[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[Issue]
[Pages 31327-31525]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 31327]]
VOLUME 153--PART 23
SENATE--Wednesday, November 14, 2007
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Benjamin L. Cardin, a Senator from the State of Maryland.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
O God, lover of humanity, give us today Your pardon and peace. Pardon
the sins of our lips; the untrue, uncleaned, and unkind words we have
spoken. Pardon the sins of our minds; the ignoring of truth, the
refusal to face facts, the dishonest thinking that destroys integrity.
Pardon the sins of our hearts; the pride that makes us esteem ourselves
as better than others, the wrong desires, and the false loves that draw
us from You. Forgive us, O God.
Place Your peace within us that we may no longer be torn by anxiety
and indecision. As the Members of this body receive Your peace, help
them to live in unity with each other. May the certainty that You love
them take all fear away. Lord, uphold them with Your grace, both now
and always. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin 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 legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, November 14, 2007.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Benjamin L. Cardin, a Senator from the State of Maryland, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.
Mr. CARDIN thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR--S. 2334, S. 2340, S. 2346, S. 2348,
and H.R. 3996
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand there are five bills at the
desk due for their second reading.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the titles of
the bills, en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2334) to withhold 10 percent of the Federal
funding apportioned for highway construction and maintenance
from States that issue driver's licenses to individuals
without verifying the legal status of such individuals.
A bill (S. 2340) making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
A bill (S. 2346) to temporarily increase the portfolio caps
applicable to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to provide the
necessary financing to curb foreclosures by facilitating the
refinancing of at-risk subprime borrowers into safe,
affordable loans, and for other purposes.
A bill (S. 2348) to ensure control over the United States
border and to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws.
A bill (H.R. 3996) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other
purposes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with
regard to these bills en bloc.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard. The bills will
be placed on the calendar.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this morning, the Senate will be in a period
of morning business for 1 hour, with the time divided and controlled
between the two parties--the majority controlling the first half and
the Republicans controlling the final portion.
Following this, the Senate will resume consideration of the farm
bill. At 2 p.m. today, Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates will brief
Members about the current situations in the Middle East. Both of them
will be here in S-407 at 2 p.m.
The Farm Bill
Mr. President, the farm bill is an important piece of legislation for
this country. That is why we do it every 5 years. It is an immense bill
and includes many different things dealing with the agriculture of this
country. It is similar in its importance to the highway bill that we do
every 5 years. The farm bill is one that affects virtually every State.
We hear a lot on this Senate Floor and around the country, as we
should, about the fact that we import about 65 percent of all the oil
we use in this country, but it is not that way with agricultural
products. We do so much in exporting food. It is one of the businesses
in America that has a positive balance in trade.
I was happy yesterday morning when I was told by the minority we were
going to be able to get a list of amendments and work through this
bill. It is true we got a list of amendments, but it is as unreasonable
as anything could be unreasonable--270 amendments, and a large number
of them nonrelevant. Democrats, after having received these, came up
with some amendments, but most of ours are, as well, nonrelevant
amendments, meaning we wanted to match the Republicans. We are able to
go forward with a handful of amendments, by that I mean five or six
amendments, but that is all we need.
To show how unrealistic their list is, one only needs to look at the
list. Every Senator has a right to propose amendments. Historically,
however,
[[Page 31328]]
with the farm bill, the average number of nonrelevant amendments per
bill? One, in recent years. My research indicates something a little
different than I mentioned yesterday. In the last 3 bills, no
amendments, nonrelevant; 2 amendments; 1 amendment. So an average of 1
nonrelevant amendment per bill.
Here we have amendments they want to offer on this bill dealing with
immigration, again, even though we debated for weeks on immigration.
This bill is not an immigration bill. And, of course, the old faithful
death tax. People come and say, well, farmers have problems, they are
losing their family farms. In California, Senator Feinstein heard about
that, and so she asked the farm bureau to give her a list of those who
had lost their farms because of the estate tax. None. Zero. This is an
urban myth or maybe even a rural myth. But, of course, a number of
Senators wanted to try that again--Republican Senators.
The issue of the day is the driver's license. A significant number of
Senators want to offer amendments dealing with driver's licenses. And
fishing loans, the Rio Grande River--I don't know what that is about--
the Gulf of Mexico, the death tax, and the AMT. We are going to do AMT
before we leave here. We don't need to do it on the farm bill. Fire
sprinkler systems, National Finance Center, the Exxon Valdez
litigation, land transfer, AMT tax. I can't give you the exact number,
but there are at least six or seven amendments on the AMT tax. Is AMT
important? Of course, it is. We are going to do AMT before this year
ends. Everyone knows that.
In short, the Republicans aren't serious about doing the farm bill.
This farm bill is headed down for one reason: the Republicans. They
obviously don't want a farm bill. If we went along with this list, it
would make it impossible to conduct a fair and reasonable debate--
impossible.
So what I am going to do this afternoon is file cloture on the
Dorgan-Grassley amendment, a bipartisan amendment, the one that is
pending, and then on the bill. That will make a determination. All
these organizations that say this farm bill is important--and I have
had many of them write letters and contact me and say this is so
important, we need to do this, the last farm bill is not as good as
this one, it is a great farm bill--we will find out if the Republicans
are going to kill this bill. It appears they are going to. They are not
serious about passing a farm bill this year. If they come up with a
list of amendments we can deal with, I am happy to do that. But I am
not going to do this. It is not good for the Senate and it is not good
for the country.
I repeat: The average number of nonrelevant amendments on farm bills:
One per bill. We have here enough nonrelevant amendments to fill a
little notebook. So that is where we are. It is unfortunate. The
committee has worked very hard. They passed the bill out of the
committee by voice vote. All Senators obviously agreed this was a good
bill. Saxby Chambliss, the ranking member, and Tom Harkin, the chairman
of the committee, think it is a good bill--Democrat and Republican.
We are in the situation where Republicans are saying: Well, I want to
offer my amendment on fire systems, the Exxon Valdez litigation, the
AMT, and, of course, the old faithful, immigration. So that is where we
are. It is unfortunate that is where we are, but this bill is headed
down.
I indicated what I am going to do. Unless the Republicans come up
with something more realistic, this bill is going to have cloture filed
on Dorgan-Grassley, cloture on the bill, and that is where we will be
on the bill this afternoon sometime.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
____________________
THE FARM BILL
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the comments I am about to make could
well have been made by my friend on the other side of the aisle as
recently as last year, when his party was in the minority.
Of course, we all know we will indeed pass the farm bill. The only
issue is: When and how. We actually made good progress yesterday on
both sides, defining the realm of possible amendments that might be
filed to the bill. The amendments list on our side is actually about
120, and the Democratic list is 140--approximately 265 amendments on
the list.
Before my good friend on the other side protests too much about this
number, let me remind Senators that 246 amendments were filed to the
2002 farm bill, 339 amendments were filed to the 1996 farm bill,
averaging about 300 amendments per bill. In fact, when Republicans were
attempting to move the 1996 farm bill through the Senate, the current
committee chairman, Senator Harkin himself, filed 35 amendments. So if
all 100 Senators emulated the Senator from Iowa, 3,500 amendments would
be the normal for farm bill consideration.
Thus, the current list of 265 amendments is not insurmountable, and,
actually, not at all unusual at the beginning of the process of passing
a farm bill. This is a complex bill that only gets reauthorized every 5
years. This time it is 1,600 pages long and includes the first farm
bill tax title since 1933, adding an extra degree of difficulty.
However, Republicans are ready and willing to begin working in
earnest to address these amendments. What always happens is that most
of the amendments go away and we gradually work down the list. But this
is a massive bill. The notion--if I can lift it here--that we are going
to basically call up a bill of this magnitude, file cloture, and
basically have no amendments strikes me as, shall I say, odd at least.
What we always do is try to work out an orderly way to go forward. The
issue of getting a fixed amendment list, which we were prepared to
enter into last night, is the way it usually begins.
I am a little perplexed as to whether the majority actually wants
this bill to pass and is trying to simply blame the minority for trying
to bring it down. We all know, and I am sure anybody who has followed
the Senate at all knows, we are going to pass a farm bill, no question
about that. The farm bill is not going to be killed. The issue is
whether we are going to have any kind of reasonable process for going
forward, and I think getting an amendment list is the first step. I was
hoping we could do that, but, apparently, that is not the case, and I
regret that we are where we are.
But let me reassure everyone, I don't think there is anybody in the
country who knows we aren't going to pass a farm bill, and nobody is
going to kill the farm bill. But we are going to insist on a reasonable
procedure for going forward.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is no ability to pass a farm bill
under the present situation. If people think the farm bill is going to
be just passed because the distinguished Republican leader says one is
going to pass, they are mistaken. We have a lot to do. We have 3 weeks
after we come back after Thanksgiving and that is it for this year.
Next year is going to be a very difficult year.
We have to figure out some way, next year, to work our way through
the Presidential election and all the other elections that are taking
place around the country. There is no guarantee--and that is an
understatement--we will have a farm bill.
The one question no one answers is, What do we do with nonrelevant
amendments? The history is one per bill. Here we have immigration, AMT
six different times, we have fire safety, Exxon Valdez litigation, and
on and on with nonrelevant amendments.
This is not the beginning of the process. The process started 10 days
ago, and we have been stalled for 10 days-- 10 days with nothing being
done. We can talk about maybe the Democrats don't want it done. We have
been here
[[Page 31329]]
willing and able to work through these amendments, but Republicans have
been unwilling to work with us in any meaningful way.
I would also say, a reasonable process? I am willing to work through
a reasonable process, but we cannot put the Senate through having
multiple votes on immigration issues or on nonrelated tax issues. We
need to work on a farm bill. I repeat, if the Republicans want to come
up with some type of a reasonable way to go forward, fine. Otherwise,
they can vote to kill this bill, and they will vote to do it.
We will vote on the bipartisan Dorgan-Grassley amendment on cloture,
which, in the past, has received overwhelming support in the Senate; it
has been done. The amendment has been offered before. And a vote on
cloture on the bill. If the bill goes down, there may be an opportunity
we will bring it back again, but I do not know when. It certainly is
not going to be in January. We have a lot of other people who are
interested in doing things in January.
The Republicans have had their chance to be reasonable on the farm
bill. I have tried my best to be patient, to be reasonable, to be
thoughtful on a way to proceed on this bill. What did we get last
night? I have said: Right now, Democrats--we can come up with 5
amendments, all relevant. That leaves them with the nonrelevant
amendments. We will give them the average--or if they want 2, we will
consider that. But we are not going to deal with 247 amendments. We
want five; we don't want nonrelevant amendments as has been done in the
past. I don't know how we could be more reasonable than that--five.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. We could have done way more than 5 amendments over the
past week if the majority leader had not filled up the tree and
prevented amendments from being offered. The last time the tree was
filled on a farm bill was 2 decades ago, on October 31, 1985. In 1985,
the majority leader filled the tree after a week of floor
consideration; not after the very first day, but after a week--a week.
Here, amendments were prevented by a parliamentary device of the
majority leader, which he is certainly entitled to use, to prevent an
amendment process from going forward. Now we have this 1,600-page bill
with no amendments allowed, and the majority leader says we ought to
invoke cloture on the bill and pass it.
Look, we know the farm bill is going to pass. With all due respect to
my good friend the majority leader, I know he is bluffing. He is going
to pass a farm bill. I am reasonably confident the farm bill is going
to pass after the minority gets an opportunity to offer some
amendments.
I am also totally confident that the fact that the amendment list has
a lot of amendments on it at the beginning does not mean they are all
going to be offered or all going to be voted on. That is just the way
the legislative process starts on a very large, complicated bill that
we only pass once every 5 years.
I suppose we are at a stalemate. Obviously, we will continue to talk,
and hopefully we can work out some way to go forward. But I am very
doubtful that the minority is going to be interested in going forward
in a situation where they basically have no opportunities to affect a
1,600-page bill that we only pass every 5 years.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if this were a jury, they wouldn't be out
very long and they would return a verdict on behalf of the majority. To
think someone would be gullible enough to believe the Republicans have
not had an opportunity to offer amendments is simply without basis in
fact. We have said all we have to do is get rid of the Dorgan
amendment. There is plenty of opportunity to offer any amendment they
want to offer in relation to this bill--anything they want to offer
that is relevant and germane.
This is all a game, a game that is being played for reasons to
destroy this farm bill, and they are doing a pretty good job. A week
ago last Monday we started on this legislation, and we have
accomplished nothing because the Republicans have refused to do so on
the basis that they have been unable to offer amendments, which is
untrue.
This is a situation in which we find ourselves. I think Democrats and
Republicans are satisfied that the right thing is being done, where
they don't have to march down here again on an unrelated matter and
vote on immigration. We spent a month on immigration matters. Everyone
knows AMT is going to be resolved. It has passed the House; we are
going to do it here. This is a game that is being played.
I repeat, if this were a jury--and it is not, and I understand that;
at least the jury is not going to be in until next November--we would
find a quick return of a verdict because what we have agreed to do is
what has been done in many instances on every farm bill. We do not deal
with nonrelevant amendments, and we are not going to on this one unless
there is some agreement reached, as I have indicated.
I repeat, this afternoon we are going to go ahead and file cloture on
this amendment that has been pending for 10 days and file cloture on
the bill. If the Republicans don't want a farm bill, they have an
opportunity to vote not to proceed on the legislation.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on the issue of nonrelevant amendments
in the last several decades, the majority leader has indicated the farm
bill has not had nonrelevant amendments. According to my information,
the Democrats have filed seemingly nonrelevant amendments during
consideration of the last several farm bills on such things as the
Social Security trust fund--offered on a farm bill; bankruptcy--offered
on a farm bill; and convicted fugitives in Cuba--offered on a farm
bill. So I hope no one seriously believed that nonrelevant amendments
have not been offered by the other side on farm bills over the last
couple of decades.
This is the kind of sparring that frequently goes on at the beginning
of a big, complicated bill. We all know how it will end. It will end,
in the end, with a reasonable number of amendments on both sides being
voted on and the passage of the farm bill. The timing of that,
obviously, will be up to the majority leader, who does have a difficult
challenge. Floor time is always at a premium in the Senate. We
understand that. But at some point, we will pass the farm bill, in the
near future, after we have negotiated a process that is fair to both
sides.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Republican leader still refuses to
answer the question before this body. The question is very direct. Why
nonrelevant amendments? People can file them; we just have never voted
on them in farm bills. It is very clear we have not voted on them.
We had a bill in 2001-2002, one in 1996, and one in 1990. In 1990,
there were two nonrelevant amendments that were considered, that is it;
in 1996, no nonrelevant amendments; in 2001-2002, two nonrelevant
amendments--as I have indicated, an average of one in the last three
bills.
We cannot be in a position here where the first amendment offered is
one that is going to deal with immigration again, border fences, how
long the fence is. How many times do we have to vote on how long the
fence should be between the United States and Mexico, without even
addressing the fence in northern America? As I indicated, the new
immigration legislation of choice to bash people is now the driver's
license--that is here. I don't think we need to get into that. What we
need to get into is amendments that deal with this farm bill.
Some may say this is sparring. I do not agree with that. I think we
are about the business of this country. We have a lot to do. The issue
before this body now is this farm bill. I am very disappointed that it
appears quite likely there will be no farm bill.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this has been an interesting colloquy,
but the parliamentary situation we are in
[[Page 31330]]
is that unless the majority leader gives his consent, no amendments on
my side will be allowed. That is an unacceptable way to go forward on a
1,600-page bill that we pass every 5 years. We will continue to talk.
We all know there will be a farm bill. The only issue is when and how,
and that is something we will have to negotiate here in the Senate, as
we always do.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, last word, maybe; otherwise, I get the last
word later.
Mr. President, the Republicans offer an amendment. I offered the
first amendment on behalf of Dorgan and Grassley. It is a bipartisan
amendment. If they have an amendment they want to offer, let them offer
it. I will be happy to stand out of the way. But they are offering all
these excuses why they can't do it, and that is too bad.
____________________
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, the
Senate will proceed to a period of morning business for 60 minutes,
with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes, with the time
equally divided or controlled by the two leaders or their designees and
with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans
controlling the final half.
Who yields time?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
FOOD AND ENERGY SECURITY ACT
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today and come to the floor to
encourage my colleagues to move expeditiously to pass the Food and
Energy Security Act of 2007.
Sometimes we get caught in our bubble in Washington and we forget, we
forget there is a whole world outside in this great land of ours:
Working families, folks who are working hard each and every day to
provide for their families, to ensure their safety, to take care of
their children, to be a part of their community, and to help their
neighbors.
On October 25 our Senate Agriculture Committee passed this
legislation unanimously, not one single dissenting vote. And that is
because there were a lot of Members who understood the importance of
this bill. They came together and worked to come up with a bill in
which everyone had a vested interest.
It passed unanimously for good reason. It does a tremendous amount
not only for our farm families but for antihunger advocates, for
environmentalists, those working to spur economic development in rural
areas, and it takes tremendous strides to rid our Nation of its
dependence on foreign oil.
All of those are positive, progressive things that happen in this
bill, brought together, again, by a group in the Senate Agriculture
Committee who wanted to make progress, who wanted to put together a
bill everybody could be proud of, that everybody could help move
forward.
I know this policy effort is not on the top of everyone's priority
list in this body like it is on mine. It is on the top of my mine, and
it is a huge priority for me for multiple reasons. One, I am a farmer's
daughter. I understand. I understand what farm families are doing out
there. I understand, when they get up at the crack of dawn, before the
Sun comes up, they get out and work hard, to do something that gives
them a tremendous sense of pride. They produce a safe and abundant and
affordable supply of food and fiber for this country.
I also know it is a huge priority for me because of my State, and the
fact that my State has an economy that is based on agriculture. They
have a great sense of pride in not only being able to provide that safe
and abundant and affordable food supply in the most efficient way
possible for this great land, but they do so worldwide as well.
At a minimum, everyone here should recognize and appreciate what this
bill accomplishes, even if you take for granted that the grocery store
shelves are full when you go in that grocery store, even if you take
for granted that you pay less than anybody in the developed world per
capita for your food source, and even if you take for granted the fact
that it is produced in the most environmentally respectful way, and
also that it is produced in a way that is safe, through all kinds of
regulations, all kinds of research that provides us the sound backing
that our food source is safe.
It is safe for our children, safe for our elderly, safe for our
families. That is huge. At a time when we are seeing foods coming in
through our borders, through our ports that are unsafe from countries
that do not put on those restrictions and regulations, for countries
that do not have the efficiency on their farms that we do, it is
absolutely critical that we bring ourselves together and focus on this
bill.
In this bill there is a $5.28 billion increase--an increase--to our
nutrition programs. These are programs that provide assistance and a
nutritious meal at breakfast and lunch for children, nutritious meals
for the elderly across this country, nutritious summer feeding
programs, nutritious fruits and vegetables and snacks for school
children. That is a huge step in the right direction.
Something we can all get behind is over a $4 billion increase to
conservation. You know it is unbelievable to see that kind of an
increase to reinforce those who love and use the land, that they can do
so with the incentives to make sure they are using the optimum of
technology and research to conserve that land that means so much to
them and to future generations.
That is a third straight record for the farm bill in terms of
increases in what we are seeing in this underlying bill. There is $500
million for rural development in our small communities where we are
seeing a desperate need for broadband and access to the information
highway where we are looking for investment from entrepreneurs and
small businesses so that we can keep strong our communities in rural
America, and we do not see this flight into the cities, making sure
those communities can be strong for the schools and for churches and
for children and the working families who live in those rural
communities, who have their heritage, their heart is there in that
community, so that they can stay there, so that we as a nation make
those investments.
The energy incentives in this bill, when it is coupled with the
Finance Committee incentives, shows a true commitment to moving
renewable fuels into the marketplace. You know, it does not make a bit
of difference if we continue to produce all of these renewable fuels if
we do not get them into the marketplace, if we do not get them into the
hands of consumers. And it also does not make any difference if we do
not start to think outside the box, looking for newer and more
innovative processes and research to provide renewable fuels that come
from feedstock that might be leftovers.
We know we can make cellulosic ethanol from cotton sticks and rice
hulls and rice straw, but we have to get that to the consumer. We have
to get that process going. There are great opportunities in this bill
for that.
In short, this bill is a win for every region of our great Nation.
And everyone, even if your plow is a pencil, even if you have not spent
time walking rice levees or scouting cotton or chopping down coffee
bean plants in a bean field like I have, even if your plow is a pencil
and the closest farm is 1,000 miles away from you, it should be so
obvious to everyone that the farm bill provides exactly what this title
suggests: It provides this Nation's security, it provides us with
security of knowing that we
[[Page 31331]]
will have the domestic production of a food supply for our people and
for our Nation, that we will help feed the world with that safe and
affordable and abundant supply of food and fiber.
Unfortunately, it is clear by the criticisms of the farm bill by the
editorial boards and major newspapers that many of our hard-working
farm families are not getting the respect they deserve for what it is
they provide. It is my hope the Senate will not also take for granted
the security of safe food and fiber at a time when so much of what is
entering this country is either not inspected, nor safe, or sent back.
We had a hearing in the Finance Committee. We were told about port
shopping, that products coming in commodities, coming into our country
come to one of our ports, get inspected, get rejected, and then they
start shopping around for a port that does not have an inspector. And,
yes, we have ports without inspectors.
So not only are we accepting substandard food, but we are minimizing
our ability to produce our own with the control and the oversight that
ensures us that what we produce domestically is safe.
This piece of legislation is about national security, just as foreign
policy is in many other regions of the world. Why is it we think that
when we go to these trade negotiations, usually the last thing that is
negotiated is agricultural products? It is because those countries
understand. Those countries have been hungry. They have been subjected
to foods that are unsafe or grown in a manner they don't appreciate.
But they also know they can control making sure that there is enough
there, if they can control and keep out our products. Many of the
commodities I grow do find themselves on the international scene as
commodities left out of trade agreements. That is because they are
critical. They are a staple in the global community for sustenance of
life.
Whether a country provides subsidies at levels much higher than those
included in this bill or protects their farmers by a prohibitive tariff
structure, every country in some form or fashion ensures a domestic
food supply. If we continue in the direction we are going, where we are
seeing for the first time in the history of our country the possibility
of a trade deficit in agricultural products, what is that going to mean
to us as a nation? It is going to mean we are then going to be more
dependent on other countries for food that is critical for children and
families all across this land.
In the United States, the farm bill is the policy that ensures safe
food and fiber. We have worked hard in the Agriculture Committee to
come up with a bill that was both bipartisan and biregional, agreed
upon by everybody. Everybody got something positive out of a bill that
was respectful to the diversity of this country, to the diversity of
how we grow our crops. Lord, it was interesting for me to talk with my
colleagues from way up on the Canadian border who had snow in August.
We had 12 straight days of over 100-degree weather in Arkansas. We are
a diverse nation and we are blessed to be that way. It is all the more
reason we have the responsibility in this body to be respectful of that
diversity and what it is that each of us has to bring to the table from
our States. The Agriculture Committee did that.
It also respected the needs of those who are less fortunate in the
nutrition title. It respected the idea that Americans want to ensure
conservation and good stewardship of the land. We did that. We looked
at the need for renewable energy, and we have made a huge investment,
both in the farm bill in authorizing policy and also in the Finance
Committee package that accompanies it, making sure that incentives are
there for communities and for ag producers and all of those in rural
America that not only can we continue the research but get into
production of renewable fuels and, most importantly, that we can get
them to the consumer. It doesn't matter how much we produce; if we are
not using it, it is not benefiting the environment and not lessening
our dependence on foreign oil. In the long term, it is not going to
benefit growers who are looking for that secondary market.
We should all recognize and appreciate the bounty this bill provides
and what it does for the hard-working men and women in farm families
across this country who support each and every one of us every day in
what it is they do for us for that security. I urge my colleagues to
get serious about passing this bill and providing the certainty our
farm families deserve, knowing that Government stands with them. Today,
this time right now in our State of Arkansas, it is time to plant the
winter wheat crop. Without knowing what the policy is going to be for
next year or the year after that or the year after that, it is pretty
hard to go to that banker and ask for that tremendous loan for that
investment one has to make in producing that safe and abundant,
affordable food supply, without knowing where one's Government stands.
I appeal to my colleagues and ask them to join us on the floor to
talk about how important this bill is and, more importantly, to come
together and figure out a way we can make this happen before we go home
to celebrate Thanksgiving and the incredible bounty this country
provides. Let us make sure those who provide for us have an
understanding of where their Government stands on their behalf.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. I yield myself 10 minutes of our allotted 30 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
____________________
APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, amid the news we have received this last
month on a variety of fronts--some good, some bad--is some very
positive news from our economy. October marked the 50th straight month
of positive job creation in the United States, a new record since the
Government began keeping such records in 1939. Unfortunately, Congress
has set a record of its own last week, when it finally sent the first
of 12 appropriations bills that should have been finished before
October 1, when the new fiscal year began, to the President for his
signature. Not since 1987, 20 years ago, has Congress taken this long
to send a single appropriations bill to the President this late in the
fiscal year. I ask this question: What family, what small business, who
in the United States could run their fiscal house this way, other than
the Congress? Only the Congress has the power to basically suspend the
powers of disbelief and pass something called a continuing resolution
so that spending remains on auto pilot at last year's levels, rather
than meet the needs of this current year by passing appropriations
bills. Instead of working hard together, as I genuinely believe most
Members of this body want, we see instead a calculated game being
played out.
I want to focus specifically on our Veterans and Military
Construction bill which should have been passed as a stone-alone bill
and should have been signed by the President before Veterans Day this
last Monday but was not. Rather than working to see that the funding
for our veterans and for quality-of-life funding for military families,
which is absolutely essential for a volunteer military force such as
ours, we see this bill has consciously been held behind, even though it
passed some 2 months ago, presumably to serve as a vehicle for a large
spending bill that will be offered in December.
This veterans funding bill is perhaps the most telling and troubling
sign of the games this process has degenerated into. It strikes me--and
I believe I am not alone--that there is a serious discrepancy between
what Congress says to our veterans and what Congress does
[[Page 31332]]
for our veterans. Knowing how important veterans funding is to the
President and to the country as a whole and to the Members of this
body, some of my colleagues have decided instead to use this bill as a
vehicle to expand Washington spending and, unfortunately, engage in
partisan games. Rather than funding the veterans bill by itself with
important funding and benefit enhancements that will serve America's
veterans and military families, the majority leader has decided,
initially at least, to try to merge this bill with another bill he knew
the President was going to veto. As a matter of fact, he did yesterday,
the Labor-HHS bill, because it would cost American taxpayers $11
billion more than the President asked for and included a number of,
shall we call them, ``interesting earmarks'' or special projects
designated by Members of the Senate.
Fortunately, we were able, through a point of order urged by my
senior Senator, Mrs. Hutchison, under Senate rules, to separate the
Veterans and Military Construction bill from an overloaded Labor,
Health and Human Services bill.
I ask my colleagues to consider what the American people are supposed
to think when they see examples such as this. The labor bill the
President vetoed included a special interest earmark for a San
Francisco museum called the Exploratorium. I have never heard of the
Exploratorium before, but let me explain a little about this particular
earmark that was included in the vetoed bill. This is to fund, at
taxpayer expense, a museum that has more than 500,000 visitors each
year and an annual budget of almost $30 million. Yet the American
taxpayer has been asked unknowingly to spend money on Exploratorium--
payments of more than $11 per visitor over the last 6 years. What is
perplexing to me is why the majority would knit together funding for
this Exploratorium, for example, along with about 2,000 other earmarks
or special interest appropriations, with money for veterans health
care. Why should veterans be required to shoulder the burden not only
for this earmark, which I think we could fairly debate the
appropriateness of, but over $1 billion set aside for earmarks in a
completely unrelated matter and unrelated bill? This is exactly what
the majority leader tried to do last week, along with our colleagues on
the other side of the aisle.
At the end of the day, we were able to stop this strategy and prevent
our veterans from becoming yet another political football in the
appropriations process. Unfortunately, we still haven't seemed to learn
the lessons from this unfortunate gamesmanship, because we still have
not yet passed the Veterans and Military Construction appropriations
bill, even though it has been sitting there, waiting to go to the
President for about the last 2 months. Just as we were able to free our
veterans from this pork-laden trap, the majority leader indicated that
the veterans bill would not actually ever get independent funding. On
November 7, he said:
Some Republicans are seeking to separate the two bills, to
force a vote just on the VA bill and vote just on the Labor-
Health and Human Services bill. If we do that, here is what
happens. This bill will go back to the House with only the
Labor-Health and Human Services bill. That is all the
President will get. He will not get the veterans bill.
In other words, the majority leader on November 7 said that if we
were successful in splitting these two bills apart, the President would
get the porkbarrel spending bill that pluses up spending for these
2,000 earmarked special projects and is $11 billion over the
President's requested amount, and the majority leader would make sure
that the Veterans and Military Construction appropriations bill didn't
go to the President. I don't know how this kind of action can be
characterized other than a shameful way to treat our veterans and to
deal with the quality-of-life issues included in the military
construction portion of this appropriations bill.
It is past time to fund the Federal Government at appropriate levels
and to give our veterans and troops currently in harm's way the funding
they need, as well as those who have proudly worn the uniform of the
U.S. military whom we honored just this last Veterans Day, last Monday.
It is long past time we put aside the gamesmanship that, unfortunately,
seems to characterize so much of what happens here in Washington when
it comes to politics.
I think we ought to try to figure some way to work together to
reverse the lowest approval rating in recent time which the American
public currently has with regard to the U.S. Senate, to help put a stop
to these games and liberate our Nation's finances from the grip of
partisan politics, I would suggest, and to make sure we do not end up
in a game of chicken where the American people are told if we do not
pass a bloated Omnibus appropriations bill there will be a shutdown of
the Government.
I believe we ought to go ahead and pass, by way of insurance, the
Government Shutdown Prevention Act. This legislation will guarantee
that the Government continues to work for the American people until
Congress passes responsible appropriations bills. We need to do this
sooner rather than later. It does not look as if we are going to get it
done this week before we break for the Thanksgiving recess, but we sure
ought to get it done when we come back on December 3.
Passing the Government Shutdown Prevention Act will make sure the
American people need not be frightened into thinking the Federal
Government will not continue to operate and fund essential programs
while we continue to debate what the appropriate level of
appropriations bills should be.
Mr. President, I yield myself 2 more minutes, to be followed by the
Senator from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my colleagues from the majority want to
spend $23 billion above what the President has requested in his budget
for discretionary spending. Now, that is $23 billion in discretionary
spending over and above entitlement spending, which has been operating
again on autopilot at the growth rate of about 8 percent per year. They
have claimed $23 billion is not all that much money. But I would
suggest that only in Washington is $23 billion to be considered pocket
change. The American people are smarter than that. They know somebody
has to pay for that money. It does not magically appear. What it means
is the Federal Government is going to reach into their pockets and
extract it from their hard-earned wages in order to fund these vast
expansions of Government programs.
We need to make sure that we are better stewards of the taxpayers'
dollars and that we regain the lost confidence the American people had
in this institution. We need to take care of problems, for example,
such as the growing alternative minimum tax, which threatens to grow
from 6 million taxpayers this year to 23 million taxpayers next year--a
typical so-called tax-the-rich program, which, just as they always do,
tends to grow to creep into the middle class. We need to make sure the
middle class does not suffer a huge tax increase by dealing with the
alternative minimum tax.
Again, instead of being in lockdown, as we are on the farm bill
because the majority leader will not allow any amendments to be offered
except for ones he cherry-picks, we ought to be solving these problems,
pass a Veterans and Military Construction bill, get it to the
President, and not have a game of chicken with $23 billion in excess
spending, which we know the President is going to veto. Instead we
should engage in a meaningful dialog to try to come up with a
negotiated amount. We should eliminate this middle-class tax increase
which is going to grow from affecting 6 million people to 23 million
people unless we do something about it before the end of the year.
Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire is
here with us and ready to take the floor, so I yield to him.
I ask that the Senator from South Carolina, who I know is coming down
after the Senator from New Hampshire, be reserved 8 minutes of the time
we have remaining.
[[Page 31333]]
Mr. President, could I ask how much time we have remaining on this
side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventeen minutes is remaining.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be split
evenly between the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from
South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas.
First, Mr. President, I join the Senator from Texas in asking that
the majority leader and the Democratic membership free the Veterans
bill and the Military Construction bill, which is ready to be sent to
the President, stop holding it hostage for the purpose of holding it up
with special interest projects which have nothing to do with the
military or with veterans, and instead send that bill down to the
President so he can sign it so our veterans can know they are getting
the support they need after their great service to our Nation.
____________________
THE FARM BILL
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to talk a little bit about the
status of the farm bill because I was stunned, obviously, today to find
that the majority leader--after for 2 weeks, almost, refusing to allow
any amendments to the farm bill--has now decided to file cloture on the
farm bill and claim this is the way things are done in the Senate. That
is a statement which is pretty hard to accept with a straight face: the
concept that the majority leader would set up a process in the Senate
which, essentially, made him the gatekeeper of all amendments to a
major authorization and appropriations bill--appropriations in the
sense it has mandatory spending in it--so that any Member of the Senate
who wanted to offer an amendment would have to go through the majority
leader before the amendment would be allowed to come to the floor.
Well, that is the way they do things in the House of Representatives,
obviously, with what is known as the Rules Committee. But the Senate
does not do that. The Senate has never done that.
I have heard innumerable, wonderful speeches from the senior Senator
from West Virginia, the keeper, basically, of the flame of the
integrity of the Senate, Mr. Byrd, on the importance of the amendment
process in the Senate. I happen to subscribe to that, as I thought
every Member of the Senate subscribed to that, that the greatness of
the Senate is that if we put a piece of legislation on the floor, which
is a significant piece of public policy, we debate it, we hear ideas on
it, then we vote on those different ideas, and then we vote on passage.
We do not lock down a bill and not allow any amendments to occur on
that bill except those that are accepted on the majority side and by
the majority leader and then say to the minority: Well, because you
would not accept our process of locking down the amendment process, we
are going to file cloture to shut you out completely.
That truly is an autocratic level which this Senate has never seen.
Let me tell you something, it puts us on a slippery slope. It is very
possible--in fact, I hope likely--that the other side of the aisle may
not be in the majority forever around here and maybe not even through
the next election. Certainly, if they continue to produce such a
dysfunctional legislative calendar, as they have over the last year, I
would think the American people would get a little frustrated and ask
for a change. But they have now opened the door to running the Senate
as an autocratic system, as a dictatorial system where the rights of 99
Members of the Senate are made completely subservient to 1 Member,
which is the majority leader, because he has the right of recognition,
he fills up the tree, and then when he does not like the amendments, he
files cloture.
Let's talk about some of the amendments he does not want us to hear
on this bill relative to the farm bill. He does not want an amendment
offered which would say to farm families, especially to mothers in farm
families: You will have access to OB/GYNs. That is one of the
amendments I intended to offer. It would simply say that OB/GYNs who
practice in farm and rural communities would be immune from excessive
liability and lawsuits from trial lawyers.
We know for a fact we have lost most of our OB/GYNs in rural America.
These baby doctors cannot practice in rural America because there are
not enough clients for them to generate enough revenue to pay the cost
of their malpractice insurance, which is generated by these lawsuits
from trial lawyers. Well, the other side of the aisle is a kept group
for the trial lawyers, so they do not want anything that could happen
around here that might limit the income of trial lawyers, including
allowing baby doctors to deliver babies in rural America to farm
families. So they are not going to allow me to offer that amendment.
What an outrage.
They do not want an amendment which would give firefighters in this
country the right to bargain in order to reach agreement on contracts.
Now, I do not think fires just burn in cities. Farmers have fires. In
fact, if you look at what is happening in the West with wildfires,
there are a lot of issues of fires for farmers in this country,
especially silo fires. I know. I come from an area where there are
occasional silo fires. They need firefighters. But the other side of
the aisle does not want to hear about an amendment that deals with
firefighters' rights. No. They want to lock that amendment out of the
process.
They want to lock out of the process an amendment which would address
the issue of people who are caught up in this terrible mortgage crisis
we have. There are a lot of farmers, I suspect, and a lot of Americans
generally who did not know how these ARMs worked when they went into
these deals, and they are now finding they are being refinanced at a
level where they cannot keep their homes because their interest rates
are jumping up into the double-digit levels. When those homes are
foreclosed on, they get a double whammy of getting hit by the IRS with
what is known as a recognized gain, even though they did not have any
income because their home got foreclosed on. This is a really difficult
thing to do to someone, whether you are a farmer or just an average
American, to first have their home foreclosed on and then to hit them
with an IRS bill for having their home foreclosed on. I was going to
suggest we take that issue up on the farm bill because it happens to
relate to a lot of farmers who are being foreclosed on.
I was going to suggest we take up an amendment which might look at
some of these new commodities that were put into this bill, such as the
asparagus program and the camellia program and the chickpea program,
but we do not want to hear about that. No, we do not want to address
those issues.
We do not want to address the issue of the fact that this bill has in
it $10 billion--$10 billion--of gamesmanship on moving dates so they
can make this bill look more affordable and less costly. They don't
want to have an amendment on that which might make the bill honest on
its face. They don't want to hear that amendment. They don't want to
hear this amendment, which is sort of ironic.
They have put in this bill what is called walking-around money--
walking-around money--for the farm States in this country, actually for
five farm States, called a $5 billion disaster loan fund. The way we
have always handled disaster loans for the farm community--and they
have them, and they are legitimate--is we have simply passed an
emergency bill around here to cover the disaster when the disaster
occurs. But what this bill does is set up a new fund which will be a
floor, essentially, which says there is $5 billion in this kitty
sitting over here for which if there is a disaster, you take this money
too. What is the practical implication of that? Every wind storm that
occurs in North Dakota that blows over a mailbox is going to be
declared a disaster so they can get some of this money. It is putting
money on the table that is just going to be used up.
We know we are going to fund disasters when they occur. Why would we
[[Page 31334]]
prefund disasters in a way that is going to make it absolutely
guaranteed that a disaster will occur, even if there is not a disaster?
Well, we don't want to have an amendment which says: Let's take that
disaster money and move it over to IDEA, special education. There is an
account that needs some more money. There is an account which would
give relief to a lot of families in this country, a lot of small towns
in this country, farm communities and other communities that have a
huge burden of IDEA in special education. Let's take that $5 billion
out of that emergency account and, rather than having walking-around
money for the five States that usually get this emergency money, use it
for IDEA, which will benefit all the States in this country.
They don't want to hear those amendments.
It is incredible that on a bill of this size--one of the biggest
bills we deal with as a Congress, one of the most important pieces of
public policy we deal with--the other side of the aisle and the
majority leader have specifically set up a procedure where amendments
will not be tolerated--simply won't be tolerated. Totally
inappropriate. I think basically what the other side of the aisle wants
to do is kill this bill.
Now, from my perspective, this is not a good bill, and I am going to
be voting against it. But I know it is going to pass if it is given a
legitimate shot at passage because there are a lot of people around
here who have these different commodities, and they all vote for each
other, and, as a result, they build up enough votes to pass this bill.
That is the way the farm bill always works. But that is no reason why
we should not have a chance to debate it, to address some of these
issues, such as baby doctors in rural communities and farm communities,
such as the need for firefighters to have adequate bargaining rights,
such as the need for people who are getting foreclosed on not getting
hit with an IRS bill, such as the need to have proper accounting on
this bill for what they are actually spending, such as the need for not
setting up a $5 billion walking-around money fund, such as the need for
the new commodities programs for asparagus, chickpeas, and camellia. We
should have amendments to address all these issues. That is what the
process of the Senate is all about. But it is being denied here. The
result of that denial is that those of us who happen to believe the
Senate should function as a place where things are amended and
discussed and aired and heard are going to have to resist this bill. So
the majority seems to want to kill this bill, which is unfortunate,
because in the end, this bill should at least get a fair hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. GREGG. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 7\1/2\
minutes.
____________________
KEEPING PROMISES
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I think we came into this year very
hopeful in a lot of ways. The Republicans lost the majority, and in
some ways I think that is a good thing. We lost our discipline on
spending, and for many years our Democratic colleagues were more than
happy to help us and even try to one-up us during the period we were in
the majority.
Our last act as the majority, though, was a good one. We were able to
stop last year's omnibus bill and force Congress to move ahead under a
continuing resolution that only had about 2,000 earmarks--wasteful
earmarks. This year, the majority unfortunately has expanded that back
to about 6,000, which is disappointing because we entered the year with
a lot of promises from the new majority, a lot of hopes about things
that would change. Our Democratic colleagues ran on cleaning up the
culture of corruption and getting rid of a lot of wasteful earmarks.
I, for one, wanted to help. In fact, one of the first things I did
this year was introduce Nancy Pelosi's, Speaker Pelosi's, earmark
transparency bill in the Senate. Unfortunately, the new majority
decided it wasn't right the way they did it and filled it full of
loopholes, and we have been fighting all year to try to continue to
disclose a lot of this wasteful spending.
Now, as I said, as we end the year, instead of the 2,000 earmarks we
were at last year, we are going to 6,000 plus. We are also way over
budget. The amount we have over budget this year will translate over
the next 10 years to about $300 billion in additional spending. That is
a lot of money for anyone to even conceive of, but just so Americans
will know, that amount would allow us to continue the tax relief we
have had for the last several years for another 10 years without
spending any additional money as a government. That tax relief affects
every American. Instead, because we haven't acted, because we haven't
kept our promises, next year millions of Americans, middle-class
Americans will experience a new tax that they have never experienced
before, and a lot of them don't know it is coming.
The disappointment, I guess, as we end this year is there are so many
needs as a nation that we haven't acted on. Instead, we have spent the
year with 40 resolutions on Iraq. We have tried to expand Government
health care, holding children hostage to moving to more Government-
controlled health care. The 40 Iraq resolutions were all done holding
our troops hostage and the funding for our troops and the weapons and
the armament they need to succeed. We spent the year on things such as
trying to eliminate the secret ballot for workers when folks are trying
to unionize them. Workers have always had the freedom to vote secretly
and not be coerced or intimidated, but we have held workers hostage
this year.
We have all of these new wasteful earmarks. Americans have heard
about them, whether it is a hippie museum or monuments to different
Members of Congress, billion-dollar parks at the expense of our
veterans funds. We have balled that all up as we go into the end of the
year $300 billion over budget for the next 10 years with wasteful
earmarks, including monuments to ourselves. I think we have done
something even worse than the wasteful spending because we have tied to
this wasteful spending ball at the end of the year the most vulnerable
and disadvantaged in our society. We have tied the children to it. We
have said they need more health care. We have tied our troops to it,
and we are holding them hostage. Instead of giving them the money they
need over the next several months, we are tying them up and holding
them hostage.
Our veterans, we filled the Veterans bill with wasteful earmarks, and
we are holding our veterans hostage. We have basically made human
shields out of the most vulnerable Americans, and we are challenging
Members of the Senate and Members of the House: Vote for this bill that
is billions over budget, that contains billions of wasteful earmarks.
You either vote for this bill or you are voting against children and
veterans and seniors and voting against our troops. This is no way to
run the most important Government in the world.
So we end the year with a lot of broken promises. We have not helped
Americans buy health insurance; in fact, we have made it harder. We
haven't cut spending; we have raised it. We have increased the number
of earmarks from last year. All we have done is talk. While our troops
are succeeding in Iraq, we are trying to cut their funding. Instead of
broken promises, we need to focus on the promises we need to keep.
We have promised Americans since the beginning of our Constitution
that we are going to protect them. That is our main purpose. We need to
keep our promises to seniors because we have taken their money all
their lives and promised them Social Security and Medicare will be
there. We need to keep those promises. We need to keep the promise of
making freedom work for everyone and not to use the problems in our
society as an excuse to replace freedom with more Government, which is
what we are in the process of doing at every turn in Washington.
[[Page 31335]]
I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I hope we can end the year
in a more bipartisan fashion and work on reducing the amount of
spending, the wasteful earmarks, and try to focus our efforts on the
real priorities of this country that affect real Americans and not to
hold our people hostage to this wasteful spending. We have just another
month or so to finish our business, and I hope we finish it with some
honor and dignity in a way that the American people would regain some
trust in this Senate and in this Congress.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. STABENOW. 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 Michigan is recognized.
____________________
GETTING RESULTS
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I come to the floor because it is
amazing to listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle lament
what they view are things not getting done when, in fact, we are
getting things done. The truth is, we have been operating this year
with an extraordinary slowness on the other side of the aisle because,
first of all, they have participated in 52 filibusters since the
beginning of the year--52 filibusters, maybe 53 by the end of the week,
every week now. This is unprecedented. It never happened before. It
never happened before; to see the minority in the Senate obstruct,
obstruct, obstruct with 52 different filibusters, trying to stop us
from getting the people's business done.
I find it so interesting and amazing when my colleagues lament that
not more of the appropriations process is done. As the Presiding
Officer knows, our colleagues, the previous majority, didn't do a
budget at all last year--at all. We are moving through the process.
Despite the continual slowdowns, the efforts to stop us from
proceeding, we are moving ahead. But last year, our colleagues, who
lament so passionately and who come to the floor every day, didn't even
pass a budget. We came in in January to a new majority and had to clean
up the mess, literally. There was no budget. We had to pass a budget
just to get us through the end of the year, to be able to keep services
for the American people going, and we did that. We did that.
Also, during that process we put in place a few things along the way
that we clearly put at the top of the list in terms of appropriations:
Additional money for our veterans, clearly a priority for us; a Pell
grant for our low-income students trying to go to college to have the
American dream. We are now at a point where we have the budget, the
appropriations process that we are working on for next year. We have
seen nothing but efforts to slow that down, to veto it.
Yesterday the President vetoed the part of the budget that focuses on
health care, education for our people, health research into new cures
for cancer. It focuses on diabetes and Alzheimer's and Parkinson's
disease, all of the areas where we hope to make breakthroughs to be
able to save lives. The President vetoed that.
The President says the slight increase for restoring cuts that the
President and the Republicans have made in the last several years, in
our efforts to restore those funds to get the priorities right and put
us back on track for middle-class families, was too much. Eleven
billion dollars invested in America is too much. Twelve billion dollars
a month on a war--putting our men and women in the middle of harm's way
in a civil war every day--is OK, and it is not paid for. The most
important thing is we are losing lives, but it is outrageous that we
are seeing $12 billion a month being spent.
The President vetoed an investment in America yesterday that was less
than 1 month in Iraq--an investment in our families, in our seniors, in
our children, and in the future in terms of education and opportunity
and research. He vetoed a bill that was, in fact, an effort to invest
in America.
I have to say, despite 52 filibusters, we are, as Democrats, working
with colleagues, obviously. We don't get anything done unless it is on
a bipartisan basis. We know that, and we do it every day. But the truth
is, our majority is getting results for middle-class Americans every
day. I am proud we have placed veterans at the top of our budget. We,
for the first time, have listened. We, the new majority, have listened
to the veterans of this country, the veterans organizations. We took
their budget called the Independent Budget--the veterans budget--and
made it our own so we would make sure our veterans were fully funded.
We have addressed the concerns about Walter Reed and what happens when
our veterans come home and get caught between the military health
system and the VA system.
Mr. President, I believe you are about to give me a high sign on the
time. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator is recognized for an
additional 10 minutes.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am very proud of the fact that one of
the first things we did this year in addition to supporting our
veterans was to pass the first minimum wage increase in 10 years for
working Americans. An awful lot of those are moms with 2 children, 3
children, working 1 job, 2 jobs, 3 jobs, trying to hold things together
for their family, working hard every day. I am proud we have passed
that. I am proud we have also focused on middle-class Americans and the
American dream of college and the opportunity to be able to get the
skills that young people and people going back to school can receive in
order to be able to work hard and be successful in our new global
economy. We have passed the largest student financial aid program since
the GI bill. I am very proud we have done that. We are getting results
for middle-class Americans every day.
On a bipartisan basis, we have also passed the America COMPETES Act,
which redirects critical resources into math and science and technology
for education as well as for research. I am very proud of the fact that
despite the need to pass the 9/11 Commission recommendations, we have
done that. Again, one of the early efforts by the new Democratic
majority was to pass the 9/11 Commission recommendations to focus on
critical needs, such as making radios work, so the police officers and
firefighters in America can actually talk to each other and not be put
in the same situation as they were on 9/11 where they were running into
buildings they should have been running out of because they did not
have the communications equipment that worked. We have focused on real
security. We have focused, through the appropriations that we have
passed, on our troops and their families, and I am very proud of that.
We have also focused on important and long overdue and neglected water
resources projects.
And it is wonderful to see that not only was it passed on a
bipartisan basis, but when the President vetoed the bill, we joined
together to say yes to protecting our waters, when the President said
no. So we are getting things done. We are getting things done every
single day.
We are putting the priorities of the American people first. In our
budget, we have said veterans are at the top of the list, education
funding opportunity is at the top of the list, and we also place
children's health insurance at the top of the list. In this area, we
have worked together in a wonderful bipartisan way. People are to be
congratulated on both sides of the aisle for working together on
children's health insurance.
The President again said no. He has vetoed the bill. We are working
hard, and we have the votes in the Senate to override the veto. We are
working hard to get House Republican colleagues to join us so we can
invest and cover 10 million children with health insurance.
This is another example of where we have been pushing forward,
changing
[[Page 31336]]
the direction of this Congress, focusing on middle-class Americans,
getting things done--trying to get things done over the objection of
the President. Again, I have to go back to the whole question of the
funding of the war: $12 billion a month on this war--not paid for. To
cover 10 million children in America with health insurance, it is $7
billion a year, and it is in our budget. We have fully paid for that.
What kind of priorities has the President set, when he will veto
children's health insurance and yet continue to ask for more and more
dollars for this war? Everything we do around here is values and
priorities, based on what we think is important, what we think the
people who have sent us here think is important. The majority of
Americans are saying this country is going in the wrong direction, that
while people find themselves worried about whether they will have a job
or whether it is going to go overseas or whether they will lose pay,
lose income, while their health insurance premium goes up--if they even
have health insurance--their gas prices go up, and college tuition is
going up. They may find themselves in the situation where they cannot
sell their homes due to the mortgage crisis or in a situation of
foreclosure or in a sales situation where they are losing dollars.
Middle-class Americans look around them and see a world, under this
administration, for the last 6 years, of failed policies and
priorities--a world that doesn't work for Americans, losing
opportunities rather than gaining them, working harder and harder but
seeing the American dream slip away for themselves and their families.
We, as the new majority of the Senate, understand this, we get it. We
are laser focused on what makes a difference to the American people
every day. We are focused, and we will be coming forward with efforts
to help with the mortgage crisis. I have legislation we will be
bringing forward to make sure that when you lose your home to
foreclosure or a short sale, you don't get a tax bill on top of that,
which will happen now if your financial institution gives you any kind
of a break on refinancing. You end up, with the value of the
difference, paying taxes on it. We are going to make sure that doesn't
happen. We are laser focused on getting the children's health insurance
bill done, focusing on the right kind of trade policy that is fair for
Americans--American workers and businesses. We are focused on
strengthening our country, opportunity, valuing work, focusing on the
things people care about every single day. When we get up in the
morning and we are focused on what we want for our children and
grandchildren, in order to be able to have a wonderful life, those are
the things we have been bringing forward every single day. We will
continue to do that.
We are getting things done for middle-class America. That is our
focus. We are getting things done. But I have to say, in conclusion,
that this has not been easy. We have had 52 filibusters--which is
unheard of in the Senate--in less than a year--52 filibusters that
require us to get 60 votes to stop, including, I might add, on the war.
We have a majority of Members of this body who want to end this
strategy on the war, who have been willing to say we want to put a
deadline on what is happening there and refocus on what will truly keep
us safe. We have a majority of Members--an overwhelming majority--who
supported Senator Webb's effort on troop readiness, to say to our
troops who are being deployed, redeployed, and redeployed, we should
follow the traditional policies of the military; if you have 12 or 15
months in combat in theater, you should get the same at home for rest,
retraining, and the opportunity to see your family.
We have the majority of Members who have voted to change this policy
in Iraq, get us out of a civil war, bring our troops home, to have
troop readiness policies that make sense; but we have had 52
filibusters, which is too many, stopping us from changing this war.
This can go to 53, 54--we know it will keep going through the next
year. But so will our focus. We are not going to stop. We are focused
on getting things done. We are getting results for middle-class
Americans, and we are going to continue to do that every single day.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
VETERANS SUICIDES
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes this morning
to talk about a subject that has tragically received far too little
attention, and that is the number of veterans who take their lives
because our Nation has failed them.
In a breakthrough report last night, CBS News revealed that far more
veterans commit suicide than has previously been reported by the
Defense Department and the VA. CBS, in fact, found that in 2005, at
least 6,256 veterans took their lives. That is a rate that is twice
that of other Americans.
CBS also found that veterans who are aged 20 to 24--those most likely
to have served in the war on terror--are taking their lives at a rate
that is estimated to be between two and four times higher than
nonveterans in the same age group.
CBS should be commended for pushing past this administration's
stonewalling and digging to get those numbers. The administration told
the network that even the VA hadn't counted the nationwide numbers.
Those findings are sad, they are horrifying, and they should be
preventable. Frankly, they are a reflection of something that many of
my colleagues and I have said over and over. They reflect an
administration that has failed to plan, failed to own up to its
responsibilities, and failed even to complete statistics on the impact
of this war on our veterans. From inadequate funding to a lack of
mental health professionals to a failure to help our servicemembers
make the transition from battlefield back to the homefront, this
administration has dropped the ball.
The Defense Department and the VA, in particular, must own up to the
true cost of this war and do a better job to ensure that our heroes are
not lost when they come home.
We in Congress are taking steps to try to understand and care for the
mental health wounds our troops are experiencing, but we clearly have
to do more. If those numbers CBS is reporting do not wake up America, I
fear nothing will. It is time for all of us to wake up to the reality
and the consequences of this war. It is time to wake up our neighbors
and our communities. It is time to wake up our employers and our
schools and ask if we are doing enough for our veterans. It is time to
wake up the White House and demand better care for our veterans, those
men and women who have sacrificed for all of us.
As I stand here and speak today, a generation of servicemembers is
falling through the cracks because of our failure to provide for them,
and that is shameful.
Five years ago, when the President asked us to go to war in Iraq, he
talked to us about weapons of mass destruction, he talked about al-
Qaida, he talked about the mission to fight the war on terror, but he
never talked about policing a civil war. He never talked about the
stress of living months without a break and constantly waiting for the
next attack. He has never talked about, in my opinion, taking care of
those men and women who have served us honorably when they finally come
home.
In the past, our servicemembers were always given a rest, time to
relax, time to regroup for battle. But we are today waging this war
with an all-volunteer military. Some men and women are now serving
their second, third, fourth, and now even fifth tour of duty. They are
stretched to the breaking point.
[[Page 31337]]
Too many of them are sustaining traumatic brain injuries. Too many are
suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. A third of our
servicemembers are coming home with mental health conditions, and when
they finally do come home, they struggle with the memories of battle.
In their nightmares, they see their friends being blown apart. Some of
them are turning to drugs and alcohol to numb themselves from the pain
they are in.
The sad truth is that all too often the system we have set up to
provide care for them does not help them, and we do not find out how
much pain they are in until, obviously, it is too late.
I have taken the time to talk with these servicemembers. I have taken
the time to talk with their families. I have heard their stories, and I
wish to share a few with my colleagues today that illustrate, I
believe, why it is so critical that we take action. These are young men
and women. They are in their early twenties. They are young men and
women who have served our country. They are someone's son, brother,
sister, wife, best friend. Losing them is shameful.
Let me tell my colleagues about a young veteran named Justin Bailey.
Justin joined the Marine Corps when he was 18, a few months after he
graduated from high school. He was about to separate from the Marines
in 2003 when his service was involuntarily extended because of the war
in Iraq.
Justin went to Iraq. He was injured, and he returned home in pain and
suffering from PTSD. He underwent several surgeries, and over a 2-year
time period was prescribed a slew of medications, including hydrocone,
xanax, and methadone, and he became addicted.
Justin slipped through the cracks. Despite seeking help for his
addiction, he was allowed to self-medicate. Despite warnings from the
FDA, he was prescribed drugs that were inconsistent with the treatment
of PTSD. Justin tried to find help, but after 6 weeks in a VA program
for addicts with PTSD, he never once saw a psychiatrist.
Justin's parents had assumed that he would get proper supervision in
the VA program, but he didn't. This past January, Justin took too many
pills and he died of an overdose.
The next young man I wish to tell my colleagues about is Joshua
Omvig. Josh, I am told, was an eager soldier who dreamed of being a
police officer. He insisted on graduating from high school early so he
could join the military and begin his career. He was sent to Iraq. But
after one visit home his parents could see he was shaken. Ordinary
things, they said, made him nervous, and he was having nightmares that
made him shout out in his sleep.
When he completed his tour of duty, he was transitioned back into
civilian life after only a couple of weeks. His parents saw he was not
the same. They said he didn't say much about Iraq, but he did talk
about hearing voices and seeing faces and he was very jittery.
His parents wanted him to get care, but he refused to see a doctor
for fear it would hurt his career. Despite his parents' efforts to help
him, Josh could not get over the trauma he experienced in Iraq. It got
worse and his world slowly unraveled. Josh took his life at the age of
22.
Josh's and Justin's stories came to light because their families came
here and asked Congress for help. As a result, we passed the Joshua
Omvig Veteran Suicide Prevention Act this year because his family
pushed and pushed for legislation that would require the military and
the VA to better understand and treat psychological trauma for our
servicemembers.
Are these extreme examples? Well, maybe, but they are not isolated
examples, and the reality is many others are slipping unnoticed through
the cracks today.
It would be one thing if we had no idea what the mental health
strains are for our veterans, but that is not the case. We have seen
servicemembers come home with mental wounds in every military conflict
in which we have ever been involved.
When I was a young college student in the late sixties, I volunteered
at the Seattle VA. I was assigned to the psychiatric ward. I worked
with Vietnam veterans who were my age at the time coming home from
Vietnam. I saw what was in their eyes. For some, it was a blank stare.
For many, it was anger. For a lot, it was talking and talking and
talking about what they had been through.
There was no word called post-traumatic stress syndrome when I worked
at the VA with those Vietnam veterans. But we know now the strains of
war and what it causes, and we should be doing so much more for the
thousands and thousands of young men and women who are coming home
today and feeling lost and alone in their homes and communities because
no one has reached out to help them.
Our understanding of the impact that warfare has on the minds of
servicemembers has evolved since I worked at the VA as a young student
many years ago. One thing we know is that the mental wound suffered by
men and women in uniform can be as devastating as their physical
injuries. So it is long past time that the military knock down the
stigma associated with mental health care. It is long past time that
the military provide the care our veterans desperately need and deserve
and back it up with adequate funding. We must acknowledge that this is
a cost of war we cannot ignore.
What can we do to prevent more stories such as Josh and Justin? We
have to better understand the trauma our troops have experienced. The
Joshua Omvig Act we passed takes steps to do that, but it is so clear
we have more to do. We need more mental health care clinics, and we
need more providers. We need the VA to be proactive. We need them to
reach out to these veterans who are not enrolled in the VA system and
who are at risk for suicide. And we in Congress have to provide the
money to fully fund their care.
The Senate has passed a bill that will increase funding for veterans
by almost $4 billion over what the President asked. I hope we can get
those improvements to our veterans as quickly as possible. We have to
finally provide a seamless transition for our servicemembers when they
come home, and that starts with making sure that veterans can get their
disability benefits without having to fight through the system. It is
unconscionable to me that our heroes return home from the battlefield
today only to have to fight a bureaucracy to get the benefits they were
promised.
Veterans Day was a few days ago. Many of us went home and took part
in ceremonies to thank our servicemembers for securing our safety and
our freedom--well-deserved. In my own speech in Kitsap County, at home
in Washington State, I said I believe that Veterans Day should not be
just a day for ceremony. It should be a day to consider whether there
is something more we can do for our veterans. And what are the
implications for not doing enough? As the ``CBS News'' report found,
too often the implications are that many veterans are stretched to the
breaking point. That is a tragedy. We have to wake up to the reality
that we have already lost too many.
Ours is a great Nation. No matter how any of us feel about this
current conflict, we know our troops are serving us honorably. But we
owe them so much more than we have given them so far. We can do better.
We must do better. I ask anyone who is listening to me this morning,
anyone who watched the CBS report and saw those families talk about the
tragedy of losing a son or a daughter to suicide after they had come
home from this war, to reach out and say: Am I doing enough? Do I know
of a family who is suffering? Do I know of someone at my child's school
whose parent has come home? Do I know an employee who has come home
from Iraq? Have I reached out myself and said: I am here for you if you
need me?
All of us can do more. Congress needs to act and do more as well. We
are a great nation. We should do much better.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page 31338]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.
____________________
FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 2419, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Harkin amendment No. 3500, in the nature of a substitute.
Reid (for Dorgan-Grassley) amendment No. 3508 (to amendment
No. 3500), to strengthen payment limitations and direct the
savings to increased funding for certain programs.
Reid amendment No. 3509 (to amendment No. 3508), to change
the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 3510 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 3500), to change the enactment
date.
Reid amendment No. 3511 (to Amendment No. 3510), to change
the enactment date.
Motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry, with instructions to report back
forthwith, with Reid amendment No. 3512.
Reid amendment No. 3512 (to the instructions of the motion
to commit to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry, with instructions), to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 3513 (to the instructions of the motion
to recommit), to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 3514 (to amendment No. 3513), to change
the enactment date.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I see my friend, Senator Chambliss, is on
the floor. I think we are both very frustrated. I don't think, I know
we are both very frustrated that we are stymied on this farm bill. We
are not moving anywhere. But in hopes that maybe we can get something
moving, I am going to propound some unanimous consent requests to see
if we can't break out and move ahead.
So I inquire of my colleague, Senator Chambliss, as to whether we can
agree to a time limitation for debate with respect to the pending
Dorgan-Grassley amendment. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that
there be 60 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the Dorgan
amendment No. 3508, with the time equally divided and controlled in the
usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote
in relation to the amendment; that no second-degree amendment be in
order prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, unfortunately, based upon the status of
the amendments at this point in time and based upon the comments by the
majority leader this morning, at this point in time I am going to have
to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that we
proceed to the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment regarding farm program
reform; that there be 2 hours of debate with respect to the amendment
prior to a vote; that no amendments be in order to the amendment prior
to the vote; that the time be equally divided and controlled in the
usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate
proceed to vote in relation to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, again, as much as I would love to
accommodate the chairman of the committee, based upon the status at
this time and the comments of the majority leader this morning, I will
have to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in light of that objection, I would
inquire as to whether we can enter into an agreement on the Roberts
amendment No. 3548; that there be 90 minutes for debate prior to a vote
in relation to the amendment, with the time equally divided and
controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of
time, the Senate vote in relation to the amendment, with no second-
degree amendment in order prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, again, based upon the process that we
are now involved in and the comments of the majority leader this
morning relative to the farm bill, I will have to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let's see if there can be agreement to
consider the Stevens amendment No. 3569; again that there be 60 minutes
of debate prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no
amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote, and the time be
equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or
yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, once again, based upon the process we
are now engaged in and the comments of the majority leader this
morning, I will have to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to
the Allard amendment No. 3572; that there be 60 minutes of debate prior
to a vote in relation to the amendment, with the time equally divided
and controlled in the usual form, with no second-degree amendment in
order prior to the vote; that upon the use or yielding back of the
time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Reserving the right to object, I would say there may
be some common ground.
I ask unanimous consent that the unanimous consent request of the
chairman be modified and that the pending amendments and motion to
recommit be withdrawn and the only amendments in order be the
bipartisan list of first-degree amendments I have sent to the desk and
that all first-degree amendments be subject to relevant second-degree
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
Mr. HARKIN. I do not modify my request.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Then, Mr. President, I will have to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am certain the Senator will have another
unanimous consent request of his own very shortly, as he just
enunciated. I just proposed five requests for votes in relation to
amendments that are relevant to the farm bill. As we just heard, there
are objections to each one of those.
We are ready to move ahead. We have been here now a week, over a
week, on this farm bill, and we are stuck, dead in the water. Again, my
friend, Senator Chambliss, said he wanted to send to the desk a list of
amendments that have been looked at. Not all of them have been filed,
as I understand, but they have been talked about. As I understand it,
there are 255 amendments. That is ridiculous. Of course, we are not
going to have 255 amendments. But at least we could work. We are here;
we could be working now. We could debate the Dorgan amendment and vote
on it today. There are five requests I just offered right now, five
amendments we could dispose of this afternoon. The other side objected
to each one of those.
Again, I am extremely frustrated, as the chairman of the committee.
We got a bill through. We worked very hard on it. Senator Chambliss
worked very hard on it. Yet we are stuck. We got it through committee.
There was not one dissenting vote in the committee, not one. It is a
good bill.
As Senator Lincoln said--I heard her speech this morning--it is
bipartisan, it is multiregional. There are a lot of
[[Page 31339]]
compromises in it, as is true in any bill. But we got it through
without a dissenting vote. Yet we cannot even work on it on the Senate
floor? We cannot even work on it. Forget about passing it, we can't
even work on it.
I just propounded five requests to have debate and votes on
amendments, relevant amendments to this farm bill, and every time it
was objected to.
I don't know. I just want to make it clear that we on this side are
ready to do business. We have been for a week. We could have been
debating relevant amendments. We could have almost--we could have been
done with this bill by now.
I want to point out a little bit of history. On the last farm bill,
when I was privileged to chair the committee at that time in the
Senate, in 2002, we had 10 days of consideration in December and 6 days
in February. That was it. Mr. President, 53 amendments were considered,
not 255.
In 1996, we had 4 days of consideration, 24 amendments to the bill;
in 1990, 7 days of consideration, and we proceeded to vote on it. This
is very frustrating. We are here. We are ready to do business. We are
ready to debate and vote. Yet the leadership on the other side says no.
The leadership says no.
I wanted to make it clear, fundamentally, basically clear to all
Senators and anyone watching: We on this side have been ready, are
ready, are willing to debate and vote on these amendments. It has been
objected to on the other side.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is almost unbelievably disappointing.
This is the second week we are on the farm bill. We have people in the
Senate who believe, apparently, they are trying to imitate a set of
human brake pads and stop everything. We haven't even started. How can
you stop it? I don't understand this at all. If family farmers farmed
like Congress legislated, there would be no food.
When it comes spring you have to plant the seeds. You have to do it.
It is not an option. When it comes harvest time, you have to take it
off the field. When the cows are ready to milk, you have to milk. We
have a few people in Congress who believe you don't have to do
anything. All you have to do, as I said, is imitate a set of human
brake pads and just stop everything. I guess maybe that is a successful
strategy for some, if you do not believe anything ought to get done.
The chairman of this committee, Senator Harkin, and the ranking
member, Senator Chambliss, worked hard on this. I understand Senator
Chambliss has been objecting as a result of the minority leader's
position. I understand that. But my colleague from Iowa just propounded
a series of unanimous consent requests. He said let's just start. This
isn't rocket science. How do you get this bill done? First, you start
the bill.
As I understand it, my colleague proposed a couple of amendments from
each side, Democratic amendments, Republican amendments. Just start,
have some time agreements, have a debate, have a vote.
If there are some who do not want a farm bill to be passed in this
Congress, I understand. They have a right to vote against and speak
against the farm bill. But why on Earth should they hold this bill
hostage to their whims? We take for granted, every single day in this
country, what family farmers do. They get up out there in the country,
living under a yard light, get up, often very early, and do chores.
They work hard. They take a lot of risks. They have big dreams. They
live on hope. They must live on hope. They hope there is going to be a
better crop, a better year. They hope they are going to be able to make
a decent living. We take all of that for granted.
What we try to do in the Congress is to write a farm bill that says
family farmers are important--yes, for economic reasons but also for
cultural reasons, to have a network of families out there producing
America's food. Family farmers are important, and we understand
families can't survive some tough times, so we create a safety net, a
bridge over price depressions. And we say: We want to help you. That is
what the farm bill is about.
There are other pieces of it, nutrition and other issues, but the
centerpiece of a safety net for family farmers is very important. I
guess I don't remember a time when we had a farm bill on the Senate
floor that has been held up. I voted against some farm bills I didn't
like. But, you know, I didn't like the so-called Freedom to Farm bill,
which I thought was a disaster, so I voted against it, but I didn't
come down to the floor to try to prevent it from moving. I just said
this is something I will not support, so I voted against it.
In this case, and in the previous case with the farm bill we operate
under currently, I support it. I really want this to move forward. I do
not understand. I do not understand at all. We could compare, perhaps,
the Senate to a glacier, but the difference is a glacier actually moves
from time to time. This Senate, on this bill, is going nowhere because
of a couple of people who decided we are going to stop it.
The majority leader has brought this bill to the floor of the Senate,
allowed 2 weeks for it. Both colleagues, Senator Harkin and Senator
Chambliss, have worked hard. My colleague, Senator Conrad, has been out
here working hard to see if can we get a list of amendments we can
begin working through. Apparently, we now know there are something like
250 amendments that have been noticed. Obviously, we are not going to
have 250 amendments on this bill. We don't have time for that. Some of
these amendments, a good many of them, have nothing at all to do with
this subject at all--going back into immigration and a whole series of
tax issues that have nothing to do with farming, agriculture, family
farms.
So the question is, Can we find a way to reduce that number of
amendments and then just start?
The first amendment Senator Grassley and I have offered is an
amendment that would, I think, improve the bill. But we have not been
able to even begin the first 5 minutes of debate on that amendment.
There are many others.
My colleague offers a proposal: Let's at least start on two
Republican and two Democratic amendments. The first step of any journey
is the most important step. Let's just begin. Here it is, a week and a
half after the bill comes to the floor of the Senate, and this Senate
is at parade rest. I do not understand it.
One of my great concerns at the moment is that the time has been set
aside to try to get this farm bill done. Senator Harkin and Senator
Chambliss wrote a farm bill that came out of the Agriculture Committee,
as I understand, unanimously. You would believe, then, that represents
bipartisan agreement on the central portion of a farm bill. Can we
improve it a little bit? I think so. There are some amendments back and
forth that perhaps will improve some portions of it. But the fact is,
they wrote a bipartisan bill that had very strong support, in fact,
unanimous support in the committee.
How on Earth do we get to a point where a bill that comes out of the
committee unanimously, a bill that is as important as this one is to
every region of the country, sits on the floor of the Senate at parade
rest, and we cannot even get to debate on the first amendment? I do not
understand that at all. That makes no sense to me.
The fact is, time is running out. I worry if we do not get this bill
done this week--work late tonight, late tomorrow night, into Friday,
get this bill done--I worry that this bill is not going to get done in
any timely fashion. What an awful message for us to send to family
farmers. The message in this bill is, we think they matter. We think
they are an important part of this country's economic strength. Family
farmers have always been the economic All-Stars.
But it is beyond me to understand what is going on here. We have
amendments. My amendment is pending, but we can't even begin the first
minute of debate. I don't understand it at all.
I have said before on the floor of the Senate that family farmers in
this
[[Page 31340]]
country produce a lot more than crops and food. They produce
communities. They are the blood vessels that create the strength for
these small towns. I grew up in one of those towns. We raised some
cattle and some horses. The fact is, family farmers are very important
to the economic strength and to the culture of this country. They do
not expect much. They don't ask for much. They are an independent bunch
of people. They are people who try to raise a family and raise a crop,
way out in the country, in many cases. They are not asking for anything
very much except that this country has believed for a long while that
all of the uncertainties, all of the risks that accrue to family
farming in many cases just wipe them out unless you have some kind of
safety net. That is why we have created a safety net.
They plant a seed, hope it grows, hope it rains enough, hope it
doesn't rain too much, hope it doesn't hail, hope the insects don't
come, hope there isn't any crop disease. Then they hope they have a
chance to harvest it in the fall and then hope when they harvest it and
truck it to the elevator, it is going to have a decent price. All of
that risk, all alone.
So we create a safety net to say we are going to try, if we can, to
provide some strength to that hope because we want family farms to
continue to exist in the future because we think it strengthens our
country. That is why we write a farm bill. All of us come from
different points on the compass, but we all believe basically the same
thing: family farming matters for this country.
How on Earth have we gotten to the point where, on a Wednesday, a
week after we start the debate on the farm bill, we have not been able
to consider even one amendment?
Now we risk not getting the farm bill done. How we have gotten to
this point, I don't have the foggiest understanding, but it is not
healthy and not good.
I hope we can persuade the minority leader and others to let us
proceed. Just start. We are not asking for the Moon. Just start
discussion, debate, and vote on amendments, and let's see how quickly
we can move through these to try to get a bill done before the end of
this week.
Let me finish, as I started, by saying I know a lot of people have
worked for a long time on this bill. There are a lot of people on both
sides of the political aisle who want this bill to get done. I am among
them. But there are some who have decided we ought not move forward,
and they have decided the only way they would allow us to move forward
is to allow all kinds of amendments that go back and recreate the
debates on immigration, and you name it. The fact is, all that means is
we will not get this bill done, never get this bill done. So let's go
back to the tradition.
The tradition has been, with respect to farm bills, we have had farm
bills on the floor of the Senate in which we debate and vote on
amendments. We do not, in most cases, see amendments that have nothing
to do with agriculture load down this bill and decide we are going to
try to stop it from moving. I hope we can get back to that tradition.
That is the tradition I think farmers would expect of us.
Let me again say, as I started, if families out there in the country
farmed like we legislate--or at least like a few people in this Chamber
want to legislate--there would be no food because they would never
plant the grain. It wouldn't matter, timing doesn't matter, they
wouldn't harvest the grain, timing doesn't matter; they wouldn't milk
the cows because they wouldn't care whether the cows are fresh or sore.
This Congress can do a whole lot better than this, and my hope is, in
the coming couple of hours, we can reach agreement and begin debate on
the amendments. Let's follow this trail until the amendments are done,
and I think that farm bill will get a resounding vote on the floor of
the Senate. I think the farm bill will get two-thirds or perhaps three-
fourths in favor of it.
I yield the floor. I know we have two other Members on the Senate
floor. The Senator from Colorado had indicated he wanted to speak, but
I know the Senator from Georgia is on the Senate floor as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota
for his comments. He is exactly right. There are a lot of us in this
body who wish to see this farm bill move. I actually came back a day
early last week thinking the farm bill would be up the next day.
I was prepared, as ranking member, to move ahead with the farm bill.
When I got here, I found out we all of a sudden were going to be caught
in a process that is unique to the Senate, and that is a process where
the majority leader has the right--and I understand he has the right; I
understand that we did that when we were in the majority--to fill the
tree, and he did so. And when he does so, it kind of brings things to a
halt. That is the purpose in doing that, in trying to control what
amendments may be filed. I thought after a week's time, yesterday,
rather than us debating amendments, moving through, which in all
likelihood we conceivably could have been through this bill by now--but
instead of being able to call up amendments, debating them and voting
on them over the past week, we have been stuck in this process now that
requires a unanimous consent by both sides before we can move forward
with the process of dealing with amendments.
Yesterday I had some hope, because Senator Harkin and I agreed that
what we thought we ought to do would be to come up with a list of
amendments that are relevant, and as always is the case on any major
piece of legislation, some were irrelevant amendments. I would hope we
could agree on a number. Unfortunately, we have not been able to do
that. As of yesterday we had about 140 Democratic amendments that were
filed, and about 120 Republican amendments that were filed.
Most of them are relevant to the farm bill, but some of them are not.
But it is always the case that we deal with some nonrelevant
amendments.
But instead of allowing Senator Harkin and me to move through the
process of taking the amendments--the first one we had agreed to take
was Senator Dorgan and Senator Grassley's amendment. Instead of
allowing us to move ahead and debate that amendment, and possibly have
already voted on it, if we had taken it up this morning with the time
agreement we had tentatively agreed to, a decision was made that we are
not going to be allowed to do that, and nothing is going to happen
until there is a definite agreement by both sides on not just the
number of amendments but what nonrelevant amendments will be
considered.
It will happen. I know this is not the first time this situation has
happened in this body with a farm bill. I would remind those who were
here in 2002, at that time there were 246 amendments filed; almost
exactly the same number of amendments were filed to the farm bill while
the Democrats were in charge in 2002. There were at least two, and
there may have been three, cloture votes. I am not sure because I was
not here then. But there were two or three cloture votes asked for and
made on the farm bill before cloture was invoked. Those cloture votes
originally were made in December of 2001. When cloture was finally
invoked in February of 2002, the farm bill sailed through in a matter
of a few days. So we are basically in exactly the same position we were
in 2002.
But here is the problem. 2002 was an entirely different atmosphere in
American agriculture. Farmers and ranchers need to be discussing next
month with their bankers and their insurers and landowners from whom
they lease property, or farmers whom they lease property to; they need
to be talking to their equipment dealers about how much they are going
to plant of what respective crops; how much insurance they are going to
need; how much in the way of financing they are going to need; how much
in the way of new equipment or repairs or replaced equipment they are
going to need, so that come next March, in the whole Southeast, not
just in my State, but in
[[Page 31341]]
March we start planting crops. Early corn goes in in March or the first
part of April. In 2002, I was a Member of the House, and I was a member
of the conference committee on the farm bill that was delayed until
final passage occurring sometime in March. Obviously when farmers do
not know what to anticipate from the standpoint of farm policy, do not
know what type of programs they are going to have available to them, it
is difficult for them to make any decision regarding how much money
they are going to have to finance their crops, how much insurance they
are going to need, or how many acres of what crops to plant.
So here we are stuck in a process. I am not saying one side or the
other is more to blame than the other. I think it is more the rules of
the Senate that have got us locked into this situation. I am ready to
go. I was ready to go last Tuesday morning or actually last Monday
afternoon. But, unfortunately, we are in a situation now where we
cannot move ahead.
I did have to object to Senator Harkin's request. There is nothing I
would rather do than move on the Grassley-Dorgan amendment, although I
am strongly opposed to it. I am going to advocate a ``no'' vote on it.
But I think we ought to move and get this process going and start
winnowing down these 260 or so, whatever the number of amendments is we
have filed, or that we have been notified that either are filed or are
going to be filed.
We can do that. It was done in 2002. We can do it now, and we are
ultimately going to have to do it. Whether we do it now or whether we
do it in January, whether we do it in February, we are going to do it.
It is a bullet we are going to have to bite.
I regret very much having to object to Senator Harkin's request. But,
by the same token, he had to not agree to amend his unanimous consent
request to comply with what I asked for, which would allow us to move
ahead right now with amendments.
Those folks who are out in ag country are depending on the Congress,
the Presiding Officer being one of those members who sits on the Ag
Committee who has a significant interest in agriculture. My friend
Senator Salazar, a member of the committee, comes from a strong
agricultural State. Folks are depending on all of us as policymakers to
get our work done, and yet here we are stuck by the rules of the
Senate.
As I said in the press yesterday, I would simply say again, if we do
not get this bill done this week, we do not have the opportunity to
work with our colleagues in the House over the next 2 weeks while we
are gone to get ready for a conference in December, it is going to be
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get a farm bill passed by
both bodies, on the desk of the President before the end of the year.
That does not handicap us, but it surely handicaps those folks we
represent; that is, the great men and women who are the farmers and
ranchers of America. So I am hopeful that over the next several hours--
I do not how long it may take, but I hope in the short term we are able
to reach some agreement. Particularly it boils down to the nonrelevant
amendments. If the other side would be lenient with us in trying to let
us get those amendments up, debate them, get them voted on, we can move
this bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I came here this morning, now afternoon,
to talk about the importance of this farm bill and for us to get off
the dime and get us moving forward on the farm bill. I am going to make
a statement on that in a few minutes.
My friend from Utah has asked if he can go ahead of me to speak on
another subject for about 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the
Senator from Utah be recognized for 10 minutes to speak on a subject
that he will address; then, following the Senator from Utah, that I be
recognized for up to 20 minutes; following my statement that Senator
Durbin be recognized for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Utah.
____________________
FISA MODERNIZATION
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, following the unauthorized public
disclosure in 2005 of what has become known as the Terrorism
Surveillance Program, numerous lawsuits were filed against electronic
communication service providers for their alleged participation.
Currently, more than 40 lawsuits are pending, which collectively seek
hundreds of billions of dollars in damages. Let me repeat that figure,
hundreds of billions of dollars.
For myriad reasons which I am going to discuss, these service
providers alleged to have participated deserve a round of applause and
a helping hand, not a slap in the face and a kick to the gut.
The amount of misinformation concerning this issue is staggering.
Given that this dialogue involves highly classified details, there are
many things that simply can't be discussed. However, the committee
report for the recently passed FISA modernization bill, S. 2248, from
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is public, and contains
very pertinent information.
The report mentions that as with other intelligence matters, the
identities of persons or entities that provide assistance to the U.S.
Government are protected as vital sources and methods of intelligence.
Details of any such assistance can not be discussed. However, the
committee report does mention that beginning soon after September 11,
the executive branch provided written requests or directives to U.S.
electronic communication service providers to obtain their assistance
with communications intelligence activities that had been authorized by
the President.
During consideration of FISA modernization legislation, the
Intelligence Committee examined classified documents relating to this
issue.
The committee, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan tally, voted to
include retroactive immunity for service providers that were alleged to
have cooperated with the intelligence community in the implementation
of the President's surveillance program. Senators from both sides of
the aisle, after careful consideration, came to this conclusion. Make
no mistake, this was the right conclusion.
It was the right conclusion for the Intelligence Committee, and it
should be the right conclusion for the Judiciary Committee, when it
considers this bill tomorrow.
Given the astounding amount of misinformation in the public domain
concerning the Terrorism Surveillance Program, it is not surprising
that these lawsuits are filled with false information and baseless
allegations.
Some have asked a valid question, if the companies did not break the
law, why do they need immunity? Quite simply, the Government's
assertion of the state secrets privilege prevents these companies from
defending themselves.
This assertion by the Government is absolutely essential, as the
possible disclosure of classified materials from ongoing court
proceedings is a grave threat to national security. Given the necessity
for the state secrets privilege, the drawback is that the companies
being sued are forbidden from making their case.
In fact, the companies cannot even confirm or deny any involvement in
the program whatsoever. They have no ability to defend themselves.
Ordinarily, these companies would be able to address allegations and
make their case. However, the classified nature of the topic means that
companies are not free to do so. They can't even have discussions with
shareholders or business partners. But we need to remember, lawful
silence does not equate to guilt.
Another point not mentioned nearly enough is that the Government
cannot obtain the intelligence it needs without the assistance of
telecommunication companies. This means that our collection
capabilities are dependent on the support and collaboration of private
businesses.
If retroactive immunity is not provided, these private businesses
will certainly be extremely hesitant to provide
[[Page 31342]]
any future assistance to our intelligence community. This could have a
crippling effect on the security of millions of people in our society;
thus, it's simply an unacceptable outcome for the safety and security
of our Nation.
Any hesitation from companies to provide assistance with future
Government requests could be disastrous. This could affect not only our
intelligence community but domestic law enforcement efforts. The next
time a child is kidnapped, and law enforcement needs help with
communications, would that situation allow any hesitation from the
service provider? If your son or daughter was missing, would you stand
for any lack of cooperation from companies? Do we want endless teams of
private company lawyers second, third, fourth, and fifth guessing
lawful orders to compel their assistance?
This is not the only problem with not including retroactive immunity.
As the duration of these lawsuits increases, so does the chance that
highly classified sources and methods of our intelligence community
will be unnecessarily and unlawfully disclosed. Our enemies are acutely
aware of these proceedings, and are certainly attempting to gather
information previously unknown to them. The potential disclosure of
classified information also puts the personnel and facilities of
electronic communication service providers at risk.
Given all of the tremendous harm and damage that will occur by not
passing a form of limited liability, I am amazed at the number of
individuals who fail to grasp the seriousness of the issue before us.
To those who purport to oppose immunity in any form, I would hope
that they take the time to actually read the bill. For those unable to
tear themselves away from their favorite partisan blog, I am going to
quickly tell you what the immunity provision says, and what it does not
say. Remember, this bill passed 13-2 in the Intelligence Committee.
A civil action may be dismissed only if a certification is made to
the court certifying that either (1) the electronic service provider
did not provide the alleged assistance, or (2) the assistance was
provided after the 9/11 attacks, and was described in a written request
indicating that the activity was authorized by the President and
determined to be lawful.
Furthermore, this certification has to be reviewed by the court
before a civil action can be dismissed.
It does not provide for immunity for Government officials. It does
not provide for immunity for criminal acts. Instead, it is a narrowly
tailored provision that strikes a proper balance. This point can't be
overlooked; the immunity provision in the current bill has absolutely
zero effect on the numerous lawsuits pending against Federal Government
agencies. These cases will go on, with their questionable
constitutional challenges, with no impact from this bill.
Some Senators have suggested that indemnification or substitution
would be possible solutions. Let me be perfectly clear, neither one is
appropriate or acceptable in this situation. The Intelligence Committee
considered both of these ideas, and rejected them for good reason.
Indemnification, where the Federal Government would be responsible for
any damages awarded against the providers, is not advisable since the
providers would still be parties to the lawsuits, and thus the suits
would continue with the consequences of disclosure and discovery. Not
only does this further the likelihood of disclosure of classified
material, but the companies will face serious damage to their business
reputations, relationships with foreign countries, and stock prices.
This is extremely unfair, if handled improperly.
Substitution, where the Government would litigate in place of the
service providers, is not a viable solution since all of the same
concerns just mentioned still apply. Even though the providers will not
be parties to the litigation, discovery will still apply.
Don't we realize that having the Government fund unnecessary
litigation is a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars? The Government
does not magically create dollars, it taxes hard-working Americans.
When it comes to funding, who do we think the Government is?
To say that the Government should pay is to say that our mothers,
fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters should have money
forcefully taken from their paychecks to fund frivolous lawsuits. This
is Alice in Wonderland, and down the rabbit hole we go.
Finally, for those who love to expound the catch phrase ``warrantless
wiretapping'' to assert some theory of illegality, I encourage you to
carefully read the fourth amendment.
Contrary to any other assertion, the fourth amendment does not always
require a warrant and is based on the reasonableness of searches. While
the phrase is meant to scare people, ``warrantless wiretapping'' in
this instance is perfectly legal and constitutional.
Immunity is an appropriate remedy. It is just. It is necessary. It is
imperative for the continued success of our intelligence gathering.
While reasonable minds can disagree about political topics, this
issue requires disciplined logic, not political hyperbole. I hope that
people keep the following facts in mind when considering this topic.
The program did not involve interception of domestic to domestic
phone calls.
The President and the highest levels of the executive branch
determined the program to be lawful and conveyed this fact repeatedly
in writing to service providers.
The electronic service providers' participation was vital to the
security of our country.
Lives have been saved by this program.
The companies were called on to support a lawful program that was
vital to the security of our country. Do the companies require thanks
or appreciation? No, but they certainly do not deserve illegitimate and
false criticisms that affect their financial well being.
A grateful public should certainly appreciate the critical assistance
the companies alone can provide for the public's defense. These
companies are quite possibly facing irreversible harm to their business
reputation and cannot defend themselves due to state secrets.
This debate has far too many Monday morning quarterbacks, applying
their revisionist history to best represent their political mantra. I
strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the limited immunity
provided for in S. 2248. Any company that has done its part to provide
for the protection of American families deserves protection in return.
If not, the next time we reach out for a helping hand, we will be the
ones who receive a slap to the face. And really, who could blame them?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, on November 5, almost 10 days ago, I came
to the floor to say there it was a proud day in my time as a Senator
because we were moving forward with consideration of the 2007 farm
bill. Almost 10 days have passed and we are stuck. In being stuck, we
are doing a disservice to the people of America, to the people of rural
America. It behooves us to move forward with the kind of process that
put together the 2002 farm bill and farm bills before that, where there
was a procedure set out that there was an agreed-upon set of relevant
amendments that were discussed and debated on the farm bill and then a
farm bill was passed. To do otherwise is, frankly, letting down the
farmers and ranchers. From my point of view, that is something which we
ought not to do. It is something we have a moral obligation to avoid
and where both Republicans and Democrats coming together can figure out
a way forward to make sure we are addressing the realities and
challenges of rural America, the realities and challenges of our
farmers and ranchers, and the issues related to nutrition and all of
the rest of the components of this very good farm bill which has been
written by the Agriculture Committee, a committee which is composed of
Republicans and Democrats, of which the Presiding Officer played a
significant role in putting this farm bill together. It is important we
move forward.
[[Page 31343]]
Let me talk about why I believe it is important to move forward. I
decided to run for this position in the Senate several years ago in
large part because there aren't enough people in Washington and on the
floor of the Senate who cared much about what happens to rural America.
There are very few people here, frankly, who have lived through the
hard times and celebrated the joys of being a farmer or a rancher. It
is important the voices of farmers and ranchers, who have dirt under
their fingernails, whose hands are unmistakably calloused by the hard
work they do, be heard in this Chamber. We do a tremendous dishonor to
those hard-working Americans when there are the procedural and
political games that are being played here today.
The majority leader came forward and said what we ought to do is go
to the farm bill. It is a good farm bill. We ought to decide that there
is maybe a subset of amendments, 10, 15, 20, whatever it is, and get on
with the farm bill. Yet 10 days later, we are not making very much
progress. Why aren't we making progress? Is it possible that some
people on the other side simply do not want a farm bill, that they
would rather see this work, which has been a labor for several years by
many people, be killed? Is that their agenda, to kill the farm bill?
To all the farmers and ranchers who are listening across America
today, to all those organizations which have been a part of this effort
over the last several years, to all those people who care about
nutrition in schools, to all those who care about making sure the
hungriest are being fed, the faith community and others, I ask them to
make their voices heard in Washington today so we are able to move
forward to get a farm bill done and to get it done before we go back
for Thanksgiving. I believe if those voices are heard here, that in
fact will happen.
For me, much of my life has been spent on a farm and on a ranch. I
know what the joys of farming and ranching are. I know what the joy is
after you have prepared a field and you go out to the field after you
have applied the fertilizer and you have watered the soil and you start
seeing the shoots of wheat or barley or the young plants of alfalfa
spring up like magic from the soil. I know the joy of what it is like
to go out in the middle of the night and to watch a baby calf being
born and then, within 4 or 5 hours, to watch the baby calf begin to
stand on its legs, suck on the milk, and then be out prancing around
within 12 hours. It is almost a spiritual experience when you think
about the beauty of nature that you get to experience firsthand as a
rancher and as a farmer.
I know the joys of being there for harvest time. I know the joy of
being on a combine and watching the golden color of the grain collected
in the combine and dumping it out through the chutes into the trucks
that take it into the bins for storage. I know the joy of putting up
stacks of hay, 20,000 bales of the greenest hay that is possible. It
makes you proud when your haystack is finally completed. I know all the
joys that come with farming from what you get to see on the land
itself.
I also know the joy that comes from the effort where a family works
together, where you have, in many cases around America, family farmers
and ranchers who have been on the same land for generations, as is the
case with my family, where they have been on the same farm for five
generations. I know the joy and special meaning of those lands, where
you know the reality of every fencepost because it was my great-
grandfather who put that fencepost up. I know where the ditches were
built in our case on our ranch on May 15 of 1857, when they were
finally adjudicated and given a water right for that ditch. We know the
reality of our land and our water.
There needs to be voices in the Senate, Democrats, such as the
Presiding Officer from Pennsylvania, and Republicans as well who come
up and say: We are not going to let rural America down. We are not
going to let this farm bill die. We are not going to let those who have
some political agenda kill this farm bill, to turn their back on rural
America and do what they are trying to do. It is unconscionable that
they would be engaging on that agenda.
Like I know the joys of farming, I also know the hardships that come
as a rancher and a farmer. I know the concerns you can have when you
have cut a crop of hay and you see the clouds coming up at 10 or 11
o'clock in the morning, knowing that maybe before you get to a point
where you are going to bale the hay, you are going to have a crop that
will be ruined. I also know the fear of watching those clouds rise over
the horizon, when you can know from the color of the cloud itself that
a hailstorm is on the way and you wonder whether that storm is going to
hit your crop or it is going to hit a neighbor's crop, whether
devastation is going to be caused by that storm.
I also know the pain of being in a position where ranchers, farmers
go to the bank and they say to the banker: I need some assistance
because I can't afford to pay back my operating line because either the
prices are too low this year or because we have had some kind of
disaster that has affected our ability to pay you back.
I know farmers and ranchers personally who have lost their farms, who
have lost their ranches, and there is nothing that is anymore painful
than going to those auctions and watching those farmers and ranchers
who have built their life and their entire dream around their farm or
their ranch and the equipment they have and being there in a position
where they are having to sell what, essentially, is the soul of their
life, their farm or their ranch.
So what we do here today--what we are doing here on this farm bill--
in incredibly important for rural America. It is incredibly important
for farmers and ranchers. It is incredibly important for those of us
who want to feed this Nation. Yet, somehow, as I see the debate taking
place here, at last count there were some 255 amendments to this farm
bill. Well, why are there 255 amendments to this farm bill, when we
have been working on this legislation for a number of different years?
The distinguished ranking member of the committee, Senator Chambliss,
started to hold hearings on the farm bill several years ago. He held
them all over the country--from Iowa to Georgia to other places. Then
Senator Harkin, the chairman of the committee, held hearings in my
State of Colorado on the farm bill, held hearings all over the
country--each of us working to produce the very best farm bill we
possibly could.
In my own State of Colorado, I worked with the great agricultural
organizations--from the Colorado Cattlemen's Association to the Rocky
Mountain Farmers Union to a whole host of others--to make sure we were
putting together the very best farm bill for America.
It is a farm bill that, in my view, is one which would give us a
great opportunity to revitalize rural America, to make sure that when
we look back at the dawn of this century we did not allow rural America
to be sunsetted but that instead we reinvigorated rural America in a
way that has not ever happened before.
We have some great opportunities to do that because this farm bill is
not just about farms; it is about fuel, it is about our energy
security, it is about the future of our country in so many different
ways. Yet we are being stalled here. We are not being allowed to move
forward to consider this legislation and the substance of this
legislation.
Let me say from my point of view, when I look at the future of
agriculture, the future of ranching, and the future of rural America,
what I see. First, I see great promise, and then I see great hope. I
see great promise and great hope if we can do for rural development
that which needs to be done.
We know today that per capita income in rural America is a lot less
than it is in urban America. We know today that the infrastructure
issues that are faced in the small towns of rural America exceed the
capacity of those communities to be able to deal with those
infrastructure needs by multiple times. We know that in many towns in
every one of the 50 States, and represented here, you can go through
those towns and you can see what has
[[Page 31344]]
happened as rural America has been more and more forgotten year after
year.
As to the town of Antonito, located within 5 miles of part of our
ranch, you can drive in that town today and can see the devastation of
a great part of rural America. At one point in time there were four or
five gas stations in the town of Antonito. Today, there is one gas
station. At one point in time in this town of Antonito, which has a
population of less than 1,000, there used be a number of different
grocery stores to go and buy your food. I remember ShopRite because
that is where I used to go and buy lunch sometimes when I was working
out on the farm. ShopRite has closed. So have other stores. There is
only one small store that survives today. You see the boarded-up
streets of that town where probably 50 percent of all of the buildings
today are vacant.
You see a whole host of other problems in rural America. What we have
tried to do with this farm bill is to address those issues. If we are
successful--as we should be--if we are successful--as we must be, as we
are required to do if we are going to do our job--then we are going to
open a new chapter of opportunity for America and for rural America.
That chapter of opportunity has several very important features to
it. First, it will make sure we have food security for the United
States of America. We do not want to become dependent on foreign
sources for our food in the same say we have for oil. For me, for the
time I have been in public service--and before--I have had a sign on my
desk that says: ``No farms, no food.'' So no matter where you are, the
300 million people of America every day should remind themselves of
that reality: ``No farms, no food.'' This is about the food security of
our Nation.
Secondly, the vision that we have with this farm bill we have worked
on so hard for so many years is that we will contribute significantly
to making sure we get rid of our addiction to foreign oil and that we
grow our way to energy independence. The energy aspects of title IX of
this farm bill are the most robust in the history of the United States
of America. What you will see with this legislation, as it is
implemented, is a rural America helping us grow our way to energy
independence.
Senator Grassley and I cosponsored legislation, a resolution which
passed both this body as well as the House of Representatives, that
says we can grow 25 percent of our energy from renewable energy
resources. That is the ambitious vision that is included in this
legislation. The energy components of the farm bill are incredibly
important to the national security of the United States, to the
environmental security of our world, as well as to the economic
opportunities for America.
So I am hopeful we will open this chapter of energy opportunity with
the passage of this farm bill, and that we will get it done as soon as
possible.
Finally, when we think about the great conservationists of our
country, there are no better people to take care of their land and
their water than those who depend on it for a living. If you are a
farmer or you are a rancher, you know you have to take care of your
land and your water because that is your way of life. If something
happens to your land and to your water, your way of life is taken away
from you. So the conservation programs which are such a major part of
this legislation are a keystone to the future of how we take care of
our planet.
This legislation, under the leadership of Senator Harkin, is the best
legislation that has ever come forward on a farm bill with respect to
the many conservation programs that include the Wetlands Reserve
Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, and a whole host of other
programs that are going to be important to make sure we have the best
conservation agenda possible for our Nation.
In conclusion, I would make a plea to my colleagues, and that is that
we work together to narrow down the number of amendments that need to
be considered, and that we set about a process that will bring about a
conclusion to this farm bill, so that then we can go to conference and
we can get a farm bill that is a good farm bill for America, delivered
to the President.
I also say to my colleagues--and there are some--who want this bill
killed, don't do it. Don't kill this bill. It is too important for this
country. Across America, people ought to be beating the drums in every
State, in every county, in every village, on every farm and every
ranch. They ought to be beating the drums and using their telephones
calling the Members of this Senate, telling us we ought not to leave
here until the job is done. And the job will be done when we get this
farm bill adopted by this Senate, which I predict if this bill, in its
current fashion, were to be brought to a vote today, it would pass with
about 70 to 75 votes.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Colorado. He
comes to the Senate with an amazing background. I have sat and talked
to him from time to time about his family. Senator Salazar's family
came to the United States 400 or 500 years ago. They were some of the
earliest settlers of our country, in the southwestern part of the
United States. The founding of the city of Santa Fe, NM, his family was
directly involved in; the naming of mountain ranges and rivers. They
were there long before my ancestors ever had the good fortune to come
to these shores.
I have also heard the stories of his youth, how he grew up on a ranch
in Colorado with some very difficult circumstances, without the
creature comforts many of us in the cities were used to. It is clearly
in his blood and in his heart. When he speaks about this farm bill, he
is not talking about some academic conversation but, rather, about the
reason he came to the Senate, to make sure families such as his would
have a voice in so many different areas but particularly when it came
to this bill.
This monster of a bill, 1,600 pages, is a bill we take up every 5
years. It is the farm bill. But it includes so much more, as Senator
Salazar has told us. It is not just about keeping our farms productive
and our ranches profitable, but it is about rural America, small town
America, the America of the Senator's youth, and the America I was
fortunate enough to represent as a Congressman in downstate Illinois
for so long.
His statement on the subject is not just another political speech. I
know it came from the heart. I thank him for reminding us about the
importance of this bill to small town America, to farmers and ranchers
across America, and why these very practical, commonsense, hardheaded
folks would find it hard to understand what is happening on the Senate
floor over the last week and a half.
You see, for 10 days we have virtually tied up and stopped the Senate
in the consideration of this farm bill. It should have been passed a
long time ago. When you take a look back at previous farm bills, in
1990 there were 7 days of consideration of the farm bill. Mr.
President, 122 amendments were dealt with. There were only 2 that were
not relevant to a farm bill--only 2--and 122 were.
In 1996, 4 days were spent on the farm bill, and 24 amendments were
considered to the bill. None of them were about anything other than
farming and agriculture.
In 2001 and 2002, there were about 16 days of consideration on the
farm bill, with 53 amendments. Only one was offered that did not have
anything to do with the farm bill, which was offered by Senator Kyl of
Arizona on the estate tax. There was one side-by-side amendment offered
by Senator Conrad. That was it.
Well, it is a different story today. Senator Salazar has told us.
This morning, Senator Reid, the majority leader, the Democratic leader,
gave me a list of the Republican amendments they want to call on this
farm bill. We have been tied in knots now for almost 10 days in the
Senate because the Republicans refuse to come up with a list of
amendments we could consider.
They finally came up with this list. When you take a look at the
amendments on this list, you can understand
[[Page 31345]]
what their game plan is. After all the time we spent in preparing this
bill, it is very clear they do not want this bill to be called. They do
not want us to debate it. They want to talk about everything under the
Sun except a farm bill.
Here are a couple examples of things they think should be talked
about: Senator Murkowski of Alaska thinks the farm bill is a good time
to talk about Exxon Valdez litigation. Senator Kyl of Arizona believes
this is the tax bill, so he wants to talk about the alternative minimum
tax. In fact, he has filed at least one amendment, maybe more, on the
subject. Senator Lott, the Republican whip, thinks this is a good tax
bill, too. Let's get into a debate about the alternative minimum tax,
an issue which clearly we will debate and will decide before the end of
the year.
Senator Coburn believes we should talk about the estate tax. Senator
McConnell also wants to talk about the estate tax. He also wants to
talk about the alternative minimum tax. Senator Stevens of Alaska wants
to talk about protecting kids from online predators. I am all for that.
I am trying to figure out what the connection is with the farm bill,
though.
Senator Gregg is one of the most prolific when it comes to producing
amendments which have little or nothing to do with the farm bill. He
wants us to get into a debate on the mortgage crisis in America. It
truly is a crisis. He thinks the farm bill is the place to do it. He
wants to talk about immigration, too, while we are on the farm bill--
not ag workers and immigrants brought in for that purpose--but the
issue of driver's licenses for the undocumented. He also thinks it is
important for us to get into an issue of collective bargaining for
firefighters. I happen to be a cosponsor of that bill. I never would
have dreamed that amendment should be offered on a farm bill. Senator
Gregg of New Hampshire--I don't know how many farmers there are in his
State. I don't know what they grow; I am sure they are very good
people--has decided their interests have to be set aside. He has other
things he wants to talk about.
He also has the notion in which he thinks, in addition to
immigration, mortgages, firefighters' right to collective bargaining,
we should in the farm bill say women who live in rural areas of America
will be denied the right to sue doctors guilty of malpractice. Women in
rural areas will have a limited legal right to sue doctors guilty of
malpractice. Well, I am sure the rural women of America are grateful
Senator Gregg wants to make sure they are a special class, unable to
use their constitutional legal rights in court if they are injured or a
member of their family is killed as a result of medical malpractice. He
thinks that belongs on the farm bill. He also has one about the Gulf of
Mexico. I will have to dig into that. He has gone far afield. I think
he turned his legislative staff loose and said: Got any ideas? Let's
put an amendment on the farm bill.
Senator Dole wants to get into taxes. It goes on and on; page after
page of amendments.
Well, clearly, we can't consider those amendments if we are serious
about passing a farm bill. So what Senator Reid and Senator Harkin, the
chairman of the Agriculture Committee, did was say to the Republican
side: Let's get serious. Let's get down to business. Let's cooperate.
Let's bring up the amendments that relate to the farm bill, and let's
do it on a bipartisan basis.
So this morning Senator Harkin said: How about starting with the
amendment of the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, cosponsored
by Senator Grassley, a Republican of Iowa. Let's have limited time for
debate, and then let's vote on it. Well, Senator Saxby Chambliss of
Georgia, the ranking Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee,
objected. He didn't want to bring up a bipartisan amendment to be
debated for 60 minutes and vote on it.
Then Senator Harkin said: Well, let's pick another bipartisan
amendment, the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment regarding farm program
reform, 2 hours of debate and a vote. Senator Saxby Chambliss, the
Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, objected.
Senator Harkin, undaunted, then suggested that Senator Pat Roberts of
Kansas, a man who has an extensive background in the House and Senate
on ag programs, be given 90 minutes on his amendment, and then a vote.
Senator Saxby Chambliss, the Republican ranking member on the Senate
Agriculture Committee, objected to even calling up his colleague's
amendment for a vote. Do you see a pattern emerging? It isn't so much
about amendments and votes; it is a matter of stopping the bill.
Senator Harkin, indefatigable, then suggested that Senator Stevens of
Alaska--another Republican--be allowed to call up his amendment with 60
minutes of debate and a vote. Senator Chambliss, still stuck on the
agenda of stopping this bill, objected.
Then Senator Harkin, showing the magnanimity of a great corn husker
from Iowa, suggested we proceed to the amendment by Senator Allard, a
Republican from Colorado, 60 minutes of debate and a vote. Senator
Chambliss, unmoved by the generosity of Senator Harkin, objected. Five
requests, every one of them but one an amendment either sponsored by a
Republican or cosponsored by a Republican, and the Republicans
objected.
Well, you don't need to be a C-SPAN addict to figure out what is
going on. The Republicans don't want us to finish the farm bill. After
months and months of hearings, after an elaborate process, after
negotiations and compromises on both sides, after a lot of hard work,
1,600 pages of policy are rejected by the Republicans. I am not
surprised. This is the party that failed for 6 years--6 straight
years--to pass the Water Resources Development Act, a critical bill for
farmers in my State. This bill will provide the funds to upgrade the
locks and dams so important for ag commerce. It wasn't a major priority
for the Republican Congress. For 6 years, they ignored it, failed to
pass it. We finally passed it this year, and last week, in a historic
Senate vote, overrode the President's veto the 107th time it has
occurred on the floor of the Senate. The Republicans, left to their own
devices, couldn't pass the bill. When we finally passed it on a
bipartisan basis, their President vetoed it, and they joined us in
overriding the veto.
Now comes the farm bill, which doesn't come around that often--it has
been about 5 years--and they want to stop this one too. They want to
stop it by killing it with amendments. Senator Harkin has gone out of
his way to give them votes and debate on critical amendments that do
relate to the farm bill, but that is not their strategy and that is not
their goal. Their goal is to kill the farm bill. I am not sure why.
In my State, I would hazard a guess that there are more Republicans
who are farmers than Democrats. It doesn't make much difference from my
point of view as a Senator; I am going to help farmers in general, and
their political identity is secondary. But why would they turn their
backs on so many farmers across America when we have a chance to pass
this farm bill? Why wouldn't they agree to a reasonable number of
amendments that stick with the farm bill and what it is all about?
Well, because, frankly, they don't want us to achieve the goal of
passing the farm bill. It isn't new to many of us. We have seen it
happen over and over again.
We have something in the Senate called a filibuster, and a filibuster
goes back in history at least 90 years. We said at that time, any
Senator can stop any bill from being debated and considered. About 90
years ago, we amended that and said: Well, I will tell you, if 67
Senators step forward and say we want to go to the bill anyway, they
can overrule that one Senator who said no--67. That was back 90 years
ago. About 40 years ago, that was changed to 60 Senators. So you have a
filibuster, which is an attempt to stop the debate, stop the progress
of the bill, and if 60 Senators will step forward and say we disagree,
then you move forward with the amendment, you move forward with the
bill. That is the filibuster in the simplest terms.
In the history of the Senate, the most prolific use of the filibuster
to
[[Page 31346]]
delay votes and kill bills produced 58--58--filibusters over 2 years--
58 over 2 years. Well, our colleagues on the Republican side of the
aisle are about to break through that record dramatically. Senator
Stabenow has created this chart. It shows to date 52 Republican
filibusters on motions for cloture--52 this year. We still have another
year and 2 months to go. The Republicans have tried to stop legislation
on this floor with a filibuster and a motion for cloture 52 times. So
this is certainly going to be the Republican Senate on steroids when it
comes to filibusters. They are going to bust through the old record,
and they are going to stop everything they can, including a bipartisan
farm bill.
They accomplished so little when they were in charge and in control
that they want to make sure we accomplish as little as possible. That
is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because the American people want us
to cooperate. They want us to compromise. They want us to try to come
up with legislation that solves America's problems, not squabble and
fight and exalt our differences.
Luckily, there have been a few things--in fact, a significant number
of things--that have been enacted by this Congress, despite 52
filibusters. I think back on passing the increase in the minimum wage,
and I think it was the first time in 10 years we finally passed an
increase in the Federal minimum wage. We passed historic legislation to
provide student loans for students from families with limited means,
reducing the cost of those loans and forgiving some of those loans. We
passed that. We also managed to pass the Children's Health Insurance
Program, a program that would extend coverage to another 4 million
uninsured children in America--children who weren't the poorest,
because those kids are taken care of in our caring Nation; and not the
luckiest, because their parents don't have health insurance--but those
caught right in the middle. Mom and dad go to work, no benefits, and we
had a program that said let's help them. Let's provide private health
insurance for those kids. Well, the President stopped that, vetoed it,
and the Republicans refused to override that veto. We passed it, not
once but twice, despite the odds against us in passing important
legislation.
I think about stem cell research, too--the first President in history
to have a Federal prohibition against medical research when it involves
stem cells. We passed it with a bipartisan vote to override this
prohibition. The President vetoed it.
So time and again, whether it is help for education or health care,
we have been up against it: The failure of the Republicans to cooperate
and pass the legislation, or the President's veto that they are afraid
to override. That, I think, is the story of the Republican strategy of
this session. It puzzles me. Do they think this is a winning strategy
in America, a party so bereft of ideas and policies that all they can
do is stop us?
This bill is not a Democratic bill, this farm bill. I think Senator
Chambliss, if he were on the floor today, would readily concede he
played a big role in writing this bill. Senator Roberts of Kansas
played a major role in writing this bill. Two Republican Senators who
were involved in this legislation. Yet when it comes to trying to pass
it, unfortunately, Senator Chambliss objected five times in our
attempts to bring this bill forward and move it forward.
They don't want this Senate to achieve anything, whether it is a farm
bill or whatever it happens to be. But we are not going to quit. We are
not going to be discouraged. We can only hope that those who follow
this debate will respond. If you live in rural America, small town
America, a farm family, a ranching family; if you know the importance
of rural electric; if you know what it means to have soil and water
conservation programs to protect the area you live in; if you think
that bringing broadband Internet to all of America, including small
towns and rural areas is important; if you think our Food Stamp Program
to make sure the poorest in our country have something to eat is
important; if you are worried about school lunch programs and whether
they have good quality so our kids get nutritious food; if you happen
to believe that the WIC Program, which is a program which helps low-
income mothers and their babies is important; if you believe that
making certain our farm sector in America can survive difficult times--
a bad year--whether it is a drought or a flood, a tornado; if you think
it is important we have programs to protect that part of America; if
you believe we need to have alternative sources of fuel and not be at
the mercy of OPEC and the Middle East sheiks and we should be producing
ethanol and other forms of fuel that can help us move toward energy
independence; if you think any of those things are important, I
encourage you to contact your Senator and tell them to get moving.
Ten days on the farm bill with nothing happening is unacceptable. It
is the Senate at its worst. It is the minority with their program at
its worst.
We need to have bipartisan cooperation. Senator Harkin tried
repeatedly. We will keep trying. But if the object of the Republicans
is to run out the clock, to have us break and go home for Thanksgiving
with no farm bill passed, I assume they can achieve that. Boy, talk
about bragging rights, going home to your State and saying: We stopped
the farm bill. You know, every 5 years, it comes around. We stopped it
cold, even though it is a bipartisan bill. That is what they will be
able to brag about.
Senator Gregg has told me he has lots of amendments. He is thinking
of even more. He is ingenious when it comes to different subjects, and
I am sure his staff is busy right now thinking of other amendments they
can add to this bill that have nothing to do with the farm bill, and he
is going to want to ask that we vote on every single one of them. We
could all do that. I guess there would be some personal satisfaction,
but at the end of the day, very little legislation and very little to
show for our efforts. This list, this three-page list of Republican
amendments, is an indication of bad faith. If they are serious about a
farm bill--and we should be--let's agree to a reasonable number of
germane, relevant amendments that have something to do with the farm
bill. Let's not make this a bill for all seasons; let's make this a
bill for America's agricultural sector that counts on us.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Order for Recess
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
stand in recess today from 2 to 3:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. 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. BROWN. Mr. President, we have for many weeks now been debating in
this Chamber the 2007 farm bill. In my State of Ohio, passage of this
legislation is essential to ensuring the well-being of middle-class and
low-income families throughout our State. The bill is an agriculture
bill, it is a hunger bill, it is an energy bill, it is a conservation
bill. Melding these priorities is not easy. Melding these priorities
into a bill that helps farmers, that advances our Nation's energy
goals, that increases the focus on conservation, and that bolsters
nutrition programs is a profound accomplishment.
As we debate the complex components of this legislation, I applaud
Chairman Tom Harkin, a Senator from
[[Page 31347]]
Iowa, for his leadership. We must never lose sight that this bill is
about families. Families in Ohio and across the Nation are depending on
us to pass this legislation in a timely manner.
This spring, I traveled throughout Ohio and heard directly from
farmers about what they need in this year's farm bill. They need the
same thing any other entrepreneur needs--a fair shake. They need a
safety net that makes sense given the revenue fluctuations they
experience. They need for Washington rhetoric about conservation and
alternative energy to translate into commonsense programs and
meaningful incentives.
This bill will help family farmers in Ohio and in New Jersey, the
State of the Presiding Officer, and across our country by strengthening
and diversifying the farm safety net. Current farm programs protect
farmers from chronically low prices. However, these programs do little
to help farmers when prices are high but yields are low, resulting in a
revenue shortfall. By targeting overall revenue rather than simply
price, farmers can receive better protection against swings in prices
and natural disasters.
Currently, crop prices are high but volatile. Farmers' input costs
are rising, as well as their overall risks. Farmers should be given the
opportunity to choose an alternative safety net if it better allows
them to manage their own farm's risk in today's uncertain and evolving
farm environment.
The average crop revenue program, brought to this bill by Senator
Durbin, Chairman Harkin, and me, gives farmers a choice. The average
crop revenue program will matter to help those farmers with a safety
net. For the first time ever, farmers will be able to enroll in a
program--it is their choice; they don't have to--they can enroll in a
program that insures against revenue instability which for many farmers
makes more sense than a price-focused safety net, which is the old farm
program.
As I traveled around Ohio, I met with Mark Schweibert, a corn farmer
in Henry County in northwest Ohio who will likely take advantage of
average crop revenue. He will be supplying corn to one of the first
ethanol plants in Ohio. I met that same week with Ralph Dull, a hog
farmer from Montgomery County, who uses wind turbines to provide on-
farm energy.
This farm bill makes a commitment to move beyond antiquated energy
sources and to prepare American agriculture to lead the world in
renewable energy production. With the right resources, the right
incentives, farmers can help decrease our dependence on foreign oil and
produce cleaner, sustainable, renewable energy. In a State such as
Ohio, with a talented labor force and a proud manufacturing history,
that just doesn't mean stronger farms, more prosperous farms; it means
a better Ohio and a stronger economy.
This bill will provide more than $4 billion in additional funding for
conservation programs to help farmers protect our water quality, expand
our wildlife habitat, and preserve endangered farmland. And this bill
does something else equally important: It fights hunger.
Earlier this year, when the Agriculture Committee began this process,
we heard from Rhonda Stewart of Hamilton, OH. Rhonda Stewart, a single
mother, came with her young son. She told us a story. She told us that
she works a full-time job, has no health care, and makes about, I
believe, $9 an hour. She teaches Sunday school, She is involved with
the Cub Scouts for her son, and she is president of the PTA at her
son's school. She plays by the rules. She works hard. She said that at
the beginning of the month, as she is a food stamp beneficiary, she
makes pork chops for her son once or twice that first week. Later on in
the month, maybe she takes him to a fast food restaurant. Almost
invariably at the end of the month, she says she sits down at the
kitchen table and her son is eating dinner and she does not.
Her son says: Mom, what is wrong? Are you not hungry?
She says: I am not feeling well tonight.
For Rhonda Stewart, who teaches Sunday school, is involved with the
Cub Scouts, is president of the PTA, works hard, pays her taxes, raises
a son, is a food stamp beneficiary of $1 per person per meal, and $6 a
day roughly for Rhonda Stewart does not go far enough. What we do in
this Chamber can help Rhonda Stewart, her family, and millions of
families such as hers. The farm bill increases food stamp benefits and
indexes those benefits to inflation. When the purchasing power of food
stamps erodes, so does our Nation's progress against hunger. We are the
wealthiest country in the world. We are a caring, compassionate people.
Families in our country, especially families who work hard, such as
Rhonda Stewart and her family, should not go hungry.
I am pleased with the overall bill. There are some things we can do
to improve it. The public is perfectly willing to help family farmers
when they need it, as we should. However, taxpayers will not support
massive payments to farms that have substantial net incomes or huge
payments to farmers who are not really farmers, who have huge off-farm
income and really just happen to own farmland.
I will be offering an amendment to return some of the excess
subsidies in the Crop Insurance Program to the American taxpayers and
to provide funding for the McGovern-Dole program.
We have heard, of course, tales of woe from the crop insurance
industry over the past few weeks as they furiously lobby against this
amendment. But the facts tell a different story. Instead of letting the
crop insurance industry exceed even their already record returns, I
think we will get far better returns with modest investments at home
and abroad. The McGovern-Dole program--which would be funded with part
of the revenues from the crop insurance amendment--provides funding for
school lunches in developing nations. The potential benefits are
immense for our national security. We responded decades ago to a
hostile Communist threat in Europe with the Marshall Plan. Our best
response to a hostile threat overseas is to provide help in nutrition
and education for people who desperately need it.
Passage of the 2007 farm bill is not just a responsible thing to do
for this body, it is the right thing to do for our families, for our
farmers, and for our Nation.
I yield the floor. 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. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I personally thank you for your courtesy
in taking over the Presiding Officer duties so that I may make these
comments. I appreciate your courtesy.
Iraq
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago, I began a series of
speeches on the price America is paying for the failed war in Iraq, and
I wish to continue today. The number of American service men and women
killed in action has risen to 3,855, and with every death of a husband
or wife, a son or daughter, a mom or dad, the suffering of a family
soars to that place where numbers do not matter, to that place where
pain is beyond infinite.
I have spoken about what the war has cost us financially. Since the
war began more than 4 long years ago, we have spent over $455 billion.
Over the long run, it will cost almost $2 trillion. Again, those are
not just numbers, those were cargo scanners that could have been
installed at our ports, safer bridges that could have been built,
lifesaving cancer research that could have been done, children who
could have been educated, lives that could have been saved--a world of
possibilities that passed by us all. I have tried to help us all
imagine what we are giving
[[Page 31348]]
up by failing to awaken ourselves from the living nightmare that is the
war in Iraq.
Today, I wish to talk about the people who have given so much, people
who will be paying for this war for the rest of their lives--our
veterans and their families.
On Sunday, we celebrated Veterans Day. I wish to talk about how much
we could do for those who have served with the amount of money we have
used to send them into harm's way.
Mr. President, 28,451 troops have come back from Iraq with horrible
wounds. Some wounds are physical. Some have had their legs or arms
blown off by bombs. Some are blind from shrapnel in their eyes.
And some wounds are mental. Denying that war can wound a brain along
with the rest of the body is denying so many veterans' nightmares,
flashbacks, shocks or changes in personality so radical--so radical--
that loved ones can no longer recognize the person they once knew.
Today, Army researchers are releasing a study showing that the full
psychological impact of the war tends to hit soldiers even harder 6
months after they have returned from the war. So the ranks of those
suffering are about to grow by many thousands.
Beyond the human cost of these injuries, the financial costs to our
society are tremendous. A report released by Physicians for Social
Responsibility puts the cost of medical care and disability benefits
for veterans returning from Iraq at over $660 billion. So in a very
direct sense, the war has been more than twice as financially expensive
as we might think just looking at the combat costs.
The human and financial costs don't end with just health care. Here
is a shocking statistic, Mr. President: Veterans make up one in four
homeless people in this country. That means almost 200,000 veterans
don't have a home to go back to tonight. Experts say the rates of
homelessness are spiraling up faster than they did after the war in
Vietnam.
Mr. President, that is a moral outrage. These people put their lives
on the line for our country, no questions asked. It is a shame our men
and women in uniform would be sent to patrol the streets of Baghdad
only to have to come back and sleep on the streets of their own
hometowns.
That is why Democrats in Congress are working to give veterans the
support they deserve. The Senate recently passed a bill that contains
the largest increase in funding for our veterans in history. We are
reinvigorating our Veterans Affairs Department with a record $87
billion, which is several billion dollars more than President Bush said
he was willing to spend on our veterans, with $37 billion for veterans
health care. Billions of dollars are headed to expand medical services
and beef up the administrative side so vets spend less time waiting to
get their benefits.
Now, compare this to the costs of combat. Let's compare the
investment in the men and women who serve in the uniform of the United
States to the costs of combat. We could pay for the entire Veterans
Health Administration budget--the entire Veterans Health Administration
budget, all $37 billion--with what we spend in less than 4 months of
combat in Iraq. Take care of every veteran, in terms of the veterans
health care system. We could pay for that entire budget, $37 billion,
with what we spend in less than 4 months of combat in Iraq. And some
say it is too much? Where are their priorities?
Just as important as making sure vets have excellent health care is
making sure they have an opportunity to get an excellent education. I
am proud to be a cosponsor of a bill offered by Senator Webb that would
be the biggest boost to veterans education since World War II.
Preparing thousands of veterans to enter the civilian workforce with a
first-rate education would cost about $5.4 billion next year--$5.4
billion--for, in essence, a new GI education bill. In other words, it
would cost what it takes to fund combat in Iraq for roughly 2 weeks to
make sure thousands of veterans can enter the civilian workforce when
they come back.
Here is one of our challenges. Many of our vets come back and find
the jobs they once had are no longer there. They find themselves, after
serving their Nation, unemployed. The type of first-rate education we
could give them would clearly create an opportunity to ensure they
would have greater skills, greater employability, and that would take
roughly 2 weeks of funding for the war in Iraq.
Democrats in Congress are also working to end the pandemic of
homelessness. I joined with Senator Obama to support a bill called
Homes for Heroes. The bill would establish permanent housing and
services for low-income veterans and their families. It would make more
rental assistance available to help providers of veteran housing and
services, and focus more attention on vets who are homeless. Of course,
the more soldiers who go off to war, the more necessary this bill
becomes.
The portion of the bill that helps community and nonprofit
organizations offer housing to low-income veterans would require about
$225 million to fund. We grind up enough money to house thousands of
veterans in 16 hours in Iraq--not even a day. The costs of combat
compared to the opportunity to providing a year of expanded housing for
homeless veterans would cost the same as 16 hours of the amount we
spend in Iraq. Some say too much. Where are your values? What are your
priorities? How is it that you choose?
Of course, the price we pay in dollars can never compare to the price
our wounded warriors and their families pay in lost limbs, in haunted
dreams, and in lives changed forever. That is a price not one more
soldier should be asked to pay for a pointless war. In the meantime, we
need to act fast to get returning vets the help they need. Veterans got
their wounds following their Government's orders. Those wounds can only
heal if the Government reorders its priorities.
Democrats wanted to send the bill increasing funding for veterans to
the President before Veterans Day, but President Bush is trying to use
veterans funding as an excuse to veto other programs on which America
depends. The President has also said funding a new GI bill for
veterans' education is too expensive. Too expensive. Never have calls
for fiscal responsibility been so morally irresponsible.
First and foremost, we can never forget the price tag our veterans
have ultimately paid with their service, and the price tag for veterans
services wouldn't be so high if this administration didn't recklessly
send them into harm's way to begin with. The President seems to think
we can't afford to spend on both veterans health and children's health.
He seems to think we can't afford to treat the wounds our soldiers
suffer and fund cancer research to save civilians from that brutal
killer. He seems to think we can't afford to ensure the safety of our
returning soldiers and make sure all Americans find safety in the
workplace. But he did seem to think we could afford to chase Osama bin
Laden in Afghanistan--as we should have--and then invade Iraq, even
though both situations today are major challenges. He did seem to think
we could fight a $2 trillion war in Iraq and give a massive tax cut to
millionaires and billionaires, even though the economy hovers near
recession and most American families are no better off now than they
were at the beginning of this administration. He did seem to think he
could sign every bill--every bill--the Republican-controlled Congress
sent him, running up a debt to the tune of $3 trillion, borrowing money
from foreign countries to pay for a war that makes no sense, ignoring
pressing national priorities, underfunding care for veterans, leaving
our ports vulnerable, leaving our educational systems underfunded,
leaving the massive crisis in global climate change completely ignored,
leaving children in this country without health care--because we have
wanted to expand the number of uninsured children who have no health
care coverage to those who would have health care coverage under our
bill--leaving 47 million Americans with no health insurance whatsoever,
and he thought that he could get away with all of it.
Well, Mr. President, now is the time for us to stand up and say:
Sometimes you can't have it both ways. When it
[[Page 31349]]
comes to children's health, when it comes to education and homeland
security and veterans care, we had better be getting all the support we
need.
On Sunday, our Nation devoted a day to those who devoted themselves
to the Nation for military service. We took that day to celebrate how
lucky we are--how lucky we are--and how unbelievably blessed we are as
a nation to have such brave men and women rise again and again to offer
their service when they hear the call. I hope we took that day to offer
not just words but deeds of thanks.
A grateful nation not only goes to a Veterans Day observance or
marches in a Memorial Day parade, as we should, but a grateful nation
shows their gratitude by how we treat veterans in terms of getting them
the health care they need, how we treat them in terms of taking care of
their disabilities, and how we take care of the survivors of those who
have made the ultimate sacrifice. That is the true measure of a
grateful nation.
We took that day to remember the duty we have to them because of the
devotion they have shown to us. Veterans Day is about a fundamental
principle. When soldiers are shipped off to war, if we can look them in
the eye and tell them there is a good reason we are waving goodbye, we
better be able to look them in the eye when they come back and tell
them we mean it when we say: Welcome home.
With 171,000 troops still in Iraq, I hope America's message on Sunday
was: We look forward to the soonest possible year when you will
celebrate Veterans Day here with all of us. We welcome you back, and we
honor you by how we take care of you in your health care, for those who
have disabilities, and how we have taken care of the families of those
who have made the ultimate sacrifice. That will be the true measure of
whether we are a grateful nation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here to speak on the farm bill
once again. I have done this before, but I wish to urge my colleagues
across the aisle to move on this farm bill. I think it is incredibly
important for my State of Minnesota and for our country that we move
forward.
Minnesota is one of the largest agricultural States in the Nation. As
a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, where we worked hard to
reach a bipartisan compromise under the leadership of Chairman Harkin
and Ranking Member Chambliss, as well as Senator Conrad and Senator
Baucus--they worked hard on this--I believe we need to move forward.
The bipartisan farm bill before us will invest in our farms and our
rural communities so they will be a strong, growing, and innovative
part of the 21st Century.
I have seen firsthand in my State, where I visited all 87 counties 2
years in a row, what the 2002 farm bill meant for rural America. It
revitalized our communities. It gave our farmers the chance to take a
risk and expand their production. We are on the cusp of starting to
move forward toward energy independence. We are on the cusp of not
depending on these oil cartels in the Mideast and instead investing in
the farmers and the workers of the Midwest. I do not believe we should
turn away from that. I believe it is time to move forward.
America's farm safety net was created during the Great Depression as
an essential reform to help support rural communities and protect
struggling family farmers from the financial shocks of volatile prices
and equally volatile weather. Almost 75 years later, the reasons for
maintaining that safety net still exist.
As I said, the 2002 farm bill spurred rural development by allowing
farmers across Minnesota and across this country to expand production.
Because of the gains in productivity and the expansion of the last farm
bill, the 2002 farm bill came in, under a 10-year period, $17 billion
under budget.
As we continue to debate the 2007 farm bill--and I hope my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle will allow us to debate this farm bill--
it is important not to underestimate the value of a strong farm bill.
That is why, as a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I support
this bill.
I do believe, as I know the Presiding Officer does, there should be
more reform. I support the Dorgan-Grassley amendment to put some limits
on subsidies. I also believe we should have some limits on
eligibility--I suggest $750,000 for a full-time farmer, $250,000 income
for a part-time farmer. I don't think there are the significant limits
we need in the current farm bill. But, that said, we are not even going
to be able to get to talk about those important reforms if we do not
allow this bill to move forward. I think that is what our leadership is
trying to do every day with this farm bill.
One of the issues that most interests me about this bill is the
increased focus on cellulosic-based ethanol. That is a part our office
worked on. Actually, the bill we drafted is a part of this bill. The
idea is to build on our corn-based ethanol and soybean-based biodiesel
to a new generation of cellulosic ethanol. It is better for the
environment. It puts carbon back in the soil and is higher in energy
content. We are not going to get there unless we have the incentives in
place.
I know there are people who complain about ethanol, but I tell you I
think of it as the computer industry in the 1970s, when the computers
were in these huge rooms and they got more and more efficient and
changed our country. It is the same with fuel. Right now we are at the
infancy of an industry, ethanol and biomass and other kinds of farm-
based fuel. We are at the beginning. If we let the oil companies have
their way and tell us it is stopping them from building their
refineries and allow them to get in the way and not allow us to retail
the fuel as we should--there are outrageous stories of them not
allowing the prices to be posted or the pumps to be put in. There are
only 1,200 ethanol pumps in this country and 320 of them are in my
State, but who is counting. If we are going to move forward with
biomass and with our own energy, we have to allow this industry to
develop.
When I talk to farmers across our State, what they like most about
the 2002 farm bill is the safety net and the way it worked. It worked
well for the first time in a long time. What we did with this farm bill
was basically allow that safety net to stay in place and also rebalance
the commodity programs to be more equitable for some northern crops
such as wheat, oats, barley, soybeans, and canola.
I met with our wheat and barley growers a few hours ago. They are one
of the many groups that care a lot about this. Again, they revitalized
a lot of the areas of our State that had been troubled because of the
fact that we have a thriving rural economy.
Another top priority for Minnesota farmers was creating a permanent
program for disaster assistance. I thank Senator Baucus and the Finance
Committee for their work in this area. Farmers are tired of coming back
to Congress every year with a tin cup. We have been hit by drought,
flooding, and everything in between. They had to wait for 3 years for
Congress to pass the ad hoc disaster relief bill, and the permanent
program of disaster relief will give farmers the security they need in
moving forward.
I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are from farm
States to think about the importance of this disaster program for their
States.
The farm bill is not, as we know, just about the commodity programs
and the safety net. It is also about energy. It is also, as I
mentioned, about biofuels. I mentioned the cellulosic piece of it that
is so important. It also includes bipartisan legislation Senator Crapo
and I introduced to double the mandatory funding for the Biodiesel
Education Program. Spreading the word
[[Page 31350]]
about biodiesel to drivers and gas stations is very important if we are
going to help that industry. Again, I urge every Senator who wants less
dependence on foreign oil to look at the energy portion of this farm
bill.
One of the things that has plagued our rural communities in the last
decade or so is the inability for younger people to get involved in
farming. The committee accepted my amendment to improve the Beginning
Farmer and Rancher Program. There are real opportunities today to start
out in farming, especially in growing areas such as organic farming and
energy production. But beginning farmers also face big obstacles,
including limited access to credit and technical assistance and the
high price of land.
The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Programs in this farm bill provide
mentoring and outreach for new farmers and training in business
planning and credit building--the skills they need to succeed and to
stay on the land. If you are concerned because you have seen fewer and
fewer young people going into farming in your State, I urge you to move
this bill forward.
As I said, there are a lot of good things for Minnesota and for our
country in this farm bill. There is, however, one area that needs
reform and that is that we need to stop urban millionaires from
pocketing farm subsidies intended for hard-working farmers. Here are
the facts in our State. Minnesota is the sixth largest agricultural-
producing State in the Nation and, I would add, as we approach
Thanksgiving, the No. 1 turkey producer in our country. I was able to
judge a race recently between a Minnesota turkey and a Texas turkey at
the King Turkey Days in Worthington, MN, and I would like to report
that the Minnesota turkey won the race. The Texas turkey got too cold
and had to be carried over the finish line.
Minnesota, as I said, is the sixth largest agricultural-producing
State in the Nation. Nationally, 60 farms have collected more than $1
million each under the 2002 farm bill. None of them are in our State.
The average income for Minnesota farms, after expenses, is $54,000, but
under the current system, a part-time farmer can have an income as high
as $2.5 million from outside sources and still qualify for Federal
benefits.
I very strongly support this farm bill, but I also believe we need
some reform in this area because it makes no sense to hand out payments
to multimillionaires when this money should be targeted to family
farmers and conservation and nutrition and other programs under the
farm bill. Right now, nearly 600 residents of New York City, 559
residents of Washington, DC, and even 21 residents of Beverly Hills
90210 received Federal farm checks in the past 3 years. Some collected
hundreds of thousands of dollars.
We have the opportunity to fix this in this farm bill because the
administration has not been doing its job in enforcing the rules, so I
say let's use this farm bill to do it. Already in this farm bill in
both the House and the Senate we have gotten rid of the ``three
entity'' rule, of which there is much abuse. The House bill does
contain some income eligibility limits. I believe it is $1 million for
a full-time farmer, $500,000 for the part-time farmer. We, in this farm
bill, have an ability to go further, as I suggested, with an amendment
for $750,000 for full time and $250,000 part time. The Dorgan-Grassley
amendment, which passed this Chamber in the past, would keep subsidy
levels at $250,000. You put that in this farm bill. If we don't have
this farm bill, if our colleagues will not allow the Senate to proceed,
if we are not allowed to make this reform which the administration has
not enforced on its own--I believe this is a great opportunity for us.
For the reasons I laid out there for the energy title, which is
forward thinking, for the conservation title, which is more funding and
much more aggressive look at conservation, for the nutrition title,
where we are finally promoting our fruits and vegetables and are doing
new things to promote more healthy kids--these are all things that are
different about this farm bill. If we rest on our laurels and don't do
anything new, we are not going to be able to move in the direction we
want for the energy revolution in this country.
When my daughter did a project for sixth grade on biofuels last year,
she actually drew a map of the State of Minnesota.
She had 2 little dots that said ``Minneapolis'' and ``St. Paul,''
then she had a big circle that said ``Pine City, the home of farmer Tom
Peterson.'' That is whom she had talked to about biofuels.
I tell you this story because the future for our economy in Minnesota
and across the country, when you look at energy, the rural part of our
country is going to have a big piece of this. It is necessary for that
development.
If we do not pass this farm bill, we are not going to get there. I
urge my colleagues, for that and many other reasons, to move forward
with the 2007 farm bill.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement--H.R. 1429
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:30 p.m. today, the
Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report to
accompany H.R. 1429, Head Start Authorization; that it be considered
under the following limitations; that there be 60 minutes of debate
with respect to the conference report, with the time equally divided
and controlled between the chair and ranking member of the HELP
Committee, or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of
time, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report
without further intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RECESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in
recess until 3:30 p.m.
Thereupon, at 2:01 p.m., the Senate recessed until 3:30 p.m. and
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr.
Sanders).
____________________
IMPROVING HEAD START FOR SCHOOL READINESS ACT OF 2007--CONFERENCE
REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R.
1429, which the clerk will report by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
1429) to reauthorize the Head Start Act, to improve program
quality, to expand access, and for other purposes, having
met, have agreed that the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an
amendment and the Senate agree to the same, signed by a
majority of the conferees on the part of both Houses.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of Friday, November 9, 2007.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 60 minutes of debate equally
divided.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, the
Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, for his strong advocacy and extremely
effective work on this legislation. I also thank the staff of the HELP
committee for their work on this important piece of legislation. This
is an important moment in the Senate because this reauthorization of
Head Start focuses on the most vulnerable members of society, the
children, and it delivers a message of hope for these children and
their families.
HELP Committee members are extremely involved and active in all the
matters that come before our committee, but never more than on issues
of education and early childhood development. We have before us
legislation that reflects a coming together of both parties and both
chambers of Congress to address the needs of children in our society.
Reflected in this legislation are the interest of some of those who
aren't with us physically, colleagues who are involved in the
Presidential campaign. Senator Dodd, who has been a longtime leader in
the Senate on children and children's interests, has
[[Page 31351]]
had important suggestions and recommendations. Barack Obama has
followed this process very closely and has been in frequent
communication with us. Senator Clinton has been very much involved in
crafting this legislation, as well as a number of other pieces of
legislation we approved in the committee earlier today.
We welcome an overwhelming vote this afternoon. There was an
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives, 381 to
36. I am hopeful we will have a similar expression of support in the
Senate.
We have an hour. I know I have several colleagues who want to talk. I
will yield myself 12 minutes. I don't know how much I have used so far.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 3\1/2\ minutes. Is that
another 12 on top of the 3\1/2\?
Mr. KENNEDY. No, a total of 12. If the Chair will let me know when I
have a minute and a half, I would appreciate that.
Planning for Head Start began in the early 1960s, before we knew all
that we know today about how to best intervene and support the lives of
young children living in poverty. At that time, as Attorney General, my
brother Robert Kennedy decided to tackle the problem of juvenile
delinquency. Research pointed to poverty as the root of the Nation's
social and economic challenges. It was agreed that a strategy based on
early education could be a significant part of the answer.
In August 1964, President Johnson and Congress launched the war on
poverty by passing the Economic Opportunity Act. The Nation's poor
numbered 10 million, with nearly half under the age of 12.
In the fall of that year, my brother-in-law, Sargent Shriver,
convened a panel of experts in child development, education, public
health, and social work to lay a foundation for the Head Start program.
He envisioned a bold national commitment to prepare our neediest
children for kindergarten and first grade. He conferred with experts
like Dr. Edward Zigler, who is still a vigorous, forceful advocate for
children, and they agreed that a comprehensive approach was needed.
Preschool was the centerpiece of the plan, but a major emphasis was
placed on health care and parent involvement, too.
The following year, Head Start came into being as an 8-week summer
program. With the help of thousands of volunteers, it served 560,000
children through preschool classes, medical and dental care, and health
services. Over the years, it would reach over 24 million.
Today the face of poverty and of America's neediest families has
changed. The American workplace has changed, and our education system
is being challenged to keep up with the global economy. Head Start has
always adapted, finding new ways to respond to the demands on low-
income, working families. But its mission has remained the same--to
help our most vulnerable children succeed in school and in life.
When parents are asked what they most want to accomplish in life,
their answer undoubtedly includes a desire to open the doors of
opportunity for their children. They want a fair chance for their
children to grow up in a healthy and safe environment, to graduate from
high school and go on to college, and to achieve the American dream.
That dream should be available to every child in America. But far too
often, families are still struggling to put food on the table, buy
clothes for their children, pay the rent, or see a doctor. Poverty is
again on the rise. Today, 1 out of every 5 children in America grows up
poor.
Poverty has many dimensions. It is a labor issue, because pay is so
low and workers are exploited. It is a civil rights issue, because so
many African American and Latino families are often the ones left
behind. It is a health care issue, because the health care that
families in poverty receive is so substandard. Most of all, it is a
children's issue, because the children of the poor have done nothing
wrong. But they still pay the price.
It is our responsibility as a Nation to help those in need. The
Federal bedrock of that commitment is Head Start. It has always been an
important symbol of our responsibility to others. At its core are the
values that shaped our democracy: Equity, opportunity, community
empowerment, and economic progress.
Head Start is based on the premise that education is the key to the
future and to breaking down the destructive forces of poverty.
It provides the starting point for a child's day, with a healthy meal
each morning and a promise to parents that while they are at work and
balancing two jobs, their children will see a doctor and dentist, and
receive immunizations.
It provides children with the building blocks they need to enter
school ready to learn. It teaches the social and emotional skills
needed by children to pay attention in the classroom and get along well
with others. It expands their vocabulary, gets them excited about
reading, and teaches them to count.
It welcomes parents into its programs, gives them opportunities to
make decisions about their child's learning and development, and
sometimes helps families find a roof for over their head.
Over the years, with each new educational and developmental advance
in research, we have learned more about how Head Start can be improved.
And with that learning, modifications have been made to enable the
program to be even more effective.
In 1972, the Child Development Associate program was established, to
provide a standard of quality for Head Start teachers and aides.
In 1974, the reauthorization of Head Start established the
comprehensive Program Performance Standards to guide Head Start centers
in providing essential educational, health, and social services, and
achieving parental involvement. The reauthorization also paved the way
for a network of training and technical assistance activities to help
Head Start agencies enhance the quality of their programs.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, the Indian and Migrant Head Start
programs were formed, and family service centers were established to
combat illiteracy, substance abuse, and unemployment in Head Start
communities. At that time, Head Start also began its important focus on
improving transitions for preschool children to public schools.
In 1994, we created Early Head Start to serve low-income infants and
toddlers in the first 3 years of their development. That legislation
also led to the development of improved performance measures to assess
outcomes in Head Start and new guidelines for monitoring Head Start
programs.
The current reauthorization applies the lessons learned from the past
with the new knowledge of child development and early education to
enable Head Start to be even more successful in the years ahead.
There is no question that Head Start is effective. Our own federally
mandated study of Head Start found that it expands children's
vocabularies, and makes the greatest difference for those with the
greatest needs. Head Start improves children's writing skills, and
helps children grow in their social skills and behavior.
By the time Head Start children complete their kindergarten year,
their skills and developmental abilities are near the national average,
with scores of 99 in early literacy, 98 in early writing, 95 in early
math, and 95 in vocabulary.
We are talking about the most disadvantaged children in America. They
are often well behind in terms of their ability to enter school ready
to start. Look at the results at the end of kindergarten. Head Start
children catch up to their peers, to the national norm. It brings the
children up so, hopefully, we will be, as a country and society, more
equitable, more fair.
This reauthorization maintains high standards and comprehensive
services in Head Start. It upgrades educational components of the
program, and ensures that it delivers the skills and support that
children need to succeed in kindergarten and the early grades.
[[Page 31352]]
It promotes greater partnerships between Head Start programs and local
schools, and ensures that services continue to be framed by the highly
effective Head Start Child Outcomes Framework. It also provides a
needed bridge for parents to their local schools, to promote greater
coordination and ease the transition of children from preschool to
kindergarten.
We also terminate the flawed National Reporting System, and ensure
that new educational standards and measures used in Head Start will be
informed by the National Academy of Sciences. Two years ago, the
Government Accountability Office confirmed many of our long-standing
concerns with this assessment, concluding that the test is not valid to
make determinations about programs and students. The study also
confirmed that the test was inconsistent with nationally-recognized
testing standards, and unclear in its purpose.
This reauthorization ensures that any assessments used in Head Start
will be valid and reliable, fair to children from all backgrounds, and
measure the whole child. Head Start children and their families deserve
nothing less.
Head Start teachers and staff are the heart and future of the
program. They help children learn to identify letters and arrange the
pieces of puzzles. They teach them to brush their teeth, wash their
hands, make friends, and follow rules.
This reauthorization sets important and unprecedented goals for
enhancing the skills and qualifications of Head Start teachers and
staff. In this reauthorization, we are striving to help all teachers
earn their associate's degree over the next 6 years, help half of all
teachers in Head Start earn their bachelor's degree, and help all
assistant teachers work toward completing a CDA or another early
education credential.
These are ambitious goals. But we know that learning and development
of young children require good teachers and that there is a strong link
between educational qualifications and the quality of programs.
The quality of a program doesn't just depend on the educational
background of its teachers, which is why we are also calling for
professional development and a career advancement plan for every Head
Start employee including family service workers, assistant teachers,
and curriculum coordinators. We have established new partnerships to
increase staff in Head Start who are prepared to serve the diverse
children enrolled in the programs.
Most of all, we have worked to ensure that Head Start agencies have a
dedicated stream of funds to provide needed training for teachers. The
reauthorization dedicates $2 million this year to local training and
improvement efforts, much of which will be used to improve and
strengthen the Head Start workforce. We commit to confronting the
persistent challenge of compensating Head Start teachers as the
professionals that they are. Head Start teachers earn half the salary
of kindergarten teachers, and turnover is about 11 percent per year.
This conference report commits 40 percent of new funds in Head Start
to program quality and teacher salaries, to do more to attract and
retain caring and committed leaders. It ensures that each Head Start
Center will receive an annual cost-of-living increase to keep up with
the rising costs of operation and overhead.
We grant additional flexibility in this reauthorization for Head
Start to serve thousands of additional low-income children in need, by
including families just above the Federal poverty level. It is
essential for Head Start to prioritize its services to the neediest
families in their communities. But this new flexibility enables those
living near poverty and earning less than what they need to get by to
receive assistance too. It is the right thing to do, and it is what
Head Start is all about.
The reauthorization also makes a long-overdue commitment to expanding
Head Start programs in Indian country, and programs for migrant and
seasonal farmworkers. By reserving up to $20 million annually to expand
services in these programs, we can hopefully reach an additional 5,500
migrant children and an additional 5,100 Native American children
living in poverty. New provisions are also included to enhance services
for homeless children, children who are English language learners, and
children with disabilities in order to ensure that these populations
receive the care and attention they deserve.
Accountability is a cornerstone of excellence and should start early.
Head Start should be accountable for its commitment to provide safe and
healthy learning environments, to support each child's individual
pattern of development and learning, to build community partnerships in
services to children, and to involve parents in their child's growth.
This reauthorization makes significant progress in increasing
accountability and investing in excellence in Head Start. It continues
the comprehensive monitoring that has become a hallmark of Head Start,
and ensures that reviews are fair and balanced in order to account for
challenges and strengths in programs. It also establishes a new system
for the designation of Head Start grants, to be phased in over the next
several years.
We know that the vast majority of Head Start programs provide
outstanding services--fewer than 20 percent of programs are found to be
deficient each year. But where serious deficiencies exist, we must see
that substantial problems do not languish at the expense of children.
If a local program is unable to meet Head Start's high standards of
quality, timely action should be taken. This new system will facilitate
accountability and funding decisions, and do so in a manner that is
transparent, fair, and responsive to the local needs of families and
children.
We have established greater accountability for enrollment in programs
and delineated a clear system of governance in Head Start.
The reauthorization also takes important steps to expand Early Head
Start. Since its inception, results have proven that Early Head Start
is one of the most effective programs of the Department of Health and
Human Services. In this legislation, we improve the training and
assistance network serving Early Head Start and guarantee a dedicated
expert in each State to work with programs to meet the needs of infants
and toddlers. We also expand the screening available to infants exposed
to trauma, violence, or other circumstances detrimental to their
development. We commit to expanding Early Head Start to serve an
additional 8,000 low-income infants and toddlers over the next 5 years.
As in elementary and secondary education, reform in early childhood
education requires resources. Today, half of all children eligible for
Head Start have no access to it. Early Head Start however, serves only
3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers--we leave behind a shameful
97 percent.
When Sargent Shriver discussed the war on poverty, he said ``You have
to put immense resources into winning a war.'' He was right, and he
wasn't talking about wars like Iraq. He was talking about the war on
poverty. This conference report increases authorizations for Head Start
to $7.3 billion in fiscal year 2008, $7.6 billion in fiscal year 2009,
and $7.9 billion in fiscal year 2010. On a bipartisan basis, the
conferees have signaled a commitment to invest more in our youngest
children, and to assist Head Start in responding to the changing and
evolving needs of the communities it serves.
Research shows that the first 5 years of life make an immense
difference for a child. Those who attend high-quality early education
programs are more likely to do well when they reach elementary school,
are less likely to be held back a grade, and are more likely to
graduate from high school and go on to college.
Our Federal investment in early childhood education clearly pays
off-- for every dollar invested in high-quality early education, there
is a 16 dollar return later in life.
All children--regardless of their background--deserve to learn and
develop. We need to strengthen early
[[Page 31353]]
childhood for young children, in order to help them succeed later in
school and in life.
A comprehensive curriculum and a stable and well-qualified workforce
are cornerstones of a good early education. I am especially pleased
that this reauthorization of Head Start includes a blueprint to
strengthen the array of early childhood programs and services for young
children.
The bill establishes an Early Childhood Advisory Council to examine
needs of early childhood programs, develop a plan to improve
professional development, upgrade standards, enhance collaboration
among programs, and improve data collection.
More than 40 States have early learning standards in place or under
development. States such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Illinois
have developed the systems needed to improve program quality and expand
access to programs in the early years. We need to build on that
progress. States that are ready to take on the challenge of
implementing needed improvements in their early education programs will
qualify for incentive grants to get such improvements under way.
One of our highest priorities in Congress is to expand educational
opportunities for every American. In this age of globalization, every
citizen deserves a chance to acquire the skills needed to compete in
the modern economy. That challenge begins at birth, and accelerates in
the early years of life well before children even begin kindergarten.
This reauthorization helps us reach this essential goal. It keeps
Head Start on its successful path, and enables it to continue to thrive
and improve.
We still haven't won the war on poverty in America. But thanks to
Head Start, we are getting closer. Day by day, and one child at a time.
This conference report continues that indispensable progress, and I
urge my colleagues to approve it.
Mr. President, we have others who desire to speak at this time. I
will have a chance with the remaining time, perhaps, to get into some
of the additional items.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for that excellent
recap of what has taken us months, in fact, years to get done.
I am pleased after many years of false starts, we have finally
reached agreement on Head Start reauthorization. This conference
agreement is a bipartisan, bicameral effort that focuses on improving
the lives of low-income children and their families. We need to ensure
that children, regardless of their circumstances, have the opportunity
to get the preparation they need to enter school ready to learn and be
successful.
The Head Start Program was established in 1965 as part of the war on
poverty to level the playing field for low-income children. The purpose
of the program was, and remains, to provide educational and other
developmental services to children in very low income families. It
recognizes that children do not start school with the same set of
experiences or knowledge. Head Start programs provide low-income
children with a solid base of experiences and knowledge that enables
them to start their elementary school experience on par with their more
affluent peers.
Since its creation, Head Start has been a comprehensive, early
childhood development program that provides educational, health,
nutritional, social, and other services to low-income, preschool-aged
children and their families. Head Start currently provides services to
over 900,000 children and their families through a network of over
1,600 public and private agencies. This program also recognizes the
important role that families play in a child's development and
encourages their regular participation in the program.
I do thank Senator Kennedy and Congressman Miller for their
commitment to working together on a bipartisan basis. That commitment
has resulted in a conference report that meets the needs of children
and families who participate in Head Start programs throughout our
Nation. I also thank my other colleagues, particularly Senators
Alexander and Dodd, and Congressmen McKeon, Kildee, and Castle, for
their fine work and dedication to this important legislation.
The conference agreement before us today builds off legislation we
developed last Congress when I was chairman of the HELP Committee.
Senator Kennedy agreed to use that legislation as the base for this
year's bill to build on the bipartisan support it had received. Senator
Kennedy and I understand that to get anything done, especially in the
Senate, you have to have bipartisan support.
Years ago, I established an ``80-percent rule'' to help guide my work
in committee and on the Senate floor. It means that 80 percent of what
Congress works on we agree to. The other 20 percent is the stuff we may
never agree on. But that is what always seems to get the attention. I
do think we do our best work when we focus on the 80 percent.
Legislation seems to move more quickly when we work together in a
bipartisan way.
I am pretty certain people in Massachusetts are cringing, and people
in Wyoming are cringing and saying: Oh, no, Kennedy and Enzi are doing
it again. But that is the way things get done, and we have quite a
track record of doing things that wind up pretty unanimous on both
sides of the Capitol because they figure with our two backgrounds it
has to be reasonable or we will not agree. That is exactly how it works
out.
So this bill probably will not make headlines, and it is not the most
sensational sound bite. However, this is work Congress can and must do
to improve the lives of children and families across America.
Today, with the passage of the Head Start conference report, we begin
to fulfill this obligation. But our work is far from done. This is just
the first in a number of education and training bills we have to
complete this Congress.
With the reauthorization of the Head Start Act, the first bookend is
in place. I hope we can continue to work together on legislation to
reauthorize No Child Left Behind, the Higher Education Act, and the
Workforce Investment Act. These four bills represent the continuum of
education and workforce training legislation supported by the Federal
Government--with Head Start as one bookend and the Workforce Investment
Act as the other.
These acts support programs from preschool, through elementary and
high school, into postsecondary education and the workforce, and are
critical to maintaining our global competitiveness. We cannot afford to
let those programs fall victim to election year politics.
I am pleased the House Education and Labor Committee has moved
forward with the markup of the reauthorization of the Higher Education
Act. It is my hope we can continue this momentum and move into a
conference on that important legislation in the very near future.
Head Start provides the building blocks children need for success
later in life. The Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of
2007 before us today helps ensure that children in Head Start programs
will be better prepared to enter school with the skills necessary to
succeed. We have always worked hard to improve and strengthen this act
because we believe in the future success of all children.
I am particularly pleased with the accountability provisions in this
conference report. The conference agreement includes important changes
related to the evaluation and review of grantees. We have taken steps
to increase the quality of Head Start, and there is now greater clarity
for grantees as to what constitutes a program deficiency.
The roles of governing body and policy councils have been clarified
and strengthened, while also preserving the important role of parents.
It is absolutely necessary and vital that a single entity, the
governing body, has fiscal and legal control of the Federal grant
dollars. That said, we maintain the equally vital and necessary role of
the policy councils in setting program priorities, classroom
activities, and classroom personnel changes. We believe
[[Page 31354]]
this will help ensure the continued integrity of the Head Start Program
for years to come.
Parents are their children's first teachers. It is vital we continue
to encourage and strengthen the role parents play in Head Start
programs. This conference agreement increases the presence of parents
in Head Start programs. It strengthens services for families, and it
provides training and development opportunities for parents who serve
on policy councils and governing boards.
Today we are taking the final legislative step toward a comprehensive
and bipartisan reauthorization of the Head Start Program. As we take
this step to reauthorize Head Start, it is important we review the
effectiveness and need for the 57 other early childhood and preschool
programs currently receiving Federal support. Many of those programs
are programs in name only. Others are ineffective and fail to provide
the services children need to be ready for school. We have to direct
funds to programs that have been shown to be effective at preparing
children for success in elementary school. Head Start is a successful
program that deserves our continued support. This support should not be
diluted by competing programs or the creation of new programs.
I again wish to thank all the members of both committees, in
particular Senators Kennedy, Alexander, Isakson and Dodd, and
Congressmen Miller, McKeon, Kildee, and Castle, for getting this done.
I also thank all of the staff who worked to complete this
reauthorization. Many of them have been working toward this day since
early January. In particular, I would like to thank the following staff
for Congressman Miller: Ruth Friedman, Lamont Ivey, Denise Forte, and
Stephanie Moore; for Congressman McKeon: Kirsten Duncan, James
Bergeron, and Susan Ross; for Congressman Kildee: Lloyd Horwich; for
Congressman Castle: Jessica Gross; for Senator Kennedy: Roberto
Rodriguez, Carmel Martin, and David Johns--I would like to mention how
well Senator Kennedy's staff and my staff have been able to work
together on all of the issues--for Senator Isakson: Glee Smith; for
Senator Alexander: David Cleary and Sarah Rittling; and for Senator
Dodd: Catherine Hildum, and former staffer Sharon Lewis.
For my staff, I want to be sure to thank Lindsay Hunsicker, who has
done a marvelous job of working and understanding and providing some
creativity in the decisions that had to be made to get here; Beth
Buehlmann, who oversees all of these education issues and is making
sure they are moving forward in a bipartisan way; and Ilyse Schuman,
who is the legal brains behind the drafting and decisions for my team;
Katherine McGuire, who heads up the team as staff director; and, of
course, Kelly Hastings.
Passage of this conference report will ensure that low-income
children are prepared not only for success in school but, most
importantly, for later success in life.
I look forward to getting this conference report to President Bush
for his signature as soon as possible.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my
time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Washington, Mrs. Murray, who has been particularly involved in making
sure parents are going to be included in this program. She has been
such an outspoken advocate for the homeless and foster children who so
often get left out and left behind. She is a former schoolteacher
herself and member of a school board. She brings extraordinary
knowledge, experience, and understanding to this problem. We are very
fortunate to have her on our committee, and the Senate is very
fortunate to have her as well. I hope they listen to her message.
Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is
recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
I am delighted we are here today to talk about one of the most
important things this Congress has done for our children, and that is
the Head Start Program.
I thank the Senators from Massachusetts and Wyoming for shepherding
this important bill to the floor today, where it is in its last final
step before it reaches the President for his signature.
For over 40 years now, Head Start has helped children from low-income
families build the confidence and skills they have to have to succeed
in school. As the Senator from Massachusetts said, I am a former
preschool teacher, parent, school board member, and U.S. Senator. I can
tell you, I have seen from every aspect how this important program
benefits our children.
Today, I am very excited we are taking a vote to renew this important
program. The bill we have in front of us now strengthens Head Start by
making it more efficient, more accommodating, and more sensitive to our
children's social, emotional, and developmental needs. It will allow us
to better serve millions of children and improve on this already
successful program.
This bill will help raise the quality that Senator Kennedy talked
about of our Head Start services across the country so that we ensure
all of our children, no matter where they live, receive high quality,
consistent services. Also, it will help ensure that all Head Start
partners from our early childhood centers to our elementary schools,
our childcare centers, our health care providers, our family service
centers, are all working together in a coordinated way so we can best
serve our young children and their families.
This bill increases funding authorization for Head Start each year
from 2008 to 2010, and that will enable even more of our kids to start
school ready to learn than ever before. I hope all of our colleagues
will support this important bill, and I urge the President to sign it
as soon as possible so we can put these new tools to work for our kids.
As the, I believe, only former preschool teacher here in the Senate,
I feel a personal obligation to stand up for all of our young children.
And standing up for our children, particularly our most vulnerable
children, means standing up for Head Start. Each year, nearly a million
poor children across this country attend our Head Start programs. Those
kids didn't choose to be poor, but fortunately, since they live in this
Nation, which values our young people, many of them are enrolled in
Head Start where they can get the tools and the training they need to
prepare them for school.
I thank Senator Kennedy and his staff as well as Ranking Member Enzi
for working so hard on this bill.
I am particularly proud of the provisions that increase Head Start
access for our homeless and for our foster children. This bill will
help improve transportation and services for these children and places
a priority on enrolling them. These are some of our kids who face some
of the greatest barriers to learning in our society, and I am glad we
are making their success in school and in life an immediate priority.
I also fought to make sure that parents of children enrolled in this
program have a voice in the decisionmaking process on local Head Start
issues. I think our parents need to be involved in these programs and
to have responsibility, and I think as their kids get a jump on
learning through Head Start, this program will help our parents begin
to understand that they have a very important and critical role in
shaping their children's education. So I am very proud we were able to
work out that language and move forward in a positive direction.
To name a few other quick additions, this reauthorization improves
the transition of Head Start children to school by making sure that the
curriculum they get matches their State early learning standards and
kindergarten skills, which is very important. It also reserves 40
percent of new Head Start funds to improve programs as well as increase
salaries for staffers, and it enables Native-American and migrant
[[Page 31355]]
Head Start programs to expand, which will increase access to early
learning for those particularly vulnerable populations.
I have visited Head Start centers all across my State. I have talked
with teachers, I have talked with the parents, and I have talked with
advocates about ways we can improve Head Start. I am very pleased that
a number of their suggestions have been put into this bill. Washington
State, my home State, is a leader in early learning efforts. I think we
can all be proud of this bill, and I hope all of our colleagues will
support it.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the former Secretary of
Education.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee is
recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to please let me know
when I have 1 minute remaining.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will so advise.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, it is not too much to say that this
vote on this piece of legislation on Head Start is about whose century
this century will be. Some say it will be China's century. Some say it
will be India's century. I think the jury is still out, but I do
believe it can be the American century, and I believe it is up to us to
make sure it is.
We have the advantages in our country. One of them, of course, is our
brain power advantage. We don't have better brains than others, but
since World War II, we have spent a great deal of time building our
education system, our universities, our research laboratories. We
worked together this year to pass the America COMPETES Act, authorizing
$34 billion over the next 3 years to step that up. A second advantage
we have is the e pluribus unum. We are one country. Where different
countries are fractured, we are working here to help our children and
our new arrivals learn English, our common language, and to learn our
American history so we can stay as one country. That is an advantage we
have. The third advantage we have is that we are the only country in
the world that believes that anything is possible. We don't say leave
just a few children behind, or 80 percent of us are created equal; we
set these very high goals. Anything is possible. Most of our politics
is about failing to reach the goals, dealing with the disappointment,
and then trying again.
How do we make sure that the dream that anything is possible is real?
Well, No. 1, we keep down taxes and we keep down regulations, and we
keep markets free so people can go from the back to the front of the
line. The other thing we do is to make sure that all Americans have a
chance to get to the starting line ready. Some people need some help,
and that is what Head Start is about.
I was very pleased to come to this floor in the earlier part of this
year with Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, and Senator Dodd, introducing
a piece of legislation that we hoped would get to the point this one
has today. I thank them for the way they have worked on this for the
last 3 or 4 years. It didn't matter much whether it was a Republican or
a Democratic Senate; we all worked together and we are here now with
this result.
A lot has changed, and there are four major advantages to this bill,
in my opinion. No. 1, I call special attention to the 200 new centers
of excellence that are created. These are opportunities for Governors
to look, say, at Nashville or at Boston or at some place in their State
and designate a center of excellence. These would be shining examples
of all of the best efforts that are being made for early childhood
education. The centers would get up to $200,000 a year for 5 years and
would hopefully try to coordinate all early childhood education and
development efforts.
When I was a child, my mother's preschool class in the garage in our
backyard was the only preschool education program in town. In the
1970s, Tennessee adopted public kindergarten for the first time, a few
years after Head Start. Well, today, Head Start is a $7 billion
program. It has 1,700 agencies, 29,000 centers, but that is far from
all the effort we are making. There are 21 billion Federal dollars for
early childhood education, and many State and local dollars. They are
not always spent in the most efficient manner. The President thought it
would be better to give the Head Start funds to the States. I disagree
with that. We have disagreed with that, but we have respected his
impulse by saying in these 200 centers for the next 5 years, let's see
what happens. Let's see what happens when States work with local
governments and put all the Federal, State, and local money together
for early childhood education in these centers for excellence.
Second, there is a system for renewal for Head Start agencies. There
is not an automatic renewal after this time, and the Secretary of
Health and Human Services will develop a process for that to make sure
that for every cycle, the Head Start agency earns its right to
continue. Third, there is clear authority to governing boards about the
big dollars we are spending here and the big lives we are affecting. We
heard eloquent testimony from the mayor of Shelby County, A.C. Wharton,
about money that was stolen down there. So we have done a better job
listening to Mayor Wharton and to others in making it clear who is in
charge of the money, who is in charge of the administration, and at the
same time, making sure that the parents, who are the lifeblood of the
uniqueness of Head Start, are active and full participants through
policy councils.
Finally, as the President also recommended, we have worked over the
last 2 or 3 years in developing this bill to increase cognitive
learning standards. Forty years ago, we didn't know nearly as much
about how the brains of very young children work, but we know now that
to be ready to learn, to be at the starting line when the time comes to
go to school, children need to learn more in their earlier years. So
Head Start will provide that opportunity.
It is not too much to say that this bill is about whose century this
will be. We hope it will be the century of every child in the world,
but we like the idea that it could be the American century, and we want
to take full advantage of the assets we have. One of the assets we have
is the dream that anything is possible, that you can go from the back
of the line to the front. We will keep our markets free. We will try to
keep our taxes down. We will get rid of unnecessary regulations so
people can get ahead. But this bill is a commitment that says we will
also make certain we will do our best to make sure every single child
has an opportunity to get to the starting line ready to succeed.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to rise in support of the
conference report for the Head Start for School Readiness Act. Since
1965, Head Start has been one of the most successful Federal programs
for helping low-income children and their families. This long overdue
reauthorization is good news for over a million Americans who rely on
Head Start's comprehensive services.
Head Start is for the poorest children. About 75 percent of Head
Start families are at or below the poverty level. For a family of four,
that is just $20,600 per year. These children are often the furthest
behind in learning to read and learning the alphabet. Yet Head Start
makes a difference. In 1 year, these students see huge improvements in
their vocabulary, increasing from the 16th percentile to the 32nd
percentile, which is almost the national norm.
But Head Start does so much more. It brings children to the doctor to
get immunizations and hearing checks. It helps parents get on the right
track. Many parents become Head Start teachers and go back to school to
get their degrees. It provides nutritious meals for children who might
otherwise go hungry. I am a social worker. I have seen first hand
children whose lives were changed by a simple hearing aid or a good
breakfast. Believe me: it can make all the difference.
[[Page 31356]]
Head Start is also a smart investment. Research shows that society
accrues $9 in benefits for every $1 invested in Head Start children.
Head Start graduates are more likely to have increased earnings and
employment than non-Head Start participants. Head Start graduates are
also less likely to be dependent on welfare or to have been charged
with a crime when compared to their siblings who did not participate in
the program.
Unfortunately, only 60 percent of eligible preschool children are in
Head Start, and less than 5 percent of eligible infants and toddlers
are in Early Head Start. In Maryland, about 25 percent of eligible
children age zero to 5 years are in Head Start and Early Head Start.
The Bush administration has underfunded this critical Federal program
for the past 7 years. Now is the time to renew the Federal investment
in Head Start.
That is why I am proud to support this bill that makes low-income
children and families a priority in the Federal checkbook. It increases
the authorized spending level from $6.9 billion in fiscal year 2007 to
$7.3 billion in fiscal year 2008. That is nearly a $450 million
increase. This increased investment will allow tens of thousands more
children to participate in the program who would be otherwise turned
away because of inadequate funding.
This bill also expands Head Start by increasing the eligibility
income level from $20,600 to $26,800. This means that a family of four
who are scrimping and saving on an annual income of only $26,800 will
no longer be denied the comprehensive services Head Start provides.
The Head Start for School Readiness Act makes a serious investment in
our youngest children and their families. The benefits of Head Start to
the children, their families and society at large far outweighs the
cost. I urge my Senate colleagues to vote in favor of this conference
report. Our young children deserve nothing less.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I strongly support H.R. 1429, the Improving
Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007. This important bipartisan
legislation, which I helped craft as a member of the Senate Education
Committee and as a conferee, reauthorizes the Head Start Act for the
first time since 1998 and strengthens our commitment to ensuring that
the nation's neediest children receive high-quality early education
supports and services.
Since 1965, Head Start has provided comprehensive early childhood
development, educational, health, nutritional, social and other
services to low-income preschool children and their families, and this
reauthorization builds on our long-standing investment in this
essential initiative.
There are two provisions that I am particularly pleased are included
in this legislation, and which are important to my State of Rhode
Island. First, the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act builds
on provisions I first authored in 2003 to provide Head Start programs
with additional flexibility to serve children up to 130 percent of
poverty. Current law limits program eligibility to 100 percent of
poverty or below. This increase in income eligibility will enhance the
opportunity for struggling, low-income families to participate in Head
Start while ensuring that programs prioritize serving families under
the poverty guideline and enhance outreach to ensure those most in need
are served first. Raising the income eligibility limit finally puts
Head Start on the same level as other means-tested programs, which
essentially all serve above the poverty level to provide for greater
participation and help the working poor.
Second, this legislation for the first time establishes the Parent
Policy Council as a decisionmaking authority within the governing
structure of Head Start programs. Strong parent involvement in their
children's early education and development has been a key tenet of the
Head Start program since its inception in 1965, and is one of the
primary reasons for the program's continuing success.
This reauthorization also includes a provision I authored to enhance
coordination between Head Start programs and school and public
libraries to excite children about the world of books, assist in
literacy training for Head Start teachers, and support parents and
other caregivers in literacy efforts.
Additionally, I am pleased that this conference report does not
permit employment discrimination based on religion despite the
administration's continuing advocacy for such a change. Faith-based
organizations are an integral part of Head Start. However, there is no
need to change a program that has encouraged their participation by
allowing such discrimination.
I want to thank Chairmen Kennedy, Dodd, and Miller and Ranking
Members Enzi, Alexander, and McKeon and their staffs, for their
extraordinary work on this conference report. The Improving Head Start
for School Readiness Act is significant legislation for the people of
Rhode Island and the nation, and I am pleased to support it. This
strong reauthorization in tandem with necessary funding increases will
ensure that Head Start can continue its important and critical work to
lessen the effects of poverty and ensure that children are successfully
prepared for school and life.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today we approved the Conference Report on
the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007--H.R. 1429. I
applaud the good work of all involved. I particularly want to commend
Chairman Kennedy and Senator Enzi, as well as Chairman Miller and
Representative McKeon on the House side for their collective work on
this important bill.
Head Start is a national program promoting school readiness through
educational, health, nutritional, and social services. Currently, Head
Start serves over 900,000 low-income children and their families in
approximately 1,600 programs run by public and private agencies. As a
whole-child, whole-family program, Head Start prepares children for
what we hope will be a lifetime of learning.
I want to recognize and commend our Head Start programs in Utah. They
do an outstanding job, and I believe this legislation will go a long
way to providing additional support for them. I have appreciated their
input during this long process.
I have been struck by some of the stories shared by our Head Start
people in Utah. I remember hearing from one of our Head Start Directors
that a number of children have never held a book before entering the
program. When they are handed their first book, many don't know how to
open it. Entering Head Start swings wide the doors of learning and
opportunity and exposes young children to the reading and learning
process.
I have also heard stories of Head Start children who were suffering
from major medical problems that would not only threaten their ability
to learn but their very lives. One of the great characteristics of the
Head Start program includes the identification and treatment of several
medical conditions, many problems can be detected and treated before
they become serious learning impediments.
The Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 not only
reauthorizes the program, it greatly improves and strengthens it. This
bill will enable more low-income children to get into the Head Start
program. Utah has only been able to serve just over 50 percent of its
eligible children. This bill provides for the expansion of Head Start
and Early Head Start in States, like Utah, serving fewer than 60
percent of eligible children.
This bill strengthens the accountability of Head Start programs and
improves the overall quality of Head Start grantees, as they will be
reviewed every 5 years. It clarifies and strengthens the role of the
governing board in the oversight of the program. It also respects the
priority role of parents and family through the collaborative role of
the policy councils and operations of the Head Start programs.
Through this legislation, the Head Start workforce is strengthened,
as goals have been established for education standards for Head Start
teachers, curriculum specialists, and teacher assistants. It requires
Head Start teachers to have in-service training
[[Page 31357]]
every year and ensures professional development for all Head Start
staff working directly with children.
The Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 strengthens
coordination and collaboration of the program by aligning services with
State early learning standards, providing professional development
opportunities for Head Start staff, and promoting partnerships with
other agencies.
Because I believe that education is best done at the local and State
levels with appropriate Federal support, I am pleased that under this
bill, states will designate a State Advisory Council that will closely
address the education and care of children from birth to school entry.
I strongly support the authorization for Centers of Excellence to
designate model exemplary Head Start programs in every State.
One of the concerns expressed by many of us as we started this
process years ago, was the challenge of strengthening the academic
portions of Head Start. Under this bill, Head Start agencies will use
scientifically based measures to support learning and program
evaluation. Recommendations of the National Academy of Science study on
Developmental Outcomes and Assessments for Young Children will be
incorporated. Although the National Reporting System was intended to
improve the program, it was found to be time-consuming and unwieldy for
Head Start programs, and without demonstrated benefits. That reporting
system has been eliminated under this bill.
In order to educate every child in our country, we must prepare them.
Many pre-school children, particularly those who are disadvantaged,
would have learning difficulties long before they entered elementary
school. This bill will help these young, vulnerable, and teachable
children develop the necessary early reading and math skills to be
successful in school. It will address their health and nutritional
needs, and it will provide important socialization. It also engages and
empowers parents, and benefits us as a Nation.
I was proud to have worked with my colleagues on the Senate Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to get this bill through the
legislative process, and I was pleased to see it pass unanimously
today.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference
report to accompany the Head Start reauthorization bill. For the first
time since 1998, Congress will send a bill to the President to
reauthorize and strengthen the Head Start program.
A child's education begins well before he or she enters a school
building for the first day of kindergarten. The children who succeed in
kindergarten are the children whose parents read to them every day, who
talk with them, and who engage their minds with games, art, and new
experiences. These are the children who enter kindergarten ready to
learn.
Unfortunately, many children enter kindergarten well behind their
peers. They may have parents whose long hours interfere with the kind
of time they spend with their small children. Or they may have parents
who don't know how important these early developmental activities are.
That is why we created Head Start in 1965, to make sure low-income
children are ready to learn when they arrive in kindergarten. Head
Start provides preschool-aged, low-income children and their families
with school activities, health screening, healthy snacks, and structure
to encourage parental involvement.
Each year, over 900,000 children are served by Head Start nationwide;
40,000 of those children live in my home State of Illinois. The
legislation that we are considering today will increase authorized
funding for Head Start to $7.9 billion in fiscal year 2010, allowing
tens of thousands more children to participate in the program.
The legislation will also expand eligibility, allowing Head Start to
serve low-income children and families up to 130 percent of Federal
poverty, or $26,800 for a family of four. It will also expand the Early
Head Start program, so it can reach an additional 8,000 low-income
infants and toddlers. The earlier children enroll in Head Start
programs, the more likely they are to succeed once they enter
kindergarten.
The legislation also sets new minimum qualification standards for
Head Start teachers. Within 6 years, all Head Start teachers must have
an associate's degree, and half of all teachers must have a bachelor's
degree. Forty percent of new funding will be reserved for program
quality enhancements, including much-needed salary increases for Head
Start staff.
Educational standards will be strengthened in Head Start programs to
make sure children are presented with language and literacy, math,
science, and other cognitive development material. These new standards
will be updated and aligned with the latest research in child
development. The legislation we are considering today will improve the
transition for children who are leaving Head Start to enter
kindergarten, through better coordination between Head Start programs
and schools, shared teacher training, and alignment of curriculum.
I am especially pleased that this legislation strengthens Head Start
without weakening its long-standing civil rights protections for more
than 200,000 Head Start teachers and 1.3 million parent volunteers.
Since 1972, the law has prohibited agencies that receive government
funding for Head Start from employment discrimination on the basis of
race, creed, color, national origin, sex, political affiliation, or
beliefs. These civil rights protections have been reaffirmed all six
times that the Head Start program has been reauthorized since then, and
I strongly support the seventh reaffirmation today.
Preserving this provision is especially important given this
administration's attempts to overturn long-standing principles of
nondiscrimination through Executive orders, proposed legislation, and,
recently, Department of Justice opinions.
Let me be clear. I support the right of religious organizations to
use religious criteria in hiring people to carry out their religious
work. This exception--which is the current law--makes sense because it
allows people of common faith to work together to further their
religion's mission.
However, there is a fundamental difference between religious
organizations using their own funds for their religious work and
religious organizations using government funds for that purpose. In
1972, Congress established the current, expanded religious exception
under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The same Congress
established the nondiscrimination provisions in Head Start that
continue with today's legislation. They understood the difference
between permitting hiring based on religion for religious functions not
funded by the government, and allowing discrimination based on religion
in hiring people to carry out activities funded by the Federal
Government.
I also want to address a memo released last month by the Department
of Justice entitled ``Effect of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
on Faith-Based Applicants for Grants.'' This troubling memo concludes
that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows faith-based
organizations to receive Federal funds even when considering religion
in employment. It further asserts that RFRA ``protects this right to
prefer co-religionists for employees even if the statute that
authorizes the funding program generally forbids consideration of
religion in employment decisions by grantees.''
I strongly disagree with these conclusions in general, and especially
with respect to the legislation before us today. The law and the
history regarding Head Start is clear with respect to nondiscrimination
in employment, and this explicit civil rights protection must be
followed.
In closing, I want to affirm my strong support for the participation
of religious organizations in the Head Start program. These
organizations provide critical support for our Nation's children in 5
percent of Head Start centers and greatly improve our pre-schoolers'
education. It is not surprising that Head Start is the second-
[[Page 31358]]
largest source of federal funding for faith-based organizations.
This program truly is a model for how the government can successfully
partner with faith-based organizations, while complying with
nondiscrimination requirements.
I thank Senators Kennedy and Enzi for their bipartisan work on this
important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this
conference report.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, we have 9 minutes left.
Am I correct?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Ohio and 3 minutes
to the Senator from Vermont, and I will take the last 3 minutes, and we
will alternate with our Republican colleagues.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio is
recognized.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member
Enzi for their leadership, as well as the staff, for their tireless
work on the Head Start reauthorization bill. It is long overdue. It
will help prepare thousands of low-income children for their transition
into school and for their success later in life.
There is no greater investment, of course, that we can make than
investing in our children. This legislation means an additional 8,000
low-income infants and toddlers younger than those who have
traditionally been enrolled in Head Start will be eligible for the
program. Teachers will receive more training, the critical training
they need and the cost-of-living increases that they deserve. This
legislation means expansion of the program to children whose families
earn just above the poverty line. For tens of thousands of children in
this country, this legislation gives them hope. It is a step forward, a
major step forward.
Yesterday, unfortunately, the President vetoed the funding for Head
Start. That is why we take a step forward today with this Head Start
reauthorization, as the President took a step backward in vetoing the
funding for Head Start. Budgets, we know, are about priorities. Whether
it is a family budget, it speaks to your values; whether it is a
Federal budget, it speaks to our values. Vetoing funding for Head
Start, for medical research, and for job training as the President did
yesterday, tells us something about his priorities.
I am pleased that on a bipartisan basis, by passing legislation that
expands Head Start to reach more low-income children, this Senate is
saying our priorities are different. I hope that together we can
override the President's veto and fulfill the promise inherent in the
Head Start Program.
I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their good work
on this Head Start reauthorization. We should move forward.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Almost 14 minutes.
Mr. ENZI. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Georgia, who has
always played a tremendous role in this piece of work with his staff
person Glee Smith, and he brings with him a world of knowledge from
Georgia where he served as the chief school official there. They set
some precedent-setting things at all levels of education while he was
doing that, and he did it in conjunction with former Senator Zell
Miller, who was Governor at that time. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator
from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to thank Ranking Member Enzi for
his kind remarks and his tremendous dedication and commitment to
bringing this conference report to the floor. I particularly want to
thank Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, who is a consummate
legislator by anybody's definition and a very committed individual in
the development of our youth and the betterment of education.
As Senator Enzi said, about a decade ago I served as chairman of the
State Board of Education in the administration of my predecessor in
this seat who was then Governor Zell Miller. Those were the years that
the breakthrough brain research came forward and illustrated
conclusively that there is a direct correlation between early childhood
development and the potential development of a person as an adult. We
worked very hard together in Georgia to improve the plight of all
Georgians and did everything we could to develop new programs. One of
them that we developed was none other than the 4-year-old
prekindergarten program which now is available to every child in
Georgia. It is a program that builds on the fact that the earlier you
can begin instruction, the earlier you can improve the environment and
the atmosphere in which a child is exposed, the better that child is
going to do.
It is critical for us, if we want to turn around the trend in terms
of dropouts in this country, to see to it that we enhance and enrich
the lives of every single student who is going to go to our public
schools.
Mr. President, it is conclusive that the environment in which a child
lives in their early years--that to which they are exposed, their
nutrition, the total environment--is directly a correlation to their
ability to learn. The Head Start Program is designed to get to those
children most in need for quality support, for uplift, for a greater
self-esteem, and for a leg up, a chance to get to go to a 4-year-old
prekindergarten program or to a kindergarten program ready to learn.
USA Today ran an article about a week ago talking about America's
dropout factories, and it enumerated schools in almost every State,
with dropout rates of 40, 50, 60 percent. If you looked at the facts
around those articles and those schools, you would find a common
denominator: Those schools' children came from the least of
backgrounds, with the least support, and from the poorest of
environments. We have an obligation to ourselves and, as Senator
Alexander said, America's future to see to it that every American child
arrives at kindergarten or first grade ready to learn. The advancement
of programs such as Head Start will make that happen.
I commend Senators Alexander, Enzi, and Kennedy, Congressmen Miller
and McKeon, and all those who worked on this important legislation. I
urge every Member to cast a favorable vote in favor of a better
atmosphere for our young children to grow up in, better exposure to
those things that help them go to school ready to learn, and turn
around the paradigm on dropouts in the United States.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont is
recognized.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to add my voice to the others and
thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their leadership on this
issue and for the cooperative, bipartisan relationship we see on that
committee, which makes it perhaps the most productive committee in the
Senate.
As others have said, this is a very important day forward for the
children of our country. Right now, I am thinking about the Head Start
workers in Vermont who do such an extraordinary job in reaching out and
providing for low-income kids throughout our State, and I know the same
is true throughout this country. They are dedicated people, they are
underpaid and overworked, but they do it for the love of the children.
I very much appreciate all they are doing.
Mr. President, while this is, in fact, an important day forward, it
is significant to point out again that this is an authorization bill,
not an appropriations bill. We had the disappointment just the other
day of the President vetoing the Labor-HHS bill, which includes Head
Start. My hope is that in the very near future we are going to have a
strong Labor bill, with adequate funding for Head Start, but more
significantly--and this is an issue I will talk about until the cows
come home--we have to change our national priorities with regard to how
we treat the children of this country.
Every Member of Congress, every American should be deeply ashamed and
embarrassed that in this great country, we have, by far, the highest
[[Page 31359]]
rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. The figures are
that between 18 and 20 percent of our children live in poverty. As
other speakers have pointed out, if children at an early age don't get
the intellectual and emotional nourishment they need, they are not
going to do well in life. It is not an accident that at the same time
we have the highest rate of childhood poverty, we also have the highest
rate of incarceration of any major nation on Earth. So we don't take
adequate care of our children, and, lo and behold, we are shocked when
they end up behind bars, and we spend $50,000 to $70,000 for each
person who is incarcerated. It makes a lot more sense to me--and I hope
my colleagues agree--that we put that money up front to make sure all
of our kids get the opportunities they are entitled to as young
Americans.
The truth is that while this bill is a significant step forward--and
I applaud all those who built it--as Senator Kennedy indicated earlier,
only one-half of the eligible children in America today, because of
inadequate funding, are able to get into the Head Start Program. So
this is an important step forward. I congratulate all who have made
this day possible. We have a long way to go to, in fact, keep the faith
with the children of America.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming and the
Senator from Massachusetts. I rise to express my appreciation for their
excellent work on this legislation. It has been a long time in
gestation. I think it reflects their commitment to legislating in a
bipartisan and effective way that the bill is now at this stage. I
congratulate them.
I think anybody who has been exposed to Head Start is impressed by
the program. There have been studies and reports of that which can be
done to improve the program, and hopefully this bill will work in that
direction. But the underlying idea of giving low-income kids the
ability to come into an atmosphere where they get nurturing, good
nutrition, and now, because of this bill, where they get starting
blocks for learning how to deal with an academic program is totally
appropriate and something that has succeeded.
If you look at what we are facing as a nation, as discussed here at
considerable length--I heard the Senator from Tennessee make an
excellent statement on the needs of education, and what our country
really needs is the ability to bring into the educational mainstream
children who today, unfortunately, are not able or do not come to
school with the necessary skills to compete with some of their fellow
students. Head Start gives those children that opportunity. It gives
low-income kids the ability to start kindergarten and get into the
first grade with an understanding of how, first, to be social and deal
with an atmosphere where there are other children; secondly, to have
the necessary nutrition to get through the day and be able to learn;
and third, begin the building blocks of learning. This program works,
and it has worked. It is something that should be continued to be
supported by the Federal Government and also by the local communities
that stand behind Head Start.
That is one of the great things about Head Start. In my experience,
when you go to a local Head Start center in New Hampshire--or
anywhere--as chairman of the committee, I visited Head Start centers
all across the country. They are usually community-oriented events.
Behind those teachers and committed people, who are willing to spend
the day with the children and try to make their lives better during the
day, there are usually a lot of volunteers and people from the
community stepping up to also make those programs work well.
So Head Start is one of the success stories and one of the things we
need as one of the building blocks in order to continue to make America
a great place to live and give people the ability to participate in the
American dream.
Again, I thank the Senators for orchestrating this effort.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? The Senator from
Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it has been a pleasure and an honor to get
to work on this bill and to work with people on both sides of the
aisle. You can see the unanimity from the Republican side and the
Democratic side in making sure the bill came to pass.
As I mentioned before, we have had a lot of false starts trying to
get Head Start done. This time, we have gotten through the process.
Today, we will have a positive vote and send it to the President for
signature. I think you can tell from the debate that it has been a very
positive process.
The only distinction appears to be the few comments we have had about
the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. I don't want to get into that issue
because it will take a long time to discuss it. I ask unanimous consent
to have the Wall Street Journal article from today called ``Return to
Spender'' printed in the Record to counter some of the things talked
about. It wasn't Head Start that he vetoed; it was the entire Labor-HHS
budget.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Return To Spender
Congressional Democrats spent the fall preparing for their
budget confrontation with the White House, and the strategy
they seem to have settled on is futility. They knew President
Bush would veto their first appropriations bill, as he did
yesterday, and they also knew they'd lack the votes for an
override. If they're wondering why the bottom's fallen out of
their approval ratings, here it is.
Mr. Bush said the bill exceeds ``reasonable and responsible
levels for discretionary spending,'' and he was being too
kind. Ostensibly the $606 billion ``minibus''--combining
funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education--is ``only'' $12.2 billion beyond the
President's budget request for discretionary spending. But
that's more than half of the $22 billion that Democrats want
to spend for 2008 above the Administration's top line. (That
$22 billion, by the way, swells to at least $205 billion in
additional outlays over five years.)
Democrats are already feigning outrage. House
Appropriations kingpin David Obey complained, ``There has
been virtually no criticism of its contents,'' and if he's
only referring to Congress, he's not far off. The bill marks
a return to Capitol Hill's earmarks-as-usual spending
culture, assuming it ever abated. There are more than 2,200
earmarks worth some $1 billion.
The pork includes $1.5 million for the AFL-CIO Working for
America Institute and $2.2 million for the AFL-CIO
Appalachian Council. There's $500,000 for a ``virtual
herbarium'' in New York and $50,000 for a Utah ``ice
center.'' Also check off $1 million for the Clinton School of
Public Service in Little Rock, and another $1 million for the
Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service and Representative
Democracy at South Dakota State University. Plus the usual
assorted millions for art centers, aquariums, aviation and
jazz museums, and so forth.
The Members also reverted to habit by using a House-Senate
conference to ``airdrop'' $155 million in earmarks that were
not included in earlier editions--in violation of the 2006
ethics ``reform.'' The conference also clandestinely removed
a provision barring federal funding for the ``hippies
museum'' near Woodstock. All of this from Democrats who rode
into the majority promising to restore ``fiscal discipline.''
Mr. Obey was especially instructive in a speech immediately
before the final House vote: ``I would ask every serious-
minded person in this body, if they really think there is a
chance of a snowball in Hades that Members' earmarks on
either side of the aisle will survive if we wind up at the
President's level of funding.'' He concluded: ``The fate of
every project . . . is in your hands.''
The Democrats were desperate for a veto-proof majority, and
for the sake of their earmarks some Republicans were content
to go along. The pork, of course, was cover for much larger
domestic spending excesses, including a $2.4 billion budget
gimmick for'' advance appropriations'' designed to circumvent
Democratic ``pay as you go'' budget rules. Thankfully, enough
GOP Members realized it, and maybe a few even hoped to
recover their credibility on spending.
Since there aren't enough votes to override Mr. Bush, it's
back to the drawing board. Maybe next time Democrats should
try something new--say, spending less money.
Mr. ENZI. I hope the vote today will display the unanimity we have
had while working on this bill. I congratulate the Senator from
Massachusetts for the way he is running the committee. We have not just
done hearings on things--hearings are a little more
[[Page 31360]]
divisive than the other mechanism, which has been his morning coffees.
In hearings, the two sides bring people to testify, and we kind of beat
up on each other's witnesses. In the coffees he has held, we get to
bring in a bunch of people and hear what they think. We have the
interaction of one person who has had experience, and he talks to
another person who has had experience, and they talk about how the two
experiences might come together. That has been helpful on this bill, as
well as the other ones, the bookends I mentioned. This being the first
part of the bookend, and the next one we will be working on is No Child
Left Behind.
We have already done the Higher Education Act on this side. I look
forward to conferencing that and getting on to the Workforce Investment
Act, which passed this body twice already but never has been
conferenced. Our work is still cut out for us, but this is a day to
celebrate the good work done on both sides of the aisle.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is
recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from
Wyoming. He believes we ought to listen to experts before we actually
legislate, which was a rather dramatic thought to many around here. He
certainly is right. He reminds us of our unfinished business in terms
of higher education and the workforce legislation. We are strongly
committed, and we will get a response on that.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement--H. Con. Res. 258
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the
adoption of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1429, the Senate
proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 258, a correcting
resolution; that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion
to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, I would take a few moments to mention the staff
who worked on this bill. I want to personally mention those who have
worked so hard on this legislation. Some have been working on this for
4 years. I will not get into the reasons for that. This has been a very
long and, in the past, contentious piece of legislation and without
them, there is no way we could have completed this bill.
I would like to thank Michael Myers, Carmel Martin, Roberto
Rodriguez, David Johns, Lily Clark, Liz Maher, and Raquel Alvarenga
from my staff.
I would like to thank Katherine Graham Hildum of Senator Dodd's
staff; Janelle Krishnamoorthy of Senator Harkin's staff; Mildred Otero
of Senator Clinton's staff; Michael Yudin of Senator Bingaman's staff;
Robin Juliano of Senator Mikulski's staff; Seth Gerson of Senator
Reed's staff; Kathryn Young of Senator Murray's staff; Will Jawando of
Senator Brown's staff; Huck Gutman of Senator Sanders' staff; and Steve
Robinson of Senator Obama's staff.
This has been a bipartisan process all the way. I would also like to
thank Senator Enzi's wonderful staff, specifically Katherine McGuire,
Beth Buehlmann, Lindsay Hunsicker, and Adam Briddell.
I would also like to thank David Cleary and Sarah Rittling of Senator
Alexander's staff; Celia Sims of Senator Burr's staff; Juliann Andreen
of Senator Hatch's staff; Allison Dembeck of Senator Gregg's staff;
Elizabeth Floyd of Senator Coburn's staff; Karen McCarthy of Senator
Murkowski's staff; Suzanne Singleterry of Senator Allard's staff; Glee
Smith of Senator Isakson's staff; and Alison Anway of Senator Roberts'
staff.
It is important to mention the work done by our colleagues in the
House and I would like to thank Ruth Freidman of Congressman Miller's
staff; James Bergeron, Kristen Duncan and Susan Ross of Congressman
McKeon's staff; Lloyd Horwich of Congressman Kildee's staff and Jessica
Gross of Congressman Castle's staff for all of their work on this
legislation.
I would like to thank especially Roberto Rodriguez and David Johns
who have taken the lead on Head Start in my office. Their good work has
made all the difference. I know Roberto is especially pleased to see
the Senate and House pass this conference report, as he has worked on
this legislation for several years now. I commend him for his
expertise, diligence, good nature and all of his efforts.
Mr. President, finally, the Head Start Program reaches the neediest
children in this country. It reaches them to help and assist by
providing health care, teaching proper nutrition, and by supporting
proper development of cognitive abilities to ensure that children are
ready to successfully transition to school.
Head Start is targeted to the neediest children in this country. Even
with the small numbers we reach--we only reach a million, and there are
4 million poor children who are between ages 0 and 5--we see the
difference it makes. Head Start raises them to a level playing ground.
That is what our country is really about--trying to raise people to a
level playing ground. Head Start alone does not guarantee success, but
it gives them the opportunity to be successful.
If we have a group in our society that needs this kind of support, it
is our children. As pointed out in this debate, through no fault of
their own many children are born into difficult and challenging
circumstances. As a nation we have a responsibility to get them up to a
point where they can succeed in school and in life. That is what Head
Start is about--a recognition that our Nation believes that children
who are living in poverty, in some of the most challenging
circumstances, should have the opportunity to be on a level playing
field.
Finally, there is one thing we have learned in the area of education;
that is, the more resources are targeted to early education, the better
the opportunities these children have to succeed.
In this reauthorization we have taken advantage of the lessons we
have learned from Head Start's successful history and built upon
excellent recommendations made by members of our committee. This is a
very solid and important piece of legislation that will make a
difference in the lives of millions of children. I urge the Senate to
support it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following three
letters in support of the Head Start reauthorization conference report
be printed in the Congressional Record following my remarks on the
conference report.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Head Start Association,
Alexandria, VA, November 13, 2007.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor &
Pension, Washington, DC
Dear Chairman Kennedy: On behalf of the National Head Start
Association, the children, parents, staff and teachers of
Head Start and Early Head Start programs, and the Board of
Directors, I would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate you, the members of the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pension for supporting the
reauthorization of Head Start--truly a bipartisan effort and
success story for America's premier preschool program, Head
Start.
As the national association representing the Head Start
community, we represent more than 1 million children and
their families, 200,000 staff, and 2,700 Head Start programs.
With the assistance of over 1 million volunteers, these
programs comprehensively meet the early childhood
development, educational, health and family needs of our
children.
Head Start as you very well know, was established in 1965
as part of President Lyndon Baines Johnson's ``Great
Society'' program, and is the most successful, longest
running, national school readiness program in the United
States. Head Start has served over 25 million preschool-age
children, infants, toddlers, and pregnant women since its
inception. Your successful reauthorization of Head Start
signals the continued legacy for future low-income children
and families.
The Head Start reauthorization bill is a lesson in
bipartisan cooperation and leadership in addressing a
critical priority need of our country--the preschool
readiness of our children. In short, the ``Improving Head
Start Act'' addresses income eligibility, where the working
poor are supported and provided incentives to work;
terminates the National Reporting System; helps more programs
operate full-day and year round; reaffirms the accreditation
of teachers in early
[[Page 31361]]
childhood; provides expansion for Migrant and Seasonal Head
Start and American Indian/Alaskan Native populations; and
underscores the importance of parental involvement in the
education of their children.
Therefore, I call upon our longtime friends and supporters
in the U.S. Congress to approve overwhelmingly the
``Improving Head Start Act of 2007'' and send it to the
President for his signature.
Again, congratulations on your success and that of our
children and families.
With great gratitude,
Sarah Greene,
President and CEO.
____
Fight Crime:
Invest in Kids,
Washington, DC, November 14, 2007.
Dear Senators Kennedy, Enzi, Dodd and Alexander: The over
3,500 police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors and violence
survivors of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids know from the front
lines--and the research--that investments in Head Start are
critical to our nation's public safety. Head Start helps kids
get a good start in life so that they avoid later criminality
and grow up to become responsible citizens. But the maximum
crime reduction impacts--and many other benefits of Head
Start--can only occur when programs reach more of the at-risk
kids and are comprehensive and of the highest quality.
We are pleased that the final conference report version of
the Improving Head Start Act of 2007 (H.R. 1429) includes the
following:
Funding authorization: We are pleased the bill includes
increased funding authorizations in Fiscal Years (FY) 2008-
2010, with ``such sums'' funding levels for FY11-FY12. A $750
million increase in FY08--beyond the FY07 level--is needed to
simply restore funding to the FY02 service level. And that
level would only serve a small portion of the eligible, poor
kids now left out of Head Start. These increases are an
important first step in the right direction.
Teacher qualifications: We are pleased the bill includes a
quality improvement requirement that 50% of classroom lead
teachers have at least a bachelor's degree by 2013. The
requirement is crucial to Head Start program quality, since
no peer-reviewed, scientific research study has found an
early care and education program that demonstrated
significant, long-term crime reduction and education results
without a bachelor's degree teacher requirement.
Quality improvement set-aside: We are pleased the bill
directs 40% of annual increases over the prior year's funding
level to quality improvement, with half of those funds
directed toward improved teacher compensation rates. Improved
teacher compensation is critical to attracting and retaining
better-educated individuals--who would otherwise flock to
higher-paying opportunities, including K-12 schools.
Targeting to serve the poorest children: We are pleased the
bill maintains Head Start's priority for serving the poorest,
most at-risk children by ensuring that children living in
poverty are served first as income eligibility is expanded to
130% of the Federal Poverty Level.
Early head start: We are pleased that bill adds flexibility
for Head Start programs to serve zero-to-three-year-olds if
they meet the Early Head Start quality standards. In
addition, we are pleased that the bill directs half of new
expansion funding toward Early Head Start enrollment
increases.
The bill also includes several provisions that will
continue to strengthen Head Start's quality:
No state block grants, state waivers, or state application
authority that might have endangered current quality
standards;
Training/technical assistance activities (including through
a 2.5%-3% set-aside);
Strengthened research-based school readiness elements of
Head Start (of course, it is critical to maintain and
strengthen all eight of the domains of Head Start's outcomes
framework);
Strengthened parent education and home visiting provisions;
A requirement that Head Start agencies utilize high-
quality, research-based developmental screening tools to
identify children with early emotional and behavioral
problems, so kids can receive the treatment they need to
prevent later delinquency;
Improvements in fiscal and program accountability among
grantees, including improved monitoring and termination of
grantees that are significantly and/or systemically
deficient;
Enhanced outreach to at-risk kids;
Enhanced collaboration and coordination efforts
requirements between local Head Start grantees and other
early education providers though collaboration grants;
Increased state-level coordination through State Advisory
Councils on Early Childhood Education and Care;
The development of an integrated data collection system to
provide complete information about children served by the
programs and the services offered; and
Suspension of the National Reporting System, and provisions
for any future assessment approaches to be based on the
results the National Academy of Sciences study regarding
appropriate, comprehensive and scientifically valid and
reliable child assessments.
We appreciate the efforts of the Health, Education, Labor
and Pensions Committee and the Education and Labor Committee
to strengthen Head Start through this reauthorization
legislation. This bill will benefit at-risk kids now and help
ensure safer communities in the years to come. The result
will be generations of disadvantaged children progressing
toward school success and graduation rather than later arrest
and incarceration.
Sincerely,
David S. Kass,
President.
Miriam A. Rollin,
Vice President.
____
Community Action Agencies Welcome Head Start Renewal
Washington (Nov. 14, 2007).--The nation's Community Action
Agencies applaud the work of Senate and House conferees on
Head Start reauthorization and look forward to passage of
this national child development legislation later this week.
Community Action Agencies (CAAs) administer 30 percent of
Head Start grants and a third of all enrollments nationwide.
Children and families participating in programs offered by
CAAs also benefit from the comprehensive services offered by
these organizations to help them secure housing, gain
employment, and build assets to help them achieve economic
security.
``Low-wage working families who turn to Community Action
Agencies to prepare their children for school with Head Start
leave with a variety of resources to help them improve the
lives of the entire family,'' said National Community Action
Foundation Executive Director David Bradley.
The conference agreement expands access for more eligible
children, increases classroom quality, enhances the Head
Start workforce, strengthens governance and provides more
tools for greater accountability.
``It is commendable that this Congress has focused so much
of its agenda on domestic issues that are important to
American voters, and, in this instance, has been able to do
so with strong bipartisan cooperation to assist low-wage
working families,'' Bradley said.
``Once these important enhancements are adopted for the
Head Start program, we hope that Congress will next turn its
attention to the remaining Human Services initiatives: the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the
Community Services Block Grant,'' he said. ``These programs
make key investments in the daily lives of low-wage working
American families, and are long overdue for reauthorization.
NCAF hopes its proposals to strengthen and modernize these
programs will be considered soon.''
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back whatever time remains, and I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the conference report to accompany
H.R. 1429.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 409 Leg.]
YEAS--95
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
[[Page 31362]]
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Biden
Clinton
Dodd
McCain
Obama
The conference report was agreed to.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to applaud the Senate
passage of the Head Start Improvement for School Readiness Act of
2007--a product of hard work by my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle.
For more than 40 years, Head Start has provided comprehensive
services to poor families--health, nutrition, academic skills, family
literacy, and more--ensuring children get the cognitive, social-
emotional, and academic skills they need to succeed in kindergarten and
later in life. In New York, almost 50,000 families benefit from Head
Start services.
This bill takes several steps forward in strengthening Head Start
programs across the country. It dramatically expands Early Head Start--
a program created under the Clinton administration to reach children
from birth to age 3. Though we have decades of research underscoring
the importance of this stage of development, Early Head Start has only
been able to reach 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers. This
conference report doubles Early Head Start funding from 10 percent to
20 percent to ensure more infants and toddlers receive services and
arrive at kindergarten ready to learn.
The conference report increases Head Start authorization by 6 percent
in the first year and 4 percent in the following 2 years. For years,
our Head Start providers have had to make difficult decisions in the
face of President Bush's budgets that have included flat-funding or
funding cuts, as well as the effects of inflation. Many centers had to
cut back on comprehensive services that Head Start families rely on. In
New York, programs have been forced to eliminate vital transportation
services. This much needed increase in funding will finally give Head
Start agencies the resources they need to maintain enrollment, improve
quality service levels, and provide for the necessary cost of living
increase for teachers.
The Head Start Improvement for School Readiness Act of 2007 enhances
teacher quality. Research has shown that the right teaching training
and successful instruction lead to successful Head Start programs.
Right now, about a third of Head Start teachers hold a bachelor's
degree. This bill will help increase the skills and training of more
Head Start teachers and increase the quality of instruction for Head
Start children. I am also pleased this conference report retains the
important roles parents have always maintained in Head Start programs,
including ensuring parents' voices are heard in Head Start's daily
operations.
The bill also increases a portion of the income eligibility
guidelines from the current 100 percent of poverty level to children in
families with income up to 130 percent of poverty. This is particularly
important for States like New York, where the cost of living is higher
than most States'. Many programs need flexibility in serving these
families earning just slightly above the poverty line, including the
ability to assist families who have moved off welfare and are now
working and struggling to make ends meet. For New York City, this
provision means thousands more children will be able to participate in
Head Start programs. This bill will give those hard working families
support as they become self sustainable.
This bill also terminates use of the National Reporting System, NRS.
I have expressed my concern about this test for several years now. In
2003, I joined my colleague Senator Bingaman in offering an amendment
during the markup of Head Start to suspend NRS. In 2005, the Government
Accountability Office produced a report underscoring our concerns when
it called into question the validity and reliability of the NRS. I am
pleased this bill suspends the unfair NRS test and asks the National
Academy of Sciences to make recommendations on an appropriate
assessment for young children.
Head Start is critical to ensuring our most vulnerable children enter
school ready to learn. Head Start has provided comprehensive services
to low-income families--from health and nutrition, to academic skills
and family literacy. I am pleased that we were able to move this bill
forward in this session in a bipartisan fashion. The Senate passage of
this bill is a victory for our neediest children and the Head Start
community that serves them.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on
the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, H. Con.
Res. 258 is adopted, and a motion to reconsider that vote is considered
made and laid on the table.
The resolution (H. Con. Res. 258) was agreed to.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007--Continued
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are on the
farm bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. I send a cloture motion to the desk on the substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Harkin amendment
No. 3500 (Substitute) to H.R. 2419, the farm bill.
Tom Harkin, Jon Tester, Daniel K. Inouye, Dick Durbin,
Patrick J. Leahy, Patty Murray, Bernard Sanders, Kent
Conrad, Ben Cardin, Debbie Stabenow, Ben Nelson, Byron
L. Dorgan, Max Baucus, Ken Salazar, Claire McCaskill,
Bob Casey, Jr., Sherrod Brown.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send another cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No.
339, H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of
2007.
Tom Harkin, Harry Reid, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Amy
Klobuchar, Frank R. Lautenberg, Daniel K. Inouye,
Bernard Sanders, Russell D. Feingold, Patty Murray,
Claire McCaskill, Byron L. Dorgan, Max Baucus, John
Kerry, Debbie Stabenow, Richard J. Durbin, Sherrod
Brown.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I indicated this morning that sometime
today, unless something changed, I would file a cloture motion on the
Dorgan-Grassley amendment and, as I have indicated, on the bill, which
I have just done. I had a long conversation with the distinguished
Senator from North Dakota. Very few people know the farm bill as well
as he does. Certainly his partner in this amendment, Senator Grassley--
no one can dispute his knowledge of the farm bill.
It is the feeling of Senator Dorgan, after having conferred with
Senator Grassley, that it would not be in the interests of the Senate,
the farm community, and the country to go forward on cloture on that
amendment at this time. I have followed their suggestion and that is
why I did not go forward with this.
[[Page 31363]]
Unless something is worked out, it appears very clear--we have heard
the debate all day on the farm bill. Tremendously difficult, hard work
has gone on. The bill was reported out of the Agriculture Committee.
Every Senator there voted for it. There was not a recorded ``no'' vote,
but that only says part of the story. The rest of the story is numerous
Senators worked for weeks and weeks to arrive at a point where a bill
could come out of that committee. It came out here to the floor. It
came out last week and we have tried to move forward on it. That we
have been unable to do that was unfortunate.
I hope Senators, when they are called upon to vote cloture on this
matter, would understand that the work of the committee was very good
work. Does that mean there should not be amendments to improve it?
Probably not. But if we did nothing more than pass the bill that came
out of that committee and took it to conference with the House-passed
bill, we would be way ahead of the game. I hope that is what Senators
will understand.
I am confident virtually every Democratic Senator will vote for
cloture on the farm bill, even though there are many Democratic
Senators whose No. 1 industry in the State is not agriculture. But they
recognize that agriculture is an important business for this country.
It is an important business for this country for so many reasons, one
of which is the farming and ranching industry in this country is
exemplary. We are able to compete with the rest of the world, without
any question. We have modern techniques that have gone into farming
that have made our production extraordinary.
We now have, as represented by Senator Tester from Montana--one
example--we have now a thriving business in America of organic farming.
There are many people in this Senate who, when they go shopping, will
only buy organic produce. That is part of this bill. Part of this bill
recognizes that. It is very unfortunate that we have been stopped from
going forward on this bill because people want to vote on immigration
matters, they want to vote on tax matters, they want to vote on issues
that are not related. I went over that entire list this morning, of all
the nonrelevant, totally nongermane amendments that have been given to
us.
I have said we Democrats will agree to five amendments. Five
amendments; that is all we want. We don't expect the same from the
Republicans. If they want more amendments--fine, give them to us. I
said to Saxby Chambliss and to Trent Lott, we will even take a look at
some of the nonrelevant amendments. If you want to meet the standard
that has been in the last three farm bills and come up with one
amendment--that is what has been the average--but come up with some
nonrelevant amendments that people believe they have to offer, we will
be happy to consider that. But let's agree to a finite number of
amendments. We will take a few. The Republicans have more than we have.
This is something we want to do. We want to do the farm bill. As I
have said before on the Senate floor, the farm bill is not the most
important bill for the State of Nevada. When I go shopping at Smith's
or one of the other grocery stores in Las Vegas, I am impressed with
all that I find on those shelves: food produced in America. There is no
question we import some food. I always look at the labels. We get some
mangoes from other places and a few things, but we in America do well.
Even though I am from Nevada--and I am very proud of the white onions
we grow. The largest white onion producer is in Nevada, in Lyon County.
I am happy about the garlic we grow and I am happy about the alfalfa we
grow, but the driving force is tourism and gold. We produce 85 percent
of all the gold that is produced in America.
But I think I represent the Democratic caucus. We are not all pushing
forward on this farm bill because it is the most important thing in our
State, directly. But indirectly, it is one of the most important things
this body can do.
There can be all the statements made about: he will not take down the
tree, and we never did do this before, and the last bill we had 240
amendments, the one before we had 196 or whatever it is. Of course
there are a lot of amendments filed on bills, but we don't deal with
that many of them. We have been stopped for 10 days from dealing with
these amendments.
I reach out to my Republican colleagues and I say this with all
sincerity: You want to bring down this bill? That is what you are
doing. Yes, maybe we can take it up some other time, and I will
certainly try to do that, but I think the time is slowly evaporating
here. We need to get this bill done. We could still complete the bill
before we leave here. If we couldn't complete the bill before we leave
here for Thanksgiving, we certainly could get it teed up so we could
finish in a day or so when we get back.
I hope above all hope, with the hard work that has gone into this
bill on a bipartisan basis--this is not a Democratic bill by any
stretch of the imagination; this is a bipartisan farm bill--I hope
somehow we can work our way out of this.
I stand willing to do whatever I can, to be as reasonable as I can
be. I am sure I have Senators on my side of the aisle over here who are
not happy with the proposal I have made--five amendments. But I have
done that because I believe it is that important to get the bill done.
This is a bill where there will be a conference. We have had bills
that passed here and passed the House and we have not had a conference.
This is a bill that will be conferenced.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the majority leader yield?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield to my friend from Kentucky for a
question.
Mr. McCONNELL. I believe I heard my good friend say what we needed to
do was get a list of amendments and a starting place. I remind my good
friend from Nevada, the majority leader, we were prepared to do that
yesterday. We are prepared to do that now, if we could enter into an
agreement to have a finite list of amendments, which I offered to do
yesterday. That would at least define the universe, and at whatever
point we get back to beginning to make progress on the bill, it would
be a good starting place.
I was pleased to hear the majority leader indicate that is what we
need to do and I say to him I am happy to do that.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, as you can see, looking at our list,
our list of amendments is mostly amendments saying, ``If you offer one,
I am going to offer one.'' I don't have the list before me. Well over
half of the amendments we have are ``relevant''--just relevant
amendments. In the vernacular, that means I have an amendment but
probably not. That is to protect them in case they want to offer an
amendment.
I plead to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--yes, you
have given us a list. But give us a real list. I have made a proposal I
think is very reasonable. We will take five relevant amendments. You
give us a number of amendments that you have, relevant and nonrelevant,
and let's see if we can work something out. I talked with the
distinguished manager of the bill and he said to me: I have no
authority to do anything. So talking to my friend from Georgia, for
lack of a better description, is a waste of my time. He says he has no
authority to do anything. What kind of negotiation is that?
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the majority leader yield?
Mr. REID. Of course.
Mr. McCONNELL. Would the majority leader agree with me that it would
be at least desirable to prevent there being a further proliferation of
amendments? It strikes me the longer we are out here, the more the
amendments would multiply. Why would it not be a good idea to enter
into a consent agreement now to limit the universe of amendments, as I
was prepared to do yesterday, at least to give us a first step toward
preventing the multiplicity of amendments that have a way of coming out
of the woodwork around here, so at whatever point we go back to the
farm bill we have at least defined the universe? That is the way we
almost always start on a bill of that magnitude. It is the way we
started on
[[Page 31364]]
past farm bills. At the end we, of course, will pass a farm bill. We
have in the past and we will this year.
I ask my friend from Nevada, what would be wrong with locking in the
master, the universe--the list that we both produced yesterday? I was
happy to enter into a consent agreement to limit the amendments to that
24 hours ago.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, there is no question, if you have to
walk a mile, a few steps is better than nothing. Here is what I would
be willing to do on behalf of the Democratic caucus. OK, we have your
list, they have our list. We have two lists. I would have no problem
entering into an agreement that that is a finite list. How we complete
all those amendments is a different question. I am not going to take
down the tree at this stage. I am happy to work on that at a subsequent
time, to see what we can do in that regard, but I am willing to do
that.
We have their amendments and our amendments. I agree to a unanimous
consent proposal that that is the finite list of amendments and that we
will try to figure out a way to move through that. Maybe, as I have
indicated, each mile has to be done in short steps. This would be a
short step. I would be willing to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, obviously we prefer the tree be taken
down so we didn't have one Senator, in effect, dictating to the rest of
the Senate what amendments get to be considered. But it does strike me
that at least that is a place to start. Both sides are familiar with
the list that was produced yesterday. I wish to ask unanimous consent
that that list be adopted as the list that could be--we all know the
vast majority of these amendments are never offered and will not be
offered on this one.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would say to my friend and friends on the
other side of the aisle, we will continue to work. We have now a
tentative arrangement, starting arrangement. This is not the end, we
know that. But we will figure out a way that people can offer
amendments.
I will be happy to consider--I do not like language like this, but
that is what we use around here, ``take down the tree.'' That kind of
turns into a buzzword for--it is kind of like ``earmarks'' or something
like it is real bad.
So I would be happy, at this stage, to accept the proposal that these
two lists the staff has, these be the entire universe of the amendments
that we will work on, on this bill. We will come back at a subsequent
time to figure out a way to take down the tree and work our way through
these.
I think it is fair. I would say this to my friend, that these
amendments would be subject to relevant second-degree amendments. I
accept that.
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, obviously I am not
going to, I wish to make sure we do not have any misunderstanding. This
is a little, small step forward. This does not mean we will invoke
cloture on either the bill or the substitute.
But it does indicate there is an interest, on this side of the aisle
and on the other side of the aisle, in preventing the further kind of
proliferation of amendments that will go on a virtually daily basis
until we define the universe.
At whatever point we go back to the bill and seriously try to go
forward with it, we can have further discussions about some further
limitation of amendments. We are certainly, in order to agree to any
further limitation of amendments, going to want the tree to be unfilled
so we can have a more free-flowing debate on this bill, as we have had
in the past.
Mr. REID. I am happy to work with my esteemed colleague, the minority
leader, to see how we can work our way through this procedure. We have
taken a short step, but it is at least a very important step.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I want to make sure I got the nod of Senator McConnell's
important staff person. The agreement says there will be unanimous
consent that there be only relevant second-degree amendments.
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, I shall not object to a
baby step, but let me try to understand exactly what we have.
I looked at the list that is before us. My name is not on that list.
I assume that the Dorgan-Grassley amendment is now pending. And if the
tree is taken--
Mr. REID. You are protected.
Mr. DORGAN. I wish to make sure there is protection for that
amendment. I also would like, if I might for a moment, to say that the
cloture motion you have filed does not alter or change the opportunity
for Senator Grassley and myself? The point that you had made was I did
not want a vote on the Dorgan-Grassley amendment to be a cloture vote
because there may be some who feel they have to vote with their
leadership on a cloture, in a manner that would be different than if we
had it straight up and down on the merits. It will still be pending,
and we will intend to pursue that amendment.
The list of amendments is as follows:
Akaka--Amdt. No. 3538, Alexander--SoS: Broadband,
Alexander--Increase Ag Research, Alexander--Strike renewable
tax credit, Alexander--Wind energy tax credit, Alexander--
Wind energy property taxes, Allard--PART, Allard--Vet Food
Systems, Allard--Forest Reassessment, Barrasso--Support
project-7, Baucus--State assistance for beginning farmers
(Amdt. No. 3598), Baucus--Ag Research, Baucus--Brucellosis,
Baucus--Agriculture supply, Bingaman--1 relevant amendment,
Bingaman--Ground and water surface conservation program,
Bingaman--Regional Water Enhancement program, Bond--Food
Stamps, Bond--Red-tape Reduction, Bond--Research.
Boxer--6 relevant amendments, Brown/Hatch--Crop Insurance,
Bunning--Disaster Relief, Cantwell--Study on climate change
and impact on wine industry, Cantwell--increase funding
specialty crop block grant, Cantwell--Minor oil seed crops,
Cantwell--tree assistance program, Cardin--2 relevant
amendments, Casey--crop insurance, Casey--agriculture
inspectors, Casey--food stamp nutrition education, Casey--
emergency funding for invasive pests and diseases,
Chambliss--Farm Credit Service, Chambliss--Crop Insurance
Fix, Chambliss--Trade-strikes section 3101, Chambliss--
Biotech--PPV, Chambliss--Sugar technical fix, Chambliss--
Ethanol/direct payments, Chambliss--Conservation AGI,
Chambliss--5 Relevant.
Chambliss--2 Relevant to any on the list, Coburn--Waste,
Coburn--Chinese garden maintenance, Coburn--Transparency,
Coburn--Estate payments, Coburn--Federal hunger problems,
Coburn--Crop Insurance, Coburn--Equip, Coleman--AGI Caps,
Coleman--Drivers License, Conrad--3 relevant amendments,
Corker--Coal gasification project credits, Cornyn--Child
obesity study, Cornyn--Strike Disaster Trust Fund, Cornyn--
New Budget P/O, Craig--Loan Repayment, Craig--Land
Preservation, Craig--Worker Housing, Craig--Biogas.
DeMint--Death tax, Dorgan CRP, Dorgan--2 SECA tax
amendments, Dorgan--Secretary's rule regarding cattle and
beef (Amdt. No. 3602), Dorgan--Amdt. No. 3508 (pending),
Dorgan--payment limits, Dole--Tax Credit, Domenici--Renewable
Energy, Domenici--Land Transfer, Durbin--Food Safety sunset,
Durbin--McGovern-Dole funding, Durbin--ACR improvements,
Durbin--Puppy information, Durbin--Low-interest financing to
fight invasive species, Durbin--Food Safety, Ensign--5
Relevant Amendments, Enzi--Captive Supply, Feingold--13
relevant amendments, Feinstein--Ag inspectors, Feinstein--
Energy market oversight, Feinstein--Leafy greens, Feinstein--
Clementines.
Graham--Cellulosic Ethanol, Grassley--Agricultural mergers,
Gregg-Mortgage Crisis, Gregg--Drivers License, Gregg--
Firefighters, Gregg--Ag disaster funds, Gregg--Farm stress
program, Gregg--Proper budget accounting, Gregg--Commodity
subsidies, Gregg--Sugar Program, Gregg--Loss assistance
(asparagus), Gregg--Commodity subsidies, Gregg--Gulf of
Mexico, Gregg--Farm and rural healthcare.
Harkin--7 relevant amendments, Harkin--2 amendments
relevant to any on the list, Harkin--School nutrition
standards, Harkin--Packers and stockyards Act, Harkin--
Managers' Amendments, Hutchison--Southwest Dairy, Hutchison--
Land Grants, Hutchison--Rio Grande, Hutchison--Renewables,
Inouye--Food for Peace, Inouye--Rail related, Inouye--
Broaband Data, Inouye--Energy related, Inouye--Sugar/ethanol
loan guarantee grant program, Inouye--Exemption for Hawaii,
Inouye--Reimbursement payment to geographically disadvantaged
farmers/ranchers.
Kerry--4 relevant amendments, Kohl--Revised membership/
Federal Milk Marketing
[[Page 31365]]
(Amdt. No. 3531), Kohl--SOS Rural Energy America Program
(Amdt. No. 3532), Kohl--Amdt. No. 3533, Kohl--Amdt. No. 3534,
Kohl--Amdt. No. 3535, Kohl--Amdt. No. 3536, Kohl--Amdt. No.
3537, Kohl--Amdt. No. 3555, Klobuchar--AGI Limits,
Klobuchar--Timber contracts, Klobuchar--Beginning farmers/
ranchers, Kyl--Tax/AMT, Kyl--Relevant.
Landrieu--7 relevant amendments, Lautenberg--FRESH Act,
Lautenberg--FEED Act, Levin--Energy Markets, Lincoln--4 Ag
tax amendments, Lincoln--Bio Fuels, Lincoln--Small Procedure
Credit, Lincoln--1 relevant amendment, Lott--Gulf of Mexico
task force, Lott--Tax/AMT, Lott--2 Relevant, Lugar--Complete
overhaul, Lugar--Trade, Lugar--2 Relevant.
McCaskill--Amdt. No. 3556, McConnell--4 Relevant,
McConnell--Death Tax, McConnell--AMT, McConnell--Tax/Horses,
McConnell--2 Relevant to any on the list, Menendez--4
relevant amendments, Mikulski--2 cloned foods amendments,
Mikulski--2 H2B amendments, Murkowski--Exxon Valdez
litigation, Murkowski--Specialty crops, Murray--2
Conservation amendments, Murray--Energy, Murray--Specialty
crop, Nelson (NE)--Amdt. No. 3576, Pryor--Broadband (Amdt.
No. 3625), Pryor--4 relevant amendments.
Reid--Amdt. No. 3509, Reid--Amdt. No. 3510, Reid--Amdt. No.
3511, Reid--Amdt. No. 3512, Reid--Amdt. No. 3513, Reid--Amdt.
No. 3514, Reid--2 relevant amendments, Reid--2 amendments
relevant to any on the list, Roberts--Technical, Roberts--Ag
Fair Practices, Roberts--Definitions, Roberts--Regulations,
Roberts--Conservation, Roberts--Conservation, Roberts--Trade,
Roberts--Nutrition, Roberts--Rural Development, Roberts--
Rural Development, Salazar--Cellulosic Biofuels Production
Incentives (Amdt. No. 3616), Salazar--Colorado Good Neighbor
Agreements (Forestry), Sanders--Amdt. No. 3595, Schumer--5
Conservation amendments, Sessions--Rural Hospital, Sessions--
Farm Savings Accounts.
Smith--Americorp Vista volunteers, Smith--River
Conservatory, Smith--Deschutes River, Smith--Wallowa Lake
Dam, Smith--Oregon Subbasins, Smith --North Irrigation unit,
Smith--Irrigation Districts, Smith--Fire sprinkler systems,
Stabenow--Local farmer initiative--Buy America, Stabenow--
CSFP, Stevens--Protecting Kids Online, Stevens--e911,
Stevens--FSA operating loans, Stevens--Quarantine inspection
fees, Stevens--Bloc Grant to seafood, Stevens--AQI User Fees,
Stevens--Fishing Loans, Sununu--Biomass Fuel.
Tester--Amdt No. 3516, Tester--Live Stock Title, Thune--
Bioluels, Vitter--National Finance Center, Webb--3 relevant
amendments, Wyden--Illegal logging, Wyden--Biomass grants
(Nov. 14, 2007).
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to announce there will be no further
votes on this today.
Unless someone has something else, I yield to my friend from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wanted to speak on the farm bill. I
am glad to see we are taking baby steps forward. If the leaders have
their things worked out, I want to go ahead and speak.
The farm bill obviously for my State is a very important issue. I
appreciate that we are making some steps forward. I do think it would
be wiser if we could start amending and start working as a legislative
body and see how far we get. We have been on the bill now for 10 days.
We have not had a vote. It seems it would be prudent to go ahead and
try it. I realize the leaders are trying to work something out, and I
hope they can. But each day we do not get something moving, we are not
moving forward on the farm bill.
I think we can trust each other in the process. I do want to
recognize the work that has been done by the committee on the farm
bill, the Agriculture Committee and their work. I think they have done
a number of very nice things in the bill. I say that as someone from an
agricultural State, from an agricultural family, who has been Secretary
of Agriculture for the State of Kansas and has a degree in agriculture.
I can see some very positive things. I like the overall trend in
certain areas of the bill and some of it not. I wish to comment on both
of those and make one particular policy provision notice to my
colleagues and friends in the Senate.
The Senate farm bill creates the Average Crop Revenue Program, a new
safety net for farmers to utilize if they choose to do so. That is key
for me, giving farmers the choice in how they manage their risk and not
requiring that they take and use this program. Farmers may choose to
stay in the current system or may opt into the new ACR Program. I think
that flexibility is a good way to go forward.
Despite several threats throughout the year, the farm bill leaves
direct payments at their current level. I think that is a victory and
that is good for farmers in farm country. Direct payments are the only
commodity title program that provides direct assistance to producers
when they have no crop to harvest. Unfortunately, that happens all too
often in my State.
It has happened in places of my State this year. In fact, 2 weeks
ago, I was in a field of soybeans tilling them up. There was not enough
there to harvest. It happens. There is nothing a farmer can do about it
if the weather breaks that poorly against him.
So I am pleased to see those direct payments continue to exist,
because when you have no crop, it does not matter how much the price
is, it doesn't work, you have nothing to sell.
I also particularly appreciate the expanded research for energy
coming from agriculture. To me, this has been one of the Holy Grails in
agriculture for years and years, to expand the definition of the
business from food and fiber, to food, fiber, and fuels. This effort
recognizes our need to grow more of our own fuel to help in the
environment in doing that, to help in the economy, the rural economy in
doing that. It recognizes this fabulous chance we have in a world today
to do things along that line.
If I could take a moment to set a root off to the side or shoot it
off to the side, on this particular energy provision, I think there is
another way we can also go that the managers have put in the base bill;
that is, replacing oil-based products with starch-based products. This
is again something the agricultural industry has worked at for a long
time, is doing a much better job of, but we still do not have many of
the products on the marketplace.
For instance, I had a company from my State, Midwest Grain Products,
in my office 2 weeks ago with now 100 percent starch-based plastic
utensils. He gave me some spoons and chopsticks that were made 100
percent out of wheat starch. They had been going 50 percent out of
starch and 50 percent out of oil-based products. But he is now at 100
percent.
Yet they have not been able to crack through the marketplace yet on
this, a totally biodegradable product made out of agricultural
commodities, better for the environment, certainly better for our
economy.
One of the things we have put in this farm bill is a New Uses Expo,
where we would showcase on an annual basis, almost like you do at an
auto show, the computer shows, on an annual basis, the new widgets
coming out of agriculture, replacing, in many times and places, oil-
based products with agricultural-based products, but showcasing that,
having the Secretary of Agriculture and indeed even the Secretary of
Energy cohosting that event. I think that is something that can help us
expand the marketplace and expand value added coming out of
agriculture, which is key for rural communities in my State and many
others.
There are problems in the bill. That is why I hoped we could get some
amendments moving. First, the bill contains a ban on packers owning
livestock. This is a very contentious issue in my State and many places
around the country.
Under this packer ban provision, processers would be prohibited from
owning, feeding, or controlling livestock more than 14 days before
slaughter. You can look at this, and as someone raised in a farm
family, I look at this and say: Well, that sounds like a pretty good
thing. I do not want packers owning livestock. I want the family farm,
I want my dad and my brother to be owning that livestock rather than
the packers.
But then you start looking at the marketplace and the changes taking
place in the marketplace and say: Wait. This is going to disrupt some
good things happening. Ten days ago, I was on a ranch, a feed yard in
Lyons, KS. They are raising certified Angus beef, natural, no
artificial hormones, no antibiotics in the livestock, and then direct
marketing that to consumers on the east coast, a great innovative
product they have got coming out. They are getting a premium then
[[Page 31366]]
for farmers when they can market this product that way.
But to do it, they had to enter into a contractual agreement with the
packers that are set to process the animal and to deliver it to the end
consumer, to the stores that they are going to directly to the
consumers with.
So with this packer prohibition ban, this innovative market technique
that is getting more in the pocketbooks of my farmers, because they are
working with the packers, going straight to the consumer with a product
they want, certified Angus beef, that is all natural, you are going to
break that supply chain.
They are not going to be able to work with the packer on a
contractual arrangement to do this. They are saying: Look, this is
going to hurt us. We are not going to be able to do this. Now your ban
that you are doing to try to save family farmers is going to hurt
family farmers. So this is kind of the law of unintended consequences,
that something people are trying to do on a positive basis to help
family farmers is, in the end, going to hurt many of them in being able
to increase the income they get from their livestock.
That is what they need. They need to be able to get more income from
their livestock, and here is a key marketing tool and a way to be able
to do that. I would hope that would be something we could deal with and
something we can get passed.
Overall, I do not want to take a lot of time of my colleagues, other
than to recognize the importance of getting this bill through. I would
urge them on the Democratic side to let us start doing some amendments
and working this bill through. I think we have a good base bill to work
from. I think we can make some sensible decisions around here and get a
farm bill through that is important to my State, important to the
country, important to the future of the industry, and important to
security in the United States on energy security.
But to do that, we need to get the process going. I would urge my
colleagues to allow that to move on forward.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the tribal
forestry provisions in title VIII of S. 2302, the Food and Energy
Security Act of 2007, also referred to as the 2007 farm bill. These
tribal provisions make important and needed improvements in the U.S.
Forest Service by authorizing direct tribal governmental participation
in State and private forestry conservation and support activities, and
by providing the Secretary with flexible authority to enhance and
facilitate tribal relations with the Forest Service and activities on
National Forest System lands. The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition
and Forestry is to be commended for its bipartisan development and
adoption of these provisions.
There are nine federally recognized tribes within my home State of
Oregon, and it is my pleasure to serve on the Committee on Indian
Affairs. Indian tribal governments are separate sovereigns that have a
unique government-to-government relationship with the United States.
That relationship embraces special duties to tribes that extend
throughout the Federal Government, including the Department of
Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service.
Within the Forest Service, State and private forestry programs
authorized by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act are intended to
conserve and strengthen America's non-Federal forest resources across
the landscape. However, the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978
does not authorize direct support to tribal governments, and the Forest
Service has found that tribal forest land participation is inconsistent
and low. The new authorities in title VIII will help rectify these
matters by establishing a more appropriate and equitable relationship
between tribal government and the Forest Service. In so doing, it will
also enable State and private forestry to better meet its mission among
all stakeholders across the landscape.
The tribal provisions in title VIII authorize direct tribal
governmental participation in a new Community Forest and Open Space
Conservation program and in the established forest legacy conservation
easement program. The title also authorizes Forest Service support
directly to tribal governments for consultation and coordination, for
conservation activities, and for technical assistance for tribal forest
resources.
Additional tribal provisions in title VIII facilitate the Forest
Service's interaction with tribal governments on National Forest System
lands. In Oregon, all nine of the tribes in the State have deep
historical ties and active current interests in the National Forests
around the State. From time immemorial, the tribes have drawn physical
and spiritual sustenance from what are today Oregon's national forests,
and they continue those activities to this day. Of course, the modern
conduct of those activities involves both the tribes and the Forest
Service, and the Senate's farm bill provides the Secretary and the
Forest Service new authorities that will enable these two stewards of
our forests--one ancient and one contemporary--to work in closer
cooperation. The bill gives clear authority for the reburial of tribal
remains and cultural items on National Forest System land, and it
allows free tribal access to forest products from the national forests
for cultural and traditional purposes. It also allows the Secretary to
temporarily close National Forest System land for the tribal conduct of
cultural and traditional activities. Finally, it enables the Secretary
to preserve the confidentiality of sensitive tribal information that
has come into the possession of the Forest Service in the course of its
collaborating with tribes.
The tribal forestry authorities in title VIII of S. 2302 are a
historic step forward for the Forest Service and tribal governments.
They are supported by Oregon tribes and I am pleased they are in the
bill. Once again, I want to express my support, and I urge the support
of all my colleagues as well.
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. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
NUCLEAR TERRORISM
Mr. CASEY. Madam President, the United States today faces a broad set
of national security challenges, so many of them, but just to name a
few: initiating a responsible redeployment of U.S. combat troops out of
Iraq, preventing the Taliban from making a comeback in Afghanistan,
addressing the current turmoil in Pakistan, responding to
antidemocratic trends in Russia.
Our whole country has a full plate of national security challenges.
So today I wish to speak about one of those, but I think it is at the
top of the list, and I think it is an issue that has not received
nearly enough attention in the Senate or in the other body. It is a
longer term threat that has not received the attention it deserves, but
I believe this issue is the single greatest peril to this great Nation,
and that is the prospect that a terrorist group, possibly with the
active support of a nation state, will detonate an improvised nuclear
weapon in an American city.
I commend those who have displayed outstanding leadership on this
issue, many of these individuals over several years, if not, in some
cases, decades. Former Senator Nunn, of course, has been a leader on
this issue; Senator Lugar, a colleague of ours and the ranking member
of the Foreign Relations Committee, a committee on which I have the
honor to serve; and, of course, the chairman of that committee, Senator
Joe Biden. All of these individuals and others have worked on this
issue for many years.
In the weeks following 9/11, a lot of Americans know our intelligence
community picked up a very frightening report from an agent. It was
rumored that al-Qaida had acquired a Soviet-era nuclear weapon and had
managed to
[[Page 31367]]
smuggle it into New York City. The response of our Government, although
secret at the time, was swift. Teams of experts were deployed across
New York City with state-of-the-art detection equipment in an effort to
track down this bomb before it exploded.
The threat was ultimately discounted. There was no nuclear weapon
inside the United States at that time. The intelligence community's
agent had bad information. But what is so frightening about these
events is that it is entirely plausible that al-Qaida could have
smuggled a nuclear weapon into our Nation.
One can only imagine the retrospective questions that would have
followed such a horrific attack. What could our Federal Government have
done to prevent such a detonation, we would ask. What policies or
programs did we fail to prioritize? And, thirdly, how could we not have
appreciated the urgency and the magnitude of the threat of nuclear
terrorism?
I hope we never have to ask and answer those questions. But here we
are 6 years later and neither the United States nor any other nation
has been forced to confront the aftermath of a terrorist attack
involving a nuclear weapon. Yet I regret to say we cannot rely upon
good luck continuing indefinitely. The threat of nuclear terrorism
persists, and the United States and the international community are
failing to move quickly enough to neutralize this threat.
Why am I so concerned about nuclear terrorism and the challenges that
it poses, not just for the world of today but for the world of our
children and the world of our grandchildren? Some may ask that, and in
response I just will cite a couple examples as to why I and everyone in
this body should be concerned.
No. 1, last year a Russian citizen was arrested in Georgia on charges
of seeking to smuggle 100 grams of highly enriched uranium on the local
black market in that country, with the promise made that he could
deliver another 2 to 3 kilograms of highly enriched uranium at a later
time.
This arrest on smuggling charges is only one of hundreds involving
fissile material that have emerged since the breakup of the Soviet
Union in 1991. The good news is the quantities detected so far have
been very small. The bad news is, just as with drug trafficking, those
transactions come to our attention only after a fraction of what may
actually be occurring.
No. 2, too many facilities across the globe do not yet have the
security safeguards we should demand for stockpiles of fissile
material. Today, as many as 40 nations--40 nations--possess the key
materials and components required to assemble a nuclear weapon.
Surprisingly, we don't fully understand the magnitude of this problem.
Among other experts, Dr. Matthew Bunn, a leading expert on nuclear
terrorism, reports that neither the United States nor the International
Atomic Energy Agency--we know from the news as IAEA--has a
comprehensive prioritized list assessing which facilities around the
world pose the most serious risk of nuclear theft.
Finally, the third example I would cite in terms of why this is such
an important issue and important question is, a columnist by the name
of David Ignatius, with the Washington Post, reported last month that a
senior Energy Department intelligence official had briefed the
President and other administration officials that al-Qaida is engaged
in a long-term mission--a long-term mission--to acquire a nuclear
weapon to use against the United States. According to this report by a
senior Energy Department official, al-Qaida may have held off against
further attacks against our Nation since 9/11 to focus on attaining a
nuclear weapon.
Madam President, I do have good news in this area. It is a serious
topic, but there is some good news to report, although it also presents
a challenge to us. The good news is, we know exactly what needs to be
done to address the threat of nuclear terrorism. And a terrorist group
as sophisticated as al-Qaida cannot build a nuclear weapon from
scratch. The production of nuclear weapons and the fissile material
that gives these nuclear weapons their deadly explosive power remains a
capacity limited to a national government. A terrorist group can
acquire a nuclear weapon through several means: It can purchase or
steal a completed warhead from a state, or it can acquire the weapons-
grade plutonium or enriched uranium at the core of a nuclear warhead to
devise an improvised nuclear device.
Thus, if the United States works in concert with other nations to
``lock down'' nuclear warheads and weapons grade materials around the
world, we can prevent terrorists from accessing this material in the
first place. We are making some progress on this front through programs
such as the Nunn-Lugar effort--named after Senators Nunn and Lugar.
This effort to dismantle nuclear weapons and secure excess nuclear
materials is playing out, but we are not moving fast enough. Additional
funding is required but, perhaps even more important, high-level
attention at the level of Presidents and Prime Ministers is necessary
to break through the bureaucratic obstacles and political inertia
blocking more rapid security gains.
After 9/11, the President should have made nuclear terrorism a key
international priority, raising it to the very top of the U.S.-Russian
agenda, for example. Instead, this administration continued a business-
as-usual approach. I believe this was a gross misjudgment. This issue
cries out for Presidential leadership.
But as vital as cooperative threat reduction programs are, we must go
above and beyond them if we are to be successful in deterring a nuclear
attack or nuclear terrorism. Not only should we do everything we can to
prevent terrorist groups from acquiring the means to detonate a nuclear
weapon, we must also fortify our capability to deter their use. A
terrorist group such as al-Qaida is undeterred, but states, and
certainly the states from which al-Qaida would acquire or steal a
nuclear weapon, are not undeterred. We should make sure we keep
pressure on them. We must enhance our ability to threaten overwhelming
retribution against any state that by inattention or lax security
enables a terrorist group to detonate a nuclear warhead in the United
States.
We can do this in a number of ways: First, we must elevate the cost
for individuals and businesses that choose to facilitate illicit
smuggling of fissile material and related nuclear components. Nuclear
smugglers and nuclear smuggling networks rely upon middlemen to
transport fissile material and nuclear components, to forge export
licenses and Customs slips, and engage in other black market
activities. Too often in the past, when such individuals and businesses
are caught in the act, so to speak, or with their hands dirty, they
receive minimal prison sentences. For example, the Russian citizen
arrested in Georgia for nuclear smuggling was sentenced to only 8 years
in prison. These lax criminal penalties cannot deter future actions of
nuclear smuggling.
Aiding and abetting nuclear smuggling is abhorrent and should be
recognized for what it is--a crime against humanity. Just as the
international community has banded together in the past to stigmatize
the slave trade and genocide as crimes against humanity, so too should
it now do the same thing for those who help terrorist groups acquire
weapons of mass destruction. The United States should be a leader in
this effort.
No. 2, we should be working with the International Atomic Energy
Agency to establish a global library, a library of nuclear fissile
material. If the IAEA were to have nuclear samples from every weapons
production facility in the world, when a nuclear device exploded
somewhere in the world, we could, in short order, trace the nuclear
material used in that explosion to the originating reactor or
production facility. The capability of a library such as this could
serve as a powerful deterrent. If a state knew it could be held
ultimately responsible for a nuclear detonation, it would have a far
greater incentive to secure and protect its nuclear materials. Those
states that
[[Page 31368]]
refuse to cooperate with such a global library would risk condemnation
and suspicion in the event of a nuclear attack.
Our colleague, Senator Biden, the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee, has worked with the Armed Services Committee to strengthen
U.S. efforts to take the first steps toward such a global library.
Today, a group such as al-Qaida can get away with a nuclear attack on
the United States because it does not have a fixed address at which we
can easily retaliate. The same, however, does not apply to a nation
that intentionally or through lax security provides the means for a
terrorist group to detonate a nuclear device. The United States must
leverage the same type of deterrence against those nations as it did
against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Finally, we must be doing more in the overall effort to combat
nuclear proliferation among states. It is a very simple equation. The
more states that acquire a nuclear weapon and fissile material, the
more likely it is one of those states or some of those weapons and/or
fissile material may be vulnerable to theft or illicit sale to
terrorist groups. That is but one reason we must prevent Iran from
acquiring nuclear weapons. It is why we must work with our
international allies and partners to continue to ensure that North
Korea verifiably dismantles its nuclear facilities and weapons under
the Six Party Talks. This link between nuclear proliferation and
nuclear terrorism demonstrates the importance of reinforcing the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
It is very difficult to imagine the utter devastation of an American
city by an improvised nuclear device. It is perhaps for that reason the
spectre of nuclear terrorism remains an abstract threat today. Yet
before 9/11, very few of us could appreciate the dangers by commercial
jet airliners hijacked by those on a suicide mission.
Madam President, the time for action on the challenge of nuclear
terrorism is now. We must move to bolster existing threat reduction
programs, strengthen our deterrence capability against those who would
perpetrate acts of nuclear terrorism, and, finally, recommit ourselves
to the effort to reduce the role and the number of nuclear weapons in
our world today. We do not have the luxury of time to wait.
Before I relinquish the floor, I want to thank one of our great staff
members for his work on this and so many other areas of our work. Jofi
Joseph is one of our great legislative assistants who did a lot of work
on this to prepare these remarks, and in so many other areas, and I
want to commend him for his work.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
FHA MODERNIZATION ACT
Mr. REID. Madam President, I am glad I had the opportunity to listen
to my friend from Pennsylvania give this very well thought out and very
important statement. It is important for our country and for the world.
Thank you very much.
Madam President, tomorrow, among other things, we will turn to
consideration of the FHA Modernization Act, which has now been reported
by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill enjoys wide bipartisan
support, and for a good reason. It passed out of the committee by an
overwhelming 20-to-1 vote.
The reason we must act now is clear for all to see. Every day new
evidence emerges, and the depth and severity of our country's subprime
mortgage and foreclosure crisis is painted before our eyes. Hundreds of
thousands of mortgages are now delinquent nationwide. This is leading
to real pain and hardship for American families. The most alarming fact
is, this could be just the beginning.
This is why House and Senate Democrats announced earlier this year
that we would address the subprime mortgage and foreclosure crisis
comprehensively. I am pleased to say Democrats and Republicans have
joined to work diligently toward that goal. Tomorrow, we bring the
product of that hard work to the floor of the Senate.
This modernization bill is one of several ways we plan to assist
deserving families not with a handout or a bailout but with education
and assistance to help them weather this storm.
____________________
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 4156
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate begins the rule XIV procedure with respect to the House bridge
bill regarding funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, that it be considered
as having been initiated on Wednesday, November 14.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to go into morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
VETERANS LEGISLATION
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, last Thursday, November 8, 2007, the
assistant majority leader, Senator Durbin, propounded unanimous consent
agreements on two bills reported by the Veterans' Affairs Committee--S.
1233, the proposed ``Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury and Other Health
Programs Improvement Act of 2007'' and S. 1315, the proposed ``Veterans
Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007.''
Both proposed agreements called for the bills to be considered ``at
any time determined by the majority leader, following consultation with
the Republican leader'' and also provided that the only amendments that
would be in order would be ``first-degree amendments that are relevant
to subject matter of the bill.'' In other words, the request was for
the Senate to take up these two bills, ordered reported by the
committee in late June and reported in August, at some future time with
the only exclusion being that no nonrelevant amendments would be in
order.
It is hard to think of a more modest request for action on
legislation. Unfortunately, my friend and colleague, the former
chairman and ranking member of the committee, Senator Craig, objected
to both unanimous consent agreements.
In explaining his objection, Senator Craig expressed the view that
some provisions in the 2 bills are ``controversial enough to merit
considerable floor debate.'' Whether I agree with that characterization
of the provisions, I would not seek to keep Senator Craig or any other
Senator from debating the 2 bills. As I just noted, that was precisely
what the unanimous consent called for--debate, at a mutually agreed
upon time, with the only limitation being that any amendment had to be
relevant. Judging by the concerns Senator Craig discussed in his
explanation of his objection to the unanimous consent agreement, his
amendments would, indeed, be relevant.
I was patient while our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
dealt with the upheaval that followed the unanticipated change in the
minority leadership on the committee. I recognized that they needed
time to reorganize and for Senator Burr to move into his new role as
the committee's ranking member. However, that change in the ranking
member's position occurred over 2 months ago. It is time to bring these
bills to the floor, time to engage in a full and open debate, time to
vote on any amendments, and time to allow the Senate to have its say on
the bills.
In his objection, Senator Craig spoke of the committee's history of
working in a bipartisan fashion to resolve differences at the committee
level. He is certainly correct that our committee rarely brings
measures to the floor for debate. However, I do not understand that
history to mean that any and all
[[Page 31369]]
differences of opinion on legislation are resolved before we seek
Senate action. Rather, it is my understanding that the committee's
bipartisan practice means that we seek to negotiate so as to reach
agreed-upon positions on legislation after legislative hearings and
before committee markups. When we are unable to reach agreement, there
is an opportunity for amendments to be offered during markups. After a
markup, our traditional practice has been to move forward from a
committee markup without further debate on the floor.
That approach is exactly what happened in 2005, when Senator Craig
was chairman of the committee. He and I had negotiated on a variety of
legislative initiatives up to the markup but could not reach agreement
on a number of matters. At the markup, I offered amendments--five or
six is my memory--on a number of the issues about which I had strong
feelings. I did not, however, continue to pursue those matters on the
floor. And I most assuredly did not do anything to block Senate
consideration of the legislation that I had sought to amend. In fact,
as ranking member, I worked with then-Chairman Craig to gain passage of
the legislation by unanimous consent.
While I would certainly appreciate similar cooperation with respect
to S. 1233 and S. 1315, I realize that Senator Craig and others may
wish to continue to pursue amendments during debate before the full
Senate, and I am prepared to support that result. All that is needed
for that to happen is for agreement to be reached to begin that debate,
as set forth in the unanimous consent agreement put forward by Senator
Durbin last week.
I do not know why others on the other side of the aisle are blocking
this debate. I urge them to reconsider and to agree to allow the debate
to go forward. Our committee should finish our work. America's veterans
deserve no less.
____________________
MORTGAGE CANCELLATION RELIEF ACT
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak concerning the Mortgage
Cancellation Relief Act, S. 1394. In previous Congresses, I have
introduced this legislation to provide immediate tax relief to
homeowners adversely impacted by the recent downturn in the Nation's
housing markets.
However, this Congress, I am pleased to join my friend and colleague
from Michigan, Senator Debbie Stabenow, as a cosponsor of S. 1394. She
was on the floor earlier this morning, and she had the opportunity to
address this bill. I want to thank her for her continued interest in
this issue.
I agree with her that it is well past time for Congress to act on
this legislation.
There are a number of positive things I can say about S. 1394. It is
a bipartisan bill. It is sound tax policy. It is good economic policy.
And it treats those who have been impacted by housing declines fairly
in their time of need.
As I mentioned, Senator Stabenow introduced this bill in May.
The President recommended a similar proposal in August.
However, the one not-so-positive thing I can say is that it is not
law.
We are now into November. And despite all of the positive aspects of
S. 1394, it has still not been reported by the Finance Committee or
debated on the Senate floor.
The problem addressed by this legislation has its roots in the
housing market.
In September, overall home sales slid 8 percent from the month
before. Single-family sales slowed to the lowest pace in nearly 10
years.
Inventory is going up. At the end of August, there was a 9.6-month
supply of homes. At the end of September, there was a 10.5-month supply
of homes on the market.
So supply is up, and demand is down.
A high school senior, barely paying attention in his economics class,
could tell you the result.
The result is a buyer's market. The median home price is down 4.2
percent from the year before.
With the dip in the housing market has come a corollary decrease in
new home construction.
According to one recent estimate, construction spending on all new
homes fell by 22 percent in 2007. The decline was even greater for
single family homes--25 percent.
With another 4 percent dip in 2008, residential construction spending
will be down to $254 billion in 2008 from $384 billion in 2005.
While this is not good news for the Nation's builders, at least it
tells us that the U.S. housing market is functioning rationally. As the
supply of housing tightens, demand and prices will once again go up.
This leads many economists to believe that housing markets will turn
the corner sooner rather than later.
In the meantime, however, we have a deadly economic mix of declining
housing prices, interest rate volatility, and adjustable rate mortgages
that are beginning to reset. When this convergence of events takes
place and is followed by a certain unnecessarily punitive and totally
unfair provision in our Tax Code, life becomes even more burdensome for
some of our most vulnerable families and communities.
Let me explain why.
Adjustable rate mortgages are a product that provides an opportunity
for millions of families to achieve home ownership. Because they pose
less risk to lenders, these mortgages can be a more affordable product
that allows families to purchase homes while assuming the risk that
interest rates will increase.
Yet because of the easy availability of adjustable rate mortgages,
some people took out very high mortgages and according to the Wall
Street Journal, there are 17 percent adjustable rate mortgage holders
who cannot make their payments on time.
We are currently witnessing how well private industry will be able to
handle this problem on its own. The Nation's largest mortgage lender,
Countrywide Financial, announced that it is modifying the terms of $16
billion in adjustable rate mortgages. Thirty thousand have already
restructured their loans, and Countrywide intends to contact 52,000
borrowers to see if they would like to restructure their loans as well.
Still, the declines in the Nation's housing markets have left two
groups particularly vulnerable.
First, there are those who sell their homes for less than the
outstanding amount of the mortgage.
Second, there are those who are unable to make their mortgage
payments and suffer foreclosure.
As I mentioned earlier, the Tax Code effectively kicks these folks
while they are down.
The Internal Revenue Code defines income very broadly.
And when lenders forgive mortgage debt in a short-sale or a
foreclosure, the borrower has technically received taxable income. Yet
this is phantom income, and it makes little sense to have these
financially vulnerable families getting a form 1099 and an increased
tax liability for income they never received.
This makes little sense as public policy. And it is inequitable as
tax policy.
Section 121 of the Internal Revenue Code allows the exclusion of up
to $250,000--or $500,000 on a joint return--of gain on the sale of a
home. Few people realize gains in excess of this statutory exclusion.
And for those who do, those gains are taxed at lower capital gains
rates.
Yet if a family is in such a dire financial situation that it is
losing its home or selling it at a loss, the phantom gain on these
transactions is taxed at ordinary income rates.
With adjustable rate mortgages being reset, growing housing
inventory, and declining housing prices, too many people will be
getting a 1099 form in the mail telling them that they owe income taxes
on this debt forgiveness.
This is not the way it ought to be.
Our legislation would remedy this problem by excluding this debt
forgiveness from gross income.
There is precedent for this. Congress provided similar relief in the
wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Given the ramifications of housing market declines, we should extend
this needed relief to all Americans who find themselves receiving this
kind of phantom income.
[[Page 31370]]
Yes, we would forgo some tax revenue by making this simple, fair, and
commonsense change to our tax laws, but the House has found a
reasonable offset that is supported by the housing industry so the net
effect to the Federal budget should be zero.
As I stated earlier, it is time to act. I am not sure what the delay
is.
The drop in the housing market and the problems with adjustable rate
mortgages are no longer breaking news. It has been nearly 6 months
since this bipartisan legislation was introduced. It has been over 2
months since the President indicated he supported this legislation and
wanted to get it signed into law.
This Congress seems to have ground to a halt.
You can hear crickets chirping on the Senate floor lately. To say we
are too busy to address this important legislation is simply false.
The lack of quick action on this legislation is no longer acceptable.
I urge my colleagues to support S. 1394 and for the Senate to pass
this legislation as soon as possible. Families in need and vulnerable
communities demand that we act.
____________________
MOTORCOACH ENHANCED SAFETY ACT
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, on March 1, 2007, the Bluffton University
baseball team left Ohio for a tournament in Florida.
Early the next morning on Interstate 75 in Atlanta, their trip came
to a tragic halt when their motorcoach, attempting to exit the highway,
fell off an overpass and landed on its side on the road below.
The crash resulted in the deaths of five members of the baseball
team: Tyler Williams, Cody Holp, Scott Harmon, Zack Arend, David Joseph
Betts. The driver, Jerome Niemeyer, and his wife Jean were also killed
in the crash. Many of the other 33 passengers were treated for
injuries.
For John Betts, who lost his son David in the crash, it was important
to take the accident and make it into something positive, in honor of
his son and the other bright, talented young men who died that morning.
Motorcoach safety became his crusade.
Mr. Betts has been interviewed by the media, local and national,
bringing to light the need for stronger motorcoach safety regulations.
He has called for seatbelts for all passengers as well as other
regulations that lower the risk of injury or fatality in accidents.
Mr. Betts sees upgrading the safety laws for motorcoaches as an
opportunity to save the lives of future riders.
More importantly, he sees it as a way to memorialize David and his
teammates and, as he puts it, to make the world they lived in better
than it was when they left it.
Sadly, the Bluffton University baseball team's fatal accident was not
unique. We have witnessed story after story about motorcoach accidents.
While the investigation into the cause of the crash is ongoing, one
thing is clear--stronger safety regulations could have minimized the
fatalities resulting from this crash.
The Motorcoach Safety Enhancement Act, which I introduced today along
with Senator Hutchison, would address the shortfall in safety
regulations for motorcoaches.
Many of the injuries sustained in motorcoaches could be prevented by
incorporating high-quality safety technologies that exist today but are
not widely used, such as crush-proof roofing and glazed windows to
prevent ejection.
More basic safety features, such as readily accessible fire
extinguishers and seatbelts for all passengers, are still not required
on motorcoaches.
As a father of four, I find it particularly disturbing to know
students are still riding in vehicles without even the option of
buckling up.
I applaud Mr. Betts and the other Bluffton parents for their
courageous fight in the midst of so much personal pain.
Seatbelts, window glazing, fire extinguishers--these are not new
technologies. These are commonsense safety features that are widely
used.
And they are features that the National Transportation Safety Board
recommends be enacted into law. Yet they have been languishing for
years.
The Motorcoach Safety Enhancement Act would instruct the Secretary of
Transportation to enact these and other safety features. It would put a
timeframe on final rulings so these safety requirements do not spend
any more time in limbo.
This bill takes the lessons learned from the tragic events of the
Bluffton University baseball team's motorcoach accident, and aims to
correct them for future riders.
It is my hope that in the future, parents will not have to endure the
anguish and grief that John Betts and the other family members
experienced.
I hope for swift consideration of this bill.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
RECOGNIZING THE STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I honor the 50th anniversary
of the Student Conservation Association. Over these last 5 decades, the
SCA has led the way in promoting the importance of conservation service
and stewardship. Its staff and supporters have made an extraordinary
commitment to instilling this ethic in our country's young people.
While it is headquartered in my home State of New Hampshire, the SCA's
reach and influence go far beyond the borders of New Hampshire. Since
its founding in 1957 by Elizabeth C. Titus Putnam, nearly 50,000 SCA
volunteers have worked to protect the critical natural habitats and
threatened wildlife in our country's parks, forests, and urban green
spaces. Its members can be found in all 50 States, as well as Canada,
Mexico, Brazil, Germany and Latvia. In 2006 alone, 4,000 volunteers
logged 1.6 million service hours at 511 separate sites. In past years,
they worked to restore the Everglades following the devastation
Hurricane Hugo left behind and to repair the damage to Yellowstone
National Park following the fires which damaged that park in 1988. This
year, they were chosen to lead the Northwest Recovery at Mount Ranier
and other parks in that region of the United States following the
floods of 2006. It is, in fact, the largest conservation service
program in the country.
Those numbers and facts are impressive, but they do not fully convey
the central role this organization plays in strengthening the quality
of life in the United States. The thousands of volunteers and interns
clearly have relished meeting the obligation we all have to protecting
the vital natural areas in our country. Their unique dedication and
enthusiasm have made them great role models and leaders. These
qualities explain why such Federal agencies as the Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the U.S. Armed Forces all have partnered with the SCA and are the
reason the White House, National Wildlife Federation, and the National
Park Service have recognized the SCA's achievements.
The prime architect behind the SCA is Elizabeth Titus Putnam, and I
am especially pleased to honor her. It is a great reflection on her
character that the vision she developed 50 years ago became a reality.
Her energy and passion for environmental protection have touched
countless people and demonstrate why the SCA continues to be an
effective and vibrant organization.
For these reasons, I am proud to be a member of the 50th Anniversary
Honorary Committee. I hope all the alumni and current volunteers will
long remember the deep impact they have made on communities from Maine
to Hawaii and from Alaska to Florida. Happy Birthday to the Student
Conservation Association and my best wishes for continued
success.
____________________
RETIREMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM T. BESTER
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the service of
a great public
[[Page 31371]]
servant, outstanding Army officer, and dedicated academic leader.
In his latest stint of public service, BG William T. Bester, U.S.
Army retired, distinguished himself by exceptionally meritorious
service to the Graduate School of Nursing, Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, as acting dean from 10
July 2006 to 30 December 2007.
During this period, the outstanding leadership and ceaseless efforts
of General Bester resulted in major contributions to the Graduate
School of Nursing, GSN, and to the Uniformed Services University, USU.
He assumed his duties during a period of significant change and growth
in the history of the GSN and the USU. He lead efforts in dealing with
substantial change in the GSN: planning for a new psychiatric/mental
health nurse practitioner master's option, facilitating the merger of
the GSN and Navy nurse anesthesia master's option, fostering renewed
collaboration with the Federal nursing service chiefs, FNSCs, assisting
the USU with the search for a new brigade commander and GSN dean, and
dealing with base closure and realignment strategy and requirements. He
focused on every issue with unwavering directness, a spirit of
community participation, collegial respect, enthusiasm, and a wonderful
sense of humor and fair play. His leadership brought about a change in
GSN character and personality that is visible at every level of USU.
His tenure has been marked by strong, supportive relationships with
senior USU leaders, an increase in FNSC collaboration and trust
resulting in additional senior scholars assigned to the Nursing Science
Doctoral Program and new educational program opportunities and
increased student involvement in and enthusiasm for the school and the
university.
Working closely with my office, he was instrumental in solidifying
DOD core budgeting for the GSN. He negotiated an expansion of faculty
research support with the School of Medicine and the USU vice president
for research. He established a sense of calm and collaborative team
building by fostering a common vision, always listening to the faculty
and staff issues, and addressing their concerns. As a genuine and
dedicated ambassador of the university, General Bester often
represented the USU president at external senior level meetings. His
career interdisciplinary leadership experiences and the respect he
maintains within the Department of Defense always provided credibility
as spokesperson when he represented the university and its president.
These same qualities allowed him to be an essential advisor to
President Rice during a time of significant change within USU, on the
Bethesda campus, and in emerging military and Federal health
cooperative concerns. Brigadier General Bester's total dedication to
service in all aspects of his leadership of the Graduate School of
Nursing and his exceptional leadership contributions to USU reflect an
unsurpassed commitment to maintaining the highest standards for
military and Federal health nurse education at the Uniformed Services
University. The distinctive accomplishments of Brigadier General Bester
reflect great credit upon himself, the Department of Defense, and the
Uniformed Services University.
The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences continues to
fulfill our vision as a key part of the Nation's academic health
education enterprise because of the dedication of its faculty and
administrative leadership. General Bester exemplifies the best of the
best. We owe a debt of gratitude for his years of public service, and I
wish to take this opportunity to thank him along with his family: his
wife Cheryl, his son Jason, daughter Jodi, and grandsons Will and Jake.
We wish General Bester Godspeed as he returns to his family and Texas
where his children and grandchildren now live.
____________________
RECOGNIZING JORDAN-FERNALD FUNERAL HOMES
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Jordan-Fernald
Funeral Homes, an outstanding small business in my home State of Maine
that exemplifies the best of Maine's community spirit. Founded in 1860
by the Fernald family, Jordan-Fernald is now in its fourth and fifth
generations of ownership. Over the years, the Fernalds purchased
several Jordan Funeral Home locations to become Jordan-Fernald in 2004.
Currently, four Fernalds siblings--Bill, Tom, and Lauri, along with
their father, Robert--co-own the business.
Presently maintaining funeral homes in four towns in Hancock County,
the Fernalds have always prided themselves on their stalwart commitment
to the ever-changing needs of the local communities. For example, Bill
participates in a local project to prepare the Hancock County area
against a potential pandemic flu. Meanwhile, Tom serves on the boards
of the Maine Funeral Directors Association and the Maine Coast Memorial
Hospital and Lauri serves on the boards of the Hospice of Hancock
County, the Abbe Museum, and the Hospice Regatta of Maine. Finally,
Robert is well known in the area for his work on behalf of the Lions
Club.
In recognition of the Fernalds' contributions to the communities,
Jordan-Fernald received the Gannett Family Business of the Year Award
in 2005. This award recognizes family-run businesses that demonstrate
creativity in ensuring their company's vitality while maintaining ties
with their communities and stakeholders. Jordan-Fernald was selected,
along with one other business, out of a pool of 22 nominees. Family-
owned businesses represent approximately 90 percent of all Maine
businesses, yet less than 30 percent survive to the second generation
and only 13 percent survive to the third generation, making it all the
more impressive that Jordan-Fernald has survived to the fifth
generation!
Most recently, Jordan-Fernald received the Top Drawer Award from the
Ellsworth Area Chamber of Commerce. The award is presented to a
business that has made a substantial contribution to the growth,
development, and improvement of Ellsworth, Hancock County, and the
State of Maine. The Ellsworth Area Chamber president, Chrissi Maguire-
Harding, cited Jordan-Fernald's commitment to the region through
participation on community boards, support of other businesses, and
economic growth as the main reasons for the award. In modern times,
where one-third of Maine funeral homes are owned by a single
corporation based in Texas, Jordan-Fernald has managed to maintain
independence and a bountiful community spirit.
Jordan-Fernald is an exemplary small business. The firm's dynamic
approach toward business and community involvement benefits everyone
throughout eastern Maine and, indeed, the entire State of Maine. I
commend Jordan-Fernald Funeral Homes for its dedication and leadership,
and I wish the enterprise much success going forward.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE RAPID CITY MEALS PROGRAM
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I honor the Rapid City, SD,
MEALS program as they celebrate 26 years of dedicated service to the
Black Hills community.
For more than a quarter century, the Rapid City MEALS program has
provided our seniors with quality nutrition, education, community, and
support services so they can live in their own homes and maintain their
independence.
The MEALS program would not be able to perform its invaluable mission
without the hard work and dedication of the many volunteers who put in
countless hours serving the needs of others. These compassionate
individuals are truly the backbone of the Rapid City community and I
hope that their service will inspire others to lend a helping hand.
It gives me great pleasure, with the State of South Dakota, to
congratulate the MEALS Program of Rapid City on this important
anniversary and wish them continued success in the years to
come.
[[Page 31372]]
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE DURING RECESS
Under authority of the order of the Senate of January 4, 2007, the
Secretary of the Senate, on November 14, 2007, during the recess of the
Senate, received a message from the House of Representatives announcing
that the House agrees to the report of the committee of conference on
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate
to the bill (H.R. 1429) to reauthorize the Head Start Act, to improve
program quality, to expand access, and for other purposes.
The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following
concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H. Con. Res. 258. Concurrent resolution directing the Clerk
of the House of Representatives to correct the enrollment of
H.R. 1429.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE
At 5:01 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, announced that the House has passed the following bills
and joint resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 1534. An act to prohibit certain sales, distributions,
and transfers of elemental mercury, to prohibit the export of
elemental mercury, and for other purposes.
H.R. 1593. An act to reauthorize the grant program for
reentry of offenders into the community in the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to improve reentry
planning and implementation, and for other purposes.
H.R. 2614. An act to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to participate in certain water
projects in California.
H.R. 2627. An act to establish the Thomas Edison National
Historical Park in the State of New Jersey as the successor
to the Edison National Historic Site.
H.R. 2705. An act to amend the Compact of Free Association
Amendments Act of 2003, and for other purposes.
H.R. 3013. An act to provide appropriate protection to
attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work
product.
H.R. 3315. An act to provide that the great hall of the
Capitol Visitor Center shall be known as Emancipation Hall.
H.R. 3403. An act to promote and enhance public safety by
facilitating the rapid deployment of IP-enabled 911 and E-91l
services, encourage the Nation's transition to a national IP-
enabled emergency network, and improve 911 and E-911 access
to those with disabilities.
H.R. 3461. An act to establish a public awareness campaign
regarding Internet safety.
H.R. 3470. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 744 West Oglethorpe Highway
in Hinesville, Georgia, as the ``John Sidney `Sid' Flowers
Post Office Building''.
H.R. 3569. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 16731 Santa Ana Avenue in
Fontana, California, as the ``Beatrice E. Watson Post Office
Building''.
H.R. 3703. An act to amend section 5112(p)(1)(A) of title
31, United States Code, to allow an exception from the $1
coin dispensing capability requirement for certain vending
machines.
H.R. 3919. An act to provide for a comprehensive nationwide
inventory of existing broadband service, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 3974. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 797 Sam Bass Road in Round
Rock, Texas, as the ``Marine Corps Corporal Steven P. Gill
Post Office Building''.
H.R. 4134. An act to direct the Attorney General to provide
grants for Internet crime prevention education programs.
H.R. 4153. An act to make certain technical corrections and
transition amendments to the College Cost Reduction and
Access Act.
H.R. 4154. An act to increase the insurance limitations on
Federal insurance for bonds issued by the designated bonding
authority for Historically Black Colleges and Universities
capital financing.
H.J. Res. 62. Joint resolution to honor the achievements
and contributions of Native Americans he United States, and
for other purposes.
The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following
concurrent resolutions, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H. Con. Res. 122. Concurrent resolution supporting the goal
and mission of America Recycles Day.
H. Con. Res. 211. Concurrent resolution supporting the
goals and ideals of World Diabetes Day.
H. Con. Res. 229. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress that the United States should seek a
review of compliance by all nations with the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas'
conservation and management recommendations for Atlantic
bluefin tuna and other species, and should pursue
strengthened conservation and management measures to
facilitate the recovery of the Atlantic bluefin tuna, and for
other purposes.
The message further announced that the House has agreed to the
following concurrent resolution:
S. Con. Res. 45. Concurrent resolution commending the Ed
Block Courage Award Foundation for its work in aiding
children and families affected by child abuse, and
designating November 2007 as National Courage Month.
____
At 5:48 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House
agrees to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 3074) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bills and joint resolution were read the first and the
second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 1534. To prohibit certain sales, distributions, and
transfers of elemental mercury, to prohibit the export of
elemental mercury, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
H.R. 1593. An act to reauthorize the grant program for
reentry of offenders into the community in the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to improve reentry
planning and implementation, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R. 2614. An act to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to participate in certain water
projects in California; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
H.R. 2627. An act to establish the Thomas Edison National
Historical Park in the State of New Jersey as the successor
to the Edison National Historic Site; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 3013. An act to provide appropriate protection to
attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work
product; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R. 3403. An act to promote and enhance public safety by
facilitating the rapid deployment of IP-enabled 911 and E-911
services, encouraging the nation's transition to a national
IP-enabled emergency network and improve 911 and E-911 access
to those with disabilities; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
H.R. 3461. An act to establish a public awareness campaign
regarding Internet safety; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
H.R. 3470. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 744 West Oglethorpe Highway
in Hinesville, Georgia, as the ``John Sidney `Sid' Flowers
Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 3569. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 16731 Santa Ana Avenue in
Fontana, California, as the ``Beatrice E. Watson Post Office
Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 3919. An act to provide for a comprehensive nationwide
inventory of existing broadband service, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
H.R. 3974. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 797 Sam Bass Road in Round
Rock, Texas, as the ``Marine Corps Corporal Steven P. Gill
Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 4134. An act to direct the Attorney General to provide
grants for Internet crime prevention education programs; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R. 4153. An act to make certain technical corrections and
transition amendments to the College Cost Reduction and
Access Act; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
H.R. 4154. An act to increase the insurance limitations on
Federal insurance for bonds issued by the designated bonding
authority for Historically Black Colleges and Universities
capital financing; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
H.J. Res. 62. Joint resolution to honor the achievements
and contributions of Native Americans to the United States,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
The following concurrent resolutions were read, and referred as
indicated:
H. Con. Res. 122. Concurrent resolution supporting the goal
and mission of America
[[Page 31373]]
Recycles Day; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
H. Con. Res. 211. Concurrent resolution supporting the
goals and ideals of World Diabetes Day; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
H. Con. Res. 229. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress that the United States should seek a
review of compliance by all nations with the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas'
conservation and management recommendations for Atlantic
bluefin tuna and other species, and should pursue
strengthened conservation and management measures to
facilitate the recovery of the Atlantic bluefin tuna, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR
The following bills were read the second time, and placed on the
calendar:
H.R. 3996. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other
purposes.
S. 2334. A bill to withhold 10 percent of the Federal
funding apportioned for highway construction and maintenance
from States that issue driver's licenses to individuals
without verifying the legal status of such individuals.
S. 2340. A bill making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
S. 2346. A bill to temporarily increase the portfolio caps
applicable to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to provide the
necessary financing to curb foreclosures by facilitating the
refinancing of at-risk subprime borrowers into safe,
affordable loans, and for other purposes.
S. 2348. A bill to ensure control over the United States
border and to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws.
The following bill was read the first and second times by unanimous
consent, and placed on the calendar:
H.R. 2705. An act to amend the Compact of Free Association
Amendments Act of 2003, and for other purposes.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. INOUYE, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, without amendment:
S. 311. A bill to amend the Horse Protection Act to
prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering,
receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of
horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human
consumption, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 110-229).
By Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs, without amendment:
H.R. 2089. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 701 Loyola Avenue in New
Orleans, Louisiana, as the ``Louisiana Armed Services
Veterans Post Office''.
H.R. 2276. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 203 North Main Street in
Vassar, Michigan, as the ``Corporal Christopher E. Esckelson
Post Office Building''.
H.R. 3297. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 950 West Trenton Avenue in
Morrisville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Nate De Tample Post
Office Building''.
H.R. 3307. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 570 Broadway in Bayonne, New
Jersey, as the ``Dennis P. Collins Post Office Building''.
H.R. 3308. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 216 East Main Street in
Atwood, Indiana, as the ``Lance Corporal David K. Fribley
Post Office''.
H.R. 3325. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 235 Mountain Road in
Suffield, Connecticut, as the ``Corporal Stephen R. Bixler
Post Office''.
H.R. 3382. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 200 North William Street in
Goldsboro, North Carolina, as the ``Philip A. Baddour, Sr.
Post Office''.
H.R. 3446. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 202 East Michigan Avenue in
Marshall, Michigan, as the ``Michael W. Schragg Post Office
Building''.
H.R. 3518. To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 1430 South Highway 29 in
Cantonment, Florida, as the ``Charles H. Hendrix Post Office
Building''.
H.R. 3530. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 1400 Highway 41 North in
Inverness, Florida, as the ``Chief Warrant Officer Aaron
Weaver Post Office Building''.
H.R. 3572. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 4320 Blue Parkway in Kansas
City, Missouri, as the ``Wallace S. Hartsfield Post Office
Building''.
S. 2107. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 570 Broadway in Bayonne, New
Jersey, as the ``Dennis P. Collins Post Office Building''.
S. 2110. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 427 North Street in Taft,
California, as the ``Larry S. Pierce Post Office''.
S. 2150. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 4320 Blue Parkway in Kansas
City, Missouri, as the ``Wallace S. Hartsfield Post Office
Building''.
S. 2174. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 175 South Monroe Street in
Tiffin, Ohio, as the ``Paul E. Gillmor Post Office
Building''.
S. 2290. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 16731 Santa Ana Avenue in
Fontana, California, as the ``Beatrice E. Watson Post Office
Building''.
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEE
The following executive reports of committee were submitted:
By Mr. BIDEN, from the Committee on Foreign Relations:
[Treaty Doc. 110-3 Tax Convention with Belgium (Ex. Rept. 110-2);
Treaty Doc. 109-19 Protocol Amending Tax Convention with Denmark (Ex.
Rept. 110-3); Treaty Doc. 109-18 Protocol Amending Tax Convention with
Finland (Ex. Rept. 110-4); and Treaty Doc. 109-20 Protocol Amending
Tax Convention with Germany (Ex. Rept. 110-5)]
The text of the committee-recommended resolutions of advice and
consent to ratification are as follows:
110-3: Tax Convention With Belgium
Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein),
The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the
Convention Between the Government of the United States of
America and the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium for the
Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal
Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and accompanying
Protocol, signed at Brussels on November 27, 2006 (Treaty
Doc. 110-3).
109-19: Protocol Amending Tax Convention with Denmark
Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein),
The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the
Protocol Amending the Convention between the Government of
the United States of America and the Government of the
Kingdom of Denmark for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and
the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on
Income, signed at Copenhagen on May 2, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-
19).
109-18: Protocol Amending Tax Convention with Finland
Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein),
The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the
Protocol Amending the Convention between the Government of
the United States of America and the Government of the
Republic of Finland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and
the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on
Income and on Capital, signed at Helsinki on May 31, 2006
(Treaty Doc. 109-18).
109-20: Protocol Amending Tax Convention With Germany
Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein),
The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the
Protocol Amending the Convention between the United States of
America and the Federal Republic of Germany for the Avoidance
of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with
Respect to Taxes on Income and Capital and to Certain Other
Taxes, signed at Berlin on June 1, 2006 and an Exchange of
Notes dated August 17, 2006 (EC-2046) (Treaty Doc. 109-20).
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:
By Mr. KENNEDY for the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Charles E. F. Millard, of New York, to be Director of the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
*Mark D. Gearan, of New York, to be a Member of the Board
of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community
Service for a term expiring December 1, 2010.
*Julie Fisher Cummings, of Michigan, to be a Member of the
Board of Directors of the
[[Page 31374]]
Corporation for National and Community Service for a term
expiring September 14, 2011.
*Donna N. Williams, of Texas, to be a Member of the Board
of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community
Service for a term expiring October 6, 2009.
*Tom Osborne, of Nebraska, to be a Member of the Board of
Directors of the Corporation for National and Community
Service for a term expiring October 6, 2012.
*Alan D. Solomont, of Massachusetts, to be a Member of the
Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and
Community Service for a term expiring October 6, 2009.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions I report favorably the following nomination list
which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask
unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive
Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the
information of Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Public Health Service nominations beginning with Harry J.
Brown and ending with Elaine C. Wolff, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on October 16, 2007.
By Mr. LIEBERMAN for the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
*Ellen C. Williams, of Kentucky, to be a Governor of the
United States Postal Service for a term expiring December 8,
2014.
*W. Ross Ashley, III, of Virginia, to be an Assistant
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed
subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear
and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
(Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the
recommendation that they be confirmed.)
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. REID (for Mr. Biden (for himself and Mr.
Lugar)):
S. 2349. A bill to reauthorize the programs of the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. MENENDEZ:
S. 2350. A bill to establish a grant program to provide
screenings for glaucoma to individuals determined to be at a
high risk for glaucoma, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. SCHUMER:
S. 2351. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide a tax credit for medical research related to
developing qualified infectious disease products; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Harkin,
and Mr. Menendez):
S. 2352. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to provide Medicare beneficiaries greater choice with
regard to accessing hearing health services and benefits; to
the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 2353. A bill to increase the annual salaries of justices
and judges of the United States, and to increase fees for
bankruptcy trustees; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Craig):
S. 2354. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
convey 4 parcels of land from the Bureau of Land Management
to the city of Twin Falls, Idaho; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
By Ms. CANTWELL:
S. 2355. A bill to amend the National Climate Program Act
to enhance the ability of the United States to develop and
implement climate change adaptation programs and policies,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. COLEMAN:
S. 2356. A bill to enhance national security by restricting
access of illegal aliens to driver's licenses and State-
issued identification documents; 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 Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Stevens,
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Lott, Mr. Dorgan, Mr.
Bennett, Mr. Shelby, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Roberts, Mrs.
Dole, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Casey, Mr.
Obama, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Domenici, Mr.
Crapo, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Graham, Mr. Salazar, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr.
Biden, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Craig, Mr. Martinez, Mr.
McCain, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Gregg, Ms.
Stabenow, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Cochran, Mr.
Whitehouse, and Mr. Baucus):
S. Res. 378. A resolution recognizing and thanking all
military families for the tremendous sacrifices and
contributions they have made to the Nation; considered and
agreed to.
By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Bennett):
S. Res. 379. A resolution designating Thursday, November
15, 2007, as ``Feed America Thursday''; considered and agreed
to.
By Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
S. Res. 380. A resolution recognizing Hostelling
International USA for 75 years of service to intercultural
understanding and to youth travel; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Kerry, Mr. Casey, Mr. Menendez, and Mr. Durbin):
S. Res. 381. A resolution remembering and commemorating the
lives and work of Maryknoll Sisters Maura Clarke and Ita
Ford, Ursuline Sister Dorothy Kazel, and Cleveland Lay
Mission Team Member Jean Donovan, who were executed by
members of the Armed Forces of El Salvador on December 2,
1980; considered and agreed to.
By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. Domenici, Mr.
Lautenberg, and Mr. Coleman):
S. Res. 382. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals
of World Diabetes Day; considered and agreed to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 22
At the request of Mr. Webb, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Obama) was added as a cosponsor of S. 22, a bill to amend title
38, United States Code, to establish a program of educational
assistance for members of the Armed Forces who serve in the Armed
Forces after September 11, 2001, and for other purposes.
S. 67
At the request of Mr. Inouye, the name of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 67, a bill to amend
title 10, United States Code, to permit former members of the Armed
Forces who have a service-connected disability rated as total to travel
on military aircraft in the same manner and to the same extent as
retired members of the Armed Forces are entitled to travel on such
aircraft.
S. 507
At the request of Mr. Conrad, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 507, a bill to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for reimbursement of
certified midwife services and to provide for more equitable
reimbursement rates for certified nurse-midwife services.
S. 518
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 518, a bill to amend the
Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 to require the Statistics
Commissioner to collect information from coeducational secondary
schools on such schools' athletic programs.
S. 578
At the request of Mr. Johnson, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 578, a bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to improve
requirements under the Medicaid program for items and services
furnished in or through an educational program or setting to children,
including children with developmental, physical, or mental health
needs, and for other purposes.
S. 583
At the request of Mr. Salazar, the names of the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Coleman) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson)
were added as cosponsors of S. 583, a bill to create a competitive
grant program for States to enable the States to award salary bonuses
to highly qualified elementary school or secondary school
[[Page 31375]]
teachers who teach, or commit to teach, for at least 3 academic years
in a school served by a rural local educational agency.
S. 968
At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Biden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 968, a bill to amend the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide increased assistance for the
prevention, treatment, and control of tuberculosis, and for other
purposes.
S. 1164
At the request of Mr. Cardin, the name of the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Bingaman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1164, a bill to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve patient access to,
and utilization of, the colorectal cancer screening benefit under the
Medicare Program.
S. 1382
At the request of Mr. Reid, the names of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. Pryor), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) and the
Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) were added as cosponsors of S.
1382, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the
establishment of an Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Registry.
S. 1394
At the request of Ms. Stabenow, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1394, a bill
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, to exclude from gross
income of individual taxpayers discharges of indebtedness attributable
to certain forgiven residential mortgage obligations.
S. 1465
At the request of Mr. Conrad, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1465, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage under the
Medicare program of certain medical mobility devices approved as class
III medical devices.
S. 1494
At the request of Mr. Domenici, the name of the Senator from Texas
(Mr. Cornyn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1494, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the special diabetes programs
for Type I diabetes and Indians under that Act.
S. 1534
At the request of Mr. Brownback, the name of the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Coleman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1534, a bill to
hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its human rights record
and to support a transition to democracy in Iran.
S. 1551
At the request of Mr. Brown, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1551, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act with respect to making progress toward the
goal of eliminating tuberculosis, and for other purposes.
S. 1679
At the request of Mr. Durbin, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
1679, a bill to provide that the great hall of the Capitol Visitor
Center shall be known as Emancipation Hall.
At the request of Ms. Landrieu, the names of the Senator from
Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the
Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) were added as cosponsors of S.
1679, supra.
S. 1734
At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Wyden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1734, a bill to provide for
prostate cancer imaging research and education.
S. 1852
At the request of Mr. Inouye, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Baucus) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1852, a bill to designate
the Friday after Thanksgiving of each year as ``Native American
Heritage Day'' in honor of the achievements and contributions of Native
Americans to the United States.
S. 1858
At the request of Mr. Casey, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
1858, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish grant
programs to provide for education and outreach on newborn screening and
coordinated followup care once newborn screening has been conducted, to
reauthorize programs under part A of title XI of such Act, and for
other purposes.
At the request of Mr. Harkin, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
1858, supra.
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 1858, supra.
S. 1943
At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1943, a bill to
establish uniform standards for interrogation techniques applicable to
individuals under the custody or physical control of the United States
Government.
S. 1958
At the request of Mr. Conrad, the names of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Hagel) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1958, 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.
S. 1991
At the request of Mr. Bunning, the name of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Alexander) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1991, a bill to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine
the suitability and feasibility of extending the Lewis and Clark
National Historic Trail to include additional sites associated with the
preparation and return phases of the expedition, and for other
purposes.
S. 2056
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from
Washington (Ms. Cantwell) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2056, a bill
to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to restore financial
stability to Medicare anesthesiology teaching programs for resident
physicians.
S. 2071
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the names of the Senator from
Nevada (Mr. Reid) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) were added as
cosponsors of S. 2071, a bill to enhance the ability to combat
methamphetamine.
S. 2123
At the request of Mr. Gregg, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2123, a bill to provide
collective bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by
States or their political subdivisions.
S. 2136
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Biden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2136, a bill to address the
treatment of primary mortgages in bankruptcy, and for other purposes.
S. 2161
At the request of Mr. Isakson, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2161, a bill
to ensure and foster continued patient safety and quality of care by
making the antitrust laws apply to negotiations between groups of
independent pharmacies and health plans and health insurance issuers
(including health plans under parts C and D of the Medicare Program) in
the same manner as such laws apply to protected activities under the
National Labor Relations Act.
S. 2257
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, his name was added as a
cosponsor of S. 2257, a bill to impose sanctions on officials of the
State Peace and Development Council in Burma, to amend the Burmese
Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 to prohibit the importation of
gemstones and hardwoods from Burma, to promote a coordinated
international effort to restore civilian democratic rule to Burma, and
for other purposes.
At the request of Mr. Biden, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2257, supra.
S. 2278
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from New York
[[Page 31376]]
(Mrs. Clinton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2278, a bill to improve
the prevention, detection, and treatment of community and healthcare-
associated infections (CHAI), with a focus on antibiotic-resistant
bacteria.
S. 2303
At the request of Mr. Burr, the name of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Alexander) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2303, a bill to amend
section 435(o) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 regarding the
definition of economic hardship.
S. 2324
At the request of Mrs. McCaskill, the names of the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. Stevens) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) were
added as cosponsors of S. 2324, a bill to amend the Inspector General
Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) to enhance the Offices of the Inspectors
General, to create a Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and
Efficiency, and for other purposes.
S. 2331
At the request of Mr. Warner, the name of the Senator from Kansas
(Mr. Roberts) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2331, a bill to exclude
from gross income payments from the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund to the
victims of the tragic event, loss of life and limb, at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute & State University.
S. 2332
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Tester) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2332, a bill to promote
transparency in the adoption of new media ownership rules by the
Federal Communications Commission, and to establish an independent
panel to make recommendations on how to increase the representation of
women and minorities in broadcast media ownership.
S. 2340
At the request of Mr. Cochran, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 2340, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for the
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008,
and for other purposes.
S. 2347
At the request of Mr. Baucus, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
2347, a bill to restore and protect access to discount drug prices for
university-based and safety-net clinics.
At the request of Mr. Durbin, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
2347, supra.
S. 2348
At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the names of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Martinez), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator
from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts),
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) were added as
cosponsors of S. 2348, a bill to ensure control over the United States
border and to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws.
S. RES. 273
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 273, a resolution
expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States Postal
Service should issue a semipostal stamp to support medical research
relating to Alzheimer's disease.
S. RES. 356
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the names of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) were added as cosponsors of S. Res. 356, a resolution
affirming that any offensive military action taken against Iran must be
explicitly approved by Congress before such action may be initiated.
S. RES. 358
At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Lott) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 358, a resolution
expressing the importance of friendship and cooperation between the
United States and Turkey.
S. RES. 376
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Whitehouse) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 376, a
resolution providing the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of
Commerce should declare a commercial fishery failure for the groundfish
fishery for Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island and
immediately propose regulations to implement section 312(a) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
AMENDMENT NO. 3508
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the names of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) were
added as cosponsors of amendment No. 3508 proposed to H.R. 2419, a bill
to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal
year 2012, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 3544
At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. Pryor) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3544 intended to
be proposed to H.R. 2419, a bill to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 3545
At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. Pryor) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3545 intended to
be proposed to H.R. 2419, a bill to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 3615
At the request of Mr. Gregg, the names of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Collins), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. Smith) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 3615
intended to be proposed to H.R. 2419, a bill to provide for the
continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for
other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 3616
At the request of Mr. Salazar, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Smith) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3616 intended to
be proposed to H.R. 2419, a bill to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 3625
At the request of Mr. Pryor, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3625 intended
to be proposed to H.R. 2419, a bill to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 3649
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Whitehouse) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3649
intended to be proposed to H.R. 2419, a bill to provide for the
continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for
other purposes.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Harkin, and Mr.
Menendez):
S. 2352. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide Medicare beneficiaries greater choice with regard to accessing
hearing health services and benefits; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Medicare
Hearing Health Care Enhancement Act with my colleagues, Senators
Harkin, Coleman, and Menendez. This legislation is the companion bill
to legislation introduced in the House by Representative Mike Ross,
with a number of cosponsors.
This legislation will provide Medicare beneficiaries with the same
hearing care options available to veterans and Federal employees,
including every member of this body. Under this bill, Medicare
beneficiaries who experience hearing problems will have the option of
going directly to an audiologist, rather than first visiting a
physician. This is the policy for the health care programs administered
by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Office
[[Page 31377]]
of Personnel Management. Direct access works well for our veterans and
for Federal employees, including Members of Congress, and direct access
should be available to senior citizens in the Medicare program.
More than 31 million Americans have some type of hearing problem,
making hearing loss the third most common health problem in the U.S.
Many of them are older Americans, and this statistic is fast increasing
with the aging of the ``baby boomers.'' Yet half of all hearing
impaired persons are under age 65. With 80 to 90 percent of hearing
problems not medically or surgically treatable, it seems only
reasonable that Medicare patients be allowed to consult with an
audiologist without first seeing another health care provider. It is
part of regular audiological practice to refer patients for medical
management when clinical indicators are present.
In 1992, the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, changed its health
care policy to allow for the option of direct access to a licensed
audiologist. The VA reports: ``the policy has provided and continues to
provide high quality, cost effective, and successful hearing health
care to veterans.'' The VA did not experience increased utilization of
audiology services due to the policy change and instead found, ``the
policy did not increase the number of visits beyond what would be
expected in the aging veteran population.''
In 2003, the Congress in the Appropriations Conference Report number
108-10 recommended that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services
make this change. We have since learned that CMS does not have the
authority to do so under current law. Therefore, I hope that we can all
agree that this is a common sense idea whose time has come, and move
this legislation forward to enactment.
Direct access would facilitate access to hearing care without
expanding the scope of practice for audiologists. This legislation will
make it easier for Medicare beneficiaries, particularly in rural
America, to have the same high quality hearing care provided by the VA
and OPM. It is also important to point out that both the Medicare and
Medicaid programs now recognize State licensure as the appropriate
standard for determining who is a qualified audiologist.
This legislation enjoys the support of a large number of
organizations including the American Academy of Audiology, the American
Speech-Language and Hearing Association, the National Association of
the Deaf and the National Rural Health Association. I commend this
legislation to the attention of my colleagues and urge them to lend
their support by cosponsoring this bill.
______
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 2353. A bill to increase the annual salaries of justices and
judges of the United States, and to increase fees for bankruptcy
trustees; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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. 2353
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 ``Fair Judicial Compensation
Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. JUDICIAL SALARY INCREASE.
(a) In General.--The annual salaries of the Chief Justice
of the United States, associate justices of the Supreme Court
of the United States, United States circuit judges, United
States district judges, and judges of the United States Court
of International Trade are increased in the amount of 16.5
percent of their respective annual salary rates in effect on
the effective date of this Act, rounded to the nearest $100
(or, if midway between multiples of $100, to the next higher
multiple of $100).
(b) Coordination Rule.--If a pay adjustment under
subsection (a) is to be made for an office or position as of
the same date that any other pay adjustment would take effect
for such office or position, the adjustment under this Act
shall be made first.
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the
first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or
after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEES.
Section 330(b)(2) of title 11, United States Code, is
amended, in the undesignated matter following subparagraph
(B), by striking ``$15'' each place that term appears and
inserting ``$55''.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this Act.
______
By Ms. CANTWELL:
S. 2355. A bill to amend the National Climate Program Act to enhance
the ability of the United States to develop and implement climate
change adaptation programs and policies, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Climate
Change Adaptation Act of 2007.
Before I describe the merits of this bill, I would like to take a
moment to commend many of my colleagues for their ongoing efforts to
develop legislative solutions to meet the enormous challenges global
warming poses to our Nation and our planet. I feel this bill helps
address a somewhat overlooked, but key tool, to tackling this
preeminent challenge facing our Nation.
I am proud that Washington State is taking the lead on the issue of
global climate change. While my State's contribution to global warming
is relatively small--because we are fortunate enough to derive about 70
percent of our electricity from inexpensive, emissions-free
hydropower--global warming threatens to seriously impact our economy.
Ironically, one of the primary impacts of global warming on the
Pacific Northwest will be to change our rainfall patterns in a way that
reduces the amount of water available for hydropower production.
And these changes will not only harm electricity generation, they
will also impact billions of dollars of economic infrastructure
associated with irrigation systems, municipal water supplies, even ski
resorts that depend on our historic snowfall patterns.
Faced with these possibilities, we must ask several simple questions:
What are we doing to prepare for these changes? How are predicted sea
level rises being incorporated into shoreline restoration projects,
siting of public infrastructure, or disaster response plans, among many
other examples? What tools do we need to give Federal, State, and local
decisionmakers to take climate change into account on long-term,
multibillion-dollar decisions?
Unfortunately, we don't have any answers.
As we discovered when I held a hearing on ocean acidification as
chair of the Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard subcommittee
last May, our Government is ill-equipped to plan for the consequences
of global climate change. We simply lack the tools to develop the
strategies we need to adapt.
In August, the Government Accountability Office found that the
Federal government is not providing Federal agencies with the proper
tools or policy mandates to take climate change impacts into account in
carrying out their responsibilities to manage public resources.
In September, the National Academy of Sciences concluded there is a
tremendous need to improve the delivery of climate change information
to Federal, regional, and local levels so they can take climate change
impacts into account in planning and managing resources.
The reality is that even if we were somehow able to stop using fossil
fuels today, a certain degree of warming and ocean acidification will
still occur over the next 2 or 3 decades.
While my top priority is to move our Nation to a clean energy system,
we must face the fact that global warming is happening already, and it
is only going to get worse.
That is why I am pleased today to be introducing the Climate Change
Adaptation Act--a bill to ensure that our government plans for the
changes that global warming will inevitably bring. This bill will
require the President to develop a national strategy for addressing the
impacts that climate change will have on our natural resources. It
[[Page 31378]]
will also specifically require NOAA to conduct vulnerability
assessments on the impacts of climate change on coastal and ocean
resources, and to prepare adaptation plans for those resources.
Planning for the future isn't just common sense--it's responsible
government.
This bill is complementary to several bills under consideration by
the Commerce Committee on which I serve, including the Kerry-Snowe bill
that was under discussion at a Commerce Committee hearing earlier
today. Their bill contains many provisions I believe are vitally
important--including language I authored with Senator Collins on the
need for a program to study the threat of abrupt climate change. I'm
also proud to work with Senator Lautenberg on legislation combating
ocean acidification.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to move all these
critical bills out of the committee and through the Senate in the
coming weeks.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 2355
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 ``Climate Change Adaptation
Act''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL CLIMATE PROGRAM ACT.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this
title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the
reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of the National Climate Program Act (15
U.S.C. 2901 et seq.).
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
Section 2 (15 U.S.C. 2601) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
``The Congress finds that--
``(1) weather, climate change, and climate variability
affect public safety, environmental services and security,
human health, agriculture, energy use, water resources, and
other factors vital to national security and human welfare;
``(2) the present rate of advance of national efforts in
research and development and the application of such advances
is inadequate to meet the challenges posed by observed and
projected rates of climate change and climate variability and
the increasing demand for information to guide planning and
response across all sectors;
``(3) the United States lacks adequate research,
infrastructure, and coordinated outreach and communication
mechanisms to meet national climate monitoring, prediction,
and decision support needs for adapting to and mitigating the
impacts of climate change and climate variability;
``(4) information regarding climate change and climate
variability is not being fully disseminated or used, and
Federal efforts have given insufficient attention to
assessing and applying this information;
``(5) climate change and climate variability occur on a
global basis making international cooperation essential for
the purpose of sharing the benefits and costs of a global
effort to understand and communicate these changes;
``(6) recent scientific reports by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change conclusively found that climate
change is occurring, and that impacts from climate change can
be expected in even shorter time periods than had been
previously predicted;
``(7) the Panel found that the resilience of many
ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an
unprecedented combination of climate change, associated
disturbances such as flooding and drought, and other global
change drivers such as land-use change;
``(8) according to the Panel, approximately 20 to 30
percent of plant and animal species assessed so far are
likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in
global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius;
``(9) the Panel also found that the progressive
acidification of oceans due to increasing atmospheric carbon
dioxide is expected to have negative impacts on marine shell-
forming organisms, such as corals, and their dependent
species;
``(10) the Panel found that coasts will be exposed to
increasing risks, including coastal erosion, over coming
decades due to climate change and sea-level rise, and that
adaptation costs for vulnerable coasts are much less than the
costs of inaction;
``(11) in its September, 2007, study entitled Evaluating
Progress of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program: Methods
and Preliminary Results, the National Academy of Sciences
concluded that there is a tremendous need to improve the
delivery of information to decision makers at the Federal,
regional, and local levels on climate change impacts and to
take such impacts into account in planning and in managing
resources;
``(12) States and local communities may need Federal
assistance in developing and implementing strategies to
address the impacts of climate change;
``(13) in its August, 2007, report entitled Climate Change:
Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the Effects
on Federal Land and Water Resources, GAO-07-863, the
Government Accountability Office found that the Federal
government is not providing the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and other Federal agencies that
are responsible for managing natural resources with the
proper tools or policy mandates to take the impacts of
climate change into account in carrying out their
responsibilities to manage public resources;
``(14) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
which plays a leading role in the Federal government's Global
Change Research Program, has a key role to play both in
predicting impacts of climate change on natural resources and
in improving the delivery of information critical to
adaptation and management to end users; and
``(15) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
has a key role to play in addressing the impacts of climate
change on our Nation's coastal areas and ocean resources.''.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
Section 4 (15 U.S.C. 2903) is amended by striking
paragraphs (1) and (2) and redesignating paragraphs (3) and
(4) as paragraphs (1) and (2).
SEC. 5. NATIONAL CLIMATE PROGRAM ELEMENTS.
Section 5 (15 U.S.C. 2904) is amended--
(1) by striking ``subsection (d)(9);'' in subsection (b)(1)
and inserting ``section 6;'';
(2) by striking subsections (c), (e), (f), and (g); and
(3) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(c) Program Elements.--
``(1) In general.--The Program shall include--
``(1) a strategic plan to address the impacts of climate
change within the United States; and
``(2) a National Climate Service to be established within
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.''.
SEC. 6. NATIONAL CLIMATE STRATEGY.
The Act is amended by striking sections 6 through 9 (15
U.S.C. 2905 et seq.) and inserting the following:
``SEC. 6. NATIONAL STRATEGIC PLAN FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
ADAPTATION.
``(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of the Climate Change Adaptation Act, the President
shall provide to the Congress a 5-year national strategic
plan to address the impacts of climate change within the
United States, to implement such strategy for Federally-
managed resources and actions, and to provide information to
and coordinate with State and local governments and
nongovernmental entities to support similar efforts with
respect to non-Federal natural resources. The President shall
provide a mechanism for consulting with States and local
governments, the private sector, universities, and other
nongovernmental entities in developing the plan. The plan
shall be updated at least every 5 years.
``(b) Contents of Plan.--The plan shall, at a minimum--
``(1) identify existing Federal requirements, protocols,
and capabilities for addressing climate change impacts on
Federally managed resources and actions;
``(2) identify measures to improve such capabilities and
the utilization of such capabilities;
``(3) include protocols to integrate climate change impacts
into Federal agency actions and policies, consistent with
existing authorities;
``(4) address vulnerabilities and priorities identified
through the assessments carried out under the Global Change
Research Act of 1990 and this Act;
``(5) establish a mechanism for the exchange of information
related to addressing the impacts of climate change with, and
provide technical assistance to, State and local governments
and nongovernmental entities;
``(6) develop partnerships with State and local governments
and nongovernmental entities to support and coordinate
implementation of the plan;
``(7) include implementation and funding strategies for
short-term and long-term actions that may be taken at the
national, regional, State, and local level;
``(8) establish a process to develop more detailed agency
and department- specific plans;
``(9) identify opportunities to utilize remote sensing and
other geospatial technologies to improve planning for
adaptation to climate change impacts; and
[[Page 31379]]
``(10) identify existing legal authorities and additional
authorities necessary to implement the plan.
``(c) Agency-level Strategies.--
``(1) Agency plans.--Each department and agency of the
Executive Branch shall develop a detailed plan, based on the
national plan, for addressing climate change impacts with
respect to such department or agencies policies and actions,
within 1 year after the date that the plan is submitted under
subsection (b) and provide such plan to Congress.
``(2) Interim activities.--Nothing in this section shall be
understood to prevent any Federal agency or department to
take climate change impacts into account, consistent with its
existing authorities, until the plans are provided to
Congress and steps to implement such plans are taken.
``(d) Coordination.--The President shall ensure that the
mechanism to provide information related to addressing the
impacts of climate change to State and local governments and
nongovernmental entities is appropriately coordinated or
integrated with existing programs that provide similar
information on climate change predictions.
``(e) Relationship to Other Authorities.--Nothing in this
section shall supersede any Federal authority in effect on
the date of enactment of the Climate Change Adaptation Act.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2009
through 2013 $10,000,000 to carry out this section.
``SEC. 7. OCEAN AND COASTAL VULNERABILITY AND ADAPTATION.
``(a) Coastal and Ocean Vulnerability.--
``(1) In general.--Within 2 years after the date of
enactment of the Climate Change Adaptation Act, the Secretary
of Commerce shall, in consultation with the appropriate
Federal, State, and local governmental entities, conduct
regional assessments of the vulnerability of coastal and
ocean areas and resources to hazards associated with climate
change, climate variability, and ocean acidification
including--
``(A) sea level rise;
``(B) fluctuation of Great Lakes water levels;
``(C) increases in severe weather events;
``(D) storm surge;
``(E) rainfall;
``(F) flooding and inundation;
``(G) changes in sea ice;
``(H) changes in ocean currents impacting global heat
transfer;
``(I) increased siltation due to coastal erosion;
``(J) shifts in the hydrological cycle;
``(K) natural hazards, including tsunami, drought, flood,
and fire;
``(L) coral reef bleaching; and
``(M) alteration of ecological communities, including at
the ecosystem or watershed levels,
``(2) Updates.--The Secretary shall update such assessments
at least once every 5 years.
``(3) Regional coastal and ocean assessments.--In preparing
the regional coastal assessments, the Secretary shall take
into account the information and assessments being developed
pursuant to the Global Change Research Program. The regional
assessments shall include an evaluation of--
``(A) physical, biological, and ecological impacts, such as
coastal erosion, flooding and loss of estuarine habitat,
saltwater intrusion of aquifers and saltwater encroachment,
impacts on food web distribution, species migration, species
abundance, and changes in marine pathogens and diseases;
``(B) social impacts associated with threats to and
potential losses of housing, communities, and infrastructure;
and
``(C) economic impacts on local, State, and regional
economies, including the impact on abundance or distribution
of economically important living marine resources.
``(b) Coastal and Ocean Adaptation Plan.--The Secretary
shall, within 3 years after the date of enactment of the
Climate Change Adaptation Act, submit to the Congress a
national coastal and ocean adaptation plan, composed of
individual regional adaptation plans that recommend targets
and strategies to address coastal and ocean impacts
associated with climate change, ocean acidification, sea
level rise, and climate variability. The plan shall be
developed with the participation of other Federal, State, and
local government agencies that will be critical in the
implementation of the plan at the State and local levels and
shall take into account recommendations of the National
Science Board in its January 12, 2007, report entitled
Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane
Research Initiative and other relevant studies, and not
duplicate existing Federal and State hazard planning
requirements. The Plan shall recommend both short- and long-
term adaptation strategies and shall include recommendations
regarding--
``(1) Federal flood insurance program modifications;
``(2) areas that have been identified as high risk through
mapping and assessment;
``(3) mitigation incentives such as rolling easements,
strategic retreat, State or Federal acquisition in fee simple
or other interest in land, construction standards, and
zoning;
``(4) land and property owner education;
``(5) economic planning for small communities dependent
upon affected coastal and ocean resources, including
fisheries;
``(6) coastal hazards protocols to reduce the risk of
damage to lives and property, and a process for evaluating
the implementation of such protocols;
``(7) strategies to address impacts on the most vulnerable
living marine resources;
``(8) proposals to integrate measures into the actions and
policies of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration;
``(9) a plan for additional research and development of
technologies and capabilities to address such impacts;
``(10) plans to pursue bilateral and multilateral
agreements necessary to effectively address such impacts;
``(11) partnerships with States and nongovernmental
organizations;
``(12) methods to mitigate the impacts identified,
including habitat restoration measures; and
``(12) funding requirements and mechanisms.
``(c) Technical Planning Assistance.--The Secretary,
through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
shall establish a coordinated program to provide technical
planning assistance and products to coastal States and local
governments as they develop and implement adaptation or
mitigation strategies and plans. Products, information, tools
and technical expertise generated from the development of the
regional coastal and ocean assessments and the coastal and
ocean adaptation plans will be made available to coastal
States for the purposes of developing their own State and
local plans.
``(d) Coastal and Ocean Adaptation Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide grants of
financial assistance to coastal States with federally
approved coastal zone management programs to develop and
begin implementing coastal and ocean adaptation programs.
``(2) Allocation of funds.--The Secretary shall distribute
grant funds under paragraph (1) among coastal States in
accordance with the formula established under section 306(c)
of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
1455(c)), adjusted in consultation with the States as
necessary to provide assistance to particularly vulnerable
coastlines.
``(3) Matching requirement.--The Secretary shall make
grants under paragraph (1) on a matching basis under which
the ratio of Federal to State funds is--
``(A) 4 to 1 in the first fiscal year;
``(B) 2.3 to 1 in the second fiscal year;
``(C) 2 to 1 in the third fiscal year; and
``(D) 1 to 1 thereafter.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2009 through 2013 to carry out the provisions of this
section, of which $25,000,000 shall be available for grants
under subsection (d) for each of such fiscal years. Not more
than 75 percent of the amount available for grants under
subsection (d) for any fiscal year may be used for grants
relating to coastal impacts.''.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 378--RECOGNIZING AND THANKING ALL MILITARY FAMILIES
FOR THE TREMENDOUS SACRIFICES AND CONTRIBUTIONS THEY HAVE MADE TO THE
NATION
Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Isakson, Mr. Lott, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Shelby, Ms. Mikulski,
Mr. Roberts, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Casey, Mr.
Obama, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Coleman,
Mr. Graham, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Nelson of
Florida, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Craig, Mr. Martinez, Mr. McCain,
Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Gregg, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Sununu, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Baucus) submitted the
following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 378
Whereas there are currently more than 3,000,000 immediate
family members of individuals serving in the Armed Forces;
Whereas these family members bear the most immediate and
profound burden of the absence of their loved ones during the
performance of their duties;
Whereas these families have been the bedrock of support and
strength for our Nation's Armed Forces for over 230 years;
Whereas military families serve this country with an equal
amount of dedication and patriotism as their loved ones who
are fighting for the United States;
Whereas the families of servicemembers--whether in the
regular components of the
[[Page 31380]]
Armed Forces, the Reserve, or the National Guard--feel
enormous amounts of pride, love, and trepidation during the
absence of their loved ones;
Whereas it is essential that the Nation recognize the
contributions made by military families and celebrate their
strength; and
Whereas the Senate stands in humble respect of the
sacrifice made by our military families: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) honors the families of members of the Armed Forces and
recognizes that they too share in the burden of protecting
the Nation;
(2) urges the people of the United States to join with the
Senate in thanking military families for their tremendous
sacrifice on behalf of the Nation; and
(3) recognizes with great appreciation the contributions
made by military families in providing the essential personal
support that our Nation's warriors need.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 379--DESIGNATING THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2007, AS
``FEED AMERICA THURSDAY''
Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Bennett) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 379
Whereas Thanksgiving Day celebrates the spirit of selfless
giving and an appreciation for family and friends;
Whereas the spirit of Thanksgiving Day is a virtue upon
which the Nation was founded;
Whereas, according to the Department of Agriculture,
roughly 35,000,000 people in the United States, including
12,000,000 children, continue to live in households that do
not have an adequate supply of food; and
Whereas selfless sacrifice breeds a genuine spirit of
thanksgiving, both affirming and restoring fundamental
principles in our society: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates Thursday, November 15, 2007, as ``Feed
America Thursday''; and
(2) encourages the people of the United States to sacrifice
2 meals on Thursday, November 15, 2007, and to donate the
money that they would have spent on food to a religious or
charitable organization of their choice for the purpose of
feeding the hungry.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 380--RECOGNIZING HOSTELLING INTERNATIONAL USA FOR 75
YEARS OF SERVICE TO INTERCULTURAL UNDERSTANDING AND TO YOUTH TRAVEL
Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. Inouye) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 380
Whereas travel promotes awareness and knowledge of peoples,
places, and cultures;
Whereas hostelling is educational travel, local and global,
using hostels and other programs to facilitate interaction
among travelers and with local communities;
Whereas hostels are simple, safe, shared accommodations
that promote community and cooperation among users and
introduce young people of limited means to travel;
Whereas Hostelling International USA (HI-USA) is a
nonprofit educational organization established in 1934 as
American Youth Hostels to promote hostelling in the United
States;
Whereas, since its founding, HI-USA has provided in its
hostels more than 22,000,000 overnight stays to visitors from
the United States and more than 150 countries worldwide;
Whereas today HI-USA has a network of 70 hostels in areas
of cultural, historic, and recreational interest, often in
partnership with public, private, and other nonprofit
organizations, that annually hosts nearly 1,000,000
overnights stays by both domestic and foreign travelers;
Whereas HI-USA today offers programs through its hostels
and local chapters that promote the appreciation of local
culture and environment, while facilitating the discovery of
both world and self, to more than 65,000 participants
annually;
Whereas HI-USA has made a unique and notable contribution
to intercultural understanding in the United States and
worldwide, especially among youth: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates Hostelling International USA on its 75
years of service; and
(2) commends Hostelling International USA for its
contributions to intercultural exchange and its leadership in
the field of youth travel.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 381--REMEMBERING AND COMMEMORATING THE LIVES AND WORK
OF MARYKNOLL SISTERS MAURA CLARKE AND ITA FORD, URSULINE SISTER DOROTHY
KAZEL, AND CLEVELAND LAY MISSION TEAM MEMBER JEAN DONOVAN, WHO WERE
EXECUTED BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF EL SALVADOR ON DECEMBER 2,
1980
Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Casey,
Mr. Menendez, and Mr. Durbin) submitted the followint resolution; which
was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 381
Whereas on December 2, 1980, four churchwomen from the
United States, Maryknoll Sisters Maura Clarke and Ita Ford,
Ursuline Sister Dorothy Kazel, and Cleveland Lay Mission Team
Member Jean Donovan, were violated and executed by members of
the National Guard of El Salvador;
Whereas in 1980, Maryknoll Sisters Maura Clarke and Ita
Ford were working in the parish of the Church of San Juan
Bautista in Chalatenango, El Salvador, providing food,
transportation, and other assistance to refugees, and
Ursuline Sister Dorothy Kazel and Cleveland Lay Mission Team
Member Jean Donovan were working in the parish of the Church
of the Immaculate Conception in La Libertad, El Salvador,
providing assistance and support to refugees and other
victims of violence;
Whereas these four churchwomen from the United States
dedicated their lives to working with the poor of El
Salvador, especially women and children left homeless,
displaced, and destitute by the civil war in El Salvador;
Whereas these four churchwomen from the United States were
among the more than 70,000 civilians who were murdered during
the course of the civil war in El Salvador;
Whereas on May 23 and May 24, 1984, five members of the
National Guard of El Salvador, Subsergeant Luis Antonio
Colindres Aleman, Daniel Canales Ramirez, Carlos Joaquin
Contreras Palacios, Francisco Orlando Contreras Recinos, and
Jose Roberto Moreno Canjura, were found guilty by the El
Salvador courts of the executions of these four churchwomen
from the United States and were sentenced to 30 years in
prison, marking the first time in El Salvador history in
which a member of the Armed Forces of El Salvador was
convicted of murder by an El Salvador judge;
Whereas the United Nations Commission on the Truth for El
Salvador was established under the terms of the historic
January 1992 Peace Accords that ended 12 years of civil war
in El Salvador and was charged to investigate and report to
the El Salvador people on human rights crimes committed by
all sides during the course of the civil war;
Whereas in March 1993, the United Nations Commission on the
Truth for El Salvador found that the execution of these four
churchwomen from the United States was planned, that
Subsergeant Luis Antonio Colindres Aleman carried out orders
from a superior to execute them, that then Colonel Carlos
Eugenio Vides Casanova, then Director-General of the National
Guard and his cousin, Lieutenant Colonel Oscar Edgardo
Casanova Vejar, then Commander of the Zacatecoluca military
detachment where the murders were committed, and other
military personnel knew that members of the National Guard
had committed the murders pursuant to orders of a superior,
and that the subsequent coverup of the facts adversely
affected the judicial investigation into the murders of the
churchwomen;
Whereas the United Nations Commission on the Truth for El
Salvador determined that General Jose Guillermo Garcia, then
Minister of Defense, made no serious effort to conduct a
thorough investigation of responsibility for the murders of
these four churchwomen from the United States;
Whereas the families of these four churchwomen from the
United States continue their efforts to determine the full
truth surrounding the murders of their loved ones, appreciate
the cooperation of United States Government agencies in
disclosing and providing documents relevant to the murders of
the churchwomen, and pursue requests to release to the family
members the few remaining undisclosed documents and reports
pertaining to the case;
Whereas the families of these four churchwomen from the
United States appreciate the ability of those harmed by
violence to bring suit against El Salvador military officers
in United States courts under the Torture Victim Protection
Act of 1991 (28 U.S.C. 1350 note);
Whereas the lives of these four churchwomen from the United
States have, for the past 27 years, served as inspiration for
and continue to inspire Salvadorans, Americans, and people
throughout the world to answer the call to service and to
pursue lives dedicated to addressing the needs and
aspirations of the poor, the vulnerable, and the
disadvantaged, especially among women and children;
Whereas the lives of these four churchwomen from the United
States have also inspired numerous books, plays, films,
music, religious events, and cultural events;
Whereas schools, libraries, research centers, spiritual
centers, health clinics, women's and children's programs in
the United States and in El Salvador have been named
[[Page 31381]]
after or dedicated to Sisters Maura Clarke, Ita Ford, Dorothy
Kazel, and lay missionary Jean Donovan;
Whereas the Maryknoll Sisters, headquartered in Ossining,
New York, the Ursuline Sisters, headquartered in Cleveland,
Ohio, numerous religious task forces in the United States,
and the Salvadoran and international religious communities
based in El Salvador annually commemorate the lives and
martyrdom of these four churchwomen from the United States;
Whereas the historic January 1992 Peace Accords ended 12
years of civil war in El Salvador and have allowed the
Government and the people of El Salvador to achieve
significant progress in creating and strengthening
democratic, political, economic, and social institutions in
El Salvador; and
Whereas December 2, 2007, marks the 27th anniversary of the
deaths of these four spiritual, courageous, and generous
churchwomen from the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) remembers and commemorates the lives and work of
Sisters Maura Clarke, Ita Ford, and Dorothy Kazel and lay
missionary Jean Donovan;
(2) extends sympathy and support for the families, friends,
and religious communities of these four churchwomen from the
United States;
(3) continues to find inspiration in the lives and work of
these four churchwomen from the United States;
(4) calls upon the people of the United States and
religious congregations to participate in local, national,
and international events commemorating the 27th anniversary
of the martyrdom of these four churchwomen from the United
States;
(5) recognizes that while progress has been made in El
Salvador during the post-civil war period, the work begun by
these four churchwomen from the United States remains
unfinished and social and economic hardships persist among
many sectors of El Salvador society; and
(6) calls upon the President, the Secretary of State, the
Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development, and the heads of other United States Government
agencies to continue to support and collaborate with the
Government of El Salvador and with private sector,
nongovernmental, regional, international, and religious
organizations in their efforts to reduce poverty and hunger
and to promote educational opportunity, health care, and
social equity for the people of El Salvador.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 382--SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF WORLD
DIABETES DAY
Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr.
Coleman) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and
agreed to:
S. Res. 382
Whereas the World Health Organization and the International
Diabetes Federation established World Diabetes Day in 1991
with the aim of coordinating diabetes advocacy worldwide;
Whereas World Diabetes Day is celebrated annually on
November 14;
Whereas, on December 20, 2006, the General Assembly of the
United Nations passed a landmark resolution recognizing
diabetes as a chronic, debilitating, and costly disease;
Whereas the resolution designates World Diabetes Day as a
United Nations Day to be observed every year starting in 2007
in order to raise global awareness of diabetes;
Whereas the theme of the 2007 United Nations World Diabetes
Day campaign focuses on raising awareness of diabetes in
children and adolescents, who face unique challenges when
diagnosed with diabetes;
Whereas the United Nations campaign aims, among other
objectives, to firmly establish the message that no child
should die of diabetes;
Whereas the global diabetes epidemic has devastating
effects on families, societies, and national economies;
Whereas diabetes is the 4th leading cause of death by
disease in the world, and is the 6th leading cause of death
in the United States;
Whereas diabetes is a leading cause of blindness, kidney
failure, amputation, heart attack, and stroke;
Whereas in almost every country the incidence of diabetes
is increasing, growing from an estimated 30,000,000 people
worldwide in 1985 to an estimated 245,000,000 people in 2007,
and to 380,000,000 by 2025, as reported by the International
Diabetes Federation;
Whereas diabetes is one of the most common chronic
childhood diseases;
Whereas diabetes can strike children at any age, and when
diagnosed in young people the risk of developing life-
threatening complications at an early age increases and life
expectancy is shortened by, on average, 10 to 20 years;
Whereas new figures from the International Diabetes
Federation's Diabetes Atlas suggest that more than 70,000
children develop type 1 diabetes each year and 440,000
children worldwide under the age of 14 now live with type 1
diabetes;
Whereas recent data indicate that 1 out of every 3 children
born in the United States will develop diabetes during their
lifetime, including 1 out of every 2 children from ethnic
minority groups;
Whereas in low- and middle-income countries, many children
with diabetes die because they are diagnosed late or
misdiagnosed or because insulin is unaffordable, unavailable,
or in short supply;
Whereas the incidence of type 2 diabetes, which was
previously rare in children, is rising at alarming rates,
with more than 200 children a day developing this form of
diabetes;
Whereas obesity is a major contributor to type 2 diabetes;
Whereas according to the International Obesity Task Force
of the International Association for the Study of Obesity,
155,000,000 school-age children worldwide are overweight,
representing at least 1 out of every 10 school-age children;
Whereas at least 30,000,000 of those overweight children
are classified as obese, accounting for at least 2 percent of
the world's children between the ages of 5 and 17 years of
age;
Whereas research has shown conclusively that type 2
diabetes can be prevented or significantly delayed through
healthy weight maintenance and regular physical activity;
Whereas adopting a lifestyle high in physical activity and
adopting a low-sugar, low-fat diet can successfully prevent
the onset of obesity and diabetes among school-age children;
Whereas diabetes is costly, with the world estimated to
spend at least $232,000,000,000 in 2007 and over
$302,500,000,000 by 2025 to treat and prevent diabetes and
its complications;
Whereas world treatment costs for diabetes are growing more
quickly than the world population;
Whereas diabetes threatens to subvert global economic
advancement by both straining government budgets worldwide
(with the cost of diabetes-related disability payments,
pensions, social and medical service costs, and lost revenue)
and burdening private health insurers and employers with
spiraling health care costs;
Whereas by 2025 the largest increases in diabetes
prevalence will take place in developing countries, whose
economies are less able to support increased expenditures to
provide for those with the disease and engage in effective
prevention efforts; and
Whereas the economic impact of diabetes threatens to
undermine the achievement of the United Nation's Millennium
Development Goals for developing countries: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the Senate supports the goals and ideals of
World Diabetes Day.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 3654. Mr. SCHUMER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr. Harkin (for
himself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley) to the
bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3655. Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Tester, Mr.
Craig, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Barrasso) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr.
Harkin (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Baucus, and Mr.
Grassley) to the bill H.R. 2419, supra; which was ordered to
lie on the table.
SA 3656. Mr. PRYOR (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R.
2419, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3657. Mr. PRYOR (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R.
2419, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3658. Mr. DURBIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2419, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3659. Mr. NELSON, of Nebraska submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr.
Harkin (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Baucus, and Mr.
Grassley) to the bill H.R. 2419, supra; which was ordered to
lie on the table.
SA 3660. Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Crapo) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R.
2419, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3661. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2419, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3662. Mr. FEINGOLD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2419, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3663. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr. Harkin (for
himself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley) to the
bill H.R. 2419, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
[[Page 31382]]
SA 3664. Mrs. HUTCHISON submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed to amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr. Harkin (for
himself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley) to the
bill H.R. 2419, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3665. Mr. ENSIGN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2419, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3666. Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr.
Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley) to the bill H.R.
2419, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3667. Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Johnson,
Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Feingold, and Mr.
Tester) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley) to the bill H.R.
2419, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3668. Mr. BAUCUS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2419, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3669. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr. Harkin (for
himself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley) to the
bill H.R. 2419, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3670. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2419, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3671. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2419, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3672. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr. Harkin (for
himself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley) to the
bill H.R. 2419, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3673. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2419, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3674. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2419, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3675. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr. Harkin (for
himself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley) to the
bill H.R. 2419, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3676. Mr. DURBIN (for Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and
Mrs. Hutchison)) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 597, to
extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer research
for 4 years .
SA 3677. Mr. DURBIN (for Mr. Menendez) proposed an
amendment to the resolution S. Res. 299, recognizing the
religious and historical significance of the festival of
Diwali.
SA 3678. Mr. DURBIN (for Mrs. Feinstein) proposed an
amendment to the bill S. 597, to extend the special postage
stamp for breast cancer research for 4 years.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 3654. Mr. SCHUMER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley) to the bill H.R. 2419, to
provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal
year 2012, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
On page 272, after line 24, add the following:
SEC. 19__ SHARE OF RISK.
(a) In General.--Section 508(k)(3) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(3)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``require the reinsured'' and inserting the
following: ``require--
``(A) the reinsured'';
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B)(i) the cumulative underwriting gain or loss, and the
associated premium and losses with such amount, calculated
under any reinsurance agreement (except livestock) ceded to
the Corporation by each approved insurance provider to be not
less than 12.5 percent; and
``(ii) the Corporation to pay a ceding commission to
reinsured companies of 2 percent of the premium used to
define the loss ratio for the book of business of the
approved insurance provider that is described in clause
(i).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 516(a)(2) of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1516(a)(2)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Costs associated with the ceding commissions
described in section 508(k)(3)(B)(ii).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on June 30, 2008.
On page 273, lines 12 and 13, strike ``2 percentage
points'' and insert ``4.0 percentage points''.
Beginning on page 445, strike line 18 and all that follows
through page 446, line 7, and insert the following:
``(5) The farmland protection program under subchapter B of
chapter 2, using, to the maximum extent practicable,
$110,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
``(6) The grassland reserve program under chapter C of
chapter 2, using, to the maximum extent practicable,
$300,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2012.
``(7) The environmental quality incentives program under
chapter 4, using, to the maximum extent practicable--
``(A) $1,345,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
``(B) $1,350,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
``(C) $1,385,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
``(D) $1,420,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 and
2012.''.
______
SA 3655. Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Tester, Mr. Craig,
Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Barrasso) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley) to the bill H.R. 2419, to
provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal
year 2012, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
On page 972, strike line 2 and insert the following:
on reproductive fitness and related measures.
``(56) Brucellosis control and eradication.--Research and
extension grants may be made available--
``(A) for the conduct of research relating to the
development of vaccines and vaccine delivery systems to
effectively control and eliminate brucellosis in wildlife;
and
``(B) to assist with the controlling of the spread of
brucellosis from wildlife to domestic animals in the greater
Yellowstone area.''
______
SA 3656. Mr. PRYOR (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2419, to
provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal
year 2012, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
On page 1192, strike line 13 and insert the following:
``SEC. 9023. REPORT ON THE GROWTH POTENTIAL FOR CELLULOSIC
MATERIAL.
``Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a
comprehensive report that, on a State-by-State basis--
``(1) identifies the range of cellulosic feedstock
materials that can be grown and are viable candidates for
renewable fuel production;
``(2) estimates the acreage available for growing the
cellulosic feedstock materials identified under paragraph
(1);
``(3) estimates the quantity of available energy per acre
for each cellulosic feedstock material identified under
paragraph (1);
``(4) calculates the development potential for growing
cellulosic feedstock materials, based on--
``(A) the range of cellulosic materials available for
growth;
``(B) soil quality;
``(C) climate variables;
``(D) the quality and availability of water;
``(E) agriculture systems that are in place as of the date
of enactment of this Act;
``(F) available acreage; and
``(G) other relevant factors identified by the Secretary;
and
``(5) rates the development potential for growing
cellulosic feedstock material, with the ratings displayed on
maps of the United States that indicate the development
potential of each State, as calculated by the Secretary under
paragraph (4).
``SEC. 9024. FURTURE FARMSTEADS PROGRAM.
______
SA 3657. Mr. PRYOR (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2419, to
provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal
year 2012, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
On page 1362, between lines 19 and 20, insert the
following:
SEC. 11072. REGULATIONS TO IMPROVE MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT
OF CERTAIN REGULATED ARTICLES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate
regulations--
(1) to implement, as appropriate, each issue identified in
the document entitled ``Lessons Learned and Revisions under
Consideration for APHIS' Biotechnology Framework'', dated
October 4, 2007; and
[[Page 31383]]
(2) to improve the management and oversight of articles
regulated under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et
seq.).
(b) Inclusions.--In promulgating regulations under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall include provisions that
are designed to enhance--
(1) the quality and completeness of records;
(2) the availability of representative samples;
(3) the maintenance of identity and control in the event of
an unauthorized release;
(4) corrective actions in the event of an unauthorized
release;
(5) protocols for conducting molecular forensics;
(6) clarity in contractual agreements;
(7) the use of the latest scientific techniques for
isolation and confinement;
(8) standards for quality management systems and effective
research (including laboratory, greenhouse, and field
research); and
(9) the design of electronic permits to store documents and
other information relating to the permit and notification
processes.
(c) Consideration.--In promulgating regulations under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider--
(1) establishing--
(A) a level of potential risk presented by each regulated
article (including unintended release);
(B) a means to identify regulated articles (including the
retention of seed samples); and
(C) scientifically valid and proven isolation and
containment distances; and
(2) requiring permit holders--
(A) to maintain a positive chain of custody;
(B) to provide for the maintenance of records;
(C) to provide for the accounting of material;
(D) to conduct periodic audits;
(E) to establish an appropriate training program;
(F) to provide contingency and corrective action plans; and
(G) to submit reports as the Secretary considers to be
appropriate.
______
SA 3658. Mr. DURBIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1362, between lines 19 and 20, insert the
following:
SEC. 11072. INVASIVE SPECIES REVOLVING LOAN FUND.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Authorized equipment.--
(A) In general.--The term ``authorized equipment'' means
any equipment necessary for the management of forest land.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``authorized
equipment''includes--
(i) cherry pickers;
(ii) equipment necessary for--
(I) the construction of staging and marshalling areas;
(II) the planting of trees; and
(III) the surveying of forest land;
(iii) vehicles capable of transporting harvested trees;
(iv) wood chippers; and
(v) any other appropriate equipment, as determined by the
Secretary.
(2) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Invasive Species
Revolving Loan Fund established by subsection (b).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture, acting through the Deputy Chief of the State
and Private Forestry organization.
(b) Establishment of Fund.--There is established in the
Treasury of the United States a revolving fund, to be known
as the ``Invasive Species Revolving Loan Fund'', consisting
of such amounts as are appropriated to the Fund under
subsection (f).
(c) Expenditures From Fund.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), on request by
the Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer
from the Fund to the Secretary such amounts as the Secretary
determines are necessary to provide loans under subsection
(e).
(2) Administrative expenses.--An amount not exceeding 10
percent of the amounts in the Fund shall be available for
each fiscal year to pay the administrative expenses necessary
to carry out this section.
(d) Transfers of Amounts.--
(1) In general.--The amounts required to be transferred to
the Fund under this section shall be transferred at least
monthly from the general fund of the Treasury to the Fund on
the basis of estimates made by the Secretary of the Treasury.
(2) Adjustments.--Proper adjustment shall be made in
amounts subsequently transferred to the extent prior
estimates were in excess of or less than the amounts required
to be transferred.
(e) Uses of Fund.--
(1) Loans.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall use amounts in the
Fund to provide loans to eligible units of local government
to finance purchases of authorized equipment to monitor,
remove, dispose of, and replace infested trees that are
located--
(i) on land under the jurisdiction of the eligible units of
local government; and
(ii) within the borders of quarantine areas infested by
invasive species.
(B) Maximum amount.--The maximum amount of a loan that may
be provided by the Secretary to an eligible unit of local
government under this subsection shall be the lesser of--
(i) the amount that the eligible unit of local government
has appropriated--
(I) to finance purchases of authorized equipment to
monitor, remove, dispose of, and replace infested trees that
are located--
(aa) on land under the jurisdiction of the eligible unit of
local government; and
(bb) within the borders of a quarantine area infested by
invasive species; and
(II) to enter into contracts with appropriate individuals
and entities to monitor, remove, dispose of, and replace
infested trees that are located in each area described in
subclause (I); or
(ii) $5,000,000.
(C) Interest rate.--The interest rate on any loan made by
the Secretary under this paragraph shall be a rate equal to 2
percent.
(D) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date on
which an eligible unit of local government receives a loan
provided by the Secretary under subparagraph (A), the
eligible unit of local government shall submit to the
Secretary a report that describes each purchase made by the
eligible unit of local government using assistance provided
through the loan.
(2) Loan repayment schedule.--
(A) In general.--To be eligible to receive a loan from the
Secretary under paragraph (1), in accordance with each
requirement described in subparagraph (B), an eligible unit
of local government shall enter into an agreement with the
Secretary to establish a loan repayment schedule relating to
the repayment of the loan.
(B) Requirements relating to loan repayment schedule.--A
loan repayment schedule established under subparagraph (A)
shall require the eligible unit of local government--
(i) to repay to the Secretary of the Treasury, not later
than 1 year after the date on which the eligible unit of
local government receives a loan under paragraph (1), and
semiannually thereafter, an amount equal to the quotient
obtained by dividing--
(I) the principal amount of the loan (including interest);
by
(II) the total quantity of payments that the eligible unit
of local government is required to make during the repayment
period of the loan; and
(ii) not later than 20 years after the date on which the
eligible unit of local government receives a loan under
paragraph (1), to complete repayment to the Secretary of the
Treasury of the loan made under this section (including
interest).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Fund such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section.
SEC. 11073. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS RELATING TO INVASIVE
SPECIES PREVENTION ACTIVITIES.
Any cooperative agreement entered into after the date of
enactment of this Act between the Secretary and a State
relating to the prevention of invasive species infestation
shall allow the State to provide any cost-sharing assistance
or financing mechanism provided to the State under the
cooperative agreement to a unit of local government of the
State that--
(1) is engaged in any activity relating to the prevention
of invasive species infestation; and
(2) is capable of documenting each invasive species
infestation prevention activity generally carried out by--
(A) the Department of Agriculture; or
(B) the State department of agriculture that has
jurisdiction over the unit of local government.
______
SA 3659. Mr. NELSON of Nebraska submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley) to the bill H.R. 2419, to
provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal
year 2012, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
On page 895, strike lines 4 through 7 and insert the
following:
Section 1408 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3123) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (g)(1), by striking ``$350,000'' and
inserting ``$500,000''; and
(B) in subsection (h), by striking ``2007'' and inserting
``2012''.
______
SA 3660. Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Crapo) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2419, to
provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal
year 2012, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
At the appropriate place in title III, insert the
following:
[[Page 31384]]
SEC. 3__. AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY.
(a) In General.--Section 902(1) of the Trade Sanctions
Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7201(1))
is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Agricultural supply.--The term `agricultural supply'
includes--
``(A) agricultural commodities; and
``(B)(i) agriculture-related processing equipment;
``(ii) agriculture-related machinery; and
``(iii) other capital goods related to the storage or
handling of agricultural commodities or products.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--The Trade Sanctions Reform and
Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``agricultural commodities'' each place it
appears and inserting ``agricultural supplies'';
(2) in section 904(2), by striking ``agricultural
commodity'' and inserting ``agricultural supply''; and
(3) in section 910(a), in the subsection heading, by
striking ``Agricultural Commodities'' and inserting
``Agricultural Supplies''.
SEC. 3__. CLARIFICATION OF PAYMENT TERMS UNDER TSREEA.
Section 908(b)(1) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7207(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively, and indenting appropriately;
(2) striking ``(1) In general.--No United States person''
and inserting the following:
``(1) Prohibition.--
``(A) In general.--No United States person''; and
(3) in the undesignated matter following clause (ii) (as
redesignated by paragraph (1)), by striking ``Nothing in this
paragraph'' and inserting the following:
``(B) Definition of payment of cash in advance.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of
this paragraph, the term `payment of cash in advance' means
only that payment must be received by the seller of an
agricultural supply to Cuba or any person in Cuba before
surrendering physical possession of the agricultural supply.
``(C) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
publish in the Federal Register a description of the contents
of this section as a clarification of the regulations of the
Secretary regarding sales under this title to Cuba.
``(D) Clarification.--Nothing in this paragraph''.
SEC. 3__. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO CERTAIN TRAVEL-RELATED
TRANSACTIONS WITH CUBA.
Section 910 of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7208) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(c) General License Authority for Travel-Related
Expenditures in Cuba by Persons Engaging in TSREEA-Authorized
Sales and Marketing Activities.--
``(1) Definition of sales and marketing activity.--
``(A) In general.--In this subsection, the term `sales and
marketing activity' means any activity with respect to travel
to, from, or within Cuba that is undertaken by United States
persons--
``(i) to explore the market in Cuba for products authorized
under this title; or
``(ii) to engage in sales activities with respect to such
products.
``(B) Inclusion.--The term `sales and marketing activity'
includes exhibiting, negotiating, marketing, surveying the
market, and delivering and servicing products authorized
under this title.
``(2) Authorization.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
authorize under a general license the travel-related
transactions listed in paragraph (c) of section 515.560 of
title 31, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on June
1, 2007), for travel to, from, or within Cuba in connection
with sales and marketing activities involving products
approved for sale under this title.
``(3) Authorized persons.--Persons authorized to travel to
Cuba under paragraph (2) shall include--
``(A) producers of products authorized under this title;
``(B) distributors of such products; and
``(C) representatives of trade organizations that promote
the interests of producers and distributors of such products.
``(4) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary to
carry out this subsection.''.
SEC. 3__. AUTHORIZATION OF DIRECT TRANSFERS BETWEEN CUBAN AND
UNITED STATES FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of
2000 is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 911 (22 U.S.C. 7201 note;
Public Law 106-387) as section 912; and
(2) by inserting after section 910 (22 U.S.C. 7209) the
following:
``SEC. 911. AUTHORIZATION OF DIRECT TRANSFERS BETWEEN CUBAN
AND UNITED STATES FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including
regulations), the President shall not restrict direct
transfers from Cuban to United States financial institutions
executed in payment for products authorized by this Act.''.
SEC. 3__. SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS OF
TSREEA PRODUCTS SHOULD BE ISSUED VISAS TO ENTER
THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Secretary of State should issue visas for temporary entry
into the United States of Cuban nationals who demonstrate a
full itinerary of purchasing activities relating to the Trade
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22
U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) while in the United States.
(b) Periodic Reports.--Not later than 45 days after the
date of enactment of this Act and every 90 days thereafter,
the Secretary of State shall submit to the Committees on
Agriculture, Foreign Affairs, and Ways and Means of the House
of Representatives and the Committees on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry, Finance, and Foreign Relations of
the Senate a report that describes any actions of the
Secretary relating to this section, including--
(1) a full description of each application received from a
Cuban national to travel to the United States to engage in
purchasing activities described in subsection (a); and
(2) a description of the disposition of each such
application.
______
SA 3661. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows;
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC.__. PREVENTING CHILDHOOD OBESITY.
(a) Federal Leadership Commission to Prevent Childhood
Obesity.--Part Q of title III of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 280h et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 399Z-1. FEDERAL LEADERSHIP COMMISSION TO PREVENT
CHILDHOOD OBESITY.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall ensure that the
Federal Government coordinates efforts to develop, implement,
and enforce policies that promote messages and activities
designed to prevent obesity among children and youth.
``(b) Establishment of Leadership Commission.--The
Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, shall establish within the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention a Federal
Leadership Commission to Prevent Childhood Obesity (referred
to in this section as the `Commission') to assess and make
recommendations for Federal departmental policies, programs,
and messages relating to the prevention of childhood obesity.
The Director shall serve as the chairperson of the
Commission.
``(c) Membership.--The Commission shall include
representatives of offices and agencies within--
``(1) the Department of Health and Human Services;
``(2) the Department of Agriculture;
``(3) the Department of Commerce;
``(4) the Department of Education;
``(5) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
``(6) the Department of the Interior;
``(7) the Department of Labor;
``(8) the Department of Transportation;
``(9) the Federal Trade Commission; and
``(10) other Federal entities as determined appropriate by
the Secretary.
``(d) Duties.--The Commission shall--
``(1) serve as a centralized mechanism to coordinate
activities related to obesity prevention across all Federal
departments and agencies;
``(2) establish specific goals for obesity prevention, and
determine accountability for reaching these goals, within and
across Federal departments and agencies;
``(3) review evaluation and economic data relating to the
impact of Federal interventions on the prevention of
childhood obesity;
``(4) provide a description of evidence-based best
practices, model programs, effective guidelines, and other
strategies for preventing childhood obesity;
``(5) make recommendations to improve Federal efforts
relating to obesity prevention and to ensure Federal efforts
are consistent with available standards and evidence; and
``(6) monitor Federal progress in meeting specific obesity
prevention goals.
``(e) Study; Summit; Guidelines.--
``(1) Study.--The Government Accountability Office shall--
``(A) conduct a study to assess the effect of Federal
nutrition assistance programs and agricultural policies on
the prevention of childhood obesity, and prepare a report on
the results of such study that shall include a description
and evaluation of the content and impact of Federal
agriculture subsidy
[[Page 31385]]
and commodity programs and policies as such relate to Federal
nutrition programs;
``(B) make recommendations to guide or revise Federal
policies for ensuring access to nutritional foods in Federal
nutrition assistance programs; and
``(C) complete the activities provided for under this
section not later than 18 months after the date of enactment
of this section.
``(2) Institute of medicine study.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall request
that the Institute of Medicine (or similar organization)
conduct a study and make recommendations on guidelines for
nutritional food and physical activity advertising and
marketing to prevent childhood obesity. In conducting such
study the Institute of Medicine shall--
``(i) evaluate children's advertising and marketing
guidelines and evidence-based literature relating to the
impact of advertising on nutritional foods and physical
activity in children and youth; and
``(ii) make recommendations on national guidelines for
advertising and marketing practices relating to children and
youth that--
``(I) reduce the exposure of children and youth to
advertising and marketing of foods of poor or minimal
nutritional value and practices that promote sedentary
behavior; and
``(11) increase the number of media messages that promote
physical activity and sound nutrition.
``(B) Guidelines.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Institute of Medicine shall
submit to the Commission the final report concerning the
results of the study, and making the recommendations,
required under this paragraph.
``(3) National summit.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which the report under paragraph (2)(B) is submitted, the
Commission shall convene a National Summit to Implement Food
and Physical Activity Advertising and Marketing Guidelines to
Prevent Childhood Obesity (referred to in this section as the
`Summit').
``(B) Collaborative effort.--The Summit shall be a
collaborative effort and include representatives from--
``(i) education and child development groups;
``(ii) public health and behavioral science groups;
``(iii) child advocacy and health care provider groups; and
``(iv) advertising and marketing industry.
``(C) Activities.--The participants in the Summit shall
develop a 5-year plan for implementing the national
guidelines recommended by the Institute of Medicine in the
report submitted under paragraph (2)(B).
``(D) Evaluation and Reports.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this section, and biannually
thereafter, the Commission shall evaluate and submit a report
to Congress on the efforts of the Federal Government to
implement the recommendations made by the Institute of
Medicine in the report under paragraph (2)(B) that shall
include a detailed description of the plan of the Secretary
to implement such recommendations.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, such
sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2010.
``(g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
definitions contained in section 401 of the Prevention of
Childhood Obesity Act shall apply.''.
(b) Federal Trade Commission and Marketing to Children and
Youth.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 18 of the Federal
Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a), the Federal Trade
Commission is authorized to promulgate regulations and
monitor compliance with the guidelines for advertising and
marketing of nutritional foods and physical activity directed
at children and youth, as recommended by the National Summit
to Implement Food and Physical Activity Advertising and
Marketing Guidelines to Prevent Childhood Obesity (as
established under section 399Z-1(e)(3) of the Public Health
Service Act).
(2) Fines.--Notwithstanding section 18 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a), the Federal Trade Commission
may assess fines on advertisers or network and media groups
that fail to comply with the guidelines described in
paragraph (1).
______
SA 3662. Mr. FEINGOLD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of title IX, add the following:
SEC. 9___. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COOPERATIVE REGIONAL
RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS ON
BIOFUELS AND BIOPRODUCTS.
It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary shall
continue to allow and support efforts of regional consortiums
of public institutions, including land grant universities and
State departments of agriculture, to jointly support the
bioeconomy through research, extension, and education
activities, including--
(1) expanding the use of biomass;
(2) improving the efficiency and sustainability of
bioenergy;
(3) supporting local ownership in the bioeconomy;
(4) communicating about the bioeconomy;
(5) facilitating information sharing; and
(6) assisting to coordinate regional approaches.
______
SA 3663. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr. Chambliss,
Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley) to the bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the
continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of subtitle F of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 75__. MODIFICATIONS TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall not implement any
modification that reduces the availability or provision of
information technology service, or administrative management
control of that service, including data or center service
agency, functions, and personnel at the National Finance
Center and the National Information Technology Center service
locations, until the date on which the Committee on
Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate receive
a written determination and report from the Chief Financial
Officer or Chief Information Officer of the Department of
Agriculture and the Secretary that states that the
implementation of the modification is in the best interests
of the Department of Agriculture.
(b) Report on Proposed Modifications.--Not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry of the Senate, and the Comptroller General a report
on any proposed modification to reduce the availability or
provision of any information technology service, or
administrative management control of such a service,
including data or center service agency, functions, and
personnel at the National Finance Center and National
Technology Center service locations, that includes--
(1) a business case analysis (including of the near- and
long-term costs and benefits to the Department of Agriculture
and all other Federal agencies and departments that benefit
from services provided by the National Finance Center and the
National Information Technology Center service locations) of
the proposed modifications, as compared with maintaining
administrative management control or information technology
service functions and personnel in the existing structure and
at present locations; and
(2) an analysis of the impact of any changes in that
administrative management control or information technology
service (including data or center service agency, functions,
and personnel) on the ability of the National Finance Center
and National Information Technology Center service locations
to provide, in the near- and long-term, to all Federal
agencies and departments, cost-effective, secure, efficient,
and interoperable--
(A) information technology services;
(B) cross-servicing;
(C) e-payroll services; and
(D) human resource line-of-business services.
(c) Assessment.--Not later than 90 days after the date on
which the Comptroller General receives the report submitted
under subsection (b), the Comptroller General shall submit to
the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of
the Senate a detailed written assessment of the report that
includes an analysis (including of near- and long-term cost
benefits and impacts) of the alternatives available to all
Federal agencies and departments to acquire cost-effective,
secure, efficient, and interoperable information technology,
cross-servicing, e-payroll, and human resource line-of-
business services.
(d) Operating Reserve.--
(1) In general.--Of annual income amounts in the working
capital fund of the Department of Agriculture allocated for
the National Finance Center, the Secretary may reserve not
more than 4 percent--
(A) for the replacement or acquisition of capital
equipment, including equipment for--
(i) the improvement and implementation of a financial
management plan;
(ii) information technology; and
(iii) other systems of the National Finance Center; or
(B) to pay any unforeseen, extraordinary costs of the
National Finance Center.
(2) Availability for obligation.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
none of the amounts reserved under paragraph (1) shall be
available
[[Page 31386]]
for obligation unless the Secretary submits notification of
the obligation to--
(i) the Committees on Appropriations and Agriculture of the
House of Representatives; and
(ii) the Committees on Appropriations and Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate.
(B) Exception.--The limitation described in subparagraph
(A) shall not apply to any obligation that, as determined by
the Secretary, is necessary--
(i) to respond to a declared state of emergency that
significantly impacts the operations of the National Finance
Center; or
(ii) to evacuate employees of the National Finance Center
to a safe haven to continue operations of the National
Finance Center.
______
SA 3664. Mrs. HUTCHISON submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley) to the bill H.R. 2419, to
provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal
year 2012, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
On page 1362, between lines 19 and 20, insert the
following:
SEC. 11___. RIO GRANDE BASIN MANAGEMENT PROJECT.
The Food Security Act of 1985 is amended by inserting after
section 1240K (as added by section 2361) the following:
``SEC. 1240L. RIO GRANDE BASIN MANAGEMENT PROJECT.
``(a) Definition of Rio Grande Basin.--In this section, the
term `Rio Grande Basin' includes all tributaries, backwaters,
and side channels (including watersheds) of the United States
that drain into the Rio Grande River.
``(b) Establishment.--The Secretary, in conjunction with
partnerships of institutions of higher education working with
farmers, ranchers, and other rural landowners, shall
establish a program under which the Secretary shall provide
grants to the partnerships to benefit the Rio Grande Basin
by--
``(1) restoring water flow and the riparian habitat;
``(2) improving usage;
``(3) addressing demand for drinking water;
``(4) providing technical assistance to agricultural and
municipal water systems; and
``(5) reducing biological and chemical hazards through
alternative treatment of water and wastewater.
``(c) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--A grant provided under this section may
be used by a partnership for the costs of carrying out an
activity described in subsection (b), including the costs
of--
``(A) direct labor;
``(B) appropriate travel;
``(C) equipment;
``(D) instrumentation;
``(E) analytical laboratory work;
``(F) subcontracting;
``(G) cooperative research agreements; and
``(H) similar related expenses and costs.
``(2) Limitation.--A grant provided under this section
shall not be used to purchase or construct any building.
``(d) Reports.--A partnership that receives a grant under
this subsection shall submit to the Secretary annual reports
describing--
``(1) the expenses of the partnership during the preceding
calendar year; and
``(2) such other financial information as the Secretary may
require.
``(e) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as are necessary to carry out this section for each
of fiscal years 2008 through 2012, to remain available until
expended.''.
______
SA 3665. Mr. ENSIGN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 210, strike line 20 and all that follows
through page 212, line 21, and insert the following:
``(1) Programs.--
``(A) Commodity programs.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, an individual or entity shall not be
eligible to receive any benefit described in paragraph (2)(A)
during a crop year if the average adjusted gross income of
the individual or entity exceeds $200,000.
``(B) Conservation programs.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, an individual or entity shall not be
eligible to receive any benefit described in paragraph (2)(B)
during a fiscal year if the average adjusted gross income of
the individual or entity exceeds $2,500,000, unless not less
than 75 percent of the average adjusted gross income of the
individual or entity is derived from farming, ranching, or
forestry operations, as determined by the Secretary.
``(2) Covered benefits.--
``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1)(A) applies with respect to
the following:
``(i) A direct payment or counter-cyclical payment under
part I or III of subtitle A of title I of the Food and Energy
Security Act of 2007.
``(ii) A marketing loan gain or loan deficiency payment
under part II or III of subtitle A of title I of the Food and
Energy Security Act of 2007.
``(iii) An average crop revenue payment under subtitle B of
title I of Food and Energy Security Act of 2007.
``(B) Conservation programs.--Paragraph (1)(B) applies with
respect to a payment under any program under--
______
SA 3666. Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3500
proposed by Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Baucus, and Mr.
Grassley) to the bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1232, strike lines 9 through 12 and insert the
following:
(1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections
(g) and (h), respectively;
(2) in subsections (c), (d), (e), and (g) (as redesignated
by paragraph (1)), by striking the semicolon each place it
appears and inserting ``, regardless of any alleged business
justification;''; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
On page 1233, line 20, strike ``subsection (a)'' and insert
``subsection (a)(3)''.
On page 1234, line 2, strike ``subsection (a)'' and insert
``subsection (a)(3)''.
______
SA 3667. Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Johnson, Mr.
Barrasso, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Tester)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3500
proposed by Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Baucus, and Mr.
Grassley) to the bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1232, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
SEC. 10207. NO COMPETITIVE INJURY REQUIREMENT.
(a) Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921.--Section 202(a) of
the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 192(a)), is
amended by inserting ``, regardless of whether the practice
or device causes a competitive injury'' after ``or device''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
takes effect on the earlier of--
(1) the date on which the Department promulgates a final
regulation to reflect the amendment made by subsection (a);
and
(2) the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act.
______
SA 3668. Mr. BAUCUS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place in title III, insert the
following:
SEC. 3__. AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY.
(a) In General.--Section 902(1) of the Trade Sanctions
Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7201(1))
is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Agricultural supply.--The term `agricultural supply'
includes--
``(A) agricultural commodities; and
``(B)(i) agriculture-related processing equipment;
``(ii) agriculture-related machinery; and
``(iii) other capital goods related to the storage or
handling of agricultural commodities or products.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--The Trade Sanctions Reform and
Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``agricultural commodities'' each place it
appears and inserting ``agricultural supplies'';
(2) in section 904(2), by striking ``agricultural
commodity'' and inserting ``agricultural supply''; and
(3) in section 910(a), in the subsection heading, by
striking ``Agricultural Commodities'' and inserting
``Agricultural Supplies''.
SEC. 3__. CLARIFICATION OF PAYMENT TERMS UNDER TSREEA.
Section 908(b)(1) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7207(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively, and indenting appropriately;
(2) striking ``(1) In general.--No United States person''
and inserting the following:
[[Page 31387]]
``(1) Prohibition.--
``(A) In general.--No United States person''; and
(3) in the undesignated matter following clause (ii) (as
redesignated by paragraph (1)), by striking ``Nothing in this
paragraph'' and inserting the following:
``(B) Definition of payment of cash in advance.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of
this paragraph, the term `payment of cash in advance' means
only that payment must be received by the seller of an
agricultural supply to Cuba or any person in Cuba before
surrendering physical possession of the agricultural supply.
``(C) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
publish in the Federal Register a description of the contents
of this section as a clarification of the regulations of the
Secretary regarding sales under this title to Cuba.
``(D) Clarification.--Nothing in this paragraph''.
SEC. 3__. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO CERTAIN TRAVEL-RELATED
TRANSACTIONS WITH CUBA.
Section 910 of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7208) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(c) General License Authority for Travel-Related
Expenditures in Cuba by Persons Engaging in TSREEA-Authorized
Sales and Marketing Activities.--
``(1) Definition of sales and marketing activity.--
``(A) In general.--In this subsection, the term `sales and
marketing activity' means any activity with respect to travel
to, from, or within Cuba that is undertaken by United States
persons--
``(i) to explore the market in Cuba for products authorized
under this title; or
``(ii) to engage in sales activities with respect to such
products.
``(B) Inclusion.--The term `sales and marketing activity'
includes exhibiting, negotiating, marketing, surveying the
market, and delivering and servicing products authorized
under this title.
``(2) Authorization.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
authorize under a general license the travel-related
transactions listed in paragraph (c) of section 515.560 of
title 31, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on June
1, 2007), for travel to, from, or within Cuba in connection
with sales and marketing activities involving products
approved for sale under this title.
``(3) Authorized persons.--Persons authorized to travel to
Cuba under paragraph (2) shall include--
``(A) producers of products authorized under this title;
``(B) distributors of such products; and
``(C) representatives of trade organizations that promote
the interests of producers and distributors of such products.
``(4) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary to
carry out this subsection.''.
SEC. 3__. AUTHORIZATION OF DIRECT TRANSFERS BETWEEN CUBAN AND
UNITED STATES FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of
2000 is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 911 (22 U.S.C. 7201 note;
Public Law 106-387) as section 912; and
(2) by inserting after section 910 (22 U.S.C. 7209) the
following:
``SEC. 911. AUTHORIZATION OF DIRECT TRANSFERS BETWEEN CUBAN
AND UNITED STATES FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including
regulations), the President shall not restrict direct
transfers from Cuban to United States financial institutions
executed in payment for products authorized by this Act.''.
______
SA 3669. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr. Chambliss,
Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley) to the bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the
continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 160, after line 24, insert the following:
SEC. 15__. PROHIBITION ON SUGAR ASSISTANCE WITHOUT HEALTH
CERTIFICATION.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this title or an
amendment made by this title, no loan, payment, purchase,
allotment, or other assistance may be provided to or for a
producer of sugarcane or sugar beets under this title or an
amendment made by this title unless the Secretary of Health
and Human Services certifies to Congress, before the
assistance is provided, that sugarcane, sugar beets, and the
products of sugarcane and sugar beets do not contribute to
childhood obesity, tooth decay, or diabetes.
______
SA 3670. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON ISSUANCE OF IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS
TO ILLEGAL ALIENS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law and after the
date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, no State or subdivision of a State may issue a driver's
license or other identification document to an alien who is
unlawfully present in the United States.
______
SA 3671. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 7042.
______
SA 3672. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr. Chambliss,
Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley) to the bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the
continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 254, strike line 19 and all that follows
through page 255, line 22.
______
SA 3673. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
TITLE __--
HEALTHY MOTHERS AND HEALTHY BABIES RURAL ACCESS TO CARE
SEC. _01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Healthy Mothers and
Healthy Babies Rural Access to Care Act''.
SEC. _02. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--
(1) Effect on women's access to health services.--Congress
finds that--
(A) the current civil justice system is eroding women's
access to obstetrical and gynecological services;
(B) the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
(ACOG) has identified nearly half of the States as having a
medical liability insurance crisis that is threatening access
to high-quality obstetrical and gynecological services;
(C) because of the high cost of medical liability insurance
and the risk of being sued, one in seven obstetricians and
gynecologists have stopped practicing obstetrics and one in
five has decreased their number of high-risk obstetrics
patients; and
(D) because of the lack of availability of obstetrical
services, women--
(i) must travel longer distances and cross State lines to
find a doctor;
(ii) have longer waiting periods (in some cases months) for
appointments;
(iii) have shorter visits with their physicians once they
get appointments;
(iv) have less access to maternal-fetal medicine
specialists, physicians with the most experience and training
in the care of women with high-risk pregnancies; and
(v) have fewer hospitals with maternity wards where they
can deliver their child, potentially endangering the lives
and health of the woman and her unborn child.
(2) Effect on interstate commerce.--Congress finds that the
health care and insurance industries are industries affecting
interstate commerce and the health care liability litigation
systems existing throughout the United States are activities
that affect interstate commerce by contributing to the high
costs of health care and premiums for health care liability
insurance purchased by health care system providers.
(3) Effect on federal spending.--Congress finds that the
health care liability litigation systems existing throughout
the United States have a significant effect on the amount,
distribution, and use of Federal funds because of--
(A) the large number of individuals who receive health care
benefits under programs operated or financed by the Federal
Government;
(B) the large number of individuals who benefit because of
the exclusion from Federal taxes of the amounts spent to
provide them with health insurance benefits; and
(C) the large number of health care providers who provide
items or services for which the Federal Government makes
payments.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this title to implement
reasonable, comprehensive, and effective health care
liability reforms designed to--
[[Page 31388]]
(1) improve the availability of health care services in
cases in which health care liability actions have been shown
to be a factor in the decreased availability of services;
(2) reduce the incidence of ``defensive medicine'' and
lower the cost of health care liability insurance, all of
which contribute to the escalation of health care costs;
(3) ensure that persons with meritorious health care injury
claims receive fair and adequate compensation, including
reasonable noneconomic damages;
(4) improve the fairness and cost-effectiveness of our
current health care liability system to resolve disputes
over, and provide compensation for, health care liability by
reducing uncertainty in the amount of compensation provided
to injured individuals; and
(5) provide an increased sharing of information in the
health care system which will reduce unintended injury and
improve patient care.
SEC. _03. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Alternative dispute resolution system; adr.--The term
``alternative dispute resolution system'' or ``ADR'' means a
system that provides for the resolution of health care
lawsuits in a manner other than through a civil action
brought in a State or Federal court.
(2) Claimant.--The term ``claimant'' means any person who
brings a health care lawsuit, including a person who asserts
or claims a right to legal or equitable contribution,
indemnity or subrogation, arising out of a health care
liability claim or action, and any person on whose behalf
such a claim is asserted or such an action is brought,
whether deceased, incompetent, or a minor.
(3) Collateral source benefits.--The term ``collateral
source benefits'' means any amount paid or reasonably likely
to be paid in the future to or on behalf of the claimant, or
any service, product or other benefit provided or reasonably
likely to be provided in the future to or on behalf of the
claimant, as a result of the injury or wrongful death,
pursuant to--
(A) any State or Federal health, sickness, income-
disability, accident, or workers' compensation law;
(B) any health, sickness, income-disability, or accident
insurance that provides health benefits or income-disability
coverage;
(C) any contract or agreement of any group, organization,
partnership, or corporation to provide, pay for, or reimburse
the cost of medical, hospital, dental, or income disability
benefits; and
(D) any other publicly or privately funded program.
(4) Compensatory damages.--The term ``compensatory
damages'' means objectively verifiable monetary losses
incurred as a result of the provision of, use of, or payment
for (or failure to provide, use, or pay for) health care
services or medical products, such as past and future medical
expenses, loss of past and future earnings, cost of obtaining
domestic services, loss of employment, and loss of business
or employment opportunities, damages for physical and
emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical
impairment, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment
of life, loss of society and companionship, loss of
consortium (other than loss of domestic service), hedonic
damages, injury to reputation, and all other nonpecuniary
losses of any kind or nature. Such term includes economic
damages and noneconomic damages, as such terms are defined in
this section.
(5) Contingent fee.--The term ``contingent fee'' includes
all compensation to any person or persons which is payable
only if a recovery is effected on behalf of one or more
claimants.
(6) Economic damages.--The term ``economic damages'' means
objectively verifiable monetary losses incurred as a result
of the provision of, use of, or payment for (or failure to
provide, use, or pay for) health care services or medical
products, such as past and future medical expenses, loss of
past and future earnings, cost of obtaining domestic
services, loss of employment, and loss of business or
employment opportunities.
(7) Health care goods or services.--The term ``health care
goods or services'' means any obstetrical or gynecological
goods or services provided by a health care institution,
provider, or by any individual working under the supervision
of a health care provider, that relates to the diagnosis,
prevention, care, or treatment of any obstetrical or
gynecological-related human disease or impairment, or the
assessment of the health of human beings.
(8) Health care institution.--The term ``health care
institution'' means any entity licensed under Federal or
State law to provide health care services (including but not
limited to ambulatory surgical centers, assisted living
facilities, emergency medical services providers, hospices,
hospitals and hospital systems, nursing homes, or other
entities licensed to provide such services).
(9) Health care lawsuit.--The term ``health care lawsuit''
means any health care liability claim concerning the
provision of obstetrical or gynecological goods or services
affecting interstate commerce, or any health care liability
action concerning the provision of (or the failure to
provide) obstetrical or gynecological goods or services
affecting interstate commerce, brought in a State or Federal
court or pursuant to an alternative dispute resolution
system, against a physician or other health care provider who
delivers obstetrical or gynecological services in an rural
area or a health care institution (only with respect to
obstetrical or gynecological services) located in a rural
area regardless of the theory of liability on which the claim
is based, or the number of claimants, plaintiffs, defendants,
or other parties, or the number of claims or causes of
action, in which the claimant alleges a health care liability
claim.
(10) Health care liability action.--The term ``health care
liability action'' means a civil action brought in a State or
Federal Court or pursuant to an alternative dispute
resolution system, against a health care provider who
delivers obstetrical or gynecological services in a rural
area or a health care institution (only with respect to
obstetrical or gynecological services) located in a rural
area regardless of the theory of liability on which the claim
is based, or the number of plaintiffs, defendants, or other
parties, or the number of causes of action, in which the
claimant alleges a health care liability claim.
(11) Health care liability claim.--The term ``health care
liability claim'' means a demand by any person, whether or
not pursuant to ADR, against a health care provider who
delivers obstetrical or gynecological services in a rural
area or a health care institution (only with respect to
obstetrical or gynecological services) located in a rural
area, including third-party claims, cross-claims, counter-
claims, or contribution claims, which are based upon the
provision of, use of, or payment for (or the failure to
provide, use, or pay for) obstetrical or gynecological
services, regardless of the theory of liability on which the
claim is based, or the number of plaintiffs, defendants, or
other parties, or the number of causes of action.
(12) Health care provider.--
(A) In general.--The term ``health care provider'' means
any person (including but not limited to a physician (as
defined by section 1861(r) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395x(r)), nurse, dentist, podiatrist, pharmacist,
chiropractor, or optometrist) required by State or Federal
law to be licensed, registered, or certified to provide
health care services, and being either so licensed,
registered, or certified, or exempted from such requirement
by other statute or regulation, and who is providing such
services in a rural area.
(B) Treatment of certain professional associations.--For
purposes of this title, a professional association that is
organized under State law by an individual physician or group
of physicians, a partnership or limited liability partnership
formed by a group of physicians, a nonprofit health
corporation certified under State law, or a company formed by
a group of physicians under State law shall be treated as a
health care provider under subparagraph (A).
(13) Malicious intent to injure.--The term ``malicious
intent to injure'' means intentionally causing or attempting
to cause physical injury other than providing health care
goods or services.
(14) Noneconomic damages.--The term ``noneconomic damages''
means damages for physical and emotional pain, suffering,
inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish,
disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and
companionship, loss of consortium (other than loss of
domestic service), hedonic damages, injury to reputation, and
all other nonpecuniary losses of any kind or nature.
(15) Obstetrical or gynecological services.--The term
``obstetrical or gynecological services'' means services for
pre-natal care or labor and delivery, including the immediate
postpartum period (as determined in accordance with the
definition of postpartum used for purposes of title XIX of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.)).
(16) Punitive damages.--The term ``punitive damages'' means
damages awarded, for the purpose of punishment or deterrence,
and not solely for compensatory purposes, against a health
care provider who delivers obstetrical or gynecological
services or a health care institution. Punitive damages are
neither economic nor noneconomic damages.
(17) Recovery.--The term ``recovery'' means the net sum
recovered after deducting any disbursements or costs incurred
in connection with prosecution or settlement of the claim,
including all costs paid or advanced by any person. Costs of
health care incurred by the plaintiff and the attorneys'
office overhead costs or charges for legal services are not
deductible disbursements or costs for such purpose.
(18) Rural area.--The term ``rural area'' means any area of
the United States that is not--
(A) included within the boundaries of any city, town,
borough, or village, whether incorporated or unincorporated,
with a population of more than 20,000 inhabitants; or
(B) the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such a
city or town.
[[Page 31389]]
(19) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern
Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands,
and any other territory or possession of the United States,
or any political subdivision thereof.
SEC. _04. ENCOURAGING SPEEDY RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided for in this
section, the time for the commencement of a health care
lawsuit shall be 3 years after the date of manifestation of
injury or 1 year after the claimant discovers, or through the
use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the
injury, whichever occurs first.
(b) General Exception.--The time for the commencement of a
health care lawsuit shall not exceed 3 years after the date
of manifestation of injury unless the tolling of time was
delayed as a result of--
(1) fraud;
(2) intentional concealment; or
(3) the presence of a foreign body, which has no
therapeutic or diagnostic purpose or effect, in the person of
the injured person.
(c) Minors.--An action by a minor shall be commenced within
3 years from the date of the alleged manifestation of injury
except that if such minor is under the full age of 6 years,
such action shall be commenced within 3 years of the
manifestation of injury, or prior to the eighth birthday of
the minor, whichever provides a longer period. Such time
limitation shall be tolled for minors for any period during
which a parent or guardian and a health care provider or
health care institution have committed fraud or collusion in
the failure to bring an action on behalf of the injured
minor.
(d) Rule 11 Sanctions.--Whenever a Federal or State court
determines (whether by motion of the parties or whether on
the motion of the court) that there has been a violation of
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (or a similar
violation of applicable State court rules) in a health care
liability action to which this title applies, the court shall
impose upon the attorneys, law firms, or pro se litigants
that have violated Rule 11 or are responsible for the
violation, an appropriate sanction, which shall include an
order to pay the other party or parties for the reasonable
expenses incurred as a direct result of the filing of the
pleading, motion, or other paper that is the subject of the
violation, including a reasonable attorneys' fee. Such
sanction shall be sufficient to deter repetition of such
conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated,
and to compensate the party or parties injured by such
conduct.
SEC. _05. COMPENSATING PATIENT INJURY.
(a) Unlimited Amount of Damages for Actual Economic Losses
in Health Care Lawsuits.--In any health care lawsuit, nothing
in this title shall limit the recovery by a claimant of the
full amount of the available economic damages,
notwithstanding the limitation contained in subsection (b).
(b) Additional Noneconomic Damages.--
(1) Health care providers.--In any health care lawsuit
where final judgment is rendered against a health care
provider, the amount of noneconomic damages recovered from
the provider, if otherwise available under applicable Federal
or State law, may be as much as $250,000, regardless of the
number of parties other than a health care institution
against whom the action is brought or the number of separate
claims or actions brought with respect to the same
occurrence.
(2) Health care institutions.--
(A) Single institution.--In any health care lawsuit where
final judgment is rendered against a single health care
institution, the amount of noneconomic damages recovered from
the institution, if otherwise available under applicable
Federal or State law, may be as much as $250,000, regardless
of the number of parties against whom the action is brought
or the number of separate claims or actions brought with
respect to the same occurrence.
(B) Multiple institutions.--In any health care lawsuit
where final judgment is rendered against more than one health
care institution, the amount of noneconomic damages recovered
from each institution, if otherwise available under
applicable Federal or State law, may be as much as $250,000,
regardless of the number of parties against whom the action
is brought or the number of separate claims or actions
brought with respect to the same occurrence, except that the
total amount recovered from all such institutions in such
lawsuit shall not exceed $500,000.
(c) No Discount of Award for Noneconomic Damages.--In any
health care lawsuit--
(1) an award for future noneconomic damages shall not be
discounted to present value;
(2) the jury shall not be informed about the maximum award
for noneconomic damages under subsection (b);
(3) an award for noneconomic damages in excess of the
limitations provided for in subsection (b) shall be reduced
either before the entry of judgment, or by amendment of the
judgment after entry of judgment, and such reduction shall be
made before accounting for any other reduction in damages
required by law; and
(4) if separate awards are rendered for past and future
noneconomic damages and the combined awards exceed the
limitations provided for in subsection (b), the future
noneconomic damages shall be reduced first.
(d) Fair Share Rule.--In any health care lawsuit, each
party shall be liable for that party's several share of any
damages only and not for the share of any other person. Each
party shall be liable only for the amount of damages
allocated to such party in direct proportion to such party's
percentage of responsibility. A separate judgment shall be
rendered against each such party for the amount allocated to
such party. For purposes of this section, the trier of fact
shall determine the proportion of responsibility of each
party for the claimant's harm.
SEC. _06. MAXIMIZING PATIENT RECOVERY.
(a) Court Supervision of Share of Damages Actually Paid to
Claimants.--
(1) In general.--In any health care lawsuit, the court
shall supervise the arrangements for payment of damages to
protect against conflicts of interest that may have the
effect of reducing the amount of damages awarded that are
actually paid to claimants.
(2) Contingency fees.--
(A) In general.--In any health care lawsuit in which the
attorney for a party claims a financial stake in the outcome
by virtue of a contingent fee, the court shall have the power
to restrict the payment of a claimant's damage recovery to
such attorney, and to redirect such damages to the claimant
based upon the interests of justice and principles of equity.
(B) Limitation.--The total of all contingent fees for
representing all claimants in a health care lawsuit shall not
exceed the following limits:
(i) 40 percent of the first $50,000 recovered by the
claimant(s).
(ii) 33\1/3\ percent of the next $50,000 recovered by the
claimant(s).
(iii) 25 percent of the next $500,000 recovered by the
claimant(s).
(iv) 15 percent of any amount by which the recovery by the
claimant(s) is in excess of $600,000.
(b) Applicability.--
(1) In general.--The limitations in subsection (a) shall
apply whether the recovery is by judgment, settlement,
mediation, arbitration, or any other form of alternative
dispute resolution.
(2) Minors.--In a health care lawsuit involving a minor or
incompetent person, a court retains the authority to
authorize or approve a fee that is less than the maximum
permitted under this section.
(c) Expert Witnesses.--
(1) Requirement.--No individual shall be qualified to
testify as an expert witness concerning issues of negligence
in any health care lawsuit against a defendant unless such
individual--
(A) except as required under paragraph (2), is a health
care professional who--
(i) is appropriately credentialed or licensed in 1 or more
States to deliver health care services; and
(ii) typically treats the diagnosis or condition or
provides the type of treatment under review; and
(B) can demonstrate by competent evidence that, as a result
of training, education, knowledge, and experience in the
evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of the disease or injury
which is the subject matter of the lawsuit against the
defendant, the individual was substantially familiar with
applicable standards of care and practice as they relate to
the act or omission which is the subject of the lawsuit on
the date of the incident.
(2) Physician review.--In a health care lawsuit, if the
claim of the plaintiff involved treatment that is recommended
or provided by a physician (allopathic or osteopathic), an
individual shall not be qualified to be an expert witness
under this subsection with respect to issues of negligence
concerning such treatment unless such individual is a
physician.
(3) Specialties and subspecialties.--With respect to a
lawsuit described in paragraph (1), a court shall not permit
an expert in one medical specialty or subspecialty to testify
against a defendant in another medical specialty or
subspecialty unless, in addition to a showing of substantial
familiarity in accordance with paragraph (1)(B), there is a
showing that the standards of care and practice in the two
specialty or subspecialty fields are similar.
(4) Limitation.--The limitations in this subsection shall
not apply to expert witnesses testifying as to the degree or
permanency of medical or physical impairment.
SEC. _07. ADDITIONAL HEALTH BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--The amount of any damages received by a
claimant in any health care lawsuit shall be reduced by the
court by the amount of any collateral source benefits to
which the claimant is entitled, less any insurance premiums
or other payments made by the claimant (or by the spouse,
parent, child, or legal guardian of the claimant) to obtain
or secure such benefits.
(b) Preservation of Current Law.--Where a payor of
collateral source benefits has a right of recovery by
reimbursement or subrogation and such right is permitted
under Federal or State law, subsection (a) shall not apply.
[[Page 31390]]
(c) Application of Provision.--This section shall apply to
any health care lawsuit that is settled or resolved by a fact
finder.
SEC. _08. PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
(a) Punitive Damages Permitted.--
(1) In general.--Punitive damages may, if otherwise
available under applicable State or Federal law, be awarded
against any person in a health care lawsuit only if it is
proven by clear and convincing evidence that such person
acted with malicious intent to injure the claimant, or that
such person deliberately failed to avoid unnecessary injury
that such person knew the claimant was substantially certain
to suffer.
(2) Filing of lawsuit.--No demand for punitive damages
shall be included in a health care lawsuit as initially
filed. A court may allow a claimant to file an amended
pleading for punitive damages only upon a motion by the
claimant and after a finding by the court, upon review of
supporting and opposing affidavits or after a hearing, after
weighing the evidence, that the claimant has established by a
substantial probability that the claimant will prevail on the
claim for punitive damages.
(3) Separate proceeding.--At the request of any party in a
health care lawsuit, the trier of fact shall consider in a
separate proceeding--
(A) whether punitive damages are to be awarded and the
amount of such award; and
(B) the amount of punitive damages following a
determination of punitive liability.
If a separate proceeding is requested, evidence relevant only
to the claim for punitive damages, as determined by
applicable State law, shall be inadmissible in any proceeding
to determine whether compensatory damages are to be awarded.
(4) Limitation where no compensatory damages are awarded.--
In any health care lawsuit where no judgment for compensatory
damages is rendered against a person, no punitive damages may
be awarded with respect to the claim in such lawsuit against
such person.
(b) Determining Amount of Punitive Damages.--
(1) Factors considered.--In determining the amount of
punitive damages under this section, the trier of fact shall
consider only the following:
(A) the severity of the harm caused by the conduct of such
party;
(B) the duration of the conduct or any concealment of it by
such party;
(C) the profitability of the conduct to such party;
(D) the number of products sold or medical procedures
rendered for compensation, as the case may be, by such party,
of the kind causing the harm complained of by the claimant;
(E) any criminal penalties imposed on such party, as a
result of the conduct complained of by the claimant; and
(F) the amount of any civil fines assessed against such
party as a result of the conduct complained of by the
claimant.
(2) Maximum award.--The amount of punitive damages awarded
in a health care lawsuit may not exceed an amount equal to
two times the amount of economic damages awarded in the
lawsuit or $250,000, whichever is greater. The jury shall not
be informed of the limitation under the preceding sentence.
(c) Liability of Health Care Providers.--
(1) In general.--A health care provider who prescribes, or
who dispenses pursuant to a prescription, a drug, biological
product, or medical device approved by the Food and Drug
Administration, for an approved indication of the drug,
biological product, or medical device, shall not be named as
a party to a product liability lawsuit invoking such drug,
biological product, or medical device and shall not be liable
to a claimant in a class action lawsuit against the
manufacturer, distributor, or product seller of such drug,
biological product, or medical device.
(2) Medical product.--The term ``medical product'' means a
drug or device intended for humans. The terms ``drug'' and
``device'' have the meanings given such terms in sections
201(g)(1) and 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act (21 U.S.C. 321), respectively, including any component or
raw material used therein, but excluding health care
services.
SEC. _09. AUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENT OF FUTURE DAMAGES TO
CLAIMANTS IN HEALTH CARE LAWSUITS.
(a) In General.--In any health care lawsuit, if an award of
future damages, without reduction to present value, equaling
or exceeding $50,000 is made against a party with sufficient
insurance or other assets to fund a periodic payment of such
a judgment, the court shall, at the request of any party,
enter a judgment ordering that the future damages be paid by
periodic payments. In any health care lawsuit, the court may
be guided by the Uniform Periodic Payment of Judgments Act
promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws.
(b) Applicability.--This section applies to all actions
which have not been first set for trial or retrial before the
effective date of this title.
SEC. _10. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.
(a) General Vaccine Injury.--
(1) In general.--To the extent that title XXI of the Public
Health Service Act establishes a Federal rule of law
applicable to a civil action brought for a vaccine-related
injury or death--
(A) this title shall not affect the application of the rule
of law to such an action; and
(B) any rule of law prescribed by this title in conflict
with a rule of law of such title XXI shall not apply to such
action.
(2) Exception.--If there is an aspect of a civil action
brought for a vaccine-related injury or death to which a
Federal rule of law under title XXI of the Public Health
Service Act does not apply, then this title or otherwise
applicable law (as determined under this title) will apply to
such aspect of such action.
(b) Smallpox Vaccine Injury.--
(1) In general.--To the extent that part C of title II of
the Public Health Service Act establishes a Federal rule of
law applicable to a civil action brought for a smallpox
vaccine-related injury or death--
(A) this title shall not affect the application of the rule
of law to such an action; and
(B) any rule of law prescribed by this title in conflict
with a rule of law of such part C shall not apply to such
action.
(2) Exception.--If there is an aspect of a civil action
brought for a smallpox vaccine-related injury or death to
which a Federal rule of law under part C of title II of the
Public Health Service Act does not apply, then this title or
otherwise applicable law (as determined under this title)
will apply to such aspect of such action.
(c) Other Federal Law.--Except as provided in this section,
nothing in this title shall be deemed to affect any defense
available, or any limitation on liability that applies to, a
defendant in a health care lawsuit or action under any other
provision of Federal law.
SEC. _11. STATE FLEXIBILITY AND PROTECTION OF STATES' RIGHTS.
(a) Health Care Lawsuits.--The provisions governing health
care lawsuits set forth in this title shall preempt, subject
to subsections (b) and (c), State law to the extent that
State law prevents the application of any provisions of law
established by or under this title. The provisions governing
health care lawsuits set forth in this title supersede
chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, to the extent
that such chapter--
(1) provides for a greater amount of damages or contingent
fees, a longer period in which a health care lawsuit may be
commenced, or a reduced applicability or scope of periodic
payment of future damages, than provided in this title; or
(2) prohibits the introduction of evidence regarding
collateral source benefits.
(b) Preemption of Certain State Laws.--No provision of this
title shall be construed to preempt any State law (whether
effective before, on, or after the date of the enactment of
this title) that specifies a particular monetary amount of
compensatory or punitive damages (or the total amount of
damages) that may be awarded in a health care lawsuit,
regardless of whether such monetary amount is greater or
lesser than is provided for under this title, notwithstanding
section _05(a).
(c) Protection of State's Rights and Other Laws.--
(1) In general.--Any issue that is not governed by a
provision of law established by or under this title
(including the State standards of negligence) shall be
governed by otherwise applicable Federal or State law.
(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this title shall be
construed to--
(A) preempt or supersede any Federal or State law that
imposes greater procedural or substantive protections for a
health care provider or health care institution from
liability, loss, or damages than those provided by this
title;
(B) preempt or supercede any State law that permits and
provides for the enforcement of any arbitration agreement
related to a health care liability claim whether enacted
prior to or after the date of enactment of this title;
(C) create a cause of action that is not otherwise
available under Federal or State law; or
(D) affect the scope of preemption of any other Federal
law.
SEC. _12. APPLICABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title shall apply to any health care lawsuit brought
in a Federal or State court, or subject to an alternative
dispute resolution system, that is initiated on or after the
date of the enactment of this title, except that any health
care lawsuit arising from an injury occurring prior to the
date of enactment of this title shall be governed by the
applicable statute of limitations provisions in effect at the
time the injury occurred.
______
SA 3674. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. DISCHARGES OF INDEBTEDNESS ON PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE
EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 108(a) is amended
by striking ``or'' at the end
[[Page 31391]]
of subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (D) and inserting ``, or'', and by inserting
after subparagraph (D) the following new subparagraph:
``(E) the indebtedness is qualified principal residence
indebtedness which is discharged before January 1, 2010.''.
(b) Special Rules Relating to Qualified Principal Residence
Indebtedness.--Section 108 is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(h) Special Rules Relating to Qualified Principal
Residence Indebtedness.--
``(1) Basis reduction.--The amount excluded from gross
income by reason of subsection (a)(1)(E) shall be applied to
reduce (but not below zero) the basis of the principal
residence of the taxpayer.
``(2) Qualified principal residence indebtedness.--For
purposes of this section, the term `qualified principal
residence indebtedness' means acquisition indebtedness
(within the meaning of section 163(h)(3)(B)).
``(3) Exception for certain discharges not related to
taxpayer's financial condition.--Subsection (a)(1)(E) shall
not apply to the discharge of a loan if the discharge is on
account of services performed for the lender or any other
factor not directly related to a decline in the value of the
residence or to the financial condition of the taxpayer.
``(4) Ordering rule.--If any loan is discharged, in whole
or in part, and only a portion of such loan is qualified
principal residence indebtedness, subsection (a)(1)(E) shall
apply only to so much of the amount discharged as exceeds the
amount of the loan (as determined immediately before such
discharge) which is not qualified principal residence
indebtedness.
``(5) Principal residence.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `principal residence' has the same
meaning as when used in section 121.''.
(c) Coordination.--
(1) Subparagraph (A) of section 108(a)(2) is amended by
striking ``and (D)'' and inserting ``(D), and (E)''.
(2) Paragraph (2) of section 108(a) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Principal residence exclusion takes precedence over
insolvency exclusion unless elected otherwise.--Paragraph
(1)(B) shall not apply to a discharge to which paragraph
(1)(E) applies unless the taxpayer elects to apply paragraph
(1)(B) in lieu of paragraph (1)(E).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to discharges of indebtedness on or after January
1, 2007.
______
SA 3675. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr. Chambliss,
Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley) to the bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the
continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 1363, strike line 7 and all that follows
through page 1395, line 19 and insert the following:
Subtitle A--Individuals With Disabilities Education Trust Fund
SEC. 12101. ASSISTANCE FOR EDUCATING INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES.
The Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``TITLE IX--ASSISTANCE FOR EDUCATING INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
``SEC. 901. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION TRUST
FUND.
``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the
Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the
`Individuals with Disabilities Education Trust Fund',
consisting of such amounts as may be appropriated or credited
to such Trust Fund as provided in this section.
``(b) Transfer to Trust Fund.--
``(1) In general.--There are appropriated to the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Trust Fund amounts
equivalent to 3.34 percent of the amounts received in the
general fund of the Treasury of the United States during
fiscal years 2008 through 2012 attributable to the duties
collected on articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States.
``(2) Amounts based on estimates.--The amounts appropriated
under this section shall be transferred at least monthly from
the general fund of the Treasury of the United States to the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Trust Fund on the
basis of estimates made by the Secretary of the Treasury.
Proper adjustments shall be made in the amounts subsequently
transferred to the extent prior estimates were in excess of
or less than the amounts required to be transferred.
``(c) Administration.--
``(1) Reports.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall be the
trustee of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Trust
Fund and shall submit an annual report to Congress each year
on the financial condition and the results of the operations
of such Trust Fund during the preceding fiscal year and on
its expected condition and operations during the 5 fiscal
years succeeding such fiscal year. Such report shall be
printed as a House document of the session of Congress to
which the report is made.
``(2) Investment.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
invest such portion of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Trust Fund as is not in his judgment required to
meet current withdrawals. Such investments may be made only
in interest bearing obligations of the United States. For
such purpose, such obligations may be acquired--
``(i) on original issue at the issue price, or
``(ii) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market
price.
``(B) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Trust Fund may be
sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the market price.
``(C) Interest on certain proceeds.--The interest on, and
the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations
held in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Trust
Fund shall be credited to and form a part of such Trust Fund.
``(d) Expenditures From Trust Fund.--Amounts in the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Trust Fund shall be
available to the Secretary of Education to carry out part B
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1411 et seq.).''.
______
SA 3676. Mr. DURBIN (for Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and Mrs.
Hutchison)) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 597, to extend the
special postage stamp for breast cancer research for 4 years; as
follows:
In section 1, in the section heading, strike ``2-YEAR'' and
insert ``4-YEAR''.
In section 1, strike ``2009'' and insert ``2011''.
______
SA 3677. Mr. DURBIN (for Mr. Menendez) proposed an amendment to the
resolution S. Res. 299, recognizing the religious and historical
significance of the festival of Diwali; as follows:
On page 2, strike lines 4 and 5 and insert the following:
(2) in observance of Diwali, the festival of lights,
expresses its deepest respect for Indian Americans and the
Indian diaspora throughout the world on this significant
occasion.
______
SA 3678. Mr. DURBIN (for Mrs. Feinstein) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 597, to extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer
research for 4 years; as follows:
Amend the title so as to read: ``To extend the special
postage stamp for breast cancer research for 4 years.''.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs
Mr. HARKIN. 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 November 14, 2007, at 10:30 a.m., in order to
conduct a hearing entitled ``Shareholder Rights and Proxy Access.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Mr. HARKIN. 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 November 14, 2007, at 2 p.m., in order to
conduct a hearing entitled ``Sovereign Wealth Fund Acquisitions and
Other Foreign Government Investments in the U.S.: Assessing the
Economic and National Security Implications.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 14, 2007, at 10 a.m.,
in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, in order to conduct
a hearing.
The hearing will focus on the need to improve the U.S. Global Change
Research Program, which is responsible for coordinating and directing
Federal climate change research. It will also address the need for
improved communication of climate information to decision makers.
[[Page 31392]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 14, 2007, at 10 a.m., in
room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, in order to conduct
a hearing.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership as it relates to U.S. policy on nuclear fuel
management.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Finance
Mr. HARKIN, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on
Wednesday, November 14, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen
Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Federal Estate Tax:
Uncertainty in Planning Under the Current Law.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on health, education, labor, and pensions
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in
executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday,
November 14, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office
Building.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on homeland security and governmental affairs
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 14, 2007, at 10
a.m. in order to conduct a business meeting to consider pending
committee business.
Agenda
Legislation
S. 2324, Inspector General Reform Act of 2007; S. 2292, National
Bombing Prevention Act of 2007; S. 1667, a bill to establish a pilot
program for the expedited disposal of Federal real property; S. 1000,
Telework Enhancement Act of 2007; S. 2321, E-Government Reauthorization
Act of 2007; H.R. 390, Preservation of Records of Servitude,
Emancipation, and Post-Civil War Reconstruction Act; and H.R. 3571, a
bill to amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to permit
individuals who have served as employees of the Office of Compliance to
serve as Executive Director, Deputy Executive Director, or General
Counsel of the Office, and to permit individuals appointed to such
positions to serve one additional term.
Nominations
Robert D. Jamison, Under Secretary for National Protection and
Programs, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Wiley Ross Ashley III,
Assistant Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; and the Honorable Ellen C. Williams,
Member, Postal Board of Governors.
Postal Naming Bills
S. 2174, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 175 South Monroe Street in Tiffin, Ohio, as the
``Paul E. Gillmor Post Office Building;'' H.R. 2089, a bill to
designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at
701 Loyola Avenue in New Orleans, Louisiana, as the ``Louisiana Armed
Services Veterans Post Office;'' H.R. 3297, a bill to designate the
facility of the United States Postal Service located at 950 West
Trenton Avenue in Morrisville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Nate DeTample
Post Office Building;'' H.R. 3308, a bill to designate the facility of
the United States Postal Service located at 216 East Main Street in
Atwood, Indiana, as the ``Lance Corporal David K. Fribley Post
Office;'' H.R. 3530, a bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 1400 Highway 41 North in Inverness,
Florida, as the ``Chief Warrant Officer Aaron Weaver Post Office
Building;'' H.R. 2276, a bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 203 North Main Street in Vassar,
Michigan, as the ``Corporal Christopher E. Esckelson Post Office
Building;'' H.R. 3325, a bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 235 Mountain Road in Suffield,
Connecticut, as the ``Corporal Stephen R. Bixler Post Office;'' S.
2110, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 427 North Street in Taft, California, as the ``Larry
S. Pierce Post Office;'' H.R. 3382, a bill to designate the facility of
the United States Postal Service located at 200 North William Street in
Goldsboro, North Carolina, as the ``Philip A. Baddour Sr. Post
Office;'' S. 2290, a bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 16731 Santa Ana Avenue in Fontana,
California, as the ``Beatrice E. Watson Post Office Building;'' S.
2272, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service known as the Southpark Station in Alexandria, Louisiana, as the
``John `Marty' Thiels Southpark Station;'' H.R. 3446, a bill to
designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at
202 East Michigan Avenue in Marshall, Michigan, as the ``Michael W.
Schragg Post Office Building;'' S. 2150/H.R. 3572, a bill to designate
the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4320 Blue
Parkway in Kansas City, Missouri, as the ``Wallace S. Hartsfield Post
Office Building;'' S. 2107/H.R. 3307, a bill to designate the facility
of the United States Postal Service located at 570 Broadway in Bayonne,
New Jersey, as the ``Dennis P. Collins Post Office Building;'' H.R.
3518, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 1430 South Highway 29 in Cantonment, Florida, as the
``Charles H. Hendrix Post Office Building.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday, November 14, 2007, in order to conduct a markup of
pending legislation. Immediately following the conclusion of the
markup, the Committee will conduct a hearing on the nomination of
Michael W. Hager, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, Human Resources and Management. The committee will meet in
room SD-562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 9:30
a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on Wednesday, November 14, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in order to
conduct a hearing entitled, ``Medicaid Providers That Cheat on Their
Taxes and What Can Be Done About It.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law,
be authorized to meet in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``No Safe
Haven: Accountability for Human Rights Violators in the United States''
on Wednesday, November 14, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SD-266 of the
Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Witness list
Panel I: Sigal P. Mandelker, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, and
Marcy M. Forman, Director of Office of Investigations, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington,
DC.
Panel II: David Scheffer, Mayer Brown/Robert A. Helman Professor of
[[Page 31393]]
Law, Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago, IL; Pamela
Merchant, Executive Director, Center for Justice and Accountability,
San Francisco, CA; and Juan Romagoza Arce, Executive Director, La
Clinica del Pueblo, Washington, DC.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that Jesse Baker, a Federal
Government detailee, be granted the privileges of the floor for the
remainder of this session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH STAMP EXTENSION
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 473, S. 597.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 597) to extend the special postage stamp for
breast cancer research for 2 years.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be
considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time,
passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any
statements be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3676) was agreed to, as follows:
(Purpose: To extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer
research for 4 years)
In section 1, in the section heading, strike ``2-YEAR'' and
insert ``4-YEAR''.
In section 1, strike ``2009'' and insert ``2011''.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask that the title amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The title amendment (No. 3678) was agreed to, as follows:
Amend the title so as to read: ``To extend the special
postage stamp for breast cancer research for 4 years.''.
The bill (S. 597), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:
S. 597
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. 4-YEAR EXTENSION OF POSTAGE STAMP FOR BREAST
CANCER RESEARCH.
Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2011''.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE FESTIVAL OF DIWALI
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 299 and
the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 299) recognizing the religious and
historical significance of the festival of Diwali.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be
considered and agreed to, the resolution, as amended, be agreed to, the
preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table,
and any statements be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3677) was agreed to, as follows:
On page 2, strike lines 4 and 5 and insert the following:
(2) in observance of Diwali, the festival of lights,
expresses its deepest respect for Indian Americans and the
Indian diaspora throughout the world on this significant
occasion.
The resolution (S. Res. 299), as amended, was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, as amended, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 299
Whereas Diwali, a festival of great significance to Indian
Americans and South Asian Americans, is celebrated annually
by Hindus, Sikhs, and Jains throughout the United States;
Whereas there are nearly 2,000,000 Hindus in the United
States, approximately 1,250,000 of which are of Indian and
South Asian origin;
Whereas the word ``Diwali'' is a shortened version of the
Sanskrit term ``Deepavali'', which means ``a row of lamps'';
Whereas Diwali is a festival of lights, during which
celebrants light small oil lamps, place them around the home,
and pray for health, knowledge, and peace;
Whereas celebrants of Diwali believe that the rows of lamps
symbolize the light within the individual that rids the soul
of the darkness of ignorance;
Whereas Diwali falls on the last day of the last month in
the lunar calendar and is celebrated as a day of thanksgiving
and the beginning of the new year for many Hindus;
Whereas for Hindus, Diwali is a celebration of the victory
of good over evil;
Whereas for Sikhs, Diwali is feted as the day that the
sixth founding Sikh Guru, or revered teacher, Guru Hargobind,
was released from captivity by the Mughal Emperor Jehangir;
and
Whereas for Jains, Diwali marks the anniversary of the
attainment of moksha, or liberation, by Mahavira, the last of
the Tirthankaras (the great teachers of Jain dharma), at the
end of his life in 527 B.C.: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes the religious and historical significance of
the festival of Diwali; and
(2) in observance of Diwali, the festival of lights,
expresses its deepest respect for Indian Americans and the
Indian diaspora throughout the world on this significant
occasion.
____________________
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC TUNAS
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 368 and
the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 368) expressing the sense of the
Senate that, at the 20th Regular Meeting of the International
Commission on the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, the United
States should pursue a moratorium on the eastern Atlantic and
Mediterranean bluefin tuna fishery to ensure control of the
fishery and further facilitate recovery of the stock, pursue
strengthened conservation and management measures to
facilitate the recovery of the Atlantic bluefin tuna, and
seek a review of compliance by all Nations with the
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas' conservation and management recommendation for
Atlantic bluefin tuna and other species, and for other
purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to,
the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the
table, and any statements be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 368) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 368
Whereas Atlantic bluefin tuna are a valuable commercial and
recreational fishery of the United States and many other
countries;
Whereas the International Convention for the Conservation
of Atlantic Tunas entered into force on March 21, 1969;
Whereas the Convention established the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas to
coordinate international research and develop, implement, and
enforce compliance of the conservation and management
recommendations on the Atlantic bluefin tuna and other highly
migratory species in the Atlantic Ocean and the adjacent
seas, including the Mediterranean Sea;
Whereas in 1974, the Commission adopted its first
conservation and management recommendation to ensure the
sustainability of Atlantic bluefin tuna throughout the
Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea, while allowing for the
maximum sustainable catch for food and other purposes;
Whereas in 1981, for management purposes, the Commission
adopted a working hypothesis of 2 Atlantic bluefin tuna
stocks, with 1
[[Page 31394]]
occurring west of 45 degrees west longitude (hereinafter
referred to as the ``western Atlantic stock'') and the other
occurring east of 45 degrees west longitude (hereinafter
referred to as the ``eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean
stock'');
Whereas, despite scientific recommendations intended to
maintain bluefin tuna populations at levels that will permit
the maximum sustainable yield and ensure the future of the
stocks, the total allowable catch quotas have been
consistently set at levels significantly higher than the
recommended levels for the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean
stock;
Whereas despite the establishment by the Commission of
fishing quotas based on total allowable catch levels for the
eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna fishery that
exceed scientific recommendations, compliance with such
quotas by parties to the Convention that harvest that stock
has been extremely poor, most recently with harvests
exceeding such total allowable catch levels by more than 50
percent for each of the last 4 years;
Whereas insufficient data reporting in combination with
unreliable national catch statistics has frequently
undermined efforts by the Commission to assign quota
overharvests to specific countries;
Whereas the failure of many Commission members fishing east
of 45 degrees west longitude to comply with other Commission
recommendations to conserve and control the overfished
eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna stock has
been an ongoing problem;
Whereas the Commission's Standing Committee on Research and
Statistics noted in its 2006 report that the fishing
mortality rate for the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean
stock may be more than 3 times the level that would permit
the stock to stabilize at the maximum sustainable catch
level, and continuing to fish at the level of recent years
``is expected to drive the spawning biomass to a very low
level'' giving ``rise to a high risk of fishery and stock
collapse'';
Whereas the Standing Committee has recommended that the
annual harvest levels for eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean
bluefin tuna be reduced from 32,000 metric tons to
approximately 15,000 metric tons to halt decline of the
resource and initiate rebuilding, and the United States
supported this recommendation at the 2006 Commission meeting;
Whereas in 2006, the Commission adopted the
``Recommendation by ICCAT to Establish a Multi-Annual
Recovery Plan for Bluefin Tuna in the eastern Atlantic and
Mediterranean'' containing a wide range of management,
monitoring, and control measures designed to facilitate the
recovery of the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin
tuna stock;
Whereas the Recovery Plan is inadequate and allows
overfishing and stock decline to continue, and initial
information indicates that implementation of the plan in 2007
by many eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna
harvesting countries has been poor;
Whereas since 1981, the Commission has adopted additional
and more restrictive conservation and management
recommendations for the western Atlantic bluefin tuna stock,
and these recommendations have been implemented by Nations
fishing west of 45 degrees west longitude, including the
United States;
Whereas despite adopting, fully implementing, and complying
with a science-based rebuilding program for the western
Atlantic bluefin tuna stock by countries fishing west of 45
degrees west longitude, catches and catch rates remain very
low;
Whereas many scientists believe that mixing occurs between
the western Atlantic bluefin tuna stock and the eastern
Atlantic and Mediterranean stock, and as such, poor
management and noncompliance with recommendations for one
stock are likely to have an adverse effect on the other
stock; and
Whereas additional research on stock mixing will improve
the understanding of the relationship between eastern and
western bluefin tuna stocks and other fisheries, which will
assist in the conservation, recovery, and management of the
species throughout its range: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the
United States delegation to the 20th Regular Meeting of the
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas, should--
(1) seek the adoption of a harvesting moratorium, which
includes appropriate mechanisms to ensure compliance, on the
eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna fishery of
sufficient duration to begin the process of stock recovery
and allow for the development and implementation of an
effective program of monitoring and control on the fishery
when the moratorium ends;
(2) seek to strengthen the conservation and management of
the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna by making
recommendations to halt the decline of the stock and begin to
rebuild it;
(3) reevaluate the implementation, effectiveness, and
relevance of the Commission recommendation entitled
``Recommendation by ICCAT to Establish a Multi-Annual
Recovery Plan for Bluefin Tuna in the eastern Atlantic and
Mediterranean'' (Recommendation 06-05), and seek from
Commission members that have failed to fully implement the
terms of the recommendations detailed justification for their
lack of compliance;
(4) pursue a review and assessment of compliance with
conservation and management measures adopted by the
Commission and in effect for the 2006 eastern Atlantic and
Mediterranean bluefin tuna fishery, occurring east of 45
degrees west longitude, and other fisheries that are subject
to the jurisdiction of the Commission, including data
collection and reporting requirements;
(5) seek to address noncompliance by parties to the
Convention with such measures through appropriate actions,
including, as appropriate, deducting a portion of a future
quota for a party to compensate for such party exceeding its
quota in prior years; and
(6) pursue additional research on the relationship between
the western Atlantic and eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean
bluefin tuna stocks and the extent to which the populations
intermingle.
____________________
RECOGNIZING AND THANKING MILITARY FAMILIES
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 378, which was submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 378) recognizing and thanking all
military families for the tremendous sacrifices and
contributions they have made to the Nation.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be
agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be
laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 378) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 378
Whereas there are currently more than 3,000,000 immediate
family members of individuals serving in the Armed Forces;
Whereas these family members bear the most immediate and
profound burden of the absence of their loved ones during the
performance of their duties;
Whereas these families have been the bedrock of support and
strength for our Nation's Armed Forces for over 230 years;
Whereas military families serve this country with an equal
amount of dedication and patriotism as their loved ones who
are fighting for the United States;
Whereas the families of servicemembers--whether in the
regular components of the Armed Forces, the Reserve, or the
National Guard--feel enormous amounts of pride, love, and
trepidation during the absence of their loved ones;
Whereas it is essential that the Nation recognize the
contributions made by military families and celebrate their
strength; and
Whereas the Senate stands in humble respect of the
sacrifice made by our military families: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) honors the families of members of the Armed Forces and
recognizes that they too share in the burden of protecting
the Nation;
(2) urges the people of the United States to join with the
Senate in thanking military families for their tremendous
sacrifice on behalf of the Nation; and
(3) recognizes with great appreciation the contributions
made by military families in providing the essential personal
support that our Nation's warriors need.
____________________
FEED AMERICA THURSDAY
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 379, which was submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 379) designating Thursday, November
15, 2007, as ``Feed America Thursday.''
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to speak regarding an effort that,
in recent years, has received the support of many of us in the Senate.
``Feed America Thursday'' is an effort, promoted by a number of
charitable organizations, aimed at fostering our Nation's
[[Page 31395]]
spirit of selflessness and sacrifice in order to help those in need.
According to the Department of Agriculture's most recent numbers,
roughly 35 million Americans, including 12 million children, live in
households that do not have an adequate supply of food. As I have said
in the past, it is simply inexcusable that, in the most prosperous
nation on Earth, so many children go to bed hungry at night. While
there are often disputes as to how we should address these problems, I
believe there are steps that every American can take to help those in
need.
The leaders and participants in ``Feed America Thursday'' encourage
all Americans to sacrifice two meals on the Thursday before
Thanksgiving Day and to donate the money they would have used for food
to a charity or religious organization of their choice. The charities
and churches, in turn, are encouraged to use these funds to feed the
hungry.
Today, as I have in previous Congresses, I introduced a resolution
that would designate this Thursday, November 15, 2007, as ``Feed
America Thursday.'' I urge my Senate colleagues and every American to
join me in feeding the hungry and affirming the values that make our
Nation great.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to
reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 379) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 379
Whereas Thanksgiving Day celebrates the spirit of selfless
giving and an appreciation for family and friends;
Whereas the spirit of Thanksgiving Day is a virtue upon
which the Nation was founded;
Whereas, according to the Department of Agriculture,
roughly 35,000,000 people in the United States, including
12,000,000 children, continue to live in households that do
not have an adequate supply of food; and
Whereas selfless sacrifice breeds a genuine spirit of
thanksgiving, both affirming and restoring fundamental
principles in our society: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates Thursday, November 15, 2007, as ``Feed
America Thursday''; and
(2) encourages the people of the United States to sacrifice
2 meals on Thursday, November 15, 2007, and to donate the
money that they would have spent on food to a religious or
charitable organization of their choice for the purpose of
feeding the hungry.
____________________
RECOGNIZING HOSTELLING INTERNATIONAL USA
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 380, submitted earlier
today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 380) recognizing Hostelling
International USA for 75 years of service to intercultural
understanding and to youth travel.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I offer today a resolution recognizing
Hostelling International USA for 75 years of service to intercultural
understanding and to youth travel.
Hostelling USA was established in 1934 to promote hostelling in the
United States. Since it is founding, it has hosted over 22 million
visitors in its 70 hostels across the country, including Alaska.
Hostelling is a unique and affordable way travelers can see our
country, while making lifelong friends and contacts.
I congratulate Hostelling International USA for 75 years of service
and hope my colleagues will join me in passing this resolution.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the
preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 380) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 380
Whereas travel promotes awareness and knowledge of peoples,
places, and cultures;
Whereas hostelling is educational travel, local and global,
using hostels and other programs to facilitate interaction
among travelers and with local communities;
Whereas hostels are simple, safe, shared accommodations
that promote community and cooperation among users and
introduce young people of limited means to travel;
Whereas Hostelling International USA (HI-USA) is a
nonprofit educational organization established in 1934 as
American Youth Hostels to promote hostelling in the United
States;
Whereas, since its founding, HI-USA has provided in its
hostels more than 22,000,000 overnight stays to visitors from
the United States and more than 150 countries worldwide;
Whereas today HI-USA has a network of 70 hostels in areas
of cultural, historic, and recreational interest, often in
partnership with public, private, and other nonprofit
organizations, that annually hosts nearly 1,000,000
overnights stays by both domestic and foreign travelers;
Whereas HI-USA today offers programs through its hostels
and local chapters that promote the appreciation of local
culture and environment, while facilitating the discovery of
both world and self, to more than 65,000 participants
annually;
Whereas HI-USA has made a unique and notable contribution
to intercultural understanding in the United States and
worldwide, especially among youth: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates Hostelling International USA on its 75
years of service; and
(2) commends Hostelling International USA for its
contributions to intercultural exchange and its leadership in
the field of youth travel.
____________________
COMMEMORATING THE LIVES OF THE MARYKNOLL SISTERS
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of S. Res. 381 submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 381) remembering and commemorating
the lives and work of Maryknoll Sisters Maura Clarke and Ita
Ford, Ursuline Sister Dorothy Kazel, and Cleveland Lay
Mission Team Member Jean Donovan, who were executed by
members of the Armed Forces of El Salvador on December 2,
1980.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of
this measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am grateful to my colleagues for
joining me in passing a resolution which remembers the lives of 4
American women who continue to be a source of great inspiration.
Mr. President, on December 2, 1980, 2 Maryknoll Sisters, Maura Clarke
and Ita Ford, Ursuline Sister Dorothy Kazel, and Cleveland Team lay
missionary Jean Donovan were brutally violated and murdered by members
of the Salvadoran National Guard. We do not wish to revisit the events
of those difficult times in Central America with this resolution. We
wish to remember and honor the love and dedication these women of faith
showed to those they came to serve.
Two years ago, on the December 2 anniversary of the brutal deaths of
these 4 American women, several 25th anniversary events were held in
the United States including 1 at Milwaukee's Saint Therese Church in my
home State of Wisconsin. I was pleased that the House passed a
resolution honoring the lives of the 4 missionaries in the year of the
25th anniversary. Unfortunately, one or more members of this body
anonymously blocked the Senate from passing a similar resolution to
commemorate the 25th anniversary of the murder of these nuns. Along
with my cosponsors, I am pleased that the Senate is now appropriately
honoring these women with the passage of this resolution.
Mr. President, remembering these women is a very personal and moving
thing for those who actually knew them, but it is also truly powerful
for
[[Page 31396]]
those who have only learned of them after their deaths. I had the
opportunity several years ago to meet many of their family members and
have become well aware of one of the churchwomen, Sister Ita Ford,
through my chief of staff and her aunt, Jean Reardon Baumann, who was a
dear friend of Ita's from their childhood together in Brooklyn, New
York.
I would like to share with my colleagues a letter Sister Ita Ford
wrote to her niece in August of 1980:
Dear Jennifer, the odds that this note will arrive for your
birthday are poor, but know I'm with you in spirit as you
celebrate 16 big ones. I hope it's a special day for you. I
want to say something to you and I wish I were there to talk
to you because sometimes letters don't get across all the
meaning and feeling. But, I'll give it a try anyway.
First of all, I love you and care about you and how you
are. I'm sure you know that. That holds if you're an angel or
a goof-off, a genius or a jerk. A lot of that is up to you,
and what you decide to do with your life. What I want to say
. . . some of it isn't too jolly birthday talk, but it's
real. . . . Yesterday I stood looking down at a 16-year-old
who had been killed a few hours earlier. I know a lot of kids
even younger who are dead. This is a terrible time in El
Salvador for youth. A lot of idealism and commitment is
getting snuffed out here now. The reasons why so many people
are being killed are quite complicated, yet there are some
clear, simple strands. One is that many people have found a
meaning to life, to sacrifice, to struggle, and even to
death. And whether their life span is 16 years, 60 or 90, for
them, their life has had a purpose. In many ways, they are
fortunate people.
Brooklyn is not passing through the drama of El Salvador,
but some things hold true wherever one is, and at whatever
age. What I'm saying is, I hope you come to find that which
gives life a deep meaning for you . . . something worth
living for, maybe even worth dying for . . . something that
energizes you, enthuses you, enables you to keep moving
ahead. I can't tell you what it might be--that's for you to
find, to choose, to love. I can just encourage you to start
looking, and support you in the search. Maybe this sounds
weird and off-the-wall, and maybe, no one else will talk to
you like this, but then, too, I'm seeing and living things
that others around you aren't. . . . I want to say to you:
don't waste the gifts and opportunities you have to make
yourself and other people happy. . . . I hope this doesn't
sound like some kind of a sermon because I don't mean it that
way. Rather, it's something you learn here, and I want to
share it with you. In fact, it's my birthday present to you.
If it doesn't make sense right at this moment, keep this and
read it sometime from now. Maybe it will be clearer . . .
A very happy birthday to you and much, much love,
Ita.
From that one letter alone, I am sure that others will understand the
kind of people these women were, and the impact they continue to have
on us all.
I also want to thank, in particular, my friend from Massachusetts
Congressman Jim McGovern and his staff who have led the efforts in
Congress to appropriately remember these 4 courageous American women
who dedicated their lives to their faith and to the service of others.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to,
the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the
table en bloc, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 381) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 381
Whereas on December 2, 1980, 4 churchwomen from the United
States, Maryknoll Sisters Maura Clarke and Ita Ford, Ursuline
Sister Dorothy Kazel, and Cleveland Lay Mission Team Member
Jean Donovan, were violated and executed by members of the
National Guard of El Salvador;
Whereas in 1980, Maryknoll Sisters Maura Clarke and Ita
Ford were working in the parish of the Church of San Juan
Bautista in Chalatenango, El Salvador, providing food,
transportation, and other assistance to refugees, and
Ursuline Sister Dorothy Kazel and Cleveland Lay Mission Team
Member Jean Donovan were working in the parish of the Church
of the Immaculate Conception in La Libertad, El Salvador,
providing assistance and support to refugees and other
victims of violence;
Whereas these 4 churchwomen from the United States
dedicated their lives to working with the poor of El
Salvador, especially women and children left homeless,
displaced, and destitute by the civil war in El Salvador;
Whereas these 4 churchwomen from the United States were
among the more than 70,000 civilians who were murdered during
the course of the civil war in El Salvador;
Whereas on May 23 and May 24, 1984, 5 members of the
National Guard of El Salvador, Subsergeant Luis Antonio
Colindres Aleman, Daniel Canales Ramirez, Carlos Joaquin
Contreras Palacios, Francisco Orlando Contreras Recinos, and
Jose Roberto Moreno Canjura, were found guilty by the El
Salvador courts of the executions of these 4 churchwomen from
the United States and were sentenced to 30 years in prison,
marking the first time in El Salvador history in which a
member of the Armed Forces of El Salvador was convicted of
murder by an El Salvador judge;
Whereas the United Nations Commission on the Truth for El
Salvador was established under the terms of the historic
January 1992 Peace Accords that ended 12 years of civil war
in El Salvador and was charged to investigate and report to
the El Salvador people on human rights crimes committed by
all sides during the course of the civil war;
Whereas in March 1993, the United Nations Commission on the
Truth for El Salvador found that the execution of these 4
churchwomen from the United States was planned, that
Subsergeant Luis Antonio Colindres Aleman carried out orders
from a superior to execute them, that then Colonel Carlos
Eugenio Vides Casanova, then Director-General of the National
Guard and his cousin, Lieutenant Colonel Oscar Edgardo
Casanova Vejar, then Commander of the Zacatecoluca military
detachment where the murders were committed, and other
military personnel knew that members of the National Guard
had committed the murders pursuant to orders of a superior,
and that the subsequent coverup of the facts adversely
affected the judicial investigation into the murders of the
churchwomen;
Whereas the United Nations Commission on the Truth for El
Salvador determined that General Jose Guillermo Garcia, then
Minister of Defense, made no serious effort to conduct a
thorough investigation of responsibility for the murders of
these 4 churchwomen from the United States;
Whereas the families of these 4 churchwomen from the United
States continue their efforts to determine the full truth
surrounding the murders of their loved ones, appreciate the
cooperation of United States Government agencies in
disclosing and providing documents relevant to the murders of
the churchwomen, and pursue requests to release to the family
members the few remaining undisclosed documents and reports
pertaining to the case;
Whereas the families of these 4 churchwomen from the United
States appreciate the ability of those harmed by violence to
bring suit against El Salvador military officers in United
States courts under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991
(28 U.S.C. 1350 note);
Whereas the lives of these 4 churchwomen from the United
States have, for the past 27 years, served as inspiration for
and continue to inspire Salvadorans, Americans, and people
throughout the world to answer the call to service and to
pursue lives dedicated to addressing the needs and
aspirations of the poor, the vulnerable, and the
disadvantaged, especially among women and children;
Whereas the lives of these 4 churchwomen from the United
States have also inspired numerous books, plays, films,
music, religious events, and cultural events;
Whereas schools, libraries, research centers, spiritual
centers, health clinics, women's and children's programs in
the United States and in El Salvador have been named after or
dedicated to Sisters Maura Clarke, Ita Ford, Dorothy Kazel,
and lay missionary Jean Donovan;
Whereas the Maryknoll Sisters, headquartered in Ossining,
New York, the Ursuline Sisters, headquartered in Cleveland,
Ohio, numerous religious task forces in the United States,
and the Salvadoran and international religious communities
based in El Salvador annually commemorate the lives and
martyrdom of these 4 churchwomen from the United States;
Whereas the historic January 1992 Peace Accords ended 12
years of civil war in El Salvador and have allowed the
Government and the people of El Salvador to achieve
significant progress in creating and strengthening
democratic, political, economic, and social institutions in
El Salvador; and
Whereas December 2, 2007, marks the 27th anniversary of the
deaths of these 4 spiritual, courageous, and generous
churchwomen from the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) remembers and commemorates the lives and work of
Sisters Maura Clarke, Ita Ford, and Dorothy Kazel and lay
missionary Jean Donovan;
(2) extends sympathy and support for the families, friends,
and religious communities of these four churchwomen from the
United States;
(3) continues to find inspiration in the lives and work of
these four churchwomen from the United States;
(4) calls upon the people of the United States and
religious congregations to participate in local, national,
and international
[[Page 31397]]
events commemorating the 27th anniversary of the martyrdom of
these four churchwomen from the United States;
(5) recognizes that while progress has been made in El
Salvador during the post-civil war period, the work begun by
these 4 churchwomen from the United States remains unfinished
and social and economic hardships persist among many sectors
of El Salvador society; and
(6) calls upon the President, the Secretary of State, the
Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development, and the heads of other United States Government
agencies to continue to support and collaborate with the
Government of El Salvador and with private sector,
nongovernmental, regional, international, and religious
organizations in their efforts to reduce poverty and hunger
and to promote educational opportunity, health care, and
social equity for the people of El Salvador.
____________________
WORLD DIABETES DAY
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of S. Res. 382 submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 382) supporting the goals and ideals
of World Diabetes Day.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I was pleased to introduce a
Senate resolution recognizing November 14 as World Diabetes Day. I am
also pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Pete Domenici and
Frank Lautenberg. Established in 1991 by the World Health Organization
and the International Diabetes Federation, this day has been recognized
annually as World Diabetes Day.
Through World Diabetes Day, advocates worldwide can coordinate
diabetes awareness activities and create a sense of urgency about this
devastating disease. In almost every nation, diabetes is on the rise.
In the United States, diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death by
disease. Globally, diabetes is fourth.
Diabetes currently affects 246 million people worldwide and is
projected to affect 380 million by 2025. Last year, the United Nations
passed landmark Resolution 61/225 recognizing diabetes as a chronic,
debilitating, and costly disease.
Each year, over 3.7 million people die due to diabetes. An even
greater number die from cardiovascular disease exacerbated by diabetes-
related lipid disorders. Every 10 seconds, two people develop diabetes
and one person dies from diabetes-related causes.
The prevalence of diabetes is increasing in Michigan--from 5.3
percent to 7.9 percent over the past 10 years. There are 1.3 million
Michiganians who have diabetes or are prediabetic. Michigan has the
seventh highest rate of diabetes in the Nation, and diabetes costs our
State's economy $6 billion a year in health costs and lost
productivity. Diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death in Michigan
and the fourth leading cause of death among African-American females in
Michigan.
This year, the World Diabetes Day campaign will focus on the message
that no child should die of diabetes.'' I take this goal very
seriously. As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I am committed to
ensuring our children have healthy options in their school meals. And I
am working with Senator Domenici on reauthorizing the Special Diabetes
Program.
We can no longer ignore the growing incidence of diabetes. Instead,
let us draw worldwide attention to prevention, access, and treatment.
Finally, I am pleased to have letters of support from diabetes
advocacy organizations. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
International Diabetes Federation,
Brussels, Belgium, November 11, 2007.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear U.S. Senator Stabenow and U.S. Senator Domenici: The
International Diabetes Federation (IDF), an over 50-year old
worldwide alliance of over 200 diabetes associations in more
than 160 countries, is pleased to endorse H. Con. Res. 211,
your resolution supporting the goals and ideals of World
Diabetes Day.
Established by the World Health Organization and
International Diabetes Federation in 1991, World Diabetes Day
has been commemorated annually on November 14th. World
Diabetes Day has succeeded in elevating and coordinating
diabetes advocacy globally. Further, it is especially
meaningful for the international diabetes advocacy community
that on December 20, 2006, the General Assembly of the United
Nations passed a landmark Resolution recognizing diabetes as
a chronic, debilitating and costly disease.
Cities and nations all over the world are holding events to
celebrate World Diabetes Day. For example, in Egypt, the
well-known Bibliotheca Alexandrina (Library of Alexandria)
will light up in blue on November 14th. And, La Federacion
Mexicana de Diabetes (Mexican Diabetes Federation) has
planned a series of events throughout Mexico to mark this
year's World Diabetes Day, including a diabetes awareness
week in Jalisco, walks in Mexico City and Guanajuato, and
activities for children and adolescents in Chihuahua.
Senators Stabenow and Domenici, we share your particular
enthusiasm that the 2007 Campaign's theme focuses on raising
awareness of diabetes in children and adolescents, who face
unique challenges when diagnosed with diabetes. The campaign
aims, among other objectives, to firmly establish the message
that ``no child should die of diabetes''.
Thank you for your leadership on this important global
health awareness campaign, Senators Stabenow and Domenici.
Sincerely,
Martin Silink.
____
American Diabetes Association,
November 14, 2007.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Sen. Pete Domenici,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators: On behalf of the 20.8 million children and
adults living with diabetes in the Unites States, the
American Diabetes Association is pleased to endorse your
resolution supporting the goals and ideals of World Diabetes
Day. This important day has succeeded in elevating and
coordinating diabetes education and advocacy around the world
and we applaud your leadership in bringing congressional
attention to it.
Established by the World Health Organization and
International Diabetes Federation in 1991, World Diabetes Day
has been commemorated annually on November 14th. On December
20, 2006, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed a
landmark Resolution recognizing diabetes as a chronic,
debilitating and costly disease, and designating World
Diabetes Day as a United Nations Day to be observed every
year starting this year.
As you know, Diabetes is a lifelong chronic disease that
has become a health problem of epidemic proportions around
the globe. More than 240 million people worldwide are living
with diabetes. This number is expected to exceed 350 million
in less than 20 years if action is not taken. Diabetes is the
fifth highest cause of disease-related death, killing more
than 2.9 million people from diabetesrelated complications
annually, greater than 600 people each day in our own
country. In fact, every 10 seconds a person dies of diabetes-
related causes--including heart disease, stroke, blindness,
kidney disease and amputations.
Children are not spared from this global epidemic, with its
debilitating and life-threatening complications. The theme of
this year's World Diabetes Day campaign is `Diabetes in
Children and Adolescents.' Type 1 diabetes is growing by 3%
per year in children and adolescents, and at an alarming 5%
per year among pre-school children. Type 2 diabetes was once
seen as a disease of adults. Today, this type of diabetes is
growing at alarming rates in children and adolescents. In the
United States, it is estimated that type 2 diabetes
represents between 8 and 45% of new-onset diabetes cases in
children depending on geographic location. Early diagnosis
and early education are crucial to reducing complications and
saving lives.
Senator Stabenow and Senator Domenici, we share your
enthusiasm that the 2007 Campaign's theme focuses on raising
awareness of diabetes in children and adolescents, who face
unique challenges when diagnosed with diabetes. Passage of
this resolution will send a powerful message about the
seriousness of this disease and help to alleviate the human,
economic and social burden of diabetes.
Thank you, again, for your leadership on this important
global health awareness campaign. In this, and in other
diabetes issues, the American Diabetes Association stands
ready to support your efforts.
Sincerely,
Hunter Limbaugh,
Chair, National Advocacy Committee.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to,
the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the
table en bloc, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in
the Record.
[[Page 31398]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 382) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 382
Whereas the World Health Organization and the International
Diabetes Federation established World Diabetes Day in 1991
with the aim of coordinating diabetes advocacy worldwide;
Whereas World Diabetes Day is celebrated annually on
November 14;
Whereas, on December 20, 2006, the General Assembly of the
United Nations passed a landmark resolution recognizing
diabetes as a chronic, debilitating, and costly disease;
Whereas the resolution designates World Diabetes Day as a
United Nations Day to be observed every year starting in 2007
in order to raise global awareness of diabetes;
Whereas the theme of the 2007 United Nations World Diabetes
Day campaign focuses on raising awareness of diabetes in
children and adolescents, who face unique challenges when
diagnosed with diabetes;
Whereas the United Nations campaign aims, among other
objectives, to firmly establish the message that no child
should die of diabetes;
Whereas the global diabetes epidemic has devastating
effects on families, societies, and national economies;
Whereas diabetes is the 4th leading cause of death by
disease in the world, and is the 6th leading cause of death
in the United States;
Whereas diabetes is a leading cause of blindness, kidney
failure, amputation, heart attack, and stroke;
Whereas in almost every country the incidence of diabetes
is increasing, growing from an estimated 30,000,000 people
worldwide in 1985 to an estimated 245,000,000 people in 2007,
and to 380,000,000 by 2025, as reported by the International
Diabetes Federation;
Whereas diabetes is one of the most common chronic
childhood diseases;
Whereas diabetes can strike children at any age, and when
diagnosed in young people the risk of developing life-
threatening complications at an early age increases and life
expectancy is shortened by, on average, 10 to 20 years;
Whereas new figures from the International Diabetes
Federation's Diabetes Atlas suggest that more than 70,000
children develop type 1 diabetes each year and 440,000
children worldwide under the age of 14 now live with type 1
diabetes;
Whereas recent data indicate that 1 out of every 3 children
born in the United States will develop diabetes during their
lifetime, including 1 out of every 2 children from ethnic
minority groups;
Whereas in low- and middle-income countries, many children
with diabetes die because they are diagnosed late or
misdiagnosed or because insulin is unaffordable, unavailable,
or in short supply;
Whereas the incidence of type 2 diabetes, which was
previously rare in children, is rising at alarming rates,
with more than 200 children a day developing this form of
diabetes;
Whereas obesity is a major contributor to type 2 diabetes;
Whereas according to the International Obesity Task Force
of the International Association for the Study of Obesity,
155,000,000 school-age children worldwide are overweight,
representing at least 1 out of every 10 school-age children;
Whereas at least 30,000,000 of those overweight children
are classified as obese, accounting for at least 2 percent of
the world's children between the ages of 5 and 17 years of
age;
Whereas research has shown conclusively that type 2
diabetes can be prevented or significantly delayed through
healthy weight maintenance and regular physical activity;
Whereas adopting a lifestyle high in physical activity and
adopting a low-sugar, low-fat diet can successfully prevent
the onset of obesity and diabetes among school-age children;
Whereas diabetes is costly, with the world estimated to
spend at least $232,000,000,000 in 2007 and over
$302,500,000,000 by 2025 to treat and prevent diabetes and
its complications;
Whereas world treatment costs for diabetes are growing more
quickly than the world population;
Whereas diabetes threatens to subvert global economic
advancement by both straining government budgets worldwide
(with the cost of diabetes-related disability payments,
pensions, social and medical service costs, and lost revenue)
and burdening private health insurers and employers with
spiraling health care costs;
Whereas by 2025 the largest increases in diabetes
prevalence will take place in developing countries, whose
economies are less able to support increased expenditures to
provide for those with the disease and engage in effective
prevention efforts; and
Whereas the economic impact of diabetes threatens to
undermine the achievement of the United Nation's Millennium
Development Goals for developing countries: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the Senate supports the goals and ideals of
World Diabetes Day.
____________________
ORDERS FOR THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2007
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes
its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Thursday,
November 15; that on Thursday, following the prayer and pledge, the
Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour deemed
expired, the time for the 2 leaders reserved for their use later in the
day; that there then be a period of morning business for 60 minutes,
with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each and
the time equally divided and controlled, with Senator Feingold
recognized first for up to 15 minutes; that then the Republicans
control the next 30 minutes; that following that time, the majority
control the final 15 minutes of morning business; that at the close of
morning business, the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 2419,
the farm bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. DURBIN. As a reminder to Members, cloture was filed on the Harkin
substitute amendment on H.R. 2419. All germane amendments must be
timely filed by 1 p.m. tomorrow; however, Members do not need to refile
any germane amendments already filed.
____________________
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT
Mr. DURBIN. I now ask that following the remarks of Senator Dole, the
Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Pending the arrival of Senator Dole, I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
HUNGER AND NUTRITION
Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, in America--the land of prosperity and
plenty, some people have the misconception that hunger plagues only
faraway, undeveloped nations. The reality is that hunger is a silent
enemy lurking within 1 in 10 U.S. households.
In my home State of North Carolina alone, nearly 1 million of our 8.8
million residents are struggling with food insecurity issues. In recent
years, once-thriving North Carolina towns have been economically
crippled by the shutting of textile mills and furniture factories.
People have lost their jobs and sometimes their ability to put food on
the table.
I know this scenario is not unique to North Carolina, as many
American manufacturing jobs have moved overseas. While many folks are
finding new employment, these days a steady income does not necessarily
provide for three square meals a day. Hunger and food insecurity are
far too prevalent, but I think Washington Post columnist David Broder
hit the nail on the head when he wrote:
America has some problems that defy solution. This one does
not. It just needs caring people and a caring government,
working together.
I certainly agree. The battle to end hunger in our country is a
campaign that cannot be won in months or even a few years, but it is a
victory within reach.
To this end, I strongly support what the nutrition title of the farm
bill strives to accomplish. I commend my colleagues on the Senate
Agriculture Committee for putting together a package that helps address
the hunger and nutrition needs of Americans of all ages. For example,
with regard to the Food Stamp Program, this bill seeks to responsibly
address concerns of fraud, waste, and abuse in the system and help
ensure that it serves those who truly need assistance.
[[Page 31399]]
I am also pleased that the nutrition title expands the Fresh Fruit
and Vegetable Program to all 50 States. This program encourages healthy
eating habits in schoolchildren and helps combat childhood obesity.
According to a recent Duke University report, in the last 25 years, the
rate of obesity has doubled for children ages 6 to 11, and has tripled
for teens.
Today, about 10 percent of 2- to 5-year-olds and 15 percent of 6- to
19-year-olds are overweight. In North Carolina, where childhood obesity
rates have been higher than national averages, I am very proud that
nearly 1.4 million children are enrolled this school year in the Fresh
Fruit and Vegetable Program. This certainly is a positive way to help
combat the childhood obesity problem.
Furthermore, I am pleased this bill will allow schools participating
in the School Lunch Program to use geographic preference when
purchasing fruits and vegetables. This is especially good news in North
Carolina where our farmers produce a wide variety of nutritious fruits
and vegetables.
I also welcome a provision in the nutrition title that makes
permanent the exclusion of combat zone pay from eligibility
determinations in the Food and Nutrition Program. More than 157,700
servicemembers from North Carolina have deployed to Iraq and
Afghanistan, and their families, who are sacrificing greatly, should
not become ineligible because the head of household receives extra
income for serving in harm's way.
Additionally, I am pleased that the nutrition title expands the use
of electronic benefit transfer at farmers' markets. As in other States,
in North Carolina's rural areas the poverty rate tends to be higher,
and there is limited access to grocery stores that participate in the
Food and Nutrition Program. Our State prides itself on having some of
the finest farmers' markets around, and allowing the use of EBT will
provide needier individuals access to these healthy, homegrown foods.
Likewise, this bill also increases funding for the Senior Farmers'
Market Nutrition Program, which helps low-income seniors, and it
continues and extends the Commodity Supplemental Food Program to more
low-income individuals.
While I am encouraged by these hunger and nutrition components, there
is still more we can and should accomplish in this farm bill to help
those in need.
One area where I have focused my efforts is gleaning, where excess
crops that would otherwise be thrown out are taken from farms,
packinghouses, and warehouses, and distributed to the needy.
It is staggering--really staggering--that each year in this country
96 billion pounds of good, nutritious food, including that at the farm
and retail level, is left over or thrown away. Gleaning helps eliminate
this waste. It helps the farmer because he does not have to haul off or
plow under crops that do not meet exact specifications of grocery
chains. And it certainly helps the hungry by giving them nutritious,
fresh foods.
Last month, in Harnett County, NC, I gleaned sweet potatoes with
volunteers from the hunger relief organization the Society of St.
Andrew. One of the single largest concerns for groups such as this
wonderful organization is transportation--how to actually get food from
the farm, for example, to those in need. According to the Society of
St. Andrew, the increase in fuel costs has made food transport
particularly challenging. They say today it costs 30 percent more to
hire a truck to move food than it did 2 years ago.
To help address this problem, I am putting forward my bill, the
Hunger Relief Trucking Tax Credit, as an amendment to this legislation.
My measure would change the Tax Code to give transportation companies
tax incentives for volunteering trucks to transfer gleaned food.
Specifically, my bill would create a 25-cent tax credit for each mile
that food is transported for hunger relief efforts by a donated truck
and driver. This bill would provide a little extra encouragement for
trucking companies to donate space in their vehicles to help more food
reach more hungry people.
Additionally, I am proud to join my colleague Senator Lautenberg as a
cosponsor of an amendment that helps fight hunger in our communities by
combining food rescue with job training, thus teaching unemployed and
homeless adults the skills needed to work in the food service industry.
The FEED Program, which stands for Food Employment Empowerment and
Development, will support community kitchens around the country with
much needed resources to help collect rescued food and provide meals to
the hungry. Successful FEED-type programs already exist. For example,
in Charlotte, NC, the Community Culinary School recruits students from
social service agencies, homeless shelters, halfway houses, and work
release programs. And just around the corner from the U.S. Capitol,
students are hard at work in the DC Central Kitchen's culinary job
training class. This is a model program, which began in 1990, and it is
always, to me, a great privilege to visit the kitchen and meet with the
individuals who have faced adversity but are now on track for a career
in the food service industry.
While I do have a number of concerns about the farm bill and its
impact on North Carolina agriculture, I welcome this bill's hunger and
nutrition focus. Particularly with Thanksgiving just 1 week away, let
us remember our 35 million fellow Americans who are struggling to have
enough to eat. With the addition of the Hunger Relief Trucking Tax
Credit and the FEED Program provision, this farm bill can go even
further to responsibly lend a helping hand to those in need.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands
adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 7:17 p.m., adjourned until Thursday,
November 15, 2007, at 9:30 a.m.
[[Page 31400]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Wednesday, November 14, 2007
The House met at 10 a.m.
Deacon Bob Little, St. Helena Catholic Church, St. Helena,
California, offered the following prayer:
Heavenly Father, we thank You for the beginning of this new day. Be
fully with us today. Open our eyes that we might see goodness in what
we do here in this room. Open our ears that we may hear the will of all
Your people. Open our hearts that we might be compassionate in all that
we do. Share with us Your wisdom, O Lord, that we may know the right
decisions to make. Share with us Your strength, O Lord, that we might
resist that which draws us away from good and fair judgment.
We humbly ask You to strengthen our courage and resolve to stand up
for those issues we know to be just. We ask You, Father, to protect and
watch over those who are today in harm's way that we might continue to
do our work. Console the families of those heroes, domestic and abroad,
who sacrifice their very lives that we might be free. For that freedom
and Your love we are truly grateful.
Thank You, Father, for the gift of responsibility that You give to
each of us as leaders of this great Nation.
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.
Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a
vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the Speaker's approval of the
Journal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PENCE. Madam 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. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX, further proceedings on
this question will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) come
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. GUTIERREZ 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 Chair will entertain up to 15 requests for 1-minute
speeches on each side of the aisle.
____________________
GOVERNOR PERDUE OF GEORGIA PRAYS FOR RAIN
(Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. BLUMENAUER. This morning, the Washington Times has a story about
the Governor of Georgia, Sonny Perdue, praying for rain. The Governor
said, and I quote, ``It's time to appeal to Him who can and will make a
difference.''
I find that ironic, coming from the Governor of the State of Georgia,
a State that has no realistic plan about how it's going to use its
water resources, has no understanding of what the demands are for the
work that they have in place right now.
The good Lord might say, Sonny, why did you have a huge artificial
snow mountain so people can ski in Georgia in the middle of the summer
in the middle of a drought?
``I believe in miracles,'' one minister said. Perhaps that would be
one solution.
But maybe it's time for people to respect and carefully use what God
has given them. The good Lord does help those who help themselves.
____________________
SECURITY AT O'HARE AIRPORT
(Mr. ROSKAM asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to address a new
development surrounding our Nation's airports. I represent Illinois'
Sixth Congressional District, which is the home of Chicago O'Hare
International Airport. O'Hare is the world's second busiest airport,
and a week ago agents from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Unit, a division of Homeland Security known as ICE, as well as Cook
County sheriffs deputies, raided warehouses and secured areas at
O'Hare, arresting over 27 alleged illegal aliens who had received
fraudulent identification badges from a local employment agency. These
illegal individuals had access to the tarmac, to cargo, as well as
other secure areas putting them in direct contact with aircraft.
That is why I am an original cosponsor of legislation introduced by
my friend and colleague, Mr. Kirk from Illinois.
It gives authority for any airport Federal security director to
designate airport areas that he or she certifies as a critical area for
transportation security as a special security zone. Once an area at an
airport is declared a security zone, it is off-limits to illegal
aliens.
Once an area at an airport is declared a ``special security zone''
only the airport's Federal Security Director can issue security badges
to these zones.
This legislation also states that only U.S. Nationals who have been
cleared by Basic Pilot Program verification system can be given
security access badges to these zones.
We must be tough when it comes to airport security because it is our
first line in defense here at home against terrorists who want to kill
more Americans.
I ask my fellow colleague in the House to join me in securing our
airports and cosponsor this vital piece of legislation.
____________________
OUR IMMIGRATION POLICY
(Mr. GUTIERREZ asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, more than 21,000 foreign-born men and
women currently serve on active duty, willing to die in defense of our
Nation. U.S. Navy Second Class Petty Officer Eduardo Gonzalez is one of
these brave men, a naturalized U.S. citizen who has served two tours in
the gulf region. Despite his valiant service, Eduardo Gonzalez faces
the deportation of his wife Mildred. At age 5, she was brought here
from Guatemala. Now, in addition to confronting enemies from abroad,
Gonzalez must confront a threat at home, losing the wife and mother of
their 2-year-old child.
In his testimony before the Immigration Subcommittee, Gonzalez
stated: As a citizen of the United States of America, it makes me
wonder, if I can die for my country, then why am I not allowed to just
be with my family?
Like Petty Officer Gonzalez, immigrant soldiers fight with vigor and
valor to protect the American Dream. All of those who serve, regardless
of country of origin, are recognized as American heroes. As heroes,
they deserve an immigration policy worthy of their sacrifices and
nothing less.
[[Page 31401]]
____________________
KNOW WHO WORKS AT O'HARE
(Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, you do not need a valid Social Security
number to get a job at America's busiest airport. Recently, Federal
inspectors reported that screeners at O'Hare Airport also missed 60
percent of all bomb test kits designed to test the screeners. The
Justice Department then found three dozen illegal aliens using expired
airport security badges. Authorities had no idea who the real identity
was of workers with direct access to civil aircraft. This is not the
way to run America's busiest airport.
Later today, Representatives Roskam, Biggert, and I will introduce
legislation creating Federal security zones where only badged and
approved United States citizens can work next to an aircraft. Everyone
at the airport Federal security zone will have a background check and
have a valid, real Social Security number.
You would think the Transportation Security Agency would know who is
working at American airports. Our bill would help implement that
commonsense solution.
____________________
IN HONOR OF PFC MATTHEW T. SPAULDING
(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to
recognize a brave American who is serving our country with distinction.
Private First Class Matthew T. Spaulding of Bluffton, South Carolina,
was a recent recipient of the Army's Bronze Star with Valor for his
heroic actions in Afghanistan. The former Bluffton High School
quarterback has been deployed since January as an Army medic.
On June 9th, PFC Spaulding was on patrol with his unit when their
vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device. Suffering several
wounds himself, Spaulding was able to come to the aid of one of his
comrades who was severely injured. Through his quick and selfless
action in the face of danger, Spaulding was able to save his fellow
soldier's life.
The Bronze Star with Valor is awarded to a soldier who has performed
an act of heroism in combat. It is the fourth highest combat medal
awarded to members of the armed services.
I am grateful for PFC Spaulding's service, and for all the brave men
and women who are fighting to protect our freedoms around the world.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September 11th.
____________________
{time} 1015
SCHIP AND CITIZENSHIP DOCUMENTATION
(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to urge my colleagues to
support a strong reauthorization of the SCHIP program that prevents
additional loss of health care access to U.S. citizen children.
Medicaid citizenship documentation created by the Deficit Reduction
Act has caused citizen children to lose access to health care. Low-
income white and black U.S. citizen children, not Latino citizens, are
disproportionately affected. Documentation requirements are extremely
burdensome to low-income families who often lack the resources to pay
for that documentation.
In Alabama, Kansas and Virginia, Medicaid enrollment declined by a
larger percentage among white and black children than among Latino
children who were U.S. citizens.
The Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human Services
and the past administrator of CMS concurred that there is no
substantial evidence that undocumented immigrants are committing fraud
in order to receive Medicaid.
Citizenship documentation, as implemented, is a flawed policy based
on inaccurate assumptions that adversely affect our children's health.
I urge my colleagues to allow that we enforce a good SCHIP program.
Take care of those 10 million children.
____________________
FREE TO MOVE ABOUT THE COUNTRY-ILLEGALLY
(Mr. POE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, it is illegal to drive a vehicle without a
legal driver's license. Illegals, who aren't even supposed to be here,
broke the law to get here, and they break it every day by staying here.
Some States pander to illegals and encourage them to stay. Seven
States: Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Oregon, New Mexico, Utah and
Washington, issue legal driver's licenses to illegals. These illegals
then can use the driver's license to travel to other States, set up
credit, obtain free social services, and in some States that don't
verify citizenship, use these licenses to vote. Thus, these States
encourage illegals to stay here. This is an absurd policy that gives
the same recognition status to illegals that should be reserved only to
citizens and legal immigrants.
We need stricter requirements for driver's licenses, not more lax
enforcement. The 9/11 terrorists used fake driver's licenses to ``move
about the country freely.'' So States that promote violation of Federal
immigration policy by issuing these driver's licenses to illegals
should lose Federal transportation highway funds.
Millions for border security, not one cent to highways for illegals.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
DEACON BOB LITTLE
(Mr. THOMPSON of California asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I'm honored that Deacon
Bob Little, from my home parish and hometown of St. Helena, is serving
as today's guest chaplain.
Deacon Little has had a lifetime of exemplary service to our country.
He's a 26-year veteran of the Air Force, achieved the rank of major,
and served in Vietnam, Panama and eastern Saudi Arabia.
He's also served the community in Napa County. He was a deputy
sheriff for 12 years and an elementary school science and physical
education teacher.
He later came to work at the St. Helena Catholic Church. After 5
years of training, he was ordained as deacon.
Among the many services he provides the residents of our community,
he also travels throughout Northern California as a military bugler for
the funerals of fallen soldiers.
Deacon Little is a distinguished American citizen and important
community leader, and I thank him for his service to our country and
for the prayer that he led today.
____________________
FUNDING OUR VETERANS
(Mrs. DRAKE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. DRAKE. Madam Speaker, this is day 45, that is, 45 days so far
that our veterans have not had the use of the increased funding for
their benefits and health care. That's $18.5 million a day not able to
be used.
This bill has been done for months and the President has already
agreed to sign it. Now Veterans Day has come and gone, and the Democrat
leadership continues to delay this bill.
I am calling on the Speaker to not adjourn for Thanksgiving until
this bill has been sent to the President. And I call on all Americans
to contact their Representatives and tell the Democratic leadership to
send a clean Veterans appropriation bill to the President now.
How can we celebrate a holiday with our families, knowing that there
are benefits our veterans don't have access to simply because of our
inaction.
[[Page 31402]]
____________________
LABOR-HHS-EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS BILL
(Mr. ALTMIRE asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations
bill passed by Congress reinvests in our Nation's future in a fiscally
responsible way, and it is fully paid for with no deficit spending.
The President vetoed this bill because he apparently believes that a
better course of action would be to deliver massive cuts in critical
domestic priorities, such as funding community health centers and
medical research grants through the National Institutes of Health.
The Labor-HHS-Education bill vetoed by the President strengthens
education by training 51,000 more teachers, and helps 173,000 more
dislocated workers with job training and employment.
And again, unlike the budget-busting funding bills that were passed
by previous Congresses and signed by this President, this bill is fully
paid for and does not add one penny to the Federal deficit.
Madam Speaker, we must override the President's veto and pass this
fiscally responsible bill.
____________________
DENIAL, RETREAT AND DEFEAT IN IRAQ
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, the tide is turning in Iraq. As The
Washington Post noted just last week, the number of attacks against
U.S. soldiers has fallen to levels not seen since before February of
2006, the bombing of a Shiia shrine in Samara that touched off waves of
sectarian killing.
The death toll of American troops in October fell to 39, the lowest
level since March of 2006. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced
this last Sunday that Sunni-Shiia violence in Baghdad was down more
than 75 percent in the last year.
But sadly, today the House of Representatives will bring an Iraq
supplemental bridge fund that once again brings the same tired language
mandating withdrawal from Iraq.
It seems, Madam Speaker, the Democrats are adding denial to their
agenda of retreat and defeat in Iraq. Now is not the time to
micromanage a widening success in Iraq. Let's give the American
soldiers the resources they need to get the job done, see freedom win,
and come home safe.
____________________
AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION
(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure. And SCHIP is prevention, as well as an important
investment in our children and the future of our country.
If we don't make an adequate investment now to provide access to
health care for our children, we will pay for it later. When is the
White House going to get it?
And it must include all children. So let's not agree with the
Republicans to put up barriers to doing that. Democrats opposed citizen
documentation in Medicaid and we must oppose it now. It will hurt poor
children and children who are racial and ethnic minorities, the
children who need it most.
The anti-immigrant rhetoric that is raising its ugly head in this
body is hurting our country. We must not let it hurt our children.
Not covering all poor legal immigrant children and requiring excess
documentation is un-American. Let's end this today with SCHIP, and
let's pass a bill that moves us closer to full coverage and to being
the better country we ought to be.
____________________
CONGRATULATING MAJOR LES BRAUNNS, ARKANSAS STATE POLICE
(Mr. BOOZMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations
to one of my constituents who's dedicated his adult life toward
protecting the men and women of Arkansas.
I rise to congratulate Les Braunns of Springdale on his promotion to
the rank of major in the Arkansas State Police. A 28-year veteran
trooper, Major Braunns was most recently the commanding officer of
Troop L, where he earned the respect and friendship of the men he
commanded.
According to the men of Troop L, Major Braunns always led his men by
example, and led his men from the front, never asking a trooper to
perform a task he was unwilling to perform himself.
His men pointed to the most recent example of his leadership from an
incident in July when the Hell's Angels descended on my district for
their annual get-together. Then Captain Braunns marched into a group of
300 and told them, ``You can police yourselves, or we can do it for
you.'' The State police kept their word and so did the Hell's Angels.
I congratulate Major Braunns on his promotion, and I thank him and
appreciate all that he's done for the State of Arkansas.
____________________
VETERANS GUARANTEED BONUS
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, this weekend, communities throughout our
Nation honored the brave men and women who have defended our Nation in
previous wars, as well as those who are serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan. While parades, speeches and ceremonies are important, I
believe it is more important for the U.S. Government to properly care
for and honor our veterans.
Recently, the Department of Defense has instituted a new policy on
bonuses, which does not provide servicemembers with their full
enlistment bonus, reenlistment or other bonuses if they are wounded
while in combat and cannot return to duty. This means that combat
wounded veterans who are discharged from the military because of their
serious injuries will not receive their full bonus. This policy is
unacceptable and disgraceful. It is unbelievable that the men and women
who have sacrificed so much for our Nation are being shortchanged and
denied the bonuses they were promised by their government.
Congressman Jason Altmire has legislation to correct this inequity,
but we should not have to rely on legislation. I call upon the
Commander in Chief, President Bush, to reverse this policy immediately.
We have a letter going to the President asking him to terminate this
policy and ensure all outstanding bonuses be paid promptly.
____________________
GENERAL BOB LIVINGSTON
(Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, it's that time of year
when we begin to make plans to travel to be with our families for
Thanksgiving, so I want to recognize those American military men and
women fighting overseas who will be unable to go home for Thanksgiving.
Specifically, I'd like to recognize General Bob Livingston, who is
currently serving with South Carolina's very own 218th National Guard
Brigade currently serving in Afghanistan.
General Livingston sent an American flag to his wife, Barbara, who
put it into my hands to thank me for supporting their mission. I've
never been more honored and never received anything more symbolic of
true patriotism.
Our U.S. soldiers are making the sacrifice away from their families
during these holidays. They're always serving to protect our freedom
and our safety.
My wish during this time is that our citizens offer a salute to these
brave soldiers for the loyalty and honor they have had in America and
for their courage to fight for freedom.
218th, Fit to Fight.
[[Page 31403]]
____________________
HONORING FOREIGN-BORN SOLDIERS
(Mr. GRIJALVA asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I rise today also to honor the soldiers
and veterans that sacrifice so much for this Nation. And this week in
which we celebrated Veterans Day, it is an appropriate and necessary
time to reflect on that sacrifice. And in the Congress that often feels
the need to scapegoat or debase immigrants, this body often forgets how
immigrants enrich our lives.
I rise today to take a special moment to thank those foreign-born
noncitizens who are serving in this war and have served in wars past.
In this current war, there are approximately 21,000 noncitizens in
uniform. No other war has produced anywhere near as many posthumous
citizens as this one.
Madam Speaker, I ask you and all my colleagues to work toward
civility, solutions and humanity when we talk about immigration. Please
do not play politics with the lives of current and future immigrants
and their family members, like me, who are only a generation removed
from the experience.
____________________
{time} 1030
WELCOME HOME MINNESOTA GUARD
(Mrs. BACHMANN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, today America and our allies in Iraq
are breathing a collective sigh of relief as we continue to receive
successful report after successful report of al Qaeda's demise in Iraq.
We continue to pray for a complete end to hostilities, but today we
pause to thank America's brave military members and also their family
members.
Just recently, 168 brave men and women returned from the famous Red
Bulls to Minnesota. They were deployed for 13 months, and we thank them
for their sacrifice.
The happy news is that not one of the 168 returned home with serious
injury. Everyone was able to walk out and meet their loved ones.
It seems every generation has to learn the lessons of freedom.
Freedom is precious, Madam Speaker, and we thank those today who
secured our freedom and the freedom of our allies.
____________________
IMMIGRATION
(Mrs. NAPOLITANO asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, since 1886 immigrants to the United
States have passed the Statue of Liberty, which has inscribed, ``Give
me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.'' Why is it that now,
when those huddled masses happen to be brown, the golden door of
freedom is being slammed shut?
Immigrants contribute to the economy. They are free thinkers. They
are hard-driven workers who strive for success, not only for themselves
and their community but for their families. They come to this country
because America is a beacon of hope for them. They are looking for a
better life, just like every immigrant since the Pilgrims landed at
Plymouth Rock.
So why do some amongst us feel it necessary to place every obstacle
possible in their path, to launch bigoted assaults on them, to wrongly
blame those who work the hardest at the worst jobs for the ills of all
of our society?
Immigrants are the history of the United States. They are our past,
they are our present, and I must not rest until we recognize they are
part of the future of this great country.
____________________
FUNDING THE TROOPS
(Mrs. BLACKBURN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Well, here we go again.
Instead of getting down to business and tending to the people's
business, the majority wants to play a political game. So to do it,
they are going to tie temporary funds for our men and women serving in
Iraq and Afghanistan to a timetable for withdrawal. No amendments can
be offered. Once again, the leadership of the House is set to embark on
a legislative gamble to force the hand of U.S. military leadership.
This is their 41st Iraq vote.
But the suspense comes. Will the Houses of Congress, the President,
and the American people take their bluff? I think it is very highly
unlikely.
The Democrat leadership seems content to write legislation that they
know is going to fail. Now, why would you write something you know is
going to fail?
Let's get past this. Let's give up the games. Let's take care of the
people's business. Let's pass clean legislation to ensure the safety of
our troops.
____________________
JEC IRAQ WAR REPORT
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, by every measure the war in
Iraq has cost Americans far too much, whether it's lives lost, dollars
spent, or our reputation tarnished around the world.
House Democrats plan to send the President a smaller war funding bill
than the one he requested but one with a bigger message: Start bringing
our troops home now.
Without a change in course, the Congressional Budget Office has
estimated that Federal spending on the war could reach $2.4 trillion by
2017. A new report from the Joint Economic Committee finds that when
you add in the ``hidden costs'' of the war, such as higher oil prices,
interest payments, and helping to take care of our wounded veterans,
the total economic costs will rise by over $1 trillion to $3.5
trillion.
It's time for a new direction in Iraq.
____________________
IMMIGRATION
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, like many other of my colleagues who spoke
right before, who told stories about how the lack of immigration reform
has affected many families, Madam Speaker, the time for Congress to
pass immigration reform is long overdue.
Our system is broken. Our country is less safe. Families are torn
apart. And people are living in fear. For the Hispanic Caucus, this is
an issue that is personal to a lot of us. Our communities should not be
a punching bag for the vocal few. It's time to stop this hateful
rhetoric that serves only to divide us and bully the vulnerable.
Children should not be torn apart from their mothers. We have been
asked to stand against what are American values of family, providing a
chance to do better.
America is a Nation of immigrants, not just from Mexico and Latin
America but from Canada, Asia, Europe, and Africa. Immigration is not
an Hispanic issue; it's an American issue. It's an American issue.
We want to work together to create a real plan to combat hateful and
often racist rhetoric that affects all of us. I ask my colleagues to do
the right thing and not the political easy thing and to support real
immigration reform.
____________________
URGING SUPPORT FOR H.R. 4102, STOP OUTSOURCING SECURITY ACT
(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Today the New York Times reports that at least 14 of
the 17 shootings from the September 16 Blackwater incident in Iraq were
unjustified and violated deadly force rules.
Even though the FBI concluded that Blackwater, a for-profit
contractor, used excessive force, there is no guarantee that anyone
will be punished for these killings.
[[Page 31404]]
On Monday, the front page of the New York Times ran a story titled
``Security Guard Fires From Convoy, Killing Iraqi Driver.'' The shooter
was an employee of DynCorp, and the victim an Iraqi taxi driver. The
details of the incident are still unclear, but one thing is certain.
The problem of trigger-happy contractors isn't confined to one company;
it applies to all private security contractors.
The longer we wait to fix this problem, the worse the situation is
going to get for the Iraqis and for our troops. I urge my colleagues to
cosponsor the Stop Outsourcing Security Act, H.R. 4102, to phase out
unaccountable private security contractors before they do any more
damage.
____________________
CAUTIONING SENIORS REGARDING PRIVATE MEDICARE INSURANCE OPTIONS
(Ms. CASTOR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, the Medicare open enrollment period begins
tomorrow, November 15, and runs through the end of the year. Across the
country, private HMOs have placed large newspaper ads and are running
TV ads to convince seniors to sign up for their private Medicare
insurance.
I am here to advise seniors to be very cautious. These private HMO
insurance salesmen are on the streets and are oftentimes luring our
seniors into private Medicare coverage that they do not need. If they
leave traditional Medicare and sign up for a private HMO, oftentimes
they will lose access to their doctor.
Be very cautious. Sons and daughters, grandkids across America, help
your parents and grandparents sort through this myriad of options under
private Medicare. In Florida, you can seek independent advice from the
Department of Elder Affairs and the SHINE Volunteers. Seek independent
advice and be very cautious with these private Medicare options.
____________________
WARNING AGAINST IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ
(Mr. BAIRD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BAIRD. My colleagues, as someone who opposed the invasion of Iraq
and believes it was one of the most egregious mistakes in the history
of this country, I rise today to implore you to not make a mistake
today by demanding that we begin an immediate withdrawal.
The facts on the ground are that the situation is improving in Iraq.
Courageous Americans have given their lives and time away from their
families to make that happen. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died
in a conflict that we created. We have a chance now to try to improve
the situation.
Progress is being made. Do not let anyone today say it is not.
Violence is down. Political leaders are reaching out across the aisle.
Shias are meeting with Sunnis. Sunnis are meeting with Shias. They need
more time to succeed, and an insecure situation will undermine the
progress, not further it.
We need to have more time to debate this resolution today. We need to
take the good parts of it, keep those in, but abandon this requirement
for an immediate withdrawal.
There is a big difference between 1 year, which this measure says we
have to be out in, or a 10-year horizon. We should find the nuance now
that we can agree on.
____________________
DEMOCRATS CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR A CHANGE OF DIRECTION IN IRAQ
(Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, 2007 has been the deadliest year for
American troops in Iraq. No doubt that a change of direction is needed,
but President Bush refuses to change course. He envisions a world where
our troops will still be on the ground in Iraq 10 years from now.
This Democratic Congress rejects such a plan. And this week we will
once again consider legislation that will require President Bush to
redeploy our troops out of Iraq while providing our troops in harm's
way with the resources that they need.
President Bush has asked Congress for an additional $200 billion for
Iraq. This House will instead vote on a $50 billion package that will
require the immediate start of the redeployment of U.S. forces out of
Iraq. The legislation sets a goal of having nearly every troop out of
Iraq by the end of next year. That is a significant change in the
course of the war, and it is a change that will finally hold Iraq
accountable for its future course.
Madam Speaker, this Congress will continue to fight to change
President Bush's 10-year, trillion-dollar war. We are committed to
bringing our troops home soon, repairing the readiness of our military,
and refocusing our efforts to fight terrorism around the world.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1429,
IMPROVING HEAD START FOR SCHOOL READINESS ACT OF 2007
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 813 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 813
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 1429) to reauthorize the Head Start Act, to
improve program quality, to expand access, and for other
purposes. All points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration are waived. The conference
report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentlewoman from Florida
is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the
rule is for debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Madam Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House
Resolution 813.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 813 provides for
consideration of the conference report for H.R. 1429, the Improving
Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007. This is the standard rule
for a conference report. It waives all points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration. It also provides that
the conference report shall be considered as read.
Madam Speaker, for over 40 years Head Start has served as the premier
educational and developmental program for America's children, more than
20 million American children and their families. Head Start works. Head
Start works because it is a well-researched, comprehensive initiative
that combines all of the children's educational needs, their health
care needs, and it requires parental involvement. Years later, after 4
decades of Head Start, the research shows that children that
participate in Head Start are more likely to graduate from high school
than their peers.
Head Start is a comprehensive approach to child health nutrition and
learning, and it is one of our best tools in the struggle to close the
achievement gap. The achievement gap for children in poverty in America
must be tackled, and Head Start tackles the achievement gap through
cognitive social and emotional child development, each of which is a
key contributor to entering elementary school ready to succeed.
Today, 20 percent of America's 12 million children under the age of 6
unfortunately live in poverty. We know that a family's income level
greatly affects their child's access to educational
[[Page 31405]]
opportunities. The reality of poverty for so many American children in
poverty is tied to their low success rates in schools.
But in America, family income simply should not impede a child's
educational opportunities, and this is where Head Start comes in to
level the playing field. Back home in Florida in my community in the
Tampa Bay area, over 5,300 children are served by Head Start. But we've
got thousands of children that are eligible and are on the waiting
list. Why are they on the waiting list? Because previous Congresses
have failed to properly support our Head Start kids, and this White
House has flat-lined budgets over the years; so our kids merely have
been treading water.
{time} 1045
There have been no improvements or increases in funding since 2003.
And with inflation, it has been very difficult to maintain the well-
known, high-quality elements in Head Start. But the good news is that
this Congress will change that today and make the smartest investment
in our country's future workforce. And the research statistics bear
repeating; children that participate in Head Start are more likely to
graduate from high school.
We're going to put more children on a path to success today when we
pass this bill and this rule. We're going to improve teacher and
classroom quality. We're going to strengthen the focus on school
readiness. We're going to expand access so children that are on the
waiting list can enter Head Start classrooms. We're going to strengthen
those all-important comprehensive services of health care and
nutrition. We're going to increase the number of children in early Head
Start because the research also shows that it is critical for child
brain development that they have interaction by the age of 3, when
their brains are developing. We're going to focus on allowing more
homeless children to enroll and do a better job for children who are
just learning English.
This year marks 4 decades of success for this holistic wraparound
initiative that empowers all of us. These children are eager and ready
to learn if we give them the tools.
The administration's slow-motion cuts to Head Start will now be
reversed because this Congress, in a bipartisan way, but led by
Democrats, is committed to raising strong and healthy children, and
Head Start prepares our children to succeed in school and in life.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to
thank my friend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the time,
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It's important for the future of our children that they develop the
skills and receive the education necessary to make them a success later
in life. Unfortunately, many children begin their education without a
proper foundation, putting them at a disadvantage that has long-term
effects on their education. We must do all we can so that low-income
children do not begin their education at a disadvantage, and that is
why Head Start was created.
In order to give the children the proper foundation they need to
begin their education, the Head Start program provides comprehensive
early child development services to about 900,000 children from low-
income families. These services prepare children to enter kindergarten
with a proper educational foundation for their continued educational
success to hopefully break the chain of poverty. The underlying
bipartisan conference report builds on the success of the program and
alleviates some of its shortcomings.
The bill authorizes over $7 billion in fiscal year 2008. For fiscal
year 2009, it authorizes a 4.1 percent increase. And for fiscal year
2010, there's an additional 4.5 percent increase.
It is important that the children in Head Start receive the best
education possible. There are several provisions in the conference
report that will help with that goal. First, the legislation seeks to
ensure that a greater number of early Head Start teachers are better
trained and educated in early childhood development, with a focus on
infant toddler development, no later than September 30, 2012.
Additionally, the conference report requires that at least 50 percent
of Head Start teachers nationwide in center-based programs have a
baccalaureate or advanced degree in early childhood education or
related field by September 30, 2013.
Madam Speaker, competition encourages better quality. As recommended
by a 2005 GAO study, this legislation seeks to increase competition
among Head Start grantees to help weed out poor performers and foster
stronger programs.
There is also a need for greater oversight of the program grantees.
This legislation requires Head Start agencies to create a formal
structure of program governance for assessing the quality of services
received by the Head Start children and families, and for making
decisions related to program design and implementation.
The bill also seeks greater transparency and disclosure regarding how
Head Start funds are spent. This will help prevent abuse and further
ensure that Federal Head Start funds reach the disadvantaged children
that they are meant to reach.
The conference report kept the House's unanimously passed motion to
instruct language limiting the compensation of a Head Start employee to
Executive Level II, which equals $168,000. This is to prevent Head
Start employees from receiving excessive salaries and bonuses, like in
some past experiences.
With regard to a child's eligibility in a Head Start program, the
conference report allows Head Start agencies to serve children whose
parents earn 130 percent above the poverty level. The conference report
caps the amount of participants that can be served at the increased
level to 35 percent of all participants, and only if the agency can
prove that they are serving all eligible participants at the poverty
level.
Other important provisions included in the conference report are to
continue the eligibility of faith-based organizations as Head Start
agencies. Head Start has a proud history of inclusion of faith-based
organizations. Approximately 80 grantees have religious affiliations.
With regard to our children's safety, the conference report requires
background checks for those who transport children to Head Start
centers.
I wish to thank both Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon for
their bipartisan work on this important legislation. This important
legislation goes to show, Madam Speaker, that when we are willing to
work together and compromise, we can bring forth good legislation with
bipartisan support.
I urge my colleagues to support the conference report, which I
believe is instrumental to the educational success of many children.
At this time, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a member of the Education
and Labor Committee and an outspoken advocate for America's kids, Ms.
Woolsey.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, today we're going to reauthorize Head
Start and reaffirm, through this conference report, our commitment to
this very, very valuable program.
When I came here 15 years ago, I was insisting that my married
children make me a grandmother, and they told me it was just none of my
business. But since then, I now have 5 grandchildren among my 4
families of young adults, and all of my grandchildren go to preschool.
And they are lucky because they have working parents who are
professionals who can pick out very good schools for them and make
sure, the oldest child is 7\1/2\, and he's the only one in school, he
is a second grader, but ensure that when my grandchildren enter grade
school, elementary school, that they know what's going on. I mean, I'm
telling you, I can't believe it. These kids read, they write, they know
their numbers, they know their alphabet, they can play Monopoly, and
[[Page 31406]]
they aren't even in kindergarten yet. That's what every kid in America
deserves, and that's what Head Start does.
Head Start evens the playing field so that the fortunate children in
my family aren't the only ones that enter elementary school having read
books, having understood that you sit down in a classroom, that you
have social needs that you have to learn to deal with when you're a
young person and you're going to be dealing with other young people in
a classroom situation.
I feel so fortunate, but I also feel so thankful that in a very
bipartisan way, under the chairmanship of Mr. Miller and the good
leadership of Mr. McKeon, we were able to pass legislation that will
finally bring to this floor a Head Start bill.
We need to increase the Head Start funding, of course. We aren't
covering every eligible child in the United States, and we must do that
over time. It's hard to do when you're spending $1.5 trillion in Iraq.
But we must get our priorities in order, and one of our top priorities
must be our children. Our children are 25 percent of our population,
but guess what? They are 100 percent of our future.
We must support programs like Head Start that ensure that our future,
when we become really old people and these young people are running our
world and running our Congress, they know what they're doing.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure
to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking
member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
conference report, and I want to join in commending first the managers
on both sides of the aisle, our friends from Florida, Ms. Castor and
Mr. Diaz-Balart, and of course Mr. Miller, Mr. McKeon, and Mr. Castle,
and all those who have been involved.
The Head Start program is a very important program. It has proved to
be successful. And I'm pleased that we have a measure that is going to,
I believe, become law and ensure that we are able, as we look towards
preparing children for that very critical K-12 education, which we all
know is facing very serious challenges, the Head Start program can help
as they launch into that challenge.
Madam Speaker, I want to take my time, and Mr. Diaz-Balart and I were
just talking about an op-ed piece that was written by the former staff
director of the Committee on Rules, Don Wolfensberger, and it got a
response in today's Roll Call that I think is a very important one. And
I think that, in light of the fact that we're debating rules here, this
is a debate on the rule, and we've seen some real challenges when it
has come to ensuring that the American people have their right to be
heard here on the House floor. I think that I will share an article.
And at this time, I would like to insert this article into the Record,
Mr. Wolfensberger's op-ed piece.
[From Roll Call, Nov. 12, 2007]
Minority's Motion To Recommit Should Not Be Curtailed
(By Don Wolfensberger)
It is the height of political arrogance for the majority
party in the House of Representatives to dictate which
minority party motions are legitimate and which are not. Yet
that is exactly what the Democratic leadership is threatening
through possible House rules changes governing the motion to
recommit.
The motion to recommit a bill to committee with
instructions to amend it was originally used primarily as a
majority party device to make last-minute, minor corrections
before final passage. All that changed in 1909 when Speaker
Joe Cannon (R-Ill.) temporarily headed off a bipartisan
effort to amend House rules and remove him as chairman and a
member of the Rules Committee. Cannon recognized conservative
Democratic Rep. John Fitzgerald (N.Y.) to offer a substitute
amendment that, among other things, guaranteed the minority a
final opportunity to get a vote on its position using the
motion to recommit with instructions. (Cannon would still be
booted from Rules in a bipartisan revolt the following year.)
The minority's right was slowly chipped away when Democrats
last ran the House. Beginning in the early 1980s, Democratic
Speakers and their Rules Committee majority minions used an
obscure 1934 precedent to justify not only limiting the
contents of the minority's instructions but also eventually
denying them the right to offer any instructions. Republicans
fiercely fought these limits at every turn and vowed that if
they came to power the minority's right to offer its
alternative in a motion to recommit with instructions would
be fully restored. They fulfilled that promise upon taking
control of the House in January 1995, and the Democratic
minority enjoyed the right unimpeded over the 12 years of
Republican control.
Nothing in the guaranteed right limits the minority to a
motion that immediately adopts an amendment--the
``forthwith'' motion. The minority also may move to send a
bill physically back to committee with instructions to hold
more hearings, conduct a study or make specified changes in
the legislation. This latter device, to recommit with
instructions to report back an amendment ``promptly''
(instead of ``forthwith'') has been unnerving Democratic
leaders every time Republicans have used it to raise
politically sensitive issues. In two instances the majority
withdrew bills from the floor rather than risk having them
sent back to committee.
The most recent example was the leadership's decision to
pull the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments in
the face of a likely GOP motion to recommit with instructions
to ``promptly'' report back an amendment to exempt from FISA
court coverage any surveillance of al-Qaida or other
terrorist groups.
Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) argues that
such motions are offered simply for ``political purposes''
rather than for the ``substantive purposes'' of ``trying to
change policy.'' At the same time he concedes that Democrats
used such tactics when they were in the minority. The only
apparent difference is that Republicans have had a higher
success rate with their recommit motions (though the only
ones to succeed so far have been ``forthwith'' motions).
The majority is attempting to impose its notion that the
only ``legitimate'' role of the minority party is to offer
substantive policy alternatives in their recommit motions for
instant incorporation in a bill. One way Democrats might try
to enforce this concept is to only allow the minority to
offer ``forthwith'' motions to recommit so that legislation
can move immediately to final passage after the motion is
voted. This ``amend it now or forever hold your peace''
approach overlooks one important role of an opposition party,
and that is to oppose.
Opposing legislation does not carry with it the obligation
to offer responsible policy alternatives that conform to the
majority's timetable for passing a bill (especially when the
minority is being blocked from offering any amendments on a
record-breaking 35 percent of major bills). Opposition may
include not only trying to defeat a bill, but also to slow it
down, including sending it back to a committee for more work.
Yes, a straight motion to recommit without instructions
would accomplish this same purpose. But who is to say that
the minority should not be able to score its own political
points by sending a bill back to committee with a message
attached? After all, the majority routinely gets plenty of PR
mileage out of reporting and passing bills on its political
agenda. To assert that the minority is playing politics with
its motions to recommit while the majority is somehow above
such things in advancing its bills is laughable.
The difference, the majority would have us believe, is that
it is achieving a serious public policy purpose for the
betterment of humankind while the minority is merely engaging
in ``cheap shot'' political tricks with no redeeming social
value. That may be true at times, but the minority should be
allowed to stand or fall on public and media perceptions of
its actions--whether they be seen as foolish or heroic. The
majority also will stand or fall on public perceptions of the
quality of its legislative enactments and may well look just
as foolish if well-intentioned bills produce bad results.
At a time when Congressional Democrats are under heavy fire
and record low public approval ratings for a lackluster
performance (including their inability to put even one of the
12 regular appropriations bills on the president's desk over
a month after the start of the fiscal year), they would do
well to spend more time honing their governance skills and
less trying to control minority party behavior.
This paper, Roll Call, which we all get around here on the Hill, has
been very critical of whichever party has been in control. I will say
that when we were in the majority, this paper was often very critical
of us. And today they have an editorial. Again, this is not Republicans
speaking. It's not Republicans whining. It's not Republicans claiming
that their rights are being trampled on. This is from the editorial
page of today's Roll Call, and the editorial is entitled as follows,
Madam Speaker, it's entitled ``Let 'Em Move.''
``Embarrassed though House Democratic leaders may be by Republican
[[Page 31407]]
success in proposing, and, often, passing politically loaded motions
to recommit, it would be an outrage for the majority to limit the
minority's right to do so.
``Despite promises to manage the House on a more open basis than
Republicans did during their 12-year rule, Democrats have been every
bit as authoritarian, prohibiting any floor amendments, for instance,
at more than double the rate of the previous Congress.'' I'm going to
repeat that, Madam Speaker, ``more than double the rate of the previous
Congress,'' the number of closed rules that they've had. ``Motions to
recommit legislation to committees with instructions on how to alter it
are often the only opportunity the minority has to affect the
legislative process.
``When they actually win a majority on the House floor, because a
number of Democrats vote with Republicans, they constitute a huge
embarrassment to Democratic leaders. This has happened 21 times this
year, versus practically never during Republican rule, and each time
Republicans have crowed that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her team `have
lost control of the floor.''' And let me remind you, Madam Speaker, I
am simply reading from the editorial page of today's Roll Call.
They go on to say, ``Democratic leaders routinely fume at the
practice, as when House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer accused the GOP of
using the motion `for political purposes, not substantive purposes . .
. not to change policy, but to try to construct difficult political
votes for Members,' meaning potentially vulnerable Democrats.
{time} 1100
``As Roll Call reported last month, Democrats are searching for ways
to change House rules to limit the minority's right to propose motions
to recommit. They have done so before, so far without success--once,
because Republicans halted proceedings on the House floor to protest
the attempt. We suggest that Democrats just drop the idea and learn to
live with the GOP motions as a legitimate part of legislative work in a
democracy.
``It's certainly true that many of the Republican motions have been
politically designed, especially repeated motions to deny government
benefits to illegal immigrants. Any Democrat who cast a vote against
the measure, even if government aid was already barred by law, might
well fear that it would be used by a potential opponent in a political
commercial.
``At the same time, many of the GOP motions have been substantive and
have gained majority support because they contained popular ideas or
posed politically difficult choices.'' Roll Call goes on to write,
``Examples include a ban on Federal funding to colleges that prohibit
military recruiting on campus and an increase in funding for missile
defense.''
Madam Speaker, this Roll Call editorial reads, ``On two occasions,
GOP motions were so threatening to the Democrats' purposes that they
actually pulled legislation on terrorist wiretapping and voting rights
for the District of Columbia.
``Rather than limit one of the minority's few rights to affect
legislation, we suggest that Democrats expand those rights by allowing
Republicans to offer amendments on the floor. Would some of them be
`purely political'? Of course. But more open and democratic debate also
might produce better policy and reduce partisan rancor.''
Now, again, Madam Speaker, those are not my words. Those are the
words of the editorial board of the Roll Call as printed in today's
paper. I want to say again, this paper was often critical of us when we
were in the majority, and they have now, I believe, been right on
target in pointing to the fact that the notion of trying to deny the
American people their opportunity to be heard through this motion to
recommit would be a horrible thing. I believe the Democratic majority,
Madam Speaker, should, in fact, follow this encouragement from Roll
Call and allow more amendments to be made in order.
I also want to say that I will join with my friend when he seeks to
defeat the previous question on this rule so for the 11th time, we will
be seeking to bring assistance to our veterans to the floor. This is
Veterans Week. We marked Veterans Day Monday. I will say that it is
absolutely imperative that any Member of the House who wants to ensure
that we have the resources necessary for our veterans should vote
``no'' on the previous question so that we can, in fact, get that
assistance that they so desperately need.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I always enjoy hearing the ranking member
from the Rules Committee, because 1 year ago, the American people
demanded a new direction, to make America safer, to help restore the
American Dream, to restore accountability and fiscal responsibility to
the people's government. This 110th Congress has brought new faces, new
energy and a steadfast commitment to a new direction.
In January, the first female Speaker of the House in American history
gaveled open the Congress in honor of America's children, and we will
keep that commitment today by acting on the Head Start bill in this
rule.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. CASTOR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I would simply say to my friend, I joined in heralding
the selection of my fellow Californian, Ms. Pelosi, as the first woman,
the first Italian American Speaker of the House of Representatives. It
was a great day for this institution. I should say she was the first
Californian as well. But I will say this, the record that was outlined
in today's Roll Call is one which can't be denied by either the Members
of the majority or the minority.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Ms. CASTOR. I am happy to debate the record of this Congress under
Democratic leadership. The Congress is focused on a new direction,
first, to make America safer. We have already taken action to implement
the 9/11 Commission recommendations to protect America from terrorism.
This Congress has passed the largest veterans health care funding
increase in the history of the VA. We have adopted energy security
legislation that will reduce the threat of global climate change. We
continue to hold the White House accountable for this unending war in
Iraq.
In addition, this Congress is restoring the American Dream because
now the law of the land is the largest college age expansion since the
GI Bill in 1944, where we raised the Pell Grant and we cut the interest
rate on student loans. It has been this Congress, and this is important
if you are keeping track of the record of this Congress, it was this
Congress that raised the minimum wage for millions of Americans. We
have also adopted an innovation agenda promoting 21st century jobs in a
global economy. We have sent aid to the gulf coast for Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita and for the millions of Americans that continue to
struggle day to day with the impact of those disasters. And we are
fighting for health care, to expand health care to 10 million more
American children.
Madam Speaker, we have also adopted a widely acclaimed and landmark
lobby and ethics reform bill. And it has been this Congress that has
returned to financial sanity and fiscal responsibility by adhering to
pay-as-you-go discipline, no new deficit spending.
So I am very pleased to debate the record of this Congress on the
floor of the House. We will work in a bipartisan way to build
consensus. More than two-thirds of this legislation has passed in a
bipartisan manner. We will strive to find common ground where we can,
like here on the Head Start bill. But where we cannot, we will stand
our ground, like on the Iraq bill that we will bring later today.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, the record brought
out today by the Roll Call editorial, that I am very pleased, by the
way, that our ranking member brought forth and read into the Record, I
think is important for a number of reasons.
[[Page 31408]]
Again, I was also here when the distinguished Speaker was elected in
January. I recall the promises at that time and during the campaign,
the electoral campaign that preceded that ceremony in January. The
promises were, and I am sure they will be recalled, to have a more open
process, a more transparent House. So the reason why I think it is most
appropriate now to bring out the record that Roll Call in an editorial
has outlined is that instead of seeing, during this year, this first
year of this Congress, a more open process, a more transparent process,
a more democratic process, what we have seen is a more than doubling of
the closed rules, of the gag rules, if you will, the gag rules that
don't permit any amendments on legislation.
Since we are discussing the rule, by the way, on legislation that is
an example of bipartisanship, the Head Start program is one that has
been supported from its inception in a bipartisan manner, but we are
discussing the rule, the means to debate this legislation, the
procedure, if you will, to debate the legislation, I think it's
appropriate to bring out the more than doubling by a majority that
promised more transparency and more democracy in the running of the
House, a more than doubling of gag rules that prohibit debate, that
prohibit any amendments for debate. So I think that is appropriate to
bring forth. And I commend Roll Call that, yes, was very critical when
we were in the majority of many of the things that happened at that
time. But a doubling, more than doubling of the impropriety, of the gag
rules by a majority that promised more transparency is not only
important to bring out but I think it is most unfortunate.
At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to a
distinguished colleague who has worked so much on this legislation in
an admirable way, as he has on many issues of great importance to the
American people, Mr. Castle of Delaware.
Mr. CASTLE. I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding, and I apologize for returning to such a mundane subject as
the rule before us, but that is what I am here to do.
I do rise in support of this rule, and I would like to thank Chairman
Miller along with Mr. McKeon and Mr. Kildee, as well as their staffs,
for the work they have done over the last several Congresses to
strengthen and improve the Head Start program.
Since 1965, the Head Start program has given economically
disadvantaged children access to the same educational, health,
nutritional, social and other services that were enjoyed by their more
affluent peers. The goal of the program was, as it remains today, to
provide children a solid foundation that will prepare them for success
in school and later in life. As the centerpiece of the Federal
Government's efforts to support quality early childhood education for
our Nation's most disadvantaged youth, Head Start has served nearly 20
million low-income children and their families. Currently, Head Start
serves over 900,000 children every day and has over 1,600 grantees
across the United States. In my home State of Delaware, Head Start
programs serve over 2,000 children with over 800 additional 3- and 4-
year-olds receiving assistance through State Government funding.
Although we can agree on the need for Head Start and its successes,
we must also recognize that the Head Start program is capable of
producing even greater results for our children. Students who attend
Head Start programs do start school more prepared than those with
similar backgrounds who do not attend Head Start. Head Start students
continue, however, to enter kindergarten well below national norms in
school readiness. By moving to close the school readiness gap, the
bipartisan Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act will improve
results for almost a million Head Start students across the Nation.
I believe strongly in the Head Start program, particularly because of
how the program helps children later in their academic lives. Despite
the positive reputation of Head Start overall, however, there have been
reports which have unfortunately uncovered the fact that some
individuals have taken advantage of the taxpayer dollars that fund the
program to line their own pockets. Along with the expertise of the
Government Accountability Office and through reforms made in this bill,
changes will be made to avoid these issues in the future. I feel this
is the right step to take for the benefit of the program, and I thank
everyone for finding what I hope will be a resolution to the pockets of
abuse.
As I said at the outset, Head Start is an important and very popular
program. The importance of early childhood education and services
cannot be overstated. I believe strongly that the reforms sought with
this bill will go a long way to institute needed reforms to an already
successful program.
I support passage of this rule and the conference report to H.R.
1429.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to continue the
debate on this important rule, the bipartisan Head Start conference
report, by recognizing for 1 minute a member of the Education and Labor
Committee, my good friend and colleague from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).
Mr. LOEBSACK. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding.
I want to commend Chairman Miller, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Kildee and Mr.
Castle on their impressive work on this truly bipartisan legislation.
This conference report is proof positive that in spite of the rancor
evident this morning, when we put our minds to it and work together, we
can, in fact, get things done in this Congress.
Head Start offers comprehensive early childhood development services
to our Nation's neediest children. These comprehensive services are key
to the program's success. Head Start engages parents and the community
in students' lives and provides important nutritional, health and
social services.
Studies show that children who enroll in Head Start excel
academically, they have fewer health problems, and adapt better both
socially and emotionally. I am proud to say that over 9,600 children
are enrolled in the program in Iowa.
I grew up in poverty, and I know firsthand how important programs
like Head Start are to low-income families. I urge my colleagues to
support this conference report and this rule, and I hope it will be
quickly signed into law.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege
at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of
the Education Committee, Mr. McKeon of California.
Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am pleased to
rise in support of the rule on the conference report for the Improving
Head Start for School Readiness Act. This rule will allow the House to
give final endorsement to a bill that will strengthen and improve the
Head Start early childhood education program.
I would like to begin by recognizing members of the Education and
Labor Committee for their efforts to produce this bipartisan conference
report. Representatives Castle and Kildee, along with Chairman Miller
and our staffs, have done great work to strengthen and improve this
critical program.
In more than 50,000 Head Start classrooms around the Nation, nearly 1
million disadvantaged children are being given the tools and resources
to help put them on a path to success which is a win-win for the
country.
We have spent a great deal of time this year working to strengthen
the No Child Left Behind Act. That law is, at its most basic level,
about closing the achievement gap in our Nation's schools. However, the
gaps between disadvantaged students and their peers do not begin in
elementary school. That's why we have Head Start. This program is
designed to help close the readiness gap in children before they ever
enroll in school. The health, developmental and educational services
offered through this program truly do give a head start to those
children than they otherwise enter school already lagging behind.
{time} 1115
Some studies have shown that children enrolled in Head Start do make
[[Page 31409]]
progress, but there's significant work yet to be done in closing that
readiness gap. I also believe it's critical to strengthen the financial
controls in Head Start so that we can prevent the types of waste, fraud
and abuse that have been uncovered over the past 5 years. Republicans
acted aggressively to root out cases of financial abuse and
mismanagement. We sought the expertise of the Government Accountability
Office to identify weaknesses in the financial control network of the
program. Through this bill, we will institute structural changes to
prevent future breaches in the program's trust.
Our committee has been working to strengthen and reform this program
going on 5 years, and I believe that dedication has paid off. Certainly
this bill is not perfect, but on issues where there were disagreements,
I am pleased that we have forged compromises. Head Start is a good
program, capable of achieving even greater results. With this bill, I
believe we can make that happen.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of
this rule, and I look forward to House passage of this conference
report so it can go to the President for his signature.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I am the last speaker for our side, so I
will reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman from Florida
has made his closing remarks.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous
question so that we can amend this rule and move toward passing a
conference report on the bipartisan Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs appropriations act. The House passed this veterans affairs and
military funding bill on June 15 by a vote of 409-2, with the Senate
following suit and naming conferees on September 6. Unfortunately, the
majority leadership in the House has refused to move the Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. They have even
refused to name conferees.
Why has the majority decided to hold off on moving this bill that has
such bipartisan support? Well, according to several publications,
including Roll Call, the majority intends to hold off sending
appropriations bills to President Bush so that they can use an upcoming
anticipated veto, actually, the veto of the Labor-HHS appropriations
bill, to serve as ``an extension of their successful public relations
campaign on the SCHIP program.'' Fortunately, that purely political
move failed last week when the Senate removed the Military Construction
and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill from the Labor-HHS bill.
Recently the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, took a step toward
naming House Republican conferees. Now the Speaker must follow suit and
take the steps necessary to ensure that work can begin on writing the
final veterans funding bill that can be enacted into law.
Madam Speaker, every day that the majority chooses not to act on this
bill, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million. Our veterans deserve
better than that; they deserve better than partisan gamesmanship
holding back their funding. I urge my colleagues to help move this
important legislation and oppose the previous question.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 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. Madam Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, by passing the Improving Head Start for School
Readiness Act of 2007 and this rule, we will build on the great success
of Head Start for America's hardworking families. I would like to
salute the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, George
Miller; subcommittee Chair, Dale Kildee; the ranking member, Mr.
McKeon; and Congressman Castle from the committee, and all the
committee members from Education and Labor for their wonderful work on
this Head Start bill.
I would also like to thank the parents across America who are
struggling to provide all that they can for their children. We are on
their side. This Democratic Congress is charting a new direction with
wise investments in education and health care for our kids, which are
certain to pay dividends in the years to come.
Madam Speaker, this is an important day for America because Congress
is going to keep the promise that it made four decades ago to children
who are born with the same potential but, because of their life
circumstances, are in need of a little extra attention, health care,
nutrition and the guiding hand of a knowledgeable and talented teacher,
which together provides them with a true ``head start.'' I urge a
``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 813 Offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the
bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and
for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by
the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees
immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of
rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader
prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees
otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees
instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the
Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional
legislative days after adoption of this resolution.
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee
[[Page 31410]]
on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam 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. 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 ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 813, if ordered;
motion to suspend the rules on H. Res. 812; motion to suspend the rules
on H.R. 3320; motion to suspend the rules on H. Res. 811.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 190, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 1086]
YEAS--224
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
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
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
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 Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
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
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
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
Tsongas
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--190
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
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
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
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
Lucas
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
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
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)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Carson
Cubin
Davis, Tom
Doyle
Garrett (NJ)
Hastert
Hayes
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Larsen (WA)
Marchant
McMorris Rodgers
Moore (WI)
Oberstar
Paul
Sessions
Sestak
Weller
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 3
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1145
Mr. PETRI 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. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
EXPRESSING SYMPATHY AND PLEDGING SUPPORT FOR VICTIMS OF FLOODING IN
SOUTHERN MEXICO
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 812,
as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to speak out of order.)
Regarding Time for Voting
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I made this announcement some 10 days ago
or a week ago, and we frankly didn't follow it very well, but I want to
take another try.
On both sides of the aisle, you have correctly expressed concern
about how long our votes are taking. There are times when votes take a
longer time, we have Members down at the White House, we are just going
to finish a committee markup, they are voting, or something like that.
We understand that.
Madam Speaker, I would like everybody to hear this, because you are
going to be angry with me. You are going to be angry with me today.
There were some 140 votes cast by the time the time ran out on this
vote. That meant there were some 280 people who had not voted after 15
minutes. This vote took 25 minutes, give or take. Both sides of the
aisle and the committee chairmen who are in a markup and it takes so
long to get back to the markup, and we have witnesses standing there,
both sides had this problem.
[[Page 31411]]
So I am asking you for your cooperation. Look at the clock, and when
the clock hits 5 minutes left, come over here. Don't look at how many
Members have not voted and think to yourself because there are so many
Members that haven't voted, we're going to call the roll.
I want to say to my side, I am not going to, frankly, want to lose
votes. You don't want to lose votes. They didn't want to lose votes
when they were in charge. I didn't blame them. Either side. But don't
take the position that they will wait for as long as they need to wait,
because that is inconsiderate to every Member who comes here in a
timely fashion and then has to wait because somebody else doesn't.
Now, I will tell you this: I am an offender. I am not pointing a
finger. If I am pointing a finger at you, I'm pointing 4 fingers at me.
I have in the last week, so I could get up here and pontificate, tried
to make sure that I got here on time. But I haven't been getting here
on time. I have done the same thing as you. That's why I know you do
it. Look at that.
So I am asking all of us to try to work together so that when the
bell is rung and the roll is called, you are here on time. We will keep
these votes in the vicinity of 17 minutes, and some of you are going to
miss votes.
Let me clarify so you understand. The Speaker's position articulated
at the beginning of the session, if you are in the well with a card in
your hand, you will be allowed to vote. But if somebody yells in the
back of the room ``one more,'' if somebody is walking through the door,
I do not guarantee you that you will be able to vote. We are going to
call the vote.
Thank you very much.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I don't think anybody is going to argue with you,
Mr. Majority Leader, but that means that you have got to do something
about the elevators. I mean it. I'm not kidding. If you are going to
make it work, if you are going to make the 15 minutes work, we have to
have people in the elevators or the doorkeepers or somebody keeping
everybody out of the elevators.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, ladies and gentlemen, if the elevators
are slow, you leave with 10 minutes remaining on the vote. You be here.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will re-report the title of the
next question on which proceedings now resume.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) that the House suspend
the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 812, as amended.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 421,
nays 0, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 1087]
YEAS--421
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)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
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
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
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, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
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
Lucas
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
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
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
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
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
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
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
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)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Carson
Cubin
Davis, Tom
Doyle
Hastert
Johnson (IL)
Oberstar
Paul
Sessions
Sestak
Weller
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain on this
vote.
{time} 1157
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page 31412]]
____________________
SUPPORT FOR THE MUSEUM OF THE HISTORY OF POLISH JEWS ACT OF 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3320, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3320.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 407,
nays 13, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 1088]
YEAS--407
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
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
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, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
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
Lucas
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
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
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
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
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
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--13
Broun (GA)
Campbell (CA)
Conaway
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Duncan
Flake
Garrett (NJ)
Hall (TX)
Hensarling
Rohrabacher
Shadegg
Wamp
NOT VOTING--12
Carson
Cubin
Davis, Tom
Doyle
Hastert
Johnson (IL)
Oberstar
Paul
Sessions
Sestak
Slaughter
Weller
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that
there are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1206
Messrs. HALL of Texas and GARRETT of New Jersey changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed
rollcall vote 1088. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on
rollcall No. 1088.
____________________
MOMENT OF SILENCE IN MEMORY OF FORMER REPRESENTATIVE AUGUSTUS FREEMAN
(GUS) HAWKINS OF CALIFORNIA
(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, it is often as the dean of the California
delegation a sad duty to report the passing of a colleague, but I have
to say today that I want to announce and celebrate with you the life of
a distinguished former colleague who died last Saturday at 100 years of
age. Augustus Freeman Hawkins had a 28-year career in this body, and I
just briefly want to celebrate with you the accomplishments of this
gentleman.
Gus, as we all knew him, was born in Shreveport, Louisiana on August
31, 1907, about the same time my dad was born in California. He moved
to Los Angeles. He was elected to the State assembly in 1935. He was
elected to Congress in 1962, and served here 28 years.
During that 28-year service, he chaired the House Administration
Committee, he chaired the Committee on Education and Labor, a whole
host of joint committees, Printing, the Library Committee, and decided
not to run for reelection in 1990. But among his many accomplishments,
and Gus authored more than 300 State and Federal laws in his career,
but what he will be most known for, I think, is authoring title VII of
the Civil Rights Act which created the Equal Opportunity Employment
Commission.
He was a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus. He
sponsored and was noted and will be remembered most perhaps for the
Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act that he sponsored with Senator
Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota at that time.
I just want to pay tribute to one of the great careers of one of our
great colleagues.
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate very much my colleague
yielding, and I rise also to pay tribute to one of the great Americans
who provided a level
[[Page 31413]]
of leadership in terms of public policy in this House like few have and
most would want to be.
Gus was a wonderful friend over time, and his best roommate, a guy by
the name of Frank Baca served us in and around the Vatican for some
years, a wonderful guy as well. They lived a short distance from our
house. My bride and I used to walk in the park and run into Gus often.
The conversations were about the House first, briefly, but then from
there the fact that the best thing about this place, if we will let it,
it is a place where people of great difference can become very dear and
warm friends.
Gus Hawkins was one of the great Americans to ever serve in the
Congress. While he has passed, it is a tribute to America that we can
have men and women in the House of Representatives of the style and
class of Gus Hawkins.
I appreciate my colleague yielding.
Mr. STARK. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman, and I thank
him for taking this time.
As one who had the honor of serving under Gus Hawkins when he was
Chair of the Education and Labor Committee, I would just like to say to
my colleague that this was a man of great vision for young people, for
students, and for working families. I knew Gus long before I came to
the Congress. I knew him as a young man when he and my father served
together in the State legislature and they were engaged in the great
civil rights battles at that time, the great battles over education and
school quality. Gus died when he was 100, but he was thinking about
things 120 years from now because that's the way he always was.
Gus was always looking over the horizon for new opportunities and new
ideas and new ways of doing things. He was a great pioneer, but he was
also a great visionary and he honored us with his service in this body.
I thank the gentleman for taking this time.
Mr. STARK. I would like to yield, if I may, to the gentlewoman from
California who now represents the district that our friend Gus Hawkins
represented.
Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much.
I would like to join with the head of our delegation, Representative
Stark, and others, in paying tribute to an extraordinary man.
Gus Hawkins was one of the most profound public policymakers that
ever served in this House. You heard Pete Stark allude to some of that
legislation. That legislation has been good for America, it's been good
for African Americans, it's been good for this House.
I am so proud that when Gus Hawkins decided that he was not going to
stand for reelection in 1990, he called me and he said, ``I'm calling
you first because I believe that you would do well representing this
district by serving as a Member of Congress.'' And so I have tried to
live up to his legacy.
Gus Hawkins, however, was very, very strong. He understood how
government works. He was understated. He got along with everybody. He
made a lot of friends in this House. And people responded to him in a
terrific manner.
And so I am standing here in great sympathy and in pain, because I
know that we wanted to get him up here one more time when we focused on
the Hawkins-Humphrey Act with Barney Frank in the Financial Services
Committee. We were not able to do that. And so all that we can do now
is honor him with this tribute and say, ``Rest well, Gus.''
I would request a moment of silence, please, before we resume our
schedule.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
resume.
There was no objection.
____________________
CONDEMNING THE NOVEMBER 6, 2007, TERRORIST BOMBING IN AFGHANISTAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 811,
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) that the House suspend
the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 811.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 418,
nays 0, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 1089]
YEAS--418
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
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)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
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
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
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
Lucas
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
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
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
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Obey
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
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
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
[[Page 31414]]
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
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)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Baker
Carson
Cubin
Davis, Tom
Dicks
Doyle
Hastert
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Oberstar
Olver
Paul
Sessions
Weller
{time} 1221
Mr. FEENEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
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.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately earlier today,
November 14, 2007, I was unable to cast my votes and wish the Record to
reflect my intentions had I been able to vote.
Had I been present for rollcall No. 1086 on ordering the Previous
Question on H. Res. 813, providing for consideration of the conference
report to accompany H.R. 1429, I would have voted ``nay.''
Had I been present for rollcall No. 1087 on the motion to suspend the
rules and agree to H. Res. 812, Expressing sympathy and pledging to
support the victims of the devastating flooding in southern Mexico, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Had I been present for rollcall No. 1088 on the motion to suspend the
rules and pass H.R. 3320, Support for the Museum of the History of
Polish Jews Act, I would have voted ``aye.''
Had I been present for rollcall No. 1089 on the motion to suspend the
rules and agree to H. Res. 811, Condemning the November 6, 2007,
terrorist bombing in Afghanistan and expressing condolences to the
people of Afghanistan and the members of the Wolesi Jirga, I would have
voted ``aye.''
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1429, IMPROVING HEAD START FOR SCHOOL
READINESS ACT OF 2007
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 813, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1429) to reauthorize the Head
Start Act, to improve program quality, to expand access, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). Pursuant to House Resolution
813, the conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
November 9, 2007, at page 30775.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and
the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to be here today to reauthorize Head Start.
And I know that everyone agrees that it has been far too long since we
have authorized the Head Start Act.
Head Start has served millions of our most vulnerable children and
families well for 42 years. More recently, Early Head Start has done
the same for infants and toddlers.
These are our country's premiere early childhood programs, Mr.
Speaker. Head Start works, and this bill will make it work even better.
Nothing is more critical to a child's success than a great teacher,
and this bill will ensure that by 2013, half of Head Start teachers
nationwide will have bachelor's degrees. This will improve professional
development so that teachers can keep up with the best practices in
early childhood education.
The bill increases funding for Early Head Start so that children will
receive comprehensive services during the most critical stages of brain
development.
Mr. Speaker, our predecessors 42 years ago initiated Head Start even
before we realized, as we do today, that early and regular stimulation
was critical to the very physical development of the brain.
Head Start requires the Secretary to update early learning standards
using the best science, and puts an end to the ill-advised National
Reporting System.
It authorizes significant increases in resources so that we can
expand access. And I want to work with our friends on the
Appropriations Committee to do just that.
It enhances the quality of Head Start boards, while maintaining a
shared governance structure that empowers parents.
And it is especially important to me that the bill prioritizes
significant resources for Indian and migrant and seasonal Head Start
programs, both to expand existing programs and create new programs, so
that these children, whose communities face such terrific challenges,
can grow up to help their communities overcome those challenges.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Miller and Senator
Kennedy, Senator Dodd, Ranking Members McKeon and Castle, and Senator
Enzi and Senator Alexander, my staff and theirs, and all the conferees
and their staffs for their hard work. I especially want to thank Lloyd
Horwich, who has worked so hard with me to produce this bill.
We do our best work in this Congress when we work in a bipartisan
way, and we do our best work, especially in education, when we work in
a bipartisan way. It's been my pleasure through the years to have the
advantage of working with Mr. McKeon from California. We've grown to
really commit ourselves to education and we trust one another and like
one another, which is very important.
I was privileged, Mr. Speaker, to introduce this bill in March with
Chairman Miller, Governor Castle, Mr. McKeon and many others, and look
forward to its becoming law very soon.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Since 1965, the Head Start program has been instrumental in our
efforts to close the gap between disadvantaged children and their
peers. This program provides health, developmental and educational
services to low-income and at-risk children before they enroll in
school in order to help close the readiness gap. Head Start helps
establish a foundation for these children's future success.
This conference report is the product of a bipartisan collaboration
and compromise. I'd like to thank Chairman Miller, along with Mr.
Castle and Mr. Kildee. And I appreciate Mr. Kildee's words, and I
appreciate the opportunity I've had to get to know him and work with
him closely over the years. I thank them for their work to strengthen
and improve Head Start.
I'd also like to acknowledge the staff on both sides for their
instrumental role in developing this legislation. Their work was
critical to producing such a strong, widely supported measure. On my
staff, I'd like to recognize Kirsten Duncan, along with Susan Ross and
James Bergeron, for their tireless efforts on this legislation.
Studies have shown that children enrolled in Head Start do make some
progress. We also know that even greater results are possible.
With this in mind, the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act
will strengthen Head Start's academic standards by emphasizing
cognitive development and the results of scientifically valid research
in topics critical to children's school readiness. The conference
report will improve teacher quality by ensuring a greater number of
Head Start teachers have degrees and are adequately trained in early
childhood development, particularly in teaching the fundamentals.
Despite the many successes of the Head Start program, it's reputation
[[Page 31415]]
has, unfortunately, been marred in recent years by instances of
financial abuse and mismanagement. In communities across the country,
we've heard reports of taxpayer dollars being squandered. A March 2005
report from the Government Accountability Office warned the financial
control system in the Head Start program is flawed and failing to
prevent multimillion dollar financial abuses that cheat poor children,
taxpayers and law-abiding Head Start operators.
This conference report builds on efforts of Republicans in the 109th
Congress to address weaknesses in the Head Start financial control
system in order to better protect taxpayers and ensure funds are being
used to help prepare disadvantaged children for school.
I'm particularly pleased that the conference report includes strong
protections to ensure Head Start dollars are not used to pay excessive
salaries to program executives. The House voted unanimously last week
to instruct conferees to include clear, unambiguous protections in this
area. Thanks to that vote, we were able to visit the negotiations and
agree to even stronger language.
{time} 1230
Mr. Speaker, the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act is a
solid reauthorization bill built on bipartisan collaboration. Head
Start is a good program capable of achieving even greater results, and
the bill before us will help achieve that goal.
I support passage of this conference report so we can send the bill
to the President.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, we must acknowledge that America's continued success
will not be ensured unless we equip the leaders of tomorrow with the
tools they need today. This means cultivating not just the most
privileged and brightest students but the students who grow up with
disadvantages. We must nurture the potential of all our children from
the very beginning of their lives. We don't have one mind to waste or
one citizen to waste. We need everyone to have the greatest ability and
preparation to live productive, meaningful lives in our society.
For a million students, Head Start is the answer. For those who work
hard but remain stuck just above the poverty level, the reauthorization
of this program will give their children a chance to soar. I am proud
to say that just as we did by increasing the minimum wage, doubling
college assistance, and providing health care to uninsured children,
this Congress continues to put working families first.
With nine in 10 Americans reporting no increase in income the last 6
years, cynicism has replaced hope for too many. We are in a position to
restore faith in the future. And as we pass the reins of our Nation to
future generations, we must invest in that future by guaranteeing every
child a chance to succeed.
I know that in my hometown of Louisville, Kentucky, thousands and
thousands of young children have gotten adequate preparation for
schooling that they might not otherwise have gotten because of the
wonderful training they received in Head Start. It is not just a head
start; it is a very strong foundation to success in education and
success in whatever careers our young children may select.
So I'm proud to stand here in the House of Representatives, the
people's House, and urge my colleagues to support a program which will
help ensure that the people we represent are able to enjoy the
prosperity and the happiness that our Founding Fathers hoped they would
have.
With that, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Head Start
and begin restoring faith in the future for millions of American
families.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the ranking member on the
subcommittee and at the same time thank him for the key role he played
in getting this legislation to this point.
Mr. CASTLE. I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for
yielding and for his work on this legislation.
I do rise to ask my colleague to support this bipartisan conference
report before us today. Like almost every other Member of this body, I
believe strongly in the benefits of this program. I trust that the
conference report on H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start for School
Readiness Act, will improve Head Start by emphasizing that every child,
regardless of his or her economic status, should have the best possible
chance to succeed.
As Mr. McKeon stated, this report is a byproduct of bipartisan
collaboration and compromise. I would also like to thank Chairman
Miller, along with Mr. Kildee and Mr. McKeon, as well as the committee
staff for their work on Head Start. I see Ms. Woolsey in the room. I
have worked with her on this issue before, too, and thank her.
This legislation builds upon efforts made in the past several
Congresses to address weaknesses in the Head Start program and improves
upon language contained in the bill to help make the program even
stronger. Specifically, this report preserves and enhances the vital
role of parents in ensuring the success of Head Start by establishing
both a governing body and a policy council, each with specific detailed
responsibilities. This conference report also maintains the current
income eligibility requirement to provide services to those who need
them the most. Additionally, this legislation ensures that curriculum
and other materials used in Head Start classrooms are based on the
principles of scientific research and scientifically valid research.
Equally important, this conference agreement ensures that a greater
number of Head Start teachers are adequately trained and educated in
early childhood development, and that applies to Early Head Start as
well. Finally, consistent with the motion to instruct I introduced last
week, this conference agreement limits the compensation of a Head Start
employee to Executive Level II, that of an Assistant Secretary,
currently $168,000.
Mr. Speaker, the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act builds
upon the success of the Head Start program and will assist in having
the program achieve even greater results. I urge my colleagues to
support the passage of this conference report.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan
for yielding and I also want to commend him for introducing this
legislation, H.R. 1429, the Head Start for School Readiness Act.
I applaud the leaders in both Chambers for crafting such a strong
bill that builds on the accomplishments of Head Start and promotes the
success of young children. It is clear from this product that you and
your staffs have toiled long and hard to strengthen the quality of the
Head Start program, and I say to you, well done.
Foremost, let me thank you for maintaining the role of parents in
governing Head Start. For more than 40 years, one of the most unique
and important aspects of the Head Start program has been its emphasis
on parental involvement. I worked actively with Mr. Souder and Mr.
Payne, along with 88 other Members of the House, to advocate for
maintaining this hallmark of equal responsibility for parents in
governing Head Start.
I am also pleased that the bill strikes a balance between the House
and Senate versions on the issue of program eligibility. In high cost-
of-living areas such as Chicago, low-income families can lose access to
this critical child development program not due to lack of need but
because we fail to adequately consider the cost of living when
calculating the poverty level. The conference report grants local
programs flexibility in opening the eligibility while also requiring
them to demonstrate the need.
I am especially grateful that the final report includes so many
issues near and dear to me, such as recruiting
[[Page 31416]]
minority male teachers, emphasizing children's social and emotional
well-being, recognition of the expanding role of grandparents and
kinship caregivers in children's lives, incorporating the best
practices from the field of home visitation into the Early Head Start
program, and increasing funds for salaries and education for Head Start
teachers.
Finally, in addition, I am very pleased that this bipartisan bill
preserves the anti-discrimination history of Head Start advocated so
ardently by the Head Start and religious communities. Federal funds are
not meant to support discrimination of any type, and I applaud the
Members on both sides for maintaining this fundamental commitment to
justice and fairness.
This bill expands access, improves teacher quality, expands
accountability, and strengthens school readiness. I am proud to be a
member of the Education Committee and proud to serve in a Congress that
will pass this bill into law.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes at this time
to the gentleman from Indiana, a member of the committee (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. I thank our distinguished ranking member.
I am very supportive of this bill, but I want to share some vague
uncomfortability with what I think is potentially happening here in
Head Start, and I think it's very important to clarify for this
administration and for future administrations what this bill is
intended to do and not intended to do.
From the time the Republicans took over in Congress, I remember then
Subcommittee Chairman Frank Riggs had a number of hearings talking
about the lack of an academic focus to Head Start. There was a big
debate about what the original role was, but it was supposed to
certainly prepare kids who didn't have the same opportunities for their
ability to be prepared when they started school.
But there's a reason that Head Start, while it was in the old
Department of HEW, didn't move with the Department of Education and
stayed with HHS. If it was intended to be merely another education
program run by educational bureaucrats, run the same way that every
other education program was run, it would be over in the Department of
Education. It wouldn't have been a grassroots Head Start program with
parent councils that voted and participated and ran it. It would have
been part of a pre-K program or a kindergarten program run by the
public schools. Increasingly, we see this pressure where the public
schools are trying to take over the Head Start program.
The original origins of the Head Start movement came out of the
sixties. Saul Alinsky was an organizer in Chicago. The populist
movement and the community action organizations led to a wave of
saying, we need programs where local low-income groups are empowered to
make their own decisions. What this meant many times was it didn't
exactly meet the professional goals or standards of where the public
schools thought it should be, necessarily where the professionals in
Washington thought it should be, but they were engaged at the community
level, participating in a way that we have tried to reach in
kindergarten and public schools forever. We can't get low-income
parents engaged. It's one of the biggest challenges we have. Yet in the
Head Start program, they were engaged all over the country, whether it
was rural low income, urban low income. And then when you talk to those
parents, you say, What's it like when you go to school? Well, they
don't really want us at the public school. There they want us to do
fundraisers or they want us to come to back-to-school night. But
participating in the governance, participating in the organizations was
different.
Now, we had wide support in this body, 91 Members, including Mr.
Davis and Congresswomen Loretta Sanchez and Maxine Waters, myself and
Ric Keller and many conservatives on the right, who share the concept
of empowerment. None of us want malfeasance in office or funding
problems, people who aren't accounting. All of us would like to see
more professional development. All of us would like to see quantified
goals. But in this drift towards trying to use the word
``professional'' all the time, we need to make sure that that doesn't
lead to an exclusionary concept that basically says, okay, now really
the white middle class is going to take over and run this program like
we would like it run.
The fact is when you get groups of parents and give them votes,
they're going to make some judgment mistakes. We need to have
accountability. I am for accountability. We need to have measurement.
We need to empower those people. But this can't be a typical takeover
project, because I believe that the major reason Head Start has, in
fact, worked in communities across the country is it's engaged with the
people at the grassroots level. And sometimes when we use some of the
language here, what we really mean is we're going to take it away from
these people because they're not quite as skilled and that we don't
quite trust their judgments as much.
Now, I appreciate that there was a strong compromise to the side of
parents in the conference committee, that, in fact, the language
keeping the voting powers to the parents is still there. And it still
says that in any major decision, they get a vote. It still says that
when there is a conflict with the other people who are governing this,
it has to be resolved. There was an additional clause added that seemed
to potentially demean the parent councils, where it says ``meaningful
consultation and collaboration.'' Now, that was originally going to
replace the vote just like we saw in HIDTAs, the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas, where we tried to have the Federal Government,
initially in the proposal of the Bush administration, take voting power
away from sheriffs and local police chiefs and use the same words
``meaningful consultation and collaboration.'' That is usually a code
word for we're going to pat you on the head and invite you to an
occasional meeting but not put you in the decision power.
What's great about this bill is we left the voting power there and no
future administration or this one should mistake that the parents still
have the voting power. Any meaningful decision, they have a right to
have a vote, and there has to be a resolution with the policy councils.
This additional language that was Senate language is supplemental and
did not alter the policy council. Of course, parent councils should be
a meaningful consultation and collaboration, not just as a ``term'' but
real meaningful consultation. They should also have the vote.
I want to thank the leadership on the Democratic side and the
Republican side in the House and Senate in leaving the real vote to
parents. It was a huge victory, a grassroots, bipartisan, liberal-
conservative victory that should stand and hopefully will not be undone
by administrative interpretation.
{time} 1245
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start Act.
I represent part of Suffolk County, New York, where over 20 Head
Start and three Early Head Start centers have been serving the
community since 1966. I am also proud to say that my wife's first
teaching job was as a Head Start teacher, and that she remains today an
early childhood teacher.
Parents, teachers, and many of my colleagues can all agree that Head
Start is one of our Nation's most prominent and successful early
education programs. This bill continues to build on Head Start's
success by ensuring that kids are prepared for school, by improving
teacher and classroom quality, strengthening the focus on school
readiness, increasing accountability, and boosting coordination.
Research has found that children who attend Head Start enter school
better prepared than their low-income peers who do not attend the
program, and that children who do attend Head Start make significant
learning gains.
[[Page 31417]]
If we are serious about achieving the goals set forth by NCLB, then
passing Head Start reauthorization is a down payment on achieving these
goals.
I was proud to offer an amendment during the Education and Labor
Committee's consideration of this bill to allow Head Start programs to
use up to 10 percent of their quality improvement funds for
transportation costs. This amendment was in response to concerns
brought to me by my constituents, as many Head Start programs are being
forced to choose between providing transportation to children or
sacrificing the quality of their program. This is a decision that no
Head Start program should have to make.
With this amendment, and with so many other worthwhile improvements
to Head Start, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this
balanced reauthorization for the benefit of our children and future
generations of Americans.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time we have left,
please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 19
minutes. The gentleman from Michigan has 18\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield now 3 minutes to the gentlelady from
California, a member of the committee and a very active worker on this
bill, Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. WOOLSEY. I want to thank Chairman Kildee and Chairman Miller and
Ranking Member McKeon, who was the Chair when we were working on this,
and Ranking Member Castle for a bipartisan success. We can be proud of
ourselves today.
Anyone who has been around small children knows that they're sponges
for information, they just sop it up if you make it available to them.
And it's widely accepted that early childhood education is absolutely
critical to their development and directly tied to their success when
they get into school, elementary school, and their ongoing future. So
getting children in a structured classroom environment earlier in their
young lives provides a critical window of opportunity.
Head Start provides our Nation's poorest children with a quality
start that puts them on a level playing field with others when they
start elementary school. No matter where a child comes from or what his
or her background is, Head Start provides an equal opportunity to
succeed by starting with a quality early childhood education. That's
why I'm glad I'm here today as we authorize Head Start, reaffirming our
commitment to this valuable program.
This bill expands access to Head Start, it improves teacher and
classroom quality, and it strengthens the services children and their
families receive when they enroll in the program.
The administration, however, can and should do better when it comes
to funding. Too many eligible children are still denied an opportunity
to participate in a Head Start program because there isn't enough
funds. Well, if this administration wasn't spending $500 billion in
Iraq, we would have the necessary resources to increase funding to
allow for program improvement to give every child the Head Start
experience and to increase teacher quality and salaries. It just
depends on where we put our priorities.
Children are 25 percent of our population, Mr. Speaker, but they are
100 percent of our future. We must provide them with the best possible
beginning to their lives. So, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working
with my colleagues to increase our Nation's commitment to education for
all of our children and to ensure that Head Start remains the
successful experience that it is.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio, the Republican leader, former chairman of our
committee, Mr. Boehner.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, let me thank Mr. McKeon
for yielding time and take a moment to congratulate Mr. Miller and Mr.
Kildee, Mr. McKeon and Mr. Castle, the two Republican rankers on the
committee, for a job well done.
We have been at this reauthorization for a number of years, and I
think that the work that is represented in this reauthorization of Head
Start is very important for our Nation's children.
Those of us who have worked in the area of education for a long time
know that for low-income children, having some type of early childhood
development is critically important to their success. Head Start is
among a number of programs, both public and private, that are out there
that supply this type of early childhood development for these
children. The reforms that are included in this bill I think are
critically important so that Head Start can really be all that many of
us want it to be.
There are some tremendous Head Start programs around the country, I
have visited a number of them, but there are also some programs that
don't fulfill the promise that we're making to parents and to their
children of what this program could be.
We all know that if we're serious about educating all of America's
kids, we will never get there unless we find a way to help low-income
children get the development they need that many of us take for
granted, things that happen in our homes, for those who have means,
things that happen in our communities that these children are not
exposed to. And so to make sure that they do have an equal chance to
get a good education, that early childhood development for these 3- and
4-year-olds is very, very important.
I do want to congratulate my colleagues for the bipartisan way this
bill has come together. This is a great example of what Congress can do
in a bipartisan way when it chooses to.
I have been on the floor a lot this year, being critical of the fact
that there was some partisan bill on the floor of the House that was
going nowhere. But here is an example of Members on both sides of the
aisle working together for the interests of America's low-income kids,
and I just wanted to come to the floor and say, job well done.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I appreciate the very kind
words of the Republican leader and my former Chair on this committee.
His work through the years on this bill has been very, very helpful.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
I am pleased to be here in support of a conference report that will
make Head Start even stronger. This program serves nearly 1 million
underprivileged children and eases the divide between the haves and the
have-nots when it comes to preparing them for kindergarten. The
bipartisan support we've seen today should lend all of us confidence
that the program will remain on a solid foundation for generations to
come.
By reauthorizing Head Start, we're going to strengthen academic
standards by emphasizing cognitive development using scientifically
valid research, improve teacher quality by ensuring more Head Start
teachers have degrees and are adequately trained in early childhood
development, increase financial disclosure requirements by Head Start
operators as custodians of Federal Head Start grants, and require local
governance boards to actively oversee grantees. These are commonsense
reforms that I wholeheartedly support.
I would like to join the Republican leader and my other colleagues
who have spoken here today in commenting on the bipartisanship with
which this bill was brought to this point. It's one that the President
will sign. It's one that will bring good reforms to a good program.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank Mr. McKeon, Mr. Castle, and
all those on the other side of the aisle who have worked so hard on
this bill to produce a very good bill. I also want to thank Ruth
Friedman, with Chairman Miller, for her tireless work on this bill over
the last 5 years.
Mr. Speaker, America can watch this Congress at work today on this
bill, Head Start, and feel good about its
[[Page 31418]]
Congress, and that's very important. This process in working on Head
Start has shown Congress at its best, and I think we owe that to the
American people. And we can feel a certain pride in having demonstrated
to the American people what Congress can do. This is one of our better
days, one of our better bills, and it's been a process that we've
enjoyed. We've had differences. We resolved those differences. We
produced a very good bill.
And people do make a difference. People in this Congress make a
difference. And I want to especially, again, commend my friend, my
colleague, Mr. McKeon from California, who has worked tirelessly on
this bill. This bill is better because of his input.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Improving Head Start Act of 2007 Conference Report.
In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson laid out his domestic agenda, one
that made Americans reevaluate what it means to be a Great Society. We
learned much from that time in our Nation's rich history: That we must
all fight together for civil rights, for equality, for peace and
security, against poverty, and for future generations.
One year later, the Head Start program began as a product of Lyndon
Johnson's vision of a Great Society. Now, over 40 years later, Head
Start is truly one of our Nation's most successful programs.
Head Start takes a holistic approach to ensuring that our country's
most at-risk children are educated and healthy. Kids who are vibrant
and in school are put on a path to success. The program provides grants
to local public and private agencies to offer comprehensive child
development services to disadvantaged children and families.
I want to thank Chairman Miller and Chairman Kildee and all of the
conferees for their important work on this conference agreement.
I am glad to see that this agreement authorizes 7.35 billion dollars
for the program. Unfortunately, a number of residents in my hometown of
Sacramento are eligible for enrollment in Head Start, but are currently
on a waiting list because the program does not have enough funds. This
funding authorization will help correct this urgent problem. It will
help put Head Start back on track to ensuring that all eligible
children will be able to participate in the program.
Also important is the expansion of the Early Head Start program. This
program serves low-income youth from birth to age 3. It puts special
focus on helping preschoolers develop the early reading and math skills
they need to be successful in school. It recognizes that starting our
children's education early is crucial to their long-term achievement.
The Conference Report also includes an increase in income
eligibility. This is especially important in California due to my
State's high cost-of-living. I want to thank the conferees for
recognizing the growing needs in communities across the Nation by
increasing income eligibility.
Study after study confirms that early education is the key to success
later in life. And I am glad that Leadership has made educating our
children a priority. With passage of this bill today, the 110th
Congress indeed becomes the Children's Congress.
Mr. Speaker, no child should be without early education. The Head
Start program provides access to education for all of our children,
regardless of their parents' economic status.
As Lyndon Johnson said, ``The purpose of protecting the life of our
Nation and preserving the liberty of our citizens is to pursue the
happiness of our people. Our success in that pursuit is the test of our
success as a Nation.''
I believe that reauthorizing the Head Start program reaffirms our
commitment to the Great Society that Lyndon Johnson envisioned. I am
proud to support the rule and the Head Start Improvement Act.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, more than 40 years ago,
we recognized that poverty was robbing millions of children of the
opportunity to do well in school and succeed in life.
As a Nation, we made a decision to help poor children reach school
age ready to succeed by creating the Head Start early childhood
program.
In the last 4 decades, it has helped nearly 25 million children by
providing them with high-quality, comprehensive education, health, and
nutrition services.
Head Start remains a cornerstone in this country's efforts to help
all children learn, to combat poverty, and to provide all Americans
with the opportunity to meet their fullest potential.
We know that Head Start works. Research shows that not only do Head
Start students make important educational gains while they attend the
program, they also continue to gain ground after they leave Head Start.
Research shows that by the end of kindergarten, Head Start graduates
are ``essentially at national norms in early reading and writing'' and
have further narrowed the achievement gap in vocabulary, general
knowledge and early math.
In other words, Head Start is doing what we expect and demand that it
should do--help prepare children to succeed in school and in life.
We also know that there are ways we can improve Head Start.
That is why I am so pleased to be here today with a bipartisan
conference report to reauthorize and reinvigorate Head Start.
This bipartisan legislation improves teacher and classroom quality,
expands access to Head Start for more children, improves comprehensive
services that help children and their families, and ensures that
taxpayer dollars only fund Head Start centers that are well-run and
high quality.
First, this legislation builds on Head Start's success by integrating
the best available science on child development to inform classroom
instruction.
Each year we learn more and more about how children's brains develop.
This legislation ensures that we improve teacher quality and update
classroom practices based on what the research tells us.
It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to re-evaluate
and update early learning standards and use of assessments with the
best available science, including a forthcoming study from the National
Academy of Sciences.
And it terminates further use of an inappropriate and ineffective
testing regime for 4-year-olds. This wasteful testing regime cost
taxpayers over $25 million dollars, it took up valuable classroom time
and hasn't been useful for improving program quality.
Of course, Head Start is much more than an educational program. Head
Start provides health, nutrition and parent education services in
addition to a strong educational curriculum.
The conference report recognizes this by also strengthening Head
Start's role in meeting these important needs of the children it
serves.
This legislation takes important steps to ensure that Head Start
centers are well-run and effectively managed. This will ensure that
taxpayer dollars are used wisely and that every Head Start center is
high quality.
The report allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to more
quickly take funding away from bad programs. It requires that new and
detailed fiscal management protocols be included in program reviews.
Finally, the legislation also expands access to Head Start in many
important ways.
Expansion of Early Head Start is prioritized so more infants and
toddlers can attend Head Start during the years their brains are
growing the fastest.
And expansion of Migrant and Indian programs is prioritized so more
of these children can have access to this important program.
Mr. Speaker, before I close, I'd like to take a minute to thank
Congressman McKeon, Chairman Kildee, Congressman Castle, Chairman
Kennedy, Senator Enzi, Senator Dodd, and Senator Alexander for their
hard work in getting us to this point.
I'd also like to thank the staff for their work and expertise.
In particular, I'd like to thank Liz King and Jean Harmann with
Legislative Counsel; Lloyd Horwich with Mr. Kildee; James Bergeron,
Susan Ross, Kirsten Duncan, and Jessica Gross with Mr. McKeon and Mr.
Castle; Roberto Rodriguez and David Johns with Senator Kennedy;
Catherine Hildum with Senator Dodd; Lindsay Hunsicker and Beth
Buehlmann with Senator Enzi; David Cleary and Sara Rittling with
Senator Alexander; and from my own staff--Lamont Ivey, Molly Carter,
Kate Scully, Stephanie Moore, and Ruth Friedman.
This bill will build on Head Start's past successes to create an even
stronger program to provide Head Start children with a better future.
I am pleased that we are about to send this legislation to the
President for his signature.
I thank my colleagues for their efforts.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Head Start
conference report and I thank Representatives McKeon, Castle, Miller
and Kildee for their work on producing an agreement with the Senate.
For several years, I have worked to improve Head Start's academic and
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start provisions.
For thousands of children, Head Start serves as their first formal
learning experience. Three- and four-year-olds are open to
[[Page 31419]]
learning about the world around them, and they should be presented with
a wide range of early academic concepts. I am very pleased that this
conference agreement includes provisions to ensure that these children
are exposed to math and science. I certainly do not intend for Head
Start to teach ``rocket science,'' but rather for its teachers to equip
Head Start preschoolers with the extremely basic concepts of math and
science. Perhaps it will spark the imagination of some kids, and lay
the foundation for them to become rocket scientists many years later.
With regard to Migrant and Seasonal Head Start, I joined with
Representatives Grijalva, Hinojosa and Sanchez in securing a 5 percent
funding floor for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start in the House version
of the bill. For far too long, funding for Migrant and Seasonal Head
Start has lacked parity with other Head Start programs. I am
disappointed that the conference report abandoned the House- and
Senate-passed 5 percent floor, but I recognize the difficulty conferees
had in finding a workable formula. I hope that Members will join me in
supporting funding for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start in the future
since it is a sorely needed program for workers of our fields and their
children.
I urge Members to support the conference report.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report.
Let me start by commending the chairman of the subcommittee, the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee, and the chairman of
the full committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Miller for their
work on this bill. I offer my thanks to the House and Senate conferees
for bringing forth this important piece of legislation today.
In 1965, with a great deal of hard work, Head Start was created. It
soon became a ``legislative Lamborghini'' of social programs, going
from 0 to 561,000 thousand participants in only a few months. In the 42
years since its inception, Head Start has become the educational
foundation for more than 20 million American children.
Education serves as both a ladder of opportunity and an investment in
our future. Our Nation's security, economy, and position in the world
all depend on the success of our education system. We must take
advantage of this opportunity to fund our future.
Head Start and Early Head Start are linchpins in the effort to
prepare our country's most disadvantaged children to succeed in school
and life. Many studies indicate that children enrolled in Head Start
make significant progress in closing the readiness gap to their more
advantaged peers as they enter kindergarten.
The congressionally mandated impact study recently published its
results, which noted that after less than 1 year in the program,
children in Head Start had narrowed the readiness gap by 45 percent in
reading skills and 28 percent in writing skills. This momentum
continues well beyond the ages of 3, 4, and 5, as another large
academic study has noted that Head Start graduates continue to mount
academic gains well after leaving the program.
The bill we see before us today helps to raise the academic standards
of American children and ensures that every child in our country has an
equal opportunity to a high quality education. It aims to improve
teacher quality by requiring a greater number of Head Start teachers to
have a bachelor's degree and be adequately trained in early childhood
development. This is clearly good news for the children that will be
participating in Head Start in the future.
On multiple occasions, the President has advocated that all 3- and 4-
year-old participants in Head Start should take standardized tests to
assess their improvement. For President Bush, No Child Left Behind
means no child left untested. I am happy that this conference report
terminates the further use of the National Reporting System, an
inappropriate, ineffective, and expensive testing regime.
This conference report notes that Head Start is not without the
opportunity for evaluation, however, and there is strengthened program
accountability at the Federal, regional, and local levels included in
the legislation. The report also requires the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services to initiate classroom evaluations, thereby ensuring
optimal teacher-child interactions.
We have known for some time that when children are not provided high-
quality day care and early childhood services, once in school, their
academic achievement and limited language proficiencies become
cumulatively worse over time, over grade levels, and across all subject
areas. By passing this conference report, we build on the past 42 years
of success for this program and help ensure that both Head Start
children as well as our Nation as a whole have a brighter tomorrow.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I supported this measure as a member of
the conference committee that drafted the final version of the bill.
I'm proud to have served on the committee of House and Senate leaders
that negotiated the final version of this legislation. This important
bill will help prepare Louisiana's neediest children for kindergarten
by improving their access to medical, nutritional, and educational
services.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Head Start is a critical part
of this country's effort to combat the effects of poverty and ensure
that all of our children have the opportunity and skills they need to
thrive.
Since its creation in 1965, it has proven to be our most valuable
school readiness program in the history of this country--especially,
now that we know more about the importance of early-childhood
education.
Study after study demonstrates that by age 6, a child's capacity to
learn is largely formed, and time after time, we have seen reports that
prove students who attend Head Start perform better than those who
don't.
By doing this, Head Start is helping to close the achievement gap
between students of differing socio-economic status across our country,
and helping the children in our communities by providing opportunities
that they might not otherwise have.
Additionally, people often forget the wonderful things that this
program does for the parents.
The key to Head Start's approach is its level of actively involving
parents and the community in all aspects of the program--and this
reauthorization would further this goal.
Parents are a child's first teachers, and Head Start helps build and
foster a person's parenting skills in various ways.
Parents are also urged to improve their literacy skills, obtain adult
basic education, and make their homes a place where reading is part of
everyday life.
Head Start also tackles a wide range of poverty issues through its
family and community partnerships, including: Substance abuse,
violence, HIV, homelessness, single-parent households, inadequate child
care, unemployment, and numerous other stressors that challenge
families' resources.
This program is clearly instrumental to our country.
The Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 will
reinvigorate Head Start and help more children arrive at kindergarten
ready to succeed.
I urge my colleagues to support this report.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act, to strengthen and expand
Head Start programs across the country.
Last Spring, we held a National Summit on America's Children here at
the Capitol. We heard from leading experts on child development and
neuroscience, who emphasized the vital importance of early childhood
education. Early interventions can dramatically increase a child's
chances for future success.
Head Start is based on this idea and it works. For more than 40
years, it has been helping to close the achievement gap and teach our
children that they can succeed, regardless of background or family
income. More than 20 million children and families have benefited from
its services. With this bill today, we will open the door to more
children to enter both Head Start and Early Head Start and will ensure
that they are better prepared for kindergarten and elementary school.
Today's bill also recognizes the importance of early childhood
educators, targeting new funding to improve teacher salaries and
professional development. It ensures that teachers are highly qualified
and able to meet the needs of children with disabilities and improves
accountability for Head Start programs.
I also urge my colleagues to support the funding necessary to
continue Head Start's success. Last week, we sent the President a bill
increasing Head Start funding by 2.2 percent to simply help it keep
pace with inflation. The President vetoed this funding. I encourage my
colleagues to vote to override the President's veto to prevent Head
Start program closures and ensure that children get the services they
were promised.
I thank Chairman Miller, Chairman Kildee, and the Conference
Committee for putting together this bipartisan piece of legislation,
and urge its passage today.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
the conference report on H.R. 1429, the Head Start for School Readiness
Act.
As a member of the Education and Workforce Committee for 6 years, I
was pleased to have the opportunity to work on this important issue.
While visiting Head Start centers in the
[[Page 31420]]
Fourth District, I was able to see firsthand the difference Head Start
makes to children and families. In addition, the Federal Reserve Bank
of Minneapolis published a study in 2004 showing that investment in
early education has a rate of return of 12 percent. Even with all the
evidence showing the social, educational and economic value of this
program, the Republican-controlled Congress was unable to pass an
acceptable bill.
Thanks to the hard work of Chairman Miller and Speaker Pelosi, the
bill before us today is a bipartisan, bicameral agreement that does
what earlier reauthorization bills did not--it focuses on preparing
children for school. This agreement includes an increased emphasis on
teacher quality and compensation, maintains parent involvement in the
governing structure of Head Start, and increases coordination with
other early childhood programs. It also maintains Head Start's
commitment to comprehensive services and places greater emphasis on
identification of child and family mental health needs.
H.R. 1429 terminates the inappropriate high stakes testing system for
Head Start students implemented by the Bush Administration and replaces
it with best practices for early learning. It also strengthens
monitoring of Head Start programs, allows quicker action against
failing or fraudulent programs and rejects a proposal to allow
discrimination in hiring with Head Start funds.
Congress still faces the critical issue of providing enough resources
to Head Start to serve all the children who are eligible to
participate. The Head Start for School Readiness Act authorizes
increased funding, as well as some flexibility in funding, to allow
more children to access this important education. As a member of the
Appropriations Committee, I will continue to work towards improving our
investment in children, families and communities.
I am pleased to vote in support of H.R. 1429 because this bill will
make a real difference in the lives of children and families, and for
our economy. I urge all my colleagues to support this investment in our
future.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference
report on H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act.
This bipartisan legislation provides services to one of our most
vulnerable populations--children from low-income families. By passing
this measure today, over 900,000 disadvantaged children ages 3 to 5--
including over 3,000 in Rhode Island--will have access to health
services, the necessary tools to enter kindergarten, and a foundation
for their success later in life.
Studies show that low-income children often lack the richness of
books in the home, proper nutrition, or access to a continuum of health
services. For over 40 years, Head Start has provided comprehensive
early childhood development services to low-income children, with
strong emphasis on the involvement of families and the local community.
H.R. 1429 would increase funding for quality improvements to Head Start
and requires that by 2013 at least half of Head Start teachers
nationwide have at least a baccalaureate degree in early childhood
education.
Today, half of the children enrolled in Head Start are from working
poor families. For this reason, I am pleased that this conference
agreement increases the income eligibility to 130 percent of the
poverty level so that families struggling with work and childcare will
have another option. I also believe that stopping the program's
National Reporting System is essential until proper testing methods for
these young children are carefully developed. H.R. 1429 also
establishes a set of procedures to improve accountability in the Head
Start program, which will lead to improvements for all those served by
Head Start.
Earlier in the year, H.R. 1429 passed both the House and the Senate
with overwhelming support. I am proud that the 110th Congress is on the
verge of passing this conference report after nearly a decade of
failing to reauthorize Head Start. For all the children who benefit
from this program, I look forward to sending this bill to the President
for his signature.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report for H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start for School Readiness
Act. Since 1965, Head Start has provided 22 million American children
with the education and health and social services to lead productive
lives. It is the most successful school readiness program in the Nation
and has always enjoyed bipartisan support.
Today, we are continuing this tradition by passing strong bipartisan
legislation to reauthorize this vital program. In fact, this
legislation marks the first time in almost a decade that Congress has
reauthorized Head Start.
The Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act will invest in
America's future by providing children and their teachers with the
resources they need to take advantage of the opportunities that the
Head Start program has offered America's youth for over 40 years.
In addition to providing additional resources for increasing
teachers' salaries and State Advisory Councils, this reauthorization
will expand the reach of both Head Start and Early Head Start by
providing greater funding and flexibility. The increases in funding
will enable tens of thousands more children to have access to the
program. H.R. 1429 will also improve Head Start by providing the
Secretary of Health and Human Services and local teams with tools to
hold teachers and programs accountable and requires the implementation
of best practices for family service workers. Head Start has served
America's children well since 1965, and this legislation will expand
the reach and ability of this program to positively impact lives across
the country.
I want to thank Chairman Miller for his dedication to Head Start and
to education in general. Head Start is an investment in America's
future. Thanks to Head Start, we can give our children the best start
possible so they can lead productive lives and grow up to be
outstanding citizens. I am proud to support these efforts to continue
the legacy of Head Start, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in
voting for H.R. 1429.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the
Conference Report on H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start for School
Readiness Act of 2007. This bipartisan legislation takes significant
steps to strengthen the Head Start program so that children will be
better prepared and ready to succeed when they begin kindergarten. H.R.
1429 increases funds targeted at improving teacher quality and provides
additional support for the program's extensive monitoring process and
the comprehensive services offered to the students' families. In
addition, it expands access to Head Start for more children, increases
coordination efforts with State and local programs, and eliminates any
further development of the controversial and ineffective National
Reporting System.
For over 40 years, the Head Start program has worked to break the
cycle of poverty by providing access to early childhood education for
low-income children and families. In the House budget for FY 2008, the
State of Texas is estimated to receive approximately $490 million in
Head Start funding which will go towards providing services for over
68,000 students. Since it first began in 1965, the program has served
more than 20 million children, and it continues to play a major role in
our Nation's efforts to close the achievement gap, reduce poverty, and
ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to succeed.
Studies have shown that students with a high quality pre-Kindergarten
education enjoy greater success in academics as well as their overall
lives. The Head Start program goes a long way in addressing educational
inequity by aiding low income children in their social and cognitive
development. I am a firm supporter of this program and the lifelong
benefits it provides. It is only by addressing this critical need that
we will be able to ensure a better future for all our Nation's
children.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Head Start has been the premiere early
childhood education program in the United States since 1965. Since that
time, it has benefited 20 million children and families and has become
one of the cornerstones of this country's efforts to close the
achievement gap, combat poverty, and provide all Americans with the
opportunity to thrive. By passing the conference report to H.R. 1429,
the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, we will
reinvigorate Head Start and help more children arrive at kindergarten
ready to succeed.
The fact is that quality education and early engagement, from both
parents and teachers, are essential for our kids' success. Recent
findings from the congressionally mandated impact study found that
after less than 1 year, Head Start narrowed the achievement gap by 45
percent in pre-reading skills and 28 percent in prewriting skills.
Another large study found that Head Start graduates continue to gain
ground after they leave the program. Furthermore, Head Start graduates
are less likely to need special education services, to be left back a
grade or to get into trouble with the law. They are more likely to go
on to college and to have professional careers.
This bipartisan reauthorization improves teacher and classroom
quality, strengthens Head Start's focus on school readiness, expands
access to Head Start for more children, ensures that centers are well-
run, boosts coordination between Head Start and State and local
programs, and improves comprehensive services that help children by
helping their families.
I commend and thank Congressmen Kildee, Castle, and Chairman Miller
for their leadership on this critical legislation. Head Start has
[[Page 31421]]
proven itself as a strong and effective program. The growth and success
of millions of American children and families is living proof. We have
a responsibility to embrace their success, support it, and strengthen
it for years to come. I know that my colleagues will join me in sending
this critical reauthorization to ensure the Head Start program meets
its full potential.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, as the only former State superintendent
of schools serving in Congress, I have devoted my life to the well-
being and development of children, and I strongly support Head Start. I
rise in support of H.R. 1429, the Head Start for School Readiness Act.
In the global economy of the 21st century, lifelong learning is the
pathway to the American Dream, and for many of our Nation's children,
learning begins with Head Start. Over 20,000 children in North Carolina
get prepared for school in Head Start or Early Head Start.
This act takes and builds on the success of Head Start, expanding and
enhancing this fundamental initiative that has served over 20 million
children and families nationwide since 1965. H.R. 1429 extends the
benefits of Head Start to more of our Nation's low-income children, and
raises the bar so that we can attract highly qualified Head Start
providers through performance accountability, greater compensation, and
higher standards.
Research continues to show that the first few years of a child's life
are critical to a child's mental development: Their brains grow
exponentially and learning patterns are set. We must invest in these
youngsters so that they may take full advantage of one of the premier
education systems in the world by ensuring their school-readiness by
age 5. Head Start successfully provides the stepping stones to lifelong
learning.
This act provides the parents and children of our country an
additional 4 years of this vital service, guaranteeing a 20 percent
increase in funding by 2012. Education is the best investment we can
make for our children, grandchildren, country, and world.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1429 updates, improves, and expands the successful
services of Head Start. I commend Chairman Miller for his leadership on
this bipartisan legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in
voting to pass it.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for
H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start Act, and I am proud to be a
cosponsor of H.R. 1429. I would like to thank Chairman Miller for
producing a bipartisan product of high quality. For almost 40 years,
Head Start has assisted low-income preschool children and their
families, establishing a comprehensive early-learning environment and
addressing a variety of social and medical needs. The program has
provided services to over 20 million children and their families since
its inception in 1965. Currently, over 900,000 children are enrolled in
almost 2,600 local Head Start programs. Children with disabilities make
up 10 percent of Head Start Children. However, less then 50 percent of
eligible preschoolers are served by Head Start and 2 percent of
eligible infants and toddlers are served in Early Head Start.
In my district, Head Start has been a tremendous success, with over
1,000 children enrolled in 18 programs. The majority of these children,
about three-quarters, are from families with incomes below the Federal
poverty line.
Head Start's comprehensive medical and social services provide
important benefits to these children. In my central New Jersey
district, 91 percent of Head Start children have received basic primary
health care and 84 percent have a continuous, accessible source of
dental care. The program has also provided mental health services to
over 200 children and assisted almost 150 children with disabilities.
Today's bill provides greater flexibility to serve children whose
family income is just above the Federal poverty line, up to 130 percent
of the poverty line, while ensuring that serving the neediest children
remains the program's top priority.
The conference report authorizes total funding of $7.99 billion for
fiscal year 2010 allowing tens of thousands more children access to the
program. This bill addresses a number of problems that have been
identified. For example, the bill prioritizes expansion for Early Head
Start, which serves children from birth to age 3, so more children can
receive Head Start during the critical development years when their
brains are growing the fastest. The conference report ensures more
participation of homeless children by removing barriers to their
enrollment. The bill enhances opportunities for children with
disabilities to participate in Head Start programs.
I am also pleased to report that the bill continues to improve the
already improving Head Start teacher qualifications. The bill increases
teacher qualifications so that 50 percent of teachers nationwide must
have a BA in early childhood education or a related field by 2013.
Mr. Speaker, I have seen the effects of Head Start in my district.
Children in Head Start in my district are more likely to receive
necessary medical services than other low-income children. They are
nearly three times as likely as other low-income children to receive
basic medical care and 6 times as likely to receive dental care. This
bill will allow these benefits to be expanded and improved. I ask my
colleagues to vote for this important legislation.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the conference report will be followed by 5-
minute votes on motions to suspend the rules with regard to H.R. 3845
and H.R. 719.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 381,
nays 36, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 1090]
YEAS--381
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
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
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nunes
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
[[Page 31422]]
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--36
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Broun (GA)
Burton (IN)
Campbell (CA)
Coble
Culberson
Doolittle
Duncan
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Hensarling
Inglis (SC)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Lamborn
Mack
Marchant
McHenry
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Neugebauer
Pence
Poe
Price (GA)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sali
Shadegg
Stearns
Tancredo
Walberg
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
NOT VOTING--15
Boustany
Carson
Cubin
Davis, Tom
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doyle
Hastert
Jindal
Mitchell
Oberstar
Paul
Platts
Roybal-Allard
Sessions
Weller
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 5 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1317
Messrs. POE and HENSARLING changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the conference report 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. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1090, I was inadvertently
absent from the floor at the time the Head Start for School Readiness
Act [H.R. 1429] was voted. Had I been present, I would have vote in
favor of said Act.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall
vote No. 1090 on H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start Act. I supported
this measure as a member of the conference committee that drafted the
final version of the bill and if I had been able to vote, I would have
voted ``aye.''
____________________
PROTECT OUR CHILDREN ACT OF 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3845, as amended,
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3845, as amended.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 415,
nays 2, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 1091]
YEAS--415
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
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
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
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
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 (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
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
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
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
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
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
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)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--2
Broun (GA)
Flake
NOT VOTING--15
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Carson
Cubin
Davis, Tom
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doyle
Hastert
Jindal
Lewis (CA)
McCollum (MN)
Oberstar
Paul
Roybal-Allard
Sessions
Weller
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 3 minutes remaining in this vote.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
is 1 minute remaining in this vote.
[[Page 31423]]
{time} 1324
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
KIDS ACT OF 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 719, as amended, on
which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 719, as amended.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 417,
nays 0, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 1092]
YEAS--417
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)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
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
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
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
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
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
Lucas
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
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
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
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
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
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
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)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Carson
Cubin
Davis, Tom
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doyle
Hastert
Jindal
Oberstar
Paul
Sessions
Simpson
Spratt
Sullivan
Tancredo
Weller
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 3 minutes remaining in this vote.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 1
minute is left in this vote.
{time} 1331
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A Bill to authorize additional
appropriations for supervision of Internet access by sex offenders
convicted under Federal law, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO CORRECT THE
ENROLLMENT OF H.R. 1429
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a concurrent resolution
(H. Con. Res. 258) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
H. Con. Res. 258
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 1429),
An Act to reauthorize the Head Start Act, to improve program
quality, to expand access, and for other purposes, the Clerk
of the House of Representatives shall correct the bill by
striking subsection (m)(1) of section 640 of the Head Start
Act, as added by section 6(g) of the bill, and inserting the
following:
``(1) to implement policies and procedures to ensure that
homeless children are identified and prioritized for
enrollment;''.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3074,
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 817 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 817
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 3074) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, and Housing
[[Page 31424]]
and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes. All
points of order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read.
Point of Order
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 817
under section 2 of H. Res. 491 because the resolution contains a waiver
of all points of order against the conference report and its
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). The gentleman from Arizona
makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 2 of House
Resolution 491.
Such a point of order made under that resolution shall be disposed of
by the question of consideration under the same terms as specified in
clause 9(b) of rule XXI.
The gentleman from Arizona and a Member opposed, the gentleman from
New York, each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of
consideration.
After that debate, the Chair will put the question of consideration,
to wit: ``Will the House now consider the resolution?''
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Speaker.
And while the Speaker of the House is actually in the Chamber, I want
to read a quote from March of this year. In March of this year, the
Speaker of the House said, ``Before Members vote on a bill, there
should be an appropriate time for people to read it. That should be a
matter of public record. If there is an earmark that can stand the
scrutiny, then that transparency will give the opportunity for it to be
there.''
Let me just ask, if I can, the representative from the Rules
Committee, don't we have a rule that says that we are not to consider a
bill or a rule until 24 hours after the bill is actually out there? I
would yield to the gentleman to answer.
My understanding is that this bill was posted on the Web last night
at just after 7 o'clock, yet here we are at 1:35 already considering
the rule. I think that is important, because when you look at the bill,
we didn't just get it on the Internet where it would be searchable,
where we could find things in it. We got a PDF file that is not
searchable.
When you look at the bill itself, you find complete sections that
have been X'd out, or little insertions with little notations here that
are barely legible. You have another big insertion here of an entire
page. Again, there are little insertions there within the insertion.
You have within it ``3 percent'' stricken. It says ``4 percent'' now.
To what?
This is really difficult to wade through. And when we don't even get
24 hours? I mean, 24 hours, frankly, is far from sufficient to consider
a bill that is 531 pages long. Then when you consider the bill itself
is not searchable, it was given in a PDF file, and then you also have
141 pages of earmarks that are part of the report. That is not a
searchable index, either. It is just given. You can wade through it.
The earmarks that are air-dropped into the conference report are
supposed to be asterisked. You can see some of those. We identified 21.
But is that all there is? We're not sure. But when you look through
that list of earmarks that were air-dropped in, you have to be
suspicious of why in the world we waited until now to air-drop these
earmarks in when nobody can challenge them.
Keep in mind, this is a point of order against consideration of the
rule. Because the majority has chosen to waive the rule against points
of order on the bill, we can't challenge any of the earmarks in the
bill, so we have 21 earmarks air-dropped into the bill at the last
minute that we have no ability to challenge.
You might think that, well, if they were air-dropped into the bill,
then they certainly must be vital spending, vital projects, that we
just couldn't do during the regular consideration of the bill.
I will read a couple of them and you can make your own decisions on
whether or not this was vital spending, something that couldn't wait,
something that was so important that you had to, at the last minute, in
the last 24 hours, include it in where nobody could see it.
One is for $200,000 for the Intergenerational Research Center in
Atlanta, Georgia, for a community center. The Intergenerational
Research Center, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, for a community center. This
is part of the Economic Development Initiative.
Another one: Waynesburg College Center for Economic Development in
Pennsylvania for a multipurpose facility. That is $300,000 there.
Tell me, please, somebody tell me, what was so vital here that we had
to violate the rules that we have had in the House to insert this at
the last minute, when nobody has the ability to challenge it?
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to point out to my friend and colleague from Arizona
that this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule,
and ultimately to consider a measure that invests in our Nation's vital
transportation infrastructure and housing program at a time when we
desperately need it so much in this country. In fact, I would say it is
simply an effort to try to kill this conference report, and on a faulty
premise at that.
Every single earmark in this conference report has been properly
disclosed in conformance with the House rules. The blanket waiver
against consideration of the conference report did not include a waiver
of either clause 9 or rule XXI of House Resolution 491.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Well, we've waived other requirements as well here. What
this point of order is about is transparency. Again, we got this bill
last night, less than 24 hours ago. It has always been the
understanding you would have at least 24 hours, and we are violating
that even.
When you look at the bill itself, here I found another page, section
409, we're not sure what was there, because it is now gone. It is gone
from the bill. It is very difficult to go through a bill that is 534
pages that is not even searchable and wade through the earmarks.
The gentleman mentioned this is vital spending we have to get done.
Let me give you an example of some of what is in the bill itself.
$150,000 for the Atlanta Botanical Gardens in Atlanta, Georgia.
$275,000 for the Berkshire Music Hall in Pittsfield, Massachusetts.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let me clear up this issue here about the time requirements. The
rules of the House say there shall be a 72-hour, or 3-day layover on
these bills. That was waived. That was waived by the majority party.
Then as a courtesy in their ``new directions,'' they say it should be
at least 24 hours. So here they are even waiving a promise of a waiving
of a rule of 3 days.
So I wanted to clarify that. It is supposed to be 3 days, that is the
premise from which we start, and then we come down to a promise of 24
hours. They are even waiving that promise.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for that clarification.
Let me get back to this list of these vital projects that we somehow
have to rush through here. There is $400,000 for the Bel Alton High
School Alumni Association in Bel Alton, Maryland. Again, $400,000 for
the Bel Alton High School Alumni Association. Why in the world is this
in the bill at all? Is it any wonder that somebody wants to move this
bill through quickly and without following the rules?
{time} 1345
$500,000 for the Los Angeles Fire Museum in Bellflower, California;
two earmarks totaling $300,000 to revitalize downtown Clearwater,
Florida; $150,000 for the Edmunds Arts Center in Edmunds, Washington;
$100,000 for Cooters Pond Park in Prattville, Alabama; $100,000 for the
reuse of the
[[Page 31425]]
Coca-Cola Bottling Plant in Romney, West Virginia; $100,000 for the
Crystal Lake Art Center in Frankfort, Michigan; $750,000 to the Detroit
Science Center in Detroit, Michigan; and $300,000 to the Houston, Zoo
in Houston, Texas.
Again, this is just a tiny sliver of the 141 pages of earmarks in the
bill, more than 1,000 of them. And again, 21 air-dropped earmarks that
we have never seen before, never had the ability to challenge on the
House floor for such vital things as the Grand Teton National Park
Pathway System in Wyoming. This may be a good project, but it should
receive the scrutiny it deserves, not air-dropped into a report that we
are given less than 24 hours to consider, that we have no ability,
none, to amend out.
Or $500,000 for Park Street Streetscape Improvement in Alameda,
California. Why in the world was this that vital where we had to
violate our own rules to bring this to the floor and hide these
earmarks where they don't see the light of day?
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Campbell from
California.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Let's talk about what is really going on
here. If somebody is an alcoholic, they understand they shouldn't
drink. What they will do oftentimes is they will ask their friends to
help them, you know, come in the house. Make sure I don't have any
alcohol here. Keep me honest. Make sure I don't do this.
This Congress is drunk on earmarks. The majority party has said,
well, we want to get better. We want to stop drinking. We want to stop
doing these bad earmarks, so we set up a point of order on the bill so
we can stop this.
But it is the equivalent of the alcoholic saying, I want you to help
me, Mr. Speaker, and I want you to come check my house to make sure
that I don't have any alcohol, but then locking the door so you can't
go in and you can't look. That is what the majority party is doing
here.
They say we have this point of order on earmarks, but we are waiving
it. We are going to bury them in the bill so you can't see. The
majority here in this Congress is not serious about controlling
earmarks, and they should be, because of the ones that the gentleman
from Arizona read, and whether it is teaching people how to play golf
in the defense budget or monuments, to me, whatever it is. We have
budget problems, we all agree. We disagree on how to take care of them.
But one thing we must do is stop these earmarks, and the majority is
not doing that.
Mr. FLAKE. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). The gentleman yields the
balance of his time to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. FLAKE. How much time remains on this side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. I did the math for you, sir; 1 minute
remains.
Mr. FLAKE. I am glad to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate my colleague for yielding. This is exactly
what the American people are disgusted with. We can't balance the
budget. We can't send the President appropriation bills that are within
the budget. This bill is some $3.5 billion over the President's
request. But having said that, we have all of these projects that
didn't go through the House, didn't go through the Senate, that got
air-dropped into a conference. And we wonder why the American people
look at us like our heads have been cut off.
There is nobody in my district who would ever vote for any of these
projects that got air-dropped into this bill. And we have this process,
this point of consideration on these earmarks, on consideration of this
bill, in exactly the time when we are supposed to have a better look at
what these earmarks are.
All we have are these brief descriptions, if you can find them in the
bill, because this bill should not be up on this floor until tonight.
It is one thing to waive the 3-day rule, but the 24-hour rule, most
Members believe, is almost sacrosanct. And yet, not even 24 hours after
the bill was filed, it is on the floor of the House. Members don't know
what is in it. That is why this point of order that we fought for this
summer was put into effect.
I would urge my colleagues to vote for the gentleman's point of order
to stop consideration of this bill so we have a chance to look and see
what else is in here that we haven't seen, because this place is out of
control.
Mr. FLAKE. In my remaining 30 seconds, let me just say, in January
when we passed transparency rules on earmarks, I was the first one to
compliment the majority on what they had done. We put some decent rules
into play. But rules are only as good as your willingness to enforce
them. And we have seen a pattern over the past several months
culminating in this kind of thing, breaking the rules so we can bring a
bill to the floor with 21 air-dropped earmarks into it where we are
simply not following our own rules.
This institution deserves better than this. I plead with my
colleagues to vote to stop this bill from moving forward until we can
actually see what's in it.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the
Rules Committee for yielding to me.
I think my friend from Arizona raises issues, and sometimes it is not
clear with reference to earmarks. I don't recall hearing too many
people argue about the earmarks that the President of the United States
has within the prerogative of the President. Two-thirds of Federal
spending is nondiscretionary. And in a budget the size of ours, which
is $2.9 trillion, that means discretionary funds in this particular
budget are about $935 billion.
What they fail to do in their point of order or that we hear in the
Rules Committee is to say to the general public that the name of the
Member requesting the earmark exists, the name and address of the
intended recipient, and if there is no specifically intended recipient,
the intended location of the activity, the purpose of such earmark, a
certification that the Member or spouse has no financial interest in
such congressional earmark, and it requires the House Appropriations
Committee to make open for public inspection approved earmarks.
Now each of these earmarks has an asterisk and each of these earmarks
is easily identifiable. Clearly, there are things that people disagree
with as to whether or not in the particular constituency that that
constituency is going to benefit.
Democrats cut in half the number of earmarks. I believe my friend
from Arizona knows that when this measure was sent to the Senate, the
Senate increased the number of earmarks that are here. But I don't care
whether you call it earmark, toe mark, arm mark, elbow mark, whatever
it is, it is something that benefits the American people. And in a
budget that has $2 trillion in it, we can find some reason for us to
control that as opposed to the executive branch.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, we must consider this conference report
which provides funding for our Nation's priorities. For example,
Community Development Block Grants to provide communities with funds to
assist low and moderate-income persons; housing for the elderly,
disabled, and homeless veterans; foreclosure mitigation and
reconstruction of the Minnesota bridge and the repair of aging bridges
throughout our Nation that is desperately needed.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the new House Democratic
majority has implemented the most honest and open earmark rule in the
history of the United States House of Representatives. But don't take
my word for it. A few weeks ago, Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers
for Commonsense, was quoted in CQ Weekly as saying, ``The House has
given us more information than we have ever had before on earmarks, and
they deserve credit for that.''
I am troubled with the analogy given by my colleague from California
comparing it to a drinking problem. I
[[Page 31426]]
would say the comparison, considering the way the Republicans abused
the process, would be to a person who started a fire, then called the
fire department, and when the fire department came and put out the
fire, they then turned around and criticized the fire department for
the way that the fire was put out.
That is the situation that they have. They abused the earmarks when
they were in control of the House, and now they are critical of our
majority when we attempt to fix it. It is important to remember which
side actually abused the earmark process and who actually stepped up to
the plate to reform the system and provide transparency.
We didn't wait until 2 months before the election. We responded to
the people's call for more openness on the first day of Congress. It
seems quite clear to me that the minority is more concerned with
obstructionism, while we are focused on actually meeting the needs of
our constituents and the people in this country.
This question of consideration is the result of an unwarranted point
of order against our rule. A ``no'' vote will prevent consideration of
a critical package that has strong House and Senate bipartisan support.
So despite whatever roadblock the other side tries to use to block
this bill, we will stand up for housing and we will stand up for the
critical infrastructure upon which our economy depends. We must
consider this rule and we must pass this conference report today.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider this rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the question of consideration will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 197,
nays 186, not voting 49, as follows:
[Roll No. 1093]
YEAS--197
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clay
Cohen
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Ellison
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 Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--186
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
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.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
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
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
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
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--49
Barton (TX)
Bishop (GA)
Blunt
Boucher
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Buyer
Carson
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cubin
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doyle
Hastert
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Langevin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Lynch
Meeks (NY)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Oberstar
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Rush
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Shays
Smith (NJ)
Taylor
Turner
Udall (CO)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weller
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are less than 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1414
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1093, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on November 14, 2007, I was participating in
an Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing and inadvertently
missed 1 recorded vote.
I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no'' on recorded vote number 1093.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, November
14, 2007, I was unavoidably detained and thus I missed rollcall votes
No. 1090 through 1093. Had I been present, I would have voted in the
following manner:
On rollcall vote NO. 1090, on Adoption of the Conference Report on
H.R. 1429, the Head Start for School Readiness Act, I would have voted
``aye.''
On rollcall vote No. 1091, on H.R. 3845, the PROTECT Our Children Act
of 2007, I would have voted ``aye.''
[[Page 31427]]
On rollcall vote No. 1092, on H.R. 719, the KIDS Act of 2007, I would
have voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote No. 1093, on H. Res. 817, Providing for
consideration of the conference report on H.R. 3074, Departments of
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations for FY 2008, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the
unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the Speaker's
approval of the Journal which the Chair will put de novo.
The question is on the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
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, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
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 221,
nays 181, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 1094]
YEAS--221
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Buyer
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
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
Dent
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Heller
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--181
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Goode
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
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
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2
Gohmert
Tancredo
NOT VOTING--28
Brown, Corrine
Carson
Cubin
Davis, Tom
Dicks
Doyle
Feeney
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastert
Hayes
Jindal
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Knollenberg
Levin
Linder
McCrery
Oberstar
Paul
Rush
Schiff
Serrano
Sessions
Udall (CO)
Weller
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are less than 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1420
So the Journal was approved.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1093 and 1094
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``nay'' on both votes.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3074,
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for
debate only.
General Leave
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be
given 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on House
Resolution 817.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 817 provides for
consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3074, the
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.
I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations
Committee and the ranking member for bringing a conference report to
the floor that makes critical investment in our Nation's transportation
infrastructure at levels guaranteed in SAFETEA-LU.
The conference report also rejects the administration's proposed
funding cuts to the Federal Aviation Administration's Airport
Improvement Program, highway programs, and critical housing and
community development programs.
The conference report provides $151 million more than current funding
for
[[Page 31428]]
the FAA, $765 million more than the President's request for FAA Airport
Improvement Program, which provides grants for airport planning,
construction and development.
Recipients of AIP funds such as Griffiss Park Airfield in my upstate
New York district have benefited greatly from this program. Over the
last few years, AIP funds have helped Griffiss continue to fully
develop as a regional aviation facility, become the new home for the
Oneida County Airport, create long-term regional economic growth for a
region seeking to attract new investment.
The conference report also maintains our commitment to keeping our
airways safe by providing $7 billion for air traffic organization,
including $16 million to hire more than 1,400 new air traffic
controllers to replenish the work force as the rate of retiring air
traffic controllers continues to grow, and provides critical funding to
hire and train more safety inspectors and for other aviation safety
activities.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report provides $3.5 billion more than
current levels for the Transportation Department. These additional
funds will provide for much needed investments in our Nation's
highways, road construction and repair, and transportation safety.
This conference report boosts funding for the Federal Transit
Administration by providing $227 million more than the President's
request for mass transit programs. Local transit authorities, such as
the Central New York Regional Transit Authority and Centro in my
district, will now be able to expand their hybrid bus fleet and
continue to provide low-cost, convenient, clean and energy-efficient
transportation services to commuters in both upstate New York and in
New York City.
This conference report also increases funding for the Housing and
Urban Development Department by $3.1 billion above the President's
request.
The President's budget request sought to eliminate funding for the
HOPE VI program, but I am so pleased that this legislation will
maintain our commitment to providing affordable housing for the many
disadvantaged individuals across our country, individuals that still
struggle daily to meet their family's needs, even while working full-
time jobs.
In 2003, the City of Utica, New York was the recipient of an $11.5
million HOPE VI grant for revitalization of a local residential
community. This grant has allowed for significant improvements in
safety and greater access to service and facilities for its residents.
It would be a shame if similar communities around the country were
unable to reap the benefits of the HOPE VI program.
The conference report restores funding for the Community Development
Block Grant program, which this administration has cut since 2001 by
nearly 35 percent. This conference report provides $922 million more
than the President's request for CDBG grants, which allow local
governments in cities such as Utica, Rome and Auburn, New York to
provide critical service to revitalize neighborhoods, promote economic
development and improve quality of life for those starved of financial
resources.
Localities across my upstate New York district rely on CDBG funds to
support vital redevelopment efforts that improve housing, assist local
businesses, and offer services that promote safety and reduce crime.
CDBG funds have been used by the City of Utica to prepare sites like
those in the Corn Hill area for new housing construction by demolishing
existing structures, replacing antiquated sewer lines, planting trees,
constructing new sidewalks and curbs and paving streets, improving the
quality of life for all the citizens of that city.
CDBG funds have been used in the City of Auburn to provide small
business assistance loans to help new businesses make it through their
first critical year of start-up, retain their employees, and grow their
business. CDBG funds are also used by Auburn to support after-school
programs, child care subsidies, and even counseling for children in
crisis.
In the City of Rome, these funds are also used to assist new small
businesses and also to assist low- to moderate-income persons make
needed health and safety improvements to their homes, such as helping
seniors with the installation of ramps and railings that allow them to
remain living in their homes, and helping people deal with emergencies
like failure and roof collapse. These are important parts of this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there are, I'm
certain, very important programs that are funded by the legislation
being brought forth today. And without any doubt, the Transportation
and HUD appropriations bill is one of the most important appropriations
bills that we face and we consider and we pass every year.
What is unfortunate is that it has been brought forth, it has been
brought to this floor by the majority in a manner that is consistent
with a pattern that is most unfortunate, objectionable.
As a matter of fact, that pattern, another aspect of that pattern is
the subject of an editorial today by a newspaper that analyzes and
informs on a daily basis with regard to this Congress. The newspaper is
called Roll Call, and it has an editorial today about another aspect of
the pattern that is most unfortunate and that we're seeing with the way
in which this, albeit, very important piece of legislation is being
brought forth today. Because it wasn't until, and we'll talk a little
bit about the other aspect of the pattern that is the object of the
Roll Call editorial in a minute. But with regard to this legislation,
it was publicly available at 7 p.m., approximately, last night for the
first time.
{time} 1430
By the way, not in a very accessible way, in a format that's not very
accessible: it was put online. There was no way to look at all of the
legislation in that manner, in the format in which it was made
available around 7 p.m. last night.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the rules of the House, there is a requirement
that before an appropriations bill is considered by this House, 3 days,
72 hours, must pass. That rule was waived by the majority in the Rules
Committee last night.
Now, in addition to that rule, there is a custom and a custom that is
repeatedly made reference to. As a matter of fact, it's not only
custom, but in the promises made by the new majority in a document
during the campaign the last election, the new majority in a document
entitled ``A New Direction for America,'' they talked about that at the
very least, if not 3 days for an appropriations bill to be able to be
considered by the membership before it is brought forth that there
should be at least 24 hours. I read from the document ``A New Direction
for America": ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill
and conference reports texts prior to floor consideration.''
So not only do we not have the 3 days because that's waived by the
rule, it's a rule but it was waived by the majority of the Rules
Committee, which is what we saw last night, but, in addition, not even
the 24 hours now for Members to be able to look at the legislation that
is before them. Most unfortunate. It violates the promise of the
majority in addition to what I would say is an elemental required
fairness for this process to work.
Now, I talked about the pattern. It's not just the lack of 24-hour
notice; it's a pattern. Let's look at Roll Call today. They talk about
the fact that there have been multiple threats by the majority to
restrict something that hasn't been restricted since 1822, and that is
one of the few legislative means, procedural means by which the
minority can seek to amend legislation, and it's called, Mr. Speaker,
the motion to recommit. And that hasn't been restricted since 1822. The
majority has repeatedly now during this year, the first year of this
Congress, this year that is already coming to an end, it's talked about
that it wants to restrict that right that the minority has,
[[Page 31429]]
one of the few vehicles that the minority has had since 1822 to try to
amend legislation.
Roll Call, a newspaper, Mr. Speaker, that covers what we do here,
observes us very carefully, has an editorial in today's edition:
``Despite promises to manage the House on a more open basis than
Republicans did during their 12-year rule,'' Roll Call says today in an
editorial, ``Democrats have prohibited any floor amendments at more
than double the rate of the previous Congress.''
And then Roll Call goes on to ask the Democrats not to do what they
have threatened to do, and that is restrict the procedural vehicle that
has been available and unrestricted since 1822, the motion to recommit.
So note, Mr. Speaker, the pattern.
Now, I wish, I really wish, because of the importance of the programs
funded by this legislation that we could discuss those programs. But
when we are seeing this pattern of unfairness, of constant tightening,
restricting the legislative process despite, and in contrast to, the
promises made by the majority included in this ``A New Direction for
America'' where they said, well, if we're not going to give 3 days,
which is what the rules require, because sometimes we might have to
waive that in the interest of time, then at least 24 hours. So, no,
this legislation, the first time it was posted was 7 p.m. That's when
it could be seen.
By the way, I am informed by people who are a lot more expert than I
am at the format by which the legislation was posted at 7 p.m. that at
7 p.m. with that format, the details of the legislation could not be
accessed. So really, Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is a lot
less than even that time if we wouldn't have come to the floor until 7
p.m., which is what the New Direction for America promised, the
majority repeatedly promised, and which would have been elementally
fair in addition to in compliance with the promise of the majority.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would ask my friend, and he is my friend,
Mr. Arcuri from New York, how many speakers he has wishing to speak.
Mr. ARCURI. I have no other speakers.
____________________
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to adjourn.
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 150,
nays 244, not voting 38, as follows:
[Roll No. 1095]
YEAS--150
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sullivan
Tancredo
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Wamp
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--244
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Capps
Carnahan
Carney
Castle
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
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
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 (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--38
Baker
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson
Cubin
Davis, Tom
Doyle
Hastert
Higgins
Jindal
Levin
McCarthy (CA)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McMorris Rodgers
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Moran (VA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Paul
Pence
Poe
Radanovich
Roskam
Ruppersberger
Sessions
Smith (WA)
Souder
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Yarmuth
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
is less than 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
{time} 1456
Messrs. BRALEY of Iowa, ROTHMAN and HINCHEY, and Mrs. LOWEY, Mrs.
JONES of Ohio and Mrs. MYRICK changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. TURNER and BARTLETT of Maryland changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1095, I was unable to
vote due to medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted
``nay.''
[[Page 31430]]
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3074,
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for
a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule
and move toward passing a conference report on the bipartisan Military
Construction-Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act.
The House passed the veterans and military funding bill on June 15 by
a vote of 409-2, with the Senate following suit and naming conferees on
September 6. Unfortunately, the majority leadership in the House has
refused to move the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Act. They have even refused to name conferees.
Now, the question that is begged, Mr. Speaker, is why has the
majority decided to hold off on moving this bill that obviously has
such bipartisan support. Well, according to several publications,
including this one, Roll Call, the majority intends to hold off sending
appropriations bills to President Bush so that they can use the veto of
the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to serve as ``an extension of their
successful public relations campaign on the SCHIP program.''
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield for one moment?
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Yes, I will yield to my
distinguished friend.
Mr. DREIER. Was that quote that my friend provided something that was
written by Republican staff members? Where exactly did that come from?
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Roll Call.
Mr. DREIER. Oh, okay. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Reclaiming my time, fortunately
that purely political move, Mr. Speaker, failed last week when the
Senate removed the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill from the
Labor-HHS bill.
Recently, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, took a
step toward naming House Republican conferees. Now the distinguished
Speaker must follow suit and take the steps necessary to ensure that
work can begin on writing the final veterans funding bill that can be
enacted into law.
Mr. Speaker, every day that the majority chooses not to act on this
bill, veterans lose $18.5 million. Our veterans deserve better than
partisan gamesmanship holding back their funding.
I urge my colleagues to help move this important legislation and
oppose the previous question.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I will yield to my friend.
{time} 1500
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
I would just like to ask him to clarify one more time before we vote
on this issue, I think this is going to be the 11th time we have had an
opportunity to vote on this.
I have just been reminded by our crack Rules Committee staff that
this is, in fact, the 12th time that this House has had the opportunity
to vote on this issue. I guess the second or third time in Veterans
Week. We have just marked the date on which we honor our Nation's
veterans, and this House has repeatedly, repeatedly denied us the
opportunity to move ahead and get the very much-needed assistance to
our Nation's veterans. I think that this vote is going to be critically
important in our quest to move that effort forward.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend. I think that
it is critically important that we get this legislation passed as soon
as possible and sent to the President. It is the 12th time that we have
attempted in this House to get this bill sent to the President. Mr.
Speaker, obviously this is critically important legislation, a
critically important moment. And so I urge my colleagues to help move
the important veterans legislation along by opposing the previous
question.
I ask unanimous consent 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. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. ARCURI. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if the American people have just heard the
last colloquy between my two colleagues, perhaps they wouldn't have
understood that when my two colleagues were in the majority in this
House, for 12 years, the last time they passed a Veterans appropriation
bill on time wasn't in 2005, 2004, no, not in 2003 either, not in 2002,
not in 2001. You have to go back to 1996 to find when they passed an
appropriations bill for veterans on time.
I can understand why the gentleman wouldn't want the facts to get out
to the people who might have just watched him on television have a
colloquy that was not factual in explaining the fact that when he was
chairman of the Rules Committee, it was 11 years ago when they last
passed a Veterans appropriation bill on time.
Mr. Speaker, let me also point out they forgot conveniently, perhaps
convenient political memory here, they forgot conveniently to explain
to the people listening that under the Democratic leadership we have
passed $8.1 billion of increase in veterans funding this year, most of
that going to veterans health care, the largest in the history of
America.
One final point, Mr. Speaker. The two gentlemen also forgot to make
one other point, and that is that as they chastise this Congress as
being a little over 1 month late in passing the Veterans bill, even
though we have already passed an $8.1 billion increase, they forgot to
tell the American people that last year they didn't pass the VA bill in
October, not in November, not in December. In fact, they adjourned the
Congress for their Christmas holiday without passing the Veterans
appropriation bill.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. My parliamentary inquiry is as
follows: When I asked the gentleman if he had any further speakers
before yielding back the reminder of our time, I was informed that he
did not. Is it correct for the gentleman to say that he has no further
speakers, and then after, based on that statement, I yield back our
time, he yields to someone else in contradiction to what he has told
me?
Is that appropriate, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is free to yield
his time as he sees fit.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Is that appropriate, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would also point out that the gentleman from Florida indicated that
he had no further speakers, and he recognized the gentleman from
California.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I didn't recognize. I yielded.
No. No.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York controls the
time, and the gentleman is recognized.
Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Additionally, I would like to point out that whenever anybody makes
factually incorrect statements on the floor, I am going to yield to my
colleagues to make sure that the record is made clear, and that is why
I yielded to Mr. Edwards on that point.
[[Page 31431]]
Mr. Speaker, this bill, the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill,
like very few other things that we as a body deal with, deals and helps
and touches many, many millions of Americans, whether it is CDBG money
that goes to help the elderly make a senior center more accessible, or
whether it is fixing our roads that thousands of commuters travel on
every day, it is a bill that is critically important. All we have heard
from the other side of the aisle are procedural reasons why we
shouldn't go forward. That is what the American people are tired of.
They are tired of the process, the procedure. They want action. They
want things accomplished.
During the break, I had an opportunity to talk to my friend and
colleague from Wisconsin, Representative Kagen, and he made a good
point. He said, you know, while we spend billions of dollars in Iraq,
and no one talks about it, we hear all kinds of complaints when we try
to spend millions of dollars domestically on programs that help
Americans, needy Americans, people that need it most.
Mr. Speaker, that's why we need to pass this rule. I urge a ``yes''
vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 817 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the
bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and
for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by
the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees
immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of
rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader
prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees
otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees
instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the
Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional
legislative days after adoption of this resolution.
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. ARCURI. 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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221,
noes 195, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 1096]
AYES--221
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
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
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Ellison
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 Sandlin
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
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
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
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--195
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
[[Page 31432]]
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
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
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
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
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)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Cannon
Carson
Cleaver
Cubin
Doyle
Hastert
Jindal
Levin
Oberstar
Paul
Ruppersberger
Sessions
Towns
Udall (CO)
Weller
Wilson (OH)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are less than 2 minutes remaining on this vote. Members are further
reminded to stay in the Chamber. There are votes immediately following
this one.
{time} 1526
Mr. PEARCE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1096, I was unable to
vote due to medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider
the vote on the previous question.
THE SPEAKER pro tempore. Did the gentleman cast a vote on the
prevailing side?
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, yes, I did.
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Arcuri
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.
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.
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 221,
noes 196, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 1097]
AYES--221
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
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
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
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
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
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
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
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--196
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)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kaptur
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
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
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)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Carson
Cubin
Doyle
Hastert
Jindal
Levin
Oberstar
Paul
Reyes
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sessions
Udall (CO)
Weller
Wilson (OH)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are less than 2 minutes remaining to vote.
{time} 1534
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
[[Page 31433]]
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1097, I was unable to
vote due to medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 224,
noes 194, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 1098]
AYES--224
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
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
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Ellison
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 Sandlin
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
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
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
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
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)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
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
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
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
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)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Carson
Cubin
Doyle
Granger
Hastert
Jindal
Levin
Oberstar
Paul
Ruppersberger
Sessions
Udall (CO)
Weller
Wilson (OH)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded they
have less than 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1540
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1098, I was unable to
vote due to medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider
the vote on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Did the gentleman cast his vote on the
prevailing side?
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Yes, I did.
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Arcuri
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.
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.
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 213,
noes 194, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 1099]
AYES--213
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
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
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
[[Page 31434]]
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--194
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
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
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)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--25
Bean
Berman
Blackburn
Carnahan
Carson
Cubin
Cuellar
Dicks
Doyle
Gutierrez
Issa
Jindal
Levin
Linder
Moore (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Oberstar
Paul
Ruppersberger
Sessions
Sires
Taylor
Udall (CO)
Weller
Wilson (OH)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote).
{time} 1547
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1099, I was unable to
vote due to medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3074, TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 817, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3074) making appropriations for
the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development,
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and
for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 817, the
conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
November 13, 2007, at page 31047.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver)
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
General Leave
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
the conference report to accompany H.R. 3074.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 3074.
Before I explain the contents of the conference report, however, I
would like to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan, Joe
Knollenberg, for his great help in crafting a well-balanced
Transportation and Housing bill. Joe and I have put together a strong
bipartisan bill that will help address the Nation's important
transportation and housing needs.
I think Joe and I have been a good team and I look forward to working
closely with him again next year. I would also like to thank the staff
on both sides of the aisle for all of their hard work. On the minority
side, Dena Baron and Dave Gibbons and Jeff Goff. And on the majority
side, Kate Hallahan, our clerk; Cheryle Tucker; David Napoliello; Laura
Hogshead; Alex Gillen; Mark Fedor and Bob Letteney. They performed well
under stress and trying circumstances, and without their dedication we
would not be here today debating this bill.
Mr. Speaker, Members can and should be proud of this bill because it
provides critical investments in our Nation's transportation and
housing infrastructure, and does so within a fiscally sound manner and
within our conference allocation.
Unlike some other issues we debate in Congress, transportation and
housing have a long history of bipartisanship, and I hope we can
continue in that spirit of bipartisanship today.
At their core, both transportation and housing have a direct impact
on the people we represent. All of us are affected by congestion on our
roads, travel delays in our airports, and the lack of dependable public
transportation. We also all benefit from community development
investments and the availability of affordable housing in our
communities. This bill in so many ways affects each and every one of
us.
Let me briefly explain some of the highlights of the conference
report.
For the first time in 13 years, our bill includes $75 million for the
Veterans Affairs Supported Housing program, commonly known as VASH, to
provide roughly 10,000 housing vouchers and supportive services to
homeless veterans.
While we do not know the exact number of homeless veterans, the
Veterans Administration has estimated that there were as many as
196,000 during a point-in-time count just last year. Surely we can all
agree that 10,000 homeless veterans are 10,000 too many homeless
veterans. Even one homeless veteran is a homeless veteran too many.
We have also included $30 million for about 4,000 new housing
vouchers for the disabled, the first new housing vouchers for the
disabled in 5 years. The need for housing for the disabled has been
well documented, with average housing rents rising much faster than a
disabled person's monthly supplemental security income, SSI.
Secondly, the bill provides $250 million to help with the current
foreclosure crisis. We have included $200 million over the President's
request for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, a recognized
national intermediary between lenders and homeowners, to help
individuals and families forestall foreclosure and keep their homes. A
separate $50 million is provided for HUD's housing counseling program
to help new potential home buyers avoid future foreclosures.
[[Page 31435]]
According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the second quarter of
this year saw the highest percentage of mortgages go into foreclosure
since 1972. Many of those foreclosures and delinquencies are due to the
proliferation of subprime and other adjustable-rate loans. With 2
million subprime mortgages expected to reset over the next 18 months,
the number of homeowners facing delinquency is staggering in many parts
of the country.
The funds included in this bill for foreclosure counseling is the
first major Federal investment into this growing crisis. The President
has stated on a number of occasions that he wants to help solve this
problem. If he is serious, he would sign this bill into law and help
many tens of thousands of families receive the help they need to manage
their finances and the refinancing of their mortgage so they can keep
their homes.
In addition, the bill also makes significant investment in our
transportation infrastructure. The Minnesota bridge tragedy put a
national spotlight in the State, on the state of America's
transportation infrastructure, especially with the number of lives lost
in that tragedy. More than 20,000 out of some 100,000-plus bridges on
the national highway system are characterized as ``structurally
deficient'' or ``functionally obsolete.'' Traffic on these bridges is
over 190 million trips per day.
The conference report includes an additional billion dollars over the
President's request for the bridge program as a downpayment to help
States fix their long list of substandard bridges; $195 million is
specifically included for the I-35 bridge in Minnesota, which alone
carried 140,000 passenger vehicles per day. And that sum will make
Minnesota whole for the full replacement of that Interstate 35 bridge
in Minneapolis.
Those are the new initiatives, but there are numerous other positive
transportation and housing investments in this bill. The bill honors
the highway guarantees which were set in the authorization bill in
2005, the SAFETEA-LU authorizing bill which was brought forward by the
now minority just 2 years ago. That guarantee provides a record level
of investment in transit as well. This funding will improve the
Nation's transportation and infrastructure and is expected to create
close to 80,000 new jobs between highways and transit.
The bill also provides $1.375 billion for Amtrak, plus an additional
$75 million for a new intercity passenger rail program to create a
faster, safer, and more reliable intercity passenger rail system. That
$75 million was requested by the President.
We have included $3.5 billion for the Airport Improvement Program,
the same as last year, for critical airport safety capacity and
security upgrades.
We have also provided almost $3.8 billion for Community Development
Block Grants, the extremely popular CDBG program, which is $100 million
above fiscal year 2007 but still $400 million below the fiscal year
2001 level. It is estimated that every dollar of community block grant
funding leverages $3 in private investment for critical community and
economic development priorities in over a thousand localities around
the country.
The bill restores housing for the elderly and disabled to last year's
level. And finally, we have provided enough funding to ensure that no
one that has a section 8 tenant or project-based housing voucher will
lose that voucher in this fiscal 2008 year.
Mr. Speaker, transportation and housing is not a Republican, not a
Democratic issue. A broad consensus exists affirming the great needs
for transportation and infrastructure investment and affordable housing
nationwide. As such, this budget should be above partisan politics and
should be passed and signed into law. I urge my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to adopt the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Chairman Olver, has already detailed many
of the aspects of the fiscal year 2008 conference report. I am pleased
to say that I will support the conference report. The conference report
has much to commend. I want to thank John Olver; John and Joe I guess
is what it amounts to. But we have worked together very hard on this,
along with the staffs on both sides, and I commend him for working with
us to bring this product forward.
We meet the majority of the transportation funding guarantee as
mandated by SAFETEA-LU, plus included some wise legislative provisions
such as raising the airline pilot mandatory retirement age to 65 and
prohibiting towing on Federal roads in Texas.
We didn't go overboard on funding Amtrak and kept the reforms we put
in place 2 years ago in hopes of bringing the railroad into the modern
age. One unfortunate point I would like to make is one of the Transit
New Starts Project, a project for the Chicago area's commuter rail,
Metra, the UP West Line, was inadvertently not included in the bill. It
was funded in the House bill, and in the negotiations all sides
supported conference funding, and I am very hopeful we can work a
little magic to get that included.
In housing, we provided more than $100 million for about 11,000 new
incremental vouchers for 3 of our most vulnerable populations:
Veterans, including those returning from Iraq who might face
homelessness without rental assistance; nonelderly disabled
individuals, the so-called Frelinghuysen vouchers; and vouchers to keep
families together when facing homelessness rather than forcing the
children into foster homes.
Further, the bill insists that these vouchers retain their use and
purpose upon turnover when the current individuals and families no
longer need them.
The vouchers for veterans are important and will certainly be
welcomed throughout Michigan as well as the rest of the country. I want
to note the intent here is not just for HUD to administer these
vouchers, but for HUD and VA to work together so that the full array of
eligible services are coordinated and administered jointly.
{time} 1600
Along that same line, I strongly support a new demonstration in the
homeless program to avoid forcing children through the trauma of
homeless shelters by rapidly rehousing these families in secure rental
units and providing the care and training in that setting, rather than
through the shelter plus care process. We need to be sure, however,
that in doing so we do not end up subsidizing drug or other illegal
activity.
I want to also express my appreciation for the provision in the bill
that waives the Medicaid cap on income and allows citizens in Michigan
to voluntarily pay more and still receive rental assistance. This has
made a tremendous difference in my district, and the new statewide
provision will apply to all Michigan residents. Obviously, it is
available for consideration in other states, too.
As many of my colleagues know, Michigan has been facing a severe
credit crunch due to defaults and foreclosures resulting from the
subprime lending boom a few years ago. The resets are around the corner
and the problem may well get worse for Michigan before it gets better.
But no one wants to see foreclosure, not the homeowner, not the banks,
and certainly not the Federal Government which has insured many of
these loans.
As a result and through extensive collaboration with my colleague,
Chairman Olver, and our Senate counterparts, we included a provision
that I am sure will go a long way towards stemming if not reversing the
trend in the home mortgage market. We have included $200 million in new
funds for intensive and extensive loan foreclosure mitigation guidance
plus counseling and targeted funds to those areas which are facing the
largest threat of foreclosure.
We have ensured that the funds will be in the hands of the expert
counselors and State housing finance agencies before the loan resets
dates hit homeowners who will find it difficult
[[Page 31436]]
to meet the higher payments. We have not placed the funds in HUD, or
created a financial handout for mortgage companies or homeowners.
Instead, we are using the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, which
is in itself expert and has a network of expert loan counselors
throughout the country. As a federally chartered corporation, they will
be able to avoid the many delaying regulatory hurdles that would result
if funded through HUD, but still must meet all the requirements to
ensure the integrity of the funds provided to expert counseling
agencies. I firmly believe that Michigan will benefit greatly from the
one-time funding being provided in this bill to help at-risk homeowners
get through this difficult period.
Having said that, there are clearly areas in the bill that could and
should be reduced in funding or for which funding should be allocated.
All of us have heard about the shortfall that HUD now faces in
meeting contracts with longstanding low-income assistance providers
under the project-based section 8 program. While better than the Senate
bill, let's face it, we did not solve the problem. We only delayed the
date at which the crisis will occur. Yet at the same time, the voucher
program has $300 million in excess funds based on the new methodology
instituted by the majority as part of the 2007 continuing resolution.
Apparently the majority does not trust their new methodology that much,
yet those funds could have further reduced the shortfall that HUD faces
with project owners under the project-based program, or reduced the
cost of the bill itself.
Furthermore, the Department continues to receive funds for a long
list of small boutique and duplicative programs, all of which could be
eliminated as the administration requested without harming any of the
program.
Finally, I want to emphasize that there are no new air-dropped
earmarks from the House minority.
I want to thank my colleague and chairman, Chairman Olver, for his
work on this bill. I have to say he was most fair. This was a very
inclusive conference and, because of his cooperation and the highlights
of the bill, I will be voting ``yes'' on passage of the conference
report.
I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 3 minutes to the vice
chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Pastor from Arizona.
Mr. PASTOR. I thank my chairman, John Olver, for recognizing me.
First of all, I want to congratulate Chairman Olver and Ranking
Member Knollenberg for the fine work they have done on this bill. It is
quite an accomplishment. If you look at last year, we were not able to
conference the bill and here we are talking about a bill that has been
conferenced with the Senate. Both the chairman and the ranking member
have talked about some of the programs that have been given additional
funding, but I would like to talk about a few that this bill starts a
new initiative.
One is a program that the railroad administrator spoke to us about at
one of our hearings, and that is the ability of the Federal Railroad
Administration being able to provide grants to have intercity
connection by rail. And in Arizona, it is a program that we are looking
forward to see implemented. As you may know, Arizona is growing very
quickly, and the 2 metro areas, the Phoenix metro area and the Tucson
metro area, in a very short time are going to be growing into each
other, and there is a great need to connect them because the freeway
that connects them today is no longer efficient. So by applying for
these grants, hopefully we will be able to connect 90 percent of the
Arizona population with a rail.
With the possibility of that connection, then there is a possibility
that Arizona may be connected with Amtrak. So it is an initiative that
this conference bill brings forward that those of us in Arizona are
very happy to see implemented, especially in this city-to-city rail
connection.
For those of us who were local elected officials, I am very happy to
report that CDBG is in this bill and will receive additional money, so
local officials can use these monies to develop the social
infrastructure that is needed in many of our locations that do not have
the economic development activity that other parts of the city has.
The other initiative I want to talk about is one that you will begin
to see cooperation with the Federal Transit Authority and HUD. As the
transit lines are being developed, there are initiatives in this bill
that will encourage the development of affordable housing and
development of small businesses along the transit line. This is
something that, again, those of us who have transit lines that are
being developed, that with these initiatives we can develop affordable
housing, because many of the people who will be on the transit lines
are people that will be going to work and in many cases need to have
the affordable housing that the transit line will bring it.
I congratulate both the chairman and the ranking member for this fine
bill, and I ask for its passage.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio, Marcy Kaptur, a senior member of our subcommittee and someone who
has been very much involved in planning for communities over the years.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the chairman very much for the time, Chairman
Olver and Ranking Member Knollenberg, for just a fantastic effort on
this conference report. Let me say I rise in full support.
There are so many programs in it, such as our community development
block grant program which helps over 1,180 communities across this
country. We have been able to provide $3.79 billion in this bill, which
is still, though responsible, $400 million less than we spent as a
country in 2001, with many of our cities finding revenues on the
decline or stuck because of the condition of the economy. So I know
many of our mayors will welcome this.
I rise especially to point to the programs dealing with housing
counseling, $250 million in this bill through the Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corporation, dollars to be disbursed within the next 60
days to help parts of the country that are just suffering so greatly
because of the home mortgage foreclosure crisis.
There is no more important form of savings that any American family
can have than their home. What has been happening across our country is
we not only have a negative savings rate, but now we have a $1 trillion
housing crisis in which hundreds of thousands of people have lost their
homes or are about to lose their homes. This $250 million that is
included in this bill that will go through the Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corporation for counseling will help to try to allow some
of these families to retain their homes as these mortgages are reset.
Frankly, I have been so disappointed in HUD's just sitting on the
dime. As FEMA sat on the dime as people drowned in Louisiana, we've got
people drowning all across this country because they're losing their
homes and there's been no action. So we hope that this housing effort
will make a big difference in helping them to be able to maintain their
largest form of savings.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention the program for housing for
special populations in this bill. There is a total of 7,500 vouchers
for homeless veterans that are living in missions across this country,
that are in our jails, that are on the streets. Surely we can do better
than this as the American people. There are also 4,000 vouchers in the
bill for the nonelderly disabled and another 4,000 vouchers for
families with children, where children are separated from their
families because the families have no housing. Ask yourself the
question, how well will that child perform in school when their home
situation is so uncertain that they don't even know where they're going
to stay at night?
I think that this bill provides some important stimulus to the
housing sector, and the funding that we have provided is certainly not
enough in view of what we are facing as an economy as funds are drained
away from our communities as a result of this subprime
[[Page 31437]]
lending crisis, but at least we have done something in this bill to
recognize that there ought to be dispatch in the subprime lending
market, and if HUD can't do a very good job of it, then let's let the
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation try to deal with these families
that are dropping off the edge. I know that our mayors and those
involved in housing for special populations will see this bill as a
step forward.
I compliment the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for
moving this legislation.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) who has been very helpful with thoughts and
suggestions about how transportation and housing should fit together in
the planning of communities.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I deeply
appreciate the work that the subcommittee has done. This is not just
about spending money; it's about spending money right.
It is important that resources are being focused to being able to
``fix it first,'' to be able to deal with the fraying of our Nation's
infrastructure. As the gentleman pointed out, there are 100 million
trips on tens of thousands of substandard bridges across the country.
There is an important step in this legislation to have more robust
funding for Amtrak. We have avoided the problems of past sessions where
we have come through here to have an ideological battle fought about
how somehow the United States should be the only country in the world
without government-supported rail passenger service. Given skyrocketing
oil prices and congestion in our highways, people understand that that
is a prescription for disaster. I appreciate the hard work of the
committee coming forward with a proposal to help put a floor underneath
the rail passenger infrastructure, not making a difference just for
Arizona but throughout the country.
I appreciate looking at the big picture. The committee's willingness
to look at how land use, housing, and transportation fit together to
coax maximum advantage out of those investments is very, very
important.
{time} 1615
I hope that we can continue to work with the subcommittee, with the
whole Appropriations Committee, with the authorizing committees to be
able to get more out of these investments.
Last but not least, it should be pointed out that this will be the
last budget that we'll be able to have with the transportation funding
at this level. The refusal of the administration to work with us to
increase transportation investment in the last Congress resulted in a
reauthorization level that is higher than the trust fund can support.
We're going to be running out of money here in a couple of months. That
means that the task of the subcommittee will be extraordinarily
difficult, given the slow payout rate of transportation funding. It
means you're going to have to cut probably four times the amount of the
deficit this next year, and it's going to be even greater in subsequent
years. So I'm hopeful that, working with the subcommittee dealing with
appropriations and with Ways and Means, with the authorizers, we can
come forward to make sure that we don't lose the opportunity to make
the right investments in transportation and housing, because these are
going to help us with greenhouse gases. These are going to help us with
economic development, with energy efficiency. It's a tall order ahead
of us, but I appreciate the foundation that the subcommittee has laid,
and look forward to working with them.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I would like, at this point, to enter into
the Record a couple of letters which we have from public organizations.
One is Americans for Transportation Mobility. And this is an
organization which is an umbrella of the American Public Transportation
Association; the American Road and Transportation Builders Association;
the Associated Equipment Distributors; the Associated Equipment
Manufacturers; Associated General Contractors; American Society of
Civil Engineers; International Union of Operating Engineers; Laborers
International Union of North America; the National Asphalt Pavement
Association; National Construction Alliance; National Stone, Sand and
Gravel Association; and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who are cosigners
on this letter of support for H.R. 3074.
And I have, secondly, a letter from the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, commonly known as AASHTO. I think
every one of us who has ever worked at the State levels of public
funding, as well as the national levels, understands what AASHTO is.
And this is a letter of support signed by the executive director of
AASHTO, also in support of the conference report on H.R. 3074. And I
offer that for inclusion in the Record.
Americans for
Transportation Mobility,
Washington, DC, November 14, 2007.
To The Members of The U.S. House of Representatives: The
Americans for Transportation Mobility (ATM) Coalition
strongly urges you to support the conference report for H.R.
3074, the ``Transportation Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008.''
H.R. 3074 honors the commitments to capital investment in
highway and public transportation infrastructure made by
Congress in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
and will not increase the federal budget deficit. Although
H.R. 3074 under-funds public transportation by $81 million,
the ATM Coalition still feels strongly that this conference
report should pass as a stand alone measure in order to
maintain and improve the nation's highway and public
transportation systems in fiscal year 2008.
America's transportation system is being stretched beyond
its capacity. Both public and private usage of highways,
transit, and aviation systems are increasing at rates far
outpacing infrastructure investment. A decaying surface
transportation system costs the U.S. economy $78 billion
annually in lost time and fuel while congestion adds
significant pollution to the air, and substandard roads claim
thousands of lives every year.
As representatives of over 400 major users and providers of
the nation's surface transportation infrastructure network
including the business and labor communities, our unique
coalition is dedicated to ensuring the global
competitiveness, economic prosperity and the American way of
life by promoting investment in transportation
infrastructure. SAFETEA-LU provided record levels of
investment in highways and transit programs by ensuring that
revenues flowing into the Highway Trust Fund are only used
for their intended purpose: fixing and maintaining the
nation's transportation infrastructure. By passing the H.R.
3074 conference report, Congress will maintain its commitment
to a safe, efficient and competitive transportation system.
Sincerely,
Americans for Transportation Mobility.
____
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials,
Washington, DC, November 14, 2007.
Hon. David Obey,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: As the House begins consideration of the
Conference report on the Housing and Transportation
Appropriations, H.R. 3074, I wish to advise you the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) and its 50 State members strongly support and urge
that the legislation be passed as submitted.
The Nation's transportation system is the foundation of our
economy. If investments are delayed it will impact the
economy and add to increased costs because States will not
have the full funding that would be available given the
guaranteed spending provisions of SAFETEA-LU. Given the
timing of the construction season it is also of immediate
importance that the bill be passed promptly.
Sincerely,
John Horsley,
Executive Director.
At this point, I would like to yield 7 minutes to the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a few observations about the
White House comments on this bill, because we are told that the White
House intends to veto this bill.
Let me point out some facts about this bill. This bill spends about
$105 billion, all told. Much has been made in
[[Page 31438]]
the debate this morning or this afternoon about earmarks in this bill.
Earmarks are about 1 percent of all of the funds that are provided in
this bill, around $1.2 billion.
For reference, last year, the appropriation, or rather the
transportation authorization bill included about $20 billion in
earmarks. I didn't see the President talking about vetoing that bill. I
find it quaint that he now purports to be upset because this bill
contains \1/20\ the earmark level of bills that he has previously
signed.
I would also note that the President objects to the elimination of
the deep cuts which this bill contains for the Community Development
Block Grant and for housing programs. There is no individual in this
country who is a greater beneficiary of taxpayer-subsidized housing
than the President of the United States. He lives in that big white
house on Pennsylvania Avenue. He doesn't have to worry about having a
driver's license to drive on the roads in this country because he has
nice chauffeurs and nice limousines which are transported everywhere
around the country. He has lots of people in the kitchen to prepare any
meal that he wants prepared. If he wants to have a relaxing weekend, he
can go out to Camp David, and he can take a helicopter so he doesn't
have to worry about beating the traffic. And yet, this President
objects to the fact that we are trying to do a mite more than his
budget does for low-income housing in this country.
Section 8 housing, he's very unhappy about the fact that we've
increased funding for that. It just seems to me that this is one case
of the pot calling the kettle black if the President objects to that
kind of funding.
When we first started putting together appropriation bills, Mr.
Speaker, I asked each of the subcommittee Chairs to disregard the year-
to-year arguments that we've usually had in this place, and I asked all
of the chairmen and chairwomen to ask themselves: What is this country
going to look like in 5 and 10 years? And in the case of this bill, how
many more cars are there going to be on the road? How much more
pressure are we going to have for our rail traffic, both passenger and
transport, or freight?
I asked people to look at what the expanded population would mean in
terms of added demand for housing for the elderly, as well as low-
income housing. And then I asked the Chairs to try to prepare a bill
which would get us to where we needed to be over a 5- or 10-year period
in order to meet those challenges. And that is essentially what this
bill tries to do with very limited available funds.
Now, this bill contains about $5 billion increase in funding above
the President's level. That's about 2 weeks of what we spend in Iraq. I
make no apology for it. I wish it were more. No country can have an
efficient economy if it doesn't have an efficient transportation system
and if it doesn't have modern infrastructure. This is one of the bills
that tries to meet those demands.
So the President, if he wants, can invent a disagreement with the
Congress and veto the bill if he wants. But I think the American people
will recognize, the American taxpayer will recognize, while they may
not agree with every choice made in the bill, that this is a far more
reasonable response to the future needs of the country than is the
President's very pinched view of the investment needs that we have here
at home.
So I would urge support to this bill on both sides of the aisle. It's
been put together on a bipartisan basis. To my knowledge, every single
Republican on the subcommittee signed the conference report. I think
that there is not really very much in terms of policy which would
recommend a ``no'' vote on this bill. And I urge Members to recognize
that we've got an obligation to deal with the needs of the least
visible people in our society, the least powerful, and the least well
connected. This is one of the bills that tries to do that.
I urge an ``aye'' vote for the bill.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield as much time as he may
wish to consume to the gentleman who is the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Lewis from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate very much my colleague
yielding. And before making the remarks I have in mind, I want to
extend my congratulations to the chairman and the ranking member for a
very thoughtful effort to put together a very reasonable bill, while it
is a bit over the funding levels of the President, and as a result of
that I'll probably vote against it.
I had not planned to speak on this bill, for I had an understanding
from the other side that maybe neither the chairman or the ranking
member would spend too much time speaking.
I must say that some years ago it was my privilege to chair this
subcommittee, and I took that responsibility very, very seriously. I
know that the chairman of the committee has been very frustrated with
me this year as I've suggested, more than one time, that the solution
on the other side to every problem, it seems, is to throw more money at
it.
And the chairman just was wringing his hands a bit about the section
8 funding in this bill and suggesting we certainly should be doing a
better job.
Well, let me say, Mr. Speaker, we absolutely should be doing a better
job.
And back then, when I had a chance to chair this subcommittee, I
spent some time with then-Secretary Henry, under a different
administration than this one, and he and I went to section 8 housing
circumstances and both wrung our hands with some frustration about the
way many of those housing authorities are operating and the way they're
using the money that we send out there to help the poorest of the poor
have a chance for reasonable housing.
We found that there were some serious questions to be raised, and
that led to a thing called the Housing Fraud Initiative. And we gave
extra money to the Inspector General of the Housing Authority, and the
Inspector General went around the country, and, indeed, found serious
problems in any number of housing authorities about the way the money
was being spent that supposedly was designed for the poorest of the
poor.
It is not a fact that those housing authorities automatically respond
in a way that would reflect the best use of our money. And if that's an
illustration, indeed, the chairman has made my point. We don't solve
problems by just throwing money, especially if we're not willing to
follow the money and see if it's getting to the people we pretend to
want to help in the first place.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I hesitate to get involved between my chairman and my big ranking
member here, but since they've gotten into it and the ranking member
has made the comment that every suggestion that we make is to throw
money at the problem, I just wanted to point out that the President has
actually indicated that he will veto this legislation. It provides $3
billion more in budget authority than he requested in the original
budget.
And I'd like to remind people on both sides of the aisle that in each
of the last 6 years, each of the last 6 years, the President, rightly,
signed transportation and housing budgets into law that were above his
initial request. The irony here is that in fiscal year 2003, the
President signed into law the transportation and housing budgets that
were over $9 billion above his request. Ours is 3, on budget authority.
And in fiscal 2004 it was $4.2 billion above his request, and in fiscal
2006 it was $7 billion above the President's request.
{time} 1630
And he did that at times, he signed those bills, without a whimper,
without any objection, when the deficits, the budget deficits, were
much larger than they are today. This bill is a responsible piece of
legislation, and I hope that it will be adopted.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who is the authorizing Chair for the housing
portion of this legislation.
[[Page 31439]]
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Prior to my speaking, Mr. Speaker, I have
a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). The gentleman will state his
inquiry.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Are we debating the Defense
appropriations bill here?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. We are debating the conference report on
H.R. 3074.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Is the subject matter of that HUD or
Defense?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk has reported the title of the
bill. Would the gentleman like it to be restated?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will re-report the title of the
bill.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was confused, Mr. Speaker, because I had to go up to the Rules
Committee and I came back and I heard the gentleman from California
saying stop throwing money at the problem, that's not the way to solve
the problem. And when I think about what we're throwing money at, I
assumed we were talking about the Defense bill and Iraq and
reconstruction, because so much money has been thrown at that, none of
us can keep track of it. Then it turns out he's talking about a
relatively small increase in CDBG. I certainly agree we should not
solve problems by throwing money at them. That, however, led me to
think we must be talking about the bill that spends so much more money
than anything else and that has had more documented waste and abuse and
fraud, the Defense bill and the Iraq spending, than all the other
appropriations bills put together.
As to this bill, now that I know what we're talking about, not to be
taken for granted on the floor of this House, I want to be congratulate
the gentleman from Massachusetts for doing an excellent job with the
limited resources he was given, far too limited.
There is an increase in here for the Community Development Block
Grant program. The President apparently wanted to continue his path of
reducing Community Development Block Grants, having them be lower than
they were years ago when he came into office. In fact, that is a very
important program for our municipalities, and I am very pleased to see
that it is not being reduced.
As to section 8, every year when the Republicans were in power, we
would approach the point when we were running out of section 8s. And as
a member of the committee that has the authorization role here, we
would hear from Members, Democratic and Republican, about the
importance of keeping this going. Now, I agree it should be improved.
And what we have done here in this House, we began something last year
but we finished it this year and sent it to the Senate. We passed a
bill we called SEVRA, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act. So, yes, we
think there should be reform. This House has passed on a bipartisan
basis, support from everybody in the authorizing committee, a bill to
improve it. So we are trying to make things better. And I guarantee you
that you will not find anywhere under HUD, and I know a lot about that
department, anything like the wanton expenditure waste that we have
seen in Iraq and elsewhere.
What the gentleman from Massachusetts has done in the housing area is
sensibly to respond to important needs. I particularly want to say
earlier this year, the Secretary of HUD, Secretary Jackson, asked me to
meet with a group called ADAPT. These are people who represent people
with disabilities. They were concerned about the availability of
section 8 vouchers for people with disabilities, particularly those who
may have been turned away from public housing projects. In response to
that, in collaboration, the bill we have today increases that pool of
vouchers. Now, they're not earmarked for that group, and we will have
further conversations about how to deal with that, but there are
additional vouchers here that the Secretary of HUD came to me and said,
look, will you listen to this group and try to respond? And these are
vouchers that respond to their needs.
I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. I wish he was able to throw
money at the problem. I wish we had a set of priorities in this country
that were more respectful of genuine human needs. But given the limited
resources he has, he and his subcommittee have done an excellent job.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman that just spoke talked about how the
committee had done so well with such limited resources and makes it
sound like this is positively a skinflint bill, that we're just making
do with what we have.
The truth is we are well over the President's budget that he
submitted. Let me just give people a flavor for what's in this bill.
This is just a slice of the 150 pages of earmarks, more than 1,000
earmarks that were in this bill, 21 of them air-dropped last night that
we had no idea were here until today, but here is just an example of
some of them in the House-passed version:
There is $100,000 for the Crystal Lake Art Center in Frankfort,
Michigan; $750,000 to the Detroit Science Center in Detroit, Michigan;
$300,000 for the Houston zoo; $200,000 for the Huntsville Museum of Art
in Huntsville, Alabama; $100,000 for the Los Angeles Fashion District
in Los Angeles, California; $150,000 for the Louis Armstrong House
Museum in Flushing, New York; $50,000 for the National Mule and Packers
Museum in Bishop, California; $150,000 to the Renaissance Art Center,
Inc., in Rupert, Idaho; $200,000 to the Fruitvale Cultural and
Performing Arts Center in Oakland, California; $100,000 for the 1924
Vaudeville Theater in Plattsburgh, New York; $200,000 for the Hunting
and Fishing Museum of Pennsylvania; $100,000 for the Lincoln Museum in
Hodgenville, Kentucky.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would just point out that every one that you have recited, and I
have listened to probably 18 or 20 of them along the way, every one of
them was in the legislation as it passed the House of Representatives.
Mr. FLAKE. That is correct.
Mr. OLVER. They were not air-dropped, as has been suggested.
Mr. FLAKE. No. These were all in the House version, the House version
that we had just a couple of days to digest, and we were only able to
offer in reality few amendments in keeping with the comity of the
House.
This shouldn't substitute for real vetting or real scrutiny when you
have earmarks like this. And particularly, I didn't mention and I could
read the 21 air-dropped earmarks, the ones that were put in last night
that because the majority has waived the rules, we have no ability to
actually challenge. We don't know if these earmarks are meritorious or
not because they were air-dropped in last night. I'm reading these that
were in the House-passed version of the bill.
Let me read through a few more and maybe this will clarify it:
$150,000 for the Atlanta Botanical Gardens in Atlanta, Georgia;
$275,000 for the Berkshire Music Hall in Pittsfield, Massachusetts;
$400,000 to the Bel Alton High School Alumni Association in Maryland;
$500,000 for the Los Angeles County Fire Museum in Bellflower,
California.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will advise Members that the
gentleman from Massachusetts has 1 minute remaining. The gentleman from
Michigan has 18 minutes remaining.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
____________________
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
[[Page 31440]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to adjourn.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 154,
nays 252, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 1100]
YEAS--154
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Coble
Cole (OK)
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--252
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burgess
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
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
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Poe
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--26
Baird
Bono
Capuano
Carson
Cubin
Delahunt
Dingell
Doyle
Gilchrest
Gutierrez
Hunter
Jindal
Levin
Mack
McCollum (MN)
Murphy, Tim
Oberstar
Paul
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sessions
Waters
Watson
Weller
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded there
are 1\1/2\ minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1700
Messrs. PALLONE, MELANCON, POE, REYES, DAVIS of Virginia, TIERNEY and
PAYNE and Ms. BERKLEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1100,
had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1100, I was unable to
vote due to medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted
``nay.''
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1100, had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3074, TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1
minute remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 18 minutes remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to enter into the
Record two more letters, which I have in hand now, one from The United
States Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the
National Associations of Local Housing Finance Agencies, the
Association for County Community and Economic Development, and the
National Community Development Association in support of the conference
report on H.R. 3074. And also, the second letter from the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce urging support of the conference report for H.R. 3074,
signed by the executive director of the U.S. Chamber.
November 14, 2007.
Hon. John W. Olver,
Chair, Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing And Urban
Development and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Olver: The undersigned organizations of local
elected and appointed officials urge passage of the
conference report on H.R. 3074 that provides funding of
transportation and housing programs at $105.6 billion.
Housing and community development is a major challenge. Local
government officials know that decent, safe, affordable
housing is at the core of family stability and strong
neighborhoods. Your bill will assist us in achieving
affordable housing and community development goals.
H.R. 3074 provides funding for the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program,
Public Housing, Section 8, Homeless, and other housing and
community development programs. As you know, more than 260
mayors signed a letter calling for increased funding for the
CDBG program. HOME continues to be an effective affordable
housing program having assisted the development and
rehabilitation of nearly 900,000 affordable homes for very
low and moderate-income
[[Page 31441]]
families. These are just two examples of effective programs.
Virtually every housing and community development program in
your bill can be cited as having an exemplary record.
We urge the House to pass the conference report to the
bill, H.R. 3074.
Sincerely,
The United States Conference of Mayors; National
Association of Counties; National Associations of Local
Housing Finance Agencies; National Association for County
Community and Economic Development; and National Community
Development Association.
____
November 13, 2007.
To: The Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business
federation representing more than three million businesses
and organizations of ever size, sector, and region, strongly
urges you to support the conference report for H.R. 3074, the
``Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008.'' This bill provides the
necessary funding to ensure that the U.S. transportation
system is the safest and most efficient in the world.
The business community depends on a safe and reliable
transportation system to remain competitive and efficient.
The nation's transportation system is the foundation of the
nation's economy. If the investments necessary to maintain
this foundation are not made, the U.S. economy win suffer.
The inadequate surface transportation system costs the
economy $63 billion annually in lost time and fuel.
H.R. 3074 addresses the enormous demands of the nation's
transportation infrastructure system by providing funding for
the highway and transit programs authorized by Safe,
Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which President Bush
signed into law two years ago as well as funding for the
Federal Aviation Administration to improve the safety,
performance and capacity of the nation's aviation system.
While the Chamber strongly supports passage of H.R. 3074,
it is important to note that the Chamber is disappointed that
H.R. 3074 under-funds public transportation by $81 million.
These investments are vital to the safety of our system and
the health of the nation's economy. It is imperative that
commitments made under SAFETEA-LU be maintained as is
required by law.
For these reasons, the Chamber urges you to support the
conference report for H.R. 3074 and may consider using votes
on, or in relation to, this issue in our annual How They
Voted scorecard.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, the conference report on H.R. 3074 provides
critical funding for construction of new roads, repairs, and overall
improvements to our Nation's infrastructure. The legislation also
provides needed funding for housing vouchers and new vouchers for
veterans and disabled and low-income families.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to passing a funding bill
that has a positive economic impact on our Nation, none is more
important than the fiscal year appropriation for the Departments of
Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development.
America's transportation system is being stretched beyond its
capacity. Both public and private usage of highways, transit, and
aviation systems are increasing at rates far outpacing infrastructure
investment. A decaying surface transportation system costs the U.S.
economy $78 billion annually in lost time and fuel while congestion
adds significant pollution to the air, and substandard roads claim
thousands of lives every year.
By investing $40 billion in the Nation's highway system for
construction of new roads, repairs and improvements and $1 billion to
address deficient bridges across America, H.R. 3074 honors the
commitments to capital investment in highway and public transportation
infrastructure made by Congress in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
and will not increase the Federal budget deficit.
This bill also addresses many of our Nation's pressing housing needs,
at a time when we are facing a housing crisis that has directly
impacted millions of American homeowners and millions more as the
effects have rippled through the U.S. and world economy. National
estimates indicate that as many as 2.5 million mortgages will reset to
higher interest rates in the near future.
The fiscal year 2008 appropriation for the Department of Housing and
Urban Development also addresses the plight of homeless veterans.
According to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, one out of
every three homeless men who is sleeping in a doorway, alley or box in
our cities and rural communities has put on a uniform and served this
country. By providing $75 million in housing vouchers to homeless
veterans, we are beginning to address this problem by providing safe,
affordable, permanent housing access to 7,500 of our homeless veterans.
Another housing program strongly supported by my constituents that
this bill funds is the Section 8 Project Based Vouchers. If passed the
conference report will allocate $6.4 billion, $405 million above 2007
and $568 million above the President's request, to provide affordable
housing to 1.3 million low- and very low-income families and
individuals, two-thirds of whom are elderly or disabled.
When we pass this bill today and send it to the President, the House
of Representatives will be addressing the important challenges of
keeping our Nation's transportation system safe and strong, ensuring
that every American has adequate shelter, and doing so in a way that
strengthens the economy.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
conference report for the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development
Appropriations for 2008.
The funding provided in the conference report helps enhance our
national transportation system at a critical time. Our transportation
system is extended beyond its capacity. Public and private use of
highways, transit, and aviation systems are growing far beyond the
current level of investment.
I am particularly pleased the agreement provides funds for a number
of important projects not just in my own district but throughout
Colorado. Our State faces a number of transportation challenges as a
result of rapid expansion in the northwest Denver sububs and mountain
and resort communities. Without the passage of this conference report,
critical transportation and infrastructure needs for Colorado and the
Nation will continue to be shortchanged.
I am committed to continue working with the rest of the Colorado
delegation, local communities, the Transportation Committee and the
administration to secure essential Federal funding to get people and
goods from one place to another with a focus on transit and other
transportation alternatives, and improving current modes of Colorado's
transportation network.
The report also includes a number of important provisions with
national implications.
The United States and Colorado are facing a housing crisis that has
caused dire impacts to millions of homeowners. Very often a home
purchase represents the largest single investment that individuals and
families will make in their lifetimes. Homeownership is a cornerstone
of the American Dream, and Congress needs to treat it as a top
priority. I am pleased the report provides additional funding for
counseling assistance for at-risk homeowners. Funding in the bill will
assist thousands of borrowers with mortgage changes and restructuring
to help them keep their homes.
I am also pleased the report makes changes to inequities in the
retirement age of U.S. pilots. Like the Senate bill, the report raises
the mandatory retirement age for pilots to 65, with certain exceptions.
I supported similar provisions that passed the House in the
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. We must take
urgent action to ensure that more competent pilots are not lost.
Mr. Speaker this legislation is far from perfect but by passing the
conference report, Congress will maintain its commitment to a safe,
efficient and competitive transportation system that will fuel job
creation. I urge its passage today.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this final FY 08
Transportation-HUB Appropriations Conference Report for the key
infrastructure investments it makes and the housing support it
provides.
In the aftermath of the 1-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis this
summer, it should be clear to every American that we can no longer
afford the Bush Administration's policy of deferring needed maintenance
to our nation's infrastructure--or shrink from the infrastructure
investments necessary for the safe and vibrant America we are committed
to building in the 21th century.
That's why this bill invests $40.2 billion to improve and maintain
our Nation's highways, including an additional $1 billion to ensure the
safety of our bridges. Additionally, we allocate $9.65 billion to the
Federal Transit Administration for capital improvements to our commuter
and light rail systems in order to encourage the use of mass transit,
alleviate traffic congestion and reduce pollution. We wisely reject
President Bush's effort to bankrupt Amtrak and instead provide $1.45
billion to support our national rail system and the 24 million
passengers it serves. And we provide $3.5 billion for vital airport
modernization initiatives designed to expand airport capacity, make
critical safety improvements and expand noise mitigation efforts.
On the housing front, we fund 15,500 new vouchers for vulnerable
populations like low-
[[Page 31442]]
income families, homeless veterans and the disabled. We spend $145
million--or $29 million over the President's request--to protect
children from lead poisoning. We invest $3.79 billion in the Community
Development Block Grant, CDBG program to revitalize neighborhoods
across the nation. And we allocate $200 million to the Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corporation for its work counseling the estimated 2.5
million homeowners at risk of foreclosure as a consequence of the
ongoing subprime mortgage crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this conference report.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R.
3074, the FY08 Transportation and Housing and Urban Development
Appropriations Bill, but to voice my concerns over the lack of a
provision omitted from the final conference report.
The Conference Report before us today addresses many of the problems
facing Americans today. It helps to provide affordable housing for
those Americans who need it most and modernizes our transportation
infrastructure to enhance safety on our Nation's roads, our railways,
and airplanes. This legislation also works to ensure the viability of
mass transit operations throughout the Nation, all of which are
necessary to reduce traffic congestion, lessen our dependence on
foreign oil, and reduce our contribution to global warming. This is a
strong, essential bill, and I will be supporting its passage, but I
would like to express one concern I have with the conference report.
As a way to provide Federal housing assistance to tribal members in a
way that recognizes self-determination and self-government, Congress
enacted the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination
Act and as part of it, the Indian Housing Block Grant, IHBG, program.
This program provides an allocation of funds on a formula to help
tribes address their housing needs. Beginning in 2000, the Census
allowed respondents to claim that they are American Indian Alaska
Native in combination with other racial groups, or AIAN only. In
response, HUD shifted the basis for the needs portion of the IHBG
distribution from single-race to multi-race.
This unilateral decision by HUD to change its distribution formula
has adversely impacted many of our Nation's tribes, as there was a
large shift in funding among NAHASDA recipients. Compounded with the
little to no funding increases that Native American housing programs
have received in the past several years, tribes and their housing
entities have been left without the resources they need to provide
housing services for their members. This year's House passed T-HUD
appropriations bill recognized that this change has adversely impacted
many Native American tribes. Additionally, it directed the GAO to
conduct a study to analyze the impact of these funding changes and
report its findings to Congress. Unfortunately, the Conference Report
removed the language requiring the study.
One of the greatest challenges facing Native Americans is the lack of
sufficient housing. Approximately 40 percent of on-reservation housing
is considered inadequate--often overcrowded and lacking basic
facilities, such as electricity and plumbing. The study requested by
the House only asked the GAO to study the impact of funding changes on
the housing needs of tribal communities, and I do not see how this
study could do anything but help. We must have all information possible
as we continue to address the need for adequate housing on tribal
lands.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Lewis of California
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference
report?
Mr. LEWIS of California. In its present form, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Lewis of California moves to recommit the conference
report on the bill, H.R. 3074, to the committee of
conference.
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. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the conference report.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 182,
nays 231, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 1101]
YEAS--182
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--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
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
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
[[Page 31443]]
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
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 (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--19
Bono
Carson
Cubin
Doyle
Gutierrez
Hunter
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jindal
Keller
Langevin
Levin
Mack
Miller (NC)
Oberstar
Paul
Ruppersberger
Sessions
Watson
Weller
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are less than 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1718
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1101, I was unable to
vote due to medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted
``nay.''
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on the previous motion to
recommit vote, in light of the new extraordinary and difficult and
strenuous voting time, I was unavoidably delayed in an Iraq briefing.
If I was present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to recommit
on the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, during the previous vote on the motion to
recommit, number 1101 on H.R. 3074, I was unavoidably detained and I
missed that vote. I would like the record to show that I would have
voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 270,
nays 147, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 1102]
YEAS--270
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baker
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
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
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
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NAYS--147
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
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)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Bishop (UT)
Bono
Carson
Cubin
Doyle
Gutierrez
Jindal
Levin
Mack
Oberstar
Paul
Ruppersberger
Sessions
Watson
Weller
Announcement by the Speaker pro Tempore
The Speaker pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised they
now have less than 2 minutes remaining in which to cast their vote.
{time} 1725
Mr. TURNER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report 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. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1102, I was unable to
vote due to medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I was unavoidably detained
and could not cast my vote for H.R. 3074, on agreeing to the Conference
Report for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing, and Urban
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008.
Had I been able to cast my vote, I would have voted ``yea'' for H.R.
3074.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, announced
that the Senate has agreed to without amendment a concurrent resolution
of the House of the following title:
H. Con. Res. 258. Concurrent resolution directing the Clerk
of the House of Representatives to correct the enrollment of
H.R. 1429.
[[Page 31444]]
The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the report of
the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 2 Houses on
the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1429) ``An Act to
reauthorize the Head Start Act, to improve program quality, to expand
access, and for other purposes.''.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4156, ORDERLY AND RESPONSIBLE IRAQ
REDEPLOYMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up H. Res. 818 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 818
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
4156) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2008, and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions of
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion
to recommit.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 4156 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
{time} 1730
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). The gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
I yield myself 6 minutes.
General Leave
I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative
days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution
818.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 818 provides for
consideration of H.R. 4156, the Orderly and Responsible Iraq
Redeployment Appropriations Act of 2008. The rule provides 2 hours of
debate and provides for one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq has gone on for nearly 5 years.
Thousands of our brave men and women have lost their lives. Many more
thousands have returned home with injuries so severe that they will
require a lifetime of medical treatments.
We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the war, virtually
none of it paid for, almost all of it on our national credit card. That
means that the bill will be paid for not by us, but by our kids and our
grandkids.
The war has diminished our standing in the world. It has distracted
us from the war in Afghanistan, the very place where those responsible
for 9/11 are now regrouping. And it has put incredible strain on the
readiness of our Armed Forces.
The President of the United States and many of my Republican friends
have argued fiercely over the years for a blank check. They want no
strings, no conditions, no benchmarks, no end dates, no accountability,
no nothing.
Today, they will tell us that the President's strategy is working;
that the recent decrease in deaths and casualties in certain areas of
Iraq prove it, and, therefore, we should provide yet another blank
check.
Mr. Speaker, let me caution my friends about declaring ``mission
accomplished'' yet again. While all of us pray that the violence
continues to subside, we should also appreciate history enough to know
that lulls in intense violence are not always permanent. Let me also
state that the current levels of violence in Iraq are still
unacceptably high.
As Joe Christoff of the Government Accountability Office recently
testified, this recent reduction in violence should be put into the
proper context as it coincides with increased sectarian cleansing and a
massive refugee displacement. Let me quote:
``You know, we look at the attack data going down, but it's not
taking into consideration that there might be fewer attacks because you
have ethnically cleansed neighborhoods, particularly in the Baghdad
area. It's produced 2.2 million refugees that have left, and it's
produced 2 million internally displaced persons within the country as
well.''
Mr. Speaker, we must remember that the justification for the surge
and the justification for the Bush military strategy in Iraq has always
been to foster Iraqi political reconciliation. And there is precious
little evidence of any such thing.
Over 10 months ago, President Bush said, ``A successful strategy for
Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see
that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in
their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi
Government to the benchmarks it has announced.''
But, Mr. Speaker, as the GAO reported last month, ``Iraq has not yet
advanced key legislation on equitably sharing oil revenues and holding
provincial elections. In addition, sectarian influences within Iraqi
ministries continue while militia influences divide the loyalties of
Iraqi security forces.''
Mr. Speaker, the Maliki government continues to be corrupt, inept and
without the support of the vast majority of the Iraqi people. When will
the Bush administration live up to its word and hold the Iraqi
Government accountable for its actions, or inaction?
The fundamental crisis facing Iraq remains the same: The inability of
Sunni, Shiites and Kurds to agree to set aside their sectarian
divisions and live in peace. As long as we remain there indefinitely,
Mr. Speaker, there is no incentive for anything to change.
Mr. Speaker, our soldiers have already given so much to create an
opportunity for the Iraqi Government, an opportunity that that
government has squandered. So, today, we are saying we want a different
course. We reject the President's vision of an endless war that will
cost more lives and bankrupt our Nation.
Today, we will vote on a bill that requires the redeployment of U.S.
troops from Iraq to begin within 30 days of enactment, with a target
for completion of December 15, 2008. It would prohibit the deployment
of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully trained and equipped. And it
changes the mission of our forces.
It also extends to all government agencies and personnel the
limitations in the Army Field Manual on permissible interrogation
techniques, which means that torture will be absolutely banned, and
anyone who engages in such practices will be committing a crime under
U.S. law, no ands, ifs or buts.
Mr. Speaker, it is no longer acceptable for Congress to simply write
yet another blank check. It is not acceptable for the President to
simply run out the clock and hand this problem off to his successor.
This is a war that George Bush started, and this is a war that he
needs to end. For the sake of our troops, for the sake of our country,
we need to support this legislation. Enough is enough.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise to express my appreciation to my friend from Worcester for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my long-time Rules Committee colleague,
the gentleman from Worcester, I am reminded of a great speech that was
delivered last Friday. Last Friday, our very distinguished colleague,
the Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, in an address, said
something that I think encapsulates exactly what we just heard from my
very good friend.
[[Page 31445]]
Senator Lieberman, in speaking of the Democratic Party, and he is now
an independent Democrat, sometimes I see him listed as a Democrat, I
know he organizes with the Democrats, he is listed as an independent as
well, he said, ``The Democrats are emotionally invested in a narrative
of defeat.''
Mr. Speaker, I have got to say as I listened to the words of my
colleague from Worcester, I can't help but think that Senator Lieberman
was right on target when he used that language, ``emotionally invested
in a narrative of defeat.'' I was so struck with that when I heard it
that I committed it to memory, and I think, again, it really takes on
exactly what we have just heard.
It comes as no surprise that I rise in very, very strong, vigorous
opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation as well. We have
had 40 votes on Iraq policy, and today's bill brings us to vote No. 41.
Not one, Mr. Speaker, not one of the withdrawal bills went through the
normal legislative process. Not one, not one of these 41 measures is
the product of a committee markup. Not one got its own hearing. Not one
has been brought up under an even slightly open process, allowing for
amendment, and consequently not allowing for any kind of real debate.
Mr. Speaker, most telling of all, not one has been enacted into law.
Now, we all know that the Democrats control both the House and the
Senate, and still they cannot produce a single legislative victory on
Iraq. Not once, not twice, not 10 times. Forty times. Mr. Speaker, 40
times we have gone through the motions of their failed, bankrupt
strategy. I can't recall a more naked display of demagoguery.
Now we come to vote No. 41. It has all the hallmarks of the
Democratic majority's work: no deliberation, no gesture towards
bipartisanship, and no hope of being enacted.
But there is something different about the vote this time, and that
is context. We are considering this vote in a much different context
than we have the 40 previous votes that we have addressed on this. In
fact, our colleague in the Senate, Johnny Isakson, Senator Isakson,
said this debate was understandable in May. He said in July, it was
questionable. He said now it is absolutely ridiculous.
For many months, the situation in Iraq has been very bleak. While
there were many promising signs of progress, the turnaround in al Anbar
province most notably, the overall picture was one of great challenges
and struggles. I have argued repeatedly that a precipitous withdrawal
would only create more challenges, and, Mr. Speaker, I have highlighted
the signs of progress amid the struggles all along.
But today, the tide is turning in Iraq. We are seeing far more than
pockets of success, as my friend has said. We are seeing a dramatic
shift in the landscape. It began in al Anbar, as I have said. The Sunni
sheiks there turned on al Qaeda, joined with the largely Shiite Iraqi
army and with coalition forces, and reclaimed the province. Ramadi, its
capital, the city that we have all heard of described as the most
dangerous city in the world just a year ago, hasn't had an attack in 3
months. The city and the province are rebuilding. They are constructing
small business centers so that the entrepreneurial spirit of Iraqis can
flourish once again.
A delegation, including the Anbar governor, the Ramadi mayor, several
prominent religious leaders and Ahmed Abu Risha, the brother of Sheik
Sattar Abu Risha, the father of the Sunni Awakening, was just here in
Washington a couple of weeks ago. They came here, Mr. Speaker, to spend
several days receiving training in institution building, good
governance, transparency and the rule of law.
Mr. Speaker, these are Anbar's political, business and religious
leaders, not coming here to seek security assistance, not seeking
military assistance. They have achieved security in al Anbar. Now what
they want, Mr. Speaker, is help from us in their quest to build a
democracy. But, most important of all, they are serving as a model for
the rest of Iraq.
Prior to their trip, they participated with Shiite leaders in a
summit in Karbala. Sheiks from Karbala and Najaf, Iraq's two holiest
cities for Shiite Muslims, reached out to their Sunni brothers in Anbar
and asked for their help in combating al Qaeda. This comes at a time
when Sunni and Shiite leaders in Baghdad are reaching out to each other
to begin the process of reconciliation as well.
Baghdad's notorious Adhamiya neighborhood that we have heard so much
about, formerly the site of some of Iraq's worst sectarian violence, is
now a place where Sunni and Shiite sheiks are meeting regularly to
discuss how to bring their people together, just the things that my
friend from Worcester said are so imperative. They are taking place at
this very moment.
Now, all of this has been possible, Mr. Speaker, because of the
dramatic drop in violence brought about by General Petraeus'
counterinsurgency strategy. This strategy, which included the surge,
has resulted in months of plummeting IED attacks, plummeting American
troop deaths, plummeting Iraqi civilian deaths, and plummeting
sectarian attacks.
Many of my colleagues have pointed out that this has been the
deadliest year for American troops yet in Iraq, and, Mr. Speaker, I
will acknowledge that this has been the deadliest year for American
troops in Iraq. And it is true over the past year we have tragically
seen that great number. But that does not reflect what is happening now
in this post-surge world.
{time} 1745
The past few months have seen the most dramatic decline in the deaths
of American troops because we have had a new strategy. Mr. Speaker, we
have had a new strategy, and that strategy is working. And perhaps most
important for all of us, that strategy has enabled our military
commanders to begin a drawdown in U.S. troop levels.
Not because of artificial timetables. Not because of the
micromanagement of Members of Congress from the comfort of our offices
thousands of miles away from the front lines. But by empowering our
commanders on the ground, they have created a stable security situation
that is allowing for both the beginnings of Iraqi reconciliation and
the safe withdrawal of our troops.
Mr. Speaker, the big question for today is this: Will the dramatic
improvement in Iraq prove to be a true turning point or nothing more
than a lull in the war? I don't know the answer to that. Neither
outcome is a foregone conclusion. Whether it is a major turning point
in the war or just a lull, no one knows for sure. What we do know now
will profoundly affect the future of Iraq. Will we fund our troops and
empower our commanders to continue to do what is best for our long-term
interests? Or will we pull the rug out from under them now at the
precise moment they have achieved what we have asked of them?
As one of my friends just said to me, it seems like our friends on
the other side of the aisle want defeat before we can win.
For my colleagues who would resort to the latter option out of
political expediency, Mr. Speaker, let me remind them of another war
our men and women are fighting. Today our troops are also battling a
very real enemy in Afghanistan.
We got a terrible reminder just a few days ago of the viciousness of
that fight when 6 of our counterparts, members of the Afghan
Parliament, were brutally targeted in the worst attack in Afghanistan's
history, and I would like to express my appreciation for the bipartisan
support that my colleague, David Price, and I offered as leaders of the
House Democracy Assistance Commission.
We have been working with those parliamentarians in Afghanistan, and
we are hoping to work with those in Iraq as soon as possible. And we
once again express our condolences to the people of Afghanistan who
have suffered the single worst attack in their nation's history when a
week ago yesterday 6 parliamentarians and 44 other people were brutally
murdered.
Let me also remind my colleagues that this war that we are seeing in
Afghanistan is not our first war in Afghanistan. Many of us were
intricately involved in their war against the Soviets in the 1980s,
many Members who
[[Page 31446]]
are still here today. And what did we do after the Soviets were
defeated? We withdraw and left the Afghans to fend for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot forget that democracy is hard work. For over a
decade, unfortunately, in Afghanistan we indulged in the luxury of
ignoring what was going on there. And then on a sunny Tuesday 6
Septembers ago, 3,000 Americans paid a horrible price for that mistake.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot refuse to learn from history or we are doomed
to repeat it. Our support for our troops in Iraq has earned us a far
more stable, secure situation. And yet what does the Democratic
leadership propose to do? Their bill would reward our military
commanders' success by cutting them off.
It would provide constitutional protections for terrorists, while
leaving our veterans, including Iraq veterans, without funding. It
would force the same disastrous, shortsighted withdrawal that led to
the terrorist sanctuary in Afghanistan. It would do all of this at a
time when we are achieving not just pockets of success in Iraq but
broad-based improvements, and at a time when Republicans have been
trying every possible means to get an appropriations bill for our
veterans to the President, which he will certainly sign if we can ever
get it to him.
Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority's priorities, foolhardy
policies, and constitutional rights for terrorists have never been so
out of whack. I suppose we can take comfort in the fact that this is
all a meaningless charade that will never be enacted, because we all
know this will never be enacted. But that is a hollow comfort when we
consider our troops in harm's way and our veterans in need.
Mr. Speaker, it is a very cruel comfort for the families of those who
have made incredible sacrifices in this war.
I often think of my good friend, Ed Blecksmith, a former marine and
the father of JP Blecksmith, also a marine, who died in November 2004
just 3 years ago in the very famous battle of Fallujah. I have talked
about the Blecksmith family here on the House floor many, many times. I
didn't know JP, but from everything that I have read, and I have a
recent article that has just come out about him, he was a very talented
young man with a very bright future. He had so many opportunities
before him, and he chose to be a marine because he wanted to serve as
his father had done. His family proudly, but soberly, supported him. As
a former marine, Ed Blecksmith knew in a very real way the cost of war.
JP Blecksmith would not return to his family, having made the ultimate
sacrifice.
And his father said something to me that I will never forget. He
looked me in the eye and asked me to make sure that we complete his
son's mission in Iraq. He has said to me on countless occasions, You
must complete the mission or my son JP will have died in vain.
Mr. Speaker, it is deeply heartening to see the beginnings of
victory. And no, I am not saying ``mission accomplished'' or anything
like that because we know full well that we have difficult days ahead.
But it is deeply heartening to see the beginnings of victory in Iraq,
for JP's sake and for the sake of all who have paid a very dear price.
We have a profound responsibility to allow our commanders to continue
on this path.
Mr. Speaker, after 41, 41 wasted efforts, I can only hope that the
Democratic leadership will finally abandon empty demagoguery for
substantive legislation, meaningful debate, and a quest at
bipartisanship so we can work with the President to come to an
agreement. Until that time, I urge my colleagues to reject this closed
rule and the terribly wrongheaded policy that it seeks to shield.
[From Details, Holiday 2007]
The Fallen: 2nd Lieutenant JP Blecksmith, 24
(By Jeff Gordinier)
On the night before 2nd Lieutenant JP Blecksmith shipped
out to Iraq, after his family took him out for dinner in
Newport Beach, California, his older brother, Alex, picked up
a pair of clippers and shaved JP's head. When that was done
and JP looked ready for combat, Alex gave his brother a hug.
Then Alex climbed into JP's green Ford Expedition and drove
it north, back to the family's house in San Marino, weeping
part of the way. He had a feeling. So did his parents. A
premonition. They didn't talk about it much, but two months
later, in November 2004, when JP joined a wave of U.S.
Marines roaring into the city of Fallujah as part of
Operation Phantom Fury, the feeling intensified.
On the night of November 10, Blecksmith and his closest
friend in Iraq, Lieutenant Sven Jensen, slept on a rooftop in
Fallujah. It was, miraculously, a quiet night, and chilly.
They got a decent night's sleep. They awoke just before
sunrise and were amused to find a small pet bird with green
wings and a yellow belly perched a couple of feet away from
their faces. Jensen took a picture of the bird. There were
other ones like it all over Iraq, because when U.S. troops
were searching abandoned houses, they often found cages that
had been left behind. The soldiers let the birds go free so
they wouldn't starve to death.
Hours before, JP had sent a letter to his girlfriend,
addressing it formally, as always, to ``Ms. Emily M. Tait.''
In it he wrote, ``By the time you receive this, you will know
we have gone into the city. We've been preparing for it the
last few days, and my guys are ready for the fight, and I'm
ready to lead them. It'll be hectic, and there will be some
things out of my control, but the promise of you waiting at
home for me is inspiring and a relief.'' Now he was in the
thick of it. Blecksmith and Jensen came down from the roof,
ate their MREs for breakfast, and got their orders. Before
the invasion the battalion commander, Colonel Patrick Malay,
had given his men an analogy: ```Imagine a dirty, filthy
windowpane that has not been cleaned in hundreds of years,'''
he recalls saying. ``That's how we looked at the city of
Fallujah. Our job was to scrub the heck out of that city, and
then take a squeegee and wipe it off so that it was clean and
pure.'' Most of Fallujah was empty, and anyone left in the
city was presumed to be an insurgent.
Blecksmith and the other members of the India Company of
the Third Battalion, Fifth Marines Regiment, moved south
through the city, with their blood types scrawled in
indelible marker on the sleeves of their uniforms. The
streets smelled terrible--a stubborn aroma of rotting food
and bodies. Late in the day on November 11, things started to
go wrong. A marine in Blecksmith's platoon, Klayton South,
was shot in the mouth by an insurgent when he kicked open the
door of a house. Blood gushed from his mangled teeth and
tongue. The medics cut into South's throat to give him an
emergency tracheotomy. (He survived. He's since had more than
40 operations to repair the damage.) ``It shook the platoon
up,'' Jensen says now, ``and JP was the most in-control
person I saw. He had a sector to clear, so he rallied his
guys and said, `Okay, we've got to continue clearing.'''
Blecksmith's and Jensen's platoons moved off in different
directions, and the two friends shot each other a glance.
``I'll never forget looking at his eyes the last time I saw
him,'' Jensen says. ``He turned and he gave me almost an
apprehensive look, like, Oh, s-it, we've got some s-it going
on. I wanted to say `Hey, I'll see you later.' But I didn't
say anything to him.''
Minutes later, Blecksmith led his platoon into a house and
climbed a flight of stairs to the roof to survey the
surrounding landscape. Shots came from a building across the
street. Blecksmith stood up to direct the squads under his
command, shouting at them to take aim at the enemy nest. He
was tall, and was now visible above the protective wall. ``He
was up front a lot, and he made a big target, and we'd talked
to him about that,'' Colonel Malay says. ``He exposed himself
consistently to enemy fire in the execution of his duties. He
displayed a fearlessness to the point that we had to talk to
him about the fact that nobody is bulletproof.''
As Blecksmith stood on the roof, a sniper's 7.62-mm bullet
found one of the places on his body where he was vulnerable.
It was a spot on his left shoulder, less than an inch above
the rim of his protective breastplate. The bullet sliced
downward diagonally, coming to rest in his right hip, and
along the way it tore through his heart. ``I'm hit,''
Blecksmith said. He fell. He raised his head for a moment,
and that was it. A Navy medic got to Blecksmith immediately,
but he was already dead, and his men carried his heavy body
back down the stairs. He was 24.
That night in San Marino, Alex Blecksmith came home from
work and noticed that the house was dark. He opened the front
door and saw his mother, Pam, sitting at the kitchen table
with a couple of marines in dress blues and white gloves, and
he heard the phrase ``We regret to inform you . . .''
The funeral was so magnificent, so full of pageantry, that
at times it was difficult for Alex to remember that the guy
being buried was his brother. The Marines do it right when it
comes to honoring the fallen. They do it so right that you
can get swept up in the ceremony and feel as though you're
watching a parade. The funeral took place at the Church of
Our Saviour in San Gabriel--the church where the most
celebrated of San Marino's favorite sons, General George S.
[[Page 31447]]
Patton, had been baptized as a baby. As the flag-draped
casket was carried out of the sanctuary and into the
California sun, a long, silent line of almost 2,000 people
followed. There were marines and midshipmen and local
firefighters in uniform. There was a 21-gun salute. Four
World War II fighter planes swooped toward the cemetery in
the ``missing man'' formation--just as they passed over the
funeral, the fourth plane symbolically split from the quartet
and veered into the sky. A bagpiper played a Scottish dirge.
One of JP's old friends would later observe that the day, in
all of its glory and pomp, made him think of Princess Diana's
wedding.
As public support for the war in Iraq wavers, it's easy to
forget that people like JP Blecksmith even exist. The
American military is so predominantly blue-collar that we
tend to assume that the sons and daughters of the rich never
voluntarily die in warfare anymore. Blecksmith was born in
September 1980, just weeks before his state's own Ronald
Reagan was elected president, and he spent most of his youth
in the small Los Angeles County town of San Marino during
what felt, for many of its wealthy and conservative
inhabitants, like something of a ``Leave It to Beaver''
golden age. To look at a photograph of him, blue-eyed and
suntanned and grinning, is to understand the enduring
magnetism of the word ``California.'' He stood six foot three
and weighed 225 pounds. His chest was a keg; his biceps were
gourds. His biography reads as though it were scripted by a
Hollywood publicist: legendary quarterback on the Flintridge
Prep football team, track star, graduate of the United States
Naval Academy.
His father, Ed Blecksmith, who is 64, runs an executive-
recruiting firm in Los Angeles. He and Pam met in the early
seventies, while both were working in the White House. Along
a wall leading into their kitchen hang framed Christmas cards
from Dick and Pat Nixon. ``Here's a kid,'' Ed says, ``who
didn't need to do this.'' It's as though JP were transplanted
into our world from the Eisenhower years. Somehow, in an
ironic age of Jon Stewart and ``South Park,'' the guy grew up
in a kind of pre-Summer of Love bubble in which young men of
strength and valor still yearned to distinguish themselves on
the battlefield. He was groomed, in a sense, for something
that no longer exists, at least not for guys who grow up in
the wealthiest zip codes in the country. He believed in
ideals of duty and sacrifice that have become, for many men,
anachronistic and even unfathomable.
``I was in awe,'' says Peter Twist, Blecksmith's closest
friend since preschool. Twist played wide receiver to
Blecksmith's quarterback on the Flintridge Prep football
team; a local newspaper called the duo ``Fire & Ice.''
Blecksmith was known for being fast, composed, smart, and
unflappable, and his giant arms could propel the ball a good
80 yards down the field. If he had an athletic flaw, it was
that he was aware of his own flawlessness. ``He had such
personal confidence,'' says Tom Fry, a mentor to Blecksmith
in high school and one of the assistant coaches on his team.
``He felt that if all the stars aligned, there was nothing he
couldn't do--it was JP's world.'' When they graduated in
1999, Twist and a couple other teammates went off to the
University of Arizona, where it's safe to say the prospect of
partying was on their minds, while Blecksmith opted for the
rigors and restrictions of Annapolis. ``I was stoked for the
man'' says Twist, 26, who lives in Newport Beach and works in
the mortgage business. ``Most of us are still trying to
figure it out, but JP always had a goal.''
November 11, the date on which JP Blecksmith died, was
noteworthy for other reasons. It's Twist's birthday. It also
happens to be the birthday of General Patton, who grew up in
San Marino and holds a prominent place in the town's history.
This coincidence has only bolstered the mythology of JP
Blecksmith--a feeling that it was his destiny to die in
combat. The Blecksmiths have a statue of Patton on a shelf in
their home, and it becomes clear in conversation that Ed, a
decorated Vietnam veteran himself, sees a kind of mystical
link between the fate of his son and the military, triumphs
of the legendary general (who was a passionate believer, it
just so happens, in reincarnation).
Indeed, JP Blecksmith fit the ``hero'' mold in such
classic, square jawed American style that a kind of cult of
JP has begun to develop in San Marino. They give out awards
in his name at the local schools. On the Fourth of July, San
Marino hosts a JP Blecksmith 5K run. A Marine Corps training
center in Pasadena has been christened Blecksmith Hall. On a
hot Sunday morning this past August, Alex parked his
brother's Expedition in the cemetery and walked across the
grass to the pale granite stone that says JAMES PATRICK
BLECKSMITH. An elderly man wandered over to the headstone,
hand in hand with a grade-school kid who had a blond Mohawk,
and told Alex, ``I never met JP, but I go by here and show my
grandson his grave''
THREE YEARS AFTER BLECKSMITH'S death, his bedroom still
looks the way it did when he left for Annapolis in 1999.
There's a Green Bay Packers poster over the bed, a dense
forest of athletic trophies, toy race cars lined up on the
dresser. ``This is all his stuff from Iraq that they sent
over,'' Alex says, looking down at a cardboard box on the
floor. ``We haven't gone through it, really.''
Ed Blecksmith walks into the bedroom, and within a few
seconds his voice is cracking and his blue eyes are growing
wet. ``It's still tough,'' he says. ``You see all these
pictures and things . . .'' He insists on sitting down in
front of the TV downstairs and watching DVD footage of that
magnificent funeral, fighting back a sob at the moment when
one of the eulogists, a Navy SEAL, describes JP as having
been ``the best of the best.'' Ed has some Fox News footage,
too. In it, you can see JP speaking to his men hours before
the battle in Fallujah, and that's where you get a brief
glimpse of the regular guy behind the mythology. Because
there stands JP, in fatigues and a floppy Boonie hat, holding
a map, telling his marines to ``expect everything you can
possibly imagine.'' When he looks at the camera for a moment,
he's smiling.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California mischaracterized my
position and what I am invested in. I am invested in what is best for
this country, Mr. Dreier. And I am invested in what is best for our
troops. And I am opposed to this Bush policy of an endless war, and I
think it would be a mistake for this Congress to give this President
another blank check.
This is not a meaningful charade, Mr. Dreier. Those of us who are
arguing for this legislation want to bring this war to an end.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, today's debate is not about political calculation. It is
not about public appearance or ready-made slogans. It is not about
approval ratings or polls.
Today's debate is about the very future of this country that each one
of us loves so dearly. It is a fork in the road. It is a rare
opportunity for each of us to chart the course of the Nation we serve
by casting a single vote.
Today we can vote for the status quo in Iraq or we can vote for
change. For me, this choice is simple. I will vote for change.
The war in Iraq has divided our country for nearly 5 years, longer
than our participation in World War II. Its monetary cost has already
reached dizzying heights. Measured in casualties lost, lives forever
altered, the toll of this war is truly staggering.
That is why we must transcend politics and party loyalty when we vote
today. An issue of this magnitude requires each one of us as Members of
Congress to vote based on our conscience and obligation to represent
our constituents.
Mr. Speaker, on this issue my conscience and my constituents speak
loud and clear. They say, We must end this war. Bring our troops home
and work to restore our international reputation.
I stand here today in support of this rule and the underlying
legislation because it accomplishes each of these three goals:
Within 30 days of enactment, it requires an immediate and orderly
redeployment of our military from Iraq. No more delays, Mr. Speaker.
With today's bill, Congress stands with the American people in
demanding a swift and responsible conclusion to military engagement in
Iraq.
I also support this legislation because of what it does in the long
term. It recognizes that we have a moral and strategic obligation to
help rebuild Iraq, to avoid leaving a country in shambles.
The legislation before us today requires a comprehensive, diplomatic,
political, and economic strategy for Iraq. We must work with our
international partners to bring stability to Iraq, and this legislation
does so. A renewed commitment to diplomacy is not only the right thing
to do to fulfill our commitment to the Iraqi people, it also begins
restoring our Nation's standing in the world.
I urge all of my colleagues to stand with the American people by
voting for the bill before us today. This legislation takes a strong
step forward in ending this long and costly war. In doing
[[Page 31448]]
so, it is worthy of this House, worthy of the constituents we all
serve, and worthy of the sacrifices of our soldiers and their families.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield 4 minutes to my
distinguished friend from Redlands, I would simply say that my friend
from Worcester never mentioned the word ``victory'' in his analysis.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of
the Appropriations Committee.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). The Chair advises all Members
that prefatory remarks before yielding time will be deducted from their
time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the Speaker's help in this
matter, but in the meantime, I appreciate my colleague yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the wheels have finally come off the appropriations
process. One need only to look at the sorry state of affairs in which
we find ourselves as we address these appropriations bills.
Earlier today, the House passed a Transportation-HUD appropriations
conference report that is $3 billion over the budget request. The
President has said he will veto this legislation.
Tomorrow the House will vote to sustain the President's veto on a
bloated Labor-HHS bill that is $10 billion over the budget request.
That will essentially send the bill back to the drawing board.
And if that is not enough, consider this. It is now 3 days after
Veterans Day and there is still no sign of the majority moving to
considered the MilCon-VA bill, a freestanding bill identical to the
MilCon-VA conference report that was removed from the Labor-HHS
conference report by a point of order in the Senate, by the way, in the
other body.
That bill was introduced by Congressman Wicker this week. This
legislation, which the President said he would sign, could be brought
to the House floor today. It now appears that a Democrat majority has
no intent of bringing this legislation to the floor before
Thanksgiving.
The appropriations process this year has been reduced to what
Shakespeare might refer to as ``a tale full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing.''
For all of the time and energy put into these bills this year by
Members and our overworked, highly professional staff, the end result
thus far is all sound and fury and very little to show for it.
That leads us to the legislation we are now considering, the so-
called bridge fund. Frankly, that legislation is so ill-conceived and
damaging to our troops, I hardly know where to begin.
First, let me say that we learned that this bill would be considered
by the Rules Committee while we were waiting for the Rules Committee
hearing on the THUD conference report to begin last night. I was given
no notice whatsoever, nor was I provided any opportunity to testify. It
is a sad state of affairs when the ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee isn't even given the courtesy of paper notice to testify on
legislation as important as this. I can't imagine the wails and
screaming I would have heard last year if the ranking member had been
put in that position.
The House is being asked to consider a funding bill that reflects the
priorities of Speaker Pelosi and a deeply divided, extremely left-
leaning Democratic Caucus. It attempts to bridge these widening
divisions over the war in Iraq through providing funding only on the
condition that troops are withdrawn beginning 30 days after the bill's
enactment.
{time} 1800
Our troops are badly in need of funding to continue their mission,
but this legislation ties the hands of our Commander in Chief during a
time of war, places military decisions in the hands of the politicians,
and micromanages our combatant commanders in whom we place the ultimate
responsibility for prosecuting military actions.
If the majority's goal is to end the war or withdraw our troops, then
that should be addressed in separate legislation. The majority cannot
have it both ways, pretending on the one hand to support our troops
while on the other hand undercutting our ability to prosecute their
mission.
Men and women of good conscience can disagree about the war in Iraq,
but on one thing we must all agree: Our men and women in uniform must
continue to receive our unqualified support and the resources they need
to complete their mission successfully.
By appeasing the wishes of the Out of Iraq Caucus, the Democrat
majority has chosen to place partisan politics above the lives and
well-being of our troops in harm's way. This action is reckless and
irresponsible. There is absolutely no reason why a clean bridge fund
could not have been included within the DOD conference report which the
President signed yesterday. Again, the Democrat majority chose to place
politics ahead of our troops.
My colleagues, consider carefully the consequences of our actions
here today. Passage of the bridge fund legislation in its present form
will signal to the insurgents and terrorists that the United States
doesn't have the political will to continue supporting the fledgling
Iraqi democracy. Al Qaeda and other enemies of freedom will simply lay
in wait until our troops are withdrawn. And with the collapse of this
fragile democracy, our efforts, and the sacrifices of our troops, will
have been for nothing.
There is no question that the President will veto this bill. In the
meantime, our troops will face the uncertainty resulting from the
majority's mixed signals and lack of a clear commitment.
I urge my colleagues to support our troops and oppose this
legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee
(Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the last person in the world I will take
lectures from on the appropriations process is the gentleman from
California. The fact is that when he was the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee last year, they never bothered to send any
veterans health care legislation to the President at all. They simply,
after the election, shut down the Congress and went home without
sending one dime to veterans.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Would my colleague yield?
Mr. OBEY. No, I will not. You've had your time.
Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate not being interrupted. It's a
technique which they use on that side of the aisle time after time. I
hope it comes out of their time, not mine.
The fact is that they never bothered to send a dime to the needy
veterans of the country. And so it was only after the Democrats took
control of the House that we added $3.4 billion to the veterans health
care budget and sent it to the President, and then later in the year in
the regular bill, we have added $3.6 billion more. So I will be happy
to compare the record of this party with his party any time on the
issue of veterans health care.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 9 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 19\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the bill
because I believe it does two critical and important things.
First, it provides $50 billion to finance military withdrawal from
Iraq, to be completed by the end of next year. I voted against the
beginning of the war, and I have consistently tried to end America's
involvement in the war. Saddam Hussein is gone, there were no weapons
of mass destruction, and there was no Iraqi involvement with al Qaeda
or with 9/11. Al Qaeda in Iraq is now in shatters and subject to attack
by both Shiites and Sunnis and
[[Page 31449]]
poses no ongoing threat to the United States. We have no stake in the
Iraqi civil war, and it is time to end our occupation.
I signed a letter to the President back in July with over 60 of my
colleagues vowing not to support any more money for the war in Iraq
unless it was for the protection and redeployment of our troops. I
believe this bill is consistent with that commitment. The time has come
to end the war, and the money we provide should be used only for that
purpose.
The second critical thing this bill does is to end torture by the
United States Government. By including in this bill the American Anti-
Torture Act, which was introduced by Representative Delahunt and
myself, we are saying, once and for all, no more torture. The law now
requires the Department of Defense to follow the Army Field Manual,
which bars torture or cruel and inhuman procedures such as
waterboarding. This bill extends these limits to every U.S. government
agency, including the CIA, and ensures a single, uniform, baseline
standard for all interrogations of people under U.S. control. In short,
that means no more waterboarding, no more clever wordplay, no more
evasive answers, and no more uncertainty with regard to what is allowed
and what is not allowed. It is time to restore the honor of the United
States and to force the administration to act in a manner consistent
with the Constitution.
When this bill is passed, the President could have two options: He
could sign this bill and help bring the war in Iraq to a speedy end. Or
he could veto the bill, in which case he will have to explain why he is
denying funds for the troops. But we will not vote for further funding
without a requirement to withdraw the troops as in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, let's end this war and let's end torture. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my very
good friend from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence), a hardworking member of
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to the rule and the bill.
The tide is turning in Iraq, Mr. Speaker, but nothing changes on
Capitol Hill. Here we go again. Another Democrat plan for redeployment
from Iraq, tying some $50 billion in necessary combat funds to a
Democrat plan for withdrawal.
With unambiguous evidence of progress on the ground in Iraq, the
Democrats in Congress seem to have added denial to their agenda of
retreat and defeat. And the evidence of our progress is unambiguous.
I have seen many different Iraqs in my five trips, some hopeful, some
not hopeful. But the news coming out of Iraq just in recent days from
independent and official sources is encouraging.
U.S. military fatalities are down sharply: 101 Americans lost their
lives in uniform in June; 39 in October. Iraqi civilian deaths are down
sharply: 1,791 casualties in August; 750 in October. Mortar rocket
attacks by insurgents in October were the lowest since February 2006.
Iraqi officials say they plan to reduce checkpoints, ease curfews, and
open some roads around Baghdad because of the improving security
situation. And this weekend, the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-
Maliki said that sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni in the
neighborhoods of Baghdad has declined by more than 75 percent in the
last 12 months. And yet here we are again, another plan for retreat and
defeat in Iraq.
And it is not just the official sources that say we have made
progress. The Associated Press just reported, ``Twilight brings traffic
jams to the main shopping district of this once affluent corner of
Baghdad, and hundreds of people stroll past well-stocked vegetable
stands, bakeries, and butcher shops.''
The Washington Post recently wrote, ``The number of attacks against
U.S. soldiers has fallen to levels not seen since before the February
2006 bombing of a Shia shrine in Samarra that touched off waves of
sectarian killing.''
And the New York Times noted just last week, ```American forces have
routed al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network from every
neighborhood in Baghdad,' a top general reported today, `allowing
American troops involved in the surge to depart as planned.'''
I urge my colleagues to reject again this Democrat plan for
withdrawal as a part of the supplemental appropriations bill, but I
urge my countrymen to give our soldiers a chance. Freedom and stability
are beginning to take hold in Iraq. We cannot lose faith in ourselves
or in our fighting men and women.
It would be Winston Churchill who exhorted his own people as follows:
``Nothing can save England if she will not save herself. If we lose
faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our
will to live, then indeed our story is told. If, while on all sides
foreign nations are every day asserting a more aggressive and militant
nationalism by arms and trade, we remain paralyzed by our own
theoretical doctrines or plunged into the stupor of after-war
exhaustion, then indeed all the croakers predict will come true and our
ruin will be swift and final.'' So said the man who saved western
civilization.
To my countrymen and to my colleagues, I say again: Reject this
legislation, give our soldiers in a widening and undeniable success in
Iraq a chance, and we will all, Republicans and Democrats, celebrate
some day a free and democratic Iraq that will be a legacy for our
children and our grandchildren for generations to come.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
The gentleman says give the Iraqi Government a chance. We are on our
fifth year, Mr. Speaker. Three American soldiers lost their lives in
Iraq yesterday, bringing the total to 3,858 deaths. I think we have
given them more than a chance.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman for the time.
All of us in this Chamber and in this Nation support our troops. They
have fought bravely, with love of this great country uppermost in their
hearts. They have done all that we have asked them to do. They have
done their job well. And now in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, we must do
ours.
The President has indicated that he thinks this war will continue for
another decade. But, Mr. Speaker, we must not concede to a 10-year war.
Over 3,850 brave American lives have been lost; 163 Ohio soldiers have
been killed; more than 28,000 of our Nation's finest have been wounded.
The year 2007 has been the deadliest year for U.S. troops since this
war began 4\1/2\ years ago.
Our troops have been stretched woefully thin, exposing this Nation to
greater risk, not less. We have already spent over $450 billion on the
war in Iraq. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated
that the President's war policies could cost $2.4 trillion in the next
decade. And the President insists in getting that money that it come
with no strings, no oversight, no accountability, no questions asked.
And, in return, he offers to the American people and to our brave
troops no end in sight. It is time for a new direction. We must not
proceed further down the road to a 10-year war.
This bill requires a transition in the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq
from combat to force and diplomatic protection. It provides for
targeted counterterrorism operations. And this bill prohibits
deployment to Iraq of troops who are not fully equipped and fully
trained. It prohibits the use of torture, as described in the Army
Field Manual. And it changes direction from the 10-year war plan being
offered by the President toward a responsible plan redeploying our
troops, while providing our troops with the resources they need.
When I visited Iraq, I saw some of the hardships and the obstacles
our troops face, and I also saw the commitment and dedication in each
of those men and women. They truly took my breath
[[Page 31450]]
away. They deserve a policy that is worthy of their commitment and
their sacrifice.
The bill before us today gives our troops the support, the equipment,
the training they need to responsibly redeploy. It repairs the
readiness of our military and refocuses our efforts on fighting
terrorism around the world.
Last November, people across the Nation cast their ballots seeking a
change in direction. After more than 4 years and countless taxpayer
dollars, this Congress has a responsibility to tell this President that
the status quo is not acceptable. It's time to bring a responsible end
to the war in Iraq and to focus on fighting terrorism and protecting
the Nation.
{time} 1815
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I will say to my colleagues that it's very interesting to listen to
this debate, because as we've proceeded, I have yet to hear the word
``victory'' come from the other side of the aisle at all. I have yet to
hear anyone interested in trying to build a democracy.
Now, we saw three elections take place in Iraq, as we all know, with
a 70 percent voter turnout.
We know that there are problems there. My friend from Worcester
correctly said that we have problems with corruption in government in
Iraq. We've had corruption problems in this country as well. But the
fact of the matter is we have seen dramatic improvement. There is no
doubt about the fact that we've seen improvement.
And I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, that we continue to hear this term
``redeployment.'' That means one thing. It doesn't mean victory. It
doesn't mean build a democracy. It means withdraw and lose. And I will
tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are determined to ensure that that doesn't
happen.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, some refer to this as a bridge fund
connecting monies from one year to the next to finance this Iraq war.
A bridge is built to overcome an obstacle, and the obstacle here is
George Bush. Granting this President 50 billion more dollars without
reasonable restrictions to end this war is just building another bridge
to nowhere.
Today, instead, we use this funding to build a bridge that brings our
troops home by beginning a safe, orderly, phased redeployment from
Iraq.
The President can no longer defy our Constitution as the sole
``decider.'' America has decided that he's wrong, dead wrong, too many
deaths wrong, and it's elected representatives in this Congress are now
declaring ``no more blank checks.''
Despite the sacrifices of our troops in this deadliest year of the
war, this surge has failed completely to achieve its purpose of
political progress. ``Retreat,'' you say; you've had a 5-year retreat
from political reality. Progress, you say; not in Iraq, not in
political reconciliation; progress, perhaps only in your self-defeating
propaganda as you repeatedly waved your ``mission accomplished''
banner.
The continued cost of this war in hemorrhaged blood and $3 billion of
taxpayer money every week is not acceptable or sustainable.
Mr. President, no more ``cut-and-run''. We will not cut these
reasonable restrictions from this legislation, and we will not run from
your veto threat.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). All Members are advised to
address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, and I do so to
say I still have yet to hear the term ``victory'' come from the other
side of the aisle. I still have yet to hear anyone talk about the
notion of building a democracy in Iraq so that self-determination and
the rule of law and the building of democratic institutions can, in
fact, have a chance to succeed. And there is no recognition of the fact
that we have seen a tremendous number of reduction in IED attacks, and
the number of overall attacks has dropped dramatically.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to change
the mission of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq and undertake
their redeployment. It is time to set a real plan to end this war,
fought courageously by our troops on the ground, but recklessly
mismanaged by our administration at home.
2007 has been the deadliest year for American troops since the start
of the war in Iraq; 860 U.S. casualties since January. And almost 1
year after the President announced a so-called surge, the Iraqi
Government has made no progress toward political reconciliation and is
nowhere near taking responsibility for security in all of its
provinces.
Without any progress or end in sight, the cost of the war continues
to rise. The recent Joint Economic Committee report estimates the cost
of the war at $1.3 trillion from 2002 to 2008; yet just this week the
President vetoed critical funds for education, job training and health
care, and, yes, he vetoed the children's health care bill.
With its latest $200 billion request for wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the administration has asked for a total of $800 billion,
all paid for with the government's credit card.
Mr. Speaker, with this bill we put forth a plan and a clear path
toward change. We require the start of the redeployment of U.S. forces
within 30 days of enactment, with a goal for completion of redeployment
by December 15, 2008.
It prohibits the deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully
trained and fully equipped, and changes the mission of U.S. forces in
Iraq to diplomatic and force protection, targeted counterterrorism
operations, and limited support to Iraqi security forces. And notably,
the bill prohibits torture once and for all.
We provide $50 billion to meet the immediate needs of the troops in
Iraq and Afghanistan and defer consideration of the remainder of the
President's request.
The President and his stubborn Republican allies in the Congress have
acted recklessly in Iraq and with our Nation's standing in the world.
And the American people pay the price. Our young men and women are
paying the price.
The Bush administration rushed to war and never had an exit strategy.
If we, in the Congress, do not provide one, who will?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I've still not heard the term ``victory'' or
``building democracy.''
I would inquire of the Chair, how much time is remaining on each
side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 3\3/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 10\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. DREIER. I think at this juncture I might reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I and everybody in this Chamber, hopefully, wants to see
democracy flourish in Iraq. But the fact of the matter is that the
status quo isn't producing that. And maybe, just maybe, the corrupt and
inept Maliki government will get its act together if it finally
realizes that we won't be there forever, that this will not be an
endless war.
Our troops have sacrificed enough. They have sacrificed enough.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the American people get it.
Over 50 percent of the American people believe that we should now begin
a reduction of our troops.
As I listened here on the floor of the house, and I listened to my
good friends on the other side of the aisle claiming the me-me's and
the I-I's, I hear no one talking about victory.
Victory in what sense? So that we can pound our chests and brag about
what this Congress and this President has done?
We're talking about lives here. We're talking about lives. And I am
sick and
[[Page 31451]]
tired of listening to people bragging about who can claim a victory.
Well, my belief is that the soldiers on the battlefield, the most
deadliest year that we've ever had, 2006, we buried more than we could
ever imagine. Those soldiers have already claimed victory. They took
Fallujah. They took Baghdad.
And my concern is why have we not championed the victory of those
soldiers? Why haven't we welcomed them home, given them accolades
because they have been victorious?
Someone on the other side has not read this bill. This bill allows
for a redeployment in an orderly manner, and it demands that the
President use these dollars to redeploy.
I am not going to trample on the graves of dead soldiers and continue
a war that has no end. That government has the ability in Iraq to
diplomatically deal with democracy. We have died so they can deal with
democracy.
It is time to end this war now and to bring our soldiers home with
the dignity and victory they deserve.
Right now, in the Nation's hospitals, we are seeing the results of
his victory. We are seeing soldiers with brain injury, soldiers with no
limbs. And we have a broken health care system that can't even address
the question of those soldiers with posttraumatic stress brain injury
and otherwise.
My voice is gone, but I am tired of this question of victory because
I believe, and I have a bill, and I ask my good friend from California
to join it, the Military Success Act of 2007 that chronicles the
victories of our soldiers.
We can bring them home with dignity. I am not going to tolerate one
more dead body. And it is time to end this war and end it now.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4156, introduced by my
colleague, Mr. Obey. I would like to thank him for his ongoing
leadership as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and on this
important issue in particular.
The legislation we are considering today provides our troops with the
resources they need, but it does not give the President the blank check
he has asked for to fund an endless combat operation in Iraq. Instead
of his additional $200 billion, we are considering a $50 billion
package, which institutes a redeployment timeline, as well as other
critical directives designed to transition our role in Iraq and bring
our troops home.
Madam Speaker, the funds provided by this legislation are, crucially,
tied to a requirement for the immediate start of the redeployment of
U.S. forces. It sets December 15, 2008, as the target date for the
completion of the redeployment, and requires redeployment to begin
within 30 days of enactment.
As lawmakers continue to debate U.S. policy in Iraq, our heroic young
men and women continue to willingly sacrifice life and limb on the
battlefield. Our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do. We
sent them overseas to fight an army; they are now caught in the midst
of an insurgent civil war and continuing political upheaval. The United
States will not and should not permanently prop up the Iraqi Government
and military. U.S. military involvement in Iraq will come to an end,
and, when U.S. forces leave, the responsibility for securing their
nation will fall to Iraqis themselves. However, whether or not my
colleagues agree that the time has come to withdraw our American forces
from Iraq, I believe that all of us in Congress should be of one accord
that our troops deserve our sincere thanks and congratulations.
For this reason, I extremely please to have worked with the
Democratic leadership to include language recognizing the extraordinary
achievements of our men and women in uniform. Paragraph 2 of Title I
reads, ``the performance of United States military personnel in Iraq
and Afghanistan should be commended, their courage and sacrifice have
been exceptional, and when they come home, their service should be
recognized appropriately.'' I believe that the inclusion of this
language makes it clear that we are proud of the accomplishments of our
troops, and we look forward to commending them as they return safely
home.
I also worked with the Leadership to include the language in
Paragraph 3 of Title 1. This paragraph reads, ``the primary purpose of
funds made available by this Act should be to transition the mission of
United States Armed Forces in Iraq and undertake their redeployment,
and not to extend or prolong the war.'' This language makes explicit
that this legislation is providing funding for the safe and responsible
redeployment of our troops, not for the continuation of combat
operations.
This legislation protects our troops, by providing them with the
funding they need to safely and successfully redeploy from Iraq. It
also prohibits the deployment of forces to Iraq who are not fully
trained and fully equipped. In addition, this legislation includes an
extension to all U.S. Government agencies and personnel of the current
prohibition in the Army Field Manual against the use of certain
interrogation techniques.
Mr. Speaker, this bill contains important language that changes the
mission of U.S. forces in Iraq to diplomatic and force protection,
targeted counterterrorism operations, and limited support to Iraqi
security forces. I firmly believe that we must make diplomacy and
statecraft tools of the first, rather than the last, resort. We must
seek constructive engagement with Iraq, its neighbors, and the rest of
the international community, as we work to bring resolution to this
calamitous conflict that has already gone on far too long.
Because of my deeply held belief that we must commend our military
for their exemplary performance and success in Iraq, I have introduced
legislation, H.R. 4020, with the support of a number of my colleagues,
entitled the ``Military Success in Iraq Commemoration Act of 2007.''
This legislation recognizes the extraordinary performance of the Armed
Forces in achieving the military objectives of the United States in
Iraq, encourages the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the
people of the United States to observe a national day of celebration
commemorating the military success of American troops in Iraq, and
provides other affirmative and tangible expressions of appreciation
from a grateful Nation to all veterans of the war in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, we have already expended 3,500 American lives and $400
billion in taxpayer dollars in Iraq. We have occupied the country for
over 4 years. And our President continues to push a strategy devoid of
clear direction and visible targets, while rejecting congressional
calls to solidify an exit strategy.
Last November, the American people clearly stated that they did not
want to see an endless conflict in Iraq; they went to the polls and
elected a new, Democratic Congress to lead our Nation out of Iraq. I am
proud to be a member of the Congressional class that listens and
adheres to the will of the American people, as we did when both houses
of Congress approved Iraq Supplemental bills that instituted a
timetable for U.S. withdrawal. We need a new direction, because we owe
our brave, fighting men and women so much more. Washington made a
mistake in going to war. It is time for politicians to admit that
mistake and fix it before any more lives are lost.
This Congress will not, as the previous, Republican, Congress did,
continue to rubber stamp what we believe to be an ill-conceived war. As
we continue to receive reports on the situation in Iraq, it is
important that we continue to look forward, to the future of Iraq
beyond a U.S. military occupation.
Despite the multitude of mistakes perpetrated by President Bush and
former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, our troops have achieved a military
success in ousting Saddam Hussein and assisting the Iraqis in
administering a democratic election and electing a democratic
government. However, only the Iraqi government can secure a lasting
peace. Time and time again, the Iraqi government has demonstrated an
inability to deliver on the political benchmarks that they themselves
agreed were essential to achieving national reconciliation. Continuing
to put the lives of our soldiers and our national treasury in the hands
of what by most informed accounts, even by members of the Bush
Administration, is an ineffective central Iraqi government is
irresponsible and contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority
of the American people.
Our Nation has already paid a heavy price in Iraq. Over 3,810
American soldiers have died. In addition, more than 27,660 have been
wounded in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003. June, July, and
August have marked the bloodiest months yet in the conflict, and U.S.
casualties in Iraq are 62 percent higher this year than at this time in
2006. This misguided, mismanaged, and misrepresented war has claimed
too many lives of our brave servicemen; its depth, breadth, and scope
are without precedent in American history. In addition, the United
States is spending an estimated $10 billion per month in Iraq. This $10
billion a month translates into $329,670,330 per day, $13,736,264 per
hour, $228,938 per minute, and $3,816 per second.
For this huge sum of money, we could have repaired the more than
70,000 bridges across America rated structurally deficient, $188
billion, potentially averting the tragedy that occurred August 1 in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. We could have rebuilt the levees in New
Orleans, $50 billion, protecting that city from future
[[Page 31452]]
hurricanes that could bring Katrina-like destruction upon the city. We
could have provided all U.S. public safety officials with interoperable
communication equipment, $10 billion, allowing them to effectively
communicate in the event of an emergency, and we could have paid for
screening all air cargo on passenger planes for the next 10 years, $3.6
billion. And, we could have enrolled 1.4 million additional children in
Head Start programs, $10 billion. Instead of funding increased death
and destruction in Iraq, we could have spent hard-earned taxpayer
dollars on important progress here at home.
The Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I am proud to be a member,
has recently heard a string of reports from military and civilian
officials about the political, military, social, and economic situation
in Iraq. Two weeks ago, the Government Accountability Office, GAO,
informed the Congress that the Iraqi government has met only 3 of the
18 legislative, economic, and security benchmarks. Despite the surge,
despite increasing U.S. military involvement, the Iraqi Government has
not made substantial progress toward stabilizing their country.
President Bush rationalized his surge, over opposition by myself and
other House Democrats, by arguing it would give the Iraqi government
``the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical
areas,'' bringing about reconciliation between warring factions, Sunni
and Shia. However, non-partisan assessments, such as last week's GAO
report, have illustrated that escalating U.S. military involvement in
Iraq is instead hindering that nation's ability to move beyond the
devastation of war and death, to build a successful new government, and
to create a stable and secure environment. In the 7 months since the
surge began, increased American military presence has not been able to
end the relentless cycles of sectarian violence that continue to plague
Iraq. Nor have larger numbers of U.S. troops been successful in
unifying and strengthening the Iraqi Government.
Instead, the security situation continues to deteriorate. Sectarian
violence remains high, and even the Bush administration has noted the
unsatisfactory progress toward political reconciliation. The Sunni-led
insurgency continues, with insurgents conducting increasingly complex
and well-coordinated attacks. The August 2007 National Intelligence
Estimate cited ongoing violence, stating, ``the level of overall
violence, including attacks on and casualties among civilians, remain
high; Iraq's sectarian groups remain unreconciled.'' The report went on
to note that al-Qaeda in Iraq, AQI, ``retains the ability to conduct
high-profile attacks,'' and ``Iraqi political leaders remain unable to
govern effectively.''
The ever-increasing sectarian violence is causing immense daily
challenges for Iraqis. Millions have been displaced, and an Iraqi Red
Crescent Organization has reported an increase of nearly 630,000
internally displaced persons from February 2007 to July 2007. The same
organization predicts an additional 80,000 to 100,000 persons are
displaced each month. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has
estimated that 1.8 million Iraqis are now refugees, with an additional
40,000 to 50,000 fleeing to neighboring countries each month. Iraq has
become a humanitarian disaster, and one that continues to get worse
every day.
The United States military is a skilled and highly proficient
organization, and where there are large numbers of U.S. troops, it is
unsurprising that we see fewer incidents of violence. However, it is
our responsibility to take a longer-term view. The United States will
not and should not permanently prop up the Iraqi Government and
military. U.S. military involvement in Iraq will come to an end, and,
when U.S. forces leave, the responsibility for securing their nation
will fall to Iraqis themselves. And so far, we have not seen a
demonstrated commitment by the Iraqi Government.
In addition, evidence suggests that not only is increased U.S.
military presence in Iraq not making that nation more secure, it may
also be threatening our national security by damaging our ability to
respond to real threats to our own homeland. The recently released
video by Osama bin Laden serves to illustrate that President Bush has
not caught this international outlaw, nor brought him to justice.
Instead, he has diverted us from the real war on terror to the war of
his choice in Iraq.
The former Chairman and Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas
H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, share this view. In a recent op-ed, Kean
and Hamilton note that our own actions have contributed to a rise of
radicalization and rage in the Muslim world. Kean and Hamilton write
that ``no conflict drains more time, attention, blood, treasure, and
support from our worldwide counterterrorism efforts than the war in
Iraq. It has become a powerful recruiting and training tool for al-
Qaeda.''
Our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do. We sent them
overseas to fight an army; they are now caught in the midst of an
insurgent civil war and political upheaval. I have, for some time now,
advocated for congressional legislation declaring a military victory in
Iraq, and recognizing the success of our military. Our brave troops
have completed the task we set for them; it is time now to bring them
home. Our next steps should not be a continuing escalation of military
involvement, but instead a diplomatic surge.
Democrats in Congress will not continue to rubber stamp the
President's ill-conceived war effort. Last November, the American
people spoke loudly and clearly, demanding a new direction to U.S.
foreign policy, and we here in Congress are committed to seeing that
change be brought about. We are working to see the extensive funds
currently being spent to sustain the war in Iraq go to important
domestic programs and to securing our homeland against real and
imminent threats.
President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been given numerous
chances and ample time by the American people and the Congress to
straighten out the mess in Iraq. They have failed. It is pure fantasy
to imagine that President Bush's military surge has created the
necessary safety and security to meet economic, legislative, and
security benchmarks. It is time for a new strategy, a new plan that
will encourage Iraqis to take charge of their own destiny, seek
constructive and sustained regional engagement, and substitute the ill-
advised military surge for a thoughtful diplomatic one. It is time to
be realistic and pragmatic, to recognize that our troops achieved what
they were initially sent in for and that continued U.S. military
engagement is not bringing about the desired results.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides our brave soldiers in Iraq
with the resources they need, while requiring that the President begin
to redeploy our troops. It keeps our soldiers safe, and it keeps our
Nation safe. By bringing an end to this conflict, this Democratic
Congress is making significant strides forward toward protecting and
securing America.
I strongly urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting today's
legislation, and in giving the troops the resources they need to safely
redeploy from Iraq.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I'm very sorry that my friend wouldn't yield so that we could engage
in debate. And I will say, victory means ensuring that our children
don't face the threat of another terrorist attack like what we saw on
September 11. We know that Iraq is the central point for al Qaeda, and
I am absolutely determined to ensure that we achieve victory.
There have been tremendous achievements when it comes to democracy
building. We can't ignore that. But we want to bring our troops home as
soon as possible.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. And I also
want to associate myself with the words of the lady from Texas who just
spoke.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the bill. To
date, President Bush has asked us for a total of $804 billion for
fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yesterday, the Joint
Economic Committee, the committee on which I sit, concluded in a report
that the real economic cost of these wars is $1.6 trillion. However,
there are numerous hidden costs that could potentially bring the grand
total to $3.5 trillion.
In response to the President's failing new strategy in Iraq and
wasteful spending, Congress has chosen instead to ensure strict
accountability. We have heard the American people and have chosen to
exercise fiscal responsibility by considering this vitally important
legislation.
Namely, the bill limits funding in the amount of $50 billion, in
comparison to the President's original supplemental request of $196.4
billion, to continue our military operations in Iraq, while ensuring
that the responsible and strategic redeployment of our forces begins no
later than 30 days from the date of enactment.
It also provides troops with the resources needed for continued
protection from improvised explosive devices.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to exercise their
responsibility to the American people, to over
[[Page 31453]]
3,800 brave soldiers, 71 from Maryland who have died and who have paid
the ultimate price, and to more than 2.3 million Iraqis who have fled
their homes, by supporting the rule and voting in favor of this
legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is about whether or not we
continue to fund the worst foreign policy fiasco in American history.
This is not about al Qaeda. In fact, if we had gone after al Qaeda
when we had the opportunity, they wouldn't have been able to strengthen
themselves in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But we've been diverted over to
Iraq, where al Qaeda didn't even exist until our invasion gave them a
recruitment tool and rallying cry.
And sure there's less violence in Baghdad, but the reason is because
the Shiia have ethnically cleansed much of Baghdad. When we started, 60
percent of Baghdad was Sunni. Now, almost 80 percent of Baghdad is
Shiia.
And the reason there's less violence in al-Anbar province is because
the Sunni warlords have taken it upon themselves to drive out the al
Qaeda insurgents.
Our military generals have told us this war does not lend itself to a
military victory. The most we can do is to step up our diplomatic
efforts.
But the fact is that we are supporting a government that doesn't
deserve our support. It is not representative of the people of Iraq. It
is endemically corrupt. And the reality is that when we look back and
ask ourselves what have we accomplished, we are going to look at a
government which is far more loyal to Iran than it is to the United
States. That's what we've done, to empower our enemies.
We've created chaos throughout the Middle East. And isn't it time now
to have a plan to start withdrawing our troops, to tell our military
families that they have sacrificed as much as we could possibly expect
of them?
But the reality is that this policy has never been worthy of the
sacrifice of our soldiers and their military families.
{time} 1830
And if you really believed in what you're doing in this war, you
would support Mr. Obey's attempt to pay for it. Not one dime of this
war has been paid for. It's all been borrowed, borrowed from our
children and our grandchildren. They deserve better and this bill is
the best thing we can do for them right now.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me just first say this has been an interesting debate and I do
think that victory, a dramatic reduction in the number of attacks, the
fact that reconciliation is, in fact, taking place in Baghdad is
something that cannot be ignored.
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, before the House voted for the 12th time
to allow the House to go to conference with the Senate on the Veterans
Affairs funding bill, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and
I had a brief colloquy after which a Member on the other side of the
aisle claimed that we had misrepresented the facts about this
Congress's track record on getting the Veterans Affairs appropriations
measure signed into law.
Well, I take this as akin to being accused of lying. Here is what we
said, and, Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: The House passed the
Veterans and Military Construction funding bill on June 15, 2007, by a
vote of 409-2, with the Senate following suit and naming conferees on
September 6. Unfortunately, the majority leadership of the House has
refused to move the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
appropriations act to conference and has refused to name conferees.
So whether the majority likes it or not, that is a fact. Now, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from New York said
that we were misrepresenting the facts. How is this so? For 68 days,
Mr. Speaker, the message from the Senate requesting a conference has
languished at the Speaker's desk without action. How is this fact
disputable? Just look at the calendar and count the days between
September 7 and today, and you'll come up with 68. Every day the
Democrats choose not to act to move this bill forward, our Nation's
veterans lose $18.5 million.
Those are the facts surrounding this bill in this Congress. The
gentleman from Texas went on earlier to malign Republicans for what we
did or didn't do concerning veterans funding over the last 12 years,
which begs the question, what does the last 12 years have to do with
this year? Are Democrats trying to use past Congresses' shortcomings as
excuses for their own failed policy? Otherwise, how is this even
relevant?
I am sure that the gentleman from Worcester would stand up and
attempt to deflect this plea by criticizing Republicans, just as his
colleagues before him, and touting the increases in funding for our
veterans provided by this Congress which all but two Members of this
body voted for. The sad fact is that this Congress hasn't provided the
funding that the gentleman has espoused. Why is that? That's because
not one dime will flow from the Treasury to the Department of Veterans
Affairs until the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
appropriations bill is signed into law, and in order to do so, this
House has to go to conference with the Senate and send a bill down to
the President to sign. So let's finally get that process started.
Mr. Speaker, anyone who is concerned about funding for our veterans
must join us in voting against the previous question so that I can
amend the rule and we can go to conference with the Senate on this
much-needed and far-delayed funding measure.
I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and
extraneous material appear in the Congressional Record just prior to
the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me go back to the subject that we are
debating here today, and that is the war in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, we have
been fighting this war for nearly 5 years. That's longer than we fought
World War II. My friends on the other side of the aisle have said over
and over and over, just give the Iraqi Government a chance. Well, Mr.
Speaker, after 5 years, I say, give me a break.
It is not us, not any of us in this Chamber who are in harm's way.
But we have sent thousands and thousands and thousands of our fellow
citizens to battle in Iraq. They are in harm's way. They wake up
tomorrow in a situation where they are refereeing a civil war, and
that, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, is wrong.
My friends on the other side of the aisle talk about al Qaeda. Well,
we're all worried about al Qaeda, too. That's why we wish we were doing
the job in Afghanistan better. That's why we wish we weren't so
diverted from that mission in Iraq that we could actually have better
results in Afghanistan than we're having right now. We are worried, Mr.
Speaker, about the fact that al Qaeda is regrouping in Afghanistan, is
regrouping in Pakistan. That should be a worry to every single Member
in this Chamber. And yet we are stretched so thin, we are so
preoccupied in Iraq that we have lost sight of what our central mission
needs to be.
Mr. Speaker, victory is what is in the best interest of the American
people. And this war in Iraq has not only diminished our standing in
the world, it has spread our troops so thin that we can't complete
missions like the one that we need to be completing in Afghanistan.
Mr. Speaker, too often in this place we talk about numbers instead of
the people behind those numbers. Yesterday, as I mentioned earlier,
another three American soldiers lost their lives
[[Page 31454]]
in Iraq, bringing the total to 3,858. Also yesterday, Mr. Speaker, CBS
News reported that there is an epidemic of suicide among our soldiers
and our veterans. Thousands and thousands of these men and women have
taken their own lives. For too many, the war does not end when they
return home. And behind each one of those numbers is a devastated
family, a heartbroken father, a new widow, a child without a father.
Mr. Speaker, we will be paying for this war for a very long, long time.
Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle say we all want the
war to end, we all want our troops to come home. Well, I say to my
friends, here is your chance. You have a voice. Use it. You have a
vote. Use it. You have the opportunity to change the direction of this
policy. You have the opportunity to force the Iraqi Government to live
up to its promises. You have the opportunity to finally, finally, honor
the will of the American people and to safely redeploy our troops. I
ask my friends to seize that opportunity and to support this bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 818 Offered By Mr. Dreier of California
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the
bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and
for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by
the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees
immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of
rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader
prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees
otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees
instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the
Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional
legislative days after adoption of this resolution.
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
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. DREIER. 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 ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 818, if ordered; and
the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 4120.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 209,
nays 185, not voting 38, as follows:
[Roll No. 1103]
YEAS--209
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
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
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Edwards
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
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
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--185
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
[[Page 31455]]
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
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
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--38
Bono
Boozman
Burgess
Carney
Carson
Cleaver
Costa
Cubin
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Doyle
Ellison
Feeney
Gordon
Holden
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
King (IA)
Knollenberg
Levin
Lowey
Mack
McHugh
Meeks (NY)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Oberstar
Paul
Ruppersberger
Schakowsky
Sessions
Tancredo
Tiberi
Towns
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wolf
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Solis) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 5 minutes remaining in this vote.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
is 1 minute remaining in this vote.
{time} 1856
Mrs. DRAKE, Mrs. BLACKBURN and Mr. KINGSTON changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. CLARKE changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1103, I was unable to
vote for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1103,
had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
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 219,
nays 190, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 1104]
YEAS--219
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
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
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
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 Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
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
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
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--190
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Tom
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
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
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
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--23
Abercrombie
Allen
Bachus
Bilirakis
Bono
Carson
Cubin
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Doyle
Gingrey
Hastert
Jindal
Jones (OH)
Levin
Mack
McCrery
Oberstar
Paul
Ruppersberger
Sessions
Weller
Wolf
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1902
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.
[[Page 31456]]
Stated for:
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1104, I was unable to
vote for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1104, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________
EFFECTIVE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PROSECUTION ACT OF 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). The unfinished business is the
vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4120,
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 4120.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 409,
nays 0, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 1105]
YEAS--409
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
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
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
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
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
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
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
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
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
Tsongas
Turner
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)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--23
Boehner
Bono
Carson
Cubin
DeFazio
Doggett
Doyle
Gutierrez
Hill
Jindal
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Mack
Marshall
McCrery
Myrick
Oberstar
Paul
Ruppersberger
Sessions
Stark
Weller
Wolf
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1909
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1105, I was unable to
vote for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent during rollcall
votes 1093 through 1105. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''
on rollcall 1093, ``yea'' on rollcall 1094, ``nay'' on rollcall 1095,
``yea'' on rollcall 1096, ``yea'' on rollcall 1097, ``yea'' on rollcall
1098, ``yea'' on rollcall 1099, ``nay'' on rollcall 1100, ``nay'' on
rollcall 1101, ``yea'' on rollcall 1102, ``yea'' on rollcall 1103,
``yea'' on rollcall 1104, and ``yea'' on rollcall 1105.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3773,
RESTORE ACT OF 2007
Mr. ARCURI, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 110-449) on the resolution (H. Res. 824) providing
for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for
authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other
purposes, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3915, MORTGAGE
REFORM AND ANTI-PREDATORY LENDING ACT OF 2007
Mr. ARCURI, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 110-450) on the resolution (H. Res. 825) providing
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3915) to amend the Truth in Lending
Act to reform consumer mortgage practices and provide accountability
for such practices, to establish licensing and registration
requirements for residential mortgage originators, to provide certain
minimum standards for consumer mortgage loans, and for other purposes,
which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
[[Page 31457]]
____________________
ORDERLY AND RESPONSIBLE IRAQ REDEPLOYMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 818, I call up
the bill (H.R. 4156) making emergency supplemental appropriations for
the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2008, 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. 4156
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--POLICY ON REDEPLOYMENT AND CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS IN IRAQ
Sec. 101. It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the war in Iraq should end as safely and quickly as
possible and our troops should be brought home;
(2) the performance of United States military personnel in
Iraq and Afghanistan should be commended, their courage and
sacrifice have been exceptional, and when they come home,
their service should be recognized appropriately; and
(3) the primary purpose of funds made available by this Act
should be to transition the mission of United States Armed
Forces in Iraq and undertake their redeployment, and not to
extend or prolong the war.
Sec. 102. (a) No person in the custody or under the
effective control of the United States Government shall be
subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not
authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field
Manual FM2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any
person in the custody or under the effective control of the
United States Government pursuant to a criminal law or
immigration law of the United States. Nothing in this section
shall be construed to affect the rights under the United
States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the
physical jurisdiction of the United States.
Sec. 103. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used in contravention of the following laws enacted or
regulations promulgated to implement the United Nations
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (done at New York on
December 10, 1984)--
(1) section 2340A of title 18, United States Code;
(2) section 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (division G of Public Law 105-277;
112 Stat. 2681-822; 8 U.S.C. 1231 note) and regulations
prescribed thereto, including regulations under part 208 of
title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, and part 95 of title
22, Code of Federal Regulations; and
(3) sections 1002 and 1003 of the Department of Defense,
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes
in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006
(Public Law 109-148).
Sec. 104. (a) The Congress finds that United States
military units should not enter into combat unless they are
fully capable of performing their assigned mission. The
Congress further finds that this is the policy of the
Department of Defense.
(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to deploy any unit of the
Armed Forces to Iraq unless the President has certified in
writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives at least 15 days in advance of the deployment
that the unit is ``fully mission capable''.
(c) For the purposes of subsection (b) the term ``fully
mission capable'' means capable of performing a unit's
assigned mission to the prescribed standards under the
conditions expected in the theater of operation, consistent
with the guidelines set forth in the Department of Defense's
Defense Readiness Reporting System.
(d) The President, by certifying in writing to the
Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives that
the deployment to Iraq of a unit that is not assessed fully
mission capable is required for reasons of national security
and by submitting along with a certification a report in
classified and unclassified form detailing the particular
reason or reasons why the unit's deployment is necessary, may
waive the limitations prescribed in subsection (b) on a unit-
by-unit basis.
Sec. 105. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act
are available immediately for obligation to plan and execute
a safe and orderly redeployment of United States Armed Forces
from Iraq.
(b) Within 30 days after enactment of this Act, the
President shall commence an immediate and orderly
redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, which
shall be implemented as part of the comprehensive regional
stability plan described in subsection (g). The President
shall endeavor to begin such redeployment with units of the
Armed Forces that have been deployed in excess of 365 days,
except to the extent those units are needed to provide for
the safe withdrawal of other units of the Armed Forces or to
protect United States and Coalition personnel and
infrastructure.
(c) The reduction in United States Armed Forces required by
this section shall be implemented in conjunction with a
comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic strategy
that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and
the international community for the purpose of working
collectively to bring stability to Iraq.
(d) The goal for the completion of the transition of United
States Armed Forces to a limited presence and missions as
described in subsection (e) shall be a date that is not later
than December 15, 2008.
(e) After the conclusion of the reduction and transition of
United States Armed Forces to a limited presence as required
by this section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or
maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the
following missions:
(1) Protecting United States diplomatic facilities, United
States Armed Forces, and American citizens.
(2) Conducting limited training, equipping, and providing
logistical and intelligence support to the Iraqi Security
forces.
(3) Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations
against al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda affiliated groups, and other
terrorist organizations in Iraq.
(f) Not later than February 1, 2008, and every 90 days
thereafter, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report setting forth the
following:
(1) The current plan for and the status of the reduction of
United States Armed Forces in Iraq and the transition of the
Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited presence whose missions do
not exceed the missions specified in subsection (e),
including the associated force reductions and adjustments and
expectations with respect to timelines and the force levels
anticipated to perform those missions.
(2) A comprehensive current description of efforts to
prepare for the reduction and transition of United States
Armed Forces in Iraq in accordance with this section and to
limit any destabilizing consequences of such reduction and
transition, including a description of efforts to work with
the United Nations and countries in the region toward that
objective.
(g) Not later than February 15, 2008, the President shall
submit to the Congress in classified and unclassified form a
comprehensive regional stability plan for the Middle East,
which shall include a military, diplomatic, political and
economic strategy that provides for the national security
interests of the United States in the region and for the
engagement of targeted counterterrorism operations. The plan
shall include a detailed description of the projected United
States military force presence in and around the Middle East
region for the 5-year period beginning on October 1, 2008.
Sec. 106. The amounts appropriated by this Act are
sufficient to fully meet the immediate needs of the United
States Armed Forces deployed to Iraq. Congressional
consideration of additional funding shall be deferred until
the first report required by section 105(f) is submitted to
the Congress.
TITLE II--SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY
MILITARY PERSONNEL
Military Personnel, Army
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'',
$713,700,000.
Military Personnel, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'',
$95,624,000.
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine
Corps'', $56,050,000.
Military Personnel, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air
Force'', $138,037,000.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and Maintenance, Army
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army'', $27,429,490,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Navy'', $2,071,560,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps'', $2,429,323,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air Force'', $3,582,560,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide'', $1,330,540,000, of which not to exceed
[[Page 31458]]
$333,000,000, to remain available until expended, may be used
for payments to reimburse key cooperating nations, for
logistical, military, and other support provided to United
States military operations, notwithstanding any other
provision of law: Provided, That such payments may be made in
such amounts as the Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation
with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, may
determine, in his discretion, based on documentation
determined by the Secretary of Defense to adequately account
for the support provided, and such determination is final and
conclusive upon the accounting officers of the United States,
and 15 days following notification to the appropriate
congressional committees: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Defense shall provide quarterly reports to the
congressional defense committees on the use of funds provided
in this paragraph.
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army Reserve'', $61,223,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Navy Reserve'', $47,500,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps Reserve'', $26,157,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air Force Reserve'', $8,089,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army National Guard'', $378,381,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air National Guard'', $34,422,000.
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
(including transfer of funds)
For the ``Afghanistan Security Forces Fund'', $500,000,000:
Provided, That such funds shall be available to the Secretary
of Defense, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
the purpose of allowing the Commander, Office of Security
Cooperation Afghanistan, or the Secretary's designee, to
provide assistance, with the concurrence of the Secretary of
State, to the security forces of Afghanistan, including the
provision of equipment, supplies, services, training,
facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and
construction, and funding: Provided further, That the
authority to provide assistance under this heading is in
addition to any other authority to provide assistance to
foreign nations: Provided further, That the Secretary of
Defense may transfer such funds to appropriations for
military personnel; operation and maintenance; Overseas
Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid; procurement; research,
development, test and evaluation; and defense working capital
funds to accomplish the purposes provided herein: Provided
further, That this transfer authority is in addition to any
other transfer authority available to the Department of
Defense: Provided further, That upon a determination that all
or part of the funds so transferred from this appropriation
are not necessary for the purposes herein, such amounts may
be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further,
That contributions of funds for the purposes provided herein
from any person, foreign government, or international
organization may be credited to this Fund, and used for such
purposes: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense
shall notify the congressional defense committees in writing
upon the receipt and upon the transfer of any contribution,
delineating the sources and amounts of the funds received and
the specific use of such contributions: Provided further,
That the Secretary of Defense shall, not fewer than 5 days
prior to making transfers from this appropriation account,
notify the congressional defense committees in writing of the
details of any such transfer: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Defense shall submit a report no later than 30
days after the end of each fiscal quarter to the
congressional defense committees summarizing the details of
the transfer of funds from this appropriation.
Iraq Security Forces Fund
(including transfer of funds)
For the ``Iraq Security Forces Fund'', $500,000,000:
Provided, That such funds shall be available to the Secretary
of Defense, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
the purpose of allowing the Commander, Multi-National
Security Transition Command--Iraq, or the Secretary's
designee, to provide assistance, with the concurrence of the
Secretary of State, to the security forces of Iraq, including
the provision of equipment, supplies, services, training,
facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and
construction, and funding, and to provide training,
reintegration, education and employment programs for
concerned local citizens, former militia members and
detainees and former detainees: Provided further, That the
authority to provide assistance under this heading is in
addition to any other authority to provide assistance to
foreign nations: Provided further, That the Secretary of
Defense may transfer such funds to appropriations for
military personnel; operation and maintenance; Overseas
Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid; procurement; research,
development, test and evaluation; and defense working capital
funds to accomplish the purposes provided herein: Provided
further, That this transfer authority is in addition to any
other transfer authority available to the Department of
Defense: Provided further, That upon a determination that all
or part of the funds so transferred from this appropriation
are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such
amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation:
Provided further, That contributions of funds for the
purposes provided herein from any person, foreign government,
or international organization may be credited to this Fund,
and used for such purposes: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional defense
committees in writing upon the receipt and upon the transfer
of any contribution, delineating the sources and amounts of
the funds received and the specific use of such
contributions: Provided further, That the Secretary of
Defense shall, not fewer than 5 days prior to making
transfers from this appropriation account, notify the
congressional defense committees in writing of the details of
any such transfer: Provided further, That the Secretary of
Defense shall submit a report no later than 30 days after the
end of each fiscal quarter to the congressional defense
committees summarizing the details of the transfer of funds
from this appropriation.
Iraq Freedom Fund
(including transfer of funds)
For ``Iraq Freedom Fund'', $3,168,000,000, to remain
available for transfer only to support operations in Iraq and
to fight terrorism: Provided, the Secretary of Defense and
the Director of National Intelligence shall, no fewer than 30
days prior to making transfers under this authority, notify
the Committees on Appropriations in writing of the details of
any such transfer made for intelligence activities: Provided
further, That funds transferred shall be merged with and be
available for the same purposes and for the same time period
as the appropriation or fund to which transferred.
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount for ``Joint Improvised Explosive
Device Defeat Fund'', $1,638,500,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2010: Provided, That such funds shall be
available to the Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, for the purpose of allowing the
Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Organization to investigate, develop and provide equipment,
supplies, services, training, facilities, personnel and funds
to assist United States forces in the defeat of improvised
explosive devices: Provided further, That within 60 days of
enactment of this Act, a plan for the intended management and
use of the Fund is provided to the congressional defense
committees: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense
shall submit a report not later than 60 days after the end of
each fiscal quarter to the congressional defense committees
providing assessments of the evolving threats, individual
service requirements to counter the threats, individual
service requirements to counter the threats, the current
strategy for predeployment training of members of the Armed
Forces on explosive devices, and details on the execution of
this Fund: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense
may transfer funds provided herein to appropriations for
operation and maintenance; procurement; research,
development, test and evaluation; and defense working capital
funds to accomplish the purpose provided herein: Provided
further, That this transfer authority is in addition to any
other transfer authority available to the Department of
Defense: Provided further, That upon determination that all
or part of the funds so transferred from this appropriation
are not necessary for the purpose provided herein, such
amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not
fewer than 5 days prior to making transfers from this
appropriation, notify the congressional defense committees in
writing of the details of any such transfer.
PROCUREMENT
Aircraft Procurement, Army
For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement,
Army'', $302,200,000, to remain available until September 30,
2010.
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'', $1,574,217,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2010.
[[Page 31459]]
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition,
Army'', $154,000,000, to remain available until September 30,
2010.
Other Procurement, Army
For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army'',
$1,976,100,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement,
Navy'', $25,300,000, to remain available until September 30,
2010.
Other Procurement, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Navy'',
$88,281,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010.
Procurement, Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Marine Corps'',
$729,232,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, Air
Force'', $147,800,000, to remain available until September
30, 2010.
Other Procurement, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air
Force'', $42,125,000, to remain available until September 30,
2010.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'',
$102,588,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010.
OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
Defense Health Program
For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program'',
$649,001,000; of which $599,001,000 shall be for operation
and maintenance; and of which $50,000,000 shall be for
research, development, test and evaluation, to remain
available until September 30, 2009, only for peer reviewed
research on traumatic brain injury and psychological health,
including post-traumatic stress disorder.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Appropriations provided in this Act are
available for obligation until September 30, 2008, unless
otherwise provided in this Act.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 202. (a) Upon a determination by the Secretary of
Defense that such action is necessary in the national
interest, the Secretary may transfer between appropriations
up to $4,000,000,000 of the funds made available to the
Department of Defense in this Act.
(b) The Secretary shall notify the Congress promptly of
each transfer made pursuant to the authority in this section.
(c) The authority provided in this section is in addition
to any other transfer authority available to the Department
of Defense and is subject to the same terms and conditions as
the authority provided in section 8005 of the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 2008, except for the fourth
proviso.
Sec. 203. Funds appropriated in this Act, or made
available by the transfer of funds in or pursuant to this
Act, for intelligence activities are deemed to be
specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of
section 504(a)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50
U.S.C. 414(a)(1)).
Sec. 204. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used to finance programs or activities denied by the Congress
in fiscal years 2007 or 2008 appropriations to the Department
of Defense or to initiate a procurement or research,
development, test and evaluation new start program unless
such program or project must be undertaken immediately in the
interest of national security and after written prior
notification to the congressional defense committees.
Sec. 205. (a) From funds made available for operation and
maintenance in this Act to the Department of Defense, not to
exceed $500,000,000 may be used, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, to fund the Commander's Emergency Response
Program, for the purpose of enabling military commanders in
Iraq and Afghanistan to respond to urgent humanitarian relief
and reconstruction requirements within their areas of
responsibility by carrying out programs that will immediately
assist the Iraqi and Afghan people.
(b) Not later than 15 days after the end of each fiscal
year quarter, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report regarding the
source of funds and the allocation and use of funds during
that quarter that were made available pursuant to the
authority provided in this section or under any other
provision of law for the purposes of the programs under
subsection (a).
Sec. 206. (a) During fiscal year 2008, funds available in
this Act to the Department of Defense for operation and
maintenance may be used, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, to provide supplies, services, transportation,
including airlift and sealift, and other logistical support
to Coalition forces supporting military and stability
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall provide quarterly
reports to the congressional defense committees regarding
support provided under this section.
Sec. 207. (a) Supervision and administration costs
associated with a construction project funded with
appropriations available for operation and maintenance,
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, or Iraq Security Forces
Fund, and executed in direct support of the Global War on
Terror only in Iraq and Afghanistan, may be obligated at the
time a construction contract is awarded.
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``supervision
and administration costs'' includes all in-house Government
costs.
Sec. 208. Each amount appropriated or otherwise provided
in this Act is designated as an emergency requirement and
necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to subsections (a)
and (b) of section 204 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
Sec. 209. (a) Not later than January 15, 2008 and every 90
days thereafter through the end of fiscal year 2008, the
Secretary of Defense shall set forth in a report to the
Congress a comprehensive set of performance indicators and
measures for progress toward military and political stability
in Iraq.
(b) The report shall include performance standards and
goals for security, economic, and security force training
objectives in Iraq, together with a notional timetable for
achieving these goals.
(c) The report shall include, at a minimum, the following
specific provisions:
(1) With respect to stability and security in Iraq, the
following:
(A) Key measures of political stability, including the
important political milestones that must be achieved over the
next several years.
(B) The primary indicators of a stable security environment
in Iraq, such as number of engagements per day, numbers of
trained Iraqi forces, trends relating to numbers and types of
ethnic and religious-based hostile encounters, and progress
made in the transition to Provincial Iraqi Control (PIC).
(C) An assessment of the estimated strength of the
insurgency in Iraq and the extent to which it is composed of
non-Iraqi fighters.
(D) A description of all militias operating in Iraq,
including the number, size, equipment strength, military
effectiveness, sources of support, legal status, and efforts
to disarm or reintegrate each militia.
(E) Key indicators of economic activity that should be
considered the most important for determining the prospects
of stability in Iraq, including--
(i) unemployment levels;
(ii) electricity, water, and oil production rates; and
(iii) hunger and poverty levels.
(F) The criteria the Administration will use to determine
when it is safe to begin withdrawing United States forces
from Iraq.
(2) With respect to the training and performance of
security forces in Iraq, the following:
(A) The training provided Iraqi military and other Ministry
of Defense forces and the equipment used by such forces.
(B) Key criteria for assessing the capabilities and
readiness of the Iraqi military and other Ministry of Defense
forces, goals for achieving certain capability and readiness
levels (as well as for recruiting, training, and equipping
these forces), and the milestones and notional timetable for
achieving these goals.
(C) The operational readiness status of the Iraqi military
forces, including the type, number, size, and organizational
structure of Iraqi battalions that are--
(i) capable of conducting counterinsurgency operations
independently, without any support from Coalition forces;
(ii) capable of conducting counterinsurgency operations
with the support of United States or Coalition forces; or
(iii) not ready to conduct counterinsurgency operations.
(D) The amount and type of support provided by Coalition
forces to the Iraqi Security forces at each level of
operational readiness.
(E) The number of Iraqi battalions in the Iraqi Army
currently conducting operations and the type of operations
being conducted.
(F) The rates of absenteeism in the Iraqi military forces
and the extent to which insurgents have infiltrated such
forces.
(G) The training provided Iraqi police and other Ministry
of Interior forces and the equipment used by such forces.
(H) Key criteria for assessing the capabilities and
readiness of the Iraqi police and other Ministry of Interior
forces, goals for achieving certain capability and readiness
levels (as well as for recruiting, training, and equipping),
and the milestones and notional timetable for achieving these
goals, including--
(i) the number of police recruits that have received
classroom training and the duration of such instruction;
(ii) the number of veteran police officers who have
received classroom instruction and the duration of such
instruction;
(iii) the number of police candidates screened by the Iraqi
Police Screening Service, the number of candidates derived
from other entry procedures, and the success rates of those
groups of candidates;
(iv) the number of Iraqi police forces who have received
field training by international
[[Page 31460]]
police trainers and the duration of such instruction;
(v) attrition rates and measures of absenteeism and
infiltration by insurgents; and
(vi) the level and effectiveness of the Iraqi Police and
other Ministry of Interior forces in provinces where the
United States has formally transferred responsibility for the
security of the province to the Iraqi Security forces under
the Provincial Iraqi Control (PIC) process.
(I) The estimated total number of Iraqi battalions needed
for the Iraqi Security forces to perform duties now being
undertaken by Coalition forces, including defending the
borders of Iraq and providing adequate levels of law and
order throughout Iraq.
(J) The effectiveness of the Iraqi military and police
officer cadres and the chain of command.
(K) The number of United States and Coalition advisors
needed to support the Iraqi Security forces and associated
ministries.
(L) An assessment, in a classified annex if necessary, of
United States military requirements, including planned force
rotations, through the end of calendar year 2008.
Sec. 210. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be obligated or
expended by the United States Government for a purpose as
follows:
(1) To establish any military installation or base for the
purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United
States Armed Forces in Iraq.
(2) To exercise United States control over any oil resource
of Iraq.
Sec. 211. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be obligated or expended to provide
award fees to any defense contractor contrary to the
provisions of section 814 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).
Sec. 212. During the current fiscal year, appropriations
made available to the Department of Defense for operation and
maintenance in this Act may, upon determination by the
Secretary of Defense that such action is necessary to meet
the operational requirements of a Commander of Combatant
Command engaged in contingency operations overseas, be used
to purchase items having an investment item cost of not more
than $500,000.
Sec. 213. Section 3303(c) of Public Law 110-28 shall apply
to funds appropriated in this Act.
This Act may be cited as the ``Orderly and Responsible
Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act, 2008''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 818, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lewis) each will control 1 hour.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, because of unusual
circumstances, I would choose at the floor well to yield control of the
time to the former chairman of the committee, the ranking member of the
Defense Subcommittee, Bill Young of Florida.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida will be
recognized.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we hear so many voices in this country and in this
Chamber who are willing to fight to the last drop of someone else's
blood. Those of us who are supporting this resolution today are being
accused of being for ``precipitous withdrawal.'' I hardly think that
seeing this war continue for another 14 months constitutes precipitous
withdrawal.
Mr. Speaker, it is 56 months since the United States first launched
its attack against Iraq. It is 4\1/2\ years since the President
appeared before his ``Mission Accomplished'' banner on that carrier. It
is almost 5 years since the administration ignored the advice of
General Shinseki. It is 2\1/2\ years since Vice President Cheney said
that he thought the insurgency was in its last throes. Since that time,
we have had 3,800 Americans killed and 28,000 wounded. We have had
8,000 Iraqi military personal killed and 38,000 civilians killed. We
have had 4 million Iraqis displaced. 2.3 million of them have been
displaced internally in the country. One and a half million have fled
to Syria, 1 million to other countries. Not a pretty picture.
This war is the most colossal blunder in modern U.S. history. It is a
mistake that has shattered our influence in the region, and it has made
the one country in the region that we did not want to see strengthened,
Iran, it has made them infinitely stronger in that region. We are in
the process of borrowing $600 billion and we are not having the guts to
pay the bill ourselves.
There is no sense of shared sacrifice in this country. The only
families being asked to sacrifice are military families and they're
being asked to sacrifice again and again and again and again. We aren't
even willing to tax ourselves to pay for the cost of this war, so we're
shoving off the cost to our kids. Shame on every one of us for making
that decision.
In November, the public tried to send two messages to this Congress.
The first was that they wanted a change in policy in Iraq. The second
is that they wanted a change in domestic policy. And yet after blowing
$600 billion in Iraq, after signing a Defense bill which adds $39
billion to spending levels over last year, the President has yesterday
blocked our efforts to add $6 billion to pay for investments in
education, health and medical research here at home.
{time} 1915
The President is telling the American people, ``Forget what message
you think you sent in November in the election.'' He is stiffing the
American people. He is saying, ``Forget what message you thought you
were sending to Washington; I am the `Great Decider' and we are going
to do things my way.'' That is what we are getting out of the White
House. Instead of compromise and instead of searching for common
ground, the President is making clear that he prefers to govern through
confrontation, he prefers to go it alone, with one-third support in the
country and one-third support in the Congress.
The same is true in Iraq. This is the same President who decided to
go it alone, with almost no allies, who decided to go it alone when it
came to evaluating intelligence, ignoring the caution alerts that were
sent by the State Department intelligence people and the CIA analysts.
He bulldozed through. When Baker-Hamilton was produced to offer an
opportunity for change, the President simply used that as an
opportunity to say ``full steam ahead, no change in course'', and he
has deepened and intensified our involvement in Iraq.
At home, he insists that Congress cuts 50 percent out of vocational
education; he insists that we cut 1,100 grants out of medical research
at the National Institutes of Health; he insists that we cut rural
health programs by 54 percent; he insists that we cut low-income
heating assistance programs by 18 percent; he insists that we cut
financial support for programs under No Child Left Behind that he
mandated in the first place. He insists that we cut all of that, and
yet he demands $200 billion more for Iraq. I say enough is enough.
He gave a speech to the American people which was designed for the
purpose of public deception, in my view, because it was designed to
leave the impression that the President intended to reduce steadily our
troop commitment in Iraq, when in reality it was intended to assure
that 6 months from now we have the same number of troops we have there
that we had 6 months ago.
Mr. Speaker, the President is asking for $200 billion more, and as
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I announced that I had no
intention of providing that money, but I made it clear I'd be happy to
provide it all, provided that the President would recognize that we
needed a policy change and would get on board with the determination to
have a goal of removing our troops from combat operations by the end of
next year. That is hardly precipitous.
So what this measure does, instead of giving the President $200
billion to continue the war, it gives him $50 billion to shut the war
down. Instead of having troops there for the next 10 years, as the
President indicated in his speech, we want to have them out by December
of 2008. It requires redeployment to begin in 60 days, and it ends the
authority for any agency of the United States Government whatsoever to
engage in torture.
We are mired, Mr. Speaker, in Iraq because of the self-important
illusions of hopeless romantics in the administration. We hear tell
these days that
[[Page 31461]]
the President talks a lot about Teddy Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.
If that is the case, he is harboring dangerous illusions. He ought to
heed the advice of a statesman 80 years ago who wrote the following. I
will read excerpts from this letter.
``I am deeply concerned about Iraq. The task you have given me is
becoming really impossible. Incompetent Arab officials are disturbing
some of the provinces and failing to collect revenue. We overpaid on
last year's account, which it is almost certain Iraq will not be able
to pay this year, thus entailing a supplementary estimate. . . I have
had to maintain troops in Mosul all through the year in consequence of
the Angora quarrel. This has upset the program of relief and will
certainly lead to further expenditures. . . . I do not see what
political strength there is to face a disaster of any kind, and I
certainly cannot believe that in any circumstances any large
reinforcements would be sent . . . In my own heart, I do not see what
we are getting out of it. I think we should now put definitely to the
assembly the position that unless they beg us to stay, and stay on our
own terms in regard to efficient control, we shall actually evacuate
before the close of the financial year. I would put this issue in the
most brutal way, and if they are not prepared to urge us to stay and to
cooperate in every manner, I would actually clear out. . . .
``I think I must ask you for definite guidance at this stage as to
what you wish and what you are prepared to do. At present, we are
paying millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful
volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth
having.''
That was the real Winston Churchill speaking in 1922 in a letter to
Lloyd George. It seems to me that the President in the White House
today ought to heed the words of Winston Churchill so long ago and at
long last reconsider a policy change in Iraq. That is what this
legislation is designed to stimulate.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the majority chairman of the committee
bringing this bill before the House because we do need the money, not
for our troops at home, not for the basic bill, because that basic bill
was signed by the President yesterday. What we need is to make sure
that our troops in the field have the equipment that they need, the
force protection measures they need, the body armor that they need, the
MRAPs that they need, the ammunition they need, whatever they need to
take on the enemy to accomplish their mission, to protect themselves
while they are doing it. So I want to speak directly to the bill rather
than to the politics or the history of the political aspect of this
legislation.
Fifty billion dollars is a good number. I wish it would have been a
little higher because I don't think it takes us all the way to where we
need to be for a supplemental next spring as far as what we are doing
in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the $50 billion that is in this bill, the
dollars are good. What is provided by those dollars is needed for our
troops in the field. That has to be the important decision that we make
tonight: Are we going to fight a political battle here on the floor
while our soldiers overseas are facing the enemy of terrorism? I don't
think that is what we are here for today. I think we are here to pass
this bill.
The gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned a policy change; that this
bill is going to bring about a policy change. There was a policy change
earlier in the year. Most everybody referred to it as the surge, and
many Members of this body opposed the surge. But if you listened to the
briefers this afternoon in the Rayburn building, that policy change has
produced a lot of very positive effects.
So there was a policy change. But, nevertheless, whether you still
support the policy change or not, that is up to everybody's individual
decision. Despite what your position is on the war, on the battle, you
have got to be prepared to provide for the troops that are there,
whether you like the fact that they are there or not. I want them home.
I want them home as soon as we can get them home.
Along with Chairman Murtha of the subcommittee, I have seen too many
wounded soldiers and marines in our military hospitals. We have both
attended too many funerals of our war heroes who were sent home after
having lost their life on the battlefield. So I want this war over and
I want our troops home as soon as we can get them home in victory;
victory in a war that didn't start on September 11 and it didn't start
in March of 2003 when we went into Iraq or Afghanistan. It started back
in 1983, October 23 of 1983. Terrorists bombed our Marine barracks in
Beirut. Those marines were there as peacekeepers, not as part of any
other expeditionary force, other than to keep the peace, and 241 of our
military marines and soldiers lost their lives there.
In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed; in June of 1996, the home
of the airmen in Saudi Arabia in the Khobar Towers were bombed, and 19
of our airmen lost their lives. In August of 1998, our embassies in
Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists and 11 Americans lost
their lives and hundreds of others were injured. In October of 2000,
the USS Cole, on a peaceful mission off the shore of Yemen, was bombed
by terrorists and 17 lives were lost. All this started before September
11, and of course I don't think anybody denies what happened to us on
September 11. So this war started a long time ago, and this threat is
basically the same threat that we saw starting in 1983.
I am pleased that sufficient funds are included for the Army
operation and maintenance account to allow for 6 months of war
operations. Other accounts would apparently allow for only 4 months of
operations, however. The size of the package is secondary to the policy
provisions that have been attached to the bill. Many Members have
stated they cannot vote for war funding without language requiring a
withdrawing from Iraq. The reality is most of them have already done
that.
When we passed the Defense appropriations bill, the basic Defense
appropriations bill for 2008, we provided transfer authority, large
amounts of transfer authority so that if we didn't get a bridge fund
passed, if we didn't get a supplemental passed, the Services could
reach into their basic accounts to pay for fighting the war in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
So those who voted for that bill have already voted to fund the war,
whether they like it or not. That legislation has now been signed into
law, so the money is there to borrow. We are going to start hearing
about cuts in services at military bases here in the United States if
we don't pass a supplemental or a bridge fund and the Services will
have to borrow from their basic funds. We don't want that to happen. We
don't want the Services to run short on anything that they have to do
to provide for the security of our Nation.
So whatever your position on the war, whatever decisions are going to
be made about withdrawal from Iraq, this money, this $50 billion and
more will be needed in the next 6 months and it needs to be passed.
This bill was only filed last night. Some of the provisions have not
been sufficiently reviewed, in my opinion.
{time} 1930
I have read this bill twice, word for word, and I am concerned about
some of the sections of this bill.
Section 102 regarding interrogations says in part that ``nothing in
this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United
States Constitution of any person,'' and I will repeat, ``any person in
the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States.''
Now, to me, that means that terrorists who we capture on the
battlefield, who have been killing our own American soldiers on the
ground, I read that to mean that they will be given the same
constitutional protections as any citizen of the United States of
America. And I object to that. I don't think they deserve the
protection of the Constitution.
[[Page 31462]]
I wonder, does that mean we have to read the terrorists their rights
under the Miranda ruling? Can they be released on a technicality? Can
they get out on bail? Those are protections guaranteed to American
citizens. Are we going to give terrorists that same right? Well, this
bill says that we are going to give terrorists that same right.
Terrorists go by no rules. They do not subscribe to the Geneva
Convention and they do not deserve the same protection under our
Constitution that our constituents enjoy.
I think this bill needs a lot of repair work before it can become
law.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Lincoln Davis).
Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of this
bill and the effort by this Congress to bring accountability to the war
in Iraq.
This war is in desperate need of a new direction. For nearly 5 years,
our brave men and women have valiantly toed the line for this
administration, and I'm proud to say that they have had great successes
in their mission. We have seen a terrible dictator overthrown, tried
and put to death, and in his place the people of Iraq carried out free
and open elections. For all of this, we owe our soldiers and their
families a debt of thanks.
But today's debate is not about the purpose of this war. We are here
to make a decision on how best to bring accountability to this
engagement. Today's legislation will keep soldiers on the ground to
oversee diplomatic missions, protect U.S. citizens, equip and train
Iraqis to stand on their own and continue to engage in targeted attacks
on terrorists as we seek them out. This is a responsible strategy that
worked for Eisenhower in South Korea when troops remained to oversee
the DMZ after major operations had ended, and it can work for America
today in Iraq.
However, I have long felt that it is time to remove our men and women
from the kill zones of Iraq. Our soldiers are trained to do the job of
the United States military, not the job of police-on-the-beat for the
nation of Iraq. We need to redeploy our troops so they can continue to
carry out the work of defending America from terrorist threats around
the globe. It is time for the Iraqis to occupy their own country with
their own military and police force.
This bill begins the redeployment of our combat troops, while
continuing to fund initiatives for our men and women that protect them
from IEDs, traumatic brain injury and more. But the days of a blank
check from this Congress must come to an end. The American people
deserve a new direction in Iraq, and this legislation is an important
step.
I would like to add that I bristle when I hear the other side talk of
``cut and run'' Democrats. The legacy of the Democratic Party is one of
great wartime leaders. Andrew Jackson may have done the cutting at the
Battle of New Orleans, but it was Colonel Packingham who did the
running. It was President Wilson who convinced the American people to
take on the oppressors in the First World War. It was President
Roosevelt who said ``we have nothing to fear but fear itself'' before
leading the charge into the battlefields of Asia and Nazi Germany. And
it was President Truman who ended that war by dropping a nuclear
weapon.
I am a member of a Democratic Party that has never cut and run, but
has been responsible with our men and women in regard to their safety
and families, as well as our national security. We need a change in
Iraq and a change in course. This must happen.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very
distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from Florida for yielding.
Let me just say that the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of
the committee, is a Member that I know well and have great respect for,
and along with the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, they have spent over 30 years doing everything they could
to support our troops. But if you think that the debate that we are
having tonight is something that we have heard before, it is. Over 40
times this year, we have had votes and debates in this house on the
issue of Iraq.
Let me just say that my colleague from Wisconsin is known for his
famous statement about Members coming to the floor of the House posing
for ``holy pictures.'' Now, if there has ever been a case over my 17
years here in Congress of people posing for holy pictures, it is over
this issue of Iraq.
When I came to the Congress in 1991 as a brand new Member, my first
vote in this Chamber was on whether to go to war with the Iraqis in
Kuwait. I remember coming here as a brand new Member, Members in the
well of this House who had been here 30 and 40 years, tears in their
eyes, talking about this being the most difficult vote they had ever
cast. It was a very difficult moment for me and all of my colleagues.
But we went through that, and we went through it successfully.
So when we have the issue of war debated here on the floor of the
Congress, there is no issue, no issue that is more personal, no issue
that is of greater significance to our country, than all of us casting
our vote on sending our young men and women into battle anywhere
overseas. So I understand the passion that we have on both sides of the
aisle over this issue.
But I think we all have to understand that we are in Iraq for a very
important reason. We went there to get rid of Saddam Hussein. I think
everybody understands that. We went there to make sure that the weapons
of mass destruction were gone. They are gone. Where they went, I don't
think we will ever know. We went there to set up a democratically
elected government, and, frankly, we have succeeded.
It was al Qaeda 3 years ago that made Iraq the central front in their
war with us. We didn't start this war with al Qaeda. They did. And as
the gentleman from Florida pointed out earlier, it didn't start on 9/
11, it started back in the early eighties. And it persisted through the
eighties and the nineties, and America and the rest of the world looked
up, looked away, and just hoped the problem would go away.
Well, it didn't go away. After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died on
9/11, what was America to do? Look up, look away and just hope the
problem would go away one more time? No. So we went to Iraq. But it was
al Qaeda and it was Iran who have made this the central front in their
war with us.
America has no choice but to succeed in our efforts in Iraq. We all
know what failure in Iraq will bring. Failure in Iraq brings a
destabilization of Iraq itself, a safe haven for the terrorists to
operate from, a destabilization of the entire Middle East, the end of
Israel as we know it, and who doesn't believe that if we leave Iraq and
we leave in failure, that the terrorists don't follow us home and that
we have to deal with the problem here on the streets of America?
This is not what America wants. America wants us to succeed, and it
is success that we are having in Iraq. You all know the statistics. You
have all seen the headlines over the last several weeks and the last
several months. Our troops in Iraq are doing a marvelous job on our
behalf. They are succeeding. They are training the Iraqi Army to take
our place. The Iraqi Army is more out in front than ever before. The
amount of violence in Iraq is down significantly. Our troops, our
troops, are dying in less numbers each and every day. Why? Because we
are having success there.
So we ought to thank our troops, thank our troops for the great job
they are doing, because General Petraeus put forward a plan that is
working.
Now, I understand that a lot of my colleagues on the other side have
invested all their political capital over the course of this year in
failure in Iraq. It hasn't happened, thankfully, because for the good
of our Nation, not today, not tomorrow, maybe not next week, but for my
kids and their kids, success in Iraq is critically important. And I
think all the Members in this Chamber understand just how important
success is there. We are taking on
[[Page 31463]]
an enemy that is growing in all parts of the world, and if we are not
willing to take them on in Iraq, if we are not willing to draw the line
and defeat them, where will we draw the line? Where will we stand up
for America, and where will we stand up for American values? Iraq is
the place to do it.
The bill that we have before us goes back to the same old tired plan,
the plan for failure, if you will. That is what the bill that we have
before us does. It ties the hands of the administration, it ties the
hands of our generals, it ties the hands of our people on the ground,
and it will lead to nothing other than failure.
We have been down this path. We have been down this path all year
long. And I will admit to my colleagues, we have had plenty of mistakes
that have been made in Iraq. There has never been a war when there
haven't been a lot of mistakes made. You can go back to the Civil War
and look at all the mistakes that were made. The First World War, the
Second World War, Vietnam, there were a lot of mistakes that got made
in wars, and mistakes have been made in this war.
But, ladies and gentlemen, you all know that we have no choice, no
choice, but to succeed, and the plan that we have before us, to fund
our troops for the next 4 months, will lead to nothing other than
failure.
So I am going to ask my colleagues, let's stop the political games.
We all know what is going on here. It is another political stunt,
another political stunt trying to trap the President, trying to trap
the generals and putting handcuffs on them. Let's stop it.
I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle want us to succeed.
Instead of playing these political games, what we ought to be doing is
passing this bill cleanly. And we ought to be passing the Military
Quality of Life Veterans bill, because our troops are coming home. We
have got 3,000 troops that have been sent out of Diyala on their way
home. We are going to have troops coming home all year. And if we don't
pass the Military Quality of Life Veterans bill, the benefits they are
entitled to, the services we ought to be providing to those veterans
coming home will not be there.
So let's vote ``no'' on this bill. Let's find a way this week to make
sure that the veterans bill is up on this floor and passed and in the
President's hands.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the chairman of the Defense
appropriations subcommittee.
Mr. MURTHA. As the gentleman from Florida said, we just passed a $459
billion bipartisan Defense appropriation bill, and it funds the troops,
it funds the health care, it funds almost all the Defense Department.
It does not fund the war in Iraq.
Now, when I spoke out 2 years ago, I said we need stability in the
Middle East. All of us want stability in the Middle East. We can talk
about Iraq, but it's not in isolation that you talk about Iraq. You
have to talk about Pakistan and what's happening in Pakistan and why we
haven't had an overall diplomatic success there. You can talk about
Turkey, on the verge with tanks moving towards the border and might go
into Kyrkystan, which would completely disrupt what is going on in
Iraq.
You can talk about Iran and the policy that we have had in Iraq and
how it has disappointed us with the influence that Iran has gained.
When we were attacked, Iran was one of the first countries to come to
the support of the United States with their concern about what had
happened, their concern about al Qaeda.
What we are trying to do here today is stop torture. We do it by
saying the Army Field Manual has to be the guideline for torture. If
you're going to have prisoners, and I have talked to service people,
Colin Powell agrees with this, Gates agrees with this, almost all the
military understands if you don't have guidelines set by the Army Field
Manual, it hurts our troops. It's pretty hard to argue. If you're for
torture, I don't say you vote for this or you vote against this bill,
but this stops torture by saying you've got to comply with the Army
Field Manual.
The other thing we say in this bill is you have to have fully
equipped and fully trained troops. Can anybody argue about that? Is
there anybody that can say to me we shouldn't have fully trained and
fully equipped troops? I don't think so.
{time} 1945
The other thing, it sets a goal. And the goal is to start the
redeployment out of Iraq and have them out within a year. That doesn't
mean that we are going to necessarily get it, but we have to start it.
At some time we have to convince the Iraqis that we need to change the
direction and they are going to have to take responsibility. I think
they have started that. I think we have backed off a little bit.
What we did in Vietnam was make the mistake that every time they made
a mistake, we took over. In this particular case, we have to let the
Iraqis continue to do their job.
Now, the government has let us down; there is no question about it.
The government has not changed the policies. There has been ethnic
cleansing. There have been 4 million people ethnically cleansed either
by sending them out of the country or by moving them from Sunni areas
into Shiite areas or vice versa.
This is one of the reasons that the military commanders have said
over and over, the Iraqis are finally taking an interest. The al Qaeda
has been defeated, according to what the military commanders are
saying.
What is the point in us being there if al Qaeda has been defeated? I
said a couple of years ago, there are only 2 or 3,000 al Qaeda, and the
Iraqis know where they are and know what they have to do to take care
of them.
I am convinced that this bill starts to force the Congress to have
oversight. We are the board of directors, somebody said to me today.
The President is the executive officer. We are the board of directors.
When the board of directors sees the policies going in the wrong way,
and actually, the people of the United States are the board of
directors and we act for the board of directors by the people of the
United States. If we think it is going the wrong way, we have to change
the policy.
This is a change in policy. This holds the President accountable for
the decisions he is making. It doesn't tie the commanders' hands. No
torture. They are supplied with equipment and training. That is not
tying the hands of the commanders. And we are starting to get them out
already.
Al Qaeda has been defeated. The civil war has wound down. It is time
to get us out. Let's remember, stability in the Middle East doesn't
depend just on Iraq. It depends on Pakistan with nuclear weapons or the
possibility of nuclear weapons. Stability depends on Iran. Stability
depends on Syria. Stability depends on Turkey, our allies. We need a
diplomatic effort.
As I said and the Chief of the Joint Chiefs said, we cannot win this
militarily; it has to be won by the Iraqis and it has to be won
diplomatically.
This helps us hold the administration accountable, and I would ask
for all Members to vote for a bill that changes the direction of this
Congress and this country in this effort in Iraq.
[[Page 31464]]
[[Page 31465]]
TH14NO07.002
[[Page 31466]]
TH14NO07.003
[[Page 31467]]
TH14NO07.004
[[Page 31468]]
TH14NO07.005
[[Page 31469]]
TH14NO07.006
[[Page 31470]]
TH14NO07.007
[[Page 31471]]
TH14NO07.008
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to
point out, and I agree strongly with Mr. Murtha's statement about
torture. I don't think Americans want to be known as a Nation that do
torture.
But we have put prohibitions on torture in our Defense appropriations
bills almost from the beginning of the war, and so we have made it very
clear that we are opposed to the use of torture. We just wish the other
side would go by the same rules.
[[Page 31472]]
I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr.
Hunter.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time. I want to also thank everyone who works on this committee and has
spent so much time over the years working to prepare our military
forces to be able to handle contingencies and wars around the world. We
appreciate that, and you have lots of great experience.
But let me tell you, this provision in this particular bill is
terrible for the warfighters. Let me talk about a small piece of it.
You have what I call a 15-day wait, notify and hold provision. That
means before any unit can go into Iraq, a 15-day period, waiting
period, has to expire after you have notified the Armed Services
Committees and the Defense appropriations committee that unit is
``ready for battle'' and meets a mission-capability standard.
Now, the problem with that is we have a war against terror in which
teams, whether they are special operations teams, medivac teams, EOD
teams, special fire support teams like C-130, A-6 gun ships are
constantly moving across the boundaries between Iraq and the rest of
the world. Some of our assets come off of carriers. Some of them come
out of Incirlik, Turkey. Some from Kuwait and some of them come from
other places.
This idea that before a special forces team can move across a line
you must have a 15-day notify and wait period is totally unworkable.
I want to give to you what Admiral Fallon, head of the Central
Command, said when we asked him what he thought about the notify and
hold provision. He said, ``I would ask for consideration that we not
limit the flexibility of our commanders in allowing them to use forces
that might be necessary to meet a situation or a mission which they
might be asked to undertake. And so I would opt to allow our commanders
to have the flexibility of making that decision rather than have some
dictated requirement in advance.''
I would say to my good friend, Mr. Murtha, who has several times
stated that the administration should listen to its generals: Every
team that goes into that warfighting theater goes in because one of the
battlefield commanders has requested their presence.
I can remember talking to my son when he was in the battle of
Fallujah as an artillery officer and he was inside the city as a
forward observer. And I asked him what the most important platforms we
had out there were. He said the A6 C-130 gunship. I said, Where are
they? He said, They come and they go.
Ladies and gentleman, we move firefighting teams, all types of
special operations crews and teams, EOD teams, A6 C-130 gunships across
those borders constantly, and to have a requirement where you are going
to have to give a 15-day notification and wait before you can move that
unit in is devastating to our warfighting capability.
I would ask for a ``no'' on this measure.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, as one who opposed the invasion of Iraq and as
one who has led efforts to end the occupation of Iraq, I rise today to
support the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations
Act of 2007.
First, I would like to thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairmen Obey and Murtha
for really crafting this historic legislation that takes the first step
to end the occupation of Iraq. This bill's main purpose, main purpose,
is to begin to fund the end of this occupation.
This is also the very first time that this Congress will explicitly
tie funding to bringing our troops home. It mandates a start date for
the President to begin redeployment of our brave troops within 30 days
of his signature. It also once again puts Congress on record
prohibiting the establishment of permanent military bases and United
States economic control of Iraqi oil and also of torture.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not perfect. I strongly feel that
there should be additional clarity on the numbers and nature of U.S.
forces that remain for protection of diplomats and training of Iraqi
forces. And given the President's determination to protect his legacy
by allowing the occupation to continue indefinitely, we really must be
wary of providing him opportunities to prolong or extend this war.
So we made sure in this legislation that this bill explicitly states
that ``the primary purpose of this $5 billion should be to transition
the mission, redeploy troops in Iraq, and not to extend or prolong the
war.''
But I am also disappointed that the end date in this legislation is a
goal no later than December 2008. But hopefully, the Senate will pass
this and send it to the President.
This legislation does conform to what Congresswomen Waters, Woolsey
and myself have been working on all year. Earlier this year, we
authored the Lee amendment that stipulates funding for Iraq should be
used to fully fund, fully fund, the safe and orderly redeployment of
our troops from Iraq. We did this way back in March. Now, 92 Members of
Congress wrote to the President to put him on notice to this effect. So
I am glad this remains the main purpose of this legislation.
This legislation represents for many of us a very important step
forward to end the combat operations in Iraq. Otherwise, believe you
me, I would never vote for it.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not give the President a blank
check for his occupation. It provides a down payment on redeploying our
troops from Iraq and ending the occupation. It clearly says these funds
are to be used to begin to end the death, the violence, and the
destruction that the Bush administration has brought on Iraq, which he
has brought on our brave young men and women, and our country and the
world.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to
the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, the former vice
chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in strong opposition to this legislation,
the process that brought it here tonight, but not to the money that is
badly needed for our troops in the field.
For each of the last 3 years, the Defense appropriations bill, ably
led by Chairman Young and Chairman Murtha, has included a
straightforward bridge fund to cover the cost of ongoing operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Indeed, the continuing resolution we passed last month gave our
military access to the bridge funding until November 16. This funding
allowed our warfighters, all volunteers, the ability to fuel their
Stryker vehicles and Humvees, restock their ammunition, resupply their
mess halls, power the systems that allow them to keep in touch with
their families at home, and even to ship their new MRAP vehicles to the
battle zone so they may be better protected from IEDs. And yes, protect
their fellow soldiers and innocent Iraqis.
But bowing to antiwar sentiment, the majority leadership pointedly
chose to keep this important bridge funding out of the defense bill
that we approved last week.
So while our brave warfighters are hard at work in Iraq in a hellish
environment, they find they have to watch their own backs from those in
Washington who want to choke off funding for their missions, both
military and humanitarian.
I submit that this deliberate attempt to starve our operations in
Iraq threatens the very safety of those troops and the lives of
hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. No, Mr. Speaker, we should be
sending to the President a clean bridge fund that does not tie the
hands of commanders in the field and allows them to build on their
undeniable successes in recent months in Iraq. Cutting money does tie
their hands, limits those commanders' options, as does the setting of
date certain.
My colleagues, the ill-advised process this House started last week
is not
[[Page 31473]]
without its costs. While Congress deliberately procrastinates, and some
say throws roadblocks in front of our brave warriors battling violent
international terrorists every day, military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan will run out of money, causing the Department of Defense to
borrow from other important programs to support their operations.
I am told this process could completely drain the Army's operations
and maintenance accounts by the end of next January.
In fact, it is my understanding that the Deputy Secretary of Defense
has warned that the military would have to start preparing in December,
next month, to close domestic military facilities, lay off civilian
workers, and delay contracts if the bridge funding is not provided.
This could have very damaging consequences for those communities
privileged to host a military installation.
Mr. Speaker, I am also troubled that this bill requires the
withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and slaps restrictions on the
mission of U.S. troops, again, both military and humanitarian.
This harkens back to what was recently described by the junior
Senator from Connecticut as the ``narrative of defeat and retreat.'' As
Senator Lieberman said yesterday, and I quote, ``Rather than supporting
General Petraeus and our troops in the field, antiwar advocates in
Congress are instead struggling to deny or disparage their
achievements, and are now acting, once again, to hold hostage the
funding our troops desperately need and to order retreat by a date
certain, regardless of what is happening on the ground.''
I would remind my colleagues that even the Iraq Study Group warned us
against setting arbitrary deadlines. We should let the troops and their
commanders do their work.
I have always maintained that our brave troops' service in Iraq
should be as short and as safe as possible. This legislation does
nothing to advance either of these goals. I urge rejection of this
bill.
General Leave
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent all Members may have 5
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 4156.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murtha).
Mr. MURTHA. I would say to my good friend from New Jersey, he voted
for the $459 billion bill where we had a CR that fully funded the
MRAPs, fully funded, $16 billion for the year. We are not holding up
the MRAPs. And we provided the transportation.
{time} 2000
We were very careful with this bill. The gentleman knows how careful
I am in taking care of the troops. The gentleman knows how careful he
is in taking care of the troops. None of us are trying to put
roadblocks in the way. What we are trying to do is hold the
administration accountable for what they have done. We want stability
in the whole Middle East, not just in Iraq. So we have got to focus
also on the future of the country. Russia is starting to come up, China
is starting to come up. And in our bill, which the gentleman from New
Jersey was a part of, we started to look ahead. Iraq is occupying us as
well as we occupying Iraq.
So I have to say to the gentleman, I just want to make sure we keep
the facts straight. We have fully funded the MRAPS, even though it's
costing $150,000 per MRAP to get them overseas because of the lateness
of the request.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Iraq supplemental bridge
fund. While no one is declaring victory in Iraq, the tide is turning.
But nothing changes here on Capitol Hill. And here we go again, by some
estimates, the 41st effort by the majority to come to this floor and
force a precipitous and reckless withdrawal of forces from Iraq,
another Democrat plan for redeployment from Iraq tying $50 billion in
necessary combat funds for our troops to a Democrat plan for
withdrawal.
With unambiguous evidence of progress on the ground filling the
newspapers of America, the Democrats in Congress seem to have decided
to add denial to their plan of retreat and defeat in Iraq. And the
newspapers speak for themselves.
The Washington Post last week wrote, ``The number of attacks against
U.S. soldiers has fallen to levels not seen since before the February
2006 bombing of a Shia shrine in Samarra that touched off waves of
sectarian killing.'' The death toll of American troops in October fell
to 39, the lowest since March 2006.
And on Thursday last, The New York Times noted, ```American forces
have routed al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from
every neighborhood in Iraq,' a top general said today, `allowing
American troops involved in the surge to depart as planned.'''
The Washington Times would say, ``Responding to the good news,
Speaker Pelosi has unveiled her newest legislative strategy to damage
the war efforts. House Democrats this week,'' they wrote, ``will try to
enact a bill calling for immediately beginning to withdraw U.S. troops
from Iraq. The surrender language will be attached to a 4-month, $50
billion funding.''
``The contrast could hardly be more striking,'' they said. ``American
soldiers performing heroically and successfully, risking their lives on
the battlefield in Iraq, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat leadership by
contrast look for ways to advertise American weakness to the enemy.''
And I say from my heart, with great respect to the good and patriotic
Americans with whom I differ on this point, I urge my colleagues to
reject this Democrat plan for withdrawal. But I also urge my countrymen
to give our soldiers a chance. I know things have not always gone as we
had all hoped in Iraq.
In my role as the ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee and
before, I have traveled to this war-torn country five times over the
last 4\1/2\ years. I have seen success and I have seen less than
success. I have seen advance and I have seen failure. But today, we are
seeing hope spring. Freedom and stability are beginning to take hold in
Iraq. And I say from my heart, we cannot lose faith in ourselves. We
cannot lose faith in freedom. We must reject this latest plan for
retreat and defeat.
Mr. OBEY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This is almost the 250th time I have been down on this House floor to
talk about Iraq in the last 2 years. I can't remember, so I say almost
how many times it's been.
During that time, the American people have been demanding two things,
that the Congress step up to our responsibility and bring our troops
home, and that we take bold steps to face up to the President by using
our power, the power of the purse, to hold him accountable for what is
going on in Iraq.
Today, Speaker Pelosi is leading the House of Representatives in a
bold direction. It is the first time so far that we have tied funding
to redeployment. Ninety-two Members of the House have written a letter
to the President demanding that no more funding for Iraq go forward
without it, meaning bringing our troops home and redeployment.
This vote also leads to next year's appropriations where we can use
the power of the purse and fully fund bringing our troops home in a
very responsible and very timely and actually safe way.
This bill is not perfect. It is the boldest step yet, however, and we
must support it. I would not support it if we were not tying the
funding to responsible redeployment. I would not support it unless
there was a start date for the President to begin the redeployment of
our brave men and women in
[[Page 31474]]
uniform. This bill is the beginning, but it is a bold beginning. I
think we should consider everything that is in it, and then build on
that for the future and get our troops home as soon as possible.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it seems like not that long ago, but it was
a year or so ago, we heard repeatedly: We're losing in Iraq. We're
losing in Iraq. We've got to have a policy change. We're losing in
Iraq. We've got to have a policy change. And we got a policy change.
It's kind of refreshing to hear so many say we're winning, and a
little bit surprising to hear we're winning, so we need a policy
change. We're winning, so we need a policy change? We know if we pull
out too quickly, we don't leave a stable area.
Hearing comments earlier about somebody won't listen to anyone else;
they get no input. I thought they were talking about the Democratic
majority. Just today on FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, I'm told at 1:30 that we've got to have amendments in by 4 o'clock
on a bill that we weren't even allowed to see. You want input? Let's
start it right here on the floor.
I heard comments about Vietnam mistakes. The biggest mistake that
history teaches us about Vietnam was that it was micromanaged from
Washington. If you want documentation, go to Sam Johnson's book. After
the carpet bombing finally took place and we went after and took it to
them, the bombing stopped, we gave away the farm at Paris, and as the
prisoners left the Hanoi Hilton, one of the leaders said, ``You know,
you Americans are so foolish. If you'd have kept it up another week, we
would have had to unconditionally surrender.'' But we were micromanaged
from Washington.
We show the greatest reverence for those who have given their last
full measure of devotion not by pulling out before we leave a stable
area, but by seeing that we finish the job and leave a stable area so
they will not have died in vain.
I leave with a comment of Travis Buford's mother as we stood there by
his casket in Nacogdoches, Texas at the funeral home earlier this year.
I said to his mother as we stood near his coffin, ``Is there anything I
can do?'' She gritted her teeth and she said, ``Go back and tell the
Congress to shut up and let the military finish their job.''
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, after that very thoughtful statement, I would
like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kagen).
Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of H.R. 4156
because people in Wisconsin want their country back.
This bill supports our troops and demands the President begin to move
our forces away, away from Iraq and back after our real enemies, Osama
bin Laden and his followers.
Iraq will forever be President Bush's war, an unnecessary war based
on lies and deceptions. His poor judgment has written perhaps the
saddest chapter in our Nation's history, wearing down our military and
the endless, centuries-old Iraqi civil war.
The vote today will end not the hatred between the Shiites and
Sunnis, but it will redirect our efforts away from Iraq as soon as
humanly possible. A ``yes'' vote supports our troops by protecting them
from a President who does not understand reality.
People in Wisconsin have asked me to deliver their message here, here
on the House floor: I want my country back. I want my country back.
Tonight, we will begin to move our country in a new direction, away
from Iraq and back after Osama bin Laden and his followers.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong opposition to H.R.
4156, the so-called Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment
Appropriations of 2008, because in fact, Mr. Speaker, the bill should
be called the Disorderly and Irresponsible Iraq Redeployment
Appropriations Act.
Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. What we are debating tonight, disguised
as a genuine bridge fund to sustain operations in the global war on
terror, is nothing more than another defeatist measure intended to
placate the Democrats' liberal base as we approach this Thanksgiving
recess.
The Democratic leadership apparently has decided it's more to stand
with the Out of Iraq Caucus, MoveOn.org and Code Pink than with our
brave men and women in uniform. Rather than funding our soldiers' needs
and delivering a decisive blow to the terrorist campaign in Iraq, the
Democrats are again conditioning the funding on a date certain for
withdrawal.
At a time of sustained progress by our forces, Mr. Speaker, it seems
that what is great news for America and for our troops is consequently
bad political news for a Democratic majority who has literally bet the
farm on a defeatist agenda.
Just last weekend, Prime Minister Maliki stated that violence between
Sunnis and Shias has nearly disappeared from Iraq, disappeared from
Baghdad, with terrorist bombings down 77 percent.
The Washington Post reported that attacks against United States
soldiers have fallen to levels not seen since the February 2006 bombing
of the Shia shrine in Samarra. And an Investor's Business Daily article
detailed that military analysts, including many who are opposed to the
war, have concluded that the United States and its allies are on the
verge of winning in Iraq. And, thankfully, United States casualties in
Iraq are at their lowest level since March of 2006, Mr. Speaker. Now is
not the time to risk impeding the progress we are making. Now is the
time to continue building on the turnaround we have made, and to state
unequivocally that we are on the verge of victory in Iraq and that we
will finish the job.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot give in to the terrorists' extremist views and
sinister plans for the Middle East and the world. And we certainly
should not send a message to the terrorists that such a capitulation
will begin in 30 days and will wrap up by December of 2008.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on tying funds for
our troops to a date certain withdrawal from Iraq. I urge all my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this dangerous bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2156, the so-
called ``Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations of
2008.'' Because, in fact, this bill is a ``disorderly and irresponsible
Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act.''
Let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker. What we are debating today--
disguised as a genuine bridge fund to sustain operations in the Global
War on Terror--is nothing more than another defeatist measure intended
to placate the Democrat's liberal base as we approach the Thanksgiving
recess.
The Democratic leadership has decided it is more important to stand
with the ``Out of Iraq Caucus,'' MoveOn.org and Code Pink than with our
brave men and women in uniform. Rather than funding our soldiers' needs
and delivering a decisive blow to the terrorist campaign in Iraq, the
Democrats are again conditioning the funding on a date-certain
withdrawal.
At a time of sustained progress by our forces, Mr. Speaker, it seems
that what is great news for America and for our troops is consequently
bad political news for the Democrat majority and their defeatist
agenda.
Mr. Speaker, a July New York Times editorial authored by Michael
O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack stated ``We are finally getting somewhere
in Iraq, at least in military terms. . . . The soldiers and marines
told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in General
David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real
results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real
difference.''
In September, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker spoke
optimistically about the future of Iraq citing concrete progress.
Acknowledging we still had a long way to go, they recognized we had
achieved tactical momentum and were building momentum toward local
reconciliation. Indeed, local Iraqis were turning against extremists.
[[Page 31475]]
Last weekend Prime Minister al-Maliki stated that violence between
Sunnis and Shi'ites has nearly disappeared from Baghdad, with terrorist
bombings down 77 percent. The Washington Post reported that attacks
against U.S. soldiers have fallen to levels not seen since before the
February 2006 bombing of a Shi'ite shrine in Samarra. An Investor's
Business Daily article detailed that military analysts--including many
who are opposed to the war--have concluded that the U.S. and its allies
are on the verge of winning in Iraq.
And thankfully, U.S. casualties in Iraq are at their lowest level
since March 2006. Now is not the time to risk impeding the progress we
are making. Now is the time to continue building on the turn-around we
have made and to state unequivocally that we are on the verge of
victory in Iraq, and that we will finish the job.
Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues of the consequences of
giving up on Iraq: the collapse of a democratic Iraqi government,
likely leading to mass killings and genocide in the nation; an
emboldened al-Qaeda; regional instability; Iran and Syria setting the
course of Iraq's future; and Israel being pushed into the Mediterranean
sea.
The stakes are too high for political posturing. Ayman al-Zawahiri
has said ``the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The
first stage: expel the Americans from Iraq.''
Mr. Speaker, we cannot give in to their extremist views and sinister
plans for the Middle East and the world. And we certainly should not
send a message to the terrorists that such a capitulation will begin in
30 days and will wrap up by December of 2008.
Mr. Speaker, never have I been so glad that we've got General
Petraeus leading our troops in Iraq and not the Democratic leadership
of this house. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on tying funds for
our troops to a date-certain withdrawal from Iraq. I urge all of my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New
Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I have had to listen as my colleagues on the
opposite side of the aisle have made comments like, give our soldiers a
chance.
This is not about our soldiers. This is about a failed policy. I
think we need to go over some of the facts again, the facts that 70
percent of Americans remember but my colleagues on the opposite side of
the aisle seem to have forgotten.
Number 1. There were no Iraqis on the plane that day.
Number 2. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
{time} 2015
They weren't there. They were never found.
Number 3. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before the war, so it doesn't
matter if we reduce the number. There were none before the war.
Number 4. This could have been a war against terrorists, should have
been a war against terrorists, not a war against the Iraqis.
Now we have almost 4,000 dead Americans. We don't even know how many
dead Iraqis. It's a terrible tragedy in our Nation. And we're making
decisions to spend billions of dollars in Iraq while we tell our
people, sorry, we don't have money for education. Sorry, we don't have
money for health care. Sorry, we don't have money to build bridges.
Bring these troops home. And this is what we are doing responsibly.
We're saying ``no'' to the President and ``yes'' to the American
people.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, before we vote on this measure, the
American people need to know that U.S. troops in Iraq have achieved
significant security gains. Violence against U.S. troops and Iraqi
civilians has fallen dramatically, and forces of chaos have had their
safe havens and supply lines systematically eliminated. In fact, it was
recently announced that the curfew in Baghdad may soon be lifted.
Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that the goal is to end the war, but
this must be done in a solicitous and strategic manner. While there is
clearly military momentum in Iraq, the situation remains fragile and
complex, and our work continues to be very dangerous and difficult.
Establishing an arbitrary deadline for withdrawal of our troops would
potentially undermine the stabilization of the country, especially in
light of recent security gains.
However, I would submit that one area of potential agreement in this
body involves a renewed spirit of diplomacy for the region. It is time
for a diplomatic surge. The gains made possible by the steadfast
competence of our troops gives rise to a new diplomatic potential in
the effort to curtail regional destabilizing influences, promote
political and economic progress, as well as provide for the safe and
stable transition of refugees throughout the area.
The recent meeting in Istanbul, Turkey of countries neighboring Iraq,
the upcoming meeting in Annapolis to further the Middle East peace
process, and the United Nation's own recent reengagement in Baghdad are
all positive diplomatic trends that should be aggressively supported
and augmented by our efforts in this House to facilitate the rapid
stabilization of Iraq, potentially empowering an even more rapid
drawdown of our troops and a sustainable peace for the country.
Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hare).
Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4156.
For the last 4 years, President Bush has demanded more and more money
from this Congress for the war in Iraq, draining funding from domestic
priorities in the process. And this year's just no different.
True to form, in October the President casually requested an
additional $200 billion to continue his failed policy.
Mr. Speaker, every time I travel back to my district, constituents
plead with me to stand up to this President and end the war.
Fortunately for them, the days of the rubber-stamp Congress are over.
This bill before us holds the President accountable.
The bill provides only $50 billion of the President's $200 billion
request, which serves to meet the immediate needs of our troops
currently deployed, while the balance is dependent upon progress in
Iraq.
The funding is also conditioned on the redeployment of troops from
Iraq to begin within 30 days of enactment, with a target for completion
by December of 2008.
Passage of this bill is the first step towards forcing a change of
course in Iraq, shifting the mission from the combat forces to a
comprehensive strategy.
I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4156.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you advise us as to the time
available on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 32\1/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 34 minutes
remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reserve my time at
this point.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, leadership is about getting results. I want to
thank our leadership for bringing a bill to the floor for the first
time that gets results.
I've never voted for funds for this war, and I've been waiting a long
time to vote for a bill that would bring our troops home.
On March 20, 2003, the United States invaded Iraq. It was a mistake
then, and every day we've failed to correct this mistake costs us in
cash, in credibility, and in lives. Every day we are not working to get
out of Iraq, we make our Nation weaker and less safe. Every day that we
do not get our troops out of Iraq is another day of mistakes.
The road out of Iraq starts with the first step. This bill is the
first beginning. To start a withdrawal, this bill jump-starts that
withdrawal. It starts in 30 days.
Passing this bill tonight makes clear that the U.S. House of
Representatives has acted to bring our troops home, to end this war,
and to put our country back on the right track. This leadership
deserves your support.
[[Page 31476]]
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, today I'm proud to join with a unified
Democratic Caucus to cast my vote in support of H.R. 4156, the Orderly
and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act. This legislation
marks the first time redeployment language has been attached to
funding, and includes the strongest worded language to date, by stating
Congress's explicit commitment to end the war in Iraq as safely and
quickly as possible and bring our troops home.
The letter my colleagues Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and I sent to
President Bush stating that we would only support funding for the
redeployment of our troops has grown from 70 to 92 signatories. As the
letter stated, and as the title of this legislation echoes, we choose
to support our military and look out for the best interests of this
country by funding an orderly and responsible redeployment from Iraq.
While this bill is far from perfect, there's a lot in this bill to be
proud of. This bill requires the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq
within 30 days. It prohibits the deployment of U.S. troops not deemed
fully trained, and it effectively bans the awful practice of
waterboarding by any affiliate of a U.S. agency. I applaud the shared
commitment of the Democratic Members in both the House and Senate to
end the war in Iraq.
I share the public's dismay at the slow pace of Congress's action to
end President Bush's failed war. It is, of course, the administration,
not Congress, who ultimately deserves the blame for this terrible war.
Before every major debate on the Iraq war, like clockwork, President
Bush fires up the propaganda machine to twist reality and obscure the
facts on the ground.
Those who stand in the way of real change in Iraq must be held
accountable. They must not be allowed to quietly throw wrenches in the
gears of change slowly rotating within this country.
A large and growing majority of Americans now believe it was a
mistake to invade Iraq and that Congress should force a change in the
President's irresponsible policies.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, before us tonight is yet another Democrat
plan, a plan for failure. I guess it's really not quite so much a plan
as just a schedule for failure.
It seems ironic to me that when there is actually success, the
Democrats are having a hard time seeing the success. And that's,
perhaps, because the success that is going on in Iraq is not a big
government, Washington, DC beltway kind of success. It's not the
Parliament in Baghdad where the success is going on. No, it's a
uniquely American and a special success. It's the success that bubbles
from the hearts of the very people that are involved, from the local
communities, from the streets, and particularly from the sheiks. It's
the kind of thing that happened in America where local communities
stood up against the biggest military power in the world and defended
our declaration in the same way these sheiks now are paying a
tremendous price. One, Sheik Meshin al-Jamari, he was encouraged to
come back from his safe haven in Jordan. He came back to take up
responsibility for his tribal area just to the east of Fallujah. And
what was the cost when he turned on al Qaeda? First, his daughter was
killed, then his brother shot, and then his family rounded up inside a
house in Karma, and the house imploded upon their heads. And yet, that
sheik is standing firm because he does have a vision for the
possibility that there will one day be an Iraq where people can be
free.
Our General Allen was asked by some of the Iraqis in his tribe, they
said, When the British left, they left us a big skyscraper. When
America leaves Iraq, will you leave a skyscraper? And General Allen
said, No. We'll leave the ideas that leave you a free people. And one
day there will be Iraqis who come to us and they will say, Hey, GI Joe,
we believe it too. We believe that there is a God that gives
inalienable rights to all people, the right to life and liberty and the
pursuit of happiness, and we will also stand with you because you have
that hope.
It is my hope that the Americans and the Democrats will rediscover
why we have always gone to war in America, because we do believe in our
battle cry from years ago that there is a God that gives basic rights
to all people and that we must have the courage to stand behind those
things. I hope that the Congress will vote to reject a plan of defeat.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The war in Iraq is a disaster and it's time to bring
our brave troops, the men and women who volunteered to serve their
country for the right reasons but were sent to Iraq for the wrong
reasons. It is time now for them to come home.
For that reason, I support this bill which, for the first time, ties
funding to the responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq,
beginning within 30 days of passage and to end in December 2008.
I'm supporting this bill for another important reason. It establishes
once and for all that the United States of America does not torture
people. This bill is not confused about waterboarding. Waterboarding is
clearly made illegal, as well as electric shocks and mock executions
and every other gruesome interrogation method that is currently
prohibited in the Army Field Manual.
The American people elected the Democratic majority in this House
last November because they're done with the war. They're sick and tired
of losing American lives in Iraq. And they're sick and tired of losing
vital programs at home to continue to finance this tragic war.
This is a vote of conscience. I urge every one of my colleagues to
vote in favor of this bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard significant discussion tonight about al
Qaeda. And people seem to think that Iraq, the Iraq war was necessary
in order to tackle al Qaeda. Well, that's backwards.
I can recall being out at CIA headquarters after 9/11. I can recall
sitting out at CIA headquarters watching the Predator aircraft as they
flew over Afghanistan, transmitting pictures back here in the search
for bin Laden and al Qaeda. And I remember what those CIA people out
there said, and the frustration they expressed because half of their
resources were being diverted from the search for bin Laden and al
Qaeda to prepare for the attack on Iraq.
It isn't that the war in Iraq was necessary to get at al Qaeda. The
war in Iraq diverted us from concentrating on al Qaeda and bin Laden.
{time} 2030
And we are still suffering the consequences today.
So let's keep the facts straight. Let's keep history straight. And
let's keep our heads straight. The fact is that Iraq got in the way of
our effort to get at al Qaeda and we have been suffering from that fact
ever since.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his
leadership in bringing this important legislation, the Orderly and
Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act.
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, America honored our veterans, something that
we do every day in our hearts but which we openly celebrated on that
day. I am very proud that this year we could celebrate also the biggest
increase in veterans benefits in the 77-
[[Page 31477]]
year history of the Veterans Administration thanks to the New Direction
Congress.
Yesterday, the President of the United States signed the Defense
appropriations bill with the biggest increase in defense spending, made
necessary because we must rebuild the capacity of our troops, which
capacity has been weakened by the war in Iraq. And today, we bring
before the Congress new direction legislation regarding the orderly and
responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq.
This legislation is necessary because whatever you may have thought
about the war or the conduct of the war or the origin of the war,
whatever you may think about the performance of the Iraqi Government
there, and I have my views on that subject, the fact is we can no
longer militarily sustain the deployment in Iraq. Staying there in the
manner that we are there is no longer an option.
Our troops have performed their duties magnificently, excellently,
patriotically, and courageously. We owe them the deepest gratitude for
their courage, their patriotism, and the sacrifices that they and their
families are willing to make. But even as they tried to create and had
their military successes, God bless them for that, the secure framework
was established to enable the Iraqi Government to make the political
change necessary to end the civil war. Well, the sacrifice of our
troops was simply not met by the actions of the Iraqi Government.
How much longer should we expect our young people to risk their
lives, their limbs, their families, for an Iraqi Government that is not
willing to step up to the plate?
This legislation today offers something fundamentally different from
what President Bush is proposing, a 10-year war, a war without end,
costing trillions of dollars at the expense of our military readiness.
In fact, it offers something different than this House has done before.
Indeed, it provides the tools to our troops so that they can get their
jobs done with the greatest respect for that job. But it also presents
a strategy that will bring them home responsibly, honorably, safely,
and soon.
The legislation is different because it ties the funding to a
strategy for redeployment. It is different because the funding provided
is for the short term so that we can measure the administration's plan,
if there is such a plan, to redeploy the troops on the schedule
established in this bill.
We do have a military crisis not seen since Vietnam. Equipment is
wearing out and needs to be replaced. Our troops, wherever they are,
are only being trained for counterinsurgency in Iraq instead of a wider
training for a full range of missions that they may be called on to
perform. The deployment schedule of the Bush administration is wearing
down our forces, plain and simple.
The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee has made
this readiness issue the cornerstone of his opposition to this war in
Iraq. The distinguished chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on
Defense has told us over and over again that this deployment in Iraq
cannot be sustained without weakening our national security, without
diminishing the capacity of our armed services to meet challenges to
our national security wherever they may occur. As such, this readiness
crisis poses a grave threat to America's national security.
Yet under the President's plan, and this was expressed by
representatives of the administration on more than one occasion, the
President's plan would bring 30,000 troops, the number of troops that
were sent in for the surge, that 30,000 troops would be redeployed back
to the U.S. by July of 2008. So let's understand this. This means that
by July of 2008, we will have the same number of troops in Iraq as we
had in November of 2006 when the American people called for a new
direction in Iraq. Again, we cannot afford the President's commitment
in Iraq. It traps us. It traps us, and we cannot, while we are in that
trap, address our readiness crisis.
This redeployment, in addition to undermining our military capacity
to protect the American people, is also unsustainable financially.
According to a recent report by the Joint Economic Committee, this war
could end up costing American taxpayers $3 trillion. We will pay any
price, as President Kennedy said, to protect the American people, but
without us going into the shortcomings of this war and the President's
execution of it, $3 trillion, think of the opportunity cost of that
money in our readiness, in the strength of our country, in our
reputation in the world.
The legislation before us is important. Again, the title of it is the
Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act. It would
begin redeployment within 30 days of enactment and have a goal of
completing the redeployment by December 15, 2008. The legislation
requires a transition in the mission of U.S. forces from being in
combat to diplomatic and force protection, to targeted counterterrorism
and limited support for the Iraqi security forces. It would prohibit
the deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully trained and
fully equipped. Thank you, Mr. Murtha, for your leadership on that
subject and on this one as well and so many others. It requires that
all U.S. Government agencies and personnel abide by the Army Field
Manual's prohibition against torture.
The legislation that Mr. Obey has brought to the floor, and I salute
your leadership over and over again on this subject and so many others,
Mr. Chairman, the House must choose between the President's plan for a
10-year war without end, no end in sight, the longer we're there, the
harder it is to come out, the longer we're there, the more severely it
hurts our military readiness; or a Democratic plan for responsible,
honorable, safe redeployment out of Iraq and soon.
Our troops have already paid too high a price for this war: 3,850
U.S. troops killed, 28,000 injured, thousands of them permanently. That
is, of course, the biggest price to pay. But the price that we are
paying in our reputation in the world for us not to be able to take our
rightful place as a leader in the world to make the world safer, to
make the region, the Middle East, more stable, and so many other
challenges that the world faces, whether it's the eradication of
disease, the alleviation of poverty, the curbing of global warming,
keeping peace, ending the fury of despair that contributes to the
violence in the world. The countries of the world are crying out for
American leadership, and at the same time they disrespect us for what
is happening in Iraq.
We must act now to provide a new direction because it is clear that
the President has turned a blind eye to all of this. And in addition to
what I said earlier, our troops paying the biggest price, our
reputation in the world, the several-trillion-dollar price tag to the
taxpayer, and the cost to our readiness, despite the fact that the
President has turned a blind eye to the facts of Iraq and a tin ear to
the wishes of the American people to take a new direction in Iraq and
bring our troops home, we must act today. I hope that our colleagues
will all support this legislation because in doing so and if it is
enacted into law and if this policy is pursued, we can resume our
rightful place in the world. We can refocus our attention, as Mr. Obey
said earlier, on the real war on terrorism, and we can make the
American people safer by rebuilding and restoring the readiness and the
capacity of our military to protect the American people wherever our
interests are threatened.
All of us stand here and take an oath of office by pledging to
protect and defend the Constitution. In that preamble, to provide for
the common defense is one of our first responsibilities. Unless we do
that, protect the American people, nothing else is possible.
So let us support this legislation which helps us honor our oath of
office to defend the American people and to respect the sacrifice, the
courage, the patriotism of our troops to make us the home of the brave
and the land of the free.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important legislation.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri
[[Page 31478]]
(Mr. Skelton), the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services
Committee.
Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of this resolution.
It's very important that we take a good look at where we are in the
country of Iraq. It's important that we take a good look at the status
of the United States military forces, in particular our Army, which is
being stretched and strained nearly beyond recognition.
You can't help but have a great deal of pride in the young men and
young women in doing the duty upon which they have been called. But it
is important for us to turn the reins, give the baton over to the Iraqi
forces, to the Iraqi Government. We cannot hold their hand there
forever. It is important that we redeploy our forces in a responsible
and reasonable manner so that their readiness is assured in case of
some future challenge.
____________________
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members
responded to their names:
[Roll No. 1106]
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--377
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)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
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
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
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 (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
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
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Richardson
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
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
{time} 2103
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). On this rollcall, 377 Members
have recorded their presence by electronic device, a quorum.
Under the rule, further proceedings under the call are dispensed
with.
____________________
ORDERLY AND RESPONSIBLE IRAQ REDEPLOYMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 29\1/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 26\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute simply to explain to
the House that the intention is to have one remaining speaker on each
side and then proceed to the votes.
With that, I yield back the remainder of my 1 minute and invite the
gentleman from Florida to close.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Speaker, throughout the evening, we have heard some very, very
interesting speeches. I listened with great respect to all of them. I
agreed with some, I disagreed with some, I wasn't sure about some.
Nevertheless, it was a good debate at a high level. I paid special
attention to the very distinguished Speaker of the House because in her
opening comments, she talked about how Monday, Veterans Day, America
honored our veterans. She spoke about the Veterans appropriations bill
in great, glowing terms. I agree with that. It is a really good bill.
It provides a lot of benefits for the veterans. There are 400,000
veterans claims backed up. That bill provided money to hire additional
adjudicators to get rid of that backlog and get the veterans what they
need.
The problem is that as she spoke about the importance of this bill
and what a great bill it was and great bill it is, she failed to say
that the House passed it on June 15, the Senate passed it in September,
and here we are in November still waiting to get that bill on the House
floor.
I say, Madam Speaker, let's vote on the VA appropriations bill.
I mentioned the fact that there were great speeches. But, Mr.
Speaker, tonight we will not be voting or be recorded on how those
speeches went, or what those speeches said, or what those speeches
included. We are not going to be voting on opinions. We are not going
to be voting on politics. We are going to be voting on what is in this
bill. What has been said about this bill is not necessarily what is
actually written in the bill. But we are going to vote for what is
written in that bill. We will be held accountable for our vote on what
that bill says, not on what some speaker said about it.
One of the things that I mentioned in my opening comments that I was
really offended by is that this legislation gives constitutional
protection to terrorists, the same constitutional protection that all
of our constituents enjoy. I refer to page 3 of the bill itself,
``Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under
the
[[Page 31479]]
United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the
physical jurisdiction of the United States.''
Now, that gives terrorists the same protection that your constituents
have. And that's just not right. By giving them that protection, do we
give them for example, do we have to read them their Miranda rights if
we capture them on the battlefield? Do we have to allow them to pay
bail and get out of jail or get out of detention? What kind of rights
will we be giving to terrorists with just this one sentence that says
they shall have rights under the Constitution? These are terrorists,
Mr. Speaker. These aren't even people who are signatories to the Geneva
Convention. They don't play by any rules. They do whatever they must
do, and they have killed thousands and thousands of Americans, and they
have killed thousands and thousands of the Muslim populations.
Now, something about this bill, on page 6 of this bill, ``After the
conclusion of the reduction and transition of United States Armed
Forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary
of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq
only for the following missions.'' Now, pay attention to this because
this is what you will be allowing. For those of you that think you're
getting troops out of Iraq, this is what this bill will permit. The
Armed Forces in Iraq can be there for the following missions:
``Protecting United States diplomatic facilities, United States Armed
Forces, and American citizens.'' We do that now. That is one of the
things that we are doing right now.
So you think you're getting out of that. This bill keeps you in that.
The next paragraph, ``Conducting limited training, equipment, and
providing logistical and intelligence support to the Iraqi Security
forces.'' We're doing that now. So if you think this bill is going to
change anything, it doesn't because you are allowing them to stay to do
the same thing that they are doing now.
The next paragraph, ``Engaging in targeted counterterrorism
operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other
terrorist organizations in Iraq.'' Mr. Speaker, we're doing that now.
On page 12, we go to the Iraqi Security Forces Fund provided in this
bill. ``For the `Iraq Security Forces Fund', $500 million, Provided,
that such funds shall be available to the Secretary of Defense,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purpose of allowing
the Commander, Multinational Security Transition Command-Iraq, or the
Secretary's designee, to provide assistance, with the concurrence of
the Secretary of State, to the security forces of Iraq.'' Mr. Speaker,
we are doing that now. So if you think we're making a change here, read
the bill.
It goes on to say, ``Including the provision of equipment, supplies,
services, training, facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and
construction, and funding, and to provide training, reintegration,
education and employment programs for concerned local citizens, former
militia members and detainees and former detainees.'' Mr. Speaker,
we're doing all that now.
So this bill doesn't make very many changes if you think this gets
you out of Iraq. It doesn't. If you read the bill, you will see that it
doesn't. Now, these are things that we would be allowed to do under
this bill. But if this bill were successful, and it will not be because
I have an idea the President would veto it in its present form, we
would have to do all of these same things that we are doing today but
with a smaller force, a smaller force, minus the surge, for example.
The change in policy that we all demanded early on came about, and it
was called the ``surge.'' The surge has had many positive effects. When
you get to the point that The New York Times and the L.A. Times and the
Washington Post are writing stories about the positive effects of the
surge, you have to admit there is something real there in the surge. So
do you want to go back and have to do all of the same things we are
doing today with a smaller force? I don't think so.
We will have a motion to recommit. And if that motion to recommit is
successful, we will have a bill that we can all vote for and that I
believe the President would be willing to sign. So let's vote based on
what is in this bill, not what the speeches say about it, not about the
politics, not about the opinions, but let's actually vote on what is in
this bill and let's support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and
anywhere else in the world where they might be deployed. We owe them no
less. This bill is not a good bill today. Let's vote against it tonight
and vote for the motion to recommit.
{time} 2115
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, has the gentleman yielded back his time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has yielded back all of his
time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 26 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise in strong support of the bill that is
before us today. First and foremost, I want to point out that every
Member on this floor, every Member knows that the brave men and women
of our military have done a fantastic job, and every Member on this
floor supports the brave men and women serving our country.
Mr. Speaker, too many of those brave men and women have been doing a
fantastic job for way too many tours. Multiple tours. The last time I
was in Iraq, I had lunch with a group of soldiers from California, one
of whom was a firefighter from the North Bay in California, and he
said, I used to have a house in your district, but I don't anymore. My
ex-wife has it now. I said, I am sorry to hear that. He said, well,
this is my fourth tour. I couldn't expect much else.
Our men and women have been put under a tremendous strain for far too
long. Our military equipment has been depleted. Over $100 billion is
needed to bring our military equipment up to standard. Our combat
readiness has been depleted. This bill, this bill is about refocusing
our area; to transition, transition our effort into force protection,
diplomatic protection, counterterrorism, refocus our effort looking
into the future for future problems that we may have. It's long past
time to refocus our efforts; it's long past time to transition.
This bill does represent a change. We heard from the previous speaker
that there wasn't much change. Mr. Speaker and Members, if there wasn't
any change in this bill, we wouldn't be facing the opposition from the
other side that we are facing tonight. This bill represents major
change.
This bill represents a policy change that the American people are
demanding. They demanded it in the November election; they demand it
today. It's long past time for this transition to take place. This war
can't go on forever. We know that on this side of the aisle and we know
it on the other side of the aisle.
A lot of comparisons have been made tonight with Vietnam. I want to
make just one. I served in Vietnam with the 173rd Airborne Brigade. I
didn't do anything exceptional. I showed up; I did my job. But there
came a time in past Congresses that it was known that we were going to
leave Vietnam, and from the time that we knew that our colleagues, our
past colleagues knew that we were going to leave Vietnam, until we
actually left Vietnam, 21,000 Americans died.
They knew, our colleagues in past Congresses knew that we couldn't
sustain that. We weren't going to be in Vietnam forever. They knew we
had to leave. From the time they absolutely knew it on this floor until
we left, 21,000 brave American men died in Vietnam. I was one of the
lucky ones. I was only wounded. I lost a lot of friends. We lost a lot
of fellow Americans.
We cannot make that same mistake. We know that the Iraq war cannot go
on forever. We know that on both sides
[[Page 31480]]
of the aisle. It's time for a major policy change. This bill represents
that major policy change. I urge everyone to vote ``aye'' for the
underlying bill.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, after my oversight trips to Iraq in July and
August of 2006, I concluded we needed to encourage the Iraqi
government, and specifically Prime Minister Maliki, to take stronger
action to improve the situation in their country, and that the best way
to do this was to set firm timelines for Iraqi security forces to
replace our troops who are doing police work.
I believe a workable timeline will incentivize the Iraqis to make the
hard choices necessary to ensure stability among the three primary
sects--Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds. We need to motivate the Iraqis to set
firm deadlines for provincial elections, reconciliation and amnesty,
and a final drafting of their constitution.
During 2005, Iraqis set timelines to establish and ratify a
constitution and hold national elections. They accomplished each
benchmark successfully. I do not believe they would have achieved this
success if we had not pushed Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds to resolve their
differences and compromise in order to meet the timelines we helped
set.
The United States went into Iraq on a bipartisan basis, with two-
thirds of the House and three-quarters of the Senate voting to
authorize the use of force. I believe we need to draw down the majority
of our troops on a bipartisan basis, and have sought to achieve
bipartisan solutions to improve our operations and reduce the violence.
While H.R. 4156 is by no means a perfect solution, it does propose a
tight, but arguably reasonable, timeline for drawdown of troops in Iraq
similar to one I proposed earlier this year. It should help bridge the
gap between Republicans and Democrats on the most important issue of
our time. The bill would require our commanders to begin a redeployment
of our troops in harms way within a month, and set a target date of
December 15, 2008, to complete the task.
For me, a better bill would have been to give Iraqis and our troops
an additional six months to complete the drawdown, but given this bill
sets a target date, rather than a withdrawal date, it gives needed
flexibility to our military leadership.
I do not believe we have the force structure to maintain the number
of troops in Iraq now, and certainly do not have the capacity to
increase the force.
Our troops have performed extraordinarily well, but it is
unreasonable for us to ask them to return to Iraq for a third or fourth
tour. I also believe it was a significant mistake to extend their tours
from 12 to 15 months and would be unconscionable to consider extending
their tours beyond 15 months. Based on our military's current manpower,
we will need to begin to draw down our forces by the beginning of 2008,
and it would be wise to let the Iraqis know now this reduction will
take place.
While I support this bill, I am disappointed the majority still has
not allowed a single amendment on any Iraq-related bill. As I have said
before, it is pretty arrogant to think we would criticize Iraqis for
not being able to compromise and find common ground when Republicans
and Democrats are unable to compromise and find common ground on the
most important issue facing our Nation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to call for the passage of
H.R. 4156, the ``Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Act.'' The
war in Iraq cannot be won through the use of military force or another
troop surge. The majority of the American people do not support the war
in Iraq; a recent study stated that nearly 7 in 10 Americans oppose the
war. Since the war began in 2003, 3,859 brave U.S. troops have died in
Iraq. In 2007 the death toll has already reached 860 soldiers who have
lost their lives, making it the worst year yet for the American
military in Iraq. Currently, 28,400 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq
since the war began with 12,750 suffering injuries so serious they were
prevented from returning to duty.
President Bush's failed Iraq policies offer a war with no end in
sight. There is no progress on political reconciliation between Shiites
and Sunnis in the Iraqi government. Just this week, it was reported
that the U.S. effort to organize nearly 70,000 local Sunni fighters to
solidify security gains in Iraq is facing severe political and
logistical challenges as the central government resists in
incorporating them into the Iraqi police and army. Last month, the
Shiite political alliance of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called the
U.S. military to halt the recruitments of Sunnis.
The bill in the house tonight will require the start of the
redeployment of U.S. forces within 30 days of enactment, with a goal
completion of redeployment by December 15, 2008. It will require a
transition in the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq from primarily combat
to force protection and diplomatic protection; limited support to Iraqi
security forces; and targeted counterterrorism operations. H.R. 4156
will prohibit deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully
trained and fully equipped. The legislation also calls for an extension
to all U.S. Government agencies and personnel of the current
prohibitions in the Army Field Manual against torture. The bill will
also provide to meet the immediate need of our troops, but defers
consideration of the remainder of the President's nearly $200 billion
request. At the current rate of expenditure, the additional funds will
last 4 months.
Many insist that American troops cannot leave Iraq until we have
achieved victory; and democracy has been established. History has shown
us that civil wars and insurgencies are ended only through rigorous
diplomacy, economic development, and national reconciliation between
former enemies; not by a troop surge and an endless war. Diplomacy
works, and now more then ever is the time to implement the
recommendations of the Baker Hamilton Commission, and call for a
regional peace summit in the Middle East.
Let's bring all parties who are involved in the conflict to the peace
table, so they can begin to resolve their differences. If international
diplomacy ended the intractable conflicts in Northern Ireland, the
Balkans, the conflict between Israel and Egypt, and Rwanda; then
international diplomacy can work in Iraq. Once we begin the strategic
withdrawal of U.S. troops out of Iraq, and show the Iraqi people we do
not wish to occupy their country, then and only then can we begin the
real possibility of having an effective international peace conference.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House today is
straightforward. Do we think the President's Iraq policy is working so
well that we should give him another $200 billion to continue it, or do
we need a fundamental change in direction?
I truly believe we need to change an Iraq policy that is simply not
working. From the beginning, the Bush administration has been wrong
about the war in Iraq. If you set aside the administration's rhetoric,
the reality is that the surge has not worked. The goal of the surge was
to give the Iraqi Government breathing space to make the political
decisions necessary to reduce the violence that is tearing Iraq apart.
But 11 months into the troop surge, progress on political
reconciliation continues to be all but nonexistent. Meanwhile, 2007 has
already been the deadliest year for American troops since the start of
the war in Iraq.
There is a clear choice before us. If you are satisfied with how the
Bush administration has been conducting the war for the last 4\1/2\
years, you should oppose this bill. If, on the other hand, you believe
the administration's strategy isn't working and want to require the
President to change course, you should vote for this legislation.
Whatever small chance there is of the Iraqi factions coming together,
it will not happen as long as the U.S. military commitment in Iraq
remains open-ended. We need to change course.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the majority
party's Iraq supplemental appropriations bill.
It is baffling that at the precise moment when the surge in Iraq is
producing positive results, the majority party would like to pull the
rug out from underneath our troops.
Violence is down. Sunnis in al Anbar have allied with U.S. forces
against al Qaeda. Baghdad is regaining some sense of normalcy.
By no means can we declare ``victory'' but our troops can rightfully
claim progress. Despite these positive developments, the majority party
wants to withdraw our forces--as if the enemy won't follow us home.
I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: are they prepared
to take responsibility for the disastrous consequences of an early
withdrawal?
Are they prepared to witness the chaos and destruction in Iraq?
Most importantly, are they willing to pass this responsibility on to
the next generation of Americans who may be forced to finish the job we
did not have the courage to complete?
My colleagues are right: we have made a significant financial and
personal investment in Iraq. Let us have the courage of our convictions
to see it through.
I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and pass a clean
supplemental bill that provides support to those who are fighting and
dying. We owe them that much.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Iraq
Redeployment Act which sets forth a realistic strategy for the
responsible redeployment of our combat troops in Iraq. The Bush
Administration has requested
[[Page 31481]]
another $200 billion dollar blank check for the war in Iraq to pursue a
flawed strategy that has no end in sight and which continually puts our
brave men and women in the armed services in the middle of Iraq's civil
war.
The indefinite presence of American forces in Iraq has allowed the
different factions there to postpone making the difficult compromises
necessary to achieve stability and political reconciliation. Our
intelligence community has publicly concluded that the political
situation in Iraq is getting worse, not better. We cannot ask our
troops to remain in Iraq when the different Iraqi factions have refused
to take the steps necessary to achieve a greater stability.
We must embark on a new direction in Iraq. That's what this
legislation will do. It allocates $50 billion for the purpose of
beginning to responsibly redeploy our combat forces out of Iraq by the
target date of December 15, 2008. The troops that would remain in Iraq
beyond that date would focus on the more limited missions of training
Iraqi security forces, providing logistical and intelligence support
for the Iraqi security forces, and engaging in targeted counter-
terrorist operations against Al-Qaeda and affiliated groups.
As the legislation states, ``the primary purpose of funds made
available by the Act should be to transition the mission of the United
States Armed Forces in Iraq and undertake their redeployment, and not
to extend or prolong the war.'' This bill also states that the
reduction of our armed forces in Iraq ``shall be implemented in
conjunction with a comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic
strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and
the international community for the purpose of working collectively to
bring stability to Iraq''--a strategy recommended by the bipartisan
Iraq Study Group that the Administration has failed to pursue with any
vigor or urgency.
This legislation also prohibits the deployment of any troops not
fully equipped or trained, and extends to all U.S. Government agencies
and personnel the limitations in the U.S. Army Field Manual on
permissible interrogation techniques. We must send a strong message to
the world that we do not support or condone torture.
We are on the wrong path in Iraq. This bill provides a much needed
change in direction that will strengthen our national security, improve
our position in the region and bring our men and women safely home.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, one need look no further than the chaos in
Pakistan or the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan to understand
that troop levels in Iraq cannot be maintained--and that the surge,
which I have always opposed, has done nothing to achieve political
stability.
Today, with this bridge funding vote, Congress signals to the White
House yet again that enough is enough, that the combat mission in Iraq
must end, and that we will force that change.
No one in this chamber questions the courage or commitment of our
brave women and men in uniform or their willingness to tackle any
challenge put before them. But we have sent them on an ill-defined
mission with no apparent end point, and which consumes staggering
amounts of our talent and treasure at the expense of countless other
priorities.
This bill also redresses a glaring loophole in the Military
Commissions Act--a bill I strongly opposed. By requiring that all U.S.
Government agencies and personnel must adhere to interrogation
techniques contained in the Army Field Manual, we send an unmistakable
signal to the rest of the world that the United States--the world's
oldest functioning democracy--does not permit cruel, inhumane and
degrading practices, or torture, and complies fully with Federal law
banning torture and our international obligations.
The Iraq Troop Redeployment Bill is good policy, and long overdue.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4156,
the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act. This
bill will begin the long-overdue withdrawal of American troops from
Iraq.
Yesterday, the President vetoed the Labor and Heath and Human
Services-Education appropriations bill, which is the bill that provides
funding for the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Disease
Control, Low Income Home Energy Assistance, the Education Department,
Pell Grants, and educational programs for the disadvantaged. He vetoed
this bill because it contained a 2 percent increase over his request--
an increase of $10 billion in a Labor HHS bill of roughly $600 billion.
The President opposes even a 2 percent increase in the funding for
these programs.
Meanwhile, the President has requested almost $200 billion more for
his failed war in Iraq. That would make the total cost of the war in
Iraq so far to over $600 billion and climbing, with no end in sight.
President Bush's refusal to change course in Iraq is shocking, his
failure to allow adequate rest for our soldiers between tours of duty
is outrageous, and his demand for another $200 billion blank check for
his war in Iraq while vetoing LIHEAP for the poor, education for
disadvantaged children, Pell Grants for college students, and research
into cures for life threatening disease is simply unacceptable to this
House. What a misplaced set of priorities.
Instead of the blank check for an endless war, this bill requires
President Bush to begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq within 30
days. Instead of unfairly sending inadequately equipped soldiers on
multiple tours of duty, this bill prohibits the deployment of any
troops who are not fully equipped and trained. And at the same time,
this bill provides the necessary funds, in full, to our troops who are
still in harm's way.
Our Republican colleagues must make a choice: will they stand with
President Bush's attempt to throw more money and more young men and
women into the mess in Iraq, or will they join with Democrats seeking a
bipartisan agreement on redeploying American troops out of Iraq?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to specifically note a provision of this
bill, which I wrote, to bar any funds in this bill from being used for
the gruesome and indefensible practice of extraordinary rendition. I
would like to commend and thank Chairman Obey and Chairman Murtha for
again including this language, as they have in every defense
appropriations and supplemental appropriations bill this year. Through
the use of extraordinary rendition, as well as abusive interrogation
techniques and extrajudicial incarceration of so-called ``enemy
combatants,'' President Bush has largely forfeited the mantel of human
rights champion which the United States has carried for so long. We
must reclaim the international moral high-ground if we are to cure the
root causes of terrorism around the world, and we can start by banning
extraordinary rendition.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Obey for this strong and responsible
bill, and urge all my colleagues to vote aye.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4156, the
Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act.
The Iraq war is a failure and it's time for our troops to come home.
This bill calls for a responsible redeployment and provides for the
checks and balances Congress is authorized to impose.
The administration does not have blanket authority and America does
not have a bottomless checking account.
The President's policy in Iraq has been a complete failure, and
Americans are calling for this war to end.
Our troops are now trapped in the middle of someone else's civil war.
Our military presence in Iraq is not making our country any safer.
Instead, this war has taken the lives of over 3,850 soldiers,
including 13 brave young men from my District alone.
From Rialto, 37-year-old Staff Sergeant Jorge A. Molina was deployed
in Iraq and died in hostile fire in the Anbar province.
From Rialto, 20-year-old, Specialist Luis D. Santos was deployed in
Iraq and died of injuries sustained when a makeshift bomb exploded near
his Humvee during combat operations in Buritz.
From Rialto, 22-year-old, Corporal Victor A. Garcia was deployed in
Iraq and died by small arms fire in Baghdad.
From Bloomington, 25-year-old, Corporal Joseph A. Blanco was deployed
in Iraq and died by small arms fire in Taji after sustaining injuries
from a makeshift bomb.
From Fontana, 19-year-old Lance Corporal Fernando S. Tamayo was
deployed in Iraq and died while conducting combat operations in Anbar
Province.
From Fontana, 24-year-old Sergeant Bryan A. Brewster was deployed in
Afghanistan and died after his helicopter crashed during combat
operations in Afghanistan.
From San Bernardino, 22-year-old Corporal Nicanor Alvarez was
deployed in Iraq and died in the line of fire in the Anbar province.
From San Bernardino, 19-year-old Petty Officer Alex Oceguera was
deployed in Afghanistan, and died when a makeshift bomb detonated near
his vehicle in Wygal Valley, Afghanistan.
From San Bernardino, 24-year-old Corporal Sean Grilley was deployed
in Iraq, and died after being fired on by Iraqis during operations in
Karbala.
From San Bernardino, 24-year-old Specialist Timothy D. Watkins was
deployed in Iraq, and died when a makeshift bomb exploded near his
vehicle during operations in Ar Ramadi.
From Ontario, 21-year-old Specialist Jose R. Perez was deployed in
Iraq, and died by enemy small arms fire in Ramadi.
From Ontario, 31-year-old Sergeant First Class Rudy A. Salcido was
deployed in Iraq,
[[Page 31482]]
and died when an improvised explosive device detonated near his convey
vehicle in Baghdad.
These are the true faces of the war. My deepest prayers go out to
their families.
These soldiers are the reason why I am so adamant about bringing our
troops back home, and why we must support this bill.
The President's failed policies on the Iraqi war effort must end. We
are listening to America's concerns and will not stand by and watch
this continue.
We need to bring back our loved ones and put our families here at
home first.
It's time for America to put her priorities in order.
This Nation is in debt, but not because of domestic spending.
President Bush refuses to sign bills to pay for schools, children's
health care, and to protect our workers.
However, he comes to us asking for another $200 billion to continue
funding the Iraq war.
With just one week's worth of funding for the war, my District would
never again face a shortage of teachers, of nurses, or of police
officers.
As a veteran, I voted against this war in 2002 because no one could
convince me why we had to be there in the first place.
The President believes Iraq is making our country safer.
The truth is, it is has put us at greater risk.
Our military is stretched so thin that we are at risk of not being
prepared for any future emergencies.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have consistently voted against
funding for this ill-conceived and miserably run war, but I reluctantly
support this additional funding because it will require the beginning
of a withdrawal from Iraq. It also contains important provisions to
prevent torture and ensure that our troops are fully equipped and
trained.
Because President Bush has done nothing to earn the trust of Congress
or the American people, this funding is only for a few months, giving
Congress the chance to exercise oversight and hold the President
accountable to ensure that the withdrawal is actually occurring at a
responsible pace.
With a veto likely, we must tell the President that Congress will not
provide this $50 billion, and certainly not the entire $200 billion
he's asked for, as a blank check. But I am pleased that, in this
legislation, Congress is saying that we will only fund an end to this
war, not its continuation. Bringing this nightmare to a quick and
responsible close is my highest priority.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R.
4156, the ``Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations
Act,'' and I want to commend Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic
leadership for bringing this bill to the Floor today.
The American people want a new direction in Iraq. By every measure,
this war has cost Americans far too much--whether it's lives lost,
dollars spent, or our reputation tarnished around the world.
H.R. 4156 would provide critical funding for the troops while also
requiring that troops begin to redeploy from Iraq within 30 days of
enactment with a goal of completion by December 15, 2008. The
legislation would ensure that troops are not deployed to Iraq unless
they have been fully trained and equipped. H.R. 4156 also would extend
to all U.S. Government agencies and personnel the current prohibitions
contained in the Army Field Manual against torture.
Just this week the Joint Economic Committee, of which I am a vice
chair, released a study to examine the broader impact of the war on the
American economy. So far the full economic costs of the Iraq war are
about double the immense Federal budget costs that have been reported
to the American people.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Federal spending
on the war could reach $2.4 trillion by 2017. Our JEC report finds that
when you add in the ``hidden costs'' of the war, the total economic
costs will rise by over $1 trillion to $3.5 trillion. The report
reveals how we are all paying for this war one way or another--whether
it's higher prices at the pump, lost business investment, rising
interest payments on the debt, or fixing all the broken bodies and our
stretched military.
The President has asked Congress for an additional $200 billion for
Iraq, bringing the total request to $607 billion in direct expenditures
since the start of the war. This is well over 10 times more than the
$50 to $60 billion cost estimated by the Administration prior to the
start of the war, with no end in sight from this President.
This legislation sends the President an important message: Start
bringing our troops home, now.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr Speaker, I believe this legislation is the most
important bill the House takes up this year because it will bring an
end to the war in Iraq by bringing our troops home safely, honorably,
and responsibly.
The bill mandates the start of an ``immediate and orderly''
withdrawal of U.S. armed forces in Iraq within 30 days after enactment.
It also requires that the reduction of forces be done in conjunction
with comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategies
involving Iraq's neighbors.
The bill provides $50 billion for the cost of redeployment, not the
$196.4 billion the President has requested to keep the war going.
H.R. 4156 prohibits the use of torture on any person under U.S.
custody. This is absolutely necessary because the Administration
continues to defend this technique which is not sanctioned in the U.S.
Army Field Manual.
The war in Iraq has taken a severe toll on our military. One and one-
half million military personnel (or 30 percent of our military) have
been deployed to Iraq more than once. Many of our soldiers are
redeployed in less than a year. Our troops are exhausted, their
equipment is shot and yet the President remains firmly committed to a
Korea-like presence in Iraq for years. Our military readiness is
severely threatened and our country is less safe today because of the
President's ill-conceived and botched-up execution of this war.
The legislation recognizes our military readiness is at its lowest
point since the Vietnam war and in order to reverse this, it requires
that the President certify to Congress 15 days prior to deployment that
our armed forces are ``fully mission capable.''
This Administration's sole focus on Iraq has left Afghanistan in an
extraordinary state of vulnerability. We have seen the reemergence of
the Taliban, soaring drug production, and the increase of attacks on
U.S. and NATO forces. By all measures, the country is at risk of
slipping away. This is a terrible and dangerous mistake. Although time
is short, there is still an opportunity to defeat our enemies in
Afghanistan once and for all. The President must acknowledge what's at
stake and immediately take action to prevent the country from returning
to what it was--a haven for international terrorism.
The President's justification for the surge was that ``reducing the
violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.'' By all
accounts, including the August 2007 National Intelligence Estimate,
NIE, the Iraqi government's political progress is stalled. The NIE
stated that the ``Iraqi Government will continue to struggle to achieve
national-level political reconciliation and improved governance.'' The
NIE goes on to state that ``broadly accepted political compromises
required for sustained security . . . are unlikely to emerge unless
there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political
developments.'' It is clear from this NIE that the Iraqi government has
done little if anything to initiate political reconciliation.
The American people are demanding a new direction in Iraq. They do
not want the President's 10-year war with no end in sight. In fact 68
percent of Americans oppose the war in Iraq and 60 percent support a
withdrawal of our troops.
I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do so
as well. We can begin a new and better chapter for America and the
world by changing the policy in Iraq.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation before us today
because I believe it represents a safe and responsible way to bring our
troops home from Iraq. The President has had more than four years to
demonstrate leadership in Iraq, but at every turn his decisions have
dragged us deeper into an ethnic and sectarian crisis that the
President seems incapable of solving. Eleven months ago, the bipartisan
Iraq Study Group released its report, which offered a comprehensive
plan to build up the Iraqi government and create the political and
security stability needed to bring our troops home. Unfortunately, the
President rejected this bipartisan approach and instead implemented his
troop surge. As a result, 2007 was the deadliest year for our troops
since the beginning of the war, and we are no closer to a political
solution to the problems in Iraq than we were when the troop surge
began. Because the President refuses to take responsibility for his
failed strategy, I believe it is time for Congress to act.
The legislation before us today provides our troops with the funding
and equipment they need to safely do their job. This includes funding
for our continued efforts to provide security and support for the
government of Afghanistan. However, it is a far cry from the blank
check that the President requested. It requires the President to begin
redeploying troops out of Iraq within 30 days of enactment, and sets a
goal for total redeployment by December 15, 2008. The bill also
requires the President to
[[Page 31483]]
undertake diplomatic efforts designed to engage other regional and
international actors in providing for a secure Iraq. It includes
important provisions that ensure the first troops sent home are the
ones who have served in Iraq the longest, and that no more troops can
be sent to Iraq unless they have all of the equipment and training that
they need.
I had hoped that this bill would also include funding to address the
growing refugee crisis in Iraq. While I am disappointed this issue is
not being addressed today, I have been assured that Congress will act
soon to assist the millions of Iraqis who have been displaced because
of sectarian fighting.
This legislation is not perfect, but I believe that it is worth
supporting because it will require the President to do something he has
so far refused to do: explain to the public how he plans to get our
troops out of Iraq. In fact, this bill would make it clear to the
President that he will not get one more dime from Congress until his
redeployment plan has been submitted. I applaud Chairman Obey for
staying true to his pledge to send the President an Iraq spending bill
with accountability and timelines built in. I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation because it represents an important first step
towards holding the President accountable and safely bringing our
troops home from Iraq.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4156, the
short-term war supplemental appropriations bill. Although I plan to
oppose this bill, I am also pleased that its authors included several
provisions meant to improve transparency and ensure U.S. troops are
adequately trained and mission capable. Hopefully, the inclusion of
these provisions signifies the beginning of real progress, and I plan
to work with my colleagues to develop a unified approach to address the
challenges we face in Iraq.
Our soldiers in Iraq continue to do tremendous work and it is
critical that we provide them with the resources they need to improve
security. Unfortunately, the bill before us today would delay important
troop-protection and equipment funds requested by the Pentagon.
According to Department officials, delaying these funds would also
force the Pentagon to begin borrowing from its regular defense budget,
which in turn could impact important operating funds for troops and
military bases.
Additionally, I am concerned that this legislation would condition
troop funding on the initiation of an immediate redeployment from Iraq.
Although I strongly support a responsible strategy for bringing U.S.
troops home, these decisions should not be mandated by Members of
Congress without close consultation with our military and foreign
policy leaders in the field. Furthermore, the U.S. commander in Iraq,
GEN David Petraeus, has already set forth a plan to bring home a full
combat brigade this month and at least five brigades by July of next
year. Congress should perform strong oversight with respect to the
redeployment process, but placing restrictions on our military
commanders is not helpful in their efforts to achieve stability and
bring troops home.
Still, I support language in the bill that would improve
accountability and increase transparency by requiring regular reports
on the status of the military's redeployment plans. In the same way, I
support sections of the bill that would ensure military units are
properly trained and prepared for deployments. Embracing a
comprehensive regional security plan and prohibiting torture are also
key provisions which I continue to support. In fact, I recently
cosponsored legislation identical to the anti-torture provisions
included in H.R. 4156.
The leaders of the U.S. Senate have already made clear that this
legislation does not have the votes necessary for passage and therefore
many of these important provisions will be left on the table.
Therefore, I call on my colleagues to embrace the substantive areas of
this bill where we can find agreement, and join me in committing to a
bipartisan approach for achieving stability.
Mr. Speaker, the Bipartisan Compact on Iraq Debate, of which I am an
original author, identifies the areas where Democrats and Republicans
have found agreement. Let us embrace these points of agreement and move
forward in supporting our troops serving in combat.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this legislation.
This bill is the opposite of a blank check for the President. The
funds it will provide are those that will be needed to move toward an
``immediate and orderly'' redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq.
The bill requires redeployment to begin within 30 days of its passage
and sets a goal of bringing home most our soldiers from Iraq by
December 15, 2008.
The bill also requires that our military's mission in Iraq shift from
combat to force protection, support for Iraqi security forces, and
targeted counterterrorism operations, and it prohibits the deployment
of any U.S. troops to Iraq that are not already fully equipped and
trained. And it extends to all U.S. Government agencies and personnel
the limitations in the Army Field Manual on permissible interrogation
techniques, to remove any doubt that loopholes remain for
``waterboarding'' or similar harsh techniques.
It's clear that we're seeing progress on the security front in Iraq--
likely the result of more U.S. boots on the ground combined with an
insurgency that has largely succeeded in ``cleansing'' Iraq's
neighborhoods, driving Iraq's Sunni and Shia populations out of areas
where they once lived side by side.
But when he announced the ``surge'' of additional troops to Iraq,
President Bush promised us more than progress on the security front in
Iraq.
We sent more troops to Iraq to provide ``breathing space'' for the
Iraqi Government to move toward political reconciliation, and that
hasn't even begun to happen.
In my view, there is no sustainable role for large numbers of U.S.
troops to play in Iraq--whether refereeing a civil war or waiting for
the Iraqi Government to decide to act within the ``breathing space''
our brave troops have provided and our taxpayers are paying for at $9
billion per month.
However, while this bill sends the right message--that our troops
cannot remain in Iraq indefinitely--regrettably, it does not send it in
the best way, because it will be supported almost exclusively by
Democrats, and the President has already promised to veto it.
What we need is consensus here at home on a path forward in Iraq, and
today's quick consideration of this bill doesn't bring us any closer to
that goal.
I believe consensus can be found around the recommendations of the
Iraq Study Group, which I introduced as legislation earlier this year,
including supporting a course of escalating escalate economic
development, empowerment of local government, the provision of basic
services, a ``surge'' in regional and international diplomatic efforts,
and lightening the American footprint in Iraq.
Only Democrats and Republicans working together can find the path out
of Iraq. I will continue to work with colleagues on both sides of the
aisle on further steps we can take to change our broader Iraq policy.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my support for H.R.
4156, the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act,
which will begin the redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq,
strengthen our military and enhance our national security. By passing
this measure, the House of Representatives is, yet again, sending a
clear signal to the President that we need a new course in Iraq.
Though I opposed the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq,
I later voted for numerous supplemental appropriations bills to ensure
that we provided sufficient equipment and resources for our troops.
They have done an amazing job in undertaking a difficult and changing
mission, and they deserve nothing but the full support of the Nation
and its leaders. However, nearly 5 years after our initial invasion of
Iraq, the best way to support our troops is to bring them home. In May
of this year, I voted against the supplemental appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2007 because it gave the President far too much authority
to continue a war that had been repeatedly mismanaged by the civilian
leadership at the Pentagon.
Unfortunately, 6 months later, very little has changed. The
underlying causes of violence in Iraq, which are ethnic and sectarian
in nature, have not been addressed. In September, the Government
Accountability Office found that the Iraqi Government had met only 3 of
18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for legislative, economic, and
security progress. These problems cannot be solved by U.S. military
force, and we should not expect our troops to be involved in a civil
war. We need to shift our forces from combat operations and redeploy
them out of Iraq while we refocus our Nation's efforts on fostering a
political reconciliation among Iraq's tribal, ethnic, and religious
groups to end the violence.
The bill before us today provides a blueprint for ending the war and
bringing our troops home. It requires the President to begin
redeployment of troops immediately, with a goal of completing
redeployment by December 2008. It also shifts our forces away from a
combat mission to focus on force protection, counterterrorism efforts,
and the training of Iraqi security forces. Furthermore, it prohibits
the deployment of U.S. troops that are not deemed fully mission
capable. This provision is particularly important because our men and
women in uniform have faced repeated deployments with insufficient rest
and training time, and we
[[Page 31484]]
must take bold steps now to prevent our military being strained to the
breaking point. Our readiness levels are already dangerously low
because of operations in Iraq, which endangers our national security in
the event of a national disaster, a terrorist attack, or some other
contingency.
H.R. 4156 recognizes that we need a new direction in Iraq and does
not give the President a blank check to maintain the status quo. For
that reason, President Bush has threatened to veto the measure. I am
deeply disappointed that he is so out of touch with the American people
and their priorities. He has requested nearly $200 million to continue
operations in Iraq with absolutely no strings attached, while he
ignores pressing needs here at home. On Tuesday, he vetoed the Labor-
Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2008, claiming that it was too expensive. Operations in Iraq have cost
a total of more than $450 billion, yet the President is unwilling to
invest $10 billion in priority areas such as medical research,
elementary and secondary education, Pell grants, health services to
underserved populations, and heating assistance to low-income
Americans.
While it is not a perfect bill, H.R. 4156 is an important step to
force a fundamental shift in our Iraq policy and to bring our troops
home. I would have preferred to see an earlier deadline for troop
redeployment, and I have cosponsored legislation with that goal.
Nevertheless, a vote for H.R. 4156 is a vote for change, and I thank my
colleagues for supporting it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 818, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
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. Young of Florida
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. In its current form, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. YOUNG of Florida moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4156,
to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendments:
(1) In section 101--
(A) strike paragraph (3);
(B) in paragraph (1), insert ``and'' after the semicolon;
and
(C) in paragraph (2), strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
(2) Strike sections 102, 104 and 106.
(3) In section 105--
(A) strike subsections (a) through (f); and
(B) in subsection (g), strike the subsection designation.
(4) Redesignate sections 103 and 105 as sections 102 and
103 respectively.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is a
simple forthwith motion. That means a vote for this motion will allow
the House to immediately vote tonight on a bill that can pass the
Congress and be signed into law. That means that our troops in harm's
way will get the funding they need before Congress leaves town for a 2-
week Thanksgiving recess.
The motion would amend the bill to strike the provisions which have
nothing to do with providing for our troops and are nothing more than
political gamesmanship. The motion would strip the provisions that give
our enemies a complete blueprint and timeline for troop withdrawal. The
motion would strip the provisions in the bill which signal to our
troops and our enemies that Congress will not provide any more funding
for our troops, except for withdrawal. The motion would strip the
provisions in the bill that substitute politicians' judgments on troop
deployment for the judgment of our military commanders in the field.
At the same time, we leave intact the $50 billion in critical funding
included in the bill. We leave intact the prohibition on torture, which
has been adopted previously by this Congress and Congresses before. But
we strip the new provisions which could give terrorists killing our
soldiers and our citizens constitutional protections under our legal
system.
We modify provisions to more clearly express Congress's commitment to
our troops and to bringing them home safely in victory as soon as
possible. We leave intact a new requirement that the President submit
to the Congress within the next 3 months a comprehensive, long-term
strategy to achieve stability in the Middle East over the next 5 years.
As events of the last few months have shown, the situation on the
ground has, and we all hope will, continue to improve dramatically.
Congress has and will continue to debate the proper course of the war,
as it should. However, we should not and cannot vote to hold troop
funding hostage to that debate. The only ones hurt by that are our
troops and their families.
As we go home to enjoy the holidays with our families, how can any of
us look our soldiers' families in the eye and explain to them that we
are withholding their funding so that we can score political points.
That is just wrong. Our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen and their
families deserve more from all of us.
I urge adoption of this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Who wishes to claim the time in opposition?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I certainly do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that I have a great deal of
affection for the gentleman from Florida. I think he makes as good an
argument for a bad case as you can possibly find. Let me simply say
that this recommittal motion is very easy to understand, which is why
it ought to be defeated. It simply gives the President all the money in
this bill, unconditionally. It is simply a down payment on business as
usual. It simply strips the timeline from this legislation. It renews
the authority for torture. It eliminates the requirement that
interrogation activities follow the Army Field Manual. Outside of those
problems, it's a terrific idea.
So I would simply urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
Mr. MURTHA. I want the Members to know I carry in my pocket the names
of 18 people who have been killed from my district. Two years ago, I
said this is a failed policy wrapped in illusion. I am absolutely
convinced that there's more instability in the Middle East today than
there was then.
This recommittal motion works against everything we are trying to do.
We want a plan. We want a plan in Iraq. We want stability in the Middle
East. We don't have stability. Pakistan, Afghanistan, and of course
Turkey might even go into the Middle East. So when you talk about
victory, you're talking about stability, which we don't have. It's
absolutely essential to put a plan in place that holds the President
accountable.
All this time the President has asked for things and we have given
them to him. For 5 years we have said to the President of the United
States, You need money, we are going to give to it you. Now we are
saying we are going to have a new plan, and that plan is going to
change the direction of this war, and we are going to bring those
troops who fought so honorably home to their families.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and ask
for a ``no'' vote.
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 the
noes appear to have it.
Mr. YOUNG 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 192,
nays 231, not voting 10, as follows:
[[Page 31485]]
[Roll No. 1107]
YEAS--192
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
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
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--231
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
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
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
Duncan
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
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
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
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
Shays
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
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Bono
Carson
Cubin
Doyle
Hastert
Jindal
Mack
Oberstar
Sessions
Weller
{time} 2146
Messrs. MORAN of Kansas and Lampson changed their 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.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 203, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 1108]
YEAS--218
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
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
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
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
Klein (FL)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
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
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--203
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
[[Page 31486]]
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNulty
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
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
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Lewis (GA)
NOT VOTING--11
Bono
Carson
Cubin
Doyle
Hastert
Jindal
Mack
Oberstar
Pearce
Sessions
Weller
{time} 2201
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
HOUR OF MEETING ON TOMORROW
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House
adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Braley of Iowa). Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
____________________
TIME FOR PAKISTAN TO STOP BEING A DICTATORSHIP
(Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, Thirty years ago, I was
in law school studying, among other things, the Constitution and
deepening my passion for freedom under law. With me at Santa Clara Law
School was Munir Malik. That small Jesuit institution instilled in me a
sense of duty to stand for principle that led me to this House. That
same sense of duty led Malik to leave behind a lucrative career as a
CPA and lawyer to return to Pakistan. Last year, he was named president
of Pakistan's Supreme Court Bar Association. This May, he was the
target of an assassination attempt. And, this month, he was arrested by
our ally. Our ally? President Musharraf. His crime? Standing up for the
rule of law.
Musharraf is liberating al Qaeda members in the western territories
while arresting judges and lawyers who believe in law. Pakistan is
using our money to do it.
It's time for Pakistan to tell us where Malik and the other lawyers
are. Time for Pakistan to set them free. Time for Pakistan to stop
being a dictatorship.
I include for the Record a letter from the faculty at Santa Clara Law
School asking for a return to the rule of law and the release of their
former student.
Statement by Members of the Faculty of Santa Clara University School of
Law on General Musharraf's Abrogation of Rule of Law
We are deeply concerned about the abrogation of the Rule of
Law in Pakistan. General Musharraf, in a brazen attempt to
perpetuate his own rule, has used his state apparatus to
disband the highest courts of the country. Thousands of
lawyers, journalists, judges, human rights activists have
been jailed. in many cases families have no idea of the
whereabouts of the detainees.
Our own concern is particularly sparked by the arrest and
detention of one of our graduates, Muneer Malik, the
Immediate Past President of the Pakistani Supreme Court Bar
Association. His fate is, of course, merely a small part of
the overall tragedy taking place but as we know him to be a
conscientious, industrious lawyer dedicated to the welfare of
his country, and not in the least a threat to law and order;
he symbolizes the injustice being practiced.
We, in fact, are not an organized political group. We have
never before joined in a statement of this sort with each
other. What brings us together in this plea is the fact that
we are all professors of law who teach in the law school
which graduated Mr. Malik and who share a respect for the
rule of law. We deplore what has happened. We assume that
many more people like him have been swept from public view.
The Supreme and High Court judges have been locked in their
own homes. Police have stormed into bar-association
gatherings and have manhandled lawyers, some of them women,
some of them septuagenarian! TV stations have been blacked
out and police vans are carting off telecommunication
equipment from private TV stations.
The U.S. must use all its influence and in no uncertain
terms demand the restoration of the Supreme Court status quo
ante Nov 2nd 2007. It must demand the immediate release of
and accounting for all persons who have been jailed after the
promulgation of the so-called emergency. It should be
recalled that President Musharraf removed the Chief Justice
once before, a short while ago, and that he was forced to
rescind his order because of the pressure of world opinion.
The embattled civil society in Pakistan must realize that
America stands for the rule of Law and the liberty of all
peoples.
Signed by:
George Alexander, Dean and Professor of Law Emeritus.
Patricia Cain, Inez Mabie Professor of Law.
Colleen Chien, Assistant Professor of Law.
Rev. Paul Goda, S.J., Professor of Law.
Allen Hammond, Phil and Bobbie San Filippo Professor of
Law.
Ellen Kreitzberg Professor of Law.
Philip Jimenez Professor of Law.
Jean Love Elizabeth H. and John A. Sutro Professor of Law.
Gary Neustadter Professor of Law.
Michelle Oberman Professor of Law.
Robert Peterson Professor of Law.
Mack Player Professor of Law and Director, Center for
Global Law and Policy.
Margaret Russell Professor of Law.
Catherine Sandoval Assistant Professor of Law.
Jiri Toman Professor of Law.
Gerald Uelman Professor of Law and Director, California
Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice.
Stephanie Wildman Professor of Law and Director, Center for
Social Justice and Public Service.
Nancy Wright Professor of Law.
Eric Wright Professor of Law.
David Yosifon Assistant Professor of Law.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Braley). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 18, 2007, and under a previous order of the House,
the following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.
____________________
SOUTHEASTERN DROUGHT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to call to the attention
of Congress what is occurring in the Southeastern and Mid-Atlantic
region of the United States. When you look at the statistics and look
at the effects, there is only one word that can describe this drought--
it is a total disaster.
This isn't a disaster like a tornado or a hurricane, where you have
one big storm and it's over, or a big fire. This drought is a
continuous process, and the impact adds up over time. The drought is
the worst one on record in the Southeast and in my home State of North
Carolina.
We know that this entire Southeast region has had about 19 inches
less rainfall than we should have had this year, and some areas have
received even less. You can see from this map what a large area of
severe drought we now have.
The States that have been the hardest hit include Arkansas,
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Tennessee, South
Carolina, and Virginia.
In North Carolina, our Governor has ordered citizens to halt all
nonessential water use. This drought has affected our farmers to an
extent so great that it is now affecting our rural
[[Page 31487]]
communities. Plants are having their production levels cut to save
water. Some communities have only a few months of water supply
remaining. In my district, the Second District of North Carolina,
nearly the entire area has been afflicted by what is called an
exceptional drought, and this is the most severe level. Farmers have
been struggling all year from this truly epic weather condition.
Mr. Speaker, I am working in Congress to provide some relief. Last
month, the House Agriculture Committee held a hearing to shine a
spotlight on this growing disaster, and the Governor of our State,
Governor Easley, testified himself as to the magnitude of this crisis.
Many of my colleagues may have seen this week that in my neighboring
State of Georgia, the Governor has even called a meeting and asked for
prayer. I am all for praying for rain, but, my friends, it is going to
take more than prayer.
I have written a letter to the President asking for assistance. This
letter was signed by 54 of my fellow colleagues here in Congress from
both sides of the aisle.
Farmers are some of the most resourceful and ingeniously productive
people around, but there is just so much that you can do to grow crops,
raise livestock or poultry without one of the essentials of life, and
that is water.
Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to raise a greater awareness, because
we all need to work together to help solve this problem. People need to
realize how serious it really is.
I am concerned that some folks may think the crisis might be solved
if we get just a little rain. Unfortunately, our farmers tell me the
damage has already been done, and I can agree, having visited a lot of
farms. Even if we had a nice soaking rain this week and next week and
the week after that and the week after that, it has been said that we
will need 25 inches of rain in the next 6 months just to get the water
level back to where it was. We've lost our cotton, our beans, our corn,
and many of the other crops, and they won't be able to grow this winter
unless we get more ground water. The crop this year is now lost.
The problem today is that too many Americans think that the food that
they eat comes from the grocery store. I want them to understand,
that's just where they go to pick it up. That food comes from a farm.
They forget that it's the farmer out in the field working every day of
the year to make sure that Americans have the most bountiful and least
expensive food supply in the world. It's hard work, it's a huge gamble,
and for the farmers in the Southeast this year, they lost.
It's time that this Congress, Mr. Speaker, joined hands and helped
these folks. They have always been there for us, and now we need to be
there for them.
Our farmers in rural communities desperately need assistance. It is
my hope that we can pass the relief package before this year ends and
that the President will sign it and will help these farmers and their
families in rural communities across the whole Southeast be back in the
fields next year providing food and fiber for the American people.
____________________
WAR IN IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the Joint Economic Committee of Congress
reported yesterday on the hidden costs of the occupation of Iraq. We
learned that the true cost so far is $1.3 trillion, or nearly double
the amount the administration has been talking and has requested. And
the price tag could soar to nearly $3.5 trillion if we continue on the
administration's reckless course in Iraq.
The hidden financial costs of our involvement in Iraq are staggering,
but yesterday we also learned that there are hidden human costs as well
that are truly, truly heartbreaking.
CBS News reported last night that the suicide rate among veterans is
over twice as great as the suicide rate for the general population. In
2005 alone, there were at least 6,256 suicides among veterans in the 45
States that provided data to CBS. That is an astonishing 17 suicides
per day for just that one year.
Those statistics are for veterans of all wars, and they are shocking.
But the statistics for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan are even more
devastating. Veterans aged 20 to 24 have the highest suicide rate of
all. For these young men and women, the suicide rate is two to four
times higher than the suicide rate for the general population.
And yet another report published yesterday in the Journal of the
American Medical Association found that the mental health problems of
Iraq veterans are much greater than previously thought. It found that
Iraq veterans are more likely to report alcohol abuse, family
conflicts, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder after being
home for 6 months than immediately after their return. The suicide
statistics tell us that the real Iraq death toll is significantly
higher than the official count of just over 3,860. And the mental
health statistics tell us that the real number of wounded is much, much
higher than the reported number of around 28,000.
All of this terrible news means that we can no longer sit around and
do nothing about the occupation of Iraq. We must take action
immediately, and we must take it in two ways.
First, America must do a much better job of meeting the physical and
mental health needs of our veterans. The administration has underfunded
and ignored the Veterans Administration system, leaving veterans stuck
in a bureaucratic nightmare that stops them from getting the health
care that they need. Congress has passed a bill that would help
veterans to get care much faster. It improves conditions at VA
hospitals and invests in new ways to treat physical and mental problems
caused by the war. The President needs to sign that bill as soon as
possible.
And, second, we must move immediately to end the occupation of Iraq
and redeploy our troops. That is why I voted today for H.R. 4156, the
Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act.
While the bill is not perfect, it essentially says that funds
authorized for Iraq will not be used to continue the occupation, but
are to be used to achieve the safe and orderly redeployment of our
troops out of Iraq.
That is what I and many others have been demanding, and that is what
the American people have been asking. It is time to stop the death. It
is time to stop the suffering. It is time to bring our brave troops
home and do everything we can to help them and their families to
rebuild their lives. Anything less is unacceptable and immoral.
____________________
{time} 2215
AMERICANS ARE PRAYING FOR RAIN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, tonight Americans across the
Southeast are praying for rain. As drought conditions have stretched
from weeks into months, residents face a stark reminder of how one of
our most precious resources, water, can also be one of our most
unpredictable.
The lessons of natural disaster all too familiar to the good folks
back home in Kansas. In the past year, nearly every county in Kansas
has suffered from disastrous conditions.
The weather has been hard on many of us, but especially on our
farmers and ranchers, who depend on nature to earn their living. It's
hard to find words to express their concern, their worry. Many have
worked the same acreage for decades, and they've always trusted that if
they treat their land right, if they plow its soil and they plant it
carefully and tend it for many months, it will reward them with a crop
that will earn their living.
But in so many counties, disaster conditions have slashed crop
yields.
[[Page 31488]]
Ranchers face their own problems as animal feed prices soar.
Kansas farmers and ranchers are good hardworking people, but lately
they've found that the land and the weather are betraying them. That's
why it's so important that earlier this year Congress passed a critical
agricultural disaster relief package. These funds helped Kansans
continue to farm and ranch in spite of the ever-present threats of
drought, fire and other catastrophes.
Today I urge America to come together once again to show the same
compassion to our brothers and sisters in the Southeast. Farmers are
finding that no matter how much they care and the effort that they
devote to their land, their crops simply won't grow. These hardworking
families can't make ends meet and they need a helping hand from
Congress.
I urge my colleagues to remember the struggles of farmers and
ranchers in the Southeast, in Kansas and across America who continue to
confront the challenge of this difficult weather.
And again, we're praying tonight for the rain for the Southeast, and
it looks like we might get some rain, and we are just blessed.
____________________
THE ORDERLY AND RESPONSIBLE IRAQ REDEPLOYMENT ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4156, the Orderly Responsible Iraq
Redeployment Appropriations Act, just passed.
Let me be clear about why I voted for it. This legislation is a
compromise that I hate, but it's the only way to move the agenda of the
American people forward. This legislation is anything but perfect, but
it does make important strides.
It requires the President to use funding to begin to redeploy U.S.
soldiers out of Iraq within 30 days of enactment and sets a goal for
complete redeployment by December 15, 2008.
It requires the President to implement a comprehensive diplomatic
political and economic strategy to bring stability to Iraq. For the
first time, the President will actually have a plan in Iraq.
It requires the President to report to Congress. It will end the
secrecy that has surrounded everything about this war.
And it requires the President to accept what the rest of us know,
that waterboarding is torture. It is a crime, and this bill says it's
not going to be used in the interrogation of prisoners.
After World War II, we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding
U.S. prisoners of war. But the President's new Attorney General is
walking around wondering about whether waterboarding is a crime.
House Republicans who voted ``no'' said they're willing to sacrifice
the will of the American people at the altar of blind political
obedience to the White House.
If Republicans in the Senate filibuster this bill, they'll be telling
the American people to go away because they intend to follow the
President over the cliff.
If this legislation should reach the President's desk, it just might
finally force him to confront reality. But I don't expect any of that
to happen.
The President intends to hand Iraq over to the next President. In the
meantime, this President is waging an Iraq veto war relying on
Republicans to act as mechanical robots and rubber-stamp his vote on
every single Iraq policy the Democratic majority has brought forward.
The American people may not understand how badly they've been
deceived and misled by this administration, but it's going to continue.
Sometime next spring, the President will announce things in Iraq are
going so well he'll bring home a few thousand of our troops. He'll have
them arrive in the fall during the election, when Republicans are
desperate to explain why they ignored the American people. He will not
tell us that 100,000 soldiers will be permanently stationed in Iraq at
14 military bases the administration has so artfully called enduring
bases. Of these, five are superbases: Camp Victory North, al Asad Air
Base, Balad Air Base, Camp Taji, and Tallil Air Base. These are huge
bases with everything from video stores to supermarkets and rental
cars. They are so big that one of them, Balad, 40 miles north of
Baghdad, is the second busiest airport in the world, second only to
Heathrow in the amount of air traffic.
Building enduring bases stands for indefinite U.S. military
involvement in Iraq, which is not something the Congress or the
American people want or will stand for.
The President is running a war by veto. If we could have a vote on a
no confidence motion, this war would be over. But in our democracy, the
ballot box is the only vote of no confidence and, regrettably, we have
another year to wait to get rid of the President.
That only reinforces the need for today's vote. If Republicans won't
support something as mild as this, then the American people need to
know the Republicans are stonewalling. Every time we force the debate
out in the open, the American people see it for what it is.
If Republicans continue to prolong the war, the American people will
take charge next November and unelect even more Republicans.
We call this legislation a bridge fund, meaning to build a way to
bring our soldiers out of Iraq and home where they belong. We're
trying, and we're not going to stop until the American people can
declare the mission accomplished and the men and women of our Armed
Forces are home.
____________________
MEN OUGHT ALWAYS TO PRAY AND NOT TO FAINT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, Luke records in his Gospel that
``men ought always to pray and not to faint.'' That's in Luke 18:1.
I believe in the power of prayer, and I should note that the power of
prayer is beheld in the One to which we pray, God Almighty.
Yesterday, my Governor, Sonny Perdue of Georgia, hosted a special
prayer service at the Georgia Capitol to pray that the Lord would
provide rain for our drought-ravaged State. Governor Perdue wisely
recognized that a request such as this must be made to a higher power,
and I commend him for his humility and wisdom in calling on God to
provide what man cannot provide.
One of my favorite verses in the Bible is Jeremiah 33:3, which states
``Call unto me and I will answer thee and show thee great and mighty
things, which thou knowest not.''
The book of Hebrews, in 14:16 states, ``Let us therefore come boldly
unto the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy and find grace to
help in time of need.''
We are a needy people, in desperate need of God's mercy and grace.
Throughout Scripture, we are commanded to pray and seek God's face, not
as a last resort but as the first order of business.
My home State of Georgia is facing one of the most severe droughts in
its history. Our rivers and reservoirs are at record lows, and many of
our communities face water shortages that could challenge their ability
to meet water supply needs in the near and distant future.
The situation has gotten so bleak that the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division, EPD, has declared a Level 4 drought response
across the northern third of Georgia, which prohibits most types of
outdoor residential water use. In fact, many nurseries and outdoor
plant suppliers are going out of business because of this.
Worse yet, many forecasters are calling for a dry, mild winter that
could result in serious water supply problems by spring.
I've had the privilege and honor of working with my fellow delegation
members in a truly bipartisan effort to come up with practical
responses, such as conservation and water management, to Georgia's
water crisis. Despite
[[Page 31489]]
our best efforts in Washington and in Georgia, there's no legislative
solution to this problem. The issue at the heart of our drought problem
is a severe lack of rain, and there is nothing that government can do
to change that.
The Apostle Paul tells us to make our requests known to God with
thanksgiving, so I gratefully acknowledge what the Lord has done for us
already and boldly call upon Him to show favor on us yet again by
sending rain to my beloved State of Georgia. God has not failed us
before, and I'm confident He will not fail us now in our time of need.
At a time when religion has been continually forced from the public
square, I want to offer my sincere thanks to Governor Perdue for his
bold and faithful trust in the Almighty. His efforts helped unite
hundreds of Georgians from all walks of life, leaders and citizens from
varying faiths and denominations, races and ages for this prayer
service.
So I join the Governor and fellow Georgians in calling out to God to
provide rain from heaven, and I pray that the Lord will give wisdom and
discernment to the Governor and each of us in leadership positions to
address the drought and its devastating effects on our State and our
citizens.
So I pray, Lord, You are sovereign and completely in control of all
things, and I acknowledge Your awesome power and authority.
All things are in Your control, and nothing is too small or too great
to bring before You. When you walked on the Earth in the person of our
Lord Jesus Christ, You spoke and stilled the waves and calmed the
winds. You spoke into the existence, the heavens and the Earth. You
created man in your image, and I know you can alleviate the severe
drought conditions we face in Georgia.
So Lord, I ask in the name of Jesus that you bring down rain from
heaven and refresh our land, fill our reservoirs and dry lakes and
streams. I pray that You will quench our parched land, and I implore
You, Lord, to show mercy upon us and to see us through this difficulty
and show Your awesome hand in moving nature to suit Your will and bless
Your people that call upon Your name.
Thank You, Lord for all that You have done and will continue to do
for us. And I pray this in the precious powerful name of our Lord and
Savior, in the name of Jesus Christ I pray this. Amen.
____________________
{time} 2230
CONDEMNING VIOLENCE AGAINST PHILADELPHIA'S POLICE OFFICERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Last Wednesday, I attended the funeral of one of my
constituents, a 25-year veteran of the Philadelphia Police Force. His
name was Officer Charles Cassidy.
Officer Cassidy was shot and killed in the line of duty on October
31, 2007. He was 54, and he left behind his wife, Judy, and their 3
children, Jody, Casey and Cody.
I would ask everyone here tonight in the House of Representatives to
join me in a moment of silence for Officer Cassidy and the 62 other
officers killed in the line of duty this year in our Nation.
Thank you.
The pain I witnessed at Officer Cassidy's funeral, that of his
family, of his fellow officers, and the citizens of the entire region
is why I rise tonight to ask my colleagues to join me in condemning the
significant and deplorable wave of violence against police officers
across this Nation.
In the Philadelphia Police Department alone, in the past 2 months, 5
other officers have been shot while protecting our city.
They will all survive their wounds and continue to serve the citizens
of the city of Philadelphia. They are:
Officer Richard Decoatsworth on September 24, 2007, who was shot in
the face with a shotgun while making a traffic stop. He survived his
injuries after 5 hours of surgery. I saw him at the funeral last week.
Officer Sandra Van Hinkel on October 28, 2007, was shot in the right
leg during a gunfight near a nightclub.
And Officer Marino Santiago on October 30, 2007, was shot in the
shoulder while responding to a shooting that left 3 people
hospitalized.
And just last night, the city was once again shocked to learn that 2
undercover narcotics officers were shot while serving a warrant at a
suspect's residence on Oxford Avenue not far from my Philadelphia
district office.
And last May, I stood on this floor to remember another fallen police
officer, another constituent, Philadelphia Police Officer Gary Skerski.
Unfortunately, Philadelphia is not alone in this battle against
violent crime. Cities big and small are coping with the threat and the
reality of violent crime. So far this year across the country, 63
officers have died from gunshots.
We cannot tolerate any more of this violence against our citizens or
against our police officers. We, the political and civic leadership of
this country, must commit our will to tackle the wave of violence and
the lack of respect for the rule of law and law enforcement.
This means bringing all the forces we have within law enforcement and
also within delinquency, criminal justice, human services, probation
and parole, education, employment, mental health, and drug addiction
services to face the reality of what is happening and to say that this
violence is no longer acceptable, that this violence must stop.
It also means that the President and this Congress must respond with
action and the resources to enable Federal and local initiatives that
will get illegal guns off our streets and put violent criminals behind
bars.
Congress should quickly complete our work on the COPS Improvement Act
and the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill to help our
communities and the officers who face these very real threats every day
on the streets of our cities. And they need better technology, improved
equipment and training, and they need more police officers on the
street.
I urge my colleagues to join with me in the effort to push these
bills to finalization and to do all that we can to stop this deplorable
violence in our midst.
____________________
THE LIFE OF CATHERINE RORABACK
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
life and accomplishments of Catherine Roraback of Canaan, Connecticut.
Ms. Roraback passed away on Wednesday, October 17 in Salisbury,
Connecticut, and will be greatly missed by her family, by her
community, and by her country.
Ms. Roraback was best known for successfully arguing the landmark
case of Griswold v. Connecticut in front of the United States Supreme
Court in 1965. This groundbreaking case overturned an 1849 Connecticut
law that banned the use of contraception. And this historic decision
established the right to privacy that exists to this day as the
foundation of many of our most revered constitutional freedoms.
Ms. Roraback was the only woman in her graduating class from Yale Law
School in 1948, and she quickly established a law practice dedicated to
protecting the rights of those that she called the ``dissenters and the
dispossessed.'' Her groundbreaking work in the Griswold case was simply
an extension of her life's work, which included the founding of the
Connecticut Civil Liberties Union and serving on innumerable boards and
commissions to serve her community and her State.
Mr. Speaker, Catherine Roraback was a national figure. But where she
shined the brightest was at her desk in her law office in northwestern
Connecticut, where she worked out of for almost her entire career. She
was always a caring and fiercely intelligent adviser and advocate to
her neighbors and her clients, and she was a mentor
[[Page 31490]]
to generations of community leaders and advocates, including my friend
and her cousin, State Senator Andrew Roraback, with whom I had the
pleasure of serving in the State Senate for 4 years.
I had the pleasure of getting to know Ms. Roraback just a little in
the last few years, and though we only got to spend a brief few moments
together, I feel so blessed to have had the fleeting chance to get to
know one of Connecticut's true heroes. She was an incredible woman with
an incredible drive and a never erring sense of right and wrong. I was
deeply honored to be her representative for the last 10 months, and I
will strive every day to live according to her example.
In these very trying days, I think it's incredibly important to
remember the lessons that Catherine Roraback leaves with us, the
motivation that underlied her entire work as a lawyer and an advocate,
because Catherine Roraback taught us that the basic rights that we
enjoy every day to live and to speak freely cannot be dependent on
one's lot in life. She also taught us that these rights, these precious
civil liberties that we enjoy, cannot and should not be taken for
granted. We must fight for them, now more than ever.
Mr. Speaker, my thoughts and prayers go out to Catherine Roraback's
family, her friends, and her beloved community.
____________________
THE WAR IN IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we saw a
varying level of discourse and debate over an enormously important and
I might say singularly important issue that is facing the American
public, and that is the question of the war in Iraq.
No matter how you touch the hearts and minds of Americans, whether or
not they suggest that this Congress and this President is not paying
enough attention to the domestic concerns, woven into the crisis of
where we stand today is the conflict in Iraq.
I think Americans understand Afghanistan more than we might think
they do. They know that this Nation was attacked on September 11, 2001.
They know that when the Nation is attacked, the Commander in Chief,
leaders of this government have the responsibility of defending the
honor and the security of America. They see Afghanistan as defending
that honor and that security. They know that the Taliban, Osama bin
Laden, those who collaborated were the basis of the attack against the
World Trade towers and other sites in this country. They know that our
lives have changed because of the horrific tragedy of 9/11. And they
are willing to accept that. They faced up against new laws that seem to
undermine their liberties, and within reason they are willing to
acknowledge that things must change. I am grateful, however, that there
are those of us who understand that the greatest success of a terrorist
is to cause you to terrorize yourself. So many of us have asked to
modify and assess the PATRIOT Act. We are looking to redo the FISA law
that deals with electronic surveillance. But mostly in debating this
question, Americans understand that their lives have changed.
But the Iraq War continues to be a questioning action by this
administration. All of us have tried to give respect to the basis and
the reason of this direction that this government took in the fall of
2002. I, for one, was very hesitant to speak about a war for oil. I
recognize that there might have been many deliberations that have
occurred that might have caused this administration to make this
unfortunate leap of preemptive attack.
I have come full circle now, however, and I am enormously
disappointed in the thought process and the respect not given to the
American people. For the American people, over 56 percent, want this
war to end, want these troops to come home, want to see a troop
reduction.
So this debate today was not a frivolous debate. And the leadership
of the Democratic Caucus, the leadership of this Congress took great
pains to try to address this in a fair and dignified manner. They
worked very hard to bring a concise document that spoke to the safety
and security of the troops, the respect of the troops, the
acknowledgment of their hard work; but yet to insist that a plan be
laid out by this administration to reduce the number of troops in Iraq
while at the same time ensuring that if there are outstanding
conflicts, firefights, terrorists to be fought, that we'd have the
troops on the ground.
I believe that this has been the most misdirected war that history
will record. I believe that it beats out the Civil War, the War of
1812, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War,
Persian Gulf. For any of those who opposed those wars, and I was not
there for all of them, if there was any opposition for reasons that I
don't know, this has to be the single most dangerous and devastating
action that this Nation could have ever taken. There is no sense for
it. There is no basis for it. But if there was a case that you could
make, you could make the case that the military has done every single
thing that it was asked to do.
So, Mr. Speaker, that is why I was moved to write the Military
Success Act of 2007. It indicates that Congress recognizes that the
military, in the invasion of Iraq, as authorized by a resolution given
to the President in 2002, going into Baghdad was probably one of the
best executed military operations in modern history, alongside of the
Persian Gulf. The armed services successfully toppled the regime of
Saddam Hussein.
And as I close, it lists a whole series of successes. And then it
indicates that every single aspect of the 2002 resolution has been
complied with. And, therefore, that means that the task of the 2002
resolution has ended. And it calls then for the troops to come home,
for them to be acknowledged, for them to be given free, with no
attachment, $5,000 for each returning troop from Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, this was a difficult debate, but I think and know that
we made the right decision. But we could do even more. We can affirm
that these troops need to come home, and we can celebrate them for the
heroes that they are.
____________________
THE 30 SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) is
recognized for one-half the time until midnight as the designee of the
majority leader.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, thank you.
We are here tonight with part of the 30 Something Working Group, and
we are going to talk about what this House has been doing this week. We
are here, it's late into the evening, and we have been working
throughout the day on a variety of issues, and we are going to be at
work tomorrow. I wanted to talk with my colleagues tonight. And we are
going to have a full house. We are going to be joined by Mr. Murphy
from Connecticut, Mr. Meek from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz from
Florida, and Mr. Ryan from Ohio. We are going to have a discussion
about some of the things that this House has been doing.
We took several significant votes this week, including the vote that
was just discussed on Iraq. And we are going to discuss the policy in
Iraq and the vote that we took today.
I wanted to start by talking about the President's veto earlier in
the week of the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. Now, the
President has found his veto pen, something that on appropriations
bills he had not used until this Congress. And I think it's instructive
to begin this debate by reminding my colleagues, as if they needed
reminding, that we are talking about an administration that took office
after 4 consecutive years of record surpluses, 4 consecutive years of
budget surpluses, that were forecast to continue as far as the eye can
see. In fact, the 10-year projection for budget surplus beginning
[[Page 31491]]
in 2001 was more than $5 trillion of surplus over that 10-year period.
{time} 2245
Well, what have we seen instead of that? We've seen 7 consecutive
budget deficits in the 7 years of this administration, deficits that
are forecast to continue as far as the eye can see. And instead of that
$5 trillion in surplus, we've seen more than $3 trillion in deficits in
just 7 years.
So, this administration that's now lecturing us on fiscal
responsibility and vetoing our appropriations bills, criticizing us for
spending, this administration saw more than $8 trillion flip from a
projected $5 trillion surplus to $3 trillion in deficit and counting.
So, that's the context of what we're talking about.
So, we sent to the President the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations
bill, which includes programs like low-income energy assistance, home
heating, the LIHEAP program. Now, I don't think there's anyone in this
country that has not been affected by the price of oil. And home
heating is something in the Northeast where I'm from in Pennsylvania,
and in Connecticut where Mr. Murphy is from, and in Ohio where Mr. Ryan
is from, the price of home heating has continued to skyrocket. And
we're going to get into some of the numbers, but that's one of the
things that's in this bill. Well, I don't think that's excessive
spending, to help people who would otherwise have their heat turned
off.
We're talking about funding for community health centers. We're
talking about funding for Head Start, a program for early childhood
education. Is there anything more important in this country than early
childhood education, making sure our children get off to a good start
and begin their educational careers in a way that we're able to ensure
that they get off and they're positioned to have the best start
possible.
Now, what about medical research, the National Institutes of Health?
That's what we're talking about in this bill, funding for medical
research. Is there anyone in the country that thinks we shouldn't be
spending money to find cures and treatments for debilitating diseases
across the board? That's what this bill is. That's what the Labor-HHS-
Education bill funds, and the President vetoed that bill. And we're
going to have a vote in this House to override that veto, and it's
going to be a very close vote. We were two votes shy of having a veto
override majority when the bill passed the House the first time. Two
votes. That's what stands between us and overriding the President's
veto.
And I would remind my colleagues as well that we were able to
override the President's veto just last week. This is not something
that can't be done. We had a Water Resources Development Act that had
not passed in 7 full years. It's supposed to be reauthorized every 2
years. Congress after Congress, in recent years, has been unable to
pass that bill, so we passed it. And we faced a Presidential veto; the
President vetoed it. We were able to override that veto overwhelmingly,
300-plus votes in the House; they got 79 in the other body. And what's
in that bill? That's another bill that the President, and I outlined
his record on fiscal responsibility and he wants to lecture us on
spending, for infrastructure improvements in this country. Building
levees in New Orleans, does that sound like pork? Building flood
prevention infrastructure all across this country.
There were projects in that bill in almost every congressional
district in the country to prevent flooding, to help the waterways
infrastructure in a way that we're investing for the first time in 7
years in flood prevention infrastructure. So we overrode that veto
overwhelmingly. We do have the opportunity to do it again on the Labor-
HHS-Education bill. And we're going to talk more about that.
At this time, I want to yield to my colleague Mr. Murphy from
Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania, and I
appreciate his promptness in being here as I share with him today. We
trust that the other members of the 30-Somethings will join us here
today, but it falls very often on the new members of the 30-Somethings
to make sure that we are here to begin the sharing of good news with
the American people.
And I hope there is good news, Mr. Altmire. I hope that people
throughout this country who see the President's veto of this incredibly
important bill, and you laid out very clearly and very succinctly what
the President has vetoed, what he has said no to. We're talking about
health care for kids. We're talking about good schools. We're talking
about Head Start, medical research, home heating assistance for the
elderly. And these are the basic building blocks of a compassionate
society, and the President has said, very firmly and clearly, no to
those.
And as you said, we're not very far away from having the requisite
number of votes here on the House floor to override that veto. And I
know that's kind of inside baseball for a lot of people, whether we
have two-thirds or three-fourths or whatever the percentage is that we
need. But it's important because, as you said, the President has found
his veto pen for the first time in his tenure in office. And I think
it's important to try to figure out what's different this year than as
was the case in the last previous 6 years of his Presidency? And it's
kind of funny because, if you look at the record, as you said, Mr.
Altmire, it seems a little odd to be having lectures from this
administration on fiscal responsibility because this President and the
Republican Congress over the last 6 years have increased Federal
spending by 50 percent, 50 percent just over 6 years. We've put $3
trillion on top of the deficit, on top of the debt that this country
owes, as we've watched the President and this Congress continue to
spend and continue to borrow. We've seen the amount of foreign-held
debt, and you know, this is something that Mr. Meek and Mr. Ryan have
been talking about for years and years and years. We've seen the amount
of foreign-held debt during that time double. This is all under a
Republican-controlled Congress, both Houses, and a Republican
administration. And during that entire time, the biggest piece of the
budget that has exploded has been the funding for this war.
Now, those of us who paid attention when the President initially
rolled out his plans to invade Iraq, his very rosy and optimistic
projections of our success there and the cost of that war, well,
remember that he told the American people, his administration told the
Congress that he thought that this war wasn't going to cost more than
$50 or $60 billion to get the job done? And also, if you remember, that
the Iraqis were going to welcome the Americans as conquering heroes.
Well, we know that that $50 to $60 billion was a figure of fiction,
historical fiction now, Mr. Altmire, because now the estimates are that
this war has cost us not $50 billion, not $100 billion, not $500
billion, but $1.3 trillion. And if we look forward to the projections
associated with carrying out a war for the next 10 years, as this
President has told this country he's planning to do, or that his war
planners intend to do, we're talking about a $3.5 trillion commitment
before this is all done. Now, that is a number that is almost
impossible to get our hands around. I mean, what does $3.5 trillion
mean to anybody? Well, what it means is that we're going to borrow more
and more and more. We are going to put our children and our
grandchildren and our great-grandchildren into hock in this country.
And so, when we hear this President sitting down and telling the
American people that he's going to get tough on spending, and the way
he's going to do that is by denying education to kids and health care
to the sick and heat to the elderly, well, during that time he and his
Republican Congress have spent like drunken sailors when it comes to a
very mismanaged and misguided war in Iraq, you can't help but wonder
where his priorities are and where this Congress' priorities were for
the last several years.
So, it's all got to be, I think, in relation, Mr. Altmire, because
we're making choices here, as we have for the last 6 years. We've
chosen not to spend
[[Page 31492]]
on American hospitals and American children. We've chosen not to spend
to help our elderly get what they need in order to keep their house
heated for the winter. And instead, we've chosen to build Iraqi
buildings and Iraqi hospitals. We've chosen to put more and more troops
in harm's way in a war that is making this country less safe in the
long run rather than more safe. This is all about choices, and it's
time that we started making some different ones.
And that's why we got sent here, Mr. Altmire. We got sent here to
start investing in this country, to start making sure that our
priorities look to this country, to the United States of America,
first. And that's what the Labor-HHS appropriations bill does. It is
the foundation of that compassionate government that we all believe in.
It's about medical research. It's about schools. It's about hospitals.
And I hope, as you said, that there will be enough Republicans here
who will join us, and we only need a handful, so that we can reverse
that and bring back some common sense to our spending priorities in
this country, Mr. Altmire.
Mr. ALTMIRE. I wanted to mention one other issue that was in that
bill. We talked about home heating assistance. We talked about health
care for children, medical research. We talked about the Head Start
program, but it's the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. And one
of the programs that's in that bill that the President thought was
excessive spending was additional 200,000 slots for job training for
dislocated workers. And I can tell you, coming from western
Pennsylvania where we know about dislocated workers and the need for
job training and people to readapt when companies move and with the
loss of manufacturing jobs, those are critically important programs
that the President considers to be excessive spending. That's what
we're talking about with this bill. That's what type of spending we're
talking about.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Altmire, if you would yield for a
moment.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Yes, I would.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Really, when it comes down to it, the only
thing that's different here is the party that's writing the budget. I
mean, really, when you look at it over time, what's different about the
last six budgets that this Congress passed that over time expanded
Federal expenditures by 50 percent and the budget that we've passed,
which simply reflects the fact that it costs a little bit more to heat
your home if you're a senior, that it costs a little bit more to run a
school than it did last year? What's different? I mean, the fact is is
that it seems like it's just base partisan politics in the end, that
all that really is different is that the Democrats are writing this
budget this year and the Republicans were writing the last six budgets.
And it is not a coincidence that over the last 6 years we saw nary a
veto from this President while his party was in charge of the Congress,
and now all of a sudden we have seen a flurry of vetoes on bills that
reflect many of the same priorities, we think adjusted to make a little
bit more sense for our communities, many of the same priorities that
were reflected in the budgets for the last 6 years. And I think to a
lot of us that came here to change the culture of this place, as much
as we care about resetting our priorities and putting funding back into
our communities, we also were sort of hoping that there was a little
bit of a message sent in this election to change the partisan rancor
that has really enveloped this place, and the President, by vetoing
bills very similar to ones that he has signed in the past simply
because a different party controls the House, I think does a disservice
to the process and a disservice to the mandates that a lot of voters
sent us here with, Mr. Altmire.
Mr. ALTMIRE. And the last thing for context, before I turn it over to
Ms. Wasserman Schultz from Florida, you will remember, Mr. Murphy and I
both being freshman, the excitement of that first week in Congress and
the things that we did that first week when we were first sworn in at
the beginning of 2007. Well, perhaps the most important thing that we
did was return to pay-as-you-go budget scoring, which is very simple.
It's the same thing that we all do in our own checkbooks at home and
the same thing every business in America has to do. It says that you
have to have money on one side of the ledger if you want to spend it on
the other, pay-as-you-go. If you want to decrease revenue or you want
to increase spending, you have to find a way to pay for it, an offset,
you have to find an offset. And every spending bill and every
authorization bill that we have passed out of this House this year,
every single one of them has been compliant with pay-as-you-go. It has
paid for itself; it's been budget neutral.
So, the context of this debate with the President about his
willingness to veto these bills and saying it's excessive spending, the
American people should be aware of the fact that that's in the context
of our returning to pay-as-you-go budget scoring. That's what led to
the record surpluses of the 1990s that I referred to earlier. And the
failure of this Congress to renew pay-as-you-go budget scoring in 2002
is what led to the record deficits that we're mired in today.
So, when you hear about the vetoes of these spending bills, please
keep in mind that we're talking about bills that are compliant with
pay-as-you-go budget scoring, bills that are budget neutral and that
have the appropriate offsets when there are spending increases.
I would yield at this time to my good friend, Ms. Wasserman Schultz
from Florida.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much, Mr. Altmire. It is a
pleasure again to join my colleagues in the 30-Something Working Group.
And I'm so glad that our newest members of the Working Group, Mr.
Murphy and Mr. Altmire, have been holding down the fort for the last
little while talking about spending priorities, because that is
actually the most glaring difference between the Republicans and the
way they handled this institution and the Democrats and the way we are
handling it.
Let's take the problem that we're facing here now that you've been
talking about, and that is that the President vetoed the Labor Health
and Human Services and Education appropriations bill. And I am proud to
sit as a member of the Appropriations Committee with Mr. Ryan. And I
can tell you that the difference in the overall spending plan that the
President put forward versus our 12 bills combined amounts to $22
billion. Now, $22 billion might sound like a big number, but let's put
it in context.
{time} 2300
Twenty-two billion dollars is approximately what we are spending in
Iraq in 2 months. That's the difference between what Democrats in
Congress are proposing to spend for all 12 bills combined, the
difference between the President's proposal and the Democrats'
proposal. That problem underscores the fact that the President only has
one spending priority, and that is the war in Iraq. The problem is that
the only spending priority that matters to President Bush is the war in
Iraq. It's not even the war in Iraq and Afghanistan because he has so
clearly shortchanged what was going on in Afghanistan when we started,
which is where the war on terror, or the pursuit of bin Laden was
ongoing that we abandoned when he shifted the focus of America to the
war in Iraq, that it has blocked out the sun. His spending priority,
his only one, the war in Iraq, has blocked out the sun and made it
impossible for us to move forward on things like education, like
expanding access to health care for children, like making sure that we
can pass a stem cell research bill that the vast majority of this
country supports.
I will just give you an example of one of the things that resulted
from the veto of the Labor-HHS bill and that is the increase in Ryan
White title IV funding for AIDS programs for families. We have an
explosion of AIDS in this country. We absolutely need to make sure that
we get a handle on it. There hasn't been an increase in title
[[Page 31493]]
IV funding in years. Now that we are in charge and are making sure that
we move this country in a new direction, we are focusing on the
domestic priorities of Americans. Americans want us to withdraw our
troops from Iraq in a responsible way and focus on things that they
care about when it comes to their everyday lives. That is literally
what the Labor-HHS appropriations bill does. It is an expression of our
values. And our values reflect the needs of Americans when it comes to
their health care, when it comes to their education, when it comes to
their environment at work. And the priorities and values reflected in
the Republicans' agenda is the war in Iraq.
Now, I think the American people clearly stated what their intentions
were and what they wanted Congress to do last November 7, and we have
repeatedly, and we did again tonight just before we came on the floor
this evening for the 30-Something hour, they have repeatedly urged us
in Congress to begin a responsible withdrawal of our troops, to stop
sending the troops over for tour after tour, the same men and women,
the same strain on their families, sending them over there without the
equipment that they need, sending them over there without the proper
training, with tours of duty that are beyond the appropriate length of
time, stretching families, causing divorces, causing strain,
psychological impact on children, but they don't care. It just doesn't
matter. The President's priority is Iraq, and everyone else's opinion
be damned.
I will be happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is not just the President. It is enough Members
of Congress on the Republican side primarily that are standing by the
President. They have to go to the voters next year and say, in my last
term in Congress, I stood by President Bush. The thing is that when you
talk about the war funding, the waste, the no-bid contracts, the
Pentagon losing billions of dollars and nobody knows where it is, you
don't hear our friends on the other side, Mr. Speaker, come up and
pitch a fit about that. But if you want to talk about $1 billion or $2
billion more in health, education, job retraining, all of a sudden the
sky is falling. All of a sudden the party that raised the debt limit
five times and borrowed $3 trillion under President Bush is now
concerned with a shift in funding to college education, Mr. Meek, to
community health clinics, Mr. Altmire, to Head Start, to these
fundamental programs that this country has stood behind. And the kicker
is SCHIP, $35 billion over 5 years, and the President says that's too
much spending so we can't provide health care for 10 million kids, poor
kids, but we can just turn around without a blink of an eye and ask for
$200 billion to keep the war going in Iraq, without any kind of
deadlines or timelines or any kind of shift in the focus. That's the
frustrating part.
Before I yield to my friend, I would just like to say there has been
a pattern here. On September 11 or after September 11, Mr. Murphy, it
was go shopping. And then during the whole SCHIP debate, it was, well,
they can go to the emergency room, these kids. Then during Katrina it
was, ``You're doing a good job, Brownie,'' consistently these flippant
remarks that the President tends to make that lacks an understanding of
the seriousness of some of these situations.
So it is frustrating as we are trying to make some investments into
the United States of America, into this country, and the President
consistently, with a small band of Republican supporters, is able to
veto this, and unfortunately, we don't have enough votes in the House
yet to override these vetoes.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you so very much, Mr. Ryan, and I want to
thank the Members and Mr. Altmire for hosting this hour and anchoring
this hour for us. It is always good to see Ms. Wasserman Schultz. She
has been busy. There are a lot of appropriations bills coming through
the floor. And Mr. Murphy has so much to offer to this 30-something.
Mr. Ryan, I appreciate the fact that you took us down Memory Lane,
especially what this administration has done. Being one that pays
attention to history and appreciates those that have contributed to
this country, whether it be in battle or service in the military and
those families that are waiting for their loved ones to come home,
whether it be a son or a daughter or a sister or a brother or a mother,
waiting, I think it is important for us to recognize right here in the
moment, I can't help but think and reflect on the contributions of
those Americans before me, the sacrifices that they have made that was
just regular order that we call here in Congress, it was just another
day. But these were heroes and sheroes that stood on behalf of this
country and wanted to carry out the will of the American people.
Sometimes we get caught up here in Washington about what we think. I
think it's important to note that seven out of 10 Americans have a bad
feeling about what is going on in Iraq, the direction that we are going
in. This New Direction Congress has tried to steer this administration
in the right direction, but I'm just going to put it on the lap of
those that are in Congress. The President is not running again.
I actually got up pretty early this morning and had a chance to go
down to Morning Journal and have a chance to sit there and take calls
from the American people. As you know, you get a cross section of
Democrats, Republicans, independents, what have you.
But I think it is very, very important for us to realize, four
Republicans tonight voted in the affirmative on H.R. 4156, which is the
Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act of 2008. I
think it is important that people note that in that bill, it put forth
$50 billion under the $200 billion that the President called for. And
the veto that you were talking about a little earlier as it relates to
the health centers, as it relates to the research that has to take
place dealing with the illness that many Americans are facing, family
members that have cancer right now that need that research, need those
dollars. The President vetoes those dollars.
So I think it is important for the Members here on the floor and the
Members that are listening to what we are saying here on the floor and
the staff members that are listening and the Americans that are
listening that we pay very close attention. Everyone has to be a part
of this paradigm shift in Washington, DC. It just can't be the majority
we have here in the House and the one majority we have in the Senate,
because if we had 60 votes, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, we would be able to
move the agenda that the American people call for.
So my contribution tonight would be to, well, one, to our Republican
friends on the other side of the aisle that don't allow us to have
enough votes to be able to override the President, that the American
people will hold them in judgment. To the Members in the Senate that
feel that whatever the reason may be to not allow us to override the
President, because the President is not running again, but you are,
that the American people, independent, Republican, Democrat, first-time
voter will let their voice be heard in 2008. That's the good thing
about this whole thing, the fact that I know in this democracy that
people are paying attention to what is going on.
You cannot justify, ladies and gentlemen, when you look in the face
of 10 million children that have to receive health care and say that,
well, it's okay for the President to veto and for me to stand by the
President and not by those children, it's okay for us to continue on in
a war with no accountability, and then we have the Blackwater incident,
and then we have other incidents that are there. So the only thing that
I am excited about is the fact that the American people are paying
attention. But if it was about politics, I would just sit in my office
and allow the President to do what he does and a very small majority as
it relates to Republicans standing by the President because I know one
day the Americans will rise up and the American spirit will rise up and
we will see a different America. That is what I am
[[Page 31494]]
praying for and I am hoping for very soon.
Mr. Ryan, I think you are 110 percent right. I think we need to
remind the Members of the past. We need to make sure that we recognize
those Members that were once Members of Congress but decided to follow
the President, and the American people took them out of office, and as
far as I am concerned, if you don't want to stand on behalf of those
that sent us here, then you are making a career decision. The bottom
line is we have men and women in harm's way right now.
Mr. ALTMIRE. That is a perfect segue for what I wanted to get into
right now, and we are going to, I think, conclude on this topic because
this is certainly the most important issue facing the country today is
the war in Iraq. I think anybody would agree. What this House did today
is, as the gentleman from Florida talked about, try to get a handle on
this situation and try to put a plan in place where none exists today
on what our mission is going to be in Iraq.
I was going to talk a little bit about what we did today in the
House, what the bill said, and I will turn it over to Ms. Wasserman
Schultz to go into a little bit more detail. H.R. 4156 requires the
redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin within 30 days of
enactment with a target for completion of December 15, 2008. It
requires transition in the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq from
primarily combat to force protection and diplomatic protection, limited
support to Iraqi security forces and targeted counterterrorism
operations.
The bill prohibits deployment of any U.S. troops not fully equipped
and trained. Is there anybody who can disagree with that? Waivable with
a presidential national security certification. So it gives the
President the ability to waive that requirement if he feels it is
necessary. It extends to all U.S. Government agencies and personnel the
limitations of the Army Field Manual on permissible interrogation
techniques. That means no torture, something that this House has voted
on in the past. It is in the Army manual today. It just says you have
to abide by what is in the Army Field Manual as it is currently
written. And finally, as we discussed, it provides $50 billion to meet
the needs of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but defers the
consideration of the remainder of the President's nearly $200 billion
request.
So this is a responsible course of action. The House passed it today.
I will yield to the gentlewoman from Florida at this point to give
her views on this issue.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Altmire.
Here is the bottom line. There is a dramatic and stark difference
between the Republicans' priorities and the Democrats' priorities.
There is one priority, and only one that you will ever hear from the
other side, and that is to continue to fund the war in Iraq, continue
to put our troops in harm's way, continue to have their families
separated from them, continue for them to have longer and longer tours
of duty, more and more strain, more and more tours of duty.
Here are our priorities. We passed the largest increase in veterans
benefits in the 77-year history of the VA. We passed legislation to
increase the minimum wage. We passed legislation to expand access to
health care for 10 million children. We passed legislation to cut the
student loan interest rate in half. The list goes on.
And what do you hear from the Republicans? Nothing. You hear, let's
put more money into the war in Iraq. Let's lengthen the time that the
men and women fighting on our behalf spend there. Let's send them over
there for more and more tours of duty. Do you ever hear anything from
that side of the aisle in terms of an agenda, in terms of getting
anything done? All I hear is ``no.'' All I hear is, ``not going to do
that.'' All I hear, again, is, ``Yes, Mr. President. Whatever you say,
Mr. President.''
Our criticism of them, Mr. Meek and Mr. Ryan, if you remember, in the
30-Something Working Group in the 109th was that they were the
bobblehead Republicans who did nothing more than shake their head up
and down and do whatever the President said. And nothing has changed.
Well, guess what. A year from now, which is just about a year from now,
they will be called to account just like you said, Mr. Meek, and we
will see just how many fewer Republicans there will be here that serve
in this chamber, because I think the American people have had it up to
here.
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I just want to make a point. It is not
like we are out on a limb here. We just saw a poll that came out a few
days ago from CNN that shows that seven in 10 Americans oppose this
war. That is the highest number, 68 percent, 70 percent of Americans
oppose this war, the highest number since the war began.
{time} 2315
We are seeing almost by the week, by the day, new generals, new
senior retired American military officials coming out and breaking with
this President. We have already seen the Iraq Study Group, we have
already seen dozens of foreign policy experts come out and plead with
this President. Even many of his best friends, many of his father's
advisors have pleaded for a new course.
The Democrats are on the side of the American public. The Democrats
are on the side of the foreign policy community on Iraq. The Democrats
are on the side of an increasing number of retired military generals
and officials on this issue. As you said, there is just a very loyal,
very recalcitrant block of Republicans who refuse to abide by the
growing will of the American public on this issue. There will be a
price to be paid for this.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman will yield. What is clear
here is there is a threat of panic running through the caucus on the
other side of the aisle because we are up to 16 of their incumbent
Members who have decided to bail and who recognize that the ship is
listing and has been listing badly and is in danger of just completely
going down. There doesn't appear to be any likelihood of the ship
righting itself in the near future. They aren't expected and aren't
expecting to get their act together and focus on an agenda that the
American people support because they have been a one-note, tunnel-
vision party for far too long.
So you have 16 that have decided to retire already, with, we are
sure, more to come. It's just not surprising because they do not share
the priorities of everyday working families, Americans who want the
Congress to focus on a new direction and not give them more of the
same.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It's interesting, and I think you made the right
point. It seems like the President has one priority, and one and only
one, and that is the funding of the war. What is interesting is when
you look at the Labor-HHS bill, some of the other bills we are trying
to pass that increase the Pell Grants and some of the other things, we
are not getting the level of support we should.
These vets need those programs. These veterans that are coming back,
it's not like they are making a lot of money, many of them with their
kids they are trying to send to college. So why wouldn't this apply?
The vets aren't just fighting for the Defense appropriations bill that
passes out of the House or the VA benefit package that passes out of
the House. The veterans are fighting for America. They are fighting for
a strong country that does research and development. Veterans have
family members who get cancer. So they are very concerned, I would
think, Mr. Speaker, with investments at NIH to continue cancer
research. They have kids that may need health care. They have kids that
go to school. They may have a kid that wants to participate in a Head
Start program. In each instance, Mr. Altmire, our fearless leader in
this 30-Something group tonight, these vets are fighting for what makes
America great, and that is freedom, that is investment, that is a
strong economy. Those are the kind of things we are investing in.
[[Page 31495]]
So to say your only priority is the war and spending what is now
projected by the end of the year $1.3 trillion in the war. The
President says, and a small group of recalcitrant Republicans say here
in the House: We can't fund it because we don't have the money to put
in the health care and everything else.
Mr. MEEK. Will the gentleman yield for a second? I know you're an
appropriator and we are talking about appropriations. You and Mr.
Murphy are kind of throwing around these big words tonight. Let it be
known that some of us in the room just want to break it down a little
bit here in this Chamber.
I can't go back to my district and tell Ms. Johnson and Ms. Rodriguez
or Ms. Jones who worked their entire lives that because the President
decides to veto the Labor-Health bill, and I think it's important that
we share this with the Members, we can't tell those individuals to suck
it up. I am sorry that you weren't in the Defense bill. I am sorry that
it had nothing to do with Iraq and Afghanistan, that we can't be for
you.
One thing I can say here in this House is that we are for them and
that we are standing for those individuals, and they are Republicans
and they are Independents and they are Democrats and they are nonvoters
and individuals thinking about voting for the first time. They are the
sick and shut-in on that sick and shut-in list when people go to
wherever they worship, or whatever the case may be. They are the
individuals counting on this Congress to stand for them.
The Congress is doing what we are supposed to do, Mr. Altmire. But
the bottom line is that the President has to do what he has to do, and
he has to be the President of the United States of America, not just to
secure the issue in Iraq. We have Americans here right now that need
our support and our help.
I am glad that we are here and I am glad that we are putting the
pressure on the minority party to do the right thing on behalf of their
constituents and the American people.
Mr. Altmire.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Thanks to all my colleagues who participated tonight.
Thanks, especially, Mr. Speaker for the time allotted to us. Please, to
continue the discussion, anyone can go to www.speaker.gov and go to the
30-Something Working Group and we can continue this discussion by e-
mail.
I thank the Speaker.
____________________
AMERICAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is recognized
for the remaining time until midnight as the designee of the minority
leader.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the Speaker. The hour is late, the time is
short. I do want to talk a little bit about health care this evening.
Maybe, Mr. Speaker, in order to clear the air from the last 40 minutes,
let's start off with a Bible verse. Let's start off reading from the
Old Testament from the book of Habakkuk, Chapter 2. ``I will stand upon
my watch, and I will set me upon the tower, and I will watch to see
what he will say to me, and what I shall answer. And the Lord answered,
Write the vision, make it plain upon tables, that he may run that
readeth it. For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end
it shall speak and not lie. Wait for it, because it will surely come.
It will not tarry.''
Mr. Speaker, I think those are important words. We are going to talk
a little bit about the vision for health care, the future of health
care in America. Sometimes we will have to wait for it, but it will
come. It's a universal problem in this country. Some people think it
has a universal solution; others disagree with that. But those two
philosophies of health care, that that can be solved by the government
or that that is better solved by individuals, those two competing
philosophies are really going to be played out front and center over
the next 18 to 24 months, both in this Congress and on the national
stage in Presidential elections.
I may be oversimplifying the issue a little bit, but it underscores
the basic arrangements. We sometimes appear to discuss health care only
in the realm of insurance, government systems, third-party systems. In
fact, Mr. Speaker, if you recall back in 1993, when the attempt was
made with the Clinton health care plan, a lot of us who worked in
health care at the time were perplexed, we were concerned because at
the time the plan seemed to be less about health care and more about
the transactions involving health care, that is, more about insurance
than actual health care.
You know, back not too terribly long ago health care meant you called
your doctor, you saw your doctor, you paid your doctor on the spot.
Now, we have this convoluted system of third-party payers, government
payers, private employee and self-pay. It's a complicated plan. It
works. Hardly can be described as efficient. But it does work.
Mr. Speaker, we have got to ask ourselves: Is our goal in reforming
health care, is our goal indeed in transforming health care to protect
our patients or are we here to protect that third-party system of
payment? Is our goal to provide Americans with a reasonable way to
obtain health care, a reasonable way to communicate with their
physician, with their doctor, with their nurse?
We really need to proceed carefully because the consequences of any
poor choices we make over these next 18 to 24 months, the consequences
of those poor choices will reverberate for decades. Not just in our
lifetime, but in our children's lifetimes.
Mr. Speaker, I often stress that the fundamental unit of production
of this great and grand American medical machine, the fundamental unit
of production is the interaction that takes place between the doctor
and the patient in the treatment room. It is that fundamental unit of
production which we must protect, we must preserve, we must defend.
Indeed, anything we do to try to transform or reform the health care
system in this country, first off, we need to ask: Is it going to bring
value to that fundamental unit of production of the American health
care machine?
The test before us is do we protect people or do we protect the
special interest groups. Do we protect big government or do we protect
individuals? Do we believe in the supremacy of the State or do we
believe in the sanctity of the individual? An educated consumer makes
for a better health care system. We need to make health care reform
about patients.
Let me just spend a little time talking about what are some of the
predominant plans that we hear talked about, some of those placed
forward by the Presidential candidates, something that we hear talked
about on the other side of the aisle here in this House. It's often
referred to as a single-payer system or universal health care coverage.
It's got a nice ring to it. It's almost seductive. Why shouldn't the
world's strongest and best economy, the world's strongest and best
health care system provide free health care to all? Well, perhaps the
words of P.J. O'Rourke penned back in 1993 in the Liberty Manifesto,
when he stated, If you think health care is expensive now, wait and see
what it costs when it's free.
Mr. Speaker, the American health care system has no shortage of
critics at home or abroad. But, Mr. Speaker, it is the American health
care system that stands at the forefront of innovation, the forefront
of new technology. These are precisely the types of systemwide changes
that are going to be necessary to efficiently and effectively provide
care for Americans in the future. There's no way we can pay for all the
care we are going to need to buy if we rely entirely on today's systems
and solutions. There have to be new systems and solutions developed for
the future, and they will deliver on that promise. The price will come
down, but only if we give the system the freedom to act and develop
those measures.
Now, the New York Times, not something that I normally read, but just
a little over a year ago the New York Times, renowned for its liberal
leanings, published October 5, 2006, an article by Tyler Cowan, who
wrote at
[[Page 31496]]
the time, ``When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is
the world's leader.'' Continuing to quote, ``In the past 10 years, for
instance, 12 Nobel prizes in medicine have gone to American-born
scientists working in the United States, three have gone to foreign-
born scientists working in the United States, and seven have gone to
researchers outside of this country.'' He goes on to point out that
five of the six most important medical innovations of the past 25 years
have been developed within and because of the American system.
Now, Mr. Speaker, comparisons with other countries may be useful, but
it is important to remember that the American system is always
reinventing itself and it's always seeking improvement. It is precisely
because of the tension inherent in this hybrid public-private system
that creates that tension and creates that impetus for change. A system
that is completely and fully funded by a payroll tax or some other
policy has no reason to seek improvement. Its funding and its funding
stream is going to be reliable and predictable, occurring day after
day. There's no reason to try to improve a system like that. It's
always in complete balance, complete equilibrium, and faces stagnation.
But if there does become a need in such a system to balance payments or
control costs, where is that going to come from? We have already seen
from our experience within our own Medicare system that is going to
come at the expense of the provider. It always has, it always will.
{time} 2330
The difficulties faced by providers within the Medicare system on an
ongoing basis are truly staggering.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is the United States is not Europe. American
patients are accustomed to wide choices when it comes to hospitals,
physicians and pharmaceuticals. Because our experience is unique and
because our experience is different from other countries, this
difference should be acknowledged and embraced, maybe even celebrated.
But certainly when reform, either public or private, is discussed in
this country, we need to be cognizant of that difference.
That is one of the many reasons why a universal health care system,
or a single payer system, translate that to ``the government,'' to me
seems almost inadvisable, and certainly doesn't seem sustainable over
time as an option. So let's think about some of the principles that
really should be involved when we talk about changes and improvements
to our health care system.
Three principles that I focus on, and I think really form the crux of
the basis of all activities regarding health care reform or
transformation of the health care system, are affordability,
accountability and advancements. Three things fairly easy to remember,
almost an iteration when you put them right together.
Under affordability, one of the things I think we oftentimes forget
is what does it really cost to deliver the care? How do we assign those
costs? How do we allocate those costs? The pricing for health care
services really ought to be based on what is indicated by the market.
But that isn't always the case. Oftentimes it is what is assumed by
administrators, and consumers and even physicians are completely
insulated, completely anesthetized as to what the care costs or what it
costs to deliver the care.
Now, an article or an op-ed from the Wall Street Journal earlier this
year by Robert Swerlick, a dermatologist from Emory University, the
title of his column was ``Our Soviet Health System.'' He laments the
difficulty in finding a pediatric endocrinologist, but in turn it seems
so easy to find a veterinarian who specializes in orthopedics for his
Labrador Retriever. So he can't find a doctor for his child, but he has
no trouble finding one for his canine acquaintance.
Now, the reason for that is the administrative pricing system that
really is dictated by our Medicare system. And I think Dr. Swerlick
really hits the nail on the head. He says, ``The roots of this problem
lie in the use of an administrative pricing structure in medicine. The
way prices are set in health care already distort the appropriate
allocation of efforts and resources in health care today.
Unfortunately,'' he goes on to say, ``many of the suggested reforms in
our health care system, including various plans for universal care or
universal insurance or a single-payer system that various policymakers
espouse, rest on the same unsound foundations and will produce more of
the same.''
He goes on to say, ``The essential problem is this: The pricing of
medical care in this country is either directly or indirectly dictated
by Medicare.'' We have a system of Federal price controls in medicine
in this country.
Again, continuing to quote, ``Rather than independently calculate
prices, private insurers in this country almost universally use
Medicare prices as a framework to negotiate payments, generally setting
payments for services as a percentage of the Medicare fee schedule.''
This is an extremely important point, Mr. Speaker, and one that I
don't think Members of this body truly grasp. It is so important, we
are going to revisit it again in a minute when we talk about Medicare
pricing and what is happening in the physician realm. But remember
that, because that is an extremely important point.
Medicare administrators set the prices. Private insurance companies
in this country tend to follow suit. So when you say we have got a
market-based economy in health care, really nothing could be further
from the truth.
``And,'' as Dr. Swerlick goes on to say, ``unlike prices set on
market conditions, the errors created are not self-correcting. Markets
may not get the prices exactly correct all of the time, but they are
capable of self-correction, a capacity that has yet to be demonstrated
by administrative pricing.''
Again, he goes on to associate this with the system that was in place
in the old Soviet Union, and in fact correctly relates some of the
problems in the old Soviet economy to the reason the old Soviet Union
is not with us any longer. So we really need to pay careful attention
to that.
Transparency, I think that is something that we talk about a lot, but
we don't spend nearly the time focusing on the issue as we should.
Transparency between pricing for physicians and hospitals is essential.
We want to go to a system where there is more consumer-directed health
care, where consumers are more informed. But in order for consumers to
be informed, they have to have the ability to go and get the data.
Right now, the opacity built into the pricing structure between
physicians and hospitals is significant, and, as a consequence, it
becomes very, very difficult for the patient, the health care consumer,
to be able to make those determinations.
The other aspect that enters into it, of course, is the issue of
physician quality. Sometimes that is an intangible. Sometimes that is
something that is difficult to know just from visiting a Web site or
checking data that may be available, and that may be the word of mouth
type of information that is delivered from one patient to another. A
wait time, for example, in one office that is much longer than in
another office, you might be willing to pay a little bit more to wait a
little bit less time, or you might be willing to wait a little bit more
time if the care delivered in that office is truly exemplary.
Now, Texas has taken some steps to make this more of a reality. I
think people would like the ability for comparison. In fact, they would
like to be able to go on-line for that comparison. I think Travelocity
For Health Care, wouldn't that be a powerful tool to put into people's
hands.
An example in Texas is what is called Texas Price Point. There is a
Web site, www.txpricepoint.org, which was created to provide basic
demographic quality and charge information on Texas hospitals and to
promote additional or ready access to consumer and hospital information
and the appropriate interaction that could occur as a result of that.
The program is very new. The data sometimes is a little too sparse,
but it
[[Page 31497]]
is a program that will build on itself over time and one that will I
think provide significant utility to patients in Texas. And I believe
other States have other programs. I think Florida has a program that is
up and running. These are going to be critical. Some insurance
companies have developed their own programs, and that will provide a
critical knowledge base for patients who are covered by those insurance
companies.
One of the things that is going to affect affordability, even
accessibility as far as physicians are concerned, is what I alluded to
earlier with the Medicare pricing.
Mr. Speaker, we had reported to us from the Center for Medicare and
Medicaid Services the first of this month, not even 2 weeks ago, that
the proposed physician payment cuts for next year will be just a little
bit over 10 percent for doctors across-the-board in this country. That
is untenable. Doctors cannot be expected to sustain that type of
reduction.
There is no telling what it does to a physician's ability to plan. A
physician's office, after all, is a small business, and if they are
going to be facing this type of price reduction, it is very difficult
to plan. Do you hire a new nurse, do you purchase a new piece of
equipment, do you take on a new partner, when year over year the
Medicare system visits this type of travesty upon physicians? And this
Congress, through both Republican majorities and now Democratic
majorities, and Democratic majorities that preceded 1994, have refused
to deal with this issue in a way that corrects it once and for all and
gets us past the problem.
The difficulty is that year over year, the physician pricing is set
by a formula called the sustainable growth rate formula, and year over
year for the past 5 years and projected for 10 years into the future,
every year there is a cut to physician reimbursement.
Now, you might say that doctors earn enough money and it is the
Medicare system, so what harm is there in that? Let's go back for just
a moment to Dr. Swerlick's article about administrative pricing.
``Again,'' he said, ``the essential problem is this. The pricing of
medical care in this country is either directly or indirectly dictated
by Medicare, and Medicare uses an administrative formula, the
sustainable growth rate formula, which calculates appropriate prices
based upon imperfect estimates and fudge factors. Rather than
independently calculate prices, private insurers in this country almost
universally use Medicare prices as a framework to negotiate payments,
generally setting payments for services as a percentage of the Medicare
fee structure.''
So, let's think about that, Mr. Speaker. What happens on January 1 if
this House does not take some action to prevent that 10 percent
reduction in physician payments? What happens on January 1 is all of
those insurance contracts that peg to Medicare reimbursement rates, all
of those are going to be reduced by a factor of about 10 percent, or in
some cases a little bit more. If a plan pays 120 percent of Medicare
and Medicare is reduced 10 percent, that plan will reduce a concomitant
amount, which will be a little bit in excess of 10 percent for their
pricing on their physician services.
Again, it has ripples and effects far beyond, far beyond what it
would be affected just by the Medicare system. And it leads to a
problem, it leads to a problem of what happens with the physician
workforce.
Now, just a little over 2 years ago, when Alan Greenspan, the former
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board here in Washington, DC, was
retiring and sort of made a tour around the Capitol, sort of a one last
victory lap around the Capitol, and came and met with a group of us one
morning, the question was inevitably asked, what do we do about
Medicare? What do we do about the liabilities, the future liabilities
in Medicare? How are we going to meet those obligations?
The chairman thought about it for a moment and then said, you know, I
think when the time comes, Congress will take the action necessary and
that the Medicare system will endure, will be preserved. There may be
some difficult choices and trade-offs that have to be made, but
Congress at the correct time will make those choices.
He stopped for a moment and then went on to say, what concerns me
more, is will there be anyone there to deliver the services when you
require them?
And that really comes to the crux of the matter here. If we have a
system within our Medicare reimbursement schedule for physicians where
within the whole Medicare system itself, parts A, B, C and D, if only
part B is affected by this, part A, which is the hospitals, they have a
cost of living adjustment, part C, which is HMOs, they have a cost of
living adjustment, part D, which is prescription drugs, they have a
cost of living adjustment, if the only ones living under this onerous
formula are the physicians, what happens over time?
Well, what happens is people will retire early, people will restrict
their practices so they no longer see Medicare patients, physicians
will restrict the procedures that they offer Medicare patients, perhaps
preferring office procedures to surgical procedures that tend to be
more labor intensive and time intensive.
It certainly has an effect on the law of supply and demand, if you
will, as far as physician services are concerned within the Medicare
system itself. For that reason, for that reason, it has a significantly
pernicious effect on the physician workforce.
Remember, I started out this talk and I said we always want to focus
on are we delivering value to that doctor-patient interaction in the
treatment room? Well, I will submit if you don't have a doctor there
for that doctor-patient interaction in the treatment room, it is
impossible to deliver value of any sort, if you don't have the
physician there in the first place.
So that is a critical part. A critical part of establishing and
creating value for the patient is ensuring that there is indeed a
capable and trained and caring physician there for that patient in the
treatment room. And I worry that what we are providing for physician
compensation within the Medicare system, which has ramifications
throughout the entire private pay structure through the health care
system, I do worry if that is a condition that can indeed be sustained.
Now, one of the other things that I think we oftentime lose sight of
when we talk about affordability, we always talk about the number of
uninsured that exist in this country. Sure enough, it is too big a
number. The number varies, depending upon who you read.
But if we talk about the number today, we are probably going to talk
about a number of around 47 million uninsured. And we always stop there
and say, well, we have to do something about the 47 million who are
uninsured, as if that was one homogenous population and one solution
would work for everyone who is caught up in that category.
But the reality is, one of the large insurance companies in this
country did a little investigating to see who makes up, who is involved
in this population, this universe of people who are uninsured.
{time} 2345
It turns out 10 percent are university students. If you say we have
47 or 48 million people uninsured, 10 percent of that is 4.8 million,
nearly 5 million, are university students. Students who may arguably
have health coverage available through their university or college. But
even if they don't, this is a group of people that is pretty easy to
insure. It is pretty inexpensive to insure.
So a solution for that group would be vastly different than some of
the other groups identified. Twenty percent of that population is
already eligible for Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance
Program. Why States with outreach efforts have not identified those
individuals, I don't know. Perhaps we ought to make it incumbent for
States to do that work.
If we are providing Federal funds at all sorts of levels, maybe we
ought to make it incumbent on States to do
[[Page 31498]]
that outreach work so those individuals are enrolled in Federal
programs to provide that. Again, think about it: 20 percent of 47 or 48
million people, that is almost 10 million people that could be taken
off the rolls of the uninsured tomorrow because the programs already
exist to take care of them. You don't need to create a new program or
do something different from what you are doing right now. Current
Medicaid, current SCHIP will cover 20 percent of that population.
And 20 percent earn almost $80,000 a year. That is not a huge sum of
money, but certainly a group of people that might be considered to be
able to provide something toward their own health care. I am not a fan
of mandates. I don't think you get anywhere by telling people what they
have to do. But if we allow insurance companies some freedom to create
the types of programs that would be of value to that segment of the
population, that would be affordable to that segment of the population,
if we would perhaps remove some restrictions, maybe remove some
mandates, or decide what are those things that are going to comprise a
basic package of benefits so we can make it affordable and marketable
to that group of individuals who arguably have some disposable income
that they could use towards their health care rather than creating a
huge, new Federal structure to bring them in. Maybe that is a tactic
that could be taken.
Mr. Speaker, we don't like to focus a lot of time and energy on this,
but we have to talk about it, and that is 20 percent of the people who
fall into the category of the universe of uninsured people in this
country are individuals who are in the country without the benefit of a
Social Security number. Again, that is something that we as a country
and we as a Congress do need to deal with. Whether that is increased
efforts at controlling who is coming into our country and increased
efforts at controlling our borders, but this is part of the problem
that we as a Congress have yet to really face and deal with.
We made some efforts, to be sure, in the current State Children's
Health Insurance Program. One of the recent legislative proposals that
came through Congress and was passed by Congress that is still tied up
in negotiations wanted to relax the verification required for someone
being able to document or verify that they are in this country legally.
I don't know. I think this body needs to decide what direction it wants
to go on this. I don't know that is a terribly useful activity from my
perspective. It might engender more people wanting to come into this
country to get benefits, but that is something that this Congress has
to take up and face no matter how difficult it is.
Mr. Speaker, we have talked about 10 percent university students, 20
percent already eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP, 20 percent who earn
nearly $80,000 a year and 20 percent who are noncitizens. If we add
those all together, that is approximately, 10, 20, 30, plus 5, so 35
million out of 47 million uninsured. We may have some solutions that
are really just at our fingertips if we would expend a little bit of
effort. And this is very frustrating to me. We never seem to want to do
the effort to break down who is included in the population.
We are all too content to take the number 47 million uninsured and
use it as a political bludgeon to beat each other over the head, but we
are never willing to do the work that a private insurance company did
in a relatively short period of time. We never seem to be willing to do
the work. With all of our Federal agencies and bureaus that count
numbers and people, we never seem to be able or willing to do the work
to get this number, break it down into the smaller subsets, the smaller
populations where, in fact, we may be able to provide some significant
benefit.
Now, one of the things that I think we do need to talk about is on
the aspect of accountability. First off, in any system that we talk
about devising or implementing, we surely have to keep freedom of
choice. We want to see the doctors we want to see when we want to see
them. When hospitalization is required, freedom of choice has to remain
central.
One of the things that oftentimes gets lost in the discussion when
you look at the breakdown of how health care expenditures occurs in
this country, approximately half is paid for by the Federal Government.
When you look at the Medicare and Medicaid programs, we heard some
discussion of the HHS appropriations bill, $680 billion, almost $700
billion spent by this country every year by Medicaid and Medicare. Add
to that the money spent in the veterans health service and add to that
the money spent in the Indian health service and add to that the money
spent in the Federal prison system, and you come pretty close to 50
cents out of every health care dollar that is spent in this country has
its origin here on the floor of this Congress. So that is a pretty big
chunk that comes from the Federal Government already.
The other half is not entirely private insurance, but certainly there
is a large portion accounted by private or commercial insurance in this
country. A portion, a portion is paid for by the patient out of their
pocket.
I would include the growing number of people who are covered by
health savings accounts in this group. Health savings accounts being a
high-deductible insurance policy where a person is able to accumulate
dollars, pre-tax dollars in a savings account dedicated to their health
care. Those dollars are owned by the individual. They are dollars that
would, if something happened to the individual, they would stay in the
family. They don't go back to the Federal Government like Social
Security. These are dollars that would stay around and be there to help
your family. They would be there to help someone when they transition
into the Medicare system.
Mr. Speaker, I had a medical savings account back in the 1990s when I
was in the private practice of medicine back in Texas. I thought it was
a great thing, not so much because of the money I was accumulating in
this medical IRA. I thought it was a great thing because that was the
time when HMOs were making big inroads into our medical practice in
north Texas, and I liked the idea of being in charge of my health care
decisions because I owned my own health insurance policy. As an
individual policy, I felt I had much more power over what decisions
were made for my health care and my family's health care.
So the whole concept of ownership, owning that medical IRA and being
allowed to accumulate those savings to offset future medical expenses,
that is a fundamental desire of many Americans. And I think that is a
desire that should be encouraged and embellished. Why not be able to
accumulate a few dollars dedicated toward your future health care
needs? That is a pretty powerful tool to put into people's hands.
Again, for me the issue was being able to be in charge of my own
health care, that individual freedom that comes with increased
sovereignty. That was critical for me when I went out and looked for a
medical savings account when they were first offered back in 1996 or
1997.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, whenever we talk about accountability within
the health care system, independence of the patient, the patient as an
independent agent is something that must be preserved. That
preservation of autonomy for the patient or the patient's designee if a
medical power of attorney is exercised, but that is who should be
responsible for the care, to be able to accept care, to be able to
decline care if a particular medical intervention is either sought or
someone wishes to not participate in the medical intervention that is
offered. That is a fundamental right that we really should not take
away from people.
Advancements within the system. Again, the science of our medicine
here in the United States is superior to that anywhere else in the
world. You might say that our system of allocation or delivery system
needs work, but no one can argue about the science that is present in
the medical system in this country.
[[Page 31499]]
So, high standards. We want to keep those high standards. The
underpinnings of the American medical system has always been that we
have high standards and we enforce standards of excellence, and nothing
in the future should change that or undermine that. In fact, pathways
to facilitate future growth in excellence should be encouraged.
When you talk about expanding the role of the Federal Government in
health care, you look at some other places where the Federal Government
has a really big footprint, like our Social Security system, or the
IRS. Are those systems administered with the highest standard? Or is it
lowest common denominator? That is certainly a question worth asking
before we increase that segment that is taken over by the Federal
Government.
As far as innovative approaches, American medicine has always been
characterized by embracing innovation, developing new technologies and
treatments. The transformational times we have had in medicine in the
last century, development of anesthesia and blood banking in the 1910-
1920 time frame, development of large-scale production of antibiotics
and anti-inflammatory agents in the 1940s, the development of
antipsychotic and antidepressant medications in the 1960s, development
of newer hypertensive agents in the 1960s, the beginning of the
development of medicines or the recognition that elevated cholesterol
levels could lead to disease, and the beginning of medicines that would
begin to impact that in the 1960s, all of those transformational
events. And during those same times, in the 1910 to 1920 time frame,
you had a congressional investigation or commission to investigate the
vast discrepancy between curricula in medical schools in one part of
the country versus another, and the standardization of medical school
curricula which was so critical for establishing that knowledge base of
science that was going to carry us forward through the last century.
In the 1940s, you are the introduction of employer-based insurance
because of a reaction to wage and price controls that were in existence
in the 1940s. And finally in the 1960s, you had the interjection of
Medicare and Medicaid, for the first time the Federal Government having
a big footprint in paying for health care.
So all of those transformational times were where the science changed
rapidly and the public policy changed rapidly. I think we are on the
cusp of such a time right now. Things are going to be changing in the
realm of the whole arena of personalized medicine. The threshold of
that stretches just before us.
The whole concept of far earlier prevention than anyone has thought
possible. We have all heard that an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure. Well, we are going to get to use those ounces of
prevention because of the studies and work that has gone on with
studying the human genome and the whole phenomenon of genomic medicine.
We are going to be able to get that ounce of prevention administered so
much earlier. So we will get the equity from that pound of cure in so
many ways that really we can't even fathom them at this point.
What is critical is that this Congress not get caught up in the
transactional, not always get caught up in the insurance and the
Medicaid and the Medicare. Don't be so caught up in the transactional
that you block the transformational because that is the real tragedy.
That is the real difficulty. That is the real danger to the generations
for a decade from now, two decades from now, three decades from now.
That is why this Congress needs to be so focused on this issue. That
is why all of us on both sides of the aisle need to make ourselves
students of health care policy. We need to find out as much as we
possibly can about it. We need to come to this floor every day and
every night prepared to debate this on the merits and science. Leave
the politics on the side. This is one of those issues that is too
important to leave to politics.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Sessions (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today on account of
personal reasons.
Mr. Weller of Illinois (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today and
the balance of the week on account of a death in the family.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Ms. Woolsey) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Etheridge, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. Boyda of Kansas, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. McDermott, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. McCarthy of New York, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Waters, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Schwartz, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Lamborn) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Hoekstra, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Fallin, for 5 minutes, today and November 15.
(The following Member (at his own request) to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Broun of Georgia, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
BILLS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT
Lorraine C. Miller, Clerk of the House, reports that on November 8,
2007, she presented to the President of the United States, for his
approval, the following bill.
H.R. 3043. Making appropriations for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and
for other purposes.
Lorraine C. Miller, Clerk of the House, reports that on November 9,
2007, she presented to the President of the United States, for his
approval, the following bill.
H.R. 3222. Making appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and
for other purposes.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at midnight), under its
previous order, the House adjourned until today, Thursday, November 15,
2007, at 9 a.m.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
4112. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Asian Longhorned Beetle; Additions to
Quarantined Areas [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0127] received
November 5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Agriculture.
4113. A letter from the Counsel for Legislation and
Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Housing Choice
Voucher Program Homeownership Option; Eligibility of Units
Not Yet Under Construction [Docket No. FR-4991-F-02] (RIN:
2577-AC60) received November 5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
4114. A letter from the Assistant to the Board, Federal
Reserve System, transmitting the System's final rule -- Truth
in Lending [Regulation Z; Docket No. R-1284] received
November 6, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Financial Services.
[[Page 31500]]
4115. A letter from the Assistant to the Board, Federal
Reserve System, transmitting the System's final rule --
Consumer Leasing [Regulation M; Docket No. R-1283] received
November 6, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Financial Services.
4116. A letter from the Assistant to the Board, Federal
Reserve System, transmitting the System's final rule -- Truth
in Savings [Regulation DD; Docket No. R-1285] received
November 6, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Financial Services.
4117. A letter from the Assistant to the Board, Federal
Reserve System, transmitting the System's final rule -- Equal
Credit Opportunity [Regulation B; Docket No. R-1281] received
November 6, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Financial Services.
4118. A letter from the Assistant to the Board, Federal
Reserve System, transmitting the System's final rule --
Electronic Fund Transfer [Regulation E; Docket No. R-1282]
received November 6, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Financial Services.
4119. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Education,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Academic
Competitiveness Grant Program and National Science and
Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant Program [Docket ID
ED-2007-OPE-0135] (RIN: 1840-AC92) received November 6, 2007,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Education and Labor.
4120. A letter from the General Counsel, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's final
rule -- Revisions to Landowner Notification and Blanket
Certificate Regulations [Docket No. RM07-17-000; Order No.
700] received November 5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4121. A letter from the Director, International
Cooperation, Department of Defense, transmitting Pursuant to
Section 27(f) of the Arms Export Control Act and Section 1(f)
of Executive Order 11958, Transmittal No. 13-07 informing of
an intent to sign the Weapons Effects and Protection
Technology Project Agreement between the United States and
Singapore, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2767(f); to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
4122. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Export Licensing Jurisdiction for
Microelectronic Circuits [Docket No. 070426097-7099-01] (RIN:
0694-AE02) received November 6, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4123. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Expanded Licensing Jurisdiction
for QRS11 Micromachined Angular Rate Sensors [Docket No.
0612242561-7519-01] (RIN: 0694-AD92) received November 6,
2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
4124. A letter from the Under Secretary for Industry and
Security, Department of Commerce, transmitting a report that
the Department intends to impose new foreign policy-based
export controls on QRS11 Micromachines Angular Rate Sensors,
under the authority of Section 6 of the Export Administration
Act of 1979, as amended, and continued by Executive Order
13222 of August 17, 2001, as extended by the Notice of August
15, 2007; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4125. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting pursuant to
section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, certification
of a proposed license for the export of defense articles and
services to the Government of Saudi Arabia (Transmittal No.
DDTC 086-07); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4126. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Energy,
transmitting the semiannual report on the activities of the
Office of Inspector General for the period April 1, 2007 to
September 30, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen.
Act) section 5(b); to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
4127. A letter from the Executive Director, Christopher
Columbus Fellowship Foundation, transmitting pursuant to the
Accountability of Tax Dollars Act, the Foundation's Form and
Content Reports for the year ended September 30, 2007, as
prepared by the U.S. General Services Administration; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
4128. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Justice, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
4129. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Justice, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
4130. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of
Transportation, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
4131. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Veterans Affairs, transmitting a report pursuant to the
Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
4132. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Veterans Affairs, transmitting a report pursuant to the
Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
4133. A letter from the Executive Director, Federal
Retirement Thrift Investment Board, transmitting a list of
the eight audit reports issued during fiscal year 2007
regarding the Agency and the Thrift Savings Plan, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 8439(b); to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
4134. A letter from the Deputy Chief, Regulatory Management
Division, Office of the Executive Secretariat, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Removal of Receipt Requirement for Certain H and L
Adjustment Applicants Returning From a Trip Outside the
United States [CIS No. 2420-07; Docket No. USCIS-2007-0047]
(RIN: 1615-AB62) received November 5, 2007, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
4135. A letter from the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Department of Justice, transmitting the 2006
Biennial Report on the Effectiveness of Grant Programs under
the Violence Against Women Act, pursuant to Public Law 106-
386, section 1003; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
4136. A letter from the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Department of Justice, transmitting the 2005 annual
report on the STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant
Program, pursuant to Public Law 106-386, section 2004(b); to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
4137. A letter from the Deputy Director of Civil Works,
Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final
rule -- United States Navy Restricted Area, Key West Harbor,
at U.S. Naval Base, Key West, Florida -- received November 6,
2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4138. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Update for Weighted Average Interest Rates,
Yield Curves, and Segment Rates [Notice 2007-91] received
November 7, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
4139. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Section 417. ---- Definitions and Special Rules
For Purposes of Minimum Survivor Annuity Requirements (Rev.
Rul. 2007-67) received November 7, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
4140. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Qualified Alternative Fuel Motor Vehicles
(QAFMV) and Heavy Hybrid Vehicles -- received November 7,
2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
4141. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- 26 CFR 601.204: Changes in
accounting periods and in methods of accounting. (Also Part
1, 446, 481) (Rev. Proc. 2007-67) received November 7, 2007,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
4142. A letter from the Chief, Publications and
Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule -- Foreign Tax Credit: Notification of
Foreign Tax Redeterminations [TD 9362] (RIN: 1545-BG23)
received November 7, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
4143. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Industry Overview Series Motor Vehicle Industry
[LMSB Control Number: LMSB-04-0507-043] received November 5,
2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
4144. A letter from the Assistant Administrator, Bureau for
Legislative and Public Affairs, U.S. Agency for International
Development, transmitting the Agency's report on Multilateral
Development Banks' Assistance Proposals likely to have
substantial adverse impacts on environment, natural
resources, public health and indigenous peoples, pursuant to
Public Law 100-202, section 537; jointly to the Committees on
Financial Services and Appropriations.
4145. A letter from the Deputy Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, transmitting notification that the
Department intends to use FY 2008 IMET funds for Sudan,
pursuant to Public Law 110-5, section 520; jointly to the
Committees on Foreign Affairs and Appropriations.
4146. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a copy of
Presidential Determination No. 2008-2, waiving and certifying
the statutory provisions regarding the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO) Office;
[[Page 31501]]
jointly to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and
Appropriations.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida: Committee on Rules. House
Resolution 824. Resolution providing for further
consideration of the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a
procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign
intelligence, and for other purposes (Rept. 110-449).
Referred to the House Calendar.
Mr. ARCURI: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 825.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3915) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to reform consumer
mortgage practices and provide accountability for such
practices, to establish licensing and registration
requirements for residential mortgage originators, to provide
certain minimum standards for consumer mortgage loans, and
for other purposes (Rept. 110-450). Referred to the House
Calendar.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. MOORE of Kansas:
H.R. 4172. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 and the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation
Act of 2001 to restore the estate tax and repeal the
carryover basis rule and to increase the estate tax unified
credit to an exclusion equivalent of $3,500,000; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. HONDA:
H.R. 4173. A bill to amend the Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act to promote the participation of
absent overseas voters in elections for Federal office, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on House Administration,
and in addition to the Committee on 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. ALLEN (for himself, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Gilchrest,
Mr. Baird, Mr. Ehlers, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Holt, Mr.
Olver, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr.
Ruppersberger, and Mrs. Christensen):
H.R. 4174. A bill to establish an interagency committee to
develop an ocean acidification research and monitoring plan
and to establish an ocean acidification program within the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; to the
Committee on Science and Technology.
By Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr.
Scott of Virginia, Mr. Forbes, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez
of California, Mr. Davis of Alabama, and Ms. Jackson-
Lee of Texas):
H.R. 4175. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code,
with respect to data privacy and security, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. KING of New York (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
Boehner, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Smith of Texas,
Mr. Kuhl of New York, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. McHugh, Mr.
Fossella, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mrs. Miller of Michigan,
Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Tancredo, Mrs. Myrick, Mr.
Baker, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Feeney, Mr. David Davis of
Tennessee, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mrs. Boyda of
Kansas, Mr. Shays, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr.
McCotter, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Roskam, Mr.
Chabot, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Pence, Mr. Culberson, Mr.
Poe, Mrs. Drake, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Deal of
Georgia, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Pearce,
Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Royce, Mr.
McCaul of Texas, Mr. Souder, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. King of
Iowa, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Akin, Mr.
LoBiondo, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Campbell of California,
Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Walsh of New York, Mr.
Keller, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Dent, Mr. Coble,
Mr. Alexander, Mr. Terry, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr.
Bachus, Mr. Rehberg, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Calvert, Mr.
Aderholt, Mr. Herger, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Duncan, Mr.
Bilbray, Mr. Reichert, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Lewis of
Kentucky, Mr. Young of Florida, Mr. Hunter, Mr.
LaTourette, Mr. Latham, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Gerlach,
Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Renzi, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Linder,
Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Wolf,
Mr. Goode, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Platts, Mr.
Franks of Arizona, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Wicker, Mr.
Gallegly, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite
of Florida, Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, Mr. Sam Johnson of
Texas, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania,
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Rogers of Michigan,
Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. Price of Georgia,
Ms. Granger, Mr. Fortenberry, Mr. Davis of Kentucky,
Mr. Thornberry, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Buyer, Ms. Fallin,
Mr. Bonner, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Boozman,
Mr. Turner, Mr. Everett, Mr. Kingston, Mrs. Schmidt,
Mr. Porter, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Mr. Barton of
Texas, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Young of
Alaska, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr.
Westmoreland, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Mr. Issa, Mr. Graves, Mr. Rogers of
Alabama, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Hayes, Mr.
Pickering, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Weldon of
Florida, Mr. Kirk, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Hobson, Mr.
Hastert, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. McCarthy of California, Mr.
McCrery, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Johnson of
Illinois, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Whitfield,
Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mr. Mica, Mr. Moran
of Kansas, Mr. Jordan, and Mr. Knollenberg):
H.R. 4176. A bill to enhance national security by
restricting access of illegal aliens to driver's licenses and
State-issued identification documents; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 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. KIRK (for himself, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Roskam, and
Mr. LaHood):
H.R. 4177. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to
authorize the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security
(Transportation Security Administration) to designate Federal
special security zones at airports, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Homeland Security.
By Mr. CASTLE:
H.R. 4178. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act to
remove an impediment to troubled debt restructuring on the
part of holders of residential mortgage loans, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Ms. CLARKE (for herself, Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr.
Perlmutter, Mr. Carney, Ms. Norton, Mr. Al Green of
Texas, Mr. Pascrell, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Cuellar,
and Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California):
H.R. 4179. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of
2002 to establish an appeal and redress process for
individuals wrongly delayed or prohibited from boarding a
flight, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland
Security.
By Mr. ELLISON (for himself and Mr. Michaud):
H.R. 4180. A bill to allow United States citizens to bring
civil actions against persons who fail to perform an act or
duty under the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement
Implementation Act; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and
in addition to the Committee on 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. FLAKE:
H.R. 4181. A bill to reform Social Security retirement and
Medicare by establishing a Personal Social Security Savings
Program to create a safer, healthier, more secure, and more
prosperous retirement for all Americans and to reduce the
burden on young Americans; to the Committee on Ways and
Means, and in addition to the Committees on Education and
Labor, the Budget, Energy and Commerce, and Rules, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. Zoe LOFGREN of California (for herself and Mr.
Conyers):
H.R. 4182. A bill to suspend the running of statutes of
limitation for criminal prosecutions of individuals holding
the offices of President and Vice President while they hold
those offices; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Mr.
Dent, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. McCaul of Texas, and Ms.
Clarke):
H.R. 4183. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of
2002 to establish the National Urban Search and Rescue
Response System; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, 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. SIMPSON:
H.R. 4184. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior
to convey 4 parcels of land from
[[Page 31502]]
the Bureau of Land Management to the city of Twin Falls,
Idaho; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Ms. SOLIS (for herself, Mr. Baca, Mr. Berman, Mr.
Bilbray, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Campbell of
California, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Costa, Ms.
Eshoo, Mr. Farr, Mr. Filner, Mr. Gallegly, Ms.
Harman, Mr. Herger, Ms. Lee, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of
California, Ms. Matsui, Mr. McCarthy of California,
Mr. McNerney, Mr. George Miller of California, Mrs.
Napolitano, Ms. Richardson, Mr. Rohrabacher, Ms.
Roybal-Allard, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr.
Schiff, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Thompson of California,
Ms. Waters, Ms. Watson, and Ms. Woolsey):
H.R. 4185. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 11151 Valley Boulevard in El
Monte, California, as the ``Marisol Heredia Post Office
Building''; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
By Mr. STUPAK:
H.R. 4186. A bill to repeal the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative; to the Committee on Homeland Security.
By Mr. STUPAK:
H.R. 4187. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to
provide for an additional judgeship for the western district
of Michigan; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. VAN HOLLEN (for himself and Mr. Sessions):
H.R. 4188. A bill to amend the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act to permit a prevailing party in an
action or proceeding brought to enforce the Act to be awarded
expert witness fees and certain other expenses; to the
Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. WHITFIELD (for himself and Mrs. Schmidt):
H.R. 4189. A bill to direct the Secretary of Energy to
provide for the re-enrichment of certain uranium tailings,
and the sale of the product of such re-enrichment, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. ABERCROMBIE:
H.J. Res. 64. A joint resolution clarifying that the use of
force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, any
resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law;
to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. KILDEE:
H. Con. Res. 258. Concurrent resolution directing the Clerk
of the House of Representatives to correct the enrollment of
H.R. 1429; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. ACKERMAN (for himself and Mr. Delahunt):
H. Res. 823. A resolution condemning the imposition of
emergency rule in Pakistan; to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
By Mr. Al GREEN of Texas (for himself, Ms. Richardson,
Mr. McHenry, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. King of New
York, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Poe, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr.
Conyers, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Cohen,
Mr. Murtha, Mr. Butterfield, Ms. Waters, Mr.
Abercrombie, Mr. Spratt, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas,
Ms. Watson, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Pascrell, Mr.
Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Nadler, Ms.
DeGette, Mr. Clay, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr.
Yarmuth, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms.
Kilpatrick, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Baca, Mr. Cummings, Mr.
Scott of Virginia, Mr. Watt, Ms. Clarke, Mr.
Perlmutter, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Higgins,
Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Doggett,
Mr. Crowley, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Towns, Mr. Jackson of
Illinois, Mr. McCrery, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Gene Green of
Texas, Mr. Cuellar, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Grijalva, Mr.
Honda, Mr. Sires, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr.
Ortiz, and Mr. Shays):
H. Res. 826. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that the hanging of nooses is a horrible
act when used for the purpose of intimidation and which under
certain circumstances can be a criminal act that should be
thoroughly investigated by Federal law enforcement
authorities and that any criminal violations should be
vigorously prosecuted; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mrs. JONES of Ohio (for herself, Mr. Ryan of Ohio,
Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Wilson of Ohio, Mrs. Schmidt, Ms.
Kaptur, and Mr. Regula):
H. Res. 827. A resolution honoring and recognizing the
achievements of Carl Stokes, the first African-American mayor
of a major American city, in the 40th year since his election
as Mayor of Cleveland, Ohio; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS TO PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 46: Mr. Barrow.
H.R. 138: Mr. Sensenbrenner.
H.R. 178: Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H.R. 211: Mr. Ellison.
H.R. 269: Mr. Doolittle.
H.R. 373: Mr. Stearns.
H.R. 374: Mr. Stearns.
H.R. 405: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 481: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. David Davis of
Tennessee, Mr. Gingrey, Mrs. Capito, Mr. McHugh, Mr. English
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. Davis of
Kentucky, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Brown of South
Carolina, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Gohmert, Ms. Foxx,
Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr.
Burton of Indiana, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Bartlett of
Maryland, Mr. Bilbray, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Pence,
Mr. Culberson, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Feeney, and Mr. Linder.
H.R. 543: Mr. Sarbanes.
H.R. 549: Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Hastings of Florida,
Mrs. Bono, Mr. Honda, and Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 550: Mr. Lucas and Mr. Moran of Kansas.
H.R. 627: Mr. English of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 661: Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia.
H.R. 741: Mr. Altmire.
H.R. 758: Ms. Schwartz.
H.R. 760: Mr. English of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 772: Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H.R. 821: Mr. Young of Alaska, Ms. Solis, and Mrs.
Christensen.
H.R. 849: Mr. Sensenbrenner.
H.R. 1043: Mr. Goode.
H.R. 1072: Mrs. Capito.
H.R. 1105: Mr. Upton.
H.R. 1127: Mrs. Musgrave.
H.R. 1169: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 1275: Mrs. Christensen and Mr. Sires.
H.R. 1283: Mr. Bishop of New York.
H.R. 1289: Mr. Farr.
H.R. 1350: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 1366: Mr. Gerlach.
H.R. 1497: Mr. Wu.
H.R. 1509: Mr. Porter.
H.R. 1553: Mr. Bachus.
H.R. 1576: Mr. Hayes.
H.R. 1691: Mr. Wu.
H.R. 1711: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 1738: Mr. Altmire.
H.R. 1843: Mr. Lynch.
H.R. 1845: Mr. Terry and Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
H.R. 1930: Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 1937: Mr. Whitfield.
H.R. 1975: Mr. Pomeroy.
H.R. 1992: Ms. DeGette, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas,
Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Reyes, and Mr. McNerney.
H.R. 2015: Ms. Schwartz and Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 2052: Mr. Pastor.
H.R. 2063: Mr. Putnam.
H.R. 2067: Mr. Boustany.
H.R. 2070: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 2073: Mr. Fortuno.
H.R. 2108: Mr. Baird.
H.R. 2158: Mr. Tiberi.
H.R. 2166: Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Honda, Mrs.
Christensen, and Mr. English of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 2205: Mr. Goode.
H.R. 2241: Mr. Allen.
H.R. 2287: Mrs. Bono and Mr. Allen.
H.R. 2290: Mr. Alexander.
H.R. 2303: Mr. Lampson, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Jones of
North Carolina, Mr. McGovern, and Mr. Berry.
H.R. 2395: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 2449: Mr. Ross.
H.R. 2464: Ms. Harman, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Pomeroy, and Mr.
Inslee.
H.R. 2523: Mr. Fattah.
H.R. 2548: Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 2549: Mr. Pomeroy.
H.R. 2702: Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 2744: Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Scott
of Georgia, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Wu, and Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
H.R. 2878: Mr. Sherman, Ms. Harman, and Mr. Boucher.
H.R. 2885: Mrs. Biggert.
H.R. 2894: Mr. Honda, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mrs. Christensen,
Mr. Keller, Mr. Wynn, and Mr. David Davis of Tennessee.
H.R. 2914: Ms. Schwartz.
H.R. 2933: Mr. Lewis of Kentucky.
H.R. 2990: Mr. Inslee, Mr. McNerney, Ms. Fallin, and Mr.
Grijalva.
H.R. 3098: Mr. Neugebauer.
H.R. 3099: Mr. Hastings of Florida and Mr. Shuster.
H.R. 3115: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 3223: Mr. Farr.
H.R. 3234: Mr. Souder, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Paul, Mr.
McHenry, Mr. Burton of Indiana, and Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of
Florida.
H.R. 3251: Mr. Walsh of New York.
H.R. 3257: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 3348: Mr. Duncan.
H.R. 3360: Mr. DeFazio.
H.R. 3380: Mrs. McMorris Rodgers and Mr. Altmire.
H.R. 3381: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 3402: Ms. Solis.
H.R. 3453: Ms. Schwartz.
H.R. 3457: Mr. Porter and Mr. Linder.
H.R. 3533: Mr. Melancon, Mr. Costello, and Mr. Edwards.
H.R. 3544: Mr. Boswell and Mr. Altmire.
H.R. 3547: Ms. Harman and Ms. Bean.
[[Page 31503]]
H.R. 3582: Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 3609: Mrs. Christensen, Ms. Schakowsky, and Mr.
Cleaver.
H.R. 3616: Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
H.R. 3629: Mrs. Christensen and Mrs. Emerson.
H.R. 3636: Mr. Wu, Ms. Schwartz, and Mr. Waxman.
H.R. 3637: Mr. Wynn and Ms. Clarke.
H.R. 3645: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 3646: Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Buchanan, and Mr. Shuler.
H.R. 3660: Mr. Shays and Mr. Terry.
H.R. 3663: Mr. Kildee, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Cohen, Mr.
Gutierrez, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr.
Delahunt, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Ms. Lee.
H.R. 3674: Ms. Moore of Wisconsin.
H.R. 3679: Mr. Sensenbrenner.
H.R. 3689: Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Ms. Zoe
Lofgren of California, and Mr. LoBiondo.
H.R. 3691: Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 3700: Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Altmire, and Mr. Berry.
H.R. 3780: Ms. Schwartz.
H.R. 3812: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California.
H.R. 3825: Mr. Cohen, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Abercrombie, Ms.
DeGette, and Mr. Higgins.
H.R. 3829: Mr. Sestak, Mr. Sherman, Mr. DeFazio, and Mr.
Yarmuth.
H.R. 3833: Mr. English of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 3852: Mr. Hobson and Mr. Baird.
H.R. 3882: Mrs. Boyda of Kansas, Mr. Reichert, Mr. Farr,
Mr. McDermott, Mr. Langevin, and Mr. Shuler.
H.R. 3888: Mr. Wicker.
H.R. 3955: Mr. Honda, Mr. Gerlach, and Mr. LaHood.
H.R. 3960: Mr. English of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 3981: Mr. Price of North Carolina, Ms. Bordallo, Mr.
Forbes, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Reyes, and Mr.
Farr.
H.R. 4014: Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Moran of Virginia,
and Mr. Cleaver.
H.R. 4015: Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Moran of Virginia,
and Mr. Cleaver.
H.R. 4016: Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Moran of Virginia,
and Mr. Cleaver.
H.R. 4063: Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 4088: Mr. Baker, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Neugebauer, Ms.
Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, and Mr. Matheson.
H.R. 4104: Mr. Jindal.
H.R. 4107: Mr. Kennedy.
H.R. 4114: Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Lantos, Mrs.
Tauscher, Mr. Gutierrez, and Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 4121: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 4139: Ms. Herseth Sandlin.
H.R. 4141: Mr. King of New York, Mrs. Christensen, Mr.
Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Pence, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Chabot,
Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr.
Burton of Indiana, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Conaway, Mr.
Lucas, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Goode, and Mr. Wamp.
H.R. 4160: Mr. McKeon, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Campbell of California, and Mr. Platts.
H.J. Res. 54: Mr. Carney, Mr. Ruppersberger, and Mr. Walsh
of New York.
H. Con. Res. 163: Mr. Wicker.
H. Con. Res. 195: Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H. Con. Res. 235: Mr. Forbes and Mr. Stearns.
H. Con. Res. 239: Mr. Boustany, Mrs. Drake, Mr. Lucas, Mr.
Chabot, Mrs. Myrick, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Westmoreland, and Mr.
Miller of Florida.
H. Con. Res. 240: Mr. Saxton, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Hayes,
and Mr. Duncan.
H. Con. Res. 244: Mr. Petri, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cleaver, Mr.
Westmoreland, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr.
Donnelly, Mr. Walsh of New York, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr.
Carnahan, Mr. Akin, and Mr. Space.
H. Con. Res. 247: Ms. Waters, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Cummings,
Mr. Waxman, Ms. Watson, and Ms. Schakowsky.
H. Con. Res. 250: Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Culberson, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Feeney, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr.
Bartlett of Maryland, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr.
Shadegg, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Issa,
and Mr. Wamp.
H. Con. Res. 254: Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas,
Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. McCarthy of California, Mr. Doolittle, Mr.
Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Chabot,
Mr. Heller, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr.
McHenry, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Kuhl of New York, Mr. Price of
Georgia, Mr. Conaway, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Wicker,
Mr. Pitts, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Reynolds, Mr.
Hensarling, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr.
Brady of Texas, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Carter, Ms. Granger, Mr.
Boozman, Mr. Putnam, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Walberg, Mr. David
Davis of Tennessee, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Terry, Mr. Forbes, Mr.
Buchanan, Mr. Roskam, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Mario Diaz-
Balart of Florida, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr. Thornberry,
Mr. King of New York, Mr. Wolf, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Burton of
Indiana, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Souder, Mrs. Capito, and Mr. Pearce.
H. Con. Res. 255: Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Saxton,
Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. McCotter, Mr.
Cantor, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr.
Fortenberry, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. LaHood, Mr.
Manzullo, Mr. Terry, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Shays, Mr. Barrett of
South Carolina, Mr. Mack, Mr. Pence, Mr. Rogers of Michigan,
and Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
H. Res. 71: Mr. Hare.
H. Res 111: Mr. Lampson and Mr. Heller.
H. Res 338: Mr. Stearns.
H. Res 353: Mr. Regula.
H. Res. 356: Mr. Bishop of New York and Mrs. Drake.
H. Res 537: Mr. Courtney.
H. Res 695: Mr. Forbes.
H. Res 756: Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Pence, Mr. Broun of Georgia,
Mr. Campbell of California, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Walberg, Ms.
Foxx, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Doolittle, Mr.
Daniel E. Lungren of California, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey,
Mr. Pitts, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Fortuno, Mr. Wilson
of South Carolina, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Jordan, Mrs. McMorris
Rodgers, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Hensarling, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr.
Akin, Mr. David Davis of Tennessee, Mr. Barrett of South
Carolina, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Marchant,
Mr. Sali, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr.
Westmoreland, and Mr. Kuhl of New York.
H. Res. 769: Mr. Calvert.
H. Res. 783: Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Forbes, Mrs. McMorris
Rodgers, and Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.
H. Res. 795: Mrs. Tauscher.
H. Res. 815: Mr. Thompson of California, Mrs. Boyda of
Kansas, Mr. Keller, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Rothman, Ms.
Woolsey, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Dicks, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr.
Grijalva, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Larsen of
Washington, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida,
Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Filner, Mr.
Spratt, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Roskam, and Mr. Holt.
H. Res. 819: Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Lantos, and Mr.
Berry.
H. Res. 821: Mrs. Boyda of Kansas, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of
Florida, and Mr. Burton of Indiana.
H. Res. 822: Ms. Eshoo.
____________________
CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, OR LIMITED TARIFF
BENEFITS
Under clause 9 of rule XXI, lists or statements on congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits were
submitted as follows:
The amendment to be offered by Representative Frank of
Massachusetts or a designee to H.R. 3915 the Mortgage Reform
and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007, does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of
Rule XXI.
[[Page 31504]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
COMMEMORATING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
______
HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the 50th
anniversary of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
In April 1957, 40 officials from the Washington area established an
organization to exchange ideas and work together on regional issues
such as transportation, the environment, and public safety. This
organization would become known as the Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments--or COG.
Over the years, COG has facilitated regional responses to such
important initiatives as cleaning up the Potomac River, creating more
affordable housing for metropolitan residents, and the development and
coordination of regional public safety. In addition to helping
galvanize the region's response to the September 11 attacks, COG
continues to facilitate the region's ongoing emergency preparedness
programs.
During its 50 years of existence, COG's activities have touched every
aspect of the lives of the citizens of the National Capital region. I
rise today to congratulate COG for 50 years of successful and effective
collaboration and for the work it continues to do to improve the lives
of our citizens.
____________________
HONORING JOHN P. CASEY FOR RECEIVING THE WILLIAM CRAWFORD DISTINGUISHED
SERVICE AWARD
______
HON. JOE COURTNEY
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize John P. Casey,
President of Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut, who has been honored
by the Eastern Connecticut Chamber of Commerce with its William
Crawford Distinguished Service Award.
Each year, the William Crawford Distinguished Service Award is
awarded to an individual in eastern Connecticut who exemplifies the
spirit of service to their neighbors and who has worked to improve the
quality of life in eastern Connecticut. Any who know him should have no
doubt that John Casey meets the criteria for this award.
As President of one of the largest employers in the region, John
Casey is, by definition, a pillar of the communities of southeastern
Connecticut. However, John's impact goes far beyond his role as a
corporate executive. Throughout the years he has risen through the
ranks at Electric Boat, he has demonstrated a unique brand of
leadership which recognizes that more can be achieved when all elements
of the workforce are summoned tackle a challenge. This approach is
helping to streamline the submarine construction process and reduce the
costs to the taxpayer--both critical milestones to increasing our
submarine production rate.
John is also a fighter for the causes important to eastern
Connecticut. In 2005, he was a key figure in the fight to save
Submarine Base New London. His arguments in favor of the synergy that
is achieved by locating the ``Submarine Capital of the World'' next to
the nation's premier builder of submarines helped keep the base open.
His voice rose above many others in convincing key decision makers that
the Sub Base was too vital an asset to Connecticut and our Nation to
lose.
John Casey is a true leader in eastern Connecticut, and one I have
had the honor and pleasure to work closely with over the past year. I
commend the Eastern Connecticut Chamber of Commerce for recognizing his
great work on behalf of his employees, the region and our Nation, and I
ask my colleagues to join with me in honoring him.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE GARFIELD PARK CHRISTIAN CHURCH
______
HON. SAM FARR
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Garfield Park
Christian Church which celebrates its centennial anniversary in the
City of Santa Cruz, California this November. Commonly known as the
``circle church'' the surrounding neighborhoods were designed as a
series of concentric circles built around the original tabernacle,
making the church and the neighborhood forever linked.
Nestled into the heart of the Westside of Santa Cruz, not only does
the Church celebrate a hundred years in our community but the
neighborhoods surrounding the building do as well. Today the church
grounds are a common meeting place for children, families and pet
lovers. The church provides not only a place of worship but a cultural
and community center for the surrounding homes and neighborhoods. It is
estimated that over five hundred people use the facilities for events,
meetings and gatherings each week.
Built in 1890, the church was designed to be a religious center to
the unique surrounding neighborhoods that were built in circles around
the church and serve as its congregation. When their original
tabernacle burnt down in 1935, the spirit of the church did not falter.
The loss was turned into a gift when for more than twenty years the
site of the original tabernacle was leased to the city to be a park and
playground, the original ``Garfield Park.'' Today the Garfield Park
Christian Church sanctuary and gym stand on the site of the old
Tabernacle, tying the new buildings to their original beginnings.
Although Garfield Park Church does have a legacy of being a place of
worship among its congregation, it is also devoted to keeping alive
compassion and strength of community in its surrounding residents. Two
other congregations meet in the building each week along with the
building being home to the annual Hindu Navratri festival and other
events. By opening its doors and hearts to so many groups, meetings and
people, the Garfield Park Church displays its commitment to open
compassion and unity.
With this anniversary the church will adopt a new name in celebration
of their centennial celebration. Moving forward they are adopting ``A
New Vision for a New Century'' and a new name ``The Circle Church,
Disciples of Christ,'' as they look forward to the next hundred years.
Madam Speaker, it is an honor to recognize an organization that is so
deeply rooted in community involvement and unity. I am excited for this
year's celebration and look forward to many more years of gathering in
the circle neighborhoods of Santa Cruz.
____________________
H.R. 3920, THE TRADE AND GLOBALIZATION ACT OF 2007
______
HON. BETTY McCOLLUM
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of H.R. 3920, the Trade and Globalization Act of 2007, and
commend the Ways and Means, and Education and Labor committees for
their hard work on this legislation.
The health of the American economy depends in large part on trade
with foreign markets. As globalization, technology, and trade
agreements continue to remove barriers to free trade, we must work to
ensure that our workers, farmers and small businesses do not suffer
unfairly for this economic growth. This legislation moves the Trade
Adjustment Assistance, TAA, program in a new direction with that
sentiment in mind.
The current TAA program was created in a different era, and fails to
address the realities of trade in the 21st century. The Trade and
Globalization Act expands eligibility for TAA training programs,
temporary income support and healthcare assistance to include
manufacturing workers who currently are ineligible for
[[Page 31505]]
benefits for technical reasons, and to service workers who are
increasingly losing their jobs to outsourcing. It also significantly
increases funding for these programs, without adding to the deficit, or
raising taxes on American families. An updated TAA program will allow
all trade-displaced workers to acquire the skills they need to reenter
the workforce, and the flexibility to choose their most effective path.
Workers facing the loss of a good job face significant challenges
beyond the loss of income. To help families prepare for their
transition, this bill requires employers to provide adequate notice to
their employees before a layoff, and provides an incentive for states
to reform their unemployment insurance programs to realize the needs of
low-income, part-time and female members of the workforce.
Additionally, this bill recognizes that trade can have significant
impacts for entire regions of our country, and that American businesses
are critical to helping workers adapt to the global economy. That is
why this legislation provides incentives for firms to redevelop and
hire workers in those communities disproportionately affected by
international trade.
We owe our prosperity to our greatest national asset-our American
workers. I urge you to join me in passing this much needed legislation
that will assist these workers who keep America's economy strong.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. CAROLYN McCARTHY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, on November 9, I was on
jury call in my district and missed several votes. I would have voted
had I been here: rollcall No. 1077, ordering the previous question on
H. Res. 809, ``yea''; rollcall No. 1078, H. Res. 809, ``yea''; rollcall
No. 1079, approving the Journal, ``yea''; rollcall No. 1080, motion to
adjourn, ``nay''; rollcall No. 1081, H.R. 3996, Temporary Tax Relief
Act, ``yea.''
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE CHILDCARE AFFORDABILITY ACT OF 2007
______
HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, today, on behalf of myself,
Rep. Yvette Clarke, and Rep. Nydia Velazquez, I introduce the Childcare
Affordability Act of 2007, which will create an above-the-line tax
deduction for working parents of up to $13,000 in childcare expenses
for one child and a maximum of $26,000 for two or more children. This
deduction is based on the average cost of childcare in urban areas,
which is $13,000 per year--more than one quarter of the typical
family's income. This bill will also make the current Dependent Care
Tax Credit fully refundable and expand the qualified actual expenses--
now capped at $3,000 per child with a maximum of $6,000 to $13,000 for
1 child, with a $26,000 maximum for 2 or more children. This change
more accurately reflects the current costs of childcare for working
families, who will now be able to choose whichever option provides them
with the greatest tax relief.
Greater tax relief is an important and necessary step toward
improving the lives of America's working families. The rising cost of
child care is squeezing working families and the amount of assistance
the Federal government currently provides to ease the burden of these
expenses is inadequate. We can and should do more to support our
working families. Quality childcare is essential to healthy child
development. This bill will help America's families provide high-
quality care for their children, which will pay off in the future by
increasing productivity and economic growth, and stemming the tide of
rising inequality in the United States. With this initiative, we can
ease the burden on working families, while making an essential
investment in the future prosperity of our Nation.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COMMUNITY SERVICE OF THE BRAEN FAMILY
______
HON. SCOTT GARRETT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the
Braen family for its tremendous service to its community. Currently in
its fifth generation of family management of its quarry and
construction business, the Braen family has long typified the ``good
neighbor.''
In addition to the commitment that the individual members of the
Braen family pursue in charity work and community service, the company
has initiated a program to promote volunteerism with its own employees.
Their efforts have not gone unnoticed. And, tonight, the Braen family
and the Braen family of companies--Stone Industries, Inc.; Van Orden
Sand & Gravel; Braen Supply, Inc.; and Braen Aggregates, LLC--will be
honored by the Northern New Jersey Council of the Boy Scouts of America
for exemplifying that high standard.
The Braen family also dedicates itself to community-friendly business
practices that not only add to the value of the local economy but also
to the quality of life Braen employees, customers, and others enjoy.
They have always strived to meet environmental standards long before
the standards are in place, thinking first of the health, welfare, and
comfort of their employees and neighbors first. They have been honored
for their good work, including as New Jersey Family Business of the
Year.
So, tonight, as the Boy Scouts honor the Braen family for the support
they have shown Scouts and Scouting, I rise to share in their tribute
and to thank the Braen family for its contribution to making north
Jersey such a fine place to live, work, and raise a family.
____________________
VETERANS DAY PRAYER
______
HON. JOE WILSON
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, as greatful Americans
prepare for providing deserved tributes for our courageous veterans, I
have fortunately been provided a profound poem from Clinton B. Campbell
of Beauford, SC.
My Veteran's Day Prayer
Lord, when the pull of my bed
lures me to stay another hour, please remind me of taps being
played for the fallen,
of the tears that reach my cheek
after each name is read, the ones I know personally
and the ones old-timers
talk about in awe.
After the crowd stumbles
through The Pledge of Allegiance
I want to be there
and listen with all my heart
while the winner of this year's
essay contest quiets the crowd
reminding us of why
we are paying our respects.
When the closing prayer is read
I want to look around in honor
at my fellow vets,
the men and the women
in their timeworn uniforms.
Let me see them as they were,
splendidly marching forward
with the courage that allows us to
have a choice of whether
we come here today or not.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO CARMEL CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL
______
HON. MARK STEVEN KIRK
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Carmel Catholic
High School in Mundelein, Illinois, for being named a 2007 No Child
Left Behind Blue Ribbon School.
Nearly 1500 students, ages 13 to 18, attend Carmel Catholic High
School. Carmel Catholic is one of only 5 high schools nationwide to win
the Blue Ribbon School award 4 times. With a great devotion to learning
and academic achievement, Carmel is a faith-based community that
attributes their success to the dedication and hard work of their
teachers. As a result, these students consistently score above state
and national averages on standardized tests in all subject areas. In
addition, it is the only high school in Illinois and one of three
private high schools in the nation to be recognized.
Carmel Catholic is among 287 schools from across the nation chosen by
the Secretary of Education to receive this acknowledgement. These
schools have distinguished themselves by embodying the goals of
reaching high standards and closing the achievement gap. Schools
selected for this honor either have
[[Page 31506]]
students from all subgroups that have demonstrated significant
improvement or have students that achieve in the top 10 percent of
their state on statewide tests.
This is a great honor for the 10th district and I congratulate the
principal, Fr. Robert C. Carroll, the students, and teachers at Carmel
Catholic High School for this achievement.
____________________
50TH ANIVERSARY OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA
______
HON. TOM LANTOS
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, it gives me tremendous pleasure to share
news of a special Golden Anniversary occurring in my home district in
California. The City of Pacifica, a jewel along the coast of the
Pacific Ocean, celebrates 50 years of incorporation as an independent
municipality on Nov. 22 of this year. In 1957, people along the Coast
decided that they were tired of being second-class San Mateo County
residents. The seaside villages and valley communities stretching from
the Daly City border south to the Devil's Slide were fearful of being
used as a dumping ground by their more prosperous and established
neighbors. In fact, the City of San Bruno actually wanted to annex
parts of the area for landfill purposes, a notion incomprehensible
today.
Madam Speaker, those fiercely strong-minded Coastsiders held
meetings, hired consultants, used graduate students to prepare surveys,
canvassed their neighbors, and, in short, did everything they could to
assess the possibility of incorporating as a city. There was an active
resistance, as well, with a strong contingent of people who wanted
things to stay the same. Let me say, Madame Speaker, with no small
amount of pride, that the people who live in this special area have
long been known to be politically active, inquisitive and resourceful.
It actually took two separate elections before a majority, of only
about 500 votes to be precise, decided to incorporate.
But once the decision was made, Madame Speaker, the people in this
gorgeous geographical area of California embarked on a public adventure
that created one of the truly unique cities in America, if not the
world. Ahead of its time in many ways, the new city was christened
``Pacifica'' to highlight the ocean next to it as well as the 80-foot
statue by sculptor Ralph Stackpole that represented the people of the
Pacific Rim at the Golden Gate International Exposition on Treasure
Island in 1939 and 1940. The very first mayor was a woman, Jean
Fassler, starting a city tradition of politically active women sitting
on the council. While Pacifica made international news in 1992 for
having an All-Women City Council, it is often overlooked that the city
has never actually had an All-Men elected body.
Madam Speaker, let me paint a picture of the history of this region.
In 1769, a group of explorers led by Don Gaspar de Portola viewed San
Francisco Bay from a point now known as Sweeney Ridge, which is within
the eastern boundary of Pacifica and is part of the Golden Gate
National Recreation Area, a part of the National Parks Service system
with a tremendous influence on Pacifica's natural beauty. Panoramic
views of the Bay Area greet hikers who make the climb up Sweeney Ridge.
The Portola Discovery Site has been designated as a National Landmark.
It is my great pleasure to have had a leading role in expanding the
Golden Gate National Recreation Area to include this beautiful site,
along with other open spaces in the region.
Starting in 1785, crops were planted in San Pedro Valley at an
outpost of Mission Dolores. In 1839, Don Francisco Sanchez was given a
Mexican Land Grant with boundaries similar to the present City boundary
lines. In 1846 he moved into the Sanchez Adobe, which is currently
maintained as a San Mateo County Museum and park on Linda Mar
Boulevard.
This coastal area remained for years primarily an agricultural Eden
until the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Land speculators, stimulated
by the construction of the Ocean Shore Railroad, subdivided and
developed a series of small coastside communities with the hope of
creating a suburban population for San Francisco. The vision then was
to establish a tourist and commuter heaven along the Pacific Ocean. The
Little Brown Church, Anderson's Store and San Pedro School (which later
became City Hall) date from this period. In 1908, Henry Harrison
McCloskey, an attorney for the Ocean Shore Railroad, built a castle-
like home which still dominates a hill above Sharp Park. Mrs. Honora
Sharp donated 410 acres to the City and County of San Francisco to
develop a recreation area, which became the Sharp Park Golf Course and
the Rifle and Archery Range.
Subdivisions were eventually created, although long after the demise
of the Ocean Shore Railroad in 1921, to meet the needs of young
families of returning World War II veterans. In less than a decade from
its 1957 incorporation, the population had grown to 35,000 people. It
has taken four more decades to increase that number by 5,000. This
statistic alone points to one of the special qualities of Pacifica.
Pacifica is made up of 10 communities, including Edgemar, Pacific
Manor, Manor Village, Westview, Sharp Park, Fairway Park, Vallemar,
Rockaway Beach, Linda Mar and Pedro Point. Residents continue to
identify with the specific personalities of their neighborhoods while
maintaining a certain pride in being from Pacifica.
Green and white became the City colors and the fuchsia was designated
as the City flower. ``Wisdom in Progress'' became the City slogan,
although ``Scenic Pacifica,'' later suggested by Carl McCarthy, is more
widely used. In 1970, Balaguer, Spain, the birthplace of Portola,
became the Sister City of Pacifica.
Madam Speaker, I want to share the news that in recent years Pacifica
has completed a number of notable projects such as: the Calera Creek
Water Recycling Plant--April 2001; Friendship Playground--June 2001;
New Pacifica Police Station--November 2002; Pacifica State Beach
Improvement Project; Rockaway to Crespi Multi-use Trail and Crespi to
Pedro Point Multi-use Trail--October 2004; Pacifica Skatepark--December
2005; Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant Photovoltaic Project--July
2006; Esplanade 500 Block Blufftop Enhancement Project and the San
Pedro Creek Flood Control Project and Fish Ladder renovation. These
projects bring attention to the most successful aspect of Pacifica's
existence-this is a city far ahead of its time in the way it
capitalizes on maintaining strong environmental and ecological
priorities.
Madam Speaker, it is my great privilege to have represented the good
citizens of Pacifica for more than half of the city's existence. It has
also been my great honor to assist the city in achieving many of its
goals, most recently the construction of the $300 million Devil's Slide
Tunnels transportation project.
The natural beauty of Pacifica, with its lovely cool climate,
delightful valleys and hills and most of all, its innovative, talented,
active and wonderful residents, helps it stand out as one of my
favorite places in the world. I invite my colleagues in the House of
Representatives to join me in wishing the City of Pacifica and its
inhabitants a Happy 50th Anniversary and a successful journey through
the 21st Century.
____________________
SAUDI ARABIA IS HUB OF WORLD TERROR
______
HON. PETER HOEKSTRA
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I believe that Congress should continue
to encourage an open and robust debate about the threat from radical
jihadists. I found the following report in the Sunday Times of
particular interest. I would like to share it with my colleagues.
[From the Sunday Times, Nov. 4, 2007]
Saudi Arabia Is Hub of World Terror: The Desert Kingdom Supplies the
Cash and the Killers
(By Nick Fielding and Sarah Baxter)
It was an occasion for tears and celebration as the Knights
of Martyrdom proclaimed on video: ``Our brother Turki fell
during the rays of dawn, covered in blood after he was hit by
the bullets of the infidels, following in the path of his
brother.'' The flowery language could not disguise the brutal
truth that a Saudi family had lost two sons fighting for Al-
Qaeda in Iraq.
The elder brother, Khaled, had been a deputy commander of a
crack jihadist ``special forces'' unit. After his
``glorious'' death, Turki took his place.
``He was deeply affected by the martyrdom of his brother,''
the Knights said. ``He became more ambitious and more
passionate about defending the land of Islam and dying as a
martyr, like his brother.''
Turki's fervent wish was granted earlier this year, but
another Saudi national who travelled to Iraq had second
thoughts. He was a graduate from a respectable family of
teachers and professors who was recruited in a Saudi Arabian
mosque and sent to Iraq with $1,000 in travel expenses and
the telephone number of a smuggler who could get him across
the Syrian border.
In Iraq he was ordered to blow himself up in a tanker on a
bridge in Ramadi, but he panicked before he could press the
detonator. He was arrested by Iraqi police. In a second
lorry, another foreign fighter followed orders and died.
[[Page 31507]]
King Abdullah was surprised during his two-day state visit
to Britain last week by the barrage of criticism directed at
the Saudi kingdom. Officials were in ``considerable shock'',
one former British diplomat said.
Back home the king is regarded as a modest reformer who has
cracked down on home- grown terrorism and loosened a few
relatively minor restrictions on his subjects' personal
freedom.
With oil prices surging, Saudi Arabia is growing in
prosperity and embracing some modern trappings. Bibles and
crucifixes are still banned, but internet access is spreading
and there are plans for ``Mile High Tower'', the world's
tallest skyscraper, in Jeddah. As a key ally of the West, the
king had every reason to expect a warm welcome.
Yet wealthy Saudis remain the chief financiers of worldwide
terror networks. ``If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut
off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia,''
said Stuart Levey. the U.S. Treasury official in charge of
tracking tenor financing.
Extremist clerics provide a stream of recruits to some of
the world's nastiest trouble spots.
An analysis by NBC News suggested that the Saudis make up
55% of foreign fighters in Iraq. They are also among the most
uncompromising and militant.
Half the foreign fighters held by the U.S. at Camp Cropper
near Baghdad are Saudis. They are kept in yellow jumpsuits in
a separate, windowless compound after they attempted to
impose sharia on the other detainees and preached an extreme
form of Wahhabist Islam.
In recent months, Saudi religious scholars have caused
consternation in Iraq and Iran by issuing fatwas calling for
the destruction of the great Shi'ite shrines in Najaf and
Karbala in Iraq, some of which have already been bombed. And
while prominent members of the ruling al-Saud dynasty
regularly express their abhorrence of terrorism, leading
figures within the kingdom who advocate extremism are
tolerated.
Sheikh Saleh al-Luhaidan, the chief justice, who oversees
terrorist trials, was recorded on tape in a mosque in 2004,
encouraging young men to fight in Iraq. ``Entering Iraq has
become risky now,'' he cautioned. ``It requires avoiding
those evil satellites and those drone aircraft, which own
every corner of the skies over Iraq. If someone knows that he
is capable of entering Iraq in order to join the fight, and
if his intention is to raise up the word of God, then he is
free to do so.''
The Bush administration is split over how to deal with the
Saudi threat, with the State Department warning against
pressure that might lead the royal family to fall and be
replaced by more dangerous extremists.
``The urban legend is that George Bush and Dick Cheney are
close to the Saudis because of oil and their past ties with
them, but they're pretty disillusioned with them,'' said
Stephen Schwartz, of the Centre for Islamic Pluralism in
Washington. ``The problem is that the Saudis have been part
of American policy for so long that it's not easy to work out
a solution.''
According to Levey, not one person identified by America or
the United Nations as a terrorist financier has been
prosecuted by Saudi authorities. A fortnight ago exasperated
U.S. Treasury officials named three Saudi citizens as
terrorist financiers. ``In order to deter other would-be
donors, it is important to hold these terrorists publicly
accountable.'' Levey said.
All three had worked in the Philippines, where they are
alleged to have helped to finance the Abu Sayyaf group, an
Al-Qaeda affiliate. One, Muham-mad Sughayr, was said to be
the main link between Abu Sayyaf and wealthy Gulf donors.
Sughayr was arrested in the Philippines in 2005 and swiftly
deported to Saudi Arabia after pressure from the Saudi
embassy in Manila. There is no evidence that he was
prosecuted on his return home.
This year the Saudis arrested 10 people thought to be
terrorist financiers, but the excitement faded when their
defense lawyers claimed that they were political dissidents
and human rights groups took up their cause.
Matthew Levitt, a former intelligence analyst at the US
Treasury and counter-terrorism expert at the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, believes the Saudis could do
more. He said: ``It is important for the Saudis to hold
people publicly accountable. Key financiers have built up
considerable personal wealth and are loath to put that at
risk. There is some evidence that individuals who have been
outed have curtailed their financial activities.''
In the past the Saudis openly supported Islamic militants.
Osama Bin Laden was originally treated as a favourite son of
the regime and feted as a hero for fighting the Soviets in
Afghanistan. Huge charitable organisations such as the
International Islamic Relief Organisation and the al-Haramain
Foundation--accused in American court documents of having
links to extremist groups--flourished, sometimes with
patronage from senior Saudi royals.
The 1991 Gulf war was a wake-up call for the Saudis. Bin
Laden began making vitriolic attacks on the Saudi royal
family for cooperating with the U.S. and demanded the
expulsion of foreign troops from Arabia. His citizenship was
revoked in 1994. The 1996 attack on the Khobar Towers in
Dhahran, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen and one Saudi, was a
warning that he could strike within the kingdom.
As long as foreigners were the principal targets, the
Saudis turned a blind eye to terror. Even the September 11
attacks of 2001, in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis,
could not shake their complacency. Despite promises to crack
down on radical imams, Saudi mosques continued to preach
hatred of America.
The mood began to change in 2003 and 2004, when Al-Qaeda
mounted a series of terrorist attacks within the kingdom that
threatened to become an insurgency. ``They finally
acknowledged at the highest levels that they had a problem
and it was coming for them,'' said Rachel Bronson, the author
of Thicker than Oil: America's Uneasy Partnership with Saudi
Arabia.
Assassination attempts against security officials caused
some of the royals to fear for their own safety. In May 2004
Islamic terrorists struck two oil industry installations and
a foreigners' housing compound in Khobar, taking 50 hostages
and killing 22 of them.
The Saudi authorities began to cooperate more with the FBI,
clamp down on extremist charities. monitor mosques and keep a
watchful eye on fighters returning from Iraq.
Only last month Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul-Aziz al-Sheikh,
the kingdom's leading cleric, criticised gullible Saudis for
becoming ``convenient knights for whoever wants to exploit
their zeal, even to the point of turning them into walking
bombs''.
And last week in London, King Abdullah warned young British
Muslims not to become involved with extremists.
Yet the Saudis' ambivalence towards terrorism has not gone
away. Money for foreign fighters and terror groups still
pours out of the kingdom, but it now tends to be carried in
cash by couriers rather than sent through the wires, where it
can be stopped and identified more easily.
A National Commission for Relief and Charity Work Abroad, a
nongovernmental organisation that was intended to regulate
private aid abroad to guard against terrorist financing, has
still not been created three years after it was trumpeted by
the Saudi embassy in Washington.
Hundreds of Islamic militants have been arrested but many
have been released after undergoing reeducation programmes
led by Muslim clerics.
According to the daily Alwa-tan, the interior ministry has
given 115m riyals (14.7m) to detainees and their
families to help them to repay debts, to assist families with
health care and housing, to pay for weddings and to buy a car
on their release. The most needy prisoners' families receive
2,000-3,000 riyals (286 to 384) a
month.
Ali Sa'd AI-Mussa, a lecturer at King Khaled University in
Abha, protested: ``I'm afraid that holding [extremist] views
leads to earning a prize or, worse, a steady income.''
Former detainees from the U.S. military prison at
Guantanamo Bay in Cuba are also benefiting. To celebrate the
Muslim holiday of Eid, 55 prisoners were temporarily released
last month and given the equivalent of 1,300 each
to spend with their families.
School textbooks still teach the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion. A notorious antiSemitic forgery, and preach hatred
towards Christians, Jews and other religions, including
Shi'ite Muslims, who are considered heretics.
Ali al-Ahmed, director of the Washington-based Institute
for Gulf Affairs, said: ``The Saudi education system has over
5m children using these books. If only one in 1,000 take
these teachings to heart and seek to act on them violently,
there will be 5,000 terrorists.''
In frustration, Arlen Specter. the Republican senator for
Pennsylvania, introduced the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act
10 days ago, calling for strong encouragement of the Saudi
government to ``end its support for institutions that fund,
train, incite, encourage or in any other way aid and abet
terrorism''.
The act, however, is expected to die when it reaches the
Senate foreign relations committee: the Bush administration
is counting on Saudi Arabia to help stabilise Iraq, curtail
Iran's nuclear and regional ambitions and give a push to the
Israeli and Palestinian peace process at a conference due to
be held this month in Annapolis, Maryland.
``Do we really want to take on the Saudis at the moment?''
asks Bronson. ``We've got enough problems as it is.''
____________________
SIKHS OBSERVE ANNIVERSARY OF DELHI MASSACRES
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, on November 3, Sikhs from up and down the
East Coast gathered here in Washington to protest the 23rd anniversary
of the Delhi massacres. Over 20,000 Sikhs were killed in that massacre,
which followed the assassination of Indira
[[Page 31508]]
Gandhi. Sikh police officers were locked in their barracks to keep them
from interfering with the massacre. State TV and radio called for
``blood for blood,'' inciting the people to kill more Sikhs.
This was a massive atrocity by the Indian regime against the Sikhs.
It made it clear that the Indian government had no intention of
treating the Sikhs like people in a free and democratic country ought
to be treated. Instead, they chose to inflict mass terror on their Sikh
citizens. This is not the way a democratic government acts, Madam
Speaker. It is the action of a terrorist regime. India should be
declared a terrorist regime for acts like this, for creating the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, and for its ongoing subversion of
Pakistan by sponsoring cross-border terrorism in Sindh, as reported in
the January 2, 2002 Washington Times.
Sikhs in attendance at the demonstration raised slogans in support of
Khalistan as well as slogans in opposition to the massacre. As you
know, the Sikhs declared their independence from India on October 7,
1987. Khalistan is their country, but it remains occupied by over half
a million Indian forces. I would like to know why ``the world's largest
democracy'' insists on maintaining authoritarian control of Khalistan
instead of allowing the people there to have a free and fair vote on
its status. This congress should put itself on record in support of
such a vote, as well as the plebiscite that was promised to the
Kashmiri people in 1948 and has never occurred. Nagalim, too, seeks its
independence from India. The Nagas should also be granted the right to
vote on their status. What would be wrong with that, if India is the
democracy it says it is? And if India is the democracy it says it is,
then why are so many peoples trying to get out from under its rule?
In addition to demanding that India allow the right to self-
determination (which is the essence of democracy), we should demand
that basic human rights be observed in ``the world's largest
democracy.'' The Delhi massacre is just one example of how basic human
rights are ignored there. The murders of over 250,000 Sikhs, over
90,000 Kashmiri Muslims, more 2,000 to 5,000 Muslims in Gujarat, more
than 300,000 Christians in Nagaland, and tens of thousands of other
minorities, including Assamese, Bodos, Dalits, Manipuris, Tamils, and
others speak loudly on the lack of human rights in India. So does the
fact that Amnesty International has not been allowed into Punjab since
1984. This situation cannot continue.
We should cut off our aid and trade with India until it allows basic
human rights, including but not limited to the right to self-
determination, to all people under its rule.
Madam Speaker, the Council of Khalistan issued an excellent and
informative press release on the Delhi massacres and the demonstration
that was held this month. I recommend it to all my colleagues and I
would like to place it in the Record at this time.
Sikhs Remember Delhi Massacres With Very Successful Demonstration
Washington, DC, November 13, 2007.--Sikhs from around the
East Coast gathered by the Gandhi statue at the Indian
Embassy in Washington, DC on November 3 to commemorate the
Delhi massacres of November 1984 in which over 20,000 Sikhs
were murdered while the police were locked in their barracks
and the state-run television and radio called for more Sikh
blood.
The rally was attended by Sikhs from Philadelphia,
including Dr. Bakhshish Singh Sandhu, S. Karj Singh, and S.
Dharam Singh, as well as Sikhs from New Jersey, Baltimore,
Maryland, Virginia, Washington DC, and other locations. New
York Sikhs led by Sardar Avtar Singh Pannu also participated.
The attendees spoke, carried signs, and chanted slogans.
Slogans included ``Khalistan Zindabad'' (``Long live
Khalistan''), ``India free Khalistan'', ``India stop killing
minorities'', ``India free Kashmir'', ``India free Christian
Nagaland'', and others.
The Delhi massacres were a brutal chapter in India's
repression of the Sikhs, according to Dr. Gurmit Singh
Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, which is
leading the demonstration. ``This brutal, government-inspired
massacre clarified that there is no place in India for
Sikhs,'' Dr. Aulakh said. On October 7, 1987, the Sikh Nation
declared its independence from India, naming its new country
Khalistan. In the twenty years since then, India has
continued its illegal occupation of Khalistan and stepped up
the repression of the Sikhs while the Sikh Nation has
continued to work to achieve its birthright.
History shows that multinational states such as India are
doomed to failure. Countries like Austria-Hungary, India's
longtime friend the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia,
and others prove this point. India is not one country; it is
a polyglot like those countries, thrown together for the
convenience of the British colonialists. It is doomed to
break up as they did.
The Indian government has murdered over 250,000 Sikhs since
1984, more than 300,000 Christians since 1948, over 89,000
Muslims in Kashmir since 1988, and tens of thousands of
Tamils, Assamese, Manipuris, Dalits, and others. The Indian
Supreme Court called the Indian government's murders of Sikhs
``worse than a genocide.''
Indian police arrested human-rights activist Jaswant Singh
Khalra after he exposed their policy of mass cremation of
Sikhs, in which over 50,000 Sikhs have been arrested,
tortured, and murdered, and then their bodies were declared
unidentified and secretly cremated. He was murdered in police
custody. His body was not given to his family.
The police never released the body of former Jathedar of
the Akal Takht Gurdev Singh Kaunke after SSP Swaran Singh
Ghotna murdered him. Ghotna has never been brought to trial
for the Jathedar Kaunke murder. No one has been brought to
justice for the kidnapping and murder of Jaswant Singh
Khalra.
According to a report by the Movement Against State
Repression (MASR), 52,268 Sikhs are being held as political
prisoners in India without charge or trial. Some have been in
illegal custody since 1984! Tens of thousands of other
minorities are also being held as political prisoners,
according to Amnesty International. We demand the immediate
release of all these political prisoners.
``Only a sovereign, independent Khalistan will end the
repression and lift the standard of living for the people of
Punjab,'' said Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the
Council of Khalistan. ``Democracies don't commit genocide. As
Professor Darshan Singh, a former Jathedar of the Akal Takht,
said, `If a Sikh is not for Khalistan, he is not a Sikh',''
Dr. Aulakh noted. ``We must continue to press for our God-
given birthright of freedom,'' he said. ``Without political
power, religions cannot flourish and nations perish.''
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO JEFFERSON AWARD WINNER RUSSELL EWELL
______
HON. TOM LANTOS
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I wish to recognize the achievements of a
very special man within my home district in California. Russell Ewell,
who has recently been honored with a Jefferson Award, is much deserving
of the accolade, which spotlights outstanding public service.
Mr. Ewell brought the community E-Soccer, a unique athletic outreach
program affiliated with the Hope Technology School, where his wife is
the Executive Director. The unqualified success of E-Soccer in bringing
together typical and special needs children of all ages on a soccer
field is a testament to Russ Ewell's visionary concept.
Children are encouraged and enabled to develop skills, confidence and
self-esteem through the sport of soccer. They also make lasting
friendships. This wonderful program serves over 250 children on
Saturday mornings in communities throughout the Bay Area. It is free
and benefits from an all-volunteer staff. Showcasing the growing scope
of E-Soccer is the fact that a team of nine coaches from the program
recently visited Nairobi, Kenya, to train volunteers there on how to
establish their own E-Soccer activities. There are plans for further
outreach projects in other countries.
Madam Speaker, Russell Ewell established the E-Soccer program in
April 2000 specifically for children with special needs in Foster City.
His inspiration came from his two sons with special needs. Their
younger sister, Jadyn, is not a special needs child. Russ wanted
Jonathan, who has Down Syndrome, and Jordan, who is autistic, to be
able to interact with typical children, benefiting from the athletic
coordination practiced in soccer. He also wanted families with special
needs children to have an opportunity to enjoy an athletic experience
that is both positive and uplifting. To that end, he worked with soccer
coaches, special needs educators and physical therapists on developing
a program like no other; a sports program that doesn't isolate typical
and special needs children, but integrates them seamlessly into group
activities. Both communities benefit from the interaction. Russ has
seen that success in his own children as well as the many families who
have participated. What began with 5 children has grown into a
blossoming effort with 250 young soccer players.
Madam Speaker, it is with great pride and appreciation that I bring
Russell Ewell's E-Soccer program to the attention of my colleagues in
the House of Representatives. He has created a shining example of how
one man's idea can alter the lives of many for the better.
[[Page 31509]]
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF H. RES. 816 CONGRATULATING THE COLORADO ROCKIES ON
WINNING THE NATIONAL LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP AND PLAYING IN THE 2007 WORLD
SERIES
______
HON. MARK UDALL
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a
resolution congratulating the Colorado Rockies on their National League
Championship and first-ever franchise appearance in the World Series.
The Rockies defied the odds this year by making it to the World Series,
capturing the best hopes of Coloradans and giving us all a reason to
cheer for their success. Despite a tough loss to a great team in the
Boston Red Sox, we remain proud of the Rockies' efforts and astonished
at their meteoric rise to the top of the National League.
Toward the close of the season, the Rockies were the underdogs in the
National League pennant race. The challenge of making the playoffs
seemed as large and daunting as the mountain range for which the
Rockies were named, but the team maintained an optimism and competitive
spirit that kept them alive long after commentators had written them
off. Winning 21 of their last 22 games prior to the World Series--an
unprecedented feat in baseball history--the Rockies rolled over
expectations and swept the Arizona Diamondbacks in the NLCS.
The World Series proved to be a bigger challenge than the Rockies
could surmount, and they lost in four games to a very talented Red Sox
team. Despite the losses, the Rockies carried themselves with dignity
and true sportsmanship, giving Coloradans something to be proud of. As
the father of two young athletes I can say that the way the Rockies
carried themselves is a tremendous example for our young people. We
would have loved to have seen the Rockies bring home a victory this
year, but, as the Red Sox' Manny Ramirez said during the ALCS, there's
always next year. I know I am not alone in looking forward to watching
some great Rockies baseball in the future.
I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Colorado
Rockies on a great season and in thanking them for serving as great
examples of professional athletes practicing sportsmanship.
____________________
MOURNING THE LOSS OF MIKE BIONDI
______
HON. RAHM EMANUEL
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory
of my good friend, Mike Biondi, and I offer my deepest condolences to
his family after his passing last night at the age of 50. Mike's sudden
and tragic passing came as a great shock to me, as I had planned to see
him early next week, and I hope that we can do as good of a job
remembering Mike as he did living an outstanding life that had a
positive impact on so many across the country.
Mike was a founding partner at Wasserstein Perella & Co., and rose to
become chairman and CEO. I had the honor of working with Mike at
Wasserstein, and I am privileged to have been able to call him a
friend. Mike took me under his wing during my time at Wasserstein and
became my mentor.
While working as an investment banker at Wasserstein Perella & Co.,
Mike helped establish Chicago-based Exelon Corporation, one of the
Nation's largest electric utilities. Mike could literally take credit
for helping to keep Chicagoans warm during our coldest winters.
Mike joined First Boston's mergers and acquisitions team after
serving as an attorney at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. He
spent the past 4 years at Lazard LLC, where he served as cochairman of
investment banking. No matter where he worked, Mike was held in high
esteem and widely recognized for his intellectual acumen, wisdom and
integrity.
Mike graduated from Dartmouth University where he played on the
baseball team. He also received graduate degrees from the University of
Pennsylvania Law School and Wharton business school. Mike continued to
be active with the Dartmouth community and co-chaired the Dartmouth
College Fund Committee with his wife Cynthia.
No matter where he went--Dartmouth, Penn, Lazard, Wasserstein--Mike
had a profound effect on people. He was not just my mentor or the
mentor for others at his firms, but he was also a role model for the
people whose lives he touched and a mentor to students both during his
time on campus and as an alumnus.
Madam Speaker, Mike was a titan in his field, and a tremendous human
being. He is survived by his wife Cynthia, his 4 sons, Michael Jr.,
James, William, and Cameron, and his 2 brothers, Frank and Robert. I
extend my deepest condolences and gratitude to his family. We will all
miss Mike, and I know that I will never forget the lessons he taught me
both in business and in life.
____________________
DOING MORE THAN TALKING ABOUT PHYSICAL FITNESS
______
HON. ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, we are all well acquainted with the Mark
Twain quote, ``Everyone talks about the weather but nobody does
anything about it.'' I think the 21st century equivalent of Mr. Twain's
words might be, ``Everyone talks about physical fitness but far too few
do anything about it.''
There is strong evidence that increased physical fitness not only
benefits the individual, but our society and our economy as well.
Increased physical fitness not only reduces the risk of heart disease
but it also reduces the risk of developing diabetes and can help
control Type II Diabetes.
Additionally, physical fitness can help older adults build stronger
bones and develop muscle; thereby lessening the severity of any fall.
Physical fitness also increases worker productivity, contributes to
lower workplace absenteeism and improves mental health. A physically
fit society also lowers Federal spending to combat diseases like heart
disease or hypertension that affect so many of our Medicaid patients.
The importance of physical activity as a benefit to all was recently
highlighted by a new study on the economic burden of chronic disease,
authored by the Milken Institute. Its findings are stark--the incidence
and costs of chronic disease are rising rapidly. If nothing is done to
increase the level of fitness in the Nation, the costs of treating the
associated diseases will grow by 42 percent over the next decade.
According to the Milken Institute study, we need to move our health
care system to one that provides incentives for prevention, wellness
and focuses on achieving a healthy body weight. It is evident that an
increased amount of physical fitness contributes materially to these
goals. Furthermore, as Members of Congress, we should be looking at how
to best effectively improve physical fitness.
One way is to remove any inequities under Federal law that prevents
the promotion of physical fitness. Two inequities currently exist.
First, gym memberships that employees provide for off-site facilities
are taxable to the employee as a benefit while those in-house are not--
a clear disincentive for both companies and individuals to work fitness
into the work day. Second, flexible spending accounts can not be used
for physical fitness equipment or activities. Thus, we have a situation
where you can use a flexible spending account on medicines to treat
illnesses such as diabetes but the funds can not be used to increase
the opportunity to exercise, which often controls and sometimes can
prevent disease.
In both cases, legislation is currently pending before the Ways and
Means Committee to correct these inequities. I urge the members of the
Committee and its leadership to consider them expeditiously and to
disprove Mark Twain's reworked adage.
____________________
BIRTHDAY OF GURU NANAK, FOUNDER OF SIKHISM
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, this month marks the 538th birthday of Guru
Nanak, the founder of the Sikh religion. As you may know, Guru Nanak
was born in 1469 in what is now West Punjab. Every year, Sikhs from
around the world gather in Nankana Sahib, where Guru Nanak was born, to
honor him. Let me take this opportunity to honor Guru Nanak also and to
congratulate the Sikhs of the world on this important occasion.
Guru Nanak stood up to tyranny. He worked to liberate his people from
the tyranny of the Moghul ruler Babar. Today, Sikhs suffer under
oppression from Hindu rulers who have murdered over a quarter of a
million of them and
[[Page 31510]]
hold more than 52,000 as political prisoners. They also killed over
300,000 Christians in Nagaland, over 90,000 Muslims in Kashmir, and
tens of thousands of Assamese, Bodos, Dalits, Manipuris, Tamils, and
other minorities. This oppression is no more acceptable than the
oppression of Guru Nanak's time.
Sikhs can honor Guru Nanak by standing up to India to secure their
own freedom and helping the other minorities secure theirs too. Freedom
is the longing of every human heart. God intends for everyone to be
free.
We are the primary power in today's world, Madam Speaker. We can use
our influence to support the cause of freedom in South Asia. By doing
so, we can honor Guru Nanak and all those who have worked for freedom
around the world.
The time has come to let India know that if it is going to proclaim
itself a democracy, it must act like one. That means allowing everyone,
including minorities, to exercise their most basic human rights.
Freedom is the birthright of all people. If India will not do so, it
should be placed back on the list of nations that do not respect
religious freedom, as it was at one time, and the appropriate sanctions
should be imposed. In addition, unless India is willing to live up to
its democratic principles, we should stop our aid to India in all
forms.
Acting like a democracy also means recognizing the right of self-
determination. Self-determination is the essence of democracy. Where is
the vote on the status of Kashmir that India promised a mere 59 years
ago? Does it take 59 years to set up a free and fair vote? Khalistan,
the Sikh homeland, declared itself independent 20 years ago. Where is
the vote on its status? And what of the Nagas and all the people simply
seeking the freedom to rule themselves? The United States carries a lot
of weight in the world. If we are serious about spreading democracy, we
should work to bring about self-determination for all the peoples and
nations of the subcontinent. That would help all people shake off
oppression and live in dignity and prosperity, and it is the right
thing to do.
Madam Speaker, I would like to place the Council of Khalistan's open
letter regarding the birthday of Guru Nanak into the Record.
Congratulations to the Khalsa Panth on the Parkash Devas of Guru Nanak
Dear Khalsa Panth: As you know, this month marks the
birthday (Parkash Devas) of the first Sikh Guru; Guru Nanak,
founder of the Sikh religion. Congratulations to the Sikh
Nation on this momentous occasion.
This year marks the 538th anniversary of the birth of Guru
Nanak. He was born in 1469 and departed this world for his
heavenly abode in 1539. Guru Nanak was the founder of the
Sikh religion. (``Mary Sikha Jagat Witch Nanak Nirmal Panth
Chalaya.'') On November 24 in Nankana Sahib, now in West
Punjab, Sikhs from around the world will celebrate this
occasion. Last year, over 10,000 showed up for the
celebration. Crowds enthusiastically raised slogans of
``Khalistan Zindabad!'' The Sangat showed great devotion and
reverence on this pious occasion.
Guru Nanak confronted Babar, the Moghul ruler of the time
and called him a Jabbar (oppressor) and spoke out against the
tyranny of the rulers of that time. He was even imprisoned by
Babar, along with his followers. Today, Sikhs face similar
oppression by the Hindu rulers of India.
Just as Guru Nanak spoke out against the Moghul tyrant
Babar, we must work to free our Sikh brothers and sisters
from the oppression of the Brahmins. It is incumbent on us to
achieve freedom for Khalistan, as is our birthright. As
former Jathedar of the Akal Takht Professor Darshan Singh has
said, ``If a Sikh is not a Khalistani, he is not a Sikh.''
India has murdered over 250,000 of our Sikh brothers and
sisters, as well as more than 300,000 Christians in Nagaland,
over 90,000 Kashmiri Muslims, and tens of thousands of other
minorities. More than 52,000 Sikhs (and tens of thousands of
other minorities) are being held as political prisoners. In
1994, the U.S. State Department reported that the Indian
government had paid over 41,000 cash bounties for killing
Sikhs.
A MASR report quotes the Punjab Civil Magistracy as writing
``if we add up the figures of the last few years the number
of innocent persons killed would run into lakhs [hundreds of
thousands.]'' The Indian Supreme Court called the Indian
government's murders of Sikhs ``worse than a genocide.'' Guru
Nanak did not tolerate oppression; he struggled against it
wherever it reared its ugly head. We must be good followers
of Guru Nanak by doing the same today. India is also
destroying Sikhs economically. The Indian government fixes
the price for fertilizer very high and the price for produce
very low so Sikh farmers can't even get the cost of
production for their crops. This year it fixed the wheat
price at Rs 750 per quintal. Even Badal demanded Rs 1000 per
quintal. If Punjab farmers could sell their produce across
the border in Pakistan and the Middle East, they could easily
get close to Rs 1,500 per quintal and would be able to make a
living.
India diverts Punajb's river water, its natural resource,
to neighboring Haryana and Rajasthan without any
compensation. India seeks to destroy the Sikh Nation
religiously, economically, and politically. Guru Nanak would
not permit them to do so. We must show the spirit of Guru
Nanak and reclaim our sovereignty.
Guru Nanak travelled extensively, to the Middle East, where
he visited Baghdad, and throughout India, along with his two
companions, one Hindu, one Muslim. He spread his message of
truthfulness, respect for the rights of individuals, earning
an honest living, sharing with the needy, and praying to
Almighty God. He was revered by Hindus and Muslims alike.
When he left this world, his body was not found. The sheet
covering his body was torn in two. The Hindus cremated it and
the Muslims buried it, each according to their customs.
Overcoming oppression in today's world will earn the Sikhs of
today similar respect. We must not accept India's tyrannical
rule over our homeland.
Guru Nanak is remembered as Baba Nanak Shah Faqir, Hindu Da
Guru, Mussleman Da Pir. He preached the equality of the
entire human race, including gender equality. To this day,
these are cornerstones of the Sikh religion. But our Sikh
brethren in Punjab, Khalistan do not get to experience
equality. Instead, they are subjected to the worst kind of
oppression by the Indian regime.
India is on the verge of disintegration. Kashmir is about
to separate from India. As L.K. Advani said, ``If Kashmir
goes, India goes.'' History shows that multinational states
such as India are doomed to failure. Countries like Austria-
Hungary, India's longtime friend the Soviet Union,
Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and others prove this point.
India is not one country; it is a polyglot like those
countries, thrown together for the convenience of the British
colonialists. It is doomed to break up as they did.
Currently, there are 17 freedom movements within India's
borders. It has 18 official languages. Montenegro, which has
less than a million people, has become a sovereign country
and a member of the United Nations. Now it is the time for
the Sikh Nation of Punjab, Khalistan to become independent.
The sooner the better.
Guru Nanak gave the Sikhs our identity. We can honor him by
reclaiming the freedom that is our birthright: ``Raj Bina Na
Dharam Chaley Hain, Dharam Bina Sab Dale Male Hain.''
(``Without political power, a religion cannot flourish and
without religion, people are oppressed and persecuted.'') Let
us stand up for the ideals of Guru Nanak and defend the
integrity of the Sikh religion and the Sikh Nation.
Sincerely,
Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh
President,
Council of Khalistan.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH A MODELING AND SIMULATION
GRANT PROGRAM AT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
______
HON. ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce
legislation that will establish a grant program at the U.S. Department
of Education to encourage and enhance the study of Modeling and
Simulation at institutions of higher education.
Modeling and Simulation has become an essential component in ensuring
that we meet both the defense and domestic challenges of the 21st
century. Modeling and Simulation technology allows us to easily and
effectively sharpen the tools, procedures, and decisions needed to
address difficult and complex problems.
Earlier this year, this body passed by voice vote House Resolution
487, introduced by my Virginia colleague Congressman Randy Forbes of
Virginia, which recognized Modeling and Simulation as a national
critical technology.
This critical technology allows us to build and develop computer
models of complex systems--whether a car, an airplane, an entire
battlefield, or even a major city's evacuation plan--to see how certain
actions will affect the end result. These simulations help us develop
better and practical analogies of real world situations. Modeling and
Simulation is a rapidly expanding field and we must ensure that the
United States maintains its competitive edge in this field by expanding
Modeling and Simulation programs at our institutions of higher
education.
The bill that I am introducing today will ensure that this national
critical technology is expanded at our Nation's colleges and
universities. Specifically, the bill will establish a grant program for
colleges and universities to enhance and improve already established
Modeling and Simulation programs. Colleges and
[[Page 31511]]
universities without Modeling and Simulation programs can also use the
grant to establish their own program. The bill will also create a task
force at the Department of Education to support the development of the
Modeling and Simulation field, including helping to further define the
study and identify the best practices of Modeling and Simulation.
I am proud to represent the people and businesses of the Third
Congressional District of Virginia who are leading the way in the
Modeling and Simulation field. Numerous colleges and universities in
the Hampton Roads area, such as Hampton University, Norfolk State
University, and Old Dominion University, have Modeling and Simulation
programs. Old Dominion University is one of the few universities that
has both an undergraduate degree program and a graduate degree program
in Modeling and Simulation. ODU's Modeling, Analysis and Simulation
Center in Suffolk, Virginia is a premier facility that is second to
none.
The grant program established by this legislation will go a long way
in helping universities that have Modeling and Simulation programs
expand and enhance their programs, as well as helping universities
without a Modeling and Simulation program establish their own program.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this important
legislation to ensure that the United States maintains its competitive
advantage in the critical national technology field of Modeling and
Simulation.
____________________
GERALDINE GENNET
______
HON. NANCY PELOSI
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, I commend
Geraldine Gennet for her outstanding service and dedication to the
House of Representatives.
In her 11 years as General Counsel of the House, Geraldine set a
standard for professionalism and non-partisanship that will inform the
work of the new General Counsel and all future holders of that
position.
She created an Office of General Counsel that is respected by all
Members of the House and widely recognized for its excellence
throughout the legal community. I wish Geraldine continued success and
happiness in her new endeavors.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO RONALD AND JENNIFER MILNE
______
HON. TOM LATHAM
of iowa
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ronald and
Jennifer Milne, residents of Perry, Iowa, on recently becoming United
States citizens.
Both Ronald and Jennifer are originally from Scotland. Ronald was
naturalized on June 29, 2007, in Des Moines, while Jennifer was later
naturalized on September 17, 2007 in West Branch, Iowa. The long
journey to U.S. citizenship began in the late 1980's when their son was
attending Dartmouth College and later married an American woman. Their
daughter also came to America and eventually married an American. After
Ronald and Jennifer made several trips to the United States to visit
their children, they decided they wanted to be close to their family
and move to America.
After years of filling out forms, interviews with the American
Embassy, waiting for the processing of their papers, passing the
American History test, and paying naturalization fees, Ronald and
Jennifer's citizenship was finally granted.
The Milne's love for their family and for this country is extremely
admirable, and I commend Ronald and Jennifer for all their hard work
and commitment to becoming citizens of our country. I am extremely
honored to represent the Milnes in the U.S. Congress and I know that I
can speak for all of my colleagues here in officially welcoming them as
American citizens. I wish Ronald, Jennifer and their family all the
best as Americans and Iowans.
____________________
HONORING MARY BERGAN
______
HON. BARBARA LEE
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary
accomplishments of Ms. Mary Bergan, who has dutifully served and
enriched the California Federation of Teachers and the labor movement
for over 35 years. Her work has affected the lives of teachers and
their students throughout the 9th Congressional District, and the great
State of California.
Ms. Mary Bergan has been involved in community politics,
volunteerism, and education for her entire adult life. After graduating
from the prestigious University of California, Berkeley in 1965 with a
B.A. in English, Mary promptly joined the Peace Corps. For 3 years Mary
lived in Malaysia teaching English language and literature and coaching
athletics. In this way, Mary has always been acutely aware of the
importance of both healthy minds and bodies for her students. When Mary
returned to the United States she became a teacher, and immediately
started organizing for the California Federation of Teachers, CFT.
For more than 3 decades her passion and activism has rightly placed
her in leadership positions throughout the State of California, both
within her profession as an educator and within the greater Democratic
Party. In 1976, while Jerry Brown was Governor of California, Ms.
Bergan was chosen as a delegate to the Democratic National Conventions.
Shortly after, in the 1980's, Mary was elected as the chair of the
Labor Caucus of the California Democratic Party. She continued her role
as a delegate at the Democratic National Conventions in 1992, 1996,
2000, and 2004.
In 1991 Mary took her leadership skills, compassion, and dedicated
experience to task. She was elected by her peers as president of the
CFT. Only a year later, in 1992, Mary was elected vice president of the
American Federation of Teachers, AFT, a national position of both great
prestige and great responsibility. Not satisfied merely holding a title
or position, Mary has participated in and continues to serve in
numerous capacities within the AFT. She is a member of the Teachers
Program and Policy Council, where she serves primarily on the council's
working group on early childhood education. She is also a member of the
organizing committee, the Task Force on Health Care Reform, and the
State Federations Advisory Committee.
When she was elected president of the CFT Ms. Bergen pledged ``to
renew the organization's commitment to excellence in education, to
reinforce its efforts to increase education funding and to raise the
organization's profile in the media and public eye.'' This is exactly
what Mary has done, and continues to do. She is an outspoken advocate
of our children and the conditions of our teachers.
Mary has always been quick to respond to the political issues of the
day which most affect education, and she continues to be famously
truthful and clear in those responses. Mary does not play with words,
she does not play games with her positions on issues, and she does not
play with the futures of our children and teachers. Mary has long known
that the better the conditions are for our teachers, the better our
schools will be. Ultimately, taking care of our teachers affords our
students the greatest opportunities for success in their own lives.
A true servant educator in every sense, Mary Bergan has immeasurably
contributed to our community, our State, and our Nation. On behalf of
California's 9th Congressional District, I thank and applaud Mary
Bergan for the more than 35 years of unwavering service and
inspiration.
____________________
RECOGNIZING NEWARK'S NORTH WARD CENTER'S ANNUAL GENO BARONI BIRTHDAY
CELEBRATION
______
HON. MARCY KAPTUR
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker. I rise today to recognize the annual
celebration at the North Ward Center in Newark, New Jersey honoring the
birthday of its inspiration, Monsignor Geno Baroni, on November 15,
2007. Msgr. Baroni--Geno to those of us who knew and loved him--was a
most remarkable man, and though he passed from this life more than 2
decades ago, his memory and his mission remain strong.
Following riots at the end of the 1960s, Msgr. Baroni convinced
Stephen Adubato, Sr. to leave the Newark public schools and organize
the North Ward Educational and Cultural Center. In 1970, the center
began providing information on services available to the residents of
Newark's north ward, with a particular emphasis on higher education
opportunities for students.
Built on the principles of community, opportunity, responsibility,
and equity, the North
[[Page 31512]]
Ward Center remains true to its mission ``to provide educational,
cultural, and meaningful social services to low and moderate income
families who reside in the greater Newark community. The center plays a
major role in helping families overcome barriers to self-sufficiency,
works to improve the health and well-being of those families, and helps
revitalize their community, thereby improving the quality of life for
all residents.''
Over the decades, the North Ward Center expanded to include the
Newark Business Training Institute, the North Ward Child Development
Center, the Robert Treat Academy, and Casa Israel, a state-of-the-art
wellness and medical center. The initiatives and services of these five
institutions are widely recognized as among the finest, and the center
has received many accolades over the years. Yet, true to the standards
of its heart--Geno Baroni--the center has never wavered from its
mission and founding principles, and it continues to celebrate the
diversity of its people. The North Ward Center hosts ``the society of
Italians who celebrate St. Patrick's Day'' with prominent Italian-
Americans honoring Irish-Americans, an annual Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. remembrance, and a Puerto Rican scholarship dinner
recognizing four outstanding north ward students.
Geno Baroni was a many-faceted man, a gifted and passionate leader, a
builder, a doer, and thoroughly committed to Christ's message of social
justice. The North Ward Center reflects this charismatic man and his
life's work. Msgr. Geno Baroni's impression on the lives of those of us
privileged to know him and those whose lives he touched through his
work is indeed profound. As the North Ward Center honors this
extraordinary man by celebrating his birthday, the final words in the
Shaker hymn Lord of the Dance seem most fitting: ``. . . they buried my
body and they thought I'd gone, but I am the dance and the dance goes
on.''
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE SUN DIAL CHAPTER OF THE DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN
REVOLUTION
______
HON. TOM LATHAM
of iowa
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Sun Dial
Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution on their 100th
anniversary. The chapter has been organized in Ames, IA since October
7, 1907.
The Sun Dial Chapter is named in honor of one of the original
members, Hattie Willey, who had a sun dial that belonged to a family
ancestor who was a pastor of the Plymouth Colony. A duplicate of that
original sun dial was marked in 1914 and is displayed in the Ames
Cemetery.
Ada Hayden, one of the most notable members of the Sun Dial Chapter,
received her doctorate from Iowa State University in 1918 and was the
first woman to do so. Many founders of the chapter left a boundless
impression on the community and the state of Iowa. These distinguished
names include Adams, Agg, Knapp, Kellogg, Marston, Stanton, Tilden and
Willey.
The early goals of the organization remain the same today. They
include promoting historic preservation, education and patriotism.
During the years of war and depression, Sun Dial collected money,
clothing and other necessary items to give to the poor and send to the
soldiers serving abroad. Today the chapter contributes to National
Daughters of the American Revolution projects and gives an award
annually to an outstanding ROTC student at Iowa State University.
Again, I congratulate the Sun Dial Chapter of the Daughters of the
American Revolution on this historic anniversary. It is an honor to
represent this historic chapter and her members in Congress, and I wish
them an equally storied future.
____________________
HONORING JOYCE M. TAYLOR
______
HON. BARBARA LEE
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary
accomplishments of Ms. Joyce M. Taylor. As she retires from an
illustrious and dedicated career in the communications industry, we
have the opportunity to reflect on her achievements and thank her for
her years of service.
Joyce was born in Muskogee, Oklahoma. She graduated from the
University of Oklahoma at Norman with a bachelor's degree in
journalism. From this early beginning, Joyce began her long career,
traveling and working throughout the Nation, assuming leadership
positions in some of our most influential communications companies.
Ms. Taylor first served as the public relations manager in Oklahoma
City for Southwestern Bell Telephone. After that, she held a number of
communications positions, which included assuming responsibilities in
advertising, employee information, news relations, public policy
development and federal relations. Her capacities have taken her from
Oklahoma City to St. Louis to Washington, DC. Finally, she came to
California, during an important merger between SBC and Pacific Telesis.
At the time of the merger, Ms. Taylor was serving as the executive
director of external affairs for SBC Communications, Inc. Her work
during this delicate moment in the communications industry directly
helped earn the support from many Bay Area community and consumer
organizations for the merger. This resulted in Ms. Taylor's appointment
as AT&T's Senior Vice President for External Affairs-Northern
California.
During all of this time, and throughout her professional endeavors,
Joyce has always contributed to her community. Joyce has used her
extraordinary talents to contribute to a number of worthy causes. From
the arts to education, from industry to our neighborhoods, Joyce has
always given back. It is our great fortune that the 9th Congressional
District and the greater Northern California Area became her community
as she grew in her capacities at AT&T.
In April 1997, Joyce Taylor was appointed to oversee regulatory,
legislative, governmental and external affairs activities for AT&T in
Northern California. Continuing her natural enthusiasm and belief in
charity and the growth of communities, Joyce has become integrally
involved in many boards and organizations in the Greater Bay Area.
Joyce serves on the Board of Directors of the Bay Area Council, the
Bay Area Economic Forum, First Tee of San Jose, the San Francisco
School Alliance Foundation, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, the
Tech Museum of Innovation, United Way of the Bay Area, and Women's
Forum West. In addition, Ms. Taylor is a member of the Northwestern
Regional Board of Operation Hope.
Dedicated to the arts and education, Ms. Taylor also serves on the
Board of Trustees of the San Francisco Ballet and as a member of the
Executive Campaign Advisory Board of the United Negro College Fund.
It certainly is not difficult to see how this remarkable woman has
become such an invaluable part of our community.
On behalf of California's 9th Congressional District, I would like to
thank and applaud our beloved Joyce M. Taylor on the occasion of her
retirement. I am sure that her contributions to our community, and the
value that she brings to the young leaders following in her example,
are only just beginning.
____________________
HONORING ROBERT E. BONNELL
______
HON. MARCY KAPTUR
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Robert E.
Bonnell of Toledo, Ohio. Toledo has been called a community of
families. Bob Bonnell, an esteemed citizen of that community, seemed to
have been born to create and embody ``Fireman Freddie, a friendly,
caring, and wise man, who assumed a larger meaning as a loving father
for all our community's children. Bob's vocation as a teacher and
firefighter saved countless lives as children learned how to save
themselves and the lives of their loved ones. They learned new lessons
from a Santalike man who cared for them as he would his own children.
Robert E. Bonnell remains a legend in the Toledo Community for his
dedication to his community as a firefighter and to the education of
the youth of Toledo about the value of safety. Mr. Bonnell became the
department's first ``Fireman Freddy'' in 1973. It happened soon after
the idea of a fire safety program--and the birth of Fireman Freddy--
originated in 1972 when Mr. Bonnell was a ladder truck driver at
Station 6 at Starr and Euclid avenues, where he seemed to have a
special rapport with school groups who came to tour the firehouse. He
was asked to start the educational program and thought it would be a
six-month assignment. But Mr. Bonnell hadn't stopped his two-schools-a-
day, five-day-a-week visits since January 1973, he told The Blade in an
interview in December 1980, just before he retired.
``To tell you the truth,'' Mr. Bonnell said in a 1974 Toledo Blade
article, ``children understand more than you think they do. I never
[[Page 31513]]
have to talk down to them. I just talk to them in the same way that I
talk to adults. For some reason, it works.'' By the time he retired,
Mr. Bonnell talked to more than 125,000 elementary students in Toledo
public and Catholic schools and the Washington Local school district
about fire prevention and fire safety.
Robert E. Bonnell at age 80, passed away Monday, October 29, 2007 in
St. Charles Mercy Hospital of congestive heart failure. He will be
fondly remembered by the residents who recall being taught by the
fireman about fire safety when they were in the fourth and sixth
grades.
Mr. Bonnell joined the Toledo Fire Department in 1956 and then served
for 25 years, most of them as the department's ``Fireman Freddie''
until his retirement in 1981. During his early retirement he worked as
a funeral attendant for the Eggleston Meinert Pavley Funeral Home in
Oregon. ``He was a good old country boy, and he liked kids,'' retired
Toledo Deputy Fire Chief Robert Schwanzl said. ``He was a storyteller
and he had a special knack for telling stories and talking to children.
And he was very dependable.''
Born in Weston, West Virginia, on February 22, 1927, to Onal and
Genevieve (Beamer) Bonnell, Mr. Bonnell, graduated from Lewis County
High School in 1945, when he enlisted in the Army. During the last
months of World War II, he was a staff sergeant in Germany. After his
honorable discharge in 1947, he returned to West Virginia and later
that year married his high school sweetheart, JoAnne Teter. A short
time later, the couple settled in Toledo.
In his free time, Mr. Bonnell, who in retirement lived in Northwood
and most recently in Walbridge, enjoyed collecting cuff links, of which
he had 4,000, and marbles, of which he had more than 50,000. He also
liked visiting garage sales, hunting, and fishing. He loved spending
time with his family and being ``Pudding Papa'' to his great-grandson.
``Dad had a zest for life,'' his son, Gregory, said ``He loved
people, loved his family, and he loved to have a good time. [And] he
was a hard worker and a dedicated individual.'' Mr. Bonnell was a
funeral attendant for the Eggleston Meinert Pavley Funeral Home in
Oregon during his early retirement years.
His memberships included the Arthur Daly American Legion Post, the
National Rifle Association, Paragon Lotus Lodge F&AM, Zenobia Shrine
(Stewards, Hillbillies and Wood County) VFW Post #2510 and 40-8 Society
of the American Legion, and the Scottish Rite, all in Toledo. In 1988,
he received the Meritorious Service Award from the Scottish Rite where
he had life membership.
Surviving are his loving wife, JoAnne, with whom he just celebrated
60 years of marriage (June 28, 1947); children, Gregory (Mary) Bonnell
and Beverly (Kevin) Sawyer; grandchildren, Angie and Brianne Sawyer,
Rob, Mike, Adam and Brian Bonnell and great-grandchildren, Kleiston and
Ria. Bob was preceded in death by his parents, his 2 brothers and a
sister.
He will be missed by the Sisters of Notre Dame especially Sister Mary
Theresa. He will be sorely missed and fondly remembered by all the
lives he touched in our Toledo community. The world was made a better
place by the life of Bob Bonnell. May his works inspire others who
follow in his golden steps.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO VAN HARDEN AND BONNIE LUCAS
______
HON. TOM LATHAM
of iowa
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Van Harden and
Bonnie Lucas of the ``Van and Bonnie in the Morning'' radio show. Van
and Bonnie are Iowa radio icons and winners of multiple Marconi Awards,
including the 2007 ``Personality of the Year'' among medium-sized
market radio stations.
Van Harden was raised in Adel, Iowa, where he developed a deep love
for small Iowa communities and dreamt of being on the radio when he
grew up. His dream became a reality after graduating from Drake
University in 1973, where he majored in broadcast journalism and got
his first on-air job with KDLS-AM in Perry, Iowa. After jobs in Tulsa,
Oklahoma at KWEN-FM and KRNT-AM in Des Moines, he became the host of
the morning program at 1040 WHO-AM in Des Moines in 1986.
Van's current co-host, Bonnie Lucas of Monroe, Iowa, has been with
the WHO morning program for 13 years. Bonnie's first job in radio began
in 1979 at KRNT, where she was a former co-worker of Van's. In the
seven and a half years Bonnie spent at KRNT, she worked in the traffic
department, served as secretary to the General Manager, worked as the
Assistant Sales Manager and finally went into sales for KRNT. After
Bonnie started her own small fitness center business and worked for a
communications company, she tried out for Van's co-host position in
August 1994 and has been with the program ever since.
Van and Bonnie are up every morning by 3:30 a.m. and on the air at
4:59 a.m. Their creativity, family-friendly humor and enthusiasm have
made WHO's morning show the most listened to in the state. They do a
phenomenal job at connecting with Iowans and starting their day off
with a smile.
Van and Bonnie provide a valuable service to the state of Iowa, and I
am honored to recognize this most recent accomplishment. I wish Van,
Bonnie and all of their coworkers at WHO the best of luck and continued
success.
____________________
HONORING JOE MORGAN
______
HON. BARBARA LEE
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the legendary Joe
Morgan as the Board of Directors of Alameda County Youth Development,
Inc. (ACYD) come together in the 9th Congressional District to pay
tribute to Mr. Morgan and celebrate his impressive legacy.
Many are aware of Joe Morgan's incredible athletic accomplishments.
His life has served as an inspiration to our youth, especially in
communities of color, where Mr. Morgan's example has served as a symbol
of the power of perseverance in overcoming obstacles and living up to
one's great potential.
Even though Mr. Morgan has made significant contributions to our
world in his capacities as a role model through sports, his
contributions to our community as a steward of our youth programs and
charitable causes has created an equally positive impact on thousands
of people. Mr. Morgan has been one of the most generous and committed
supporters of youth programs in Oakland, California for over four
decades.
Joe Morgan was born in Bonham, Texas in 1944. At the age of 10, he
moved to Oakland with his family, and has called the East Bay his home
ever since. Mr. Morgan is a true product and member of the Oakland
family. He attended Brookfield Elementary, Elmhurst Junior High, and
graduated with recognition for his academic and athletic prowess from
Oakland's Castlemont High School in 1961. Mr. Morgan went on to receive
an Associate's Degree from Merritt College in 1963.
After graduating from Merritt College, Joe Morgan quickly rose to
prominence as he launched one of the greatest careers in Major League
Baseball. In 1963, Mr. Morgan signed his first professional contract
with the Houston Colt 45's. A year later, he emerged as a key member of
the Houston Astros, eventually going on to be named the National League
Rookie of the Year in 1965. He remained with the Astros until 1972,
when he was traded to the Cincinnati Reds, one of the all-time great
teams that was given the moniker ``The Big Red Machine'' after the
franchise strung together a series of World Series Championships during
the 1970s, an accomplishment that continues to be recognized as one of
the great achievements in American sports history.
After completing a successful career in professional baseball that
eventually led to Mr. Morgan being inducted in the Major League
Baseball Hall of Fame, he returned to school. This act of personal
determination exemplified his unwavering dedication to education and
personal growth. Mr. Morgan received a B.S. in Physical Education from
California State University, Hayward, just as he had promised his
mother he would do many years ago.
These tremendous accomplishments, however, were just one aspect of
Mr. Morgan's capacities as an extraordinary person. Fame and fortune
were not satisfying for Mr. Morgan if he was not able to use his
experience and energy to give back to his community. Mr. Morgan has
always displayed incredible dedication to his family, an unwavering
love for children, and a personal concern with those around him and his
community. Mr. Morgan continues to actively support the Young America
Baseball Program and the Oakland Unified School District Sports
Program, doing what he can to ensure that those institutions have the
resources necessary to serve the youth of our community.
Harnessing so much compassion for his community, Mr. Morgan was
compelled to create the Joe Morgan Youth Foundation. His Foundation
provides many much needed services for our youth, including
scholarships, financial support programs, and innovative community
initiatives.
[[Page 31514]]
This year, in recognition of his extraordinary life, accomplishments,
and dedication to our community, ACYD has presented Mr. Morgan with its
first George P. Scotlan Outstanding Citizen Award. Mr. Morgan is
certainly one of Oakland's most outstanding citizens, and an excellent
choice for such a prestigious honor.
On behalf of the residents of California's 9th Congressional
District, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr.
Morgan as he receives due recognition for his contributions. The
community of Oakland, especially those impassioned about the well being
and future of our youth, salute Joe Morgan today, and we look forward
to witnessing his lasting and positive impact on the lives of our
children.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIRMINGHAM AREA SENIORS
COORDINATING COUNCIL
______
HON. JOE KNOLLENBERG
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the Birmingham
Area Seniors Coordinating Council as they celebrate their 30th
Anniversary today.
The Birmingham Area Seniors Coordinating Council was formed in 1978
to improve the coordination of senior citizen programs and services,
and to provide a central source of information and referral in the
Birmingham Public Schools community.
Today, the Council has nearly 1,700 members who value independence,
lifelong learning, and community involvement. Not only do Council
members enjoy the benefits of an active senior center program, but they
are also volunteers who deliver services to their aging neighbors.
These services are vital to enabling seniors to remain in their own
homes, and to live with independence and dignity. Each year, more than
500 senior volunteers provide outreach service to other older adults in
the community, evidencing their motto of ``Seniors Serving Seniors.''
The Council offers a variety of educational classes, recreational
programs, social activities, and travel opportunities to help older
adults stay healthy and happy. In addition, the Council's many outreach
services to the elderly are accomplished with a small staff and
hundreds of senior volunteers in partnership with many local and state
agencies and organizations.
The generosity of the Birmingham Public Schools, the City of
Birmingham, the Villages of Beverly Hills, Bingham Farms, and Franklin,
local service clubs, agencies, foundations, churches, businesses and
hundreds of caring individuals to fund this unique delivery of services
that have been the staple of the Council for the past 30 years.
Madam Speaker, today I commend the Birmingham Area Seniors
Coordinating Council. I am proud to recognize the achievements and
service of the Council over the past 30 years, and wish them even more
success over the next 30 years.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. FRANK R. WOLF
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, yesterday I was on an official leave of
absence for a medical appointment. Had I been present and voting, I
would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 1082, H.R. 3315, which I
cosponsored, to provide that the great hall of the Capitol Visitor
Center be known as Emancipation Hall; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 1083,
H.R. 1593, which I cosponsored, the Second Chance Act; ``yea'' on
rollcall No. 1084, H.R. 3403, the 911 Modernization and Public Safety
Act, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 1085, H.R. 3461, Safeguarding
America's Families by Enhancing and Reorganizing New and Efficient
Technologies Act.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. NITA M. LOWEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I regrettably missed Rollcall vote No.
1085 (H.R. 3461) and Rollcall vote No. 1084 (H.R. 3403). Had I been
present, I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall No. 1085:
``yes,'' Rollcall No. 1084: ``yes.''
____________________
DANDY-WALKER SYNDROME AND HYDROCEPHALUS
______
HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 163,
expressing the sense of the Congress in support of further research and
activities to increase public awareness, professional education,
diagnosis, and treatment of Dandy-Walker Syndrome and hydrocephalus.
In 2005 while awaiting the birth of their first child Ryan, Andrea
and Eric Cole of Kensington, Maryland learned that he would be born
with a rare birth defect called Dandy-Walker Syndrome and a condition
called hydrocephalus. Ryan was born on May 3, 2005, 3 months premature
and weighing 1 pound 15 ounces, at George Washington University
Hospital in Washington, D.C. He would spend a total of 156 days in the
hospital during his first year of life.
Today, the Cole family leads the fight against Dandy-Walker Syndrome
and is the inspiration behind my efforts against this terrible birth
defect. On learning that no national organization existed to advocate
on behalf of individuals with Dandy-Walker Syndrome, Eric and Andrea
took the necessary steps to found the only national non-profit
organization for Dandy-Walker Syndrome, and located it in Maryland's
Eighth Congressional District, which I represent. Today, the Dandy-
Walker Alliance remains the only non-profit organization committed to
educational and informational activities, programs and publications and
supporting non-partisan research and events to increase public
awareness of Dandy-Walker Syndrome. The Dandy-Walker Alliance supports
all efforts to determine the cause(s) of, to find the cure for and to
ameliorate the effects of Dandy-Walker Syndrome.
Dandy-Walker Syndrome is a congenital malformation of the cerebellum
that can cause developmental delay, is frequently associated with
hydrocephalus that can lead to an enlarged head circumference, and can
cause neurological damage possibly leading to death. The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention reports that Dandy-Walker Syndrome may
affect as many as 1 in 5,000 live born infants of which approximately
70 to 90 percent will develop hydrocephalus. Treatment for individuals
with Dandy-Walker generally consists of treating the associated
problems rather than the syndrome itself. Hydrocephalus is treated
today the same way that it was in 1952, by inserting a shunt into the
brain to drain off excess fluid.
In addition to what the Coles are doing with the Dandy-Walker
Alliance, a filmmaker from Colorado with a nephew affected by Dandy-
Walker is completing the first-ever documentary on Dandy-Walker
Syndrome called ``Dandy Kids,'' which will premiere in January 2008. A
couple in Florida was also inspired to film a commercial with their
three-year-old son affected by Dandy-Walker and hydrocephalus to help
promote the need for blood donations since the brain surgeries to treat
his hydrocephalus often require transfusions.
Dandy-Walker Syndrome involves many complex issues. That is why the
Director of the National Institutes of Health should continue the
current collaboration, with respect to Dandy-Walker Syndrome, among the
National Human Genome Research Institute, the National Institute of
Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, the National Institute of Neurological
Disorders and Stroke and the Office of Rare Diseases.
Further research into the epidemiology, diagnosis, pathophysiology,
disease burden, and improved treatment of Dandy-Walker Syndrome should
be conducted and supported. The National Institutes of Health should
take the lead in sponsoring an annual workshop to increase awareness
and set national research priorities for Dandy-Walker Syndrome and
hydrocephalus.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should also form a
coordinating committee for Dandy-Walker Syndrome and hydrocephalus
research, which would annually report to the public its findings on the
progress in the epidemiology, pathophysiology, disease burden,
treatment improvements, diagnoses, and awareness for Dandy-Walker
Syndrome and hydrocephalus.
Finally, public awareness and professional education regarding Dandy-
Walker research should increase through partnerships between the
Federal Government and patient advocacy organizations, such as the
Dandy-Walker Alliance and the Hydrocephalus Association.
Madam Speaker, let's tell families like the Coles that they are not
alone in their fight
[[Page 31515]]
against Dandy-Walker Syndrome. Certainly we can lend a hand in helping
to further raise awareness of Dandy-Walker Syndrome and to act on
behalf of disabled members in society who cannot advocate for
themselves. I think we all agree that partnerships between the Federal
Government and advocacy groups are important to the American people.
That is why I urge my colleagues from both parties to join me in co-
sponsoring House Concurrent Resolution 163 to raise awareness for
Dandy-Walker Syndrome and hydrocephalus.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. BRIAN HIGGINS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. HIGGINS. Madam Speaker, yesterday I missed Rollcall vote No.
1082, on passage of H.R. 3315. I strongly support this legislation,
which would provide that the great hall of the new Capitol Visitor
Center shall be known as Emancipation Hall, and I would have voted
``yes'' on passage had I been present.
____________________
VETERANS DAY PRAYER
______
HON. JOE WILSON
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, as grateful Americans
provide deserved tributes for our courageous veterans, I have
fortunately been provided a profound poem from Clinton B. Campbell of
Beaufort, South Carolina.
[From the Journal of New Jersey Poets]
My Veterans Day Prayer
(By Clinton B. Campbell)
Lord, when the pull of my bed lures me to stay another hour,
please remind me of taps being played for the fallen,
of the tears that reach my cheek after each name is read,
the ones I knew personally and the ones old-timers talk about
in awe.
After the crowd stumbles through the Pledge of Allegiance
I want to be there and listen with all my heart
while the winner of this year's essay contest quiets the
crowd
reminding us of why we are paying our respects.
When the closing prayer is read I want to look around in
honor at my fellow vets,
the men and the women in their timeworn uniforms.
Let me see them as they were, splendidly marching forward
with the courage that allows us to have a choice of whether
we come here today or not.
____________________
IN TRIBUTE TO HAROLD SAMUEL NELSON
______
HON. CHARLES A. GONZALEZ
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. GONZALEZ. Madam Speaker, every Member of the House of
Representatives has a cherished friend and mentor back home. That dear
friend is what keeps a member grounded to the realities of his or her
district which can sometimes become obscure in the heat of legislative
debate. With the passing of that friend, a huge void is created which
often cannot be filled.
Harold Samuel Nelson was born on June 18, 1918, and left this mortal
world on May 29, 2006. It has now been more than a year that I, and
many others, no longer have the benefit of his wisdom and advice. I now
rise to honor him and how he lived his life.
Throughout his long life, Mr. Nelson engaged in a number of different
professions: Farmer, philanthropist, and attorney. In 1952, he married
Helen Ridgway, and they made their lives on a dairy farm in New
Braunfels where they raised their daughters, JoMerre and Elizabeth. On
September 19, 2001, Elizabeth blessed the Nelson family with their
first grandson, Samuel Wilder Nelson who will carry forward the proud
tradition of the Nelson name.
After his experiences with other dairy organizations, Mr. Nelson
formed Associated Milk Producers Inc., AMPI, so that dairy farmers
could market milk and dairy products. Under his management, AMPI grew
to encompass the better part of our Nation with over 40,000 members. He
persuaded small dairy farmers to work together and thereafter, he was
referred to as the ``grandfather of the dairy industry.'' He saw that
organizing would strengthen each dairy farmer individually.
In the late 1960s, Mr. Nelson convinced livestock farmers to
cooperate to eradicate the screwworm, a dreaded livestock parasite. He
helped organize and elicit funds to implement a novel strategy.
Sterilized screwworm flies would be released at a rate of 150 million
per week until they ceased to exist. His efforts resulted in a never
before seen level of coordination among dairy farmers throughout the
Americas to end the blight of the screwworm.
Later in his life, Mr. Nelson set his energies and talents to
honoring his mother's commitment to education. He established the Clara
Freshour Nelson Foundation so that students, hundreds by now, could
afford tuition for a fine arts education.
I had the privilege of giving words of remembrance at Mr. Nelson's
service. It was a sad day for everyone gathered in the church who had
to confront our sorrow in missing his physical presence, love, support
and wise counsel.
While acknowledging that no one had any control over Mr. Nelson
leaving our physical presence, we had complete control of keeping him
spiritually alive within us by living the ``life lessons'' he had
taught us.
Mr. Nelson taught through example. He was generous to a fault. Not
merely financially generous, but generous with his time, energy and
empathy. Simply put, if it was important to you, it was important to
him. He was forthright and made no excuses for who he was and what he
believed in. He ``told it like it was'' and could size up a person or
business transaction with clarity and precision.
His greatest love was love of family; as a loving son, caring
brother, devoted father and doting grandfather. Yet he was known to
share his love with his ``extended family'', from dear friends Paul
Alagia and Jose ``Pepe'' Gonzalez to name a couple, to those devoted
caretakers that were near him as his days grew shorter: Alice, Ada,
Brenda, Quolonda, Beverly, Rhonda and Emily.
He was the consummate gentleman; he tipped his hat, stood when a lady
walked into a room; simple gestures of something greater which was a
genuine respect. He was a voracious reader, loved poetry and he could
play the piano and violin. He encouraged and supported students in the
study and appreciation of music.
Imbued with a powerful social conscience, he was a ``yellow dog
Democrat'' who firmly declared that ``you had to be a Democrat to
believe in the Beatitudes''.
Mr. Nelson was part of what is referred today as ``the Greatest
Generation''. Tom Brokaw in his book was describing Harold S. Nelson
when he wrote: ``The World War II generation did what was expected of
them. But they never talked about it. It was part of their code.''
The character of Mr. Nelson was formed on the anvil of adversity. His
innate sense of justice and fairness made him ``a man ahead of his
time.'' Yet, I believe he shared the same philosophy expressed by the
late and former Congressman Carl Elliott who upon receiving the JFK
Profile in Courage Award for fighting segregation at great personal
cost said: ``There are those who said I was ahead of my time, but they
were wrong. I believe that I was always behind the times that ought to
be.''
Harold S. Nelson taught us about fundamental values and behavior:
that your word was your bond, your handshake was a contract, you
conducted business ``standing and facing''. As Paul Alagia said
``Harold never ran out on a friend.'' Again, just like Congressman Carl
Elliott, Mr. Nelson ``never swapped an old friend for a new one''. With
the advent of computers and all the new technological gadgets designed
to help us get through an ever increasingly complex world, Mr. Nelson's
approach was ``Give me a Big Chief tablet and a pencil.''
An observer of modern American life recently lamented: ``We have
multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We love too seldom,
and hate too often. We've learned how to make a living, but not a life.
We've added years to life, not life to years.''
May Mr. Nelson's greatest ``life lesson to us spare us this dilemma.
So when the world overwhelms us, the pace too hectic, let us heed Mr.
Nelson's advice ``give me a Big Chief tablet and a pencil''. Let us
return to the basic goodness of life: honesty, integrity and
compassion.
Harold Samuel Nelson (known and loved as Daddy, Grandpa, Harold and
Mr. Nelson) would have even helped us grieve. He would have told us not
to be sad, then cry with us;
[[Page 31516]]
he would have told us to march on, then he would have taken the first
step, and lastly, knowing his love for poetry, he would have read
``When I Must Leave You'' by Helen S. Rice:
When I must leave you
For a Little while
Please do not grieve
And shed wild tears
And hug your sorrow to you
Through the years,
But start out bravely
With a gallant smile; And for my sake
And in my name
Live on and do
All things the same,
Feed not your loneliness
On empty days,
But fill each waking hour
In useful ways,
Reach out your hand
In comfort and in cheer
And I will comfort you
And hold you near; And never, never
Be afraid to die,
For I am waiting for you in the sky.
Harold Samuel Nelson lives on in our hearts and souls.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. NEIL ABERCROMBIE
of hawaii
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably
detained yesterday attending a funeral. I missed rollcall vote Nos.
1082 through 1085. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on
all four votes.
____________________
REMEMBERING UKRAINE'S HISTORY
______
HON. MARCY KAPTUR
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to record painful events in
Ukraine's past. Throughout Ukraine's more than millennium-long history,
it has often been attacked and occupied due to its geo-political
location, fertile lands and rich natural resources. Because the
Ukrainian nation continuously fought to ward off the enemies and
preserve its freedom, many occupying powers resorted to oppression in
order to maintain their control of Ukraine. It is widely held that one
of the most brutal policies designed to subjugate Ukraine was carried
out by the Stalinist regime of the former Soviet Union.
History records that in order to suppress the numerous rebellions of
the Ukrainian peasantry to the collectivization and Russification
policies aggressively implemented by the Communists, Stalin set out to
destroy the entire nation. His government imposed draconian grain
quotas and enforced their fulfillment with brutality seldom seen in
history. Secret police and specially created brigades were instructed
to confiscate everything down to the last grain. They also confiscated
money and any valuables in order to deprive people of any means for
survival. Severe and swift punishments--often death--were delivered for
any attempt to steal even a miniscule amount of grain or other
foodstuffs. The Royal Consulate of Italy reported in 1933: ``through
barbaric requisitions . . . the Moscow government has effectively
engineered not so much a scarcity . . . but rather a complete absence
of every means of subsistence throughout the Ukrainian countryside.''
Stalin also sealed off the Ukrainian border to prevent migration. In
1932, a directive was issued to arrest anyone who tried to leave
Ukraine without proper documentation. According to Russian scholar
Ivnitsky, 219,460 individuals were arrested per this directive and
186,588 of them were sent back to their villages to die.
Eyewitness accounts provide vivid and gruesome details. Here is what
one witness described to the House Select Committee on Communist
Aggression in 1954: ``The farmers with faces and legs swollen from the
hunger of the famine were invading the town and were dying in masses in
the streets. The administration of the town was unable to bury the dead
farmers in time, and there was a repulsive odor in the air during all
this time. The police, or rather militia patrols, driving along the
streets, collected the corpses. They also took those completely
exhausted by starvation who arrived in town to ask for `a little bit of
bread', put them on the mound of corpses saying, `you'll get there,
don't worry.' I saw this all myself, and quite often.''
It is hard and painful to comprehend that these actions were not
known to the world, in part because of the denial of the famine-
genocide by Soviet authorities and refusal of offers of international
aid. The tragic events of 1932-1933 in Ukraine remained hidden for many
decades. The world is still largely unaware of the cruelty with which
the totalitarian Stalinist regime killed 7-10 million innocent people
in an effort to break a people who strove for freedom and independence.
The Ukrainian American community has done much to change this
situation. On the occasion of the 75th Anniversary of the Ukrainian
famine-genocide, we remind the world of the honors that the Ukrainian
nation survived and honor the memory of the innocent victims of the
inhumane policies of the Stalinist regime. Remembering the events of
the past helps to ensure that this type of tragedy does not recur
anywhere in the world.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, October
13, 2007, I inadvertently missed three votes. Had I been present and
voting, I would have voted as follows:
(1) Rollcall No. 1083: ``Yes'' On Motion to Suspend the Rules and
Pass the resolution.
(2) Rollcall No. 1084: ``Yes'' On Motion to Suspend the Rules and
Pass the resolution.
(3) Rollcall No. 1085: ``Yes'' On Motion to Suspend the Rules and
Pass the resolution.
____________________
HONORING CLARE AND MARYELLEN BERRYHILL
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the lives of
Clare and Maryellen Berryhill for their tremendous dedication to
promoting agriculture in the Central Valley. The Berryhills are being
honored at The Greater Yosemite Council Boy Scouts of America's Annual
Distinguished Citizens Dinner on October 24, 2007 in Modesto, CA.
Clare Berryhill was born and raised in the Central Valley. He was a
third generation farmer and winegrape grower. Mr. Berryhill attended
Modesto Junior College and the University of California, Santa Barbara,
where he majored in agriculture. Clare Berryhill and Maryellen Rossel,
of Modesto, were married in 1949.
While managing their ranch in Ceres, CA, both became very involved in
the community. Mr. Berryhill operated a fruit dehydrating business, and
in 1960 he was named Young Farmer in Stanislaus County. He was the
first president of the California Winegrape Growers Association. He was
also one of many generations in the family to serve on the Ceres
Unified School Board of Trustees. During this time Mrs. Berryhill
helped to manage the farm, taught music at Denair High School and was
involved in the Parent Teacher Association.
In 1969, Mr. Berryhill's involvement turned to politics. He was asked
to run for the California Assembly and won. His victory was a crucial
one and he was even congratulated, in person, by then Governor Ronald
Reagan. He served as an Assemblyman from 1969 to 1970. Later, he was
elected into office as a California State senator, where in 1976 he
successfully authored landmark legislation to establish the annual
``Grape Crush Report''. This is a reporting process that became
essential to the economic wellbeing of the winegrape and wine
industries. Also, as State senator, he was able to have enough land
donated to Modesto Junior College to expand the campus. He served as a
State senator from 1972 to 1976.
One last service to the California government came after Mr.
Berryhill's retirement. He was asked by Governor George Deukmejian to
serve as California Director (Secretary) of Agriculture. At the time,
California was battling African bees, Mexican fruit flies, gypsy moths,
apple maggots and a contamination scare with cheese, watermelons, and
grapes. With his previous leadership experience and his knowledge of
agriculture, Mr. Berryhill was able to help develop an agriculture
policy in California that continues to stand today. Due to his efforts
in resolving these problems, he was featured in ``People'' magazine.
Mrs. Berryhill and their five children Betsy, Tom, Lynne, Janie, and
Bill supported Mr. Berryhill in all of his campaigns. They volunteered
by walking precincts, playing musical instruments and traveling
throughout the districts in the Berryhill Band Wagon. Mr. and Mrs.
Berryhill enjoyed their family, community, politics, art and the land.
They traveled between 3 homes in their retirement: A cattle
[[Page 31517]]
ranch in Montana, a home in San Carlos, Mexico, and their original
ranch in Ceres, California. Clare Berryhill passed away in March of
1996 and Maryellen Berryhill passed away in July of this year. They
have left a legacy that is not easily matched. They are survived by
their 5 children, 11 grandchildren and 2 great-grandchildren.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to posthumously honor Clare and Maryellen
Berryhill for the impact that they had on agriculture in the Central
Valley and the State of California. I invite my colleagues to join me
in honoring their lives and wishing the best for their family.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, unfortunately yesterday,
November 13, 2007, I was unable to cast my votes on H.R. 3315, H.R.
1593, H.R. 3403, and H.R. 3461 and wish the Record to reflect my
intentions had I been able to vote.
Had I been present for rollcall No. 1082 on the motion to suspend the
rules and pass H.R. 3315, to provide that the great hall of the Capitol
Visitor Center shall be known as Emancipation Hall, I would have voted
``aye.''
Had I been present for rollcall No. 1083 on the motion to suspend the
rules and pass H.R. 1593, the Second Chance Act of 2007, I would have
voted ``aye.''
Had I been present for rollcall No. 1084 on the motion to suspend the
rules and pass H.R. 3403, 911 Modernization and Public Safety Act of
2007, I would have voted ``aye.''
Had I been present for rollcall No. 1085 on the motion to suspend the
rules and pass H.R. 3461, Safeguarding America's Families by Enhancing
and Reorganizing New and Efficient Technologies Act of 2007, I would
have voted ``aye.''
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JOHN WOODRUFF
______
HON. BILL SHUSTER
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor John Woodruff, an
Olympic Gold Medalist who passed away last week at the age of 92.
Woodruff, a native of Connellsville, Pennsylvania, was one of the most
remarkable athletes in the world and will always be remembered for his
astonishing come-from-behind victory in the 800 meter run at the 1936
Berlin Olympics.
John Woodruff is also remembered as one of the great American rags-
to-riches success stories. Born into a struggling family with 11
siblings, John overcame numerous obstacles on his way to becoming an
American hero. He dropped out of high school to work in order to help
support his family, but was denied a job. He returned to school, joined
the track team and earned a scholarship to the University of
Pittsburgh, becoming the first member of his family to attend college.
It was the summer of his freshman year that Woodruff qualified for
the Olympic Games, outrunning the best American distance runners in the
field to make it to Berlin. It was there, during the 800 meter final,
that Woodruff pulled one of the riskiest moves in the history of the
Olympic Games. Finding himself boxed in by several professional
runners, Woodruff stopped in the middle of the race and let everyone
pass him. He then ran around the other runners to take the lead,
becoming the first American in 24 years to win the race.
Woodruff returned home a hero, and continued his college and track
career, during which time he won numerous championships and set the
American record in the 800 meter run, which lasted 12 years. He
graduated from Pitt and served in World War II and Korea, after which
he retired as a lieutenant colonel. He passed away on October 30th in
Fountain Hills, Arizona.
John Woodruff was a true American hero who proved that with
determination and hard work, any feat can be overcome. Our thoughts are
with his family as they mourn their loss, and may they be comforted in
knowing that John will be remembered as a leader who dedicated his life
to serving his country as both an Olympian and a soldier. His legacy
will live on in Connellsville, as his community honors and remembers
their hero at a memorial service on Sunday.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE ``PRIVACY AND CYBERCRIME ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2007''
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the bipartisan
``Privacy and Cybercrime Enforcement Act of 2007,'' along with
Representatives Smith, Scott, Forbes, and Sanchez. This bill will
provide new tools to federal prosecutors to combat identity theft and
other computer crimes. I am pleased that Representatives Smith, Scott
and Forbes, who have been valuable partners in combating the growing
problem of identity theft for many years, have joined me in introducing
this important criminal bill.
The Privacy and Cybercrime Enforcement Act takes several important
steps to protect Americans from the growing and evolving threat of
identity theft and other cybercrimes. First, to better protect American
consumers, our bill provides the victims of identity theft with the
ability to seek restitution in federal court for the loss of time and
money spent restoring their credit and remedying the harms of identity
theft, so that identity theft victims can be made whole.
Second, because identity theft schemes are much more sophisticated in
today's digital era, our bill also expands the scope of the federal
identity theft statutes so that the law keeps up with the available
technology. To address the increasing number of computer hacking crimes
that involve computers located within the same state, our bill also
eliminates the jurisdictional requirement that a computer's information
must be stolen through an interstate or foreign communication in order
to federally prosecute this crime.
Lastly, our bill strengthens consumer privacy by requiring companies
to give rapid notice of breaches to law enforcement. The bill makes it
a crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison to knowingly fail to
report breaches to the appropriate authorities. The bill also requires
agencies to prepare privacy impact assessments for proposed and final
rules that pertain to the collection, maintenance, use, or disclosure
of personally identifiable information from 10 or more individuals.
With limited exceptions, such assessments must be made available to the
public for comment.
The Privacy and Cybercrime Enforcement Act is a good, bipartisan
measure to help combat the growing threat of identity theft and other
cybercrimes. This balanced bill protects the privacy rights of
consumers, the interests of business and the legitimate needs of law
enforcement. Similarly, I hope that the other Committees of
jurisdiction will take up and report out legislation that will protect
consumers from ID theft through data security obligations and strong
requirements that consumers be notified when the security of their
personal information is compromised. Again, I thank the bipartisan
coalition of Representatives who have joined me in introducing this
important legislation.
____________________
THE SIKORSKY'S FALLEN HEROES COMMITTEE
______
HON. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Sikorsky
Fallen Heroes Committee who supports the families of Connecticut
soldiers killed in the line of duty. I am grateful to have had the
opportunity to see the work of this committee first hand. They have
given so much to the families of our fallen service members who gave
the ultimate sacrifice for our country.
When families learn of their service member's death, they enter a
very painful and sad period of their lives. The Sikorsky Fallen Heroes
Committee has supported these families, acting as a pillar of strength
for them when they needed support the most. Their dedication to these
wives, mothers, fathers, daughters and sons has been truly remarkable
and has been a testament to their patriotism and love of humanity.
In addition to supporting the family of fallen service members, the
Sikorsky Fallen Heroes Committee has reached out to members of the
community through events they hold. In June of this year, the Committee
held their fourth annual softball tribute game to honor Jordan Pierson,
Philip Alexander Johnson and Nicholas Madaras, three courageous young
men who gave their lives in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Next
June, they plan to honor six more fallen soldiers. Their commitment and
dedication to the fallen is truly remarkable and is an inspiration to
all of us.
[[Page 31518]]
The Sikorsky Fallen Heroes Committee are heroes in their own right.
They are courageous people reaching out to those in need. We are
honored and privileged to have people like them in the community. The
unwavering dedication and support they show the families of fallen
service members will always be remembered for making a difference in so
many lives.
It is my hope we can all learn from the example of the Sikorsky
Fallen Heroes Committee to support the families of the fallen who have
also sacrificed in honor of our nation's freedom.
____________________
HONORING VIC CIBELLI
______
HON. RAHM EMANUEL
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Victor H. Cibelli,
who passed away on Monday, November 12. I consider myself privileged to
call him a friend, and I extend my condolences to his family on their
loss.
Vic was a leader. A Navy veteran of the Korean war, he spent decades
fighting for veterans as an officer in the VFW, the Jewish War
Veterans, and the Combined Veterans Association of Illinois. I was
fortunate to be able to rely on Vic for advice on a range of veterans'
issues, and he always stood ready to help me organize an event to honor
veterans or to promote their causes.
From teaching school children about citizenship and history, to
organizing a service to honor the World War II warship Dorchester's
four chaplains who gave their lives so others could survive, or running
a Patriot's Pen student writing competition, no task was too big or
small for Vic to help enrich his community.
People cherished the opportunity to work with Vic, and took pleasure
in coming together for a good cause at his invitation. While Vic took
the work of improving the lives of veterans and their families
seriously, his generosity of spirit and infectious humor made the work
enjoyable for him and everyone around him.
Madam Speaker, the Veterans community and the Fifth District of
Illinois have lost a great advocate and a true friend. My deepest
sympathies go to Vic's widow Mary, to his children and grandchildren.
We will all miss him.
____________________
HONORING VICE ADMIRAL JOHN SCOTT REDD, U.S. NAVY (RET.) FOR FORTY YEARS
OF PUBLIC SERVICE
______
HON. PETER T. KING
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize a
dedicated public servant who devoted nearly four decades to protecting
this great Nation. Vice Admiral John Scott Redd, U.S. Navy (Ret.),
retired last week after serving as the first Director of the National
Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).
Admiral Redd's accomplishments are many, having served thirty-six
years in the United States Navy, which culminated in his assignment as
the Director of Strategic Plans and Policy on the Joint Staff. Retiring
from the Navy in 1998, Admiral Redd was again called to serve in 2004,
this time as the Deputy Administrator and Chief Operating Officer of
the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, Iraq. He went on to
serve as the Executive Director of the Commission on the Intelligence
Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction
where he influenced Community-wide intelligence reforms and made
lasting improvements to America's national security.
Under his superior leadership, the National Counterterrorism Center
developed into the Nation's premier intelligence and law enforcement
fusion center, bridging all elements of the Intelligence Community to
develop a national common intelligence picture. Admiral Redd tore down
walls between Intelligence Community members and replaced a ``need to
know'' philosophy with a ``responsibility to share'' environment.
Some of the Intelligence Community's successes are known such as the
thwarted terrorist attacks against the Sears Tower, a Chicago-area
shopping mall, military forces at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and multiple
targets in New York, D.C. and elsewhere. Others remain classified.
However, in each instance, the National Counterterrorism Center played
a key information sharing role which led to the successful prevention
of these attacks against our citizens.
Admiral Redd is to be commended for his contributions to the Nation,
but such a persevering service is not without a cost. For that I offer
my personal thanks to his wife of over 37 years, Donna Redd, and their
children Ann, Scott, and Adam, without whose support such service would
not have been possible.
____________________
ANNIVERSARY OF MARSHALL UNIVERSITY PLANE CRASH
______
HON. NICK J. RAHALL II
of west virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, for each of us, there are a handful of
moments in life that stay with us forever, moments that years later we
can still recall with clarity and conviction. Moments that shook our
core and move our hearts still. For the people of Huntington, West
Virginia, a rainy evening in 1970 is one of those moments.
On November 14th, 1970 the Marshall University football team, coaches
and supporters were returning home from their game against East
Carolina University when their plane crashed into a hill just short of
the Tri-State Airport. All 75 people on board were killed. In an
instant the lives of everyone at Marshall and within the community of
Huntington were changed.
Every November 14th, the Marshall University Student Government
Association hosts a memorial ceremony to honor the victims of the crash
by laying a wreath at the base of the Memorial Fountain in the center
of Marshall's campus. This year marks the 37th anniversary of the plane
crash. This annual ceremony draws together the families of those who
died that night, as well as members of the community, the school and
the football team, who attend the memorial service every year. At the
end of each ceremony, the fountain is turned off until spring.
The fountain was dedicated in 1972 in front of the Memorial Student
Center. The 75 points of the sculpture represent each of the 75 lives
lost that rainy night. Sculptor Harry Bertoia hoped that the fountain
would ``commemorate the living--rather than death--on the waters of
life, rising, receding, surging so as to express upward growth,
immortality and eternality.''
A year ago this December, the movie ``We Are Marshall'' premiered
across the Nation, telling the story of how Marshall University and
this community rose from the ashes of tragedy. It told how the Young
Thundering Herd found a way to keep the football program together in
the fall of 1971 and gave the community of Huntington hope in one of
its darkest hours. The team that suited up that year in green and white
may not have had a winning season, but by taking the field every
Saturday, the players and coaches taught us that it isn't just about
winning, that sometimes it's about simply showing up and playing the
game.
The foundation laid by the Young Herd in 1971 paved the way for
Marshall to become a football powerhouse during the 1990's and beyond.
The legacy of the 1970 team lost in the crash and the team that took
the field in 1971 is still with us today and is once again being
honored with the ceremonial turning off of the Memorial Fountain.
The bronze plaque on the fountain bears this simple, eloquent
inscription:
They shall live on in the hearts of their families and
friends forever, and this memorial records their loss to the
university and to the community.
We will never forget the loss of those 75 lives on that hillside in
1970. We will continue to honor their memory every time the Thundering
Herd takes the field and the stadium fills with the cheers of family
and friends. We Are Marshall.
____________________
THE HARMONY OF CIVILIZATIONS AND PROSPERITY FOR ALL
______
HON. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, intercultural understanding is a
fundamental part of peace in the global system. The understanding of
intercultural and international diversities minimizes the outbreak of
serious conflicts on a fundamental level. Through teaching tolerance,
and through building societies that promote unity, we can work towards
creating a peaceful world.
On November 2, 2007, Under-Secretary General of the United Nations,
Ambassador
[[Page 31519]]
Joseph Verner Reed addressed the Beijing Forum at the Great Hall of the
People in Beijing regarding the promotion of building tolerant
civilizations. I have submitted the text to be entered into the Record.
The Harmony of Civilizations and Prosperity for All
I send warm greetings to all participants in the 2007
Beijing Forum who have come together to study and promote
harmony between peoples and civilizations.
In the ten months that I have served as Secretary-General,
I have traveled to all corners of the United Nations, from
Kinshasa to Kabul, from Brussels to Beirut. Everywhere I have
visited, and among all the different people I have met, I
have encountered one common sentiment--a universal longing
for peace and an aspiration to prosperity.
But, all too often, I have discovered that people who
aspire to the same things also suffer from the same
prejudices. They all fear that which is different from them:
the other ethnicity, the other skin colour, the other
cultural or linguistic tradition and, above all, the other
religion.
And yet, in today's era of global travel and instant
satellite transmissions, people everywhere are encountering
less of the familiar, and more of ``the other''. This reality
has fed rising intercultural and inter-religious tensions, as
well as growing alienation among vast segments of the world
population.
Today, there is an urgent need to address this worrying
trend. We need to rebuild bridges and engage in a sustained
and constructive intercultural dialogue, one that stresses
shared values and shared aspirations.
It is time to promote the idea that diversity is a virtue,
not a threat. It is time to explain that different religions,
belief systems and cultural backgrounds are essential to the
richness of the human experience. And it is time to stress
that our common humanity is greater--far greater--than our
outward differences.
The Beijing Forum is ideally placed to contribute to this
process. By bringing together scholars from across the globe,
your discussion can become a source of new ideas and
innovative approaches to promote understanding and tolerance.
Your exchange can also contribute to the UN's own
initiative for an Alliance of Civilizations, which responds
to the clear need for action by the international community
to bridge divides and promote understanding. The Alliance has
identified several priority areas for action, and is
developing a strategy to promote better understanding between
the world of politics and religion. Meetings such as yours
can help guide this important work, and ensure the Alliance's
ultimate success.
Together, we must seek to further the basic ideals of all
the world's major religions. We must build societies that
respect individual beliefs and practices. And we must nurture
communities where people of all faiths and nationalities
coexist in peace.
In that spirit, let me express my hope that this Forum will
help foster harmony and understanding, and thereby advance
our wider efforts for a peaceful and prosperous world.
____________________
MOURNING THE LOSS OF CONGRESSMAN AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS
______
HON. RAHM EMANUEL
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of
former Representative Augustus F. Hawkins. Congressman Hawkins served
in this chamber for 28 years, and I offer my condolences to his family
and friends after his passing this past weekend at the age of 100.
Congressman Hawkins was dedicated to public service throughout his
life. Beginning in 1935 as a California State Representative, he served
the people of Los Angeles for 28 years. In 1962, Augustus Hawkins made
a monumental breakthrough in civil rights history, becoming the first
African-American elected to Congress from the State of California.
During his tenure in the House of Representatives, Congressman
Hawkins continued to lead the way for the American Civil Rights
Movement. In 1970, he and several of his colleagues joined together to
found the Congressional Black Caucus. Then, in just his second term in
Congress, he introduced and sponsored Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. This ground-breaking legislation created the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and outlawed discrimination in the workplace
based on race.
For over half a century, Congressman Hawkins dedicated his life to
our Nation with steadfast dedication, humility, and geniality. In the
hearts of the residents of Los Angeles, and anyone who was ever
influenced by his presence, Augustus Hawkins' legacy of leadership and
courage will remain for years to come. Congressman Hawkins is succeeded
by his 2 stepdaughters, Barbara A. Hammond and Brenda L. Stevenson, and
a stepson, Michael A. Taylor. I extend my deepest condolences and
gratitude to the family of Congressman Hawkins.
____________________
IN SUPPORT OF A STRONG AND CAPABLE SUBMARINE FLEET
______
HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN
of rhode island
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, yesterday President Bush signed into law
H.R. 3222, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The
bill contained many important provisions to support our men and women
in uniform, their families and our returning veterans. The measure
includes a 3.5 percent pay raise for our troops, blocks the President's
proposed fee increase for Tricare beneficiaries and provides
significant funding for family advocacy programs to help military
spouses and children manage the difficulties associated with
deployments. We all recognize that our military's strength comes from
the people who serve, and this legislation demonstrates our commitment
to their health and well-being.
I am also extremely pleased that the Defense Appropriations Act
includes an additional $588 million in advance procurement funding for
materials that will permit the expedited construction of a second
Virginia-class submarine. As co-chair of the Congressional Submarine
Caucus, I know the importance of submarines to our national security.
Quiet yet powerful, submarines can conduct a variety of surveillance
and reconnaissance missions, protect our fleet, project U.S. force onto
distant shores and support global strike operations. The ability of
submarines to operate independently in unconventional locations makes
them one of the most capable components of our fleet. In fact,
submarines are in such high demand that the Navy can fulfill only about
60 percent of Regional Combatant Commanders' requests to use them for
missions.
The Navy has estimated that we need 48 attack submarines to meet the
needs of our military commanders. However, under the Navy's current 30-
year shipbuilding plan, they do not expect to increase production to
two subs per year until 2012, causing a perilous decline in our future
sub fleet--dropping below 48 ships in FY2020-33 and hitting a low of 40
in FY2028 and FY2029. Since I came to Congress nearly 7 years ago, I
have consistently advocated an increase in our build rate of Virginia-
class submarines to 2 per year so that we have sufficient capabilities
to address emerging threats. Unfortunately, the Navy has repeatedly
pushed back its two-per-year target date, causing instability in the
industrial base. In FY2004, the Navy expected to build 2 subs per year
in FY2007. By FY2005, the target had moved to FY2009. That date was
delayed again and again, and now stands at FY2012. Meanwhile, our
defense industrial base in Southeastern New England has suffered
layoffs of submarine designers and engineers, whose specialized skills
would be very difficult to reconstitute if lost. Without prompt action,
we risk shrinking our sub fleet to dangerously low levels, precisely
when nations such as China are expanding and modernizing their navies.
The FY2008 Defense Appropriations Act demonstrates Congress's
commitment to addressing this dangerous problem and will enhance our
national security. On behalf of the submarine industrial base in Rhode
Island, I want to thank Chairman Murtha and Ranking Member Young for
their leadership on this important issue. I would also like to thank my
friend and colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, for his tireless
advocacy and efforts to achieve this goal, as well as the co-chair of
the Submarine Caucus, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, for
being such a dedicated partner in this initiative.
I am hopeful that this additional funding will prompt the Navy to
adjust its shipbuilding plan to begin construction of a second
submarine in next year's budget. I remain committed to that goal, and I
look forward to working with the Navy and my colleagues in Congress to
build a more robust and capable submarine fleet.
[[Page 31520]]
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. HILDA L. SOLIS
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 1082 on
Suspension--H.R. 3315--Naming Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor
Center.
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
____________________
IN MEMORY OF NAVY CAPTAIN AND P.O.W. COLE BLACK
______
HON. DUNCAN HUNTER
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to
the life and memory of former Navy Captain Cole Black of Escondido,
California. As a career Naval Officer, Cole's contributions to this
country are impossible to quantify and the 7 years he spent in
captivity during the Vietnam War are an enduring testament to his
character and service to America.
Last Friday, Cole was returning to Southern California after speaking
to students in Oregon about his experiences as a P.O.W. when mechanical
difficulties caused his plane to crash. This tragic and unexpected
event came only weeks before his 75th birthday, which Cole would have
celebrated on the 28th of November.
In June 1966, when he was only one week away from returning home to
his family, Cole's F-8 Crusader was shot down over the skies of North
Vietnam. He was captured almost instantly after ejecting from his
aircraft and then forced to spend the next 7 years of his life between
4 prison camps, including the infamous Hanoi Hilton.
Conditions in these prisons were intolerable, and the American
service personnel who were held in these camps were treated inhumanely
and without respect for the rules of war. Like so many others held in
captivity by the North Vietnamese, Cole was confined to a 7 by 9 foot
cage and fed meals of little to no sustenance--such as boiled greens
and rice--only twice a day. He was also part of the Hanoi March, where
prisoners were forced to march the streets of Hanoi as part of the
Vietnamese propaganda effort, only to be met by people throwing rocks
and other objects.
More impressive than Cole's endurance and willingness to survive his
captivity was his unique perspective on the 7 years he spent as a
P.O.W. After his release in 1973, Cole later said that this time
``changed his life for the better'' and that he arrived home with a
``real zest for life.'' Upon retiring from active military service in
1986, he attended National University and earned a master's in business
and a real estate broker's license.
It was not until 1994 that Cole returned to Vietnam for a vacation
with his wife Karen. While there, he visited the location of the Hanoi
Hilton just as workers were tearing it down and he took the opportunity
to pocket a piece of brick from the walls that once kept him confined
for so many years.
Madam Speaker, President Reagan once said, ``Freedom is a fragile
thing and is never more than a generation away from extinction. It is
not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly
by each generation, for it comes once to a people. Those who have known
freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again.''
When President Reagan spoke these words, he was referring directly to
Americans like Cole, who were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice
for America. Not only did Cole fight to protect freedom as part of the
American mission in Vietnam, but he fought tirelessly for his own
freedom everyday he was in captivity. His strength and perseverance
guaranteed his survival and, although he briefly lost his freedom, he
was able to endure his captivity and return to a life far removed from
cruelty and oppression.
Madam Speaker, my thoughts and prayers are with Cole's wife Karen and
his children, 2 of which are currently serving in our nation's Armed
Forces. His contributions and service to America will forever be
remembered and I ask that my colleagues join me today in paying tribute
to this great American hero.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE GREATER SOMERSET COUNTY CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN RED
CROSS
______
HON. RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Greater
Somerset County Chapter of the American Red Cross! On Thursday,
November 15, 2007, this vibrant organization will mark its Ninetieth
Anniversary.
The American Red Cross, a humanitarian organization led by volunteers
and guided by its Congressional Charter and the fundamental principles
of the International Red Cross Movement, provides relief to victims of
disasters and help people prevent, prepare for and respond to
emergencies.
Jean-Henry Dunant is credited as the original founder of the Red
Cross. The International Committee of the Red Cross was formed on
February 17, 1863. Operations were well underway overseas when the
American Red Cross was first founded nearly twenty years later, on May
21, 1881 by Clara Barton.
The Red Cross has a long history of providing aid in emergencies.
Food, shelter, and medical assistance are offered to victims of fires,
floods, and other catastrophes. In addition to disaster aid, the Red
Cross sponsors blood drives; conducts CPR and first aid training;
teaches swimming; provides AIDS education; and serves as a link between
service men and women and their families during emergency situations.
By an act of Congress on January 5, 1905, the American Red Cross was
granted a charter designating it as a nationwide agency through which
the American people voluntarily extend assistance to people in need.
The national headquarters, located in Washington, DC, implements
policies and procedures that govern Red Cross activities, provides
administrative and technical supervision, and offers guidance to its
national organization, composed of local chapters and geographical
regions.
The Greater Somerset County Chapter, American Red Cross evolved into
its current configuration after undergoing numerous transformations and
mergers. The Bound Brook Chapter was chartered in April 1917 and a few
weeks later, the Somerville Area Chapter also came into being.
In March 1958, Manville was incorporated into the Somerville Area
Chapter, and in June 1964, the Somerville and Bound Brook chapters
merged to form the Raritan Valley Chapter. In 1994, this chapter
reached its current configuration when the Raritan Valley Chapter
merged with the Somerset Hills Chapter to become the Greater Somerset
County Chapter.
The Greater Somerset County Chapter has historically relied on the
utilization of a small staff, 428 volunteers that represent 98 percent
of the chapter staffing and private authorized instructors to deliver
high quality programs and services to the community. For 90 years,
Somerset County has been provided continued access to 24/7 emergency
and disaster services, Armed Forces Emergency Services (AFES), blood
donation programs, preparedness education, health and safety training
and medical transportation services.
Madam Speaker, I am privileged to honor the Greater Somerset County
Chapter of the American Red Cross. I urge you and my colleagues to join
me in congratulating the members of this valuable, dynamic organization
for their ninety years of service! Again, I offer my praise and thanks
to their dedicated trustees, administration, support staff, and
volunteers who work tirelessly on behalf of those in need.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDEA FAIRNESS RESTORATION ACT
______
HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the IDEA
Fairness Restoration Act to help parents of students with disabilities
ensure that their children have access to the free and appropriate
education guaranteed by this Congress in 1975. I thank Mr. Sessions,
who joins me in offering this bill, for his work on this important
issue.
Madam Speaker, when Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, it recognized the vital importance of parent and school
cooperation and collaboration in special education. For the most part,
this relationship has worked very well. But occasionally, the school
system cannot or does not provide an appropriate education. In those
rare cases, the Congress recognized that parents should have the
ability to challenge the school's decision and advocate for a new
Individual Education Plan.
[[Page 31521]]
As both school systems and parents build their cases, they bring
expert witnesses to assess the student and testify about the quality of
the education plan. In 1986, when Congress amended IDEA, it explained
in the Conference Report that when parents win their case, a judge
could award attorney's fees, including, and I quote, ``reasonable
expenses and fees of expert witnesses and the reasonable costs of any
test or evaluation which is found to be necessary for the preparation
of the parent or guardian's case.'' For years, prevailing parents were
awarded expert witness fees, as Congress intended. But unfortunately,
while Congress was very clear in its explanation of the bill, it did
not include this provision in the legislative language. In 2006, the
provision was challenged and the Supreme Court ruled that because
Congress did not make its intention explicit in statute, courts could
not longer award these fees.
As a result of this decision, parents can be faced with many
thousands of dollars of expert witness fees in order to ensure their
child gets an appropriate public education. A single expert witness can
charge anywhere from $100-$300 per hour. Confronted with these costs,
parents are discouraged or outright barred from bringing meritorious
cases to secure the rights of their children. Low and middle income
families are particularly hard hit.
Today, I introduce a bill to clarify Congress's intent and restore
the expert witness fee provisions. It will allow parents to recover the
high cost of expert witnesses if, and only if, they win their dispute
with the school district. I want to be very clear--this bill does not
impose any additional costs on school districts that comply with IDEA.
The provisions apply only when a school system has been found, after an
impartial hearing, to have wrongfully denied a child an appropriate
education as defined in IDEA.
Madam Speaker, every student with a disability is entitled to a free
and appropriate education under the law. This bill will level the
playing field and help parents be effective advocates for their
children's best interests.
____________________
THEY CANNOT DO BUSINESS LIKE THIS--PHARMACISTS NEED OUR HELP
______
HON. JERRY MORAN
of kansas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to call upon
Democratic leadership to bring legislation to the floor that will help
our independent pharmacies stay in business. The last few years have
been difficult for pharmacists across the United States, and many are
struggling to keep their doors open due to changes in the Medicare Part
D prescription program. In my Kansas district alone, we have lost four
pharmacists since this government program went into effect.
Once again, we are asking pharmacists to bear the burden of our cost-
cutting measures. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 made average
manufacturers price, AMP, the new basis for the Medicaid Federal upper
limit on multi-source, generic prescription drugs. Earlier this year,
the Government Accountability Office released a report indicating that
this new pricing system would reimburse pharmacists at 36 percent below
what it costs them to buy the prescriptions. I ask you, how can we
realistically expect anyone to do business like that?
We need to make changes quickly; otherwise, these pharmacies will no
longer be around to serve customers. Here are some real life examples
of Kansas pharmacists who are going to be negatively affected by this
change if we do not act soon.
Many Medicaid patients in Kansas are in treatment for psychiatric
conditions. Because of their mental state, they often forget to take
their medications. Mike Conlin, a pharmacist in Topeka, has initiated a
program in his pharmacy to help his psychiatric patients remember to
take their medications by having his staff put the meds in a unit
dosage device. This device allows his patients to see at a glance which
medications are called for at any particular time of day. Mike stated
it will be difficult to offer this individual treatment on a medication
that pays him nearly 36 percent less in reimbursement than it actually
costs his drugstore.
In other parts of the State, a great number of our community
pharmacists double as the local nursing home pharmacist. Jim Hampton,
of Atwood, Kansas, is one such pharmacist. The physicians and staff of
the local Atwood home, depend on Jim to advise them daily on such
issues as drug-to-drug interactions, new drugs and dosage regimens.
While Jim finds great satisfaction in providing these medications and
advice on their usage, he must reconsider his ability to serve these
geriatric and developmentally disabled patients. And his decision is
purely a business decision. Jim will be forced to decide whether his
business can really afford to remain viable in selling a product for a
price far less than he can acquire that product. Average manufacturer
pricing is forcing Jim to do just that. And the ramifications of Jim's
decision are far reaching.
In Phillipsburg, Kansas, there is a young disabled mother that
recently gave birth to a child with a heart condition. She was without
her Medicaid card yet urgently needed medication for the newborn
infant. In fact, she was without a medical card of any type showing
that insurance would pay for the medication. The local pharmacist, Rob
Wenzl of Wenzl Drug, provided the infant her lifesaving drug. Rob did
this despite the fact the new mom had no proof of coverage. Rob is just
one more of many pharmacists in rural Kansas that are being forced to
consider letting go of their Medicaid patients. The personalized
service that Rob enjoys providing his patients, and that personalized
care the patients receive, will potentially be eliminated should
average manufacturer pricing as currently written be foisted upon our
pharmacists.
Those of us in Congress take our responsibility seriously to stand up
for those who are in trouble. I encourage my colleagues to listen to
those pharmacists in their districts and encourage Democratic
leadership to bring legislation to the floor to fix this problem.
Access to local pharmacies is important to a strong healthcare system
and is, therefore, important to each and every one of us.
____________________
CONGRATULATING ST. PAUL'S EPISCOPAL SCHOOL VOLLEYBALL TEAM ON WINNING
THE 2007 STATE CHAMPIONSHIP
______
HON. JO BONNER
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mr. BONNER. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride and pleasure that I
rise to honor the St. Paul's Episcopal School volleyball team on
winning the 2007 5A state championship.
In 1947, William S. Mann founded St. Paul's Episcopal School in
Mobile, Alabama. St. Paul's began with a class of 20 kindergartners,
and has grown to an enrollment of 1,613 students, making St. Paul's the
largest Episcopal school in North America.
Coach Kelli Hillier led the top-ranked and defending 5A champion
varsity volleyball team to their second consecutive state championship
earlier this month bringing the total number of volleyball state
championships to 10. Incredibly, this most recent honor brings the
number of St. Paul's state championships won this year to 9. Like Coach
Hillier, I am so proud of her players, and I know they worked hard for
this great honor.
The St. Paul's statement of philosophy regarding its athletes states,
``On the field and off, win or lose, they should be the example of
honor, integrity, and respect,'' and these young women are certainly no
exception.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the
St. Paul's volleyball team on a great season and state championship.
This school deserves public recognition for this great honor, and I
extend my congratulations to each member of the team and coaching
staff:
St. Paul's 2007 Volleyball Team Roster
Names: Katherine White; Grace Copeland; Annie Gonzales;
Lenore Lahti; Jennifer Percy; Nancy Taylor; Neal Tisher;
Courtenay Martindale; Catherine Rebarchak; Sarah Kitzmann;
Johnnie Borries; Robin Jackson.
Coaching Staff: Head Coach Kelli Hillier and Assistant
Coaches Jill Campbell and Sharon Mosley.
____________________
HONORING HUNTER E. STOLL
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Hunter E.
Stoll, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest
qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the
Boy Scouts of America, Troop 255, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Hunter has been very active with his troop, participating in many
Scout activities. Over the many years Hunter has been involved with
Scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
[[Page 31522]]
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Hunter E.
Stoll for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE BAYSIDE ACADEMY VOLLEYBALL TEAM ON WINNING THE 2007
STATE CHAMPIONSHIP
______
HON. JO BONNER
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. BONNER. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride and pleasure that I
rise to honor the Bayside Academy volleyball team on winning the 2007
2A State Volleyball Championship.
Coach Ann Schilling along with Assistant Coach Brenda Allen led the
Bayside Academy varsity volleyball team to the state championship
earlier this month, making it the first team in Alabama history to win
six consecutive titles. Incredibly, Bayside Academy has won nine of the
last 10 state championships in 2A and 16 titles overall.
Founded in 1970 by Baldwin County families, Bayside has an enrollment
of 730 students in grades pre-kindergarten through 12 and ranks as one
of the state's premier independent schools.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the
Bayside Academy Volleyball Team on a great season and state
championship. This school deserves public recognition for this great
honor, and I extend my congratulations to each member of the team and
coaching staff.
Bayside Academy's 2007 Volleyball Team Roster
Names: Maggie Niemeyer; Shelby Builta; Lizzie Williams;
Reynolds Pittman; Emily Allen; Taylor Givens; Gigi Eyre;
Caroline Todd; Sarah Mosteller; Lauren Reibe; Patricia
Sirmon; Savannah Simmons.
Coahing Staff: Head Coach Ann Schilling; Assistant Coach
Brenda Allen.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE HERITAGE MONTH
______
HON. MICHAEL M. HONDA
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I rise before you today to acknowledge
National American Indian Heritage Month and to call attention to the
dire situation that many of our Native American brothers and sisters
continue to live in today. In the world's richest nation on earth, many
Native American people struggle to obtain the most basic of services
made available to the rest of the nation, effectively threatening the
health and well-being of future generations. For this reason, I
continually support legislation that strengthens the self-determination
of Native American people living both on and off Indian reservations.
According to the National Congress of American Indians and the
National Indian Health Board, the Native American infant mortality rate
is 150 percent greater than that of Caucasian infants, suicide among
Native Americans is 2\1/2\ times higher than the national average,
Native Americans are 2.6 times more likely to be diagnosed with
diabetes, and the life expectancy rate for Native Americans is 5 years
less than the rest of the U.S. population. There is an urgent need for
sufficient and effective healthcare for Native American people and yet
the President has proposed zeroing out Urban Indian Health Programs and
reducing funding to Indian Health Facilities by $25 million. In
addition, inadequate legal services and weakening education support
continue to hinder Native American people from achieving self-
sufficiency and upward mobility.
As a new Appropriations Committee member, I am committed to
strengthening the funding sources for Native American programs,
specifically those programs in the areas of healthcare, education, and
the justice system. I have fought for the full funding for the
Community Health Partnership of Santa Clara County's Healthy Women,
Healthy Choices project, which aims to increase health status of
medically underserved mid-life women by providing comprehensive health
education and promoting adoption of healthier behaviors through
community workshops and provider trainings. I have also fought to
continue the funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Urban Indian
Health Program, which works to eradicate the mental health, substance
abuse, and chronic disease disparities plaguing urban Indian people.
These valuable programs provide the holistic and culturally sensitive
care needed to effectively support this very vulnerable population.
In addition, I have cosponsored numerous health care bills developed
specifically to address the needs of Native American people including
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007. Introduced
by Representative Frank Pallone, H.R. 1328 seeks to create
comprehensive behavioral health, prevention, treatment, and aftercare
services for Native American peoples. By passing policies such as
these, Congress can help turn around the Native American health care
crisis and improve the well-being of future generations.
Since joining the Appropriations committee, I have also argued for
the continued funding of the O'Malley Education program. As a former
educator, I know and understand the positive influence that a properly
funded school system can have on the performance of its students.
Authorized in 1934, the Johnson O'Malley Act was passed to ensure that
the federal government supports the unique and specialized educational
needs of Native American children. Providing funding for basic
education-related items such as eyeglasses, school supplies, learning
materials, and scholastic testing fees, the O'Malley Education program
helps Native American children achieve academic success. The program
provides critical supplemental funding not covered by any other
Federal, State, or local agency. It is an essential component that is
supporting the efforts of the educational school system and improving
the educational attainment of Native American children.
Preservation of indigenous languages is another significant challenge
impacting Native America and one that Congress can help support.
According to the National Indian Education Association (NIEA), Native
American languages are being lost at a rate so rapid that by the year
2050 only twenty indigenous languages will remain viable. Allowing the
loss of these indigenous languages would not only be devastating to
Native American people, but would be a true disservice to the world.
For this reason, I have supported legislation such as H. Con. Res. 11,
the English Plus Resolution, introduced by Representative Joe Serrano,
which calls on the Federal Government to support and assist Native
American groups working to preserve and prevent the extinction of their
languages and cultures.
Legal services for Native American people also require continued
Congressional attention. To ensure the sustainability of Indian legal
services, we must continue to provide the tribal justice system with
adequate federal financial support. For this reason, I have proposed
appropriations funding for the California Indian Legal Services' Tribal
Court Development Project (TCD). Funding the TCD project would
strengthen existing tribal courts in California and foster the
development of new tribal courts. TCD would improve capacity and
resource-building, increase State-wide institution-building and
information-sharing, and enhance legal services offered by the
California tribal justice system. I have also urged the Appropriations
Committee to fund the National Congress of American Indians and the
California Indian Legal Services' Alcohol and Substance Abuse
Demonstration Projects, the Tribal Courts Assistance Program, and the
Tribal Prison Construction Program. Together, these initiatives work to
strengthen State and local law enforcement efforts and provide much
needed funding directed at improving resources, services, and
infrastructure available in the tribal justice system.
In addition to bringing these issues to light, I have also
cosponsored H.J. Res. 3, introduced by Representative Jo Ann Davis,
which calls on the Federal Government to recognize and apologize for
the ill-conceived policies it has implemented against Native American
peoples throughout our Nation's history, and H.R. 3585, introduced by
Representative Joe Baca, which formally honors the achievements and
contributions of Native American people, calls for the development of a
model educational curriculum, which recognizes such achievements, and
encourages the American people to celebrate National American Indian
Heritage Day.
As we embark on the 2007 National American Indian Heritage Month, I
am hopeful that my colleagues and I will have the opportunity to pass
the proposed legislation and confirm Congress' commitment to support
Native American peoples and uphold Native American cultures and
languages.
[[Page 31523]]
____________________
HONORING JULIAN GIBSON-CORNELL
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Julian
Gibson-Cornell, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest
qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the
Boy Scouts of America, Troop 75, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Julian has been very active with his troop, participating in many
Scout activities. Over the many years Julian has been involved with
Scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Julian
Gibson-Cornell for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America
and for his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of
Eagle Scout.
____________________
LETTER TO THE EDITOR AS OFFERED BY LINDA DICKENS OF GRAND BAY, AL
______
HON. JO BONNER
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. BONNER. Madam Speaker, last week one of my constituents, Linda
Dickens, submitted a letter to Mobile's Press-Register offering a
heartfelt tribute to her father, P.H. Murray.
As we pause this week to salute the men and women who have served in
America's Armed Forces and honor the courage and sacrifice of those who
continue to serve today, I found her letter especially poignant.
Today, Madam Speaker, I rise to ask that this op-ed piece be entered
into the Congressional Record in its entirety, for I found Ms. Dickens'
letter an appropriate way to say thank you to the men and women who
have done so much to protect this nation:
Salute to a Special Veteran
Veterans Day will not be the same this year because my
special World War II veteran will not be here with me to
celebrate. He was my father, P.H. Murray, who passed away
Sept. 30, one day after his 84th birthday.
He was a great American hero to our family. His American
flag is still flying outside his home, as it did every day he
lived. He went off to war as a boy at the age of 18 and came
back a man. He brought back memories, good and bad, that
would last a lifetime.
He was proud to have served under Gen. George Patton in the
Battle of the Bulge.
He was quite a joker when he was young, and when he was
awakened in the middle of the night to see his commanding
officer, the first time he thought, ``What have I done?'' It
was a good thing, because the officer had learned Daddy had
been a burner at the shipyard before the war, and they needed
men to help burn plows to put on the front of the tanks so
they could go over the hedge rows, which made the tanks turn
over and easy targets for Germans to shoot. This made him
very proud that he had done something special for his
country.
For years as a child I never understood how Daddy could
squat on the floor for hours at a time without moving. It was
because for 19 months he didn't see a chair or a bed.
He never talked to us much when we were little. If only I
had known the nightmares my mom hid from us that he was
having about the war. He had so many memories bottled up in
him.
He was a great father and provider and was always there for
us five kids. He taught us to work hard, prepare for the
future and always value what the men of WWII had done for our
great country. He was proud that he had helped with our
freedom and that we were all able to go to college.
He was a very smart man, even though he didn't go to
college because of his children. He was a quiet man until the
last few years, when he opened up about the war. He began to
tell us stories about the war.
Some were funny, and others you could tell took a toll on
his heart. This is when I really came to realize what the war
had done for us.
I had taken history courses about the war, but they were
nothing like the personal stories Daddy told. He said we
never learned the real history of the war in a history book.
Many young people don't realize what veterans did to keep our
country free.
Daddy lost his two childhood friends in the war. One was
killed and the other so shell-shocked that he could never
come home to live. I remember the trips to see ``Mr. Jim'' at
the Veterans Home in Biloxi. Daddy never forgot about him,
even though he felt sad that he was not able to come home to
his family.
Daddy taught us love, how important family is and that it
doesn't matter what you have, it is what you do with it.
Never forget we are free, and never forget the men who fought
and the ones who gave their lives so we could be free.
He was proud of his WWII hat, which he wore proudly each
day. He was buried with it. It made him feel proud and
honored when someone asked him where he served.
I give all the veterans of this great country a ``five-star
salute,'' as my father would say when you did something good.
Daddy, I give you a ``five-star salute'' for all you did for
me and our country. I will miss you this Veterans Day and all
the other days of my life. Thanks for a job well done.
Linda Dickens, Grand Bay.
____________________
HONORING DR. J. EUGENE GRIGSBY
______
HON. ED PASTOR
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. PASTOR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. J. Eugene
Grigsby, a talented and multi-faceted artist who has been instrumental
in highlighting the importance of combining art with culture and
history as a means of expression. As such, he is considered by many as
``one of America's leading artistic minds and recognized
internationally as an artistic voice for the African American
community.'' It was in keeping with this distinction that he was
recently honored by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation at its
Celebration of Leadership for the Visual and Performing Arts.
From his early days as a young art teacher in 1946 at Phoenix's
segregated Carver High School, Dr. Grigsby has concentrated on
conveying to his students the importance of incorporating their
personal being and heritage in their works--a message he continued to
demonstrate as he rose to become Professor Emeritus of Art at Arizona
State University. As an internationally respected artist himself, who
has mastered a number of mediums including oils, acrylics and
lithographs, his works are noted for their ability to capture the
spirit and dignity of his African and African-American subjects in
scenes depicting their daily life.
A pioneer in today's promotion of multi-cultural art, Dr. Grigsby led
the way to contemporary art instruction that goes beyond work in the
studio by including the study of history and how man has chosen to
express himself in differing environments. It is within this context
that his celebrated book, Art and Ethnics: Background for Teaching
Youth in a Pluralistic Society, has provided educators with valuable
insights into art education and will continue to impact the study of
art well into the future.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend, honor and thank Dr. Grigsby,
one of the great American artists, for his continued service and
contributions to the world of art and academic communities.
____________________
HONORING THE MEMORY OF JOHN EDWARD GRENIER
______
HON. JO BONNER
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. BONNER. Madam Speaker, the State of Alabama recently lost a dear
friend, and I rise today to honor him and pay tribute to his memory.
Mr. John Edward Grenier was a devoted family man and one of the most
respected political strategists in modern Alabama politics.
Born in New Orleans, Louisiana, in 1930, John Grenier attended Jesuit
High School and lettered in track, baseball, and football. He received
his undergraduate and law degrees from Tulane University. He entered
the United States Marine Corps and rose to the rank of captain. He
served with distinction in Korea as a pilot, flying over 100 patrols in
squadron VMF 312, known as the Checkerboard Squadron.
After receiving an honorable discharge from the Marine Corps, John
Grenier attended New York University and received an LLM degree in
taxation. He worked on Wall Street for a brief time before moving to
Birmingham, Alabama, to work with Southern Natural Gas Company. He
later joined the law firm of Bradley Arant Rose & White, where he
became a partner. He then joined the firm formerly known as Lange,
Simpson, Robinson & Somerville and was a partner for over 35 years
before retiring in 2004.
John Grenier's true passion was politics, a passion that changed the
course of Alabama
[[Page 31524]]
politics. He began his political career as chairman of the Jefferson
County Young Republicans. In this capacity, he organized a political
rally in Birmingham in 1960 for Richard Nixon.
John Grenier organized the modern day Alabama Republican Party and
served as the state chairman in 1962. He joined the Goldwater for
President Campaign and organized the delegates to the Republican
National Convention in San Francisco. John Grenier was the Southern
Regional Director for the campaign when Senator Goldwater swept many of
the southern states, including Alabama, in his bid for President.
In 1966, Mr. Grenier was the Republican nominee against Democratic
U.S. Senator John Sparkman. Even though he lost that race, John fared
better than most previous Republicans in what was then a heavily
Democratic state.
In 1986, John served as the campaign manager for Guy Hunt's
successful bid to become the first Republican governor of Alabama since
Reconstruction. He served as Governor Hunt's chief of staff and later
managed Governor Hunt's successful bid for reelection.
Madam Speaker, John Grenier was a political leader, strategist and
visionary. He loved life and lived it to the fullest, and his passing
marks a tremendous loss for all of Alabama. He will be deeply missed by
many, most especially his wife, Stella Kontos Grenier; his son, John
Beaulieu Grenier; his daughter-in-law, Joy Grenier; his sister,
Rosemary Grenier Rivet; his 4 grandchildren, John Beaulieu Grenier,
Jr., Dorothy Monnish Grenier, Evans Barlow Grenier, and Carolyn Youmans
Grenier; as well as countless friends he leaves behind.
Our thoughts and prayers are with them all at this difficult time.
____________________
HONORING LINK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
______
HON. PETER J. ROSKAM
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Link
Elementary School of Elk Grove Village, Illinois, for being named a No
Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon School for the 2006-2007 school year.
Principal Barbara Schremser, Link faculty, students and parents--you
should be very proud of this remarkable accomplishment.
At a time in our Nation's history when the efficacy of our education
system is often questioned, it is a great comfort to see a school that
truly commits itself to finding ways to teach our children and provide
hope for our Nation's future.
The No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon Schools Award is a distinction
given to the public schools throughout the country whose students score
within the top 10 percent on state assessments. This year, of the more
than 97,000 public schools in the United States, just 287 schools were
recognized with this distinct honor.
In the State of Illinois, 19 schools were members of this elite
group. The Blue Ribbon School Award recognizes what we all know: the
Link faculty and staff are some of the best and brightest in the
Nation.
With the motto ``to think, to learn, to achieve and to care,'' Link
has shown steady academic progress and achieved exceptionally high test
scores. In awarding the 2006-2007 Blue Ribbon School Award, the U.S.
Department of Education recognized Link's success in helping students
consistently achieve at very high levels, as well as its continued
commitment to narrowing the achievement gap.
As we strive to educate our current generation of children and
prepare our nation's future leaders, Link Elementary School stands out
as a shining example of scholastic and institutional excellence.
I am proud to represent Link Elementary School in the United States
Congress and I look forward to their continued achievements.
Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues please join me in
congratulating the talented students and dedicated faculty and staff of
Link Elementary School for receiving the Blue Ribbon School Award.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. GIFFORDS. Madam Speaker, on November 7, 2007, I missed four
votes. Had I been present that evening, I would have voted as follows:
``No'' on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act (ENDA)--vote No. 1056.
``Yea'' on final passage of H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act (ENDA)--vote No. 1057.
``Yea'' on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Con. Res. 236,
Recognizing the close relationship between the United States and the
Republic of San Marino--vote No. 1058
``Yea'' on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 801:
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3688) to implement the
United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement--vote No. 1059.
____________________
RECOGNIZES THE GERMAN AMERICAN CLUB OF SPRING HILL, FLORIDA ON THEIR
25TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. GINNY BROWN-WAITE
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Ms. GINNEY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Speaker, the Fifth District
of Florida that I represent is made up of people from around the United
States and the world. With perfect weather, low taxes and friendly
residents, it is one of the fastest growing areas of the country. As
you might expect, one of the cultural groups that have flocked to
Florida for the last several generations are German Americans, many
from my former State of New York. On Sunday, November 18, 2007, the
German American Club of Spring Hill, Florida will celebrate its 25th
anniversary with a dinner and dance extravaganza.
The club, founded in 1982, was organized by Friedel Rohn, along with
Christa and Fritz Neumann. The first social meeting was held at the
home of Friedel Rohn in January 1982 with 10 people present. The first
``official'' meeting was held in June 1982 with 22 members present.
Today there are nearly 300 members and the club is still growing
strong.
The first officers installed were Friedel Rohn as president,
Margarethe Grabert as vice-president, Norman Armonat as treasurer and
Ruth Hughes as secretary. By March of 1983, the membership had
increased to 60 members. The club began hosting many functions and
socials throughout the year, including its own Oktoberfest. As the
years passed, more dances and social events were added to the calendar
and the membership continued to increase.
In 1992, when the club celebrated its 10th anniversary, the club had
grown to over 170 members. In 2002, the club's 20th anniversary was
celebrated with a membership that had increased to over 235. Today the
25th anniversary will feature 285 members, with room to grow for the
future. Having attended several of their club functions, I can tell you
that German American Club members stayed true to their roots and know
how to cook a delicious schnitzel and dance to a great polka tune.
Madam Speaker, over the past 25 years the German American Club of
Spring Hill has worked to uphold the German culture, spirit, tradition
and heritage. The club's members and officers have made Spring Hill and
Hernando County a true home to German Americans from around the world,
and are to be commended for their commitment and dedication. With the
continued support of their membership and officers, I look forward to
help the club celebrate their next 25 years.
____________________
INTRODUCING THE AIRPORT SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2007
______
HON. MARK STEVEN KIRK
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, last week, we learned that more than 30
illegal aliens gained access to the most sensitive areas at O'Hare
Airport.
Without valid Social Security numbers, illegal aliens were given
official badges to access the tarmac and the airplanes.
This is not the first time. It's happened before at airports around
the country.
The Congress must set Federal standards for those who seek access to
an airport's most sensitive areas.
You should be a U.S. national or legal permanent resident.
You should possess a valid Social Security number that actually
belongs to you.
You should have that Social Security number verified through the E-
Verify employer verification system.
[[Page 31525]]
And you should get your access badge from the Transportation Security
Administration--not some rusty old van in the parking lot.
Today, I am introducing the Airport Security Enhancement Act of 2007
to make these standards the law of the land.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this critical national security
effort.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Speaker, on November 8, 2007, I was absent from
the House. Had I been present that day, I would have voted as follows:
``Yea'' on final passage of H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade
Promotion Agreement--vote No. 1060.
``Yea'' on agreeing to the Resolution H. Res. 806, Providing for
consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3222, making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year ending
September 30, 2008, and for other purposes--vote No. 1063.
``Yea'' on agreeing to the Conference Report for H.R. 3222, Making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2008, and for other purposes--vote No. 1064.
``Yea'' on Agreeing to the Resolution H. Res. 802, Providing for
consideration of the bill (H.R. 3355) to ensure the availability and
affordability of homeowners' insurance coverage for catastrophic
events--vote No. 1066.
``Yea'' on the Motion to Instruct Conferees regarding H.R. 3074, the
Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and
Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008--vote No. 1067.
``Yea'' on Representative Klein of Florida Amendment No. 17 to H.R.
3355, the Homeowners' Defense Act of 2007--vote No. 1068.
``No'' on the following Amendments: Representative Roskam's
Amendments 6 and 13, Representative Manullo's Amendment and Mr. Shays'
Amendment to H.R. 3355, the Homeowners' Defense Act of 2007--votes No.
1069, 1070, 1071, and 1072.
``No'' on the Motion to Recommit with Instructions H.R. 3355, the
Homeowners' Defense Act of 2007--vote No. 1073.
``Yea'' on final passage of H.R. 3355, the Homeowners' Defense Act of
2007--vote No. 1074.
``Yea'' on Agreeing to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3043, Making
appropriations for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and related agencies for fiscal year ending September
30, 2008, and for other purposes--vote No. 1075.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR.
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably
absent Tuesday afternoon, November 13, on very urgent business. Had I
been present for the four votes which occurred Tuesday evening:
I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 3315, rollcall vote No. 1082.
I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 1593, rollcall vote No. 1083.
I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 3403, rollcall vote No. 1084.
I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 3461, rollcall vote No. 1085.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Speaker, on November 9, 2007, I was absent from
the House. Had I been present that day, I would have voted as follows:
``Yea'' on agreeing to the Resolution, H. Res. 809, providing for the
consideration of H.R. 3996, Temporary Tax Relief Act--vote No. 1078.
``Yea'' on final passage of H.R. 3996, the Temporary Tax Relief Act
of 2007--vote No. 1081.
____________________
SUPPORTING WORLD DIABETES DAY
______
HON. MARK STEVEN KIRK
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, today is World Diabetes day.
Diabetes is a serious, chronic disease afflicting over 20 million
Americans. As the vice-chair of the Diabetes Caucus, I have had the
opportunity to meet many people who must deal with the hardships and
stress of living with diabetes 24/7. They have taught me what it means
to ``go-low'' while participating in sports, to wake twice during the
night to check blood sugar levels, and suffer from seizures. This is no
way for anyone, especially children, to live.
Over the years, advances in medicine and technology have allowed
patients to better manage their disease, but more work must be done in
order to find a cure.
It is essential that Congress continue to support groundbreaking
research at the NIH. We must also fight for federally funded stem-cell
research, the greatest potential for finding a cure.
In honor of World Diabetes Day, I urge my colleagues to join me in
the effort to help the millions who suffer from diabetes.
____________________
SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate on February
4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized
schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees,
subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This
title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate
Daily Digest--designated by the Rules Committee--of the time, place,
and purpose of the meetings, when scheduled, and any cancellations or
changes in the meetings as they occur.
As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this
information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this
information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the
Congressional Record on Monday and Wednesday of each week.
Meetings scheduled for Thursday, November 15, 2007 may be found in
the Daily Digest of today's Record.
MEETINGS SCHEDULED
DECEMBER 12
10 a.m.
Rules and Administration
To hold hearings to examine a recently released
Government Accountability Office report, focusing on
funding challenges and facilities maintenance at the
Smithsonian Institution.
SR-301