings shall be
provided to the Ranking Minority Member as soon as
practicable.
(b) During public meetings of the Committee, any person
using a camera, microphone, or other electronic equipment may
not position or use the equipment in a way that interferes
with the seating, vision, or hearing of Committee members or
staff on the dais, or with the orderly process of the
meeting.
8. SUBCOMMITTEES
The Committee shall not have standing subcommittees.
9. AMENDMENT OF RULES
The foregoing rules may be added to, modified or amended;
provided, however, that not less than a majority of the
entire Membership so determined at a regular meeting with due
notice, or at a meeting specifically called for that purpose.
____________________
10TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE USS ``CHEYENNE''
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise today to honor SSN 773, the USS
Cheyenne, for her 10 years of service in the U.S. Navy in defense of
our freedom.
On July 6, 1992, the keel was laid for the USS Cheyenne in Newport
News, VA. She was launched on April 16, 1995. On September 13, 1996,
Mrs. Ann Simpson sponsored the USS Cheyenne. I am pleased to now occupy
the seat of Ann's husband, Senator Alan Simpson, in the U.S. Senate.
Since September 11, 2001, the USS Cheyenne has been engaged in
important missions as part of the global war on terrorism. The USS
Cheyenne earned the distinction of the first to strike when she was the
first ship to launch Tomahawk missiles in Operation Iraqi Freedom under
the command of Commander Charles Doty. She would go on to successfully
launch her entire complement of Tomahawks, earning a clean sweep for
combat actions in the final three months of her nine month deployment.
That level of excellence continues today from her homeport in Pearl
Harbor, HI.
The USS Cheyenne is the last Los Angeles class submarine built and
the third ship in our Nation's fleet named in honor of the city home to
Wyoming's State capital. The first USS Cheyenne, a tugboat, entered
service in 1898. The second USS Cheyenne, BM 10, was originally the
monitor class USS Wyoming. In 1909 it was renamed USS Cheyenne to make
the name available for the battleship BB 32, the new USS Wyoming.
Fiction writer Tom Clancy further cemented the legend of the USS
Cheyenne when he made the submarine a central player in a battle for
the Spratly Islands in his novel ``SSN.''
Cheyenne, Wyoming's motto is ``Live the Legend.'' The 145 submariners
who are aboard the USS Cheyenne have adopted the motto ``Ride the
Legend.'' The city of Cheyenne has formed a special bond with the crew
of her namesake. Each year the outstanding sailors of the USS Cheyenne
are the guests of the city of Cheyenne for Cheyenne Frontier Days, the
world's largest outdoor rodeo, and the ``Daddy of them
[[Page 1697]]
All''. Many of the sailors have never been out West or been to a rodeo.
For a week the submariners enjoy Wyoming hospitality and have a chance
to live the legend. It is a small chance for Wyoming and the people of
Cheyenne to repay a debt of gratitude to the crew of the USS Cheyenne.
Commander Michael Tesar assumed command of the USS Cheyenne on June
4, 2006. I wish him well in his new command and thank Commander Richard
Testyon Jr. for his time at the helm. Commander Tesar brings extensive
experience to the USS Cheyenne and will lead SSN 773 well.
The best skippers are complemented by outstanding crew; I would like
to honor the crew of the USS Cheyenne. They include EM3 Richard Akins,
LTJG Andrew Alvarado, MM1 Cory Alvis, STS3 John Andrada, YNSA Alfonso
Angel, STS2 Andrew Aubry, STSSA Raynor Barton, STS2 Adam Baugh, LT
Brett Bayer, MM3 Gregory Benedict, ET1 Charles Berger, MM3 Tyler Bird,
MMC David Blake, MM2 Steven Bolek, EM2 Nicholas Brechtel, MM3 Daniel
Breedlove, ET3 Jeremy Brown, MM3 Jeremy Bruner, ENS James Bucklin, SK3
James Burnett, LTJG Rene Cano, LTJG David Ciha, MM2 Shayne Clemens,
LTJG Christopher Clevenger, MMFN Clyde Comstock, FTC Jonathan Consford,
CSSA James Couch, STSSN Colt Couture, MM1 Falanda Culp, LT Michael
Darby, LTJG Drew DeWalt, MM3 Juan Diaz, ET3 Lucas Dunbar, MM1 Jack
Durand, MM2 Jon Espinoza, YN1 Gregorio Familia, ET3 Joseph Filbert, ET3
Chad Fogler, STSSN Abraham Freet, MM2 Steven Frey, SKSN Christopher
Fuller, ET3 Shane Garrod, MMFN Robert Gauld, LCDR John Gearhart, ET1
Christopher Ghramm, MM3 Warren Givens, FTC Russell Goltry, LT Parrish
Guerrero, ET1 John Guthrie, ET3 Cory Hall, ET2 Long Han, MMFN David
Harper, STS2 Christopher Heffernan, CSSN Jacob Holder, ET3 Stilling
Horton, EM2 Angier Hsu, ETC Barry Hudson, EM3 Benjamin Huelle, CSCS
Kenneth Hughley, ETC David Ingalls, ET3 John Ingle, EM3 Nicholas
Jessee, MM2 Christopher Johnson, ET2 Robert Johnson, ET3 James Johnson,
STSC Alan Jones, MM3 Edward Ketheley, EM1 William Lawrence, FT2 Sean
Little, MM3 John Livengood, MM2 Justin Lynn, MM3 Jonathan Mac Dula,
STS2 John Marsh, FT2 Xavier Martinez, ET3 Shaun McCarthy, STS2 Ryan
McClure, MM3 Brian McEndree, MM2 Jeremy McLean, FT1 Nicholas Messina,
SN Kenton Metzler, EM2 John Miranda, MM2 Thomas Mitchell, EM2 Ambrose
Montera, EM3 Matthew Nesbitt, MM3 Hung Nguyen, MM3 Erik Nielson, ETSN
Matthew Noland, STS2 Matthew Odom, MM3 Chad O'Hagan, ET1 Jonathan
Okert, HMC Nathaniel Olipas, ET3 Steven Pack, CS1 Ted Paro, STS3
Brandon Pash, FT2 Donald Peachey, ET3 Errane Pearce, CS3 Wesley
Peltier, ET1 Steven Perry, ETCS John Perryman, EM3 Michael Proskine,
ET2 David Purser, ETC Raul Quintana, LTJG Eric Rasmussen, SKC Randall
Riley, CS1 Harry Robinson, MM1 Alvin Rodriguez, FTC Damean Rogers, MM2
Douglas Ross, FT2 Anthony Rossi, LTJG Nicholas Saflund, ET3 Jacob
Saylor, STSSN Charles Scaife, ET3 Derek Scammon, ET2 Kevin Scharkey,
LCDR Ian Schillinger, ET2 John Schmidt, MMC Timothy Schreyer, LTJG
William Sheridan, MMFR Grant Shirley, STS3 Levi Shockley, ETCS Gregory
Silvey, STS1 Michael Simonds, ET3 Tim Simson, EM1 Jerome Smallwood,
YNSN Michael Smith, ET2 Anthony Spartana, MMC John St. Clair, EMC David
Stephens, MM3 Kevin Stewart, MMC Gary Strong, MM3 Jesse Swain, EM2
William Tabata, CDR Michael Tesar, MM3 Joshua Tomlinson, LTJG
Christopher Topoll, CSSR Joshua Towles, LT Carl Trask, MMFR Justin
Trickett, ET2 Eric Trumbull, FT2 Landon RG, MM1 Christian Watson, ET3
Kevin Watson, MM2 Robert Wehrmann, ETC Michael Willison, MM3 Nicholas
Wittmann, STS2 Robert Wood, EM2 James Workman, CMDCM Andrew Worshek,
and MM3 Charles Wreede.
Again I congratulate the USS Cheyenne and her crew on the 10th
anniversary of their service and thank them for their sacrifices in
defense of our great Nation.
____________________
IN HONOR OF RICHARD SHAPIRO
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, today I honor Richard H. Shapiro, who
retired as executive director of the Congressional Management
Foundation, CMF, in December after 18 years of service with the
foundation and 17 years as its executive director. During those 18
years, Mr. Shapiro has worked tirelessly to help all member and
committee offices operate more productively and efficiently.
Mr. Shapiro is a talented business consultant who has adapted many of
the best practice methods of the business world to the unique
institution that is the congressional office, and taken the time to
train thousands of congressional staffers in these methods. In
addition, Mr. Shapiro and his staff at CMF have conducted
organizational assessments for member, committee and leadership
offices. Some years ago, he was kind enough to conduct a structure
evaluation for my Senate office, and he made several useful suggestions
regarding my office's mail operation, web site and internal
communications. My office implemented them all, and both my office and
constituents are all better off for it.
He has also helped many new Members of Congress set up both their
Washington and district offices, a task that can be very daunting for
anyone new to Congress. He has also conducted individual assessments
and coaching for senior managers and Members. Under his leadership, the
CMF began offering management guidance to congressional officers
responsible for managing the House or Senate as a whole. Furthermore,
Mr. Shapiro has helped to coordinate bipartisan events for all the
Chiefs of Staff, which helps them get to know each other and work
together better.
Mr. Shapiro was also a leader in promoting the use of the World Wide
Web and other digital forms of communications in Congress. Under his
leadership, the CMF pushed for Members of Congress to establish Web
sites that constituents could use to e-mail their representatives and
get information on Congress. The CMF continues to encourage
congressional offices to improve their Web sites by giving out the
annual Golden Mouse award to the office with the best and most
innovative Web site.
Considering all that CMF has done under Mr. Shapiro's leadership, one
is very surprised to find out that CMF has a very small staff and
budget. But those who know Mr. Shapiro would tell you that, given his
talent and dedication, it is no big surprise that CMF was able to
provide so many quality services under his helm.
Madam President, it my sincerest pleasure to thank Richard Shapiro
for sharing his talent and dedication with us for so many years.
Congress is a better place for it.
____________________
ART BUCHWALD--THE MARK TWAIN OF OUR TIME
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President it is with a heavy heart that I rise to
pay tribute to Art Buchwald. Art finally said good-bye to all of us
last night. It was far too soon.
Art is survived by his son Joel and his wife Tamara--who he lived
with for so many wonderful years--his daughters Jennifer and Connie,
his two sisters and five grandchildren. We are fortunate to have had
him for so long, and he will be missed very much.
Art was an incredible friend to my wife Vicki and me and to the
entire Kennedy family. We all enjoyed Art's company and columns, and
President Kennedy was known to read Art's column regularly while he was
in the White House.
We enjoyed so many delightful times together. Whether here in
Washington or on Martha's Vineyard, Art brought tons of laughter into
our lives. We'll continue to remember him and his wife, Ann McGarry
Buchwald, as they will now be laid to rest together on the Vineyard.
Art was the Mark Twain of our time. He will forever live on in our
hearts and minds for his brilliant wit and observations. For decades
there was no
[[Page 1698]]
better way to start the day than to open the morning paper to Art's
column, laugh out loud and learn all over again to take the issues
seriously in the world of politics, but not take yourself too
seriously.
As Art said, ``Whether it's the best of times or the worst of times,
it's the only time we've got.'' The special art of Art Buchwald was to
make even the worst of times better. We are fortunate to have had him
for so long, and I will miss him very much.
Art was born in 1925 in Mount Vernon, New York, and made his own way
in the world becoming a renowned political humorist and highly regarded
columnist. In 1982, he received a Pulitzer Prize. Art never stopped
working--writing and making us laugh right up until the very end.
Just last November, he published his final book, ``Too Soon To Say
Goodbye.'' He even had the foresight to write one final column--
published today. Among his final words were these:
I don't know how well I've done while I was here, but I'd
like to think that some of my printed works will persevere at
least for three years.
In fact, Art, they'll persevere forever.
Vicki and I remember fondly celebrating Art's 80th birthday just over
a year ago with The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, together with
my sister Eunice and her husband Sargent Shriver. Like every gathering
with Art, it was an evening full of joy, humor and passion. Art was a
great friend to the Brady Center and an inspiring advocate for sensible
gun laws. He was a true leader for the cause and we are closer to our
goal of rational gun control today because of him.
Art was also an outspoken and powerful advocate on the importance of
mental health care, speaking openly about his own experiences and
providing hope to some many others.
When we lost President Kennedy, Art honored him with his column, ``We
Weep.'' He wrote:
We weep for our president who died for his country. We weep
for his wife and his children, brothers and sisters. We weep
for the millions of people who are weeping for him. We weep
for Americans that this could happen in our country. We weep
for the Europeans and the Africans and the Asians and people
in every corner of the globe who saw in him a hope for the
future and a chance for mankind.
Today, Art, the world weeps for you.
I ask unanimous consent that Art Buchwald's final column, published
today, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
(From the International Herald Tribune, Jan. 18, 2007)
Meanwhile: Goodbye, My Friends. What a Pleasure It Has Been!
(By Art Buchwald)
Art Buchwald, who began his long career as a humor
columnist at this newspaper, asked that this column be
published following his death, which came on Wednesday at his
home in Washington.
Several of my friends have persuaded me to write this final
column, which is something they claim I shouldn't leave
without doing.
There comes a time when you start adding up all the pluses
and minuses of your life. In my case I'd like to add up all
the great tennis games I played and all of the great players
I overcame with my now famous ``lob.''
I will always believe that my tennis game was one of the
greatest of all time. Even Kay Graham, who couldn't stand
being on the other side of the net from me, in the end
forgave me.
I can't cover all the subjects I want to in one final
column, but I would just like to say what a great pleasure it
has been knowing all of you and being a part of your lives.
Each of you has, in your own way, contributed to my life.
Now, to get down to the business at hand, I have had many
choices concerning how I wanted to go. Most of them are very
civilized, particularly hospice care. A hospice makes it very
easy for you when you decide to go.
What's interesting is that everybody has his or her own
opinion as to how you should go out. All my loved ones became
very upset because they thought I should brave it out--which
meant more dialysis.
But here is the most important thing: This has been my
decision. And it's a healthy one.
The person who was the most supportive at the end was my
doctor, Mike Newman. Members of my family, while they didn't
want me to go, were supportive, too.
But I'm putting it down on paper, so there should be no
question the decision was mine.
I chose to spend my final days in a hospice because it
sounded like the most painless way to go, and you don't have
to take a lot of stuff with you.
For some reason my mind keeps turning to food. I know I
have not eaten all the eclairs I always wanted. In recent
months, I have found it hard to go past the Cheesecake
Factory without at least having a profiterole and a banana
split.
I know it's a rather silly thing at this stage of the game
to spend so much time on food. But then again, as life went
on and there were fewer and fewer things I could eat, I am
now punishing myself for having passed up so many good things
earlier in the trip.
I think of a song lyric, ``What's it all about, Alfie?'' I
don't know how well I've done while I was here, but I'd like
to think some of my printed works will persevere--at least
for three years.
I know it's very egocentric to believe that someone is put
on earth for a reason. In my case, I like to think I was. And
after this column appears in the paper following my passing,
I would like to think it will either wind up on a cereal box
top or be repeated every Thanksgiving Day.
So, ``What's it all about, Alfie?'' is my way of saying
goodbye.
____________________
DEATHS IN IRAQ
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, yesterday morning, January 17, a convoy
carrying a staff member of the National Democratic Institute and
members of her security team was ambushed in Baghdad.
Andrea Parhamovich, an American citizens, was killed. Three other NDI
employees, citizens from Croatia, Hungary, and Iraq, also lost their
lives in the attack.
Since June 2003, the National Democratic Institute has been working
with Iraqi citizens, outside the Green Zone and at great risk, to help
build the foundations on which a true democracy depends. I did not know
Ms. Parhamovich, whose life was taken so tragically yesterday. But all
of us recognize the ideals which inspired her to undertake such a
dangerous mission for her country and the people of Iraq.
I offer my deepest respect and appreciation to her last true measure
of devotion to democratic ideals. To her family, and the families of
those who were also killed, I offer my deepest condolences.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
TRIBUTE TO LaMESA MARKS-JOHNS
Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, today I pay tribute to LaMesa
Marks-Johns of Louisville, KY, for being recognized as one of America's
top educators in the 2006 Milken Family Foundation National Educator
Awards.
The annual Milken Family Foundation National Educator Award was
established in 1985, and recipients consist of a network of teachers,
principals, and specialists who serve as experts for policymakers
seeking to improve the quality of teachers and public education. Award
recipients assist in developing comprehensive strategies and policies
to ensure that every child receives the highest quality educational
experience possible.
Ms. Marks-Johns, a teacher at Shacklette Elementary School, has been
recognized by the Milken Family Foundation for her continuing efforts
to provide educational experiences in the classroom. She inspires her
students to achieve academically and contribute to the community. Ms.
Marks-Johns sets an example of leadership for both colleagues and
students alike.
I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in thanking Ms. Marks-Johns
for her dedication and commitment to education. In order for our
society to continue to advance in the right direction, we must have
teachers like LaMesa Marks-Johns in our schools, in our communities,
and in our lives. She is Kentucky at its finest.
____________________
RECOGNIZING MR. WILLARD LASSETER
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, it is with great pride that
today I honor my dear friend and fellow Georgian, Willard Lasseter, who
recently completed his 50th year with John Deere's Lasseter Tractor
Company, Inc. Willard and I not only share a
[[Page 1699]]
strong desire for a successful agriculture sector throughout Georgia
and the United States, but we also share the same hometown of Moultrie,
GA.
Willard began his many years of service to the farmers of Colquitt
County in 1945 when he began to work part time for the local John Deere
dealership. In 1956, with a little over $14,000 in borrowed money,
Willard purchased a 25 percent share of the John Deere dealership and
on December 1, 1956, Lasseter Tractor Company, Inc. had its first day
of business. By 1959, Willard, along with help from his father, had
secured the remaining shares of the John Deere dealership. The success
of the business was almost instantaneous as Lasseter Tractor Company
became the No. 1 dealer in terms of sales volume for the Atlanta branch
of John Deere dealerships by 1960.
Since its first day of business Lasseter Tractor Company, Inc. has
been a model dealership for Deere and Company. Lasseter Tractor
Company, Inc.'s many accomplishments include being named to the John
Deere's Manager Club for 12 consecutive years, being a John Deere
Signature Dealer for top performance in the market place for 5
consecutive years, and being a Gold Star dealer for top performance in
commercial products in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Lasseter Tractor Company,
Inc. has also garnered the top market share in the Atlanta branch of
dealerships for 3 consecutive years.
Through the years, Lasseter Tractor Company, Inc. has continued to
expand and prosper. In the late 1990's Lasseter Tractor Company, Inc.
began construction of a state-of-the-art dealership and service
facility that encompasses over 45,000 square feet. The service center
itself can accommodate over 20 cotton pickers. This is not only an
important feature but it is also a necessary feature because Lasseter
Tractor Company, Inc., is among the top dealerships for sales and
servicing of cotton pickers.
Today's Lasseter Tractor Company, Inc., spans south Georgia with
dealerships in three counties. Not only has the business increased in
size but also in the number of generations that are now involved in the
business. Lasseter Tractor Company, Inc., now includes Willard's son
Tony and grandson Judd, who oversee the day-to-day operations of the
business. One philosophy that Lasseter Tractor Company, Inc., has
maintained throughout its existence is: ``You must give your customers
the best product at the fairest price possible.'' This is a philosophy
that has allowed the company to continue to meet and exceed the needs
of its customers.
It is hard to imagine what the state of agriculture might be in
southwest Georgia if that young high school student, Willard Lasseter,
did not step into the John Deere dealership in Moultrie, GA, in 1945 to
begin working part time.
I am extremely proud of the milestone that Willard has just met and
it is my sincere hope that he continues his success in the agribusiness
community for many years to come. I want to thank my colleagues for
giving me the opportunity to recognize my dear friend Willard
Lasseter.
____________________
HONORING THOMAS WATSON BROWN
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, today I mourn the passing and
pay tribute to a wonderful Georgian and a personal friend. Thomas
Watson Brown passed away on January 13, 2007, leaving a tremendous void
in the hearts of all who knew and loved this extraordinary gentleman.
Although he was a longtime resident of Marietta, GA, Tom was actually
born here in our Nation's Capital where he attended Saint Alban's
School. He graduated magna cum laude from Princeton with a degree in
history and served a stint in the U.S. Army. He graduated from Harvard
Law School in 1959 and moved to Atlanta where he practiced law until
his death.
Although Tom was not originally from Georgia, his family had deep
Georgia roots. His great-grandfather was U.S. Senator Tom Watson, who
was nominated in 1896 for Vice President on the Populist Party ticket
with William Jennings Bryan. Brown's grandfather, J.J. Brown, served as
Georgia's commissioner of agriculture.
Tom was a character unlike any other. He often described himself as
an ``18th-century gentleman'' and held court in his antebellum mansion
on Cherokee Street near the Marietta Square arguing politics with a
host of different personalities. History was his greatest passion,
especially the Civil War era. He had an unmatched intellect and was a
respected historian. He preferred his 10,000-volume library to a
personal computer.
Tom was also always ready to support education. He was the former
chair of the Watson-Brown Foundation, established by his father Walter
Brown in 1970 to provide college opportunities for underprivileged boys
and girls. Today his son Tad is president of the foundation, which
awards more than $1 million annually in merit- and need-based college
scholarships to students from the Central Savannah River Area of
Georgia and South Carolina. The foundation also gives grants in support
of southern colleges and universities. Recipients of these grants
include the University of Georgia for a broadcast museum, Georgia
College and State University in Milledgeville for its library, and
Mercer Press in Macon for publications of numerous books of Southern
history and biography.
Tom led numerous business, civic, philanthropic, and scholarly
organizations. He served on the boards of the Atlanta Historical
Society, the Georgia Historical Society, the Georgia Civil War
Commission, the Atlanta Legal Aid Society, and the Georgia Legal
History Foundation. He was also an enthusiastic supporter of the
Atlanta Press Club and helped fund its debates each election cycle.
Tom was awarded the Martin Luther King, Jr., Center's community
service award for peace and justice. Coretta Scott King herself
presented him with the award for his substantial contributions to and
support of the Legal Aid Society of Atlanta.
This strong-willed and generous man will always be remembered for his
keen intellect and his devotion to history and education. He touched
the lives of many Georgians, including this Senator, through his
efforts on behalf of our community and State.
It was an honor to know Thomas Watson Brown and it is a privilege to
pay tribute to his life.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Ms. Evans, one of his secretaries.
____________________
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
REPORT ON THE CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO
FOREIGN TERRORISTS WHO THREATEN TO DISRUPT THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE
PROCESS--PM 1
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying
report; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs:
To the Congress of the United States:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d))
provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless,
prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President
publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a
notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the
anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the
Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice, stating that the
emergency declared with respect to foreign terrorists who threaten to
disrupt the Middle
[[Page 1700]]
East peace process is to continue in effect beyond January 23, 2007.
The most recent notice continuing this emergency was published in the
Federal Register on January 20, 2006 (71 FR 3407).
The crisis with respect to the grave acts of violence committed by
foreign terrorists that disrupt the Middle East peace process and that
led to the declaration of a national emergency on January 23, 1995, as
expanded on August 20, 1998, has not been resolved. Terrorist groups
continue to engage in activities that have the purpose or effect of
threatening the Middle East peace process and that are hostile to
United States interests in the region. Such actions constitute an
unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign
policy, and economy of the United States. For these reasons, I have
determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency
declared with respect to foreign terrorists who threaten to disrupt the
Middle East peace process and to maintain in force the economic
sanctions against them to respond to this threat.
George W. Bush.
The White House, January 18, 2007.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE
At 12:30 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 57. An act to repeal certain sections of the Act of
May 26, 1936, pertaining to the Virgin Islands.
H.R. 434. An act to provide for an additional temporary
extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958 through December 31,
2007, and for other purposes.
The message further announced that the House has agreed to the
following concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence
of the Senate:
H. Con. Res. 31. A concurrent resolution honoring the Mare
Island Original 21ers for their efforts--to remedy racial
discrimination in employment at Mare Island Naval Shipyard.
____
At 6:23 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 6. An act to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign
oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy
resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies,
developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic
Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in
alternative energy, and for other purposes.
____________________
MEASURES DISCHARGED
The following measure was discharged from the Committee on Rules and
Administration, and referred as indicated:
S. Res. 32. A resolution authorizing expenditures by the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship; to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bills were read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 57. An act to repeal certain sections of the Act of
May 26, 1936, pertaining to the Virgin Islands; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 434. An act to provide for an additional temporary
extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958 through December 31,
2007, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship.
The following concurrent resolution was read, and referred as
indicated:
H. Con. Res. 31. Concurrent resolution honoring the Mare
Island Original 21ers for their efforts to remedy racial
discrimination in employment at Mare Island Naval Shipyard;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR
The following bill was read the second time, and placed on the
calendar:
H.R. 391. An act to authorize the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development to continue to insure, and to enter into
commitments to insure, home equity conversion mortgages under
section 255 of the National Housing Act.
____________________
MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME
The following bill was read the first time:
H.R. 6. An act to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign
oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy
resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies,
developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic
Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in
alternative energy, 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-387. A communication from the Congressional Review
Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Pine Shoot Beetle; Additions to
Quarantined Areas'' (Docket No. APHIS-2006-0117) received on
January 17, 2007; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
EC-388. A communication from the Secretary of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a periodic report relative to
the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12947 of
January 23, 1995; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
EC-389. A communication from the Regulatory Specialist,
Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Department of
the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Management Official Interlocks'' (RIN1557-
AD01) received on January 17, 2007; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-390. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Look-Thru Rule for Related Controlled
Foreign Corporations'' (Notice 2007-9) received on January
17, 2007; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-391. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Investor Control and General Public'' (Rev.
Rul. 2007-7) received on January 17, 2007; to the Committee
on Finance.
EC-392. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Guidance on Multiple Distribution Issues
Under the Pension Protection Act of 2006'' (Notice 2007-7)
received on January 17, 2007; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-393. A communication from the Center for Employee and
Family Support Policy, Strategic Human Resources Policy
Division, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program: Discontinuance of Health
Plan in an Emergency'' (RIN3206-AK95) received on January 16,
2007; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. KERRY, from the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, without amendment:
S. Res. 32. A resolution authorizing expenditures by the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Ms.
Snowe):
S. 329. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to provide coverage for cardiac rehabilitation and
pulmonary rehabilitation services; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. ISAKSON:
S. 330. A bill to authorize secure borders and
comprehensive immigration reform, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Hagel):
S. 331. A bill to provide grants from moneys collected from
violations of the corporate average fuel economy program to
be
[[Page 1701]]
used to expand infrastructure necessary to increase the
availability of alternative fuels; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr.
Feingold):
S. 332. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002
to clarify the investigative authorities of the privacy
officer of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
By Mrs. DOLE (for herself, Mr. Burr, Mr. Inouye, and
Ms. Mikulski):
S. 333. A bill to provide for the acknowledgment of the
Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Indian Affairs.
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 334. A bill to provide affordable, guaranteed private
health coverage that will make Americans healthier and can
never be taken away; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Mikulski,
Mr. Akaka, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kennedy, Ms.
Cantwell, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Cardin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Menendez, Mrs.
Feinstein, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 335. A bill to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service
from using private debt collection companies, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Levin,
Mr. Obama, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr.
Lugar):
S. 336. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to
operate and maintain as a system the Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal dispersal barriers, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. SUNUNU:
S. 337. A bill to require the FCC to issue a final order
regarding white spaces, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Wyden, Mr.
Vitter, Mr. Dorgan, and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 338. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to ensure and foster continued patient quality of care by
establishing facility and patient criteria for long-term care
hospitals and related improvements under the Medicare
program; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Lieberman,
Mr. Coleman, Mr. Graham, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Sessions,
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Obama, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Nelson of Florida, Mr. Akaka, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Kerry, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr.
Menendez, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Tester):
S. 339. 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;
to the Committee on Finance.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Martinez, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Leahy,
Mr. Specter, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama, Mr.
Hagel, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Kohl, Mr.
Salazar, and Mrs. Murray):
S. 340. A bill to improve agricultural job opportunities,
benefits, and security for aliens in the United States and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. LUGAR:
S. Res. 33. A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate
that the United States should expand its relationship with
the Republic of Georgia by commencing negotiations to enter
into a free trade agreement; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
S. Res. 34. A resolution calling for the strengthening of
the efforts of the United States to defeat the Taliban and
terrorist networks in Afghanistan; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 41
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 41, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives to improve
America's research competitiveness, and for other purposes.
S. 43
At the request of Mr. Ensign, the names of the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Craig) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) were added as
cosponsors of S. 43, a bill to amend title II of the Social Security
Act to preserve and protect Social Security benefits of American
workers and to help ensure greater congressional oversight of the
Social Security system by requiring that both Houses of Congress
approve a totalization agreement before the agreement, giving foreign
workers Social Security benefits, can go into effect.
S. 46
At the request of Mr. Ensign, the name of the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. Sessions) was added as a cosponsor of S. 46, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the permissible use of health
savings accounts to include premiums for non-group high deductible
health plan coverage.
S. 122
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the names of the Senator from
Washington (Ms. Cantwell) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Salazar)
were added as cosponsors of S. 122, a bill to amend the Trade Act of
1974 to extend benefits to service sector workers and firms, enhance
certain trade adjustment assistance authorities, and for other
purposes.
S. 170
At the request of Mr. Ensign, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Chambliss) was added as a cosponsor of S. 170, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on telephone and
other communications services.
S. 214
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from
Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 214, a bill to
amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to preserve the
independence of United States attorneys.
S. 237
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the names of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel)
were added as cosponsors of S. 237, a bill to improve agricultural job
opportunities, benefits, and security for aliens in the United States
and for other purposes.
S. 238
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 238, a bill to amend title
18, United States Code, to limit the misuse of Social Security numbers,
to establish criminal penalties for such misuse, and for other
purposes.
S. 267
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Wyden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 267, a bill to amend the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to clarify that
territories and Indian tribes are eligible to receive grants for
confronting the use of methamphetamine.
S. 269
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of S. 269, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase and permanently extend the
expensing of certain depreciable business assets for small businesses.
S. 284
At the request of Mr. Conrad, the names of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) were added
as cosponsors of S. 284, a bill to provide emergency agricultural
disaster assistance.
S. CON. RES. 2
At the request of Mr. Biden, the names of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator
from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed)
and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) were added as cosponsors
of S. Con. Res. 2, a concurrent resolution expressing the bipartisan
resolution on Iraq.
S. CON. RES. 3
At the request of Mr. Salazar, the names of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr.
[[Page 1702]]
Wyden) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) were added as
cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 3, a concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress that it is the goal of the United States that, not
later than January 1, 2025, the agricultural, forestry, and working
land of the United States should provide from renewable resources not
less than 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States
and continue to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and
fiber.
AMENDMENT NO. 20
At the request of Mr. Bennett, the names of the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Enzi) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez) were added as
cosponsors of amendment No. 20 proposed to S. 1, a bill to provide
greater transparency in the legislative process.
AMENDMENT NO. 34
At the request of Mr. Feingold, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Allard) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 34 proposed to
S. 1, a bill to provide greater transparency in the legislative
process.
AMENDMENT NO. 39
At the request of Mr. Cardin, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 39 proposed to S. 1, a bill to provide greater
transparency in the legislative process.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. ISAKSON:
S. 330. A bill to authorize secure borders and comprehensive
immigration reform, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today before the
Senate. This is an issue this Senate visited 9 months ago in the month
of May. Nine months ago, the Senate tackled what I submit is the most
important domestic issue in the United States of America and in every
State. That is the issue of legal immigration and illegal immigration.
In that debate of what became known as a comprehensive immigration
reform bill, I submitted an amendment that ended up being amendment No.
1. The amendment simply said that before any provision of this act that
grants legal status to someone who is in America illegally takes
effect, the Secretary of Homeland Security will certify to the Congress
that all of the provisions of border security contained in the bill
were funded, in place, and operational. It become known as a trigger--
and it was a trigger--because the immigration issue is not like when
you can never figure what is the chicken, what is the egg, and what
came first. There is no way to reform illegal immigration unless you
first stop the porous borders we have and the flow of illegal
immigrants. But to do only one without the other is a terrible mistake.
The result of last year's debate was the Senate passed a bill without
the trigger that granted new legal statuses. Although it provided for
the authorization of border security, it did not provide for the
guarantee of border security. The House reaction was, we want border
security only, and the debate to this day between the House and the
Senate has been the Senate is for comprehensive reform and the House is
for border security only and never the twain will meet. The twain must
meet. It is the No. 1 domestic issue.
I come to the Senate today to introduce a major immigration reform
bill that is the bridge from where we are to where we must go. For a
moment, I will discuss the provisions of that proposal.
First of all, it contains the trigger. It predicates any reform of
immigration that grants legal status to someone here illegally to be
noneffective until we have first closed the doors to the south and to
the north. It provides for all the security measures the Senate passed
last year--and they are 2,500 new port-of-entry inspectors, 14,000
border inspectors, trained and ready to deploy, $454 million for
unmanned aerial vehicles to give us the 24/7 eyes in the sky essential
to enforcement on our border, authorization and ultimate appropriation
for those barriers and those fences and those roads that are necessary
for our agents to patrol, 20,000 beds for detention, to end the
practice of cash and release.
When I came to the Senate 2 years ago as a Georgian and one who loves
the outdoors, I thought ``catch and release'' was a fishing term. I
found out it became a border term, where we would catch people, tell
them to go home, release them and they would wait for us to leave and
come back again.
We must remember the reason we have this problem is we have the
greatest Nation on the face of this Earth. We do not find anyone trying
to break out of the United States of America. They are all trying to
break in and for a very special reason: The promise of hope,
opportunity, and jobs. But we must make the right way to come to
America be the legal way to come to America, not the ease of crossing
our border in the dark of night under some other cover.
Lastly, an integral part of border security is a verifiable program,
where America's employers can be given a verifiable ID by someone who
is here legally that verifies they are who they say they are. The
biggest growth industry in the United States of America on our
southwestern border is forged documents. We have a proliferation today
of forged documents, where illegal aliens have legal-looking documents
and we have a customs and immigration system that cannot tell an
American farmer or an American employer that, in fact, the document
they were shown is, in fact, right or wrong. That has to be fixed.
Once those provisions are in, we have a secure border. Interestingly
enough, it takes about the same amount of time to put in the barriers,
get unmanned aerial vehicles in the air, train the border security and
port-of-entry people as it takes to get the verifiable identification
system in place. We know both will take about 24 months.
When we have the trigger, it does not protract reform, but it
precedes the implementation of what is going to take 24 months to do
anyway. And all of a sudden we have a new paradigm in America. Those
who want to come here realize the way to come is the legal way, not the
illegal way. They learn there are consequences to coming illegally and
employers know when they get an ID they can either swipe it on a
computer or they can go up on the Internet and code to customs and
immigration and find out that person is legal. The paradigm changes,
and then the hope and opportunity of reforming legal immigration in
this country can become a reality.
I am not an obstructionist to doing it. In fact, if anything needs to
be done, we need to reform the legal system because we almost promote,
through the rigidity and difficulty of legal immigration, coming here
illegally because we are looking the other way on the border. We have a
historical precedent.
In 1986, we reformed immigration with the Simpson Act. We granted 3
million people amnesty, said we were going to secure the border and
didn't. Today, we have 12 million because we did not secure that
border. That can never happen again.
Second, if the border is secure and we give people who are here
illegally but are lawfully obeying the laws a chance to come forward,
we can identify who is here who is not a problem.
And you, also, leave open, for those who do not come forward whom you
must concentrate on, to see to it they are not here for the wrong
reasons and they go home. But you can never enforce the system
internally before you first close the external opportunity to come
through illegal immigration.
Mr. President, in May 1903, Anders Isakson came through Ellis Island
because of the potato famine in Scandinavia. In 1916, my father was
born to him and his wife, Josephine. My father became a citizen of this
country because he was born on our soil. In 1926, my grandfather became
a naturalized citizen of the United States of America.
In my home today, framed and hanging on the wall, are his
naturalization certificates from 1926, when he raised
[[Page 1703]]
his right arm and pledged his allegiance to the United States of
America. There is no one who has greater respect and greater joy in the
promise of this country and the opportunity of immigration. But we must
begin restoring the respect for legal immigration and shutting the door
on illegal immigration, or else those lines become blurred, and the
stress we have on our social service system, civil justice system,
public health system, and public education system that is stretched to
the limit because of illegal aliens today will increase.
We owe it to the history of our country and the greatness which makes
us great to secure our borders, to honor legal immigration, and to move
forward with a reform of illegal immigration that matches the economic
needs of the United States of America.
I stand on the Senate floor today committed to work with any Member
of this Senate for comprehensive reform, as long as its cornerstone in
its foundation is that we fix the problem on our borders, have it
certified, and have that fix be the foundation for the modernization
and reform of our immigration laws.
Mr. President, I thank you for the time and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from
Georgia. He has described something that for the last several months I
have been calling the Isakson principle. I believe the Isakson
principle is the basis for a comprehensive immigration bill that could
attract 85 to 90 votes in the Senate and could, in a fairly short
period of time, be reconciled with legislation passed by the House of
Representatives.
It would be a single piece of legislation that would work in two
stages. It would first secure our border; and then, as the Senator from
Georgia says, the trigger would come in, and we would get the rest of
the job done. And the rest of the job includes defining who can work
and who can study in the United States if they come from overseas. The
rest of the job also includes helping prospective citizens, of which
there are about a million a year today--people who are here legally--to
help them learn English, to learn our history, and to learn our
democratic traditions so we can be one country.
There is a lot of talk this week about the borders of Iraq. I believe
there are some more important borders in this world, at least to us
Americans, and they are the borders around our own country. It is more
important that we secure our borders at home than it is to secure the
borders in Iraq.
Last year, both the Senate and the House of Representatives passed an
immigration bill. I voted no on the Senate immigration bill. I opposed
the bill because I did not believe it did enough to secure our borders.
It had some good proposals for border security, and it had a number of
other excellent proposals, but it did not guarantee they would be
funded. We all know that border security on paper means nothing. It
requires boots on the ground. It requires jeeps on the roads and
unmanned aerial vehicles in the air. It requires an employer
verification system. And it requires adequate funding.
So I voted no. But I said at the time I was ready to vote for, and
wanted to vote for, a comprehensive bill, one that fixed the whole
problem. And I suggested then, as did a number of others, that the
basis for such a bill was the Isakson principle.
Well, instead of getting a bill passed into law, it was a political
year, and some Members of the House of Representatives, including some
members of my own party, thought the wiser course was basically to run
against the Senate bill that I voted against. Well, we now know how
successful that turned out to be. That was not successful because the
American people expect us to act like grownups, deal with big issues,
and come to a conclusion.
There is no issue upon which we in the Congress have more need to
come to a conclusion on than the issue of immigration. It is our
responsibility. We cannot kick it to the Governors. We cannot blame the
mayor of Nashville. We cannot blame anybody in Iraq. It is our job in
the Senate and the House of Representatives.
We should begin to do our job. We should take it up within the next
few weeks. We should base our bill on the Isakson principle. And we
should not stop our work on the immigration bill until we are finished.
The Isakson principle is the basis for success with immigration
because of the so-called trigger. As the Senator from Georgia said,
once we put into effect all of the things we need to do to secure the
border, the trigger operates, and then we get to all the rest of the
issues, some of which are hard to solve. But they are made much easier
to solve once we and the American people are assured the border will be
secured.
It is outrageous for us in the Senate to preach about the rule of law
to the rest of the world and ignore it here at home. The rule of law is
one of the most important principles of our country. We should make no
apology, not be embarrassed 1 minute for insisting upon it. Every new
citizen knows that. They do not come to this country to become an
American based upon their color or their ethnic background. They come
because to be an American, you believe in a few principles which you
must learn if you are going to become a citizen. Foremost among those
is the rule of law.
So we start with that. But that is not the only principle new
citizens learn. There is the principle of laissez-faire-- in other
words, a strong economy. And immigrants help a strong economy, whether
they are going to be Nobel Prize winners or whether they are going to
be picking fruit in California.
There is the principle of equal opportunity. There is the principle
of e pluribus unum, engraved right up there above the Presiding
Officer: How do we become one country? We learn our tradition. We learn
a common language. We adhere to common principles, instead of color and
background. And there is the tradition of the country that we are a
nation of immigrants. By our failure to act, we are showing a lack of
respect for the rule of law and a lack of respect for our tradition as
a nation of immigrants.
It is especially outrageous for us not to act when there is no one to
blame but us. We cannot blame Syria for this one. We cannot blame the
Iraqi Government. We cannot blame Iran. We cannot blame al-Qaida. It is
us. It is our job. So, Mr. President, I am here today to commend the
Senator from Georgia. Since last fall, he has had before us the basis
for sound, comprehensive immigration legislation--all in one bill; two
parts: secure our borders; and once that is done, then all the rest of
it. I believe that would attract 85 or 90 votes. And I would suggest,
respectfully, to my friend, the Democratic leader, and my friend, the
Republican leader, that if we are looking for things to do that are
important, that the American people expect us to act on, that we have
already demonstrated we can work on together, that within a few weeks
we take up the matter of immigration, we base it on the Isakson
principle, and we do not stop until we finish the job.
______
By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Hagel):
S. 331. A bill to provide grants from moneys collected from
violations of the corporate average fuel economy program to be used to
expand infrastructure necessary to increase the availability of
alternative fuels; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague from
Colorado, Senator Salazar, regarding S. 331, the Alternative Energy
Refueling Systems Act of 2007. The bill is a very straightforward
measure that seeks to increase the number of alternative refueling
stations across our country, something that I hope the full Senate will
support later this year.
Today, there are over 9 million alternative fuel automobiles on the
road in America. However, while automakers have pledged to produce an
increasing number of these vehicles, there is a serious shortfall in
the number of gas stations to support these vehicles. For instance,
while there are more than 6
[[Page 1704]]
million flex-fuel vehicles on the road today which can run on E-85 or
gasoline, less than 1 percent of all gas stations in this country offer
E-85 fuel. Clearly, more must be done to increase the availability of
alternative fuels at the retail level.
The Alternative Energy Refueling Systems Act would authorize the
Department of Energy, through the existing Clean Cities Program, to
provide grants to gas station owners who will install alternative
refueling systems. These grants would greatly assist in expanding the
availability of alternative fuels such as E-85, which is a mix of 15
percent gasoline and 85 percent ethanol, or biodiesel, natural gas,
compressed natural gas, hydrogen, or liquefied petroleum gas.
Under this legislation, gas station owners who wish to install a new
alternative fuel tank would be reimbursed for up to 30 percent of the
cost, not exceeding $30,000, of expenses related to the purchase and
installation of a new alternative refueling system. Keep in mind that
subject to an annual appropriations, funding for these grants would
come from a portion of the penalties that are collected annually from
auto manufacturers who violate the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or
CAFE standards, most of which are foreign automakers.
I have to say the cost to install a pump like this generally runs
somewhere from $30,000 to $40,000 to about $200,000, depending on where
you are in the country. So obviously, it is a big investment for a lot
of these filling station owners. But the fact is, they need to have an
incentive and some assistance to make sure we are closing the gap that
exists in this country between the production of renewable energy--a
lot of ethanol production is going on in the country. In my State alone
we have 11 plants currently operating, 5 more under construction, and
we will be, by 2008, at 1 billion gallons annually of ethanol in South
Dakota alone. So when you add to that the ethanol that is produced in
other areas of the Midwest, we have a lot of production out there, and
I think we have a big market growing. We have a renewable fuels
standard that requires that we use 7.5 billion gallons annually by the
year 2012, which, frankly, I think we will eclipse way before that
time. Because at the current rate of production, we are going to blow
by that in a very short time.
But that being said, there is a requirement out there that a market
develop for this. We have a lot of consumers around the country who
would like to have access to renewable energy who believe for a lot of
reasons, as I do, that it makes sense to lessen our dependence upon
foreign sources of energy, to become more energy secure. It cleans up
the environment and, obviously, in my part of the country, it is very
good for American agriculture. But what we are missing in that
distribution system is the retail level. We have the production, we
have the demand, we have a renewable fuels standard, we have a market,
but we don't have a way of joining those. Because of the costs
associated with installing some of these pumps, a lot of filling
station owners are reluctant to do so. What this would do is provide up
to $30,000 or 30 percent of the cost not to exceed $30,000 toward that
end. So we think this is a very commonsense approach to doing something
that we really need to be doing in America today, and that is moving
away from our dependence upon the oil industry for our energy.
I wanted to tell my colleagues a little bit about who supports this
piece of legislation. We have a number of businesses, agricultural and
alternative energy groups, including General Motors, Ford Motors,
Daimler Chrysler--all the big domestic automakers--Wal-Mart, the
Petroleum Marketers Association of America, the National Ethanol
Vehicle Coalition, the National Association of Fleet Administrators,
the Renewable Fuels Association, the National Biodiesel Board, the
National Corn Growers Association, the American Soybean Association,
the American Coalition for Ethanol, and the National Association of
Truck Stop Operators.
So up and down the so-called food chain, from the production, the
corn growers, the manufacturers of vehicles in this country, those who
are involved at the retail level with getting fuel out there--filling
stations, convenience stores--all the agricultural organizations, as I
said, the ethanol industry, are all very much supportive of this
particular piece of legislation.
A measure very similar to this overwhelmingly passed in the House of
Representatives by a vote of 355 to 9 back on July 4 of 2006.
Unfortunately, the Senate was unable to consider our companion measure
before adjourning last year.
So Senator Salazar and I wholeheartedly believe this is a commonsense
measure that will significantly increase the number of alternative
refueling stations nationwide. As I said earlier, it accomplishes a lot
of objectives that are important from a policy standpoint, a national
security standpoint, energy security standpoint, and an environmental
standpoint. This, to me, is a win-win, and I hope the Senate will act
on it before this year is out. Hopefully, we will start to consider
very seriously in the weeks and months ahead energy legislation and
another farm bill, which I hope will have a very robust energy title
included in it. It is high time we did something substantial to lessen
or to close this gap we have and this problem that needs to be
addressed in terms of our ability to continue to grow the renewable
fuels industry in this country, home-grown energy, energy that we get
on an annual basis.
We raise a corn crop every year in South Dakota, as they do in Iowa,
Minnesota, and Nebraska and in other States across this country which
are all starting to realize the benefits of ethanol production and what
it means to their agricultural economy. So this is a good piece of
legislation that makes sense in so many ways. I hope the very clear
logic of it will help us prevail in getting it passed in the Senate
this year.
This legislation is cosponsored by Senator Hagel of Nebraska and
Senator Conrad of North Dakota. I again put this bill before the
Senate, and I look forward to its consideration.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I join my colleague Senator Thune today
in introducing S. 331, the Thune/Salazar Alternative Fuel Grant
Program. I am proud that Senators Hagel and Conrad are also joining us
in this effort.
This morning I spoke about the dire threat that our dependence on
foreign oil poses to our energy security and our national security. We
are simply too vulnerable to oil shocks, supply disruptions, and the
whims of oil-rich and democracy-poor countries.
It is time to build a new, clean energy economy that runs on
biofuels, wind, solar, and alternative energies. This clean energy
economy will move us out of the shadows of our oil dependence. Our
farmers, ranchers, engineers, and entrepreneurs should play a lead role
in this clean energy revolution, and Congress should do more to help
them.
The bill that Senator Thune and I are introducing today, S. 331, is a
straightforward bill that will help expand the availability of
alternative fuels at our Nation's filling stations.
It aims to solve a key problem that is slowing the growth of
alternative fuels in the transportation sector. Although our farmers
and ranchers are producing more and more biofuels each year, and our
car manufacturers are building more and more vehicles that run on E-85,
consumers still have a difficult time finding anything but gasoline at
their filling station.
Our alternative fuel infrastructure is woefully behind the times. At
last count, only a few hundred filling stations around the country
carried E-85 fuel, while more than 6 million flexible fuel vehicles are
on the road.
Consumers should have the choice of whether to fill their car with
biofuels or with gasoline. Unfortunately, most of them do not.
The bill we are introducing is simple. It would provide grants to
eligible gas station owners, farmers, and businesses that install pumps
to deliver alternative fuels, such as natural gas or E-85.
The bill uses funds collected through CAFE penalties--approximately
$20
[[Page 1705]]
million--for grants of up to $30,000. The funding would still be
subject to annual appropriations and is budget neutral.
This bill will dramatically improve the availability of alternative
fuels to consumers. It will allow those with E-85 vehicles to finally
use the fuel they dream of using. It will also put in place the
infrastructure we need for cellulosic ethanol, which is expected to
come to market in just a few years.
I urge my colleagues to take a serious look at this bill--it is
common sense, straightforward, fills a clear need, and is fiscally
responsible.
I again thank my colleague from South Dakota for his leadership on
this matter.
______
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 334. A bill to provide affordable, guaranteed private health
coverage that will make Americans healthier and can never be taken
away; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it has been more than a decade since the
U.S. Senate last addressed fixing health care. I do not think it is
morally right for the Senate to duck on health care any longer and that
is why I am proposing legislation today to provide affordable,
guaranteed, private health coverage for all Americans.
The legislation, called the Healthy Americans Act, ensures care for
the 46 million Americans who now live without health insurance, frees
business owners from the skyrocketing costs of insuring their workers,
and promises every American health care coverage that can never be
taken away. My proposal is fully paid for, holds down health care cost
growth in the future and provides coverage just like Members of
Congress can get now.
America spent $2.2 trillion on health care last year.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers expects premiums will increase 11 percent this
year alone and I believe the American health care system as we know it
is not sustainable.
Our current employer-sponsored health insurance system is a historic
accident. In the 1940s, employers needed a way to attract workers as
wage and price controls continued. Our country needs a uniquely
American solution that works for an economy that is competing not just
with the company across town but the company across the world.
Americans need a health care system that works for individuals and
families, and encourages people to stay healthy instead of only seeking
care after they are sick.
The Healthy Americans Act does this and more. It doesn't take long to
explain how the Healthy Americans Act works. From the first day
individuals, families and businesses win. The Healthy Americans Act
cuts the link between health insurance and employment altogether. Under
the Healthy Americans Act, businesses paying for employee health
premiums are required to increase their workers' paychecks by the
amount they spent last year on their health coverage. Federal tax law
is changed to hold the worker harmless for the extra compensation, and
the worker is required to purchase private coverage through an exchange
in their State that forces insurance companies to offer simplified,
standardized coverage, with benefits like a Member of Congress gets,
and prohibits insurers from engaging in price discrimination.
Requiring employers to cash out their health premiums, as I propose
in the Healthy Americans Act, is good for both employers and workers.
With health premiums going up 11 percent this year, employers are going
to be glad to be exempt from these increases. With the extra money in
their paycheck, workers have a new incentive to shop for their health
care and hold down their cost. If a worker can save a few hundred
dollars on their health care purchase, they can use that money for
something else they need.
In addition, the Healthy Americans Act is easy to administer and
guarantees lifetime health security. Once you have signed up with a
plan through an exchange in the State in which you live, that is it;
you have completed the administrative process. Even if you lose your
job or you go bankrupt, you can never have your coverage taken away.
Sign up, and the premium you pay for the plan and all of the
administrative activities are handled through the tax system. For those
who cannot afford private coverage, the Healthy Americans Act
subsidizes their purchases.
Businesses that have not been able to afford health coverage for
their workers, under the new approach, will pay a fee--one that is
tiered to their size and revenue, with some paying as little as 2
percent of the national average premium amount per worker for that
basic benefit package.
It will be easy to administer, locally controlled, with guaranteed
coverage as good as your Member of Congress gets. The Lewin Group has
costed out my proposal and reports that it is fully paid for and in
addition to expanding coverage for millions of people, guaranteeing
health benefits as good as their Member of Congress gets, it also saves
$4.5 billion in health spending in the first year. Money is saved by
reducing the administrative costs of insurance, reducing cost shifting,
and preventing those needless hospital emergency room visits. Also,
there are substantial incentives that come about because insurance
companies would have to compete for the business of consumers, who
would have a new incentive to hold down health costs.
There are other parts of the Healthy Americans Act I wish to describe
briefly. As the name of the legislation suggests, I believe strongly
that fixing American health care requires a new ethic of health care
prevention, a sharp new focus in keeping our citizens well, and trying
to keep them from falling victim to skyrocketing rates of increase in
diabetes, heart attack, and strokes.
Spending on these chronic illnesses is soaring, and it is especially
sad to see so many children and seniors fall victim to these diseases.
Yet many Government programs and private insurance devote most of their
attention to treating Americans after they are ill and give short
shrift to wellness.
Under the Healthy Americans Act, there will be for the first time
significant new incentives for all Americans to stay healthy. They are
voluntary incentives, but ones that I think will make a real difference
in building a national new ethic of wellness and health care
prevention.
Parents who enroll children in wellness programs will be eligible for
discounts in their own premiums. Instead of mandating that parents take
youngsters to various health programs--and maybe they do and maybe they
don't--the Healthy Americans Act says when a parent takes a child to
one of those wellness programs, the parent would be eligible to get a
discount on the parent's health premiums.
Under the Healthy Americans Act, employers who financially support
health care prevention for their workers get incentives for doing that
as well. Medicare is authorized to reduce outpatient Part B premiums so
as to reward seniors trying to reduce their cholesterol, lose weight,
or decrease the risk of stroke. It has never been done before. For
example, Part B of Medicare, the outpatient part, doesn't offer any
incentives for older Americans to change their behavior. Everybody pays
the same Medicare Part B premium right now. The Healthy Americans Act
proposes we change that and ensures that if a senior from Virginia or
Oregon or elsewhere is involved in a wellness program, in health care
prevention efforts, like smoking cessation, they could get a lower Part
B premium for doing that.
The preventive health efforts I have described are promoted through
new voluntary incentives under the Healthy Americans Act, not heavy-
handed mandates. What this legislation says is--let's make it more
attractive for people to stay healthy and change their behaviors to
promote the kind of wellness practices we all know we should do but
need an incentive to follow.
Finally, and most importantly, the Healthy Americans Act does not
harm those who have coverage in order to help those who have nothing.
The legislation makes clear that all Americans retain the right to
purchase as much
[[Page 1706]]
health care coverage as they want. All Americans will enjoy true health
security with the Healthy Americans Act, a lifetime guarantee of
coverage at least as good as their Member of Congress receives.
A recent ``Health Affairs'' article pointed out that more than half
of the Nation's uninsured are ineligible for public programs such as
Medicaid, but do not have the money to purchase coverage for
themselves.
At present, for most poor people to receive health benefits, they
have to go out and try to squeeze themselves into one of the categories
that entitles them to care. Under the Healthy Americans Act, low-income
people will receive private health coverage, coverage that is as good
as a Member of Congress gets, automatically. Like everyone else, they
will sign up through the exchange in their State. When they are
working, the premiums they owe are withheld from their paycheck. If
they lose their job, there is an automatic adjustment in their
withholding.
In addition, under the Healthy Americans Act, it will be more
attractive for doctors and other health care providers to care for the
poor. Those who are now in underfunded programs, such as Medicaid, are
going to be able to have private insurance that pays doctors and other
providers commercial rates which are traditionally higher than Medicaid
reimbursement rates.
Because low-income children and the disabled are so vulnerable, if
Medicaid provides benefits that are not included in the kind of package
Members of Congress get, then those low-income folks would be entitled
to get the additional benefits from the Medicaid Program in their
State.
The Healthy Americans Act also makes changes in Medicare. As the
largest Federal health program, Medicare's financial status is far more
fragile than Social Security. Two-thirds of Medicare spending is now
devoted to about 5 percent of the elderly population. Those are the
seniors with chronic illness and the seniors who need compassionate
end-of-life health care. The Healthy Americans Act strengthens Medicare
for both seniors and taxpayers in both of these areas.
In addition to reducing Medicare's outpatient premiums for seniors
who adopt healthy lifestyles and reduce the prospect of chronic
illness, primary care reimbursements for doctors and other providers
get a boost under the Healthy Americans Act. Good primary care for
seniors also reduces the likelihood of chronic illness that goes
unmanaged. This reimbursement boost is sure to increase access to care
for seniors--and I see them all over, in Oregon and elsewhere--who are
having difficulty finding doctors who will treat them.
To better meet the needs of seniors suffering from multiple chronic
illnesses, the Healthy Americans Act promotes better coordination of
their care by allowing a special management fee to providers who better
assist seniors with these especially important services.
Hospice law is changed so that seniors who are terminally ill do not
have to give up care that allows them to treat their illness in order
to get the Medicare hospice benefit. In addition, the Healthy Americans
Act empowers all our citizens wishing to make their own end-of-life
care decisions. The legislation requires hospitals and other facilities
to give patients the choice of stating in writing how they would want
their doctor and other health care providers to handle various end-of-
life care decisions.
When I announced the Healthy Americans Act last December, I stood
with an unprecedented coalition of labor and business. Andy Stern,
president of SEIU said ``It is time for fundamental, not incremental
change and Senator Wyden has a plan that is practical and principle,
and sets down a moral test'' `Why doesn't every American have the right
to the same health care as the President, the Vice President, 535
members of Congress and 3 million Federal workers?''' Steve Burd, the
CEO of Safeway, a Fortune 50 company that has focused on prevention and
wellness, called the Healthy Americans Act ``an innovative proposal
that lays a foundation to begin a serious discussion on health care
reform in this country.''
Ron Pollack of Families USA, listed the principles embodied in the
Healthy Americans Act that he believes are important: universality;
subsides to make the coverage affordable; community rating rules so the
sicker and older are not priced out of the market; and benefits like a
Member of Congress has today.
Also at my press conference was Mike Roach, of Portland, OR, a 30-
year member of National Federation of Independent Businesses. He owns a
clothing store in Portland and employs eight people. He believes the
Healthy Americans Act will help him attract good employees. And Bob
Beal, president of Oregon Iron Works, an Oregon-based company that
competes internationally, believes that we must also address the
skyrocketing health care costs that make it harder for companies like
his in the international market place.
Like me, the people who stood by me when I announced the Healthy
Americans Act believe we need to move the health care debate forward
and cannot afford to let more time to go by. The last time Congress
took a serious look at reforming health care, there wasn't anything
resembling this kind of coalition of labor, business, low-income and
end-of-life advocates standing together to call for action.
In tackling one-seventh of the economy, invariably technical issues
arise. I want to thank many people who have assisted along the way. Len
Nichols of the New America Foundation sent me e-mails at 2 in the
morning that helped refine provisions. John Sheils, Randy Haught and
Evelyn Murphy of the Lewin Group assisted in telling us our numbers
worked or didn't. The Congressional Research Service staff followed up
on questions from the common to the obscure. That group included: Bob
Lyke, Jeanne Hearne, April Grady, Julie Whitaker, Christine Scott,
Chris Peterson, Richard Rimkunas, Karen Trintz, Julie Stone and Andrew
Sommers. The Senate Legislative Counsel staff translated the ideas and
concepts into legislative language. They devoted an enormous amount of
time in getting the ideas and the language right. I'd like to thank
Mark Mathiesen, Mark McGunagle, Bill Baird, John Goetcheus, Stacy Kern-
Sheerer, Kelly Malone and Ruth Ernest for their patience and
extraordinary effort.
On my staff, Joshua Sheinkman, my legislative director and Jeff
Michaels, my administrative assistant, were instrumental in completing
the tax and business sections of the bill. Emily Katz who started in my
office as a legislative fellow and became a permanent part of the Wyden
health team made sure we had credible facts and statistics. Last but
not least, I would like to thank Stephanie Kennan, my Senior Health
Policy Adviser for the last 9 years who played devil's advocate, worked
through the conflicting and evolving ideas, and kept the many threads
of the bill working together.
The full text of the Healthy Americans Act and the Lewin analysis are
available on my Web site.
In closing, I believe that without your health, you don't get to the
starting line of life. For too long, the Congress has dodged the debate
and chosen to slice off parts of the issue. And as worthy as those past
efforts have been to help certain segments of our citizens, all
Americans deserve guaranteed coverage like their Member of Congress,
and no one should go to bed at night worrying about losing their health
care. It is time for Congress to provide 21st century solutions to one
of the most important issues our country must address. The Healthy
Americans Act starts that debate.
I ask unanimous consent, that the Healthy Americans Act section-by-
section summary, and examples of how the legislation would affect
individuals and families and employers be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Healthy Americans Act Section by Section
Section 1-- Short Title and Table of Contents
[[Page 1707]]
Section 2--Findings
Section 3--Definitions
TITLE I: HEALTHY AMERICANS PRIVATE INSURANCE PLANS
Subtitle A--Guaranteed Private Coverage
Section 101: Guarantee of Healthy Americans Private
Insurance Coverage: Within 2 years of enactment States must
create a system as outlined in the bill to provide
individuals the opportunity to purchase a Healthy Americans
Private Insurance (HAPI) plan that meets the requirements of
the Act.
Section 102: Individual Responsibility to Enroll: Adults
(over age 19, U.S. citizens, not incarcerated) must enroll
themselves and dependent children in a plan offered through
the state-wide Health Help Agency (HHA) unless they provide
evidence of enrollment or coverage through Medicare, a health
insurance plan offered by the Department of Defense, an
employee benefit plan through a former employer (i.e. retiree
health plans), a qualified collective bargaining agreement,
the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the Indian Health
Service.
Religious Exemption: If a person opposes for religious
reasons to purchasing health insurance the requirement may be
waived.
Dependent Children: Each adult has the responsibility to
enroll each child in a plan. Dependent children include
individuals up to age 24 claimed by their parents for
deductions in the tax code.
Penalty for Failure to Purchase Coverage: If an individual
fails to purchase coverage and does not meet the exceptions
or the religious exemption, then a financial penalty will be
assessed. The penalty is calculated by multiplying the number
of uncovered months times the weighted average of the monthly
premium for a plan in the person's coverage class and
coverage area, plus 15 percent. Payments will be made to the
HHA of the State in which the person resides. That agency
also may establish a procedure to waive the penalty if the
penalty poses a hardship. Each State shall determine
appropriate mechanisms to enforce the requirement that
individuals be enrolled, but the enforcement cannot be the
revocation or ineligibility of coverage.
Subtitle B--Standards for Healthy Americans Private Insurance Coverage
Section 111: Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plans: At
least two plans that meet the requirements of the Act must be
offered through the Health Help Agency in each State. The
offerings permitted through Health Help include several
options: (1) a plan similar to the Blue Cross Blue Shield
Standard Plan provided under the Federal Employees Health
Benefit Program as of January 1, 2007; (2) plans with
additional benefits added to the standard plan so long as
those benefits are priced and displayed separately; and (3)
actuarial equivalent plans to the standard plan. In addition,
plans must provide benefits for wellness programs; incentives
to promote wellness; provide coverage for catastrophic
medical events resulting in the exhaustion of lifetime
limits; create a health home for the covered individual or
family; ensure that as part of a first visit with a primary
care physician, a care plan is developed to maximize the
health of the individual through wellness and prevention
activities; provide for comprehensive disease prevention,
early detection and management; and provide for personal
responsibility contributions at the time services are
administered except for preventive items or services for
early detection.
Family Planning: A health insurance issuer must make
available supplemental coverage for abortion services that
may be purchased in conjunction with a HAPI plan or an
actuarially equivalent HAPI.
Actuarial Equivalent Plans: Actuarial equivalent plans have
to have a set of core benefits that include preventive items
and services; inpatient and outpatient hospital services;
physicians' surgical and medical services; and laboratory and
X-ray services. Like the other HAPI plans, actuarial
equivalent plans cannot charge copays for prevention and
chronic disease management items or services.
Coverage Classes: There will be the following coverage
classes: (1) individual; (2) married couple or domestic
partnership (as determined by a State) without dependent
children; (3) coverage of an adult individual with 1 or more
dependent children; (4) coverage of a married couple or
domestic partnership as determined by a State with one or
more dependent children.
Premium Determinations: Community rating or adjusted
community rating principles established by the State will be
used. States may permit premium variations based only on
geography, smoking status, and family size. States may
determine to have no variations.
A State shall permit a health insurance issuer to provide
premium discounts and other incentives to enrollees based on
participation in wellness, chronic disease management, and
other programs designed to improve the health of
participants.
Limitations: Age, gender, industry, health status or claims
experience may not be used to determine premiums.
Section 112: Specific Coverage Requirements: This section
requires existing provisions of law currently applied to
group health markets to be applied to the plans offered
through Health Help Agencies including: protections for
coverage of pre-existing conditions; guaranteed availability
of coverage; guaranteed renewability of coverage; prohibition
of discrimination based on health status; coverage
protections for mothers and newborns, mental health parity,
and reconstructive surgery following a mastectomy; and
prohibition of discrimination on the basis of genetic
information.
This section also states that a HAPI plan shall not
establish rules for eligibility for enrollment based on
genetic information, and premiums and personal responsibility
payments cannot be adjusted based on genetic information. A
plan cannot request or require an individual to have a
genetic test.
Section 113: Updating Healthy Americans Private Insurance
Plan Requirements: The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(HHS) shall create a 15-person advisory committee that will
report annually to Congress and the Secretary concerning
modifications to benefits, items and services. The committee
members will include a health economist; an ethicist; health
care providers including nurses and other non-physician
providers; health insurance issuers; health care consumers; a
member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force; and an
actuary.
Subtitle C--Eligibility for Premium and Personal Responsibility
Contribution Subsidies
Section 121: Eligibility for Premium Subsidies: Individuals
and families with modified adjusted gross incomes of 100% of
poverty ($9,800 individual, $20,000 for a family of four) and
below will be eligible for a full subsidy with which to
purchase health insurance. For individuals and families with
income between 100% of poverty and 400% of poverty ($39,200
for an individual, $52,800 for a couple and $80,000 for a
family of four), subsidies will be provided on a sliding
scale.
[Note: To calculate the subsidy level, the individual or
family would first subtract the health deductions and a
deduction for children in the family to determine the
modified adjusted gross income. See deductions in Section
664.]
Individuals have 60 days to notify the HHA that there has
been a change in income which may make them eligible or
ineligible for the subsidy. States may also develop other
mechanisms to ensure individuals do not have a break in
coverage due to a catastrophic financial event.
Section 122: Eligibility for Personal Responsibility
Contribution Subsidies:
Full subsidy: Individuals who have a modified adjusted
gross income below 100 percent of poverty will receive a
subsidy amount equal to the full amount of any personal
responsibility contributions.
Partial subsidy: For individuals with modified adjusted
gross incomes at or above 100 percent of poverty an HHA may
provide a subsidy equal to the amount of any personal
responsibility contributions the person incurs.
Section 123: Definitions and Special Rules:
The term modified adjusted gross income means adjusted
gross income as defined in the Internal Revenue Code
increased by the amount of interest received during the year
and the amount of any Social Security benefits received
during the taxable year.
Taxable year to be used to determine modified adjusted
gross income is determined by the individual's most recent
income tax return and other information the Secretary may
require.
Poverty Line is the meaning given in the Community Health
Services Block Grant.
The Secretary shall promulgate regulations to be used by
the HHAs to calculate premium subsides and personal
responsibility subsidies for individuals whose modified
adjusted gross income is significantly lower than for the
previous year being used to calculate the premium subsidy.
Special Rule for Unlawfully Present Aliens: Subsidies may
not go to adult illegal aliens.
Special Rule for Aliens: If an alien owes either a premium
payment or a penalty, the alien's visa may not be renewed or
adjusted.
Bankruptcy: Debts created by failing to pay premiums are
not dischargeable through bankruptcy.
Subtitle D--Wellness Programs
Section 131: Requirements for Wellness Programs:
Defining Wellness: Wellness programs must consist of a
combination of activities designed to increase awareness,
assess risks, educate and promote voluntary behavior change
to improve the health of an individual, modify his or her
consumer health behavior, enhance his or her personal well-
being and productivity, and prevent illness and injury.
Discounts on premiums: Individuals who participate
successfully in approved wellness programs are eligible for a
discounted premium, including rewarding parents if their
child participates in an approved wellness program.
Determinations concerning successful participation by an
individual in a wellness program shall be made by the plan
based on a retrospective review of the activities the
individual participated in and the plan may require a minimum
level of successful participation.
A plan may choose to provide discounts on personal
responsibility contributions.
[[Page 1708]]
Wellness programs approved by the insurer must be offered
to all enrollees and permit enrollees an opportunity to meet
a reasonable alternative participation standard if it is
medically inadvisable to attempt to meet the initial program
standard. Participation in wellness programs cannot be used
as a proxy for health status.
To be an approved wellness program, the program must be
designed to promote good health and prevent disease, is
approved by the HAPI plan, and is offered to all enrollees.
Employers may deduct the costs of offering wellness
programs or worksite health centers.
TITLE II: HEALTHY START FOR CHILDREN
Subtitle A--Benefits and Eligibility
Section 201: General Goal and Authorization of
Appropriations for HAPI Plan Coverage for Children: The
general goal of Healthy Start is to ensure all children
receive health coverage that is good quality, affordable and
includes prevention-oriented benefits.
Funds needed for this section are to be appropriated.
If a child is in a family with an income of 300% or below
and the child does not have coverage, Healthy Start shall
ensure the child is enrolled in a plan. The States and
insurers shall create a separate class of coverage for
children not enrolled in a plan by an adult. A child is
defined as those under the age of 18 or in the case of foster
care, under the age of 21.
Section 202: Coordination of Supplemental Coverage under
the Medicaid Program to HAPI Plan Coverage for Children: If a
child was receiving services through Medicaid that are not
offered through the private coverage offered through Health
Help, Medicaid will continue to provide that assistance. This
includes Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment
(EPSDT) services.
Subtitle B--Service Providers
Section 211: Inclusion of Providers under HAPI Plans:
Children receiving care though school based health centers,
other centers funded through Public Health Service Act, rural
health clinics or an Indian Health Service facility will be
provided services at no cost or HAPI plans will reimburse the
providers for the services.
Section 212: Use of, and Grants for, School Based Health
Centers: Creates and defines school based health centers and
provides for grants to develop more school based health
centers.
School based health centers must be located in elementary
or secondary schools, operated in collaboration with the
school in which the center is located; administered by a
community-based organization including a hospital, public
health department, community health center, or nonprofit
health care agency. The school based health center must
provide primary health care services including health
assessments, diagnosis and treatment of minor acute or
chronic conditions and Healthy Start benefits; and mental
health services. Services must be available when the school
is open and through on call coverage. Services are to be
provided by appropriately credentialed individuals including
nurse practitioner, physician assistant, a mental health
professional, physician or an assistant. Centers must use
electronic medical records by January 1, 2010. In addition,
the centers may also provide preventive dental services
consistent with State licensure law through dental hygienists
or dental assistants.
School based health centers may provide services to
students in more than one school if it is determined to be
appropriate.
A parent must give permission for the child to receive care
in a school based health center. Centers may seek
reimbursement from a third party payer including HAPI plans.
Funds received from third party payer reimbursement shall be
allocated to the center in which the care was provided.
Development Grants: The Secretary shall provide grants to
local school districts and communities for the establishment
and operation of school based health centers. The Secretary
shall give priority to applicants who will establish a school
based health center in medically underserved areas or areas
for which there are extended distances between the school
involved and appropriate providers of care for children;
services students with the highest incidence of unmet medical
and psycho social needs; and can demonstrate that funding
state, local or community partners have provided at least 50
percent of the funding for the center to ensure the ongoing
operation of the center.
Federal Tort Claims Act: A health care provider shall have
malpractice coverage through the Federal Tort Claims Act for
services provided through a school based health center.
TITLE III: BETTER HEALTH FOR OLDER AND DISABLED AMERICANS
Subtitle A--Assurance of Supplemental Medicaid Coverage
Section 301: Coordination of Supplemental Coverage under
the Medicaid Program for Elderly and Disabled Individuals:
The Secretary shall provide guidance to States and insurers
that takes into account the specific health care needs of
elderly and disabled individuals who receive Medicaid
benefits so that Medicaid may provide services not provided
by HAPI plans.
Subtitle B--Empowering Individuals and States To Improve Long-Term Care
Choices
Section 311: New, Automatic Medicaid Option for State
Choices for Long-Term Care: If a State decides to do a waiver
similar to the Vermont waiver which allows individuals to
have access to home and community based services, so long as
the State meets criteria specified, the State may
automatically implement the program.
Section 312: Simpler and More Affordable Long-Term Care
Insurance Coverage: This section creates Medigap-like models
for tax qualified long term care policies and adds additional
consumer protections.
A Qualified Long Term Care Plan is a plan that meets the
standards and requirements developed by either the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) or by federal
regulations.
Development of Standards and Requirements: Within 9 months
after the date of enactment, the NAIC should adopt a model
regulation to regulate limitations on the groups or packages
of benefits that may be offered under a long term care
insurance policy; uniform language and definitions; uniform
format to be used in the policy with respect to benefits; and
other standards required by the Secretary of HHS.
If NAIC does not adopt a model regulation with the 9-month
period, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations within 9
months that do the same as the above section. In developing
standards and requirements, the Secretary shall consult with
a working group of representatives of long term care
insurers, beneficiaries and consumer groups, and other
individuals.
Limitations on Groups and Packages of Benefits: The model
regulation or federal regulation shall provide for the
identification of a core group of basic benefits common to
all policies and the total number of different benefit
packages and combination of benefits that maybe offered as a
separate benefit package may not exceed 10.
The objectives that need to be balanced in developing the
packages are: to simplify the market to facilitate
comparisons among policies; avoiding adverse selection;
provide consumer choice; provide market stability and promote
competition.
The requirements would go into effect no later than one
year after the date NAIC or the Secretary adopts the
standards.
Required State Legislation: State legislatures would adopt
the standards.
Additional Consumer Protections: This section amends the
1993 NAIC model regulation and model Act to require
additional consumer protections for qualified long term care
policies concerning, guaranteed renewal or noncancelability;
prohibitions on limitations and exclusions, continuation or
conversion of coverage, unintentional lapse, probationary
periods, preexisting conditions, and other issues.
Any person selling a long term care insurance policy shall
make available for sale a policy with only the core group of
basic benefits.
TITLE IV: HEALTHIER MEDICARE
Subtitle A--Authority To Adjust Amount of Part B Premium To Reward
Positive Health Behavior
Section 401: Authority to Adjust Amount of Medicare Part B
Premium to Reward Positive Health Behavior: The Secretary may
adjust Part B premiums for an individual based on whether or
not the individual participates in healthy behaviors,
including weight management, exercise, nutrition counseling,
refraining from tobacco use, designating a health home, and
other behaviors determined appropriate by the Secretary. In
adjusting the Part B premium, the Secretary must ensure
budget neutrality and the aggregate must be equal to 25
percent of premium paid (as in current law).
Subtitle B--Promoting Primary Care for Medicare Beneficiaries
Section 411: Primary Care Services Management Payment: This
section requires the Secretary to create a primary care
management fee for providers who are designated the health
home of a Medicare beneficiary and who provide continuous
medical care, including prevention and treatment, and
referrals to specialists. This section is cross referenced in
the chronic care disease management section so that primary
care physicians providing chronic disease management may
receive the primary care services management fee for those
services. The amount of the payment will be determined by the
Secretary in consultation with MedPAC.
Requirement for Designation as a Health Home: The
management fee shall be provided if the beneficiary has
designated the provider as a health home. A health home is a
provider that a Medicare beneficiary has designated to
monitor the health and health care of the senior.
Subtitle C--Chronic Care Disease Management
Section 421: Chronic Care Disease Management: This section
requires Medicare to have a chronic disease management
program available to all Medicare beneficiaries no later than
January 1, 2008. The program must cover the 5 most prevalent
diseases. Physicians who are not primary care providers, but
do provide chronic disease management may receive an
additional payment
[[Page 1709]]
for providing chronic disease management. The fee will be
determined by the Secretary in consultation with MedPAC.
The Secretary shall establish procedures for identifying
and enrolling Medicare beneficiaries who may benefit from
participation in the program.
Section 422: Chronic Care Education Centers: This section
creates Chronic Care Education Centers to serve as
clearinghouses for information on health care providers who
have expertise in the management of chronic disease.
Subtitle D--Part D Improvements Chapter 1
Section 431: Negotiating Fair Prices for Medicare
Prescription Drugs (based on Snowe-Wyden MEND bill): This
section provides the Secretary with authority to negotiate
prices with manufacturers of prescription drugs. The
Secretary must negotiate for fall back plans and if a plan
requests assistance. However, the authority to negotiate is
not limited to these two scenarios. Specifies no uniform
formulary or price setting is permitted. Savings are to go
towards filling the coverage gap or deficit reduction.
Section 432: Process for Individuals Entering the Medicare
Coverage Gap to Switch to a Plan that Provides Coverage in
the Gap (based on Snowe-Wyden Lifeline Act to permit people
to change plans if they hit the donut hole): Permits
individuals to change plans if they hit the coverage gap. In
addition, the section requires the Secretary to notify
individuals they are getting close to the coverage gap and
what their options are. This provision would sunset 5 years
after enactment.
Subtitle E--Improving Quality in Hospitals for All Patients
Section 441: Improving Quality in Hospitals for All
Patients: Within 2 years after enactment, hospitals must
demonstrate to accrediting bodies improvements in quality
control that include: rapid response teams; heart attack
treatments; procedures that reduce medication errors;
infection prevention; procedures that reduce the incidence of
ventilator-related illnesses; and other elements the
Secretary wishes to add.
Within 2 years after enactment, the Secretary shall convene
a panel of independent experts to ensure hospitals have state
of the art quality control that is updated on an annual
basis.
Subtitle F--End-of-Life Care Improvements
Section 451: Patient Empowerment and Following a Patient's
Health Care Wishes: Within 2 years after enactment, health
care facilities receiving Medicare funds must provide each
patient with a document designed to promote patient autonomy
by documenting the patient's treatment preferences and
coordinating these preferences with physician orders. The
document must transfer with the patient from one setting to
another; provide a summary of treatment preferences in
multiple scenarios by the patient or the patient's guardian
and a physician or other practitioner's order for care; is
easy to read in an emergency situation; reduces repetitive
activities in complying with the Patient Self Determination
Act; ensures that the use of the document is voluntary by the
patient or the patient's guardian; is easily accessible in
the patient's medical chart and does not supplant State
health care proxy, living wills or other end-of-life care
forms.
Section 452: Permitting Hospice Beneficiaries to Receive
Curative Care: Changes the current Medicare requirement that
to choose hospice an individual must give up curative care.
Instead, an individual may continue curative care while
receiving hospice.
Section 453: Providing Beneficiaries with Information
Regarding End-of-Life Care Clearinghouse: When signing up for
Medicare, the Secretary shall refer people to the
clearinghouse described in this Act.
Section 454: Clearinghouse: The Secretary shall establish a
national toll-free information clearinghouse that the public
may access to find out State-specific information regarding
advance directives and end-of-life care decisions. If such a
clearinghouse exists and is administered by a not-for-profit
organization the Secretary must support that clearinghouse
instead of creating a new one.
Subtitle G--Additional Provisions
Section 461: Additional Cost Information: The Secretary of
HHS shall require Medicare Advantage Organizations to
aggregate claims information into episodes of care and to
provide the information to the Secretary so costs for
specific hospitals and physicians may be measured and
compared. The Secretary shall make the information public on
an annual basis.
Section 462: Reducing Medicare Paperwork and Regulatory
Burdens: Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment, the Secretary shall provide to Congress a plan for
reducing regulations and paperwork in the Medicare program.
The plan shall focus initially on regulations that do not
directly enhance the quality of patient care provided under
Medicare.
title v: state health help agencies
Section 501: Establishment: Each state will establish a
Health Help Agency to administer HAPI plans. States must
establish an HHA in order to get transition payments to
develop them.
Section 502: Responsibilities and Authorities: Health Help
Agencies shall promote prevention and wellness through
education; distribution of information about wellness
programs; making available to the public the number of
individuals in each plan that have chosen a health home; and
promoting the use and understanding of health information
technology.
Enrollment Oversight: Each HHA shall oversee enrollment in
plans by: providing standardized unbiased information on
plans available; administering open enrollment periods;
assisting changes required by birth, divorce, marriage,
adoption or other circumstances that may affect the plan a
person chooses; establishing a default enrollment process;
establishing procedures for hospitals and other providers to
report individuals not enrolled in a plan; ensuring
enrollment of all individuals; developing standardized
language for plan terms and conditions to be used; providing
enrollees with a comparative document of HAPI plans; and
assisting consumers in choosing a plan by publishing loss
ratios, outcome data regarding wellness programs, and disease
detection and chronic care management programs categorized by
health insurer.
The HHA will determine and administer subsidies to eligible
individuals and collect premium payments made by or on behalf
of individuals and send the payments to the plans.
HHAs shall empower individuals to make health care
decisions by providing State-specific information concerning
the right to refuse treatment and laws relating to end-of-
life care decisions; and by providing access to State forms.
Each HHA will establish plan coverage areas for the State.
States that share one or more metropolitan statistical
areas may enter into agreements to share responsibilities for
administration.
States will have to work with the Secretary of HHS to
ensure transition from Medicaid and SCHIP is orderly and that
individuals receiving other benefits from Medicaid continue
to do so.
Section 503: Appropriations for Transition to State Health
Help Agencies: States will receive federal funds to establish
HHAs for two full fiscal years. States may assess insurers
for administrative costs of running their HHAs.
TITLE VI--SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES
Subtitle A--Individual Responsibilities
Section 601: Individual Responsibility to Ensure HAPI Plan
Coverage: Individuals must enroll themselves and their
children in a plan during open enrollment periods; submit
documentation to the HHA to determine premium and personal
responsibility contribution subsidies; pay the required
premium and personal responsibility contributions; and inform
the HHA of any changes that affect family status or
residence.
Subtitle B--Employer Responsibilities
Section 611: Health Care Responsibility Payments: Reorders
and changes the IRS code.
Subchapter A: Employer Shared Responsibility Payments
Section 3411: Payment Requirement: Employer Shared
Responsibility Payments: Every Employer must make an employer
shared responsibility payment (ESR) for each calendar year in
the amount equal to the number of full time equivalent
employees employed by the employer during the previous year
multiplied by a percentage of the average HAPI plan premium
amount. The percentage used is determined by size and revenue
per employee.
Once in effect, the percentages employers would pay are:
Large employers:
0-20th percentile 17%
21st-40th percentile 19%
41st-60th percentile 21%
61st-80th percentile 23%
81st-99th percentile 25%
Small employers:
0-20th percentile 2%
21st-40th percentile 4%
41st-60th percentile 6%
61st-80th percentile 8%
81st-99th percentile 10%
At the beginning of each calendar year, the Secretary in
consultation with the Secretary of Labor shall publish a
table based on a sampling of employers to be used in
determining the national percentile for revenue per employee
amounts.
Transition Rates: Employers who offered health insurance
prior to enactment will contribute ``make good'' payments to
their employees. The payments will be equal to the cash value
of the health insurance provided and the amount will be added
to the employee's wages. These employers will not be required
to make any other payments in the first two years.
If an employer did not provide health insurance to
employees prior to this legislation, the employer shared
responsibility payment for the first year will be equal to
one-third of the amount otherwise required and the payment
for the second year will be two thirds of the amount
required.
Employer Shared Responsibility Credit: The Secretary may
provide a credit to private employers who provided health
insurance benefits greater than the 80th percentile of the
national average in the 2 years
[[Page 1710]]
prior to enactment, can demonstrate the benefits provided
encouraged prevention and wellness activities and continue to
provide wellness programs.
Section 3412: Instrumentalities of the United States: State
and local governments must make employer shared
responsibility payments.
Subchapter B: Individual Shared Responsibility Payments
Section 3421: Amount of Payment: Every individual shall pay
an amount equal to the premium amount they owe.
Section 3422: Deduction of Individual Shared Responsibility
Payment from Wages: Employers may deduct the amount of the
payment for premiums from their employees' wages.
Subchapter C: General Provisions
Section 3431: Definitions and Special Rules: Provides
definitions.
The average HAPI plan premium used to compute employer
responsibility payments will be a simple average of all four
premium classes (individuals, married, head of household and
family)
All individuals who perform work for an employer for more
than three months in the previous calendar year and who meet
the definition of common law employee, either full or part
time, will be counted toward the employer's total employees
when determining the employer shared responsibility payments.
Section 3431: Definitions and Special Rules: Provides
definitions
Section 3432: Labor Contracts: In general these provisions
do not apply to collective bargaining agreements until the
earlier of 7 years after the date of enactment or the date
the collective bargaining agreement expires.
Section 612: Distribution of Individual Responsibility
Payments to HHAs: The Treasury will provide to each HHA an
amount equal to the amount of individual shared
responsibility payments made through the tax code by each
eligible individual.
Subtitle C--Insurer Responsibilities
Section 621: Insurer Responsibilities: To offer a HAPI plan
through an HHA, insurers will be required to: implement and
emphasize prevention, early detection and chronic disease
management; ensure wellness programs are available;
demonstrate how provider reimbursement methodology achieves
quality and cost efficiency; ensure a physical and a care
plan are available to the individual; ensure enrollees have
the opportunity to designate a health home and make public
how many enrollees have designated a health home; create a
medical record if the patient wants one; comply with loss
ratios established; use common claims form and billing
practices; make administrative payments the State requires
for the operation of its HHA; provide discounts and
incentives for the parent if the child participates in a
wellness program; report outcome data on wellness programs,
disease detection and chronic care management, and loss ratio
information; send large hospital bills to patients with a
contact name so the patient can contact a person to discuss
questions or complaints; and provide HHA with information
concerning the plans offered.
Insurers must use standardized common claim forms
prescribed by the State HHA chronic care programs offered
must help provide early identification and management. Each
program will use a uniform set of clinical performance
standards.
Insurers must report performance and outcomes of chronic
care management programs and loss ratios. Loss ratios will be
defined by the Secretary in consultation with NAIC,
consumers, and insurers.
Defines administrative expenses as including all taxes,
reinsurance premiums, medical and dental consultants used in
the adjudication process, concurrent or managed care review
when not billed by a health provider and other forms of
utilization review, the cost of maintaining eligibility
files, legal expenses incurred in the litigation of benefit
payments and bank charges for letters of credit.
The cost of personnel, equipment and facilities directly
used in the delivery of health care services, payments to
HHAs and the cost of overseeing chronic disease management
programs and wellness programs are not included in the
definition of administrative costs.
Subtitle D--State Responsibilities
Section 631: State Responsibilities: States must: designate
or create a Health Help Agency; ensure HAPI plans are sold
through the HHA and comply with requirements (there must be
at least two HAPI plans offered); develop mechanisms for
enrollment and the collection of premiums; ensure enrollment
and develop methods to check on enrollment status; implement
mechanisms to enforce the individual responsibility to
purchase coverage (but this may not include revocation of
insurance); and implement a way to automatically enroll
individuals who are not covered and seek care in emergency
departments.
States will continue to apply State law on consumer
protections and licensure.
States must continue a maintenance of effort so they are
required to contribute 100 percent of what they spent on
health services prior to enactment.
Section 632: Empowering States to Innovate through Waivers:
A State may be granted a waiver if the legislature enacts
legislation or the State approves through ballot initiative a
plan to provide heath care coverage that is at least as
comprehensive as required under a HAPI plan. If the State
submits a waiver to the Secretary, the Secretary must respond
no later than 180 days and if the Secretary refuses to grant
a waiver, the Secretary must notify the State and Congress
about why the waiver was not granted.
Subtitle E--Federal Fallback Guarantee Responsibility
Section 641: Federal Guarantee of Access to Coverage: If a
State does not establish an HHA and have a system up within
two years, the Secretary shall establish a fallback plan so
individuals can still receive a HAPI plan.
Subtitle F--Federal Financing Responsibilities
Section 561: Appropriation for Subsidy Payments:
Appropriations will be made each year to fund the insurance
premium subsides.
Section 652: Recapture of Medicare and 90 Percent of
Medicaid Federal DSH Funds to Strengthen Medicare and Ensure
Continued Support for Public Health Programs: All of Medicare
DSH stops and remains in the Part A Trust Fund.
Medicaid DSH continues at 10 percent of current levels. The
amount not spent is put into a new trust fund, the ``Healthy
Americans Public Health Trust Fund.''
Section 9511: Healthy Americans Public Health Trust Fund:
The Treasury shall establish a trust fund in which the funds
that would have been spent on Medicaid DSH will now go. This
trust fund will be used only for premium and personal
responsibility payment subsidies and to States for a bonus
payment if they adopt certain medical malpractice reforms.
Any additional amounts will go toward reducing the federal
budget deficit.
Subtitle G--Tax Treatment of Health Care Coverage Under Healthy
Americans Program; Termination of Coverage Under Other Governmental
Programs and Transition Rules for Medicaid and SCHIP
Part 1: Tax Treatment of Health Care Coverage Under Healthy
Americans Program
Section 661: Limited Employee Income and Payroll Tax
Exclusion for Employer Shared Responsibility Payments,
Historic Retiree Health Contributions, and Transitional
Coverage Contributions: The following payments made by
employers are not taxable as income to their employees: (1)
shared responsibility payments by employers; (2) payments for
coverage of retirees under existing retiree health plans; (3)
payments for continuing employer-provided health plans under
existing collective bargaining agreements; and (4) payments
for employer-provided coverage for long-term care.
Section 662: Exclusion for Limited Employer-Provided Health
Care Fringe Benefits: The value of employer-provided wellness
programs and on-site first aid coverage for employees is not
taxable as income to the employees.
Section 663: Limited Employer Deduction for Employer Shared
Responsibility Payments, Retiree Health Contributions and
other Health Care Expenses: Limits the current employer
deduction for the costs of employee health care coverage to
the following: (1) shared responsibility payments made by
employers; (2) coverage of retirees under existing retiree
health plans; (3) continuing employer-provided health plans
under existing collective bargaining agreements; (4)
employer-provided wellness programs; and (5) on-site first
aid coverage for employees.
Section 664: Health Care Standard Deduction: Creates a new
Health Care Standard Deduction. Taxpayers can claim this
deduction and reduce the amount they pay in taxes whether
they file an itemized tax return or take the standard
deduction. The amount of the deduction a taxpayer can claim
depends on the class of health care coverage the taxpayer
has. The deduction is indexed to the consumer price index
with the deduction amounts initially set as follows:
Individual coverage--$6,025
Married couple or domestic partnership coverage--$12,050
Unmarried individual with dependent children--$8, 610 plus
$2,000 for each dependent child
Married couple or domestic partnership (as determined by a
State) with dependent children--$15,210 plus $2,000 for each
dependent child
The deduction can be claimed by individuals and families
with incomes greater than the poverty line. Both the health
care and the healthy child deduction are phased in starting
from 100-400 percent of poverty. The deduction begins phasing
out starting at $62,500 ($125,000 in the case of a joint
return) and is fully phased out at $125,000 ($250,000 in the
case of a joint return). The deduction will be adjusted for
inflation
Section 665: Modification of Other Tax Incentives to
Complement Healthy Americans Program: Sunsets the following
tax breaks for health care: tax credit for health insurance
costs of individuals; coverage of health care benefits under
``cafeteria plans''; and Archer Medical Savings Accounts.
This section also allows Health Savings Accounts in
[[Page 1711]]
conjunction with high deductible Healthy Americans Private
Insurance plans and long-term care benefits to be provided
tax-free to workers through cafeteria plans.
Section 666: Termination of Certain Employer Incentives
When Replaced by Lower Health Care Costs: Beginning 2 years
after enactment, terminates tax provisions relating to income
attributable to domestic production activities, relating to
tax-exempt status of voluntary employees' beneficiary
associations, and relating to inventory property sales source
rule exception, and the deferral of active income of
controlled foreign corporations.
Part II: Termination of Group Coverage under other
Governmental Programs and Transition Rules for Medicaid and
SCHIP
Sections 671-673: eliminates group coverage, FEHBP,
Medicaid (except for its wrap around and long term care
functions) and SCHIP.
title vii: other provisions
Subtitle A--Effective Health Services and Products
Section 701: One Time Disallowance of Deduction for
Advertising and Promotional Expenses for Certain Prescription
Pharmaceuticals: If a drug is new and on the market, there is
no tax deduction for advertising unless it is being studied
for comparison effectiveness. If the drug is already on the
market it must inform consumers that a generic will be on the
market if the drug is coming off patent.
Section 702: Enhanced New Drug and Device Approval: Drugs
and devices get additional exclusivity or additional patent
protection if they submit comparison effectiveness as part of
their application to the Food and Drug Administration.
Section 703: Medical Schools and Finding What Works in
Health Care: Medical schools and other researchers may post
on a website run by Agency Healthcare Research and Quality
(AHRQ) evidence-informed best practices. AHRQ will run a
pilot program to find ways to get that information into the
curricula of medical schools.
Section 704: Finding Affordable Health Care Providers
Nearby: Creates a website so individuals can find affordable
high quality providers by zip code. The website can begin
with the providers who report under pay for performance
efforts and then be broadened out to include all providers
using uniform care standards developed in consultation with
Quality Improvement Organizations (QIOs).
The affordability standard would be developed by the
Secretary in consultation with insurers.
Subtitle B--Other Provisions to Improve Health Care Services and
Quality
Section 711: Individual Medical Records: Individuals own
their medical records.
Section 712: Bonus Payment for Medical Malpractice Reform:
If a State adopts certain reforms the State may get
additional funds. Those reforms are: (1) require an
individual who files a malpractice action in state court have
the facts of their case reviewed by a panel with not less
than one qualified medical expert chosen in consultation with
the State Medicare quality improvement organization or
physician specialty whose expertise is appropriate for the
case; not less than one legal expert and not less than one
community representative to verify that a malpractice claim
exists; (2) permit an individual to engage in voluntary non-
binding mediation with respect to the malpractice claim prior
to filing an action in court; (3) impose sanctions against
plaintiffs and attorneys who file frivolous medical
malpractice claims in courts; (4) prohibit attorneys who file
three or more medical malpractice actions in state courts
from filing others in state courts for a period of 10 years;
and provides for the application of presumption of
reasonableness if the defendant establishes that he or she
followed accepted clinical practice guidelines established by
the specialty or listed in the National Guideline
clearinghouse.
The bonus payments must be used to carry out activities
related to disease and illness prevention and for children's
health care services.
title viii: containing medical costs
Section 801: Cost-Containment Results of the Healthy
Americans Act: Summarizes what in the bill contains costs.
THE HEALTHY AMERICANS ACT--AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR EVERY AMERICAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Health
Worker Profiles System Wyden Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabulous Clean, janitor, has Pays $2,000 in Pays $1,200 in
$25,000/year income; married premiums; Tax subsidized
with 2 children; family insured savings: $500 premiums; Salary
through employer. (not taxed on increase: $5,000;
employer's $5,000 Additional taxes
contribution). after the new
Net cost:$1,500... health care tax
deduction: $150
Net savings:$3,650
Sally Forth, secretary, has Pays $2,500 in Pays $3,600 in
$40,000/year income; married premiums; Tax subsidized
with 2 children; family insured savings: $1,500 premiums; Salary
through employer. (not taxed on increase:
employer's $10,000;
$10,000 Additional taxes
contribution). after the new
Net cost:$1,000... health care tax
deduction: $60
Net savings:$6,340
Bess Driver, school bus driver, Pays $1,000 in Pays $8,200 in
has $55,000/year income; premiums; Tax premiums; Salary
married; couple insured through savings: $1,575 increase:
employer. (not taxed on $10,500; Tax
employer's savings after the
$10,500 new health care
contribution). tax deduction:
Net savings:$575.. $230
Net savings:$2,530
Ann Bankroll, investment banker, Pays $2,500 in Pays $10,600 in
has $200,000/year income; premiums; Tax premiums; Salary
married; 2 children; family savings: $3,300 increase:
insured through employer. (not taxed on $10,000;
employer's Additional taxes
$10,000 after the new
contribution). health care tax
Net savings:$800.. deduction: $1,271
Net cost:$1,871
Shirley Needing, waitress, has None.............. Pays $600 in
$15,000/year income; single; no subsidized
health coverage. premiums; Tax
savings after new
health care tax
deduction:: $100
Net cost:$500 ($42/
month)
Harold Heart, salesman, has None available Pays $600 in
$25,000/year income; married because of subsidized
with 2 children; no health preexisting premiums; Tax
coverage. condition. savings*: $150
Net cost:$450 ($38/
month)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Healthy Americans Act: Working for Employers
Small Service Employer
Daisy Hills Day Care has 32 employees, 8 are full-time and
the other 24 work an average of 20 hours per week. Only the 8
full-time employees are currently eligible for the Daisy
Hills health plan, and 6 take advantage of it. The firm pays
half of the premium for employees, nothing for family
coverage. Daisy Hills's total current health care costs are
$10,400 per year, which pays for coverage of only 6
employees. Under the Healthy Americans Act, Daisy Hills would
pay a total of $6,208 per year in Employer Shared
Responsibility payments. This amount represents 4 percent of
the national average essential benefit premium multiplied by
20 full-time equivalent employees.
Small Restaurant
Doug's Diner has 3 full-time and 9 part-time employees who
work an average of 30 hours per week. Doug cannot currently
afford to offer health care to his employees. He often loses
his best staff to chain restaurants that offer health
insurance and is unable to afford insurance for himself and
his family on the individual market. This small family
business falls into the lowest rate tier under revenue by
employee, paying a 2 percent rate. Under the Healthy
Americans Act Doug will pay $1,513 per year and he, his
family, and all of his employees will have access to
affordable health insurance.
Mid-Size Financial Institution
Happy Valley Bank has 1,600 full-time employees and 400
part-time employees who work an average of 25 hours per week.
All employees who work over 20 hours per week are offered and
take advantage of health care. The firm pays 80 percent of
the premiums for individuals and families. Under the current
system, Happy Valley's total health care expenditures are
$10,200,000 per year. Under the Healthy Americans Act, they
will pay a total of $3,589,463 per year. This amount
represents 25 percent of the national average essential
benefit premium per employee.
Mid-Sized Manufacturing Firm
Allied Industrial has 1,000 full time employees. The firm
pays 100 percent of individual premiums and 80 percent of
family premiums for all employees. Currently Allied pays
$6,100,000 per year in health care premiums and has been
seeing 10 percent increases year over year for several years
despite the use of a number of cost-control measures. Allied
falls into the middle range of companies in revenue per
employee, paying the 21 percent rate. Under the Healthy
Americans Act, Allied will pay $1,629,890.
Large Specialty Retailer
Acme Game Emporiums is a national specialty retailer with
2,000 full time and 7,000 part time employees who work an
average of 22 hours per week. All full time and 4,500 of the
part time employees are eligible for and take advantage of
Acme's health plan. The firm pays 95 percent of employees'
premiums and 60 percent of family premiums. Their current
total health care costs are $52,000,000 per year. As a
retailer with relatively low revenue per employee, Acme pays
the 19 percent rate. Under the Healthy Americans Act, Acme
will pay $8,626,351.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Akaka,
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Cardin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 335. A bill to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from using
private debt collection companies, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Murray and 15
of our Senate colleagues in reintroducing legislation to stop the
Internal Revenue Service from outsourcing part of its tax collection
responsibilities to private collection companies.
Last fall, the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, ignored objections
raised by many Federal policymakers and tax experts, including the
IRS's own National Taxpayer Advocate, and moved ahead with its
controversial plan to
[[Page 1712]]
hire private companies to collect Federal tax debts. When the IRS
attempted a similar plan in 1996, it failed miserably. The 1996
initiative lost money. Taxpayers were harassed by private debt
collectors. In many instances, private debt collectors violated Federal
debt collection laws and confidential taxpayer information was not
properly secured.
Today, the IRS is planning to share more than 2.5 million taxpayer
accounts with up to 12 private collection companies when its new
private debt collection plan is fully implemented--even though there is
compelling evidence that this new initiative will suffer from many of
the same maladies experienced by the IRS and taxpayers in the ill-fated
1996 plan.
IRS Commissioner Everson readily admits that if the IRS hired and
used trained IRS employees for this purpose, not private collectors,
far more revenues would be deposited in the U.S. Treasury fund. Yet the
IRS is ready to hand out very large commissions ranging from 21 to 24
percent to private firms for every dollar they collect, when internal
IRS reports suggest that it would cost the Federal Government just 3
pennies on a dollar to have trained IRS employees collect tax debts
that are owed.
Stated another way, the IRS anticipates spending well over $300
million in commission payments to private firms to collect an estimated
$1.4 billion in tax debt over 10 years, when internal IRS reports
suggest that spending $296 million to hire new IRS collectors could
raise some $9.5 billion annually. At a time of exploding deficits and
Federal debt, the IRS's use of private debt collectors is an
inexcusable waste of taxpayer money.
In fact, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, released a report
last September revealing that the cost of implementing the IRS's
initial phases of its tax debt collection initiative alone, excluding
any commission payments, may actually exceed all of the tax revenues
collected by these private collectors by millions of dollars. The IRS
plan is riddled with hidden costs. For example, the three companies
hired by the IRS in the initial phase of its private collection plan
have some 75 employees working on what the IRS has described as
relatively easy collection cases. However, at least 65 IRS employees
have been tasked to monitor the work of these collectors. So from a
revenue collection and efficiency standpoint, it doesn't take a
calculator to figure out that IRS private collection plan is not worth
the paper it's printed on.
Using private debt collectors is also very troubling because it puts
confidential taxpayer information at risk of public disclosure and
misuse. Just over two years ago, a Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration, TIGTA, investigation found that a contractor's
employees committed security violations, placing IRS equipment and
taxpayer data at risk. In some cases, TIGTA officials found that
contractors ``blatantly circumvented IRS policies and procedures even
when security personnel had identified inappropriate practices.''
As I've mentioned, the IRS has agreed to pay three private collection
firms at the outset of its initiative nearly a quarter for every dollar
their employees collect on what the IRS has described as relatively
easy cases. The IRS's use of very large commissions to pay private
firms for their work on such cases is not only fiscally unsound and a
shameful example of government waste, it also increases the potential
for overzealous collection practices and the misuse of sensitive
taxpayer return information. Private debt collection agencies are
driven by profit motives, not public service.
Let me emphasize, once again, one very important point. Everybody
needs to pay the taxes they owe. If they do not, however, professional
IRS employees, not private collectors in search of profits, should be
the ones to ensure that outstanding tax debts are paid. If the IRS now
says it needs more resources for tax enforcement and collection
activities, then Congress should consider providing them.
I fully agree with the recommendations by the independent Taxpayer
Advocacy Panel last summer--and recently echoed by National Taxpayer
Advocate Nina Olson in the Taxpayer Advocate's 2006 Annual Report to
Congress--that the IRS should terminate its outsourcing of taxpayer
debt collection and restrict collection activities to properly trained
and proficient IRS employees. Indeed, the IRS should immediately
reverse course and indefinitely suspend the implementation of its
private debt collection activities.
The House of Representatives voted last year to eliminate funding for
this IRS initiative in its version of the Treasury Department spending
bill, which was never approved by the full Congress. I will be working
with Senator Murray and many of our colleagues early in this new
Congress to get similar language passed by the full Senate at the first
available opportunity.
The IRS should act on its own to stop its use of private debt
collectors and save any further expenditures of taxpayer money for this
purpose. If it will not, however, I will do everything in my power to
put the brakes on this initiative in the U.S. Senate. That's why I urge
my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and help us, as the
Taxpayer Advocate has suggested, terminate the IRS's privatization
collection initiative ``once and for all.''
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Levin, Mr. Obama,
Mr. Bayh, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Lugar):
S. 336. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to operate and
maintain as a system the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal
barriers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 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. 336
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 ``Barrier Project
Consolidation and Construction Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. CONSOLIDATION OF BARRIER PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
Dispersal Barrier Project (referred to in this Act as
``Barrier I'') (as in existence on the date of enactment of
this Act), constructed as a demonstration project under
section 1202(i)(3) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4722(i)(3)),
and the project relating to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal Dispersal Barrier, as authorized by section 345 of the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law
108-335; 118 Stat. 1352) (referred to in this Act as
``Barrier II''), shall be considered to constitute a single
project.
(b) Activities Relating to Barrier I and Barrier II.--
(1) Duties of secretary of the army.--The Secretary of the
Army (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall, at
full Federal expense--
(A) upgrade and make permanent Barrier I;
(B) construct Barrier II, notwithstanding the project
cooperation agreement with the State of Illinois dated June
14, 2005;
(C) operate and maintain Barrier I and Barrier II as a
system to optimize effectiveness;
(D) conduct, in consultation with appropriate Federal,
State, local, and nongovernmental entities, a study of a full
range of options and technologies for reducing impacts of
hazards that may reduce the efficacy of the Barriers; and
(E) provide to each State a credit in an amount equal to
the amount of funds contributed by the State toward Barrier
II.
(2) Application of credit.--A State may apply a credit
received under paragraph (1)(E) to any cost-sharing
responsibility for an existing or future Federal project with
the Corps of Engineers in the State.
(c) Feasibility Study.--The Secretary, in consultation with
appropriate Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental
entities, shall conduct a feasibility study, at full Federal
expense, of the range of options and technologies available
to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species between the
Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal and other aquatic pathways.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 345 of the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-335; 118
Stat. 1352) is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 345. There are authorized to be appropriated such
sums as are necessary to carry out the Barrier II project of
the project
[[Page 1713]]
for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier,
Illinois, initiated pursuant to section 1135 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a).''.
______
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Vitter, Mr.
Dorgan, and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 338. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
ensure and foster continued patient quality of care by establishing
facility and patient criteria for long-term care hospitals and related
improvements under the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
would take steps to protect access to long-term care hospitals while
ensuring that these institutions are admitting the appropriate type of
patients. I am pleased to be introducing the bill along with my
colleague, Senator Hatch, and I urge my colleagues to consider
cosponsoring this cost-saving proposal.
Long Term Acute Care hospitals, or LTAC hospitals, serve a vital role
in the Medicare program by providing care to beneficiaries with
clinically complex conditions that need hospital care for extended
periods of time. These are patients who are too sick to go home or even
to a skilled nursing facility, but are stable enough to be released
from an intensive care unit. I am happy to have two of these hospitals
in North Dakota, one in Fargo and one in Mandan. Together, these two
hospitals employ several hundred people and provide care to thousands
of North Dakotans. They are a vital part of the North Dakota continuum
of care.
While these hospitals provide important health services to very frail
individuals, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has
become concerned with the growth in these facilities. In 2006, there
were 400 LTAC hospitals, compared to 100 in 1996. In addition, the
agency has also expressed concern that some LTAC hospitals are
admitting patients that may be better served by nursing homes or
another level of care. As a result, CMS has begun to arbitrarily cut
LTAC hospital payments across-the-board.
As Chairman of the Budget Committee, I have a unique appreciation for
the enormous fiscal challenges that face our country and respect CMS's
efforts to reduce growth in Medicare. However, any cuts in spending
should be targeted at waste and abuse. We should address the growth in
LTAC hospitals, but we also want to ensure that there is a place for
patients who truly need long-term hospital stays.
The legislation I'm introducing today is a first step in clarifying
Congressional intent and giving CMS clearer definitions of what is and
is not a LTAC hospital and what type of patient should be admitted to
these facilities. At the heart of this bill is a provision that limits
the types of patients who can be admitted to LTAC hospitals to those
who truly need the specialized care these facilities provide. LTAC
hospitals like those in my state that admit only very sick patients
will not be significantly affected. But, by eliminating abuses by those
facilities that have been receiving generous payments for patients who
do not require this sort of specialized care, this provision of the
bill would significantly reduce Medicare spending on LTAC hospitals.
It was not easy for the LTAC hospitals in North Dakota and across the
country to support legislation that restricts their payments, but I
compliment them for working with me to put forward a constructive
public policy proposal. In particular, I want to recognize Custer
Huseby, Chief Executive Officer of SCCI Hospital in Fargo. He
understands that the status quo is no longer defensible and has fought
to put forward a workable solution that maintains access to these vital
facilities, where they are appropriate. I also want to thank Chip
Thomas and Karen Haskins of the North Dakota Healthcare Association,
who have partnered with Mr. Huseby to support this legislation.
Long-term care hospitals serve a vital role in our health care
system, and we must protect access to these facilities for those who
truly need it. But, we can also take responsible steps to ensure that
our federal tax dollars are well spent and directed to the most
appropriate level of care. I believe my legislation achieves this
balance and urge my colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am happy to join my colleagues, Senators
Conrad, Wyden, Vitter, Dorgan and Lincoln in introducing legislation to
create standards for long-term, acute-care (LTAC) hospitals. My home
State of Utah has LTAC hospitals located in Salt Lake City, West Valley
City and Bountiful.
Let me explain what LTAC hospitals are to my colleagues, and discuss
the need for this legislation. A general hospital stay in the United
States is about 6 days. In contrast, the average patient stay in an
LTAC hospital is 25 days. LTAC hospitals represent one of four post-
acute care facilities. Of the four types of post-acute care, LTAC
hospitals are the most expensive. And, the number of LTAC hospitals has
grown rapidly from 100 to 400 over a 10-year period. These dynamics
have led the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to push for
having certain LTAC patients treated in less costly facilities such as
nursing homes or rehabilitation clinics.
Our legislation is premised on the belief that only truly sick
patients should go to LTAC hospitals. Less medically-complex patients
should be seen at less intensive facilities. S. 338 limits the type of
patients who may be treated in LTAC hospitals and, by doing so, it will
generate at least $1 billion in savings over the next 5 years.
LTAC hospitals have a role to play in the American continuum of
health care. We all agree that there should be a place for patients who
truly need long-term hospital stays. In that sense, LTAC hospitals
serve an important role. Today, Medicare spending on LTAC hospitals is
little more than one percent of total Medicare spending.
Let me conclude by saying that this bill is just one component of a
larger debate that we need to have about Medicare post-acute care. LTAC
hospitals are one component. Nursing homes and rehabilitation clinics
are other components. All long-term care providers need to do a better
job in convincing the Congress and Federal regulators why our health
care system needs four different types of post-acute facilities.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Conrad-Hatch legislation--it is
a good bill and it addresses an important aspect of the long-term
health care debate. As baby boomers continue to retire, long-term care
will become more and more important to all Americans.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join, again, with a bipartisan
group of Senators to introduce a bill to reform our immigration laws
concerning foreign agricultural workers. America's farmers are calling
for a greater number of legal foreign workers, and an improved system
for obtaining those workers. We need to likewise ensure meaningful
benefits and protections to the workers who will fill these jobs.
I am especially pleased that measures are included to help dairy
farmers, who in my home State of Vermont are an integral part of our
economy, our history, and our culture. Indeed, it is difficult to think
of the Green Mountain State without conjuring up the image of verdant
rolling hills dotted with Holstein cows. The provisions in this bill
make the H-2A program more workable for dairy farmers by lengthening
the time period a foreign worker may remain in the country, providing a
process by which an employer can extend the stay of a worker, and by
ensuring that workers may ultimately apply for an adjustment to
permanent legal resident status.
The bill we introduce today goes a long way toward reforming our H-2A
visa program. Along with measures to help streamline procedures for
labor certification by employers, the bill will make it easier for
employers to meet their responsibilities to ensure that available
agricultural jobs are offered first to domestic workers. The bill also
makes the process easier for an employer to apply for an extension to a
worker's stay, and makes it easier for a foreign worker to switch jobs
during their stay.
[[Page 1714]]
The bill includes greater protections for workers, including the
requirement that employers meet the same motor vehicle safety standards
for H-2A workers that are required for domestic workers. A limited
Federal right of action is provided for H-2A workers to enforce the
economic benefits provided under the H-2A program, or those provided in
writing by their employers. More flexibility is provided for workers
and employers by permitting employers to elect to provide a housing
allowance, instead of housing. These are but a few of the positive
reforms contained in the bill.
The bill also contains a procedure by which undocumented workers who
have been working in agriculture can apply for a ``blue card,'' a
system where through consistent employment, a fine, proof of the
payment of taxes, and proof of no serious criminal history, an
undocumented worker can continue his or her contribution legally, and
eventually adjust his or her status. The ``blue card'' program
encourages family unification by making special provisions for spouses
and children of the card holder. The program also has a numerical cap
and the built-in safeguard of a sunset provision.
These reforms are a commonsense response that should help meet the
needs of our farmers without burdening them with an unduly, time-
consuming procedure for securing legal workers. The bill represents an
effort to meet both the needs of agricultural employers while
respecting the rights and interests of agricultural workers, and is an
example of a bipartisan group of legislators listening and responding
to the interests of all parties affected.
I join with other Senators in recognizing the needs of our modern
economy, and the needs of the American farmer as well as the rights of
the individuals who make up the backbone of many farming operations.
Working together we can ensure that no American farmer is put in the
position of having to choose between obeying the law and making a
living, and that no willing worker is denied a chance to work.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Martinez, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Specter,
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Schumer,
Mr. Domenici, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Salazar, and Mrs. Murray):
S. 340. A bill to improve agricultural job opportunities, benefits,
and security for aliens in the United States and for other purposes; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Senators Craig, Kennedy, Martinez,
Boxer, Voinovich, and several others are once again introducing
legislation that will address the chronic labor shortage in our
Nation's agricultural industry. This bill is a priority for me and for
the tens of thousands of farmers who are currently suffering--and I
hope we will move it forward early in this Congress.
The Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act, or
AgJOBS, is the product of more than ten years of work. It is a
bipartisan bill supported by growers, farmers, and farm workers alike.
It passed the Senate last year as part of the comprehensive immigration
reform bill last spring in the 109th Congress. It is time to move this
bill forward.
The agricultural industry is in crisis. Farmers across the Nation
report a twenty percent decline in labor.
The result is that there are simply not enough farm workers to
harvest the crops.
The Nation's agricultural industry has suffered. If we do not enact a
workable solution to the agricultural labor crisis, we risk a national
production loss of $5 billion to $9 billion each year, according to the
American Farm Bureau.
California, in particular, will suffer. California is the single
largest agricultural State in the Nation. California agriculture
accounts for $34 billion in annual revenue. There are 76,500 farms that
produce half of the Nation's fruits, vegetables, and nuts from only 3
percent of the Nation's farmland. California farms produce
approximately 350 different crops: pears, walnuts, raisins, lettuce,
onions, cotton, just to name a few.
Many of the farmers who grow these crops have been in the business
for generations. They farm the land that their parents and their
grandparents farmed before them.
The sad consequence of the labor shortage is that many of these
farmers are giving up their farms. Some are leaving the business
entirely. Others are bulldozing their fruit trees--literally pulling
out trees that have been in the family for generations--because they do
not have the labor they need to harvest their fruit.
Once the trees are gone, they are replaced by crops that do not
require manual labor. And our pears, our apples, our oranges will come
from foreign sources. The trend is quite clear. If there is not a means
to grow and harvest our produce here, we will import produce from
China, from Mexico, from other countries who have the labor they need.
We will put American farmers out of business. And there will be a
ripple effect felt throughout the economy: in farm equipment, inputs,
packaging, processing, transportation, marketing, lending and
insurance. Jobs will be lost and our economy will suffer.
The reality is that Americans have come to rely on undocumented
workers to harvest their crops for them.
In California alone, we rely on approximately one million
undocumented workers to harvest the crops. The United Farm Workers
estimate that undocumented workers make up as much as 90 percent of the
farm labor payroll. Americans simply will not do the work. It is hard,
stooped labor, requiring long and unpredictable hours. Farm workers
must leave home and travel from farm to farm to plant, prune, and
harvest crops according to the season. We must come to terms with the
fact that we rely on an undocumented migrant work force. We must bring
those workers out of the shadows and create a legal and enforceable
means to provide labor for agriculture. That realization is what led to
the long and careful negotiations creating AgJOBS.
The AgJOBS bill is a two part bill. Part one identifies and deals
with those undocumented agricultural workers who have been working in
the United States for the past 2 years or more. Part two creates a more
usable H-2A Program, to implement a realistic and effective guest
worker program.
The first step requires undocumented agricultural workers to apply
for a ``blue card'' if they can demonstrate that they have worked in
American agriculture for at least 150 workdays over the past 2 years.
The blue card entitles the worker to a temporary legal resident status.
The blue card itself is encrypted and machine readable; it is tamper
and counterfeit resistant, and contains biometric identifiers unique to
the farm worker.
The second step requires that a blue card holder work in American
agriculture for an additional 5 years for at least 100 workdays a year,
or 3 years at 150 workdays a year. Blue card workers would have to pay
a $500 fine. The workers can travel abroad and reenter the United
States and they may work in other, non-agricultural jobs, as long as
they meet the agricultural work requirements.
The blue card worker's spouse and minor children, who already live in
the United States, may also apply for a temporary legal status and
identification card, which would permit them to work and travel. The
total number of blue cards is capped at 1.5 million over a five year
period and the program sunsets after 5 years. At the end of the
required work period, the blue card worker may apply for a green card
to become a legal permanent resident.
There are also a number of safeguards. If a blue card worker does not
apply for a green card, or does not fulfill the work requirements, that
individual can be deported.
Likewise, a blue card holder who commits a felony, three
misdemeanors, or any crime that involves bodily injury, the threat of
serious bodily injury, or harm to property in excess of
[[Page 1715]]
$500, cannot get a green card and can be deported.
This program, for the first time, allows us to identify those
hundreds of thousands of farm workers who now work in the shadows. It
requires the farm workers to come forward and to be identified in
exchange for the right to work and live legally in the United States.
And it gives farmers the legal certainty they need to hire the workers
they need. The program also modifies the H-2A guest worker program so
that it realistically responds to our agricultural needs.
Currently, the H-2A program is bureaucratic, unresponsive, expensive,
and prone to litigation. Farmers cannot get the labor when they need
it. AgJOBS offers a much-needed reform of the outdated system. The
labor certification process, which often takes 60 days or more, is
replaced by an ``attestation'' process. The employer can file a fax-
back application form agreeing to abide by the requirements of the H-2A
program. Approval should occur in 48 to 72 hours. The interstate
clearance order to determine whether there are U.S. workers who can
qualify for the jobs is replaced by a requirement that the employer
file a job notification with the local office of the State Employment
Security Agency. Advertising and positive recruitment must take place
in the local labor market area.
Agricultural associations can continue to file applications on behalf
of members. The statutory prohibition against ``adversely affecting''
U.S. workers is eliminated. The Adverse Effect Wage Rate is instead
frozen for 3 years, and thereafter indexed by a methodology that will
lead to its gradual replacement with a prevailing wage standard.
Employers may elect to provide a housing allowance in lieu of housing
if the governor determines that there is adequate rental housing
available in the area of employment.
Inbound and return transportation and subsistence is required on the
same basis as under the current program, except that trips of less than
100 miles are excluded, and workers whom an employer is not required to
provide housing are excluded.
The motor vehicle safety standards for U.S. workers are extended to
H-2A workers. Petitions for admission of H-2A workers must be processed
and the consulate or port of entry notified within 7 days of receipt.
Requirements are the same as current law.
Petitions extending aliens' stay or changing employers are valid upon
filing. Employers may apply for the admission of new H-2A workers to
replace those who abandoned their work or are terminated for cause and
the Department of Homeland Security is required to remove H-2A aliens
who abandoned their work. H-2A visas will be secure and counterfeit
resistant.
A new limited Federal right of action is available to foreign workers
to enforce the economic benefits required under the H-2A program, and
any benefits expressly offered by the employer in writing. A statute of
limitations of 3 years is imposed.
Finally, lawsuits in State court under State contract law alleging
violations of the H-2A program requirements and obligations are
expressly preempted. Such State court lawsuits have been the venue of
choice for litigation against H-2A employers in recent years.
AgJOBS is the one part of the immigration bill about which there is
uniform agreement. Everyone knows that agriculture in America is
supported by undocumented workers. As immigration enforcement tightens
up, and increasing numbers of people are prevented from crossing the
borders or are being deported, the result is our crops go unharvested.
We are faced today with a very practical dilemma and one that is easy
to solve. The legislation has been vetted over and over again. Senator
Craig, I, and a multitude of other Senators have sat down with the
growers, with the farm bureaus, with the chambers, with everybody who
knows agriculture, and they have all signed off on the AgJOBS bill.
This is our opportunity to solve a real problem.
I ask my colleagues to join this bipartisan coalition and support
this legislation. I also 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. 340
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act
of 2007'' or the ``AgJOBS Act of 2007''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title, table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I--PILOT PROGRAM FOR EARNED STATUS ADJUSTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL
WORKERS
Subtitle A--Blue Card Status
Sec. 101. Requirements for blue card status.
Sec. 102. Treatment of aliens granted blue card status.
Sec. 103. Adjustment to permanent residence.
Sec. 104. Applications.
Sec. 105. Waiver of numerical limitations and certain grounds for
inadmissibility.
Sec. 106. Administrative and judicial review.
Sec. 107. Use of information.
Sec. 108. Regulations, effective date, authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle B--Correction of Social Security Records
Sec. 111. Correction of Social Security records.
TITLE II--REFORM OF H-2A WORKER PROGRAM
Sec. 201. Amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Determination and use of user fees.
Sec. 302. Regulations.
Sec. 303. Reports to Congress.
Sec. 304. Effective date.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Agricultural employment.--The term ``agricultural
employment'' means any service or activity that is considered
to be agricultural under section 3(f) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(f)) or agricultural
labor under section 3121(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 or the performance of agricultural labor or services
described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)).
(2) Blue card status.--The term ``blue card status'' means
the status of an alien who has been lawfully admitted into
the United States for temporary residence under section
101(a).
(3) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of Homeland Security.
(4) Employer.--The term ``employer'' means any person or
entity, including any farm labor contractor and any
agricultural association, that employs workers in
agricultural employment.
(5) Secretary.--Except as otherwise provided, the term
``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(6) Temporary.--A worker is employed on a ``temporary''
basis when the employment is intended not to exceed 10
months.
(7) Work day.--The term ``work day'' means any day in which
the individual is employed 5.75 or more hours in agricultural
employment.
TITLE I--PILOT PROGRAM FOR EARNED STATUS ADJUSTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL
WORKERS
Subtitle A--Blue Card Status
SEC. 101. REQUIREMENTS FOR BLUE CARD STATUS.
(a) Requirement to Grant Blue Card Status.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Secretary shall, pursuant to
the requirements of this section, grant blue card status to
an alien who qualifies under this section if the Secretary
determines that the alien--
(1) has performed agricultural employment in the United
States for at least 863 hours or 150 work days during the 24-
month period ending on December 31, 2006;
(2) applied for such status during the 18-month application
period beginning on the first day of the seventh month that
begins after the date of enactment of this Act;
(3) is otherwise admissible to the United States under
section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1182), except as otherwise provided under section 105(b); and
(4) has not been convicted of any felony or a misdemeanor,
an element of which involves bodily injury, threat of serious
bodily injury, or harm to property in excess of $500.
(b) Authorized Travel.--An alien who is granted blue card
status is authorized to travel outside the United States
(including commuting to the United States from a residence in
a foreign country) in the same manner as an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence.
(c) Authorized Employment.--The Secretary shall provide an
alien who is granted
[[Page 1716]]
blue card status an employment authorized endorsement or
other appropriate work permit, in the same manner as an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
(d) Termination of Blue Card Status.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may terminate blue card
status granted to an alien under this section only if the
Secretary determines that the alien is deportable.
(2) Grounds for termination of blue card status.--Before
any alien becomes eligible for adjustment of status under
section 103, the Secretary may deny adjustment to permanent
resident status and provide for termination of the blue card
status granted such alien under paragraph (1) if--
(A) the Secretary finds, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the adjustment to blue card status was the
result of fraud or willful misrepresentation (as described in
section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)); or
(B) the alien--
(i) commits an act that makes the alien inadmissible to the
United States as an immigrant, except as provided under
section 105(b);
(ii) is convicted of a felony or 3 or more misdemeanors
committed in the United States;
(iii) is convicted of an offense, an element of which
involves bodily injury, threat of serious bodily injury, or
harm to property in excess of $500; or
(iv) fails to perform the agricultural employment required
under section 103(a)(1)(A) unless the alien was unable to
work in agricultural employment due to the extraordinary
circumstances described in section 103(a)(3).
(e) Record of Employment.--
(1) In general.--Each employer of an alien granted blue
card status under this section shall annually--
(A) provide a written record of employment to the alien;
and
(B) provide a copy of such record to the Secretary.
(2) Sunset.--The obligation under paragraph (1) shall
terminate on the date that is 6 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(f) Required Features of Identity Card.--The Secretary
shall provide each alien granted blue card status, and the
spouse and any child of each such alien residing in the
United States, with a card that contains--
(1) an encrypted, machine-readable, electronic
identification strip that is unique to the alien to whom the
card is issued;
(2) biometric identifiers, including fingerprints and a
digital photograph; and
(3) physical security features designed to prevent
tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the card for
fraudulent purposes.
(g) Fine.--An alien granted blue card status shall pay a
fine of $100 to the Secretary.
(h) Maximum Number.--The Secretary may not issue more than
1,500,000 blue cards during the 5-year period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 102. TREATMENT OF ALIENS GRANTED BLUE CARD STATUS.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided under this
section, an alien granted blue card status shall be
considered to be an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence for purposes of any law other than any provision of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
(b) Delayed Eligibility for Certain Federal Public
Benefits.--An alien granted blue card status shall not be
eligible, by reason of such status, for any form of
assistance or benefit described in section 403(a) of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1613(a)) until 5 years after the date
on which the alien is granted an adjustment of status under
section 103.
(c) Terms of Employment.--
(1) Prohibition.--No alien granted blue card status may be
terminated from employment by any employer during the period
of blue card status except for just cause.
(2) Treatment of complaints.--
(A) Establishment of process.--The Secretary shall
establish a process for the receipt, initial review, and
disposition of complaints by aliens granted blue card status
who allege that they have been terminated without just cause.
No proceeding shall be conducted under this paragraph with
respect to a termination unless the Secretary determines that
the complaint was filed not later than 6 months after the
date of the termination.
(B) Initiation of arbitration.--If the Secretary finds that
an alien has filed a complaint in accordance with
subparagraph (A) and there is reasonable cause to believe
that the alien was terminated from employment without just
cause, the Secretary shall initiate binding arbitration
proceedings by requesting the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service to appoint a mutually agreeable
arbitrator from the roster of arbitrators maintained by such
Service for the geographical area in which the employer is
located. The procedures and rules of such Service shall be
applicable to the selection of such arbitrator and to such
arbitration proceedings. The Secretary shall pay the fee and
expenses of the arbitrator, subject to the availability of
appropriations for such purpose.
(C) Arbitration proceedings.--The arbitrator shall conduct
the proceeding under this paragraph in accordance with the
policies and procedures promulgated by the American
Arbitration Association applicable to private arbitration of
employment disputes. The arbitrator shall make findings
respecting whether the termination was for just cause. The
arbitrator may not find that the termination was for just
cause unless the employer so demonstrates by a preponderance
of the evidence. If the arbitrator finds that the termination
was not for just cause, the arbitrator shall make a specific
finding of the number of days or hours of work lost by the
employee as a result of the termination. The arbitrator shall
have no authority to order any other remedy, including
reinstatement, back pay, or front pay to the affected
employee. Not later than 30 days after the date of the
conclusion of the arbitration proceeding, the arbitrator
shall transmit the findings in the form of a written opinion
to the parties to the arbitration and the Secretary. Such
findings shall be final and conclusive, and no official or
court of the United States shall have the power or
jurisdiction to review any such findings.
(D) Effect of arbitration findings.--If the Secretary
receives a finding of an arbitrator that an employer has
terminated the employment of an alien who is granted blue
card status without just cause, the Secretary shall credit
the alien for the number of days or hours of work not
performed during such period of termination for the purpose
of determining if the alien meets the qualifying employment
requirement of section 103(a).
(E) Treatment of attorney's fees.--Each party to an
arbitration under this paragraph shall bear the cost of their
own attorney's fees for the arbitration.
(F) Nonexclusive remedy.--The complaint process provided
for in this paragraph is in addition to any other rights an
employee may have in accordance with applicable law.
(G) Effect on other actions or proceedings.--Any finding of
fact or law, judgment, conclusion, or final order made by an
arbitrator in the proceeding before the Secretary shall not
be conclusive or binding in any separate or subsequent action
or proceeding between the employee and the employee's current
or prior employer brought before an arbitrator,
administrative agency, court, or judge of any State or the
United States, regardless of whether the prior action was
between the same or related parties or involved the same
facts, except that the arbitrator's specific finding of the
number of days or hours of work lost by the employee as a
result of the employment termination may be referred to the
Secretary pursuant to subparagraph (D).
(3) Civil penalties.--
(A) In general.--If the Secretary finds, after notice and
opportunity for a hearing, that an employer of an alien
granted blue card status has failed to provide the record of
employment required under section 101(e) or has provided a
false statement of material fact in such a record, the
employer shall be subject to a civil money penalty in an
amount not to exceed $1,000 per violation.
(B) Limitation.--The penalty applicable under subparagraph
(A) for failure to provide records shall not apply unless the
alien has provided the employer with evidence of employment
authorization granted under this section.
SEC. 103. ADJUSTMENT TO PERMANENT RESIDENCE.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
Secretary shall adjust the status of an alien granted blue
card status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence if the Secretary determines that the
following requirements are satisfied:
(1) Qualifying employment.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the alien has
performed at least--
(i) 5 years of agricultural employment in the United States
for at least 100 work days per year, during the 5-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act; or
(ii) 3 years of agricultural employment in the United
States for at least 150 work days per year, during the 3-year
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(B) 4-year period of employment.--An alien shall be
considered to meet the requirements of subparagraph (A) if
the alien has performed 4 years of agricultural employment in
the United States for at least 150 work days during 3 years
of those 4 years and at least 100 work days during the
remaining year, during the 4-year period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Proof.--An alien may demonstrate compliance with the
requirement under paragraph (1) by submitting--
(A) the record of employment described in section 101(e);
or
(B) such documentation as may be submitted under section
104(c).
(3) Extraordinary circumstances.--In determining whether an
alien has met the requirement of paragraph (1)(A), the
Secretary may credit the alien with not more than 12
additional months to meet the requirement of that
subparagraph if the alien was unable to work in agricultural
employment due to--
(A) pregnancy, injury, or disease, if the alien can
establish such pregnancy, disabling injury, or disease
through medical records;
[[Page 1717]]
(B) illness, disease, or other special needs of a minor
child, if the alien can establish such illness, disease, or
special needs through medical records; or
(C) severe weather conditions that prevented the alien from
engaging in agricultural employment for a significant period
of time.
(4) Application period.--The alien applies for adjustment
of status not later than 7 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(5) Fine.--The alien pays a fine of $400 to the Secretary.
(b) Grounds for Denial of Adjustment of Status.--The
Secretary may deny an alien granted blue card status an
adjustment of status under this section and provide for
termination of such blue card status if--
(1) the Secretary finds by a preponderance of the evidence
that the adjustment to blue card status was the result of
fraud or willful misrepresentation, as described in section
212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)); or
(2) the alien--
(A) commits an act that makes the alien inadmissible to the
United States under section 212 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182), except as provided under
section 105(b);
(B) is convicted of a felony or 3 or more misdemeanors
committed in the United States; or
(C) is convicted of an offense, an element of which
involves bodily injury, threat of serious bodily injury, or
harm to property in excess of $500.
(c) Grounds for Removal.--Any alien granted blue card
status who does not apply for adjustment of status under this
section before the expiration of the application period
described in subsection (a)(4) or who fails to meet the other
requirements of subsection (a) by the end of the application
period, is deportable and may be removed under section 240 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a).
(d) Payment of Taxes.--
(1) In general.--Not later than the date on which an
alien's status is adjusted under this section, the alien
shall establish that the alien does not owe any applicable
Federal tax liability by establishing that--
(A) no such tax liability exists;
(B) all such outstanding tax liabilities have been paid; or
(C) the alien has entered into an agreement for payment of
all outstanding liabilities with the Internal Revenue
Service.
(2) Applicable federal tax liability.--In paragraph (1) the
term ``applicable Federal tax liability'' means liability for
Federal taxes, including penalties and interest, owed for any
year during the period of employment required under
subsection (a)(1) for which the statutory period for
assessment of any deficiency for such taxes has not expired.
(3) IRS cooperation.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
establish rules and procedures under which the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue shall provide documentation to an alien
upon request to establish the payment of all taxes required
by this subsection.
(e) Spouses and Minor Children.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary shall confer the status of lawful
permanent resident on the spouse and minor child of an alien
granted any adjustment of status under subsection (a),
including any individual who was a minor child on the date
such alien was granted blue card status, if the spouse or
minor child applies for such status, or if the principal
alien includes the spouse or minor child in an application
for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent
resident.
(2) Treatment of spouses and minor children.--
(A) Granting of status and removal.--The Secretary may
grant derivative status to the alien spouse and any minor
child residing in the United States of an alien granted blue
card status and shall not remove such derivative spouse or
child during the period that the alien granted blue card
status maintains such status, except as provided in paragraph
(3). A grant of derivative status to such a spouse or child
under this subparagraph shall not decrease the number of
aliens who may receive blue card status under subsection (h)
of section 101.
(B) Travel.--The derivative spouse and any minor child of
an alien granted blue card status may travel outside the
United States in the same manner as an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence.
(C) Employment.--The derivative spouse of an alien granted
blue card status may apply to the Secretary for a work permit
to authorize such spouse to engage in any lawful employment
in the United States while such alien maintains blue card
status.
(3) Grounds for denial of adjustment of status and
removal.--The Secretary may deny an alien spouse or child
adjustment of status under paragraph (1) and may remove such
spouse or child under section 240 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a) if the spouse or child--
(A) commits an act that makes the alien spouse or child
inadmissible to the United States under section 212 of such
Act (8 U.S.C. 1182), except as provided under section 105(b);
(B) is convicted of a felony or 3 or more misdemeanors
committed in the United States; or
(C) is convicted of an offense, an element of which
involves bodily injury, threat of serious bodily injury, or
harm to property in excess of $500.
SEC. 104. APPLICATIONS.
(a) Submission.--The Secretary shall provide that--
(1) applications for blue card status under section 101 may
be submitted--
(A) to the Secretary if the applicant is represented by an
attorney or a nonprofit religious, charitable, social
service, or similar organization recognized by the Board of
Immigration Appeals under section 292.2 of title 8, Code of
Federal Regulations; or
(B) to a qualified designated entity if the applicant
consents to the forwarding of the application to the
Secretary; and
(2) applications for adjustment of status under section 103
shall be filed directly with the Secretary.
(b) Qualified Designated Entity Defined.--In this section,
the term ``qualified designated entity'' means--
(1) a qualified farm labor organization or an association
of employers designated by the Secretary; or
(2) any such other person designated by the Secretary if
that Secretary determines such person is qualified and has
substantial experience, demonstrated competence, and has a
history of long-term involvement in the preparation and
submission of applications for adjustment of status under
section 209, 210, or 245 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1159, 1160, and 1255), the Act entitled ``An
Act to adjust the status of Cuban refugees to that of lawful
permanent residents of the United States, and for other
purposes'', approved November 2, 1966 (Public Law 89-732; 8
U.S.C. 1255 note), Public Law 95-145 (8 U.S.C. 1255 note), or
the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (Public Law
99-603; 100 Stat. 3359) or any amendment made by that Act.
(c) Proof of Eligibility.--
(1) In general.--An alien may establish that the alien
meets the requirement of section 101(a)(1) or 103(a)(1)
through government employment records or records supplied by
employers or collective bargaining organizations, and other
reliable documentation as the alien may provide. The
Secretary shall establish special procedures to properly
credit work in cases in which an alien was employed under an
assumed name.
(2) Documentation of work history.--
(A) Burden of proof.--An alien applying for status under
section 101(a) or 103(a) has the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that the alien has worked the
requisite number of hours or days required under section
101(a)(1) or 103(a)(1), as applicable.
(B) Timely production of records.--If an employer or farm
labor contractor employing such an alien has kept proper and
adequate records respecting such employment, the alien's
burden of proof under subparagraph (A) may be met by securing
timely production of those records under regulations to be
promulgated by the Secretary.
(C) Sufficient evidence.--An alien may meet the burden of
proof under subparagraph (A) to establish that the alien has
performed the days or hours of work required by section
101(a)(1) or 103(a)(1) by producing sufficient evidence to
show the extent of that employment as a matter of just and
reasonable inference.
(d) Applications Submitted to Qualified Designated
Entities.--
(1) Requirements.--Each qualified designated entity shall
agree--
(A) to forward to the Secretary an application submitted to
that entity pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(B) if the applicant
has consented to such forwarding;
(B) not to forward to the Secretary any such application if
the applicant has not consented to such forwarding; and
(C) to assist an alien in obtaining documentation of the
alien's work history, if the alien requests such assistance.
(2) No authority to make determinations.--No qualified
designated entity may make a determination required by this
subtitle to be made by the Secretary.
(e) Limitation on Access to Information.--Files and records
collected or compiled by a qualified designated entity for
the purposes of this section are confidential and the
Secretary shall not have access to such a file or record
relating to an alien without the consent of the alien, except
as allowed by a court order issued pursuant to subsection
(f).
(f) Confidentiality of Information.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the Secretary or any other official or employee of
the Department or a bureau or agency of the Department is
prohibited from--
(A) using information furnished by the applicant pursuant
to an application filed under this title, the information
provided by an applicant to a qualified designated entity, or
any information provided by an employer or former employer
for any purpose other than to make a determination on the
application or for imposing the penalties described in
subsection (g);
(B) making any publication in which the information
furnished by any particular individual can be identified; or
[[Page 1718]]
(C) permitting a person other than a sworn officer or
employee of the Department or a bureau or agency of the
Department or, with respect to applications filed with a
qualified designated entity, that qualified designated
entity, to examine individual applications.
(2) Required disclosures.--The Secretary shall provide the
information furnished under this title or any other
information derived from such furnished information to--
(A) a duly recognized law enforcement entity in connection
with a criminal investigation or prosecution, if such
information is requested in writing by such entity; or
(B) an official coroner, for purposes of affirmatively
identifying a deceased individual, whether or not the death
of such individual resulted from a crime.
(3) Construction.--
(A) In general.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to limit the use, or release, for immigration
enforcement purposes or law enforcement purposes, of
information contained in files or records of the Department
pertaining to an application filed under this section, other
than information furnished by an applicant pursuant to the
application, or any other information derived from the
application, that is not available from any other source.
(B) Criminal convictions.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subsection, information concerning whether
the alien applying for blue card status under section 101 or
an adjustment of status under section 103 has been convicted
of a crime at any time may be used or released for
immigration enforcement or law enforcement purposes.
(4) Crime.--Any person who knowingly uses, publishes, or
permits information to be examined in violation of this
subsection shall be subject to a fine in an amount not to
exceed $10,000.
(g) Penalties for False Statements in Applications.--
(1) Criminal penalty.--Any person who--
(A) files an application for blue card status under section
101 or an adjustment of status under section 103 and
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up a
material fact or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statements or representations, or makes or uses any false
writing or document knowing the same to contain any false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; or
(B) creates or supplies a false writing or document for use
in making such an application,
shall be fined in accordance with title 18, United States
Code, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(2) Inadmissibility.--An alien who is convicted of a crime
under paragraph (1) shall be considered to be inadmissible to
the United States on the ground described in section
212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)).
(h) Eligibility for Legal Services.--Section 504(a)(11) of
Public Law 104-134 (110 Stat. 1321-53 et seq.) shall not be
construed to prevent a recipient of funds under the Legal
Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2996 et seq.) from
providing legal assistance directly related to an application
for blue card status under section 101 or an adjustment of
status under section 103.
(i) Application Fees.--
(1) Fee schedule.--The Secretary shall provide for a
schedule of fees that--
(A) shall be charged for the filing of an application for
blue card status under section 101 or for an adjustment of
status under section 103; and
(B) may be charged by qualified designated entities to help
defray the costs of services provided to such applicants.
(2) Prohibition on excess fees by qualified designated
entities.--A qualified designated entity may not charge any
fee in excess of, or in addition to, the fees authorized
under paragraph (1)(B) for services provided to applicants.
(3) Disposition of fees.--
(A) In general.--There is established in the general fund
of the Treasury a separate account, which shall be known as
the ``Agricultural Worker Immigration Status Adjustment
Account''. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there
shall be deposited as offsetting receipts into the account
all fees collected under paragraph (1)(A).
(B) Use of fees for application processing.--Amounts
deposited in the ``Agricultural Worker Immigration Status
Adjustment Account'' shall remain available to the Secretary
until expended for processing applications for blue card
status under section 101 or an adjustment of status under
section 103.
SEC. 105. WAIVER OF NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS AND CERTAIN GROUNDS
FOR INADMISSIBILITY.
(a) Numerical Limitations Do Not Apply.--The numerical
limitations of sections 201 and 202 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 and 1152) shall not apply to
the adjustment of aliens to lawful permanent resident status
under section 103.
(b) Waiver of Certain Grounds of Inadmissibility.--In the
determination of an alien's eligibility for status under
section 101(a) or an alien's eligibility for adjustment of
status under section 103(b)(2)(A) the following rules shall
apply:
(1) Grounds of exclusion not applicable.--The provisions of
paragraphs (5), (6)(A), (7), and (9) of section 212(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)) shall not
apply.
(2) Waiver of other grounds.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Secretary may waive any other provision of such section
212(a) in the case of individual aliens for humanitarian
purposes, to ensure family unity, or if otherwise in the
public interest.
(B) Grounds that may not be waived.--Paragraphs (2)(A),
(2)(B), (2)(C), (3), and (4) of such section 212(a) may not
be waived by the Secretary under subparagraph (A).
(C) Construction.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary other
than under this subparagraph to waive provisions of such
section 212(a).
(3) Special rule for determination of public charge.--An
alien is not ineligible for blue card status under section
101 or an adjustment of status under section 103 by reason of
a ground of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(4) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)) if the
alien demonstrates a history of employment in the United
States evidencing self-support without reliance on public
cash assistance.
(c) Temporary Stay of Removal and Work Authorization for
Certain Applicants.--
(1) Before application period.--Effective on the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide that, in
the case of an alien who is apprehended before the beginning
of the application period described in section 101(a)(2) and
who can establish a nonfrivolous case of eligibility for blue
card status (but for the fact that the alien may not apply
for such status until the beginning of such period), until
the alien has had the opportunity during the first 30 days of
the application period to complete the filing of an
application for blue card status, the alien--
(A) may not be removed; and
(B) shall be granted authorization to engage in employment
in the United States and be provided an employment authorized
endorsement or other appropriate work permit for such
purpose.
(2) During application period.--The Secretary shall provide
that, in the case of an alien who presents a nonfrivolous
application for blue card status during the application
period described in section 101(a)(2), including an alien who
files such an application within 30 days of the alien's
apprehension, and until a final determination on the
application has been made in accordance with this section,
the alien--
(A) may not be removed; and
(B) shall be granted authorization to engage in employment
in the United States and be provided an employment authorized
endorsement or other appropriate work permit for such
purpose.
SEC. 106. ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) In General.--There shall be no administrative or
judicial review of a determination respecting an application
for blue card status under section 101 or adjustment of
status under section 103 except in accordance with this
section.
(b) Administrative Review.--
(1) Single level of administrative appellate review.--The
Secretary shall establish an appellate authority to provide
for a single level of administrative appellate review of such
a determination.
(2) Standard for review.--Such administrative appellate
review shall be based solely upon the administrative record
established at the time of the determination on the
application and upon such additional or newly discovered
evidence as may not have been available at the time of the
determination.
(c) Judicial Review.--
(1) Limitation to review of removal.--There shall be
judicial review of such a determination only in the judicial
review of an order of removal under section 242 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252).
(2) Standard for judicial review.--Such judicial review
shall be based solely upon the administrative record
established at the time of the review by the appellate
authority and the findings of fact and determinations
contained in such record shall be conclusive unless the
applicant can establish abuse of discretion or that the
findings are directly contrary to clear and convincing facts
contained in the record considered as a whole.
SEC. 107. USE OF INFORMATION.
Beginning not later than the first day of the application
period described in section 101(a)(2), the Secretary, in
cooperation with qualified designated entities (as that term
is defined in section 104(b)), shall broadly disseminate
information respecting the benefits that aliens may receive
under this subtitle and the requirements that an alien is
required to meet to receive such benefits.
SEC. 108. REGULATIONS, EFFECTIVE DATE, AUTHORIZATION OF
APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue regulations to
implement this subtitle not later than the first day of the
seventh month that begins after the date of enactment of this
Act.
[[Page 1719]]
(b) Effective Date.--This subtitle shall take effect on the
date that regulations required by subsection (a) are issued,
regardless of whether such regulations are issued on an
interim basis or on any other basis.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as may be
necessary to implement this subtitle, including any sums
needed for costs associated with the initiation of such
implementation, for fiscal years 2007 and 2008.
Subtitle B--Correction of Social Security Records
SEC. 111. CORRECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY RECORDS.
(a) In General.--Section 208(e)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 408(e)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``or'' at the end;
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) who is granted blue card status under the
Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of
2007,''; and
(4) by striking ``1990.'' and inserting ``1990, or in the
case of an alien described in subparagraph (D), if such
conduct is alleged to have occurred before the date on which
the alien was granted blue card status.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the first day of the seventh month that
begins after the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE II--REFORM OF H-2A WORKER PROGRAM
SEC. 201. AMENDMENT TO THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.
(a) In General.--Title II of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.) is amended by
striking section 218 and inserting the following:
``SEC. 218. H-2A EMPLOYER APPLICATIONS.
``(a) Applications to the Secretary of Labor.--
``(1) In general.--No alien may be admitted to the United
States as an H-2A worker, or otherwise provided status as an
H-2A worker, unless the employer has filed with the Secretary
of Labor an application containing--
``(A) the assurances described in subsection (b);
``(B) a description of the nature and location of the work
to be performed;
``(C) the anticipated period (expected beginning and ending
dates) for which the workers will be needed; and
``(D) the number of job opportunities in which the employer
seeks to employ the workers.
``(2) Accompanied by job offer.--Each application filed
under paragraph (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of the job
offer describing the wages and other terms and conditions of
employment and the bona fide occupational qualifications that
shall be possessed by a worker to be employed in the job
opportunity in question.
``(b) Assurances for Inclusion in Applications.--The
assurances referred to in subsection (a)(1) are the
following:
``(1) Job opportunities covered by collective bargaining
agreements.--With respect to a job opportunity that is
covered under a collective bargaining agreement:
``(A) Union contract described.--The job opportunity is
covered by a union contract which was negotiated at arm's
length between a bona fide union and the employer.
``(B) Strike or lockout.--The specific job opportunity for
which the employer is requesting an H-2A worker is not vacant
because the former occupant is on strike or being locked out
in the course of a labor dispute.
``(C) Notification of bargaining representatives.--The
employer, at the time of filing the application, has provided
notice of the filing under this paragraph to the bargaining
representative of the employer's employees in the
occupational classification at the place or places of
employment for which aliens are sought.
``(D) Temporary or seasonal job opportunities.--The job
opportunity is temporary or seasonal.
``(E) Offers to united states workers.--The employer has
offered or will offer the job to any eligible United States
worker who applies and is equally or better qualified for the
job for which the nonimmigrant is, or the nonimmigrants are,
sought and who will be available at the time and place of
need.
``(F) Provision of insurance.--If the job opportunity is
not covered by the State workers' compensation law, the
employer will provide, at no cost to the worker, insurance
covering injury and disease arising out of, and in the course
of, the worker's employment which will provide benefits at
least equal to those provided under the State's workers'
compensation law for comparable employment.
``(2) Job opportunities not covered by collective
bargaining agreements.--With respect to a job opportunity
that is not covered under a collective bargaining agreement:
``(A) Strike or lockout.--The specific job opportunity for
which the employer has applied for an H-2A worker is not
vacant because the former occupant is on strike or being
locked out in the course of a labor dispute.
``(B) Temporary or seasonal job opportunities.--The job
opportunity is temporary or seasonal.
``(C) Benefit, wage, and working conditions.--The employer
will provide, at a minimum, the benefits, wages, and working
conditions required by section 218A to all workers employed
in the job opportunities for which the employer has applied
for an H-2A worker under subsection (a) and to all other
workers in the same occupation at the place of employment.
``(D) Nondisplacement of united states workers.--The
employer did not displace and will not displace a United
States worker employed by the employer during the period of
employment and for a period of 30 days preceding the period
of employment in the occupation at the place of employment
for which the employer has applied for an H-2A worker.
``(E) Requirements for placement of the nonimmigrant with
other employers.--The employer will not place the
nonimmigrant with another employer unless--
``(i) the nonimmigrant performs duties in whole or in part
at 1 or more worksites owned, operated, or controlled by such
other employer;
``(ii) there are indicia of an employment relationship
between the nonimmigrant and such other employer; and
``(iii) the employer has inquired of the other employer as
to whether, and has no actual knowledge or notice that,
during the period of employment and for a period of 30 days
preceding the period of employment, the other employer has
displaced or intends to displace a United States worker
employed by the other employer in the occupation at the place
of employment for which the employer seeks approval to employ
H-2A workers.
``(F) Statement of liability.--The application form shall
include a clear statement explaining the liability under
subparagraph (E) of an employer if the other employer
described in such subparagraph displaces a United States
worker as described in such subparagraph.
``(G) Provision of insurance.--If the job opportunity is
not covered by the State workers' compensation law, the
employer will provide, at no cost to the worker, insurance
covering injury and disease arising out of and in the course
of the worker's employment which will provide benefits at
least equal to those provided under the State's workers'
compensation law for comparable employment.
``(H) Employment of united states workers.--
``(i) Recruitment.--The employer has taken or will take the
following steps to recruit United States workers for the job
opportunities for which the H-2A nonimmigrant is, or H-2A
nonimmigrants are, sought:
``(I) Contacting former workers.--The employer shall make
reasonable efforts through the sending of a letter by United
States Postal Service mail, or otherwise, to contact any
United States worker the employer employed during the
previous season in the occupation at the place of intended
employment for which the employer is applying for workers and
has made the availability of the employer's job opportunities
in the occupation at the place of intended employment known
to such previous workers, unless the worker was terminated
from employment by the employer for a lawful job-related
reason or abandoned the job before the worker completed the
period of employment of the job opportunity for which the
worker was hired.
``(II) Filing a job offer with the local office of the
state employment security agency.--Not later than 28 days
before the date on which the employer desires to employ an H-
2A worker in a temporary or seasonal agricultural job
opportunity, the employer shall submit a copy of the job
offer described in subsection (a)(2) to the local office of
the State employment security agency which serves the area of
intended employment and authorize the posting of the job
opportunity on `America's Job Bank' or other electronic job
registry, except that nothing in this subclause shall require
the employer to file an interstate job order under section
653 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations.
``(III) Advertising of job opportunities.--Not later than
14 days before the date on which the employer desires to
employ an H-2A worker in a temporary or seasonal agricultural
job opportunity, the employer shall advertise the
availability of the job opportunities for which the employer
is seeking workers in a publication in the local labor market
that is likely to be patronized by potential farm workers.
``(IV) Emergency procedures.--The Secretary of Labor shall,
by regulation, provide a procedure for acceptance and
approval of applications in which the employer has not
complied with the provisions of this subparagraph because the
employer's need for H-2A workers could not reasonably have
been foreseen.
``(ii) Job offers.--The employer has offered or will offer
the job to any eligible United States worker who applies and
is
[[Page 1720]]
equally or better qualified for the job for which the
nonimmigrant is, or nonimmigrants are, sought and who will be
available at the time and place of need.
``(iii) Period of employment.--The employer will provide
employment to any qualified United States worker who applies
to the employer during the period beginning on the date on
which the H-2A worker departs for the employer's place of
employment and ending on the date on which 50 percent of the
period of employment for which the H-2A worker who is in the
job was hired has elapsed, subject to the following
requirements:
``(I) Prohibition.--No person or entity shall willfully and
knowingly withhold United States workers before the arrival
of H-2A workers in order to force the hiring of United States
workers under this clause.
``(II) Complaints.--Upon receipt of a complaint by an
employer that a violation of subclause (I) has occurred, the
Secretary of Labor shall immediately investigate. The
Secretary of Labor shall, within 36 hours of the receipt of
the complaint, issue findings concerning the alleged
violation. If the Secretary of Labor finds that a violation
has occurred, the Secretary of Labor shall immediately
suspend the application of this clause with respect to that
certification for that date of need.
``(III) Placement of united states workers.--Before
referring a United States worker to an employer during the
period described in the matter preceding subclause (I), the
Secretary of Labor shall make all reasonable efforts to place
the United States worker in an open job acceptable to the
worker, if there are other job offers pending with the job
service that offer similar job opportunities in the area of
intended employment.
``(iv) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this
subparagraph shall be construed to prohibit an employer from
using such legitimate selection criteria relevant to the type
of job that are normal or customary to the type of job
involved so long as such criteria are not applied in a
discriminatory manner.
``(c) Applications by Associations on Behalf of Employer
Members.--
``(1) In general.--An agricultural association may file an
application under subsection (a) on behalf of 1 or more of
its employer members that the association certifies in its
application has or have agreed in writing to comply with the
requirements of this section and sections 218A, 218B, and
218C.
``(2) Treatment of associations acting as employers.--If an
association filing an application under paragraph (1) is a
joint or sole employer of the temporary or seasonal
agricultural workers requested on the application, the
certifications granted under subsection (e)(2)(B) to the
association may be used for the certified job opportunities
of any of its producer members named on the application, and
such workers may be transferred among such producer members
to perform the agricultural services of a temporary or
seasonal nature for which the certifications were granted.
``(d) Withdrawal of Applications.--
``(1) In general.--An employer may withdraw an application
filed pursuant to subsection (a), except that if the employer
is an agricultural association, the association may withdraw
an application filed pursuant to subsection (a) with respect
to 1 or more of its members. To withdraw an application, the
employer or association shall notify the Secretary of Labor
in writing, and the Secretary of Labor shall acknowledge in
writing the receipt of such withdrawal notice. An employer
who withdraws an application under subsection (a), or on
whose behalf an application is withdrawn, is relieved of the
obligations undertaken in the application.
``(2) Limitation.--An application may not be withdrawn
while any alien provided status under section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) pursuant to such application is employed
by the employer.
``(3) Obligations under other statutes.--Any obligation
incurred by an employer under any other law or regulation as
a result of the recruitment of United States workers or H-2A
workers under an offer of terms and conditions of employment
required as a result of making an application under
subsection (a) is unaffected by withdrawal of such
application.
``(e) Review and Approval of Applications.--
``(1) Responsibility of employers.--The employer shall make
available for public examination, within 1 working day after
the date on which an application under subsection (a) is
filed, at the employer's principal place of business or
worksite, a copy of each such application (and such
accompanying documents as are necessary).
``(2) Responsibility of the secretary of labor.--
``(A) Compilation of list.--The Secretary of Labor shall
compile, on a current basis, a list (by employer and by
occupational classification) of the applications filed under
subsection (a). Such list shall include the wage rate, number
of workers sought, period of intended employment, and date of
need. The Secretary of Labor shall make such list available
for examination in the District of Columbia.
``(B) Review of applications.--The Secretary of Labor shall
review such an application only for completeness and obvious
inaccuracies. Unless the Secretary of Labor finds that the
application is incomplete or obviously inaccurate, the
Secretary of Labor shall certify that the intending employer
has filed with the Secretary of Labor an application as
described in subsection (a). Such certification shall be
provided within 7 days of the filing of the application.''
``SEC. 218A. H-2A EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Preferential Treatment of Aliens Prohibited.--
Employers seeking to hire United States workers shall offer
the United States workers no less than the same benefits,
wages, and working conditions that the employer is offering,
intends to offer, or will provide to H-2A workers.
Conversely, no job offer may impose on United States workers
any restrictions or obligations which will not be imposed on
the employer's H-2A workers.
``(b) Minimum Benefits, Wages, and Working Conditions.--
Except in cases where higher benefits, wages, or working
conditions are required by the provisions of subsection (a),
in order to protect similarly employed United States workers
from adverse effects with respect to benefits, wages, and
working conditions, every job offer which shall accompany an
application under section 218(b)(2) shall include each of the
following benefit, wage, and working condition provisions:
``(1) Requirement to provide housing or a housing
allowance.--
``(A) In general.--An employer applying under section
218(a) for H-2A workers shall offer to provide housing at no
cost to all workers in job opportunities for which the
employer has applied under that section and to all other
workers in the same occupation at the place of employment,
whose place of residence is beyond normal commuting distance.
``(B) Type of housing.--In complying with subparagraph (A),
an employer may, at the employer's election, provide housing
that meets applicable Federal standards for temporary labor
camps or secure housing that meets applicable local standards
for rental or public accommodation housing or other
substantially similar class of habitation, or in the absence
of applicable local standards, State standards for rental or
public accommodation housing or other substantially similar
class of habitation. In the absence of applicable local or
State standards, Federal temporary labor camp standards shall
apply.
``(C) Family housing.--If it is the prevailing practice in
the occupation and area of intended employment to provide
family housing, family housing shall be provided to workers
with families who request it.
``(D) Workers engaged in the range production of
livestock.--The Secretary of Labor shall issue regulations
that address the specific requirements for the provision of
housing to workers engaged in the range production of
livestock.
``(E) Limitation.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed to require an employer to provide or secure housing
for persons who were not entitled to such housing under the
temporary labor certification regulations in effect on June
1, 1986.
``(F) Charges for housing.--
``(i) Charges for public housing.--If public housing
provided for migrant agricultural workers under the auspices
of a local, county, or State government is secured by an
employer, and use of the public housing unit normally
requires charges from migrant workers, such charges shall be
paid by the employer directly to the appropriate individual
or entity affiliated with the housing's management.
``(ii) Deposit charges.--Charges in the form of deposits
for bedding or other similar incidentals related to housing
shall not be levied upon workers by employers who provide
housing for their workers. An employer may require a worker
found to have been responsible for damage to such housing
which is not the result of normal wear and tear related to
habitation to reimburse the employer for the reasonable cost
of repair of such damage.
``(G) Housing allowance as alternative.--
``(i) In general.--If the requirement set out in clause
(ii) is satisfied, the employer may provide a reasonable
housing allowance instead of offering housing under
subparagraph (A). Upon the request of a worker seeking
assistance in locating housing, the employer shall make a
good faith effort to assist the worker in identifying and
locating housing in the area of intended employment. An
employer who offers a housing allowance to a worker, or
assists a worker in locating housing which the worker
occupies, pursuant to this clause shall not be deemed a
housing provider under section 203 of the Migrant and
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1823)
solely by virtue of providing such housing allowance. No
housing allowance may be used for housing which is owned or
controlled by the employer.
``(ii) Certification.--The requirement of this clause is
satisfied if the Governor of the State certifies to the
Secretary of Labor that there is adequate housing available
in the area of intended employment for migrant farm workers
and H-2A workers who
[[Page 1721]]
are seeking temporary housing while employed in agricultural
work. Such certification shall expire after 3 years unless
renewed by the Governor of the State.
``(iii) Amount of allowance.--
``(I) Nonmetropolitan counties.--If the place of employment
of the workers provided an allowance under this subparagraph
is a nonmetropolitan county, the amount of the housing
allowance under this subparagraph shall be equal to the
statewide average fair market rental for existing housing for
nonmetropolitan counties for the State, as established by the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to
section 8(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437f(c)), based on a 2-bedroom dwelling unit and an
assumption of 2 persons per bedroom.
``(II) Metropolitan counties.--If the place of employment
of the workers provided an allowance under this paragraph is
in a metropolitan county, the amount of the housing allowance
under this subparagraph shall be equal to the statewide
average fair market rental for existing housing for
metropolitan counties for the State, as established by the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to
section 8(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437f(c)), based on a 2-bedroom dwelling unit and an
assumption of 2 persons per bedroom.
``(2) Reimbursement of transportation.--
``(A) To place of employment.--A worker who completes 50
percent of the period of employment of the job opportunity
for which the worker was hired shall be reimbursed by the
employer for the cost of the worker's transportation and
subsistence from the place from which the worker came to work
for the employer (or place of last employment, if the worker
traveled from such place) to the place of employment.
``(B) From place of employment.--A worker who completes the
period of employment for the job opportunity involved shall
be reimbursed by the employer for the cost of the worker's
transportation and subsistence from the place of employment
to the place from which the worker, disregarding intervening
employment, came to work for the employer, or to the place of
next employment, if the worker has contracted with a
subsequent employer who has not agreed to provide or pay for
the worker's transportation and subsistence to such
subsequent employer's place of employment.
``(C) Limitation.--
``(i) Amount of reimbursement.--Except as provided in
clause (ii), the amount of reimbursement provided under
subparagraph (A) or (B) to a worker or alien shall not exceed
the lesser of--
``(I) the actual cost to the worker or alien of the
transportation and subsistence involved; or
``(II) the most economical and reasonable common carrier
transportation charges and subsistence costs for the distance
involved.
``(ii) Distance traveled.--No reimbursement under
subparagraph (A) or (B) shall be required if the distance
traveled is 100 miles or less, or the worker is not residing
in employer-provided housing or housing secured through an
allowance as provided in paragraph (1)(G).
``(D) Early termination.--If the worker is laid off or
employment is terminated for contract impossibility (as
described in paragraph (4)(D)) before the anticipated ending
date of employment, the employer shall provide the
transportation and subsistence required by subparagraph (B)
and, notwithstanding whether the worker has completed 50
percent of the period of employment, shall provide the
transportation reimbursement required by subparagraph (A).
``(E) Transportation between living quarters and
worksite.--The employer shall provide transportation between
the worker's living quarters and the employer's worksite
without cost to the worker, and such transportation will be
in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
``(3) Required wages.--
``(A) In general.--An employer applying for workers under
section 218(a) shall offer to pay, and shall pay, all workers
in the occupation for which the employer has applied for
workers, not less (and is not required to pay more) than the
greater of the prevailing wage in the occupation in the area
of intended employment or the adverse effect wage rate. No
worker shall be paid less than the greater of the hourly wage
prescribed under section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) or the applicable State
minimum wage.
``(B) Limitation.--Effective on the date of the enactment
of the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security
Act of 2007 and continuing for 3 years thereafter, no adverse
effect wage rate for a State may be more than the adverse
effect wage rate for that State in effect on January 1, 2003,
as established by section 655.107 of title 20, Code of
Federal Regulations.
``(C) Required wages after 3-year freeze.--
``(i) First adjustment.--If Congress does not set a new
wage standard applicable to this section before the first
March 1 that is not less than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the adverse effect wage rate for
each State beginning on such March 1 shall be the wage rate
that would have resulted if the adverse effect wage rate in
effect on January 1, 2003, had been annually adjusted,
beginning on March 1, 2006, by the lesser of--
``(I) the 12-month percentage change in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers between December of the second
preceding year and December of the preceding year; and
``(II) 4 percent.
``(ii) Subsequent annual adjustments.--Beginning on the
first March 1 that is not less than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this section, and each March 1 thereafter, the
adverse effect wage rate then in effect for each State shall
be adjusted by the lesser of--
``(I) the 12-month percentage change in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers between December of the second
preceding year and December of the preceding year; and
``(II) 4 percent.
``(D) Deductions.--The employer shall make only those
deductions from the worker's wages that are authorized by law
or are reasonable and customary in the occupation and area of
employment. The job offer shall specify all deductions not
required by law which the employer will make from the
worker's wages.
``(E) Frequency of pay.--The employer shall pay the worker
not less frequently than twice monthly, or in accordance with
the prevailing practice in the area of employment, whichever
is more frequent.
``(F) Hours and earnings statements.--The employer shall
furnish to the worker, on or before each payday, in 1 or more
written statements--
``(i) the worker's total earnings for the pay period;
``(ii) the worker's hourly rate of pay, piece rate of pay,
or both;
``(iii) the hours of employment which have been offered to
the worker (broken out by hours offered in accordance with
and over and above the \3/4\ guarantee described in paragraph
(4);
``(iv) the hours actually worked by the worker;
``(v) an itemization of the deductions made from the
worker's wages; and
``(vi) if piece rates of pay are used, the units produced
daily.
``(G) Report on wage protections.--Not later than December
31, 2009, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
prepare and transmit to the Secretary of Labor, the Committee
on the Judiciary of the Senate, and Committee on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives, a report that
addresses--
``(i) whether the employment of H-2A or unauthorized aliens
in the United States agricultural workforce has depressed
United States farm worker wages below the levels that would
otherwise have prevailed if alien farm workers had not been
employed in the United States;
``(ii) whether an adverse effect wage rate is necessary to
prevent wages of United States farm workers in occupations in
which H-2A workers are employed from falling below the wage
levels that would have prevailed in the absence of the
employment of H-2A workers in those occupations;
``(iii) whether alternative wage standards, such as a
prevailing wage standard, would be sufficient to prevent
wages in occupations in which H-2A workers are employed from
falling below the wage level that would have prevailed in the
absence of H-2A employment;
``(iv) whether any changes are warranted in the current
methodologies for calculating the adverse effect wage rate
and the prevailing wage; and
``(v) recommendations for future wage protection under this
section.
``(H) Commission on wage standards.--
``(i) Establishment.--There is established the Commission
on Agricultural Wage Standards under the H-2A program (in
this subparagraph referred to as the `Commission').
``(ii) Composition.--The Commission shall consist of 10
members as follows:
``(I) Four representatives of agricultural employers and 1
representative of the Department of Agriculture, each
appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.
``(II) Four representatives of agricultural workers and 1
representative of the Department of Labor, each appointed by
the Secretary of Labor.
``(iii) Functions.--The Commission shall conduct a study
that shall address--
``(I) whether the employment of H-2A or unauthorized aliens
in the United States agricultural workforce has depressed
United States farm worker wages below the levels that would
otherwise have prevailed if alien farm workers had not been
employed in the United States;
``(II) whether an adverse effect wage rate is necessary to
prevent wages of United States farm workers in occupations in
which H-2A workers are employed from falling below the wage
levels that would have prevailed in the absence of the
employment of H-2A workers in those occupations;
``(III) whether alternative wage standards, such as a
prevailing wage standard, would be sufficient to prevent
wages in occupations in which H-2A workers are employed from
falling below the wage level that would have
[[Page 1722]]
prevailed in the absence of H-2A employment;
``(IV) whether any changes are warranted in the current
methodologies for calculating the adverse effect wage rate
and the prevailing wage rate; and
``(V) recommendations for future wage protection under this
section.
``(iv) Final report.--Not later than December 31, 2009, the
Commission shall submit a report to the Congress setting
forth the findings of the study conducted under clause (iii).
``(v) Termination date.--The Commission shall terminate
upon submitting its final report.
``(4) Guarantee of employment.--
``(A) Offer to worker.--The employer shall guarantee to
offer the worker employment for the hourly equivalent of at
least \3/4\ of the work days of the total period of
employment, beginning with the first work day after the
arrival of the worker at the place of employment and ending
on the expiration date specified in the job offer. For
purposes of this subparagraph, the hourly equivalent means
the number of hours in the work days as stated in the job
offer and shall exclude the worker's Sabbath and Federal
holidays. If the employer affords the United States or H-2A
worker less employment than that required under this
paragraph, the employer shall pay such worker the amount
which the worker would have earned had the worker, in fact,
worked for the guaranteed number of hours.
``(B) Failure to work.--Any hours which the worker fails to
work, up to a maximum of the number of hours specified in the
job offer for a work day, when the worker has been offered an
opportunity to do so, and all hours of work actually
performed (including voluntary work in excess of the number
of hours specified in the job offer in a work day, on the
worker's Sabbath, or on Federal holidays) may be counted by
the employer in calculating whether the period of guaranteed
employment has been met.
``(C) Abandonment of employment, termination for cause.--If
the worker voluntarily abandons employment before the end of
the contract period, or is terminated for cause, the worker
is not entitled to the `\3/4\ guarantee' described in
subparagraph (A).
``(D) Contract impossibility.--If, before the expiration of
the period of employment specified in the job offer, the
services of the worker are no longer required for reasons
beyond the control of the employer due to any form of natural
disaster, including a flood, hurricane, freeze, earthquake,
fire, drought, plant or animal disease or pest infestation,
or regulatory drought, before the guarantee in subparagraph
(A) is fulfilled, the employer may terminate the worker's
employment. In the event of such termination, the employer
shall fulfill the employment guarantee in subparagraph (A)
for the work days that have elapsed from the first work day
after the arrival of the worker to the termination of
employment. In such cases, the employer will make efforts to
transfer the United States worker to other comparable
employment acceptable to the worker. If such transfer is not
effected, the employer shall provide the return
transportation required in paragraph (2)(D).
``(5) Motor vehicle safety.--
``(A) Mode of transportation subject to coverage.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clauses (iii) and
(iv), this subsection applies to any H-2A employer that uses
or causes to be used any vehicle to transport an H-2A worker
within the United States.
``(ii) Defined term.--In this paragraph, the term `uses or
causes to be used'--
``(I) applies only to transportation provided by an H-2A
employer to an H-2A worker, or by a farm labor contractor to
an H-2A worker at the request or direction of an H-2A
employer; and
``(II) does not apply to--
``(aa) transportation provided, or transportation
arrangements made, by an H-2A worker, unless the employer
specifically requested or arranged such transportation; or
``(bb) car pooling arrangements made by H-2A workers
themselves, using 1 of the workers' own vehicles, unless
specifically requested by the employer directly or through a
farm labor contractor.
``(iii) Clarification.--Providing a job offer to an H-2A
worker that causes the worker to travel to or from the place
of employment, or the payment or reimbursement of the
transportation costs of an H-2A worker by an H-2A employer,
shall not constitute an arrangement of, or participation in,
such transportation.
``(iv) Agricultural machinery and equipment excluded.--This
subsection does not apply to the transportation of an H-2A
worker on a tractor, combine, harvester, picker, or other
similar machinery or equipment while such worker is actually
engaged in the planting, cultivating, or harvesting of
agricultural commodities or the care of livestock or poultry
or engaged in transportation incidental thereto.
``(v) Common carriers excluded.--This subsection does not
apply to common carrier motor vehicle transportation in which
the provider holds itself out to the general public as
engaging in the transportation of passengers for hire and
holds a valid certification of authorization for such
purposes from an appropriate Federal, State, or local agency.
``(B) Applicability of standards, licensing, and insurance
requirements.--
``(i) In general.--When using, or causing to be used, any
vehicle for the purpose of providing transportation to which
this subparagraph applies, each employer shall--
``(I) ensure that each such vehicle conforms to the
standards prescribed by the Secretary of Labor under section
401(b) of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1841(b)) and other applicable
Federal and State safety standards;
``(II) ensure that each driver has a valid and appropriate
license, as provided by State law, to operate the vehicle;
and
``(III) have an insurance policy or a liability bond that
is in effect which insures the employer against liability for
damage to persons or property arising from the ownership,
operation, or causing to be operated, of any vehicle used to
transport any H-2A worker.
``(ii) Amount of insurance required.--The level of
insurance required shall be determined by the Secretary of
Labor pursuant to regulations to be issued under this
subsection.
``(iii) Effect of workers' compensation coverage.--If the
employer of any H-2A worker provides workers' compensation
coverage for such worker in the case of bodily injury or
death as provided by State law, the following adjustments in
the requirements of subparagraph (B)(i)(III) relating to
having an insurance policy or liability bond apply:
``(I) No insurance policy or liability bond shall be
required of the employer, if such workers are transported
only under circumstances for which there is coverage under
such State law.
``(II) An insurance policy or liability bond shall be
required of the employer for circumstances under which
coverage for the transportation of such workers is not
provided under such State law.
``(c) Compliance With Labor Laws.--An employer shall assure
that, except as otherwise provided in this section, the
employer will comply with all applicable Federal, State, and
local labor laws, including laws affecting migrant and
seasonal agricultural workers, with respect to all United
States workers and alien workers employed by the employer,
except that a violation of this assurance shall not
constitute a violation of the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
``(d) Copy of Job Offer.--The employer shall provide to the
worker, not later than the day the work commences, a copy of
the employer's application and job offer described in section
218(a), or, if the employer will require the worker to enter
into a separate employment contract covering the employment
in question, such separate employment contract.
``(e) Range Production of Livestock.--Nothing in this
section, section 218, or section 218B shall preclude the
Secretary of Labor and the Secretary from continuing to apply
special procedures and requirements to the admission and
employment of aliens in occupations involving the range
production of livestock.
``SEC. 218B. PROCEDURE FOR ADMISSION AND EXTENSION OF STAY OF
H-2A WORKERS.
``(a) Petitioning for Admission.--An employer, or an
association acting as an agent or joint employer for its
members, that seeks the admission into the United States of
an H-2A worker may file a petition with the Secretary. The
petition shall be accompanied by an accepted and currently
valid certification provided by the Secretary of Labor under
section 218(e)(2)(B) covering the petitioner.
``(b) Expedited Adjudication by the Secretary.--The
Secretary shall establish a procedure for expedited
adjudication of petitions filed under subsection (a) and
within 7 working days shall, by fax, cable, or other means
assuring expedited delivery, transmit a copy of notice of
action on the petition to the petitioner and, in the case of
approved petitions, to the appropriate immigration officer at
the port of entry or United States consulate (as the case may
be) where the petitioner has indicated that the alien
beneficiary (or beneficiaries) will apply for a visa or
admission to the United States.
``(c) Criteria for Admissibility.--
``(1) In general.--An H-2A worker shall be considered
admissible to the United States if the alien is otherwise
admissible under this section, section 218, and section 218A,
and the alien is not ineligible under paragraph (2).
``(2) Disqualification.--An alien shall be considered
inadmissible to the United States and ineligible for
nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) if the
alien has, at any time during the past 5 years--
``(A) violated a material provision of this section,
including the requirement to promptly depart the United
States when the alien's authorized period of admission under
this section has expired; or
``(B) otherwise violated a term or condition of admission
into the United States as a nonimmigrant, including
overstaying the period of authorized admission as such a
nonimmigrant.
[[Page 1723]]
``(3) Waiver of ineligibility for unlawful presence.--
``(A) In general.--An alien who has not previously been
admitted into the United States pursuant to this section, and
who is otherwise eligible for admission in accordance with
paragraphs (1) and (2), shall not be deemed inadmissible by
virtue of section 212(a)(9)(B). If an alien described in the
preceding sentence is present in the United States, the alien
may apply from abroad for H-2A status, but may not be granted
that status in the United States.
``(B) Maintenance of waiver.--An alien provided an initial
waiver of ineligibility pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall
remain eligible for such waiver unless the alien violates the
terms of this section or again becomes ineligible under
section 212(a)(9)(B) by virtue of unlawful presence in the
United States after the date of the initial waiver of
ineligibility pursuant to subparagraph (A).
``(d) Period of Admission.--
``(1) In general.--The alien shall be admitted for the
period of employment in the application certified by the
Secretary of Labor pursuant to section 218(e)(2)(B), not to
exceed 10 months, supplemented by a period of not more than 1
week before the beginning of the period of employment for the
purpose of travel to the worksite and a period of 14 days
following the period of employment for the purpose of
departure or extension based on a subsequent offer of
employment, except that--
``(A) the alien is not authorized to be employed during
such 14-day period except in the employment for which the
alien was previously authorized; and
``(B) the total period of employment, including such 14-day
period, may not exceed 10 months.
``(2) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall limit
the authority of the Secretary to extend the stay of the
alien under any other provision of this Act.
``(e) Abandonment of Employment.--
``(1) In general.--An alien admitted or provided status
under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) who abandons the
employment which was the basis for such admission or status
shall be considered to have failed to maintain nonimmigrant
status as an H-2A worker and shall depart the United States
or be subject to removal under section 237(a)(1)(C)(i).
``(2) Report by employer.--The employer, or association
acting as agent for the employer, shall notify the Secretary
not later than 7 days after an H-2A worker prematurely
abandons employment.
``(3) Removal by the secretary.--The Secretary shall
promptly remove from the United States any H-2A worker who
violates any term or condition of the worker's nonimmigrant
status.
``(4) Voluntary termination.--Notwithstanding paragraph
(1), an alien may voluntarily terminate his or her employment
if the alien promptly departs the United States upon
termination of such employment.
``(f) Replacement of Alien.--
``(1) In general.--Upon presentation of the notice to the
Secretary required by subsection (e)(2), the Secretary of
State shall promptly issue a visa to, and the Secretary shall
admit into the United States, an eligible alien designated by
the employer to replace an H-2A worker--
``(A) who abandons or prematurely terminates employment; or
``(B) whose employment is terminated after a United States
worker is employed pursuant to section 218(b)(2)(H)(iii), if
the United States worker voluntarily departs before the end
of the period of intended employment or if the employment
termination is for a lawful job-related reason.
``(2) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection is intended
to limit any preference required to be accorded United States
workers under any other provision of this Act.
``(g) Identification Document.--
``(1) In general.--Each alien authorized to be admitted
under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) shall be provided an
identification and employment eligibility document to verify
eligibility for employment in the United States and verify
the alien's identity.
``(2) Requirements.--No identification and employment
eligibility document may be issued which does not meet the
following requirements:
``(A) The document shall be capable of reliably determining
whether--
``(i) the individual with the identification and employment
eligibility document whose eligibility is being verified is
in fact eligible for employment;
``(ii) the individual whose eligibility is being verified
is claiming the identity of another person; and
``(iii) the individual whose eligibility is being verified
is authorized to be admitted into, and employed in, the
United States as an H-2A worker.
``(B) The document shall be in a form that is resistant to
counterfeiting and to tampering.
``(C) The document shall--
``(i) be compatible with other databases of the Secretary
for the purpose of excluding aliens from benefits for which
they are not eligible and determining whether the alien is
unlawfully present in the United States; and
``(ii) be compatible with law enforcement databases to
determine if the alien has been convicted of criminal
offenses.
``(h) Extension of Stay of H-2A Aliens in the United
States.--
``(1) Extension of stay.--If an employer seeks approval to
employ an H-2A alien who is lawfully present in the United
States, the petition filed by the employer or an association
pursuant to subsection (a), shall request an extension of the
alien's stay and a change in the alien's employment.
``(2) Limitation on filing a petition for extension of
stay.--A petition may not be filed for an extension of an
alien's stay--
``(A) for a period of more than 10 months; or
``(B) to a date that is more than 3 years after the date of
the alien's last admission to the United States under this
section.
``(3) Work authorization upon filing a petition for
extension of stay.--
``(A) In general.--An alien who is lawfully present in the
United States may commence the employment described in a
petition under paragraph (1) on the date on which the
petition is filed.
``(B) Definition.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the
term `file' means sending the petition by certified mail via
the United States Postal Service, return receipt requested,
or delivered by guaranteed commercial delivery which will
provide the employer with a documented acknowledgment of the
date of receipt of the petition.
``(C) Handling of petition.--The employer shall provide a
copy of the employer's petition to the alien, who shall keep
the petition with the alien's identification and employment
eligibility document as evidence that the petition has been
filed and that the alien is authorized to work in the United
States.
``(D) Approval of petition.--Upon approval of a petition
for an extension of stay or change in the alien's authorized
employment, the Secretary shall provide a new or updated
employment eligibility document to the alien indicating the
new validity date, after which the alien is not required to
retain a copy of the petition.
``(4) Limitation on employment authorization of aliens
without valid identification and employment eligibility
document.--An expired identification and employment
eligibility document, together with a copy of a petition for
extension of stay or change in the alien's authorized
employment that complies with the requirements of paragraph
(1), shall constitute a valid work authorization document for
a period of not more than 60 days beginning on the date on
which such petition is filed, after which time only a
currently valid identification and employment eligibility
document shall be acceptable.
``(5) Limitation on an individual's stay in status.--
``(A) Maximum period.--The maximum continuous period of
authorized status as an H-2A worker (including any
extensions) is 3 years.
``(B) Requirement to remain outside the united states.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), in the case of
an alien outside the United States whose period of authorized
status as an H-2A worker (including any extensions) has
expired, the alien may not again apply for admission to the
United States as an H-2A worker unless the alien has remained
outside the United States for a continuous period equal to at
least \1/5\ the duration of the alien's previous period of
authorized status as an H-2A worker (including any
extensions).
``(ii) Exception.--Clause (i) shall not apply in the case
of an alien if the alien's period of authorized status as an
H-2A worker (including any extensions) was for a period of
not more than 10 months and such alien has been outside the
United States for at least 2 months during the 12 months
preceding the date the alien again is applying for admission
to the United States as an H-2A worker.
``(i) Special Rules for Aliens Employed as Sheepherders,
Goat Herders, or Dairy Workers.--Notwithstanding any
provision of the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits,
and Security Act of 2007, an alien admitted under section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) for employment as a sheepherder, goat
herder, or dairy worker--
``(1) may be admitted for an initial period of 12 months;
``(2) subject to subsection (j)(5), may have such initial
period of admission extended for a period of up to 3 years;
and
``(3) shall not be subject to the requirements of
subsection (h)(5) (relating to periods of absence from the
United States).
``(j) Adjustment to Lawful Permanent Resident Status for
Aliens Employed as Sheepherders, Goat Herders, or Dairy
Workers.--
``(1) Eligible alien.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `eligible alien' means an alien--
``(A) having nonimmigrant status under section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) based on employment as a sheepherder,
goat herder, or dairy worker;
``(B) who has maintained such nonimmigrant status in the
United States for a cumulative total of 36 months (excluding
any period of absence from the United States); and
``(C) who is seeking to receive an immigrant visa under
section 203(b)(3)(A)(iii).
[[Page 1724]]
``(2) Classification petition.--In the case of an eligible
alien, the petition under section 204 for classification
under section 203(b)(3)(A)(iii) may be filed by--
``(A) the alien's employer on behalf of the eligible alien;
or
``(B) the eligible alien.
``(3) No labor certification required.--Notwithstanding
section 203(b)(3)(C), no determination under section
212(a)(5)(A) is required with respect to an immigrant visa
described in paragraph (1)(C) for an eligible alien.
``(4) Effect of petition.--The filing of a petition
described in paragraph (2) or an application for adjustment
of status based on the approval of such a petition shall not
constitute evidence of an alien's ineligibility for
nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a).
``(5) Extension of stay.--The Secretary shall extend the
stay of an eligible alien having a pending or approved
classification petition described in paragraph (2) in 1-year
increments until a final determination is made on the alien's
eligibility for adjustment of status to that of an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
``(6) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to prevent an eligible alien from seeking
adjustment of status in accordance with any other provision
of law.
``SEC. 218C. WORKER PROTECTIONS AND LABOR STANDARDS
ENFORCEMENT.
``(a) Enforcement Authority.--
``(1) Investigation of complaints.--
``(A) Aggrieved person or third-party complaints.--The
Secretary of Labor shall establish a process for the receipt,
investigation, and disposition of complaints respecting a
petitioner's failure to meet a condition specified in section
218(b), or an employer's misrepresentation of material facts
in an application under section 218(a). Complaints may be
filed by any aggrieved person or organization (including
bargaining representatives). No investigation or hearing
shall be conducted on a complaint concerning such a failure
or misrepresentation unless the complaint was filed not later
than 12 months after the date of the failure, or
misrepresentation, respectively. The Secretary of Labor shall
conduct an investigation under this subparagraph if there is
reasonable cause to believe that such a failure or
misrepresentation has occurred.
``(B) Determination on complaint.--Under such process, the
Secretary of Labor shall provide, within 30 days after the
date such a complaint is filed, for a determination as to
whether or not a reasonable basis exists to make a finding
described in subparagraph (C), (D), (E), or (G). If the
Secretary of Labor determines that such a reasonable basis
exists, the Secretary of Labor shall provide for notice of
such determination to the interested parties and an
opportunity for a hearing on the complaint, in accordance
with section 556 of title 5, United States Code, within 60
days after the date of the determination. If such a hearing
is requested, the Secretary of Labor shall make a finding
concerning the matter not later than 60 days after the date
of the hearing. In the case of similar complaints respecting
the same applicant, the Secretary of Labor may consolidate
the hearings under this subparagraph on such complaints.
``(C) Failures to meet conditions.--If the Secretary of
Labor finds, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, a
failure to meet a condition of paragraph (1)(A), (1)(B),
(1)(D), (1)(F), (2)(A), (2)(B), or (2)(G) of section 218(b),
a substantial failure to meet a condition of paragraph
(1)(C), (1)(E), (2)(C), (2)(D), (2)(E), or (2)(H) of section
218(b), or a material misrepresentation of fact in an
application under section 218(a)--
``(i) the Secretary of Labor shall notify the Secretary of
such finding and may, in addition, impose such other
administrative remedies (including civil money penalties in
an amount not to exceed $1,000 per violation) as the
Secretary of Labor determines to be appropriate; and
``(ii) the Secretary may disqualify the employer from the
employment of aliens described in section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) for a period of 1 year.
``(D) Willful failures and willful misrepresentations.--If
the Secretary of Labor finds, after notice and opportunity
for hearing, a willful failure to meet a condition of section
218(b), a willful misrepresentation of a material fact in an
application under section 218(a), or a violation of
subsection (d)(1)--
``(i) the Secretary of Labor shall notify the Secretary of
such finding and may, in addition, impose such other
administrative remedies (including civil money penalties in
an amount not to exceed $5,000 per violation) as the
Secretary of Labor determines to be appropriate;
``(ii) the Secretary of Labor may seek appropriate legal or
equitable relief to effectuate the purposes of subsection
(d)(1); and
``(iii) the Secretary may disqualify the employer from the
employment of H-2A workers for a period of 2 years.
``(E) Displacement of united states workers.--If the
Secretary of Labor finds, after notice and opportunity for
hearing, a willful failure to meet a condition of section
218(b) or a willful misrepresentation of a material fact in
an application under section 218(a), in the course of which
failure or misrepresentation the employer displaced a United
States worker employed by the employer during the period of
employment on the employer's application under section 218(a)
or during the period of 30 days preceding such period of
employment--
``(i) the Secretary of Labor shall notify the Secretary of
such finding and may, in addition, impose such other
administrative remedies (including civil money penalties in
an amount not to exceed $15,000 per violation) as the
Secretary of Labor determines to be appropriate; and
``(ii) the Secretary may disqualify the employer from the
employment of H-2A workers for a period of 3 years.
``(F) Limitations on civil money penalties.--The Secretary
of Labor shall not impose total civil money penalties with
respect to an application under section 218(a) in excess of
$90,000.
``(G) Failures to pay wages or required benefits.--If the
Secretary of Labor finds, after notice and opportunity for a
hearing, that the employer has failed to pay the wages, or
provide the housing allowance, transportation, subsistence
reimbursement, or guarantee of employment, required under
section 218A(b), the Secretary of Labor shall assess payment
of back wages, or other required benefits, due any United
States worker or H-2A worker employed by the employer in the
specific employment in question. The back wages or other
required benefits under section 218A(b) shall be equal to the
difference between the amount that should have been paid and
the amount that actually was paid to such worker.
``(2) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed as limiting the authority of the Secretary
of Labor to conduct any compliance investigation under any
other labor law, including any law affecting migrant and
seasonal agricultural workers, or, in the absence of a
complaint under this section, under section 218 or 218A.
``(b) Rights Enforceable by Private Right of Action.--H-2A
workers may enforce the following rights through the private
right of action provided in subsection (c), and no other
right of action shall exist under Federal or State law to
enforce such rights:
``(1) The providing of housing or a housing allowance as
required under section 218A(b)(1).
``(2) The reimbursement of transportation as required under
section 218A(b)(2).
``(3) The payment of wages required under section
218A(b)(3) when due.
``(4) The benefits and material terms and conditions of
employment expressly provided in the job offer described in
section 218(a)(2), not including the assurance to comply with
other Federal, State, and local labor laws described in
section 218A(c), compliance with which shall be governed by
the provisions of such laws.
``(5) The guarantee of employment required under section
218A(b)(4).
``(6) The motor vehicle safety requirements under section
218A(b)(5).
``(7) The prohibition of discrimination under subsection
(d)(2).
``(c) Private Right of Action.--
``(1) Mediation.--Upon the filing of a complaint by an H-2A
worker aggrieved by a violation of rights enforceable under
subsection (b), and within 60 days of the filing of proof of
service of the complaint, a party to the action may file a
request with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
to assist the parties in reaching a satisfactory resolution
of all issues involving all parties to the dispute. Upon a
filing of such request and giving of notice to the parties,
the parties shall attempt mediation within the period
specified in subparagraph (B).
``(A) Mediation services.--The Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service shall be available to assist in
resolving disputes arising under subsection (b) between H-2A
workers and agricultural employers without charge to the
parties.
``(B) 90-day limit.--The Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service may conduct mediation or other nonbinding dispute
resolution activities for a period not to exceed 90 days
beginning on the date on which the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service receives the request for assistance
unless the parties agree to an extension of this period of
time.
``(C) Authorization.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), there are
authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service $500,000 for each fiscal year to carry
out this section.
``(ii) Mediation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service is authorized to conduct the mediation or other
dispute resolution activities from any other appropriated
funds available to the Director and to reimburse such
appropriated funds when the funds are appropriated pursuant
to this authorization, such reimbursement to be credited to
appropriations currently available at the time of receipt.
``(2) Maintenance of civil action in district court by
aggrieved person.--An H-2A worker aggrieved by a violation of
rights enforceable under subsection (b) by an agricultural
employer or other person may file suit
[[Page 1725]]
in any district court of the United States having
jurisdiction over the parties, without regard to the amount
in controversy, without regard to the citizenship of the
parties, and without regard to the exhaustion of any
alternative administrative remedies under this Act, not later
than 3 years after the date the violation occurs.
``(3) Election.--An H-2A worker who has filed an
administrative complaint with the Secretary of Labor may not
maintain a civil action under paragraph (2) unless a
complaint based on the same violation filed with the
Secretary of Labor under subsection (a)(1) is withdrawn
before the filing of such action, in which case the rights
and remedies available under this subsection shall be
exclusive.
``(4) Preemption of state contract rights.--Nothing in this
Act shall be construed to diminish the rights and remedies of
an H-2A worker under any other Federal or State law or
regulation or under any collective bargaining agreement,
except that no court or administrative action shall be
available under any State contract law to enforce the rights
created by this Act.
``(5) Waiver of rights prohibited.--Agreements by employees
purporting to waive or modify their rights under this Act
shall be void as contrary to public policy, except that a
waiver or modification of the rights or obligations in favor
of the Secretary of Labor shall be valid for purposes of the
enforcement of this Act. The preceding sentence may not be
construed to prohibit agreements to settle private disputes
or litigation.
``(6) Award of damages or other equitable relief.--
``(A) If the court finds that the respondent has
intentionally violated any of the rights enforceable under
subsection (b), it shall award actual damages, if any, or
equitable relief.
``(B) Any civil action brought under this section shall be
subject to appeal as provided in chapter 83 of title 28,
United States Code.
``(7) Workers' compensation benefits; exclusive remedy.--
``(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
where a State's workers' compensation law is applicable and
coverage is provided for an H-2A worker, the workers'
compensation benefits shall be the exclusive remedy for the
loss of such worker under this section in the case of bodily
injury or death in accordance with such State's workers'
compensation law.
``(B) The exclusive remedy prescribed in subparagraph (A)
precludes the recovery under paragraph (6) of actual damages
for loss from an injury or death but does not preclude other
equitable relief, except that such relief shall not include
back or front pay or in any manner, directly or indirectly,
expand or otherwise alter or affect--
``(i) a recovery under a State workers' compensation law;
or
``(ii) rights conferred under a State workers' compensation
law.
``(8) Tolling of statute of limitations.--If it is
determined under a State workers' compensation law that the
workers' compensation law is not applicable to a claim for
bodily injury or death of an H-2A worker, the statute of
limitations for bringing an action for actual damages for
such injury or death under subsection (c) shall be tolled for
the period during which the claim for such injury or death
under such State workers' compensation law was pending. The
statute of limitations for an action for actual damages or
other equitable relief arising out of the same transaction or
occurrence as the injury or death of the H-2A worker shall be
tolled for the period during which the claim for such injury
or death was pending under the State workers' compensation
law.
``(9) Preclusive effect.--Any settlement by an H-2A worker
and an H-2A employer or any person reached through the
mediation process required under subsection (c)(1) shall
preclude any right of action arising out of the same facts
between the parties in any Federal or State court or
administrative proceeding, unless specifically provided
otherwise in the settlement agreement.
``(10) Settlements.--Any settlement by the Secretary of
Labor with an H-2A employer on behalf of an H-2A worker of a
complaint filed with the Secretary of Labor under this
section or any finding by the Secretary of Labor under
subsection (a)(1)(B) shall preclude any right of action
arising out of the same facts between the parties under any
Federal or State court or administrative proceeding, unless
specifically provided otherwise in the settlement agreement.
``(d) Discrimination Prohibited.--
``(1) In general.--It is a violation of this subsection for
any person who has filed an application under section 218(a),
to intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist,
discharge, or in any other manner discriminate against an
employee (which term, for purposes of this subsection,
includes a former employee and an applicant for employment)
because the employee has disclosed information to the
employer, or to any other person, that the employee
reasonably believes evidences a violation of section 218 or
218A or any rule or regulation pertaining to section 218 or
218A, or because the employee cooperates or seeks to
cooperate in an investigation or other proceeding concerning
the employer's compliance with the requirements of section
218 or 218A or any rule or regulation pertaining to either of
such sections.
``(2) Discrimination against h-2a workers.--It is a
violation of this subsection for any person who has filed an
application under section 218(a), to intimidate, threaten,
restrain, coerce, blacklist, discharge, or in any manner
discriminate against an H-2A employee because such worker
has, with just cause, filed a complaint with the Secretary of
Labor regarding a denial of the rights enumerated and
enforceable under subsection (b) or instituted, or caused to
be instituted, a private right of action under subsection (c)
regarding the denial of the rights enumerated under
subsection (b), or has testified or is about to testify in
any court proceeding brought under subsection (c).
``(e) Authorization To Seek Other Appropriate Employment.--
The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary shall establish a
process under which an H-2A worker who files a complaint
regarding a violation of subsection (d) and is otherwise
eligible to remain and work in the United States may be
allowed to seek other appropriate employment in the United
States for a period not to exceed the maximum period of stay
authorized for such nonimmigrant classification.
``(f) Role of Associations.--
``(1) Violation by a member of an association.--An employer
on whose behalf an application is filed by an association
acting as its agent is fully responsible for such
application, and for complying with the terms and conditions
of sections 218 and 218A, as though the employer had filed
the application itself. If such an employer is determined,
under this section, to have committed a violation, the
penalty for such violation shall apply only to that member of
the association unless the Secretary of Labor determines that
the association or other member participated in, had
knowledge, or reason to know, of the violation, in which case
the penalty shall be invoked against the association or other
association member as well.
``(2) Violations by an association acting as an employer.--
If an association filing an application as a sole or joint
employer is determined to have committed a violation under
this section, the penalty for such violation shall apply only
to the association unless the Secretary of Labor determines
that an association member or members participated in or had
knowledge, or reason to know of the violation, in which case
the penalty shall be invoked against the association member
or members as well.
``SEC. 218D. DEFINITIONS.
``For purposes of this section and section 218, 218A, 218B,
and 218C:
``(1) Agricultural employment.--The term `agricultural
employment' means any service or activity that is considered
to be agricultural under section 3(f) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(f)) or agricultural
labor under section 3121(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 or the performance of agricultural labor or services
described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a).
``(2) Bona fide union.--The term `bona fide union' means
any organization in which employees participate and which
exists for the purpose of dealing with employers concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other terms and conditions of work for
agricultural employees. Such term does not include an
organization formed, created, administered, supported,
dominated, financed, or controlled by an employer or employer
association or its agents or representatives.
``(3) Displace.--The term `displace', in the case of an
application with respect to 1 or more H-2A workers by an
employer, means laying off a United States worker from a job
for which the H-2A worker or workers is or are sought.
``(4) Eligible.--The term `eligible', when used with
respect to an individual, means an individual who is not an
unauthorized alien (as defined in section 274A).
``(5) Employer.--The term `employer' means any person or
entity, including any farm labor contractor and any
agricultural association, that employs workers in
agricultural employment.
``(6) H-2A employer.--The term `H-2A employer' means an
employer who seeks to hire 1 or more nonimmigrant aliens
described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a).
``(7) H-2A worker.--The term `H-2A worker' means a
nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a).
``(8) Job opportunity.--The term `job opportunity' means a
job opening for temporary or seasonal full-time employment at
a place in the United States to which United States workers
can be referred.
``(9) Laying off.--
``(A) In general.--The term `laying off', with respect to a
worker--
``(i) means to cause the worker's loss of employment, other
than through a discharge for inadequate performance,
violation of workplace rules, cause, voluntary departure,
voluntary retirement, contract impossibility (as described in
section 218A(b)(4)(D)), or temporary suspension of employment
due to weather, markets, or other temporary conditions; but
[[Page 1726]]
``(ii) does not include any situation in which the worker
is offered, as an alternative to such loss of employment, a
similar employment opportunity with the same employer (or, in
the case of a placement of a worker with another employer
under section 218(b)(2)(E), with either employer described in
such section) at equivalent or higher compensation and
benefits than the position from which the employee was
discharged, regardless of whether or not the employee accepts
the offer.
``(B) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this paragraph is
intended to limit an employee's rights under a collective
bargaining agreement or other employment contract.
``(10) Regulatory drought.--The term `regulatory drought'
means a decision subsequent to the filing of the application
under section 218 by an entity not under the control of the
employer making such filing which restricts the employer's
access to water for irrigation purposes and reduces or limits
the employer's ability to produce an agricultural commodity,
thereby reducing the need for labor.
``(11) Seasonal.--Labor is performed on a `seasonal' basis
if--
``(A) ordinarily, it pertains to or is of the kind
exclusively performed at certain seasons or periods of the
year; and
``(B) from its nature, it may not be continuous or carried
on throughout the year.
``(12) Secretary.--Except as otherwise provided, the term
`Secretary' means the Secretary of Homeland Security.
``(13) Temporary.--A worker is employed on a `temporary'
basis where the employment is intended not to exceed 10
months.
``(14) United states worker.--The term `United States
worker' means any worker, whether a national of the United
States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence,
or any other alien, who is authorized to work in the job
opportunity within the United States, except an alien
admitted or otherwise provided status under section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a).''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is
amended by striking the item relating to section 218 and
inserting the following:
``Sec. 218. H-2A employer applications.
``Sec. 218A. H-2A employment requirements.
``Sec. 218B. Procedure for admission and extension of stay of H-2A
workers.
``Sec. 218C. Worker protections and labor standards enforcement.
``Sec. 218D. Definitions.''.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. DETERMINATION AND USE OF USER FEES.
(a) Schedule of Fees.--The Secretary shall establish and
periodically adjust a schedule of fees for the employment of
aliens pursuant to the amendment made by section 201(a) of
this Act and a collection process for such fees from
employers. Such fees shall be the only fees chargeable to
employers for services provided under such amendment.
(b) Determination of Schedule.--
(1) In general.--The schedule under subsection (a) shall
reflect a fee rate based on the number of job opportunities
indicated in the employer's application under section 218 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by section
201 of this Act, and sufficient to provide for the direct
costs of providing services related to an employer's
authorization to employ aliens pursuant to the amendment made
by section 201(a) of this Act, to include the certification
of eligible employers, the issuance of documentation, and the
admission of eligible aliens.
(2) Procedure.--
(A) In general.--In establishing and adjusting such a
schedule, the Secretary shall comply with Federal cost
accounting and fee setting standards.
(B) Publication and comment.--The Secretary shall publish
in the Federal Register an initial fee schedule and
associated collection process and the cost data or estimates
upon which such fee schedule is based, and any subsequent
amendments thereto, pursuant to which public comment shall be
sought and a final rule issued.
(c) Use of Proceeds.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, all proceeds resulting from the payment of the fees
pursuant to the amendment made by section 201(a) of this Act
shall be available without further appropriation and shall
remain available without fiscal year limitation to reimburse
the Secretary, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of
Labor for the costs of carrying out sections 218 and 218B of
the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended and added,
respectively, by section 201 of this Act, and the provisions
of this Act.
SEC. 302. REGULATIONS.
(a) Requirement for the Secretary to Consult.--The
Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Agriculture during the promulgation of all
regulations to implement the duties of the Secretary under
this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
(b) Requirement for the Secretary of State to Consult.--The
Secretary of State shall consult with the Secretary, the
Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Agriculture on all
regulations to implement the duties of the Secretary of State
under this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
(c) Requirement for the Secretary of Labor to Consult.--The
Secretary of Labor shall consult with the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary on all regulations to implement
the duties of the Secretary of Labor under this Act and the
amendments made by this Act.
(d) Deadline for Issuance of Regulations.--All regulations
to implement the duties of the Secretary, the Secretary of
State, and the Secretary of Labor created under sections 218,
218A, 218B, 218C, and 218D of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, as amended or added by section 201 of this Act, shall
take effect on the effective date of section 201 and shall be
issued not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 303. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) Annual Report.--Not later than September 30 of each
year, the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress that
identifies, for the previous year--
(1) the number of job opportunities approved for employment
of aliens admitted under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)), and the number of workers actually
admitted, disaggregated by State and by occupation;
(2) the number of such aliens reported to have abandoned
employment pursuant to subsection 218B(e)(2) of such Act;
(3) the number of such aliens who departed the United
States within the period specified in subsection 218B(d) of
such Act;
(4) the number of aliens who applied for adjustment of
status pursuant to section 101(a);
(5) the number of such aliens whose status was adjusted
under section 101(a);
(6) the number of aliens who applied for permanent
residence pursuant to section 103(c); and
(7) the number of such aliens who were approved for
permanent residence pursuant section 103(c).
(b) Implementation Report.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
prepare and submit to Congress a report that describes the
measures being taken and the progress made in implementing
this Act.
SEC. 304. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Except as otherwise provided, sections 201 and 301 shall
take effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the last Congress worked long and hard to
resolve one of the most contentious issues of our time: immigration. As
many of our colleagues know, while a number of border enforcement
measures were enacted, we did not complete all the critical elements of
a comprehensive strategy on immigration reform.
Today, I am joining with Senators Feinstein, Kennedy, Specter, Leahy,
Martinez, Voinovich, McCain, Hagel, Domenici, Boxer, Clinton, Obama,
Kohl, Salazar, Murray, and Schumer in reintroducing legislation to
address a very important piece of that unfinished business: the
establishment of a workable, secure, effective temporary worker program
to match willing foreign workers with jobs that Americans are unwilling
or unable to perform.
Our legislation is specific to U.S. agriculture, because this
economic sector, more than any other, has become dependent for its
existence on the labor of immigrants who are here without legal
documentation. The only program currently in place to respond to a lack
of legal domestic agricultural workers, the H-2A Guest Worker Program,
is profoundly broken. Outside of H-2A, farm employers have no
effective, reliable assurance that their employees are legal.
The bill we are reintroducing is called AgJOBS--the Agricultural Job
Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act. This bill was part of the
comprehensive immigration legislation passed last year by the Senate.
Today's version incorporates a few language changes that update, but do
not substantively amend, that measure.
We are reintroducing AgJOBS to fix the serious flaws that plague our
country's current agricultural labor system. Agriculture has unique
workforce needs because of the special nature of its products and
production, and our bill addresses those needs.
Our bill offers a thoughtful, thorough, two-step solution. On a one-
time basis, experienced, trusted workers with a significant work
history in American agriculture would be allowed to stay here legally
and earn adjustment to legal status. For workers and growers using the
H-2A legal guest worker program, that program would be overhauled and
made more streamlined, practical, and secure.
This legislation has been tested and examined for years in the Senate
and
[[Page 1727]]
House of Representatives, and it remains the best alternative for
resolving urgent problems in our agriculture that require immediate
attention. That is why AgJOBS has been endorsed by a historic, broad-
based coalition of more than 400 national, State, and local
organizations, including farmworkers, growers, the general business
community, Latino and immigration issue groups, taxpayer groups, other
public interest organizations, State directors of agriculture, and
religious groups.
We all want and need a stable, predictable, legal workforce in
American agriculture. Willing American workers deserve a system that
puts them first in line for available jobs with fair market wages. All
workers should receive decent treatment and protection of fundamental
legal rights. Consumers deserve a safe, stable, domestic food supply.
American citizens and taxpayers deserve secure borders and a government
that works.
AgJOBS would serve all these goals.
Last year, we saw millions of dollars' worth of produce rot in the
fields for lack of workers. We are beginning to hear talk of farms
moving out of the country, moving to the foreign workforce. All
Americans face the danger of losing more and more of our safe, domestic
food supply to imports.
Time is running out for American agriculture, farmworkers, and
consumers. What was a problem years ago is a crisis today and will be a
catastrophe if we do not act immediately. I urge my colleagues to
demonstrate their support for U.S. agriculture by cosponsoring the
Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act--AgJOBS 2007--
and by helping us pass this critical legislation as soon as possible.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senators
Feinstein and Craig and my other colleagues today as we re-introduce
the Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007.
I commend them and Representatives Howard Berman and Chris Cannon for
their bipartisan leadership and am pleased to be part to this landmark
legislation.
The bill reflects a far-reaching and welcome agreement between the
United Farm Workers and the agricultural industry, one of the most
difficult immigration challenges we face, and we in Congress should
make the most of this unique opportunity for progress.
America has a proud tradition as a nation of immigrants and a nation
of laws. But our current immigration laws have failed us on both
counts. Much of the Nation's economy today depends on the hard work and
the many contributions of immigrants. The agricultural industry would
grind to a halt without immigrant farm workers. Yet, the overwhelming
majority of these workers lack legal status, and thus can be easily
exploited by unscrupulous employers.
The Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act--
AgJOBS--is an opportunity to correct these long-festering problems. It
will give farm workers and their families the dignity and justice they
deserve, and it will give agricultural employees a legal workforce.
This compromise has broad support in Congress, and from business and
labor, civic and faith-based organizations, liberals and conservatives,
trade associations and immigrant rights groups.
The AgJOBS Act is a needed reform in our immigration laws, to reflect
current economic realities, address our security needs more
effectively, and do so in a way that respects America's immigrant
heritage. It provides a fair and reasonable way for undocumented
agricultural workers to earn legal status and also reforms the current
visa program, so that employers unable to find American workers can
hire needed foreign workers. Together they serve as the cornerstone for
comprehensive immigration reform of the agricultural sector.
AgJOBS is good for labor and business. The Nation can no longer
ignore the fact that more than half of our agricultural workers are
undocumented. Growers need an immediate, reliable and legal workforce
at harvest time. Farm workers need legal status to improve their wages
and working conditions. Everyone is harmed when crops rot in the field
because of the lack of an adequate labor force.
The AgJOBS Act provides a fair and reasonable process for
undocumented agricultural workers to earn legal status. Undocumented
farm workers are clearly vulnerable to abuse by unscrupulous labor
contractors and growers, and their illegal status deprives them of
bargaining power and depresses the wages of all farm workers. Our bill
provides fair solutions for undocumented workers who have been toiling
in our fields, harvesting our fruits and vegetables.
The bill is not an amnesty. To earn the right to remain in this
country, workers would not only have to demonstrate past work
contributions to the U.S. economy, but also make a substantial future
work commitment. These workers will be able to come forward, identify
themselves, provide evidence that they have been employed in
agriculture, and continue to work hard and play by the rules.
The legislation will also modify the current temporary foreign
agricultural worker program, while preserving and enhancing key labor
protections. It strikes a fair balance and streamlines the H-2A
program's application process by reducing paperwork for employers and
accelerate processing. But individuals participating in the program
receive strong labor protections. Anything else would undermine the
jobs, wages and working conditions of U.S. workers.
This legislation would unify families. When temporary residence is
granted, the farm worker's spouse and minor children would be allowed
to remain legally in the U.S., but they would not be authorized to
work. When the worker becomes a permanent resident, the spouse and
minor children would also gain such status.
AgJOBS will also enhance national security and reduce illegal
immigration. AgJOBS will also reduce the chaotic, illegal, and all-too-
deadly flows of immigrants at our borders by providing safe and legal
avenues for farm workers and their families. Future temporary workers
will be carefully screened to meet security concerns. Enforcement
resources will be more effectively focused on the highest risks. By
bringing undocumented farm workers out of the shadows and require them
to pass thorough security checks, it will enable our officers to more
effectively train their sights on terrorists and criminals.
Last year, the Senate came together--Democrats and Republicans--to
pass farreaching immigration reform legislation, which included the
AgJOBS bill. The American people are calling on us to come together
again. They know there is a crisis and they want action now.
The President has been a leader on immigration reform, and I'm
hopeful that he will renew his efforts with members of his party, so
that we can enact comprehensive reform legislation, to end the
festering crisis once and for all. The House of Representatives is now
ready to be a genuine partner in this effort.
By heritage and history, America is a nation of immigrants. Our
legislation proposes necessary changes in the law while preserving this
tradition. This bill will ensure that immigrant farm workers can live
the American dream and contribute to our prosperity, our security, and
our values and I hope very much that it can be enacted quickly in this
new Congress.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 33--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE
UNITED STATES SHOULD EXPAND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE REPUBLIC OF
GEORGIA BY COMMENCING NEGOTIATIONS TO ENTER INTO A FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. LUGAR submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on Finance:
S. Res. 33
Whereas, in the November 2003 Rose Revolution, the people
of the Republic of Georgia
[[Page 1728]]
protested fraudulent elections in a non-violent manner and
demanded a fair election, resulting in a democratically
elected new government;
Whereas, based on commitments to maintain an open economy
and adhere to free trade principles including the reduction
and elimination of trade barriers, Georgia was granted
membership in the World Trade Organization on June 14, 2000;
Whereas, Georgia was found to have accorded its citizens
the right to emigrate, travel freely, and to return to their
country without restriction meeting the human rights criteria
consistent with the objectives of the Trade Act of 1974, and
based on these findings was granted permanent normal trade
relations through a waiver of Jackson-Vanik sanctions in
2000;
Whereas, in 1994, Georgia concluded a bilateral investment
treaty with the United States, its largest source of foreign
direct investment, in order to promote and facilitate non-
discriminatory, open and fair commercial policies;
Whereas, the United States is Georgia's largest trading
partner and the commercial relationship presents an
opportunity for American companies to expand and prosper;
Whereas, the Georgian government has made significant
efforts to promote regional cooperation and peaceful conflict
resolution;
Whereas Georgia has demonstrated a commitment to
responsible facilitation of the energy resources located
within the region;
Whereas, Georgia has taken important steps toward the
creation of democratic institutions and a free-market economy
and, as a participating state of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), is committed to
developing a system of governance in accordance with the
principles regarding human rights and humanitarian affairs
that are set forth in the Final Act of the Conference on
Security and Cooperation in Europe (also known as the
``Helsinki Final Act''); and
Whereas the United States is committed to aiding in
regional development, economic integration and supporting
democracy in the South Caucuses: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the
United States should expand its relationship with the
Republic of Georgia by commencing negotiations to enter into
a free trade agreement.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 34--CALLING FOR THE STRENGTHENING OF THE EFFORTS OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DEFEAT THE TALIBAN AND TERRORIST NETWORKS IN
AFGHANISTAN
Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Feingold) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:
S. Res. 34
Whereas global terrorist networks, including the al Qaeda
organization that attacked the United States on September 11,
2001, continue to threaten the security of the United States
and are recruiting new members and developing the capability
and plans to attack the United States and its allies
throughout the world;
Whereas a democratic, stable, and prosperous Afghanistan is
a vital security interest of the United States;
Whereas stability in Afghanistan is being threatened by
antigovernment and Taliban forces that seek to disrupt
political and economic developments throughout the country;
Whereas Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leaders
of al Qaeda, are still at large and are reportedly hiding
somewhere in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region;
Whereas, according to United States military intelligence
officials--
(1) Taliban attacks on United States, allied, and Afghan
forces increased from 1,558 in 2005 to 4,542 in 2006;
(2) suicide bomb attacks in Afghanistan increased from 27
in 2005 to 139 in 2006;
(3) roadside bomb attacks more than doubled from 783 in
2005 to 1,677 in 2006; and
(4) crossborder attacks from Pakistan into Afghanistan have
increased by 300 percent since September 2006;
Whereas, on September 2, 2006, the United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crime reported that in 2006 opium poppy cultivation
in Afghanistan increased 59 percent over 2005 levels and
reached a record high;
Whereas the President's current request for United States
economic assistance to Afghanistan for fiscal year 2007 is
approximately 33 percent of the amount appropriated for
fiscal year 2006;
Whereas only 50 percent of the money pledged by the
international community for Afghanistan between 2002 and 2005
has actually been delivered;
Whereas, on September 12, 2006, the Secretary of State
said, ``[A]n Afghanistan that does not complete its
democratic evolution and become a stable, terrorist-fighting
state is going to come back to haunt us. . . . [I]t will come
back to haunt our successors and their successors.'' and ``If
we should have learned anything, it is if you allow that kind
of vacuum, if you allow a failed state in that strategic a
location, you're going to pay for it.'';
Whereas the bipartisan Iraq Study Group Report concluded,
``If the Taliban were to control more of Afghanistan, it
could provide al Qaeda the political space to conduct
terrorist operations. This development would destabilize the
region and have national security implications for the United
States and other countries around the world.'';
Whereas the Iraq Study Group Report recommended that the
President provide additional political, economic, and
military support for Afghanistan, including resources that
might become available as combat forces are redeployed from
Iraq;
Whereas the Iraq Study Group Report specifically
recommended that the United States meet the request of
General James Jones, then United States North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO) commander, for more troops to combat the
resurgence of al Qaeda and Taliban forces in Afghanistan;
Whereas, on October 8, 2006, General David Richards, NATO's
top commander in Afghanistan, warned that a majority of
Afghans would likely switch their allegiance to resurgent
Taliban militants if their lives showed no visible
improvements in the next 6 months;
Whereas, on January 6, 2007, Army Brigadier General Anthony
J. Tata stated that the shortage of troops in Afghanistan
could create a ``strategic high risk, a strategic threat'' to
the United States and ``an operational threat'' to the
elected government of Hamid Karzai;
Whereas, on January 15, 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert
M. Gates stated that there were ``indications that the
Taliban were planning a large spring offensive'' against
United States troops and NATO forces;
Whereas, on January 16, 2007, Lieutenant General Karl
Eikenberry, the senior United States commander in
Afghanistan, asked to extend the deployment of a United
States battalion in Afghanistan that was scheduled to be
redeployed to Iraq;
Whereas, on January 17, 2007, General David Richards stated
that unmet pledges of troops and equipment from NATO
countries have left him 10 to 15 percent short of the forces
he requires, saying, ``Clearly, there is a need to fulfill
those commitments.'';
Whereas, on January 17, 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert
M. Gates stated that United States military commanders in
Afghanistan have requested additional United States troops
for Afghanistan, and stated that he was ``sympathetic'' to
this request;
Whereas the United States currently has approximately
21,000 troops in Afghanistan, approximately 1/7 of the number
of United States troops currently deployed to Iraq;
Whereas the President of the United States has announced
plans to send approximately 21,500 additional United States
troops to Iraq; and
Whereas if the United States does not strengthen efforts to
defeat the Taliban and to create long-term stability in
Afghanistan, Afghanistan will become what it was before the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, a haven for those who
seek to harm the United States and a source of instability
that threatens the security of the United States: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the United States must strengthen its commitment to
establishing long-term stability and peace in Afghanistan;
(2) the President should not reduce the total number of
United States troops serving in Afghanistan in order to
increase the total number of United States troops serving in
Iraq;
(3) the United States, in partnership with the
International Security Assistance Force and the Government of
Afghanistan, should immediately increase its efforts to
eradicate the Taliban, terrorist organizations, and criminal
networks currently operating in Afghanistan, including by
increasing United States military personnel as requested by
United States military commanders in Afghanistan;
(4) the United States, in support of the Government of
Afghanistan, should significantly increase the amount of
economic assistance available in Afghanistan for
reconstruction, social and economic development,
counternarcotics efforts, and democracy promotion activities;
and
(5) the United States should work aggressively to encourage
members of the international community to deliver on the
financial pledges they have made to support development and
reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 98. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for Mr. Ensign (for himself, Mr.
McCain, and Mr. DeMint)) proposed an amendment to amendment
SA 3 proposed by Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Obama, Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Durbin) to the bill S. 1, to
provide greater transparency in the legislative process.
SA 99. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Bennett)
proposed an amendment to amendment SA 3 proposed by Mr. Reid
(for
[[Page 1729]]
himself, Mr. McConnell, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Bennett, Mr.
Lieberman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Obama, Mr. Salazar, and Mr.
Durbin) to the bill S. 1, supra.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 98. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for Mr. Ensign (for himself, Mr. McCain, and
Mr. DeMint)) proposed an amendment to amendment SA 3 proposed by Mr.
Reid (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Bennett, Mr.
Lieberman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Obama, Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Durbin) to the
bill S. 1, to provide greater transparency in the legislative process;
as follows:
Strike page 3, line 9 through page 4, line 12 and insert
the following:
``(a) In General.--A point of order may be made by any
Senator against any item contained in a conference report
that includes or consists of any matter not committed to the
conferees by either House.
(1) For the purpose of this section ``matter not committed
to the conferees by either House'' shall include any item
which consists of a specific provision containing a specific
level of funding for any specific account, specific program,
specific project, or specific activity, when no such specific
funding was provided for such specific account, specific
program, specific project, or specific activity in the
measure originally committed to the conferees by either
House.
(2) For the purpose of Rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of
the Senate ``matter not committed'' shall include any item
which consists of a specific provision containing a specific
level of funding for any specific account, specific program,
specific project, or specific activity, when no such specific
funding was provided for such specific account, specific
program, specific project, or specific activity in the
measure originally committed to the conferees by either
House.
The point of order may be made and disposed of separately for
each item in violation of this section.
(b) Disposition.--If the point of order raised against an
item in a conference report under subsection (a) is
sustained, then--
(1) the matter in such conference report shall be stricken;
(2) when all other points of order under this section have
been disposed of--
(A) the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of
whether the Senate should recede from its amendment to the
House bill, or its disagreement to the amendment of the
House, and concur with a further amendment, which further
amendment shall consist of only that portion of the
conference report that has not been stricken (any
modification of total amounts appropriated necessary to
reflect the deletion of the matter struck from the conference
report shall be made).
______
SA 99. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Bennett) proposed an
amendment to amendment SA 3 proposed by Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr.
McConnell, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Obama Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Durbin) to the bill S. 1, to provide greater
transparency in the legistative process; as follows:
On page 4, strike lines 16 through 19.
On page 13, lines 1 and 2, strike ``the Select Committee on
Ethics and''.
On page 15, strike beginning with line 22 through page 16,
line 21, and insert the following:
(a) In General.--Section 207(j)(1) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended, by--
(1) striking ``The restrictions'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--The restrictions''; and
(2) adding at the end the following:
``(B) Indian tribes.--The restrictions contained in this
section shall not apply to acts done pursuant to section 104
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450i).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 104(j) of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450i(j)) is amended by striking ``and former officers and
employees of the United States employed by Indian tribes may
act as agents or attorneys for or'' and inserting ``or former
officers and employees of the United States who are carrying
out official duties as employees or as elected or appointed
officials of an Indian tribe may communicate with and''.
On page 24, strike lines 11 through 20 and insert the
following:
(A) by striking the first sentence and inserting the
following: ``Not later than 20 days after the end of the
quarterly period beginning on the 1st day of January, April,
July, and October of each year, or on the first business day
after the 20th day if that day is not a business day, in
which a registrant is registered with the Secretary of the
Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, a
registrant shall file a report or reports, as applicable, on
its lobbying activities during such quarterly period.''; and
On page 27, strike line 12 through ``day,'' on line 15 and
insert ``Not later than 20 days after the end of the end of
the quarterly period beginning on the 1st day of January,
April, July, and October of each year, or on the first
business day after the 20th day if that day is not a business
day,''.
On page 46, lines 12 and 13, strike ``over sight and
enforcement'' and insert ``administration''.
____________________
NOTICES OF HEARINGS/MEETINGS
committee on energy and natural resources
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has
been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 7, 2007, at 9:30 a.m.
in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The purpose of this hearing is to consider the President's Proposed
Budget for FY 2008 for the Department of Energy.
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 Jonathan Epstein at (202)
224-3031 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.
committee on energy and natural resources
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has
been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 15, 2007, at 9:30 a.m.
in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The purpose of this hearing is to consider the President's Proposed
Budget for FY 2008 for the Department of the Interior.
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 David Brooks at (202) 224-
0963 or Rachael Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on armed services
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, January 18, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in closed session
to receive a briefing on intelligence assessments on the situation in
Iraq.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on January 18, 2007, at 10 a.m., to vote on
committee organizational matters for the 110th Congress; immediately
following the executive session the committee will meet to conduct a
hearing on ``Examining the State of Transit Security.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on commerce, science, and transportation
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a
hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 18, 2007,
at 10 a.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.
The purpose of the hearing is to conduct oversight on Federal efforts
to improve rail and surface transportation security.
[[Page 1730]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on energy and natural resources
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during
the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 18, 2007, at 9:30 a.m.
in room SD-G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on
issues relating to oil and gas royalty management at the Department of
the Interior.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on foreign relations
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, January 18, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on
Iraq.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on indian affairs
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, January 18, 2007,
at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct
a business meeting to organize for the 110th Congress by electing the
Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee and to adopt the rules of
the Committee and any other organizational business the Committee needs
to consider.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on the judiciary
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on
``Department of Justice Oversight'' on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at
9:30 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 106.
PANEL I: The Honorable Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the
United States, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on small business and entrepreneurship
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate for an organizational hearing, on Thursday,
January 18, 2007, beginning at 9 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell
Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
select committee on intelligence
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on January 18, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
DESIGNATING SENATORS AS MEMBERS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair announces, on behalf of the
Committee on Finance, pursuant to section 8002 of title 26, U.S. Code,
the designation of the following Senators as members of the Joint
Committee on Taxation: the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus; the
Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller; the Senator from North
Dakota, Mr. Conrad; the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley; the Senator
from Utah, Mr. Hatch.
____________________
ORDER FOR STAR PRINT--S. 108
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 108, the
Psychologists in the Service of the Public Act of 2007, be star printed
with the changes at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--H.R. 6
Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my understanding that H.R. 6 has
been received from the House and is at the desk, and I ask for its
first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The clerk will state the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 6) to reduce our Nation's dependency on
foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable and alternative
energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies,
developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic
Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in
alternative energy, and for other purposes.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I object to the second reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
____________________
ORDERS FOR MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2007
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 1
p.m. Monday, January 22; that on Monday, following the prayer and the
pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning
hour be deemed to have expired, and time for the two leaders be
reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of
morning business until 2 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein
for up to 10 minutes each; that at 2 p.m. the Senate begin
consideration of H.R. 2, the minimum wage increase bill, as provided
for under a previous agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. REID. Madam President, I have already announced that there will
be no rollcall votes on Monday or tomorrow. Of course, we are not going
to be in session tomorrow.
Tuesday, I expect that we will vote prior to the recess for the
caucus luncheons.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2007, AT 1 P.M.
Mr. REID. Madam President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand
adjourned under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 9:35 p.m., adjourned until
Monday, January 22, 2007, at 1 p.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate January 18, 2007:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
MARIO MANCUSO, OF NEW YORK, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR EXPORT ADMINISTRATION, VICE DAVID H. MCCORMICK.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
WILLIAM B. WOOD, OF NEW YORK, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE SENIOR
FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE
AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF AFGHANISTAN.
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
PAUL J. BONICELLI, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT, VICE ADOLFO A. FRANCO.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PATRICK P. SHEN, OF MARYLAND, TO BE SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR
IMMIGRATION-RELATED UNFAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES FOR A TERM OF
FOUR YEARS, VICE WILLIAM SANCHEZ, RESIGNED.
IN THE AIR FORCE
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be major general
BRIG. GEN. THOMAS W. TRAVIS, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be brigadier general
COL. DAVID H. CYR, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be brigadier general
COL. DOUGLAS J. ROBB, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE
OF THE AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be major general
BRIGADIER GENERAL FRANK J. CASSERINO, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL STEPHEN P. GROSS, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL CLAY T. MCCUTCHAN, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL FRANK J. PADILLA, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL LOREN S. PERLSTEIN, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL JACK W. RAMSAUR II, 0000
[[Page 1731]]
BRIGADIER GENERAL BRADLEY C. YOUNG, 0000
To be brigadier general
COLONEL FRANK E. ANDERSON, 0000
COLONEL PATRICK A. CORD, 0000
COLONEL CRAIG N. GOURLEY, 0000
COLONEL DONALD C. RALPH, 0000
COLONEL WILLIAM F. SCHAUFFERT, 0000
COLONEL JACK K. SEWELL, JR., 0000
COLONEL RICHARD A. SHOOK, JR., 0000
COLONEL LANCE D. UNDHJEM, 0000
COLONEL JOHN T. WINTERS, JR., 0000
IN THE MARINE CORPS
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES MARINE CORPS TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be major general
BRIG. GEN. JOHN R. ALLEN, 0000
BRIG. GEN. THOMAS L. CONANT, 0000
BRIG. GEN. JOHN F. KELLY, 0000
BRIG. GEN. FRANK A. PANTER, JR., 0000
BRIG. GEN. MASTIN M. ROBESON, 0000
BRIG. GEN. TERRY G. ROBLING, 0000
BRIG. GEN. ROBERT E. SCHMIDLE, JR., 0000
BRIG. GEN. RICHARD T. TRYON, 0000
BRIG. GEN. THOMAS D. WALDHAUSER, 0000
IN THE AIR FORCE
THE FOLLOWING NAMED INDIVIDUALS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE
GRADES INDICATED IN THE REGULAR AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 531(A):
To be lieutenant colonel
MICHAEL D. JACOBSON, 0000
To be major
LUIS BERMUDEZRODRIGUEZ, 0000
JUANITA HEIMRICH, 0000
ADLI J. KARADSHEH, 0000
DAVID B. ROBERTS, 0000
TERRILL L. TOPS, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED INDIVIDUALS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE
GRADES INDICATED IN THE REGULAR AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 531(A):
To be lieutenant colonel
STUART C. CALLE, 0000
KEVIN T. FITZPATRICK, 0000
MITCHELL A. LUCHANSKY, 0000
CLAYTON H. NASH, 0000
RAFAEL PEREZGUERRA, 0000
DAVID B. TRANT, 0000
To be major
MICHAEL J. DEGUZMAN, 0000
RAVINDRA H. GOEL, 0000
TODD E. JOHNSON, 0000
ARIBETH C. MARLYNE, 0000
EDWIN O. RODRIGUEZPAGAN, 0000
IN THE ARMY
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY MEDICAL CORPS UNDER TITLE
10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 624 AND 3064:
To be colonel
ERIC D. ADAMS, 0000
ALFONSO S. ALARCON, 0000
JON C. ALLISON, 0000
ROCCO A. ARMONDA, 0000
PETER J. ARMSTRONG, 0000
RICANTHONY R. ASHLEY, 0000
DAVID W. BARBER, 0000
SCOTT D. BARNES, 0000
PAUL L. BENFANTI, 0000
PETER J. BENSON, 0000
STEPHEN A. BERNSTEIN, 0000
ROMAN O. BILYNSKY, 0000
LORNE H. BLACKBOURNE, 0000
YONG C. BRADLEY, 0000
DAVID A. BROWN, 0000
ROBERT N. BRUCE, 0000
CHESTER C. BUCKENMAIER III, 0000
ROBERT B. CARROLL, 0000
ELLEN M. CHUNG, 0000
ROBERT M. CRAIG, 0000
MARC L. DAYMUDE, 0000
DAVID A. DELLAGIUSTINA, 0000
PAUL DUCH, 0000
KIRK W. EGGLESTON, 0000
MICHAEL D. EISENHAUER, 0000
RICHARD W. ELLISON, 0000
ROBERT W. ENQUIST, 0000
ALEC T. EROR, 0000
JOHN H. FARLEY, 0000
DENNIS L. FEBINGER, 0000
HERBERT P. FECHTER, 0000
JOHN H. GARR, 0000
JAMIE B. GRIMES, 0000
KIRBY R. GROSS, 0000
KARLA K. HANSEN, 0000
WILLIAM C. HEWITSON, 0000
ANTHONY J. JOHNSON, 0000
JEFFREY J. JOHNSON, 0000
REBECCA A. KELLER, 0000
KIMBERLY L. KESLING, 0000
MAUREEN K. KOOPS, 0000
MARK E. LANDAU, 0000
JAMES R. LIFFRIG, 0000
JAMES M. LUCHETTI, 0000
KURT L. MAGGIO, 0000
LIEM T. MANSFIELD, 0000
AIZENHAWAR J. MARROGI, 0000
SHERMAN A. MCCALL, 0000
CRAIG T. MEARS, 0000
JENNIFER S. MENETREZ, 0000
KEVIN P. MICHAELS, 0000
RON L. MOODY, 0000
ROBERT L. MOTT, JR., 0000
MICHAEL R. NELSON, 0000
FRANK J. NEWTON, 0000
DAVID W. NIEBUHR, 0000
KAREN K. OBRIEN, 0000
JAMES D. OLIVER III, 0000
JULIE A. PAVLIN, 0000
SAMUEL E. PAYNE, 0000
ROBERT T. PERO, 0000
ELLEN M. PINHOLT, 0000
ALBERT V. PORAMBO, 0000
ROBERT T. RUIZ, 0000
ROBERT M. RUSH, JR., 0000
JOHN S. SCOTT, 0000
DAVID W. SEES, 0000
JAMES F. SHIKLE, 0000
JOSEPH A. SHROUT, 0000
STEPHEN V. SILVEY, 0000
ROBERT A. SMITH, 0000
GEORGE B. STACKHOUSE, 0000
JAMES J. STAUDENMEIER, 0000
MICHAEL R. STJEAN, 0000
MARK F. TORRES, 0000
GREGORY M. WINN, 0000
THOMAS W. WISENBAUGH, 0000
DAVID S. ZUMBRO, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY DENTAL CORPS UNDER TITLE
10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 624 AND 3064:
To be colonel
JEFFREY S. ALMONY, 0000
ROBIN T. BRUNO, 0000
JAMES J. CLOSMANN, 0000
CAMERON W. COLE, 0000
PAUL L. COREN, 0000
JACK M. COZBY, JR., 0000
JOSEPH L. CRAVER, 0000
ALEXANDER K. DEITCH, 0000
KENNETH N. DUNN, 0000
NANCY K. ELLISTON, 0000
CHRIS EVANOV, 0000
ROBERT C. GERLACH, 0000
TAMER GOKSEL, 0000
CHARLES L. HATLEY, JR., 0000
MICHAEL L. HEMKER, 0000
GEORGE J. HOLZER, JR., 0000
JAMES P. HOUSTON, 0000
DAVID M. JEFFALONE, JR., 0000
STEPHEN M. KEESEE, 0000
BLAINE L. KNOX, 0000
JAMES R. MACHOLL, 0000
JOHN T. MARLEY, 0000
SCOTT A. MATZENBACHER, 0000
EDWYNNA H. MILLER, 0000
RICKEY A. MORLEN, 0000
DAVID A. MOTT, 0000
CHERYL M. RILEY, 0000
CHARLES A. SABADELL, 0000
CUMMINGS J. SANTIAGO, 0000
STEPHANIE J. SIDOW, 0000
MARK B. SWEET, 0000
KHA N. VO, 0000
PRESTON Q. WELCH, 0000
DANIEL A. ZELESKI, 0000
[[Page 1732]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
TRIBUTE TO EDWARD GOTTSCHLING
______
HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, it is with great honor and pleasure
that I stand before you today to honor one of northwest Indiana's most
dedicated, distinguished, and honorable citizens. I have known Edward
Gottschling for many years, and he is one of the most active and
involved citizens I have ever known, especially when it comes to his
service to the community. For many years, Ed has been a constant
fixture in the Portage, Indiana Democratic Party and in northwest
Indiana. Today, Ed is celebrating a milestone, his 80th birthday. In
his honor, a celebration will be taking place on Saturday, January 20,
2007, at the Portage Yacht Club in Portage, Indiana.
Edward Gottschling was born on January 18, 1927, at his home in Gary,
Indiana. As a young boy, Ed attended grammar school at Saint John's
Lutheran School in the Tolleston neighborhood of Gary. Following his
graduation from Tolleston High School in 1944, where he had been a
standout pitcher and 4-year letter winner on the school's baseball
team, Ed decided to pursue a career with the railroad. Ed began his
career as a machinist helper at Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern (EJ&E)
Railroad. However, in 1945, on his 18th birthday, Ed felt the need to
serve his country and enlisted in the United States Coast Guard.
Undoubtedly, this life-changing decision to serve became the first step
in a lifetime of dedicated service to his community. Following training
in New York and Miami, Ed was stationed in the San Francisco area,
where he served as a seaman aboard the Grand Fork and the Key West.
Ed's service ended in May 1946 when the Navy decided to make a
reduction in the number of servicemen in the Coast Guard.
Upon his discharge from the service, Ed returned to work at EJ&E as
an electrical apprentice. In 1954, having decided to further his
education, Ed completed his courses and received his degree in
electrical technology from Purdue University-Calumet in Hammond,
Indiana. Prior to doing so, Ed made a decision to leave EJ&E for a new
position with Illinois Bell Telephone, the company for which he would
work for the next 32 years. For several years, Ed held various
positions, both indoor and outdoor, with Illinois Bell. Then, in 1959,
Ed was transferred to their office in downtown Chicago, where he took
on supervisory responsibilities for the company. Though Ed has many
fond memories from his years at Illinois Bell, he is particularly fond
of being called on to assist with the communication needs for three
presidential visits to Chicago, which included visits from former
Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Lyndon Johnson. As if his
career were not already impressive enough, Ed was eventually promoted
to several other positions, including the Great Lakes Regional
Communication Coordinator for the Federal Aviation Administration.
Though Ed retired from Illinois Bell in 1985, it is his lifetime of
service to his community that is so astonishing. Since moving his
family from Gary to Portage in 1967, Ed has always been an integral
part of the Portage community. Ed has served as Portage Police
Commissioner and a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and he
has also served as the Portage area campaign coordinator for a United
States Congressional race. Ed's interest in politics and government did
not end there, as he has served as a precinct committeeman for the past
14 years and city councilman for the past 12 years, the last 8 of which
he has served as council president.
In addition to city government, Ed has also been a very active member
of many service clubs and organizations, as well as an active member of
his church. He is an active member and past president of the Portage
AARP chapter and a member and past commander of the Tolleston VFW post.
A member of the VFW for many years, Ed has even held the distinguished
post of district commander. Ed is also a lifetime member of the Portage
American Legion and Gary Sportsmen's Club and an active member of the
Portage Democratic Club. Since the age of 16, Ed has also been a member
of the Saxon Lodge, where he has held numerous posts, including club
president. As if his commitment to these organizations were not enough,
Ed has always dedicated himself to fighting for the needs of the
elderly and disabled, as evidenced by his membership with the Porter
County Aging and Community Service Corporation and his service on the
State Legislative Committee for the AARP and the Governor's Commission
on Aging.
Though Ed has a special place in his heart for his community, his
greatest love has always been his family. Ed and his wife, Nina, who
passed away in 1994 after nearly 43 years of marriage, were the truest
example of a loving and committed marriage. The couple raised two very
successful children. Dan resides in Seattle, Washington with his wife,
Barb, and Laura resides in Crystal Lake, Illinois with her husband,
Robert, and children, Mitchell and Stuart. Though he has committed
himself to serving his community, Ed's devotion to his family is
equally impressive.
Madam Speaker, Edward Gottschling has given his time and efforts
selflessly to the people of Portage, Indiana throughout his many years
of service. At this time, I ask that you and all of my distinguished
colleagues join me in commending him for his lifetime of service and
dedication to his community. Also, I ask that you join me in wishing
him a very happy 80th birthday.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO WILLIAM ``BILL'' FERGUSON
______
HON. KENDRICK B. MEEK
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, today I rise in sadness over the
passing of William ``Bill'' Ferguson, who suffered a fatal car accident
in Miami-Dade County last week. He was a wonderful person, highly
educated, and highly motivated and his passing is a great loss for our
community.
His family and friends will memorialize him at a ``going home''
celebration to be held this Friday, January 19, 2007 at the historic
Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Overtown. Mr. Ferguson was a
brilliant attorney and counselor, and he was a consummate community
activist.
Bill Ferguson's work with Ms. Georgia Ayers's Alternative Program has
helped hundreds of men and women become responsible citizens of our
community. His work gave hope and courage to countless folks who had
been marginalized by their experiences with crime and prison. Some may
have given up on them, but Mr. Ferguson's knowledge of the law and his
commitment to working with all individuals irrespective of past
transgressions made all the difference in countless lives. At work, he
was a real marvel to witness.
He was born in November 6, 1946, to James Ferguson and Pauline
Holland Ferguson. Having served his country with integrity in the U.S.
Navy, he obtained his bachelor's degree in political science at Indiana
State University in 1978. He went on to get his law degree from Texas
Southern University's Thurgood Marshall School of Law in 1982 in
Houston, TX. Not satisfied with his master's degree in law, he pursued
another master's degree in counseling from Indiana State University,
his alma mater.
He moved to Miami in 1985 where he met Ms. Georgia Ayers, who
introduced him to her innovative and award-winning Alternative Program.
In his role as ``house attorney'' and psychologist-counselor, he went
above and beyond the call of duty to reach out to needy clients. The
collective testimony of praise and gratitude from people in our
community is testimony to the utmost respect that people had for Bill
Ferguson.
His character and his dedication to helping the less fortunate
members of our community defined his leadership. His word was his bond
to those who dealt with him--not only in moments of triumphal
exuberance in helping many a wayward youth, but also in his quest to
transform their lives by the simple rules of good conduct and
responsible citizenship.
As we honor William ``Bill'' Ferguson, I will fondly remember this
good man. Our pride in sharing his friendship is only exceeded by our
[[Page 1733]]
deep gratitude for all that he has given to our community.
____________________
MOURNING THE LOSS OF THOMAS G. LYONS
______
HON. RAHM EMANUEL
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of my
friend Tom Lyons, and I offer my deepest condolences to his family
after his passing at the age of 75. Tom was a dedicated public servant
who touched many lives and consistently rose to any challenge that came
his way.
Thomas G. Lyons was born in Chicago in 1931, and he served his
country honorably throughout his life. As a student at Loyola
University of Chicago's School of Law, Mr. Lyons enlisted in the Army,
where he rose to the rank of Captain in the Army Rangers, garnering
recognition for his leadership and spirit.
Mr. Lyons took his lessons from Law School and the Army to his
service as a litigator for the Cook County Assessor's Office, and later
for the Illinois Attorney General's Office.
In 1964, Mr. Lyons successfully ran for a seat in the Illinois State
Senate, where he would ascend to the Chairmanship of the State Senate
Appropriations Committee.
In 1990, Mr. Lyons was elected to the Chairmanship of the Cook County
Democratic Party, where he was its proud steward and a strong presence
for seventeen years until his passing. During this period, Tom served
with devotion and humility, always willing to lend a hand to any
candidate, regardless of the scope or influence of the particular
office.
In 1994, Tom was the recipient of an executive appointment by
President Clinton to the American Battle Monuments Commission, in
recognition of his years of service to our Nation and our military.
For over 40 years, Mr. Lyons dedicated his life to our Nation with
steadfast dedication, humility, and geniality. In his home of Cook
County, Tom's legacy of leadership will remain for years to come. Mr.
Lyons is succeeded by his wife, Ruth, his three children, Alexandra,
Rachel, and Thomas, and his eight grand-children. I extend my deepest
condolences and gratitude to the family of Mr. Lyons. We will miss him.
____________________
ESSAY BY MR. ANDREW O'ROUKE
______
HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to
congratulate Mr. Andrew O'Rourke for his articulate essay on the impact
of the recent mid-term elections on the current U.S. policy in Iraq.
Andrew is a 20-year-old sophomore at the University of Marquette, where
his studies have focused on communications, business, and political
science courses. His hard work in school has resulted in good grades,
and he plans on attending law school after gradation. I am truly
impressed by his insights, as well as the quality of his work.
Andrew's essay encapsulates much of the frustration with America's
direction that has been felt by my constituents in the First District
of Indiana. His essay also expresses the desire for positive change in
America. Andrew compels his readers to think hard about what this
country means to them. He writes of the pitfalls of shortsightedness in
foreign policy, as well as the importance of protecting our civil
liberties here at home. Finally, he calls on the need for
bipartisanship in order to form a strong-willed consensus for the road
ahead.
Madam Speaker, Andrew O'Rourke is an example of the great potential
exhibited by the young people of northwest Indiana. Below, you will
find the text of his essay, which I would like to have included in the
Congressional Record. At this time, I ask that you and all of my
distinguished colleagues join me in commending Andrew O'Rourke for his
well-written essay. I wish him continued success in all his endeavors.
While Democrats are better equipped now to make some
difference in President Bush's foreign policy, no force will
be able to influence the President more than a united
Republican thrust in favor of U.S. troop withdrawal.
President Bush has proved rather stubborn on the subject of
his foreign policy, specifically the aspects of said policy
pertaining to Iraq and well, the entire Middle East in
general. Despite the sweeping restructuring of the House and
Senate during the mid-term elections, President Bush appears
still to have no intent on altering the current policy in
Iraq. An excerpt from a recent New York Times editorial
summarizes my argument quite well. The like-minded author of
this article believes that the President, ``for all of his
professed pipe dreams about democracy in the Middle East,
refuses to surrender to democracy's verdict at home.''
It seems an indictment of our system, supposedly the best
in the world, that a mid-term election could serve the
umbrella purpose of a referendum on one specifically
controversial and pivotal policy, only to have the said
election results have absolutely no effect on the policy.
That does not fit the definition of representative democracy
I was raised to believe in since grade school. Elected
officials do not possess the right to represent the people
when and if they chose, as though they know best. We do not
live under a benevolent dictator, where the power of decision
is placed in the hands of a ruler whom we must trust to make
a conclusion we are otherwise deemed incapable of making
ourselves. Nor do we live in a country where the wealthy
elite enjoy all of the authority, sending young men and women
of the poor and middle classes off to become maimed Purple
Heart veterans and dead Medal of Honor heroes, fighting in an
utterly fruitless quagmire of a war. Especially of late
however, the aforementioned possibilities seem likely
explanations for the current shameful, stubborn, and
painfully simplistic foreign policy utilized by our great
nation, with its outrageously gigantic economy,
technologically superior mechanized army, and not to forget,
insatiable thirst for pure, unadulterated, according-to-hoyle
victory. Although many would love to believe such a naive,
black-and-white definition of victory, sadly like most things
in this world it is not that simple. Victory is a word that,
for every conceivable variable, from the largest, most holy
mosque destroyed by American artillery fire to the youngest
Iraqi girl whose parents were brutally murdered by either a
Sunni or Shiite deathsquad, has numerous definitions. You
cannot limit yourself to one characterization of what victory
is, for that is a direct route to complete failure and
disappointment, as we see everyday on CNN, when we are told
the story of another Joe Everyman 21-year-old private-first
class from anywhere USA who was killed on a humvee patrol
mission aimed at securing the other ninety-five percent of
Iraq not secured over three years ago when we triumphantly
declared mission accomplished, and were immediately showered
with flowers by the Iraqi people. And to those within this
country who believe that to withdraw will be a crushing blow
against American pride and standing in the world, expound
such blind patriotism when it is your son or daughter walking
the streets of Baghdad with no idea whether the next street
corner will be populated by a nearly invisible IED, exactly
like those that have crippled so many young, promise-filled
Americans, or one of the many deceivingly well-hidden snipers
who make steady sport of firing potshots from a spire outside
of an untouchably holy Mosque, hitting our young men and
women when they least expect it. It is for these American
heroes that I, along with most Americans must hope President
Bush's current policy is a success.
Because I know in my heart of hearts that this
administration is too prideful to consider taking a hint from
the American people, or the 9/11 Commission, or the Iraq
Study Group, I am forced to cheer for any alternative to the
current policy of ``stay the course'' while simultaneously
hoping that the abovementioned ``course staying'' rises like
the Phoenix from the ashes and succeeds. If Mr. Bush's
strategy is a success, which it appears as though, barring
some unforeseen circumstance, it most definitely will not be,
it will be a victory for the American fighting man and woman,
because until the next pre-emptive war, they will be safe.
But will the next be somewhere in Asia, Northern Africa, or
most likely the Middle East yet again? Iran and Syria both
seem hell bent on becoming America's Tour of the Arab World
stops two and three.
Most likely it will take Republican pressure and lots of it
to revise in any way the single-minded policy of this
administration. Nevertheless, it is a heartrending day for
democracy when the resounding message of the American people
is deemed secondary to the egocentric and stubborn strategy
of a few white men (and black woman) who call a giant, white,
house on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC, their office.
To reiterate an earlier point, the leaders of this nation
are not free to choose what is in our best interest, when we
the people have clearly and resoundingly spoken against the
current ideals and strategies. The current policy quite
simply costs too many Americans and Iraqis their lives
without a foreseeable goal or proverbial light at the end of
the tunnel. Rather, they have a solemn obligation to
represent the views of the people of this country. But who
knows? Maybe a benevolent dictator would make things a whole
lot easier for most people in this country. Who likes freedom
anyways?
[[Page 1734]]
____________________
TRIBUTE TO GIFFORD CARL RAMSEY
______
HON. KENDRICK B. MEEK
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
the late Gifford Carl Ramsey, a fellow trooper and colleague in the
Florida Highway Patrol. He died on January 10, 2007--a victim of
cancer--and will be buried this Saturday, January 20, 2007, at Glendale
Baptist Church in Miami-Dade County's Richmond Heights community.
Born on January 16, 1959, to Gifford and Agatha Ramsey, he was
affectionately called ``Spanky'' by those of his closest friends and
teammates, who played on the football team at Florida A&M University.
Awarded a full athletic scholarship, he led the Rattlers on the
gridiron by winning two consecutive national football titles in 1977
and 1978, and was honored as Division I-AA and Black College All-
American.
Ever since I have known Trooper Ramsey as a member of the Florida
Highway Patrol's 66th Recruit Class of 1982, he eminently served above
and beyond the call of duty until his promotion to Sergeant in July
2006. He also volunteered as chaplain of the National Black State
Trooper's Coalition and became the vice president of the Florida
Coalition of Black State Troopers.
Responding to an inner calling of consecrating his life to the
service of God, he affirmed his vocation by accepting Jesus Christ as
his personal Savior in 1988 and joined the congregation of Glendale
Missionary Baptist Church under the tutelage of the late Reverend
Joseph Coats, Sr. On January 20, 1993, he met his future wife, Lisa
Smith of Philadelphia, PA, and married her a year later on July 9,
1994. Two children, Jarrett and Jayla, were born out of this happy
union. Thereupon, he and his wife became partners in God's Vineyard,
and in 2001, Trooper Gifford ``Spanky'' Ramsey was ordained a Deacon of
Glendale Baptist Church.
Blessed with an unenviable commonsense approach to life, he was also
imbued with the rare wisdom of recognizing the strengths and
limitations of the members of his congregation and those he served.
Trooper Ramsey went about the duties of his profession, and he also
became a missionary at home and abroad, serving a short-term tenure in
Cape Town, South Africa.
Trooper and Deacon Ramsey was my good friend, and I am deeply
saddened by his passing. He was my mentor ever since I became a trooper
in the Florida Highway Patrol in 1989. Indeed, he will be an indelible
reminder of the noble commitment of public service, and the awesome
power of his religious vocation to minister to the youth under the
aegis of programs such as the Juvenile Justice Center Read Aloud
Program, the Governor's Mentoring Initiative, Special Olympics
Fundraising Events, Child Passenger Safety Details in both Miami-Dade
and Monroe Counties. His faith was deep and genuine, and his love for
Glendale Baptist Church defined his dynamic friendship and
understanding. No one who knew Trooper ``Spanky''--and being struck by
his sunny disposition and optimism--went away not acknowledging the
presence of a caring community leader.
Like the God he faithfully served during the remaining years of his
life, this trooper and gentleman came and lived among us that we may
have life and have hope more abundantly. True to his faith, Reverend
Ramsey would urge us to believe that his death does not represent an
irrevocable finality, and he would assure us that he will live on in
the good deeds he left behind. Indeed, no life could be more revered
for having fulfilled his vocation as God's faithful steward. I will
cherish the wonderful memories I have of his magnificent friendship.
____________________
THE ANNIVERSARY OF ``BLACK JANUARY'' IN AZERBAIJAN
______
HON. VIRGINIA FOXX
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on January 20th, the people of Azerbaijan,
both at home and abroad, will commemorate the 17th anniversary of what
has become known as Black January. The terrible event remembered by
this commemoration was an atrocity--but it also gave birth to a hope
that led eventually to independence and freedom.
At around midnight, on the night of January 19-20, 1990, Azerbaijan
was invaded by 26,000 Soviet troops pursuant to a state of emergency
that had been declared in secret by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet
in Moscow. Dozens of people would be dead in the streets of Baku,
Azerbaijan's capital, before the Soviet authorities in Moscow ever even
deigned to acknowledge that a decision had been made to suppress the
pro-independence and pro-democracy movement in Azerbaijan.
A courageous resistance by Azerbaijanis to the Soviet invasion
continued into February. Eventually, 140 Azerbaijanis were killed,
about 700 more were wounded, and still hundreds more were rounded up
and detained indefinitely.
The Soviet attack against innocent civilians in Azerbaijan followed
massacres in other constituent republics in the then-Soviet Union,
including Kazakhstan in 1986 and Georgia in 1989. Tragically, the
Azerbaijani experience would be replicated in large part 1 year later
in Lithuania.
In a report issued shortly after the tragedy of Black January, Human
Rights Watch put the onrush of events into a larger perspective: ``. .
. the violence used by the Soviet Army on the night of January 19-20
was so out of proportion to the resistance offered by Azerbaijanis as
to constitute an exercise in collective punishment. The punishment
inflicted on Baku by Soviet soldiers may have been intended as a
warning to nationalists, not only in Azerbaijan, but in the other
Republics of the Soviet Union.''
But brute force was not enough to hold the Soviet Union together.
Indeed, Madam Speaker, the night of January 19-20, 1990 gave birth to
Azerbaijan's independence. It was on that night that Azerbaijanis lost
their fear of the Soviet Union. It was on that night that Azerbaijanis
realized their dream of independence and freedom could not, and would
not, be denied.
On August 30, 1991, in the wake of the attempted coup in the Soviet
Union, Azerbaijan declared its independence--one of the first
constituent republics to do so. And the last troops from the former
Soviet Union were finally removed from Azerbaijani soil in 1993.
Every January 20, as many thousands gather in Martyr's Cemetery in
the hills above Baku, the dead are honored and the nation's commitment
to independence, democracy, and freedom is renewed. The victims of
Black January did not die in vain.
____________________
HONORING TOM TEMIN
______
HON. TOM DAVIS
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr.
Tom Temin for over 17 years of service providing the Federal technology
community with unbiased, accurate, and timely information.
Through Mr. Temin's role as executive vice president and editor in
chief of Government Computer News, Washington Technology, Defense
Systems, Government Leader and other technology publications, he has
brought valuable insight and creative journalism to the Federal IT
arena.
Under Tom's guidance Government Computer News has become a premier IT
magazine providing objective and comprehensive rankings of the
usefulness and overall value of technology as it reaches the market.
Leaders in the executive branch, both Houses of Congress and the
broader technology community have come to consider the editorials he
has written for Government Computer News as shrewd and perceptive
analysis of the implications of IT trends.
The newspaper's fair and unyielding pursuit of issues showing the
flaws and faults in the Federal technology sector has prompted numerous
reforms that continue to conserve funds and improve performance for the
American taxpayers.
Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend and congratulate
Mr. Tom Temin on all of his accomplishments. His tireless efforts have
deeply impacted the public discussion of IT issues in the Federal
Government, truly meriting recognition. I call upon my colleagues to
join me in applauding Tom for his past accomplishments and in wishing
him continued success in the years to come.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO REPRESENTATIVE EDD NYE
______
HON. MIKE McINTYRE
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. McINTYRE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor North Carolina
Representative
[[Page 1735]]
Edd Nye and to thank him for more than 30 years of loyal public service
to the people of Southeastern North Carolina. Representative Nye began
his career in public service by joining the United States Air Force and
launched his political career in 1966 as a Bladen County Commissioner.
Mr. Nye served one term in the North Carolina State Senate before
moving on to the N.C. House of Representatives, where he would go on to
serve as a Representative for 30 years. As a loyal and dedicated North
Carolina lawmaker, Representative Nye received ``Legislator of the
Year'' awards from numerous advocacy groups, including the Autism
Society, the Easter Seals, the Health Directors' Association, and the
Mental Health Association. Such distinguished commitment and work are
true signs of his dedication to his constituents. Indeed,
Representative Nye is a role model for us all.
In addition to his political service, Mr. Nye is also an active
member of his community in Bladen County. He has taught Sunday School
and served as a deacon at the Elizabethtown Baptist Church. He is a
past moderator of the Bladen Baptist Association, a former trustee of
both Bladen Community College and Southeastern Mental Health, and an
active member of the Bladen Masonic Lodge. Madam Speaker, I commend Edd
Nye for his leadership, longevity, and love for the people of Bladen
County and North Carolina. He has performed his civic duty with grace,
and he has been ever mindful of the people he represents. May God's
strength, joy, and peace be with him always.
____________________
PEACE FOR THE MIDDLE EAST
______
HON. THELMA D. DRAKE
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mrs. DRAKE. Madam Speaker, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
recently announced that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would meet with her to
discuss how peace can finally be brought to the Middle East. I am
pleased to hear of this three-way meeting and believe a meaningful
resolution is long overdue.
Since the year 2000, Israel has demonstrated a willingness to act
unilaterally in the name of peace; only to have their enemies respond
with more acts of violence. In 2000, Israel withdrew its forces from
southern Lebanon, only to be followed by Hezbollah and its missiles. In
2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, only to be replaced by
the militant wing of the Hamas party. These are just two examples of
the terrorism the Israeli people have experienced over time.
Madam Speaker, there will be no peace in the Middle East so long as
these terrorist organizations insist on the destruction of Israel.
There will be no peace, until Hamas agrees to curtail acts of violence
and aggression and show that they are willing to work toward a two-
state solution.
More importantly, there will be no peace in the Middle East until the
world community speaks out against terrorism with one voice. And, when
a world leader sways from this commitment, we take one step back.
Madam Speaker, we took one step back from reaching peace in the
Middle East when former President Jimmy Carter published his book,
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. In his book, Mr. Carter puts the onus
for Middle East peace on Israel, stating that it is Israel who is
keeping peace from occurring in the Middle East. I strongly disagree
with this analysis.
I was recently contacted by one of my constituents in Virginia Beach
about this book. Rabbi Israel Zoberman, the founding rabbi and
spiritual leader of Congregation Beth Chaverim, wrote:
How disappointing that the distinguished author of
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Jimmy Carter, who served as
the 38th President of the United States, has written a book
that fails to promote the very goal of peace which he is no
doubt committed to. In fact, the title bluntly suggests along
with the very essence of the narrative that Israel's policy
vis-a-vis the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is the
core obstacle to the elusive peace. President Carter thus
fails as the honest broker he proudly was when sponsoring the
1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty.
The mere suggestion of practiced apartheid by Israel is
inflammatory enough in alluding to South Africa's overthrown
policy. Thus, the book's title with the word ``apartheid'' in
it and the cover's photo of the controversial security
barrier, which are surely designed for sales' purposes, are
irresponsible . . . To speak of Hezbollah and Hamas as if
they were representing freedom fighters only seeking to
remove Israel from the occupied territories is unfortunately
not so. The means employed by the terrorists disregard
civilian lives by using their own women and children as human
shields.
Madam Speaker, in August 2005, I had the privilege of visiting
Israel. It was truly a life-changing experience which helped put into
perspective the crisis facing this generation of Israelis. Every
generation is confronted with a moment of truth. We are at that moment
now. Our duty as responsible statesmen and world leaders is to promote
dialogue and action so that all families, whether they are Israeli or
Palestinian can live without fear.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO AUDREY C. RUST, PRESIDENT OF THE PENINSULA OPEN SPACE TRUST
______
HON. ANNA G. ESHOO
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Audrey C.
Rust, who is celebrating her 20th anniversary of leadership at the
Peninsula Open Space Trust, POST.
Ms. Rust is a graduate of the University of Connecticut, and prior to
joining the Peninsula Open Space Trust as its executive director in
1987, served as the director of development and membership for the
Sierra Club. She also directed West Coast capital giving programs for
Yale University and served in a variety of development capacities for
Stanford University. She has also served as a member of the board of
directors of the Land Trust Alliance and the League of Conservation
Voters in Washington, DC.
Under her leadership, POST has worked effectively through public-
private partnerships to acquire and protect over 50,000 acres of land
on the San Francisco peninsula. These lands have become parts of the
National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, California
State Parks, county and city parks, regional open space preserves and
private farmland. Ms. Rust's vision helped bring POST to the national
stage and on multiple occasions Congress has voted to support her
efforts by providing funds for public land purchases and the adoption
of POST lands into national areas of conservation. I am particularly
proud of our work together on the acquisition of the Phleger estate,
now part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and Bair Island,
now part of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
Ms. Rust's work on land conservation is nationally recognized. She
has received the League of California Voters Environmental Leadership
Award, the Times Mirror-Chevron National Conservationist of the Year
Award; the Cynthia Pratt Laughlin Medal, the Garden Club of America's
top environmental honor, and the Jacqueline Kennedy Award from John F.
Kennedy University.
There are few who embody the commitment to conservation and our
collective future as Ms. Rust does. In POST's most recent Annual
Report, Ms. Rust wrote:
Open space defines our sense of place on the Peninsula, and
it is worth saving, because it is where we as humans touch
mysteries that last long after we are gone. It is the best
gift we can pass down to those who follow us, because it
connects us to our past and our future, allowing us to share
a communal memory of what it's like to live in this
extraordinary place. By setting aside land for permanent
protection, we declare to the future, ``This is what we
value; this is what we deem precious.''
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to
Audrey Rust whose 20 years at POST have benefitted millions of
Americans and millions more to come. She is an exceptional leader, a
powerful voice for conservation, and a great American.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO CPO BRETT D. MYLES
______
HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWS
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, it is my honor today to announce that
Brett D. Myles has been promoted to the rank of Chief Petty Officer of
the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps. Family and friends of CPO
Myles will gather on the battleship New Jersey on Saturday, January 21,
to honor this outstanding young man.
In order to achieve this high rank, CPO Myles had to complete many
months of intensive training as well as a broad range of U.S. Navy
courses. Throughout his service, Chief Petty Officer Myles displayed
superior qualities of patriotism, leadership, and expertise. He should
be very proud of his achievement: Less than \1/2\ of 1% of the almost
10,000 Naval Sea
[[Page 1736]]
Cadets in the program succeed in attaining this rank.
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor CPO Myles for his
outstanding achievement. He is truly an inspiration to all U.S. Naval
Sea Cadets and to all citizens of this great Nation. I want to again
congratulate CPO Myles for this achievement and I wish him the best of
luck in the future.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO RICHARD S. WOODWARD
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and honor
a fellow Californian who has had a long and distinguished career as a
political consultant while setting extremely high standards of quality
and integrity. For more than 35 years, Richard S. Woodward has guided
his political consulting firm to a stunning 98 percent winning record
while taking on some of the toughest, seemingly impossible ballot
measure campaigns.
Two of America's great institutions helped prepare Mr. Woodward for
the future. The United States Marine Corps demanded toughness and a
steadfast approach. Graduating from Stanford University required a
sharp, agile and inquisitive mind that could apply varied pieces of
information to solving problems.
Mr. Woodward raced up the political ladder from legislative staffer
to political director. In 1971 he teamed with the dean of the
California state capitol press corps, the late Jack McDowell, to form a
new consulting firm. It wasn't long before Woodward & McDowell focused
solely on that most Californian of election efforts: the ballot measure
campaign. Mr. Woodward basically wrote the book on proposition
campaigns: Known for his strategic mind, Mr. Woodward has often led his
team to victory when early polls showed the other side started with the
sentiment of two-thirds or more of the voters. Even with the demands of
campaign after campaign, Mr. Woodward and his wife, Mary, have raised
two fine sons, Brendan and Ryan.
On February 20, the American Association of Political Consultants
will meet in Miami. One order of business will be to honor the former
president and chairman of the bipartisan organization, Richard S.
Woodward, with the lifetime achievement award.
Madam Speaker, please join me in commending Mr. Woodward for a job
well done and wishing him the best of luck and health as he continues
setting the standard.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO HENRY LeROY CLARKE
______
HON. GEORGE MILLER
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, with a heavy heart, I
rise to pay tribute to the life of former General Manager and founder
of the Public Employees Union, Local No. 1, Henry LeRoy Clarke who died
on January 4, 2007. For more than 38 years, Henry Clarke dedicated his
life to improving working conditions for thousands of public employees
in the Contra Costa County community. As General Manager, Mr. Clarke
was a strong advocate on behalf of union members, transforming the
political landscape from one that was highly adverse to organized labor
to one that promotes mutual respect between administration and
employees.
Henry Clark was born on March 10, 1923, in Denver, Colorado, to a
family of seven children. During the depression, Henry moved with his
family to Chico, California, to prosper in farming. He graduated from
Chico High as Student Body President, and soon after entered WWII to
serve in General George Patton's army in Europe. After the war, Henry
returned to Chico, where he was named All Western Conference Tackle
while playing for Chico State. He transferred to the University of
California, Berkeley in 1948 to play football under legendary coach
Lynn ``Pappy'' Waldorf and study labor, economics, and politics.
Although Henry was only a young student, he helped organize the food
service workers at Cal into one of the first unions in the U.C. system.
Upon graduating with honors from the University of California, Henry
became a history teacher in the Napa public schools where he met his
lovely wife Maureen. He only taught for 2 years before the school
district fired him for none other than trying to form a teachers'
union. From that moment on, Henry dedicated himself to the causes of
organizing labor. He became the first full-time executive secretary of
the California Federation of Teachers, and soon after the western
representative of the American Federation of Teachers. In this
position, Henry helped direct the largest collective bargaining
election of teachers in the United States during the New York City
teacher strikes of 1961 and 1962.
In 1962, Henry took on the job of General Manager for the Contra
Costa County Employees Association, a title he would hold for the next
38 years. In 1968, he founded the independent Public Employees Union,
Local No. 1, which many county employees joined in order to avoid a
passive international union. Henry formed the union based upon fierce
democratic principles, providing each member access and a voice in the
governance of the union. Under Henry's visionary leadership, Local No.
1 grew from 632 members into a model for controlled unions everywhere
achieving a current membership of over 15,000, which includes public
employees from Northern California's counties, cities, school
districts, and special districts. Henry represented these employees
with vigor until his retirement in 2000.
Henry Clarke spent over four decades standing up for the rights of
workers in Contra Costa County. He was a true public servant who
understood the process of social justice.
To Henry's son and daughter-in-law, Cameron and Ellen Clark, and his
grandson, Henry Wallace, I extend my heartfelt condolences. Your loss
is shared not only by those who knew Henry personally but also by all
those who have been touched by the work he has done. We will be forever
grateful for the integrity, passion and determination with which he
sought to make our country's work environment fair and safe for all.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SONJA LILLIAN MACYS
______
HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to take the opportunity to
honor an environmental leader who has made an indelible mark on the
Sonoran Desert region and on the community of Tucson, Arizona. Five
years ago, Sonja Lillian Macys came to Tucson and took the town by
storm. As an undergraduate, Sonja had mastered the Spanish language in
6 months and lived and worked in Mexico, promoting environmental
education and ecotourism. Originally from the horse country of
Virginia, she came to Tucson by way of Colorado, where she had skied
her way to a Master of Science degree in Protected Area Management
specializing in International Conservation, with extensive training in
non-profit leadership and management.
Sonja rapidly immersed herself in her new community in the role of
the Tucson Audubon Society's Executive Director. Sonja quickly moved to
create a broad-based conservation strategy with a significant cross-
border element. Sonja's deep commitment to environmental and social
justice, sustainability, and public participation soon became Audubon's
trademark.
Her contributions to the Southern Arizona community and the U.S.-
Mexico borderlands are numerous: creating multi-jurisdictional
partnerships to conserve riparian areas and desert landscapes;
partnering agencies, conservationists, ranchers, business interests,
and students; educating scores of birders and other citizens to become
active policy-makers and advisors; protecting critical habitats from
devastation wrought by mining, development, overgrazing, and other
harmful activities; and creating a community more literate in the
articulation of social and environmental justice.
Sonja Macys will leave a legacy that cannot be adequately expressed
in words, and gives all of us who have known and worked with her hope
that we can truly achieve the goals that we set out to accomplish
together. The Tucson community and the wildlife of the Sonoran Desert
will sorely miss Ms. Macys, but I have no doubt she will go on to
accomplish great things in her future endeavors. I wish her the best of
luck.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DANNY VALDEZ
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Danny Valdez on his
inauguration as Webb County Judge on January 1, 2007.
[[Page 1737]]
Judge Valdez was first elected into office as justice of the peace in
May 1982 and has served for nearly 25 years. This inauguration marks
the start of his sixth 4-year term with the court in Webb County. Judge
Valdez has received numerous awards such as the Community Service Award
by LULAC Council No. 12, and the Nuestro Orgullo Award by S.C.A.N. due
to his passion in working with at-risk youth in the community, and
addressing issues such as truancy, gang violence, drug abuse, teen
pregnancy, and juvenile delinquency. He also was recognized for his
commitment to the rule of law by the Laredo Bar Association with the
Liberty Bell Award and the 2005 Hispanic of the Year Award by LULAC
Council No. 7.
Aside from presiding over one of the busiest courts, Judge Valdez is
actively involved in community activities such as working with the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice Education Program in bringing male
and female inmates to local middle and high schools to educate students
about the dangers involved in making the wrong choices. He worked with
the Lamar Bruni Vergara Trust in the development of the Lamar Bruni
Vergara Boys' Scout Camp Huisache and was also instrumental in the
development of the Lamar Bruni Inner City Recreation Center. Judge
Valdez also reached out to low-income families by chairing the Annual
Toys for Tejanitos Drive, the Angel Wish Program, and the Annual
Fishing Derby for physically challenged students.
Judge Valdez has given out over $60,000 in scholarships to promising
young students from the Laredo Independent School District. He also
started the Supply Our Students Campaign that has raised funds for
nearly 70 tons of school supplies for low-income students in Webb
County. He is truly one of the great Laredoans and it is because of him
that the youth in the community have realized their immense potential
in creating a new and better future for themselves by learning from the
values of Judge Valdez.
Madam Speaker, I am honored to have had this time to recognize the
dedication of Judge Danny Valdez to his community.
____________________
FREEDOM FOR RAYMUNDO PERDIGON BRITO
______
HON. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to
speak about Raymundo Perdigon Brito, a political prisoner in
totalitarian Cuba.
Mr. Perdigon Brito is an independent journalist in Cuba who is
striving to create a society that tolerates human rights, freedom, and
democracy. He has been a peaceful supporter of bringing the most
fundamental of human rights to a people shackled by a tyrant's brutal
machinery of repression. Unfortunately, because of his unwavering
support of freedom for the people of Cuba Mr. Perdigon Brito has been
targeted by the dictatorship.
In November of 2006, Mr. Perdigonn, his sister Ana Margarita Perdigon
and several other journalists launched the Yayabo Press news agency. On
November 29, 2006, just 12 days after its launch, Mr. Perdigon Brito
was arrested by State Security thugs and told to cease his journalistic
activities or that he would be sent to prison. Mr. Perdigon Brito was
always aware of the risks he was taking as a journalist and he was well
aware of his many colleagues serving long prison terms in Castro's
hellish gulags, yet rather than allow his voice to be silenced, he
preferred to fight for the cause of freedom and democracy on that
enslaved island.
On December 5, 2006, Mr. Perdigon Brito was ``sentenced'' to 4 years
in the inhuman squalor of Castro's gulags on charges that he posed a
``pre-criminal danger to society''. A charge often used to detain pro-
democracy activists, even when they have committed no offense, simply
because the regime regards them a potential threat to its grotesquely
brutal and repressive totalitarian control.
In Mr. Perdigon's absence, his sister, Ana Margarita Perdigon,
replaced him as Editor of Yayabo Press. This development did not pass
unchecked or unnoticed within the inner circles of the regime's
henchmen. According to a dissident journalist who spoke to Reporters
Without Borders, ``The political police knew this and did everything to
ensure the news agency is disbanded as soon as possible''.
On the morning of December 5, 2006, as Mr. Perdigon Brito's relatives
were leaving the courthouse in the central province of Sancti Spiritus,
Cuba, nearly 100 regime thugs attacked them viciously. This barbarous
and vile hate crime was carried out with such regimented violence that
Mr. Perdigon Brito's father was hospitalized due to serious injuries
sustained during the attack.
Madam Speaker, it is repulsive that only 90 miles from our shore,
brave souls like that of Mr. Perdigon are locked in dungeons because
they too believe in the freedoms we hold sacred to our way of life. My
colleagues, let us remember those whose suffer under the totalitarian
nightmare that is the Castro regime. Let us demand the immediate
release of Raymundo Perdigon Brito and every prisoner of conscience in
the dungeons of totalitarian despots.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MR. TONY HOUSEMAN
______
HON. KEVIN BRADY
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Tony
Houseman for his continued conservation efforts and his dedicated
service to the Houston Safari Club. Tony has been a member of the
Houston Safari Club for over twenty years and has served as the Club's
Convention Chair in 1996 and the President from 1997-1998. He also has
been awarded three distinguished awards from the Houston Safari Club
with the 1998 Conservation Award, the 2005 Lifetime Service Award, and
the 2007 Frank Green Award.
His tireless leadership has had a positive impact in Texas and across
our nation. When Tony and Ray Petty were asked by Congressman Jack
Fields to help organize and start the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus,
which I am a proud member, he never hesitated in saying yes. Every
year, for ten straight years, they traveled to Washington D.C. to
increase the membership and clout of the Caucus and help fight for the
rights of the hunter and the hunting community. Now, the Congressional
Sportsmen's Caucus has one of the highest memberships and continues to
advocate the interests of sportsmen.
Tony also has taken a leadership role in too many projects to list,
with notable ones being Operation Bright Lights and the Tony Houseman
State Park and Wildlife Management Area. Operation Bright Lights raises
funds and works with professional hunters to build schools and water
wells in Tanzania, and recently he and his wife Gisela took a trip
there and visited one of the newly built schools. For the state park,
Tony donated 1,500 acres to conserve the Blue Elbow Swamp in South East
Texas. This 3,300 acre conservation site on the Sabine River remains a
magical place for wildlife.
Madam Speaker, Tony Houseman is the consummate hunter and
conservationist and a friend I deeply admire. Thank you for helping me
honor him today.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ARTHUR NOZIK, SARAH KURTZ AND JERRY OLSON
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize three
researchers from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the premier
national laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency
research.
The American Chemical Society recently honored Arthur Nozik, a senior
research fellow at NREL, with a special tribute of accomplishments in
The Journal of Physical Chemistry B.
During the past 30 years, Dr. Nozik has earned a leading position in
the fields of photoelectrochemistry, semiconductor-molecule interfaces,
nanoscience and quantum size effects in semiconductors and carrier
dynamics in semiconductor quantum dots and quantum wells. He has
written more than 160 peer-reviewed publications, 35 book chapters and
has edited or co-authored several books in these fields.
Dr. Nozik has been awarded 11 U.S. patents. He also invented a novel
photochemical diode for splitting water to generate hydrogen, and the
identification of several important solar photoconversion approaches
using hot carrier effects, size quantization, and superlattice concepts
that could, in principle, enable a leap in efficiency of solar energy
conversion.
Dr. Nozik, who joined NREL in 1978, received the 2002 Energy Research
Award of the Electrochemical Society. He was a senior editor of The
Journal of Physical Chemistry from 1993-2005 and is a fellow of both
the American Physical Society and the American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
NREL solar energy researchers Sarah Kurtz and Jerry Olson have spent
the past 20 years
[[Page 1738]]
developing the multi-junction solar cell. These solar cells have
demonstrated higher solar energy conversion efficiency than
conventional silicon cells and are already the choice for most space
applications. For their contributions to the field of photovoltaic
energy, Kurtz and Olson have been recognized as laureates of the Dan
David Prize, given by the Dan David Foundation in cooperation with Tel
Aviv University and the French Ministry of Culture and Communication.
They and other winners will share $3 million in prize money.
The photovoltaics community has made tremendous progress during the
last 30 years. In the past few years, the investment in concentrator
systems using high-efficiency, multijunction solar cells has
mushroomed. Although this investment is not yet reflected by large
installations, the Dan David prize recognizes this technology for its
future promise to transform energy markets.
I'm enormously proud to have NREL in my district and equally proud of
the work of these three scientists.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE HOME OWNERSHIP FOR AMERICA'S VETERANS ACT OF 2007
______
HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce
the Home Ownership for America's Veterans Act of 2007 along with my
distinguished colleague from California, Congressman Wally Herger.
The Home Ownership for America's Veterans Act of 2007 corrects an
inequity in the federal Qualified Veterans Mortgage Bonds (QVMB)
program available to a number of states for the purpose of financing
home loans for veterans. Specifically, in some states, QVMBs home loan
financing is only available to veterans who signed up for military duty
prior to 1977.
It is time we address this inequity. Our veterans returning from Iraq
and Afghanistan deserve the opportunity to purchase a home with QVMBs.
Further, in our home state of California, only 4.1 percent of our
veterans are eligible for a home loan through QVMB bonds.
Our legislation extends the program and opens it up to new veterans
residing in California and Texas. Congress passed legislation in the
109th Congress making the home loan program available to newly
discharged veterans in the other states eligible for QVMBs financing.
It is crucial that we act swiftly to give these veterans and their
families the ability to purchase and own a home in California and
Texas.
This legislation will benefit every state eligible for QVMBs by
requiring annual adjustments to the federal bond limit indexed to the
Freddie Mac Conventional Mortgage Home Price Index. A higher bond limit
means California, Texas, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Alaska--the five
eligible states--will have the ability to provide more of their
veterans with home loans. We must keep QVMB financing compatible with
national housing costs.
The Home Ownership for Veterans Act of 2007 will help our newly
discharged heroes purchase homes while ensuring that state veterans'
home loan programs remain viable.
Thank you very much Madam Speaker for the opportunity to introduce
legislation to help veterans purchase homes and achieve the American
Dream for their families.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO AL ECHOLS, ESQ.
______
HON. ROBERT A. BRADY
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Al Echols,
Esq., a Philadelphia legend who after serving 44 years as the executive
director of North City Congress has announced his retirement.
Under the leadership of Mr. Echols, North City Congress has remained
a valued institution meeting the changing needs of a changing community
in North Philadelphia. During its first decade North City Congress
represented a federation of neighborhood organizations committed to
positive community change.
North City Congress later became a vital social service agency.
Today, the agency operates two senior citizens centers that offer
meals, social, recreational and cultural activities and in-home
management services for the frail and home-bound. It also offers
financial management and estate planning for seniors and fiscal
management and technical assistance for community-based organizations.
Mr. Echols, a graduate of Virginia Union University and the Howard
University Law School, marshaled his considerable acumen in the
struggle to gain political power for African Americans in Philadelphia.
In 1971, he was a council-at-large candidate on the Thatcher Longstreth
Republican ticket in a hard fought race against Democrat Frank Rizzo.
Known for his wit, Mr. Echols is fiercely opinionated and a political
sage with whom one cannot have a brief conversation. Not only does he
love to explain the nuances of his points of view he punctuates his
conversations with a laugh that can shake the grand mansion that houses
North City Congress.
As he retires, Al Echols leaves an indelible stamp of good will,
principled leadership and service.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO LARRY SHEINGOLD
______
HON. JIM COSTA
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. COSTA. Madam Speaker, we rise today to recognize the retirement
of Larry Sheingold after thirty-six years of service as a staff member
in the California State Legislature.
Larry's years of service included ten years as an Assembly staff
member and twenty-six years working for the State Senate. During his
career he worked for Assembly Speakers Bob Moretti and Leo McCarthy and
several State Senators including Jim Costa, Betty Kamette, Henry Mello
and the current Senate President Pro Tern, Don Perata.
In addition, Larry Sheingold served on the National Conference of
State Legislature's Executive Committee from 2003-06. He is one of only
nineteen legislative staff members ever to do so.
Though Larry Sheingold may be on the understated side, he has always
possessed a giant intellect and is a master of campaign strategies. His
advice to candidates and officeholders alike has always been keen,
thoughtful and delivered with a quick wit and much humor. Larry is one
of those individuals that combine a rare blend of policy expertise and
astute political judgment.
Thirty-six years ago, when Larry started his career as a legislative
staff member, Ronald Reagan was governor, legislative committee votes
were not public and no woman had ever served in the California State
Senate. During his career all that has changed and as the invitation to
his retirement event stated, ``The system may be working, but Larry
won't be.''
But to paraphrase the late British politician, Lord Salisbury, Larry
Sheingold is not the type of gentleman to retire gracefully into the
background.
Today, we take great pleasure in honoring, through these remarks, a
good friend, a former staff member and a valued advisor, Larry
Sheingold. We wish him and his wife Judy only the best of times in
retirement, though that may only last until the next election cycle.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. KEN CALVERT
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to my leave of absence, I am
submitting for the Record how I would have voted if I had been present
earlier today, in addition to comments that I request also be entered
into the Record.
Rollcall No. 34, ``yea''--Motion to Adjourn, rollcall No. 35,
``no''--Ordering the Previous Question, and rollcall No. 36, ``no''--
Agreeing to H. Res. 66.
H. Res. 66 is a closed rule that prohibits any amendments to the bill
from being considered by the House. Madam Speaker, on November 14, 2006
you wrote in a Christian Science Monitor op-ed that ``Democrats pledge
to make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.''
I am deeply disappointed that past pledges for an open Congress have
been broken so quickly with H. Res. 66 and other closed rules imposed
by the majority. I believe the People's House operates best when
legislation moves through regular order and uses our Committee process
where members from both sides of the aisle have an opportunity to work
together to improve legislation. Under the new ``Closed-door
Congress,'' the House has yet to consider a bill that was moved through
regular order and considered by the Committee of jurisdiction. H. Res.
66 establishes the rules for considering
[[Page 1739]]
H.R. 6, and, as a senior member of the Natural Resources Committee, I
have significant concerns about some of the provisions in H.R. 6. In
particular, there are provisions addressing the 1998-99 Clinton
Administration OCS leases that are ambiguous and may result in levies
on all oil and natural gas lease holders in the Gulf of Mexico, not
just the 1998-99 leaseholders. This and other poorly written provisions
in H.R. 6 could have been corrected had the legislation been considered
by the Natural Resources Committee or had the majority allowed
amendments to be considered on the House floor. Unfortunately, the
majority's ``Closed-door Congress'' chose to break its pledge of an
``open Congress'' and prevented these opportunities to improve the
legislation.
Rollcall No. 37, ``no''--On Consideration of H.R. 6, rollcall No. 38,
``yes''--Motion to Recommit H.R. 6, rollcall No. 39, ``no''--Motion to
Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair, rollcall No. 40, ``no''--
Final Passage of H.R. 6.
H.R. 6 represents the first vote for a tax increase in more than 13
years. I have repeatedly pledged to oppose any and all efforts to
increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and businesses--
and I stand by my pledge. The majority has claimed that passage of H.R.
6 will roll-back subsidies to the oil and natural gas industry that
Congress passed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. However, a
Congressional Research Service report released in December of 2006
concluded that, on balance, the bill imposes ``a net tax increase on
the industry of nearly $300 million over 11 years.'' Further raising
taxes on the oil and natural gas industry will do nothing to help lower
the price of gasoline at the pump Americans are paying and, ultimately,
increases our country's dependence on foreign sources of oil. Madam
Speaker, I am truly stricken by the fact that the new majority has
chosen to bring a bill to the House floor during its highly touted
first ``100 Hours'' that will benefit and strengthen the hands of the
likes of Hugo Chavez. I oppose H.R. 6 because it will result in job
losses, increase the price of gasoline at the pump, increase the cost
of heating homes, and increase dependence on foreign sources of oil. I
support an energy policy that takes steps to truly reduce America's
dependence on foreign sources of oil while our Nation continues to
invest and improve the development of renewable sources of energy and
energy efficiency.
Rollcall No. 41, ``yes''--Adoption of H. Res. 62--Congratulating the
Grand Valley State University Lakers.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION ``ELIMINATING MODERN DAY SLAVERY''
______
HON. BARBARA LEE
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, last Thursday, January 11th, along with our
civil rights crusader, John Lewis reintroduced a resolution on the
tragedy of modern-day slavery and urging the United States to take
immediate steps to end it.
The institution of chattel slavery practiced in the United States for
over 200 years was not only a past shame in U.S. history but also world
history. Yet, this continues today. Throughout the world, an estimated
27 million people are suffering as slaves including the United States.
Each year millions become vulnerable to the resurgence of slavery.
People forced to survive with little or no resources fall victim to
abuse and exploitation in developing countries whose economies slip
further into extreme poverty caused by debt and corruption. Still
modern-day slavery is ever more expansive encompassing chattel slavery,
human trafficking, indentured or bonded labor, forced labor, forced
marriage and the worst forms of child labor.
Slavery is rampant in India, Southeast Asia, Africa, and South
America, as well as, once again the United States. In Africa, cash
crops such as cotton, sugar, and cocoa are produced by child and bonded
labor. The Ivory Coast which supplies over half the world's supply of
cocoa utilizes child slave labor in at least 90 percent of the cocoa
plantations. Slavery still exists in Sudan, remnants from the North and
South civil war. In Myanmar, slave labor harvest agricultural products
such as sugarcane. In Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia, human
trafficking and forced marriage run unimpeded. Moreover, I am repulsed
that an estimated 800,000 people are trafficked across international
borders and disturbed that annual global profits on trafficked forced
labor total $44.3 billion.
This is an historic year for many of the victims of slavery and their
descendants. 2007 marks the 200th Anniversary of the Abolition of the
Transatlantic Slave Trade, the transport of Africans as slaves into the
British American colonies. Our country can no longer allow the practice
of slavery to continue further in the 21st century. We must take action
to address this issue. The solution is one of political resolve not
capability, for we have at our disposal numerous means that will
eliminate these human rights violations.
My resolution expresses the sense of the House that the abolition of
modern-day slavery should:
Become a high priority in U.S. foreign and domestic policy to
eliminate all forms of modern-day slavery by 2017;
Reflect and advance the commitment of U.S. trade, aid, and investment
policies for the freedom for all people;
Expand protection and legal options for victims of modern-day
slavery;
Form a comprehensive coalition between governments, international
organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals to forge
a sustained global action plan to fight modern-day slavery; and
Become a priority at the 2007 Group of 8 (G-8) Summit in Germany.
I welcome my colleagues' support and urge the House Leadership to
bring it promptly to the House floor for consideration. This year is
the time to mark the end of modern-day slavery for victims worldwide.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO SENATOR PAUL TSONGAS
______
HON. MARTIN T. MEEHAN
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember one of my heroes,
Paul Tsongas. Paul Tsongas was a great champion of my hometown of
Lowell, Massachusetts and an extraordinary American, whose courage and
convictions should inspire us all.
It has been ten years since he lost his battle with cancer and ten
years since the American people lost one of their greatest public
servants.
Paul was one of my early role models and mentors, and I'm honored to
follow in his footsteps as the Congressman for the 5th District of
Massachusetts.
Born of Greek immigrants, Paul grew up in our joint hometown of
Lowell, Massachusetts. After graduating from Dartmouth College, he
became one of the first to answer President John F. Kennedy's call to
public service by joining the newly formed Peace Corps. Paul's
experience in the Peace Corps would lead him to great heights as a
standard-bearer of the Democratic Party.
After his service in the Peace Corps and as a City Councilor in our
hometown of Lowell, Paul was elected to the U.S. House of
Representatives in 1974. In 1978 he ran and won a seat in the United
States Senate where he would serve until 1984 when he retired after
being diagnosed with cancer.
Paul loved people and public service. His direct speaking style and
heartfelt manner captured the hearts of the nation during his service
in the United States Congress and especially during his campaign for
President.
As a politician, Paul lived his beliefs. Perhaps Paul's greatest
strength was that as a politician he took risks, challenging the tired
assumptions about how change should take place.
Paul's vision of what a Democrat can and should be was an inspiration
to me and continues to inspire Democrats across the country. Leading by
example, Paul expanded the reach of our party and helped shape our
promising future.
His leadership forced the debate on dealing with our national debt.
At the same time, he reminded us that a Democrat can and should be pro-
worker, and pro-family, and also pro-business-pro-employment.
Paul's career as a politician may have been cut short because of his
battle with cancer, but his illness never prevented him from fighting
for the issues, people, and the city he loved.
In my hometown of Lowell, Paul's fingerprints are all over the
remarkable redevelopment and revitalization that has occurred over the
past two decades. In the streets of Lowell today, I am constantly
reminded of the lessons Paul taught me--that in every community you
must preserve that which has meaning and beauty for its users and its
visitors.
Paul was a visionary: he envisioned the connection of people to the
places where they lived and worked. But more importantly, Paul was a
doer: he identified significant community
[[Page 1740]]
assets and challenged everyone around him to preserve and make visible
these deeply felt dreams.
Paul motivated Lowell residents to make these dreams a reality. He
didn't stop there. Throughout Massachusetts, he was able to rally
similar support. In Concord, the Walden Woods Project preserved the
lands and water sanctified by Henry David Thoreau. On Cape Cod, he
helped to establish the Cape Cod Commission that is dedicated to
protecting critical open space.
As a private citizen, he made significant contributions to education
and the environment. Walden Woods, Cape Cod, the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, the Board of Higher Education all benefited from his
leadership and ideas.
And he demonstrated compassion and caring to those who sought comfort
and advice on how to deal with life-threatening illness.
I could go on and on about Paul Tsongas, and about how he was an
extraordinary individual, but I won't.
I'll close with this--When announcing his presidential candidacy,
Paul Tsongas said to his supporters, Just as we reach back to our
ancestors for our fundamental values, so we, as guardians of that
legacy, must reach ahead to our children and their children. And we do
so with a sense of sacredness in that reaching.
I'll simply say that I'm humbled and honored beyond words to follow
in Paul Tsongas, footsteps, He truly devoted himself to making a
difference not just for our generation, but for our children and future
generations.
My thoughts and prayers go out to Paul's daughters, Ashley, Katina,
and Molly; his sisters, Thaleia and Vicki, and especially to his wife,
Niki, who continues to champion the issues that Paul spent his life
fighting for.
____________________
IN TRIBUTE TO THE DISTINGUISHED CAREER OF SERVICE AND PHILANTHROPY OF
WILFRED GEORGE GOODEN
______
HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to
Wilfred George Gooden, a great citizen and patriot, a philanthropist
and Good Samaritan. Wilfred Gooden shuffled off the mortal coil and
slipped the surly bonds of earth on Saturday, January 6, 2007. He was
one month shy of his 75th birthday. More importantly, he was a son, a
brother, an uncle, a friend, a neighbor, a servant of God, and a loving
husband to his darling Sybil for 57 years.
Madam Speaker, I do not think any of the many people who knew and
loved Wilfred Gooden thought that when he returned to his native land
of Jamaica in December 2006, that it would have been his last trip from
his adopted home in the United States of America? I do not think any of
them dreamed that those last fleeting words on the phone or in person
would have been their last contact with him before he took his last
breath on the Sabbath, January 6, 2007 at the Andrews Memorial
Hospital, Kingston, Jamaica, with his faithful wife, Sybil, of 57
years, at his bedside.
Who would have known that the Lord was going to take Wilfred Gooden's
hands off the plough and say: ``Your work is done, my faithful
servant--it's now someone else's turn.''
Wilfred Gooden was the last of three sons born to Mr. and Mrs. Gooden
in Westmoreland, Jamaica. His parents and brother, Sam predeceased him.
Vibert his eldest brother, lives in Atlanta, Georgia. His mother Ethel
and stepfather Edburn took care of the family after the death of
Wilfred's father. A very close-knit family, Wilfred and his brother
telephoned each other and had long chats each day. Even in his last
days on earth, Wilfred and his brother Vibert were on the phone.
Brought up in a Christian home, Wilfred was baptized at the
Rollington Town Seventh-Day Adventist church, and never forgot his
first love--Jesus. His rich baritone voice could be heard in praises as
he called his family and all who entered his home to worship morning
and evening--wherever he was.
His Christ-like character was seen in his deeds, the way he treated
everyone with whom he came in contact--it did not matter their race,
ethnicity, gender, religion, political persuasion, title or status;
everyone was treated with respect, courtesy and kindness.
In his youth it was not unusual for Wilfred to bring home,
unannounced, three or four friends for the weekend who would be warmly
received by a generous but sometimes frustrated mother.
In 1944, Wilfred traveled to the United States where he settled in
New York City. For many years, he pursued and enjoyed a successful
career in mechanical dentistry. Former clients still praise the quality
and craftsmanship of his work.
Always on the lookout for new adventures and challenges, Wilfred
invested in a brownstone on West 142nd Street, which it needed some
repairs. With much enthusiasm, he immediately utilized his knowledge of
plumbing as a result of his liberal arts training which required him to
learn a trade as a part of degree program and performed the work
himself, and in the process launched a new career for himself in
housing rehabilitation.
To gain more knowledge about his business, Wilfred attended City
College and earned a Certificate in Building Engineering. In 1961, he
organized a general contracting company with the basic purpose of
renovating existing properties. As owner and builder of multiple
dwellings, Wilfred renovated a group of old tenements into two and
three bedroom modern, class A apartments. In many areas of New York
City, Wilfred has revitalized entire neighborhoods, creating homes that
gave and still give each dweller a sense of renewed hope and dignity.
As general contractor for Maurel Realty Corporation, he renovated a one
hundred apartment complex and for Almeric Realty Corporation, he
renovated a fifty apartment complex. Serving in dual capacity as
Project Manager and Field Superintendent, he directed every aspect of
these massive projects.
Wilfred was appointed by Mayor David Dinkins of the City of New York
to work with Roger Starr, Administrator of Housing as consultant to the
City's Housing program in urban areas. He reviewed the proposed
projects with a vision of minimizing costs and suggested rehabilitation
of buildings in the city's most needed areas.
Wilfred George Gooden walked with kings, but never lost the common
touch. His walls both in Jamaica and New York are filled with
photographs and citations from both the American and Jamaican
governments including former President Bill Clinton, former Jamaican
Prime Ministers Norman Manley, Michael Manley, Alexander Bustamante,
Edward Seaga and P.J. Patterson, as well as government officials in New
York and Jamaica, church leaders, industry leaders and the leaders of
educational institutions.
Wilfred Gooden was, above all, a community servant. He sat on the
Board of Directors of: Housing Board in New York; FISH Clinics in
Jamaica; The American Friends of Jamaica; Concerned Committee for
Christian Education; and NAJASO.
Wilfred Gooden was honored as a philanthropist by Message Magazine in
1996 for his community service and humanitarianism and awarded honorary
Doctor of Letters degree from Faith and Grant College in Huntsville,
Alabama.
Wilfred Gooden wanted others to succeed and helped countless
Jamaicans relocating to New York to get jobs--many in his own
construction company. When housing was needed, when food was required,
when winter came and clothes and heat were required to keep bodies
warm, they and others in the community knew whom to call: Wilfred
Gooden. His charity knew no bounds. In the early years of their
marriage, almost every Jamaican relocating to New York made the
pilgrimage to the home of Wilfred Gooden for assistance in gaining a
foothold in a new land.
Wilfred Gooden was committed to his Church--the Ephesus Seventh-Day
Adventist Church in Manhattan. He served as M.V. Leader, Sabbath School
teacher, Sabbath School Superintendent and since 1980, as Chairman of
the Building Committee, where he did so much to see that the physical
plant of the Church was maintained in a manner befitting God's people.
Christian Education was his passion. In 1980, he established The
Concerned Committee for Christian Education to provide funds towards
Christian schooling for Jamaica's children and organized a concert
featuring the Cantata Choir from New York, held at the National Arena
in Jamaica, of which the proceeds were used to refurbish and re-start
the New Hope Preparatory school at the North Street Seventh-day
Adventist Church. The school started out with one teacher and two
students. The school has grown to 197 students, 12 teachers and a staff
of 5.
Wilfred Gooden provided scholarships for young people who would
otherwise not have been able to attend his alma mater, Northern
Caribbean University, formerly West Indies College.
Wilfred Gooden personally assisted students from Jamaica, New York,
Alabama, and Kenya. Each summer for the past 15 years, he has arranged
employment for many students from various Adventist Colleges, thus
aiding many in their pursuit of higher Christian education.
[[Page 1741]]
As much as he supported students, it was not only ``classroom
knowledge'' that Wilfred Gooden wanted to instill. The Concerned
Committee for Christian Education also sponsored the cost for 26
children from Jamaica to go to Disney World in Orlando, Florida, who
would not have otherwise been able to have that fun-filled and exciting
experience.
The young ladies and gentlemen of his hometown church--Ephesus in
Harlem, New York--knew that their tertiary education was assured if
they were willing to learn etiquette and social graces. All of the
participants worked hard on the annual programs which his team, headed
by Ms. Valerie Bennett and Mr. Joseph Merriweather managed. As the
young ladies and gentlemen prepared for the Cotillion Ball at the
Waldorf Astoria in New York, they stood tall in full bloom and
presented themselves under the direction of these nurturers. It is
important to note that while this program facilitated the personal
development of these young people, it also funded scholarships for
their tertiary education.
Jamaican students pursuing medicine, engineering, dentistry, and
other disciplines overseas were assured of tuition, housing and
personal assistance. Wilfred Gooden wanted to ensure that all Jamaican
youth had a chance to succeed so they could make meaningful
contributions to society.
Wilfred Gooden loved his native Jamaica and was always willing to
support his native land. He thought young people from the country
should learn Jamaican civic history and government, so with the
authorization of the Jamaican government, he distributed copies of the
Jamaican Constitution to every high school student in Jamaica.
Wilfred Gooden brought notable Americans, including former Mayor
David Dinkins and New York City Councilwoman Una Clarke, to the campus
of his alma mater, Northern Caribbean University. He wanted people to
know the quality of the Jamaican educational system and what his church
and school were doing for the world.
The philosophy and creed that Wilfred Gooden lived by was simple:
To leave some simple mark behind
To keep his having lived in mind
To be an honest generous foe
To play any part even if the honors did not fall on him.
And like Edgar Guest would say:
I'd like to think when life is done
That I had filled a needed post
That here and there I'd paid my fare
With more than idle talk and boast;
That I had taken gifts divine,
The breath of life and manhood fine,
And tried to use them now and then
In service to my fellow men.
Madam Speaker, the famed writer John Donne declared ``Death comes
equally to us all and makes us all equal when it comes.'' Donne goes
on:
Death, be not proud,
Though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for
Thou art not so,
For, those whom thou think'st
Thou dost overthrow
Die not, poor death, nor yet cans't thou kill me.
In closing Madam Speaker, let me say that although my heart is heavy
with sorrow, it is also filled with joy because I was one of the
thousands of people whose lives has elevated and enriched by my
association with the remarkable, the unforgettable, the irreplaceable
Wilfred George Gooden. He was a role model, a hero, a mentor, a friend.
He was my uncle and I will miss him terribly.